Ranchers sue over wolves
By Tom Jackson King, Managing Editor
A coalition of rural Southwestern groups has filed a 60-day notice of
intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for “violations of the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act” during
the wolf reintroduction program.
The first official word of the groups’ intent to sue USFWS came in a
Friday news release from the agency.
The May 17 news release says, “The Coalition of Arizona and New Mexico
Counties for Stable Economic Growth, the New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association and the Gila Forest Permittees have filed a 60-day notice for
violations of the Endangered Species Act and the national Environmental
Policy Act relating to the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the
Southwestern United States.”
The notice claims the agency is allowing wolves to interbreed with other
canines such as dogs, creating wolf-hybrids that are allegedly a danger to
rural residents and a violation of the Endangered Species Act. Greenlee
County is a member of the coalition.
The five-year, $9 million federal and state program to reintroduce up to
100 Mexican gray wolves into the national forests of eastern Arizona and
western New Mexico is in its fourth year with living wolf numbers — as
counted by radio collars — standing at 19, out of scores of captive-bread
and forest-born wolves known to have been reintroduced.
The program has drawn intense criticism from rural ranchers, farmers and
elected officials for its alleged failure, the cost of the program, the
intrusion of federal rules into legally permitted grazing activities and
an alleged lack of communication with rural people most directly affected
by the introduction of a canine predator into forests used for multiple
purposes. Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological
Diversity, Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife been just as critical.
They have urged the USFWS to “just let the wolves be wolves” with a
minimal amount of human interference, to stop relocating wolves that
attack cattle and to require that ranchers remove dead cattle from
national forest public land so as to stop wolf scavenging of cattle
carcasses.
Laura Schneberger, a Winston, N.M. rancher who heads the Gila Forest
Permittees, says recent genetic testing of Mexican gray wolves is in
response to the group’s lawsuit filing.
“FWS is hardly checking the gene pool of the Pipestem litter because they
want to find out the truth. The fact is, they were served with a 60-day
notice of intent last month because of the hybrid problem,” she said.
“It was filed by the Coalition of Counties, livestock organizations and
hunting interests. After the Pipestem puppies turned up looking like
hybrids, they (USFWS) decided they had finally better deal with it,”
Schneberger said.
“If these pups turn out to be hybrids . . . it is a take of an endangered
species, according to the ESA. Worse than the shootings that have taken
place. Destroying an individual is not as serious as allowing a species to
deteriorate,” she said. “By the way, the pup in question has spots and is
lightly colored. Nothing like it should be (existing). Animals like wolf
hybrids don’t just show up.”
Some wolves may even be a hazard to other wolves. If some recently born
Pipestem wolf pups show a mixed wolf-dog pedigree, the hybrid pups will
have to be destroyed.
Elizabeth Slown, a spokesperson for the Albuquerque USFWS office, said ,
“We would euthanize them. We use the term euthanize the hybrids. We
consider hybrids a problem.”
Problems with the genetic purity of Mexican gray wolves, with putting
captive-bred wolves into forests and the low survival rate of wolves in
the wild were predicted by the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association four years
ago in a Dec. 3, 1998, position paper. The paper came out eight months
after the first release of wolves.
“The preferred wild prey base has been declining in the area for several
years . . . Many questions about the genetic purity and health of the
captive Mexican gray wolves still exist . . . The wolves have been raised
in captivity and are ill-prepared to survive in the wild,” the paper said.
“While the organization has never opposed a valid, scientific
reintroduction program that had a chance of success, we have felt all
along that this specific program was ill-advised. The program, as
circumstances have proven, is not in the best interest of the local
residents, ranching families, the general public or the wolves themselves.
The wolves have been trapped, drugged, caged, relocated and starved,” the
ACA statement said.
With live radio-collared wolf numbers declining from a high of 30 or more
a year ago to 19 in April, calls for Arizona to pull out of the federal
program have increased.
Democratic Rep. Bobby Lugo (District 8) represents part of Greenlee County
and Cochise County in the state House of Representatives. When asked at a
Duncan town hall meeting Feb. 15 if he favored Arizona pulling out from
the program, Lugo said, “Yes, that’s what the constituents want. In cases
like this, I go talk to the people that are affected by that issue. I
think they (rural voters) want Arizona to pull out.”
Hector Ruedas, a Greenlee County supervisor who attended a town hall
meeting April 26 in Reserve, N.M., that was hosted by USFWS, said rural
residents are unhappy with the program and its impact on their lives.
“We don’t want the wolf in our area. People are suffering already. It’s
had a big economic impact on our area. I can tell you for sure the people
in New Mexico in Catron County don’t want the wolf,” he said.
Caren Cowan, spokesperson for the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association,
has previously said moving wolves into the Gila Wilderness didn’t prevent
conflicts between wolves and livestock.
“It’s not solving the problem. We are opposed to these releases and we
continue to be opposed to any future releases,” she said.
Wolf supporters have been equally vocal in their support for the
reintroduction of a “keystone predator” back into the natural ecosystems
of the Apache National Forest and Gila Wilderness.
Bob Ferris, vice president of species conservation for Defenders of
Wildlife, has argued for a great expansion of the wolf release area beyond
the two federal forest areas.
“We already think the experimental area is too small. We think the amount
of land allowed wolves to roam challenges the survival of the wolves. We
do believe every effort should be made to allow wolves to recolonize
federal public lands. I would like to see more reintroductions, both in
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and in Gila National Forest,” he said in
July 2000.
“There are more opportunities for reintroduction out there, away from
major cattle herds, on public lands. We do think wolves should be
represented throughout the ecosystem. Our concern in the Southwest is we
would like to see more habitats opening up in Mexico and Texas, in
addition to Arizona and New Mexico. We’re asking for seven to eight
percent of the historic range. We’re not looking to return North America
to precolonial times,” Ferris said.
The Center for Biological Diversity isn’t happy with the efforts of BLM
and the Forest Service to safeguard wolves. The May 17 USFWS release says:
“The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a 60-day notice of intent
to sue the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for
violation of the Endangered Species Act for failing to take measures
(i.e., removal of livestock carcasses and /or render them unpalatable)
that would prevent Mexican wolves from feeding on livestock carcasses,
thus leading to the wolves’ removal from the wild,” it said.
USFWS wolf program manager Brian Kelly has previously addressed the issue
of wolf deaths and dead livestock left where wolves can find the
carcasses.
“One thing we do is to remove carcasses from the road in an area where we
know wolves are present. Wolves do better in areas with less roads. That’s
one of the beauties of our reintroduction area in both Arizona and New
Mexico,” Kelly said.
As for the apparently high wolf and pup death rates in the wild, Kelly
said, “I suspect we’ll see more mortalities because the short
two-year-olds are more likely to be moving around. It’s like leaving home
— your defenses are down. It’s complicated by our using captive-born
wolves. There is a naivetZ on their part. I think it’s doing well, when
you look at the number of wolves out there.”