Mixed reaction to wolf killing
By By Thomas J. Baird
Reaction to the ýlethal taking,ý or the shooting death of an endangered
male Mexican gray wolf by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sunday,
brought varied reactions Tuesday from those closely associated with the
program.
Officials with state and federal agencies said they did what they had to
do and New Mexicoýs largest nonprofit agricultural organization agreed.
However, a conservation group, which has sued or petitioned the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in the past, said Tuesday that a specific,
genetically rare animal had been killed, making a mockery of the program.
ýIn the general nature of things, including this killing and the trapping
this week of the Cibola National Forest pack, this is a control program
masquerading as a recovery program,ý said Michael Robinson of the Center
for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation group based in Grant
County. ýWeýre saddened by this. Itýs hard to see what public purpose was
served by the shooting.ý
The wolf, known as M574, was part of the Saddle Pack and was genetically
the rarest of its species in the wild and in the program, he said.
Fish and Wildlife officials reported Monday that the wolf was ýlethally
removed from the wild in Arizona on Sunday.ý Extensive trapping efforts
had begun in March, agency officials said, but the rough terrain and the
wolfýs erratic movements made it too difficult to capture.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the action on June 15 due to
the wolfýs attacks on cattle . This was the second killing of a Mexican
wolf in the reintroduction program. Overall, the Service has approved
three separate lethal take actions, two of which resulted in the killing
of wolves, while the third order was retracted.
ýLethal take is our last choice for removing wolves,ý said Dale Hall,
director of the serviceýs southwest region. ýThe loss of any individual
animal that could contribute to the recovery of a threatened species can
not be taken lightly.ý
Hall said the agency promised it would remove depredating wolves prior to
the beginning of the reintroduction program in 1998. He added the agency
must keep its promise so as to not compromise the overall program. He
added the agencyýs focus will be on the remaining wolves in the wild,
which he said is somewhere between 50 to 60 animals in New Mexico and
Arizona. Conservationists argue the number is far lower.
The Service reiterated its position this week that the reintroduction
program is an exercise that is ýnonessentialý and deals with an
ýexperimental population.ý The program, by designation, allows flexibility
for managing wolves in conflict situations, Hall added, including cattle
depredations that resulted in the lethal take.
The wolfýs mate, who also preyed on cows, was captured in March and placed
in the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge Wolf Management Facility where
she had a litter of five pups fathered by M574. The pups are being cared
for by their mother and a surrogate father.
ýThis is just more hard evidence of the problematic nature of this
program,ý Erik Ness, spokesman for the New Mexico Farm and Livestock
Bureau, said Tuesday. ýAll these promises that there wouldnýt be much
depredation, but weýre finding out differently. I think our members are
probably glad that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is doing what itýs
supposed to do.ý
Ness said the bureauýs board is calling for a full financial accounting of
the recovery program by the General Services Administration, the
accounting arm of the U.S. Congress. He deemed the program ýill
conceived.ý
ýWe need to step back and take a look at this thing,ý he added. ýTheyýve
spent millions since the 1980s on this program, before the first wolf was
ever released.ý
Terry B. Johnson, chief of non-game and endangered wildlife for the
Arizona Game and Fish Department, also weighed in on the lethal take issue
Tuesday.
ýThe decision to kill a wolf is not an easy one for anyone to make,ý he
told the Sun-News. ýWe respect the regional directorýs willingness to make
the hard calls. The bottom line for wolf managers is this ý when we put
wolves out on the ground in 1998, we did so with a very clear commitment
to manage those wolves or any problem situations.ý
Johnson said attacks on livestock was clearly one of the expected
problems.
ýConsistent with the nonessential, experimental population rule, weýve
established guidelines for determining when the court of last resort tool
ý lethal take ý can and should be used,ý he said. ýWolf 574 met those
thresholds and because trapping efforts were unsuccessful for a prolonged
period, lethal take was lamentable, but appropriate. Failure to do what we
did would have been to betray the trust the public has placed in this
program.ý