____________________________________________________
\ 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