Protecting livestock and human lives are among the reasons some are opposed to the release of Mexican Wolves in Socorro County.
Helping
the wolves fight off extinction is the reason others support the
federal government’s intention to release the wolves despite opposition
from local and state officials.
There
seems to be no middle ground heading into a public hearing and possible
vote by the Socorro County Board of Commissioners to bar the release of
the wolves as part of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.
“It seems to be an
inflammatory effort to get the federal government to back off its
decision to release the wolves into Socorro County,” said Michael
Robinson, of the Center of Biological Diversity, about the proposed
ordinance the commissioners could vote on at their meeting Tuesday.
A commissioner from a neighboring county doesn’t quite see the issue the same way.
“It’s easy to be for the release when it’s not happening at your back door,” said Catron County Commissioner Anita Hand.
Socorro
County Commissioner Martha Salas will be among officials making a
decision after residents are given the opportunity to make their
opinions known at the 10 a.m. meeting.
County Manager Delilah Walsh said the ordinance is on the agenda to be voted on.
“But it’s possible they could table it,” Walsh said.
Should the commissioners approve the ordinance, it would go in effect 60 days after the vote, Walsh said.
The feedback Salas has received so far has been overwhelmingly against the release.
She
recently attended a chapter meeting at the Alamo Navajo reservation
where reservation leaders voted against allowing the release in the
county.
“They say the
presence of the wolves has already pushed bears and cougars more toward
the reservation,” Salas said. “Now, they fear the wolves are going to be
coming to the reservation.”
Robinson
said the proposed release point in the San Mateos is far from the
reservation, but acknowledged wolves could roam a good distance if their
food source was scarce. He said the wolves generally stayed confined if
food sources were plentiful.
Catron County attacks
Hand
cites attacks on livestock as a primary reason she is opposed to the
release. So far in 2015, she said there have been 36 confirmed wolf
kills on livestock, with four other possible kills.
The county also records two cows being injured in wolf attacks, as well as five pets.
Hand
also cited 10 sightings of wolves by county residents, including five
up close in which a wolf charged two adults, a wolf followed a
12-year-old on horseback and one that came within 30 feet of a 2
½-year-old.
“Imagine seeing a cat with no head, a dog torn apart or calves chewed up,” Hand said.
New
Mexico Congressman Steve Pearce, who represents Socorro County, cites
the attacks in Catron County as a reason for his opposition to the wolf
recovery program. He said he would continue to back efforts to defund
the program in Congress.
“Most of Catron County is federal land,” Pearce said. “They have a small tax base. They depend heavily on the cattle industry.”
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Public Affairs Specialist Jeff Humphrey said
the organization understands concerns about the potential for attacks on
livestock or people.
“Human
safety remains of utmost concern to the Service,” Humphrey said. “We
advise the public to always take the necessary steps and precautions to
remain safe when in nature. We have not documented any cases of Mexican
wolf attacks on a person.”
Robinson
and Mary Katherine Ray, wildlife chairwoman of the Rio Grande Chapter
of the Sierra Club, agreed with Humprey that attacks on humans were rare
and even said attacks on livestock were not as common as portrayed.
Ray, who lives in the San Mateos, saw wolves near her home.
“And they ran away as soon as they saw me,” Ray said.
She said the pack has since been relocated to Arizona.
Robinson
cited federal statistics kept each year on the wolf recovery program in
the Blue Range recovery area. The statistics showed the most livestock
kills in a year by the wolves was 36 in 2007. A total of 30 kills was
recorded in 2014.
The
statistics can be found at http:
//www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Wolf_livestock_domestic_pet_conflict.pdf
and also reveals action by the Fish and Wildlife Services in response
to attacks.
“Cattle is not really on their menu,” Ray said.
Elk is among the main source of food for the wolves, Robinson and Ray said.
Ray
and Humphrey both emphasize that rules are now set up to allow
residents to “take” or kill wolves in case of such attacks, or if they
feel they are in danger. Ray said residents can obtain permits from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to do so.
“The
Endangered Species Act, as well as our regulations for the MWEPA, allow
for the take (including injuring or killing) of a Mexican wolf in
self-defense or the defense of others,” Humphrey said. “Our regulations
also provide for opportunistic harassment and intentional harassment of
Mexican wolves. The regulations also allow for the take of a Mexican
wolf under various circumstances to protect pet dogs and livestock.”
The
ordinance, however, makes the Socorro Sheriff’s Office the agency the
public should use in dealing with wolf interactions if U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services officials are not available. County Attorney Adren
Nance said the ordinance does not give the Sheriff’s Office new
authority, but recognizes the authority the Sheriff’s Office already
has.
The Socorro County Sheriff’s Office serves as animal control in the county.
Needed for survival
Ray feels the wolf relief program is necessary because “we destroyed the species.”
Both
Robinson and Humphrey said the release was necessary to introduce
diversity into genes of the Mexican wolves already in the wild. Robinson
said inbreeding has made the wolves more vulnerable to disease and
lowered their reproduction rate, cutting their chances of survival.
“The
wild population does not have adequate gene diversity, which
compromises the health of individual wolves (inbreeding) and the overall
health of the population,” Humphrey said. “We can improve the gene
diversity of the wild population by releasing wolves from captivity with
genes not already represented in the wild population. In other words,
our releases from captivity at this time will be aimed at improving the
genetic situation rather than increasing the size of the population,
which is growing naturally without the aid of initial releases.”
Supporters
of the wolf release program question whether Socorro County has the
authority to enforce the ordinance on federal land.
Nance acknowledges that case law conflicts on whether the ordinance would be enforceable.
“But
it would address the release on private land and would prevent a ranch
owner such as a Ted Turner from doing so,” Nance said.
Turner
owns the Armendaris Ranch in southern New Mexico that is home to
several wildlife research projects. Endangered species have been
released on the ranch.
The
U.S. Department of the Interior granted permission for the release of
the wolves into the state a couple of weeks ago despite a decision by
the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in September to refuse the
request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to do so.
“I
don’t like the federal government going against the wishes of the state
of New Mexico,” Pearce said. “Why don’t they release the wolves in
Central Park? Wolves used to roam there, too.”
Release not determined
Even
with permission from the DOI, the release of the wolves by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service may not come for quite some time, Humphrey
said.
“For 2016, our
process is a bit more complicated, and potentially delayed, because we
are still working with the Forest Service and the public to identify new
initial release sites in the recently expanded Mexican Wolf
Experimental Population Area (MWEPA),” Humphrey said.
The
number of wolves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service plans to release
into areas of Arizona and New Mexico has not been determined. The delay
in the release has caused the service to shelve its previous plan.
“Last
spring, we’d requested permits for up to 10 pups (for cross-fostering)
and a pair of adults and their progeny,” Humphrey said. “The
window/season for such releases has passed; so those releases aren’t
imminent.”
The Mexican
wolf population has grown for several years in a row, reaching its
highest population size to date as of the 2014 end of year count, at a
minimum of 110 wolves.
“We will conduct our 2015 annual count in January, 2016,” Humphrey said.
At
the 2014 end of year count, the wolves were approximately equally
spread between the two states, with Arizona having several more than New
Mexico.
Currently,
the location of the population can best be tracked using the “Occupied
Range” map, available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/TADC.cfm.
People can click on the map for a larger version of it. This map also
indicates the most recent aerial locations of the radio-collared wolves.
No comments:
Post a Comment