™ Volume 71, No. 8
® September 2014
USFWS says Wolves Need More Room to Roam by Dalene Hodnett, Director of Communications and Media Relations
“Open your hearts and eyes to elimi- California and Colorado. Those who “Our customary and established uses nate boundaries, these lands belong to were there to relate their stories of of our lands is ignored. No one argues all of us.” “We must have two more wolf predation were from Winston, the need to protect bio-diversity, the populations (of wolves) north of I-40, Reserve, Beaverhead and Alma. All question is how much and at what with movement between the three, were local ranchers who expressed human cost?” But the human aspect for recovery to occur.” “I can hardly concern about the detrimental effects is given short shrift in the four alternawait to be camping in the Gila and of more wolves. tives of the USFWS proposal. hear the wonderful music of a howling Krystie Wear, Sierra County Farm Alternative one is USFWS’s “prowolf.” Those are statements made by and Livestock Bureau’s First Viceposed action and preferred alternapro-wolf advocates at a United States President, stated that there was a tive.” This zone 1 includes expanded Fish and Wildlife Service meeting held “Lack of valid research and statistics boundaries of the original Blue Range August 13th in Truth or Consequences to support the claim that there would Wolf Recovery Area to include new (where ironically truth areas in Arizona was in limited supply and and also claims the the local ranchers will feel Magdalena Ranger the majority of the conseDistrict of the Cibola quences). National Forest for Sixteen years after the initial releases from initial re-introduction of breeding captivity. the Mexican Wolf, the A new area, called USFWS is proposing the Mexican Wolf changes to both the habitat Experimental Populaand management guidetion Area (MWEPA) lines in order to “achieve would be introduced the necessary population that stretches south growth, distribution and from I-40 and across recruitment that would from the California/ improve genetic variation Arizona line to the within the experimental New Mexico/Texas population and contribute line and consists of to a self-sustaining popuzones 2 and 3. Zone lation of wolves on the 2 is where “wolves landscape.” They argue will be allowed to that the current 83 wolves naturally disperse This map shows the boundaries proposed by the USFWS for the into and occupy, and in 14 packs are not enough. Mexican wolf experimental population area. In accordance with the where Mexican wolves National Environmental may be translocated Policy Act (NEPA), the USFWS must be little to no impact on our economic from zone 1. In zone 2 initial releases hold public hearings in order to solicit industry and also on the families that of Mexican wolves are limited to pups public feedback on their proposed rule are impacted by these changes, while less than 5 months old. This zone is changes and on the draft environmenthere is significant evidence of the also eligible for the release of adult tal impact statement (dEIS) that acimpact of the wolf on property values wolves on private land at the request companies the revisions. At the TorC and Sierra County’s most profitable of the land-owner. There is no minimeeting pro-wolf advocates signifiindustries which are agriculture, hunt- mum size land holdings required for cantly outnumbered actual stakeholding and tourism.” the agreement, and the release can ers. Those giving pro-wolf testimony Lauren Nunn, a fourth generation occur without the consent of the land- hailed from Connecticut, New York, rancher from Luna County concurred. cont. on page 3 September 2014
Farm & Ranch Page 1