Social Media and the Middle East

Introduction

On December 17, 2010 a policewoman in Tunisia confiscated 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi’s unlicensed produce cart, which represented Bouazizi’s only livelihood. Bouazizi, breadwinner for a family of eight, had been selling fruits and vegetables for seven years and this was not the first time he had been bothered by police. Allegedly Bouazizi tried to pay the equivalent of a $7 fine, but the policewoman “slapped the scrawny young man, spat in his face and insulted his dead father” (Abouzied). Disgraced, he tried to file a complaint with government officials but they refused to see him. Not even an hour after authorities commandeered his wheelbarrow full of produce, Bouazizi returned to the provincial headquarters where he had tried to complain. Drenched in fuel, he set himself on fire outside the headquarters and died several weeks later. His death and mistreatment ignited protests inside his hometown and they quickly spread to other cities including the capital of Tunisia, Tunis. The protests sometimes turned into violent riots and the Tunisian government responded accordingly. State security forces arrested demonstrators and the Internet was shutdown (Noor). President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali tried to quell the citizens’ aggressive protests by offering to create 300,000 jobs, but the demonstrations continued. They concluded on January 14, 2011, a month and a half after Bouazizi’s self-immolation the president and his family fled to Saudi Arabia, bringing an end to the 23-year-old regime. Bouazizi’s death and the protests that followed inspired Arabs in several other countries to organize, standup for their rights, and rebel against their respective governments (Noor).

The case of the Tunisian revolution, the first of several revolutions in the Middle East, is an interesting one precisely because the Ben Ali regime was so repressive. How did news of the protests and demonstrations spread in a country that in 2010-ranked 164^th out of 178 in Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders)? Certainly the state owned media was not going to cover the events in a favorable light. A report on the Human Rights Watch 2010 World Report said,

“Press freedom is abridged in Tunisia and was increased during and after the national elections in October. None of the domestic print and broadcast media offer critical coverage of government policies, apart from a few low-circulation magazines. The government blocks access to some domestic and international political or human rights websites featuring critical coverage of Tunisia. The targeting of the press was particularly pronounced around the time of the presidential and legislative elections, which President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his ruling Democratic Constitutional Rally party won by a landslide for a fifth consecutive term. The election itself was marred by repressive acts and tight controls” (Human Rights Watch 2010).

Moreover, it wasn’t just the media in Tunisia that had substantial restrictions. Tunisia was also known as one of the most political repressive places on the planet. How did opposition organize so swiftly and effectively in a country where the slightest hint of dissidence would be grounds for public corrections? Tunisian dissident lawyer and writer Mohamed Abbou was put behind bars for more than two years in 2005, not because he was leading an organization that would threaten the regime, but because, as he says,

“I broke a taboo by denouncing the scandals and by evoking corruption. That's when the regime decided to hit the interests of my family and to persecute my family. Then it threw me in jail, seeking to humiliate me” (Abbou 2007).

Abbou calls this a “policy of fear.” He says it has grown into a tradition and Ben-Ali made it an even more efficient tool against political opposition. After his release Abbou wrote that if one makes the decision to rebel against the regime, one must consider the possibility that one’s family and children would also pay a price. He wrote in 2007, the “policy of fear” has worked so well, “the majority of Tunisian citizens are terrified at the very idea of speaking about politics” (Abou 2007).

Social Media: Affecting a Revolution

Revolution 2.0

For most Americans websites like youtube.com and facebook.com are valued because they provide entertainment while providing another avenue to stay connected with friends, family, and interests. It is not related to ‘media’ in the traditional ‘news media’ sense, which is associated with news organizations and institutions like newspapers and television broadcasts. However, not to be confused, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are ‘news’ distributing platforms. The distribution process is just done in a much different fashion than newspapers and television. It is much more social, hence social media.

Social media is an effective tool in organizing and mobilizing a revolution on at least two grounds. First, instead of meeting in person or over the phone oppositional forces can organize demonstrations and invite people to take part. This can also be a problem because it wouldn’t take much effort for the government to obtain the dates and locations of protests and try to stop them before they start.

An example of this kind of organization around Facebook is commonly called the April 6 Movement in Egypt. Egypt, like Tunisia had significant limits to freedom of the press and political mobilization. In early 2006, two Egyptian youths got wind of a workers protest in the industrial town of Mahalla al-Kobra. Workers around Egypt had been periodically protesting high rates of inflation and unemployment for more than a year but their protests were never coordinated. One of the youths sent a text message to the other saying that Egyptians ought to show support for the workers. On March 23, 2006 they set up the “April 6 Strike” group on Facebook. By the next the day the group had more than a 1,000 members and eventually reached over 76,000 members. The members discussed what should be done, but the group never established a unified plan of action. Members claiming to be government security agents infiltrated the group and warned them against participation in the strike. On April 6, despite police and military vehicles blocking off streets and government security personnel seemingly everywhere, some of the members agreed to meet people at a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Tahir Square. One of the original two youths was arrested after she found the police surrounding the KFC (Shapiro 2009). While the April 6 strike wasn’t quite on the same level as a revolution there are some positives to take away from experiment. The sheer number of members who participated through Facebook demonstrated their unrest with the status quo. The April 6 Strike was successful in that it amplified the protest that was planned offline (Shapiro 2009).

Many see the current revolutions in the Arab world, as a result or outcome of the Internet and social media. Head of Marketing for the Middle East and North Africa at Google, and Egyptian native Wael Ghonim was held prisoner for 12 days in Egypt. A day after his release he shared his thoughts, in an interview with CNN on Febuary 7, 2011,

"If you want to free a society, just give them Internet access, because people are going to - you know, the young crowds are going to - are going to all go out and see and - and hear the unbiased media, see the truth about, you know, other nations and their own nation, and they're going to be able to communicate and collaborate together”(CNN).

Certainly, it can be argued that the Internet and social media acted as maybe the only platform available for participants in the revolution. In a relatively free society it is perhaps understandable to take things like freedom of expression and assembly for granted. For decades these things were merely an illusion in many Middle Eastern countries. What social media offered was an unconstrained voice.

The second benefit of using social media is its popularity worldwide. Although it may not be necessary, having the international community on your side whilst engaging in a revolution certainly can’t hurt. Tunisia is a good example for two reasons. First, this is where it all began. In the early days of the revolution there were few, if any international news organizations with a niche in the country. So there was very little, if any coverage of the first few days of the protest. Secondly, the Tunisian government was so restrictive on press freedom, if news stories were going to get out it wouldn’t be from any actual news organization. In fact, all state run media were ordered not to cover the protests (Miladi 2011). Spreading the word would most likely have to come from citizens using some form of social media.

The revolution was being televised but you had to be an active Facebook member to view it. Footage of the protests could be taken with cell phones and video cameras and uploaded to Facebook pages for anyone with Internet access to see. Sites like YouTube had been censored in 2008 after another wave of protests were suppressed (Raghavan). 22-year-old student Saifeddine Amre, who had previously spent six months behind bars for writing a story about Ben Ali’s wife, went to Sidi Bouzid, hometown of Mohamed Bouazizi and other cities to film the demonstrations. Amre said, “Facebook was the means of our revolution. We used it to apply pressure on the regime, to make sure the truth came out” (Raghavan).

New Tool, Old Revolution

In the Western world Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, along with other social media are being championed with being responsible for the current state of affairs in many Arab countries. A new generation of computer literate youth were said to be leading the charge against the autocrats. This begs the question, if not for social media would the revolutions in the Middle East have happened? Before answering this question, it is important to note that since this phenomenon is only a few months old, much of the research conducted is incomplete and much more should be done to determine the exact effects of social media. What we do know is in the early part of 2011 revolutions, protests, uprisings, reformations, and countless other words have been used to describe people’s unrest in many Middle Eastern countries. It is hard not to generalize this unrest across the several nations as rebellion against authoritarian governments, because that is what it seemed to be. What we do know is that a Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi can be credited with sparking the first wave of protests in the small North African country.

Some commentators believe that the role social media played is much less significant than other factors. Some of their main points are social media in the end can only do so much. Politics, or the struggle for power occurs outside the virtual arena. Talking about a revolution online and actually conducting one are two very different things. The uprisings were more likely the result of decades of oppression. Popular movements have occurred for centuries, long before the Internet was around.

Will Heaven is a writer for the Daily Telegraph, a popular British newspaper. In late March, he wrote an article that argued social media played a much smaller role in the uprisings than originally thought. He begins by illustrating how the Google executive mentioned earlier, Wael Ghonim, began his “Revolution 2.0.” Ghonim first got involved in the Egyptian revolution long before most people in America, including our government, had any idea that a revolution was brewing. Ghonim, using the alias “ElShaheed” to protect his identity created the Facebook page “We Are All Khaled Said” in response to the brutal murder of 28-year-old Egyptian businessman, Khaled Said, in June 2010. Said had come across footage of several Egyptian police officers dividing up drugs and seized cash. He bravely posted the videos online. Later two of the same policeman saw Said walking outside an Internet café. “Witnesses say his head was smashed against a marble table repeatedly, before he was dragged outside and kicked to death” (Heaven 2011). The police report said that Said had died after swallowing a bag of marijuana. But morgue photos acquired by Said’s family showed a much more violent story. Again, Said’s cousins chose to publish the photos online. These photos reached Ghonim who republished them on his Facebook page. At the end of January 2011 his page had more than 350,000 followers worldwide. Ghonim suggested to all of his ‘followers’ that they unite in protest against the Mubarak regime January 25 (Heaven 2011).

“The turnout on January 25 set a historic precedent. Did Wael Ghonim’s six-month old Facebook page play a part in this? Almost certainly yes. But other factors dwarf its significance hugely, not least that Tunisia had overthrown a dictator just nine days earlier. The protests – dare one say it – would probably have occurred without the help of Facebook or other social networks like Twitter. January 25 is a national holiday in Egypt” (Heaven 2011)l

Heaven is strongly critical of those who believe that the Internet is responsible for the events in the Arab world. He goes on to say.

“The Western media has focused intently on the role of Western technology, but less so on the fact that active street protests, a strikingly familiar vehicle for revolution, brought down dictators. The chaotic reality of the Arab street protests – at one point, bizarrely, there was a camel charge in Cairo – has been repackaged for a Western audience. No doubt the 30 million Facebook users in the UK, and the tens of millions who enjoyed The Social Network last year, welcomed that” (Heavnen 2011)

I will not argue with Heaven’s assertion that Westerner’s like to feel good about themselves because they think they are somehow making a difference by “liking” a protest page in Egypt on Facebook. However, his argument possibly underestimates the key role social media played in giving Egyptian’s a platform to share information freely. The very fact that Khaled Said and his family chose to post their videos and photos online instead of handing them over to local authorities or news organizations shows a kind of faith in the Internet’s ability to share information.

Determining the Past and Future Implications

To answer to whether or not social media is responsible for the current uprisings in the Middle East, a definition of “responsible” must be clear. If responsible means acting as a catalyst for the uprisings then yes, social media can take some responsibility. If responsible means social media was the determining factor in whether or not the uprisings took place then no, the impact of social media on the popular uprising has yet to be fully determined.

Evgeny Morozov, author of The Net Delusion argues,

“These digital tools are simply, well, tools, and social change continues to involve many painstaking, longer-term efforts to engage with political institutions and reform movements” (Morozov 2011).

His point is well taken. The root causes of revolution, poverty, unemployment, corruption, and oppression deserve far more attention than the tools protestors used to organize. However, the causes of revolution are old, the way revolutions are carried out is new. The Internet is changing the way revolutions are conducted. Never before could citizens instantly communicate with each other across such a wide space. Social media is a worldwide revolution. The technology gap between the rich and poor countries provides a large barrier to that revolution. Would the international community have waited so long to act in Rwanda if there were video clips of the horrors that went on floating around on the web? The truth is that no matter how repressed a people are, as long as they have Internet, they can connect with each other and the rest of the world.

Is it possible that the uprisings would have been carried out without the Internet’s help? Yes, but that is not what I am arguing. Social media clearly helped organize, mobilize, and energize the activists behind the uprisings. But the Internet also had an unintended effect on the revolutions, one that perhaps tipped the scales more than anything else. More than just a powerful communication tool, Egyptians used the Internet in the same ways that Americans do. So when the Mubarak regime shut the Internet down because he didn’t want opposition organizing on the web, he sparked anger in those who were not involved in the protests initially.

Ethan Zuckerman a research fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society calls this phenomenon the “cute-cat theory of digital activism.” He explains

“Web sites or proxy servers created specifically for activists are easy for a government to shut down, Zuckerman says, but around the world, dissidents thrive on sites, like Facebook, that are used primarily for more mundane purposes (like exchanging pictures of cute cats). Authoritarian regimes can’t block political Facebook groups without blocking all the “American Idol” fans and cat lovers as well. “The government can’t simply shut down Facebook, because doing so would alert a large group of people who they can’t afford to radicalize” (Shapiro, 2009.)

After the smoke clears and the dust settles, the lasting legacy of social media on the uprisings in the Middle East may depend on what happens next. If authoritarian regimes replace authoritarian regimes nothings has been accomplished. Maybe one issue with organizing online is that online media creates online leaders. Organizing politically is much different than organizing in an Internet setting. Speculating on what will happen in the future is just that, speculation. Who knows what the outcomes of this will be 5-10 years down the line? What we know is that social media certainly are powerful communication and organization tools. As the technology spreads, more and more people will be able to communicate their thoughts to the rest of the world.

Works Cited

-Abbou, Mohammed. "Twenty Years of Suffering." Http://www.mafhoum.com/press10/312S28.htm. 12 Dec. 2007. Web.

-Abouzied, Rania. "Tunisia: How Mohammed Bouazizi Sparked a Revolution - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 21 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-CNN.com - Transcripts." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 9 Feb. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-Heaven, Will. "Egypt and Facebook: Time to Update Its Status." NATO - Homepage. 24 Mar. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. .

-Human Rights Watch. "Tunisia: Worsening Repression of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists | Human Rights Watch." Home | Human Rights Watch. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-Miladi, Noureddine. "Tunisia: A Media Led Revolution? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English." AJE - Al Jazeera English. 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-Noor, Naseema. "Tunisia: The Revolution That Started It All." International Affairs Review. 31 Jan. 2011. Web. .

-Raghavan, Sudarsan. "A Lost Generation of Young People of Tunisia Discuss Grievances That Led to Their Revolution." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-Reporters Without Borders. "Press Freedom Index 2010." Reporters Without Borders. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. .

-Shapiro, Samantha M. "Revolution, Facebook-Style - Can Social Networking Turn Young Egyptians Into a Force for Democratic Change? - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 22 Jan. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. .

Mexican Wolf Reintroduction

Introduction

Before Aldo Leopold was known as the father of wildlife ecology he was working with the forest service in New Mexico in the early 1900s. He was assigned to shoot and kill bears, mountain lions, wolves, and any other predators that threatened ranchers’ livestock (wikipedia). While working in the mountains of New Mexico he and his fellow workers stopped to eat lunch atop a high rimrock when they saw what appeared to be a doe. When the animal got a little closer theyrealized that it was a Mexican gray wolf. Six wolf pups followed her, and they began playfully mauling each other at the foot of the rimrock. Leopold and his crew began shooting at the wolves until their rifles were empty and the big wolf was down. When they went down to where the wolf was Leopold saw a “green fire dying in her eyes.” After that day Leopold knew that what he was doing was wrong. He explains what happens next in his book, A Sand County Almanac.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.”

Leopold’s view was shared by others and is partly responsible for efforts to restore the gray wolf to its old glory.

The Mexican gray wolf roamed largely unabated through large segments of New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Mexico until the 1900s when humans started having more and more contact with them. In 1915 New Mexico had an estimated 1500 Mexican wolves alone (MacAllister). Government supported extermination campaigns like the one Leopold was assigned, all but eradicated the animal by 1970 (FWS). By the late 1970s all but five individuals survived in the wild (Velaquez-Manoff).

In 1976 the gray wolf was listed as an endangered species under the endangered species act of 1973. Ironically, the same government that was partly responsible for eradicating the wolf in southwestern United States was put in charge of reintroducing the species to that area. As mentioned earlier, the Mexican gray wolf was all but extinct in the country, so any effective recovery program would have to include captive breeding and reintroduction. An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1996. It identified appropriate reintroduction areas for the wolf, such as eastern Arizona and western New Mexico (FWS).

In late March of 1998, 11 captive wolves were released into the designated area. The results of the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project depend on whom you ask. According to a NPR story in 2006, the upshot Ranchers didn’t like the wolves feeding on their livestock, and environmentalists didn’t like it because wolves were being killed or relocated if they moved outside the designated area. The wolves, being raised in captivity, had a difficult time hunting wildlife, and instead chose to hunt on the less precocious cattle. Under the rules of the program, wolves that attack cattle can be killed or put back in captivity (FWS). Michael Robinson, a member of the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “Despite federal protection of the gray wolf, the Mexican wolf is possibly the most endangered animal in North America” (Flynn) There are many problems with the Mexican wolf reintroduction, but the main issue of wolves attacking livestock remains the same (NPR).

Issues with Recovery Plan

Boundaries

The Mexican gray wolf’s territory before the species was eradicated expanded into most of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. Planners of the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project selected two primary areas for reintroduction. The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area is in central-east Arizona and extends into central-west New Mexico. The area is part of the Apache National Forest and the Gila National Forest. The total area is more than 6800 square miles and the habitat is favorable for Mexican gray wolves (MacAllister).

The White Sands Range, located in New Mexico was the sight of a possible second reintroduction location. The area was generally less desirable for Mexican wolves because of its low altitude, lack of large prey and dry climate. The area is around 4000 square miles but could only support approximately 30 wolves (MacAllister). The two areas were some distance apart and are separated by roads and other hazards. The U.S. Army owned some of the land that the area encompassed and refused to cooperate with the project. It was decided that the area would not be used for wolf reintroduction (Defenders).

The “primary recovery area” located in the southern Arizona portion of the recovery area is where captive wolves are released into the wild for the first time. The secondary zone is in New Mexico and is designated for wolves that have already been in the wild, but for one reason or another have been captured and need to be re-released.

Challenges and Regulations of Boundaries

The designated areas are much smaller than the wolves’ natural territory that extends into most of the southwest United States and into southern Mexico. Naturally, the wolves will drift into undesignated territory. If they are seen outside their assigned location they will be trapped and re-released. This “may interfere with their ability to form packs and establish and maintain home ranges” (EIS). Once captured a wolf is held in captivity for some time until an adequate release site is available. Relocating a wolf is difficult because inbreeding is a strong possibility because of the small number of total wolves. Moreover, it takes field members quite a bit of time and effort to trap wolves, time and effort that could be used to track wolf movements and addressing other problems such as livestock kills (EIS).

Livestock Depredation

Another complication with the Blue Range location is the presence of livestock in the area. About 66 percent of the Blue Range area is open for cattle to graze. Other human presences such as mining, forestry, and recreation also occur in the area. It is essential the wolves learn to hunt other wild animals because the other source of large prey is cattle. A wolf that is proven to have attacked cattle can be put to death. The area where the wolves have been designated has a large cattle presence (Robbins). In February of 2010; four livestock depredation reports were completed. One was confirmed as a positive wolf killing, and another was deemed as a probable wolf killing. The other two excused the wolves as a possible cause of death. Two of the reports were follow up investigations from Januay (FWS).

Captivity and Inbreeding

All the Mexican gray wolves alive in the wild today were either bred in captivity and released, or the offspring of wolves bred in captivity. The previously captive wolves had no knowledge of how to hunt wild animals, which they acquire from watching others, so researchers often leave food for the wolves to survive (Robbins). The first wolf to ever to be released, forebodingly perhaps, was shot by a private property owner, who claimed self-defense (Defenders). As of 2009, approximately 29 wolves have been killed while under the recovery program. 11 wolves were killed by the government because they “problem wolves.” Others have died due to stress during captures and illegal shootings. As of the end of 2007, 24 wolves had been killed illegally (FWS). There were only 42 Mexican wolves alive in the wild at the end of 2009 (Davis & Steller). The 42 wolves counted was a significant decrease from 52 in 2008 (Davis & Steller). However there are approximately 300 in captivity (FWS).

Biologists are concerned the removal of wolves by relocation or death has led to more inbreeding (Reese). In one instance, a male wolf named M574 who had “good, strong genes” was killed after he was found to have killed four cows (Reese). Removing a strong, healthy specimen greatly shallows the gene pool, which is not very large to begin with. “Any time one dies, it does have an impact,” said head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ben Fazio, “But we need to keep moving forward and establishing this population” (Associated Press). Captive breeding could reverse this trend but the Fish and Wildlife Service have been slow to do so, says Rich Fredrickson, a conservation geneticist at the University of Montana. There were no captive reintroductions in 2009 (Davis & Steller).

In 2009, 31 wolf pups were born to seven packs, only seven survived (Davis & Steller). Benjamin Tuggle the Southwest regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that the normal survival rate for Mexican wolf pups is around 50 percent (Davis & Steller). However only four of the non-surviving pups where found to be dead, meaning that some could have slipped the census (Davis & Steller).

Regulation & Politics

Recovery Plan of 1982

The attempted recovery of the Mexican wolf began in 1976, during Gerald Ford’s presidency, when the gray wolf listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP) was established in 1977. The SSP was established to capture all surviving wolves in Mexico and the United States (FWS). Their primary goal was to raise wolves for the purpose of reintroduction by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

In 1979, a team was put together to write the recovery plan for the Mexican wolf. By 1980, the five remaining wolves in the wild were captured from Mexico (they were extinct in the U.S.) and placed into captivity. In 1982 Mexico and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The plan’s goal was to maintain a captive breeding program and to have 100 wolves roaming in the wild (FWS).

Reintroduction Gains Momentum

Eight years later and no wolves had been introduced to the wild; the Wolf Action Group filed a suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing “to implement the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan” (FWS). In 1990 “Preserve Arizona’s Wolves hosts a wolf symposium to address recovery issues” (FWS). Also the Arizona Game and Fish Department revealed that public support of wolf reintroduction was strong: 61% favor to only 18% oppose. In response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hired Mexican wolf recovery coordinator to help implement specific recovery and reintroduction strategies (FWS). In 1991 environmental group, Defenders of Wildlife committed to compensate ranchers for any livestock killed by wolves (Defenders).

In 1995, the New Mexico Game and Fish Commission resist reintroduction in both New Mexico and Arizona. They claimed that no local support existed. However that same year the League of Women Voters opinion poll showed solid support in New Mexico. The statewide poll demonstrated 62% were in favor compared to 22% who opposed. (Defenders).

Due to legal pressure from environmental groups, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service released a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1996 (Defenders). It was titled “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States” (FWS). The next year authorized political positions including Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, signed the record of decision, formally allowing reintroduction to proceed (FWS).

As of 2010 there were six agencies involved in the regulation of the Mexican wolves. (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, USDA-Forest Service, USDA-Wildlife Services, White Mountain Apache Tribe”) Together the agencies make up the Mexican Wolf Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) (FWS). A legal settlement with environmental groups reduced the role of AMOC, placing more of an emphasis on federal control over state and local control (Reese).

Mexican Wolf Reintroduction

Results

In April of 1998 the first 11 wolves were released into the Blue Range Recovery Area (Defenders). Since then 81 additional wolves have been released into the wild and $20 million has been spent on the program (Davis & Steller). There were no new releases in 2009 despite there being around 300 wolves in captivity (Davis & Steller).

At the beginning of 2010 only 42 Mexican wolves were surviving in the wild, the lowest number since 2002 (FWS). Program managers had hoped for at least twice that number (NPR). However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t permanently remove any wolves from the area last year. Something environmentalists had complained about in the past (Davis & Steller). The agency reformed its policy regarding permanent removal of wolves in 2008. No longer does a wolf have to be captured or killed if its predatory instinct to attack cattle gets the better of them. Nor does a wolf have to be captured or killed if it leaves the recovery zone three times. As a result the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now had greater autonomy over how wolves that break the rules will be treated.

Ongoing Issues

The FWS seems to be left with a difficult decision to either support ranchers who have legitimate gripes about degradation, or environmental groups focus on letting the wolfs do what they were born to do. “FWS estimates that between 1998 and 2007, wolves were involved in 123 confirmed cattle depredations” (Reese). One study has shown that livestock make up 4% of a Mexican wolf’s diet (Reese). Jess Carey who is a wolf incident investigator for New Mexico’s Catron County, which includes a large segment of the recovery area offers his opinion, “It multiplies and multiplies, and pretty soon, you don't have enough money to live on," he said. "Can't they recover the wolf without destroying the people? Because that's what this program is doing” (Reese). Something to consider is that Catron County’s main source of income comes from cattle ranching and elk hunting (Reese). A single cow lost is estimated to cost a rancher $1,000 (Reese). It was estimated by the New Mexico Farm Service Agency that “verified wolf depredations cost ranchers $70,000 during 2008 and 2009 combined” (Reese). Carey takes a fatalist view and sees no solution in sight, "There is no solution," Carey said. "Wolves and livestock and people are never going to be able to coexist. That's how it's been through history" (Reese).

Environmental groups have been compensating ranchers for lost livestock due to wolf conflicts. Some states have followed their lead and are implementing their own compensation policies. The FWS is also establishing an “interdiction fund” which, once in effect, will be used to compensate ranchers for lost cattle and establish effective ways to treat wolf-livestock conflicts (Reese).

Environmentalists also see their fair share of problems. "The program is in crisis," said Eva Sargent, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, one of several of groups that have closely monitored FWS's recovery efforts. "They need to figure out what they need to do, and do it quick" (Reese). Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity seems to agree, "This animal is on the brink. It can't afford any more trapping and shooting" (Reese).

Conclusion

The Mexican gray wolf recovery has been to a relative failure relative to other gray wolf recoveries like the one in Yellowstone National Park (Reese). There are several reasons for this that deserves explanation. First and foremost, the gray wolf of the northern Rockies was not eradicated like the Mexican wolf was. Simple relocation was all that was necessary in their case (Reese). The Mexican wolf had to be placed into the wild out of captivity. Another reason is that the climate in the northern Rockies is not suitable for ranching, especially during cold months. The climate in southwester U.S. is much more desirable to ranch yearlong (Reese). Wolves living in Yellowstone National Park are especially blessed. "Yellowstone is like Disneyland for wolves," said Maggie Dwire, assistant coordinator for the Mexican wolf recovery program (Reese). "I mean, two monkeys with a pickup truck and a case of beer could have reintroduced wolves to the northern Rockies," said Ed Bangs, FWS's Western gray wolf recovery coordinator, who oversees the northern Rockies reintroduction program. "There was just unbelievably good habitat here, because it was protected 100 years ago" (Reese).

Eva Sargent of Defenders of Wildlife say the Mexican wolf recovery is deterred by a lack of a formal U.S. Fish and Wildlife plan that has clear goals for recovery and delisting from the endangered species list. "There's no defined end point, and there's no game plan," she said. "It's kind of like we're working on a puzzle and we don't have the picture on the box" (Reese).

Critics on both sides of the issue point out that the current recovery plan is outdated; it has been 28 years since the plan was first established (Reese). David Parsons who was the first coordinator of the Mexican wolf recovery program agrees, "We really need a modern recovery plan," Parsons said. "The plan was written in 1982, before the scientific discipline of conservation biology even came into being. We know a whole lot more about conserving endangered species now" (Reese).

One issue in establishing a new recovery plan, top official overseeing the Mexican wolf program Benjamin Tuggle says is that the Mexican wolf is legally bound up with the lager gray wolf population. Tuggle promises a new plan will be drafted “as soon as we can get the bureaucratic positioning” (Reese). But critics are getting tired of the bureaucratic red tape. Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), shares his frustration, "I'm delighted Dr. Tuggle is promising we'll have another recovery plan, but I'd be more delighted to actually see it happen, rather than more promises,” The CBD sued the FWS to try and expedite a new recovery plan (Reese).

One thing for sure is the new plan will still be firm on removing wolves that attack livestock. Tuggle wants to balance the biological needs of the recovery with socioeconomic concerns. Environmentalists would like to see a wider range for the wolves to roam, so they are not constantly being removed and relocated because they cross some imaginary boundary (Reese). Parsons argues that young wolves leave their pack after a year or two, to find new mates and hunting grounds (Reese).

The fate of the Mexican wolf, just as it was 100 years ago when Aldo Leopold saw the” green fire” flicker out of a female wolf’s eyes is bound up with ranchers and their representatives. If they cannot learn to be acceptable of the wolf’s presence it is unlikely that any recovery program will be a success (Reese). Compensating ranchers for livestock killed by predatory wolves may be part of a solution. Craig Miller, a Southwest representative of Defenders of wildlife offers another part, “With numbers so perilously low, every single wolf in the wild counts toward the animal's survival. Turning this dire situation around will require every effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft a science-based recovery plan that pays careful attention to genetic issues. The service must also make a renewed commitment to keep wolves on the ground" (Davis & Steller)

Associated Press, "Another deadly year for Mexican wolf". Associated Press 12/23/09:

Davis, Tony, and Steller Tim. Mexican wolf population dipping. 02/06/2010

Defenders Of Wildlife, "Restoring the Mexican Wolf". 04/10/2010 .

Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/

Flynn, Katie. "Future Still Uncertain for Mexican Grey Wolf". Tucson Weekly 04/14/10:

Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

NPR Problems Plague Gray Wolf Reintroduction http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17910768

Reese, April. "A decade on, Southwest reintroduction effort faces long odds". Environment & Energy Publishing 2010

Reese, April. "FWS doubles down on effort to recover los lobos". Environment & Energy Publishing

Reese, April. "WOLVES: As Southwest recovery effort struggles, northern Rockies packs multiply -- a tale of two populations ". Environment & Energy Publishing 03/18/2010:

Velasquez-Manoff, Moises. “Howls of Protest Greet Mexican Wolf reintroduction”. Christian Science Monitor 12/22/08