A Five Year Review
Angel Bennett & Gary Fuller
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend the Five Year Review of the Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program. Located in Silver City, NM, this conference brought toget
her four distinct groups of people representing four distinct opinions of the wolf reintroduction program currently underway in Arizona and New Mexico. While the majority of attendees were pro-wolf, local ranchers also attended, expressing live-stock concerns and their discontent with the reintroduction efforts. Even those of the pro-wolf advocate group varied between professionals and common lay-men. Also, a group came simply seeking understanding of the Mexican Gray Wolf, its problems, and reintroduction. The last group, represented by the reintroduction committee, was there to explain the reintroduction process and its progress over the last five years. In many ways, this conference was a microcosm of the effects opinion will have on the fate of wolves world-wide. My objective for attending the review was not to assist in charting the future of this program, but to observe the process. My job as Assistant Director of one of the nation’s top wolf and high-content wolf-dog sanctuaries, has given me a different, yet hopefully unbiased opinion. From this prospective I listened and observed the factors and comments that will eventually save or destroy the Gray Wolf population that remains today.Concerned ranchers, representing a minority, were generally well mannered, yet made statements at times that were beyond the realm of plausibility. A claim by one rancher that a pack containing five Mexican Grays, including two yearlings, was enlarge responsible for 1,300 deaths in his cattle herd, was unquestionably unreasonable. Another seemed to blame the drop of 20% in his calving rate solely on the Mexican Grays located in his area. One rancher claimed that his business suffered such radical losses due to the reintroduction of a wolf pack in his area that his “dude ranch” had to be shut down. While these three examples were quite extreme, others were very well founded. In an area of the United States where cattle production is an important segment of the economy those realistic concerns expressed must also be addressed if the program is to be successful.
By far the largest opinion group at the review was the Pro-Wolf group. In this group there were two distinct sub groups represented. Representatives of the national organizations, like Defenders of Wildlife, The Center for Biodiversity and other local wolf organizations, all brought their agendas to the meeting. Most of the presentations were very broad-based and illustrated their concerns for future reintroductions as well as a critique of past performance by the committee. While blatantly agreeing that the reintroduction program was accounting for the decline in the Mexican Gray Wolf population, contradictory cries of “Release them all!” were expressed by the same organizations. While again some areas of concern were quite well founded, there were misinformed and sometime contradictory extremists that offset the voices of legitimate concern.
The second sub-group was comprised of common citizens expressing their desires for successful reintroduction. These people represented about half of the total group, yet consistently spoke on platforms of misinformation. While this segment of the pro-wolfers could carry the greatest impact, their erroneous concerns and unreasonable requests no doubt greatly reduced this effect. It was not from lack of dedication, yet more from a lack of credible information and understanding of the true process required that many of the voices were muted. We must all take an active roll in formulation of a successful program, but to be a benefit to this program, we must first educate ourselves and understand the obstacles we must overcome.
Thankfully, there were those at the review that attended just for the purpose of educating themselves. Without current opinion, they attended to become informed. Coming from all walks--ranchers to shop owners--they came to understand, with the cry from the Earth each time another animal slips into extinction their only common bond. They were willing to cooperate if they only knew how. They were willing to support, just unsure who or what. Concerned citizens of all types were willing to learn. They came there thirsty, but found no fountain to drink from. With a swirling of misinformed opinions, stifling the little factual information provided by the Reintroduction Board, those who came to learn were given little opportunity.
Representing the Reintroduction Program and its convening authority, a five member panel also formed the last group in attendance. This panel had the responsibility to disseminate the information of the reintroduction process gathered over the past five years. Among the positions filled by the committee, one was obviously that of mediator for peace talks when no one wants to talk peace. Included in this agenda was an overview of the future revision of the current program, both in 2006 and long term. This was well presented and very factual. A complete copy of the five year report was made available to all in attendance and is currently available to the public upon request. A moratorium on releases was to take effect when the breeding population grew above six breeding pair. This was not accomplished last year, with only five breeding pairs counted. The current population of 35 wolves remains too distant from the total population targets of 100 wolves to allow this figure to be presently considered.
To date, branches involved in the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf have spent a total of over 14 million dollars toward this end. The results of these expenditures and combined efforts regrettably show a reduction in the wild wolf population over the Blue Range area. While opinion would point to as many causes as opinions polled, the results remain the same: We have found no profound answers to successful reintroduction and the road to extinction is being paved by good intention.
While the committee attempts to act on the basis of sound scientific analogy, their very existence was developed from overwhelming public opinion. It can be said that public opinion remains the single greatest motivating force today. Whether this force assists in the development of the program or hinders its success remains a question. With sadness, my observations have shown me that this field of opinion has been far off balanced by extreme views on both sides. The disruptions of extremists in forum not only reduce the impact legitimate input could have but also add nothing more than confusion to those people attending with a desire to learn more. With a greater number of pro-wolf supporters gathering at these meetings, shear numbers become a motivating force of their own. While the reintroduction program is not a government attempt to grease the squeaky wheel, public pressure does shape its policies.
Even with wolves out of bounds being responsible for a high percentage of illegal takes as well as considered the greatest failure of the program, the program still seeks to place pack territory as close as 3 miles of occupied dwellings and five miles from towns. This situation forces the wolves’ interaction with humans and prompts concerns from people on the boundaries of these territories. In an effort to establish areas acceptable for reintroduction, it is not the needs of the wolf but the availability of land that continues to dictate these sites. Sadly, wolves don’t read maps and out of bounders will remain a great failure. As we force these animals into confrontation with man, we continue
to watch their numbers dwindle.We seek to save a vanishing species, yet our enthusiasm to do so appears to be accelerating it to its extinction. We expect an animal such as the Mexican Gray Wolf to behave in a way dictated by public rules and laws. Even if they were to conform, would we still have the animal we sought to preserve in the beginning? The process of formulating a program of successful reintroduction cannot continue on a trial and error basis if the Gray wolf is to survive in the wild. We must consider the wolf’s terms in this process and conform to its needs or consider the possible failure of this multi-million dollar experiment in behavior modification.
