The following response (below) is my response to the two editorials (click here for first and second articles) from the New York Times on Wolf Delisting and my response to the New York Times about coyotes/coywolves living in their own backyard.
I applaud your article “Victory for Wolves” and how it explains how there should be a robust and dynamic population of wolves in the west and more than hunters should be thought of in the next, revised federal management plan. However, you should realize that the same federal government has essentially denied federal protections for wolves here in the Northeast including recent petitions.
There is more and more evidence that the eastern coyote, which is a coyote x red/eastern wolf hybrid that could by called a coywolf, is very closely related to the original wolf that we had living here in precolonial times. In other words, what was once thought of as the gray wolf living here in the Northeast was probably the eastern or red wolf. State management plans in all Northeastern states essentially allow an unlimited slaughter of eastern coyotes for all or at least half of the year. This is wrong for 3 reasons. One, coywolves are important to the ecology of the area and should be allowed to live at natural, not human caused densities. Two, coywolves (and wolves) are social, sentient, and intelligent animals that should be treated like a valuable member of the natural community, not managed for hate which essentially modern regulations allow. Three, the current management of coywolves (eastern coyotes) here in the Northeast just about guarantees that non-hybridized wolves making it here from southern Canada will be killed.
It is only just for the NY Times to advocate for animals close to home (including sometimes in Central Park!) just as it is important for wolves in the Rockies.
Cape Cod, MA