This is topic Old subject, new article. in forum Member 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=6;t=000736

---

Posted by Lungbuster (Member # 630) on July 03, 2005, 06:30 PM:
 
Most of you guys have probably seen this before, but it is still interesting.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/local_news/story/fef373e9d/

Biological Investigators Discover Wolf Ancestry

Eastern Coyotes Are Becoming Coywolves

By DAVID ZIMMERMAN, News Correspondent
Saturday July 2, 2005

A handsome, stuffed, wild canine presides over the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife's conference room on Portland Street in St. Johnsbury.

Shot in Glover in 1998 by Eric Potter, the animal, a male, is a puzzler. With its gray, tan, black, and beige pelage, it looks like a coyote. But, as Fish and Wildlife biologist Thomas Decker points out, it weighed 72 pounds at death, and it's built like a wolf.

"It's smaller than a wolf, and larger than a coyote," Decker said. "It's a hybrid" - a cross - "between a large, eastern coyote and a wolf."

He said the animal's ancestry was confirmed by genetic testing. What it is not, he said, is a cross with a domestic dog. In fact, none of the coyotes tested in New England in recent years have turned out to carry dog genes, Decker said.

In New Hampshire, Eric Orf, a biologist with the state Fish and Game Department, agrees with Decker, saying it is "wrong" to call the animals "coydogs," because they have no dog DNA.

The "coywolf" is thus becoming a poster animal for issues that biologists, farmers, and sportsmen are trying to sort out: What are the "coyotes" now seen or killed in the Kingdom? And where do they come from?

For answers, researchers are turning more and more to genetic studies, called DNA profiles. The answers that geneticists come up with will help shape wildlife management plans - and may be decisive in the question as to whether wolves should be reintroduced in New England.

In point of fact, as hybrids, wolves already are here.

Several years ago, for example, Donald "Rocky" Larocque of Lyndonville, who is a mechanic for the St. Johnsbury highway department, was hunting deer in East Barnet. It was late in the season - Thanksgiving, he recalled in a phone interview - and late in the day he encountered a large "coyote" and shot it.

The animal, a female, weighed about 60 pounds, and appeared heavyset, more like a wolf than a coyote. Larocque said he showed it to Rodney Zwick, a professor at Lyndon State College, who was impressed enough to send the animal to a biologist in Kansas. Its DNA was tested, and it was "part wolf," Larocque said.

Based on DNA tests, a picture is emerging on the relationship of coyotes and other wild canines in the Northeast, although the history is still quite fuzzy.

In the Colonial era, there were few if any coyotes in New England. Wolves were here. But, strangely, because there are so few ancient wolf specimens still around in museums, DNA research to determine what kind of wolves they were cannot be done, according to a pair of biologists, Paul J. Wilson, a DNA profiler at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, and Walter J. Jakubas, a biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The scant evidence, according to Jakubas, suggests they were not "timber wolves," or gray wolves (Canis lupus), as northern and western wolves now are called. Rather, he said they appear to have been similar to the red wolves (Canis rufus) found in Canada's Algonquin Provincial Park north of Toronto. Red wolves are also in the southeastern U.S., where a captive breeding project has been started to save them from extinction.

The settlement of New England destroyed or drove off the resident wolves, according to the scenario developed by Jakubas and Wilson. In the last century, they speculate, coyotes replaced wolves, filling their empty biological niche. The researchers said coyotes appear much abler than wolves to live among people.

What is unclear, is where the coyotes came from. "We don't know," Decker said.

Eastern coyotes are larger and heavier at 32 to 38 pounds than western coyotes at 22 to 30 pounds.

The diet of eastern coyotes includes white-tailed deer, while western coyotes feed mostly on rabbits and small game. The coyote in the Fish and Wildlife conference room had four pounds of deer meat in his belly when he died. But, aside from diet, part of the reason for the eastern coyotes' larger size may be hybridization with wolves.

The Fish and Wildlife specimen and Rocky Larocque's animal certainly have wolf genes. More tellingly, a study by Wilson and Jakubas shows that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry - and one was 89 percent wolf. Over half of the specimens had eastern coyote ancestry, but only 4 percent were mostly descended from western coyotes (Canis latrans).

"The [introduction] of eastern Canadian wolf genes into eastwardly expanding coyotes could have provided a composite genome [Canis latrans X lycaon] that facilitated selection of animals with a larger body size ... that may be more adept at preying on deer than smaller western coyotes," Wilson and Jakubas report in their study. The study, co-written with Shevenell Mullen of the University of Maine, is awaiting publication.

In plain language, Wilson said his work suggests the large, eastern coyotes in Canada are hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges. The animals, he said, may become amplified in size by further crossings between the now-larger eastern coyotes and Canadian wolves.

Vermont's Tom Decker said he wants to see more evidence published to support that view. However, he said, collecting evidence is difficult since no systematic genetic sampling of the state's coyotes has been done.

The gaps may soon be filled. Biologist Roland Kays, who is curator of the New York State Museum in Albany, said he and his associates are planning a major investigation to supplement the study by Wilson and Jakubas of coyotes from Maine. Their work "opens up a lot of new questions," Kays said.

Between 100 and 1,000 animals from throughout New York and New England will need to be studied to sort out their backgrounds, he said. Kays and his associates would like to get samples, particularly whole animals, along with information on where they were from. He can be reached for further information at 518-486-2005.

The outcome of further studies could discourage wildlife officials and conservationists who have talked about reintroducing wolves to the Northeast, Decker said. The usual goal of reintroduction efforts is to preserve true species, not create more hybrids.

The other side of the reintroduction coin is that hybrids may be better suited than purebred wolves to survive in 21st century New England.

"Once you get that coyote-and-wolf hybrid," Paul Wilson said, "it is a very adaptable animal."
 

---

Posted by The Outdoor Tripp (Member # 619) on July 03, 2005, 06:38 PM:
 
Lungbuster,

Had not seen this particular article before but have read about several of its points in other places.

Very interesting, very logical and in my uneducated opinion, very probable.

It will be interesting to see now what transpires in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska. Maybe the same thing?
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 04, 2005, 10:06 AM:
 
Quote,

Very interesting, very logical and in my uneducated opinion, very probable.

It will be interesting to see now what transpires in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska. Maybe the same thing?

Tripp,i don't think it would happen,if the eastern coyote has bred with the red wolf...To my knowledge there are no red wolves in the pacific northwest.

I hope these studies will settle the argument,once and for all on the eastern coyote.
Finally, money is being spent on worth while studies.
...................
Red Wolf - Canis rufus Audubon & Bachman, 1851.

IUCN STATUS CATEGORY Critically Endangered

HABITAT Swamps, wetlands, bushlands and forests.

GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD Reintroduced into North Carolina, USA.

CURRENT POPULATION By 1980 the Red Wolf was believed to be extinct in the wild. The current wild population of Red Wolves descended from reintroduced animals. In 1992 the total Red Wolf population (including captive animals) was 204 (Mech, 1992).

SIZE Head and body length 95 to 120cm. Tail length 25 to 35cm.

WEIGHT 18 to 41kg.

AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY Potential longevity in captivity is 14 years (Nowak, 1991).

NORMAL DIET Swamp rabbits, nutria (coypu), raccoons and deer.

NORMAL LIFESTYLE A pack-living animal with a complex social organisation. Packs are primarily family groups.

PREVIOUS GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD Formerly found throughout the south-eastern United States from southern Florida to central Texas.

REASONS FOR DECLINE The demise of the Red Wolf was directly related to man's activities, especially land changes, including: drainage of wetland areas for agricultural purposes; the construction of dam projects that flooded prime lowland habitat; directed hunting; and "hybridisation with coyotes."

CURRENT THREATS Genetic introgression from interbreeding with coyotes.

CONSERVATION PROJECTS A captive breeding population was established at Point Defiance Zoological Gardens, Tacoma, Washington. This programme provided animals for reintroduction into the 477sq. km Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. Despite its near extinction public views of the Red Wolf are still poor. Further reintroduction in parks in the south-eastern United States should be coordinated with an intensive education programme.

SPECIAL FEATURES It has been suggested that the Red Wolf is ancestral to the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus).

REFERENCES

US Department of the Interior. 1991. Determination of Experimental Population Status for an Introduced Population of Red Wolves in North Carolina and Tennessee. Federal Register 56(213): 56325-56334.

Ginsberg, J.R. & Macdonald, D.W. 1990. Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. An Action Plan for the Conservation of Canids. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland. pp.40-41.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 04, 2005, 11:20 AM:
 
I'm a believer in science, but tend to be skeptical of scientists.

Until they can prove to me that they can slice and dice, dog, coyote, and wolf "DNA"; and not interject opinion into the results, then I will treat the information as similiar to reading tea leaves.

I would not dispute cross-breeding in any form, and think some is possible. Until they select a pure bred red wolf and cross it with a dog or a coyote under laboratory conditions, and test the DNA of the offspring, then I'm not accepting the results of testing an individual animal of unknown parentage, and warranting the results.

I think it's way too sloppy, the method they use to proclaim wolf DNA in coyotes, coyote DNA in dogs, or coyote DNA in wolves. I believe all those crosses could be possible, but telling me that they have proved it, with a straight face, that's the problem. It's an unfunny joke.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 04, 2005, 12:34 PM:
 
There got to be a logical explanation for the size of the eastern coyote...naturally evolved?-inbreeding with the wolf?..It will be interesting to find out there final and hopefully,true factual,conclusion...From what i've read,the common dog has nothing to do with it...Most if not all'dog and coyote crosses were human induced and most didn't fare well...Maybe it all will boil down to,"Darwinism".
 

---

Posted by Lungbuster (Member # 630) on July 04, 2005, 03:37 PM:
 
Leonard,
Do you have any theories as to why the eastern might be bigger?
The coyotes around here do seem to be more "wolfy" than the ones I used to see when I lived in Oklahoma.
Also when a species like the coyote gets bigger in size over a short period of time, is that considered evolution or adaptation?
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 04, 2005, 04:34 PM:
 
There is a theory that accounts for larger animals of the same species, particularly manmals, when living in colder climates. I forget the name of it, but it is well known study/theory, not disputed at all, as far as I know? Somebody here knows the name?

It could account for the larger body size, without any bogus DNA.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 04, 2005, 05:06 PM:
 
Not that this has anything to do with the east versus west issue, but going back to the rule that Leonard brought up, that would be Bergman's rule which states "Geographic races possessing a smaller body size are found in the warmer parts of the range' while races of larger body size are found in the cooler climates."

Why is this? It's a matter of surface area to volume (SA:V) ratios. To illustrate, consider a simple cube, 1-inch square. It has six square inches of surface area and 1 cubic inch of volume, thus 6:1.

Consider another cube that is 2 inches square. This cube has 24 square inches of surface area, and 8 cubic inches of volume, thus a ratio of 24:8 or only 3:1.

If a smaller sized race of any given species was relocated to the furthest north limits of its species' range, the excessive amount of surface area, relative to body volume, would cause it to lose body heat faster than its metabolism would be able to manage and the animal would quickly succumb to hypothermia.

In the opposite direction, if you take a large animal from the northernmost extremes of its range and move it to the extreme south latitudes, its surface area would be insufficient to liberate excessive body heat. It would have problems with metabolism in regulating body temperature as well, except that its problems would be in staying cool.

This is important when you consider that any and every animal has a certain range of temperatures within wihich they are comfortable and which requires a minimum of metabolic input in order to maintian that comfort level, called the thermoneutral range. The lowest temp at which they are "comfortable" is called the lower critical limit". Any further drop requires an increase in metabolic effort to stay warm.

The highest temp at which they are "comfortable" is called the upper critical limit", above which they must expend additional energy to stay cool (i.e., panting)

You may be saying, "Hey, elephants live in the subtropics. What about them? They're not small like your rule states." Bergman's rule applies to subspecies and races within a specices, not across species. Elephants have evolved to that environment.

A couple other related rules are Allen's rule, which states that the extremities of animal - tails, ears, bill, legs - are shorter in those races in colder climates (i.e., arctic fox) and longer or larger in warmer climates (i.e., swift or kit foxes). Again, a means by which body heat is conserved (small ears) or liberated (desert).

And finally, Gloger's rule, which applies to skin coloration and pigmentation, saying, "among warm-blooded animals, black pigmentation is most prevalent in the warm and humid areas, reds and yellows in the arid areas, and reduced pigmentation in the cool areas." You only have to look as far as our own species to understand that rule. Which begs to ask the question... what are all you crackers doing in Arizona?

See guys! I paid attention at least one day in college!!!
 

---

Posted by 2dogs (Member # 649) on July 04, 2005, 05:49 PM:
 
I pretty much think like Leonard, I guess.
---------------------
IMO, scientists are over-rated.
They can often "prove" what their looking for, or sway the "true" answer with their findings, theories, hypothesis, blah, blah, ect, ect.

Personally, I don't believe one iota in "Darwinism". If it was true man would still be apes, insted of jackasses. Hmmm, thats not hard to prove.

I've seen a handfull of "coyotes" over the years. That just didn't fit the bill. Someday, I'll perhaps tag one, who knows.

The jackrabbits in Eastern Nebraska, are a little smaller{bodied} & faster. Than the jacks in central Iowa. Same rabbit? who knows...perhaps...Ask the ape-man.

[ July 04, 2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: 2dogs ]
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 04, 2005, 06:39 PM:
 
Gloger's rule, which applies to skin coloration and pigmentation, saying, "among warm-blooded animals, black pigmentation is most prevalent in the warm and humid areas, reds and yellows in the arid areas, and reduced pigmentation in the cool areas." You only have to look as far as our own species to understand that rule. Which begs to ask the question... what are all you crackers doing in Arizona?

The Gloger's rule don't hold a bit of water,north of the equater.

If this was true,then why did the natives of the far north have dark complection,Alaska,Canada?

And why did the Native Americans have dark complection,East and West?

And some of our ancesters that came over here had dark complection and there offspring,that were born here,has dark complection?

You are not only a name caller,But you asked a stupid question...When you are mad at one,do you take it out on all?...I suppose some of these other name callers don't have relatives in other states?..I do and it would surprise you and others,what states they live in...And thank goodness they don't have the same type attitude some of you got!...Most here,i don't believe, has that type attitude..At least i hope not!
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 04, 2005, 07:00 PM:
 
Ya know, Melvin, I just put Gloger's rule in there becaue it was included in the text book discussion I had before me that outlined the various ecological theorums that have been offered throughout the years. Whether you agree or disgree with it is pretty much what makes science so darn much fun. You offer some very valid challneges to the rule. Good job. But, bear in mind, my name ain't Gloger, so if you have a problem with the "rule", do a little research, find out where he lives, and take your beef out on him.

As far as me being a name caller, I'm going to be ultracontemporary here and reserve my personal right, as a "cracker", to use the term "cracker" in jokingly referring to a select group of fellow "crackers" that, unlike you, won't read racism and discrminatatory factors into it. I specifically cited AZ because, well, that's where those individual(s) live, and the area was originally and historically settled by Mexicans/ Hispanics. You know, red pigmentation to the skin as noted in Gloger's failed rule. I'm surprised that you'd come from left field with that assault to an otherwise benign remark, but if that's what it's coming to here, then so be it. After all, you're from about as far from AZ as you can get in this country and you're relatively new to the crowd, so I can understand and forgive your lack of familiarity with the social dynamic amongst this group, but do understand that my remark was meant totally in jest and with no intent of insulting or harming anyone. If I had meant to do so, my intent would have been unmistakable. But, I've expressed enough contempt for those I don't like on this site this weekend and Leonard has nicely asked that it be toned down. I am only complying with that request. I apologize if you were offended.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 04, 2005, 07:15 PM:
 
That's as close to kiss and make up as we get around here; Kum Bah ya/

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Tim Behle (Member # 209) on July 04, 2005, 07:30 PM:
 
Cracker is a racist name? I'll be damned. Reminds me of years back when I was an apprentice. I worked with a black lineman named Albert. Hell of a nice guy, but he wasn't always the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He'd do something to chap me, and I'd start calling him "Boy" I meant it as an attack on his manhood.

Several months and a few fights later, the boss finally pulled me aside and told me I needed to quit the racist comments before Albert complained and I got fired.

It never occurred to me that some might take "Boy" as a racist comment. I never meant it that way.

I always thought "Cracker" was a polite way of calling someone a Smartass.

I guess we learn a lot more than just about coyotes here!
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 04, 2005, 08:22 PM:
 
Cdog,I'm really an easy person to get along with,if you really got to know me...Somewhere along the line i must have said something that irritated you,so i guess some is my fault...Apology not needed.

Leonard,i think thats gone a little to far for two grown men to kiss...I think friendship can be handled without that!

By the way,whats Kum Bah ya? Never mind,keep it to yourself.
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 04, 2005, 08:36 PM:
 
Tim, This harkens back to the "teabagger" days. Higgins is still cleaning soda out of the AC vents in his Bronco. Do I have to explain all those little funny-isms to y'all?
 

---

Posted by brad h (Member # 57) on July 04, 2005, 09:18 PM:
 
I know what a "teabagger" is now.

I haven't heard the term since, but I damn sure know what it means now.

Through the years I've also learned I'm a gringo, cracker, honkey, and yankee. Not necessarily in that order, and never at the same time.

I'm torn, but I think I like Yankee the best. Because of the good humored people I work with, we northerners seem to be that one the most.

Brad
 

---

Posted by Kokopelli (Member # 633) on July 05, 2005, 09:01 AM:
 
All of this science stuff tends to make me a little nervous. If an eastern 'coyote' is xx percent wolf, is Melvin xx percent guilty of killing an endangered wolf? Sounds farfetched, I know, but with the animal rights wacos, overzealous Fish & Wildlife service, and ballot box game management........
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 05, 2005, 10:53 AM:
 
... which puts me only one step closer to my goal of founding the conservation group, "Coyotes Forever". Sounds like I'd better charter in the east somewhere, huh?
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 05, 2005, 11:28 AM:
 
Yeah, they are hiding out, back east, for obvious reasons........
 

---

Posted by CBGC (Member # 643) on July 05, 2005, 03:05 PM:
 
Leonard,
Just curious about your thoughts of DNA as evidence in court???
 

---

Posted by NASA (Member # 177) on July 05, 2005, 03:44 PM:
 
The term “cracker” has its ancient origins in the South. The poorer white parts of the south. A cracker was someone who cracked corn to make moonshine. Remember “Jimmy crack corn, and I don’t care”?

White southerners call each other “cracker” as a term of endearment. Blacks call whites “cracker” as a negative racist epithet. Some blacks justify that by claiming that it refers back to the slave days when the white land owner was a “whip cracker”. To assume all whites were, or are, descendent from slave owners further dilutes the significance of the attempted “slur”. The truth be told, very few whites take offense when called cracker, whether by blacks OR whites.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 05, 2005, 04:16 PM:
 

quote:

---

Leonard,
Just curious about your thoughts of DNA as evidence in court??? CBGC

---

quote:

---

I respect your opinion (just don’t agree with it)
CBGC

---

Yes, I know how you feel, and I feel exactly the same.

I believe this. If there was a big important court case; we WOULD see some well regarded expert dispute the findings of another well regarded, and perhaps higher paid, expert.

It has nothing to do with parentage. I firmly believe that all three species can interbreed, to a certain extent, under certain conditions.

Specifically. I do not believe that they can take an unknown animal and test the DNA, and "prove" that the animal is a hybred.

I am a diehard skeptic.

Good hunting. LB

[ July 05, 2005, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by 2dogs (Member # 649) on July 05, 2005, 07:13 PM:
 
R.Shaw,

If your talking to me. No, not saying that a 100%. I'm talking mostly of different shaped head, ears, muzzle, & tails. But mostly the entire head. But size in itself is interesting.

What are the odds, say of a purebred coyote{play along, on this one}. Not completely resembling a coyote & say, it weighs 60-70lbs, or even 50-60lbs. What exactly is it?? Why does it look different? ,ect ,ect.

I've seen roughly 600 coyotes give or take, over the yrs. I don't know what these things were.
 

---

Posted by R.Shaw (Member # 73) on July 05, 2005, 07:22 PM:
 
I was not addressing anyone in particular. You meaning everyone in general.

Randy
 

---

Posted by Jay Nistetter (Member # 140) on July 05, 2005, 08:19 PM:
 
How do you 'splain this one?


 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 05, 2005, 08:31 PM:
 
Ah yes, Weekend at Bernie's. Live coydog, dead evil twin.
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 05, 2005, 11:18 PM:
 
That looks to have some sheep in it ...Sorta looks a little like,Jimmy Durante

[ July 05, 2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Melvin ]
 

---

Posted by CBGC (Member # 643) on July 06, 2005, 02:34 AM:
 
Leonard,
I am glad you R a die hard skeptic, too many people just jump on the band wagon (boring).
Jay watched your video the other day, not too sure about some of the music and dancing but the footage and knowledge was awesome. Waiting to get a glimpse of the Higgins video???
 

---

Posted by 2dogs (Member # 649) on July 06, 2005, 03:59 AM:
 
Narrow, uterous opening. Or coydashound .
 

---

Posted by Jay Nistetter (Member # 140) on July 06, 2005, 11:40 AM:
 
Thanks for the words GBGC. It was a fun challenge making that video. One thing that I have noticed since making it is that I am seeing the word "Behavior" in all the videos now. Not saying I was first, but sure seems to be a buzzword lately. Have considered making one about Hunter Behavior and having the coyotes do all the dancing.

Funny thing about every time I see the word "Knowledge". I think back to the Cornhuskers College Football Team and the fellow that once told me that the "N" on their helmets stood for "knowledge". That was a cheap shot and I'm sorry. I promise I'll only tell that joke a few hundred more times because it still makes me laugh.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on July 06, 2005, 11:52 AM:
 
Yeah, made me chuckle, too. Jay, you are a sick man. Hey, enjoyed our conversation, this morning. Thanks, LB
 

---

Posted by Lungbuster (Member # 630) on July 06, 2005, 04:21 PM:
 
Which one is the wolf???? They are not my pics but I thought they were pretty cool.






 

---

Posted by CBGC (Member # 643) on July 06, 2005, 04:55 PM:
 
1 st is a yote
2 nd is a wolf
3 rd is a wolf ?????
 

---

Posted by Lungbuster (Member # 630) on July 06, 2005, 05:26 PM:
 
How about this one?


 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 06, 2005, 05:48 PM:
 
1. Coyote
2. Wolf
3. Coyote
4. Coyote

I say 2 is because it has a lot more leg under it than the other. Just a WAG.
 

---

Posted by brad h (Member # 57) on July 06, 2005, 06:12 PM:
 
Wolf eyes always seem more intense and alert. Just a personal observation.

1 Coyote
2 Wolf
3 Coyote
4 Coyote

Brad
 

---

Posted by R.Shaw (Member # 73) on July 06, 2005, 06:58 PM:
 
All coyotes.

Randy
 

---

Posted by albert (Member # 98) on July 06, 2005, 07:34 PM:
 
all coyotes

What size of trap?
 

---

Posted by R.Shaw (Member # 73) on July 06, 2005, 07:57 PM:
 
My guess on the trap is #3 os Bridger

Randy
 

---

Posted by Lungbuster (Member # 630) on July 06, 2005, 08:13 PM:
 
R.Shaw and albert are correct....All coyotes, With a little red wolf DNA thrown in for good measure..
 

---

Posted by CBGC (Member # 643) on July 07, 2005, 02:54 AM:
 
1 out 3 is not all that bad. Glad I dont make a liven at this. Still think 2 is a wolf?????
 

---

Posted by Steve Craig (Member # 12) on July 07, 2005, 06:51 AM:
 
Mark Zaggers NY coyotes every one. Look at the feet people! Wolves have big feet. Big coyotes have small feet! A wolf foot would fill that #3 Bridger trap, and be overflowing.
Steve
 

---

Posted by Rich Higgins (Member # 3) on July 07, 2005, 06:59 AM:
 
Sorry, I can't 'splain that thing in the first photo. I can explain the coyote though.
 

---

Posted by TheHuntedOne (Member # 623) on July 07, 2005, 09:51 AM:
 
I have to agree with Mr Craig. The first one, and the third one especially look like the typical coyote seen here in New Hampshire. Bigger body, neck with a smaller head, and more rounded, shorter ears. Exact coloration of most of them also.
 

---

Posted by Melvin (Member # 634) on July 07, 2005, 10:50 AM:
 
Very much the same as the average coyotes we take here in south western Pa.

Last fall,i called in one with a very large head for a coyote..The head was more of a box shape and was wide...Wish i hade some pictures of it,but we didn't have a camera along at the time.
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on July 07, 2005, 11:21 AM:
 
I was looking at the same thing as Jack, apparantly. The legs and feet on number two just look disproportionately large as compared to my typical coyotes hereabouts. I don't lend much credence to color variations, especially as you go further east. Unless you're talking jet black or snow white. Good pics, though.
 

---

Posted by 2dogs (Member # 649) on July 07, 2005, 04:51 PM:
 
The rust colored "coydog" or whatever it was. I seen last winter resembled Lungbuster's 2nd pic. Except, the one I seen had a broader muzzle. He/she also was a tad thicker through the chest/shoulder area & a little bigger. I estimated it, around 70lbs or so. He/she also had a very thick & scruffy pelt. Exhibited, behaviour of a wild canine.

The landowner, told me he's see it a couple of times. Once up close by his machinery. He told me, he thought it was a wolf. Hope to run across him/her next fall. He's got hell to pay.
 

---

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.0