By Mary Alice Murphy

[Editor's Note: This is the first of two articles on the June 25, 2024 Grant County Commission special meeting. It begins with public input.]

The purpose of the June 25, 2024 Grant County Commission special meeting was to hear a presentation and consider agreements, resolutions and address consideration of a request for proposal for external auditor services.

After opening procedures came public input by several individuals opposed to and others in favor of  wildlife damage management through the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services.

Glenn Griffin, a county resident who opposes the contract every year, spoke again for the third time this year, and along with his comments about the price per hour for the agent, and the use of lethal methods, also accused the county manager of hiding the true costs and participating in backroom deals.

Carol Ann Fugagli said she was disappointed at the quarterly report for having no photos and seemingly mocking the whole process. "I'd like to see where each incident occurs, with photos to prove what happened. Wildlife has a monetary value, so killing any is a loss." She proposed letting the contract expire and letting people take their own responsibility for their property.

Christine Hess, who also had spoken previously against the contract, noted that the area is the wildlife's home. She cited the "huge expense for a contract that is not being followed." She, too, along with the others noted that M-44s and foothold traps are illegal on public land in New Mexico and should also be illegal on private land. She condemned those who let their cattle loose on "our land to fend for themselves and overgraze." She also criticized the fact that seemingly most of the funding benefits only ranchers.

Barbara Bush applauded the commissioners for hearing feedback from constituents. "We must watch the reports to make sure they report fully on their activities."

Ty Bays, a rancher, said: "If you believe that God gave us dominion over this Earth, this contract is no different from rodent control in a home or this building. Predators have to be managed." He said Wildlife Service agents are trained professionally to do the least damage to wildlife. "The only reason a mountain lion, for instance, goes after a person or cattle is because the deer population is down or they are unable to prey on them. It is better to leave management of wildlife to professionals rather than residents. This land needs to be grazed or it will burn. I urge you to approve this contract."

Jim McCauley, a rancher, said he lived on the land that his grandparents, father and sons also lived or live on. "We pay taxes. We do not want to eliminate coyotes. They deal with rodents, but coyotes are not a noble animal. They will eat on live fawns and other baby animals. I support this contract. It is a needed service."

Later in the meeting, County Manager Charlene Webb noted that changes had been made to the contract to remove the M-44s and foothold traps entirely.

Mr. Fajardo, director of the USDA APHIS office in Las Cruces, spoke to the agreement. "We ask the commission to consider the revised work plan for fiscal year 2024-25. We are here for every resident, every person to protect agriculture as well as other private property. We manage wildlife by providing non-lethal solutions to situations, but sometimes, lethal methods are required if non-lethal does not solve the problem. We work also with New Mexico Game and Fish. If we have to do trapping, we ask Game and Fish to authorize the process. We follow all federal, state and county laws. We are here to provide services to the people. I would like these people who oppose this to do research or call our office with questions."

He noted they do not record driving hours or hours spent preparing equipment or hours spent in phone calls. He said they would start reporting time spent preparing equipment for a job. "Our hours reported are generally site specific. We are not using M-44s nor are we using leg- or foothold-traps unless authorized. We provide services for urban, suburban and rural areas. We are here for everyone. We are now testing for avian flu. We want to create interaction between humans and wildlife. This is a check and balance. We agree with wildlife conservation."

District 3 Commissioner Alicia Edwards noted that last year's contract did not allow M-44s or leg hold traps on private land.

"We use no M-44s anywhere," Fajardo replied. "When we need to trap, we are authorized by Game and Fish to do trapping. We do not just set equipment out, we monitor it. We want to create a balance between species. Ranchers and farmers also enjoy and respect wildlife."

Edwards noted that a section of the contract talks about a foothold trap having a monitoring device on it that indicates when it has been sprung or that it will be inspected every 24 hours. She noted the previous contract had not allowed foothold traps. She also said that a dog probably doesn't know what is private or public land.

"We can use traps under authorization of Game and Fish," Fajardo said. He noted that whenever a trap is set, the agency also sets out signage in English and Spanish and someone monitors the trap. "We also do not want to see wildlife suffer. We usually monitor sooner that 24 hours. A trap is targeting a specific animal."

Edwards made comments about needing more specific language in the contract to make sure it was in writing.

District 1 Commissioner and Chair Chris Ponce asked about the trapping under Game and Fish.

Fajardo said Game and Fish authorizes it on public land, and "we monitor the trap."

Edwards asked about using traps on private land.

"There will still be notification and signage," Fajardo said. "The owners like that. We all work together. They are looking for solutions to a serious impact to their property. There will be signage."

District 4 Commissioner Billy Billings asked if there was a problem with the previous 2023-24 contract. "Can we just repass that contract?"

Fajardo said they revised the work plan. "We are trying to cooperate with every one that we can to remove some of the confusing language. This contract was approved by the manager and the state office."

Edwards said another issue was whether the funding is coming out of the general fund. "I don't see this as any different from other services the county approves and provides to residents. With climate change we are seeing issues with animals seeking food and water. We are relying on Wildlife services to keep the balance."

District 5 Commissioner Harry Browne said he didn't believe that M-44s are illegal on private land.

Fajardo again emphasized: "We currently are not using M-44s anywhere."

Browne said the USDA said they cannot be used, "but what if we get a new administration with a new policy?"

Edwards said the same language could be used in the local contract. "We want to keep people, pets and wildlife from being destroyed. If we go back to the prior contracts we lose some protection."

Browne also noted that reporting had improved, but is "still not great. We see no evidence of your doing public education on monitoring for wildlife diseases."

"That is inherently part of what APHIS does," Fajardo replied.

Browne also asked that work time include everything, including drive time, equipment preparation and other activities. "The reporting is lacking. We feel it is disrespectful to the commission."

Fajardo noted that if the agency had not wanted to make changes to the contract, "we wouldn't have made so many revisions. We are checked by the state. I cannot change language by myself."

Browne said he would like to see the cost effectiveness of the program. "Not all of the funding comes from the general fund, but a portion is from the Taylor Grazing Act funding the county receives. That funding can also be used to repair roads, for instance. We the people own this land and we should be allowed to decide how to use it. Two-thirds of the funding is federal. It's a huge waste of federal funding. The AWSA (Arizona Water Settlements Act) was the same. We should be concerned also how federal money is spent. And now that we no longer have a professional skunk buster, we have to rely on this service. We should be responsible for taking care of the issue. There is no doubt that everyone appreciates wildlife, but should we be killing wildlife to protect cattle? We need to focus not on the killing, but living in harmony. I appreciate most other wildlife services, but even with no lethal, I will be voting no."

Fajardo replied that he would prefer people did not take responsibility for the control of wildlife, because "we believe in protecting wildlife. We have to get a permit to trap because the wildlife is protected. We must abide by local, state and federal laws. We have certifications to do things the responsible way."

Ponce agreed that the services are needed, but "one thing I don't understand. Usually when reports are done they are public record. I suggest that when you get a call, you write down the who, what, when, where and why in the report, like law enforcement does it. It will give constituents the information they need."

Fajardo said he understood that as a former law enforcement person himself, "but people have rights, too, and we cannot give out some information. We have no secrets, but we cannot give out information when Mr. Jones is on private land. We indicate it is a site visit and what equipment is used."

Ponce said he understood that for private land, but "can it be done when it is on public land?"

Fajardo said he would go up the chain of comment and get an answer.

Edwards said she agreed on the private land, but what makes it hard for the commissioners, is "we have no documentation on what's happening. The reporting is better, but not good enough."

Billings moved to accept the ordinance as revised. District 2 Commissioner Eloy Medina seconded it.

Webb said the county holds the agency accountable.

Fajardo said he hears what the commission is saying and asked them to provide a template for the reporting.

Ponce said the commissioners would give input.

Billings said: "It's also up to us to look at each report."

Webb said it is in the contract, so it would be easy to create a spreadsheet.

A brief shouting match occurred when Browne and Fajardo were speaking on top of one another.

Billings retracted his motion. Edwards made a motion with specific sections identified in the contract to use specific language. Billings seconded it.

Commissioners approved the contract 4-1, with Browne voting nay.

The next article will get into a presentation at the special meeting and the rest of the business that took place.