For people who don't like them, it's always time to end protection for wolves, so the title of Jim Harbison's essay ("Time to end government protection for wolves," Sept. 3) comes as no surprise. But as the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The only thing lacking from Mr. Harbison's tales of wolves stalking humans was an appearance by Little Red Riding Hood — and the facts. The truth is, wolves generally avoid people. Documented wolf attacks on humans in North America can be counted on one hand. New Mexicans are more likely to be killed by a bee sting, domestic dogs or even cows than a wolf.

Mr. Harbison also suggests wolves are decimating the ranching industry. In fact, wolf depredations on livestock are rare. More than 40,000 cattle are authorized to graze annually in the Apache and Gila national forests where Mexican wolves occur, yet confirmed wolf kills average only 16 head per year over this entire 6,800-square-mile area. Even if we generously assume that many more wolf kills go unconfirmed, it's still clear that most wolves prefer wild prey over domestic livestock.

And when attacks on livestock do occur, ranchers can get compensation. The Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council will not only reimburse ranchers for their losses, it will also pay them to implement proactive measures to avoid conflicts with wolves, and will even give them a cash reward for simply having wolves on their land or grazing leases.

Mr. Harbison claims wolves have devastated elk populations, and cites Yellowstone as an example. Mr. Harbison fails to mention that by the time wolves were reintroduced in 1996, Yellowstone elk numbers were unsustainably high. Wolves have helped to bring elk populations back into balance with their environment since then, along with other factors such as drought, bears and human hunters.

Mr. Harbison didn't tell us any of the good news about wolves in Yellowstone. He doesn't tell us scientists have documented the regrowth of streamside plant communities in some areas, the expansion of beaver wetlands, the improvement of fish habitat, and an increase in songbirds — all due to the return of wolves. And, by the way, Yellowstone elk numbers have started to rise again.

Despite the title of his essay, Mr. Harbison doesn't actually argue for ending government protection for Mexican wolves — the most endangered wolf in the world — but instead wants to turn their management over to the states of Arizona and New Mexico, as a bill sponsored by Congressman Steve Pearce (H.R. 2910) would do. Given that he has nothing good to say about wolves, why not just argue for letting them go extinct, as Rep. Andy Nunez did earlier this year during the legislative session?

I suspect it is because he knows advocating for the extermination of wolves would not sit well with most New Mexicans — 69 percent of whom support wolf conservation — and he understands that turning management over to the states sounds better but would have the same result.

Gov. Susana Martinez's administration is certainly no friend of wolves. After she was elected, her appointed Game Commission ended New Mexico's participation in the Mexican wolf recovery program and has since done its best to obstruct recovery efforts. This is the same commission that recently opened up millions of acres of state lands to cougar "sport" trapping, supports wildlife killing contests, and generally is hostile to our native carnivores. Putting Martinez and her administration in charge of Mexican wolf recovery would be a recipe for extinction, as Mr. Harbison and Congressman Pearce surely know.

Kevin Bixby is executive director of the Southwest Environmental Center.


 source