Location
Rode Inn, 242 E. Main Street, Springerville, Arizona
Attendees (not all Attendees signed in)
Darry Dolan, David L. Goerndt, Halina Szyposzynski, Charlie
Goulds, Sharon Goulds, Darcy Ely, Maryann Johnson, Pam Ewing,
Nick Ewing, George Lemen, Nancy L. Kaminski, Bill Bunnell,
Daniel Parraz, and Hoyt Pinaire (private citizens); Jean Ossorio
(Southwest Environmental Center - SWEC); Craig Miller (Defenders
of Wildlife - Defenders); Michael Robinson (Center for
Biological Diversity - CBD); Kevin Wright (The Phoenix Zoo);
Deion Hinton (White Mountain Apache Tribe - WMAT); Hector Ruedas
and Kay Gale (Greenlee County); Shawna Nelson, Deb O'Neill, Dan
Groebner, Bill Van Pelt, Jon Cooley, Shawn Farry, and Terry
Johnson (Arizona Game and Fish Department - AGFD); Chuck Hayes
and Lisa Kirkpatrick (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish -
NMDGF); John Oakleaf, James Ashburner, Colleen Buchanan, John
Morgart, Victoria Fox, and Susan MacMullin (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service - USFWS); Bud Starnes (New Mexico Department of
Agriculture - NMDA); Wally Murphy (U.S. Forest Service - USFS);
David Bergman, Keel Price, J. Brad Miller, Richard Grabbe, and
Chris Carrillo (USDA APHIS Wildlife Services - WS).
Welcome, Introductions, Ground Rules, and Agenda
Review
Terry B. Johnson, Chair (AGFD), called the meeting to order
at 1:34 p.m. He thanked all present for attending.
The Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) and
Cooperating Agency representatives seated at the front of the
room introduced themselves and described their roles with wolf
reintroduction. All attendees then briefly introduced
themselves.
The ground rules were affirmed as the same as for previous
meetings: minimize side-bar conversations; show respect for
disparate opinions; raise hands for recognition; one person
speaks at a time; question-and-answer format; participants
should direct questions to the panel; and participants should
state their names prior to making a statement or asking a
question.
Please recognize that these summary notes are not minutes,
and comments and questions will not be summarized word for word.
The agenda was reviewed. There were no comments.
Summary Notes from Previous Meeting
Terry asked if there were any questions or comments on the
summary notes from the July 2004 meeting. There were none.
Interagency Field Team (IFT) Report
Several releases have occurred: 1) the Aspen pack near Blue,
AZ: two adults and three pups; 2) in the Gila Wilderness of NM:
three adults and five pups; and 3) in the Gila Wilderness of NM:
two adults.
The IFT's focus since July has been as follows: 1) getting
wolves back inside the Recovery Area boundary; 2) writing the
scientific portion of the Five-Year Review; 3) gathering data to
estimate counts of wolves; and 4) tracking collared wolves.
As of September, the minimum count of wild wolves is 49. This
count includes releases and uncollared wolves that have been
seen.
The Aspen pack stayed in the release area for about three
weeks before splitting up. Part of the pack spent time around
houses and chased a calf in the Blue River corridor. The wolves
have been hazed with rubber bullets and cracker shells.
Darry Dolan - How many wolves are collared?
John Oakleaf - 23-24.
The IFT has been trying to trap and collar additional animals
in three packs: Bluestem, Hon-Dah, and San Francisco. They have
not been successful.
The two San Mateo wolves were brought back inside the
Recovery Area boundary. The male stayed, but the female has
returned to the San Mateos.
John Oakleaf introduced the IFT members present. AGFD has
advertised three additional IFT positions for hiring over the
next several weeks. These positions are being filled to bring
the IFT closer to the staffing level needed to be more
responsive to wolf management issues.
Michael Robinson - When was the San Mateo female
determined to have left the recovery area?
John Oakleaf - Yesterday. She traveled from inside the
boundary to outside the boundary, a total of 50 miles, in
eight days.
Darry Dolan - A pup was sighted with the San Mateo pack.
Did you release the pair without the pup?
John Oakleaf - There were no signs of nursing, so we
thought the pups died. We continued to conduct howling
surveys in the area, but never received a response.
Craig Miller - Have there been any reports of young
wolves in that area?
John Oakleaf - No
Maryann Johnson submitted copies of a petition signed by
every resident on the Blue (excluding the Dry Blue), stating
their objection to the Aspen pack being released. The petition
was sent to Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi's office.
Terry Johnson read the introduction paragraph on the
petition, and noted there are approximately 30 signatures.
Charlie Goulds expressed his feelings on the release in the
Blue. He lives in the Blue, and ranches and guides there. He has
one cow and calf. USFWS has put several packs there against
residents' wishes. He read a statement describing his objection
to the releases (written copies available).
John Oakleaf - Four release sites were identified in the
Aspen pack release proposal. They were selected based on
certain characteristics necessary for wolves. These sites
were presented to the public. The IFT took the public
comments, incorporated them with agency input, and the AMOC
approved the IFT-preferred site.
Terry Johnson elaborated on John's explanation. The release
site is recommended, but land ownership determines who makes the
final decision. In this case, the AGFD Director made the
decision because the recommended site was on non-tribal lands in
Arizona. There were pros and cons to every site. AMOC and AGFD
weighed the alternatives carefully. We are trying to move toward
recovery, and there is pressure to release wolves to meet
recovery goals. We understood there would be opposition, but we
still thought it was the best site, considering all relevant
factors. This site was a consensus recommendation from the IFT
and all AMOC agencies. We did modify the location based on
public input.
Michael Robinson - Following the release of the Paquet
report in the Three-Year Review of this program, the USFWS
held 11 public meetings to collect comments. The largest
category of recommendations was that the rule should be
changed to allow direct release of wolves into the Gila
Wilderness. During this entire process, Brian Kelly (who was
the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator then) repeatedly
stated the results would change the final non-essential,
experimental population rule, but the rule has not been
changed yet. Wolves still only can be initially released in
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
Terry Johnson explained that we are operating under a series
of legal constraints. If the release is a new release, in
accordance with the non-essential, experimental population rule,
it can only occur in the Apache National Forest.
Susan MacMullin. - "Experimental" is a designation that
allows for greater latitude. Non-essential means they are
not essential to the population.
Terry Johnson - This rule allows us to kill a wolf if
necessary. The rule provides management flexibility. There
would be more constraints if the wolves had full protection.
We did not want them to have full protection from a
management standpoint. We needed the tools provided through
a non-essential experimental population designation.
Darcy Ely - Is the IFT trying to find a way to remove the
wolves from the Blue?
John Oakleaf - We have been somewhat successful. The
wolves are naïve; they do not understand the dangers. We
evaluate wolves after each release and compare behaviors.
Darcy Ely - Is there food for them, and if so, is it
still there?
John Oakleaf - It is still there. There was food before
the release, and certainly there is food now. Even more so.
Jon Cooley - The IFT looks at criteria when considering a
site for a release. The primary reason this site was
selected was because there were a lot of elk browsing on
regenerating aspen. Surveys since the release show a large
elk presence.
John Oakleaf - This site also was a successful release
site before.
Terry Johnson - We contrasted the criteria against four
sites before deciding on one.
Craig Miller - Defenders of Wildlife has a program
available to help with fencing, dog kennels, etc. In areas
where we anticipate problems, we will provide 50% funding
and the landowner has to provide the other 50%. Or, we can
work with a three-way split with cooperators. Defenders is
willing to come down, evaluate and meet with people on the
Blue.
Terry Johnson - Two federal programs are also available.
The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) provides up to $1.5
million each year to state agencies, and must be matched by
non-federal dollars. There also is a private lands
stewardship program that USFWS administers. Congress has
spoken strongly in favor of these programs.
Darry Dolan - Does the (non-essential, experimental)
classification constrain release in New Mexico?
Terry Johnson - Initial releases can only occur in
Arizona, but translocations can occur in New Mexico.
Jean Ossorio - Geneticists have indicated that it is
highly desirable to increase diversity in the gene pool. If
only releases can be done in AZ, absent of a modification of
10j, we will see repetition of this in the future. We cannot
have more infusion if you will not release in NM.
Sharon Goulds - The decision on the Blue release was
because of prey base. You have fed the wolves a couple times
after their release. Then you had to quit so they can kill
on their own. They have been staying in one area and meat
has been brought in to try to get them back up to higher
elevations. The elk are up high, not down low, but the
wolves keep going back down to river. How many times are you
hauling meat up? How long will we have to put up with this?
John Oakleaf - We put out the last meat a few weeks ago.
We want to haze them out of the area. It has been working
more or less.
Charlie Goulds - You do not let condors get habituated to
humans, but people were dragging elk in. I know about scent,
and the wolves can associate meat with human scent. You are
habituating wolves to humans. The 10j (non-essential,
experimental population rule) is supposed to be non-invasive
and non-threatening to people? I am going broke.
Terry Johnson - Economic impacts were taken into
consideration, but not because of 10j. We would have
considered the impacts no matter what.
Michael Robinson - On translocation to the Gila, the 10j
has reduced flexibility. These wolves are the only
endangered species in which the animals are required to stay
in arbitrary political boundaries. These animals were
removed just because they were in the wrong forest. There
was a recommendation to change this in the Three-Year
Review. The Review said it should be normalized to be like
other endangered species programs in the U.S. Scientists and
the majority of people providing comments have condemned
this constraint. The program is in disarray because of
dereliction of responsibility.
Terry Johnson - Some areas of the program are really
flexible and some areas not. You like some parts, and you do
not like others.
Darry Dolan - The Blue residents probably would have been
happy to see wolves move into the Gila. What will it take to
revisit the final rule?
Terry Johnson - The USFWS Regional Director (RD) made it
perfectly clear that if the recommendations coming out of
the Five-Year Review say to change the rule, he will. The
Five-Year Review did not have full public participation, nor
was it completed, and that is why the recommendations were
not moved forward.
Susan MacMullin - The RD wants to ensure the 10j works.
When there is a draft Recovery Plan, he will look at it.
Colleen Buchanan - The Five-Year Review will clearly
spell out the history of the rule.
Terry Johnson - Gila residents may have a different
opinion than Blue residents about the "benefits" of
translocating AZ's Blue wolves to NM's Gila Wilderness.
Whatever adjustments are made, someone will be unhappy.
Let's not fool ourselves thinking that more release sites in
New Mexico are the solution for everything. Regardless, any
changes in the rule or other aspects of wolf management must
be science driven, while considering social and cultural
aspects.
Craig Miller - We could all benefit from removing
boundaries, less livestock, lower road densities, and less
conflict. Is the IFT developing a contingency plan after
finishing the review, if there is a new RD and the previous
recommendations do not go anywhere?
John Oakleaf - Our focus is recovery.
Craig Miller - The RD has the ultimate say if
recommendations are implemented. What if he leaves? I would
like to help develop a solution.
Charlie Goulds - I want to compliment Shawna Nelson and
John Oakleaf. I appreciate your work. I know there is no
easy answer.
John Oakleaf - The people in the Blue have really
accepted us.
Terry Johnson - We need to remember that the issue is not
whether wolves should be there or not. The courts have
decided that. The challenge is how to make things work.
Every effort is being made to address every issue that pops
up. There is effort being made on every person's part, not
just by agency personnel.
Hector Ruedas - If there is a request to remove the pack,
who will respond and how long will it take?
John Oakleaf - First, we identified the problem. Now we
are hazing. We are seeing a quicker response by the wolves
to humans. If it does not work, and they continue to cause
problems, we will move to the next step, which is to trap.
Terry Johnson - What is the time frame? What triggers
trapping and control?
John Oakleaf - Wolves have to have had a conflict with
two dogs in a calendar year, or one livestock conflict. To
date, the wolves have not done this.
Terry Johnson - A nuisance animal can be moved. How do
you know when a wolf is a nuisance? What are the criteria?
John Oakleaf - It is on a case-by-case basis.
Charlie Goulds - There were wolves in the Blue before the
Aspen pack was released. Now, if I see wolf tracks, I call
my dogs and get out of there. Defenders would maybe give me
$1,000 for a calf, but my dogs are worth that. One guy who
lost a dog was only offered $150.
Craig Miller - We (Defenders) asked how much the dog was
worth, and he told us $150. We also offered to train a new
dog.
Charlie Goulds - You need to try to be proactive and not
reactive.
John Oakleaf - We have been giving you receivers and
trying to help as much as possible.
Charlie Goulds - That helps when I am at home, but it
does not help when I am hunting. I do not know what to do,
other than move.
Terry Johnson - This is not our first nuisance incident.
How were the others handled?
John Oakleaf - We hazed them. This pack is a great
example where hazing has worked. Alternatively, another wolf
was hazed and it did not work, so we trapped it.
Unknown - If the Aspen pack becomes a nuisance and you
trap them, do you release in original site again, or are
they pulled out entirely? What is the effect on the program?
The elk are there, but the wolves are coming down anyway.
What will happen to the wolves?
John Oakleaf - When we trap, we will evaluate
alternatives. Some may go to another area. Our focus is
still on hazing right now, and we are not considering
trapping. I do not have a clean answer. Sometimes they are
brought into captivity. If we translocate them, they can go
anywhere in the secondary zone.
Michael Robinson - The 1996 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) included demographic projections. Every
year, the population has not reached the projection. This
year it should be 68. You said there were 49. How will we
get up to 68 at the end of the year?
John Oakleaf - 49 is the bare minimum. The projection was
based on what they thought in 1996. We probably will be
below that this year.
Terry Johnson - I was intimately involved in developing
the FEIS. The projections/speculations were based on work on
other wolves across the country, not on any data from
Mexican wolves on the ground. The projections were targets.
They were theories. There have been impediments to progress.
Some are social intolerance, lack of funding, etc. There
were no guarantees in the FEIS as to where we would be in
five years or ten years.
Maryann Johnson - I have seen little science in this
project. The Five-Year Review needs a lot more work done to
outline objective guidelines for people to follow.
Terry Johnson - It's clear that the IFT does not have
sufficient guidelines for addressing issues such a nuisance
wolf. We will go away from this meeting and develop them. We
definitely will change things to ensure more consistency and
more accountability.
Jenna Yates - There are problems and they need to stop.
Are wolves going to stay there?
Terry Johnson - That is what I meant earlier. Wolves are
being reintroduced, they will continue to be reintroduced,
and we have to deal with them.
Jenna Yates - Deal with the facts. When you're talking
about social implications in an area, you go and live there.
The people are more valuable, but in decision-making, the
wolves are more important. You need to know people's needs
and values.
Craig Miller - I didn't hear much about being proactive
with nuisance wolves. I heard about hazing them, but that's
it. Wolves bear the burden with livestock conflict. We need
to evaluate more proactive things. The program Defenders has
is a good one. I know some may be reluctant to work with
Defenders, but the preventative fund is good. There is money
for hiring riders, community grazing, fladry, and others.
These partnerships are great. The spirit of these
partnerships is that landowners don't have to shoulder the
financial burden alone. We will work with landowners to
complement their lifestyle in the Blue. I am disappointed
that more of these opportunities haven't been taken
advantage of.
Bill Vail - We have been to a lot of these meetings, and
we are getting tired of this. People have a bad taste in
their mouth.
Craig Miller - These ideas were created with input from
people in this community. It took a long time to raise
money, but we're ready. We spent $400,000-500,000 on these
programs the past two years in the Northern Rockies.
Sharon Goulds - If the wolves kill our dogs, will the
government reimburse us?
Craig Miller - Defenders' compensation program will
reimburse for livestock and livestock dogs. It is private
compensation, not governmental.
John Oakleaf - There have been 20 shooting mortalities.
Jenna Yates - What is recovery? What is the goal?
Susan MacMullin - That is what the Recovery Team is for.
They will develop recommendations. However, we won't have
them for another year.
Terry Johnson - The plan with 100 wolves as the goal was
written in 1982. Those ideas were much different than they
are now. We have to revisit the plan.
Jenna Yates - A lot of people come here to see the
wolves. Are you considering when people want to stay away
from them?
Susan MacMullin - The key is to get them recovered so the
states can take over management. The states will have more
flexibility, as with managing lions.
Terry Johnson - We (the state wildlife agencies of AZ and
NM) were asked to review the Three-Year Review in 2002, and
we identified a lack of recovery goals as a significant
problem. The total bill so far for recovery efforts has been
$10 million since 1978. That figure is less than 20% of what
was spent to eradicate the wolves.
Halina Szyposzynski - I want to thank Terry Johnson for
contrasting the small amount of money spent on Mexican wolf
reintroduction with that spent on its eradication. I also
want to respond to his description of the reintroduction
planning process from its early days as being deficient in
its scientific knowledge basis and as being very informal.
No one has been happy with the process so far, but are you
not exaggerating the flaws in the planning and
decision-making process? Is it an exaggeration to say that
we had no goal? Despite the shortcomings in available data,
the best expert knowledge available at the time was used
carefully by well-informed people. Perhaps you (Mr. Johnson)
should not be quite so self-critical, as a representative
and participant of that process, in describing it in this
public forum.
Terry Johnson - From 1987 to 1998, we have been
evaluating the goal through countless public meetings and
more than 19,000 comments on the FEIS. We constructed the
best reintroduction goal we could. It is flawed, but it was
not casual. We have never been casual. Because we wanted
public participation, the money we spent increased. We have
a recovery goal, but it is antiquated. We are doing adaptive
management, and are including social aspects. We still do
not know what the new recovery goal will be. We don't know
what the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) is
contributing to recovery, because we don't know what
recovery is (in terms of numbers). Once we do, then we know
what the BRWRA contribution to the DPS is and we can manage
toward it. We have to identify a sufficiently high number so
they will never be in peril, or else we'll end back where we
started.
Status of Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
John Morgart introduced himself as Recovery Coordinator, and
provided some background information on his career thus far.
Update on Wolf Mortalities
There have been no new mortalities since early 2004.
Colleen Buchanan reported on the last three investigations:
two wolves were shot, and another predator killed one.
Interagency MOU
Sierra County has signed. Catron County has declined to sign,
but will continue to participate. The Grant County Commission
staff is inquiring about the MOU. Terry Johnson will meet with
the county, Chuck Hayes, and Alex Thal to see if they will sign,
or at least participate. No one has withdrawn from the MOU.
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
The IFT and AMOC have been working on a series of protocols
to provide guidelines for IFT operation. We will have another
internal review, and then will meet with our Directors on
December 17 for closure.
Action Item: We will put the SOPs on the
AGFD website no less than 30 days prior to the January AMWG
meeting. We will have full discussion at the January meeting,
and revise the SOPs based on public input. All comment received
will be considered.
George Lemen - Will one include where you can put new
releases?
Terry Johnson - We can't change the rule, but one of the
SOPs will address how release sites are chosen.
Jean Ossorio. - The NMDGF Commission is now willing to
discuss wolves. NM is more constrained by the 10j than their
Commission. It is opposite in AZ.
Michael Robinson - The NMDGF Commission specifically
requested that the 10j be changed. There are tons of
processes. This is a parody of wildlife management.
Terry Johnson - Again, there was no clear process in the
Three-Year Review, nor was there closure. It was very
confusing, and the state agencies are tremendously
frustrated. Now, through this adaptive management program
and the Five-Year Review, we are trying to change things for
the better.
Chuck Hayes - The NMDGF Commission did not say that. They
advised the Department to make recommendations to make
changes in the rule. They never said they wanted releases or
to destroy the boundary. On December 15, I will be going to
the Commission with a report on the progress of the
recommendations.
Darry Dolan - How are recommendations going to be
submitted to the Commission?
Chuck Hayes - At a formal Commission meeting. The minutes
will be made public. The meeting will be in Albuquerque.
USFWS Regional Director's Response Regarding Request
for Written Documentation of Wolf Control Decisions
Susan MacMullin explained that the RD wants the SOPs finished
to provide explanations of why things are done the way they are.
But, he will not require documenting every decision.
Roles and Functions
Role and function statements outline what parties are
responsible for what duties.
Action Item: The updated draft Roles and
Functions summary will be provided to the public at least 30
days prior to the January meeting.
Five-Year Review
Maryann Johnson read a letter from Peter Johnson, MD,
demanding that better science be applied in the Five-Year
Review.
Colleen Buchanan introduced two people working on the
socioeconomic portion of the Five-Year Review. There will be a
stakeholder meeting tomorrow to structure this part of the
review. It is not an open meeting; people were invited.
Terry Johnson - In selecting consultants to handle the
socioeconomic component of the Review, we looked for
individuals with objectivity and experience.
Michael Robinson -Why is there an additional level of
review that is not required by the FEIS? Why is more money
being spent? Why do the subcontractors have extensive
backgrounds in the livestock industry?
Colleen Buchanan - There are more impacts to look at than
the biology of wolves on the ground. USFWS has committed to
this, and is putting in $50,000 to conduct the Review.
Terry Johnson - We are also trying to respond to specific
criticisms expressed in previous AMWG meetings. The
subcontractors were not selected because they were
affiliated with any specific background. All cooperators own
this decision, not just USFWS.
Colleen Buchanan - We will decide tomorrow if this
portion of the Review will be on a different timeframe, but,
hopefully, it will be finished the same time as the rest of
the Review.
Susan MacMullin - The contract is $130,000. We put in
$50,000 in 2004.
Edward (last name unavailable) works for a small economic
department within USFWS, not Industrial Economics, Inc. They are
working on lots of different things, so they contract out the
work. Industrial Economics, Inc. is the only consultant they can
contract with.
Industrial Economics, Inc. is a consulting firm of 65 staff
working out of one office. They competed to renew their contract
with USFWS two years ago. They do a fair amount of critical
habitat work. They are recognized as being objective.
IFT 2004 and 2005 Annual Work Plans and Budgets
The big challenge to work through this is that the Federal
and State Fiscal Years don't match up. The 2004 budget was short
due to USFWS cutbacks, so AGFD came up with $400,000 to fill in
holes for flights, IFT operations, etc. That will get us thru
2004. USFWS requested $200,000 more for FY05. USFS is trying to
get $50,000. In 2004, Wildlife Services will spend $150,000,
NMDGF $80,000, and WMAT $130,000. We are still working out 2005.
We expect to have less money next year.
Wildlife Services has been working from Congressional
appropriations since 2003. By the time the funding reaches
Arizona, it is approximately $127,000. It is split evenly
between the Arizona and New Mexico programs.
Animal Husbandry/Depredation Study Update
The objectives for the study are:
1. Test the effectiveness of community grazing for
reducing cattle depredation.
2. Quantify the number of cattle killed by disease,
accidents, and four sympatric carnivores (coyotes, black
bears, mountain lions, and Mexican wolves).
3. Estimate the number of cattle killed by wolves, and
discovered by producers (i.e., detection rate).
4. Determine factors influencing carnivore predation on
livestock including age and condition of cattle, spatial
location of cattle, season, and habitat type.
Based on all reviews and the pilot year, we have determined
that the first objective could not be met. Statistically, we
were not getting enough data to identify a change if we moved to
commensal herding. Currently, there are no packs in the study
area. AMOC has agreed to continue the study without the first
objective. The study is being funded by AGFD and WS. AGFD has
committed to funding for three more years.
Other Business
AMWG will meet four times in January to discuss the Five-Year
Review. Six agencies will be represented at each of the night
meetings. All of these meetings will be open to the public.
January 26 6-9:00 p.m. Truth or Consequences, NM
(site to be selected and logistics to be handled by Adam
Polley)
January 27 6-9:00 p.m. Glenwood, NM (site to be selected
and logistics to be handled by Alex Thal)
January 28 6-9:00 p.m. Alpine, AZ (site to be selected
and logistics to be handled by Terry Johnson
January 29 6-9:00 p.m. Phoenix, AZ (site to be selected
and logistics to be handled by Terry Johnson)
April 22 1:30-5:00 p.m. San Carlos, AZ (Apache Gold
Casino, [http://www.apachegoldcasinoresort.com/], Hwy 70,
five miles east of Globe; logistics to be handled by Steve
Titla)
June 17 1:30-5:00 p.m. Reserve, NM (site to be selected
and logistics to be handled by Chuck Hayes)
October 14 1:30-5:00 p.m. Morenci, AZ (site to be
selected and logistics to be handled by Hector Ruedas)
Terry Johnson reiterated that these are not minutes of the
AMWG meeting, but summary notes to capture the thrust of the
discussion and any action items.
The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.
