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