Farmers threatened because of wolf attacks on lifestock, also face attacks from environmentalists who want to rid the West of ranchers
By Laura Schneberger
July 6, 2005
TODAY'S BYLINE: Schneberger is a ranching activist
who lives in Winston, N.M.
Compare for just a moment the differences in the participants in the latest
round of public meetings on wolf-reintroduction in New Mexico.
A recent meeting in Reserve was attended by families with children. They were
very much like everyday Albuquerque families, only they are out on the range.
Ranchers are small-business men and women, who lose their livelihoods with
every calf or cow killed by a wolf. They deal with death and disaster every day
in their herds. They also deal with tremendous stress. The venomous hatred
expressed towards them at some of the more-urban meetings on the wolf is a
shock.
Ranchers' herds are their restaurants, flower shops and construction
companies, providing futures for their families and homes for their children. No
one would expect a business to tolerate a robbery every night or police who do
nothing to stop it. Businesses have the right to protect their interests and
their property.
Regarding wolf attacks, ranchers have to prove they are being harmed first,
then beg and persuade a doubting and slow-acting agency to help them, when it is
not in the agency's best interest. They must then deal with the environmental
movement and what it means to make extremist wolf-supporters mad. No one would
expect an Albuquerque businessman or family to tolerate this kind of political
pressure.
Environmentalists have axes to grind against ranchers and anyone else who
promotes multiple uses of federal lands, including recreation. They will use any
means to do so, even forcing total economic destruction of rural communities.
Environmentalists are pushing a government buyout bill to rid the West of its
ranchers, without informing the public of the real ramifications. People with
political motivations are driving wolf reintroduction, protecting the silvery
minnow and other production- and private-property-destroying plans disguised as
endangered species issues.
These people will not tell the truth about the so-called Brunhilda wolf and
her brood and the fact that in the last four years the pack she is in has killed
200 to 300 calves and cows on grazing allotments and on the San Carlos Apache
Reservation.
The public must keep in mind that an entire rural county and several small
towns depend on the dollars that ranchers pump into the local economy. They are
now spending production time managing wolves. They are being forced out of
business, while feeding an animal that has been shown historically to be a major
depredator and a danger - an animal pushed into their midst by an agency that
says the public is happy to have this occurring in its name.
In one incident, a young woman who had just wrecked her truck on an icy road
was leading her children home to her ranch at night, when her husband, who had
been informed she had not shown up at her destination, found her walking. The
next morning, the woman was taken to the hospital for a concussion, and the
family was horrified to see wolf tracks following the woman's and children's
tracks down the road. Thankfully, time was on her side.
Ranchers want to be left alone to earn a living for their families, politics
aside. When not allowed to do so, they are capable of rallying to protect their
industries. Sometimes the only option is to call on elected officials for help.
In our rural counties, our elementary schools are being shut down, our
communities are being financially decimated, and our jobs are disappearing, all
for a pie-in-the-sky law called the Endangered Species Act. Activists with money
and time to burn steal our hard work, mislead the public and beat our futures to
death.
We deserve the help of our elected officials, because the federal agencies in
charge of this program have stiff-armed us from the beginning.
New Mexico's small communities and rural industries have earned respect.
Rural lands in New Mexico are predominantly federally and state-owned, and
governments must start supporting multiple uses of these lands, as the law
provides, to keep reasonable industry alive - or this state will get poorer and
poorer, and we will become a service-oriented state and have no productive
society left.
We have cattle and land. If we cannot run cattle, the land is our backup, and
it will be subdivided to provide for our families. Where does that leave the
environment?
Source: