Fight federal abuse of property rights by making the government obey its own rules

Please go to the Washington Examiner online page and leave a comment.

Fight federal abuse of property rights by making the government obey its own rules

http://washingtonexaminer.com/fight-federal-abuse-of-property-rights-by-making-the-government-obey-its-own-rules/article/2547278

By Ron Arnold | APRIL 15, 2014 AT 6:55 PM

Ramona Morrison, daughter of Wayne Hage, holds a book by Jim Keen open to a spread on her father’s ranch, currently run by her brother, in her Sparks home Wednesday, July 17, 2008. (AP Photo/Scott Sady)

Cliven Bundy marched into my life one Friday morning in January 1992 in a protest bound for a federal courthouse in Las Vegas. He held up one side of a street-width banner that asked, “Has the West been won or has the fight just begun?”

To my great relief, just as Bundy promised, nearly 200 ranchers from all over the state marched behind him, yelling “Property rights!”

Nearly a mile later, the marchers fell silent and filed into the courtroom where Wayne Hage of Pine Creek Ranch faced arraignment for the felony of cleaning brush out of his ditches without a U.S. Forest Service permit.

The Forest Service had already confiscated Hage’s cattle and left him bankrupt, just as the Bureau of Land Management would try with Bundy 22 years later.

Hage had already filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service in the U.S. Court of Claims, just as Bundy now has cause to do against the BLM – last week, during their failed attempt to confiscate Bundy’s cattle, agents wantonly bulldozed his water supply into oblivion without court authority.

Wayne Hage did not stand in that courtroom alone because I was honor bound to prevent it – I had published his 1989 book, Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands, which unleashed the federal fury.

The message terrified abusive bureaucrats: There are private rights in federal lands – vested rights, not privileges.

His book, the product of three intensive, grueling years consulting with dozens of experts and sifting through many archives, found the dirty little secret that could destroy the abusive power of all federal Western land agencies – by making them obey their own laws.

It was so stunning that a sitting Supreme Court justice secretly sent Wayne a message marveling at his shining intellect – burnished with a masters degree in animal science and honed by academic colloquies as a trustee of the University of Nevada Foundation – and warning of the titanic battle to come.

How true: Hage was convicted of brush cutting but acquitted on appeal. His own lawsuit against the United States took almost 20 years, but proved there are private rights in federal land. He died of cancer in 2006 before he could see how great a victory he had won – and how the battle is still just beginning, as Bundy foresaw.

Wayne’s son, Wayne N. Hage, now manages Pine Creek, and his daughter Ramona Hage Morrison is his intellectual heir. She helped research his book, lived the courthouse agonies with her father and assisted with his seminars on protecting ranchers’ rights. Morrison said:

Private rights in federal lands were recognized in an 1866 water law. It says, “… whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same.”

That Act was passed a long time ago, but every federal land law since then contains a clause with language similar to, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on the effective date of this Act.”

Most ranchers don’t know that and federal agencies exploit their ignorance with harassment that runs them off the land. Actually, understanding vested rights is not too hard – they’re absolute rights not subject to cancellation – but proving up those rights by assembling your chain of title and other technicalities and then making the government protect them is very hard.

The agencies know they don’t own the water rights, so their lawyers fight viciously with misdirection to save their empire from the owners. Ranchers lose in court because they don’t know how to prove up their vested rights and they don’t get lawyers who know the precision required to plead a vested rights case. Very few lawyers know.

Ranchers, get smart. Don’t assume anything. You probably believe a lot of things that aren’t true. Get busy and prove up your vested rights as we did. Get a court to adjudicate them as we did. Yes, your whole life will be one battle after another, like ours. Seek help to develop an army of supporters, as we did. You can shout freedom slogans all you want, but only the courts can destroy the root power of federal abuse.

The BLM has now withdrawn. Bundy has his moment of triumph. The cries of victory are thrilling.

But we know it’s not over yet. The BLM did not leave because angry citizens outnumbered their assault force by 100 to 1. Assigning blame is worthless. Nothing has touched the BLM’s ability to return.

Get real: the BLM invaders left when it got ugly because it’s an election year and they’re all Democrats. They’ll be back.

Property rights defenders can stop them. We can go on the attack in the courts with organized funding to adjudicate protection for every last ranch with vested rights in the American West. We have the laws to do it. We now need organization, money, brains, and the will to make it happen. Every ranch with vested rights that we protect will destroy that much federal power to abuse.

Let no ranching family go unprotected.

That’s the hard way, but it’s the only way that works. Stay on target: the federal power to abuse must be destroyed.

RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Categories: Endangered Species, Federal Regulatory Policy, Uncategorized, Water Law, Issues and Filing on your water rights. | Leave a comment

House Passes Water Rights Protection Act

House Passes Water Rights Protection Act

WASHINGTON – The Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association hail the passage of the Water Rights Protection Act (WRPA), H.R. 3189, by the U.S. House of Representatives by a 238 to 174 vote. Introduced by Congressman Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), the legislation reiterates the limits to federal agency jurisdiction of water.

H.R. 3189 comes as a means to combat the Federal Government by way of the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from seizing water rights in exchange for land use permits, without just compensation. An issue that arose in a USFS directive applicable to ski areas was seen by industry as an issue that could threaten all water users, including ranchers, as they depend on water rights on public and private land to keep their businesses viable.

“With 40 percent of the western cow herd spending some time on public lands, the ability to have secure water rights is imperative, not only to producers but to the economy,” said NCBA President Bob McCan, a rancher from Victoria, Texas. “This legislation is a commonsense bill that provides certainty to ranchers and leaves water management to the states where it belongs. The federal agencies must be accountable to citizens and the states and cannot, at will, circumvent state water laws at the expense of landowners.”

The legislation will prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from requiring the transfer of water rights without adequate and just compensation. Additionally, the bill supports long-established state water laws, clarifying that the federal government does not have jurisdiction.

“Our members face the same threats as ski companies do—perhaps with more at stake as they are individuals and families depending on these water rights for their livelihood”, said PLC President Brice Lee, a rancher from Hesperus, Colo. “It is important to include all industries that may be impacted, to keep our rural communities thriving. Rep. Tipton’s bill accomplished the purpose of protecting all water right holders, including ranchers.”

PLC and NCBA supported an amendment by Rep. Tipton that made revisions to the legislation which clarified the intent of the bill. We opposed an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) that would have severely limited the legislation to become applicable only to ski operations, eliminating the efficacy of the bill for ranchers.
- See more at: http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=3249#sthash.Ahfm3caF.dpuf

Categories: Federal Regulatory Policy, Water Law, Issues and Filing on your water rights. | Leave a comment

The realities of ranching and wolves

By Kerry Tienhaara

For the Capital Press
Published: February 13. 2014 8:55AM
Last changed: February 13. 2014 8:56AM
Kerry Tienhaara
A rancher writes about the facts about wolves.

The letter in the Jan. 24 Readers’ Views reads the same as nearly every other revered Canadian Gray Wolf vs. Evil Rancher letter written by a supporter of wolves over mankind.

These supporters’ talking points rarely stray from the list, though they don’t adhere to any particular order. So long as the repeating of the half-truth is accomplished, it has a chance to be believed, especially by those who have no working knowledge of the topic.

Yes, disease, domestic dogs and coyotes do cause loss in cattle and sheep. So do wolf attacks. The difference is there are no state laws against treating livestock for disease or actually trying to prevent disease. If coyotes or domestic dogs are guilty of harassing or killing livestock, there are no laws trumping the livestock owners’ right to protect their personal and private property against such losses. However, where the non-native wolves in Oregon are concerned, the state protects wolves over the rights of people.

The use of the words “hysteria and denial of facts” against ranchers is a not-so-subtle attempt to belittle their legitimate concern over losses to wolves. This favored ploy attempts to shift the blame from livestock killing wolves to the very ones who suffer the losses, the ranchers.

Quoting from ranchers who do not have a wolf population to deal with is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Those with critical thinking skills would understand this.

Yet the wolf supporters see it as a “one-size-fits-all” argument-ender.

Then we come to the most favored mis-used factoid of them all — the inference that all ranchers enjoy free grazing for their livestock at taxpayers’ great expense.

First off, let me make it very clear, public grazing rights are not free. Holders of public grazing rights are not taking anything from anyone. A fee is charged. Often there is a list of improvements required to be performed on the public grazing allotment at the rancher’s expense. The grazing livestock turn a renewable resource, grass, growing on public land, into usable items for humans such as meat, leather and wool.

The anti-grazers paint the picture for those who don’t know any differently that every grazing animal they see is somehow picking taxpayers’ pockets, somehow causing them harm while the evil ranchers profit.

The truth is, of the 125 wolf-livestock depredation investigations performed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from 2009 to the present, 15 were on public grazing permit property and the other 110 were on private property. My husband and I are the sole taxpayers for our private property our cattle graze on. We lease private property from our neighbor. He too pays his own share of taxes on his private property. Most of my friends and neighbors’ livestock graze entirely on private property. They are also taxpayers.

Despite the fact the state of Oregon was not included in the Canadian gray wolf recovery plan because Oregon lacks the large blocks of contiguous public land habitat needed for wolves — see page 29 of the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan — wolves are allowed to occupy private property no matter the cost to the private property owner.

Finally, there’s the plea for open-mindedness, responsibility and the incompetent ranchers to come over to their way of thinking — or else. The myopic disregard displayed by wolf supporters for those who do not agree with their bent never fails to astonish me. Their assumption of somehow possessing superior knowledge giving them the right to insert themselves into the everyday working lives of ranchers with all their “energy available” is the height of arrogance and ignorance at the same time.

I would certainly welcome a letter displaying open-minded, responsible, competent use of the truth from the lock-step wolf supporters.

They might begin with one topic never openly opined on by wolf supporters — the question of personal and private property rights. Where do they think they begin and end with wolves “on the landscape?”

Kerry Tienhaara raises hay and cattle in Wallowa County, Ore. She is a member of Oregon Wolf Education, wolfed.org

Categories: Endangered Species, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

Mexican Wolf Count Up Cow Kills Also Growing at a Steadily

This cow was killed while agents were investigating 3 others killed within minutes of this location while they were present.

This cow was killed while agents were investigating 3 others killed within minutes of this location while they were present.


Last week, US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle, proudly announced that the Mexican wolf population had grown from a minimum of 75 wolves in 2013 to 83 in the first month of 2014. What the agency did not release was the fact that the population increase had more to do with its new policy of leaving livestock killing wolves on the ground than it’s concern about genetics.
In 2007 then New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson cooperated with Benjamin Tuggle in implementing a plan to allow livestock killing packs to remain on the ground despite private property and personal financial loss to the predator. Since that agreement was reached livestock owners in the region have suffered many cow kills attributed to wolves and the wolf population has steadily grown to meet levels that some ranchers have not been able to survive.
One pack that will not be identified here due to death threats issued to the ranching entity was determined to have killed multiple livestock on one ranch in just a few days. The pack was subjected to minimal management for livestock kills in 2013 and ranchers in the area, feel that lack of control, deemed affective by USFWS has caused the pack to become spree killers.
The pack accompanied by several undocumented animals, have a New Year’s record of 6 bred cows on one ranch, 5 of which have been confirmed by USDA agents. The county says this pack has killed a dozen head of heavy bred cows since New Years. Wolves have also been seen in pastures near the town of Luna New Mexico prey testing horses belonging to the residents. Ranchers have requested the removal of livestock killing packs but with the support of the animal rights movement USFWS have deigned to remove only one female despite the fact that every pack meets the rule definition of problem wolf, under the Federal Rule currently guiding the program.
Last year, rancher Corwin Hulsey lost over sixteen thousand dollars to wolves and was compensated a tenth of that amount by the federally managed, compensation interdiction program. Ranchers are going out of business in the Mexican wolf reintroduction area at an alarming rate loosing livestock, losing income, losing sleep while their stock suffers horrific injuries and even more horrible death to wolf attack. The communities lose as well, jobs, opportunities, and tax base to grow the wolf program. On December 2 a small rancher located in Eastern Catron county was forced to put down his best saddle horse due to injuries sustained by a wolf attack.
Currently USFWS oversees a compensation interdiction committee designed to remedy and rectify the losses from the livestock community, however the board must approve each application from only confirmed kills. Any losses not confirmed are not subject to payment, calves are almost never confirmed. At the last committee meeting, animal rights activists staged a coup during the meeting and changed the name of the fund to the Co-existence committee. Ranchers on the panel began submitting their resignations citing the lack of cooperation in rectifying damages and approving compensation for losses caused by wolves.
The current victim loosing multiple cattle to wolves, called USDA investigators over two dead cows, while the agency was investigating they found a third partially eaten cow and while that exam was being done, the pack killed another cow the agency found on their way out of the ranch. In scientific terms multiple killing when a wolf pack no longer kills just for food but is playing by killing and not eating their kills is known as a killing reflex. The USFWS wolf program have changed their policy to count multiple cow kills in a 24 hour period as one depredation incident in order to avoid the real numbers lost to private individuals.
Wolf packs exist in New Mexico in several counties and over a dozen ranches where the wolves cause damage without meaningful interdiction or compensation. From a Scientific standpoint, improved genetics is much less likely to be growing the wolf packs than increased food source.
In 2012 USFWS cited its intention to expand the Mexican wolf program from the west Texas border, across New Mexico, to the Western Arizona border and from the northern Mexican border up to the north on Interstate 40. There is no recovery number cited as a criteria to be met when the program will no longer allow protection of wolves over human and livestock impacts. The first round of public input comments for the expansion of the program were completed in December. Currently USFWS has more than 300 wolves available for release in captivity.

Categories: Endangered Species, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

Albuquerque Wolf hearing November 20 Embassy Suites.

Be fully informed about the proposed expansion of the Wolf reintroduction in New Mexico

3:00-4:30 PM
November 20, 2013
Embassy Suites, 1000 Woodward, Albuquerque, NM
FWS Hearing doors open at 5 PM in the same building

Please pre-register at http://wolvesinalbuquerque.eventbrite.com/

We need your help. Next week in Albuquerque, a public comment hearing is being held by US Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the future of wolves in New Mexico. The last hearing in Washington D.C. was filled with wolf-proliferation advocates who opposed protections for wild game. Let’s make sure EVERYONE attends this hearing.

Remember, new aggressive plans are asking for aggressive expansion of wolf populations in New Mexico. Without wolf-delisting, important safeguards to protect hunting, livestock and wild game in New Mexico will not be available. Considering the impacts experienced in other states, the future of hunting and wild game depend on your support.

Categories: Endangered Species, Federal Regulatory Policy, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

Date location Mexican Wolf-Human Interaction Wolf Behavior Land Ownership 2006 to 2013

Complaints received:
Case# Date location Wolf-Human Interaction Wolf Behavior Land Ownership
_________________________________________ _______________________________________
WSS-001 07-17-06 Big dry US 180 seen from vehicle traveling state
WSS-002 07-24-06 near catwalk picnic area seen from vehicle traveling private property
WSS-003 07-21-06 Reserve seen from business, 2 wolves standing/looking private property
WSS-004 08-06-06 FR 19 seen from vehicle 5 wolves traveling private property
WSS-005 08-07-06 lower Reserve wolf near horses standing/looking at owner private property
WSS-006 09-04-06 cold springs wolf near cow/calf standing/looking forest
WSS-007 09-06-06 near willow creek seen from vehicle stood looking 3-4 min. forest
WSS-008 08-24-06 cold springs wolf scat wolf scat forest
WSS-009 09-23-06 south of Patterson hunter saw 2 wolves traveling forest
WSS-010 10-13-06 main street Luna wolf in town at 9 am near people/homes private property
WSS-011 10-23-06 Alma resident, owner charged wolves with ¾”pipe, 2 wolves attacking pet dogs private property
WSS-012 10-23-06 Alma residence owner observed wolves standing/looking private property
WSS-013 10-25-06 Cruzville resident owner observed wolves 2 wolves traveling private property
WSS-014 10-30-06 Cruzville resident owner observed wolf milling around behind home forest
WSS-015 10-09-06 Cruzville resident owner observed wolf near barn private property
WSS-016 11-22-06 lower Frisco, wolf on SR435 in front of residence, traveled towards Reserve, State & private property
WSS-017 11-26-06 south of Reserve wolf near residence wolf howling private property
WSS-018 11-29-06 SR12 SU canyon seen from vehicle wolf crossed road state
WSS-019 11-29-06 Black Canyon, owner and pet dogs walking to house from barn wolf attacked dog private property
WSS-020 12-02-06 south of Reserve wolf near residence wolf howling private property
WSS-021 12-13-06 north of Quemado wolf tracks at residence on property private property
WSS-022 12-19-06 Hay Vega hunter on 4 wheeler confronted by wolf, walked towards rider-looking forest
Page 9
WSS-023 01-26-07 Rancho Grande Subdivision/US180 seen from vehicle wolf near restaurant state
WSS-024 01-26-07 Legget lady riding horse confronted by wolf, stood looking-circled in front of rider forest
WSS-025 01-30-07 Mule Creek seen from vehicle 2 wolves standing/looking forest
WSS-026 01-31-07 near Reserve resident observed wolf near home standing/looking private property
WSS-027 02-09-07 Rancho Grande Subdivision observed wolf at lower pond hunting ducks forest
WSS-028 02-09-07 Lost Springs son hunting encountered 2 wolves traveling forest
WSS-029 02-11-07 SR12 mp 31 ½ seen from vehicle collared wolf crossed road forest
WSS-030 02-12-07 Escondia Bonita Subdivision resident observed 3 wolves near her home, traveling forest
WSS-031 02-28-07 Diamond Creek wolves around hunting camp ran off horses forest
WSS-032 03-05-07 Horse Peak Subdivision wolves seen and heard traveling/howling private property
WSS-033 04-02-07 wolf howling/barking at residence for 20 minutes private property
WSS-034 04-04-07 wolf eating a bone on lawn in front of restaurant, Rancho Grande private property
WSS-035 04-04-07 wolf behind home in Rancho Grande Subdivision forest
WSS-036 05-02-07 Durango wolves less than 15 feet from home (1st incident) private property
WSS-037 05-04-07 Taylor Creek, wolves on private property, denning less than 1/8 mi. private property
WSS-038 05-09-07 Wolf on property near home private property
WSS-039 05-11-07 Apache Creek, 2 wolves within 20 feet of front porch private property
WSS-040 05-12-07 Pleasanton, wolf next to hone in pasture private property
WSS-041 05-17-07 Deadman springs, wolf pack (5+) on property near home private property
WSS-042 05-23-07 Two children encounter wolf walking home from school bus stop forest
WSS-043 05-23-07 Durango wolves less than 15 feet from home(2nd incident) private property
WSS-044 05-23-07 Apache Creek, wolf near property forest
WSS-045 05-30-07 Durango wolves less than 15 feet from home(3rd incident) private property
WSS-046 06-07-07 Durango wolves at residence(4th incident) private property
WSS-047 06-11-07 Durango Wolves at residence(5th incident private property
WSS-048 06-14-07 un-collared wolf in Aragon private property
WSS-049 06-23-07 Durango wolves approach family within 50yards (6th incident) private property
WSS-050 06-24-07 wolf howling near home where two small children live county road
WSS-051 06-24-07 Durango wolves at residence (7th incident) private property
WSS-052 06-25-07 Durango wolves at residence (8th incident) private property
WSS-053 06-27-07 Durango wolves at residence (9th incident) private property
WSS-054 07-01-07 Durango wolves at residence (10th incident) private property
WSS-055 07-09-07 wolf at campsite, 2 wolves howling forest
WSS-056 07-09-07 wolf howling near home private property
WSS-057 07-13-07 wolf howling near home private property
WSS-058 07-14-07 wolf seen crossing highway State
WSS-059 09-10-07 Durango wolves at residence (11th incident) private property
WSS-060 09-11-07 Durango wolves at residence ( 12th incident) private property
WSS-061 09-16-07 wolves chasing vehicle pulling trailer forest
WSS-062 09-21-07 Durango wolves at residence (13th incident) private property
WSS-063 09-25-07 Durango wolves at residence (14th incident) private property
WSS-064 09-30-07 Durango wolves at residence (15th incident) W1 private property
WSS-065 10-02-07 Durango wolves at residence (16th incident) W2 private property
WSS-066 10-03-07 Durango wolves at residence (17th incident) W3 private property
WSS-067 10-04-07 Durango wolves at residence (18th incident) W4 private property
WSS-068 10-05-07 Durango wolves at residence (19th incident) W5 private property
WSS-069 10-07-07 Durango wolves at residence (20th incident) W6 private property
WSS-070 10-08-07 wolf chasing sheep near Reserve private property
WSS-071 10-09-07 Durango wolves at residence (21st incident) W 7 private property
WSS-072 10-15-07 Durango wolves at residence (22nd incident) private property
Page 10
WSS-073 10-19-07 Durango wolves at residence (23rd incident) private property
WSS-074 10-22-07 Durango wolves at residence (24th incident) private property
WSS-075 10-23-07 Durango wolves at residence (25th incident) private property
WSS-076 10-25-07 Durango wolves at residence (26th incident) private property
WSS-077 10-27-07 Durango wolves at residence (27th incident) private property
WSS-078 11-01-07 Durango wolves at residence (28th incident) private property
WSS-079 11-21-07 wolves near private property forest
WSS-080 11-21-07 wolf near ranger station forest
WSS-081 11-24-07 wolf at community center in Glenwood private property
WSS-082 11-28-07 wolves eat hunters tagged elk forest
WSS-083 11-29-07 wolf near residence, at Glenwood Elementary school private property
WSS-084 12-02-07 (2) un-collared wolves near hunters forest
WSS-085 12-14-07 (2) wolves at driveway, near home, cross pasture private property
WSS-086 12-14-07 (2) wolves near home private property
WSS-087 12-16-07 (2) wolves near home private property
WSS-088 01-01-08 (2) wolves behind home forest
WSS-089 01-11-08 wolf at subdivision private property
WSS-090 01-20-08 wolf in livestock, ½ mile from residence forest
WSS-091 03-14-08 wolf near bus stop county road
WSS-092 05-12-08 wolf within 100yds at residence (29th incident) private property
WSS-093 05-26-08 wolf within 100yds at residence (30th incident) private property
WSS-094 06-08-08 wolf on US180 near community, tracks cast state
WSS-095A 07-03-09 3 wolves among cattle Private Property
WSS-095B 07-19-08 wolf near residence north of Luna private property
WSS-096 08-03-08 wolf howling south end of Rancho Grande forest
WSS-097 08-22-08 wolf in cow/calf herd near Snow Lake forest
WSS-098 09-01-08 wolf seen from school bus in Cruzville private property
WSS-099 11-14-08 2 wolves, one snooping around truck and trailer forest
WSS-100 12-19-08 single wolf at north end of the town of Reserve private property
WSS-101 12-23-08 wolf in front of Glenwood Community Center private property
WSS-102 12-29-08 wolf howling at residence private property
WSS-103 01-12-09 wolf at Little Dry Canyon near livestock private property
WSS-104 01-13-09 wolf howling at residence private property
WSS-105 02-28-09 wolf near homes forest
WSS-106 08-07-09 two wolves in pasture forest
WSS-107 04-19-09 wolf near residence private property
WSS-108 07-24-09 wolf in barn hunting house cats, has wolf proof fence Private Property
WSS-109 08-03-09 wolf on property near home and barn, has wolf proof fence Private Property
WSS-110 08-11-09 wolf on property near barn, has wolf proof fence Private Property
WSS-111 09-25-09 wolf on driveway- confirmed coyote County road
WSS-112 11-05-09 wolf near residence chasing horse private property
WSS-113 12-05-09 wolf 30 feet from residence private property
WSS-114 12-05-09 wolf traveling
WSS-115 01-06-10 wolf crossing road near livestock private property
WSS-116 01-15-10 wolf traveling on State Road 12 forest
WSS-117 01-15-10 3 wolves howling behind residence forest
WSS-118 01-26-10 2 wolves at residence private property
WSS-119 01-31-10 2 wolves east end of Aragon traveling private property
WSS-120 02-05-10 3 sets of wolf tracks near livestock – calf missing forest
WSS-121 02-08-10 wolf near residence private property
Page 11
WSS-122 02-12-10 2 wolves 50 feet from residence private property
WSS-123 02-19-10 3 wolves near bull carcass seen while investigating dead calf private property
WSS-124 02-19-10 5 wolves near residence private property
WSS-125 02-19-10 wolf chasing house cat in town of Aragon private property
WSS-126 02-19-10 4 wolves near residence, two stalking 200 pound calf private property
WSS-127 03-11-10 wolf near residence traveling private property
WSS-128 04-11-10 wolf on US 180 south of Glenwood State highway
WSS-129 04-18-10 2 sets of wolf tracks above residence private property
WSS-130 07-10-10 wolf behind residence where children play private property
WSS-131 07-21-10 2 sets of wolf tracks above residence private property
WSS-132 09-07-10 collared wolf on private property private property
WSS-133 09-15-10 wolf near residence- confirmed coyote private property
WSS-134 11-22-10 wolf on private property private property
WSS-135 01-08-11 wolf howling near home forest
WSS-136 02-12-11 wolf in livestock near residence private property
WSS-137 02-18-11 3 wolves running in cattle private property
WSS-138 03-02-11 wolf in backyard of residence private property
WSS-139 03-08-11 wolf in cows birthing calves private property
WSS-140 05-06-11 wolf behind residence private property
WSS-141 05-08-11 wolf at residence private property
WSS-142 05-17-11 wolf at residence private property
WSS-143 05-31-11 wolf at residence private property
WSS-144 10-30-11 wolf crossing road State
WSS-145 12-13-11 wolf at residence private property
WSS-146 12-22-11 2 wolves near house private property
WSS-146A 01-09-12 wolf 60 yards from residence, 2 more wolves just off property private property
WSS-147 01-11-12 wolf near residence forest
WSS-148 01-24-12 wolf crossed road State
WSS-149 01-27-12 wolf near residence private property
WSS-150 01-31-12 wolf at residence private property
WSS-151 02-08-12 wolf near residence private property
WSS-152 02-13-12 wolf at residence private property
WSS-153 03-07-12 3 wolves at residence private property
WSS-154 05-20-12 3 wolves in pasture private property
WSS-155 07-23-12 wolf at residence private property
WSS-156 09-09-12 wolf crossed US180 state
WSS-157 09-19-12 wolf-sighting forest
WSS-158 10-09-12 wolf-sighting forest
WSS-159 07-23-12 3 wolves in campground near people forest
WSS-160 01-22-13 wolf on US 180 state
WSS-161 01-22-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-162 01-22-13 Wolf on US 180 at rest area state
WSS-163 01-23-13 wolf tracks near livestock forest
WSS-164 01-28-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-165 01-28-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-166 01-28-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-167 01-29-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-168 01-29-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-169 01-29-13 wolf at residence private property
Page 12
WSS-170 02-05-13 wolf in town of Reserve private property
WSS-171 02-11-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-172 02-25-13 4 wolves near residence private property
WSS-173 03-06-13 6 wolves near residence forest
WSS-174 03-10-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-175 03-13-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-176 05-02-13 wolf at residence private property
WSS-177 06-27-13 wolf reported on 1st. mesa – confirmed domestic dog city
WSS-178 10-23-13 wolf 20 feet from front door of residence private property
WH-psy-7
Total wolf-human interactions = 178
Wolf Incidents on Private Property = 126
Wolf incidents on Non-private property = 52

Bus stop wolf.

Bus stop wolf.

wolves at private home

wolves at private home

Wolf at private home

Wolf at private home

Categories: Endangered Species, Federal Regulatory Policy, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

Western Ranchers Defend Big Victory in Grazing Battle

http://www.fairfieldsuntimes.com/articles/2013/10/27/news/doc5266eb4945052021040018.txt

Published: Sunday, October 27, 2013 12:41 AM CDT
DENVER — Two ranching organizations, an Arizona ranch, and an Arizona rancher at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today defended their victory from an Arizona federal district court that granted them summary judgment in a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding that grazing permits be revoked and subjected to lengthy federal environmental review. The groups claim the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it reauthorized permits that allow ranchers to graze their livestock on nearby federal lands as they have done for generations by failing to conduct full environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to reissuing the permits. The Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, the Public Lands Council, Orme Ranch, Inc., and Bert Teskey, all represented by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), maintain that Congress made clear that no EISs are required. After the two groups dropped challenges to seven Forest Service decisions, the matter was briefed and argued. The district court upheld the agency’s ruling as to seven of the eight decisions.

“The Forest Service complied with the law and the panel should uphold the district court’s ruling,” said William Perry Pendley, MSLF president.”

In fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Forest Service, without conducting environmental reviews pursuant to NEPA, reauthorized several grazing permits on lands managed by the Forest Service. On August 15, 2011, the Western Watersheds Project and the Center For Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit alleging that 17 of the reauthorizations—seven in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona, three in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, six in the Prescott National Forest in Arizona, and one in the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico—violated NEPA. The lawsuit was filed despite the clear intent of Congress that the Forest Service is not required to do the reviews.

Beginning in 1995, Congress enacted legislation to address its concern that the inability of the Forest Service to complete NEPA analyses on expiring term grazing permits would delay renewal of the permits to the detriment of the western ranchers involved. Specifically, Congress sought to reduce the amount of documentation and expense required to conduct NEPA. In 2003, Congress strengthened these protections of ongoing livestock grazing by directing that term grazing permits shall remain in effect pending compliance with NEPA. Then, in 2005, Congress directed that reauthorization of grazing permits is “categorically excluded” from documentation under NEPA if the Forest Service makes certain determinations. The total number of allotments reauthorized under the provision may not exceed 900.

Mountain States Legal Foundation, created in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system. Its offices are in suburban Denver, Colorado.

Categories: Federal Regulatory Policy, Sometimes We Win One., Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Politics over Biology (It certainly isn’t biology) An early article discussing the Mexican Wolf reintroduction.

Mexican Wolf A Rural Viewpoint

Reality Bites
Wolf Introduction in the Southwest
It Really IS Politics!

It certainly isn’t biology.

You’re absolutely right, Kevin. The whole process of re-introducing wolves has been politics, not biology.

In the November 9, 1995 issue of The Bulletin, published in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Kevin Bixby, director of the Southwest Environmental Center, gave us “The Big Picture” about wolf re-introduction in the Southwest. In an article entitled “Wolf re-introduction: It’s politics, not biology,” he states that the killing of wolves earlier in this century was “a misguided attempt to make the world safe for livestock and deer.” Now, “it’s a safe bet most New Mexicans probably support” re-introduction.

Perhaps they do – since you really can “fool most of the people most of the time.” A canceled State sponsored public opinion survey that “might” have shown support for wolves, “even in Catron County,” wouldn’t have made much difference anyway. When it was cancelled, a “privately financed” survey supposedly found that even Catron Country residents said they favor re-introducing the wolf to White Sands Missle Range. But, what were the questions? Any result desired can be produced in a survey, depending on what is asked, who is asked, where it is asked, ect. “Which would you prefer – to re-introduce wolves to Catron County … or White Sands?” At White Sands? … Chalk another one up in favor of wolf re-introduction!

But how could it be “Re-introduction?” There have reportedly never been wolves at White Sands Missile Range. And the Mexican Wolf cannot be “re-introduced” into Catron County or the Gila Wilderness, since it was never there, according to Fish and Wildlife biologists.

Edward A. Goldman, Senior Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, in The Wolves of North America (1944), reports that the northernmost range of the Mexican Wolf (Canis Lupus Baileyi) was Hatch, New Mexico.

The wolf found in the mountains of central western New Mexico was the Mogollon Mountain Wolf (Canis Lupus Mogollonensis), which was “decidedly larger” than baileyi. It is now extinct. (See the chart Distribution of subspecies).

Perhaps there weren’t ANY wolves in the Gila until the cattle attracted them! When Lewis and Clark journeyed through central Idaho, the Indians were starving due to the lack of game, and no wolves were to be seen. Twenty years later, trappers reported buffalo and wolves in abundance. Wolves follow the game.

Of course, it’s easy to live in the big city, with all the comforts and security of civilization, and think up nifty things to change out there in the boondocks. It just happens, however, that the people who live out there had something to say about it, and their concerns were heard by the Governor and the State. That’s politics.

Politics is (should be) when government responds to the concerns of citizens. When people feel their livelihood and way of life, perhaps even the lives of their family and children, are threatened, shouldn’t government listen to their concerns? Of course, only today’s socialists would believe that they should have more of a say in the lives of the residents of Catron County, or anywhere else, than the people who actually live there.

Of course, the folks in Catron County who opposed wolf re-introduction are (according to Bixby) just “a handful of federal government-bashing, wolf-hating ranchers” who don’t deserve to be heard.

Bixby also blasted Jerry Marachini, director of the NM Department of Game and Fish, who said that the San Andres Mountains on White Sands Missile Range was a poor site for re-introduction because it would not provide a “test” of the effect of wolves on cattle or elk populations, after the state had recommended the San Andres years ago. “Even environmentalists think there are better places to put wolves in New Mexico.” (How about Mesilla or Santa Fe? Perhaps we could re-introduce grizzly bears and jaguars to the Mesilla area while we’re at it, since Bixby reported in The Bulletin, Nov. 23, 1995, that it is part of their historic range!)

The point is, it doesn’t really matter where wolves are re-introduced in the Southwest. People will have to deal with them wherever they are. Environmentalists just seem to have a bad case of NIMBY (Not In MY Back Yard) … they want them in YOUR backyard, when it comes to dangerous predators. Bixby’s “safe bet” is mighty safe for him. Perhaps not so safe for those who would have to live with the wolf.

We don’t need to “test” the effect of wolves on cattle and elk (and human) populations. Humans have known for thousands of years of their effect. The Indians of Canada are familiar with the wolf. Do they reverence it as part of Nature, and wish to “howl with the wolves” as environmentalists do?

“…Our government says don’t kill the wolf, save him so you and your family can do without meat, so their friend, the wolf, can multiply and wipe out the moose. Then they can issue food stamps and welfare checks …. Let’s stop being damn fools in destroying what little we have …. get action on wolf control …. the moose will multiply again along with the caribou, beaver, etc. Conditions will improve for both Man and animals. I and hundreds of other Indians say control the wolf by any means possible.” (Sydney Huntington, native Indian born on the Koyukuk River).

Perhaps the Russians could tell us of the wolf. “Wolves inflict enormous losses on various game animals and fowl, exterminating at least 60% of the natural annual increase of ungulates in the Caucasian Reserve. Great danger arises in connection with rabies infections among wolves; rabid wolves attack even men…” (G.A. Navikov, Carnivorous Mammals of the Fauna of the USSR, 1956).

Why study something nearly every People on Earth knows? Only government biologists and environmentalists feel the need to spend money on something so obvious. Wolves are predators, and like to EAT cattle and elk… and deer, dogs, and anything else tasty that happens to come across their path when they are really hungry, including men, women, and children. Especially little children.

But that’s just a myth, isn’t it, like “Little Red Riding Hood?”…According to Bixby, Governor Johnson met with ranchers in October, and they told him the same old “pseudo-science, half-truths and myths about wolves.”

And what is the “truth” about wolves? U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists have their very own version of the truth. Apparently they don’t like the true history of wolves, so in true Orwellian fashion, they just change the definitions. According to them, there has never been a “documented” wolf attack in North America… because they have changed the definitions of “documented” and “attack.”

The wolf must be killed, examined and found healthy.
The wolf must never have been kept in captivity.
The person must die from their wounds (bites are not attacks according to the biologists).

These criteria negate all historical records.

Let’s look at some of the historical record of wolves, and decide for ourselves if wolves attack humans.

Around 1830, John James Audubon reported an attack by a pack of wolves on two men traveling through Kentucky in winter. They killed one man, while the other escaped up a tree. (Audubon, J.J. and Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes, New York, 1851-1854)

The Saint Paul Daily Globe (March 8, 1888) reported that a pack of wolves surrounded a farmer and his son and literally ate them alive. The article stated that “Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now then ever before known in North Dakota.”

In one year alone, during the 1980s, more than 100 deaths were attributed to wolves in India. (Associated Press, 1985)

The game director of Iran, Rashid Jarnsheed, a U.S. trained biologist, in Big Game Animals of Iran (Persia), states that for over a thousand years, wolves have been reported to attack and kill humans. They grow bold in wintertime, when game is scarce, and will enter a town in broad daylight to attack people, with many cases of wolves running off with small children.

“Wolves were a constant threat in France, killing livestock and humans unable to defend themselves: children, the aged, and the infirm. Government and private campaigns resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of wolves throughout the kingdom.” (Pierre Roudil. “Fear of the Wolf,” Historama (France) 1984 (8): 41-45).

“Until the end of the 19th century the place of wolves in French folklore and as an object of popular fear was justified by the considerable economic damage they caused and by their attacks on people, mostly children. The number of wolves grew in times of economic disorder and war and due to wolves entering France from elsewhere.

“Deforestation, democratization of hunting rights, better arms, and better-organized hunts led to near extermination of the wolf by the end of the 19th century.” (Alain Molinier and Nicole Molinier-Meyer. “Environment and history: wolves and humans in France.” Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (France) 1981 28 (Apr-June): 225-245).

The above quoted “democratization of hunting rights, better arms” explains why there are so few reported attacks in North America, and so many in Europe and Asia.

In North America, citizens enjoyed a tradition of the right to self-defense, weapons were cheap and available to all, and every man had the right to hunt for food and protection.

The situation was very different in other parts of the world. In Europe and Asia, peasants were subject to “gun control,” and hunting in the forest was the prerogative of royalty. The peasants’ hatred and fear of wolves was the product of their experience as a defenseless prey for centuries.

In The Yellowstone Nature Book (1924) Milton P. Skinner wrote, “Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals… come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle…”

Now, as government attempts to disarm its citizens, self-defense is looked down on, the forest once again belongs to “the King” (federal government), and predators are encouraged to multiply, (and even re-introduced), humans are once again becoming defenseless prey in North America.

In Wolf Attacks on Humans, T.R. Mader, of the Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, states “Today predator control is very restrictive in scope… attacks on humans by predators are becoming more common. In recent years, healthy young coyotes in Yellowstone Park have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the National Parks of Canada.

“On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging… within the city limits of the town when the lion attacked and killed him.”

In recent years mountain lions and bears have attacked and killed several people. They were “endangered” and protected… the people were not.

Wolves kept in close contact with humans, as pets or those in zoos, do not fear Man, and are well documented to attack and kill humans.

“Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989… Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota.

“Zoos also carry abundant records of wolf attacks on children. The child climbs the enclosure fence to pet the “dog” and is attacked. (The Albuquerque Zoo commercial on KOB has a small child voice saying “I love the wolves, they look like my doggie”). (Wolf Attacks on Humans).

Having found that wolves do indeed attack and kill humans, let’s look at some of the myths about them.

“…Conservation Officers often see cattle losses from wolves: their jobs entail dealing with predators… Al Lay, a Conservation Officer… has personally viewed about 500 wolf kills.

“…I asked him about the myths surrounding wolves. Namely, that wolves only attack the weak and diseased, they always make clean kills, and they only hunt if they’re hungry.

“…Wolves disable their prey by attacking the hind quarters, so first they must get their victim to turn and run. Instinctively, moose and deer will face a wolf… Cattle… don’t strike with their front feet and most are hornless, making them easier prey.

“To make a clean kill, a predator must launch a frontal attack… But out of the 500 wolf kills he’s inspected, only one was attacked on the front quarters… ‘I’ve seen week-old calves bitten on the hind-quarters and left when it would have been easy for them to make a clean kill. But it’s not in their nature.’

“‘Wolves need seven pounds of meat a day to maintain themselves… But they can eat up to 40 pounds of meat at one sitting…’” (Glenda Smith, “Just Prey Animals For Wolves,” Multiple Land Use Review, Nov. 1995).

So why do we have people advocating that we let loose a dangerous predator once again in our forests, after we took the time and trouble, and taxpayer money, to rid ourselves of them?

Politics!

In High Country News (Feb. 06, 1995), Jim Robbins, in an article entitled “Wolves may not need Big Brother,” reported that two wolf biologists believed the federal re-introduction of wolves is a big mistake.

Diane Boyd, a biologist who has studied wolf migration for the past 15 years, is quoted as saying “They don’t need to reintroduce wolves, the wolves are doing it themselves. There’s wild wolves all around Yellowstone… Wolves disperse, and they breed like rabbits.”

Robert Ream, a wildlife biologist, shares her view, “People pushing for reintroduction have so much invested, it’s hard for them to back off.”

The article states that “A wild wolf population is far preferable, Ream and Boyd say, to one created by humans.”

When wolves naturally colonize an area, Boyd says, “There is a really strong selective process at work. Wolves that go to Yellowstone choose to go there. They ran the gauntlet to get there. They don’t eat livestock; they avoid people. They stay out of sight. Those behaviors are really good to pass on.”

But, once the federal government starts introducing wolves, according to Boyd, “there are no more natural wolves in Yellowstone.” All wolves found in the area are intensively managed by the government, and “It becomes a political rather than a biological population. Once the government puts the wolves in, they have to manage them. Forever.”

She also believes a natural population makes sense from a social perspective. “The wolves up north trickled in. The locals aren’t wolf lovers, but they got used to it. Big Brother did not shove the wolves down their throat. That makes a huge difference. You need the support of the locals.”

But according to Bixby… the locals are just a bunch of ignorant hicks, who shouldn’t have been listened to: “So chalk one up for the cowboys and good old boys. Ten years of planning to restore an endangered predator to Southwestern ecosystems (perfect case, by the way, for not transferring all federal environmental responsibilities to the states).”

You missed the point, Kevin. Perhaps if New Mexico had the environmental responsibilities, it would not have wasted ten years of taxpayer dollars on planning for something that is not needed or wanted by its citizens. Perhaps we would have been listened to BEFORE we spent all that taxpayer money.

Aren’t there enough REAL environmental problems and issues to deal with out there, without making up things to do?

As a geography major at New Mexico State University, doing research on desertification, I found Las Cruces shown as a prime example of bad planning – building sub-divisions in arroyos, where they block the natural drainage flow and are subject to flooding. Where has the Southwest Environmental Center been, while this environmental damage to riparian areas occurred? They were concerning themselves with an arroyo in Deming, that has water in it perhaps a few days a year, and wolves in Catron County.

Subdivisions are still being built in arroyos in Las Cruces. Why don’t you concern yourself with those riparian areas? (Or are developers and government too rich and powerful?)

But that’s different, you say. It’s private land they are building on, not “public land” that is “our heritage.” Well, do wolves released on “public land” know where the boundaries are? Don’t they stray onto private land and kill livestock? And then what? Do the ranchers get compensated?

“In Mexican gray wolf stomach content surveys done in the Gila Mountain area of southwest New Mexico from 1918 to 1922 on more than 400 wolves, the following contents were found: beef-303 times; sheep-66 times; pork-52 times; horse-35 times; elk, deer, or antelope-17 times; rabbit-3 times; and mouse-once… wolves out in the wild will seek out what is easiest to kill… wolves overwhelmingly preferred beef over other available food types.

“…A fund set up by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture paid farmers $72,381.82 for livestock loss to wolves (maximum paid $400 per animal) from 1977-1980. In 1981, compensation was $37,000 and by June of that year, wolf attacks were in such great numbers that the compensation fund was totally exhausted and many farmers could not be compensated for their losses… A real major problem with compensation is those paying the compensation require proof of wolf kills.” (Phil Harvey, Jr., “Wolf Reintroduction: Not in the Best Interest of New Mexicans,” New Mexico Stockman, Oct. 1995).

We’ve already seen what kind of criteria U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists have for proof… they have to SEE the wolf attack livestock, or a human, before they will believe it. And a maximum of $400 per animal… can anyone buy good breeding stock or a good horse for $400 these days? More like thousands of dollars per animal.

Environmentalists are really brave, now that they have the full power of the federal government to back them up. They pick on the poorest, most powerless people in the state. Farmers and ranchers are isolated, unorganized, and living from day to day, as many of us who don’t get free government and corporate grants do. The difference is that producers have to rely on the vagaries of nature, and the Hand of God, to make a living off the land.

And why are environmentalists picking only on producers — such as ranchers, farmers, miners, and loggers these days? The Environmental Movement started because of pollution caused by government and big business — corporations. The Federal government FORCED farmers to use pesticides. Has the government yet cleaned up it’s toxic sites, such as the Hanford Nuclear Plant? And the corporations that contribute grants to environmentalists have moved much of their operations to other countries, where they continue to pollute the air and water. Mexican babies are being born with deformities in Juarez, Mexico, 50 miles south of here, as corporations have moved their plants south for cheap wages and lax environmental laws. Where is the environmentalist outrage over this murder of innocents? It should outrage us all.

So you see, Kevin, people who live off the land cannot afford to live by myths, half-truths, and pseudo-science, as some urban environmentalists have the luxury of doing. They do not have the leisure time to fantasize about changing the world back to the “good old days” of a century ago. They have to deal with the Truth of Nature, the harsh realities of storm, drought, floods, and wild beasts.

Wolves were hunted for a reason. They not only killed livestock, but humans as well. We do not need any more predators in this world.

“Documents concerning the destruction of wolves in 18th century Franche-Comt indicate the considerable influence their presence had on rural life and the measures taken against them… Wolves were a source of danger to livestock and, particularly when rabid, to man. Rewards were offered for their destruction…” (Christian Duoas de la Boissony “A necessity for the security of the countryside: the destruction of wolves in Franche-Comt in the 18th century,” Histoire, Economie et Socit. (France) 1991 10(1): 113-126).

Categories: Endangered Species, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

The alpha female of the Campbell Blue Pack of Mexican gray wolves was captured Sunday

ZB threatening dog

ZC threatening horse

ZA wolf horse encounter

ZD attacking dog
By Lisa Parker
Sun-News

The alpha female of the Campbell Blue Pack of Mexican gray wolves was captured Sunday — never to return to the wild — as the result of an April 14 conflict with an Arizona man and his six dogs.

According to a report from the Eastern Arizona Courier, Dean Warren was riding horseback about 22 miles north of Clifton, Ariz., when he and his dogs came across the wolves — an adult pair and two yearling females.

The wolves began “interacting” with the dogs, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Vicki Fox, rolling the dogs and giving one a puncture wound in its stomach and a bite on the back of its neck.

The alpha female also “basically charged the horse, bumped it with her shoulders — I guess she put her front feet on it,” Fox said Tuesday.

The alpha male, however, “was not aggressive, so to speak,” she said. “He did not physically make contact with the gentleman’s horse or the rider.” Fox added that neither the horse nor Warren were injured.

Warren, who is a Lieutenant of the Greenlee County Sheriff’s Office and a rancher, was able to call for help with his radio. He had been riding into a remote area near Eagle Creek called Sawmill Cabin, and was, according to the newspaper report, about 25 yards from the cabin and corrals when he encountered the wolves.

Warren was able to scare the two younger wolves away, but the adult pair would not leave, according to Fox. He used a radio to call for help and field personnel of the Arizona wolf recovery team immediately responded, but had to hike into the area, according to the newspaper account and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports.

Warren was able to make it to the structures, and the wolves reportedly left the scene about 20 minutes later. The two field team members accompanied Warren out of the area once they arrived.

Fox said Tuesday that the wolves were probably protecting their territory from the dogs. The area of Apache National Forest is a few miles from where the alpha female and yearlings were released in March.

“Of course dogs and wolves do not mix — especially in the wolves’ territory,” she said, adding that the Service does “warn people they are in wolf territory when they have their dogs.”

The three were brought from the Sevilleta refuge to augment the Campbell Blue Pack, which at the time only included the alpha male. The male has been through four mates, Fox said, but other than this incident “kept his nose clean.”

He is ranging free and there are no plans to trap him, she said. The two yearling females were trapped over the weekend and are in an acclimation pen in the Apache National Forest. Current plans, Fox said, are to re-release the two with the male. She said hopefully one of the two will pair up with the alpha male next year.

In a news release, the Service characterized the alpha female’s behavior as “undesirable” and stated she will not be a candidate for future release into the wild.

Comment on this topic here Register And Post Your Comments Regarding This Or Any Article

Categories: Endangered Species, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment

Sept 19 deadline comments due on first two chapters of the new Mexican wolf management plan.

Comments and talking points for the Sept 19 Federal Register deadline on this document should be ready within a couple days for those of you wanting to make comprehensive comments. Preliminary_draft_ch_1_2_PDEIS

Categories: Endangered Species, Federal Regulatory Policy, Uncategorized, Wolves | Leave a comment