Wolf Reintroduction and Endangered Species: Thoughts by Laurel Berry

The Otero County Board of County Commissioners covered two environmental concerns at their monthly meeting on May 8. The first was in regards to a resolution by the commissioners opposing the New Mexico/Arizona Mexican Wolf Program and the second addressed a proposed rule by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.

In the wolf opposition matter, county commissioner Gerald Matherly mentioned consideration to released Mexican gray wolves east of I-25 to help control the elk population, “which would be disastrous for this country up here, as far as the cattle business.”

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Mexican gray wolf is the smallest gray wolf subspecies and also one of the rarest and most imperiled mammals on the continent. Nearly poisoned and trapped out of existence, the last five survivors were captured between 1977 and 1980, after the Endangered Species Act brought awareness to their plight

They were bred in captivity (including at the Alameda Park Zoo in Alamogordo), and their descendants were reintroduced in 1998.

At last count there were only 257 Mexican gray wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, but the population needs a wide area to roam in order to foster healthy genetic diversity. 

Ideally, the New Mexican population would be free to mingle with the Colorado wolves to bolster their diversity.

Livestock producers are the largest naysayers in the reintroduction of wolves to the southwest, citing loss of cattle, but data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that livestock losses to Mexican wolves are trending downward, even while the population is slowly growing.

The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s predation data and found that “farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined” (predators including mountain lions, coyotes, bears, and wolves). Ranchers can seek compensation for livestock losses due to Mexican gray wolf predation through the Livestock Indemnity Program and the Wolf Livestock Demonstration Grants.

The main prey for wolves in Arizona and New Mexico are elk, deer and domestic livestock.

The county commissioners did not discuss statistics or pros and cons to allowing the wolves a larger area to roam. They voted unanimously in opposition to the New Mexico/Arizona Mexican Wolf Program.

In the second issue regarding the Endangered Species Act, the council voted to approve the submission of comments by the three commissioners in support rescinding the definition of “harm,” as put forth by the current administration's incarnation of the USFWS. 

In a recent letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Doug Bergum, the Native Plant Society of New Mexico wrote that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) states first that it is: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.”

Rescinding the definition of harm in the Endangered Species Act would significantly weaken protections for listed species and contradict the ESA’s purpose to conserve ecosystems.

The letter went on to say that the USFWS’s current use of “harm” encompasses significant habitat modification that kills or injures species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering, making it very clear that acts that result in actual death or injury to a species are prohibited.

“Prohibiting such acts is absolutely critical to saving species from extinction. The largest driver of extinction – both in the United States and around the world – continues to be human-caused habitat destruction and degradation.”

A shift in what it means to harm an environment or an endangered species could make it significantly harder to ensure adequate protection of vulnerable species and habitat and could increase the likelihood of extinctions. This shift would likely increase habitat destruction from mining, oil and gas industry activities, drilling, and development. The Endangered Species Act was enacted with the bipartisan support of Congress and has strong public support.

When discussing the issues, Otero County attorney RB Nichols said “It would be very beneficial as far as the county’s interest, in terms of economics, allowing for more logging and ranching, recreation activities and more uses established under the multiple use standard and it would also consequently make the land more healthy which would make it safer for all of these species that we are trying to protect and save.”

He did not say exactly how more logging and land use would make the land more healthy and the commissioners did not ask.

Commissioner Amy Barela stated “I make a motion to approve the comments of the three of us (meaning the commissioners) in support of rescinding the definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act.” 

It was met with unanimous favor.

No input from endangered species was allowed for either matter.

More News from Alamogordo

• Alamogordo Residents Report Power Outage PNM investigating power outage
• Save the Date: Alamogordo Community Cleanup July 19 Come join the fun