Rhetoric is cheap and stifles discussion, but with true understanding and cooperation, the program can work
There has been a lot of discussion about the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's efforts to help the Mexican gray wolf recover in New Mexico and Arizona. The opinions of polarized groups have clearly dominated the public discourse regarding wolf 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 the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.
To understand the current controversy surrounding Mexican wolf reintroduction in the Southwest, it is important to appreciate Fish & Wildlife'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 service's mission.
The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project is a cooperative effort among the service, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, the White Mountain Apache Tribe and several Arizona counties, among others within the conservation community. 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. Before 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 wolf 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 socioeconomic carrying capacity. Realistically, a successful reintroduction effort must address the economic impacts of livestock depredations.
When wolf/livestock conflicts occur, our preference is to work with the livestock owner to prevent depredations 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. New Mexico 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 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 hurt 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.
So, I would like to issue a challenge:
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. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 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.
Benjamin N. Tuggle is Southwest regional director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
