sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
As many will know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed last year to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the national list of threatened and endangered species. (Populations in the western Great Lakes states and the Northern Rockies were previously removed from the list.) Reaction to this proposal prompted FWS to send the matter to an outside entity for review. The entity chosen was the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara.
The review report was recently published, and I strongly commend it to the attention of anyone interested in wolves, coyotes, and the admixture of the two that we have among us here in the Northeast:
Review of Proposed Rule Regarding Status of the Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act
As a result of the report, FWS is reopening the period for public comment on the proposal, until March 27th. Details on the reopening and how to comment are at Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal.
EDIT: Perhaps I should make my point just a little clearer:
One of the reviewers wrote this:
"The assertion that Canis lupus did not occur in the eastern US is unfounded
The proposed rule states that 'The results of recent molecular genetic analyses....indicate that the gray wolf (C. lupus) did not occur in the eastern United States' (pg 35670). However, the papers that are cited to support this assertion do not actually exclude the gray wolf from the range of the eastern US. In fact the authors of the papers that are cited have explicitly made this point to the US Fish and Wildlife Service previously. This was further supported by the other panelists during the peer review. This assertion is not justified."
Another reviewer:
"Evidence for absence of wolves on the East Coast. In Chambers et al. (2012) and the proposed rule, no direct evidence is provided for the absence of the gray wolf on the East Coast. Rather, the assertion that it was absent derives from the claim that a unique non-protected wolf species, Canis lycaon, existed there instead. However, the hypothesis that both species may have existed in the US east coast is not refuted by data.In fact, the fossil data records gray wolves on the east coast, which have been argued by Nowak (2002, 2009) to possibly be red wolves or red wolf-eastern wolf hybrids, but others have considered them gray wolves (see Fig. 2, and references therein). Even if one accepts the opinion of Nowak, then the conclusion is that the eastern wolf was not on the East Coast, alternatively there may have been multiple species there as now exist in the Great Lakes area and existed historically in other parts of the US. Regardless, the fossil literature and data needs to be cited and evaluated, and the possibility that eastern wolf, gray wolf or both species existed in the Northeast supported with evidence."
In other words: THE WOLF WAR JUST (RE)OPENED IN NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND AND NEW YORK.
Yeah, I thought that might get your attention ...
The review report was recently published, and I strongly commend it to the attention of anyone interested in wolves, coyotes, and the admixture of the two that we have among us here in the Northeast:
Review of Proposed Rule Regarding Status of the Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act
As a result of the report, FWS is reopening the period for public comment on the proposal, until March 27th. Details on the reopening and how to comment are at Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal.
EDIT: Perhaps I should make my point just a little clearer:
One of the reviewers wrote this:
"The assertion that Canis lupus did not occur in the eastern US is unfounded
The proposed rule states that 'The results of recent molecular genetic analyses....indicate that the gray wolf (C. lupus) did not occur in the eastern United States' (pg 35670). However, the papers that are cited to support this assertion do not actually exclude the gray wolf from the range of the eastern US. In fact the authors of the papers that are cited have explicitly made this point to the US Fish and Wildlife Service previously. This was further supported by the other panelists during the peer review. This assertion is not justified."
Another reviewer:
"Evidence for absence of wolves on the East Coast. In Chambers et al. (2012) and the proposed rule, no direct evidence is provided for the absence of the gray wolf on the East Coast. Rather, the assertion that it was absent derives from the claim that a unique non-protected wolf species, Canis lycaon, existed there instead. However, the hypothesis that both species may have existed in the US east coast is not refuted by data.In fact, the fossil data records gray wolves on the east coast, which have been argued by Nowak (2002, 2009) to possibly be red wolves or red wolf-eastern wolf hybrids, but others have considered them gray wolves (see Fig. 2, and references therein). Even if one accepts the opinion of Nowak, then the conclusion is that the eastern wolf was not on the East Coast, alternatively there may have been multiple species there as now exist in the Great Lakes area and existed historically in other parts of the US. Regardless, the fossil literature and data needs to be cited and evaluated, and the possibility that eastern wolf, gray wolf or both species existed in the Northeast supported with evidence."
In other words: THE WOLF WAR JUST (RE)OPENED IN NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND AND NEW YORK.
Yeah, I thought that might get your attention ...
Last edited:
