Rancher thinks wolves are following cattle, aren't wild
Rancher Fred Galley says he has lost 10 cattle to wolves on his Rainy Mesa Ranch east of Reserve, and that as many as seven of the predators are on or near his property.
"Two wolves came right up to the house Monday," he told the Daily Press, noting that they did not run away at the sound of gunshots fired into the air. "They're not wild."
In addition to the dead livestock, Galley reported that four cows have been crippled in wolf attacks on his ranch, near Snow Lake.
Chuck Hayes, an official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there have been no confirmed wolf kills on the property.
However, he reported that five wolves have been spotted "in the general area" of the ranch.
"They are at least a couple miles off the pasture where (Galley) has cows, but wolves have the ability to move quickly," Hayes said.
Galley said it is easy to know where the wolves are, because they follow the cattle.
"We've had traps out there for a couple of weeks," Hayes said, "but we pulled them - at least temporarily - because other wolves (that the agency does not wish to capture) have moved on there. These new wolves have more experience in the wild, living on wild prey. We've found two or three elk carcasses (in the area).
"We continue to haze and scare off the wolves" from the vicinity of Galley's cattle, Hayes added.
The first wolf that showed up at the ranch was a male from an Arizona pack that agency personnel have been attempting to trap because it may have killed livestock, according to Hayes.
The others that have appeared in the area are members of a family group of wolves recently captured on the San Carlos Reservation in Arizona and reintroduced in New Mexico.
They were moved because the wolf-recovery program does not have an agreement with the Apache Tribe to allow the animals on the reservation.
Hayes acknowledged that "at least individual members" of the family group "have a history of livestock depredation."
"They have a reputation for killing cattle," Galley said, adding that one of the wolves has been captured six times because of its conflicts with livestock.
Galley suggested a policy similar to the "three-strikes-you're-out" standard that courts in some places impose on criminals.
However, Hayes pointed out that the family of wolves was "out in the wild at least six months without any depredations, so they can and do exist on wild prey."
He said he plans to meet with Galley to determine the severity of the problem on the ranch.
The wolf-recovery program persists as a lightning rod for controversy. As ranchers and environmentalists continue to debate the reintroduction effort, federal biologists say the program is working.
"There's no doubt we're moving toward recovery," Colleen Buchanan, acting program manager, told The Associated Press. "I'm very optimistic."
But some environmentalists argue that the wild-wolf population is declining, not moving toward recovery. They also dispute ranchers' claims that wolves are causing widespread livestock depredation.
The animals were hunted to the brink of extinction in the early 1900s. In March 1998, despite protests by ranchers, the government released the first 11 wolves in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona.
The goal was to have 55 wolves in the wild by the end of this year. There were about 30 radio-collared wolves in the wild at last count, in addition to an unknown number of animals without collars, the AP reported.
In 2001, a group of scientists said the Fish and Wildlife Service's strategy to manage the wolves was endangering individual animals and the entire species.
They recommended that the program allow wolves to roam outside recovery-area boundaries and require ranchers to take some responsibility for cattle carcasses that attract hungry wolves.
The scientists also called for a revision of the two-decade-old wolf-recovery plan by the following year to include clear goals for getting wolves off the federal government's endangered species list.
Two dozen conservation, animal protection, religious and community groups have asked the government to heed the scientists' advice.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet proposed a change in the boundary rule, and has not held ranchers responsible for carcasses. The agency is just now beginning work on an updated recovery plan.
Ranchers and county government officials are suing the Fish and Wildlife Service, claiming the agency didn't sufficiently consider potential livestock depredation and wolves hybridizing with other canines.
They have asked a federal judge to ban new wolf releases and order all wolves removed from the wild until the service meets its obligations.
"The way the rules are set up, they are stacked against the livestock industry," said Howard Hutchinson of Glenwood, executive director of the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth.
"The only way the wolf-recovery program will have any chance of success at all is to have local buy-in from the people who live in the area and have to deal with it," he said.
Michael Robinson of Pinos Altos, a staffer with the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the balance is tipped in favor of ranchers.
"There's got to be some attempt at coexistence, but that effort hasn't been made," he said.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hayes acknowledged that "at least individual members" of the family group "have a history of livestock depredation."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a bunch of bullshit
web page
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-08-2003 00:01: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>
Rancher Fred Galley says he has lost 10 cattle to wolves on his Rainy Mesa Ranch east of Reserve, and that as many as seven of the predators are on or near his property.
"Two wolves came right up to the house Monday," he told the Daily Press, noting that they did not run away at the sound of gunshots fired into the air. "They're not wild."
In addition to the dead livestock, Galley reported that four cows have been crippled in wolf attacks on his ranch, near Snow Lake.
Chuck Hayes, an official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there have been no confirmed wolf kills on the property.
However, he reported that five wolves have been spotted "in the general area" of the ranch.
"They are at least a couple miles off the pasture where (Galley) has cows, but wolves have the ability to move quickly," Hayes said.
Galley said it is easy to know where the wolves are, because they follow the cattle.
"We've had traps out there for a couple of weeks," Hayes said, "but we pulled them - at least temporarily - because other wolves (that the agency does not wish to capture) have moved on there. These new wolves have more experience in the wild, living on wild prey. We've found two or three elk carcasses (in the area).
"We continue to haze and scare off the wolves" from the vicinity of Galley's cattle, Hayes added.
The first wolf that showed up at the ranch was a male from an Arizona pack that agency personnel have been attempting to trap because it may have killed livestock, according to Hayes.
The others that have appeared in the area are members of a family group of wolves recently captured on the San Carlos Reservation in Arizona and reintroduced in New Mexico.
They were moved because the wolf-recovery program does not have an agreement with the Apache Tribe to allow the animals on the reservation.
Hayes acknowledged that "at least individual members" of the family group "have a history of livestock depredation."
"They have a reputation for killing cattle," Galley said, adding that one of the wolves has been captured six times because of its conflicts with livestock.
Galley suggested a policy similar to the "three-strikes-you're-out" standard that courts in some places impose on criminals.
However, Hayes pointed out that the family of wolves was "out in the wild at least six months without any depredations, so they can and do exist on wild prey."
He said he plans to meet with Galley to determine the severity of the problem on the ranch.
The wolf-recovery program persists as a lightning rod for controversy. As ranchers and environmentalists continue to debate the reintroduction effort, federal biologists say the program is working.
"There's no doubt we're moving toward recovery," Colleen Buchanan, acting program manager, told The Associated Press. "I'm very optimistic."
But some environmentalists argue that the wild-wolf population is declining, not moving toward recovery. They also dispute ranchers' claims that wolves are causing widespread livestock depredation.
The animals were hunted to the brink of extinction in the early 1900s. In March 1998, despite protests by ranchers, the government released the first 11 wolves in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona.
The goal was to have 55 wolves in the wild by the end of this year. There were about 30 radio-collared wolves in the wild at last count, in addition to an unknown number of animals without collars, the AP reported.
In 2001, a group of scientists said the Fish and Wildlife Service's strategy to manage the wolves was endangering individual animals and the entire species.
They recommended that the program allow wolves to roam outside recovery-area boundaries and require ranchers to take some responsibility for cattle carcasses that attract hungry wolves.
The scientists also called for a revision of the two-decade-old wolf-recovery plan by the following year to include clear goals for getting wolves off the federal government's endangered species list.
Two dozen conservation, animal protection, religious and community groups have asked the government to heed the scientists' advice.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet proposed a change in the boundary rule, and has not held ranchers responsible for carcasses. The agency is just now beginning work on an updated recovery plan.
Ranchers and county government officials are suing the Fish and Wildlife Service, claiming the agency didn't sufficiently consider potential livestock depredation and wolves hybridizing with other canines.
They have asked a federal judge to ban new wolf releases and order all wolves removed from the wild until the service meets its obligations.
"The way the rules are set up, they are stacked against the livestock industry," said Howard Hutchinson of Glenwood, executive director of the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth.
"The only way the wolf-recovery program will have any chance of success at all is to have local buy-in from the people who live in the area and have to deal with it," he said.
Michael Robinson of Pinos Altos, a staffer with the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the balance is tipped in favor of ranchers.
"There's got to be some attempt at coexistence, but that effort hasn't been made," he said.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hayes acknowledged that "at least individual members" of the family group "have a history of livestock depredation."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a bunch of bullshit
web page
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-08-2003 00:01: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>
