‘Open House’ Lacked Teeth,
Local Wolf Opponents Contend

By Gerald Garner, Jr.
The Herald from http://www.heraldpub.com/story2.html
TorCOnline http://www.heraldpub.com/index.html

New Mexico - July 18, 2001 - The prevailing sentiment expressed at last week’s Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction meeting was that the meeting, though welcomed, proved to be all bark and no bite.

Many in attendance said they were disappointed with the meeting’s format saying, the open house, staged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, was supposed to be a venue where people could come together and talk on both sides of the controversial recovery initiative. What people got, however, was some literature, refreshments and informal dialogue with a trio of wildlife biologists. [Anyone who has attended these type of 'meetings' will always find the same format.ed]

But that’s exactly what USFWS staffers said the meeting was supposed to be… nothing more, nothing less.

“We held the open-microphone meetings in the recent past and people had the opportunity to get up and say whatever they wanted to regarding the wolf recovery program,” said Missy Woolf. 

Woolf, who represented media mogul and Sierra County landholder Ted Turner’s Center for Biological Diversity, said the real purpose behind last week’s meeting was to provide the public with key information formulated during the 3-year review by a quartet of scientists representing the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group and to answer any specific questions the general public might have.

Though the public was given a chance to weigh in on what parts of the program are working and what needs to be improved, attendees were given comment sheets and required to fill them out on the spot.

“It’s the same old story with these federal agencies,” one rancher said as he exited the “dog and pony show.”

Getting the Skinny From CBSG

When the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program was begun in 1998, FWS brass agreed to formally review the project every 3-5 years. At that time, officials said they would take an objective look at the program to determine what is working, what isn’t working and how best to proceed with the program in the future.

The primary goal identified for the reintroduction effort is “to restore a self-sustaining population of about 100 wild Mexican wolves districted over 5,000 square miles of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.” FWS officials estimate the project will have to run an estimated 9 years in order to achieve this objective.

In an effort to better objectify the review process, FWS contracted with the CBSG who in turn called on four scientists to mull over the collected data with a fine-toothed comb. That process culminated in April when the CBSG scientists handed their evaluation over to Fish and Wildlife staffers who comprise the Mexican Wolf Interagency Management Advisory Group (IMAG). 

Now the lengthy review is finally making its way to the public. While wolf proponents herald the findings as positive, ranchers and other public land users continue to voice their objections with the program they say is crippling their way of life.

After an introduction that clearly identifies FWS goals and objectives for the reintroduction effort, the scientists —in the form of an abbreviated scientific report— made public their recommendations on how best to tinker with the program to meet all of the program’s objectives.

“Overall we are satisfied with the progress of the reintroduction project since its inception in 1998… We believe the likelihood is high that continued application of the Service’s current practices will result in the restoration of a self-sustaining population of Mexican wolves in the Blue Range Recovery Area,” the document states.

While the program has great potential, CBSG scientists say there is room for improvement.
Among the CBSG recommendations regarding biological and technical aspects of the program are: begin developing population estimation techniques not based solely on telemetric monitoring; making all data available for research and peer review; and developing a contemporary definition of a biologically successful wolf reintroduction and the criteria needed to measure success. 

Valuational and organizational aspects of the program that need improving include modifying the recovery team by replacing the recovery coordinator with an “appropriate” team leader; immediately modify the final rule (Parsons 1998) and develop the authority to conduct initial releases into the Gila National Forest.

According to the abridged version of the scientific review, conducting initial releases into the Gila is vital to the program’s success.

“This is by far the most important and simplest change the Service can make to the existing reintroduction project. The Gila National Forest is approximately 75 percent of the 4.4 million acre Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area,” the scientists concluded.

Another recommendation is to modify the final rule to allow non-management problem wolves to establish territories outside of the 6,854 square mile existing recovery area. 

Same Old Story?

Despite the “objective” review, many area ranchers feel FWS will continue with the program regardless of the objections raised by the taxpayers — especially those living closest to the program. 

Deming’s Joe Bill Nunn, who also owns land in Sierra County, said last week’s gathering was nothing more than lip service by the federal FWS.

“It’s a shame that this program is working out the way it is,” he said. “This meeting is just another example of the lip service federal bureaucracies give to the public.”
The open house meeting, he said, might look productive to onlookers from afar, but did little for those most affected by the wolves.

“They (FWS) don’t really pay much attention to those who are losing their stock to the wolves,” he said. “The ranchers just aren’t being heard or taken into consideration.”
Nunn called the reintroduction effort an “expensive drain on the American taxpayer and a serious threat to the ranching industry of the West.” Conservation, he said, won’t equal economic viability to counties, especially those in the western half of the country.
“The bottom line is our private property rights are being violated on a near-daily basis,” he concluded.

Nunn, however, isn’t alone in his criticism of the Service and the program. Several Sierra County ranchers and residents professed similar gripes both in and out of the open house meeting.

“The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program can be improved by canceling it,” said TorC’s Bill Gardner. “The program doesn’t consider the damage it is doing to our people, our way of life and our southwestern economy.”

Gardner criticized the effort as a “bureaucratic means to strip away ranchers’ livelihoods without giving them a true say in the process.” He said the program is a violation of the public’s God-given rights and the U.S. Constitution.

He suggested to FWS brass that saving the taxpayers money should be the Service’s top priority.

Caballo’s Annie McManus, an outspoken champion of public land causes, said she’s not opposed to wolves, rather, she’s opposed to wolves being introduced and reintroduced in areas like Sierra County.

“There are a lot of people who want the wolves to be reintroduced in New Mexico,” she said. “The majority of those people, however, live around Albuquerque and Santa Fe so I suggest they reintroduce the wolves there, not down here where they’re eating our livestock.”

While no formal or final decisions have been made regarding the future of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Project, decisions are expected in the near future. To that end, FWS will assemble a group of “stakeholders” to further flesh out the good, bad and the ugly regarding the wolf reintroduction.

A few local ranching representatives, including Gila Forest Permittee Association member Laura Schneberger and HSHS graduate John Diamond are expected to participate in the stakeholder meeting, to be held later this fall.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]