Download Catron County Comments regarding Objections to Maintaining

December 12, 2013
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM
Arlington, VA 22203
Subject: Comments concerning Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf
(Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered
Catron County Board of Commissioners in New Mexico appreciates the opportunity to submit
comments regarding the proposal to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife and maintain protections for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi) by listing it as endangered, as published in the Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 /
Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules pp P35664 -35719.
Catron County, NM, along with Apache County, AZ are uniquely affected by the Proposed
Action to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf (Canis
lupus), 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 Catron
and Greenlee Counties in Arizona and Catron County in New Mexico. Furthermore, Catron
County has been already subject to considerable impacts from the Mexican gray wolf recovery
effort since 1998. Thus Catron County, along with its sister counties at the heart of the proposed
revised geographic boundaries, would continue to be subject to greater impacts of the proposed
action than elsewhere.
The local citizens of Catron and the other named counties who have been forced to bear the
burden of the impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction since its inception fifteen years ago, 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 and should 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
1
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other federal agencies it is imperative that local governments
not only address but take action to protect the wellbeing and interests of the local citizen.
It should be noted that Catron County supports the removal of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from
the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” and applauds the decision to not list the newly
designated subspecies Canis lupus nubilus and Canis lupus occidentalis as either threatened or
endangered species. In not listing these subspecies of wolves as either threatened or endangered,
the FWS has placed the management of the animals that make up these subspecies back into the
hands of the individual states where it belongs. When management of these wolves is regulated
by local governments rather than from Washington DC, local citizens have much more
meaningful input into the management of the environment they live and work in each day.
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. Numerous other federal laws contain
language that requires the USFWS to involve and work in a cooperative manner with local
governments. While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 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 Federal agencies to honestly and
openly disclose both the adverse and beneficial effects of their actions on the human
environment. Even though it has been determined by the courts that the process of listing
species as defined in the ESA is exempted from conducting NEPA analysis, USFWS should take
into consideration their moral obligation, as well as the numerous other federal and state laws
that contain language that requires involvement and working in a cooperative manner with local
governments when implementing actions that will adversely impact local citizens. It is felt that a
federal/local government working relationship, which is based upon mutual respect, would add a
level of protection for the health, safety and welfare of the public that is lacking in the current
actions of USFWS.
All references cited below are for the proposed rule unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
Issue 1: USFWS has failed to comply with Executive Order 12866 requiring understandable
documents ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Issue 2: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the Mexican wolf is endangered. ........ 4
Issue 3: The USFWS has failed to justify the listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies in this action .................................................................................................................. 5
Issue 4: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors into adaptive management ......................... 6
Issue 5: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors leading to opposition to Mexican wolf
recovery efforts ............................................................................................................................... 7
Issue 6: The USFWS has failed to analyze the significance of lack of success of recovery efforts
......................................................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION: .............................................................................................................................. 9
2
Also, the Mexican Gray wolf does not quality as an Endangered Species
Issue 1: 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, 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: Too many major actions are proposed in this rule. There so many actions proposed
that it becomes extremely difficult for the public to follow the logic in order to fully understand
the issues. Furthermore, certain actions should be addressed with their own rule and certain
actions appear to be unnecessary to propose at all.
Page 35664 column 1paragraph 1-2 of the proposed rule describes the following proposed
actions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf
List the Mexican wolf as a subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi) of the gray wolf
Change the gray wolf subspecies, Canis lupus lycaon, which occurs in southeastern
Canada and historically occurred in the northeastern United States and portions of the
upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) United States, to a separate
species, Canis lycaon.
5. Complete a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest
6. Remove protections for C. lupus in all or portions of 29 eastern states
While some of the above proposed actions might logically be bundled together, it would be more
effective, consistent, sensible and understandable to separate out actions that are essentially
independent actions, or are actions dependent on other actions proposed in this rule, or are highly
controversial, or so flawed as to merit their own rules.
While Catron County supports the first action as described, USFWS is well aware that the
Mexican wolf issue is extremely problematic for not only local government and its citizens, but
for the Mexican wolf recovery effort itself, and thus should be addressed in a separate rule.
Furthermore, given that the Mexican wolf is already listed on the USFWS website and elsewhere
as a subspecies of gray wolf1, Canis lupus baileyi, the confusion becomes even greater.
1
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ accessed 10/22/13
3
Inclusion of Canis lycaon, a completely different species, adds to the confusion, as does
including the completion of a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest.
Additionally, information about each of the species and subspecies is not isolated for each
proposed action but rather presented mixed with the other species and subspecies, which results
in even more difficulty for understanding the merits of each proposed action.
It is possible the intent of bundling so many proposed actions into one is meant to achieve some
level of efficiency; however the proposed rule in its current form is a confusing document that
defies public scrutiny and thus could be construed as a means for USFWS to disguise
controversial and flawed actions.
Recommendation: USFWS should revise the rule and reduce confusion by not bundling so many
actions into one proposed rule.
Issue 2: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the Mexican wolf is endangered.
Reference: Page 35675 column 1 bottom, “A single wild gray wolf population (C. l. baileyi), of
at least 75 wolves (as of December 31, 2012), inhabits the southwestern United States today…”
And
Page 35694 column 2-3, "Population estimates of gray wolves, and specifically C. l. baileyi,
prior to the late 1800s are not available for the southwestern United States or Mexico. Some
trapping records and rough population estimates are available from the early 1900s, but do not
provide a rigorous estimate of population size of C. l. baileyi in the United States or Mexico. For
New Mexico, a statewide carrying capacity (potential habitat) of about 1,500 gray wolves was
hypothesized by Bednarz, with an estimate of 480 to 1030 wolves present in 1915..."
Discussion: No total current Mexican wolf population count is provided anywhere in the
proposed rule, and therefore it cannot be determined if, in fact, this population is at actual risk of
extinction. No total historical population estimate is provided that can be used to compare to
current population count to determine “recovery”, much less whether Mexican wolves are
currently actually endangered.
The use of “at least” in discussing the wolf population in the Southwestern US implies larger
numbers although USFWS does not disclose the reason for the use of “at least”, and does not
venture a high count for the potential population. In fact, wolf counts are based on known
collared wolves and an estimate of an unknown population of uncollared wolves (wolves born in
the wild, or that have lost collars or whose collar batteries have died). Additionally, no
disclosure of the Mexican wolf population in Mexico is provided, either historically or current.
Is the Mexican wolf actually endangered? There is no way for the public to know, and it is
possible that USFWS does not know either.
Recommendation: USFWS should provide justification for continuing to list the Mexican wolf as
threatened or endangered; should provide evidence that this subspecies of Canis lupus is, in fact,
at risk of extinction. USFWS should provide data that documents the number of wolves
(collared as well as uncollared) in the Southwest as well as in Mexico; and further provide
evidence that simple hunting restrictions would not provide equally adequate protection for the
current population.
4
Issue 3: The USFWS has failed to justify the listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies in this action
Reference: Page 35667 columns 1-2 of the proposed rule, “On August 12, 2009, we received a
petition dated August 10, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute
requesting that we list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and designate critical
habitat under the Act. On October 9, 2012, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal
Register stating that, because all individuals that constitute the petitioned entity already receive
the protections of the Act, the petitioned action was not warranted at that time.”
Discussion: With the decision to delist the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes
populations of wolves, the USFWS is left protecting what was once called the “Mexican gray
wolf” (now “Mexican wolf”) under the generalized category of “Gray Wolf”, as demonstrated in
the above comment. If the current designation remains unchanged, there is no need for the
proposed action.
When looking deeper into the current proposed rules that have been released by the USFWS
pertaining to the Mexican gray wolf, it appears that this proposed rule is nothing more than an
administrative housekeeping exercise that will (as a stand-alone action) result in little if any
change in the management of the population of Mexican wolves, since all existing Mexican
wolves are considered to be within the nonessential experimental population. Even if the new
proposed listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies is enacted this new status for
Mexican wolves would be meaningless and a waste of taxpayer money.
If this proposed action is not a pointless housekeeping exercise, then it would be easy to
conclude that the intent the action would be to enable USFWS to use the 10j rule to support
continued use of the captive breeding program to genetically engineer a new subspecies of wolf
and to release these animals throughout the Southwest (see page 35695 column 3 paragraph 2:
Captive C. l. baileyi are routinely transferred among the zoos and other SSP holding facilities to
facilitate genetic exchange (through breeding) and maintain the health and genetic diversity of
the captive population.). The issue that would need to be addressed, then, would be justification
for the need to engage in genetic engineering, including whether such action would be authorized
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
It is scientifically obvious and a matter of common sense that, with a founding population of just
seven (7) individuals of at most three separate genetic lineages, USFWS would have to closely
manage and manipulate the genetic makeup of the Mexican wolf in order to keep the subspecies
from suffering from homozygosis or inbreeding depression (see page 35695 column 2 paragraph
3: The individual wolves used to establish the captive-breeding program are considered the
‘‘founders’’ of the breeding population. Seven founder wolves represent three founding
lineages…). In fact, with such a limited available gene pool, it is unlikely that genetic vigor
could be achieved without introduction of new genetic lineages of Mexican wolf, which may not
exist.
In the past it has been common for USFWS to introduce specific individual wolves into the wild
population of Mexican wolves for purposes of “improving genetic diversity” without providing
5
the public with information as to the genetic characteristics at issue or what difference they
might make. Given the limited genetics of all Mexican wolves (whether in captivity or the wild,
since all captive and wild Mexican wolves in the US are from the same seven founder wolves
and three founding lineages) the sources of any new genetic characteristics is problematic.
Where has the source of the new genetic characteristics come from, if not the same seven
founder wolves? If from other wolves, what assurance is there that they are actually Mexican
wolves? If genetic diversity is not being created through breeding of wolves, is this diversity
being genetically engineered in the laboratory?
The intent of the ESA is not aimed at creation of new species of animals, but at the protection of
existing species at risk of extinction. Therefore, unless there have been fundamental biological
changes to the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies of Canis lupus, there is no reason to
include this action in the proposed rule.
Recommendation: USFWS should provide clear justification and explanation for including
listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies in the proposed rule change, including
description of captive breeding program process and objectives, supported by breeding program
data.
Issue 4: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors into adaptive management
Reference: Page 35700 paragraph 2 column 3, “Illegal shooting of wolves has been the biggest
single source of mortality since the reintroduction began in 1998, and the largest single source
of mortality in 8 separate years between 1998 and December 31, 2012”.
And
Page 35703 column 2-3, “Meanwhile, we suspect that human intolerance of wolves is resulting
in some of the illegal shooting occurring in the BRWRA. Without additional information, we are
unable to confirm whether, or the degree to which, disregard for or opposition to the
reintroduction project is a causative factor in illegal shootings.”)
Discussion: The shooting of wolves as documented by USFWS should serve as a clear indicator
of the existence of a serious problem with the reintroduction program, which has proceeded
forward since its inception as if these problems did not matter. The fact that illegal shooting
persists in spite of potential legal repercussions should have led USFWS to the realization that
the people who bear the burden for the direct impacts of the released wolves will not tolerate
having problem wolves reintroduced into their communities. It would seem that fifteen years
would be long enough for USFWS to investigate and analyze the causative factors in wolf
shootings, particularly since so many complaints about the program have been submitted over
that time about the problem wolf issue.
USFWS has simply ignored magnitude of the desperate situation of the citizens who live and
work in the BRWRA, and has made no effort to correct the false impression provided by prowolf environmental groups that the blame should be on human beings, rather than the problem
wolves. People who live in rural communities cannot be forced to accept the depredation of big
game and livestock by the Mexican wolf, nor should USFWS attempt to lay blame for wolf
shootings on the independence and the desire for community self-rule of rural America.
6
Adaptive management of a nonessential experimental population exists not to force the
environment into an ideal habitat (which zoos already do and with less effort and cost), but to
learn from successes and failures, and to adjust management approach accordingly. Exclusion of
real and critical component factors of any experiment is bad science. In the case of the Mexican
wolf, the exclusion of the human dimension as a real and critical component of the habitat is one
of the most significant causes of the failure of adaptive management to achieve program success.
Recommendation: USFWS should perform a study on the reasons for wolf shootings in the
BRWRA, incorporating data available from local governments, local Resource Conservation
Districts and local livestock producer organizations, as well as individual citizens. USFWS
should adjust its management approach to Mexican wolves to with the goal of reducing those
impacts on the human environment that may be associated with wolf shootings.
Issue 5: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors leading to opposition to Mexican wolf
recovery efforts
Reference: Page 35703 column 2 paragraph 3, “In the Southwest, extremes of public opinion
vary between those who strongly support or oppose the recovery effort. Support stems from
such feelings as an appreciation of the wolf as an important part of nature and an interest in
endangered species restoration, while opposition may stem from negative social or economic
consequences of wolf reintroduction, general fear and dislike of land-use conflicts.”
Discussion: This issue, which directly affects the success of the Mexican wolf recovery
program, fails to capture the true perception of the Mexican wolf by rural citizens who have to
deal with wolves’ presence on a daily basis, i.e. the true stakeholders who are directly impacted
by the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort, and who risk experiencing actual personal harm and
destruction of personal property. In fact, the majority of those who champion the wolf as noble
and majestic animal do not have to suffer from the negative social or economic consequences of
wolf reintroduction themselves, i.e. they are not true stakeholders and are only indirectly
impacted or not impacted at all.
The pro-wolf non-stakeholders ignore the cold facts that the actual stakeholders are forced to
experience, and which is well documented. As they express their appreciation of the wolf, the
pro-wolf non-stakeholders never mention how wolves kill, or how wildlife and livestock that has
been harassed by wolves is more susceptible to disease and injury, and fails to reproduce at selfsustaining rates. USFWS, too, avoids mention of how wolves run their prey until the prey is so
tired it can no longer escape; how, unlike other non-canine predators such as mountain lions and
bears, wolves eat their prey while it the animal is still alive; how wolves may consume only the
prey animal’s genitals and leave the animal to slowly die; how wolves may slash open their
living prey to eat unborn fetuses and leave the mother animal to slowly die; how wolves hunt for
fun and don’t even bother eating anything of the prey animals they take down.
These cold facts of how wolves hunt and kill has much to do with the opposition to the Mexican
wolf in the BWRWA. When it is a person’s own livestock and pets that have been subject to the
torture and agony of wolf attack, the response is very different. When it is a person’s own family
or self that risks wolf attack, fear becomes very immediate and not theoretical, regardless of
interest in endangered species restoration.
7
Land use conflicts are also significant contributors to opposition to Mexican wolf restoration.
There are many people who feel they are being put into direct competition with the reintroduced
wolves for limited resources, including the limited population of big game species, adequate
space to safely and economically raise livestock and the space to enjoy the outdoors without
humans or their pets experiencing the negative side of wolf encounters. Note that wild wolves
are shy and are not commonly seen, whereas the wolves that are frequently encountered are
habituated, problem wolves, as can be verified by consulting records of local governments, local
Resource Conservation Districts and local livestock producer organizations, as well as the many
local individuals who have reported these incidents.
The leading factors that led to the decline of the Mexican wolf in the past (prior to Mexican wolf
reintroduction efforts) are still the leading threats to the recovery of the Mexican wolf today.
USFWS has failed to adequately recognize and accept the fact that there is always going to be
opposition to the Mexican wolf as long as people continue to live and work in areas occupied by
Mexican wolves, particularly captive bred wolves that become problem wolves when released
(and re-released).
Recommendation: USFWS should acknowledge the long history of human wolf conflicts, both
world-wide and within the BRWRA. USFWS should further include that history as well as local
opposition to Mexican wolf recovery as legitimate and significant factors in the approach to
designation and management of the subspecies. USFWS should further address the possibility
that recovery efforts may never be successful in returning the Mexican wolf to the desired range
or population levels.
Issue 6: The USFWS has failed to analyze the significance of lack of success of recovery
efforts
Reference: Page 35716 column 3 paragraph 3, “Although our recovery efforts for C. l. baileyi,
which are still under way, have led to the reestablishment of a wild population in the United
States, the single, small population of C. l. baileyi would face an imminent risk of extinction from
the combined effects of small population size, inbreeding, and illegal shooting, without the
protection of the Act. Absent protection by the Act, regulatory protection, especially against
shooting, poisoning, or other forms of killing, would not be adequate to ensure the survival of C.
l. baileyi.”
Discussion: The above statement is based upon a single alternative for management of the
Mexican Wolf, which is to turn the settlement of the Southwest clock back at least 100 years in
order to provide Mexican wolves with an environment in which they can roam freely and fill a
natural niche that can support them. The problem with this alternative for Mexican wolf
management is that the environmental niche for the Mexican wolf to fill no longer exists, and
that it would take very drastic changes in the environment to recreate such a niche.
The above quoted statement assumes that Mexican wolf recovery program must reestablish a
free-roaming population in the United States. Protection from harm to the human and to the
already established natural environment would definitely be needed to not only establish but to
also maintain such a population. As is slowly playing out, this approach to Mexican wolf
management is the source of significant negative impacts to the human and the natural
8
environment. These negative impacts would only increase as more people move to the
Southwest looking for a chance to find independence and the opportunity for community selfrule.
The existing paradigm that calls for all species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA
to be reestablished in the wild has not been sufficiently examined. Expecting the entire world
community to adjust so an individual species can again flourish as it once may have is unrealistic
and unsustainable. Zoo environments are the only realistic environments that can be so
controlled that the naturally changing real-world conditions can be ignored for any length of
time. To force one species, no matter how endangered or threatened, into an unsuitable
environment is to ignore the ripple effect on all the other species already occupying it, and to
further ignore the harm done to individuals of the species in question, which must adapt to those
unsuitable conditions whether they can or not. Thus, other management scenarios must be found
for species like the Mexican wolf in order to allow them to exist in the modern world without
having to adjust the modern world to meet the needs of the listed species.
Listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies maybe required under the ESA; the action
of this proposed rule would fulfill USFWS obligation to comply with the ESA. What has not
been honestly and fairly presented to the public are all the effects of the action on the human
environment, especially on the people who live and work with the burden of the constant
potential for Mexican wolf interactions in their daily lives.
Recommendation: USFWS should examine the significance of its lack of success of recovery
efforts to return Mexican wolves to the wild in light of the unrealistic expectation that an
unsuitable environment must be significantly and unsustainably altered to accommodate those
efforts; and should provide science-based evidence for the validity of continuing the current
efforts to do so.
Besides the issues stated above, there are those who advocate the full listing of the Mexican Gray
wolf as an endangered species. There is no evidence that indicates the Mexican Gray wolf
qualifies as an endangered species. Please refer to and incorporate the attachment, entitled,
Board of Catron County Commission, New Mexico Opposition Statement to List the Mexican
Gray wolf as an Endangered Species.
CONCLUSION:
There are many more issues concerning the listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies that could be addressed. Catron County Commission has limited comments to areas
where either information was lacking or where the information presented was inaccurate or not
presented clearly. Catron County has also limited comments to 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 problem areas that should be revised before continuing with this
proposed action.
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
9
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. We look forward to your support and feedback.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CATRON COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
_______________________________
Glyn Griffin, Chairman
_______________________________
Richard McGuire, Member
_______________________________
Van J. Allred, Member
Attachment: Board of Catron County Commission, New Mexico Opposition Statement to List the
Mexican Gray wolf as an Endangered Species
10
Attachment: Board of Catron County Commission, New Mexico Opposition Statement to List the Mexican
Gray wolf as an Endangered Species
Mr. Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
18th and “C” Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
July 21, 2010
Registered Letter, Return receipt
Subj: Petition to List the Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupis baileyi) as an Endangered
Subspecies or Distinct Population Segment under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
Filed by the Center for Biological Diversity on August 11, 2009
The Board of County Commissioners of Catron County, New Mexico, in response to the Petition filed by
the Center for Biological Diversity (hereafter referred to as the CBD Petition) to list the Mexican gray
wolf (MGW) submitted comments on or about November 4, 2009. The Board of Catron County
Commissioners now submits the following additional comments.
It is the contention of the Catron County Commission that the CBD Petition has not presented the
required scientific evidence to designate the MGW as a distinct population segment under the Endangered
Species Act. There has been a lack of scientific research and data collection done by the FWS to measure
the success of the reintroduction and recovery program. The statements in the CBD Petition are
predominately based on studies and reports that are not directly related to the particular circumstances
under which the MGW exists in the BRWRA. There needs to be scientific research specific to the MGW
in the BRWRA in relation to the environment, their habitat, and interactions with humans to properly
evaluate if a change in designation is warranted.
There is no basis for the statement that the recovery efforts have proven inadequate to conserve the
species. An appropriate benchmark for success must be measured and identified scientifically rather than
continuing to strive for numbers that were developed by the current recovery plan. The present
population figure stated in the CBD Petition represents the Minimum Known Alive (MKA), and not a
population estimate with properly determined estimates of precision. The MKA may represent a count of
collared wolves and wolves associated with collared wolves, and only counted incidentally viewed
uncollared wolves not associated with collared animals. Further, because of known variation in
detectability of animals during aerial surveys, the MKA may represent a large or small portion of a
population and without estimates of precision, it is not possible to judge the accuracy of the MKA
number.
The CBD Petition states that the range of vegetation, climate and prey species for the MGW differs
substantially from both the northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes. The CBD Petition
consistently relies on studies made in these areas in support of their position; however, because of the
disparity in environments and climates they can only be viewed as value judgments relative to the
MGW’s status.
The CBD Petition states the primary threat to the MGW in the wild is human persecution. While
shootings may have caused some mortality, there is no evidence collected by law enforcement agencies
that indicates deliberate shootings have occurred. In fact, mortality of MGW, including shootings both
legal and illegal, has not reached the numbers projected in the 1996 final EIS. Therefore, human
11
persecution, which implies a deliberate action resulting in wolf deaths, must be ruled out as a reason for
listing; this is simply a subjective opinion statement.
In fact, if it were not for the presence of humans, the MGW could not survive in the wild. The intent of
the EIS and original reintroduction rule was to occupy wilderness areas of the BRWRA. Wolves were
initially released in the Gila Wilderness but swiftly vacated or took up residence on the periphery of the
wilderness. The reasons for this are unknown but lack of prey species in wilderness areas may be a
factor. Ungulates inhabit areas where ranching has established water sources and livestock grazing
modified open grassland habitats in a manner that benefits wild ungulates.
Reliable water sources are scarce in the area and during drought reliable water sources are almost
nonexistent in the wilderness. Ranchers have established many of these water sources which they make
available to wild and domestic ungulates. Ranching promotes healthy ecosystems and helps manage
habitats beneficial to and preferred by ungulates; an important prey species for wolves. FWS must
therefore ignore value judgments related to unsubstantiated opinions about threats to the MGW
population in rendering a decision as to whether a change in designation is appropriate or not.
The effect of carcass removal as a deterrent to reduce conflicts between livestock and wolves is not well
understood in the scientific literature. However, analyses conducted in the east demonstrate that carcass
removal is not necessarily going to have an impact on reducing the probability of depredation. (refer to
Assessing Factors That May Predispose Minnesota Farms to Wolf Depredation on Cattle; Mech, et al. )
The role of carcass removal as a possible factor predisposing livestock to wolf depredations remains
unclear. One study cited in the CBD Petition relates to small land plots in Italy where sheep grazed (refer
to Mortality Parameters of the Wolf in Italy: Does the Wolf Keep Himself From the Door?, Lovari, et al.)
and likely has little relevance to the reintroduction area. FWS feed carnivore logs (containing livestock
meat) to the wolves as a supplement to their diets. There are no scientific studies available showing
carcass removal serves to reduce livestock predation. Available scientific studies indicate that there is no
connection between removal of carcass and decreased depredation. In addition, recent scientific analysis
indicates that livestock will avoid wolves at all costs, often leading to a reduction in body condition, if it
means avoiding wolf predators (refer to Predator and Heterospecific Stimuli Alter Behavior in Cattle,
Kluever, et al.).
Habitat destruction is not increasing in Catron County. Studies cited in the CBD Petition listing habitat
destruction effects were conducted in areas that bear no resemblance to the millions of acres encompassed
by the BRWRA. In fact, human habitation in the BRWRA was never shown in mapping used by FWS in
implementing current rules and planning. Human habitation of the BRWRA was a factor given little
consideration in initial planning and implementation of the reintroduction. This may have led the CBD to
believe all human habitation and impacts are occurring due to recent human influx to the area.
The light to moderate grazing on the public lands is not a hindrance to the success of the MGW
reintroduction program; as noted earlier, it is a significant benefit. Removal of the livestock ranches may
adversely affect the reintroduction of MGW by removing an important habitat management tool that
benefits prey species.
Infrequently traveled roads provide travel lanes for wild ungulates and wolves and are used extensively as
wildlife travel. Road density in the MGW recovery area is much less than in the study areas cited in the
CBD Petition. In addition, the Gila National Forest Travel Management Plan will be closing
approximately 600 miles of forest roads, thus reducing road density further. When wolves were released
in roadless areas, they moved to areas where prey species were abundant and roads present. Frequently,
evidence of wolf use of roads in Catron County has been observed. The number of MGW killed by
collisions with vehicles is indicative of the habituated nature of the MGW.
That wolves are seeking areas near human activity (and thus easier food sources) is not natural wild wolf
avoidance behavior. Research is needed in the area of genetic inclinations of released captive wolves to
12
exhibit habituation tendencies. Should not the USFWS consider culling wolves (and/or genetic lineages)
that fail to exhibit wild wolf behavior?
Disease and predation on the MGW are not factors to consider in a change of designation. If the USFWS
has concerns regarding disease, they need to address the most pressing disease, which is the rabies
outbreak in the BRWRA and beyond.
MGW are rarely lethally removed in accordance with the Mexican Gray Wolf Adoptive Management
Oversight Committee Standard Operating Procedures, not routinely shot or removed due to conflicts with
livestock as stated in the CBD Petition. Currently, MWG mortality, including those controlled using
lethal means, is below the projected numbers that the current EIS stated as the number of wolves which
would be lost in implementing the program.
The CBD Petition states that the captive MGW population as well as the wild population suffers from
inbreeding depression. However, their petition states that additional releases from the captive breeding
population into the New Mexico portion of the BRWRA are needed to provide “valuable genetic
background”. Which wolf DNA lineage is the most successful in the wild? Why would FWS want to
include genetics that have proven to be unsuccessful at enhancing survival rates? The only thing more
releases would accomplish would be increased saturation of occupied MGW habitat. Additional releases
do not necessarily enhance the current MGW DNA.
Approximately 400 MGW remain in captivity and continue to successfully breed and produce young.
The reintroduction and recovery program is not a factor in the conservation of the species as long as there
are captive animals which are continuing the species. The entire population of released MGW were
redundant to the survival of the population or they would not have been released. (refer to Fish and
Wildlife Service, “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in
Arizona and New Mexico; Final Rule,” 63 Federal Register 7 (12 January 1998) pp. 1754)
Designation of the Mexican Gray wolf as a distinct population segment at this time is premature without
further scientific studies. Research needs to be conducted regarding the lack of wild characteristics;
habituation; resistance to diseases present in the wild, and genetic variability.
The Catron County Commission contends that the CBD Petition relies primarily on research that is not
applicable to southwestern environments. There is a lack of site specific information to support
designating the MGW as an endangered species or distinct population segment under the Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, designating the Mexican gray wolf as requested in the CBD Petition is not
warranted.
Catron County Commission supports the recovery program in order to delist the Mexican Gray wolf.
The County recommends needed scientific research and data collection for performance evaluation in
order to improve the success of the survival for delisting of the MGW. The Catron County Commission
suggests that an updated MGW recovery plan should be developed in coordination and cooperation with
Catron County and other local governments for recovery and delisting goals based on objective and
measurable recovery criteria in conjunction with the human environment, culture and economy existing in
the region, and with regard for the potential effects on other natural resources including other wildlife.
Please incorporate the above Catron County Commission comments into your analysis and decision about
the CBD Petition.
13
Pursuant to the MOU between Catron County and the USFWS, the Catron County Commission requests
that a copy of all decisions and findings in this matter be forwarded to the county.
Respectfully submitted,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CATRON COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
_______________/s/________________
Hugh B. McKeen, Chairman
_________________/s/______________
Richard McGuire, Member
___________________s/s____________
Glyn Griffin, Member
Cc Steve Pearce, US Representative
Attachment: Board of Catron County Commission, New Mexico Opposition Statement to List the Mexican
Gray wolf as an Endangered Species
14
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS TO LIST THE MEXICAN
GRAY WOLF AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
Submitted to
Catron County Commission
Submitted by:
The interdisciplinary Team Consisting of:
Alexander J. Thal, Ph.D., Southwest Center for Resource Analysis
Tracy Drumond, Catron County Extension Agent
Jess Carey, Catron County Wildlife Investigator
With Assistance from New Mexico State University, Range Improvement Task Force:
Sam Smallidge, Ph.D. and Nick Ashcroft, Ph.D.
November 4. 2009
15
The Interdisciplinary Team submits the following comments regarding the listing of the Mexican Gray
Wolf (MGW) proposed by the Center for Biological Diversity in the petition filed on August 11, 2009.
We oppose the reclassification of listing or designation as a distinct population as requested by CBD .
The CBD petition is not supported by substantial information to support the petition, and, in fact, its
proposals are contrary to the success of any wolf recovery program.
Our position regarding the Mexican Gray Wolf is based on the following discussions:
1. A Change in the Listing Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf is Not Justified nor is a Critical Habitat
Designation Warranted, Under the Factors Set forth in the Endangered Species Act, Section 4
(a)(1).
2. The Mexican Gray Wolf Does Not Qualify as a Distinct Population Segment
After 25 years of existence, the MGW Recovery Program continues to lack measurable and objective
recovery criteria. The original projection of 100 wolves was based on modeling when little was known
about the species. The FWS should either delist the Mexican gray wolf or continue to treat it as a nonessential experimental population and work in cooperation and coordination with local governments in
the affected Recovery Area and adjacent properties where Mexican gray wolves may range.
As set forth below, the retention of the rural landscape is beneficial to the recovery from extinction of the
MGW. The area was chosen for the Recovery Area in large measure because of its low population
density. That population density is closely tied to the rural, ranching and agricultural economy of the
region. As such, the rural lifestyle, culture and economy are significant factors in the Recovery Program.
The economic and socio-economic impacts of listing are likely to actually be detrimental to the wolf
habitat by increasing development and population in the Recovery Area. Therefore, the FWS should
consider these interests with regard to any proposed change in listing status.
In addition, the affected counties in the Recovery Area represent some of the poorest counties in the
country, where the populations are predominantly minority. These minority cultures have traditions and
language dating back to the earliest inhabitants of the area. Loss of the historic cultures and languages
of the minorities is as damaging to the ecological and social landscape as would be the extinction of the
Mexican gray wolf. Therefore, the custom and culture of the region should be considered as well.
Catron County has employed a full-time wildlife investigator and has a vested interest in being a Lead
Agency in this program. Catron County represents the interests of the citizens living in and near the
Recovery Area as a duly elected local government, and has a responsibility to protect the health, safety
and welfare of its citizens. It should be afforded cooperative standing above the self-proclaimed “onlineactivists” of the Center for Biological Diversity. Ranching enterprises in Catron County have spent
generations engaged in successful range and multiple species wildlife management.
The FWS should recognize that single species management has not been an effective approach to the
recovery efforts. In order to be successful, the Recovery Program cannot be based on unachievable
Utopian expectations. In the original 1986 Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program, drafted by Jack B.
Woody, he stated,
The reestablished population will have to become part of the ecosystem in which it is
placed. For its own survival, it cannot be allowed to significantly impact any part of the
ecosystem. Man is already a part of all earth ecosystems and cannot be significantly
impacted.
An updated plan should be developed in coordination and cooperation with Catron County and other local
governments in order to develop recovery and delisting goals based on objective and measurable recovery
criteria, in conjunction with the human environment and economy existing in the region, and with regard
for the potential effects on other natural resources including other wildlife.
16
1. A Change in the Listing Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf to Full Endangered is not Justified,
Nor is a Critical Habitat Designation Warranted under the Factors set forth in Section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA
As set forth below, the factors set forth in the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(a)(1) for determination
of whether to list a species or not are not present with regard to the Mexican gray wolf. Further, the
information contained in the CBD petition is not based on the best available scientific and commercial
information
Criteria for listing - ESA 4(a)(1) factors:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range
Overall Effect
The Recovery Area was chosen for the reintroduction effort based on its size and its abundance
of natural prey species, as well as its topography, water availability, Federal land status human
density, road density and historic inhabitance by wolves. (USFWS 1996 2-2, 2-4 )
The CBD is now apparently taking the position that the human density, road density and livestock
numbers in the Recovery Area, that existed prior to the Reintroduction Program, are too
numerous and are detrimental to the MGW. The CBD recommends habitat without livestock or
with very low livestock numbers and habitat that does not offer easy vehicular access. The CBD
petition asserts that human developments have significant impacts on habitat effectiveness. CBD
claims that livestock and associated management are threats to wolf habitat and biodiversity.
CBD also claims that residential subdivisions increase vehicle use and fragment wildlife habitats.
CBD states that “developed areas also create disturbance zones that extend beyond the actual
development and into adjacent natural habitat.” Further CBD claims that even low-density
housing development may produce a greater overall impact due to the larger landscape area
required.
CBD seems to be taking the position that was rejected in the original Recovery Plan by asserting
that the ecosystem, including man, that existed at the time of reintroduction in 1998, is now
detrimental to the MGW habitat. Under the arguments put forth by CBD, all forms of human
development which exist, and have existed for many years on private land adjacent to the Blue
Range Recovery Area, and any grazing or travel within the Recovery Area, will have a negative
impact on wolf habitat.
CBD’s argument is flawed. First of all, the ranches have historically been better managed from
an ecological basis than the public lands. Secondly, if you assume that CBD is correct and
increased human development is a threat to wolf habitat, then the best scenario for wolf habitat is
for the private property adjacent to the recovery area to continue to be held in large, undeveloped,
agricultural tracts and the economy to continue to have an agricultural/hunting/ranching basis.
The grazing allotments and travel within the forest for uses such as wood-cutting and gathering,
hunting and recreation are necessary to maintain the rural economy and landscape of the region,
as well as to preserve the cultural integrity of the minority and poor inhabitants.
17
While CBD is making the argument that the entire Mexican Gray Wolf habitat should be free of
people, livestock and roads, the real world result of such efforts is to destroy the rural economic
nature of the region, and actually increase the human population by changing the development
trend of the region. This trend is demonstrated by the fact that approximately 85 subdivisions
have been developed in Catron County since the wolf began to be released in 1998, and at least
four ranching operations have been permanently lost.
CBD has stated that wolf habitat is threatened by future development trends, claiming that
development trends over 25 years could significantly depress a future New Mexico wolf
population. FWS stated in its 2008 Assessment that “future habitat availability for wolves may
decrease over time due to human population growth and resultant development on public and
private lands “ Assuming these conclusions are true, then the FWS should consider the landscape
of the entire environment and ecosystem, including the human influence.
FWS should consider the effects of the loss of the limited human development that exists in these
areas and the loss of grazing, will ultimately have on wolf habitat. In its 2008 Mexican Wolf
Conservation Assessment, the FWS acknowledged that “the social and economic facets of gray
wolf recovery are recognized as equally important.”
The number of wolf mortalities and removals is related to the program’s negative impact on the
local economy, and its threat to safety, custom and culture of the residents. Any program to
benefit the wolf must work more closely with the ranching and agricultural community. In order
to preserve the wolf habitat, FWS and the Recovery Program should enhance and encourage the
rural economy of the region. The ultimate recovery of the wolf depends on the survival of the
ranches and rural economy as much as any other factor.
Roads
In its 2008 Assessment, FWS noted that there were a relatively small number of vehicular-related
wolf deaths each year, stating “the annual number of mortalities from vehicle collision is relied
upon as an indication of the severity of this threat, which seems to be minimal at current levels.”
The FWS went on to point out that “model simulations suggest these sites are impacted in the
future by human population growth and associated road development on public and private lands
surrounding core wolf habitat.” In FWS simulations, development of roads on public and private
land resulted in a 25 percent decline in carrying capacity of the United States portion of the
region by the year 2025, with private land development accounting for two-thirds of this decline.
(at 38)
It is important to note that it was not the development of roads on public lands that negatively
affected wolf habitat the most in the simulation – it was private land development. At the same
time, the FWS acknowledged that a low road density of approximately 1 mile of road per square
mile of area was recommended for wolf habitat, and that the road density in the recovery area was
estimated at .8 roads per square mile at the time of reintroduction.
18
Under this analysis, the more ideal situation for wolf habitat is for the private land surrounding
the core habitat to remain as they were at the time of reintroduction – large, agricultural tracts,
low road density and low population base.
The recovery program, as it has been conducted, and the proposals made by the Center for
Biological Diversity, both push road development on private property in the opposite direction.
As pointed out above, 85 subdivisions have been approved in Catron County since the
reintroduction program began, and numerous large ranching operations have been lost.
Throughout the wolf program documentation, it has been noted that the Recovery Area was
chosen because of certain traits that are favorable to wolf habitat – namely open areas, low road
density and low population density. But since the reintroduction began, the program itself has
contributed to a significant change in these conditions. The Recovery Program, in this respect,
is self-defeating. The proposals made by CBD have the same self-defeating quality.
The FWS should work with the local governments to insure that the local ranching and
agricultural economies, customs and cultures are protected because private land and its
development are integral parts of the recovery program.
If the lifestyle, demographics and road densities of the private land in and adjacent to the
Recovery Area were ideal for the program in 1998, then the FWS and related agencies should not
be participants in their destruction. They should be working to preserve them because
preservation of that rural demographic goes hand in hand with the success of the wolf recovery
program.
Livestock Grazing
The CBD Petition claims that livestock and associated management drastically degrade western
ecosystems, and claim they present the most insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity on the
rangelands.
It is interesting to note that the CBD argues for removal of a species in order to increase
biodiversity. We whether CBD’s model of biodiversity includes humans. Further, scientific data
does not back up CBD’s claims. The conditions described by CBD – removal of grasses and
destruction of riparian areas – are not occurring as a result of grazing in the Recovery Area. Data
demonstrates that the rangelands are being grazed at approximately 69% of capacity.
Given the number of livestock predations that have been documented by Catron County since
1998, cattle have contributed significantly to the success of the Mexican gray wolf to date. While
the predation numbers are not acceptable, it is absurd to say that cattle are detrimental to wolf
habitat. In a letter dated 8/18/06 to the Gila national Forest Supervisor, the FWS Field Supervisor
expressly stated that cattle grazing is not detrimental to the MGW Recovery Program.
19
What the CBD is actually saying is that cattle owners are detrimental to wolf habitat, when it
makes the statement, “given the historical pattern of scapegoating wolves that depredate, habitat
without livestock or very low livestock numbers comprises the most secure habitat.”
There is not one single instance of a cow killing a wolf. The cattle are not a threat to the wolves.
The threat arises in the context of illegal takes, and authorized takes as a result of livestock
predation. Since maintenance of the ranches and agricultural lifestyle and economy is essential
to the maintenance of wolf habitat, the FWS must seek ways to work with the cattle owners to
assure that both the ranching operations and the recovery program can co-exist.
The ranches cannot survive with the current numbers of predations by the wolves, which are topof-the-food-chain predators. If the ranches and agricultural economy are lost, then the likelihood
is that the development of the private property into smaller tracts will be accelerated. In such a
scenario, under the arguments and evidence presented by FWS and CBD, wolf losses from
vehicle collisions and habitat fragmentation will occur at an increasing rate. Therefore, no net
benefit will occur to the recovery program by the removal of cattle grazing in the Recovery Area.
Instead, the success of the recovery program depends on coordination and cooperation between
FWS and the local governments to develop a program which does not hinder the agricultural
economy while pursing the reintroduction of the wolf.
Conclusion: If the Mexican Gray Wolf were listed as threatened or endangered, the negative
effect on the local economy and demographics, as well as the increased development that would
result, would likely have a negative overall impact on wolf habitat, range and recovery.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes: As noted by the
FWS in its 2008 Assessment, “overutilization for commercial, recreational scientific or
educational purposes is not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf because the service does not
authorize legal killing or removal of wolves from the wild for commercial, recreational (i.e.
hunting), scientific or educational purposes, illegal killing or trafficking for pelts is not known to
occur and non-lethal techniques are used during Mexican wolf research in the reintroduced and
captive populations.”
Conclusion: There is no overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or predation: In its 2008 Assessment the FWS concluded that:
Disease is not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf based on known occurrences in the
reintroduced population and the active vaccination program.
Predation is not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf because no wild predator
regularly preys on wolves and only a small number of predator-related wolf mortalities
have been documented in the reintroduced population.
Conclusion: Disease or predation are not threats to the recovery of the Mexican Gray Wolf.
20
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: The FWS admitted in its 2008 Wolf
Conservation Assessment that “the gray wolf recovery effort in the Southwest operates without
any guidance in terms of the number and distribution of wolves considered adequate for recovery
and delisting.”
Further, in that Assessment, FWS stated that:
A number of concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms being applied to the Mexican wolf recovery program and reintroduction
project pursuant to the ESA. To some degree, it is normal to expect that significant
concerns will be raised by different factions of society during the implementation of a
complex program such as a wolf recovery. The fact that such concerns exist does not
necessarily mean that regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for the conservation and
recovery of the species. Rather, it may indicate that there are several methods for
achieving objectives, with pros and cons inherent in each. For example, some who
support wolf recovery may want wolves to have endangered status across their entire
range, whereas others may support the flexibility offered by a non-essential experimental
designation in certain locations. However, when both the public and the implementing
agencies indicate that regulatory mechanisms are not fully supporting stated objectives,
(i.e. establishment of a wild population of at least 100 wolves), a mid-course correction in
strategy may be necessary.
It concluded that :
The level of human-caused wolf mortality observed in the BRWRA becomes more
significant when combined with the removal of wolves for management purposes (e.g.
boundary issues, cattle depredation, human nuisance, relation or pairing with another
wolf) as these removals may have the same practical effect on the wolf population as
mortality if the wolf is permanently removed – that is, the population has one less wolf.
Removal rates in the Blue Range population have been higher than projected in the FEIS,
as have combined mortality/removal rates; from 1998-to 2003 the combined
mortality/removal rate was 64 percent, as compared to a projection of 47%. The number
of wolf removals since the 5 Year Review has persisted at high levels, primarily due to
livestock depredation response. In 2007, the combined mortality/removal rate of .47, a
level likely too high for unassisted population growth. (citations omitted).
It is worth noting: (1) ranching and agricultural pursuits provide a better environment for wolf
habitat than the alternative of subdivided development. (2) wolf takes and removals would likely
decline if FWS recognized the importance of maintaining ranching and agriculture. If those
pursuits go extinct, then the Mexican gray wolf project is likely to fail because the landscape will
be subject to increasing development. Any other alternatives for private land use would
constitute a complete taking of value and property rights.
The FWS should develop the “guidance in terms of the number and distribution of wolves
considered adequate for recovery and delisting” required by the ESA, and should do so keeping in
21
mind the desired condition for wolf habitat in conjunction with the human economy of the region.
The current listing of the Mexican gray wolf as a non-essential experimental population could
support the reintroduction effort if it were conducted in such a manner as to give greater respect
to the need to maintain the ranching and agricultural landscape. If the threats to the local
economy and safety of the citizens in Catron County were addressed in the FWS’s policies on
wolf recovery, there is a greater likelihood of success. In the absence of this type of cooperation
and consideration, both the citizens and the wolf program are likely to suffer.
In fact, the issues raised by this element of the analysis demonstrate why federal law requires
cooperation and coordination with local governments .
In addition, Catron County is primarily occupied by low income and minority citizens. Federal
law requires environmental justice for such populations in the enactment of any federal actions.
The federal government and the state government have passed executive orders to ensure that
these disadvantaged groups and communities are not adversely or disproportionately harmed by
government actions and initiatives.
Any listing of the Mexican Gray Wolf as threatened or endangered has the potential to restrict
and eliminate legitimate protectable interests of the minority and poverty level populations in and
adjacent to the Recovery Area. Those economic interests in turn provide economic benefits to
local schools and governments. The public land ranch operations are already sustaining
significant adverse effects on investment-backed expectations; and thus the ability to make a
living from ranching. Changing the listing to threatened or endangered would exacerbate the
problem and significantly impact the ability for the permitted rancher to pay back his/her ranchrelated operational and federal assistance loan contracts.
The federal government should afford all New Mexicans, including rural and low-income
communities, fair treatment and meaningful opportunities for involvement in the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. It should not place an
unfair burden on rural areas, or take away the rights of individuals and entities in rural areas
which have been long established under state and federal law.
The New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service provides a cautionary, empirical observation
regarding government initiatives that intentionally or unintentionally affect, or target areas and
communities in the State. These communities are often economically disadvantaged, on which
government actions can place undue burden, in turn magnifying negative impacts due to
significant and cumulative actions.
The Extension Service states:
The target counties and communities this project addresses represent the most
economically depressed in New Mexico, the State of New Mexico ranked 49th in the
United States. All of the target counties and communities this project addresses, have
combined Hispanic and Native American populations of more than 70% with some as
high as 95%, thus making them the majority in their minority governed and controlled
22
world. These farms and ranches are also threatened by the invasion of wealthy land
developers and by being “discovered” by the West and East coast celebrity craze for the
“Santa Fe” and “Taos” lifestyle. If agriculture is lost in Northern New Mexico, the
custom, culture, tradition and their language will also be lost in the next few generations
as well as destroying the economic base that supports these communities. (source: Rural
Agricultural Improvement an Public Affairs Project, Cooperative Extension Service,
Extension Economics Department, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New
Mexico State University)
This observation is applicable to the proposed listing of the Mexican Gray Wolf and its potential
negative, cumulative and distributional effects on these same New Mexico disadvantaged
populations, communities and businesses. As pointed out above, if the people who operate the
ranches and agricultural pursuits are unable to survive, the landscape will likely become more
divided and populated, which is detrimental to the wolf habitat and wolf recovery itself.
In the 1998, 10(j) Rule, 50 CFR Part 17, it states, “the Service has not submitted this Federal
proposal to county approval processes under their various planning ordinances due to legal,
budget, staff, and time considerations”. Now the CBD points to human-caused mortalities and
conflicts between livestock owners and wolves and claims these are reasons to upgrade the listing
of the Mexican gray wolf as endangered or threatened. In fact, the human caused mortalities
and conflicts surrounding wolves and livestock are the result of a lack of cooperation and
coordination between the federal government and local governments.
Therefore, there is no rational reason to implement regulations which have a deleterious effect on
these minority and poor populations. Instead the FWS and local governments have an obligation
to cooperate and coordinate to develop a wolf recovery program which does not penalize the
residents of the Recovery Area.
Conclusion: Any decision by FWS must be considered within the landscape of the entire
ecosystem of the Blue Range Recovery Area, including the human influence. The proposed listing
would have a negative effect on minority and poor residents without any corresponding benefit to
the wolf reintroduction program. The loss of the ranching and agricultural pursuits of the poor
and minority residents will negatively impact the wolf habitat and chances of survival.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence: In its 2008 Conservation
Assessment, the FWS concluded that “human caused mortality, of which illegal shooting is a
significant proportion, in combination with removal actions deemed necessary by management to
address wolf conflicts, are hindering the population’s growth toward the population objective of
at least 100 wolves.
In that regard, FWS stated:
Given the recognition of the potential for social intolerance of wolves and human-caused
sources of wolf mortality, past recommendations for Mexican wolves estimated suitable
23
habitat to occur when human density is less than 12 people per square mile, with an
optimum density of less than six people per square mile.
The FWS also acknowledged that:
some ranchers, hunter, outfitters and tribes in and near the BRWRA have experienced,
and may continue to experience, negative social and economic impacts due to wolves,
such as loss of revenue due to livestock depredation, fear for safety of family members
that may come into contact with wolves, stress due to uncertainty of future economic
losses wolves may cause, and anger at the government.
When residents are in fear for the safety of themselves and family members and there is a loss of
subsistence income as the result of a government program, there can be no other outcome to be expected
among rational men except anger at the government.
The future of any genetically genuine reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf is dependent on resolving
these conflicts. Rather than listing the Mexican gray wolf as requested by CBD, the FWS should work
with local governments and residents to establish a cooperative environment where both the ranches and
agricultural pursuits and the wolf can exist. The FWS has an affirmative legal responsibility to the
affected ranchers and rural communities to have clear and measurable benchmarks for delisting the
MGW. In the absence of objective and measurable criteria for delisting, the continued damage to the
economic and rural interests in Catron County appears to be arbitrary and capricious.
The resolution of this issue lies in coordination and cooperation between the county and municipal
governments and school boards within the expected range of the Mexican gray wolf to ensure that
agricultural and ranching pursuits, and safety and welfare of residents and school children, can be
maintained for the benefit of both mankind and the MGW.
2. The Mexican Gray Wolf Does Not Qualify as a Distinct Population Segment
Three Factors to List Distinct Population Segments: The authority to list a species as endangered or
threatened under ESA 4(a)(1) extends to subspecies and “distinct population segments” (“DPS”).
Classifying a subspecies as a DPS should be done “sparingly and only when the biological evidence
indicates that such action is warranted.”
FWS is required to consider three factors when making the determination of whether to list a DPS:
1. The population segment must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the species to which
is belongs. Discrete means that the population segment must be “markedly separated from
other populations of the same taxon [species] as a consequence of the physical, physiological,
ecological or behavioral factors”
2. The population segment must be significant to the species to which is belongs.
3. If these two factors are met, FWS must determine if the population segment’s conservation
status warrants it being listed as either threatened or endangered.
#1. The MGW Population Segment is Not Discrete: CBD contends that the MGW is discrete
because the reintroduced population is over 700 miles from the nearest other wolves in the northern
Rockies. However, data compiled early in the Recovery Program indicated that the Aragon lineage may
have originated by breeding with a “North American” wolf.
Both CBD and FWS acknowledge that the reintroduced population of MGWs stem from seven founding
animals. The lineage of the founders of the Aragon and Ghost Ranch groups is not known. Throughout
24
the MGW Recovery Program, questions have been raised regarding the genetic purity of the reintroduced
population. Now there is growing evidence that the reintroduced wolves are cross-breeding with
domestic dogs and coyotes.
Normally, wolves chase coyotes away from their territory or attack and kill them. However, dispersing
males that are seeking mates will actively breed and create hybrid pups with female coyotes. FWS has
consistently ignored this well documented concern in the Wolf Recovery Program Environmental Impact
Statement and Environmental Assessment. FWS has made no attempts to determine the extent of
hybridization of wolves with coyotes in the Recovery Area, wolf-like animals have been sighted and
documented in areas not saturated.
Robert K. Wayne, biology professor, University of California at Los Angeles has stated that “When the
picking's poor, a male wolf will mate with a female coyote. Their offspring live and reproduce.
Apparently, male coyotes don't mate with female wolves. At least, their offspring don't survive.
However, existing documentation on the Pipestem hybrid litter proves that female wolves will breed with
other canines and produce surviving litters. The Pipestem female was firmly mated with a male Mexican
wolf at the time of the hybrid conception. However, the male wolf was apparently not with her when she
was in heat; instead, was some 5 miles away from the female during breeding season. FWS has made no
move to capture coyotes in this area and DNA test them for Mexican Wolf genes. There is no other
reason that a male wolf would leave its mate unless:
A. She was already pregnant.
B. It was attracted by other females (coyotes or wolf hybrids) in heat.
Brian Kelly USFWS Mexican wolf recovery coordinator has stated in a public meeting in Catron county
that he believed there to be hybrid wolves in the area frequented by the Pipestem wolves. Ranchers in the
area reported sighting feral dogs at the time breeding season was occurring. FWS has never fully
investigated the hybrids, feral dogs or the offspring of coyotes in the range of the Pipestem male. They
have made no attempt to determine if the male wolf was creating hybrid coyotes at the same time the
female was creating a hybrid litter of pups. Apparently hybridized wolf-like canines have been reported
as far east as central Sierra County New Mexico.
FWS has not verified the existence of these animals as pure Mexican wolves even when there is
photographic evidence that show they are not coyotes or dogs and have wolf-like characteristics never
seen before the Reintroduction Program began. FWS has been known to fly over the area and then state
that no collar signal was picked up. There is nothing more done about these sightings than an occasional
flight and or a phone call. These mystery animals are usually seen in mid to late winter but not as much in
summer months, which is about the time period when young wolves would disperse and hunt for mates.
Whether these are purebred juvenile Mexican wolves dispersing from the Arizona population, individual
animals from the 16 missing but documented and collared wolves, or are hybrid wolves is still not
verified.
Of all the current wild-conceived and wild-born pups trapped and DNA tested, none have been trapped
east of the AZ line. FWS claims 9 have been trapped and tested, in reality, very little effort is made to
comply with the EIS to trap young wolves for collaring and vaccination. Including the Pipestem litter,
fourteen (14) pups have been DNA tested since the hybrid litter was discovered. Of those 14, 5 were
hybrids. Of those 14, the 5 hybrid pups were not in an area already saturated with Mexican Wolves. If
ranchers had not insisted on the removal of the Pipestem wolves for livestock depredations, the hybrid
25
pups would still be in the wild. FWS has been lax in its efforts to trap and identify young wolves and has
not done so for at least 3 years.
Interaction between solitary wolves and coyotes is becoming prevalent. Prior to her death, MW 592 was
caught sharing a calf carcass with a group of coyotes. Though it was not breeding season, she was once
again a lone wolf and apparently sought out companionship. There have been sightings on the San Carlos
reservation of coyotes and wolf-like animals running together.
In New Mexico, the Gapiwii pups from 2003 were not confirmed as Mexican wolves. They had a set of
firmly bonded Mexican wolf parents but were living in the vicinity of other canines including ranch dogs
and frequented the ranch to harass the dogs. The Alpha male of the Gapiwii pack was killed and the
female as well as her 2003 offspring were seen running with a large doglike animal that is not a wolf.
There are 16 missing purebred wolves, collared and uncollared, that FWS cannot find. There are at least
8 litters from 2003 that have not been trapped and identified as pure wolves. There are at least 6 litters
from 2002 that have yet to be tested and identified as pure Mexican wolves. The FWS is allowing lost
wolves to colonize the BRWRA with no confirmation that they have mated with pure wolves.
This documentation demonstrates that the MGW reintroduced population should not be considered as
“discrete”.
#2. The MGW Population is Not Significant: As pointed out by CBD, a population is considered
significant based on, but not limited to, the following factors:
1. Persistence of the discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting
2. Loss of the discrete population would result in a significant gap in range
3. The population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of an otherwise widespread
population that was introduced; or
4. The population differs markedly in its genetic characteristics.
With regard to the first two elements, as set forth above, the MGW is not a discrete population. As to the
third element, the MGW reintroduced population is not a “surviving natural occurrence”. In fact, CBD
has pointed out that Mexican gray wolves were fully extirpated from the Recovery Area prior to the
Reintroduction Program.
On the fourth element, genetics - the CBD Petition points out that “All Mexican wolves known in the
world stem from seven founding animals and contain greatly reduced genetic diversity from their original
population” (citing Hedrick et al. 1997, Fredrickson et al. 2007.) Both CBD and FWS have
acknowledged that inbreeding depression in the reintroduced population threatens future fitness, viability
and resilience.
At the same time, CBD cites studies of the genetics of the MGW subspecies based on “museum
specimens of Mexican gray wolves”. It concluded from the study of museum specimens that “the
reintroduced population of Mexican gray wolves harbors genetic diversity not found in any other wolf
population and is thus highly significant.” This contradicts its earlier statement that the genetic diversity
of the reintroduced population has been greatly reduced due to inbreeding depression. The second
statement is the true statement with regard to MGW genetics. The population suffers from a lack of
genetic diversity.
In its 2008 Conservation Assessment, the FWS stated that recent developments in the field of
conservation genetics have shown that Mexican gray wolves likely intergraded with other gray wolves at
the northern extent of their range. The FWS has stated, “Based on genetic analyses, it has also been
26
determined that the genetic makeup, or genotype, of all gray wolves is very similar. Mitochondrial DNA
analysis has suggested that, with a few exceptions, a genetic basis for the previous sub-species
designations of gray wolves may not exist.”
Further, the factors set forth above concerning hybridization and cross-breeding raise significant issues as
to the genetic characteristics of the reintroduced population.
#3. The Conservation Status Does not Warrant Listing as Threatened or Endangered: In
assessing the conservation status, the conservation effort must be sufficiently certain to be effective so as
to have contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species
identified through the ESA section 4(a)(1) analysis.
As pointed out above and in the FWS 2008 Conservation Assessment, the Recovery Program has
eliminated and reduced most of the threats to the MGW. The remaining threats – inbreeding depression
and wolf removals/mortalities – will not be solved by giving the MGW an endangered or threatened
designation.
In its 2008 Conservation Assessment, FWS stated, “The ecological, social and economic landscape of the
Southwest creates a unique backdrop for gray wolf recovery efforts and certainly scientific
determinations of resiliency, redundancy and representation will be accompanied by considerations of
social and economic factors.”
The MGW conservation effort is hindered by the inbreeding depression and hybridization issues set forth
above. Those issues must be addressed by FWS prior to any attempt to designate the reintroduced
population as endangered or threatened.
Secondly, the issues regarding wolf removals/mortalities will not be solved by changing the listing status
of the MGW. These issues must be addressed by consideration of the social and economic factors,
through meaningful coordination and cooperation with the local governments.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Catron County Commission is opposed to the petition filed by the CBD on
August 11, 2009. Catron County is opposed to any listing of the Mexican Gray Wolf as threatened,
endangered, or as a DPS.
There is no valid scientific basis for a more restrictive listing of the Mexican Gray Wolf. It has been
repeatedly pointed out that the existing Recovery Plan from 1982 lacks objective and measurable criteria
for recovery of the species. Further, the 1998 10(j) Rule notes that FWS failed to submit the recovery
proposal to local governments due to “legal, budget, staff and time considerations.” These deficiencies
in the Recovery Plan should not be used as a basis to change the listing of the MGW. Instead, the FWS
should address those issues which are both hindering the program and creating significant negative
impacts on the surrounding communities and residents, as set forth in these Comments.
27