The New Huntmastersbbs!: Eastern Red Wolf is 76 percent coyote

This is topic Eastern Red Wolf is 76 percent coyote in forum Predator forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001360

Posted by 22-250 (Member # 36) on June 05, 2011, 10:52 AM:

Received this new article via email this morning.

News
Scientific Study: Eastern Wolves are Hybrids with Coyotes

Wolves in the eastern United States are hybrids of gray wolves and coyotes, while the region's coyotes actually are wolf-coyote-dog hybrids.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Wolves in the eastern United States are hybrids of gray wolves and coyotes, while the region's coyotes actually are wolf-coyote-dog hybrids, according to a new genetic study that is adding fuel to a longstanding debate over the origins of two endangered species.
The study is unlikely to impact the management of the endangered red wolf in North Carolina and the eastern Canadian wolf in Ontario, but it offers fresh insight into their genetic makeup and concludes that those wolves are hybrids that developed over the last few hundred years.
Some scientists have argued that the red wolf, Canis rufus, and the eastern Canadian wolf, Canis lycaon, evolved from an ancient eastern wolf species distinct from the larger gray wolf, Canis lupus that is found in western North America.
Wolf experts who adhere to that theory say the new study is interesting but falls short of proving anything. They say it doesn't explain why hybrids appear only in some places and note that western wolves don't hybridize with coyotes but often kill them.
In the study, published online earlier this month in the peer-reviewed journal Genome Research, 16 researchers from around the globe led by Robert Wayne of the University of California-Los Angeles, used information from the dog genome — the animal's entire genetic code — to survey the genetic diversity in dogs, wolves and coyotes.
It was the most detailed genetic study of any wild vertebrate species to date, using molecular genetic techniques to look at over 48,000 markers throughout the full genome, said Roland Kays, curator of mammals at the New York State Museum and a co-author.
In a previous study of the dog genome published last year in the journal Nature, a Wayne-led international team of scientists reported that domestic dogs likely originated in the Middle East and shared more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern gray wolves than any other wolf population.
The recent study showed a gradient of hybridization in wolves.
In the West, wolves were pure wolf, while in the western Great Lakes; they averaged 85 percent wolf and 15 percent coyote. Wolves in Algonquin Park in eastern Ontario averaged 58 percent wolf.
The red wolf in North Carolina, which has been the subject of extensive preservation and restoration efforts, was found to be 24 percent wolf and 76 percent coyote.
Northeastern coyotes, which only colonized the region in the past 60 years, were found to be 82 percent coyote, 9 percent dog and 9 percent wolf.
In a study co-authored by Kays last year in the journal Biology Letters, museum specimens and genetic samples were used to show that coyotes migrating eastward bred with wolves to evolve into a larger form that has become the top predator in the Northeast, filling a niche left when native eastern wolves were hunted out of existence. The hybridization allowed coyotes to evolve from the scrawny mouse-eaters of western grasslands to robust deer-hunters in eastern forests.
The genetic techniques used in the recent study allowed researchers to estimate that hybridization, in most cases, happened when humans were hunting eastern wolves to extinction, Kays said.
"The few remaining animals could find no proper mates so took the best option they could get,'' Kays said.
L. David Mech, senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Prairie Research Center in St. Paul, Minn., and founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn., is skeptical of the theory that eastern wolves are hybrids.
"How do you reconcile this with the fact that gray wolves typically don't breed with coyotes, but kill them?'' Mech said. "We have no records in the West of wolves hybridizing with coyotes, even in areas where single wolves looking for mates have dispersed into the middle of coyote country.''
Mech also questioned whether the study tested enough Canadian and North Carolina wolves and whether those specimens were true representatives of those populations.
Although 48,000 genetic markers sounds like a lot, it's actually a relatively small part of the entire genetic code, Mech said. So the evidence of a unique eastern wolf ancestor could simply be in another part of the code that wasn't analyzed, he said.
Several researchers who consider the eastern wolf species separate from the gray wolf weighed in recently in an online discussion of the new study.
Brent Patterson, a genetics researcher at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, called the study "an important step forward.'' But until more samples are analyzed, the hypothesis that a North American wolf evolved independently from the gray wolf was still viable, he said.
"It's an academic issue,'' Mech said.”It's nice to know what the origins are from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference.''
David Rabon, coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Red Wolf Recovery Program in North Carolina, said the federal agency has taken the position that the red wolf is a unique species that warrants protection. The new study, while interesting, won't likely change management decisions, he said.
"The red wolf in North Carolina, which has been the subject of extensive preservation and restoration efforts, was found to be 24 percent wolf and 76 percent coyote."

Then why is it called a hybrid wolf and not a hybrid coyote?? Answer: Because if it were called a hybrid coyote is would not be eligible for all that nice federal (read, taxpayer) funding to line the pockets of the Fish & Wildlife people. It is not about the wolves, it's about the MONEY!!!!!

Posted by Jay Nistetter (Member # 140) on June 05, 2011, 11:47 AM:

Makes sense that it should be a hybrid coyote.
I've always felt it was about shutting/limiting hunting first and money second.

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on June 05, 2011, 12:45 PM:

"I've always felt it was about shutting/limiting hunting first and money second."
------------------------------------
I think they are lost in their educated dream world. I don't believe for a second that they can glean true and positive information like that from DNA testing. Draw some blood from your weeny dog, take it to those "scientist's" and tell em you got it from a strange looking coyote you shot. The anwer they come up with would be really interesting.

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on June 05, 2011, 02:32 PM:

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, it is a lot like reading tea leaves.

gh/lb

Posted by 22-250 (Member # 36) on June 05, 2011, 02:50 PM:

Hey Rich,

It only took you one minute to copy my post and post it on Predator Professionals. That was really fast.

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on June 05, 2011, 03:54 PM:

"It only took you one minute to copy my post and post it on Predator Professionals. That was really fast."
---------------------------
Oh my GOD! I ain't been to that stupid site for years.. [Confused]

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on June 05, 2011, 03:58 PM:

Hey guys,
When I hunted with Uncle Jay down around Wilcox, he scratched his arm on a cactus, so I dobbed up a little bit of blood and sent it to the coyote scientist's. They found that there was some coyote in that critter, but uncertain as to what it was crossed with. [Wink]

Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on June 05, 2011, 04:07 PM:

quote:
Oh my GOD! I ain't been to that stupid site for years..

I stop in there from time to time, not much usually going on except for the last couple of days things have picked up... It seems Rich H. is keeping his cool atleast on his board..
Scott made some pretty good posts and looks like he is trying to stay netrual, but thinks Huntmasters needs more than one hell dictator..I'd say one is plenty since Leonard only has one rule.. Some of the guys on his site are really (_@_).. [Wink]

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on June 05, 2011, 04:14 PM:

Leonard has the best predator board on the net, I don't care WHAT JD said. [Smile]

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on June 05, 2011, 08:15 PM:

HEY!! How did I get pulled into this mess? I didnt say nothin about nothin to nobody. You drunk Cronk? [Smile]

[ June 05, 2011, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: JD ]

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on June 05, 2011, 10:20 PM:

Well, did somebody cut and paste the information to P PRO, or no?

JD got a problem? Talk to Papa?

gh/lb

Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on June 06, 2011, 04:48 AM:

The article was posted on both sites same day by different people Rich H. not Rich C. Just a coincedence. not a cut and past by Cronk.

My dog has some coyote dna so it must have some wolf in it can I get some gubmint grant money,Oh and some cheese too?

Posted by knockemdown (Member # 3588) on June 06, 2011, 05:03 AM:

can't know the % coyote/wolf in these, but they are 100% dead & I sure like killin' 'em...

Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on June 06, 2011, 05:43 AM:

Yes sir Fred they all look 100% dead!

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on June 06, 2011, 07:02 AM:

quote:
I don't believe for a second that they can glean true and positive information like that from DNA testing.

Cronk, you are wrong. I did parent verification and specific gene tracking and identification(tender/marbling gene) in cattle through college and several years after. Its actually very simple and very accurate. Once the alleles have been identified, finding them is very easy. Now, if the info scares you or you don't like it, you can deny its authenticity.

That said, the info brought forward by this report is in my mind sophomoric. In other words, I would have bet everything I own that the eastern red wolf would come back showing coyote dna. Like someone already pointed out, this study(like most) was done to support and promote further research(can substitute 'grants$' here).

Maintain

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on June 06, 2011, 09:07 AM:

And that is the entire story right there Gordie........Money for grants.

Posted by Dave Allen (Member # 3102) on June 06, 2011, 09:16 AM:

Nice pics Fred, hey I'm curious, what kind of scope is on your machine-gun in the 3rd and 4th pics ? The one in the last pic looks different, I think ?

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on June 06, 2011, 10:03 AM:

I noticed that, too! He's not dead, huh?

Geordie, look, I respect your education, etc.

They mention 48,000 genetic markers, which is a very low number, compared to the total. I have no doubt that I have at least 50% coyote DNA, based on the regimen used in this, another phony "study" designed, as you say, to shake more money from the funding tree.

I do not know how they use DNA in cattle research, but I'm fairly sure they don't cross reference it with coyote or any other species. That's my biggest concern.

Any time a "scientist" is asked to interpret data from different species, they have to squint and make judgements. Now, that is based on the well known fact the humans and the common house fly share 95% of the total DNA in their genome, with that remaining 5% being a rather important detail.

Then again, I think it has been documented that we can submit a DNA sample to three different labs and the none of the results will agree. I would think, the way they throw around factual statements that test results would be easily duplicated? Not so.

I think a DNA test can determine if I am related to my children and the same with cattle, perhaps to a lesser degree, I don't know?

But, in the realm of species identification, those markers are probably open to interpretation, so that any canine DNA rattling around in the test tube is just as likely to stick to the fox portion of the spectrum as to wolf DNA.

The whole question becomes further obscured by domestic dog, What determines a species? Is coyote a species, and wolf a species and is a dog a "species"? Never mind the taxonomic classification based on observable traits.

It's fairly easy to conclude that dogs and other canines are related. Where I get confused is when some jerk tries to piss on my leg and tell me that hummingbirds contain eagle DNA. And, they offer the exact percentage.

I think everyone can agree that a hummingbird is more closely related to an eagle than a monkey. But to express it as a percentage, like 76% eagle is tripping my BS meter.

There must be something to it, I admit that DNA will eventually prove useful, but for now it is little more than matching fingerprints. Until you get an exact match, anything else is open to interpretation. Maybe?

gh/lb

Posted by knockemdown (Member # 3588) on June 06, 2011, 10:41 AM:

Leonard, I concur 100% with your summation. You always seem to have a way of logically 'splainin' things more betterer than most...

Dave, #3 & 4 is a (now discontinued) NXS 2.5-10x24 w/ a NP-1 reticle. It is now produced with a 32mm objective, in favor of the 24mm.
Last pic is a few years old & that one was a US Optics SN4s 1-4x. Fair glass, true 1X & FFP, but too big & clunky. That baby NXS more aptly suits the lightweight 6x45. Great little scope...

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on June 06, 2011, 03:04 PM:

Lb, I don't know how they conducted their tests, or how they reached the conclusions they did. Frankly, I don't really care. As I have stated, these studies hint of a secondary motive. In other words, the point of the findings would be something other than determining the actual origin of the eastern red wolf. As the saying goes, follow the money. Makes sence to me. Then again, I am turning into an old skeptical crumudgeon(sp)!

As far as DNA, and species identification; to me it is very simple to accept. As a matter of fact, the genetic blueprint (DNA) is very simplistic to me. Then again, when you take into consideration its many tangents and fascits, it can become mind bogeling. We all(most living organisms) do share similar DNA. It is the order that they are put together that determine weather we are human or eggplant. It is much like the spelling of a complex word. For example...'solidify' and 'solidarity'. Two differnt words, but much of the letters, and a big portion of the words them selves are similar. Its the identification of which portion of the word(location and order) that is specific to a species. Aside from species and parent verification, DNA and its role in living organisms is very interesting in the role of nutrition also. But thats another thread.

Again, what is the purpose of the study? Better yet, how will it be used? Sadly, most scientific findings today are used as a club. The question is who will weild it and who will get clubbed? To me, the heart of most science is to question everything; not just answer a few segments that give one individual/group a better grip on the club than another. So, the conclusion is....I am a grumudgeon!

Maintain

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on June 06, 2011, 03:05 PM:

"Cronk, you are wrong. I did parent verification and specific gene tracking and identification(tender/marbling gene) in cattle through college and several years after. Its actually very simple and very accurate."
--------------------------------------
Parent verification is indeed simple if you have DNA from both parents. Finding the parents of a coyote/? cross would be a bit harder I think.

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on June 06, 2011, 07:36 PM:

quote:
Parent verification is indeed simple if you have DNA from both parents. Finding the parents of a coyote/? cross would be a bit harder I think.

So, what markers would you identify that would validate parentage that would not be replicated due to species? Also, what specific portions of a dna strand would you manipulate/alter to develop a parvo virus? You are correct in that identifying markers for parent verification is more simple, yet the ability to do so opens the door to identifying dna strands by species. This process needed to be achieved in order to perform certain tasks such as locateing a tenderness gene in cattle; which has been done.

I don't question the science, I just question the motives and the use of the info. Time will tell.

Maintain

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on June 06, 2011, 07:58 PM:

Geordie, as far as questioning the science of analyzing DNA, I get hung up when it can't be verified, as when different labs reach different conclusions. And, I'm not talking about a cattle tenderness gene.

Interpreting DNA strands that have been sliced and diced and concluding an animal is 58% coyote is a little much for me to swallow. Sorry.

gh/lb

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on June 06, 2011, 08:09 PM:

When you consider that DNA is comprised of four basic building blocks, and that - as Geordie points out - variations between individual species depends only upon the order of sequencing, it's not that difficult to see. The technology (computers and software) involved likely does the assessment of what proportions are from which lineage. It's not like some bespectacled geek is sitting at an electron microscope making tally marks for guanine, etc..

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on June 06, 2011, 08:11 PM:

Lb, I see your point as far as percentages go...truthfully, I know nothing of how this data was achieved nor how to test for percentages. My point was to the validation of dna specific to species, i.e. coyote etc. As I said in an earlier post, the results of the study only validate what would appear to be common sence to someone who has spent a small amount of time outside a lab and in the 'field'.

As far as inconclusive results, I think what you are talking about are individual samples(poor or degregated samples) or just a small amount of individuals them selves(one or two individuals providing inconclusive results). I would imagine this test data came from a large sample group with many individual donors.

Maintain

[ June 06, 2011, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: CrossJ ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.0