Cochise County holds public hearing as residents split over Mexican gray wolf reintroduction

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors convened a special public-comment meeting May 13 in the Supervisor’s Hearing Room to collect community input on a proposed resolution concerning Mexican gray wolf recovery and management.

The hearing drew more than four dozen speakers and roughly equal numbers of proponents and opponents. Supporters of delisting and defunding told the board wolves threaten livestock and livelihoods in Cochise County; conservationists and wildlife scientists said protections should continue while state and federal programs fund coexistence measures.

The matter of the day was described by Chairman Crosby at the start of the meeting. Crosby said the meeting’s purpose was “to receive public comment regarding a proposed resolution that the board plans to present to both the state and federal governments, regarding the Mexican gray wolf and its impact on local residents, ranchers, and businesses within Cochise County.” No final vote on a resolution occurred at the session; supervisors said a draft resolution will be developed after additional review.

Why it matters: Ranching families told supervisors that wolves are killing cattle, depressing small‑ranch incomes and reducing the county’s tax base. Multiple speakers asked the county to press Congress and federal agencies to increase compensation for confirmed livestock losses, to allow more local control of wolf management, and to seek delisting. Supporters of wolf recovery said safeguards and compensation already exist, that wolves play a role in ecosystem health and ecotourism, and that delisting or defunding would jeopardize biodiversity gains.

What speakers said - Sonia Gasho, who identified herself as a rancher in the Dragon Mountains, said federal recovery goals have shifted and do not fit Cochise County habitat. Gasho gave figures she said came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and federal studies, saying the 2024 wolf count was 286 and that the recovery target had been adjusted to 320. “We are asking you to support delisting and defunding,” she said. - William Scott Huber, who said he has done wolf research in Yellowstone, told the board reintroduction can bring tourism revenue and that “the correct option for dealing with Mexican gray wolves is to allow the science that created the recovery plan to result in a stable healthy wolf population.” Huber cited estimates of visitor spending tied to wolf watching. - Multiple ranchers described livestock losses, including claims of large annual losses by individual ranches and difficulty getting unconfirmed or indirect losses compensated. One rancher gave an estimate of $325,000 in losses at a specific ranch (cited from public comment), and others described cases in which only a single death in a cluster was confirmed as wolf depredation. - Erin Hunt of Lobos of the Southwest cited polling the group cited about public support for wolf recovery and said, “There has never been a documented attack by a Mexican wolf on a human.” Hunt urged continued federal funding for recovery and for proactive conflict‑avoidance programs. - Cindy Toole, Arizona and New Mexico director for Western Watersheds Project, described the two wolves present in Cochise County (identified in testimony as part of the Minata Del Oro pack) and urged supervisors to press for full funding of compensation and coexistence programs.

Points of dispute and fact claims - Prey base: Several ranchers and some supervisors said Cochise County lacks a sufficient wild ungulate prey base and that released wolves will prey on livestock; others disputed that conclusion or said data are mixed. A number of speakers said they had not seen a prey‑base analysis for Cochise County prior to wolf releases. - Compensation and evidence: Speakers for ranchers said federal and state compensation is limited to confirmed kills and that investigators undercount kills; one speaker cited a study (attributed to a biologist named John Oakley) asserting that for every confirmed wolf kill there can be two to seven unconfirmed losses. Conservation speakers said compensation and prevention funds exist, noting the Arizona Livestock Loss Board and other programs. - Legal and management options: Testimony referenced the Endangered Species Act, the program’s “10(j)” experimental status, and federal statutes cited at the meeting notice (the clerk read a citation at the outset: “ARS 30 8 4 30 1 Dot O 2 H”). Speakers urged a range of actions, from greater local management and transfer of management to Arizona Game and Fish to national delisting and defunding.

Process and next steps The board clarified there would be no resolution vote that night. Supervisor comments at the end said the supervisors would draft a resolution after reviewing testimony and data, post the draft for public comment, and consider additional legal and policy options including seeking state or federal action and possible litigation. Chairman Crosby said the draft will aim to strengthen compensation language and to request clearer depredation‑investigation standards.

The hearing showed deep divisions within Cochise County and highlighted recurring issues in predator‑recovery disputes: how losses are measured and compensated, whether local conditions match recovery goals, and how to balance private property rights with federally protected species. Supervisors said they will accept additional written input before drafting the resolution and will bring a formal proposal back for public review.