Framing the Mexican wolf debate

Mexican gray wolf, Minnesota Zoo (Wikicommons image)

Assignment Earth has a new video out, this one on Mexican wolves. I suppose it’s difficult to condense the  realm of Mexican wolf issues into just three and a half minutes, but I was dissappointed with their simplistic frame of wolf conservationists versus ranchers. The basic synopsis of their video goes like this: Mexican wolves were extirpated, the US Fish and Wildlife Service brought them back, ranchers are angry and say they are losing cattle. Oh boy, where to even start with this. My master’s research looked into stakeholder issues in the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program. In a way, I learned more than I wanted to about this program and the people who surround it. Land control issues were a huge theme in many of my conversations. One rancher told me, “It’s not about the wolf really, it’s just that you see it all coming in the wolf program.”

He was referring to the federal government dictating to private citizens what they could and could not do on private ranch land as well as on leased state or federal land. Leased land is a huge issue with this program. The reintroduction area is bounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and the Gila Wilderness. It is all federal land administered by the US Forest Service.

One thing that emerged in the majority of my interviews with Mexican wolf advocates was a concern (or anger) for how these lands were managed by the Forest Service, and how parcels were leased out for cattle production. Ranching on public or federal lands is a huge issue out West; and in the Southwest where the land tends to be more ecologically sensitive and drought-stricken, the stakes are perceived as being a bit higher. The forage per acre is so low that it is difficult for most individuals to own enough land for ranching in some areas. And so they lease it from the Forest Service at prices that are set well below the market price. The Government Accountability Office published a report in fall 2005 detailing that government-run grazing programs (that take place on government-owned land) lose $123 million per year, and it recommended the grazing fees be increased to cover this loss.

It’s clear the numbers don’t add up for ranching on federal lands in the southwest (several ranchers told me they made around $13,000 per year off their ranching operations), but how do you even begin to calculate the costs of saving — or losing — an endangered species such as the Mexican gray wolf? People involved in advocating for or against this project complain that too much taxpayer money has been wasted trying to recover this species. But what is the cost of not trying? The Southwest has already been rid of most of its major predators, and as recent studies indicate (BioScience, Oct. 2009 {1}), the loss of apex predators (such as wolves, cougars and grizzlies) has led to a rise in mesopredators (such as coyotes and foxes). When I lived in Arizona in 2005, I was shocked to hear that Wildlife Services (in the US Dept of Agriculture) was often contracted to do aerial culling of coyotes. How fair is that?

It’s easy to see how conversations about Mexican gray wolves quickly turn into conversations about land control, land and ecosystem health, agrarian and ecological values (or Old West and New West values), government, and so on. (And believe me, I’m barely touching on the breadth of issues here.) And rarely do they stay on target with the species itself, and its biological and sociological requirements to survive. And as long as journalists and media continue to employ the overly facile frame of “wolves eat cattle; ranchers don’t like them” then the public will never fully understand the swarm of complex issues surrounding this species and its predicament in relation to humans.

NOTES:
{1} Prugh, et al. 2009. The Rise of the Mesopredator. BioScience 59(9):779-791. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.90

ADDENDUM: (added on Oct. 15) I should have been more clear in delineating additional stakeholders, in order to explain why the conservationists vs. rancher frame is so flimsy. Indian tribes are also major stakeholders. The White Mountain Apache Tribe allows Mexican wolves to roam onto their land, which gives the canids an extra 2,500 square miles of reintroduction space (on top of the 6,485 square miles they have through the federal forest and wilderness lands). Hunters and hunting guides are also stakeholders, with some outspoken hunters and guides claiming that wolves are displacing elk so that hunting on formerly fertile leases is no longer so rich… And a few resourceful folks are trying to introduce guided tours to bring interested people into the wolf reintroduction area in order to find sign of wolves, hear them howl or spy them. Citizens who live in the reintroduction area also stakeholders. Some hope that increased tourism due to the wolves will benefit their townships, but many are outspoken against the wolves and feel their personal safety is threatened. Not all citizens in this area are ranchers, it should be noted, and many of them own private property within the wolf reintroduction area. From my talks with people in the fall of 2007, it appeared that the few who favored or were neutral about the wolves were afraid to speak up about the beliefs for fear of what their community would think of them. Local community spokespersons and elected officials form another stakeholder groups, as they represent their constituents and work with team members on the Mexican wolf reintroduction project. And on the captive breeding side, stakeholders include workers who care for and maintain captive animals and geneticists who work to engineer the animals’ diversity. There is an entire world of stakeholders beyond just ranchers and conservationists.