While everybody is breathing a sigh of relief over the wolves being de-listed up north, USF&W is ramping up to really put the chingus to us here in NM and AZ.

USF&WS proposes to move the mexican wolf from "experimental" status and put it on the endangered species list.

A couple of things I noticed in a quick glance through this:
1. Expands wolf range to include all of NM south of I 40.
2. It will severely limit trapping in NM south of I - 40. Outright ban on snares S of I 40.
3. Has provisions allowing the Feds to manage all the land in NM south of I 40. Includes private, state, tribal land where wolves "could" live.

Given the outright lies perpetrated by the USF&WS surrounding every aspect of the mexican wolf, everybody better cinch up tight and prepare a comment before this thing becomes law.

Oh yeah, looks like USF&W is afraid of TX. They have removed a portion of W TX from the wolf recovery area.

Here's the text in it's entirety.

1
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056]
[FXES11130900000C2-134-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AY46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revision to the
Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise the
existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf (Canis
lupus baileyi) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
This action is being taken in coordination with our proposed rule in today’s Federal
2
Register to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf
(Canis lupus). The proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and
delist the gray wolf species necessitates that we revise the nonessential experimental
population designation of Mexican wolves in order to correctly associate this designation
with the properly listed entity. In addition, we are proposing several revisions to the
section 10(j) rule. We are seeking comment from the public on the proposed revisions
and on additional possible modifications that we may analyze and incorporate into our
final determination.
DATES: We will accept comments received on or before [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION]. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before any such hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056, which is the docket
3
number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment
Now!”
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We
will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will
post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section
below for more information). To increase our efficiency in downloading comments,
groups providing mass submissions should submit their comments in an Excel file.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mexican Wolf Recovery Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105
Osuna Road, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505–761–4704; or by facsimile
505–346–2542. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Why we need to publish a rule. This rule is being proposed for two reasons: (1) To
ensure this nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves will be associated
with the Mexican wolf subspecies listing, if finalized, rather than with the listing of the
gray wolf at the species level; and (2) to allow for public comment on our proposed
revisions and modifications to the 1998 final rule that established a Mexican wolf
nonessential experimental population (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998) (1998 Final Rule)
(Figure 1).
In our 1998 Final Rule, we established two recovery areas (the Blue Range Wolf
Recovery Area [BRWRA] and the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area) within the
Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area [MWEPA]. We established primary
recovery zones within each of these recovery areas where initial releases of Mexican
wolves would occur, while dispersal and translocations were allowed throughout the
recovery areas. We also established provisions to remove Mexican wolves that occupied
territories that were wholly outside of the recovery areas, or wolves that depredated on
livestock outside of the recovery areas. Since 1998, we have only released Mexican
wolves into the BRWRA; we have not utilized the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area. On
tribal lands within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area, we established
provisions where the Service in cooperation with tribal government would develop
management actions, including the capture and removal of Mexican wolves, if requested
by the tribe. In 2000, the White Mountain Apache Tribe agreed to allow free-ranging
Mexican wolves to inhabit the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, in accordance with this
5
provision of the Final Rule. We recognize that continued occupancy of Mexican wolves
on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is dependent upon tribal agreement.
Figure 1—Geographic Boundaries for the Mexican Wolf under the 1998 Final Section
10(j) Rule.
This proposal is necessitated by a related action we are taking to propose the
reclassification of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as an endangered subspecies
and delist the gray wolf species (Canis lupus). The Mexican wolf has been listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) under a
6
species-wide gray wolf listing since 1978; therefore, when we designated the Mexican
wolf nonessential experimental population in 1998 (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998), it
corresponded to the gray wolf listing in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) even
though it was specific to our Mexican wolf recovery effort. With the proposed removal
of the gray wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and classification
of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies, we recognize the need to revise 50
CFR 17.11(h) such that the nonessential population will be associated with the Mexican
wolf subspecies listing rather than with the gray wolf species.
In order to improve implementation and conservation, we are proposing several
changes to the section 10(j) rule and management regulations of the Mexican wolves.
The basis for our action. The 1982 amendments to the Act included the addition
of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed
species as “experimental populations.” Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations
at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a population
of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural
habitat outside the species’ current natural range (but within its probable historical range,
absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary
habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed). With the
experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for
purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its
range. Treating the experimental population as threatened allows us the discretion to
7
devise management programs and special regulations for such a population. Section 4(d)
of the Act allows us to adopt any regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of a threatened species. When designating an experimental
population, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened
species do not apply to that species, and the section 10(j) rule contains the prohibitions
and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.
We are preparing an environmental impact statement. We are preparing a
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). To ensure that we consider the
environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule, we are preparing a draft EIS to
analyze the proposed nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves. From
October through December 2007, we conducted a public scoping process under NEPA
based on our intent to modify the 1998 Final Rule. We developed a scoping report in
April 2008, but we did not propose or finalize any modifications to the 1998 Final Rule at
that time. We will utilize all information collected since that scoping process began in
the development of a draft EIS. We will use information from this analysis to inform our
final decision.
We will seek peer review. We will obtain opinions from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise on our technical assumptions, analysis, adherence to
regulations, and whether or not we used the best available information. These peer
reviewers will analyze our methods and conclusions and provide additional information,
8
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final determination. Because we will
consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
We are seeking public comments on this proposed rule. We are particularly
interested in public comments on a number of specific issues we are proposing, and on
other options being considered that are not included in today’s proposed rule. We may
include any of the modifications discussed in this proposed rule in our final
determination. We particularly seek comments and information concerning the following
revisions being proposed in today’s action:
(1) Expanding the area for direct initial release of captive-raised Mexican wolves
to include the entire BRWRA, thereby eliminating the primary and secondary recovery
zones of the BRWRA (Figure 2).
Figure 2 —Revised Geographic Boundaries for the Mexican Wolf Nonessential
Experimental Population Area.
9
(2) Allowing Mexican wolves to disperse naturally from the BRWRA into the
Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) and occupy the MWEPA
without the requirement to bring them back into the BRWRA (Figure 2).
(3) Removing the portion of west Texas lying north of US Highway 62/180 to the
Texas–New Mexico boundary from the MWEPA (Figure 2).
(4) Removing reference to possible reintroduction of Mexican wolves to the
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (Figure 2).
10
(5) Developing and implementing management actions on private land within the
MWEPA by the Service or an authorized agency to benefit Mexican wolf recovery in
voluntary cooperation with private landowners, including but not limited to initial
release, proactive measures to prevent conflicts, and translocation of wolves if requested
by the landowner.
(6) Developing and implementing management actions on tribal land within the
MWEPA by the Service or an authorized agency in voluntary cooperation with tribal
governments including but not limited to initial release, translocation, proactive measures
to prevent conflicts, capture, and removal of Mexican wolves if requested by the tribal
government.
(7) Identifying section 6 of the Act as authorizing language for take pursuant to
50 CFR 17.31 for State wildlife agencies with authority to manage Mexican wolves under
the nonessential experimental population rule.
(8) Clarifying that an individual can be authorized to take Mexican wolves under
specific circumstances.
(9) Clarifying allowable take for Federal agencies and authorized personnel.
(10) Revising the conditions that determine when we would issue a permit to
livestock owners or their agents to allow take of Mexican wolves that are engaged in the
11
act of killing, wounding or biting livestock on public lands allotted for grazing from “6
breeding pairs” to “100 Mexican wolves” to be consistent with our population objective
of establishing a population of at least 100 wolves.
(11) Modifying the prohibitions for take such that taking a Mexican wolf with a
trap, snare, or other type of capture device within occupied Mexican wolf range is
prohibited and will not be considered unavoidable or unintentional take, unless due care
was exercised to avoid injury or death to a Mexican wolf. Due care includes: (1)
Following the regulations, proclamations, and/or laws within the State where the trapping
takes place; (2) if securely fastening traps, use double stake traps, cable stakes (at least 18
inches (in) (46 centimeters (cm)) deep) or otherwise securely fasten traps to immovable
objects with aircraft cable or chain so that if captured, a Mexican wolf is unable to pull
the trap free; (3) if using drags, use one of sufficient size and weight or grapples made
from steel at least 0.5 in (1.3 cm) in diameter of cross section attached to chains or cables
; (4) reporting the capture of a Mexican wolf (even if the wolf has pulled free) within 24
hours to the Service; and (5) not taking a Mexican wolf via neck snares.
Trappers can call the Interagency Field Team (IFT) (1–888–459–WOLF [9653])
as soon as possible to arrange for radio-collaring and releasing of the Mexican wolf. Per
State regulations for releasing nontarget animals, trappers may also choose to release the
animal alive and subsequently contact the Service or IFT. Taking a Mexican wolf by
shooting will not be considered unavoidable or unintentional take.
12
(12) Establishing a new provision to conduct a one-time overall evaluation of the
nonessential experimental population 5 years after our final determination on this rule.
We will still conduct a status review of the listed species once every 5 years as required
by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.
(13) Clarifying that the Service will consider State-owned lands within the
boundaries of the MWEPA in the same manner as we consider lands owned and managed
by other public land management agencies.
We are also taking comments on the following options being considered for
possible inclusion in the final rule, but not proposed in today’s action:
(14) Moving the southern boundary of the MWEPA in Arizona and New Mexico
from Interstate Highway 10 to the United States–Mexico international border (Figure 3).
Figure 3—Geographic Boundaries for the Mexican Wolf Explored in Questions within
this Proposed Rule. (The geographic boundaries being considered for possible inclusion
in the final rule include expansion of the BRWRA to include any or all of the ranger
districts of the Sitgreaves National Forest (labeled as 1 in the map), three of the ranger
districts within the Tonto National Forest (labeled as 2 in the map), one ranger district
within the Cibola National Forest (labeled as 3 in the map), and expansion of the
MWEPA boundary from I–10 south across Arizona and New Mexico to the United
States–Mexico international border.)
13
(15) Expanding the BRWRA to include the entire Sitgreaves National Forest in
Arizona;
(16) Expanding the BRWRA to include the Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto
Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona (Figure 3).
(17) Expanding the BRWRA to include the Magdalena Ranger District of the
Cibola National Forest in New Mexico (Figure 3).
14
(18) Replacing the term “depredation” with the term “depredation incident” and
defining it as, “the aggregate number of livestock killed or mortally wounded by an
individual Mexican wolf or single pack of Mexican wolves at a single location within one
24-hour period, beginning with the first confirmed kill or injury.”
(19) Including provisions for take by pet owners of any Mexican wolf engaged in
the act of killing, wounding, or biting pets on private or tribal land anywhere within the
MWEPA, provided that evidence of a freshly wounded or killed pet by wolves is present.
The take must be reported to the Service’s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator or a
designated representative of the Service within 24 hours.
(20) Including provisions for the issuance of permits on private or tribal land
anywhere within the MWEPA to allow livestock owners or their agents to take (including
kill or injure) any Mexican wolf that is present on private or tribal land and what
conditions must be met before such a permit is issued, such as a minimum population size
or population trend of Mexican wolves present in the MWEPA or other established
populations based on the most recently reported population count; other relevant
measures of population status such as genetic diversity; documentation by the Service or
our authorized agent of previous loss or injury of livestock on the private or tribal land,
caused by wolves; implementation of agency efforts to resolve the problem and
determination that conflict is likely to continue; and enactment of this provision by a
formal statement from the Service.
15
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not
be considered in making a determination.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send
comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the
website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this
information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on
the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as
16
possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned
governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested
parties concerning this proposed rule. We request that you make your comments as
specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient
information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial
data you reference or provide.
Previous Federal Actions
The Mexican wolf was listed under the Act as an endangered subspecies in 1976
(41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976). In 1978, the Service listed the entire gray wolf species in
North America south of Canada as endangered, except in Minnesota where it was listed
as threatened (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). This 1978 listing at the species level
subsumed the previous Mexican wolf subspecies listing. However, the 1978 listing rule
(43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) stated that we would continue to recognize the Mexican
wolf as a valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation.
After the 1978 listing, the Service initiated recovery programs for the gray wolf in
three broad geographical regions of the country: the Northern Rocky Mountains, the
Western Great Lakes, and the Southwest. In the Southwest, a recovery plan was
developed specifically for the Mexican wolf, acknowledging and implementing the
regional gray wolf recovery focus on the conservation of the Mexican wolf as a
subspecies (Service 1982). The 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not provide
17
recovery criteria, but recommended an initial two-pronged approach to recovery to
establish a captive-breeding program and reintroduce captive Mexican wolves to the wild
(Service 1982, p. 28).
In 1996, we completed a final EIS, “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within
its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States,” after assessing potential locations
for reintroduction of the Mexican wolf (Service 1996). On April 3, 1997, the Department
of the Interior issued its Record of Decision on the final EIS (62 FR 15915), and on
January 12, 1998, we published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish the
MWEPA in central Arizona and New Mexico, “Establishment of a Nonessential
Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico” (63 FR
1752).
Between 2003 and 2009, the Service published several rules revising the 1978
conterminous listing for the gray wolf in an attempt to recognize recovery progress
achieved in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes populations but
leave the Mexican wolf in the southwestern United States and Mexico listed as
endangered (except for the nonessential experimental population in Arizona and New
Mexico) (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). However, these
revisions were challenged in court, which left the 1978 listing unchanged through 2010
(Service 2012, pp. 3–4).
18
Effective January 27, 2012, the Service designated a Western Great Lakes
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and portions of
adjacent States, and removed this segment from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011). The Service removed the Northern Rocky
Mountain DPS (Montana, Idaho, and portions of adjacent states, not including Wyoming)
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife pursuant to Section 1713 of Public
Law 112–10 on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590), and subsequently removed gray wolves in
Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on September 10, 2012
(77 FR 55530).
On August 4, 2010, we published a 90-day finding on two petitions to list the
Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies with critical habitat (75 FR 46894). In the
90-day finding, we determined that the petitions presented substantial scientific
information that the Mexican wolf may warrant reclassification as a subspecies or DPS.
As a result of this finding, we initiated a status review. On October 9, 2012, we
published our 12-month finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 61375) stating that the
listing of the Mexican wolf as a subspecies or DPS was not warranted at that time
because Mexican wolves already receive the protections of the Act under the specieslevel
gray wolf listing of 1978.
During 2011 and 2012, we conducted a 5-year review of the gray wolf finding
that the entity currently described on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
should be revised to reflect the distribution and status of gray wolf populations in the
19
lower 48 States and Mexico by removing all areas currently included in its range, as
described in the CFR, except where there is a valid species, subspecies, or DPS that is
threatened or endangered (Service 2012).
From October through December 2007, we conducted a public scoping process
under NEPA based on our intent to modify the 1998 Final Rule. We developed a final
scoping report in April 2008, but we did not propose or finalize any modifications to the
1998 Final Rule at that time. We will utilize the information collected during that
scoping process in the development of a draft EIS.
Today, we concurrently proposed a rule in the Federal Register to delist the gray
wolf as a species and list the Mexican wolf subspecies as endangered. The proposal to
list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies necessitates that we propose a revision
to the nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New
Mexico in order to correctly document this population as an experimental population of
the Mexican wolf subspecies rather than the gray wolf species found in the current CFR.
We are also proposing and seeking comment on a number of substantive modifications
and technical corrections to the regulation governing the Mexican wolf nonessential
experimental population designation.
Background
20
Our approach in this proposed rule is to refer to the 1998 Final Rule as necessary
to describe the current situation and the changes we are proposing, and to propose new
language where appropriate at this time.
Species Information
The Mexican wolf is the smallest extant gray wolf subspecies in North America.
Adults weigh 50 to 90 pounds (lb) (23 to 41 kilograms (kg)) with a length of 5 to 6 ft (1.5
to 1.8 m) and height at shoulder of 25 to 32 in (63 to 81 cm) (Brown 1988, p. 119).
Mexican wolves are typically a patchy black, brown to cinnamon, and cream color, with
primarily light underparts (Brown 1988, p. 118). Solid black or white coloration, as seen
in other North American gray wolves, does not exist in Mexican wolves. The basic life
history for the Mexican wolf is similar to that of other gray wolves (Mech 1970, entire;
Service 1982, p. 11; Service 2010, pp. 32–41).
Historically, Mexican wolves were distributed across portions of the southwestern
United States and northern and central Mexico. In the United States, this range included
eastern, central, and southern Arizona; southern New Mexico; and western Texas (Brown
1983, pp. 10–11; Parsons 1996, pp. 102–104). Maps of Mexican wolf historical range
are available in the scientific literature (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and
Kelson, 1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995,
p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). The southernmost extent of the Mexican wolf’s range in
Mexico is consistently portrayed as ending near Oaxaca (Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995,
21
p. 395). Depiction of the northern extent of the Mexican wolf’s pre-settlement range
among the available descriptions varies depending on the authors’ taxonomic treatment
of several subspecies and their interpretation of where reproductive interaction between
neighboring wolf populations occurred (see today’s Federal Register publication of the
Proposed Rule 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).
Mexican wolves were associated with montane woodlands characterized by
sparsely to densely forested mountainous terrain consisting of evergreen oaks (Quercus
spp.) or pinyon (Pinus edulus) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) to higher elevation pine
(Pinus spp.), mixed-conifer forests, and adjacent grasslands at elevations of 4,000 to
5,000 ft (1,219 to 1,524 m) where ungulate prey were abundant. Mexican wolves were
believed to have preyed upon white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O.
hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), collared peccaries (javelina) (Tayassu tajacu),
pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), jackrabbits (Lepus
spp.), cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), and small rodents (Parsons and Nicholopoulos 1995,
pp. 141–142); white-tailed deer and mule deer were believed to be the primary sources of
prey (Brown 1988, p. 132; Bednarz 1988, p. 29).
Today, Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico inhabit evergreen pine-oak
woodlands (i.e., Madrean woodlands), pinyon-juniper woodlands (i.e., Great Basin
conifer forests), and mixed-conifer montane forests (i.e., Rocky Mountain, or petran,
22
forests) that are inhabited by elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer (Service 1996, pp. 3–5;
AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC-3). Mexican wolves in the BRWRA show a strong
preference for elk compared to other ungulates (Adaptive Management Oversight
Committee (AMOC) and Interagency Field Team (IFT) 2005, p. TC-14, Reed et al. 2006,
pp. 56, 61; Merkle et al. 2009, p. 482). Other documented sources of prey include deer
and occasionally small mammals and birds (Reed et al. 2006, p. 55). Mexican wolves are
also known to prey and scavenge on livestock (Merkle et al. 2009, p. 482; Breck et al.
2011, entire; Reed et al. 2006, p. 1129; AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC-15)).
Recovery Efforts
The United States and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in 1982
(Service 1982). The recovery plan did not contain objective and measurable recovery
criteria for delisting as required by section 4(f)(1) of the Act because the status of the
Mexican wolf was so dire that the recovery team could not foresee full recovery and
eventual delisting (Service 1982, p. 23). Instead, the recovery plan contained a “prime
objective” to ensure the immediate survival of the Mexican wolf. The prime objective of
the 1982 recovery plan was: “To conserve and ensure the survival of Canis lupus baileyi
by maintaining a captive breeding program and reestablishing a viable, self-sustaining
population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the middle to high elevations of a 5,000-
square-mi area (12,950-square-km) within the Mexican wolf’s historic range” (Service
1982, p. 23). This objective has since guided the recovery effort for the Mexican wolf in
the United States.
23
A binational captive-breeding program between the United States and Mexico,
referred to as the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP), was initiated in 1977 to
1980 with the capture of the last remaining Mexican wolves in the wild in Mexico and
subsequent addition of wolves from captivity in Mexico and the United States. Through
the breeding of the 7 founding Mexican wolves and generations of their offspring, the
captive population has expanded to its current size of close to 258 wolves in 52 facilities,
including 34 facilities in the United States and 18 facilities in Mexico (as of October 12,
2012) (Siminski and Spevak 2012, p. 2).
The primary purpose of the SSP is to raise Mexican wolves for the Service and
the General del Vida Silvestre (in Mexico) for reintroduction into the wild. This program
is an essential component of Mexican wolf recovery. Specifically, the purpose of the
SSP is to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the wild through captive breeding, public
education, and research. This captive population is the sole source of Mexican wolves
available to reestablish the species in the wild and is imperative to the success of
reintroduction efforts in the United States and Mexico.
Reintroduction efforts to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the wild have taken
place in both the United States and Mexico. Mexico initiated a reintroduction program
with the release of five captive-bred Mexican wolves into the San Luis Mountains just
south of the United States–Mexico border in October 2011. As of February 2012, four of
the five released animals were confirmed dead due to ingestion of illegal poison. The
24
status of the fifth Mexican wolf is unknown. A sixth Mexican wolf was released in
March 2012; its fate is unknown as only its collar was found in April 2012 (Service, our
files). A pair of Mexican wolves was released in October 2012 and was alive as of
March 3, 2013. Mexico plans to release additional Mexican wolves in this area, and
possibly several other identified locations (including Nuevo Leon and Coahuila) in
Mexico in 2013 and beyond; however, a schedule of releases is not publicly available at
this time. We expect the number of Mexican wolves in Mexico to fluctuate from zero to
several wolves or packs of wolves during 2013 and into the future in or around Sonora
and Chihuahua or other Mexican States.
In the United States, we have focused our recovery efforts on the reestablishment
of Mexican wolves as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the
Act in Arizona and New Mexico. We established the nonessential experimental
population of Mexican wolves in 1998 to pursue the prime objective of the 1982 Mexican
Wolf Recovery Plan (Figure 1). The reintroduction project is a collaborative effort
conducted by the Service, Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White
Mountain Apache Tribe, and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
In March of 1998 we released 11 Mexican wolves from the captive-breeding
program to the wild. Additional individuals and family groups have been initial-released
or translocated into the BRWRA each year through 2012. Initial-released refers to
Mexican wolves released to the wild that have only been in captivity, and translocated
25
wolves are ones with previous wild experience that were removed from the wild for
management reasons and subsequently rereleased into the wild at a later time.
We expect to pursue additional recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf outside of
the MWEPA in the future and to determine the capacity of the nonessential experimental
population to contribute to recovery. We initiated the revision of the 1982 Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan in 2010. The revised plan will provide information about suitable habitat
and population sizes for Mexican wolf recovery in the United States and Mexico. A draft
plan will be provided for public and peer review before being finalized.
More information about the life history, decline, and current status of the Mexican
wolf in the southwestern United States can be found in the “Proposed Rule 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” (published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register), the 1982 Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan (Service 1982, pp. 5–8, 11–12), the 1996 FEIS (Service 1996, pp. 1–7),
the 1998 Final Rule (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998), the Mexican Gray Wolf Blue Range
Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review (Mexican Wolf Blue Range Adaptive
Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team 2005, pp. TC–1 to TC–
2), the Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment (Service 2010, pp. 7–15, 20–42), and
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Progress reports from 2001 to 2011. These documents
are available on-line at htttp://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf.
26
Why We Need to Revise the 1998 Final Rule
We are proposing to modify the MWEPA designation to improve our ability to
establish a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the
wild, which is the population objective provided in the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery
Plan. Over time and through project reviews, annual reports, monitoring, and
communication with our partners and the public, we recognize that elements of the 1998
Final Rule designation need to be revised to help us enhance the growth, stability, and
success of the nonessential experimental population. Specifically, the 1998 Final Rule
currently restricts initial releases of captive Mexican wolves to the wild to the Primary
Recovery Zone, which constitutes only 16 percent of the BRWRA. This has constrained
the number and location of Mexican wolves that can be released into the wild. Also, the
1998 Final Rule has a requirement that Mexican wolves stay within the BRWRA, which
does not allow for natural dispersal movements from the BRWRA or occupation of the
MWEPA. Currently, we are required to implement management actions that disrupt
social structure or lead to removal of wolves from the wild when a Mexican wolf
naturally disperses from the BRWRA into the MWEPA. In addition, we are proposing a
number of modifications that will improve our communication and coordination
implementing the nonessential experimental population designation. We intend our
actions to demonstrate an adaptive management approach in which we utilize the lessons
learned since we began reestablishing Mexican wolves in 1998.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
27
The Act provides that species listed as endangered are afforded protection
primarily through the prohibitions of section 9 and the requirements of section 7. Section
9 of the Act, among other things, prohibits the take of endangered wildlife. “Take” is
defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the
procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitat. It mandates that all Federal agencies use their existing
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the
conservation of listed species. It also states that Federal agencies must, in consultation
with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not affect
activities undertaken on private land unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by
a Federal agency.
The 1982 amendments to the Act included the addition of section 10(j), which
allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed species as “experimental
populations.” Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the
Service may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or
threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside
the species’ current natural range, but within its probable historical range. With the
experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened,
28
regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its range. Threatened status allows us
discretion in devising management programs and special regulations for such a
population through the use of section 4(d) of the Act. Section 4(d) allows us to adopt any
regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a
threatened species. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9
prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the section 10(j) rule
contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that
species.
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any population
(including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or threatened species, and
before authorizing any necessary transportation to conduct the release, the Service must
find, by regulation, that such release will further the conservation of the species. In
making such a finding, the Service uses the best scientific and commercial data available
to consider: (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a
result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction elsewhere; (2) the
likelihood that any such experimental population will become established and survive in
the foreseeable future; (3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of the species; and (4) the extent to which the
introduced population may be affected by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions
or private activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
29
Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations designating
experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate means to
identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed
location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released,
and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental population(s); (2) a finding,
based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, and the supporting
factual basis, on whether the experimental population is, or is not, essential to the
continued existence of the species in the wild; (3) management restrictions, protective
measures, or other special management concerns of that population, which may include
but are not limited to, measures to isolate and contain the experimental population
designated in the regulation from natural populations; and (4) a process for periodic
review and evaluation of the success or failure of the release and the effect of the release
on the conservation and recovery of the species.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate State fish and
wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected
private landowners in developing and implementing experimental population rules. To
the maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the
Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in land
that may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine
whether the experimental population is essential or nonessential to the continued
30
existence of the species. The regulations (50 CFR 17.80(b)) state that an experimental
population is considered essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. All other populations are considered
nonessential.
For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat a nonessential experimental
population as a threatened species when it is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or
unit of the National Park Service, and Federal agency conservation requirements under
section 7(a)(1) and the Federal agency consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry
out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal
agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
adversely modify its critical habitat. When a nonessential experimental population is
located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then, for the
purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only section
7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, a nonessential experimental
population provides additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to
consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
(rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in
the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out,
fund, or authorize activities. Because the nonessential experimental population is, by
31
definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, the effects of proposed
actions affecting the nonessential experimental population will generally not rise to the
level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. As a result, a formal
conference will likely never be required for Mexican wolves established within the
nonessential experimental population area. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily
confer with the Service on actions that may affect a proposed species. Activities that are
not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies are not subject to provisions or
requirements in section 7.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated
for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we
cannot designate critical habitat in areas where we establish a nonessential experimental
population.
Proposed Experimental Population Area
We are continuing our effort to establish a population of Mexican wolves within
the subspecies’ historical range in Arizona and New Mexico by proposing to revise the
1998 Final Rule (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998). The current and proposed revision to
the experimental population area is the entirety of the species’ current range in the United
States. The purpose of the nonessential experimental population was, and remains, to
accomplish the prime objective of the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan to establish a
32
viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the wild (Service
1982, p. 23).
With this rule, we propose to revise the geographic boundaries of the MWEPA
described in the 1998 Final Rule by removing the small portion of the MWEPA in Texas.
This area is not likely to contribute substantially to our population objective based on
habitat suitability. The proposed MWEPA is the geographic area lying north of Interstate
Highway 10 and south of Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona and New Mexico (Figure 2).
Also, we are proposing to maintain the geographic boundaries of the BRWRA as
described in our 1998 Final Rule (i.e., the Apache National Forest in Arizona and the
Gila National Forest in New Mexico), but to eliminate the primary and secondary
recovery zones inside the BRWRA (Figure 2). We are proposing to modify the
regulations associated with initial releases within the BRWRA and the regulations
associated with natural dispersal of Mexican wolves from the BRWRA into the MWEPA;
both of these modifications are described below in Management of the Reintroduced
Population.
We are not carrying forward the recommendation from the 1998 Final Rule to
consider the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area as a possible reintroduction site for
Mexican wolves (Figure 2). Under the 1998 Final Rule, initial releases and
reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area is
authorized if the Service finds it necessary and feasible in order to achieve the recovery
33
goal of at least 100 Mexican wolves occupying 5,000 square mi (12,950 square km)
(Service 1998). While this recovery area lies within the probable historical range of the
Mexican wolf, and could be an important reestablishment site if prey densities increased
substantially, it is now considered a marginally suitable area for Mexican wolf release
and reestablishment primarily due to the low density of prey. For these reasons the
Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review recommended that any
amended or new Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population rule not include
White Sands Missile Range as a Mexican Wolf Recovery Area or as a reintroduction
zone (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. ARC-3).
Additional Revisions to the Previous Experimental Population Area Under Consideration
As stated above (see Information Req

I hear they don`t recover well from a well placed 223 round.

Wolves Suck !!!!

Don't you love government intrusion with know best attitude. I hope enough people take it serious and rally behind the ranchers and sportsmen.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
I hear they don`t recover well from a well placed 223 round.

Even less so from a .308!