Gray wolves in Southwest aren’t faring well 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 1:44 pm
   29 Nov 2007

   Just to clairify...The rule to remove wolves that have attacked livestock on at least 3 seperate occassions isn't a proposal, it's already used.
   But the new proposals for the reintroduction program aren't all bad...
   It proposes allowing wolves to roam outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Currently, wolves that leave the boundaries are caught and released again in the area or are taken into captivity. The agency said that's not conducive to the goal of at least 100 wolves.
   Releasing captive wolves anywhere in the recovery area. Right now, they're released only in a primary zone in Arizona. The agency said that sets impractical limits on release sites, limits the program's ability to address genetic issues and leaves a misperception that wolves in the secondary zone are problem animals that have been moved.
   Including White Sands Missile Range as a wolf recovery area.
   Clarifying definitions of such terms as breeding pair or depredation incident and identifying impediments to re-establishing wolves. For example, a 2001 review of the program recommended requiring ranchers on public grazing land to remove carcasses of livestock that die for whatever reason so wolves don't feed on them. If the final rule incorporates that recommendation, it could mean wolves that scavenge on carcasses would not be defined as nuisance or problem wolves.
   So, overall, it appears to be a fairly balanced proposal.
   But that's just my personal perspective.
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   Pangolin Posted 4:29 pm
   29 Nov 2007

   Wolves improve grazing land.I just have to say that somewhere between the time that the spanish introduced cattle to the southwest by letting them loose to breed and the time that white folks moved in to occupy the territory the cattle were able to breed like rabbits.
   Wolves IMPROVE grazing land by keeping cattle and sheep moving and out of the streambeds. When wolves and bison ruled the prairie tall grass was the rule and rivers and streams were fat with water conserving beaver.
   Once settlers removed the wolves and the beaver from the land formerly rich lands turned into wastelands as they were deprived of the major means of streambed protection and water conservation. The cattle were than free to overgraze and turn streambeds into desert washes and soil into dust.

   Permalink

3. 

   johnrplatt Posted 11:05 pm
   29 Nov 2007

   Inbreeding depressionUSFWS announced the plan to remove these wolves last month. What makes it even worse is that the wolves to be removed from the wild could be very important to the genetic diversity of the Mexican gray wolf, as I wrote about here: http://www.plentymag.com/blogs/extinction/2007/10/five_de ...

   Permalink

4. 

   amc89 Posted 1:33 am
   30 Nov 2007

   trappingSeveral Mexican gray wolves have lost their legs because they were caught in steel-jaw leghold traps, which is further evidence of why commercial and recreational fur trapping should be banned in New Mexico like it is in Arizona, Colorado and California.  One of the wolves that was caught had to have her leg cut off because she had developed frostbite due to being left in the trap in winter weather.

   Permalink

5. 

   meadow20 Posted 12:12 pm
   01 Dec 2007

   the program must changeWhat is happening now is not working. Wolves are not being allowed to be themselves and it is all because of cattle. When ranchers get all the perks of public wild land, they need to accept that there will be predators. If they can't or won't look after their cows- like having a range rider who knows where they are, keeping them together, moving them frequently and rendering carcasses that perish from other causes inedible so wolves don't get a taste for beef- then it is not the wolves' fault if some get eaten. (Actually, with a range rider it is much less likely that cattle would perish from other causes because someone would be looking after them)
   
      U.S. Fish and Wildlife has to stop "removing" wolves or wolves will disappear a second time. Don't just comment here. Send an email here, (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   
   //
   var l=new Array();
   
   var output = '';
   
   l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 118';l[23]=' 111';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 115';l[27]=' 119';l[28]=' 102';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 108';l[31]=' 97';l[32]=' 95';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 119';l[35]=' 102';l[36]=' 50';l[37]=' 114';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='

   Permalink

6. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:40 am
   03 Dec 2007

   What You Can DoEveryone who supports wolves or western ecosystems should boycott beef and let both the industry and your legislators know why you are doing so.  Beef is an unhealthy and totally unnecessary food, so this would be nothing but sacrificing a pleasure.  This boycott should be continued until all cattle are removed from OUR public lands in the western U.S.  The cattle industry has done immense harm to the western U.S., including the killing of wolves and other natural predators necessary for healthy ecosystems, and the only reason for the failure of the wolf reintroduction program is that industry.

   Permalink