Download USFWS has failed to demonstrate that the

Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 1
November 13, 2013
Public Comments Processing
Attn: USFWS–R2–ES–2013–0056
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM
Arlington, VA 22203
Subject: Apache County comments on Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental
Population of the Mexican Wolf, USFWS–R2–ES–2013–0056
Apache County, Arizona appreciates the opportunity to submit comments and information
concerning the proposal to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation
of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, and as published in the Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 114 /Thursday, June
13, 2013 / Proposed Rules pp 35719-35742.
Apache County is uniquely affected by the Proposed Action to revise the section 10(j) rule, since
a large part of the proposed revised Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) and Mexican
Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) would be located within Apache and Greenlee
Counties in Arizona and neighboring Catron County in New Mexico. Thus Apache County,
along with its sister counties at the heart of the proposed revised geographic boundaries, would
experience the greatest impacts of the proposed action.
The local citizens of Apache and the other named counties have had to bear the burden of the
impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction since its inception fifteen years ago. These citizens, who
have dealt with and experienced the adverse impacts first-hand, are well aware of the reality of
the on-the-ground activities that affect their daily lives. The voices of affected local citizens and
of the county governments that represent them have thus far been mostly ignored, whereas their
experiences should be made part of the record in order to provide guidance when making any
changes to the operating procedures of the recovery program.
It is local government responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. This
includes protecting local citizens from the adverse societal and economic impacts of federal
actions. Since the element of the human dimension is not adequately addressed by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other federal agencies, it is imperative that local
governments take action to address the wellbeing and interests of the local citizen.
We submit these comments because it is important for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to recognize and openly disclose the impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens who are directly impacted by USFWS actions. While the Endangered Species Act
directs the USFWS and other federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species
and the habitats they depend upon, the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) also requires
the agencies to honestly and openly disclose adverse as well as beneficial effects of agency
actions on the human environment.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 2
Numerous other federal laws contain language that requires the USFWS to involve and work in a
cooperative manner with local governments and therefore with the local and directly impacted
citizens. A federal/local government working relationship that is based upon mutual respect
would add a level of protection for the health safety and welfare of the public that is very much
lacking in the current actions of the USFWS. Such a working relationship would also improve
the chances for success in implementation and adaptive management of USFWS efforts
regarding endangered and threatened species.
This proposed rule deals with actions that are also being analyzed in an EIS, for which Apache
County has already submitted comments. These comments focus on the potential adverse
impacts to local citizens of the proposed changes to the Nonessential Experimental Population
Rule (Proposed Changed 10(j) Rule).
Table of Contents
Issue: Fatal flaw - USFWS has failed to demonstrate that the 10(j) rule serves any purpose ....... 3
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with federal law, regulation and Presidential Executive
Orders .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with Executive Order 12866 requiring understandable
documents ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Issue: USFWS has failed to provide required NEPA analyses ...................................................... 6
Issue: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the 10(j) rule is applicable to a population
of gray wolves ................................................................................................................................. 9
Issue: USFWS has failed to provide sufficient evidence of need to change the 10(j) rule due to
change of designation ................................................................................................................... 10
Issue: USFWS has failed to propose changes to the 10(j) rule that are significantly different
from current management practices .............................................................................................. 10
Issue: USFWS has failed to demonstrate that the Mexican wolf could naturally establish a viable
self-sustaining population without human support ....................................................................... 11
Issue: USFWS has failed to disclose any analysis of full impacts of habituation ....................... 12
Issue: USFWS has failed to address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the human
environment .................................................................................................................................. 14
Issue: USFWS has misused public funding for outreach activities ............................................. 15
Issue: USFWS has failed to address all potential adverse impacts .............................................. 17
Determination of Suitable Natural Habitat ............................................................................... 17
Factual Omissions ..................................................................................................................... 18
Taking of Private Property ........................................................................................................ 20
Considering State Owned/Managed Land the Same as Federal Lands .................................... 21
Additional Indirect Adverse Impacts Not Clearly Addressed ...................................................... 22
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 3
Domestic Dogs and Mexican gray wolf interbreeding ............................................................ 22
Release and Management of Wolf Hybrids .............................................................................. 23
Analysis of Mexican gray wolf Prey Base ................................................................................ 24
Impact on existing predator population .................................................................................... 25
Sustainability of Mexican wolf prey base including human needs........................................... 25
Wolf Prey in Urban Areas......................................................................................................... 26
CONCLUSION: ............................................................................................................................ 26
Issue: Fatal flaw - USFWS has failed to demonstrate that the 10(j) rule serves any purpose
Reference: Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 10, Exceptions, subsection (a), “for
scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including,
but not limited to, acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental
populations pursuant to subsection (j)”
Discussion: According to the ESA , the purpose of an experimental population is for scientific
purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. Nowhere in the proposed
10(j) rule revision has evaluation of the effectiveness of use of the 10(j) rule to achieve ESA
purposes for the Mexican wolf subspecies been addressed. The whole revision proposal is in fact
based on an assumption that the 10(j) approach is useful for something; however what that might
be, or whether there is any point to it at all, is not discussed.
In other words, what exactly is the scientific purpose for use of the 10(j) rule with respect to the
Mexican wolf? If there is no scientific purpose, then how exactly does the use of a10(j) rule
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and why would the use of a 10(j) rule do so
better than would, for example, hunting restrictions?
This is a fatal flaw in any USFWS actions, past or proposed, with respect to the Mexican wolf. It
is a matter of common sense and best science practice, not to mention the legal responsibility of
any federal agency, to examine the usefulness of continuing a costly, controversial and arguably
failed experiment in endangered species population management after fifteen years. Without
such an evaluation by the agency itself, and disclosure of results, the public cannot begin to
address the proposed revision of the 10(j) rule.
Recommendation: Withdraw all proposed rule changes associated with the Mexican wolf until
an agency evaluation of the effectiveness of the past fifteen years’ management actions has been
performed and disclosed to the public, and the public has the opportunity to analyze, evaluate
and comment on the value of the 10(j) approach to species survival.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 4
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with federal law, regulation and Presidential Executive
Orders
Reference: Page 35737 column 1, “Takings—Executive Order 12630 In accordance with
Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Private Property Rights), this rule does not have significant takings Implications.”
And
Endangered Species Act, 10j Rule,1764 Federal Register/ Vol. 63, No. 7/ Monday, January 12,
1998/ Rules and Regulations PART 17—[AMENDED 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates (xiii) (6)
No land use restrictions will be imposed on private lands for Mexican wolf recovery without the
concurrence of the landowner. [Emphasis added].
Discussion: On March 22, 1988, President Reagan signed into law Presidential Executive Order
12630 (E.O. 12630). That Executive Order, which has not been altered or reversed, required all
federal agencies to analyze the effects or potential effects of their actions, decisions or
regulations on the economic value or use of private property through the completion of a takings
implications assessment (TIA). As stated by Executive Order 12630:
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation . . . . Recent
Supreme Court decisions, however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of
private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the
nature of governmental actions that have an impact on Constitutionally protected
private property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do
not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in
a taking for which just compensation is required. E.O. 12630. [Emphasis added].
In this case, it is clear that USFWS management of the Mexican wolf under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) has resulted in and will continue to result in the taking of private property.
Such takings will include the Mexican wolf’s killing of livestock and family pets; the loss or
potential loss of the use of federal land grazing permits and leases due to the presence of wolves;
the loss of the use of private property (particularly that private land inholdings located within
federal grazing allotments); the loss of water rights associated with private lands; and, the loss in
value (economic backed-expectations) of area ranches. Given these losses, a TIA must be
completed before a final decision is made regarding the proposed 10(j) rule.
Although the USFWS may try to argue that Department of the Interior (DOI) guidelines exclude
the requirement for completion of a TIA related to decisions under the Endangered Species Act,
that argument is flawed. The DOI guidelines exempt the requirement for completion of a TIA
only in those cases related to the listing of threatened or endangered species or the issuance of
biological opinions where the listing or opinion either solely governs the use of federal lands, or
proposes alternatives that have been accepted by the private property owner. In the case this
proposed rule USFWS decision is related to management of the Mexican wolf species pursuant
to section 10(j) of the ESA rather than the use of lands; thus the decision falls outside of the DOI
guidelines and a TIA must be completed.
Mexican wolf recovery has caused significant loss of private property, loss of fair compensation,
and private property takings of small family ranchers. Although Executive Order 12630 does not
stop federal agencies from “taking” or impacting the value of private property, E.O. 12630 does
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 5
require that agency decision makers consider the takings implications of their actions on private
property rights and place a monetary value on those implications before a final decision is made.
Completion of a TIA in this case will ensure that the USFWS and the public are fully informed
of all of the implications of decisions regarding the Mexican wolf.
USFWS would be in error to not complete and disclose a TIA until a final rule that would be
published in the Federal Register. Rather, USFWS should prepare a TIA whenever there are
takings implications presented by formulating or implementing policies. Presidential Executive
Order 12630 (53 Fed. Reg. 8859) defines “policies that have takings implications” to include:
“Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on
proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted,
could affect a taking”.
Three family- run ranchers in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area that have been impacted by
the Mexican wolf program submitted Takings Implications (TIA) requests to USFWS, pursuant
to Presidential Executive Order 12630. These TIA requests were denied.
All three of the ranch families who requested TIAs subsequently went out of the ranching
businesses directly due to wolf depredation on their cattle. The destruction of these three family
businesses could have been avoided if USFWS had conducted the necessary Takings Implication
Assessment and made decisions based on the results of that TIA.
The completion of a TIA would have alerted USFWS to the potential for significant loss of
property by the proposed introduction of an experimental nonessential population of gray wolf.
While economic impacts are not considered in the listing of a species as threatened or
endangered, this proposed revision by USFWS is not a listing case. Thus, economic impacts can
and should be considered in the placement of an apex predator species in such close proximity to
ranches, homes and small communities.
USFWS failure to complete and disclose the required TIA amounts to serious misconduct
through omission of records and manipulation of data. The public has a legal right to have the
opportunity to fully examine the effects of USFWS actions on private property including
negative economic impacts and threats to human safety, including psychological trauma due to
wolf incidents.
Recommendation: USFWS should withdraw the proposed revision until a Takings Implication
Assessment is available to be reviewed, analyzed and commented on by the public with respect
to the proposed actions.
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with Executive Order 12866 requiring understandable
documents
Reference: Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993 "The
American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a
regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment and well being
and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable
costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets
are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State,
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 6
local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and
understandable."
And
Section 1 (b)(12) “Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand...”
Discussion: Because the EIS scoping action was not the same as the comment period for this
proposed 10(j) rule revision, USFWS has made it difficult for the public to analyze and comment
on the proposed rule. While the 10(j) proposed rule revision comment period was extended, the
EIS scoping was not. This meant that the public was forced to comment on the draft EIS before
being provided with the opportunity to fully analyze the proposed changes to the 10(j) rule.
Furthermore, links should be provided for documents that are pertinent to the proposed rule
changes. Of the approximately 273 referenced documents, links are provided for only seven.
Additionally, several references are presented in the proposed rule but are not included in the list
of references and vice versa.
Recommendation: Reopen the comment period for the draft EIS and for the proposed 10(j) rule
revision and provide links for all references so that the two actions may be more readily analyzed
by the public.
Issue: USFWS has failed to provide required NEPA analyses
Reference: Federal Register p 35736. At this time, we lack the available economic information
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. Therefore, we defer
the RFA finding until completion of the EIS. Upon completion of a draft EIS, we will announce
availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register and reopen the public comment period for
the proposed revision.
Also
Federal Register p 35736. If a substantial number of small entities are affected by the proposed
rule, but the per-entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify. Likewise, if
the per-entity economic impact is likely to be significant, but the number of affected entities is
not substantial, the Service may also certify.
In the 1998 Final Rule, we found that the nonessential population would not have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The 1998 Final Rule set forth management directions and provided for limited allowable legal
take of Mexican wolves within the MWEPA. We concluded that the rule would not significantly
change costs to industry or governments.
Discussion: USFWS has presented proposed actions (i.e. EIS, 10(j) rule changes and listing
designation) more or less simultaneously, yet has withheld critical analyses until a later,
undisclosed date, thereby employing “piecemeal” or “segmentation” practices. It has been
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 7
determined by federal court ruling that federal agencies cannot propose actions that would
individually have no significant impact but would, if taken as a whole, result in a significant
impact. Apache County has addressed the issue of USFWS’s failure to include economic impact
analysis in the Mexican wolf EIS (see “Issue: USFWS has failed to meet the purpose of an EIS”
in Apache County comments, dated September 19, 2013).
“Piecemeal” or “segmentation” practices are used to break up projects into smaller parts with
less significant effects in an effort to avoid preparing a full-blown environmental impact
statement (“EIS”). Alpine Lakes Protection Soc. v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089, 1090 (C.A.9
1975) states:“Characterizing any piecemeal development of a project as “ insignificant” merits
close scrutiny to prevent the policies of NEPA from being nibbled away by multiple increments,
no one of which may in and of itself be important enough to compel preparation of a full EIS.”.
In addition to avoiding the need to prepare an EIS, segmentation practices may also reduce the
scope of an EIS. Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 298 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, federal courts have developed a rule against this practice “to insure that interrelated
projects the overall effect of which is environmentally significant, not be fractionalized into
smaller, less significant actions.” Id. See also City of West Chicago, Ill. v. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Com'n, 701 F.2d 632, 650 (7th Cir. 1983)
The Fifth Circuit has articulated a four-part test to determine the appropriateness of
segmentation, in which the court evaluates whether the segment “(1) has logical termini; (2) has
substantial independent utility; (3) does not foreclose the opportunity to consider alternatives;
and (4) does not irretrievably commit federal funds for closely related projects.” O'Reilly v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 477 F.3d 225, 236 (5th Cir. 2007). The Tenth Circuit has cited this
test for approval. Ross v. Federal Highway Administration, 162 F.3d 1046, 1050 (10th Cir.
1998)
The courts have opined that a project is not properly segmented if it “has no independent utility,
no life of its own, or is simply illogical when viewed in isolation.” One Thousand Friends of
Iowa v. Mineta, 364 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2004); Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition, Inc. v.
Slater, 352 F.3d 545, 559 (2nd Cir. 2003) (same test). In determining the appropriate scope of an
EIS, Commission on Environmental Quality regulations require the agency to “consider”
connected, cumulative, and similar actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a).
USFWS has simply ignored the negative impacts to the human environment since the Mexican
wolf program was first proposed. The various counties directly impacted by the Mexican wolf
have made this clear from the beginning. Neighboring Catron County, NM has gone so far as to
create the position of “Wolf Interaction Investigator” due to the high number of wolf/human ,
wolf/livestock and wolf/pet incidences that have occurred there. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
has been identified in a number of children and adults within the BRWRA. Ranchers have
suffered tremendous losses and the economies of the impacted counties have been hit hard.
USFWS has unfairly taken advantage of the lack of economic information for its RFA findings.
The per-entity data that has been declared by USFWS to be insignificant is insignificant only in
comparison to larger populations. It is not insignificant in a low-population area that is already
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 8
highly impacted by other ESA actions as well as by massive wildfires and national economic
conditions.
In using the segmentation approach, USFWS downplays the demonstrable significant negative
impacts on small counties and small businesses (family owned ranchers). Without full analysis
available at this time, the public cannot itself analyze these significant and substantial impacts
that have been caused by the 10(j) rule since the initiation of the Mexican wolf reintroduction
program, and that would continue to impact the public in the future.
Apache County can state unequivocally that there are demonstrable significant and substantial
negative impacts on small counties and small businesses (family owned ranchers) directly due to
the Mexican Gray wolf program. These significant and substantial negative effects would only
be increased by the implementation the 10(j) Rule without proper mitigation. The counties
affected by the wolf program commented on the prospects of this occurring in the 1998 EIS and
these comments were ignored. Now these significant and substantial adverse effects have
occurred and continue to devastate small family ranch businesses and small county governments.
USFWS cannot accurately assess or determine the significant and substantial negative effects of
the proposed 10(j) rule alternatives or actions without working directly with the impacted
counties and citizens. Furthermore, USFWS is required to work with the effected county
governments due to the counties' fiduciary legal responsibilities to protect the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens pursuant the US Constitution 10th Amendment through exercising their
police powers. According to Black's Law Dictionary:
[The exercise of] police powers is the authority conferred by the American constitutional system
in the Tenth Amendment, US Constitution, upon the individual States, and, in turn, delegated to
local government, through which they are enabled to establish...adopt laws and regulations
to...secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of its citizens by
preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of its
citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon
him or her by the general laws.
Apache County fully expects USFWS to comply with these governing laws. More specifically,
USFWS is expected to coordinate with the County to determine the significant and substantial
adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfare to Apache County citizens, which is the
jurisdictional responsibility of the County. Furthermore, Apache County requires USFWS to
fully mitigate any significant and substantial adverse impacts on the County’s citizens and
government.
Recommendation: USFWS should withdraw the proposed revision until all analyses are
available to be reviewed, analyzed and commented on by the public with respect to the proposed
actions. USFWS should work with Apache County and other affected counties to obtain the
missing data and to perform analysis of same.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 9
Issue: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the 10(j) rule is applicable to a
population of gray wolves
Discussion: The concept of Mexican wolf designation as an endangered or threatened
nonessential experimental population to which the 10(j) rule could apply is problematic in itself.
Section 10(j)(1) states that a nonessential experimental population must be set apart and
managed separately from other naturally occurring populations of endangered species in the
wild.
In the case of the Mexican wolf, however, there are no other populations in the wild. Unlike
other ESA listed species, today’s Mexican wolves in the US Southwest are not and have never
been wild animals. All Mexican wolves in the US Southwest and in captivity are descended
from captive bred animals under controlled conditions, thus effectively making Mexican wolves
a man-made species (or sub-species, terms which USFWS appears to use interchangeably).
Mexican wolves are only endangered because the captive breeding program has not produced
that many wolves, not because they are actually endangered in the wild at this time. In other
words, these wolves are essentially no different from any man-created animal that has been
selectively bred for human-determined traits; thus if such animals are not found in sufficient
numbers for human purposes then humans should simply breed more of them.
Captive-breeding does not select for the same traits as natural breeding in the wild. Allowed to
breed on their own without human interference in the wild, natural circumstances would cull
animals that Mexican wolf program management does not eliminate from its breeding program
(as evidenced by the high number of habituated, problem wolves). Species are shaped by their
environment; artificial species created in captivity (or in a laboratory) cannot be shaped by a wild
environment, and it is therefore difficult to imagine that Mexican wolves could possibly ever be
expected to act like true, wild animals.
The Mexican wolf exists today because it was created by humans. It is an experimental
nonessential species because USFWS states that these wolves need to be so designated in order
to determine what they need to thrive as a species in the wild. However, the Mexican wolf as
defined by USFWS’s captive breeding program isn't a naturally occurring species in the wild
because the traits being bred into the experimental population are human-determined (which
makes them closer to domestic animals, such as sled dogs). Furthermore, the specimens in the
wild are so closely managed that natural selection has been removed from the picture. Between
the management and captive breeding and because there is no other wild Mexican wolf
population in the US Southwest to use as a baseline, there is no possible way to know what the
Mexican wolf would need for it to survive in the wild. Thus there is no justification for applying
the 10(j) rule to the Mexican wolf.
The basis for the Mexican wolf program has become a case in circular logic that has nothing to
do with science or an endangered, wild species (or sub-species). The issue of using the ESA to
protect an artificially created species that most likely could not exist, unsupported, in the wild is
a significant one that should be addressed well before worrying about how to manage such a
species in the wild.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 10
Recommendation: Rescind the proposed revision to the 10(j) rule until it has been determined
that Mexican wolves qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act, and that a 10(j)
rule would actually apply to these animals.
Issue: USFWS has failed to provide sufficient evidence of need to change the 10(j) rule due
to change of designation
Reference: Summary, p 35719. This action is being taken in coordination with our proposed
rule in today’s Federal Register to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist
the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies
and delist the gray wolf species necessitates that we revise the nonessential experimental
population of Mexican wolf in order to correctly associate the designation with the properly
listed entity. In addition, we are proposing several revisions to the section 10(j) rule.
Discussion: While it could be necessary for legal reasons to restate the existing Mexican gray
wolf 10(j) rule in the event that the gray wolf and Mexican wolf designations are changed, it
does not follow that changing listing designation in itself provides a legal reason to revise the
existing Mexican gray wolf 10(j) rule. USFWS has failed to provide sufficient legal justification
for using a proposed delisting of the gray wolf and the listing of the Mexican wolf as an
endangered subspecies to make numerous changes to the Mexican gray wolf 10(j) rule.
Recommendation: USFWS should rescind the 10(j) rule completely, for reasons discussed
elsewhere in this document. Barring this action, USFWS should provide additional evidence and
legal justification for amending the 10(j) rule.
Issue: USFWS has failed to propose changes to the 10(j) rule that are significantly
different from current management practices
Discussion: Given the high number of complaints from the affected public and local
governments in the Mexican wolf reintroduction area since its inception in 1998, and the damage
to local economies, customs and culture, and given the failure of the Mexican wolf to thrive in
the wild on its own, it is clear that unless major adjustments to wolf management are put in
place, there will be no significant changes in the Mexican wolf situation in the US Southwest.
From the beginning, the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort has been declared to be a process of
“adaptive management”. Adaptive management is based on a learning process that involves
changing assumptions and management practices to respond to new or different information
obtained through monitoring and project experience, i.e. learning by doing, and adapting the
doing based on what has been learned.
Best scientific practices and common sense would indicate that if a highly managed specific
population of animal that is biologically capable of high reproductive rates (as evidenced by
domestic dog overpopulation and by the self-sustaining reproductive rates of other wild gray
wolf populations and of coyotes) nevertheless fails to maintain a self-sustaining population in a
specific habitat, then something is wrong with the approach to management. To continue such
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 11
practices, particularly in a program that is supposedly engaged in adaptive management, is
obviously never going to improve the results.
While this point would appear to support revision of the Mexican gray wolf 10(j) rule,
unfortunately it is common knowledge that most of the proposed changes to the 10(j) rule
describe minor adjustments to management practices that have been already unsuccessfully
employed in the past. Obviously if these practices have not worked in the past, there can be no
scientific or common sense justification to propose to use them in the future, particularly if they
are not significantly different, unless it is USFWS’s goal to simply provide a means to continue
releasing captive-bred and captive-raised wolves into the wild, and to persist in discounting the
adverse impacts of released wolves in favor of allowing them to continue their unacceptable
behavior. There is no point in continuing practices that have been more than adequately
demonstrated on-the-ground to not work.
Recommendation: USFWS should rescind the 10(j) rule. Barring this action, USFWS should
realistically assess current management practices and develop a new approach to Mexican wolf
management that does not repeat the same management errors as in the past.
Issue: USFWS has failed to demonstrate that the Mexican wolf could naturally establish a
viable self-sustaining population without human support
Reference: ESA Section 3, Section 1532 (3) , "conserve", "conserving", and "conservation"
mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this chapter are no longer necessary.
Discussion: The failure of the Mexican wolf to develop a self-sustaining population in spite of
the massive reintroduction effort may indicate a more fundamental issue: Successful
reintroduction of an apex predator into an environment in which it fails to survive without costly
and extreme external support may be an impossible and unscientifically justifiable effort.
Simply stated, the Mexican wolf may not be able to thrive in the US Southwest because the
habitat is no longer capable of supporting wolves; furthermore, that habitat may, in spite of all
USFWS efforts, never be capable of supporting wolves without altering the ecological conditions
to such a degree as to create an artificial environment.
Many species have become extinct when the populations could not adapt to changing habitat
conditions that are of a global rather than local nature (e.g. climate change). Species that survive
have adapted, either by permanently migrating to new habitat that is more suitable for their
needs, or, adapting to the new habitat conditions through the process of genetic mutation.
Human insistence on a species’ existence in a specific habitat, accompanied by creating “ideal”
conditions (such as in a zoo) that can never become “no longer necessary”, is contrary to the
purpose of the ESA (see above reference).
While there are a few free-roaming wolves still found in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
(BRWRA), the current proposal has acknowledged that this program cannot sustain a viable
population of wolves in the wild without continued human support and augmentation of the
reintroduced wolves. All other things being equal, if a species that is being actively managed by
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 12
USFWS fails to thrive under that management then a “No Management Alternative” should be
evaluated as a viable option.
Recommendation: USFS should reevaluate the assumption that a Mexican wolf population
could, in fact, be reestablished without continued (unending) support, and should consider a “No
Management Alternative” as a realistic option based on best available science and common
sense.
Points to consider should include evaluation of the efficacy of: 1) continued aggressive federal
monitoring and protection, 2) continued release of additional captive raised wolves to replace
animals that are removed or have died for various reasons, 3) continued capture, relocation and
removal of problem wolves, 4) continued feeding of existing free-roaming wolves during hard
times, 5) continued depredation of livestock that also has served as a supplemental feeding
program, 6) continued decline of the native deer herds which have been struggling to maintain
viable populations for a long time, and 7) continued negative interactions with outdoor
recreationist, which will only increase in the future. (see also Determination of Suitable Natural
Habitat elsewhere in this document).
Issue: USFWS has failed to disclose any analysis of full impacts of habituation
Discussion: All wild animals can become habituated to humans. Habituation is a reduction of
an animal's innate response to any repeated stimulus that carries no discernible negative
biological consequence.
Habituation can be used for studying wild animals in their natural habitat, and has been used
extensively in the study of primates. However, when the animal in question has the potential to
present a danger to humans, the positive habituation that leads to wildlife seeking out the
presence of humans in order to benefit from food, shelter and security heightens the risk to both
animals and humans.
A high percentage of Mexican wolves have been in or currently live in captivity. Wild animals
do not normally thrive in captivity as “wild”; they adjust (become habituated) or they die from
stress. There is a risk of selecting for traits leading to domestication in the human breeding
programs of wild animals; “…temperament traits are heritable, linked to fitness and potentially
subject to intense selection in captivity. Natural, sexual and artificial selection can cause
permanent shifts in temperament, reducing the diversity of temperament traits, diversity that may
be critical to reintroduction success.” 1 The natural predatory aggressiveness of an apex predator
does not lend itself to captivity2. USFWS has failed to disclose any analysis or conclusions
regarding the tendency towards domestication that could occur through captive wolves’
development of habituation based on positive associations with being fed, or the non-negative
1
McDougall, P.T, Réale, D., Sol, D., Reader, S.M., Wildlife conservation and animal temperament: causes and
consequences of evolutionary change for captive, reintroduced, and wild populations. Animal Conservation
Volume 9, Issue 1, pages 39–48, February 2006. Article first published online: 5 DEC 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2005.00004.x/abstract Accessed 12/04/13
2
Clubb, R., & Mason, G., Animal Welfare: Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. 2003. Nature 425, 473474
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 13
associations with scent and sight of humans. USFWS has further failed to disclose or address
what efforts have been made, if any, to prevent inadvertent domestication.
USFWS has failed to directly address the issue of habituated wolves since the beginning of the
Mexican wolf program. The negative impacts of habituation caused by captive-bred and captiveraised wolves and the negative impacts that arise from the repeated capture of wolves from the
wild for veterinary, translocation, collar maintenance and other purposes, have been dismissed as
acceptable collateral damage, even though it is well known that habituation is not only a safety
problem for humans, but it can lead to problems for the animals in the wild themselves.
The problems of habituation have been well studied, and it is known that habituation can lead to
breakdowns in natural predator-prey relationships3, the transmission of diseases, and the
attraction of dangerous predators to human use areas4. Many grizzly bear management problems
arise from habituation; there is no reason to assume this would not be true with wolves.
According to a study of grizzly bear food conditioning and habituation that results in less fear of
humans and a predilection towards humans or human facilities, “… management of bears has
become increasingly phrased in terms of habituation and food conditioning, and some programs
have included a direct assessment of these factors as a basis for managing individual bears (Claar
et al. 1986, Dalle-Molle and Van Horn 1989, Mc- Crory et al. 1989, and McLean and Pelton
19905. Clearly USFWS could and should assess the same factors with respect to management of
Mexican wolves.
Not only should the impacts of habituation of individual wolves be addressed by USFWS, but
the issues of the effect that habituated alpha wolves have when they teach their offspring and
other pack members the habituated behaviors. To date, only the positive short- and long-term
effects of the current management practices have been presented by USFWS; the public should
have the negative short- and long-term and cumulative effects available to analyze and comment
on as well..
Additionally, recent epigenetic studies indicate that transgenerational effects may be inherited
via parental gametes. If, as science is beginning to discover, “environmental information may be
inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, neuroanatomical and epigenetic levels”,6 then it is
imperative that USFWS reexamine the wisdom of the current approach to Mexican wolf
management that develops habituation behavior that may be not just taught, but genetically
transmitted to subsequent generations.
3
Ripple, W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems?
BioScience 54(8):755-766.
4
McCullough, D. R., K. W. Jennings, N. B. Gates, B. G. Elliott, and J. E. DiDonato. 1997. Overabundant deer
populations in California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2):478-483.
5
Mattson, D.J., Blanchard, B.M., Knight, R.R., Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Mortality, Human Habituation, and
Whitebark Pine Seed Crops, 1992. Journal of Wildlife Management . 56(3):432-442
6
Dias, B.G., & Ressler, K., Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent
generations. 2013. Nature Neuroscience, Published online 01 December 2013.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3594.html Abstract accessed 12/04/13
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 14
Recommendation: Withdraw the proposed 10(j) rule for comment until the following
information is available to the public:

Data on the number of captive-bred, captive-bred wolves and/or wolves that have ever
been in temporary captivity, as well as the number of wolves descended from them,
compared to the estimated total population of Mexican wolves;

Data on the number of captive-bred, captive-bred and/or wolves in temporary captivity
that have been involved with depredation and other reported incidents;

Analysis and disclosure of habituation and Mexican wolf behavior including the short
and long term and cumulative effects, both positive and negative, of captive breeding,
captive-raising, and repeated handling of wolves.
Issue: USFWS has failed to address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the human
environment
Discussion: Realistically, the Mexican wolf reintroduction area, both existing and as proposed,
includes a long-standing human population that cannot be overlooked as a legitimate part of the
environment. Humans have arguably occupied the US Southwest as long as wolves have;
certainly modern wolves have co-existed in the environment with humans for long enough7 that
humans are as much a part of the wolves’ natural environment as are any other contemporary
species.
Human residents and local governments within the Mexican wolf reintroduction area have
consistently suffered from the Mexican wolf program’s negative impacts. Captive-raised and
released wolves in particular have proven over and over to become problem wolves with the
resident humans who live and work in the reintroduction area. Unless it is the intent of USFWS
to eventually have the public retreat from conducting all outdoor activities that are in conflict
with the Mexican wolf, which would be unconscionable and in violation of all civil rights of the
citizens who enjoy the use of public lands, any proposed reintroduction plan must address the
human factor in the Mexican wolf environment, not simply as how humans may impact the
wolves, but as how the wolves may impact the humans.
Threats to the health and well-being of the citizens of the BRWRA have been studied and the
results submitted to USFWS; however the agency has failed to provide these documents to the
public. Furthermore, the most basic information about the impacts of wolves on the human
environment in the BRWRA has not been provided. This information includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
7

The land ownership within the existing BRWRA and proposed expanded area (private,
state, federal).

Wolf population by state and county (or other legal jurisdiction, such as tribal lands) over
time (historically as well as by year from the initiation of the Mexican wolf program).
Hibben, Frank C., "Evidences of early occupation in Sandia Cave, New Mexico, and in other sites in the SandiaManzano region," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, No. 99, 1941.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 15

Wolf/human incidents for each county or tribal lands within the BRWRA over time
(historically as well as by year from the initiation of the Mexican wolf program).

Wolf/human incidents on private lands (historically as well as by year from the initiation
of the Mexican wolf program).

Breakdown of wolf/human incidents by wild wolf vs. captive-raised, including wolves
that were at one time wild but had been captured and handled by humans at any time.

Data on domestic animal depredation compensation (including non-reimbursement for
reported depredation).
It would be unrealistic to expect the public to accept having wolves routinely kill livestock and
pets, to habituate human residences, and to continue to decimate the populations of valued game
animals. It is also hard to believe that wolves in the wild would eventually learn to prey only
upon the species that the USFWS desires for them to eat and occupy only the areas where the
USFWS wants them to stay. Any reintroduction plan that fails to address this human element
has failed to demonstrate that the Mexican wolf could actually thrive in the real world rather than
the artificial one that the Mexican wolf program has created.
When considering the conflicts and problems with the current Mexican gray wolf reintroduction
program, it is hard to expect that the expansion of the current program could result in anything
but an increase in the conflicts and problems that have already been experienced. It is time to
reassess the Mexican wolf reintroduction program thoroughly, especially with the possibility of
federal programs being reduced or cut even more due to declining budgets for resource
management agencies. These budget shortfalls will only make it harder for USFWS to support
the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program without also substantially increasing the conflicts
and impacts to local citizens.
Recommendation: Include realistic assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the
local human environment, incorporating information gathered by local governments.
Provide the public with following documents and any other documents available on the subject
of negative economic and psychological impacts on the human environment:

Inherent Potential for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Among Children Living in
the Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Area, by Julia Martin M.D., 2007

Psychological Impacts of Wolf Reintroduction: A Preliminary Study, by James Thal,
PhD., 2006
Issue: USFWS has misused public funding for outreach activities
Discussion: One of the consistent failures of the USFWS and the Mexican wolf program has
been its use of funding for biased public education. Outreach has been performed as if the
program has been without fault and as if the reason for failure of the Mexican wolf program has
been because of the actions of those who have been most negatively impacted by it and oppose
it. Thus outreach has been used to lead the public to false conclusions.
From the beginning of the Mexican wolf recovery effort, the stated approach has been one of
adaptive management, that is, an approach which begins with the premise that not everything is
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 16
known and that the management process will be adjusted through a learning process. However,
the public has not been presented with this image of adaptive management, and this has
significantly contributed to the ongoing problems and ultimate poor performance of the program.
USFWS has further allowed pro-wolf non-governmental organizations to provide “outreach”
even though these entities provide only one point of view. For instance, the December 3, 2013
USFWS public hearing in Pinetop, AZ, participants who brought authoritative and professionally
produced info-graphics, charts and data that were critical of the Mexican wolf program were not
allowed to post or display any items, yet on the USFWS information table that was manned by
various agency employees and IFT members, a stack of pro-wolf materials were displayed.
The public meeting locations themselves provide evidence of the attempt to bias the comment
responses. None of the five meetings were held in the BRWRA itself, which is of course the
only area with directly impacted stakeholders. Furthermore, four of the five meeting locations
(Washington, DC, Denver, CO, Albuquerque, NM, Sacramento, CA ) were held in locations that
would attract individuals who are least directly impacted and who were highly recruited by prowolf non-governmental organizations. For example, the Pinetop, AZ meeting was sponsored by
the following organizations, all of which are not only openly pro-wolf, but many of which are
equally openly anti-rancher and which support the idea of banning all livestock activities in the
BRWRA:
Defenders of Wildlife
Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project
Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter
Sierra Club-Rio Grande Chapter
WildEarth Guardians
Center for Biological Diversity
New Mexico Chapter of ConservAmerica
The Wildlands Network
Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
Animal Protection of New Mexico
Southwest Environmental Center
Conservation Voters New Mexico
Western Watersheds Project
NM Wilderness Alliance
Western Wildlife Conservancy
The Rewilding Institute
Wolf Conservation Center
White Mountain Conservation League
Great Old Broads For Wilderness
NM Audubon Council
Animal Defense League of Arizona
Efforts on the part of USFWS to bias public perception have been so successful that many people
assume that the pro-wolf stance of the above mentioned non-governmental organizations
represents the USFWS position.
This is not adaptive management based on best science and socio-economic data. This is, rather
such a bias on the part of USFWS as to be a flagrant misuse of public funding for outreach and
an obvious attempt to avoid inclusion of any opinions or facts that would counter the current
Mexican wolf management approach favored by USFWS. It appears to be an effort to stuff the
ballot box of comments in favor of USFWS and pro-wolf environmental group agendas. This is
totally in violation of the intent of ESA
Furthermore, USFWS has consistently failed to provide full disclosure of the cost of the Mexican
wolf program to the public, and has failed to disclose whether funding for any actions has been
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 17
received from pro-wolf non-governmental agencies. This failure to reveal the actual costs for the
Mexican wolf program is deceptive.
Recommendation: Withdraw all proposed rules for the Mexican wolf until the public can be
educated properly, in an unbiased manner, with full disclosure of all scientific, budgetary and
socio-economic data, not just that which will lead the public to support the actions USFWS
desires.
Issue: USFWS has failed to address all potential adverse impacts
Determination of Suitable Natural Habitat
Reference: Page 35721, column 1, paragraph 3 “Under section 10(j) of the Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a
population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable
natural habitat outside the species’ current natural range (but within its probable historical
range, absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary
habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed).”
Discussion: The portion of this statement at issue is “absent a finding by the Director of the
Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitably and
irreversibly altered or destroyed”. It is not clear if the Director of the Service has made such a
determination or, when a determination has been made, how the dramatic change in the number
of humans now occupying what was once suitable natural wolf habitat will be addressed. With
the rapidly growing number of people relocating to the Southwest, sufficient areas cannot be
placed under very restrictive “Wilderness Management” conditions to accommodate the Mexican
gray wolf.
It is obvious when reading any of the creditable information pertaining to Mexican wolves that
what is otherwise considered suitable Mexican gray wolf habitat becomes unsuitable when the
presence of humans increases. The following quotes from the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Managing Today For Wildlife Tomorrow, Mexican Wolf Natural History
publication makes it clear that degradation of Mexican gray wolf habitat occurs when humans
inhabit what was once suitable natural habitat:
a) “Habitat characteristics, other than vegetation types, that are important for wolves
include road and human density, as well as current land uses and size of relatively intact
habitat. Studies in Wisconsin indicate that road density can be used as an index to
evaluate the quality of wolf habitat. However, wolf-human interactions are more
complex than just estimating road density, as different types of activities at different
seasons have variable impacts on wolves. It appears that mere disturbance by humans
may not negatively impact wolves, but direct killing or accidental vehicle collisions can
have a significant impact. As sizes of intact, remote habitat become smaller, more wolfhuman interactions will result, usually to the demise of the wolf.”
b) “Over the course of the current reintroduction project, some Mexican wolves that had
become acclimated to people and frequented campsites could not be discouraged from
the area, even after intensive hazing. These wolves had to be recaptured and returned to
captivity. Other wolves that moved to areas near humans experienced extremely high
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 18
mortality rates and died before they could be recaptured.”
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/wolf/naturalhistory.shtml
Recommendations: USFWS should analyze and disclose to the public whether there is actually
sufficient suitable natural habitat to support a viable population of Mexican gray wolves in the
Southwest as the conditions exist today, rather than how they may have been 100 years ago or in
an ideal world. USFWS should also address what sort of adaption on the wolf’s part would be
required for the population to become capable of successfully coexisting with humans and how
such adaption would occur, since USFWS cannot simply remove humans from or change their
lifestyle in the Southwest in order to accommodate the Mexican gray wolf, and since habituation
is clearly not the answer.
Factual Omissions
Discussion: While USFWS has addressed some of the key information the agency has learned
concerning the released nonessential experimental Mexican gray wolves since 1998, other
information that may not fit well with USFWS’s current agenda has been omitted.
Genetic purity: The problem of genetics of the Mexican gray wolf is an issue that has been
omitted from the proposed 10(j) rule revision. Serious questions have been raised as to the
possibility that the animals presented to the public as wolves are in fact all descendents of
wolf-dog hybrids. In a 1997 letter to D.R. Parsons regarding the Ghost Ranch wolves, Roy
McBride concludes that the Ghost Ranch lineage animals were wolf-dog hybrids. In a 1986
USFWS paper, J.B. Woody points out that at the time there was no taxonomic means for
classifying individual animals to subspecies. Furthermore, already by 1986 skull analysis of
captive raised animals revealed dog characteristics. The issue of whether the animals that are
the subject of the 10(j) rule are actually Mexican wolves or even a valid subspecies of gray
wolves is not and has never been addressed by USFWS publicly, and USFWS has omitted the
facts of Mexican wolf genetics in the proposed revision as well.
Mexican wolf management history: Information released to the public regarding the
management of the Mexican wolf has been heavily redacted since the inception of the
program. The public should be provided with all documents and information from the
beginning of the program, including regarding the Mexican Wolf Captive Management
Committee and the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, so as to
provide a basis for public analysis and comment on the proposed 10(j) rule revision. This
information should include anything associated with a Species Survival Plan or any
management of Mexican wolves, including but not limited to decisions on breeding of
individual animals, transfer of animals, evaluation of captive breeding facilities.
Routine periodic reports on Mexican wolf actions, such as made by the Interagency Field
Team (IFT), are now well-hidden online and difficult to access. These should also be made
available in one location readily accessible by the public prior to the close of any comment
period.
Livestock depredation: While the issue of livestock depredation is addressed in the proposed
10(j) rule changes, the magnitude of this problem has not been disclosed. It is unclear
whether USFS has collected or considered the plethora of data available regarding livestock
depredation, since neither the proposed revised 10(j) rule nor the initial release of the Draft
EIS for the proposed revised 10(j) rule indicates that USFWS has collected or analyzed this
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 19
data. In fact nowhere in the draft index to the EIS is there a reference to any issues, concerns,
or problems with the current nonessential experimental release program.
Livestock depredation records of local livestock producers and the USDA Wildlife Services
are available from local county governments, local Resource Conservation Districts and local
livestock producer organizations. These records reflect the actual claimed and confirmed, and
claimed and unconfirmed occurrences of Mexican gray wolf predation within the recovery
area. This data is critical in order o assess the actual impacts to livestock producers.
Other data on impacts to the local citizen resulting from the current Mexican gray wolf release
program that could be very useful in revising the current 10(j) rule would include the number
of times monitoring efforts found a Mexican gray wolf feeding on livestock, elk, deer and
other carcasses.
Wolf/human interaction: All data related to Mexican gray wolf and human interactions, as well
as pet and livestock interactions should be included in proposed rules. This is not trivial
information; in neighboring Catron County NM alone there have been hundreds of
investigated interactions recorded, some of which are recurring incidents. The public should
know, for instance, that wolves reported nearly 30 times at one residence, that children have
in fact been followed from school bus stops by wolves, that wolves have fought with family
dogs on kitchen doorsteps.
The actual and current incidences of human/livestock/pet interactions with Mexican gray
wolves is information the public should have available at the earliest possible time, and in any
case no later than the publishing of a proposed rule in the Federal Register, in order to
adequately analyze and comment on the proposed rules. This also is the kind of information
if shared could lead to a higher level trust between the USFWS and the public.
It may be that the data does not support the fabricated image of the Mexican gray wolf that is
being presented to the public, which is that the local population, specifically ranchers, is the
cause for the failure for the program. Letting the public know the truth about Mexican gray wolf
behavior will foster and build trust with the local rural citizens that routinely witnesses Mexican
gray wolf activities. Building trust by presenting the truth can lead to a higher level of tolerance
for the Mexican gray wolf being reintroduced back into suitable habitat in the Southwest, if such
habitat exists.
Basing the future of the Mexican gray wolf recovery program on creditable, on-the-ground,
experience gained from the current management of the nonessential experimental population of
Mexican gray wolf’s could move the recovery of the Mexican gray wolf forward. The current
dodging and ducking and hoping for a successful system of management as is being proposed in
the revised 10(j) rule will only serve to hinder recovery of the Mexican wolf in the US
Southwest. When the public gets the feeling the USFWS is purposely avoiding the release of
critical of information, the natural response is distrust and heightened fear of wolves. This
distrust and fear may be the biggest factor the USFWS faces in their Mexican gray wolf
Recovery Program.
Recommendation: USFWS should revise its documents to include all data, including but not
limited to the following:

Complete genetic analysis from the initial capture of the ancestors of today’s Mexican
wolves, including:
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 20
o The genetic makeup of the original animals from which the current population of
Mexican wolves is descended;
o The numbers of animals analyzed and their identities;
o The results of analysis;
o The cause of dog characteristics in wolf skulls; and
o Records of any animals in the wild that DNA testing showed were hybrids and
proof they were subsequently eliminated from the population.

Provide the public with all documents associated with the Mexican Wolf Captive
Management Committee, the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums,
and any information associated with Species Survival Plans and/or management of the
Mexican gray wolf, including but not limited to:
o Decisions on breeding of individual animals, transfer of animals, evaluation of
captive breeding facilities; and
o Periodic management reports (e.g. of the Interagency Field Team).



Livestock depredation (claimed/confirmed and claimed/unconfirmed)
Wildlife depredation
Pet/Mexican gray wolf interactions and the number of pet mortalities due to Mexican
gray wolf attacks
Human/Mexican gray wolf interactions where the people felt threatened enough to report
the occurrence
Wolf presence in rural communities and other places of regular human habitation
Denning sites that located near nests, dens or areas where the young are reared of other
listed species, as well as the potential impacts of Mexican wolves on the activities of
those listed species.



Taking of Private Property
Reference: Page 35734 column 2 last paragraph, and column 3 paragraph 1, We are proposing
to revise the conditions that determine when we would issue a permit to allow take of Mexican
wolves that are engaged in the act of killing, wounding or biting livestock. The 1998 Final Rule
included a definition of breeding pair as one of the conditions for take of Mexican wolves by
livestock owners or agents on public land grazing allotments (i.e., that there must be six
breeding pairs present in order for a permit to take wolves to be issued by the Service). We
consider overall population size to be a better metric for evaluating the appropriateness of
providing such permits because it provides a more consistent measure of the population’s status.
Therefore, we are proposing to modify the provision ‘‘6 breeding pairs’’ to a requirement that at
least 100 Mexican wolves must be present in the MWEPA before such a permit can be issued.
With this proposed modification, the definition of a breeding pair would be made unnecessary.”
And
Page 35737 column 1 paragraph 2 ..."this rule does not have significant takings implications.”
And
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 21
Page 35737 column 1 paragraph 3, “ A takings implication assessment is not required because
this rule will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property
and will not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic
resources.”
Discussion: The proposal to “issue a permit to allow take of Mexican wolves that are engaged in
the act of killing, wounding or biting livestock” is an appropriate measure to allow the owners of
livestock to protect their private property that result from the federal action of releasing
nonessential experimental captive bred wolves into the wild. However, an arbitrary requirement
that 100 wolves must be present in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA)
before such a permit can be issued creates an unacceptable situation where the owner of
livestock cannot defend or take sufficient action to protect their private property from being
destroyed by a federal activity.
There are clearly takings implications when the owner of livestock that has been mutilated or
killed by wolves is denied the opportunity to protect his property from harm; the 100 wolf
dividing line creates such a situation. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall
not be taken without just compensation. It should make no difference where the wolf
depredation takes place or how many animals are mutilated or killed in the attacked. Livestock
permitted on federal land are just as much private property as livestock on private land. The
ESA and other federal laws do not grant the USFWS the authority to destroy private property
without providing compensation no matter what activity they are conducting.
To simply declare that a takings implication assessment (TIA) is not necessary is not to actually
make it so, and “legitimate government interest” is not justification for omitting a required
TIA. There is no evidence provided by the USFWS to support the assumptions made in the
above quoted statements about what would “effectively compel a property owner to suffer a
physical invasion of property” and what level of federal actions would actually “deny all
economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources”.
Recommendation: USFWS should provide actual evidence to support its statement that “A
takings implication assessment is not required”.
Considering State Owned/Managed Land the Same as Federal Lands
Reference: Page 35735 column 1 paragraph 2, “We are proposing to consider State-owned
lands within the boundaries of the MWEPA in the same manner as we consider lands owned and
managed by other public land management agencies. The 1998 Final Rule designated Stateowned lands within the boundary of designated wolf recovery area as public land. All Stateowned lands within the boundary of the MWEPA, but outside of designated wolf recovery areas
were subject to the provisions of private lands in the 1998 Final Rule. We are proposing this
change to allow consistent management of Mexican wolves throughout the MWEPA, recognizing
that State and other public lands within the MWEPA are under control of the agency that owns
those lands, that this regulation gives the Service no additional authority over those lands, and
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 22
thus the Service’s role is to work cooperatively with those land management agencies to address
conservation needs of the Mexican wolf.”
Discussion: This sweeping grab of control of state owned and managed lands by an agency of
the federal government is not provided for in any laws or regulations. The ESA gives the
USFWS the authority to protect from “take” threatened and endangered species on all lands of
the US. The ESA also gives the USFWS the authority to ensure that threatened and endangered
species are afforded the appropriate consideration in the management of federal lands and when
federal funds are used to complete projects on private lands. Nowhere does the ESA include
state owned lands in its requirements for the management of federal lands, and USFWS should
not attempt to do so through its own regulations.
In Arizona and New Mexico much of the state owned land is held in a trust for the citizens of the
state to generate revenues that are used for the benefit of the citizens (i.e. education funding).
The resources generated from these lands are derived by either direct sale of the resources or
through the lease of these lands to private entities. Any interference with this long established
process by the USFWS would be a violation of state law.
Although USFWS declares “this regulation gives the Service no additional authority over those
lands” the fact that the state land is being lumped with federal land in the regulation does imply
there would be some measure of federal management applied to the state land. While it would
be convenient for USFWS to have state land management consistent with the management
implemented on federal lands, what is not disclosed is the fact the current management
objectives of State Trust lands are not consistent with the proposed nonessential experimental
Mexican gray wolf 10(j) rule procedures.
USFWS could “work cooperatively with those land management agencies to address
conservation needs of the Mexican wolf” without codifying in regulation the mandate that State
Trust lands will be managed using the same measures implemented on federal lands.
Recommendation: USFWS should remove wording regarding regulation of management of state
trust lands.
Additional Indirect Adverse Impacts Not Clearly Addressed
Domestic Dogs and Mexican gray wolf interbreeding
Discussion: There is little reference in the proposed change of the 10(j) rule to the topic of
interbreeding of domestic dogs with Mexican wolves. In the preliminary draft EIS there is
substantial information presented concerning the genetics of the nonessential Mexican gray wolf
population. A case is made in the preliminary draft EIS that there is a need to have more captive
breed Mexican gray wolves released into the wild so that the occurrence of low genetic
variability within the wild population could be reversed. While having more breeding pairs of
Mexican gray wolves in the wild might help broaden the genetic makeup of the population,
nothing is mentioned in the EIS or the proposed 10(j) rule revision pertaining to the corruption of
the genetic makeup of the nonessential Mexican gray wolf population due to hybridization with
domestic dogs.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 23
It has been reported that on at least one occasion a litter of what were at first thought to be pure
Mexican gray wolf had to be destroyed because it was obvious the pups were a cross between a
Mexican gray wolf female and a male domestic dog. Unchecked domestic dog/wolf cross
breeding could corrupt the Mexican wolf genetics in as quickly as two or three years as the
hybrid animal’s genetics are inserted into the wild nonessential population.
As the recovery area for the nonessential population expands and the number of breeding pairs of
nonessential Mexican gray wolf’s increases the chances of cross breeding with domestic dogs
will only increase. There are previous USFWS employees who contend that cross breeding with
domestic dogs has already occurred in the foundation-breeding animals. Information concerning
the cross breeding between Mexican gray wolf’s and domestic dogs is vital to helping the public
understand the purity and genetic integrity issues concerning Mexican gray wolf’s.
Recommendation: USFWS should address the issue of dog/wolf crossbreeding in the proposed
revision to the nonessential Mexican gray wolf operations.
Release and Management of Wolf Hybrids
Discussion: Wolf hybrids (wolf/dog crosses) are not uncommon pets8, although they do make
problematic pets. As a result, wolf hybrids are turned loose or brought to private kennels that
specialize in the care of such animals9.
The abandonment of wolf hybrids into the MWEPA will continue as people are needlessly led to
believe wolves are loving domesticated animals that can be turned into household pets. There
have been, and will continue to be, multiple wolf hybrid sanctuaries established to deal with
these unmanageable animals, but most of these facilities soon fail due to the lack of funding.
These facilities have been (and are) located across both Arizona and New Mexico and the hybrid
wolf/dogs quite often are purposely or accidently turned loose. Most often these escaped wolf
hybrids are never recaptured and left running loose with the hopes they can survive.
It can be easily verified by checking with local governments, residents of and near the BRWRA,
and livestock producer organizations that there have been occasions where ranchers have shot
hybrid wolf/dogs running loose on their ranches. There have also been occasions where these
animals have either killed or harmed livestock, but this predation has not been reported as
wildlife damage because stray dogs are not protected by law like Mexican wolves are, even
though they are a consequence of the presence of Mexican wolves.
While the wolf/dog hybrid predation is addressed under local county laws and regulations and to
date has been a relatively safe practice (except for the areas where it was known nonessential
Mexican gray wolves were located), this will no longer be the case as nonessential Mexican gray
wolf’s are allowed to leave the BRWRA.
The USFWS makes no mention of this hybrid wolf/dog problem in the proposed 10(j) rule
changes even though the revision of the nonessential Mexican gray wolf operations will greatly
compound the wolf/dog depredation problem that the USFWS has had little to do with in the
past. Also the USFWS does not offer any information concerning the release or occurrence of
8
https://www.google.com/search?q=WOLF%20hybrids%20for%20sale&ie=utf-8&oe=utf8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp accessed 10/18/13
9
For example, http://www.campsilvercity.com/wolfsong.shtml
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 24
hybrid wolf/dogs within the MWEPA since 1998 even though such information could be useful
for the public when they are considering the adverse impacts of the proposed revision.
These hybrid wolf/dogs if undetected for several years would also contaminate the genetics of
the nonessential Mexican gray wolf population as well as cause livestock depredation problems
that will be blamed on the nonessential Mexican gray wolf population. The inclusion of
wolf/dog hybrids into occupied Mexican gray wolf habitat could also cause problems with
established Mexican gray wolf pack territories and even the makeup of Mexican gray wolf
packs.
Recommendation: USFWS should address the hybrid wolf/dog problem in the proposed 10(j)
rule.
Analysis of Mexican gray wolf Prey Base
Discussion: There is limited reference in the proposed change of the 10(j) rule pertaining to the
Mexican gray wolf prey base. The availability of sufficient prey to support an expanded
population of Mexican gray wolves is critical to the success of reintroduction of Mexican gray
wolf.
In USFWS primary release site discussions, the point is made that the Mexican gray wolf prey
base found on the White Sands Missile Range has declined and this area would no longer support
a viable population of Mexican gray wolves. There is no information as to why this declining
prey situation would only occur on the White Sands Missile Range but not elsewhere in New
Mexico and Arizona.
While it is stated on page 35726 column 2 paragraph 2, “white-tailed deer and mule deer were
believed to be the primary sources of prey” and it is stated on page 35726 column 2 paragraph 3
that “Mexican wolves in the BRWRA show a strong preference for elk compared to other
ungulates”, it is common knowledge that like most predators, Mexican gray wolves prey upon
and scavenge the carcasses of any animal species located in the area they inhabit. The Mexican
gray wolf’s diet does and will continue to consist of whatever food source that is readily
available to them including livestock and pets. Consumption of any available food that will
reasonably provide nutrition is a natural and very basic survival instinct of any animal in the
wild, since no preferred food source can ever be guaranteed.
USFWS should analyze not only the Mexican gray wolf prey base, but the cumulative effect of
all large predators and scavengers within the MWEPA on the prey base, since any increase of
Mexican wolves represents an increase in all predation. Information about the ability of
populations of wild ungulates to withstand additional predation, and the levels of wild ungulate
populations necessary before privately owned livestock and pets fill the gap, are key to
determining the level of Mexican gray wolf depredation that will be tolerated. As has been the
case for as long as anthropogenic information has been recorded, livestock and pets are not
acceptable prey for large predators and scavengers. This basic component of human nature
cannot be easily changed.
There is a large data base of information concerning the current and projected future populations
of Mexican gray wolf prey species within the expanded MWEPA that has not been considered
by the USFWS when determining the feasibility of expanding the MWEPA. The only mention of
Mexican gray wolf prey in the expanded MWEPA is to list a few species that would possibly
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 25
make up potential Mexican gray wolf prey. Having a sufficient Mexican gray wolf prey base
that is in a healthy enough condition to be able to sustain itself with the additional pressures of a
Mexican gray wolf population would logically be a critical element in the decision to expand the
MWEPA, but for some reason there is not much discussion or analysis of this critical habitat
component.
Recommendation: USFWS should present an adequate analysis of the current and potential
future Mexican gray wolf prey base and the potential for this critical Mexican gray wolf habitat
need to be sustainable in the MWEPA. This information would help the decision-maker and the
public understand of the impacts of the proposed actions. This information should consist of:




Data pertaining to the current diet of the nonessential Mexican gray wolf population that
has been in place since 1998.
The health and nutrient intake level of the nonessential Mexican gray wolf population
that has been in place since 1998, especially where it relates to getting sufficient nutrients
to meet these animal’s needs.
Estimates from the Game and Fish Departments in both Arizona and New Mexico
regarding the current populations and population trends of large ungulate prey species in
the MWEPA and proposed expansion areas.
Estimates from the Game and Fish Departments in both Arizona and New Mexico
regarding hunter success and hunter satisfaction since 1998 in the BRWRA pertaining to
the large ungulate species that are Mexican gray wolf prey species.
Impact on existing predator population
Discussion: The BRWRA had no population of wolves in it for approximately fifty years. The
natural environment does not harbor vacuums in predator niches for long. The fact that the
existing large ungulate population has been relatively stable would indicate that large predators
moved into the area to fill the niche left when wolves were eradicated in the area.
USFWS has provided no evidence of studies which address the impact of Mexican wolves on
other large predators such as bear and mountain lion, or on other predators such as coyotes and
bobcats within the BRWRA, nor has USFWS provided analysis of the potential impacts on these
other predator populations if the Mexican wolf area was to be expanded.
Sustainability of Mexican wolf prey base including human needs
Discussion: The Proposed Changes to the 10(j) Rule should provide sufficient information for
the public to understand the potential effects to not only the Mexican gray wolf, but to also the
potentially occupied habitats and ecosystems that will be affected by the proposed revision of the
nonessential Mexican gray wolf program. This information should not only address the Mexican
gray wolf prey needs, but also the impacts to these prey species due to the Mexican gray wolf
being reintroduced into newly created recovery areas. The impacts to outdoor recreation
opportunities as it relates to changes in Mexican gray wolf prey populations due to the
reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf into once unoccupied areas is also of great concern. To
say that wolves occupied an area 50 years ago or 500 years ago should not infer that the impacts
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 26
of re-establishing Mexican gray wolves into these areas are not a new impact that needs to be
addressed in the NEPA analysis.
There is a high level of distrust and very little tolerance for the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction
program expressed by the hunting community and other large game species enthusiasts. Large
ungulate wildlife species have been treasured in the western states for many years. To now
dismiss them as merely being Mexican gray wolf fodder would be a slap in the face for many
citizens of Arizona and New Mexico, and would represent complete disregard for the socioeconomic impacts on local communities.
There is a growing concern that a decrease in funding for game management could take place in
both Arizona and New Mexico. Declines in budgets have already resulted in the health and
populations of game species no longer being closely monitored and successfully managed. The
expansion of the MWEPA and the reintroduction of Mexican gray wolf there would only
compound state game and fish department’s stained capacity to manage populations of game
animals.
Wolf Prey in Urban Areas
A very alarming issue concerning Mexican gray wolf prey species, which has become (and will
continue to be) ever more prevalent, is the attractiveness and ready availability of deer and
javelin (peccary) populations within urban and smaller communities across Arizona and New
Mexico. This is especially a problem in smaller rural communities that are surrounded by
undeveloped federal land. As environmentally concerned but misguided people move into these
small rural communities to be closer to nature they have created many problems for themselves
and the wildlife by providing food for many species of wildlife. Additionally, habituated
wolves, with less fear of humans, have been shown to seek the easier prey of small livestock
(such as fowl, sheep, goats) and pets that are readily accessible in human populated areas.
As the Mexican gray wolf population expands and occupies more of the MWEPA, the
occurrence of wolves coming into these smaller communities to hunt and kill their prey will
increase. This behavior will not be tolerated by the public and could possibly lead to people
being harmed by Mexican gray wolves. As with even the most docile domestic dog, when
someone or some other animal attempts to take away a wolf’s food, the animal can get very
aggressive. Again the USFWS has not considered or addressed this issue in the Proposed
Change of the 10(j) Rule.
Recommendation: WSFWS should revise the proposed 10(j) rule change to address the issue of
Mexican wolf prey in urban and other human population areas.
CONCLUSION:
There are many more issues concerning the Proposed Change of the 10(j) Rule that could be
addressed. Apache County has limited comments to areas where either information was lacking
or where the information presented was inaccurate or not presented clearly. Apache County
comments also reflect the concerns and thoughts of its citizens. While much more could have
been written, it is felt the comments presented have brought forward the key areas where
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Revision to Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule Page | 27
problems exist. Apache County believes that the proposed revision to the 10(j) rule is so flawed
as to require withdrawal and significant revision before being re-released for public comment.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. This
mission will work much better when USFWS considers the real impacts of these actions on the
people who live, work and have daily contact with the species of concern. USFWS should make
every effort to implement their mission of conserving species with the support of local citizens
through open, honest communications and when a sense of fairness is part of the equation.
Thank you for your attention to our comments.
Sincerely,