Collateral Damage Identification: Mexican Wolves in Catron County, New Mexico
By Jess Carey
Introduction
The 558,065-acre Gila Wilderness in western New Mexico, which is part of the Gila National Forest, was the first designated wilderness area in the world in 1924. The Gila Wilderness is also located in Catron County, the largest county in New Mexico. There is little human activity and little livestock grazing in the Gila Wilderness compared to the human use, activity, and livestock grazing in the surrounding Gila National Forest, which is fragmented by homesteaded family ranches, subdivisions, and isolated homes.
Since 1998, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has released numerous Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) packs into the interior of the Gila Wilderness, as this is prime wolf habitat, rife with wildlife for food and timber for cover. Not one of the released wolf packs, however, has stayed there. The packs leave the Gila Wilderness within a short time and travel towards human activity—ranches, homes, and communities where they interact with people and their livelihoods in a number of mostly negative ways.
I was hired to investigate wolf depredation for Catron County, New Mexico, in April 2006, as there were major complaints from resource owners that the results of depredation investigations by federal agencies were lacking. Without such confirmation, no reimbursement fee for depredation losses can be paid. Additionally, no investigations of wolves were being conducted around children, yards, and homes, except by the wolf recovery team. They omitted reports and did no documentation. In the past it often took days before an agency representative came on site to assess the kill to see if it can be unequivocally confirmed a wolf depredation. By this time, it is often difficult or impossible to tell for certain whether wolves or another predator is responsible for the cause of death due to lost evidence by scavenging canines, birds, insects, and advanced decomposition. This is why a study by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that only one in seven wolf depredation livestock incidents by wolves can be proven.
Since I started as the county wolf investigator, the depredation confirmations of wolf-caused deaths of livestock and pets have doubled. This is in part because I could respond to the reports immediately and this caused other agencies to respond in like time.
To put it bluntly, despite what you might hear, Mexican wolves are destroying family ranchers’ ability to survive, resulting in their selling off their ranches for a fraction of what they once were worth—if they can sell them at all.
The conflict between wolves and humans began during the colonial period when wolves killed settlers’ livestock and dogs. Nothing has changed since that time and wolves will continue to kill livestock and pets no matter what non-lethal scheme is used by the USFWS wolf recovery team. This is a scientific fact.
When I looked for a title for this chapter, I had to look at the folks most impacted by Mexican Wolf Recovery: the many rural family ranchers who have lost their peace of mind, lost their dreams, lost their pursuit of happiness, lost their livestock, and lost their ranches. “Collateral Damage Identification” seemed appropriate. Damage in question is due to non-compensated wolf-caused livestock kills, attacks, and harassment, with little or no compensation.
Some Background
The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), a subspecies of the gray wolf (the smallest, rarest, and most genetically distinct wolf subspecies), once ranged the Sonora and Chihuahua Deserts from central Mexico to western Texas, southern New Mexico, and central Arizona. They may have once ranged as far north as Colorado. Most wolves are bigger than a German shepherd and weigh seventy to ninety pounds, but some are smaller and weigh forty-five to fifty pounds. The head of the wolf is blockier than a coyote, they have a broader nose than a coyote, and the ears are more rounded. The front feet are larger than the rear feet. Color ranges from a grizzled gray, reddish-brown, whitish mixture to reddish-brown. Their behavior is highly unpredictable.
The Mexican wolf was driven to extinction in the wild by the 1950s as wild herds of deer and elk declined due to increased settling in their range, and so the wolves began preying upon livestock and pets. In 1976 the Mexican wolf was listed on the Endangered Species Act.
In March of 1998 the US Fish and Wildlife Service began releasing the Mexican wolf in the Blue Range area of Arizona. Eleven wolves were initially released. The restoration program was based on raising wolves in captivity in forty-nine different breeding facilities in the United States and Mexico, and then releasing them into the wild in hopes that they will establish wild breeding. There are currently about three hundred wolves in the forty-nine breeding facilities. Prior to releasing them, the wolves are sent to release sites such as Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in La Joya, New Mexico, where contact with humans is minimized to attempt to discourage habituation. The goal of the program was to establish a wild population of a hundred Mexican wolves in the Apache and Gila National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico by 2008. As of 2014, the “wild” population is one hundred nine animals, with six breeding pairs.1 Since the outset this program has been fraught with problems as the wolves arrive habituated to human feeding when in captivity. When they are released into the wild, agencies continue to feed them with horse meat and roadkill drops beside roads—“supplemental feeding”—because these wolves do not have the hunting skills of wild wolves. The result has been wolves standing beside roads, expecting handouts as bears once did in Yellowstone, and wolves preying on livestock, farm animals, and people. Some habituated wolves will stand and look at you even after you fire a firearm into the air.
In addition, Mexican wolves have taken to breeding with house dogs and stray dogs, resulting in three confirmed litters of wolf-dog hybrids that are even more prone to prey on livestock and approach people. Wolf-dog hybrids are not protected by the Endangered Species Act, however telling the difference between a wolf and wolf-dog on sight is hard, if not impossible depending on the breed of dog. Wolves can breed with any other canis species, and wolf-coyote hybrids are also hard to distinguish. Only DNA analysis can give conclusive proof.
The Endangered Species Act only protects pure-bred species. If tracks are all you have to go on, it is near impossible to tell if wolves, coy-wolves, wolf-dog hybrids, or even some animals with wolf, coyote, and dog DNA are responsible for a livestock depredation or a dead pet dog.
One case of a suspected wolf-dog hybrid occurred north of Luna, New Mexico, on December 27, 2006. I was notified that feral dogs had just killed an elk calf. The elk calf had been killed by bites in the throat, just under the jaw. The calf had been caught against the barbwire fence and killed. A small hole was opened in the throat area where the dogs started feeding on the calf. On December 27, 2006, just after daylight, three dogs were feeding on the elk calf carcass. When the dogs detected the presence of humans they ran. Two of the dogs were killed and the third got away.
On December 29, 2006, J. Brad Miller of Wildlife Services came to my residence to inspect Canine #1. He stated that Canine #1 had unusual characteristics and should be DNA tested as he felt it could be a wolf-dog hybrid. I gave Miller DNA material from samples taken on December 27, 2006: Canine #1C, Canine #2C, and a CD with the photographs that I had taken at the scene. I understood that Miller would turn over these items to Dan Stark at the Alpine office, and Stark would send out these samples for DNA tests.
On December 31, 2006, Dan Stark came by my home and I gave him a blood sample of Canine #1 to send in for DNA analysis. Also Mr. Stark reaffirmed the results of the DNA report would be given to Catron County. I requested the DNA test results from USFWS Wolf Field Coordinator John Oakleaf several times in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Oakleaf stated the technician at the DNA lab could not find the results.
Finally, in September 2009, Oakleaf stated that Dan Stark had thrown the DNA samples away and he never had sent them in to the DNA lab. I told Oakleaf that this was not satisfactory behavior of a USFWS biologist, and the importance to know if Mexican wolves are breeding with domestic dogs producing hybrids is paramount.
As a result of experiences and conditions such as those I’ve just described, on June 20, 2011, the New Mexico Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously to discontinue collaborating with the Mexican wolf recovery program.2 They also have approved trapping in the area in New Mexico where wolves now reside. So now it’s solely up to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in New Mexico to manage wolves.
On January 13, 2012, during the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s nongame activities briefing to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to amend its policy on the release of Mexican wolves in eastern Arizona. If the US Fish and Wildlife Service wants to release more wolves in Arizona, Game and Fish’s director will now have the authority to approve a wolf release in cases where an animal is lost from the population due to an unlawful act. When a wolf is lost to any other cause, the commission must approve a release.3
Nonetheless, the wolves are present in and around the Gila. So, it is necessary to investigate all wolf-human interactions, especially suspected depredations, as there currently is no way to control Mexican wolves unless it can be proven they are killing livestock and/or menacing or attacking people.
Confirming Wolf Depredation
Livestock killed by predators usually can be distinguished from those dying from other causes by several factors: the presence of external hemorrhaging; subcutaneous hemorrhaging and tooth punctures; damage to the skin, other soft tissues, and skull; blood on the soil and vegetation; and carnivore tracks, scats, or territorial marks near dead animals.
Wolves primarily attack cattle on the hindquarters targeting tail, vulva, lower thighs, hocks, and hamstrings. Occasionally they will attack on the neck, face, and jaw, behind the front legs, in front of the rear legs, and on the belly. Wolves will chase cows, calves, and yearlings, stressing the animal until it can no longer stand; normally there will be capture bite and rake marks on the skin with corresponding hemorrhage.
Newborn livestock killed by predators and only partially consumed can be distinguished from stillborn livestock by characteristics not found in stillborn animals, which include: a blood clot present at the closed end of the navel, pink lungs that float in water, fat around the heart and kidneys, milk in the stomach and intestines, milk fat and lymph in the lymphatic vessels that drain the intestinal tract, a worn soft membrane on the bottom of the hooves, and possibly soil on the bottom of the hooves.
Normally, when wolves kill new calves there is little left of the carcass; possibly a few small bones or a piece of the skull but usually just a bloody place on the ground is all that remains because the calf is totally consumed. Even if wolves are confirmed in the immediate area, the cause of death of the livestock is unknown unless the kill can be positively documented based on the strict depredation conformation standards.
What makes confirmation of a wolf kill very difficult includes:
1. Missing livestock with no remains resulting from wolves eating the whole carcass of calves including skull, hooves, bones, and hair;
2. Coyotes or other scavengers consuming remainder of calf carcasses;
3. Calves/yearlings/cows not being found in rough remote terrain;
4. Advanced decomposition, rapid and severe in summer weather;
5. Insect infestation;
6. Scavenging birds;
7. Other scavenging carnivores;
8. Weather condition;
9. Rocky, hard ground conditions limit impressions; and/or
10. Untimely carcass detection.
If a larger calf is killed, there are remains left much of the time, but there may not be capture bite marks. The reason is the calf is bedded and the wolf pins the calf down and the feeding begins. The wolf does not have to bite the calf to capture it.
Wolves kill by consumption; they eat their victims alive. Those who perish, die from stress, and tissue and blood loss. In 266 wolf-depredation investigations, I have never documented a lethal bite site on cattle carcasses. Some cattle are stressed down and the wolves eat twenty pounds from the victim and the injured cow, calf, or yearling, and then leave. Most cattle die at the feeding site. Some survive after the wolves have eaten their fill. Such animals are not dead and walk around with its rear end eaten out. Still, the victim with massive tissue loss has to be put down by the resource owner.
Research on Five Ranches
As part of my job, I conducted a study of the impact of wolves on five ranches located within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery area in Catron County. The study included data gathered during a six-year period from 2005 to 2010—both onsite investigations and research on records. These ranches all were identified as having wolves denning in or near calf-yearling cattle core areas. When I came on board, the relationship between high calf loss and proximity to denning Mexican wolves was not well understood.
On one ranch wolves denned in 2005, 2006, and 2007. On the other ranches denning occurred in 2008 and 2009. The study compared confirmed wolf-livestock depredations to actual losses, and identified other monetary losses to the resource owner. The study was finalized on March 1, 2011.
This study compares the following factors on the five ranches:
1. Historic pre-wolf normal calf losses;
2. Confirmed and probable wolf-livestock depredations;
3. Actual livestock losses;
4. Compensation paid by Defenders of Wildlife.
One of the first discoveries of this study showed that coyotes swarm to areas where Mexican wolves are continually killing livestock, contributing to the removal and destruction of evidence of the predations by wolves, as well as increasing depredation. This may not be consistent with wolf-coyote interactions in other parts of North America, but it is true for Mexican wolves. Perhaps this relatively peaceful co-existence is associated with wolf habituation and/or hybridization.
The Magic of a Clean Slate
Prior to this study, the focus of predation studies was on irrefutably proving that wolves had solely initiated and killed livestock because of the funds for reimbursing ranchers whose cattle are killed by wolves; if it can be proven that wolves are killing livestock, then wolves can be removed. In the past the “Three Strike Rule” governed removing depredating wolves. But, when the wolves started to kill large numbers of livestock the rules were changed to protect the wolves, and there is no “Three Strike Rule” any longer.
One year after a committed confirmed depredation, that depredation is removed from the offending wolf. Each year the depredating wolves start with a clean slate. The Middle Fork Pack has a history of sixteen confirmed livestock depredation and is still on the landscape. We now know that such proof is often difficult or impossible to determine, especially if the kill site is not immediately investigated as many scavengers quickly convene on wolf kills, and some wounded animals wander away and are never found. This is consistent with a 2003 USFWS study by John Oakleaf, field coordinator of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, which concluded that only one in seven wolf kills of livestock can be conclusively proven to be due to wolves.4
Pathological Fatigue
We now know that wolves kill cattle by stress. Wolves will run, attacking and biting grown cattle for a long period until they are exhausted, resulting in “pathological fatigue.” Pathological fatigue interferes with the activity of every gland in the cow’s system; its principle effect is to destroy the capacity of muscles and nerves to perform the work natural to them. A chemical change takes place in the muscles, releasing toxic substances including 1. lactic acid, 2. creatine, and 3. carbon dioxide. These toxic substances are acids and cause a state of fatigue in the cow’s muscles and system. During rest following fatigue, these acids are neutralized by alkaline of the blood and internal secretions, which restores freshness, strength, and tone of the muscle. I feel that once a cow’s system has been saturated to a certain point, “beyond recovery” from these toxic substances, there is no ability for the cow’s system of neutralization (alkalinity) and the cow shuts down and dies. I have seen healthy cows in prime condition just seem to fall over dead. Lying on their sides, there is no indication of leg movement, no sign that the hooves disturb the ground, or ground liter at all. Also noted were no noxious plants in the area.
An Example of Wolf-Caused Pathological Fatigue: Case #AP-030
This cow was black and heavy, approximately twelve hundred pounds. I documented the torn-up ground around the dead cow. The ground looked like a small circle racetrack, and the cow’s hooves gouged the ground, uprooting the vegetation. The cow was bitten at the root of the tail and on down the tail about twelve inches. Upon necropsy there were bite sites with corresponding hemorrhage; the canine spread was consistent with a wolf. The bitten tail did not kill the cow. There were no lethal bite sites. This was a stress death caused by continued harassment chasing and was confirmed. Further, the wolf was located up on a nearby mountain and was documented by aerial telemetry. If there were no bite sites, hemorrhage, or a canine spread, this cow’s death would have been “unknown.” I feel there have been numerous depredation cases that were stress death, but they were classified “unknown” based on the best available evidence at the scene. In twelve confirmed wolf-killed yearling calves on one ranch, five did not die at the attack and feeding site. They traveled for some distance after being fed upon by wolves. Four yearlings were found alive and walking around with massive tissue loss. One yearling was found dead and the scene lacked evidence of an attack and feeding site. Dried blood found on the (hind) legs indicated the yearling was bleeding while standing upright and walking.
It’s not just that wolves are killing livestock. Wolf-caused chronic stress in cattle produces non-compensated economic losses. Wolf-caused chronic stress disrupts the cows’ breeding cycle, causing them to abort calves, birth weak calves, undergo weight loss, and become more susceptible to disease; disfigured livestock also brings less money at the sale and providing vet care for wolf injured animals is costly. All of this is incurred at the expense of the resource owner without compensation. Catron County has documented on one ranch that 36 percent of the depredated yearlings that were confirmed as having been attacked and fed upon by the Middle Fork pack were still alive after the initial attack/feeding. All these animals have had to be put down.
Procedure: Investigating a Livestock Carcass
Once notification is given by the resource owner or others that may have found a suspected victim predator depredation in Catron County, USDA Wildlife Services and I respond to the scene to perform an investigation to determine the cause of death of the animal.
Arriving at the scene is similar to being at a crime scene. Canine tracks can be destroyed by people walking on the scene. Other livestock and scavenging birds can also destroy tracks. Humans too can destroy tracks if necessary precautions aren’t taken. The best procedure when entering the attack scene is to protect the evidence such as canine tracks as you find them; cover these tracks to prevent other livestock, animals, and people from trampling them. Cover the carcass with a tarp rocked around the edges to prevent scavenging canines and birds from feeding on it. Cover blood trails or droplets of blood leading to the carcass if rain is eminent.
Timely carcass detection and notification is key to determining cause of death. Lost or destroyed evidence can result in a non-confirmation. Calf carcasses left uncovered in the field will disappear during the night. If you do not have a tarp, hang the calf high up in tree; if there is no tree, mark the area, bring the calf in, and store it so dogs cannot get to it.
All scene evidence is photographed. The carcass is photographed at head, back, rear, and belly. Further, all injuries are catalogued, including attack sites on the carcass, bite sites, feeding sites, and impact injuries. Scavenging canines and birds are also noted. Measurements are taken to document predator tracks and scats. A diagram is drawn to reflect attack and feeding site, drag marks, carcass site, blood trails, predator/victim track location, and direction of travel. Barbwire fences are also checked, especially bottom and second for hair caught in the barbs when predators pass under or through them. A predator’s identification can be made with this transfer evidence (hair).
Dirt roads are checked for predator tracks, scats, and any sign of predators as you near the area of the carcass. If tracks are located on the roadway they are marked and protected so no one drives over them.
Other cattle nearby are observed for unusual behavior such as calling and alert, defensive, and frightened behavior, injury bite sites, and impact wounds like running into barriers or barbwire fences.
The area is also checked for a wolf collar signals using a ground telemetry receiver. If a signal or signals are picked up the corresponding wolf number is noted.
The scene around the carcass is searched to identify the attack site, feeding site, drag marks, tracks, scats, blood trails, trampled/uprooted vegetation, torn up ground, broken fences. The scene could be less than fifty yards to several hundred yards in size.
Once everything is documented, the investigation focuses on the carcass and a necropsy is performed. The percentage of carcass remains is noted, as well as disarticulation of limbs and bones. Some carcass remains are just dried skin and bones; these have to be soaked in water three to five days to soften the skin, yet compression bite sites on the skin still remain. A compression bite site can only be confirmed if the victim was bitten while alive.
First the hair is clipped from the skin of the carcass to detect bite sites and rake marks. Without clipping the hair you cannot see the bite and rake marks. Photographed measurements of all canine spreads are documented. The skin is removed to document a bite site’s corresponding hemorrhage, and deep hemorrhage in the muscle tissue and injuries. Much of the time, there are no internal organs left inside the carcass for assessment. The skin is held up to the sun and photographed to document bites sites and rake marks with hemorrhage in the skin.
The Five Ranches
Ranch A
Ranch A is a cow/calf operation. Records of average annual pre-wolf introduction losses were 16 percent. The herd consisted of 300 head. Herd makeup: 20 bulls, 25 replacement heifers (not expected to calve), 0 steers, and 255 production cows.
255 production cow numbers X 16 percent average pre-wolf annual calf losses = a 41 head loss. 255–41 = 214 fall calf crop number, representing an 84 percent calf crop.
Losses pre-wolf were attributed to calving, open-ranging cows, coyote predation, and winter weather. In 2008, the San Mateo pack denned in calf core areas on Ranch A.
• Pre-wolf annual losses = $24,600
• 2008 losses = $71,400
• 2009 losses = $60,000
• Defenders of Wildlife compensation paid = $600
• Rancher sold off remaining herd and went out of business
Ranch B
Ranch B is a cow/calf operation that adjoins Ranch A. Records of average annual pre-wolf introduction calf losses were 2.5 percent for three years running with an average annual loss of 4 to 6 head of calves per annum. The herd consisted of 256 head. Herd makeup: 18 bulls, 30 replacement heifers (not expected to calve), 5 steers, and 203 production cows. Average calf crop = 97.5 percent. Losses pre-wolf were attributed to calving, open range cows, coyote predation, and winter weather. In 2008, the San Mateo Pack denned near calf core areas on Ranch B.
• Pre-wolf losses—5 head/year = $3,300
• 2008 losses—27 head = $16,200
• 2009 losses—58 head = $34,800
• Total losses 2008 and 2009 = $51,000
• Defenders of Wildlife compensation paid = $1500
Ranch C
Ranch C is located approximately 35 miles in a southerly direction from Ranches A and B. Records show that Ranch C had a 3 percent average annual pre-wolf introduction loss. Total herd is 330 head. Herd makeup: 18 bulls, 0 steers, 30 replacement heifers (not expected to calve), and 282 production cattle. Average annual pre-wolf losses of 9 head per annum were noted. Losses were attributed to birthing, coyote depredations, open range cows, and winter weather. In 2005, the Luna Pack denned in calf core areas on Ranch C.
• Pre-wolf losses—9 head = $5,076
• 2005 losses—42 head = $25,200
• 2006 losses—82 head = $49,200
• 2007 losses—69 head = $41,400
• Defenders of Wildlife compensation paid = $0
• Ranch went out of business in 2007
Ranch D is located to the west of Ranch C. When the livestock were removed from Ranch C the wolves immediately left the vicinity of Ranch C and dispersed to Ranch D where there were livestock. Records show Ranch D had an 11 percent annual pre-wolf introduction loss. Total herd is 205 head. Herd makeup: 15 bulls, 0 steers, 10 replacement heifers (not expected to calve), and 180 production cattle. Average annual pre-wolf losses of 20 head per annum were noted. Losses were attributed to birthing, coyote, bear depredations, open range cows, and winter weather. In 2008 the Luna Pack denned in calf core areas on Ranch D.
• Pre-wolf losses—20 = $8,100
• 2008 losses—35 = $21,000
• 2009 losses—23 = $13,800
• Defenders of Wildlife compensation paid = $0
Ranch E
Ranch E is located north east of Ranch C and runs yearlings. The Allotment consisted of three pastures. There were 300 yearlings in excellent condition in Pasture A and B, and 287 yearlings in pasture C. In 2009, the Middle Fork pack denned in yearling core areas on Ranch E.
• Pre-wolf annual losses—5 = $2,827.50
• 2009 confirmed kills—11 = $6,307
• 2009 carcasses—14 = $7,917.00
• 2009 missing animals—73 = $41,281.00
• Losses confirmed wolf kills carcasses missing
• Defenders of Wildlife compensation paid = $6,307
The final analyses indicate that annual post-wolf introduction livestock losses are higher than the average annual pre-wolf losses for the five study ranches:
• Total combined livestock losses = 651 head
• Total combined dollar value losses = $ 82,198.50
Two of the five ranches in this study went out of business, one selling the ranch and the second was on the market as of this writing. A third ranch sold off their livestock in the fall of 2009 and did not re-stock cattle in 2010.
In addition, confirmed and probable findings do not reflect the true number of livestock losses. Wolf-caused stress disrupts a cow’s breeding cycle, the resulting calf loss must be measured in monetary value as if the wolf depredated a calf.
The findings for these five ranches of confirmed and actual losses and overall damages are consistent with other ranches across Catron County where wolves den in calf- and yearling-core areas.
Many ranchers have cooperated with wolf recovery agencies utilizing recommended non-lethal schemes to prevent wolf-livestock interactions that result in livestock depredation. These ranches have added additional range riders, moved livestock to other pastures, penned livestock, fed hay, and worked multiple additional hours to prevent wolves from killing their livestock. All these measures add costs to operation. Still the wolves depredate their livestock. The ongoing added effort, plus stress and expense, is a high loss cost factor far beyond pre-wolf introduction.
Wolf-Human Interactions
The USFWS has changed their terminology from “supplemental feeding” to “diversionary feeding” of wolves. This gives the public the false sense that the wolves are able to hunt and make it on their own. This diversionary feeding contributes to food conditioning, resulting in habituation. Habituated wolves are bold, fearless, and are a threat to our children. Wolves come to homes and yards where children play and I am often called in to investigate. Since the release of Mexican wolves in 1998, unusual wolf behavior has been documented by Catron residents numerous times including:
• Territorial scrapes at one residence where wolves were documented at the home twenty-three times.
• Mexican wolves urinating on vehicle tires and on an ice chest located outside an occupied camp trailer.
• A wolf defecated on the front of an ATV vehicle located in a front yard.
• Wolves defecated on porches and yards at door entrances of occupied homes.
• Territorial scrapes at occupied residences where the wolves were claiming the residence as part of their territory.
• Wolves playing and/or mating with domestic dogs.
• Wolves following young children as they walked to and from the school bus stop.
Just like cattle who are harassed by wolves, causing stress, we have documented cases of psychological trauma (post-traumatic stress disorder) in children and families of Catron who were subject to fearless wolves approaching them. One case really sticks out. Wolves were regularly coming to the home of a family with a fourteen-year-old daughter. Wolves were documented at this home a total of twenty-three times. The county was in the process of trapping the wolves. Sitting in the living room with the family, the father had a ground telemetry unit on. Little was said as the signal began to beep, first faintly, then a little louder and louder and louder as a wolf made it way to the residence from the nearby hills. No one said a word. Everyone’s breathing was shallow for some time. I remember the look on their faces—it was one of sheer terror.
Conclusions
From April 2006 until February 2012, there were 420 reported wolf-animal, wolf-human interactions and forty-six information reports. Two hundred fourteen were on private property and 206 were on non-private property. The fact that approximately 50 percent of all wolf interactions occurred on private property clearly indicates the severe habituation of wolves towards humans and human-used areas. Mexican wolves seek out humans and human-used areas due to habituation, and their lack of an avoidance response towards humans. Therefore, designation of critical wolf habitat is useless when the wolf’s definition of that habitat includes homes, communities, and people.
To alleviate the taking of private property (livestock) without compensation by the Federal Government, confirmation standards and the compensation scheme as a whole must be re-evaluated. In-depth studies must be conducted to evaluate the negative impacts of wolves’ denning in calf/yearling core areas and the effects of wolf-related stress on livestock. Evaluation of data must include the wide spectrum of negative impacts to livestock and livestock producers, rather than the current focus solely on benefits to wolves. Recommended areas of study include:
1. Pre-wolf introduction historic annual losses;
2. Post-wolf introduction annual livestock losses;
3. Wolves denning in calf/yearling core areas;
4. Wolves denning near calf/yearling core areas;
5. Wolf rendezvous sites located in calf/yearling core areas;
6. Wolf-claimed territory overlapping livestock core areas; and
7. Wolf-caused chronic stress and effects on livestock.
Defenders of Wildlife, a pro-wolf organization, has had a Compensation Fund to reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to wolf confirmed kills. Several ranches received no compensation on livestock depredation investigations conducted by Wildlife Services for documented for confirmed or probable losses. Defenders of Wildlife no longer pays compensation.
Wolf recovery causes negative effects that can only be described as collateral damage. The mentality of the USFWS wolf recovery team to date is: so what if our wolves are habituated and come to homes, communities, confront children, and kill family pets, farm animals, and livestock? You need to accept the Mexican wolf for the way he is and coexist by changing your daily lives to accommodate the true “New Age Mexican Wolf”—lacking wild wolf characteristics and flawed to the extreme by habituation.
Endnotes:
1. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/cap_manage.shtml
2. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/new-mexico-abandoning-wolf-program
3. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/es/mexican_wolf.shtml
4. http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=3878CF69-1F55-4B23-AF326A3A9BA7F930
Photo credit: LittleMiss/Shutterstock.com
