Carol Broeder
During last month’s meeting with U.S. Rep Martha McSally, members of the Willcox-San Simon Natural Resource Conservation District (NRCD) expressed concerns over the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf.
The Mexican Wolf recovery effort dates back decades, with the animal first included on the endangered species list in 1976.
Since then, federal fish and wildlife officials have developed plans for the recovery, held hearings and finally, on March 29, 1998, captive-reared Mexican wolves were released into the wild for the first time in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, a region that includes Apache, Greenlee and Graham counties in Arizona, and two western counties in New Mexico.
NRCD member Larry Parker, who made the presentation, said that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to “expand the area in which initial releases of Mexican wolves from captivity could occur and extend the southern boundary of the Mexican Wolf Expanded Protection Area (MWEPA) in Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S.-Mexico border.”
The number of wolves will be capped at 300 to 325.
“Public comments were ignored,” he said.
Parker said that the FEIS “does not comply with The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” which reads, “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”
“The Fish and Wildlife Service wants cattle and wolves to co-exist, but a wolf kills everything to eat,” he said.
“We have no prey base in Cochise County,” said Parker, explaining that most likely livestock would be eaten instead.
NRCD Secretary\Treasurer Tedd Haas pointed out, “We don’t have any wolves in Cochise County yet,” to which NRCD member Matt Klump replied, “Not officially.”
Parker went on to say that USFWS “wants 33 wolves in Arizona and New Mexico within three years”
“There won’t be any elk or deer left.”
“Our concerns continue to be a lack of wild ungulate prey base, a failure to reach the first established goal of 100 wolves, and no real plan for control of the wolves in case populations do get out of control and continue to harm livestock, wildlife, and threaten public safety in our county and district,” Parker told McSally.
“Nobody who has raised animals all their lives want them (the wolves) in there,” he said.
“I will keep you informed on the wolf legislation,” McSally told those gathered for the July 3 meeting.
McSally is a co-sponsor of a piece of legislation related to this issue, known as the “Mexican Wolf Transparency Act.”
Introduced on June 25 this year by Rep. Paul Gosar, the bill is to ensure that “USFWS Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population 10(j) rule has no force or effect, and for other purposes.”
“This flawed ‘recovery program’ is government overreach at its worst,” McSally said.
“It jeopardizes public safety, threatens the livelihoods of Arizona ranchers and farmers, and lacks any clear target or end date,” she told the Range News.
“Arizona is far better equipped to handle the management and preservation of our natural habitats than the Washington-driven approach represented here, which is why I’ve cosponsored legislation to delist the Mexican wolf, terminate this experimental program, and protect local communities.”
The bill states that the Mexican wolf population has increased by 10-percent in recent years, including population increases in each of the last five years.
At the end of 2014, the USFWS documented the presence of a minimum of 109 Mexican wolves on the landscape, the bill says.
According to a USFWS conference call on Jan. 17, there are an additional 250 Mexican wolves in captivity.
The bill goes on to say that in 2014 the Mexican wolf population not in captivity increased 31 percent, and that nearly 9 -percent of the Mexican wolf’s original habitat was within Mexico’s borders.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the USFWS has had the same recovery plan for the Mexican wolf since the early 1980s.
A plan which the bill calls “not based on the best available science and is significantly out of date.”
“Officials have been calling for years for an updated recovery plan that includes metrics that, if met, will allow for delisting of the Mexican wolf.”
“The USFWS has failed to issue and comply with an updated recovery plan despite acknowledging that the current plan is not in compliance with that Act.”
The bill goes on to say that new rules issued for the Mexican wolf dramatically expand the area for an experimental program “to parts of New Mexico and Arizona,” as well as the borders of Texas and Mexico.
The 10(j) nonessential experimental population program for the Mexican wolf failed to secure funding before being implemented.
“Any future recovery plan for the Mexican wolf must incorporate the recovery work underway in Mexico,” the bill states.
On June 8 this year, the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Game and Fish Department filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Department of Interior and the USFWS “for failing their statutory duty to develop an updated recovery plan to guide Mexican wolf recovery.”