At $333,000 a pop, this guy’s an investment worth protecting. - File Photo
One of the hallmarks of wolf recovery in New Mexico and Arizona is the intensity of emotion it ignites on both sides of the issue. (Wolves suck! Wolves rock!) For a moment, let’s set those emotions aside and talk numbers instead.
Extirpated from the United States, Mexican gray wolves were reintroduced to the southwestern United States in 1998. Fifteen years ago this month, the US Fish and Wildlife Service released 11 wolves into the remote forests along the Arizona-New Mexico border.
According to the plan drawn up in the early 1980s, by 2006 there would be 100 wolves living in the recovery area. But by the time those first wolves were actually released, politics had intruded upon science to such an extent that what happens on the ground today is quite different from what scientists envisioned three decades ago.
In the late 1990s, when FWS finalized the project, it classified the Mexican gray wolf population as “nonessential experimental” rather than “endangered” or “threatened.” The unique designation allowed FWS “greater management flexibility.” (FWS enforces the Endangered Species Act and is mandated to protect and recover rare plants and animals.) With such a designation, the agency tried to assuage the fears of livestock owners and program opponents: If a wolf threatened livestock, FWS and its partners would remove that particular predator from the wild. And the agency has upheld that promise.
Between 1998 and 2012—at the same time they were releasing wolves and hoping the animals would survive and reproduce—program managers also removed 154 wolves from the wild. (“Removal” can mean an animal was killed; captured and moved to captivity; or captured and relocated elsewhere in the wild.)
Some were considered a “nuisance.” Others were targeted because they had migrated outside the boundaries of the recovery area. But the majority of the removals—a total of 71—occurred because program managers believed the individual wolves threatened livestock. The most recent removal occurred in August 2012, when FWS captured the alpha female of the Fox Mountain Pack from the Gila National Forest and sent her packing to a facility in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In addition, the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife created a program to compensate livestock owners for their losses. According to Southwest program director Eva Sargent, between 1998 and 2010, Defenders paid $147,867.55 to ranchers in New Mexico and Arizona. Since taking over the program in 2011, FWS has paid out another $30,543.34. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has kicked in $2,678.50, and currently, $4,750 in requests is pending. Individual payments range from $750 to $5,000; tallied up, they total $185,839.39.
Meanwhile, FWS has documented the deaths of 110 wolves in New Mexico and Arizona, according to data obtained by SFR through a federal Freedom of Information Act request. Since 1998, 43 were illegally shot and killed; two additional wolves may also have been shot.
Killing a Mexican gray wolf violates the Endangered Species Act and can result in $50,000 in criminal penalties, a year in jail, and/or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.
But the vast majority of the killings remain unsolved. And in 15 years, the federal government has pursued prosecution in the illegal killings of just four Mexican gray wolves.
The outcomes of those cases hardly inspire confidence that violations of the Endangered Species Act are taken seriously. In 1998, two individuals pled guilty to killing a female wolf in New Mexico. They forfeited two rifles; their combined sentences consisted of four months in jail, six months of home confinement, six years with no firearms, six years of probation and 410 hours of community service. In 2008, after pleading guilty to killing a male wolf in New Mexico, a shooter was sentenced to one year of probation, forfeited his firearms and was fined $10. Two years later, the federal government prosecuted two more cases, both in New Mexico.
One shooter was ordered to pay a $285 fine and $4,095 in restitution; the second was ordered to pay $275 in court costs and $1,000 in restitution.
None of those fines (or sentences) approach those laid out under the Endangered Species Act. And it’s clear that Mexican gray wolves are worth more than $10, $275 or even $4,000. I’m not referring to the intrinsic right of a species to exist on this planet, or the incalculable worth of a predator to a healthy ecosystem. Nope. I’m actually being crass and capitalistic about the price tag that hangs around the neck of each Mexican gray wolf in the southwestern US.
At the end of 2012, FWS announced it had documented 75 wild Mexican gray wolves within the recovery area. Over more than three decades, taxpayers have footed the $25 million price tag for the wolf recovery program. That means each of the wolves out in the wild right now is worth more than $333,000.
And that’s an investment worth protecting.






Well you have to bear in mind they were never really endangered. It was just an experiment to see how it would work out. Looks like not so great.
Up in Alaska and Canada there are tons of wolves, so many they try to get rid of them all the time. That's probably a good place to go get some or play with them or whatever you want to do.
Som Sai. The fact that the Mexican gray wolf was designated as nonessential experimental does not mean that they are not endangered. They received this designation as an exception to the endangered species act. This exception is, in retrospect and in my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes of the recovery plan. But to be clear, The Mexican gray wolf is the most endangered mammal in North America and THE most endangered wolf in the world.
The livestock industry and their federal sidekick, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Wildlife Services," frequently assign livestock deaths to wolves when there's little to no proof. I am completely skeptical about these exaggerated livestock-death claims, and so should the agency charged with protecting Mexican wolves, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, be too. We're all getting fleeced by manufactured baloney.
Considering the Mexican Gray Wolf is a distinct subspecies, there are not "tons of wolves" in New Mexico. To quote from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website on the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program…"The Mexican gray wolf is the smallest, souther-most occuring, rarest, and most genetically distinct subspecies of gray wolf in North America." Doesn't sound like "tons" to me.
But more importantly, why the intense wringing of hands and tearing of garments over the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf? To hear those that are anti-wolf/pro-cattle talk, if wolves were wiped off the face of the earth, then it would be all buttercups and roses for the cattle industry.
Unfortunately, the facts and the truth are quite different…according to the last report from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)…wolves account for less cattle losses than almost every other predator (only 3.7% of the total cattle lost to predators. Only bears kill less.)
Respiratory problems, Digestive problems, Calving problems, Weather related, Unknown non-predator, Other non-predator, Other diseases, Lameness/injury, Coyotes, Mastitis, Metabolic problems, Poisoning, Dogs, Mountain lions and bobcats, Theft, Other predators and Vultures INDIVIDUALLY CAUSE MORE CATTLE DEATHS THAN WOLVES!
So why the relentless war against wolves? Anyone have a good answer for that now you know the truth?
You have to love media spin, the vast number of wolves were not removed because they posed a threat to livestock. They were removed due to documented and chronic livestock killing that would not be stopped by any other means. Also, I have to point out the program has not followed through on it's rule, theys topped removing Mexican wolves for livestock killings almost completely since 2008. The one female was removed out of a pack with several chronic confirmed kills that is all in 5 years, that doesn't mean no livestock have been killed or livestock have merely been threatened it means ranchers are loosing livestock, FWS are letting wolves kill livestock that is privately owned it is being confirmed and not being compensated for and ranchers are being forced to bear this burden. Delist them now before we loose more industry and jobs in this state.
@Janice: Repeating preconceived prejudices and wild speculation not based on reality in an attempt to inflame the public does nothing to add to this conversation.
I assume you have read the Cattle Mortality Report from the USDA? (http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf) Fascinating reading. Read it before you go spreading any more falsehoods. Reality is always better than fantasy.
It shows wolves accounting for less cattle losses than almost every other predator, (A tiny 3.7% of the total cattle lost to predators. Only bears kill less.) And mortality by predator can't hold a candle to death by respiratory problems. 1,055,000 cattle and calves in 2010. Wolves? A mere 8,100. (More cattle die by poisoning than wolves…36,100 head in 2010.) For things that kill cattle, wolves are a tiny, insignificant blip. (Of course, if you just like killing without reason or justification, there is no need to read further.)
But assuming you are open to the facts, how can you possibly consider wolves to be a threat to the cattle industry with numbers like that? Are you are in the cattle industry? If you are, then be honest with yourself. You know you have a lot more serious issues to deal with than wolves.
The cattle industry is stressed by drought, destruction of habitat, young folks finding it too expensive to get into the business, pasture prices skyrocketing, ranchers selling out to real estate development, and the consumption of beef declining every year since 2002. I got this from reading forums on cattle growers websites. No one is talking about wolves. Why are you?
And concerning non-compensation for cattle losses due to wolves: In 1987, Defenders of Wildlife created a fund to compensate ranchers in the U.S. Northern Rockies for verified livestock losses to wolves, and in 1996 the compensation fund was formally extended to cover losses in the Southwestern U.S. As of September 2008, Defenders of Wildlife has voluntarily contributed more than $1,128,000 in compensation for livestock losses to wolves nationwide, and $106,142 in the Southwest. Defenders has paid for more than 90% of all verified livestock losses. (http://www.defenders.org/living-wildlife/defenders-action-working-ranchers)
Why destroy a species of animal whose elimination won't stop the inevitable demise of the cattle industry one bit?
Why not work with those that are concerned about a healthy, vibrant environment? The wolves are a part of that environment. Study after study shows how they help maintain a balance in nature that is all too often missing as a result of the hand of man.
Work with the environment, not against it, Janice.