Center files petition with top officials
By John Kamin, assistant editor
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton and the Fish and Wildlife Service to change three policies regarding the Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Project.
The formal petition was filed on March 29, coinciding with the six-year anniversary of the first release of the controversial wolves into the wild. It was also sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams.
The petition requests that the Fish and Wildlife Service be given the authority to release wolves bred in captivity to the Gila National Forest in western New Mexico. It also requests that the Service is given the authority to expand the boundaries of the project.
The third request states that owners of livestock (ranchers) be required to remove cattle and horse carcasses that have died from non-wolf related causes.
The petition was filed in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, giving the federal government 90 days to issue an initial response. The government has one year to declare new regulations regarding the project.
A news release from the CBD states, “Should these deadlines be missed, the Center will sue to compel compliance.”
The requests were made based on recommendations from four independent scientists. The scientists compiled an 86-page report in 2001.
“The scientists stated that absent such changes, wolf numbers stood a 39 percent chance of decline,” the release said. When the report was released, 27 radio-collared and monitored wolves existed in the wild. The release states 18 radio-collared wolves exist in the wild.
Original reasons
for boundaries
Dan Groebner, a nongame biologist for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, said boundaries were included in the original plan because of biological and political reasons.
“They (boundaries) actually entail and encompass the best habitat available,” he said. “Areas outside of the zones don’t support as much prey.”
Research also determined that a higher potential for conflict with humans and vehicles exists outside of the boundaries because of increased people and roadway densities, he said.
The boundaries defined in the original plan were negotiated with stakeholders.
“There was a commitment to have a clearly defined reintroduction zone to get them (stakeholders) to go along with the project,” he said. “It is not that uncommon to manage wildlife by zones and units.”
Groebner said areas surrounding current boundaries still could become suitable wolf habitat, but that will be up to the federal management agencies. He said the Game and Fish Department does not have any official comment or stance towards the Center’s requests.
If the changes do occur, the department will facilitate discussions and meetings with the project’s stakeholders, Groebner said.
A rancher’s opinion
on carcass removal
Greenlee County rancher Daisy Mae Cannon said the third request creates a quandary for fellow ranchers.
Cannon explained that it can be hard to find an injured cow among the steep terrain of her ranch.
“If a rancher finds a dead animal, they usually do something about it,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you’re going to be able to cover your whole ranch to find a dead carcass.”
Cannon said a lack of roads and restrictions on motorized vehicles make moving the carcass a challenging prospect. A horse is not strong enough to pack out an entire cow, she said. The meat from the carcass will most likely have an unpleasant odor, making it a challenge to stomach the ride to wherever the carcass is being moved, she said.
These problems caused Cannon to conclude that she must burn the carcass. She noted the Forest Service’s stance on starting fires in Southwestern forests.
She said, “Do you want a forest fire? Is there going to be fuel to burn that animal? They’ve got to take that into consideration.”