G &F opposes new wolf sites
Commission asks U.S. agency for halt
Sunday, 13 May 2001
TUCSON/REGION
B1
By Mitch Tobin
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
SAFFORD - The state Game and Fish Commission told the federal government Saturday to stop adding new sites in Arizona for reintroduction of the Mexican wolf.
The commission, by a 4-1 vote, also put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on notice that Arizona considers the service responsible for legal claims filed against the state in connection with wolf-related damage.
The commission stopped short of withdrawing from the program, centered in the Blue Wilderness, 250 miles northeast of Tucson.
But the vote angered the wolf program's supporters, who fear it sets the stage for Arizona's eventual withdrawal.
Commissioner Joe Carter, who made the successful motion, said he would give the federal agency "the benefit of the doubt" before discussing what the commission would do if its demands aren't met.
Commissioner Michael Golightly, the only dissenting vote, said the commission's actions are premature because an independent scientific review of the 3-year-old program isn't due until August.
"We need to be at the table to have a voice and a management role," he said. "These are Arizona's wolves, not federal wolves."
The wolf reintroduction program is primarily a federal endeavor, with Arizona contributing only about one-third of the $900,000 cost so far. But Arizona plays a vital role in the day-to-day management of the animals, providing three full-time biologists and aerial monitoring.
The commission first voted 3-2 to support the effort in 1995, but only one of those commissioners, Golightly, remains on the panel today.
The vote Saturday followed a public hearing that lasted nearly five hours. Some 75 people spoke or submitted written comments, with about two-thirds in favor and one-third against the program.
Nearly all of the opponents said they live in or near the reintroduction area. Most of the supporters said they lived outside the wolves' habitat.
Backers of the program argued that returning the carnivorous predator to the top of the food chain would restore the ecosystem's balance and make amends for the government's systematic extermination of wolves in the first half of the 20th century at the behest of ranchers.
Opponents complained that the federal government hadn't done enough to involve the residents most affected. The commission acknowledged that complaint by demanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service hold its public meetings in small, rural towns, such as Springerville and Silver City, N.M., rather than bigger cities, such as Tucson and Albuquerque, where support for wolves is much greater.
Tucsonan Holly Reck said statewide public opinion polls have shown strong support for the wolf reintroduction program.
"How can you turn your back on the majority of people and just look at special interest groups?" she asked.
But people who live in and around the reintroduction area said their voice is muffled by people who don't have to live near the dangerous animals.
Laura Schneberger, a rancher from Black Range, N.M., said a starving wolf has spent four months lurking around her back yard and she fears for the life of her 2-year-old son.
"I lose track of him for an instant, and I'm scared," she said.
Rich Remington of the Arizona Game and Fish Department told the commissioners that the program has proceeded as expected.
There are 27 to 31 wolves in five packs ranging through 1,412 square miles in Eastern Arizona and Western New Mexico. That's roughly on target with the federal government's plan for sustaining 100 wolves in the area by 2008.
Six wolves have been shot since 1998, with four cases still open and shooters in the other two claiming the wolves threatened their safety.
There have been 11 confirmed kills of livestock, with Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group, spending about $6,000 to compensate for the depredation. Ranchers, however, argue that it's too difficult to prove wolf damage and receive payment.
* Contact Mitch Tobin at 573-4185 or mtobin@azstarnet.com.
Wolves:wait and see
Saturday, 12 May 2001
EDITORIALS
B6
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
The Arizona Game and Fish Department, meeting today in Safford, will be given an updated report on the state's participation in the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program. Some environmentalists fear that after hearing the report, the commissioners will vote to withdraw Arizona's participation in the controversial federal program.
Such a move would be unwise and precipitous. Considering the number of important meetings scheduled on the wolf reintroduction program later this year, the commissioners should refrain from taking any action whatsoever that would change the state's involvement.
The program to restore an endangered species to its habitat is now in its third year. A biological review of the program, commissioned by the Fish and Wildlife Service, is expected in June, and its recommendations will be discussed at a series of meetings to which ranchers, environmentalists and the general public will be invited.
A decision by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to withdraw from the program now would be premature and misinformed, since a good deal of new information is likely to surface after the forthcoming meetings. Besides, in a practical sense, the state would gain little by withdrawing. Game and Fish contributes three employees to the program, but 75 percent of their wages are paid by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The first of 42 wolves, which were bred in captivity, were released in the Blue Range Primitive Area, southeast of Alpine on the Arizona-New Mexico border, in March, 1998. At the time, no one knew beyond a doubt whether the wolves could adjust to life in the wild. Of the 42, 27 are still alive. The dead wolves were either shot, hit by vehicles, or felled by disease.
This is a qualified success, but biologists say the results thus far are just about what they anticipated. Brian Kelly, the government biologist in charge of the wolf recovery program, said last fall, "It is still quite amazing to me as a biologist that we're taking animals that were bred in captivity for several generations and putting them in the wild ... and for the most part they're adapting quite well."
A more serious problem appears to be the ability of humans to adapt to the presence of wolves. Defenders of Wildlife says of the program: "Biologically it's a success and culturally it's a challenge. It's now as much about human beings learning to live with wolves as it is the other way around."
In the long-run, the reintroduction of the wolves will likely be helpful in restoring a degree of balance in the 217,000-acre Blue Range Primitive Area. If the wolves eventually learn to hunt for themselves, they may thin out the ever-increasing elk herds that now compete for the same grasses that fatten the ranchers' cattle. Their predatory behavior will perhaps tighten one more link in the ecological food chain.
Ranchers in the area are still hoping the program will simply go away, and would be thrilled if Arizona Game and Fish withdrew its participation. But, Game and Fish commissioners should take a wait and see approach to this issue until all the information is in and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided on a course of action for the next two years. At that point, and no sooner, the commissioners would have something specific upon which to base their decision on whether to continue or withdraw from the program.
Wolf release program would suffer if state pulls back, supporters say
Friday, 11 May 2001
NEWS
A6
By Mitch Tobin
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
IF YOU GO
* The Arizona Game and Fish Commission will discuss Mexican wolf reintroduction at its meeting in Safford on Saturday. The meeting will take place after the commissioners tour Mount Graham, probably about 1:30 p.m. It will be held at Manor House Conference Center, 415 E. Highway 70.
|
Environmentalists are howling that Arizona officials may weaken the state's support for the controversial Mexican wolf reintroduction program on Saturday.
But several Game and Fish commissioners say the activists are crying wolf.
Although release of the captive-bred wolves in eastern Arizona is primarily a federal project, Arizona's Game and Fish Department has played a pivotal role. The state contributes three full-time employees and conducts aerial monitoring of the wolves.
The state's future with the program will be reviewed at Saturday's Game and Fish Commission meeting in Safford. It's the first time the commission has considered altering Arizona's involvement.
The 3-year-old reintroduction effort in the rugged, pine-clad Blue Range, 250 miles northeast of Tucson, has been unpopular enough to prompt people to shoot and kill six wolves. In two of those cases, shooters said wolves came too close for comfort.
Many area ranchers have fought the program since its inception, arguing that wolves eat their livestock and threaten their livelihoods. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says 12 livestock animals have been killed or injured by wolves.
Backers of wolf reintroduction say that if Arizona withdraws, the reintroduction will suffer, and opponents will have an easier time attacking its federal funding.
"The immediate danger," said Michael Robinson of the Southwest Center for Biodiversity in Silver City, N.M., "is that there could be a gap in the number of biologists out in the field monitoring the wolves and they could be vulnerable to shootings."
Game and Fish commissioner Hays Gilstrap said he does not expect Saturday's meeting to lead to any major changes in the program.
"That's not the plan. Never has been. Never was," said Gilstrap of Phoenix.
Commissioner Michael Golightly of Flagstaff, the panel's longest-serving member and a supporter of the wolf program, said the commission has previously discussed the issue, but never had the ability to change the state's involvement.
"If you have an opinion on what should happen with wolves, you should be there," said Golightly, adding that he had "no idea" how his colleagues would vote.
Commissioners Joe Carter of Safford and Sue Chilton of Arivaca both said they will wait to hear the briefing Saturday before making any decisions.
Chairman Dennis Manning of Alpine, who listed the wolf program for potential action, could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Bryan Kelly, recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said Arizona has been a "valuable partner" that the federal government wants to keep.
"It would be a significant loss, but the program would continue," he said.
But for Alpine-area rancher Billy Marks, Arizona's withdrawal from the wolf program would be welcome news.
"They're spending a lot of money on it and it doesn't seem to be real successful," said Marks, whose family settled along the Blue River in the late 1800s. Marks said his neighbors have lost livestock to wolves and that an environmental group has not made good on their promise to compensate ranchers for wolf-kills.
"There are plenty of wolves in Alaska and areas that are really wild country," Marks said. "It seems kind of pointless to me."
Ecologists, however, contend that wolves, as top predators in the Southwest's food chain, help regulate the population of elk and other prey species.
"In a balanced, healthy ecosystem, wolves play an incredibly important part," said Roseann Hanson, executive director of the Tucson-based Sky Island Alliance.
Skeptics had wondered if the captive-bred wolves could reproduce or fend for themselves in the wild. But while about 40 percent of the wolves released have died naturally or at the hand of man, the wolves have also produced litters and successfully preyed on elk, deer and javelina.
Arizona spends about $200,000 per year on the wolf program, but 75 percent of that funding comes from the federal government, said Rich Remington, regional supervisor for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Man and the wolf
Monday, 27 November 2000
EDITORIALS
B6
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
In a few months, the federal program to reintroduce Mexican gray wolves in the remote mountains of Eastern Arizona will be 3 years old. The three-year mark provides an opportunity for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as ranchers and residents affected by the program, a vantage point for reviewing the pros and cons of the methods employed to restore an endangered species.
The first of 42 wolves, which were bred in captivity, were released in the Blue Range Primitive Area, southeast of Alpine, in March, 1998. The animals were fitted with collars that emit an electronic signal, enabling biologists to keep track of their movements and their survival. No one knew beyond a doubt whether the wolves could adjust to life in the wild. Of the 42, 26 are still alive. The remainder were either shot, hit by vehicles, or felled by disease.
This is a qualified success, and perhaps that's all that can be hoped for in such a short period of time. Still, biologists are optimistic. Brian Kelly, the government biologist in charge of the wolf recovery program, says, "It is still quite amazing to me as a biologist that we're taking animals that were bred in captivity for several generations and putting them in the wild ... and for the most part they're adapting quite well."
The same cannot be said for the people most directly affected by the wolves. Defenders of Wildlife says of the program, "Biologically it's a success and culturally it's a challenge. It's now as much about human beings learning to live with wolves as it is the other way around."
It's also about people who live in cities and have been raised on Walt Disney's romanticized images of animals who look and speak like humans. It's about a disconnection. Many who live in urban areas subscribe to fantasies about a benign wilderness which many of them will never see, let alone have to live in on a daily basis.
The farther one lives from the largely uninhabited Blue River country that separates Arizona's Greenlee County from Catron County, N.M., the easier it is to dismiss the wolf recovery critics as redneck ranchers who have not an ounce of interest in wildlife or ecological balance. But that attitude in itself embodies its own ignorance and is disrespectful of families who have spent several generations surviving in a landscape they love and know well.
The truth is that the people who live along the Blue River are indeed different from those of us living in cities. There are no paved roads into the area, no doctors, supermarkets, restaurants, gas stations or mechanics. Everybody who lives along the river is subject to its whims. Ranchers and residents often measure distances by the number of river crossings between one point and another. In this isolated rural atmosphere, a wolf in the backyard is neither uncommon nor harmless.
In the long-run, the reintroduction of the wolves will likely be helpful in restoring a degree of balance in the 217,000-acre Blue Range Primitive Area. If the wolves eventually learn to hunt for themselves, they may thin out the ever-increasing elk herds that now compete for the same grasses that fatten the ranchers' cattle. Their predatory behavior will perhaps tighten one more link in the ecological food chain.
Ranchers in the area are still hoping the wolf recovery program will be seen as a costly and ill-advised scientific experiment and that it will simply go away. To an extent, this sounds like a case of wishful thinking, but there's an undercurrent that renders the concern more serious. The same area that once accommodated the wolves also was home to grizzly bears. The last grizzly was killed near a spot called Strayhorse in the 1930's. People who live near the wolf recovery area worry that the reintroduction of wolves is the beginning of a nightmare that will lead to the reintroduction of grizzlies.
The success of the wolf recovery program, and all other attempts to bring back an endangered species, depends largely on the commitment of everyone involved. We think it is important to pay attention to both the macrocosm and the microcosm, to see and understand the value that each insect and mammal has to the health of the world we inhabit. It is equally important, however, that the federal government listen carefully to the ranchers in the area, engage them as a resource and not merely as adversaries. Ranchers, on the other hand, must quit looking at federal biologists as opportunist wasting taxpayer's money on foolish experiments.
Ultimately, the wolf recovery program may depend on the recovery of trust and good will between employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the rural residents who must live with the practical effects of their decisions.
Wolf reintroduction program 'on target': Foes aren't happy
Monday, 20 November 2000
NEWS
A1
By Maureen O'Connell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
CORRECTION
NOVEMBER 21, 2000 A2
* Contrary to information listed in a graphic on A1 yesterday, the Mexican gray wolf - the smallest subspecies of gray wolf - weighs up to 80 pounds. A larger subspecies of gray wolf in North America can weigh as much as 140 pounds.
When wildlife biologists released the rare Mexican gray wolf into the wilds of Eastern Arizona they knew the effort would be far from trouble-free.
Because the animals had been born in captivity, doubts ranged from whether they could successfully conceive and raise pups to whether they could strut away from an easy meal of livestock in the rugged pine country near the state border with New Mexico, about 250 miles northeast of Tucson.
As the reintroduction program approaches its three-year mark, biologists are cautiously optimistic about its progress. Tensions between supporters and opponents of the program, however, continue to simmer.
Of the 42 wolves released so far, according to Arizona Game and Fish Department records, 16 have died.
Five were killed by gunshot wounds within a year of the program's debut wolf release in March 1998. Four contracted fatal illnesses and three were struck and killed by vehicles. The others wandered away from their respective packs and are presumed dead. In those cases, the wolves either slipped out of radio collars or were too young to wear a device used to track their whereabouts.
In the most recent case, an adult male released into the wild two years ago was euthanized Nov. 1 after failing to respond to veterinary treatment.
On the other hand, between 10 and 15 pups have been born in the wild.
"We're pretty much on target," said Brian Kelly, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and coordinator of the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program.
A plan drawn up before the releases began projected that by the end of this year, 23 wolves would be roaming the 7,000-square-mile Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila national forests of Arizona and New Mexico.
If the program proceeds as envisioned, releases will continue until natural reproduction in the wild can sustain population growth, Kelly said. Biologists hope to be tracking 100 wolves in the recovery area by 2008.
"That's the initial step," Kelly said. "But ideally, we're going to want several packs at several sites."
Other areas under study as possible sites for program expansion include northern and central Mexico and southern Colorado - both are within the wolf's historic range.
The Mexican gray wolf was put on the endangered species list in 1976, about six years after it was last spotted in the United States. In the early 1900s, ranchers lobbied Congress to organize an eradication of predators dubbed nuisance animals, and within four decades the gray wolf was nearly hunted and poisoned out of existence.
The drive to re-establish the population grew out of a captive breeding campaign involving a network of zoos and facilities, such as the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Starting with a few wild wolves trapped in Mexico, captive breeding has produced nearly 200 Mexican gray wolves.
Biologists estimate that as many as 25 wild members of this subspecies of gray wolf could be in Mexico, but they have not recorded an official sighting in many years.
Next spring, supporters of the program, such as state and federal wildlife agencies and environmental groups, will meet with opponents, such as cattle grower groups and some area residents, to assess its strengths and weaknesses.
"Biologically, it's a success and culturally it's a challenge," said Craig Miller, a regional director for Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group. "It's now as much about human beings learning to live with wolves as it is the other way around."
Shortly before the program's first wolf release, a group of opponents led by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to stop it. The suit argued that irreparable harm would be caused by wolves killing cattle and accused wildlife agencies of clinging to shaky science. It was thrown out of court last year when a judge ruled that environmental studies underscoring the need for the reintroduction were sound.
Still, Caren Cowan, director of the association, points to the deaths - almost 40 percent of the overall released population - and abundant anecdotes about hungry-looking wolves lurking around homes and cattle as evidence that the animals are too accustomed to a zoo lifestyle to hack it in the wilderness.
"Nobody wants to see extinction, but what extraordinary means need to be taken to keep every subspecies here?" Cowan asked, adding, "How far do you push an animal for the sake of a human wanting to hear it howl?"
C.B. "Doc" Lane of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association agreed. He contends that the $1 million in federal money that went to the program for the last fiscal year would have been better spent on more pressing wildlife-related matters, such as fending off summer season forest fires.
"When we start spending our money on something that's nice to have as opposed to something we need to have, we're not getting our priorities straight," Lane said.
Backers of the reintroduction counter that the program is a federal mandate that wildlife officials must follow. Peter Siminski, director of collections at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, added, "The public's concern for endangered species is not going to go away."
He suggested that disgruntled ranchers consider teaming up with Defenders of Wildlife, which offers its "Wolf Country Beef" label to those who agree to terms such as permitting wolf colonies on private property and refraining from shooting wolves and other predators, such as coyotes that might be mistaken for wolves. The organization promotes the grocery store beef, sold at a premium price, as an environmentally correct purchase.
So far, two ranchers, running four separate cattle operations, have signed up for the label.
Defenders of Wildlife also offers market-value reimbursement to ranchers in cases where wolves have killed cattle. It has paid about $6,000 to cover eight incidents tied to the Mexican gray wolf program. Since 1987, when the compensation fund was established, it has shelled out $133,418 to cover wolf-caused cattle deaths across the nation.
Initial wolf releases take place in the reintroduction program's 2,000-square-mile primary recovery zone.
Environmental groups, such as the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, are pushing wildlife agencies to tweak the program's policies in order to permit a drop in the number of initial releases there and the start of that release type in the Gila National Forest, where there are fewer people, cattle and roads.
In the mid-1990s, the reintroduction plan tapped Arizona for all initial releases because state officials were more supportive of the effort than were officials representing New Mexico.
Under the current plan, re-releases may take place in New Mexico. Also, White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation officials recently agreed to permit up to six wolf family groups on their land, which is adjacent to the recovery area. The tribe has yet to decide whether releases may be permitted there.
Barbara Marks is a rancher and 23-year resident of the Blue River Valley, a remote area within the primary recovery zone. She is pleased with the idea of moving initial releases far away from her ranch.
She suspects that the Defenders of Wildlife's tally of cases involving wolves killing cattle is severely undercounted. Oftentimes, Marks said, such deaths cannot be proved because scavenging animals have picked at carcasses or other elements have altered attack scenes.
"It's a fiasco," Marks said of the reintroduction. "We're supposed to put up with a lot that doesn't seem fair."
While the program waives federal law to allow ranchers to shoot a wolf in the act of attacking livestock, Marks complained that it's illegal to shoot a wolf attacking a pet unless the wolf also threatens people. Penalties include up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
"Our hands are tied," she said, noting that in one case a wolf did kill a neighbor's dog. "All we can do is yell at the wolves if we see them going after our dogs."
Three of the five cases in which released wolves died from gunshot wounds are still open. One death has been attributed to a camper who said he shot a wolf near his campsite because he felt threatened. He was not prosecuted.
In the other case, a man who lives near rural Nutrioso, Ariz., admitted to shooting a wolf that he claimed came within 20 yards of his trailer. He then dumped the body in New Mexico in an attempt to dodge blame. He was sentenced to four months in prison, six months of house arrest and required community service.
Biologists maintain that brushes with wolves likely will fall off as more pups are born in the wild.
Much of the program's future focus will be in tracking such pups to see how many generations it takes to completely shake off the effects of a "human imprint," said Kelly, the Fish and Wildlife Service's coordinator for the program.
Working in tandem with the captive breeding network, which includes 43 facilities in the United States and Mexico, wolves are selected for reintroduction based on behavioral profiles as well as genetic makeup and breeding potential.
Before release, the animals are moved to remote holding pens and weaned from zoo chow with road-kill meals including elk, deer and javelina. After release, Fish and Wildlife Service officials estimate that elk meat makes up
80-85 percent of the wolf's diet.
In August, the first yearling known to be conceived in the wild - a 30-pound pup - was captured to be fitted with a radio collar. Younger pups go without collars for fear the fitted device could choke them as they grow.
"It is still quite amazing to me as a biologist that we're taking animals that were bred in captivity for several generations and putting them in the wild . . . and for the most part they're adapting quite well," Kelly said.
* Contact Maureen O'Connell at 434-4076 or at oconnell@azstarnet.com.
