From: "mscowboy"

To: "'schneberger,laura'"

Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 10:44 PM Subject: Wolf advocates voice displeasure with MOU

Wolf advocates voice displeasure with MOU

By John Kamin, assistant editor

Wolf advocates are claiming the Memorandum of Understanding for the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project includes language that helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "pass the buck."

Center for Biological Diversity Wildlife Biologist Michael Robinson said the MOU does not require a Mexican Wolf Recovery Specialist, which is the position that is accountable for all wolf control decisions (such as re-releasing, trapping or killing wolves). He noted that the position under the old agreement has been left unfilled since its last occupant, Brian Kelly, resigned six months ago.

"There was a lot of talking about opening themselves up to a greater public scrutiny and this was not a good start," Robinson said to the Courier in a phone interview. "For a while we had the Terry Johnson mi culpa (my fault) tour."

Terry Johnson is the head of non-game wildlife management for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Robinson referred to meetings held by the AZGFD that started out with apologies from Johnson and that promised a restructuring process that would take more local interests into consideration.

In a February meeting in Clifton, Johnson said to a room full of ranchers and wolf advocates, "I'm the only guy in the room to whom you can point a finger and say, I screwed up. And I apologize for that."

The creation of a MOU for the Adaptive Management Work Group is one of the first steps to beginning the restructuring, and it includes the Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Game and Fish Department, U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services/Wildlife Services, U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, Graham County, Greenlee County, Navajo County, Catron County, Sierra County and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.

New Mexico Cattle Grower's Association representative Laura Schneberger said Kelly's voided position has been filled by Colleen Buchanan, the assistant Mexican wolf recovery coordinator. She said: "There is no evading, federal agencies have regulations to follow that require a collection of resumes before hiring a new recovery leader. Colleen Buchanan is acting recovery leader and will handle any situation that arises until a permanent hiring. The problem is that it is so difficult to do this job with all the interference and bullying by the greens and probably sometimes us too, (though I like to believe we only complain when something is really badly wrong) that no one wants the job for long."

The Courier called Buchanan several times throughout the week and received no response before press time.

Robinson agreed that Buchanan is Kelly's replacement, but thought that the position should be filled. Now that the position is not included in the MOU, he fears that it may not come back.

"They're getting a process underway that seems to be trying to minimize the service's responsibility," he said. "They are not promising to maintain the one with the overall recovery effort."

Robinson is also concerned with language listed in the MOU.

"The second troublesome provision in the MOU cryptically pledges the (Fish and Wildlife) Service to 'provide all necessary USFWS authorizations and permits to all signatories on a timely basis,' " according to a press release from the CBD.

Robinson explained that the permits that are being referred to are kill permits and trap permits. The words necessary and timely are the two words that concern him because they could pressure USFWS employees to make quick decisions instead of patient ones.

"These decisions are going to sink or float Mexican wolf recovery," he said. He referred to a situation last September, when a decision to trap wolf m729 was made.

The Courier reported on the trapping and interviewed New Mexico rancher Fred Galley, who said the wolf had killed two of his cattle and injured three calves.

The CBD contested that the wolf was only feeding on already dead cattle, while ranchers contested the wolf was killing cattle.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field coordinator John Oakleaf said it was confirmed that the wolf had fed on two cows.

Non-lethal traps were set for the wolf after the USFWS concurred that there was a "probable depredation."

The decision to capture the wolf was contested in a letter from the CBD to Dale Hall, the USFWS Southwest Regional Director.

The letter specifically requested the designation of a new recovery leader and for all decisions to be put into writing.

The letter reads, "We request that in the current absence of a recovery leader, the Service designate an acting leader with specific authority to make case by case decisions on wolf control, and that each such decision be conveyed in writing with a finding as to cause."

Robinson said during Tuesday's phone interview, "We have not received any reply."

Schneberger differed and referred to a situation with wolf m592 last May.

"The animal and her mate who is now a candidate for re-release held up my 14-year old daughter on horseback at a distance of 25 feet," she said. "They also chased a wolf reintroduction employee who was checking on them when they were in the wilderness a few weeks prior to our mess."

The wolf ended up being the victim of a control order, she said.

"The person who ended up having to shoot her was no happier than I am when having to destroy an ill cow," Schneberger wrote. "Killing wolves is not what wolf people want to do. People and their safety came first here, and the preservation of our year's income came first in this person's mind. He chose to be responsible and accountable, which is something rare in a bureaucracy. Michael wants no control permits whatsoever."

She also complained about a lack of wolf removal for when uncollared wolves cross the recovery lines into potentially urban areas.

"Since they haven't collared much of the young animals dispersing, they have no idea when they cross recovery lines," Schneberger said.

This leads to a dispute over how many wolves are actually in the wild.

Oakleaf said during a Tuesday phone interview that there are 25 collared wolves in the wild, with 10 to 15 uncollared adults. About 21 pups exist in the wild, although it is hard to keep track of the pups because of their high mortality rates, he said.

"Somewhere in between 50 and 60 is a good estimate," Oakleaf said.

Robinson said it is not purely scientific data to count uncollared wolves by sight. He gave an example of seeing sets of uncollared wolves in two different areas about one week apart. With the wolves' large migratory distances, it becomes almost impossible to truly confirm whether one is seeing the same wolf as the week before.

Oakleaf said it is considered the norm to collar only a small portion of the population. He gave an example of the wolf reintroduction program in Yellowstone National Park, where about 10 percent of the population is collared.

"That's one of the things that's true of any program," Oakleaf said.

The USFWS tends to collar wolves that will stick with a pack, he said. During the summertime, the wolves tend to stay in their packs.

The winter time is the hardest time to monitor them because the wolves' hormone levels rise and fill them with the urge to reproduce. This tends to raise the risk of the packs dispersing during the winter months, he said.

http://www.accuweather.com/adcbin/local_index.asp?zipcode=85548&partner=townnews   http://www.destinationsafford.com/

Back to Wolf News