G&F wolf release news

[blacklab84]

Kidso, we talked to some white mountain apache game and fish biologists up where I live that were setting up cameras along the 3c and reservation line. They said the azgfd had trail cam pics of four different wolves between my house and gentry lookout tower and they were trying to pattern where their range was. Those wolves are in more places than we think. The azgfd will never admit how far they have spread but stories like some have told in this thread tell you it's true.

 

A gal that I work with comes from a big hunting family and lives on the outskirts of the Prescott area. She claims they have seen wolves out in the camp wood area. They have a family friend who is a retired AZ GF officer who told them a few can be found around mingus mountain also. I have no reason to doubt her

 

Guess this story is kind of like telephone, i heard from a guy whose uncles brothers best friends cousin told him such and such. Take it for what its worth

[Tucson John]

Last fall, I was sitting on the front porch of my cabin up by Greens peak. It was a pleasant evening and the squirrels, and birds were running around making their winter preparations. All of a sudden it was like somebody threw the switch "OFF"! Everything was totally silent, not even a cricket or ant stirred. A couple minutes later I heard the distinctive deep guttural howl of a wolf........followed by another a couple seconds later. Gave me a chill. There is something quite instinctive all creatures fear..........for good reason! Stay armed my friends.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Predator....that is what I am trying to get somebody to say.......we had to join because..............I am hoping that is the case and makes a lot of sense if that is the case.

[billrquimby]

Tucson John is correct. Those of us with cabins on the northeast slope of the White Mountains are living among wolves.

 

Three or four years ago, my wife was vacuuming our cabin's living room when she asked me to come look outside.

 

Our cabin is on a low ridge and our driveway is below us. There were 34 elk cows and calves (we counted them) in our driveway, moving single-file downhill toward our gate. When they saw a wolf waiting for them, they stopped and stared at the wolf. A second or two later, another wolf appeared out of the willows along our little creek and started to move toward one of the calves, and the herd bolted back up the canyon with the wolves right behind them.

 

That herd of elk (and numerous mule deer) spends the day in the timber above Badger Pond one-quarter mile upstream from us and crosses our property every night to feed in the meadow across the road from us, but we seldom see them in the daytime, and this was in the middle of the day. I'm guessing those two wolves had been harassing those elk for quite a while that day.

 

I've also seen wolves in the big meadows by White Mountain Reservoir and crossing the state highway between Horseshoe Cienega Lake and McNary.

 

Bill Quimby

[Tucson John]

That's wild Bill! I've never seen one, but I know they are there! Enjoy your summer at the cabin!

[rthrbhntng]

A couple of statements from the FWS you should be worried about:

We do not consider a minimum population of around 100 wolves to equate to “self-sustaining” or

“viable” (USFWS 2010). At its current size of a minimum of 75 wolves, and even at the current objective of at least 100 wolves, the BRWRA population is, by demographic measures considered small (Shaffer 1987, Boyce 19992, Mills 2007, USFWS 2010) and has a low probability of persistence. The viability of the population when it reaches its target of at least 100 wolves remains unquantified, although qualitatively this target is significantly below estimates of viability appearing in the scientific literature and gray wolf recovery plans, which suggest hundreds to over a thousand wolves are necessary for long term persistence in the wild (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013).

 

Expand the MWEPA to include the area in Arizona and New Mexico north of Interstate-40 to the state boundary with Utah and Colorado.

A MWEPA extended north to the state boundaries with Utah and Colorado would contain core areas of suitable wolf habitat that encompass the Grand Canyon and large areas of adjacent public lands in northern Arizona. In northern New Mexico large areas of potential suitable habitat in national forest lands adjacent to private lands with conservation management would be included (Carroll et al.2006). Within the Colorado Plateau ecoregion, which extends south into 1 northern Arizona and New Mexico, the primary wild ungulate prey species available to support dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves are elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The largest elk herds in North America are found here and deer and elk are sympatric throughout much of the region (Watkins et al. 2007). The counties in the northern part of Arizona and New Mexico (north of I-40) are primarily rural, with few incorporated municipalities and, with the exception of Colfax County, New Mexico, all have a large proportion of land under Federal or tribal control. Movement of the MWEPA boundary in Arizona and New Mexico north to the state border with Utah and Colorado would add an area with 30,973 square miles (80,219 km29 ) of potential suitable wolf habitat to be managed under the 10(j) experimental population rules. The areas in northern Arizona and New Mexico with potential suitable habitat that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves can be found within:

[Big Donkey]

Shoot, get the F*** out of there, and shut up. No need to waste time shoveling, they don't deserve a grave.

[PRDATR]

A couple of statements from the FWS you should be worried about:

We do not consider a minimum population of around 100 wolves to equate to “self-sustaining” or

“viable” (USFWS 2010). At its current size of a minimum of 75 wolves, and even at the current objective of at least 100 wolves, the BRWRA population is, by demographic measures considered small (Shaffer 1987, Boyce 19992, Mills 2007, USFWS 2010) and has a low probability of persistence. The viability of the population when it reaches its target of at least 100 wolves remains unquantified, although qualitatively this target is significantly below estimates of viability appearing in the scientific literature and gray wolf recovery plans, which suggest hundreds to over a thousand wolves are necessary for long term persistence in the wild (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013).

 

Expand the MWEPA to include the area in Arizona and New Mexico north of Interstate-40 to the state boundary with Utah and Colorado.

A MWEPA extended north to the state boundaries with Utah and Colorado would contain core areas of suitable wolf habitat that encompass the Grand Canyon and large areas of adjacent public lands in northern Arizona. In northern New Mexico large areas of potential suitable habitat in national forest lands adjacent to private lands with conservation management would be included (Carroll et al.2006). Within the Colorado Plateau ecoregion, which extends south into 1 northern Arizona and New Mexico, the primary wild ungulate prey species available to support dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves are elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The largest elk herds in North America are found here and deer and elk are sympatric throughout much of the region (Watkins et al. 2007). The counties in the northern part of Arizona and New Mexico (north of I-40) are primarily rural, with few incorporated municipalities and, with the exception of Colfax County, New Mexico, all have a large proportion of land under Federal or tribal control. Movement of the MWEPA boundary in Arizona and New Mexico north to the state border with Utah and Colorado would add an area with 30,973 square miles (80,219 km29 ) of potential suitable wolf habitat to be managed under the 10(j) experimental population rules. The areas in northern Arizona and New Mexico with potential suitable habitat that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves can be found within:

 

 

This is about as hard to follow as a Hemingway Novel. It reads like bits and pieces from some college kids thesis. How about deciphering it without all the reference notes so my feeble brain can comprehend the jist of what pertinent vernacular is relevant.

This whole thread still has not addressed the question of why 28 groups are on board with this. Our members are a conglomeration of PHD's and Knuckle Draggers so certainly some members should be able to come forth with some information.

[Chef]

PRDATR,
The Feds want to control the wolf situation. We, as constituents, don't want the Feds to control this in Arizona or New Mexico. The main objective here is to offer a viable alternative plan that Arizona can implement and maintain. Therefore gaining a little control over the wolf program. If the proposed outline is not approved, the Feds keep control and shove their own wolf plan down our throats. With more wolves than we can sustain and control.

I hope my paragraph makes sense.

[Chef]

To add, what Steve posted is basically legal speak stating that upwards to 1000 wolves populating even as far a north as the Kaibab is their intended target.

 

This is NOT good and we are trying to control how many wolves are introduced as well as the areas that are intended to occupy.

[PRDATR]

There is a bit of info out there on the Net but most of it appears to not get posted here on CWT. From what I've read, if AZG&F came on board they would eventually be the Stewards of the whole program and the Feds will bow out after a "Goal" is achieved, with the expectation (guarantee) the program continues inevitably.

As I understand it once Wolves are established the cost of the program will come from AZG&F ( with some possible Fed Funds) and they will just be another thing to manage. What I fail to comprehend is why the other 27 Groups are involved!

[Chef]

The groups are signing on to the proposal because we all show support for an alternative plan. It's that simple.

If the Feds end up with control of the wolf program, it doesn't matter how much crying and complaining we all do on this forum or otherwise. It would be a nail in the coffin so-to-speak, and who knows how many wolves would intimately be in their plan.

So of course, I wholeheartedly support an alternative!

[520HUNT]

The groups are signing on to the proposal because we all show support for an alternative plan. It's that simple.

If the Feds end up with control of the wolf program, it doesn't matter how much crying and complaining we all do on this forum or otherwise. It would be a nail in the coffin so-to-speak, and who knows how many wolves would intimately be in their plan.

So of course, I wholeheartedly support an alternative!

So what is the "alternative" you speak of? Please post the details on this form...

[coueshunter]

The group's have all agreed that we Arizona people want to manage the wolves instead of letting the federal government come in with 1000-1500 wolves managed under a federal plan. The alternate plan put together provides 300 wolves between Arizona and new Mexico. We already have 70-80 wolves so the extra is 220. All of us would like zero wolves but the Feds want wolves so if we don't push to control/manage the wolves then we are screwed like Wyoming and Montana. None of the group's have tried to keep this secret, get involved in a group. Join at least as a committee member and lend a hand trying to keep the Feds out of Arizona. Arizona elk society is at the forefront of this issue because they have the biggest food source for the wolves. Steve Clark has been fighting this wolf issue for years. Sign up and educate yourself on the wolf issue, jaguar issue, travel management issue etc... there really are tremendous ways that volunteers from coueswhitetail could help the fight. Allen Taylor

[WhtMtnHunter]

Let's compare Wyoming and Arizona

 

Number of wolves in WY = 300

Number of proposed wolves in AZ = 300 - 1000

 

Number of elk in WY = 100,000

Number of elk in AZ = 35,000

 

Number of deer in WY = 450,000

Number of deer in AZ = 150,000

 

Number of antelope in WY = 520,000

Number of antelope in AZ = 7,500

 

Can someone please explain to me how with 1/3 the prey base that Arizona is capable of supporting the same amount, or three times more, the amount of wolves that Wyoming has?

 

Here is the "stakeholder" proposal and my response from the previous page. As I see it there is no middle ground, either the AZGFD (pressured by the alleged "stakeholders") pulls out from the recovery program like Wyoming did and lets the feds administer and police the recovery, or they accelerate the 1000 wolf goal(release all the captive wolves) so they can be hunted next year. Proposing 300 wolves is only extending the feds control of the situation. Sadly this is no longer about the wolf itself, it has become a political football that will change with every future national administration.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The only group I am not surprised to see on that list is Big Game Forever. The northern wolf has been a huge cash cow for them and delisting has been a serious drain on their fundraising. Looks like the Mexican Wolf is their new money maker.

 

Maybe the remaining groups needs some education on the art of negotiation. Simply put, negotiation is imposing your will on the other party and gaining an advantage. This seems to be more of a compromise, if not a complete surrender. Point by point.

 

• Allowing up to triple the target number of Mexican wolves in the Southwest from the 1982 recovery plan's goal of not less than 100 wolves to achieve a self-sustaining population. A HUGE loss for hunters and those who call themselves their representatives. This is clearly a win for wolf advocates who want 1000+ wolves in this state. Wolf advocates always believe the ends justify the means and simply cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement. Does anyone really believe that once the Mexican Wolf numbers 300 or more that the wolf advocates will simply agree to state management? This is incredibly naive given the fact that they are still taking Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to court over the 2000 wolves there when they agreed to just having about 500-700. If they could work into the agreement a lawyer proof statement that when the Mexican wolf numbers 301 then there will be 1 hunting tag, and when they number 350 then there will be 50 hunting tags we might have some teeth in the agreement. As it stands now it is simply a surrender to wolf advocates. Some may argue that Wyoming's stance on the wolf caused extensive delays in overall delisting, but look at who has the least amount of wolves and the most aggressive management. Wyoming only has 300 wolves and a predator zone where they are on the same level as coyotes, Idaho and Montana both have 700-1000 wolves in each state and more tightly controlled hunts for wolves. I would rather see Arizona take the Wyoming position.
• Major expansion of the area where wolves can be released to include the Secondary Recovery Zone. Another HUGE loss for hunters and exactly what the pro-wolf advocates want. Wolf advocates want Mexican wolves to expand into the Kaibab plateau, Southern Utah, Colorado, and all of New Mexico. They desire "connectivity" with the larger wolves in Wyoming and Idaho. Acquiescing for an expansion of the recovery zone is exactly what the wolf advocates desire. And the "stakeholders" apparently are giving them everything they want.
• Expansion of the area where Mexican wolves can disperse and establish territories. Wyoming allowed the wolf to expand to limited areas outside Yellowstone National Park. Everywhere else was considered to be the predator zone and wolves are treated like coyotes, year round hunting with no bag limit. Arizona should adopt this stance. Any wolf that leaves the Apache Sitgreaves is considered the same as a coyote with a year round season and no bag limit. This would be in the spirit of the original plan agreed upon with the wolf advocates of 100 wolves. This would force their dispersal in a southward direction towards their historical range in Mexico. Furthermore, wolf advocates should live up to the original agreement before they are trusted to negotiate a new one.
• Establishment of a connectivity corridor for wolves to disperse to the species' core historical range in Mexico. According to Game and Fish about 75+% of the Mexican wolf diet is elk. How many elk are there in Mexico? Pretending that Mexican wolves will move south to Mexico is ridiculous when every documented movement of the species has been northwest across Arizona in the direction of Flagstaff, basically in the zone where the majority of elk live. I would like to see one documented discovery of Mexican wolves moving south of the Apache Sitgreaves and making a living on coues deer and javelina.
• Recognition of the importance of Mexico as a primary element to successful Mexican wolf recovery. I am sure the wolf advocates would happily agree to this. Why wouldn't they? They have no control over Mexico and know that 1000 wolves in Arizona is just as good as 5 wolves in Mexico. Recognition of the Mexican wolves historical range has little impact on the Endangered Species Act since it can only be enforced in the United States. Not even a symbolic victory for hunters.

I'm glad the RMEF didn't sign up for this garbage; I'll probably donate to that organization from now on.