Northern New Mexico could be wedged between two ongoing programs for wolf reintroduction. Although Taos County residents may not hear these animals howling soon, scientists have determined that the region would provide a suitable habitat and connectivity to other wolf populations.
If comments at the Taos Soil and Water Conservation meeting last months are any indication, it might be quieter among ranchers and other environmental groups who supported the Mexican grey wolf reintroduction programme in southwest New Mexico and east Arizona, where wolves have come in conflict with cattle.
James Wanstall (natural resource specialist, New Mexico Department of Agriculture in Las Cruces) is working with other agencies to streamline the process for ranchers who want to receive compensation for cattle grazing losses or payment for wolves killed cattle. He said that cattle depredation is not a problem only in the Gila. [National Forest]The Cibola National forest is where the wolf reintroductions began. However, it also impacts ranchers in the Cibola Forest.
Wanstall stated, “If you’re going have wolves in the landscape, and there’s taking, then just reimburse us for this gol-dang thing, and let’s go on just making me whole.” Ranchers have lost five, six or seven cattle heads in the space of two weeks. They are losing pregnant females this time of the year.
According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field team, there were 95 confirmed cattle deaths last year by wolves from New Mexico and Arizona as of October’s most recent report. There were also three probable deaths.
Wanstall stated that it can take up two years for ranchers to receive what they feel is inadequate monetary compensation. $900 for calves, $1550 for cows and $3,500 each for bulls and bulls. Yearlings can also be delayed by confirmed wolf predation. These factors add to the animus ranchers already feel towards wolves. He said, “Let’s work together, not yelling at each other.” Let’s get it figured out.
A slim majority of Colorado voters approved a 2020 statewide ballot measure that required the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPC) to create and implement a management and restoration plan for gray wolves on state-designated lands. This was located to the north of Taos County. A spokesperson for the commission stated that they are currently monitoring eight gray wolves in Jackson County, near the Colorado-Wyoming border. However, the spokesperson added that it is not possible to determine how many wolves may be present on the landscape.
Proposition 114 is now state statute 33-2-105.7.8 and directs CPW that it will take all necessary steps to reintroduce gray wolves on ‘designated lands’ by December 31, 2023, the spokesperson stated. The statute defines designated lands as lands west the Continental Divide in Colorado that are consistent with the commission’s plan to restore and manage graywolves. It is not likely that wolves will remain within a certain boundary.
The spokesperson stated that wolves are capable of traveling long distances. He also noted the ambulation by one of the Jackson County adult wolves, both of whom are fitted with radio collars. F1084, the first natural-migrating wolf in Jackson County, has been confirmed to have moved to Colorado from the Snake River Pack of Wyoming in 2019.
Mexican gray wolves are not allowed in the U.S. outside the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area’s northern boundary. This area extends along Interstate 40 from Clines Corners to just east Kingman, Ariz. The current management rule states that any Mexican wolf north of I-40 must be returned to its designated area below the interstate. This was the case last year with Anubis, a Mexican wolf captured north of Flagstaff.
In the run-up to the U.S. July 1 deadline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will deliver its revised rule to guide the reintroduction and management Mexican gray wolves within southwest New Mexico and eastern Arizona. Many public comments were submitted by environmental groups, business owners, and individuals on the proposed rule changes.
Carolyn Nelson, a Catron County rancher has stated for years that wolves are threatening her family’s way of living.
During a virtual public hearing on Dec. 8, she stated that she wanted to continue working out here. We don’t want to be out of business and have the opportunity to move to the next town.
Ranching communities are protesting proposed revised rules that tighten restrictions on permits for lethal Mexican wolf removals in certain situations. However environmental groups claim the proposed changes do not go far enough to protect the subspecies genetic diversity which is an area where migration plays an important role.
The rule revision proposes to lift the rules population limit of 320 Mexican wolves, but it won’t allow for the expansion of the permissible territory for Mexican gray-wolf wolves.
Emily Renn (a wildlife biologist and executive head of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project) pointed out that the 2018 federal court ordered Fish and Wildlife that revise the wolf-management rule mentioned migration or some variation 12 times in 44 p. The draft environmental impact study that was related to the rule change only mentions migration once in 229 p.
Renn stated that migration is not mentioned in the rule’s advanced copy. She said that even though Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that territory north I-40 is likely to be needed for future recovery and recognized that natural disbursal and expanding species ranges are important, it still imposed a hard limit of disbursal north I-40.
Michael Robinson, senior conservation advocate for Center for Biological Diversity said that Fish and Wildlife Service will almost certainly return to federal court if the revised rule is approved. He cited a 2018 federal judge’s findings that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to follow science when it issued a 2015 revision to its rule and ordered it to reconsider it.
The judge found that Fish and Wildlife Service misunderstood scientific studies relating migration and population. He also confirmed that scientists concluded that the effective migration rate and the population size in the 2015 rule were insufficient to ensure long-term viability.
While acknowledging that Mexican wolves do disperse occasionally north of I-40, a spokesperson for the agency told Taos News by The [Fish and Wildlife]Mexico and Service both concluded that recovery could be achieved in Arizona and New Mexico, south of Interstate-40.
Mexican gray wolf advocates, wildlife biologists, and the agricultural community realize that a successful recovery does not just depend on population numbers. It also requires natural dispersal, migration, and habitat connectivity.
George Long, Taos Conservation District supervisor, responded to Wanstalls comments on Mexican wolf predations becoming more common in Socorro and below Grants. Long stated that wolves are also moving down from Colorado and Taos County is the future meeting point for two subspecies.
A spokesperson for Fish and Wildlife Service stated that Long could be onto something.
The spokesperson stated that interbreeding between subspecies is likely to occur in areas where they overlap. However, it’s too early to predict when or how much interbreeding might occur in the wild.
Mexico’s gray wolves could be allowed to live in north-central New Mexico. This would allow for genetic diversity to be restored to the Mexican population. All 186 members of the Mexican population are descended from seven wolves that were rescued in the late 1970s when the subspecies was at risk of extinction. Although there are 45 Mexican graywolves living in Sonora, Mexico in the wild, they are separated by the metal bollard wall.
Robinson explained that the very limited genetic material from the founding animals has been reduced to the equivalent of two original animals by a variety of factors. Robinson explained that scientists have identified three areas in Mexico where Mexican graywolves and their genetic diversity can thrive.
Robinson stated that one of them is located in the current wolf habitat area of the Gila, Apache-Sitgreaves and Fort Apache national forests. Another was the Grand Canyon region, which includes the North Rim as well as the South Rim. The third was the southern Rocky Mountains, which Robinson said includes the area around Taos and extends into southern Colorado.
This means that even though I believe the Mexican gray wolf did not live in Northern New Mexico, it is possible that there were closely-related wolves such as the southern Rocky Mountain wolf that did. He stated that this is an area where they could recuperate, as well as the vital genetic restoration they need. We have therefore proposed that Mexican Wolfes be introduced to southern Colorado.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife claimed that it has no authority over this decision.
We are focused on fulfilling the requirements that we have under Colorado statutes, and management wildlife in Colorado, said the spokesperson for the agency. He also stated that the commission does NOT have any management authority over any species in New Mexico.
The spokesperson for the Commission stated that the plan being developed by CPW staff considers the Mexican gray wolf’s status when planning for release locations. “The U.S. will eventually approve any plan that Colorado Parks and Wildlife has developed.” Fish and Wildlife Service has management authority over all wolf species in Colorado.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, it is too soon for us to know how these programs in New Mexico and Colorado might interact and work together moving forward.
The spokesperson stated that although they are both part of the same species (Canis Lupus), they may be different subspecies. Both subspecies serve the same ecological function of predation of large mammals like elk, but Mexican wolves weigh 50-90 pounds compared to those from northern subspecies (80 – 130 pounds).
The Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson said that the Service had been in touch with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to discuss their plans for wolf-reintroduction. There are many factors that will impact the Mexican wolf population if wolves are released in Colorado. These include the success of the Colorado reintroduction and where Colorado chooses the subspecies to release wolves. The dispersal patterns of Colorado’s wolves and the size of the Mexican Wolf Population when they interact. The Service will be able evaluate management options to ensure that Mexican wolves are continued to be recovered within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Area once Colorado Parks & Wildlife has a final plan.
