Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Komadina

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/20/07

3/04/07 HB

SHORT TITLE Release of Wolves in New Mexico

SB 1079/aSCONC

ANALYST Wilson

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)

FY07

FY08

FY09 3 Year

Total Cost

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

Total

$180.0

$720.0 $720.0 $1620.0 Recurring

Game

Protection

Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Department of Game & Fish (DGF)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SCONC Amendment

The Senate Conservation Committee amendment to Senate Bill 1079 includes mental injury or

bodily injury.

Synopsis of Original Bill

Senate Bill 1079 will make it unlawful for any wolf to migrate to any non-federal lands, to injure

or kill a human being or threaten to, or to injure or kill any pet or any livestock. The bill also

dictates that any individual found in violation of his or her lawful duty to supervise, monitor and

control a wolf or to appropriately limit its migration shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In

addition, any person with the duty to supervise, monitor, and control wolves will be guilty of

committing an act greatly dangerous to the lives of others pursuant to 30-2-1, NMSA 1978 if a

wolf kills a human. It also establishes penalties and protocols for handling circumstances

involving offending wolves.

The DGF notes that although this bill states that wolves were not known to exist in New Mexico

prior to April 2000, Mexican gray wolves are native to New Mexico. They were extirpated from

the state, with no confirmed records of wild wolves in the United States after 1970, until the

Senate Bill 1079/aSCONC – Page

2

advent of Mexican wolf restoration in 1998. Some of the Mexican gray wolves that had been

released in Arizona beginning in 1998 had dispersed onto lands within New Mexico, for at least

brief periods of time, prior to wolves being translocated to the Gila Wilderness of New Mexico

in April 2000.

The bill refers to wolves as being “inherently dangerous to any human beings they may

randomly encounter". Wolves may interact with humans on occasion, however documented

cases of wolves attacking and killing or severely injuring people in North America are rare.

The bill states that “any human being or New Mexico citizen found responsible for the death or

maiming of wolves shall be prosecuted by federal authorities". The experimental population rule

for Mexican gray wolf reintroduction into Arizona and New Mexico contains provisions for

allowable take of Mexican gray wolves that may kill, wound, or bite livestock on private or tribal

lands, or for Mexican gray wolves anywhere if necessarily as a result of a threat to human safety.

Under this rule, any person taking a Mexican gray wolf under these circumstances is required to

report the event, but has no further legal obligations or liabilities for take under the ESA.

Similarly, the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act (17-2-37 through 17-2-46 NMSA 1978)

prohibits the take of species listed as endangered under that Act, but allows take of state-listed

species in situations involving an immediate threat to human life or property. Therefore, DGF

believes that the above statement is inaccurate.

The bill has an emergency clause

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The DGF claims that based on the number of wolves presently in New Mexico, 24-hour

surveillance for each wolf, and a minimum of 12 FTEs, will be required in order to ensure that

Mexican gray wolves do not ever “migrate" off federal lands and onto state lands, or other

properties. This does not include personnel and time required to maintain the records of DNA

samples and respective identification numbers. Without any appropriation contained in this bill,

these resources will have to be drawn from existing DFG programs and functions.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Mexican gray wolves are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and

gray wolves are listed as endangered under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act.

Mexican gray wolves were considered to be extirpated from the United States until on-the-

ground restoration of Mexican gray wolves was undertaken, beginning with releases of Mexican

gray wolves into the Blue Range of east-central Arizona in late 1997, as part of a Mexican wolf

recovery program carried out under the ESA. Since that time, limited numbers of wolves have

dispersed into New Mexico, or been released in New Mexico following translocation from

Arizona for management purposes. Currently there are 3 wolf packs that are known to inhabit

New Mexico in or around the Gila Wilderness, plus some other lone wolves or small groups that

may occur within southwestern New Mexico. Public opinion surveys of New Mexico residents

regarding Mexican wolves in both 1987 and 1995 found that a clear majority of the state’s

residents surveyed expressed positive opinions toward reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves

into the state. The 1995 survey also geographically divided the survey results to the counties of

proposed Mexican wolf restoration, and found at least of 50% of respondents within these

counties expressing moderate or strong support for the proposed Mexican gray wolf

Senate Bill 1079/aSCONC – Page

3

reintroduction. However, some segments of the state’s population, particularly livestock

producers, have expressed opposition to Mexican gray wolf reintroduction based on concerns for

wolves preying upon livestock and wildlife.

There could be adverse implications to the DGF and its ability to meet its established

performance measures resulting from this bill, if enacted as written. DGF personnel participate

in the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program, under the broad guidance of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service which has primary responsibility for conservation and recovery of wildlife

listed under the ESA, in an effort to implement Mexican wolf reintroduction in a manner that is

as consistent as possible with the needs and desires of New Mexico citizens and New Mexico

wildlife populations. If the interpretation of this bill were that DGF personnel, by virtue of

participation in the implementation of Mexican gray wolf management, were required to comply

with all provisions of this bill, then significant resources would have to be diverted from other

programs in order to comply with these requirements.

The bill requires the DGF to euthanize a captured wolf for which there is no DNA on file. This

will violate both the federal Endangered Species Act and the state Wildlife Conservation Act. It

also appears that compliance with the provisions of this bill would violate the obligations of the

DGF under the current reintroduction memorandum of understanding.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The DGF will become responsible for administering a process to retain and track DNA samples

for all Mexican wolves, along with unique identification numbers assigned to each sample.

Additionally, DGF administrators will take on the added responsibility of ensuring that all

personnel are in compliance with all provisions of this bill relating to Mexican gray wolves and

their movements.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The DGF provided the following:

The bill imposes liability if a wolf “threatens" however there is no definition of what constitutes

a threat.

Beginning on page 4, those provisions under section B that refer to “persons charged

under this statute with the duty to supervise, monitor and control any wolf" do not specify

the extent of liability. In the case of DGF personnel it is unclear if the liability would

apply only to the individual employee, or through the chain of command to the Director

and the State Game Commission.

On page 6, sections B(7), B(8), and B(9) authorize taking of wolves in a manner that

could be in conflict with federal law (ESA and the Mexican gray wolf experimental

population rule) and the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act (17-2-37 through 17-2-

46 NMSA 1978).

Beginning on page 11, section B(20)(f) would authorize taking of wolves in a manner

that would be in conflict with federal law (ESA and the Mexican gray wolf experimental

population rule) and with the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act (17-2-37 through

Senate Bill 1079/aSCONC – Page

4

17-2-46 NMSA 1978).

On page 3, line 25 and page 4, lines 1-2, refer to the “knowing, premeditated and

intentional unconstrained release of any inherently dangerous carnivorous predator"

could be interpreted as applying to other wildlife such as black bears and mountain lions.

The DGF utilizes black bear and mountain lion relocation as one available tool to resolve

wildlife-human conflicts. Without defining an “inherently dangerous carnivorous

predator", if enacted this bill could impact the DGF use of its available tools for

alleviating human-wildlife conflicts.

DW/mt:csd