Feds ignore Az stakeholders concerning the Mexican wolf

[WhtMtnHunter]

Geez! What a surprise! Looks like instead of a seat at the table we get to sit alone. Ironic how Game and Fish is fully behind the Mexican wolf and their motto is "Managing today for wildlife tomorrow" when they apparently have little control over the Mexican wolf expansion and all the species it will affect in the future.

 

Game and Fish Commission concerned that draft EIS for Mexican wolf fails to include Arizona Cooperator’s Alternative

 

Commission encourages stakeholders to comment on the draft

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted last Friday to take several actions related to Mexican wolf conservation in light of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) recent release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) on proposed rule revisions that govern Mexican wolf recovery.

The commission directed the Arizona Game and Fish Department to continue working with the Service to develop a rule that protects all state trust wildlife species and includes key elements of the Arizona Cooperator’s Mexican wolf conservation alternative. The department also was directed to develop a full range of options for the commission to consider including congressional involvement, litigation or withdrawal from the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort if a rule cannot be developed that is acceptable to the department.

The commission expressed concern at the absence from the dEIS of the Arizona Cooperator’s Alternative that was developed by 28 cooperating agencies and stakeholders and submitted to the Service for consideration. This scientifically-based alternative supported further cooperation between federal and state agencies and stakeholders to achieve a self-sustaining wolf population.

“As the chair of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, I’m profoundly disappointed that the Service failed to include the Arizona Cooperator’s Alternative in the dEIS. This alternative does exactly what the Endangered Species Act requires the agencies to do: It allows the Mexican wolf population in the southwest to expand using sound science and contribute to the recovery of the subspecies, while also recognizing that recovery cannot be accomplished in Arizona and New Mexico alone,” said Robert Mansell. “Most importantly though, the alternative provides the Service with a management approach that balances the need for expanded Mexican wolf reintroduction areas with social tolerance of those most affected by the program.”

The cooperators’ alternative included:

• 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.
• More than a 900 percent expansion (11 million acres) of the area in Arizona where wolves can be released and where they can disperse and establish territories.
• Establishing a connectivity corridor for wolves to disperse to the subspecies’ core historical range in Mexico.
• Recognition of the importance of Mexico as a primary element to successful Mexican wolf recovery.

“The biology of wolf repatriation has been relatively easy. The greatest challenge has been to develop social tolerance for the program,” said Mansell. “Without social tolerance, Mexican wolf recovery will never achieve full success.”

Until the more than 30-year-old recovery plan for Mexican wolves is updated by the Service, this 10(j) rule will provide interim guidance for managing the program.

The Service will accept written comments on the proposed rule and dEIS through Sept. 23, 2014. Those interested in submitting comments should submit comments to the Service; see www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/ for instructions on how to submit comments.

The Service also will host two public information sessions and two public hearings on the proposed rule and dEIS. The information sessions will take place from 2 to 4 p.m. and the hearings will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. on the following days:

• Monday, Aug. 11 at Hon-Dah Conference Center, 777 Highway 260, Pinetop, Ariz.
• Wednesday, Aug. 13 at the Civic Center, 400 W. Fourth St., Truth or Consequence, N.M.

The Game and Fish Department will be submitting comments on the dEIS.

The department supports the proposal to delist gray wolves in the U.S. and list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies of gray wolf because it recognizes that the Mexican wolf still faces conservation challenges and warrants continued protection and management. The department has multiple concerns with the proposed revision to the Mexican wolf’s 10(j) nonessential experimental population rule.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission have been supportive and actively involved in Mexican wolf conservation since before the first wolves were released in 1998. Department biologists lead daily field work to guide the reintroduction of Mexican wolves. These biologists also live in the communities most affected by the program, providing them with a unique on-the-ground perspective. The 2013 year-end population count showed a minimum of 83 wolves roaming Arizona and New Mexico, up from 75 wolves in 2012. This is the third consecutive year that the Mexican wolf population has experienced more than a 10 percent population increase.

[huntlines]

Big surprise. Told ya so.

[4Falls]

3 years with a 10 percent population increase. Imagine if we could do that with the pronghorn and deer herds.

[Flatlander]

Why is it that so many of you harbor such negative feelings about the dept's involvement in the re-introduction?

 

Re-introduction was not an AZGFD initiative, it was crammed down our throats by a bunch of federal hippies hiding behind the Endangered Species Act. If the dept gives the Feds a middle finger, the sportsmen in this state will get 0 representation in the recovery effort. Yes I understand that the Feds are not doing a lot of listening but blaming AZGFD for wolves is like blaming Jeff Flake for Obamacare.

[azslim]

Maybe Az G&F should be like Idaho, tell the Feds they will not do any law enforcement efforts for the wolves, no investigating deaths, no writing tickets, zero expenditure of State dollars, if the Feds don't want our input they can shoulder the program all on their own.

[Flatlander]

Maybe Az G&F should be like Idaho, tell the Feds they will not do any law enforcement efforts for the wolves, no investigating deaths, no writing tickets, zero expenditure of State dollars, if the Feds don't want our input they can shoulder the program all on their own.

How's that working for ID? Over 1,000 wolves in the state and record low elk herds. This far no state has found a successful recipe for combatting the Feds.

[WhtMtnHunter]

Flatlander, what do you suggest be done? The AZ stakeholders tried to compromise and allow the wolf population to expand into new areas and their population to increase at least 3 fold. The feds didn't even think it was a serious enough proposal to discuss. I would like to know what the best path froward is. Idaho is a bad example because delisting of the grey wolf was held up by Wyoming. Meanwhile Idaho and Montana were devastated, while Wyoming game and fish said they wouldn't enforce the ESA outside of Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, and in very limited areas elsewhere. Should we follow Wyoming's example and say that any wolf outside the Apache-Sitgreaves is treated like a coyote with year round hunting with no bag limit? Or would it be better to be like Idaho and fully comply with the feds regardless of the outcome? Seems to me that Wyoming is the only state with a "predator" zone for wolves, and has the best management plan in place despite being the original site for their reintroduction. Please advise as to the best course from here since we sportsmen have no say in the process.

[Flatlander]

Flatlander . . . Please advise as to the best course from here since we sportsmen have no say in the process.

I assume that the last line of your comment is not directed at me since I stated that This far no state has the right recipe for dealing with the Feds. Honestly, the only recourse might be for the states and sportsmen to lawyer up and sue the Feds before they transplant wolves. If we can tie them up in court and get judges to issue injunctions against transplanting more wolves until the suits are resolved it would by us time to work on legislation. But without changes in statute nothing will stop the mighty Feds.

 

In the meantime SSS. Remember no one has ever been prosecuted for shooting a Mexican gray wolf.

[.270]

You need to check again flatlander. A kid from nutrioso went to prison for shooting one. It's a pretty sad story too. Family member finked him out for the bounty. Lark

[couesmagnet]

Den sites will be super important if found. It's a way to observe them up close, take pics, or anything else a person would like to do with them. It's also a way to have an interaction with them when they are all together. Could be a heck of a party if everyone showed up. I was reading somewhere that they are particularly fond of tainted meat that no other animal would be able to stomach. Nothing like giving nature a helping hand and a free meal. Wolves without collars are extra special to interact with and observe thru quality glass. From crosshairs To a good meal, everyone must do their own part to help this expansion.

[Flatlander]

You need to check again flatlander. A kid from nutrioso went to prison for shooting one. It's a pretty sad story too. Family member finked him out for the bounty. Lark

Lark - Was that case prosecuted in New Mexico? Here is the history I can find:

 

In 1998, two individuals pled guilty to killing a female wolf in New Mexico. They forfeited two rifles; their combined sentences consisted of four months in jail, six months of home confinement, six years with no firearms, six years of probation and 410 hours of community service. In 2008, after pleading guilty to killing a male wolf in New Mexico, a shooter was sentenced to one year of probation, forfeited his firearms and was fined $10. Two years later, the federal government prosecuted two more cases, both in New Mexico.

One shooter was ordered to pay a $285 fine and $4,095 in restitution; the second was ordered to pay $275 in court costs and $1,000 in restitution. - See more at: http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-7298-canine-assets.html#sthash.An2uIcMW.dpuf

 

Perhaps I should have said no one has been prosecuted in AZ.

[520HUNT]

Our department sees the money that comes with the wolf recovery and that's why they are interested! It's not about sound management, it's all about the Benjamin's!

[AZLance]

Wolves = Money = Job Security = Goodbye Elk Herds

[.270]

His name is James Michael Rogers. Prosecuted in 2000. Got 4 months in the joint. Paid a big fine. Not sure how long he served but his sentence was 4 months. You can google it. I did. Lark.