Wolf advocates voice displeasure with MOU
By John Kamin, assistant editor
Wolf advocates are claiming the Memorandum of Understanding for the
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project includes language that helps the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service “pass the buck.”
Center for Biological Diversity Wildlife Biologist Michael Robinson said
the MOU does not require a Mexican Wolf Recovery Specialist, which is the
position that is accountable for all wolf control decisions (such as
re-releasing, trapping or killing wolves). He noted that the position
under the old agreement has been left unfilled since its last occupant,
Brian Kelly, resigned six months ago.
“There was a lot of talking about opening themselves up to a greater
public scrutiny and this was not a good start,” Robinson said to the
Courier in a phone interview. “For a while we had the Terry Johnson mi
culpa (my fault) tour.”
Terry Johnson is the head of non-game wildlife management for the Arizona
Game and Fish Department. Robinson referred to meetings held by the AZGFD
that started out with apologies from Johnson and that promised a
restructuring process that would take more local interests into
consideration.
In a February meeting in Clifton, Johnson said to a room full of ranchers
and wolf advocates, “I’m the only guy in the room to whom you can point a
finger and say, I screwed up. And I apologize for that.”
The creation of a MOU for the Adaptive Management Work Group is one of the
first steps to beginning the restructuring, and it includes the Arizona
Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Game and Fish Department, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services/Wildlife Services, U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, Graham County, Greenlee
County, Navajo County, Catron County, Sierra County and the New Mexico
Department of Agriculture.
New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association representative Laura Schneberger
said Kelly’s voided position has been filled by Colleen Buchanan, the
assistant Mexican wolf recovery coordinator. She said: “There is no
evading, federal agencies have regulations to follow that require a
collection of resumes before hiring a new recovery leader. Colleen
Buchanan is acting recovery leader and will handle any situation that
arises until a permanent hiring. The problem is that it is so difficult to
do this job with all the interference and bullying by the greens and
probably sometimes us too, (though I like to believe we only complain when
something is really badly wrong) that no one wants the job for long.”
The Courier called Buchanan several times throughout the week and received
no response before press time.
Robinson agreed that Buchanan is Kelly’s replacement, but thought that the
position should be filled. Now that the position is not included in the
MOU, he fears that it may not come back.
“They’re getting a process underway that seems to be trying to minimize
the service’s responsibility,” he said. “They are not promising to
maintain the one with the overall recovery effort.”
Robinson is also concerned with language listed in the MOU.
“The second troublesome provision in the MOU cryptically pledges the (Fish
and Wildlife) Service to ‘provide all necessary USFWS authorizations and
permits to all signatories on a timely basis,’ ” according to a press
release from the CBD.
Robinson explained that the permits that are being referred to are kill
permits and trap permits. The words necessary and timely are the two words
that concern him because they could pressure USFWS employees to make quick
decisions instead of patient ones.
“These decisions are going to sink or float Mexican wolf recovery,” he
said. He referred to a situation last September, when a decision to trap
wolf m729 was made.
The Courier reported on the trapping and interviewed New Mexico rancher
Fred Galley, who said the wolf had killed two of his cattle and injured
three calves.
The CBD contested that the wolf was only feeding on already dead cattle,
while ranchers contested the wolf was killing cattle.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field coordinator John Oakleaf said it was
confirmed that the wolf had fed on two cows.
Non-lethal traps were set for the wolf after the USFWS concurred that
there was a “probable depredation.”
The decision to capture the wolf was contested in a letter from the CBD to
Dale Hall, the USFWS Southwest Regional Director.
The letter specifically requested the designation of a new recovery leader
and for all decisions to be put into writing.
The letter reads, “We request that in the current absence of a recovery
leader, the Service designate an acting leader with specific authority to
make case by case decisions on wolf control, and that each such decision
be conveyed in writing with a finding as to cause.”
Robinson said during Tuesday’s phone interview, “We have not received any
reply.”
Schneberger differed and referred to a situation with wolf m592 last May.
“The animal and her mate who is now a candidate for re-release held up my
14-year old daughter on horseback at a distance of 25 feet,” she said.
“They also chased a wolf reintroduction employee who was checking on them
when they were in the wilderness a few weeks prior to our mess.”
The wolf ended up being the victim of a control order, she said.
“The person who ended up having to shoot her was no happier than I am when
having to destroy an ill cow,” Schneberger wrote. “Killing wolves is not
what wolf people want to do. People and their safety came first here, and
the preservation of our year’s income came first in this person’s mind. He
chose to be responsible and accountable, which is something rare in a
bureaucracy. Michael wants no control permits whatsoever.”
She also complained about a lack of wolf removal for when uncollared
wolves cross the recovery lines into potentially urban areas.
“Since they haven’t collared much of the young animals dispersing, they
have no idea when they cross recovery lines,” Schneberger said.
This leads to a dispute over how many wolves are actually in the wild.
Oakleaf said during a Tuesday phone interview that there are 25 collared
wolves in the wild, with 10 to 15 uncollared adults. About 21 pups exist
in the wild, although it is hard to keep track of the pups because of
their high mortality rates, he said.
“Somewhere in between 50 and 60 is a good estimate,” Oakleaf said.
Robinson said it is not purely scientific data to count uncollared wolves
by sight. He gave an example of seeing sets of uncollared wolves in two
different areas about one week apart. With the wolves’ large migratory
distances, it becomes almost impossible to truly confirm whether one is
seeing the same wolf as the week before.
Oakleaf said it is considered the norm to collar only a small portion of
the population. He gave an example of the wolf reintroduction program in
Yellowstone National Park, where about 10 percent of the population is
collared.
“That’s one of the things that’s true of any program,” Oakleaf said.
The USFWS tends to collar wolves that will stick with a pack, he said.
During the summertime, the wolves tend to stay in their packs.
The winter time is the hardest time to monitor them because the wolves’
hormone levels rise and fill them with the urge to reproduce. This tends
to raise the risk of the packs dispersing during the winter months, he
said.