ABQjournal: Around New Mexico

[A] necropsy on the alpha male of the Iris Pack, found dead in May along U.S. 60 near Vernon, Ariz., shows he was shot.

Killing a Mexican gray wolf is an Endangered Species Act violation punishable by a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and one year in jail and/or a civil fine of up to $25,000.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups are offering up to $46,000 in rewards for information leading to the conviction of the killer.

To pass on information, call the service in Albuquerque at 346-7828 or the New Mexico Game and Fish Department at (800) 432-4263.

ABQjournal: Draft Redo May Open Last Carson Forest Acres By Adam Rankin, Journal Staff Writer

A redone draft environmental review that could open the last 2,500 acres of the Carson National Forest’s Jicarilla Ranger District to energy development is expected to be released for public comment in late September, according to a forest official.

The review was originally released in the fall of 2003 but was retracted after severe criticism from energy companies and Governor Bill Richardson over proposed drilling restrictions in some areas that were already leased and that would have cut state and company revenues. …

About 98 percent of the 153,000-acre district has already been leased to energy companies. Many of the leases were acquired before more rigorous environmental standards, implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. About 700 wells are already producing natural gas, many of which were drilled from the 1940s through the 1960s, according to Catron.

An energy review, forecasting the anticipated expansion in the San Juan Basin over the next two decades, suggested that the Jicarilla could see another 700 to 800 new wells drilled in that time. …

The area is considered critical wintering habitat for migratory deer and elk, and provides habitat for federal protected spotted owls, goshawks and wild horses. It also features more than 14,400 archaeological sites.

Environmental advocates are concerned that projected increases in drilling and road densities could damage archaeological sites and degrade wildlife habitat, turning the district into a sacrificial zone for oil and gas development.

KRQE News 13 – Domenici asks EPA to lower arsenic standards

US Senator Pete Domenici has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider new standards for arsenic in water.

reviewjournal.com — News: Despite ruling, DOE says Yucca work will continue

Domenici said he is concerned the ruling could derail the growth of nuclear power as an energy source for U.S. consumers. He said most scientists believe it is unrealistic to model the repository’s performance for hundreds of thousands of years, longer than there has been civilization on the planet.

“I hate to make it sound ominous, but something terribly wrong has been done here and we must fix it,” he said of the court decision.

Domenici said he was contemplating legislation to overrule the court and allow the 10,000 year health standard to remain intact.

Environment News Service ENS Latest Environmental Information Education Current Issues RSS

Domenici Aims to Streamline Oil and Gas Permits
WASHINGTON, DC, March 3, 2003 (ENS) – Senate Energy and Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici plans to file an energy bill this spring that will streamline the federal rules and regulations that govern the permit process for oil and gas development on public lands.

EPA Blocked From Human Pesticide Studies – New York Times

The Senate voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that intentionally expose people to pesticides when considering permits for pest killers.

By a 60-37 vote, the Senate approved a provision from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would block the EPA from relying on such testing — including 24 human pesticide experiments currently under review — as it approves or denies pesticide applications.

The Bush administration lifted a partial moratorium imposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration on using human testing for pesticide approvals. Under the change, political appointees are refereeing on a case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing. …

Ordinarily, approval by both the House and Senate would ensure the language is retained in the final version of the bill. But GOP floor manager Conrad Burns, R-Mont., opposed Boxer’s amendment, and as the lead Senate negotiator on the bill he is well-positioned to kill it in future talks with the House.

Burns countered with an amendment, adopted 57-40, allowing human testing to continue but instructing the EPA to study if it’s being conducted ethically and whether the benefits outweigh the risks to volunteers. …

[One example is] a pesticide study in Florida. Over the study’s two years, EPA had planned to give $970 plus a camcorder and children’s clothes to each of the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla., in what critics of the study noted was a low-income, minority neighborhood.

In a week’s time, Domenici works hard to lower arsenic standards, nuclear waste standards, public lands exploitation standards, and, was in the extreme minority voting FOR HUMAN TESTING of pesticides (hey, kid, here’s some clothes, now drink this DDT). When did Saint Pete become the devil himself? Right after the power shifted nauseatingly to the Radical Wrong. mjh

[Thanks, James!]

I was out of town when this article appeared on 6/12. It has some very important FACTS about the reintroduction of wolves to the southwest. mjh

ABQjournal: Ranchers, Environmentalists Agree It’s Time for a Change for Grey Wolf By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

State and federal biologists who worked on the five-year review said wolves should be allowed to set up territories outside the current program boundaries, something they can’t do today.

As part of an earlier program review in 2001, an independent team of scientists also recommended scrapping the boundary rule. It also recommended that ranchers take some responsibility for cattle carcasses that can attract wolves, and that wolves be released directly into the Gila Wilderness.

Current rules allow only wolves that have been released in Arizona and then been recaptured to be let loose in New Mexico.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has not moved forward on any of the significant changes recommended by the scientists, but it has proposed some restrictions on wolf releases at the request of ranchers. …

Ranchers say slowing down releases would give the program time to get a better handle on the number of wolves in the wild.

Ranchers believe there are 100 or more wolves in the wild, while the program estimates the population at 51-56, plus an unknown number of pups born this spring. …

The Industrial Economics study for the first time compiles numbers on livestock depredations from the government and from the ranchers. The researchers concluded that anywhere from 37 to 245 cattle, sheep, horses and dogs were killed by wolves in New Mexico and Arizona from 1998 to 2004.

Based on those numbers, the economic impact to ranchers was $38,650 to $206,290, including the market value of the animals killed, the costs of injuries from wolf attacks and the value of the 10 hours or so it takes to prepare each claim for compensation, according to the report.

Pay close attention to the figures in the previous two paragraphs. Over a period of 7 years, *all* animals killed by wolves average in a range from just over 5 animals / $5,500 per year to 35 animals / $29,470 per year (somewhere between one animal every other month to 3 per month — these are *all* animals, not just cattle). Below, you will note that (1) up to 34,800 cows have grazed in that time and (2) Defenders of Wildlife has paid ranchers $33,000 in that same period.

The FACTS show the ranchers are greatly misrepresenting the impact of the wolf. mjh

But the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife, which pays the compensation for lost animals, said all ranchers must do is send in a report prepared by the government and sometimes make a call to report the death.

“They have to put an envelope in the mail,” said Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife in Tucson.

Defenders of Wildlife has paid Southwest ranchers more than $33,000 in compensation since 1998.

Even using the high estimate of losses provided by ranchers, wolves killed only about a quarter of 1 percent of the 34,800 cattle in the area in 2002? the year with the most depredations.

But Schneberger said there are a lot fewer than 34,800 cattle in the area now, so the percentage killed by wolves is larger.

An average of 4 percent of the cattle in the area died from causes other than slaughter in 1997, the year before the wolf program began, according to the report. …

Defenders of Wildlife helps ranchers pay for extra riders, fencing and other measures. …

The fund has helped pay for six projects this year. … Still, Miller said the fund is underused. …

The wolf program also has benefits, researchers say. There is a public “non-use value” or intrinsic value in preserving the Mexican wolf that is hard to measure, according to the socioeconomic study.

Federal and state government spending on the wolf program totals about $1.5 million a year, with a benefit of 31 jobs, according to the study. Although not all that money nor all the jobs are in the recovery area itself, there is spending and staff based among the wolves.

The chance to see wolves has attracted some tourists to the area, a trend that is expected to increase as the wolf population grows.

There also are ecological benefits, as demonstrated by wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Wolves there reduced elk populations that had been overgrazing riparian vegetation. That change, in turn, benefited beavers, bears, foxes and birds.

No similar ecological research has been done in the Southwest, but Robinson said it’s reasonable to assume wolves have started “sharpening the wits of prey species.”

ABQjournal: Mexican Gray’s Presence in Wild Challenged By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

Mexican gray wolf reintroduction in the Southwest is required by the federal Endangered Species Act.

There are close to 300 of the endangered wolves at 47 captive facilities in the United States and Mexico. But the only Mexican gray wolves in the wild in the United States are part of the Southwestern reintroduction effort. [mjh: about 55 in the wild]

ABQjournal: Wolves Aren’t So Big Or Bad By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

In the past 100 years, there have been fewer than 30 documented attacks by wild wolves on humans in North America. Only two people died? Inuits in Alaska who contracted rabies from wolf bites in the 1940s, according to reports compiled by scientists.

By comparison, domestic dogs bite 1 million people and kill 16 to 18 people every year in the United States.

Other wild animals pose a greater danger than wolves. There are an estimated 25 black bear attacks a year in North America, with one fatal attack every three years. Between 1981 and 2000, there were 43 attacks by mountain lions, eight of them fatal. Venomous snakes bite 8,000 Americans a year.

Those numbers come from “The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans,” a 2002 scientific report published by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, a network of groups and experts working toward wild carnivore populations that coexist with people.

“It is now widely accepted by biologists that healthy, wild wolves present little threat to people,” Mark McNay wrote in his 2002 report, “A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada.” …

There are approximately 50 wild wolves in southwest New Mexico and southeast Arizona as part of a government reintroduction program to restore the endangered Mexican gray wolf.

Minnesota has 3,000 wild wolves, half of them in areas where people live but has had only two wolf attacks in memory or documented, said L. David Mech, a noted wolf biologist and founder of the International Wolf Center in Minnesota.

Neither of those people was injured, and there were extenuating circumstances in each case? in one, a hunter was wearing a jacket covered in buck scent in 1982 and in the other, a wolf jumped at a dog that was held in a logger’s arms in 1970. …

In the seven years since they were released in the Southwest, no Mexican gray wolves have attacked people, Morgart added.

“It’s just a matter of time,” said Fred Galley, an Albuquerque resident who owns the Rainy Mesa Ranch east of Reserve. …

Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife, which compensates ranchers for losses and works with them to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts, said the recent animosity is inhibiting the potential for cooperation.

“There is a coordinated exaggeration to try to capture the political attention because some of the cowboys think they’ll be able to kill the program,” Miller added.

If that’s the case, it’s working. Gov. Bill Richardson has appointed a task force to look into several concerns rural residents have about wolves, including public safety. It will meet for the first time Wednesday in Reserve. …

“The danger has to be put in perspective,” added Michael Robinson, a resident of Pinos Altos and representative of the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s no reason to be more paranoid about wolves than any other wild animals.”

The abqjournal published 12 letters today, 6 for and 6 against wolves. I hope you noted that 4 of the 6 opposed came from outside New Mexico, while all 6 “pro” came from inside the state. mjh

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor

Why is it that public land ranchers — who only exist because of the welfare prices we charge them to use our lands — don’t have to get insurance like any other business to cover such losses? Should it really be up to the taxpayers to make our public lands safe for their profits? They are even being paid for their losses, but that is not enough. They want every last wolf dead and at our expense. Shame on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for using public money to kill public wildlife for them.
MICHAEL SAUBER
Silver City

THERE ARE RANCHERS with a predilection for exaggeration, making it difficult to separate fact from fiction. One recently remarked she thought there could be as many as 100 wolves in the wild. That defies common sense considering the number of alpha wolves that have been killed and the number of litters that did not survive due to stressed-out parents.

Others have accused wolves of “stalking.” There is no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the wolves, like domestic canines they are intelligent and curious.

Cattle were designed for grasslands not for navigating rocky, mountainous environs. At least 96 percent of deaths are due to natural causes, not predators. Cattle die of inclement weather, lightning strikes, birthing complications, falls and toxic plants.

It is the wolves that are disadvantaged when ranchers leave carcasses to bait them so they can then cry “wolf!” It is difficult to remain tolerant and respectful of an industry that has been so coddled, that has enjoyed the privilege of grazing non-native animals on public land, often to its detriment. …
SHARON MORGAN
Silver City

The last wolves in this area were killed in the 1880s. When the wolf comes again, it will hit the cattlemen. The wolf is simply another tool used by the eco-preservationists to drive people off their land, into the arms of the Nature Conservancy and other willing buyers actively courting the willing sellers. …

If wolf supporters and others of their philosophical bent have their way, private property will be an anachronism and we will all be living on the globalist eco-plantation. Everything we had or have in America has been or is being “outsourced” to Red China including the philosophy of those who rule.
L.M. SCHWARTZ
McDowell, Va.

The wolf is the species of choice to foster the expansion of wilderness and the Wildlands Project which is counter-productive to a healthy America that must clothe and feed itself as well as many other counties of the world.

The project is dependent on programs? such as the Mexican wolf reintroduction? that operate under the radar screen from the American public. This agenda is further shielded by the liberal media. It’s time to expose the stupidity of these wasteful and extreme environmentalist dreams and put them to rest.
JIM ARBOGAST
Anaheim, Calif.

ABQjournal: Wolf Supporters Speak Out By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

Wolves have a place in the wild, and ranchers must find ways to live with them, supporters of the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program said at a public meeting Saturday in Albuquerque.

“If you’re going to graze on public lands, you’re going to do it at your own risk,” said Oscar Simpson, New Mexico Wildlife Federation president.

He and Dave Foreman, an Albuquerque resident and director of The Rewilding Institute, said the government should buy out the grazing leases of ranchers who don’t want to continue running livestock on public lands where there are wolves.

“This comes down to a philosophical debate that’s not resolvable between those of us who love the wolf and those who hate the wolf,” Foreman said.

The tone of the meeting was far different from that in Reserve on Wednesday night when dozens of ranchers blasted the wolf reintroduction program. On Saturday, many in the audience were sporting wolf T-shirts and “More Wolves, Less Politics” buttons.

About 60 people turned out for the 21/2-hour meeting, the last of four held around New Mexico last week to discuss proposed new rules and a recent review of the wolf reintroduction effort.
=====

alibi . june 30 – july 6, 2005
The Joys of Wolf Music
Hearings provide great free entertainment
By Jim Scarantino

Then there’s the “true fact” that wolves kill the high number of cattle that ranchers claim at these hearings.

Defenders of Wildlife has long had a program that compensates ranchers at generous rates for any cattle lost to “depredation,” meaning wolves mixed a little hamburger into their diet of deer, elk and rabbits. It’s easy money, with one catch: The cow must actually have been killed by a wolf. Losing a cow in a million acres of wilderness to a mountain lion, poacher, broken leg, disease, starvation or dehydration doesn’t count. That little snag explains why the stories about steak-loving wolves are always impressive at the hearings, where excitement counts more than truth.

Though ranchers have set the anti-wolf agenda for Catron County and other rural areas, ranching makes only a small, perhaps even an insignificant, contribution to New Mexico’s overall economic picture. Most of the jobs in Catron County, like the rest of the state, are in the growing service sector. The county’s greatest employer is government–schools and highway workers, and the feds at the Forest Service and National Park Service.

You won’t find a beef packing plant in Catron County, but you can find enterprises producing New Age health and beauty products and increasingly more artists and retirees. You can also find new bed and breakfasts, outfitters and restaurants catering to the thousands of visitors coming to Catron County to enjoy the beauty of the federally protected Gila Wilderness. Some of those people actually come looking for–gasp–wolves.

There will probably be more wolf hearings in the future. With no disrespect to the New Mexico Legislature, it’s some of the best free entertainment in New Mexico.

So if you hanker for tall tales, manly lingo and a taste of disappearing cowboy culture, check one out. Be sure to press your jeans and wear a cowboy hat. But best leave that UNM Lobos T-shirt at home. And then sneak out at night in hopes of something far better: the hair-raising wolf music that even ranchers will admit is worth hearing at least once in a lifetime.

Merri and I had that experience of a lifetime in central Idaho on the edge of the Frank Church Wilderness. Awesome. (But I love the more common collective cacophony of coyotes, too.)

Just this week, a friend wrote to say she was lucky enough to hear the wolves in the San Mateos before they were captured. The wolves want to be there.

Let freedom howl. mjh

ABQjournal: Colo. Company Wants to Drill, but Locals Say Mining Would Hurt Area Resources By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer
[mjh: this is a long excerpt from a long article — both are worth your time.]

MONTICELLO BOX — Ribbons of water meander across the narrow valley floor, joining Alamosa Creek and flowing between towering volcanic cliffs and into the Monticello Valley.

The water is so clean Joshua Cravens scoops it up to drink from his hands and, without a thought, munches on wild watercress growing along the bank.

The complex of perennial springs that feeds the creek in this remote corner of southwest New Mexico is at the center of a debate over proposed mining exploration.

A Colorado company wants to drill on a nearby ranch in search of bertrandite that could be mined for beryllium, a rare metallic element used in everything from nuclear reactors to golf clubs.

Farmers and ranchers in the area are worried the drilling could pollute or diminish the flow of water they rely on to irrigate their orchards and fields. They also have raised concerns for three rare species and archaeological resources found around the springs.

“This affects a community,” said Cravens, who grows produce and rare seeds on an organic farm near Monticello. “We cannot let it happen.”

State officials also have raised concerns about impacts drilling could have on Alamosa Creek. …

Great Western Exploration LLC of Windsor, Colo., … has applied for a “minimal impact” permit to drill five 2,000-foot-deep exploratory holes and test the core samples for bertrandite ore. …

Earlier this year, Great Western applied to the state for a permit to drill 30 6-inch diameter holes in the same area. The request was turned down in April because concerns raised by state environment and wildlife officials about water contamination and rare species meant it did not qualify for a minimal impact permit.

The company could have reapplied for a regular permit? which requires public notification and greater scrutiny? but changed its proposal to five 4-inch-diameter holes with a closed-loop drilling system to minimize water loss. …

[I]f ground-water flows were disrupted or erosion controls failed, the impact could be “very significant,” the department said.

“The drill holes are likely to intercept near-surface groundwater,” conservation services chief Lisa Kirkparick wrote. “Groundwater connections in this canyon are complex and not thoroughly understood.”

The Environment Department said surface-water flows could be affected but added that direct impacts to ground water are unlikely if the drill holes are properly sealed. …

The exploration holes could contaminate the ground-water supply if they hit beryllium, or could drain water from the aquifer if they punch through a fault in the bedrock, Mackenzie said.

“By drilling 2,000 feet, you’re really playing Russian roulette with what you’re going to hit down there,” he said.

Beryllium? which can be extracted from bertrandite ore? is used as a metal in nuclear weapons and reactors, x-ray machines and space vehicles. As a metal alloy, it is used in cars, computers, dental bridges and golf clubs.

When airborne, beryllium dust can cause lung damage, lung cancer and other health problems, especially to workers and people living near mines, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

There is not much research available on its effects in water. Some beryllium compounds dissolve but others stick to particles and settle.

“The research that is there says don’t mess with it,” Cravens said.

If Great Western finds high-quality ore that is economically recoverable, it or another company could apply for a mining permit. …

Great Western has active exploration permits for two other locations nearby in Sierra County; one is for 14 holes and one for 10. …

At the top of a low hill near the springs, a collection of stones and small shards of flaked stone mark an old Indian site. Similar sites are scattered across the area, and the adobe ruins of Fort Harmony are visible across the valley.

A state archaeologist has said it’s possible there are unmarked burials in the area where the drilling is planned.

Harlyn Geronimo, great-grandson of Chiricahua Apache leader Geronimo, said the springs and surrounding area are spiritually important to his people and were used by his great-grandfather as a place of prayer.

“That’s ancestral land,” he said in a telephone interview from his home in Mescalero. “Those places are very sacred to us. … How would they like it if we go into their church and start disturbing their church?”

Geronimo said he is worried about water contamination as well.

The warm springs and Alamosa Creek also are important to animals. They support the only known population of the Alamosa springsnail, one of two known populations of the ovate vertigo snail and the best remaining habitat in New Mexico for the Chiricahua leopard frog. All three are listed by the state or federal government as threatened or endangered species.

I had never heard of New Mexico’s Monticello Box until Merri and I stumbled upon it less than a year ago. It is a magical, unexpected place I hesitate to mention because being overrun with visitors ruins a spot. But not like mining does — so go there, while you can, before it is destroyed by greed.

Note the disingenuity of applying for fewer exploratory holes so as to try to escape some scrutiny. And the whole, hey, we’re only looking charade — when something is found, then the true destruction can begin.

A lot of people are very upset over the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain; many defend personal property rights over all others. But this mine is clearly against the public good. Go see for yourself. mjh

mjh’s slides: the Monticello Box in New Mexico

A personal note from an area resident, Mary Katherine Ray (I added the bold and italics):

Brace yourself, the area at the mouth of the box is in the permit process for a proposed open pit Beryllium mine. Yes, let us dewater the box, have a giant tailings pile to silt in what is left and spread beryllium ore dust all over. Let us have truck traffic and blasting and despoil what is today a magnificent place. All to enrich a single private land owner and the mining company that leases from him. If you are shuddering in horror at this point, that is entirely appropriate. …

As far as I know, the Alamosa River is the only perennially flowing stream in the entire San Mateo mountains. The water and land around the springs belongs to the Monticello Ditch Association, but the road through there is a county road and public use is allowed. The ditch association is actually a 150 year old acequia that today comprises about 30 farms downstream that depend on the water. The proposed mine site is on private land that starts about a third of a mile to the south of the box. Open pit mines are notorious for dewatering an area. Hydrology reports show ground water at only 50 feet. Once that gets punched through, it begins to drain away into the pit. There is another layer of ground water at 500 feet and somehow that gets mixed with deep geothermally hot water to come out warm. The ore that is present is Bertrandite. The deposit initially is appearing big enough and rich enough to be worth millions. Beryllium has become a strategic metal used in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. It is also used in many electronic devices because it is lightweight and strong and an excellent conductor. I don’t know how toxic the mineral is, but the metal dust and many of its salts are deadly. There is a concern that ore dust might be problematic.

So I’m wondering if you might write a letter to the director of NM Minerals and Mining to protest the permitting of the mine including the exploratory core samples. (they are asking to drill several 2000 foot deep cores prior to starting the pit. Tourism is important in NM. … Here is the address:

Bill Brancard, Director (email: bbrancard@state.nm.us)
Mining and Minerals Division
1220 South Saint Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505

mjh’s slides: the Monticello Box in New Mexico