Subject: FW: SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT #143

      ____________________________________________________
      \       SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT #143          /
       \                    7-29-98                     /
        \                                              /
         \ SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  /
          \         http://www.sw-center.org         /
           \________________________________________/

1.   INVESTIGATION BOGUS - GROUPS SEND LETTER TO BABBITT DEMANDING
     INVESTIGATION OF THE FOUR BAR MESA WOLF MURDER BE REOPENED

2.   EDITORIAL: REVISIT WOLF KILL

3.   RALLY PLANNED TO PROTEST THE FAILURE OF US FISH AND WILDLIFE
     SERVICE TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE FOUR BAR MESA WOLF MURDER

_________

INVESTIGATION BOGUS - GROUPS SEND LETTER TO BABBITT DEMANDING
INVESTIGATION OF THE FOUR BAR MESA WOLF MURDER BE REOPENED

Yesterday, July 29, the Southwest Center, Wildlife Damage Review, Sky
Island Watch, Wolf Justice League, Wolf Alliance, and the Student
Environmental Action Coalition sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt demanding
the investigation of the Four Bar Mesa Wolf murder be reopened. After
carefully scrutinizing the Investigative Report, we have found the
conclusions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be without merit. The
evidence clearly indicates that Mr. Humphrey shot the Four Bar Mesa Wolf
after or during an altercation with his dog, not to protect himself or
members of his family.

The report includes testimonies of three individuals, including one AZ Game
and Fish employee, who spoke to Mr. Humphrey approximately one hour after
he shot the wolf. All three testified that Mr. Humphrey shot the wolf to
protect his dog. The official AZG&F Report of Mr. Humphrey's phone call
states, "when [Humphrey] tried to get the wolf off his dog it would not so
he had to shoot one of the wolves..." The ESA only allows for the killing
of and Endangered Species to protect human life.

Facts do not Support Changed Story:

Both Mr. and Mrs. Humphrey stated that the wolf was "trotting" toward them
when he shot it. However, the forensic evidence concludes "the wolf would
have to be standing with both feet together directly broadside to the
shooter to obtain this alignment of the wounds." Mrs. Humphrey stated the
last thing she saw (before the shot) was the wolf moving quickly toward
them." The evidence in the case clearly shows that Mr. Humphrey's story
changed during the investigation to avoid prosecution. The Fish and
Wildlife Service is aware of the true facts, but is unwilling to prosecute
because of political considerations. This decision has grave implications
for the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program.

Please write to Secretary Babbitt and Ms. Clark asking the investigation be
reopened.

Bruce Babbitt                                 Jamie Clark, Director
U.S. Department of the Interior        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, N.W.                            18th & C ST NW
Washington, D.C. 20240                 Washington DC 20240
___________

EDITORIAL: REVISIT WOLF KILL

Both the Arizona Daily Star and Tucson Citizen have called for the
investigation of the Four Bar Mesa Wolf murder to be reopened. The
following is the recent editorial by the Arizona Daily Star.

Saturday, 25 July 1998
REVISIT WOLF KILL

        Public accounts of how a Tucson camper shot an endangered Mexican gray
wolf April 28 never did make much sense.
        Now, the release of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's own investigative
report on the episode casts further doubt on both the shooter's stories of
what happened and the service's handling of the well-publicized incident.
        First, it turns out the government's own necropsy finding in the case
declares the wolf was shot broadside through both legs while standing still.
        This contradicts U.S. Postal Service worker Richard Humphrey's claim that
he shot the protected animal because it was charging his family. It was on
the basis of that scenario that the wildlife agency decided not to
prosecute Humphrey for damaging a major species reintroduction.
        Additionally, the packet of investigation notes raises more questions
about the service's actions because it depicts Humphrey changing his story.
        Initially the records show Humphrey told Arizona Game and Fish Department
agents and others that he shot and killed a lobo in the Four Bar Mesa area
of the Apache National Forest because it attacked his dog. However, 10 days
later - and with an attorney present - Humphrey appears to have "clarified"
to investigators that the wolf was actually rushing at his wife. This is
important because it suggests Humphrey tailored his story after learning
that it is legal to kill endangered animals only if they threaten human
lives.
        This creates an impression of evasiveness on the part of both Humphrey and
the wildlife service.
        In view of that impression, the wildlife agency should revisit this
episode - not so much to "get" Humphrey as in order to get clear about what
happened up in the release zone.
        Some environmentalists are calling for Humphrey's prosecution - and they
have a point about the danger of letting a possible law-breaker off. Doing
that, instead of enforcing the Endangered Species Act firmly, could well
encourage more scofflaw shootings.
        However, the more important reason for some fuller accounting of this
perplexing incident is to counter the distorted picture of wolf behavior
and federal bumbling that Humphrey's story and treatment have put before
the public.
        For decades, environmentalists and government scientists alike have been
trying to allay rural folks' unwarranted fear that wolves sometimes rush
people. Yet now Fish and Wildlife – by neither prosecuting Humphrey nor
explaining its decision – has effectively sanctioned what appears a false
story of a wolf attack. This both undermines the agency's credibility and
enflames wolf opposition.
        What is needed, then, is a clarification by the wildlife agency of what
really happened April 28, and why it is not prosecuting Richard Humphrey.
        If the wolf did not attack Humphrey's wife, the agency should say that. If
the service declined to prosecute the Tucsonan simply because it felt it
could not win what would be a tricky prosecution (an understandable
position), it should say that, too.
        Then at least the present appearances of wolf aggression and bureaucratic
evasion will have been put into perspective.
        As it stands now, though, the wolves' guardians have made a mess of their
stewardship. They need to clarify what happened at Four Bar Mesa.
_________

RALLY PLANNED TO PROTEST THE FAILURE OF US FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE FOUR BAR MESA WOLF MURDER

The Southwest Center and Wildlife Damage Review will sponsor a rally on
Thursday, April 7th, in Downtown Tucson, 300 W Congress, at the US Fish and
Wildlife Service's sub-office, to show support for the Mexican Wolf
Reintroduction Program and to protest the botched decision not to prosecute
the wolf killer.
____________________________________________________________________________
Shane Jimerfield                                    Tel: 520.623.5252, ext. 302
Assistant Director                                  Fax: 520.623.9797
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity    email: sjimerfield@sw-center.org
PO Box 710, Tucson AZ 85702-0710                    http://www.sw-center.org