Three Options Proposed For Wolf Program
	From the February 2000

By JIM OWEN

Daily Press Staff

An environmental assessment of a proposal to release wolves in the Gila Wilderness offers three alternatives.

Two of the options call for "translocation" of the animals throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which includes portions of the Apache and Gila national forests in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

Both alternatives would involve the transfer of wolves that have been previously released in the Arizona portion of the recovery area.

They would be moved "to address specific management problems" like conflicts with people and livestock, and the wolves' prey and territory requirements.

The assessment proposes four translocation sites in the Gila Wilderness.

Alternative A might require "temporary restriction of public access and disturbance-causing land-use activities" in a one-mile radius around holding pens, the assessment states. The restrictions would be lifted when the wolves are released from the pens.

Examples of "disturbance-causing" activities are tree cutting, management-ignited fire, mining or mine development, camping outside designated campgrounds, livestock drives, hunting and off-road vehicle use.

"The proposed closures or use restrictions would be flexible and on an as-needed basis to protect wolves from harm," the document says. "Pen sites would be selected where access and use restrictions would minimize impacts to human activities. Access to private property would not be restricted."

Also not affected, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assessment, would be "legally permitted livestock grazing and use of water sources by livestock; livestock drives if no reasonable alternative route or timing exists; vehicle access over established roads to private property and to areas on public land where legally permitted activities are ongoing if no reasonable alternative route exists; prescribed natural fire except in the vicinity of release pens; and any authorized, specific land use that was active and ongoing at the time wolves chose to locate a den or rendezvous site nearby."

The animals would be turned loose through a "hard" or "soft" release method.

A hard release involves freeing wolves directly from transport crates. Soft release features a temporary holding pen (about one-third acre or smaller), using either chain-link fencing or heavy-duty, coated nylon mesh material.

"The purpose of the pens is to confine the translocated wolves to more fully acclimate them and increase their affinity for the area," the assessment says.

Alternative B calls for hard-release techniques, with no pens, closures, or restrictions on forest use or access.

Under Alternative C, no wolves would be translocated into the Gila Wilderness and "it would take longer to reach the population recovery goal of 100 wolves," the assessment asserts.

"In addition, (with Alternative C) captive holding facilities may become overcrowded with recaptured wolves removed from the (recovery area) due to management conflicts which could not be resolved on site," it adds.

The assessment details the eight confirmed livestock depredations (including two west of Glenwood) by wolves since the canines were released in April 1998 in Arizona.

There have been "three deaths of authorized livestock, three deaths of unauthorized livestock, and two nonlethal attacks which resulted in injury of unauthorized livestock," it states.

"This represents .01 percent of the total livestock present in the area (approximately 82,000 cattle are permitted, although with recent herd reductions throughout the Gila National Forest actual numbers on allotments are less, reportedly by as much as 30 percent)," the document continues.

"With additional management flexibility, as proposed here through the translocation of wolves, (those) involved in depredation incidents can be relocated to areas where there are fewer or no livestock present," it says.

Wolves repeatedly involved in livestock depredation would be considered "problem wolves." They would be permanently removed from the wild population, in accordance with an agency rule already in effect.

Proposed translocation sites in the Gila Wilderness are:

* McKenna Park, between the West Fork of the Gila River and the East Fork of Mogollon Creek, west of the Diablo Mountains;

* Chicken Coop and Creel canyons, between the west and middle forks of the Gila River, east of Lily Mountain;

* Miller Springs, between Turkey Creek and the Gila River, south of Granite Peak and northwest of Granny Mountain; and

* Halfmoon Park, near White Creek, northeast of Snow Park and Mogollon Baldy.

Public meetings regarding the proposal are set for 7-9 p.m. Wednesday, March 1, at the Reserve Community Center; and 7-9 p.m. Thursday, March 2, at Western New Mexico University's Light Hall.

Written comments on the assessment are being accepted through March 15 by the Mexican wolf recovery coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103. The official's telephone number is (505) 248-6920.

Comment on this topic here

webmaster?subject=3%20Options%20For%20Wolves">