G&F wolf release news

[AverageJoe]

Game and Fish Commission votes to support alternative on Mexican wolf conservation developed by large stakeholder partnership

Posted in: News Media

Apr 22, 2014

Share or Bookmark:

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on favoritesShare on print|More Sharing ServicesMore

Digg this story!

Email this article

Printer friendly page

 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously today to support an alternative developed by 28 cooperating agencies and stakeholders for the non-essential population rule that governs Mexican wolf conservation in Arizona and New Mexico. The proposal, which has an unprecedented level of stakeholder support, is being submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for consideration in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

 

While still conceptual, the alternative is scientifically-based and would further cooperation between federal and state agencies and stakeholders to achieve a self-sustaining wolf population. Key elements of the alternative include:

• Allowing up to triple the target number of Mexican wolves in the Southwest from the 1982 recovery plan’s goal of not less than 100 wolves to achieve a self-sustaining population.
• Major expansion of the area where wolves can be released to include the Secondary Recovery Zone.
• Expansion of the area where Mexican wolves can disperse and establish territories.
• Establishment of a connectivity corridor for wolves to disperse to the species’ core historical range in Mexico.
• Recognition of the importance of Mexico as a primary element to successful Mexican wolf recovery.

“The biggest impediment to the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort in the Southwest isn’t biologically-based. It’s social tolerance for an apex predator on today’s modern landscape that must support such a wide variety of conservation, recreation and economic uses. This alternative represents the first time such a broad-based group has come together for Mexican wolf conservation, and it goes a long ways to enhancing social tolerance and, in turn, successful conservation of the species,” says J.W. Harris, chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

 

The alternative provides concepts that stakeholders want the Service to evaluate as it prepares the draft EIS that will eventually be opened to broad public review and comment.

[naturegirl]

It's a bad link.

[AverageJoe]

ok thanks. Will try to find a good link

[bbd1234]

It will work as good as Obama care.

[Couzer]

/>ok thanks. Will try to find a good link

There are no good links with wolves

[AverageJoe]

ok fixed it

[AZLance]

What the heck is wrong with our Game & Fish??? Stupid!

 

Our game and fish no longer represents us the hunters!

[Will K]

Out of the 50 states they are at the bottom of the pile.....

[Snapshot]

More catering to the Wolf lovers. There goes the neighborhood.

[kwp]

So who are the stakeholders?

Center for Biologic Diversity, Sierra Club, ...?

[AZ8]

I believe this is a pre-emptive move to counter the numbers the USFWS is throwing out. We all know they(USFWS) would love to have far more wolves than this state can support.

 

Unfortunately, this isn't 1914 anymore and the political climate is far different. We, as hunters and conservationists, can't go to the table and demand that we want zero(0) wolves. It just doesn't work that way anymore. We will lose every time. It's why we lose now.

 

The USFWS and their lawyers were very smart in their wording when they drafted the recovery plan. The first Mexican wolf recovery plan drafted and then completed in 1982 included two simple, yet very powerful words: at least.

 

The actual wording in the recovery plan: "........self-sustaining population of at least 100 wolves"

 

Those two words have opened the door to a very subjective population level with no ceiling. The way the recovery plan is worded, USFWS has been given a blank check on how many wolves they hope will roam throughout the state. Remember that 700-1000 number from a few weeks back?

 

In my opinion, this is a proactive move to counter the proposed numbers from USFWS and gain state control of the wolf issue.

 

The wolves are here. Not much we can do about it, except limit their population.

[520HUNT]

The wolves are here. Not much we can do about it, except limit their population.

 

SSS! That's what we as hunters can do to limit the population

[Camofreak]

/>

 

/>The wolves are here. Not much we can do about it, except limit their population.

SSS! That's what we as hunters can do to limit the population

Going to have too...

[elkaholic]

Something like -- it came into my camp - I felt threatened by its behavior - it endangering myself and the lives of my family - period

[Snapshot]

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

2

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer will not give ranchers and their employees permission to kill endangered Mexican gray wolves on federal lands.

The measure vetoed Tuesday was crafted by Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford. She has been a vocal foe of the program by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reintroduce the wolves into sections of Arizona and New Mexico, saying they endanger not only cattle but also pets and children.

SB 1211 would have spelled out that ranchers could “take” — legalese for kill — a wolf that was killing, wounding or biting livestock. It also would have legalized the killing of a wolf by a guard dog that is protecting livestock.

The measure would also have permitted killing a wolf in self-defense or defense of others. In that case, though, the act would have to be reported within 24 hours to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Brewer, in her veto message, said she is a strong supporter of states’ rights. But she said SB 1211 was both unnecessary and conflicts with federal law.

She said the Arizona Game and Fish Department already is working with federal agencies to deal with how wolf reintroduction will affect the state. By contrast, Brewer said SB 1211 would have given that duty to the state Agriculture Department, the agency responsible for dealing with ranchers and grazing.

Beyond that, Brewer said the legislation sought to put the Mexican wolf in the same legal category as mountain lions and bears. But she said that is in conflict with federal law, which does allow killing those two species in certain circumstances, but not the wolves.

“A state simply does not have the power to allow a ‘take’ on federal lands,” the governor wrote.

Brewer took no action Tuesday on HB 2699, a related measure on her desk. It would allow a livestock operator or agent to kill a wolf on public lands in self-defense or the defense of others, with the only requirement that it be reported to the USDA.

But that measure also contains language that Brewer could find in conflict with federal law.

It directs the Attorney General’s Office to seek funds from the federal government to pay ranchers for their losses. But it also says that if the federal government doesn’t come up with the cash, the Legislature will consider a measure to require that Mexican wolves be restricted to federally controlled lands and removed from state and private lands.