Anti-wolf bills clear case of over-reaction

Arizona Daily Sun (Original) Posted March 6, 2014 by the Editorial Board

Talk about over-reacting.

The last time we visited the topic of endangered Mexican gray wolves in this space was to call for more details of a proposed expansion plan and consultation by federal officials with local communities.

That was back in August, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did agree to at least one public hearing in Arizona and entered talks with state Game and Fish officials.

But some state lawmakers took the expansion plan as a call to arms, and this winter they have introduced bills seeking not only to hamstring or kill off the recovery program but end the entire federal Endangered Species Act in Arizona.

The last was introduced by Flagstaff Rep. Bob Thorpe, who later withdrew that clause after staff officials said it would compromise tens of millions of dollars in federal aid given to the state for protecting endangered species and habitat restoration under their many cooperative agreements. Those programs include the California condor, black-footed ferret, Chiricahua leopard frog, native fish and other species.

He also took out the part about deporting any animal species in a federal recovery program not "cooperatively implemented" with the state, a direct assault on federal authority over endangered species.

But Thorpe did retain a clause in the bill calling on the federal government to establish a compensation fund for cattle losses, then turn it over to the state to be administered on state terms.

Other bills and resolutions would allow state employees for the first time to kill a problem wolf on public land, cap the number of wolves at 100 and relocate them to Mexico. And when the bills are inevitably challenged in court, another bill calls for a $250,000 litigation fund to be set up to defend them.

If the measures above came in response to hundreds of marauding wolves decimating cattle herds, we'd pay attention. But just the opposite true: There are about 80 wolves in the wild and the number of claims made by ranchers for wolf depredation is minuscule. Most cattle are killed by disease and by predators with much larger populations, such as coyotes or mountain lions. But if a cow is killed, there is a compensation fund in place and one proposal calls on ranchers to be paid extra simply for sharing their leased land with wolves.

Further, public opinion is solidly behind the wolves, not the ranchers. Poll after poll shows most citizens believe there is plenty of room on the national forest for cows and wolves with sensible management.

Does that mean we're satisfied with the management plan to date and the expansion proposal? On the latter, we feel Fish and Wildlife owes residents of communities in the expansion zone (which extends northward to Interstate 40) some answers to specific questions:

— How often would they anticipate that wolves establishing new territories would roam into suburbs and other settled areas?

— How would wolves interact with pet dogs in particular?

— What tactics and strategies could be employed to keep those human-wolf contacts to a minimum?

These are the issues that lawmakers ought to be focusing on as part of diversifying and preserving Arizona's wildlife heritage. Wolves are part of that heritage, and they deserve a chance to stay.