Wolf Crossing

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Telemetry Flight Locations for the Week of May 12, 2008

The Reintroduction Project provides the public with information on wolf locations with the following caveats:
(1) inclement weather can limit the availability and quality of location information;
(2) location information is largely limited to radio-collared wolves and uncollared wolves associated with them; and
(3) wolves are mobile, so wolf location information tends to be outdated from the moment it is collected. Again, the prudent assumption for any person is that Mexican wolves might be present in any part of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area at any time.

Please note that we are currently in denning and rendezvous season for wolves. SOP 26.0: Location Dissemination Guidelines dictates that “During denning and rendezvous season (April 15 - July 30), the IFT also discusses wolf locations with specific permittees and landowners, as necessary, in addition to providing more general locations through weekly postings at http://azgfd.gov/wolf.”

Wolf location information includes two bearings (N, S, E, W, NE, SW, etc.) and distance (to the nearest ½ mile) from a landmark. Note: As requested by the White Mountain Apache and San Carlos Apache tribes, the Project does not post or otherwise provide to the public any wolf location information for the Fort Apache Indian Reservation and the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

IN ARIZONA:

Bacho Pack (AM990)
5-12-08 –Not located due to wind.

Bluestem Pack (AM806, F1042, AF521)
5-12-08—Not located due to wind.

Hawks Nest Pack (AM1044, AF1110)
.5-12-08—Not located due to wind.

Lofer Pack (AF1056)
5-12-08 –Not located due to wind.

Paradise Pack (AM795)
5-12-08—Located east of Greens Peak.

Rim Pack (AM1107, AF858)
5-12-08—Not located due to wind.

IN NEW MEXICO:

Dark Canyon (AF923, AM992)
5-12-08—Located north of Corner Mountain.

Durango Pack (AM973, F1047)
5-12-08—Not Located.

Luna Pack (AM583)
5-12-08— Located north of Eagle Peak.

Middle Fork Pack (AF861, AM871, F1115)
5-12-08—Located west of Beaver Points.

San Mateo Pack (AF903, AM1114)
5-12-08—Located east of Tub Peak.

Fox Mountain Pack (AF1111)
5-12-08—Located west of Jim Smith Peak.

Fox Mountain Pack (AM1038)
5-12-08—Located 1 mile east of ELC Flat, and 1 mile north of Flanigan Cienega.

Elk Mountain Pack (M1045)
5-12-08—Not Located.

Single (M619)
5-12-08—Not located due to wind.

Sphere: Related Content

New county ordinance bans wolf release with little hope of enforcement By: Donna Rescorla, The White Mountain Independent 05/09/2008 HOLBROOK - The Navajo County Board of Supervisors passed a new ordinance - that has little chance of enforcement - for the message it sends.      An ordinance prohibiting the release of wolves and specifying criminal penalties for violations was proposed by Board Chairman J.R. DeSpain at the May 6 supervisors meeting.      ”I want to give you some background,” he said, holding up a copy of the Pioneer newspaper. “They reported that in New Mexico cages were built for the children who were waiting to catch the bus because of the fear of being attacked by wolves.      ”It’s pretty ironic to have to cage kids to protect them from wildlife. This ordinance is in conflict with the federal program to release to the wild, but we are the Board of Supervisors for Navajo County and have the right to protect our citizens.”      He said the new habitat proposed by federal Fish and Wildlife would open up all of Arizona for the release program.      ”I’m a rancher from the Winslow area, and I want to go on record as being with you,” Jim O’Haco said. “I’m against enlarging the wolf areas in central Arizona. Wolves are killers, predators. That’s why the old timers got rid of them.      ”I know of one way to get rid of them now. I heard there was a big hybrid wolf population.”      DeSpain said he knew, for a fact, that looking at the hybrids was a number one priority. The animals would be caught and checked for DNA and if they weren’t in the breed, they would be obliterated.      O’Haco said he wanted to talk with the Navajo Nation since a lot of Navajos are sheep producers. Supervisor Jesse Thompson said he and Supervisor Percy Deal would like to help him set up a meeting with the Hopi Tribe or the Navajo Nation, adding, “I know there is some concern there.”      ”Before I make a motion, I have a few comments,” Supervisor Jerry Brownlow said. “Navajo County has been a registered cooperator along with Greenlee County. Greenlee County has waded in and asked Navajo County for help. I know they needed some input on how the program affects those who live here.      ”There might be room in Gila County or on the Blue (for the wolves) but they bring us too many problems. As Mr. O’Haco said, there is a good reason the wolves are not here. In Cedar Hills we had to hire an agency to get rid of packs of wild dogs.”      DeSpain said he would like to make one addition. When the program first started, he said, it cost $25 million and Fish and Wildlife never budgeted for payment to ranchers for slaughtered animals. They did have success in Yellowstone and some in Oregon but not here.      When Supervisor Percy Deal asked whether Apache County had a similar ordinance, DeSpain said they didn’t, adding that Navajo County is “aiming in the direction of public safety.”      Deal said if Navajo County had the ordinance without Apache or Coconino having one, the wolves could be released near the county’s border.      ”This has no enforcement,” he said.      Deal also questioned what was being done with the White Mountain Apache Tribe whose land would most likely be the place for a release.      ”I’d like to say I agree with the things that have been said,” Supervisor David Tenney said. “They spend about $1 million per wolf to release them. That’s ridiculous. I’ve talked with people who say they see the wolves with collars already around houses.      ”I don’t know if we can stop this, but at least they need to let us know what’s going on.”      Brownlow said both the White Mountain and San Carlos Apaches had meetings and now the San Carlos Apaches have asked the wolves be removed from their land.      Asked what was meant by the ordinance’s “importation” prohibition, DeSpain said that, “up until now, if the wolves weren’t in the Blue, they would be captured and brought back. Now they just stay. We can’t insist that they don’t get across the border. We (as humans) are in their food chain.”      The ordinance was passed with the short title “Navajo County Predatory Animal Ordinance.” It would apply within the unincorporated area of the county with the exception of land under the jurisdiction of a federally recognized tribal government.      Predatory animals are defined as wolves such as the Mexican wolf, bears such as the grizzly bear and wild cats such as a jaguar but excluding domestic feral cats that have been spayed and returned to the wild.      Each offense would be punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to $300 for each offense in the case of an individual and up to $1,000 for each offense in the case of an enterprise. * Reach the reporter at lupre2@yahoo.com

Sphere: Related Content

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/spring-08/sp08-true-grit.pdf

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Three states are defending their ability to sustain a gray wolf population in the Northern Rockies, asking to be heard in a federal lawsuit that seeks to return the wolves to the endangered species list.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to remove the gray wolf from the list in March, saying the species had recovered from near-extermination in the region. That transferred wolf management to Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, which are planning what would be the first public hunts in decades.
OFF THE LIST: Wolves targeted after losing endangered status
The lawsuit filed last week by 12 environmental and animal rights groups seeks to block the hunts, but the three states that filed paperwork with the court Monday and Tuesday hope to fend off the litigation so the hunts can proceed.
Officials from the states said Tuesday that they can be trusted to sustain wolves without federal oversight. The hunts, they said, are needed in part to control wolf packs that have been killing an increasing number of livestock.
“People have supported wolf recovery on the belief that being successful would mean a return of state authority over the animal,” said Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.
At least 39 wolves already have been killed in the region since federal protection was lifted. Those deaths came under more relaxed rules for ranchers responding to livestock conflicts and a shoot-on-site designation for the predator across most of Wyoming.
An estimated 1,500 wolves now roam the three states. Federal biologists say that is much more than needed to sustain the species, but critics say only a larger population could prevent inbreeding and offset the impact of hunting.

Sphere: Related Content

High Country News

                                                                     

                                                                             

 Predator control looks a lot different on the ground                        

 Writers on the Range - by Bonnie Kline                                      

                                                             

The extremists who are on a mission to eliminate the Department of

Agriculture’s Wildlife Services would do well to spend time with ranchers

who live and work on our Western landscape. There, they might gain an

on-the-ground perspective other than their narrowly defined agenda. As the

old Greek shepherds — echoing the ancient Greek philosophers — say,

“Everything in moderation.” Yet the campaign to end Wildlife Services is

anything but moderate; it’s fraught with melodrama and spin-doctoring.

 

 

Since biblical times, domestic livestock and crops have needed protection

from predators and scavengers. Domestic livestock and agriculture have

enabled mankind to explore and establish settlements, and have played a

major role in providing the comforts we expect today. These days, though,

most Americans are several generations removed from production agriculture,

and most don’t realize what’s required to put a meal on their table.

Wildlife Services fulfills a critical role in protecting American

agriculture, yet it is portrayed by extremists as “slaughtering and

persecuting” wildlife.

 

 

It’s true that Wildlife Services kills over a million animals a year, but

the vast majority are birds that cause crop and feedlot damage. Is this an

unpleasant thought? Of course, but is it necessary? Yes. Does Wildlife

Services kill native carnivores? Yes, but is it necessary? Yes. Does it

harm the viability of the overall wildlife population? Biologists will tell

you it absolutely does not.

 

 

Do you want your home occupied by mice, or it is all right to kill them?

Prairie dogs might be considered cute, unless they destroy your property

and pose the risk of bubonic plague to your family. Wolves are wild and

beautiful, but less so if they kill your horse, a beloved family pet or

take a significant bite out of your paycheck by killing your livestock.

 

 

As with all situations in life, there are many sides to an issue. Defining

the predator-control issue in a one-sided campaign is an insult to everyone

who doesn’t know the facts. It implies that the average American is not

smart enough to make the “right” decision when presented with a

comprehensive overview of the issue. On the other hand, I believe that when

presented with all the facts, most Americans understand that managing

wildlife is necessary if we are to maintain viable farms and ranches.

 

 

Leading the charge to eliminate Wildlife Services are groups such as

WildEarth Guardians. They charge that the federal agency’s job is “to

eradicate and bring down wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, prairie

dogs, and other animals. Help stop the slaughter today.” This statement is

false. It has been decades since there was a federal policy aimed at

eradicating wolves, and nowhere in the current Wildlife Services program is

there language directing the agency to eradicate any of the species listed

above.

 

 

It is true that Wildlife Services does occasionally kill entire packs of

wolves that have repeatedly caused damage to livestock; that was part of

the federal tradeoff that got wolves restored to the West. Wildlife

Services also spends money to target the removal of depredating coyotes,

bears, and lions. However, the agency is not engaged in the wholesale

slaughter of predators or other wildlife; its mission is to protect

agriculture. Wildlife Services is a major component of predator control for

the livestock industry, and livestock losses would be significantly higher

without an agency constantly removing depredating animals.

 

 

The campaign to eliminate Wildlife Services includes a recent petition to

the EPA to ban M44s, devices used to kill coyotes. The petition — filed by

Sinapu and Forest Guardians, now known as WildEarth Guardians — is riddled

with inconsistencies and omissions. For instance, the petition states that

from 1996-2006, Wildlife Services violated federal regulations 17 times

when setting M44s. Yet it fails to mention that during the same time frame,

244,000 M44s were set, and 33,000 of the M44s were fired. Statistically

speaking, this means that only .0000696 violations occurred as a percentage

of overall M44s set in the field; and only .000515 violations occurred as a

percentage of M44s actually fired in the field.

 

 

Americans enjoy the luxury of spending only approximately 10 percent of

their income on food, compared to the up to 45 percent that people in other

countries must pay. Stripping away management tools that assist agriculture

undermines the U.S. economy and heads us down the road to rapid dependency

on foreign countries for our food. As the rhetoric to eliminate Wildlife

Services escalates, remember the Greek shepherds’ philosophy of “Everything

in moderation.”

 

 

Bonnie Kline is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High

Country News (hcn.org). She is executive director of the Colorado Wool

Growers Association in Denver, Colorado.

Sphere: Related Content

The Mexican wolf controversy continues to grow.  Spring and early summer have long proven to escalate wolf attacks on cattle. Environmental extremists escalate attacks in the courts against ranchers and agency personnel and there seems to be no end in sight.  The only thing everyone has in common is that tempers are stretched to the limit and patience is wearing thin.  

Why? Because of incidents like this one.

Last week, when 2 eyewitnesses watched two wolves attack a cow defending this calf with nothing but a phone ten miles away they did what they could ran the wolves off and went for a phone.  By the time they got back the smaller wolf in the photo was cleaning up a meal off the valient little cow’s newborn calf.  Hemhoraging shows the calf was eaten alive wolf style, held down and nawed through  from the belly and back.  The two wolves at the scene were responsible for this.  They are possibly the Middle Fork pack or undocumented un-collared animals in middle fork pack territory on the ranch or maybe even possibly wolf coyote hybrids.  When the first set of witnessed got back to the scene, yet another person who also saw what was happening and saw the wolves back on the calf, was there, this time taking pictures of the situation and trying to preserve the scene.  

 

Smaller Wolf that was involved in calf kill last week, larger photo’s that don’t fit here show fresh blood on it’s muzzle from killing and eating the calf  below and biting it’s mother who defended it until someone came along to help her and ran the wolves off.

 

Ten hours  after these pictures were taken, the cow was found lying on top of her dead calf still trying to save it.  These three people did their best to document what they saw.  Unfortunately, eyewitness accounts and photographs are no longer enough to confirm a wolf kill.  

The kill was found by the closest ranch hand nearly 10 hours later after getting in from a long days work and seeing the message on his answering machine.  The calf was found underneath its mother and had already been eaten on by other animals.  It was initially confirmed as a coyote kill because there wasn’t enough evidence to support the report of the witnesses and what there was wasn’t actively sought out.  However, on reciept of the photographs the investigation has been re-opened becuase the first two witnesses stated the wolves were biting the cow when they saw the incident, likely these men saved the cow.  Coyotes do not bite cows on the nose and brisket. 

So once the cow can be examined… well, we will see. Meanwhile people who tell the public they are not, anti rancher, anti rural family, their organizations are just conservation organizations (and please send us money) have sued yet again to try and force ranchers to feed cows to wolves in a, “let them eat cows” mentality that certainly has nothing to do with fairness or protecting the rights of people.  There is no evidence that non management of depredating wolves is necessary no evidence that allowing unlimited cow kills absorbed by ranchers will do anything to ”save this program”.  

The question is, if this kill is officially considered a coyote kill then every wolf seen from here on out is legally a coyote and subject to coyote disposal.  Where is the line finally going to be drawn with this program?      Neither wolf was collared which means likely they are not vaccinated for rabies in an area with a severe rabies outbreak. Also killed in the same area a few days previously was a cow that agency personnel confirmed but refused to place a strike on the nearest wolves for.  So with the calf likely being the third strike for this pack, it is no wonder nobody wants to look at the evidence.This type of messing around with the rule is not new.  Gerrymandering SOP 13 has been going on long before the lawsuits and complaints about the three strikes rule started.  Killing of livestock is often ignored, placed on other animals, or on one wolf at a time or on un-known wolves.  SOP 13 is based on the final Rule which states problem animals are defined as packs, members of packs, individuals and young of the year dependent on problem wolves.  Problem behavior is defined as habituation and livestock killing among other things.  SOP 13 shouldn’t be called the 3 strikes rule it should be called the whatever number we can’t ignore or arbitrarily assign or get away with not reporting procedure.  Unfortunately, nobody in the program will follow the actual rule unless it is to find a way to keep the rancher from helping himself.  The rule is only complied with as a means to harm ranchers.It is not likely the cow, calf or earlier cow will be paid for by Defenders of Wildlife.  Ranches in this area are now on the “bad list” based on hearsay evidence of one reporter.   Not that it mattered DOW has not payed for kills on certain ranches for several years now despite having received numerous depredation reports. 

  

Remember folks, the above animal is now a coyote, officially if not legally. 

Sphere: Related Content