Win-Win Possible for Wolf Recovery
Jul 11th, 2008 by admin
http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/1193331a9_wolves_state07
-11-08.htm
Friday, July 11, 2008
By Benjamin N. Tuggle
<http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl?staff=no>
Southwest Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
There has been a lot of discussion about U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service efforts to recover the Mexican gray wolf in New Mexico and Arizona. The opinions of polarized groups have clearly dominated the public discourse regarding reintroduction, and the public debate has been characterized by finger-pointing and name-calling.
The rhetoric, however, does not accurately reflect the service’s ongoing work to develop a viable population of Mexican wolves within Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.
To understand the current controversy surrounding Mexican wolf reintroduction, it is important to appreciate the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s mission: working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The concepts of wildlife and habitat conservation, and working collaboratively are key to the mission.
We are fortunate to be able to draw on the expertise of many dedicated biologists with practical experience and expertise in managing lobos on the ground in New Mexico and Arizona.
When we initiated the reintroduction program, the service used the best available data to estimate that the recovery area might eventually support as many as 100 wolves. Prior to the 1998 release of Mexican wolves in the Blue Range Recovery Area, the known wild population in the United States was zero. The wolf reintroduction program has brought the number of lobos in the wild from zero to 52 (in early 2008), clearly indicating that we are moving away from — not toward — extinction, despite several very public statements to the contrary.Will the Blue Range Recovery Area support 100 wolves? Not according to the Mexican wolf reintroduction project’s five-year review conducted by independent scientists. Their research considered a variety of factors including the area’s biological carrying capacity, the size of the recovery area, and the socio-economic carrying capacity.
Realistically, a successful reintroduction effort must address the economic impacts of livestock depredation.
When wolf-livestock conflicts occur, our preference is to work with the livestock owner to prevent depredation through hazing or other non-lethal methods. If that fails, we must consider either temporary or permanent removal. Temporarily removed wolves are eligible to be re-released into the wild.
The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish transferred two formerly removed adult wolves back into the wild this summer. There have been no lethal removals in 2008.
Let me also clarify a couple of other misconceptions about the impacts of the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort. Despite claims to the contrary, we have no evidence of wolf attacks against humans in the United States. However, we understand how local citizens could be concerned and, in collaboration with our partners, we’ve developed and distributed public safety information.
Wolf scat studies consistently indicate that their primary food source is elk. The New Mexico and Arizona Game and Fish Departments have done extensive population monitoring and determined that the amount of elk consumed by wolves in the recovery area does not significantly reduce the game population. There is no evidence to suggest that elk populations will be negatively impacted by wolves.
The character of the rural West has always relied on people, wildlife and livestock sharing the land. We believe that wolf recovery is not inconsistent with well-managed grazing operations. In addition, well-managed ranching can help ensure viable wildlife habitat at a time when the growing trend toward land fragmentation threatens habitat integrity.
Wolf removals are not our preference. As an alternative, we have proposed a Mexican Wolf/Livestock Interdiction Fund. I believe that — when fully implemented — the interdiction fund will promote wolf recovery by helping to offset the costs to ranchers of wolf depredations, and will allow the service to suspend wolf removals.I challenge all members of the environmental and ranching communities — and all concerned members of the public — to step forward and support the interdiction program. It represents a reasonable compromise that has a good chance of balancing healthy wolf populations with viable ranching operations.Rhetoric, threats and lawsuits do little to promote sustainable recovery or address economic losses. The service is dedicated to creating a healthy, balanced landscape capable of sustaining both Western values and wildlife. Our commitment to wolf recovery has never wavered, and we will continue to work with all parties as we move forward to restore this majestic species.
There is no win- win in a situation where wolves and those who profit from them can dictate no control of wolves. The legal mandate for the program to not destroy the culture which exists here is at extreme and illegal risk if the program caves in to extremist demands that wolves must be allowed to be protected from all control (removals) no matter what the reality, dangers etc. to people and their families safety and financial existance in the reality.
Mr. Tuggle, have you considered what is really happening here? How can any federal program get away with this kind of horrible and unlawful abuse? Rural people do not necessarily have the resources to fight those within the government who totally and unlawfully disregard their welfare. They are at a decided disadvantage in such a situation.
In an ideal world where a sanely considered reality and compassion rules the fate of rural innocents, they would not fall victim to powerfull interests who care not the damage they cause to others. Hopefully, we will find the strength to defend the innocents against the powerful propaganda machines of the oh so “special” interests, who care not for man or beast. Their $$$ powerful propaganda only serves to delude the masses who fall vicim to these psychopathic and ‘guiltless’ levels of unconcern for others.
The truth is that those who are being victimized are good stewards of lands they have real and legal rights to and wish to pass on to the next generation. The destroyers are heedless of this reality and seek self-gain by endless creation of destructive power and control policies and propaganda.
Is what I say rable-rousing? I don’t think so. Our benign culture would rather work with any government program than be offensive, but the time comes, as our founding fathers were so very aware of, when government efforts to achieve ever greater levels of control no matter what the consequences to man or beast, must be checked. When the desire for control surpasses the need for truly natural balance on the land and the welfare of “we the people” and the truth of real stewardship it has gone to far and needs to be checked.
Why the need for this no control policy which is not compromise but uncontrolled destruction? That is the big question. Why Mr. Tuggle can’t you express comprehension and compassion? Have you ’sold out”? Does it have to do with supporting careers and pensions, and pressures from those who are psychopathically unconcerned with all but their own guilt- free self-propagated illusions causing the atrocities being experienced by the people here and propagated by the government who the very tolerant and moral people here have been taught to support?
Do you support the Neo-Con pre-emptive strike agenda internationally as well?
As a small rancher I am not going to be bought off so easily. If my only concern was economics I would sell all my deeded land to a developer and get out of this rather unprofitable venture. When I have to explain to my kids that that calf that we helped save at birth was ripped to pieces by a bunch of predators that weren’t there when I was a kid, when I have to worry about our ranch dogs, cats, colts, kids my wife and even my own safety, then I am going to be ready to fight right beside a lot of other people.. The old timers had to deal with these wolves, but they were permitted to protect themselves from them. I find it outrageous that these wolfers feel they can simply offer to pay us off for this, and insulting to think us so simple to take the bait.
Even more insulting is these wolfers give us an I. OWE. YOU. and when some folks actually get paid it is not the value of the loss, not even close. Might be a down payment at best, from some body who needs a co-signer as well. I own a pack team I would not trade for any amount of wolves or fiat paper trash FRNs, but if they kill even one member of my team, then I’m going hunting wolves until I’m dead.
“Interdiction” compensation @100% cost of confirmed depredations=economic failure.
A factor not often included in agency considerations is that the “best guess science” for “actual” wolf kills vs “confirmed” kills is probably anywhere from 7-10 actual to every 1 “confirmed”.
“Interdiction” compensation @ 100% of ALL deaths would also usher in economic failure of ranches as families eventually cease to have any production left at the end of the season with which to maintain viability as a ranch. One can imagine the scenario resulting when the amount of injury to families and communities no longer attaches to actions by the agencies as proposed here by Dr. Tuggle.
Danger will be further increased by known large predator behavior. “Problem” large predators must be removed to minimize the danger posed by increasing the percentage of habituated problem animals by non-removal. The spread of dangerous behavior by example from parent to offspring and to other previously unhabituated wild animals has already been amply witnessed in this wolf program. Inevitable further increases in the percentage of dangerous animals who do not fear the people, their activities and animals will result in ever increasing dangers, losses and harms.
In these days of every more top down power, social engineering, neither
science, nor the unalienable rights of the people to be secure, safe and healthy in their lives and properties) seem to rule the day.
This harmful social engineering by litigous non-governmental-entities is controlling OUR agencys activities forcing them to violate their oaths by
victimizing those whom they, as public servants have sworn to protect above all else. The law is that violation of the Oath of Office by public servants vacates all their authority. Howmany within the wolf program have violated their oath thereby vacating all office and authority to continue any actions lawfully within this program?
Many will think my analysis rather harsh, but isn’t this extortion, theft, perjury and treason to name a few?
Mary, it’s not harsh at all, it’s reality.
used council trucks for sale…
As you seem to know what your doing blogging wise, do you know what the best time of the week is to blog and have them read?…
used council trucks for sale–there is no “day or time of day” for blogging. However, some are considered spam and removed by administration. If anyone is been spammed, maybe they used foul language or personal insults to other bloggers. We welcome blogs from pro-wolfers, provided they are polite in presenting their views.
Mr. T., I have a number of objections to your points. you state the mission of USFWS is conserve and protect wildlife to the benefit of the people. How can this mission benefit the people, if the people are the ones being harmed? I believe the secret is in the language. When I reread it, I saw a different mission, namely “at the expense and exclusion” of people. You go on to praise the work of expertise and experience of your biologists. Mr. T., you know that we know they are using a pseudo science to promote the program. DNA is only one tiny problem in this thing you call expertise and experience.
You claim to have 52 wolves. We know there are least that many uncollared and there are at least 2nd generations of them, if not 3rd. You suggest the load of responsibility is upon the ranchers to “haze” the wolves for the protection of their livestock. You have to see the critter to haze him, and these wolves don’t haze. They just stand their ground and snarl. Then they circle and prey test. You can throw stones, holler, shoot a pistol near them, nothing works. Besides, at best, they will eventually withdraw and watch.
You further claim there have been no wolf attacks in the U.S. You made this “clarification” to avoid mentioning the death of Mr. Carnegy in Canada in 2006. I just watched a TV program on Alaska and they openly admitted that wolves attack humans and it is legal to “hunt and bait” wolves to protect “property and dogs,” not to mention children. The last time I looked at a map, Alaska was part of the U.S.
Yes, your wolf scat analysis shows elk as the primary source of food for wolves. However, this isn’t the taking of the old and weak, like we should be seeing in nature. They are taking the newly born calves of elk and deer, effectively wiping out the future generations of elk and deer. Therefore, contrary to your statement, populations of elk and deer ARE being negatively impacted. I used to sit on my front porch every evening and morning and watch the elk coming and going. I could hear them all night long. Deer napped in the afternoons under my trees. The deer disappeared about 9 years ago, and I rarely see elk in my area. Occasionally, I hear them in the night. My hunter/guide friends provide even more stark reports of the herds thinning and disappearing. Hunters are bringing fewer trophies into town. But, each elk taken by a hunter is not being replaced by a new generation.
You claim “well managed” ranching is the answer. Mr. T., you need to put your soft south end on the back of a horse and follow any rancher around from pre-dawn to dusk and see just how “well managed” their ranches are, and how impossible it is to keep the wolf at bay. The reason it worked in the 19th century was that a rancher shot and killed bears, cougars and wolves that were problems. We can still shoot the bears and cougars, but you forbid us to shoot the wolves.
You propose an “interdiction fund” to help the ranchers. My gosh! How many years have you been waiting to do this, and how many years will it take to put it in place and actually fund? Will the funding be retroactive, including ranchers who went bankrupt and are no longer in the area? DoW bragged at a meeting last month that they pay for losses. Lie! They do not! They have not! I have been present at more than one meeting where they admitted to only pay for one incident and further declared that any rancher making anti-wolf statements would NEVER be paid. Also, a pack of wolves killing more than one cow or horse, or even goat or sheep, is considered “one incident” just the same as one wolf against one horse or cow, etc.
If I were a city girl propagandized by pro-wolf films on TV and articles in magazines, as I once was, your article would seem very reasonable and viable. However, I made the decision to return to the land that raised me so many years ago. Putting my feet on the ground in a remote location opened my eyes. My neighbors are ranchers, my friends all have horses, and I see children waiting for school buses in “wolf proof cages” made by the high school students. Come on Mr. Tuggle. Be reasonable. You need to send out resumes and contact head hunters for a new and respectable career. Hold your head high and be proud to do something for the good of society, not the harm your agency does.