Grant County commissioners back Catron, Socorro wolf emergency declarations after wide public debate

Grant County Board of Commissioners voted July 10 to adopt a resolution supporting Catron and Socorro counties’ declarations of disaster tied to “extreme and continuous injury and damage” attributed to Mexican gray wolves. The motion to adopt the resolution was made and later seconded; the board approved the measure.

The vote followed more than two hours of public input during which dozens of residents, ranchers, wildlife biologists and environmental advocates spoke. Public commenters sharply disagreed on whether a local emergency exists, repeatedly referencing livestock losses, public-safety concerns and federal recovery programs.

The dispute centered on three questions raised repeatedly during public comment: whether wolf depredation is rising to emergency levels; whether ranchers are receiving adequate and timely compensation; and what county governments should do short of federal action. “Vote this special interest resolution down,” said Glenn Griffin, a District 4 resident, urging the board not to back what he described as a rancher-supported measure. By contrast, Hayden Forward, a Catron County commissioner who presented local counts and comparisons, told the board Catron is experiencing a financial shortfall tied to confirmed and unconfirmed livestock losses and cited Catron’s request for approximately $907,000 to investigate and address the issue.

Speakers citing conservation science and tourism argued against the emergency declarations, saying wolf attacks on humans are unrecorded in the region and that coexistence strategies exist. “There have been exactly 0 attacks by Mexican gray wolves on humans,” said Erin Madden, a Silver City resident who recreates frequently in the Gila National Forest and cited the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife biologist Carlos Martinez urged the county to form an inclusive task force to identify science-based strategies, not to back an emergency declaration that he said would inflame public conflict.

County discussion mirrored the split in public comment. Commissioner Stevens said he planned to vote against the resolution and urged more dialogue and cooperative programs; Commissioner Shelley moved the measure and Commissioner Flores seconded it, explaining the vote was intended to “grab the attention” of state and federal decisionmakers and to support neighboring counties. During the debate, commissioners repeatedly said the resolution is not a request to delist the Mexican gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act nor an authorization for lethal control; rather, proponents described it as a request for additional resources and attention to management and compensation programs.

The board did not adopt new county-level management measures at the meeting; the action taken was a formal statement of support for the neighboring counties’ emergency declarations and for seeking resources. The county did not specify new funding or a directive to county staff to implement specific mitigation measures during the meeting.

The vote drew both applause and criticism from residents who had gathered for public comment. Commissioners and members of the public flagged follow-ups: clarifying the county’s role in livestock compensation programs and whether additional county-level resources or task forces should be formed. Several speakers urged the commission to pursue nonlethal coexistence measures (range riders, carcass removal, guard animals, fencing and grazing adjustments) and to seek clearer, expedited reimbursement for confirmed losses.

The resolution was recorded on the meeting agenda as R-25-40; during public comment speakers also referenced federal and state programs by name, including the Endangered Species Act, the Farm Bill and the County Livestock Loss Authority. The board did not amend federal law and did not direct a county program appropriation at the meeting. The commission’s action was limited to adopting a statement in support of Catron and Socorro counties and encouraging state and federal attention to the issues those counties raised.

The resolution and supporting materials will be included in county records and shared with other counties and state agencies, per the commissioners’ comments. Further county action on management, compensation or a local task force was not resolved at the meeting and would require follow-up on a future agenda.