From the Archives: Opinions expressed on Mexican wolf

August 31, 1995

ALPINE — Is the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf a step to balance the ecosystem or just one more burden for the landowners? More than 100 ranchers, environmentalists and concerned citizens from across Texas were in Alpine Saturday to express their opinions on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFW) proposal to reintroduce the wolf to portions of its original habitat in the Southwestern United States. “I am completely opposed to reintroduction,” Jeff Davis County rancher Bill Gearhart said. “There is no prey base left at Big Bend National Park or White Sands, so the wolf will prey on our livestock. Wolves can range 500 miles.”

The service proposes to release family groups of captive-raised wolves at White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico and the Blue Range area of east- central Arizona in hopes that the species will repopulate in the wild and be taken off the endangered species list where it has been since 1976. Another option in the USFW plan is to see if the species naturally will repopulate itself to its former habitat, which includes the Chihuahuan Desert and Big Bend National Park in Far West Texas. Considered extinct in the U.S. wild, about 91 wolves still exist in captivity in different facilities around the country.

And most Texas ranchers and landowners prefer the wolves stay in captivity. Gearhart, a Jeff Davis County commissioner, said the program is one more burden on the land owner. “We are in a five-year drought, the market is down and this will create one more problem we have to deal with,” he said. Evelyn Smith, a Lampasses rancher, agrees. “This reintroduction jeopardizes my property and my lifestyle,” she said. “What if we told people in the city that wolves were going to be placed in their backyards? Would they agree to that?” Not only are landowners upset about the proposal, they are angry at USFW for not offering public hearings on the issue, only open house meetings. Proponents and opponents of the wolf reintroduction plan came from all over the state to the Alpine meeting which was to be the only meeting in Texas.

However, USFW said Saturday a public hearing will probably be held in Austin in early October. The other 13 USFW meetings will be held in Arizona and New Mexico. The issue has sparked keen interest in Far West Texas, where private property rights are paramount among ranchers and residents. The wolf was the topic of a public round-table discussion Thursday night in Marfa. And members of the Highland Hereford Breeders Association, after their 77th annual meeting Saturday at the Hughes Ranch near Fort Davis, drove to Alpine to lodge their opposition to the wolves’ reintroduction. “The Mexican wolf is one of the most endangered mammals in the U.S.,” said USFW Wildlife Biologist Wendy Brown. “We have a charge by the Endangered Species Act to save these animals. The wolf will help to balance the ecosystem by helping to control other predators like the coyote and mountain lion.” Brown said the reintroduction will be controlled and no management restrictions will be placed on the landowner. “If the wolf leaves the recovery area and moves on the private land, we will remove them. With the radio collars on each wolf it will not be hard to track them down and return them,” she said.

One area heritage and property rights group believes the government already has made up its mind and that is to reintroduce the wolf. “This meeting is a sham,” said Kay Love, a Marathon rancher Davis Mountain Trans-Pecos Heritage Association member. “Fish and Wildlife has already made up their minds. People should be outraged.” 

State Rep. Susan Combs of Austin, who ranches in Brewster County, called the meeting a “meaningless exercise. My concern is why go through this if Fish and Wildlife has already made a decision.” USFW representatives said that the meetings, whether in an open house format or public hearings, serve a purpose to gather information from everyone. All opinions will be taken under consideration before any steps are taken in the reintroduction plan. Love’s question is what happens when the wolves are re-established, taken off the endangered species list and the radio collars removed. “Fish and Wildlife is opening a Pandora’s Box,” she said. “After five years and the collars are removed we will have to deal with the problem, not Fish and Wildlife. I agree with biodiversity, but not with government intervention. Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service are poor land managers and have made too many mistakes in the past. 

“The environment is in chaos,” Love said. “We can’t restart a species that couldn’t make it the first time around. We can’t put things back the way it was 200 years ago.”

Raymond Skyles of Big Bend National Park said he isn’t willing to wipe out a species. “We don’t know enough about the wolf because there are none left in the wild to study,” Skyles said. “This species may have been a problem in the past, but not necessarily in the future. We need to take an intelligent approach to study them in the wild. We may all benefit from the wolf.”

Pam Kelly of Austin can see both sides of the problem. She not only is a sixth-generation rancher but also an environmentalist and member of the Mexican Wolf Coalition of Texas, working for the preservation and reintroduction of the wolf. “My concern is there is so much of a gap between the two groups. Until we find a way to listen to each other in a sincere manner, we only hurt each other,” she said. “Preservation is for all of us. We all have to come up with a solution.”