New Mexico Done With Wolf Recovery

Send by email Printer-friendly version Share this

New Mexico Game Commission voted unanimously to end their partnership with the federal government on the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery. Some wolf advocates want to continue restoring the gray wolves to the area, but ranchers are concerned about the predation on their livestock.

The New Mexico Game and Fish Department helped keep cattle away from the wolf packs located in the national forests and also provided food for some of the packs. With the state's help the wolves had decreased their livestock kills, and were going after more elk. Without the state's help there may be more livestock losses. In 2008 and 2009 livestock groups were angry when state biologists had convinced Fish and Wildlife Service not to destroy the Middle Fork and San Mateo wolf packs that had killed livestock.

“New Mexico’s governor sided with an intransigent, wolf-hating livestock industry,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Ironically, withdrawing state participation will undercut successful proactive efforts to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts, and could lead to an increase in livestock losses.” From Summit County Citizens Voice.

Comments

groovy mike's picture

Let's have the supporters of the wolves feed and control them.

New Mexico Game Commission’s unanimous vote to end their partnership with the federal government on the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery has to mean something beyond siding with intransigent, wolf-hating livestock industry’ I like Arrow-flipper’s idea of charging the activists groups the cost of replacing all livestock injured or killed by wolves.  And beyond making them responsible for any damage they do, there is a strong case for having the supporters of the wolves feed and control them.  Why should the New Mexico game commission spend money and time to feed the wolves?  Why should the livestock rancher’s tax dollars support something that actually harms their industry?  As you know, I advocate hunting as the best possible solution to managing any conflict between humans and animals.  I do not advocate destroying any population, but I do support controlling the numbers of predators so that they do not adversely affect the herds of either domestic livestock or the wild game animals.

hunter25's picture

I wonder if the delisting of

I wonder if the delisting of the wolves up north in the other western states had anything to do with this decision? It seems like kind of a waste of all the money they put into protecting livestock and helping them out and let the populations build only to eventually have a season put on them anyway. I'm not sure if it would be better if they went after the livestock and eventually have a season to thin them down or have them eating all the deer and elk first. There will be a much bigger outcry if the cattle get attacked than anything else.

Like the others have said just send the bill to all the anti groups that want to protect them. Incliding a bill for the potential value of the deer and elk that they eat and we'll see how long they want them protected.

arrowflipper's picture

interesting

I always find it interesting when I read articles like this.  On one side you have the ranchers and those who stand to lose financially from increased wolf populations.  On the other side, you have animal rights activists who stand to lose nothing from it.

And these activists are very vocal in discrediting and criticizing anything and anyone who does not agree with them.  What I find interesting is that very seldom do I see them using their money and/or resources to help the animals.  In this situation, the game department is spending the money and time to feed the wolves to keep them from preying on livestock.  I don't see the activists out there feeding or even working to prevent this loss. 

How about charging the activists groups the cost of replacing all livestock injured or killed by wolves.  If they want to keep the wolves, then they should be responsible for any damage they do.  PETA should be sent a bill for anything that costs landowners or ranchers a penny.  And that maybe should include the cost of livestock, time, heartache, stress, bad dreams or anything else that the big bad wolves may cause.

I've spent time and money feeding deer and wild sheep in the mountains during a hard winter.  How many animal rights people did I find up there helping???  As usual.... NONE.  I would think that someone so interested in wildlife would be up there in the cold, packing food in so wildlife doesn't die during a harsh winter.  I have found animal rights people to be little of heart and BIG of mouth.

It doesn't take much effort to look at what unchecked packs of wolves have done in other parts of the country.  It doesn't take a very smart person to realize that wolves must be kept in check or they can cause incredible damage to livestock. 

 

wolves

I guess I am on the other side of the fence on this one and believe it right to reintoduce wolf population to the areas that humans may of killed them off.I live in Wyoming and know the how the elk popoulation and bison population was affected by lack of natural hunters in these areas as these animals suffered from disease and starvation.It was not very pretty watching these animal slowly starve to death and also in Jackson Hole Wyoming watch people get to shoot the excees of elk in an entrapped encloser.It has been a proven fact in over the last 16 years of the wolves being in the Tetons and Yellowstone that the elk herds are not suffering the slow starvation and other diseases that they have in the past before the wolf was reintroduced.It also has been proven that other things with the biology with the land is recovering like the willow trees are finally making a come back.I get tired of ranchers and hunters trying to prove that the big bad wolf is bad .The facts in Wyoming say other wise.The herds might be smaller but they are more healthier then they have been since the 1930's.Nature does a far better job then man can ever do at this.Heck in Minn there is island where the wolves and moose are left alone and they seem to live in balance and check.So let the hunters and ranchers scream. The facts are the facts.Man should not have to spend money and time hauling food to animals that are starving just so they can hunt them.If the wolf were there , then people would have the healthy herds that they want.The wolf goes after the sick and the weak. It is proven.Believe it or not I am not against hunting.I just think that hunters would be glad to hunt healthy animals and not sick ones.Sorry if this makes you mad.But once again man is not mother nature.

 

 

I couldn't agree with you

I couldn't agree with you more. I live in California and we have a bad problem with the mountain lions. They kill livestock and deer. The lions are protected meanwhile they are devistating deer populations. Hunting isn't the way it use to be around here because of the decrease in population. But we can thank the Animal Rights Activists for the protection on the mountain lions. We need to have an open season on them so that deer numbers climb. The evidence is plain and simple. I wish our govrnment would pull their heads out and get a grasp on the obvious here. We need predator control!!!