21 comments

• 

  johnwarner

  11 months ago

  The way I see it, conservation organizations are working on behalf of the majority of people in our country, whose elected officials have passed laws that agencies are beholden to enforce. These George Bush appointees don't get to selectively decide what laws to enforce, and what laws a few local malcontents try to convince them to break.
  
  It's pretty clear now that the vast majority of American citizens, even in Arizona and New Mexico, want to see Mexican Wolves back in their rightful place in nature. It was a mistake to shoot them all out to begin with, just to make room for somebody's cows. Aldo Leopold knew that way back in the 1920s when he saw how hammered the forests and grasslands became after wolves were all taken out and the deer population exploded. It should just be common sense, but science is backing this notion up now.
  
  I'm really sorry these groups are forced to sue our governmental appointees to enforce our laws, but someone's got to do it. No surprise, though, that there are lawbreakers in the Bush Administration. I guess in Catron county, too.
  reply
• 

  thomasjames

  11 months ago

  You are completely off your rocker. Most Americans support wolves? I call BS.
  
  They have no place in nature anymore. There is no need for them in the ecological system.
  
  Why don't you guys start calling it like it really is. This isn't about being pro-wolf, the wolves are just a pawn. This is really about being anti-human.
  
  Most citizens are also pro-rancher too. You guys are nuts.
  reply
• 

  beccarivi

  11 months ago

  It's encouraging to know that local groups like WildEarth Guardians are using their resources to effectively advocate for wild nature and the web of life. I don't think this is about being anti-human. Protecting wolves, restoring the balance, and preserving the web of life is paramount to all species - ESPECIALLY people.
  
  What most folks don't get is the inextricable role these species play in the landscape of life: wolves, as predator species, keep prey species (deers, elk, etc.) in check and therefore support vibrant communities of aspen and other plants, as we've seen happen in Yellowstone.
  
  It's certainly a shame that our government continues to sacrifice public places for special interests, but we're all lucky to have groups like WildEarth Guardians there working to maintain the web of life.
  reply
• 

  gwynethd

  11 months ago

  Actually, thomasjames, while many livestock growers oppose them, wolves do have broad support among the general population. As NMI reported last month, a recent survey by Research and Polling showed 70 percent of registered voters in New Mexico support the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf. Only 21 percent opposed it. You can read more here: Survey: Many Want Wolves to Thrive
  reply
• 

  thomasjames

  11 months ago

  And yet none of the questions in the poll were released to the public.
  
  Thats about like saying a John McCain push poll shows him leading Barack Obama by 30 points. It all depends on how you ask the questions. I bet if you asked people if they would forgo eating beef to have wild wolves that your numbers would be much different. JMO
  reply
• 

  caroljohnson

  11 months ago

  Some ranchers are running their operations to be "wolf-friendly," knowing they can charge a premium for their beef, and knowing it's the right thing to do. Ranchers in the Southwest, even! They just know it takes a little more work, but they're not afraid of that. Or the wolves, for that matter.
  In the Rockies, dogs kill 10 times more livestock than wolves, and they've got thousands of them. Even ravens and vultures kill more livestock than wolves.
  
  I hope the people in Catron County that want to help their communities move into the 21st century are able to take advantage of economic opportunities available to them because of the incredible natural reasources of the Gila, and not be shouted down by people that fear change.
  reply
• 

  meadow

  11 months ago

  The lobo poll questions are online for anyone to see: http://www.rpinc.com/wb/pages/rpi.php
  It was carefully written to make sure there was no bias. Research and Polling is a reputable company and their reputation is always at stake when they do a poll. It wouldn't make sense for them to try to get a purposefully biased result.
  Given that the amount of beef produced in wolf country is miniscule to the overall supply, no one would have to give up eating beef even if wolves ate every single cow out there. Of course, there are other reasons to do that.
  reply
• 

  thomasjames

  11 months ago

  Carol, I totally agree. If this is going to work that is the way that it has to be done. Unfortunately, if you look at mr. warner's comments or the websites for the organizations it becomes readily apparent, they are out to stop grazing. They hate ranchers (even though I doubt any of them have any clue what good stewards 95% of ranchers are) and they have a vendetta against cows. I think call these groups conservationist is a misnomer. The correct term is protectionist or maybe preservationist, but conservationist implies use of the land. They don't want people to be able to use the land for commercial purposes.
  reply
• 

  ccmanager

  11 months ago

  The poll that is cited in previous posts was commissioned by the environmental groups, and, as anyone ever involved in these things knows, polls that please the customer are always regarded as gospel truth, and put forth with great fanfare by those who commissioned them. The real difficulty with this particular poll is that the people polled were selected on the basis of percentage of total voters in New Mexico, thus assuring that the majority of the polls would reflect the views of those in the population centers, not the rural area that is directly effected, since Catron County represents less than one percent of the voting population. Thus, the people actually dealing with this problem aren't represented at all. Sadly, these are the very people that deal with the reality of the problem, as opposed to a romanticized idea of the place of the wolf in this area. No one here would have a problem with the wolves if they stayed in the (Gila) wilderness, but that's not how the program is run, and the officials of this county have a responsibility to the citizens to provide for the safety and security of those citizens, just as do the officials of any county or municipality. And while I do not have a grievance with those folks who support the wolf, the fact is that the program has produced a situation here of children being threatened, pets being killed or maimed, and a way of life every bit as valid as that of any city dweller is being threatened. Perhaps a taste of that reality would produce a more thoughtful approach to this issue.
  reply
• 

  miguelito

  11 months ago

  HaHa!
  This is very funny, the Wolf haters trying to sound rational, Ha!
  reply
• 

  anchorite

  11 months ago

  "`They do it for the publicity,' says Catron County Manager Bill Aymar."
  
  Excuse me? Hollywood stars like negative publicity because it increases their profile and therefore job prospects, but how would publicity enrich the people who comprise Wild Earth Guardians? All their members are either volunteers, interns, or very low paid permanent staff. It sounds like Mr. Aymar comes up with half-baked rationalizations to justify his own position.
  
  "`There’s no difference between a wolf and a burglar trying to break into your house and hurt you. I wouldn’t hesitate a second to shoot him.'"
  
  How is a wolf attacking livestock to fulfill its natural drive to eat like a burglar breaking into your house in any way? Livestock is property, it is replaceable, and typically it is replaced at maximum sale value, and the money comes from these environmental groups the ranchers seem to think hate ranchers so much.
  
  "`The hardest part of the whole issue is that most of the people who have a very strong position on this don’t have wolves in their back yard,' Aymar says. `It’s easy to sit up there in Santa Fe and say wolves are a great idea.'"
  
  I know several liberal environmentalists who live in Catron County. They aren't huge landowners and can't afford to contribute to political coffers in exchange for influence over Fish and Wildlife practices, but they are there because they love nature too much to live apart from it. I know other liberal environmentalists who hunt for recreation, but they hunt deer and other prey animals, not critically endangered predators that can't support the practice. The rest of us live in the city because we don't want to park ourselves on the habitat of wildlife all over the state and force these kinds of man vs. nature conflicts.
  
  As for the poll cited in other comments, I certainly support the return of all wildlife that is native to New Mexico. The environment was damaged by deforestation too much even before European settlers arrived, and the disappearance of more fauna is a sign that it is only getting worse.
  reply
• 

  hayduke

  11 months ago

  The very fact that people endeavor to produce livestock for commercial gain in the arid Southwest is absurd. The fact that this same entitled lot think they have a right to extirpate wolves and other critters is downright criminal.
  
  The government ought to put some money toward permanently retiring grazing leases in the Southwest, starting with this in the heart of the wolf recovery area. Give these poor, whining souls a golden parachute and give the land a rest!
  
  Secondly, it's time to stop killing wolves on behalf of the livestock industry. Seriously, is it fair that the lobos get a taste for beef by scavenging on the carcasses of cattle that have died out of sight of their purported caretakers? Stewards my arse!
  reply
• 

  thomasjames

  11 months ago

  Yeah miguelito, its almost as hilarious as the human haters trying to sound like the have a brain in their heads, they have ever spent much time out of the city, or (gasp) that this is really about the wolves instead of the hate for their fellow humans. There are children starving and you "sane" individuals are more concerned with those friendly "family" wolves having space and that the chimps have toys and sweaters. Get a clue people in NM may not be anti-wolf, but they are definitely pro-rancher.
  reply
• 

  gasolinerefugee

  11 months ago

  Does anybody know if the ranchers get reimbursed from the government when a wolf downs their livestock? I thought they did. Solution?
  reply
• 

  gwynethd

  11 months ago

  The federal government does not offer reimbursement for depredation by endangered species, although Benjamin Tuggles of the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed reimbursement as part of a plan to improve the reintroduction process. In the meantime, Defenders of Wildlife has a program that reimburses livestock owners for confirmed wolf kills, in certain circumstances, through the Bailey Wildlife Wolf Compensation Trust. Over the past 10 years it has paid out over $1 million. According to figures on the Defenders site, it has paid out on 85 claims in New Mexico, totalling a little more than $57,000.
  reply
• 

  ccmanager

  11 months ago

  The magnitude of the real problem is, understandably, hard to comprehend if you don't live in the affected area. While Defenders have indeed paid some claims, the vast majority have not been paid, and in all likelihood won't be. Fifty thousand dollars is an impressive number, but it pales in comparison to the actual revenue losses being incurred by the ranchers, the counties affected, and the local economies. Before I moved to Catron County, I lived in Las Vegas, NV for 38 years, and before coming here I'm sure I would have had a hard time believing that a government program with such overwhelming negative impact would be allowed to continue, much less expand. It would seem to be prudent, in these difficult economic times, to see if the expenditures of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in this program are really justified. Please remember that this program is funding an "experimental, non-essential population" (in USFWS's own words)at a time when these monies might be better spent elsewhere.
  reply
• 

  gasolinerefugee

  11 months ago

  non-essential population- euphemisms abound.
  reply
• 

  gwynethd

  11 months ago

  According to Fish and Wildlife, "The non-essential experimental population designation for Mexican wolves allows for greater management flexibility to address conflict situations, such as livestock depredations or nuisance behavior, than if wolves had retained the fully endangered designation."
  reply
• 

  gasolinerefugee

  11 months ago

  Doesn't mean its not euphemistic. I wonder what other species are non essential.
  reply
• 

  gwynethd

  11 months ago

  Sorry, I was just trying to clarify, but maybe I didn't do so well. It may be a euphemism, but what it actually means is this: An essential experimental population of a species is one whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the wild. All other experimental populations are considered non-essential. More definitions and clarification can be found here.
  reply
• 

  thomasjames

  11 months ago

  Euphemisms like your recipe for lamb in the Abq mag cook book, no doubt "wolf free" lamb.....
  reply