Show me the money

Mexican Authorities Release Mexican Wolves In Sonora

October 21, 2011
By admin

Mexican Authorities Release Mexican Wolves In Sonora
Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Game and Fish Department

PHOENIX, AZ – -(Ammoland.com)- Mexican authorities released five Mexican wolves in the San Luis Mountains in Sonora, Mexico, on Oct. 12, 2011, approximately 80 miles south of Douglas, Ariz.

Mexico’s desire to release wolves in Sonora as part of its recovery effort has been known for the past two years, although the exact timetable for release was unknown.

“Mexico is a sovereign nation with its own wildlife conservation and recovery goals. The vast majority of historic habitat for the Mexican wolf is actually in Mexico, and long-term full recovery of the sub-species is incumbent on successful recovery there, as well as our recovery efforts in the U.S.,” said Larry Voyles, director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Game and Fish will continue to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine how the wolves will be monitored and managed if animals cross the international border.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has been actively involved in the multi-agency effort to reintroduce Mexican wolves to portions of their historic range in the east-central portion of Arizona (and adjacent New Mexico) for many years. In 1998, 11 captive-reared Mexican wolves were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) in eastern Arizona.

The current population in Arizona-New Mexico was assessed to be approximately 50 animals during 2011 monitoring. The Mexican wolf is considered endangered in the United States and Mexico.

Game and Fish continues to express concern over the lack of progress in aspects of wolf conservation.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated efforts earlier this year to update the 1982 recovery plan for the Mexican wolf throughout its historic range in the American Southwest and Mexico,” said Voyles. “The Service also recently released a draft management plan for wolves that might travel to Arizona or New Mexico as a result of the recent release in Sonora or future releases in Mexico. It will likely take years to finalize either plan because of federal environmental compliance processes that could easily be further drawn out by appeals and even litigation.”

Voyles added that wolf management is an emotional issue with potential effects on the human environment, as well as the natural environment. Everyone engaged in wolf management has a responsibility towards open and transparent coordination and information sharing with Arizona stakeholders, as mandated under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Voyles said Game and Fish will make every effort to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, neighboring states, counties, and Mexico, to the extent that transparency allows, to manage and conserve wolves in Arizona.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. If anyone believes that they have been discriminated against in any of the AGFD’s programs or activities, including employment practices, they may file a complaint with the Director’s Office, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000, (602) 942-3000, or with the Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Dr. Ste. 130, Arlington, VA 22203. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation or this document in an alternative format by contacting the Director’s Office as listed above.

“Crying Wolf…?”

September 27, 2011
By admin

Folks, I’m not crying wolf here! As we have been focused on the economic plight of our country, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has quietly and behind closed doors, started laying out a plan to increase the Mexican gray wolf populations in Arizona and the Southwest, with an eye towards increasing “recovery” numbers.

Keep in mind “we” have been working on recovering this species for the last 13 years. The total cost to date is more than $24 Million and rising! Our Arizona Game and Fish Department has invested over $5 Million in the process already. With all this time, money and manpower invested, what’s the result – an estimated population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) of 50 wolves.

The goal for the BRWRA was for 100 animals, a number by all accounts that has been elusive. For the record, there are varying reports that the estimated population of 50 doesn’t include any wolves that are on the White Mountain and San Carlos Apache Reservations. We don’t know how many wolves exist there. So, with that framework in mind, what is the USFWS up to? You will recall that recent Congressional actions delisting the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies failed to include provisions for delisting of the Mexican gray wolf, the argument being that Arizona had not yet reached its recovery goal of 100 wolves. In response to continuing pressure from enviro-litigants USFWS is now accelerating the “recovery” process while the wolf advocates cheer them on.

At a recent USFWS meeting in New Mexico, those that were invited learned the USFWS is considering the adoption of a new Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan. Word is that this plan would “significantly” increase the recovery numbers for the Mexican gray wolf in the four state area of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. This information is very alarming given the fact that the original recovery plan published in March 1998 called for a goal of 100 wolves on the BRWRA which consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico.

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife (AZSFW) has learned that USFWS is discussing the possibility of increasing the population to 750 wolves (three meta populations of 250 wolves each) over a four-state area. This includes Arizona,New Mexico and southern portions of Colorado and Utah. This likely means expansion of wolves across much of Arizona! This action coupled with impending release of wolves in Mexico is extremely disturbing, as not only will this likely decimate our Arizona elk and deer populations, it will also impact all recreational users, and likely further complicate the access to our public lands.

The current population of wolves in Arizona are considered experimental under what’s called a 10j rule. This status allows for management of the animals as intended under the original release agreement. If wolves released in Mexico, just happen to cross into the United States, that 10j status is thrown out the window, and the Endangered Species Act will likely trump the prior agreement and open the door for the enviro-litigants to gain traction on wolf proliferation.

AZSFW asked for a seat at the table with USFWS to participate in Mexican gray wolf recovery plan discussions, and they were turned down. USFWS does not want Arizona sportsmen and women to have a voice in this process, so we need to make our voice heard in other ways!

AZSFWC does not believe Arizona’s prey base can sustain this kind of wolf impact. While the locations have not been identified, there is speculation that in addition to the BRWRA, other potential geographic locations might include areas around the Grand Canyon and another in the southern portions of Utah/Colorado. This means, among other things, that an already-declining prized mule deer herd on the Arizona Strip could be put in further peril. And deer on the Kaibab, though rebounding due the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of sportsmen-generated conservation dollars, will be impacted as well.

If you are not concerned, you should be. In 1971, three thousand (3,000) mule deer permits were issued on the Arizona Strip. In 2010, only 180 permits were issued. Why? The declining mule deer population could not support more permits. Adding more wolves to the equation will only further jeopardize the any rebound of this herd. And enviro-litigants will not stop at 750 wolves. You only have to look at recent actions of the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and others, to realize that increasing Mexican gray wolf populations from 100 to 750 will ultimately not satisfy their desire for more and more wolves.

Consider the following facts:
• Idaho, Montana and Wyoming ultimately exceeded their recovery goals of 300 wolves (current estimates show 1,700 wolves distributed among these three states)
• USFWS delisted the wolf in the states of Idaho and Montana under the Bush administration and again under the Obama administration
• The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies passed a resolution calling for wolf delisting
• Congress passed legislation officially delisting the wolf in the Northern Rockies
So in spite of these actions and the successful recovery of the gray wolf, the enviro-litigants continue to challenge the actions in the courts – most recently challenging the constitutionality of Congressional action to delist the gray wolf.

Enviro-litigant actions demonstrate that there objective is not just to save the wolf. The wolf recovery has been very successful in the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes Region and moderately successful in Arizona/New Mexico. It is a business model for these organizations and they have netted millions of dollars. Their real objective is far more reaching – ultimately they want to stop mixed use (including hunting and public access) on our public lands.

What can you do? Contact our Arizona Congressional Delegation and let them know you are outraged that USFWS is now considering increasing wolf recovery numbers in Arizona. Let them know that they have failed to include Arizona’s strongest voice for wildlife, sportsmen and women out of the process! Finally, let them know you are concerned that years of conservation and wildlife habitat work, not too mention the thousands of dollars spent by sportsmen and women are on the verge of being “thrown to the wolves”.

Be candid, respectful and tactful, but let Senators and Congressmen/woman know how you feel about what is going on here!

Follow this link to let your voice be heard:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Jim Unmacht, President, Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation

Extremists file another EAJA funded lawsuit. Lawsuit Launched to Protect Mexican Gray Wolves From Leghold Traps

August 18, 2011
By admin

For Immediate Release, August 17, 2011
Contact: Michael Robinson, (575) 534-0360
Lawsuit Launched to Protect Mexican Gray Wolves From Leghold Traps
New Mexico Officials Approved Traps, Ignoring Injured and Killed Wolves
SILVER CITY, N.M.— The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a formal notice of intent to sue the New Mexico State Game Commission and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish over the commission’s recent vote to resume recreational trapping in the Gila National Forest, where federally protected, endangered Mexican gray wolves live. Besides being listed under the Endangered Species Act, the wolves are also listed as endangered under state law.
“With only 50 animals and just two breeding pairs surviving in the wild, Mexican wolves can’t afford more losses to these cruel leghold traps,” said the Center’s Michael Robinson. “Responsible hunters know their targets, but trapping is indiscriminate. And while hunters aim for a clean and quick kill, trapped wolves can suffer debilitating and even fatal injuries while struggling to get free.”
A recent report disclosed that, since wolf reintroduction began in 1998, five Mexican wolves have sustained injuries — including some requiring foot and leg amputations — and two other wolves have died as a result of trapping by private parties in the Gila National Forest. This does not include wolves trapped by federal officials on behalf of the livestock industry, which has not occurred since 2007 and is not at issue in today’s notice.
Recreational trapping in the Gila National Forest was halted by the game commission in November 2010 to protect endangered wolves. But on July 21, upon recommendation of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the game commission voted to allow trapping in the Gila to resume, while misrepresenting the report documenting the five wolf injuries and two fatalities to trapping as somehow providing justification.
The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973 to conserve imperiled species and their ecosystems; it specifically bans trapping of endangered animals. Yet the Game Commission and Department’s recent decision authorizes trapping that is known to capture protected wolves, causing illegal “take” (harassment, harm or killing) to occur.
While the 1998 federal rule authorizing reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves allowed some “accidental” trapping of wolves, trapping a wolf within its known range “will not be considered unavoidable, accidental, or unintentional take, unless due care was exercised to avoid taking a wolf.” In allowing trapping again, the game commission has not exercised due care.

Judge: Wolf rule’s a howler While upholding the new law, Molloy gives basis for fresh appeal

August 4, 2011
By admin

Judge: Wolf rule’s a howler
While upholding the new law, Molloy gives basis for fresh appeal

Judge: Wolf rule’s a howler
Judge Donald Molloy
Posted: Thursday, August 4, 2011 12:00 am
Judge: Wolf rule’s a howler By ERIC BARKER of the Tribune The Lewiston Tribune | 7 comments

Federal Judge Donald Molloy held his nose and upheld a congressional rider Wednesday that removed Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in Idaho and Montana.
The ruling will allow wolf hunting seasons set to begin next month to proceed as planned.
Molloy, of Missoula, Mont., previously ruled against two federal rules that delisted wolves and scolded Congress Wednesday, saying the so-called wolf rider attached to a federal spending bill last May undermined and disrespected the rule of law.
“Inserting environmental policy changes into appropriations bills may be politically expedient, but it transgresses the process envisioned by the Constitution by avoiding the very debate on issues of political importance said to provide legitimacy,” he wrote.
He said he believes the rider is unconstitutional, but noted he is bound by precedent to the contrary that was set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court found similar moves by Congress did not violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
“If I were not constrained by what I believe is binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit, and on-point precedent from other circuits, I would hold Section 1713 (the wolf rider) is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court.”
As Congress debated a spending bill last spring, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., attached the rider that ordered the secretary of interior to reissue a 2009 wolf delisting rule that Molloy found in violation of the ESA. It passed both houses and was signed into law by President Barack Obama.
A handful of environmental groups sued, claiming Congress does not have the power to interfere with pending litigation unless it changes the underlying law on which the litigation is based. The rider does not explicitly amend or even mention the ESA.
Attorneys from the Justice Department argued the rider ordered the rule to be reissued “without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation,” and that phrase implicitly amended the part of the ESA that Molloy had previously found to stand in the way of wolf delisting.
Molloy said he was bound to adhere to precedent from the 9th Circuit that said such language is enough to amend underlying law and avoid a separation of powers conflict. However, he wrote that he does not agree with the precedent.
“In my view, the Ninth Circuit’s deference to Congress threatens the Separation of Powers; nonspecific magic words should not sweep aside constitutional concerns.”
Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center For Biological Diversity, one of the groups that challenged the rider, called the ruling extraordinary.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “He is not only intimating the wolf rider is unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit is wrong but he is laying out a road map on how to appeal his own ruling and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. He does everything but buy us a bus ticket to Washington, D.C.”
Suckling said the center and other groups have not yet decided if they will appeal.
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Fred Trevey of Lewiston called the ruling good news. The commission approved wolf hunting rules last week that do not include a statewide limit on the number of wolves that can be killed.
“It allows us to go forward with the decisions we have made and that is encouraging,” he said.
—
Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273.

The endangered species tax

August 1, 2011
By admin

by Hugh Holub on Jul. 29, 2011, under endangered species act, politics

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/07/29/the-endangered-species-tax/

The Endangered Species Act commits us to saving not only every species…but every sub-species and every distinct population segment of a species or a sub-species.
Sounds like a popular idea in concept.
But does anyone realize how much this is costing our economy?
We have in effect an Endangered Species tax in this country.
The Endangered Species Tax is expressed in two ways.
The first way is virtually every federal project that involves disturbing the environment has to go through an Endangered Species Act review.
US Fish and Wildlife gets a chance to extort money from other federal agencies in exchange for approving other federal project activity.
Take for example the $50 million US Fish and Wildlife got from Department of Homeland Security to study bats because the Border Patrol drives around federal lands and they might run over a protected lizard.
Or take the millions of dollars being transfered from the Central Arizona Project to restoire native fish in Arizona becvause in theory exotic fish from the CAP canals could swim up the Ssanta Cruz River and eat native fish.
Whatever Congress appropriates to to US Fish and Wildlife, that agency controls vastly more money through “inter-agency agreements” with other federal agencies where Fish and Wildlife extorted money from thos other agencies in exchange for allowing their projects to go forward.
Congress needs to dig into all the inter-agency agreements between US Fish and Wildlife and other federal agencies and find out just how munch money Fish and Wildlife really controls. I’ll bet that will surprise a lot of people.
And then Congress needs to stop US Fish and Wildlife from hijacking other federal agency funds.
The second Endangered Species Tax is the cost added to every project in the country that is added to get federal approval for that project.
These costs turn up in habitat protection plans and other mitigation measures that projects are subjected to by the federal government and environmental groups who sue to block these projects.
Want to build a solar energy project? You will probably have to fork over money to protect the desert tortoise.
Want to build a natural gas pipeline? You will have to fork over money to protect mice. El Paso Natural Gas got hit for $22 million to get approval to build a gas pipeline through Nevada.
Want to drill for oil or natural gas in West Texas? You will add millions to your cost to protect sage lizards.
I’ll bet that we have at least a 10 percent cost added to virtually every project in the country that disturbs land in some way because we have prioritized protecting darned never everything that grows or walks or crawls in this country.
Somwhere along the way people need to have a say as to how much money we’re going to divert from our economy to protect what.
If there is no genetic difference between the wolves that live in Montana or Michigan or eastern Arizona…why are we spending money to have wolves in eastern Arizona?
If there are lots of jaguars in Mexico and all the way to Brazil….why are we going to spend millions to have jaguars in southern Arizona?
If there are 27 sub-species of squirrels….why are we spending money to protect one sub-species on one mountain top in Arizona?
There are a lot of good questions that need to be asked about how the Endangered Species Act really works and how much money it is costing to protect plants and critters that may not even really be endangered at all.
The Endangered Species Act really is not about protecting plants and animals any more.
It has been twisted into a tool to block virtually any project that disturbs the land.
Radical environmental groups that really want to destroy the American economy have turned the ESA into their weapon of choice to strangle America.
And taxpayers are paying for killing the country.
We have been bamboozled into a costly guilt trip via the Endangered Species Act and our priorities are seriously skewed when on one hand we really want to secure our border and we have people fighting finishing the border fence because that will interfere with jaguar migration.
Let’s find out how much we are spending via federal inter-agency agreements and cost additions to projects in the country and see if we are really getting our money’s worth.
And of course radical environmentalists will argue money is no object in protecting endangered species.
That is your money and the more of it siphoned away to protect sage lizards in West Texas, the less you will have for Social Security and Medicare.

Interior Announces Proposed Settlement of Gray Wolf Lawsuit 03/18/2011

March 22, 2011
By admin

 Contact: Kendra Barkoff, DOI (202) 208 6416 Chris Tollefson, FWS (202) 247-7417 WASHINGTON, DC -

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reached an agreement with the majority of plaintiffs, including Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and eight other conservation organizations, to settle ongoing litigation over a Federal District Court’s 2010 decision to reinstate Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.

If approved by the court, the settlement offers a path for the Service to return management of the recovered wolf populations in Idaho and Montana to the States while the Service considers options for delisting gray wolves across the Rocky Mountain region, where population levels have returned to biologically recovered levels. “For too long, management of wolves in this country has been caught up in controversy and litigation instead of rooted in science where it belongs. This proposed settlement provides a path forward to recognize the successful recovery of the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains and to return its management to States and Tribes,” said Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes. “I am pleased that the negotiations resulted in this important agreement,” said Acting Service Director Rowan Gould. “The proposed settlement has the potential to return management of wolves in Montana and Idaho to the states and tribes and will also enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to use our limited resources to address other species in need of recovery actions.” Under the terms of the settlement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to address the delisting of wolves in the region in the future as a distinct population segment, rather than on a state-by-state basis. The parties are requesting that the court allow the 2009 delisting to be reinstated in Montana and Idaho on an interim basis, in accordance with approved state management plans, until a full delisting can be completed for the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. The parties are agreeing that they allow these steps to move forward, up to and including a potential delisting of Rocky Mountain wolves, without resorting to further litigation. “I want to recognize the great work of Deputy Secretary Hayes, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the entire negotiating team, and all those who worked with us to find a common-sense way forward,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Separate negotiations are ongoing between the Service and the State of Wyoming in an effort to reach agreement on a management plan for wolves in that state. If a mutually acceptable management plan for wolves in Wyoming can be developed, then the Service will be able to proceed with delisting proceedings addressing wolves throughout the northern Rocky Mountains. The delisting provided for under this agreement does not extend to the small wolf populations in eastern Oregon and Washington, or to Utah, where there are not believed to be any resident wolves. FWS intends to address the longer term status of wolves in Oregon, Washington, and Utah when it issues a new rule addressing status of wolves across the Northern Rocky Mountain region. FWS will work with state officials in Oregon, Washington and Utah in the meantime to address any wolf management issues and retains the option to consider reclassifying wolves from “endangered” to “threatened” in those states in order to provide more management flexibility. The Service and the plaintiffs have agreed to take other actions that will clarify implementation of the ESA and ensure that a recovered wolf population continues to be sustainably managed under approved state management plans. Additional terms of the proposed agreement are available here. The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife and plants. This landmark conservation law has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation and promoted the recovery of many others. Additional background information on the settlement is available here.

Truth be known, this is likely the 10000th meeting on this species in the SW but heck who’s counting as long as those government paychecks cash.

February 25, 2011
By admin

http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_17478569?source=most_viewed

Recovery team holds first meeting about wolves
Sun News Report
Posted: 02/24/2011 11:15:58 PM MST
SILVER CITY – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region convened the new Mexican Wolf Recovery Team for its first meeting on Tuesday.
The team is made up of four groups that are charged with writing the revised Mexican wolf recovery plan, Fish and Wildlife said in a prepared news release.
The four groups are: science and planning, agency liaisons, tribal liaisons and stakeholder liaisons. The groups are made up of scientists, wildlife managers and informed and experienced stakeholders from the livestock community, conservation community and other local interests who will work collaboratively to develop the recovery plan.
“We have assembled some of the best scientists, wildlife managers, and forward-thinking stakeholders to accomplish our goal of completing a recovery plan for the Mexican wolf,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest regional director. “As they work with our scientists and wolf specialists over the next two years, I am confident that the recovery plan that is produced will guide us toward recovery of one of the Southwest’s most iconic species.”
The team will be led by Peter Siminski, Ph.D., from the Department of Mammology, The Living Desert, Palm Desert, California. The team’s coordinator and liaison to the Service is Tracy Melbihess, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both Siminski and Melbihess are very familiar with this topic, having worked on past efforts to revise the recovery plan.
The Southwest Region has also put in place two new managers for the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, Sherry Barrett as the Mexican wolf recovery coordinator, who will oversee all aspects of Mexican wolf recovery. Barrett is an experienced manager who comes to Albuquerque from the Ecological Services field office in Tucson, Ariz., where she served as the assistant field supervisor.
Elizabeth Jozwiak will be the field project coordinator, and will manage all of the Interagency Field Team staff. Jozwiak came from Alaska, where she was a wildlife biologist specializing in carnivore and large predator management at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Soldotna.
The 1982 recovery plan for the Mexican wolf recommended a two-pronged approach to recovery that included establishment of a captive breeding program and reintroduction of wolves into the wild. Fish and Wildlife said, although substantial progress in implementing the plan has been achieved, the plan does not contain criteria for recovering and delisting the wolf in the southwestern United States. Developing these criteria will be an important focus of the new recovery planning effort, Fish and Wildlife said.
The team, working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, will write the revised recovery plan, which will contain broad recovery strategies to guide conservation efforts, and specific goals, objectives, and criteria that will specify when the Mexican wolf can be considered for down-listing and delisting. The team will develop a prioritized list of implementation actions, with time and cost estimates, to achieve Mexican wolf recovery.
For more information visit: www.fws.gov/southwest

Wolf Delisting, and the scumbags holding back a solution. Wyoming and the rest of us thrown under the bus.

February 16, 2011
By admin

Yesterday’s development in wolf delisting: Some of you may of heard that wolf delisting language was included in the House C.R. to keep the government funded. Unfortunately, the language in the C.R. is not the good development it appears to be. See Rehberg press rele…ase below. Unfortunately the language that is included is the administration’s language that is being pushed by Tester and Baucus. The language leaves most of the country squarely in the cross hairs of unmanaged wolves’. It leaves the door open to relisting in Idaho and Montana. Does nothing to stop the wave of spreading destruction anywhere else. Doesn’t delist most wolf states. Does nothing to restore state management. Doesn’t end the endless cycle of wasteful litigation. Keeps the spigot of EAJA funding for enviro litigants alive diverting millions of dollars from our children’s and grandchildren’s future into lawyers and environmental endowment funds. For all these reasons, the C.R. Approach could never be “The American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act” as H.R. 509 and S. 249 are so appropriately named. Dan Ashe convinced Simpson from Idaho to break ranks with the 48 Senators and Congressmen that are working on the right solution. 2 Senators recognize the need for a fix, but are pushing a watered down non-solution that has no support. Why are we such a nation of ambulance chasers sometimes? Why are some officials afraid of obvious solutions to stop the hemorrhaging once and for all? This is a $100 Million a year problem that is only getting worse, bigger, deeper and more widespread. Last year a very similar approach was used by the anti-wolf management folks. They make it appear to be a compromise, but ultimately they divide the ranks and then kill the watered down solution as well. The folks who are pushing this want no wolf management, not even under the watered down scenario. We all need to call Simpson today and tell him he is falling for politics of divide and conquer. Tell him you do not support the CR that the ONLY solution is H.R. 509. DC office 202-225-5531 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-225-5531 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Boise office 208-334-1953 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 208-334-1953 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Email: simpson.house.gov Ryan Benson, {Doctor of Juris Prudence. , Harvard University}

Third Annual Cliff NM Cowboy Dinner and Dance Feb 19, 2011

February 14, 2011
By admin

Please mark your calendars for the third annual Cliff NM Cowboy Dinner and Dance February 19
At the Cliff fair barn. Dinner starts at 6 PM the Delk Band at 8 PM.
Proceeds from the party are being used to fund the legal action by Gila Livestock Growers Association, APWE, Otero Co and Catron Co. New Mexico to force FWS to comply with current wolf management rules as they relate to livestock and human protections.

To donate to the legal fund use the paypal button at the top of this website. The lawsuit is estimated to cost our small organizations around 80 thousand dollars. We are in the beginning stages and although we have been holding fundraisers for some time, only our first two were highly successful in terms of financial intake. We are competing against the unlimited resourses of the federal government and the US Justice Department as well as Environmental Extremists who have access to taxpayer money to sue the government to regulate us out of business using the Equal Access to Justice Funds. Please consider assisting us in protecting rural people in their own communities from these constant attacks that undermine the stability of rural lifestyles and business opportunities.

‘Watershed year’ expected for Mexican gray wolves

January 10, 2011
By admin

By Susan Montoya Bryan

Associated Press

Published: Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011 10:50 a.m. MST
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Another year has passed and the effort to return the endangered Mexican gray wolf to the Southwest is no closer to marking success than when federal wildlife officials first set out with their lofty goals decades ago.

But this year is going to be different. It’s going to be what U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest director Benjamin Tuggle calls “a watershed year,” and at the top of his list is bringing together scientists, conservationists, ranchers and others to develop a much-needed roadmap for the wolf’s recovery.

“We have battled this demon a very long time and finally we’ve gotten the go-ahead in a number of ways. It is my firm belief that we’re going to make some significant progress,” Tuggle told The Associated Press in an interview.

The effort to return the wolves to the wild in New Mexico and Arizona has been hampered by illegal shootings, court battles, complaints from ranchers who have lost livestock and pets to the wolves, and concerns by environmentalists over the way the reintroduction program has been managed.

In 2010, there were six wolf deaths. All but one involved suspicious circumstances.

Two lawsuits were filed — one by conservationists and the other by ranching groups and two southern New Mexico counties.

A few New Mexico lawmakers pushed unsuccessfully to get state game officials to help reduce conflicts between wolves and livestock, and a dozen congressional lawmakers requested that federal officials make changes in the program and consider releasing more wolves into the wild.

The goal this year, Tuggle said, will be finding balance between science and the impact of management actions on people in the region. That balance has eluded the program since the federal government began releasing Mexican wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico border in 1998.

“It’s not going to be easy,” Tuggle said. “You’ve got these divergent groups that are very opinionated.”

The Mexican gray wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, once roamed New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Mexico. As more people began to settle in the Southwest, conflict arose between the wolves, people and livestock. Hunting and government-sponsored extermination campaigns all but wiped out the wolf.

The wolf was added to the federal endangered species list in 1976 and a captive-breeding program was started. A recovery plan was adopted in 1982 and the first 11 wolves were released in March 1998.

Biologists had hoped to have more than 100 wolves in the wild by 2006. At the beginning of 2010, the count was 42.

With the annual wolf survey starting in less than two weeks, wildlife managers hope they can spot more wolves on the snowy landscape. There’s hope since pups were spotted with a few packs during the fall.

The survey involves a spotter plane, a helicopter, radio telemetry equipment and ground support.

“The thing that helps us get a really accurate number is the fact that we have a lot of collared wolves compared to the total number of wolves on the ground. Being that wolves are pack animals, it’s pretty easy to find them,” said Wally Murphy, a Fish and Wildlife Service supervisor in New Mexico.

Neither Murphy nor Tuggle wanted to venture a guess at how many wolves might be out there.

“We expect it will improve,” Murphy said. “How much it will improve is yet to be seen.”

Aside from the count, the focus this year is on releasing more captive wolves, finding more money for an interdiction fund to help ranchers with livestock depredations and developing a new recovery plan.

A team of scientists, state and federal wildlife managers, tribal officials and other stakeholders is being assembled to hash out details of the plan. The first meeting is expected in February, and Tuggle hopes to have a plan ready for public review in a year.

Eva Lee Sargent of the group Defenders of Wildlife said she believes more people would be willing to get on board if the recovery goals — and the means to getting there — were clearly spelled out.

“What the program really needs is to be based on science and not based on the squeaky wheel and politics,” she said.

Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, said her group appreciates what Tuggle is trying to do but finding middle ground will be difficult if environmentalists continue to push for establishing wolf populations in more areas and bringing an end to grazing permits on national forest land.

Cowan said the balance between having wolves in the wild and ranchers continuing with their livelihood will not come down to a number, but rather to how the wolves are managed.

“We live with other predators. There are coyotes out there, there are bears, there are lions, but we’re able to manage them and we certainly have not extirpated all of those predators. But when you find an offending one, you have to have the ability to deal with it,” she said. “That’s the frustration with the wolf situation.”

Cowan and Sargent said fixing the problems will take more than a year, but everyone is willing to try.

Tuggle acknowledges that mistakes have been made, but he said officials are learning from them.

Tuggle remembers the first time he saw a Mexican gray wolf. It was in a captive facility. He said could imagine that animal roaming the Gila National Forest or somewhere else.

“I’ve heard wolves in the wild, I’ve seen them in the wild, and I have a full appreciation of that species and the charismatic nature of that species and that’s what really motivates me in terms of the Mexican gray wolf. I see the potential of what this species can be on the landscape.”

© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

Mexican wolf Petition please sign here.

Northern wolf petition please sign.

Archives