Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 1
December 13, 2013
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM
Arlington, VA 22203
Subject: Comments concerning Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis
lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered
Apache County, Arizona appreciates the opportunity to submit comments and information
concerning the proposal to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and maintain protections for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by
listing it as endangered, as published in the Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June
13, 2013 / Proposed Rules pp P35664 -35719.
Apache County is uniquely affected by the Proposed Action to list the Mexican wolf as an
endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf (Canis lupus), since a large part of the proposed
revised Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) and Mexican Wolf Experimental Population
Area (MWEPA) would be located within Apache and Greenlee Counties in Arizona and Catron
County in New Mexico. Furthermore, Apache County has been already subject to considerable
impacts from the Mexican gray wolf recovery effort since 1998. Thus Apache County, along
with its sister counties at the heart of the proposed revised geographic boundaries, would
continue to be subject to greater and continuing impacts of the proposed action than elsewhere.
The local citizens, recreational visitors and economic participants of Apache and the other named
counties, who have been forced to bear the burden of the impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction
since its inception fifteen years ago, are well aware of the reality of the on-the-ground activities
that affect their daily lives. The voices of visitors and affected local citizens and of the county
governments that represent them have thus far been mostly ignored, whereas their experiences
and expectations of the general welfare and domestic tranquility they are entitled to should be
made part of the record to provide primary guidance when considering any changes to the
operating procedures of the recovery program.
It is a local government responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
This includes protecting local citizens from the adverse societal and economic impacts of federal
actions such as the manipulation of wild animals and their management. Since the element of
the human dimension is not adequately addressed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and other federal agencies in this particular regard it is imperative that local governments not
only address but take action to protect the wellbeing and interests of the local citizen.
It should be noted that Apache County supports the removal of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from
the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” and applauds the decision to not list the newly
designated subspecies Canis lupus nubilus and Canis lupus occidentalis as either threatened or
endangered species. In not listing these subspecies of wolves as either threatened or endangered,
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 2
the FWS has placed the management of the animals that make up these subspecies back into the
hands of the individual states where it belongs. When management of these wolves is regulated
by local governments rather than from Washington DC, local citizens have much more
meaningful input into the management of the environment they live and work in each day.
We submit these comments because it is important for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to recognize and openly disclose the impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens who are directly impacted by USFWS actions. Numerous other federal laws contain
language that requires the USFWS to involve and work in a cooperative manner with local
governments. While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs the USFWS and other federal
agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and the habitats they depend upon, the
National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) also requires the Federal agencies to honestly and
openly disclose both the adverse and beneficial effects of their actions on the human
environment. Even though it has been determined by the courts that the process of listing
species as defined in the ESA is exempt from conducting NEPA analysis, USFWS should take
into consideration its moral obligation, as well as the numerous other federal and state laws that
contain language that requires involvement and working in a cooperative manner with local
governments when implementing actions that will adversely impact local citizens. It is felt that a
federal/local government working relationship, which is based upon mutual respect, would add a
level of protection for the health, safety and welfare of the public that is lacking in the current
actions of USFWS.
All references cited below are for the proposed rule unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with Executive Order 12866 requiring understandable
documents ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Issue: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the Mexican wolf is endangered. ........... 4
Issue: The USFWS has failed to justify the listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies in this action .................................................................................................................. 5
Issue: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors into adaptive management ............................ 7
Issue: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors leading to opposition to Mexican wolf
recovery efforts ............................................................................................................................... 7
Issue: The USFWS has failed to analyze the significance of lack of success of recovery efforts . 9
CONCLUSION: ............................................................................................................................ 10
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 3
Issue: USFWS has failed to comply with Executive Order 12866 requiring understandable
documents
Reference: Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993 "The
American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a
regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment and well being
and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable
costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets
are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State,
local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and
understandable."
And
Section 1 (b)(12) “Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand...”
Discussion: Too many major actions are proposed in this rule. There so many actions proposed
that it becomes extremely difficult for the public to follow the logic in order to fully understand
the issues. Furthermore, certain actions should be addressed with their own rule and certain
actions appear to be unnecessary to propose at all.
Page 35664 column 1 paragraph 1-2 of the proposed rule describes the following proposed
actions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf
List the Mexican wolf as a subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi) of the gray wolf
Change the gray wolf subspecies, Canis lupus lycaon, which occurs in southeastern
Canada and historically occurred in the northeastern United States and portions of the
upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) United States, to a separate
species, Canis lycaon.
5. Complete a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest
6. Remove protections for C. lupus in all or portions of 29 eastern states
While some of the above proposed actions might logically be bundled together, it would be more
effective, consistent, sensible and understandable to separate out actions that are essentially
independent actions from those that are actions dependent on other actions proposed in this rule,
or are actions so highly controversial or so flawed as to merit their own rules.
While Apache County supports the first action as described, USFWS is well aware that the
Mexican wolf issue is extremely problematic for not only local government and its citizens, but
for the Mexican wolf recovery effort itself, and thus should be addressed in a separate rule.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 4
Furthermore, given that the Mexican wolf is already listed on the USFWS website and elsewhere
as a subspecies of gray wolf1, Canis lupus baileyi, the confusion becomes even greater.
Inclusion of Canis lycaon, a completely different species, adds to the confusion, as does
including the completion of a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest.
Additionally, information about each of the species and subspecies is not isolated for each
proposed action but rather presented mixed with the other species and subspecies, which results
in even more difficulty for understanding the merits of each proposed action.
It is possible the intent of bundling so many proposed actions into one is meant to achieve some
level of efficiency; however the proposed rule in its current form is a confusing document that
defies public scrutiny and thus could be construed as a means for USFWS to purposefully
disguise controversial and flawed actions.
Recommendation: USFWS should revise the rule and reduce confusion by not bundling so many
actions into one proposed rule.
Issue: The USFWS has failed to provide evidence that the Mexican wolf is endangered.
Reference: Page 35675 column 1 bottom, “A single wild gray wolf population (C. l. baileyi), of
at least 75 wolves (as of December 31, 2012), inhabits the southwestern United States today…”
And
Page 35694 column 2-3, "Population estimates of gray wolves, and specifically C. l. baileyi,
prior to the late 1800s are not available for the southwestern United States or Mexico. Some
trapping records and rough population estimates are available from the early 1900s, but do not
provide a rigorous estimate of population size of C. l. baileyi in the United States or Mexico. For
New Mexico, a statewide carrying capacity (potential habitat) of about 1,500 gray wolves was
hypothesized by Bednarz, with an estimate of 480 to 1030 wolves present in 1915..."
Discussion: No total current Mexican wolf population count is provided anywhere in the
proposed rule, and therefore it cannot be determined from it if, in fact, this population is at actual
risk of extinction. No disclosure of the Mexican wolf population in Mexico is provided, either
historically or current. No total historical population estimate is provided that can be used to
compare to current population count to determine “recovery”, much less whether Mexican
wolves are currently actually endangered.
The use of “at least” in discussing the wolf population in the Southwestern US implies larger
numbers although USFWS does not disclose the reason for the use of “at least”, and does not
venture a high count for the potential population. In fact, wolf counts are based on known
collared wolves and an estimate of an unknown population of uncollared wolves (wolves born in
the wild, or that have lost collars or whose collar batteries have died).
1
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ accessed 10/22/13
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 5
It is quite possible that there are already sufficient wolves in the wild according to the criterion
of a minimum of 100 animals set in the 1982 Recovery Plan. The Mexican wolf recovery plan
population target has not been legally changed from the 1982 target; therefore any actions based
on a higher target would be in violation of NEPA and ESA.

A December 2012 Mexican wolf population count confirmed a minimum adult
population of 75 animals.

The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Cooperators MOU Middle Management Team
(MMT) estimated a probable undercount of 10% to 15% (minimum of 7 animals) at the
December 2, 2013 meeting.

The MMT estimated an additional 15 animals expected to reach adulthood from the 30
confirmed pups reported as having survived the whelping seasons (IFT Report, August
2013 MMT meeting).

The minimum estimated population is, by the above estimates, 92. It is reasonable to
assume that the minimum numbers are an extreme and therefore that more animals exist
in the wild. It is also reasonable to assume that more animals exist in the wild than have
been included in the December 2012 count, particularly uncollared wolves. Therefore the
likelihood is that there are more than 100 wolves in the wild at this time and therefore
there is no legal or scientific justification for replacing the wolves specified in the
proposal.
Recommendation: USFWS should provide justification for continuing to list the Mexican wolf as
threatened or endangered; should provide evidence that this subspecies of Canis lupus is, in fact,
at risk of extinction. USFWS should provide data that documents the number of wolves
(collared as well as uncollared) in the Southwest as well as in Mexico; and further provide
evidence that simple hunting restrictions would not provide equally adequate protection for the
current population.
Issue: The USFWS has failed to justify the listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies in this action
Reference: Page 35667 columns 1-2 of the proposed rule, “On August 12, 2009, we received a
petition dated August 10, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute
requesting that we list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and designate critical
habitat under the Act. On October 9, 2012, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal
Register stating that, because all individuals that constitute the petitioned entity already receive
the protections of the Act, the petitioned action was not warranted at that time.”
Discussion: With the decision to delist the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes
populations of wolves, the USFWS is left protecting what was once called the “Mexican gray
wolf” (now “Mexican wolf”) under the generalized category of “Gray Wolf”, as demonstrated in
the above comment. If the current designation remains unchanged, there is no need for the
proposed action.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 6
When looking deeper into the current proposed rules that have been released by the USFWS
pertaining to the Mexican gray wolf, it appears that this proposed rule is nothing more than an
administrative housekeeping exercise that will (as a stand-alone action) result in little if any
change in the management of the population of Mexican wolves, since all existing Mexican
wolves are considered to be within the nonessential experimental population. Even if the new
proposed listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies is enacted this new status for
Mexican wolves would be meaningless and a waste of taxpayer money.
If this proposed action is not a pointless housekeeping exercise, then it would be easy to
conclude that the intent the action would be to enable USFWS to use the 10j rule to support
continued use of the captive breeding program to genetically engineer a new subspecies of wolf
and to release these animals throughout the Southwest (see page 35695 column 3 paragraph 2:
Captive C. l. baileyi are routinely transferred among the zoos and other SSP holding facilities to
facilitate genetic exchange (through breeding) and maintain the health and genetic diversity of
the captive population.). The issue that would need to be addressed, then, would be justification
for the need to engage in genetic engineering, including whether such action would be authorized
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
It is scientifically obvious and a matter of common sense that, with a founding population of just
seven (7) individuals of at most three separate genetic lineages, USFWS would have to closely
manage and manipulate the genetic makeup of the Mexican wolf in order to keep the subspecies
from suffering from homozygosis or inbreeding depression (see page 35695 column 2 paragraph
3: The individual wolves used to establish the captive-breeding program are considered the
‘‘founders’’ of the breeding population. Seven founder wolves represent three founding
lineages…). In fact, with such a limited available gene pool, it is unlikely that genetic vigor
could be achieved without introduction of new genetic lineages of Mexican wolf, which may not
exist.
In the past it has been common for USFWS to introduce specific individual wolves into the wild
population of Mexican wolves for purposes of “improving genetic diversity” without providing
the public with information as to the genetic characteristics at issue or what difference they
might make. Given the limited genetics of all Mexican wolves (whether in captivity or the wild,
since all captive and wild Mexican wolves in the US are from the same seven founder wolves
and three founding lineages) the sources of any new genetic characteristics is problematic.
Where has the source of the new genetic characteristics come from, if not the same seven
founder wolves? If from other wolves, what assurance is there that they are actually Mexican
wolves? If genetic diversity is not being created through breeding of wolves, is this diversity
being genetically engineered in the laboratory?
The intent of the ESA is not aimed at creation of new species of animals, but at the protection of
existing species at risk of extinction. Therefore, unless there have been fundamental biological
changes to the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies of Canis lupus, there is no reason to
include this action in the proposed rule.
Recommendation: USFWS should provide clear justification and explanation for including
listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies in the proposed rule change, including
description of captive breeding program process and objectives, supported by breeding program
data.
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 7
Issue: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors into adaptive management
Reference: Page 35700 paragraph 2 column 3, “Illegal shooting of wolves has been the biggest
single source of mortality since the reintroduction began in 1998, and the largest single source
of mortality in 8 separate years between 1998 and December 31, 2012”.
And
Page 35703 column 2-3, “Meanwhile, we suspect that human intolerance of wolves is resulting
in some of the illegal shooting occurring in the BRWRA. Without additional information, we are
unable to confirm whether, or the degree to which, disregard for or opposition to the
reintroduction project is a causative factor in illegal shootings.”)
Discussion: The shooting of wolves as documented by USFWS should serve as a clear indicator
of the existence of a serious problem with the reintroduction program, which has proceeded
forward since its inception as if these problems did not matter. The fact that illegal shooting
persists in spite of potential legal repercussions should have led USFWS to the realization that
the people who bear the burden for the direct impacts of the released wolves will not tolerate
having problem wolves reintroduced into their communities. It would seem that fifteen years
would be long enough for USFWS to investigate and analyze the causative factors in wolf
shootings, particularly since so many complaints about the program have been submitted over
that time about the problem wolf issue.
USFWS has simply ignored the magnitude of the desperate situation of the citizens who live and
work in the BRWRA, and has made no effort to correct the false impression provided by prowolf environmental groups that the blame should be on human beings, rather than the problem
wolves. People who live in rural communities cannot be forced to accept the depredation of big
game and livestock by the Mexican wolf, nor should USFWS attempt to lay blame for wolf
shootings on the independence and the desire for community self-rule of rural America rather
than where the problem actually comes from: the problem wolves themselves.
Adaptive management of a nonessential experimental population exists not to force the
environment into an ideal habitat (which zoos already do and with less effort and cost), but to
learn from successes and failures, and to adjust management approach accordingly. Exclusion of
real and critical component factors of any experiment is bad science. In the case of the Mexican
wolf, the exclusion of the human dimension as a real and critical component of the habitat is one
of the most significant causes of the failure of adaptive management to achieve program success.
Recommendation: USFWS should perform a study on the reasons for wolf shootings in the
BRWRA, incorporating data available from local governments, local Resource Conservation
Districts and local livestock producer organizations, as well as individual citizens. USFWS
should adjust its management approach to Mexican wolves to with the goal of reducing those
impacts on the human environment that may be associated with wolf shootings.
Issue: USFWS has failed to incorporate all factors leading to opposition to Mexican wolf
recovery efforts
Reference: Page 35703 column 2 paragraph 3, “In the Southwest, extremes of public opinion
vary between those who strongly support or oppose the recovery effort. Support stems from
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 8
such feelings as an appreciation of the wolf as an important part of nature and an interest in
endangered species restoration, while opposition may stem from negative social or economic
consequences of wolf reintroduction, general fear and dislike of land-use conflicts.”
Discussion: The failure of USFWS to capture the true perception of the Mexican wolf by rural
citizens who have to deal with wolves’ presence on a daily basis directly affects the Mexican
wolf recovery program. The true stakeholders are those who are directly impacted by the
Mexican wolf reintroduction effort and who risk experiencing actual personal harm and
destruction of personal property. In fact, the majority of those who champion the wolf as noble
and majestic animal do not have to suffer from the negative social or economic consequences of
wolf reintroduction themselves, i.e. they are not true stakeholders and are only indirectly
impacted or not impacted at all.
The pro-wolf non-stakeholders ignore the cold facts of just what the actual stakeholders are
forced to experience; these facts are well documented. As pro-wolf non-stakeholders express
their appreciation of the wolf, they never mention how wolves kill, or how wildlife and livestock
that has been harassed by wolves is more susceptible to disease and injury, and fails to reproduce
at self-sustaining rates. USFWS, too, avoids mention of how wolves run their prey until the prey
is so tired it can no longer escape; how, unlike other non-canine predators such as mountain lions
and bears, wolves eat their prey while the animal is still alive; how wolves may consume only
the prey animal’s genitals and leave the animal to slowly die; how wolves may slash open their
living prey to eat unborn fetuses and leave the mother animal to slowly die; how wolves also
hunt for fun and don’t even bother eating anything of the prey animals they take down.
These cold facts of how wolves hunt and kill has much to do with the opposition to the Mexican
wolf in the BWRWA. When it is a person’s own livestock and pets that have been subject to the
torture and agony of wolf attack, the response is very different. When it is a person’s own family
or self that risks wolf attack, fear becomes very immediate and not theoretical, regardless of
interest in endangered species restoration.
Land use conflicts are also significant contributors to opposition to Mexican wolf restoration.
There are many people who feel they are being put into direct competition with the reintroduced
wolves for limited resources, including the limited population of big game species, adequate
space to safely and economically raise livestock and the space to enjoy the outdoors without
humans or their pets experiencing the negative side of wolf encounters. Note that truly wild
wolves are shy and are not commonly seen, whereas the wolves that are frequently encountered
are habituated in the BRWRA are problem wolves, as can be verified by consulting records of
local governments, local Resource Conservation Districts and local livestock producer
organizations, as well as the many local individuals who have reported these incidents.
The leading factors that led to the decline of the Mexican wolf in the past (prior to Mexican wolf
reintroduction efforts) are still the leading threats to the recovery of the Mexican wolf today.
USFWS has failed to adequately recognize and accept the fact that there is always going to be
opposition to the Mexican wolf as long as the wolves are pushed on the people who live and
work in the same areas, particularly when they are captive bred wolves that become problem
wolves when released (and recaptured and rereleased).
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 9
Recommendation: USFWS should acknowledge the long and documented history of human
wolf conflicts, both world-wide and within the BRWRA. USFWS should further include that
history as well as local opposition to Mexican wolf recovery as legitimate and significant factors
in the approach to designation and management of the subspecies. USFWS should further
address the possibility that recovery efforts may never be successful in returning the Mexican
wolf to the desired range or population levels.
Issue: The USFWS has failed to analyze the significance of lack of success of recovery
efforts
Reference: Page 35716 column 3 paragraph 3, “Although our recovery efforts for C. l. baileyi,
which are still under way, have led to the reestablishment of a wild population in the United
States, the single, small population of C. l. baileyi would face an imminent risk of extinction from
the combined effects of small population size, inbreeding, and illegal shooting, without the
protection of the Act. Absent protection by the Act, regulatory protection, especially against
shooting, poisoning, or other forms of killing, would not be adequate to ensure the survival of C.
l. baileyi.”
Discussion: The above statement is based upon a single alternative for management of the
Mexican Wolf, which is to turn the settlement of the Southwest clock back at least 100 years in
order to provide Mexican wolves with an environment in which they can roam freely and fill a
natural niche that can support them. The problem with this alternative for Mexican wolf
management is that the environmental niche for the Mexican wolf to fill no longer exists, and
that it would take very drastic changes in the environment to recreate such a niche.
The above quoted statement assumes that Mexican wolf recovery program must reestablish a
free-roaming population in the United States. Protection from harm to the human and to the
already established natural environment would definitely be needed to not only establish but to
also maintain such a population. As is slowly playing out, this approach to Mexican wolf
management is the source of significant negative impacts to the human and the natural
environment. These negative impacts would only increase as more people move to the
Southwest looking for a chance to find independence and the opportunity for community selfrule.
The existing paradigm that calls for all species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA
to be reestablished in the wild has not been sufficiently examined. Expecting the entire world
community to adjust so an individual species can again flourish as it once may have is unrealistic
and unsustainable. Zoo environments are the only realistic environments that can be so
controlled that the naturally changing real-world conditions can be ignored for any length of
time. To force one species, no matter how endangered or threatened, into an unsuitable
environment is to ignore the ripple effect on all the other species already occupying it, and to
further ignore the harm done to individuals of the species in question, which must adapt to those
unsuitable conditions whether they can or not. Thus, other management scenarios must be found
Apache County AZ Comments: Proposed Wolf Listing Changes Page | 10
for species like the Mexican wolf in order to allow them to exist in the modern world without
having to adjust the modern world to meet the needs of the listed species.
Listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies maybe required under the ESA and the
action of this proposed rule would fulfill USFWS obligation to comply with the ESA. However,
all the effects of the action on the human environment have not been honestly and fairly
presented to the public, especially the impacts on the people who live and work with the burden
of the constant potential for Mexican wolf interactions in their daily lives.
Recommendation: USFWS should examine the significance of its lack of success of recovery
efforts to return Mexican wolves to the wild in light of the unrealistic expectation that an
unsuitable environment must be significantly and unsustainably altered to accommodate those
efforts; and should provide science-based evidence for the validity of continuing the current
efforts to do so.
CONCLUSION:
There are many more issues concerning this proposed rule change that could be addressed.
Apache County has limited comments to areas where either information was lacking or where
the information presented was inaccurate or not presented clearly. Apache County has also
limited comments to reflect the concerns and thoughts of its citizens. While much more could
have been written, it is felt the comments presented have brought forward the key problem areas
that should be revised before continuing with this proposed action.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. This
mission will work much better when USFWS considers the real impacts of these actions on the
people who live, work and have daily contact with the species of concern. USFWS should make
every effort to implement their mission of conserving species with the support of local citizens
through open, honest communications and when a sense of fairness is part of the equation.
Thank you for your attention to our comments.
Sincerely,