July 18, 2008                                                                                       Will Hart      (208) 342-7985

When Ranchers Cry “Wolf!”

by: Senator Larry Craig

“They are killing animals a hundred feet from my door!”

– from a letter to me by a concerned Idahoan

            Those of us who have owned livestock knew this is what would happen.  What we feared has become a reality.  Wolves are roaming Idaho, and their presence is hurting the livelihoods of many Idahoans.

            In 1996, I warned the former Secretary of the Interior under the Clinton Administration, Bruce Babbit, that introducing gray wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho would carry a price tag for local ranchers.  I asked him to wait until we knew exactly how that cost would be borne before taking any action.  He ignored my warning, releasing wolves into the Rocky Mountain ecosystem, and leaving all compensation for depredation caused by wolves to come from private sources. 

            Twelve years later, ranchers face an additional problem.  The private money that was promised to cover damages caused by wolves will not be available next year, and now ranchers are looking for help.  Idaho has been fortunate enough to secure $100,000 a year for this cause, through my work on the Senate Appropriations Committee, but our neighbors to the east have not been so fortunate:  Ranchers in Montana and Wyoming are struggling to make up for the livestock and other wildlife they’re losing to wolf attacks. Very soon, Idahoans will join their ranks. 

            That is why I recently co-sponsored the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act of 2008 along with my colleagues from Montana and Wyoming.  This bill would provide grants through the Department of Interior to our three States and Tribes within our borders to support landowners both in preventing livestock predation and obtaining compensation for any losses.  The federal government has forced wolves upon the people of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.  It seems reasonable that the federal government should help pay for the harm this is causing. 

            This is particularly important because that harm is likely to increase.  In 2005, an estimated 50,000 coyotes caused 600 losses in Idaho and an estimated 500 wolves were responsible for almost 900.  That’s nearly two losses per wolf, compared to a little more than one loss per one hundred coyotes.  Last year the wolf population was estimated to have increased to almost 750, and their numbers are still increasing today.  It is safe to assume that with the increase in wolf population, there comes an increase of depredation.

            Up until now, wolves have known no predator.  They have roamed freely, killing as they wish.  Giving ranchers permission to kill a wolf that is attacking their livestock is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough.  They also ought to have a realistic opportunity to be compensated when, despite that limited ability to control the situation, their flocks and herds are damaged by wolf attacks. 

            Growing up on a ranch, I understand the frustration and nervousness my fellow ranchers are feeling.  They were minding their own business, peacefully raising cattle and sheep, when a monstrous threat was thrown on their doorstep.  That threat was not of their making.  The federal government released wolves into their lives, and it’s time the federal government pitched in to help pay for the depredation caused by this policy. 

[NOTE: To link to this release, use the following address:  http://craig.senate.gov/releases/ed071808.cfm.  A printer-ready version (PDF) is also available.]

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2005/BillHtml/HJ0029.htm

http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2005/HJM005.html

Why is PR ignoring these blatant misperceptions they were all included in the scoping analysis?

PR addresses the hybridism issue by stating that Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineages were found after the initial captive breeding program began, this is absolutely untrue.  Those lineages were what FWS had prior to the trip to Mexico to capture McBride or certified lineage.  Which waas only necessary because the service considered both Aragon and Ghost ranch (related wolves) hybrids with too much dog blood for the program and they were not only discarded but many of them were killed to keep them out of the breeding program.  Unfortunately not enough of them were destroyed and once it became clear McBride were far too inbred to use by themselves for the captive breeding program, Aragon and Ghost ranch lineages were “found” again.  

Read the papers on this FWS themselves wrote during this time period linked at the right menu.  How does PR get away with distorting the facts of this program?

Next, despite dozens of reports of wolf - human encounters listed in the 5 year review and even those reported 5 years after the 5 year review was completed.  Including those happening daily in the BRWRA instead, PR chooses to pretend habituation is not a problem in this program. 

Perhaps PR should be made to go home with these reports and do a test the next day on those documents and what they represent.  Plain truth is Mexican wolf official PR is not telling the public the truth about this program PR is manipulating the facts to suit whatever agenda had or being told to present.  This doesn’t bode well for the service to carry out it’s obligations to mitigate harm caused by this program.  The law demands it but thinly veiled agenda’s will not allow mitigation to occur.    

Disgusting but to be expected by this agency they have been alowed to do whatever it takes by way of ethics violations to further this program. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sorted through the 13,598 comments it received in response to the agency’s call for public input on potential modifications to its rule that established the Mexican wolf reintroduction project.  The Service announced in 2006 it would continue reintroducing wolves into native habitat in New Mexico and Arizona and would modify the rule to address lessons learned over a decade of reintroducing wolves.  The Service began reintroducing Mexican wolves as a “nonessential experimental population” in 1998.
 
In the comments, people tended to either strongly support or strenuously object to reintroducing the wolf into the wild, which is not the issue at hand.  The issue is how best to pursue reintroduction, thus recovery, in terms of a modified rule.  Many submitted detailed comments on how to improve or modify aspects of the reintroduction project.  Comments were grouped into 26 themes ranging from geographical boundaries to compensation for depredated cattle to social and economic impacts of the project.
 
The analytical summary and a sampling of the comments are available on the Internet at www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/ (click on the rule modification button).  Copies are also available by calling the Service at 505-761-4782.
 
“The issues raised will be used to frame a range of alternatives for modifying the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project,” said John Slown, biologist overseeing the rule-modification process.  “We thank everyone for sending comments.  Your involvement will assist us in preparing a thorough set of alternative management options.”
 
‘Rulemaking’ is the process by which federal agencies promulgate regulations to implement decisions.  Scoping helps to define the issues early in the process that the agency should examine during their rule-modification procedure.  The federal rulemaking process can take several years. “We are early in the process, and we will ask for public input several more times before final decisions are made,” said Slown.  
 
A draft rule and environmental impact statement will be prepared for review.  The environmental impact statement helps the agency consider the environmental aspects of their decisions.  The public is directly involved at several stages of the decision-making process.  Once all comment periods close, the Service takes the comments into consideration, finalizes the rule and the environmental impact statement and implements the decision. 
 
The scoping process highlighted some misperceptions about wolves and reintroduction. 
 
Comments showed that some people remain concerned the Mexican wolves released into the wild are wolf-dog hybrids and not pure, endangered Mexican wolves.  The charge probably stems from two lineages of Mexican wolf named ‘Aragon’ and ‘Ghost Ranch’ that were found late among the captive population.  Before certifying the Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineages to be genetically pure Mexican wolves, the Service tested genetic material from these animals.  In each of several tests, the animals demonstrated pure Mexican wolf genetics, distinct from domestic dog or northern gray wolf genetic characteristics. 
 
Although wolf/dog hybrids do exist, these are primarily captive animals bred for the pet trade.  However, in separate cases, two female Mexican wolves were bred by domestic dogs in the wild in Arizona or New Mexico.  Both times the hybrid offspring were identified, captured and humanely euthanized, per the rule governing management of the reintroduced population.  The Service is committed to keeping the introduced population of Mexican wolves genetically pure.
 
Another fear expressed in the comments is that Mexican wolves released into the wild are “habituated” to human presence, due to being raised in captivity and thus exhibit a variety of undesirable traits such as lack of fear of humans, tendency to seek food sources at or near human dwellings, etc.  Since there were no Mexican wolves in the wild when the project began, the only wolves initially available for release were captive-bred and reared.  The Service continues to use captive reared wolves to augment natural reproduction, but every effort is made to limit human interaction with the wolves scheduled to be placed in the wild.  Scheduled feedings occur only once or twice a week.  There is no contact when the staff leaves food.  The wolves are afraid of staff and typically run to the far end of their one-acre enclosure and pace, or hide under brush or in artificial dens when humans are near.  Any necessary wolf observation by the Service is done from blinds using telescopes to reduce contact.  Also, required veterinary care usually elicits a fear or discomfort response from the wolves.  In rare cases some wolves in the captive population have shown a lack of normal fear of humans.  Such ‘bold’ wolves are not released into the wild.
 
Wolves in the wild that exhibit patterns of habituation, such as getting too close to human dwellings, are hazed by project staff using rubber bullets, crackers shells (exploding shells that are fired into the air over the wolf to frighten the animal with their loud reports) or other means.  Repeated habituated behavior results in a wolf being designated a “nuisance wolf;” and as such it may be translocated to an area distant from the location of the habituated behavior or removed from the wild.  It is important to note that failure on the part of a wolf to immediately flee from a human presence upon a chance encounter with humans in the wild is not necessarily a sign of habituation.  Wolves are curious animals and will sometimes observe humans from a distance out of curiosity.
 
The reintroduction of the Mexican wolf is a cooperative, multi-agency effort of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 
______________________________________________________________________
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit ww.fws.gov.

-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.

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’s been no confirmed gray wolf in the wild in New Mexico since the animals were exterminated from the state in the early and mid-1900s.

The animal was seen several times and photographed on Vermejo Park Ranch, which is owned by media mogul Ted Turner. It was first spotted about a month ago, but government biologists have not been able to capture the animal to obtain genetic material to confirm whether it’s a wolf.

“We don’t know what it is. It looks like a gray wolf. It looks like a big black gray wolf. Where did it come from? We don’t know,” Mike Phillips, executive director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund in Bozeman, Mont., said Monday in a telephone interview.

“It’s not a coyote. It doesn’t mean it’s not a socialized gray wolf that somebody let go and it just wandered around and ended up in Vermejo. And it doesn’t mean it’s not a gray wolf that came out of the northern Rockies.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been reintroducing the Mexican gray wolf, a subspecies of the larger gray wolf, in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

But the markings on the animal seen on Turner’s ranch were not that of a Mexican gray wolf, according to Elizabeth Slown, a spokesman for the agency in Albuquerque.

Slown said the agency took the sighting seriously enough to send one of its wolf biologists from Arizona to the ranch last week. Traps were put out but nothing was caught. The New Mexico Game and Fish Department also participated.

“Our biologists have seen photos, but they haven’t seen the animal,” said Slown.

Game and Fish spokesman Marty Frentzel said the government agencies hoped to capture the animal on the ranch, attach a radio collar and then track it. A gray wolf in New Mexico would be protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

Turner’s ranch covers more than 900 square miles near the New Mexico- Colorado border and offers prime habitat for a wolf — large populations of elk and deer along with diverse ecosystems ranging from forests and nearly 13,000-foot peaks along the ranch’s western flank to prairie along its southern and eastern borders.

Phillips said he’s confident the animal isn’t a coyote because it’s not gray and tawny, but biologists and ranch workers have not found any scat that’s confirmed from the animal.

“The mystery may never be solved,” said Phillips.

Phillips knows wolves. He worked on reintroducing the gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s before joining Turner’s organization.

Because the animal is black, he said, “that just significantly reduces the odds that it’s anything but a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid or a socialized wolf.”

Wolves have thrived in the northern Rockies — Idaho, Montana and Wyoming — since their reintroduction. The federal government earlier this year removed wolves in that region from the endangered species list. That allows Idaho, Wyoming and Montana to manage wolves and the states are planning public hunts.

Phillips said wolves can travel great distances. Although they typically move in packs, it’s not uncommon for lone animals to explore new territory, he said.

In 2004, a dead wolf was found in Colorado along Interstate 70 west of Denver and its radio collar showed that it was from Yellowstone National Park.

“Northern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado is a motherlode for gray wolves,” said Phillips, because of its terrain, big tracts of public and private lands and plentiful elk and deer.

Let Lobos Roam!

Photo: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Do Something Patriotic!

Tell Governor Richardson to give lobos their liberty this 4th of July.

Today, less than 50 Mexican wolves roam the wilds of New Mexico and Arizona. The struggling population of lobos has declined alarmingly over the past three years, primarily due to the removal of wolves suspected of preying upon livestock. In New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson has the power to change this arcane practice-but he needs to hear from you.

This week, as you celebrate the 4th of July, do something exceptionally

patriotic: Send a letter to Governor Richardson by July 15th <http://ga4.org/ct/r1qthJ41lzGa/> and tell him to give lobos a home and the freedom to roam in New Mexico. Specifically, the governor has the power to make an important change, initiated through Executive Order, that could help to pull the lobo back from the brink of extinction:

Direct the Game Commission to withhold New Mexico’s approval of the federal policy that mandates removing wolves that may have preyed on livestock.

Currently, policy dictates that government agents remove any wolf who has killed livestock on three or more occasions over 365 days. Notably, this pernicious policy places no responsibility on the livestock industry to actively prevent conflicts with wolves, even on public lands. Read an article <http://ga4.org/ct/fdqthJ41lzGA/> about the abuse of this policy.

Given the fact that Americans are paying to help restore lobos to the wilds of the Southwest-after the species was almost extinct in the wild-it makes no sense to remove them from the wild again because of occasional conflicts with livestock production. It was, after all, that same conflict that drove them to the brink of extinction in the first place. Driving animals to extinction is downright un-American. Watch a three-minute video <http://ga4.org/ct/fpqthJ41lzGN/> documenting the perilous situation facing our nation’s last lobos.

As our nation observes our declaration of independence, so too must we come together to ensure the independence of Mexican wolves from the tyranny of private industry. The scientific community agrees that this tyranny must stop: In 2007, the American Society of Mammalogists urged that the government “suspend all predator control directed at Mexican gray wolves at least until the interim 100-wolf goal of the current reintroduction program has been achieved.”

Taking a cue from the scientists, Governor Richardson called for change in the Mexican wolf recovery program around this time last year (read his press release <http://ga4.org/ct/f1qthJ41lzG_/> ). Moreover, Richardson knows that the public is strongly pro-wolf. A new poll <http://ga4.org/ct/rpqthJ41lzGL/> found that 69 percent of New Mexicans support the reintroduction of Mexican wolves. However, the governor needs to hear from you <http://ga4.org/ct/r1qthJ41lzGa/> , to ensure he acts on the support he avowed a year ago for these imperiled wolves.

WildEarth Guardians’ Carnivore Recovery Program is working on several fronts to ensure that the lobo never goes extinct in the wild again. But now we need your help! Send a short message <http://ga4.org/ct/r1qthJ41lzGa/> to Governor Richardson asking him to proclaim an end to further removals of Mexican wolves in New Mexico by July 15, 2008.

Read <http://ga4.org/ct/47qthJ41lzG1/> about WildEarth Guardians’

lawsuit to hold a renegade New Mexico county accountable for killing wolves.

Read <http://ga4.org/ct/4pqthJ41lzGq/> about WildEarth Guardians’

lawsuit challenging the policy that mandates wolves be removed from the wild for preying on livestock.

More <http://ga4.org/ct/f7qthJ41lzGM/> about WildEarth Guardians.

Become an Endangered Species Act Guardian <http://ga4.org/ct/rdqthJ41lzGz/> and speak up for the wildlife that needs your voice everyday.

Donate <http://ga4.org/ct/v1qthJ41lzG2/> to WildEarth Guardians.

For the lobo,

Rob Edward

Rob Edward

Director of Carnivore Recovery

WildEarth Guardians

Rob Edward

P.S. Save the date or tell your friends about the Guardians’ Gala in Santa Fe September 25, the Treehugger’s Ball in Albuquerque on September

18 and in Denver on October 2.

WildEarth Guardians

505 988-9126

312 Montezuma, Santa Fe - New Mexico - 87501

        Southwest Region   (Arizona ● New Mexico ● Oklahoma ●Texas)

                       http://www.fws.gov/southwest/

For Release:  July 3, 2008

Contacts:  Elizabeth Slown 505-248-6909 or 505-363-9592 (cell)

             Illegal Activity Has Caused Multiple Wolf Deaths

Nine Mexican wolves have died in the wild since the beginning of 2008.

Foul play was responsible for three of the deaths, according to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.  Necropsy results from the Service’s wildlife

forensic laboratory are still pending for one wolf.

Female wolves known as AF1111, AF1112 and AF1113 were illegally shot.  The

fate of AM583 has yet to be determined.  Mexican wolves are identified by

numbers preceded with an ‘F’ to show adult female gender and an ‘M’ for

adult male gender.  The ‘A’ signifies the wolf was the lead, or alpha

member, of the pack.  Generally only the alpha members of a pack mate and

bear young.

“I feel every wolf on the landscape deserves a chance to survive without

being illegally killed,” said Benjamin N. Tuggle, PhD, Regional Director

for the Service’s Southwest Region.  “I am disturbed that there are

suspicious circumstances around their deaths and I want to know what

happened to each wolf.  All of our available law enforcement resources will

be used to conduct a comprehensive investigation.”

Killing a Mexican wolf is a violation of the Federal Endangered Species

Act.  It can result in criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and/or not more

than one year in jail; and/or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.

The Service urges any individual who may have seen any suspicious

activities relating to the Mexican wolf deaths to contact one of the

following agencies: USFWS special agents in Mesa, Ariz. at (480) 967-7900,

in Alpine, Ariz. at (928) 339-4232, or in Albuquerque, at (505) 346-7828;

the White Mountain Apache Tribe at (928) 338-1023 or (928) 338-4385; AGFD

Operation Game Thief at 1-800-352-0700; or, NMDGF Operation Game Thief at

1-800-432-4263.

“I appeal to anyone with information that could help solve these cases to

step forward and aid us in the resolution of these illegal shootings,” said

Tuggle.  The Service offers a reward of $10,000 for information leading to

the apprehension of the individual(s) responsible for any wolf deaths.

The Service is also seeking law enforcement assistance from the other state

and federal agencies involved in the wolf reintroduction program.  “A

strong cooperative law enforcement presence affirms that we won’t tolerate

an illegal taking of any endangered species,” said Tuggle.

“These illegal actions are not going to stop the reintroduction program,”

declared Tuggle.  “We fully intend to establish a genetically sound

population of Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency charged with

recovering endangered species.  The reintroduction of the Mexican wolf is a

cooperative, multi-agency effort of the Arizona Game and Fish Department,

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA

Forest Service and USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.  Wolves have been released into the wild since 1998

Two wolves, f1104 and m1109, were accidentally hit by vehicles in separate

incidents earlier in the year.  One female, AF758, likely died of natural

causes.  Its young pups, f1116 and m1117, did not survive, likely as a

result of losing their mother as the primary food provider.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to

conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for

the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and

trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific

excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated

professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our

work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.

                                   -FWS-

For more information about fish and wildlife conservation in the Southwest,

visit http://www.fws.gov/southwest/

___________________________________________

Elizabeth Slown, Public Affairs Specialist

External Affairs, US Fish and Wildlife Service

505-248-6909 (voice), 505-363-9592 (cell), 505-248-6915 (fax)

Feds: 9 Mexican gray wolves died in wild in 2008

Eds: APNewsNow.

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says nine Mexican gray wolves have died in the wild so far this year, including three females that were illegally shot.

The agency says it is awaiting results of a necropsy on one wolf Penalties for killing a Mexican gray wolf include fines of up to $75,000 and up to a year in jail.

Mexican gray wolves disappeared from the Southwest during the past century because of federal eradication efforts. Fish and Wildlife reintroduced 11 wolves into the recovery area in 1998.

The area includes 4.4 million acres of the Gila and Apache Sitgreaves national forests in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona plus Arizona’s 1.6 million-acre White Mountain Apache reservation.

The area is interspersed with private land and towns.

continued at …

To see the real analysis of the same poll for informaiton on how little people care about wolf management click here. 

wolf recovery survey summary Arizona

wolf recovery survey summary NM

  Dan Williams, spokesman for Game and Fish, confirmed Tuesday that game officers using hounds and snares in an attempt to capture the mountain lion believe there may be two lions in the area.
“They do think there may be two lions in that area,” he said. “Based on the tracks they found while trying to track the one.”
The confirmation strengthens statements made by Pinos Altos residents that several encounters between residents and a mountain lion overlapped, leading many to believe two lions were roaming the area.
Trackers with Wildlife Services were searching an area west of Highway 15 about two miles south of Pinos Altos Tuesday for sign that the big cat was traveling the saddle area between two peaks.
 

6-25 press release

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
Media contact: Dan Williams, (505) 476-8004
Public contact: (505) 476-8000
dan.williams@state.nm.us
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, JUNE 25, 2008:
 
WOUNDED MOUNTAIN LION CAPTURED, KILLED NEAR PINOS ALTOS
 
PINOS ALTOS — A mountain lion that may have killed a Pinos Altos man was captured in a snare and killed Wednesday morning.
 
The lion was an average-sized adult male weighing approximately 125 pounds. It had four bullet holes in it that appeared to be from buckshot. A Department of Game and Fish officer had shot and wounded a lion with buckshot June 19 near the home of 55-year-old Robert Nawojski.
 
Nawojski was killed by a mountain lion June 17 or 18 near his small mobile home in a wooded area of Pinos Altos north of Silver City. His partially eaten and buried body was found June 20 near a rock ledge about 60 yards from his home where he liked to bathe and shave.
 
The lion was caught in a U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services snare about a half-mile from the rock ledge where Nawojski was believed to have been attacked. The lion was killed and its body will be taken to the New Mexico State Police Crime Lab for a necropsy.
 
Wildlife Services agents and Department of Game and Fish officers with hounds were still searching for a second lion reported to be in the area. “But we’re confident the lion we caught last night was the one wounded by our officer Thursday night,” Department Officer Leon Redman said.
 
###