In March of 2019 the Sierra county commission, then composed of members Jim Paxon, Travis Day and Francis Luna were presented with an opportunity to collaborate with eight different Federal, State and Tribal agencies involved in the reintroduction and management of the Mexican wolf in Arizona and New Mexico.
One of the reasons for forming the collaborative was because members had an interest in “preventing or alleviating negative impacts that wolf predation might have on livestock or wildlife”. Objectives of the collaboration included minimizing negative impacts of wolves and sharing timely information. The reasons and objectives were all appropriate for Sierra county where livestock plays a big role in the economy.
A number of counties in Arizona and Catron county in New Mexico joined the collaborative. Sierra county commissioners, despite the urging of then county manager Bruce Swingle, declined to take a seat at the table. Paxon said that four ranchers were against the program and the collaborative just wanted our “name on the flyer”. Day also spoke of the program as just press releases while Luna said they had “a rule against” wolves.
At this December’s meeting Paxon and county Attorney Dave Pato convinced current county commissioners Hopkins and Day to sign the memorandum of understanding. For readers who are interested in the discussion, it can be heard recorded on Facebook at 1:12:35. The MOU can be read in the meeting packet on pages 232-245.
Under the MOU, the obligations of the county would be to “enhance communications with other parties and the public to keep them informed on the Mexican grey wolf recovery program; provide logistical and other support as necessary; and coordinate impact assessment and mitigation measures that may occur”, Attorney Dave Pato explained. However, he was unsure what logistical or other support might be needed as Catron county had not been called on for support.
Day and Hopkins were concerned that signing the MOU would mean saying that the commission approved of the wolf reintroduction program.
Paxon had a number of arguments in favor of signing. The first being that he had been contacted by Fish and Wildlife Service coordinator Brady McGee about joining the group. He said he made clear to McGee that the Sierra county commission was opposed to the wolf presence and McGee “reiterated” that he understood the county’s position. “He understands (we) represent livestock operators and people who live in the areas invaded by wolves. He did not take issue” with the county maintaining that stance.
The county was also encouraged to sign on by the chairwoman of Catron county commission, Anita Hand. She “was disappointed Sierra County didn’t sign on 3 years ago”, Paxon said. “The info they get and the contacts let them call people” and have informal discussions.
A third argument Paxon made for signing the MOU was that the county would be given more immediate and complete information than is currently available in monthly wolf reports. At one time the county had done a freedom of information act request that “had taken 7 months to get a response and most of it was redacted”.
“The county livestock producers say that no one knows what is going on. If we sign on to this then can be the messenger to producers, we can get real time data” out to them, said Day. Though he still had concerns about the program.
Hopkins asked how signing the MOU would help ranchers in Winston and Beaverhead and whether signing it would get funding to the County Livestock Loss Authority. Pato offered his opinion that “signing on might assist in funding” and it’s “not a forever commitment. At this point it seems like the right step”.
Also regarding wolf issues, Sheriff-elect Josh Baker informed the board that he intends to get some deputies certified in depredation investigations. “We have a number of deputies interested” but they do not “have the expertise or certifications to hold up in court”.
Another livestock related issue discussed by the board was a letter they had received from the United States Department of Agriculture requesting comment about plans to remove feral cattle from the Gila Wilderness area (discussion can be heard at 0:58). The board ultimately decided to submit no comment since the removal would take place in Grant county. However, they would closely watch the comments and procedure.
The letter, which can be read in its entirety on pages 106-109 of the packet outlines the history, problems with and difficulties in removing feral cattle from the area.
The problem has existed since the mid 1970’s when a permittee declared bankruptcy and abandoned their cattle on the allotment. In the 1990’s another permittee took over the allotment and attempted to herd in the feral cattle. The problem with cattle outside the allotment causing environmental damage, especially in riparian areas that were important to federally threatened and endangered species, had not been improved. In the late 1990’s the permittee lost their grazing permit and removed nearly 500 cattle but a significant number remained in the area. At that time 9 contractors were hired and removed an additional 211 cattle. This year 65 cattle were “aerially euthanized” but an estimated 50-150 remain. The USDA is planning an additional aerial shoot in February of 2023. All killed cattle are to remain where killed to “naturally decompose”.
According to Paxon, the area where the feral cattle are roaming is extremely inaccessible but all commissioners and Pato thought the attempts of this year were a disaster. The dead animals were “a smorgasbord for wolves”, said Pato. Day agreed that it was a “train wreck” that made him “question where the animal rights activists” were. Aerial euthanasia of “coyotes is inhumane but cattle not…there should be different ways” to take care of the problem. Hopkins concurred, “if they are close enough to shoot, why not tranquilize them” then get them out. “I hate to see shooting an animal for no reason”.
Other business the commission dealt with included
- The flood commissioner’s abbreviated annual report (0:26) that included efforts since Sandy Jones took office in September. He is still reviewing the work performed earlier this year.
- AeroVironment, a company with a project at the Spaceport was granted a 3 year extension to their Project Participation Agreement. Louise Marquez from the New Mexico Economic Development Department described supply chain issues that have slowed AeroVironment’s work on an unmanned aerial vehicle. The state does not want to cancel a contract that will eventually increase the economic base. Paxon concurred saying that they are a “significant investor in Sierra county and a willing partner.
- An agreement between the county and Bohannan Huston will get work started on the Sugar Span bridge in Arrey
- An ordinance and two resolutions to update and modernize siting, fees and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications were signed.
- Next year’s schedule for holidays was presented. As in previous years, Martin Luther King Jr. day will be “celebrated” not in January but in November to give staff an extra day off for Thanksgiving. A new holiday, Juneteenth will be observed on June 19.
- A salary for “Sheriff’s Executive Assistant” was set at 60% of the sheriff’s salary or about $20 per hour. This was not included with other salaries set earlier this year because the position was not occupied. County manager Amber Vaughn told the commission that the salary was set based on the info that had been collected from a statewide salary survey.