Get reliable rangeland science

Proposed Changes to Endangered Status & Home Range

Proposed Changes to Endangered Status & Home Range

In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered species since recovery efforts across the United States have brought back healthy populations of the gray wolf.  However, the proposal maintains the protections for the Mexican gray wolf by listing the subspecies as an endangered species. 

Also in 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to expand the current range where Mexican gray wolves can become established and expand the area where wolves from captivity can be released.  Currently, wolves are moved back to the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area if they leave the Recovery Area. The proposed plan would expand the area where Mexican gray wolves are permitted to be and reduce translocations.  Another proposed change would increase the size of the release zone.  Currently, the release zone is only about 16% of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.  Increasing the release zone would avoid excessive overlapping of pack territories and reduce interspecies strife. 

Following the proposals, two public hearings were held in late 2013 in addition to a comment period to allow the public to respond to the proposed changes.

References

Wolf-Livestock Conflicts

Wolf-Livestock Conflicts


Mexican gray wolf populations and densities are influenced by two main factors: vegetation type and accessibility to large ungulates (hoofed) prey.  Since wolves live in areas with livestock and livestock are large ungulates, there is a potential for conflict.  Proactive management strategies are used to reduce the conflict between wolves and livestock.  In an effort to compensate ranchers for livestock depredations the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Interdiction Fund was established, which is administered by the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Coexistence Council.  

Proactive Management Activities
The IFT, non-governmental organizations, the U.S. Forest Service, and livestock producers work together to limit the interaction between wolves and livestock.  The group uses a variety of strategies to mitigate conflicts: electric fencing, supplemental livestock feed and hay, range riders, livestock grazing rotation, exclusionary 8-foot fencing, radio telemetry equipment on wolves, and diversionary and supplemental food caches.

Mexican Wolf / Livestock Interdiction Fund and Coexistence Council
In September 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the help of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation established the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Interdiction Fund.  The goal of the fund is to generate long-term funding to financially support livestock operators affected by the Mexican gray wolf population in the Southwest.

In April 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought together a diverse group of individuals impacted by or involved with the wolf recovery efforts called the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Coexistence Council.  The Coexistence Council consists of 11 members, including 5 ranchers with either small or large operations.  The Council also developed an interim program to compensate livestock producers for wolf depredations at market prices using money from short term grants.  At this time, there is no permanent funding for the Coexistence Council as part of the annual budget.

The goal of the council is to develop a long-term strategy that focuses on coexistence rather than direct compensation for livestock losses.

Lasting Effects of Wolf / Livestock Conflicts
Livestock that are harassed or attacked by Mexican gray wolves or livestock that witness harassment or attacks by Mexican gray wolves seem to show long term signs of stress.  Signs of livestock stress include fewer calves, reduced weight gain, and fear of cattle dogs.  These stress indicators result in financial losses to ranchers but are not currently reimbursed through the Coexistence Council.  A proposal is being considered that would pay ranchers for the wolf’s presence to offset the costs associated with stress to livestock.
 

References

Progress of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program

Progress of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program

Interagency Field Team (IFT) 
Mexican gray wolf activities are monitored by the Interagency Field Team (IFT).  The IFT is co-lead by five agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and USDA Forest Service. The team includes field team leaders (one per state and tribal lead agency), wildlife biologists and specialists, depredation specialists, conservation education and outreach specialists, field assistants, as well as interns and volunteers.  The IFT is responsible for tracking and monitoring the wolves, recording their location and behavior, responding as necessary when issues develop, drafting annual work plans, annual performance reports, and any new or revised Mexican Wolf Recovery Program operating procedures.  

Population
After the initial release, the three packs established territories and by the first summer Arizona’s first wild-born wolves in more than 50 years were living in dens in the recovery area.  By 2005, the need to release wolves born and raised in captivity had diminished, and by 2010 nearly all wolves in the wild were wild born.  As of population monitoring in 2013, at least 83 wolves were counted roaming in Arizona and New Mexico.  This is an increase from 75 in 2012 and the highest since the start of the recovery program.  In the captive breeding program, the number of Mexican wolves was between 250 and 300 wolves as of 2013.

Genetic Diversity
The entire Mexican gray wolf subspecies today descends from only seven animals.  One of the principles of genetics is that the more diverse a species is the greater its likelihood of long-term survival.  A small gene pool can lead to perpetuation of harmful genes if they are present in the small population.  In order to optimize genetic diversity among the Mexican gray wolf population, individual wolves are selected to breed based on their known DNA sequence.  Effects of inbreeding in wolves can include a decrease in litter size and smaller pups.

Diet
Based on scat analysis, 80-90% of the Mexican gray wolves diet is elk (Cervus Canadensis).  On average, one wolf consumes the equivalent of about 16 adult elk per year.  Secondary food sources include deer (mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, and Coues’ white-tail deer, Odocoileus virginianus couesi), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and livestock.  With livestock, there have been about 25 confirmed depredations per 100 wolves per year.  

Telemetry
Radio telemety collars are worn by 55% of Mexican gray wolves in the wild.  The collars capture a wide variety of information about the wolves, including home range, denning locations, depredations, depredation behaviors, and dispersal patterns.  Telemetry signals are monitored from the ground using a radio receiver, map, and compass.  Telemetry signals are also monitored by helicopter during the yearly population monitoring of the wolves. 

Identifying denning locations can help avoid depredation events on livestock.  When the Mexican gray wolf is denning, the animals tend to stay close to their dens.  If livestock are in nearby pastures, they become targets of depredation.  Telemetry collars allow the IFT to identify denning areas and move livestock as necessary to avoid interactions.

Wolf Mortality and Relocations
Between 1998 and 2012, the IFT has documented 92 Mexican gray wolf mortalities in the wild.  Forty seven deaths were due to illegal shootings and eighteen were from natural causes.  Other causes of casualties include vehicle collisions, taking animals with repeated livestock depredations or interactions with humans, and miscellaneous reasons (snakebite, mountain lion, infection, dehydration).

Also, between 1998 and 2012, twenty eight wolves were removed from the wild either lethally or taken into captivity for excessive livestock depredations or exhibiting nuisance behavior.  Nuisance behavior includes a lack of fear of humans and regularly visiting residential areas.  Some of the wolves that were removed were eventually returned to the wild when the animals were older.
 

References

  • Private Individuals using Telemetry Equipment - Allows non-agency individuals to monitor wolf activities near livestock or private property.
  • Wolf Mortality - Causes of documented Mexican wolf deaths in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, Arizona and New Mexico, 1998-2013. Management-related permanent removals, including lethal control, are not included in this table.
  • Initial Releases and Translocations - Initial releases (wolves born in captivity with no previous wild experience) can only occur in the primary recovery zone in Arizona.  Translocations (previously released wolves or wolves born in the wild) can occur in the primary or secondary recovery zones.  Wolves are not allowed to establish territories on public lands completely outside the Recovery Area boundary and are retrieved.
  • Images of Wolves in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area and Captive Breeding Program
     

Studying Mexican Wolves
A four month old wild-born pup is captured, fitted for a GPS collar, vaccinated, and released back into the wild by biologists. This video was produced by the Information Branch of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.


Wolf Release 
A pair of Mexican gray wolves were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area on April 9, 2014.  The male was captured during the annual wolf population survey and the female is from the captive breeding program.  The pair was held through the breeding season at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility in New Mexico and it is believed the female is pregnant.


 

 

Mexican Gray Wolves - Background

Mexican Gray Wolves - Background

Mexican Gray Wolves
Mexican gray wolves have been isolated in mountainous regions in the Southwest and Mexico from other wolf populations on all sides, besides the northern boundary in Arizona where the species could hybridize with northern gray wolves.  This isolation allowed the Mexican gray wolf to evolve separately from other wolf populations into a smaller animal that preys on Coues' white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi).  Adult Mexican gray wolves weigh between 70 and 80 pounds, are about 30 inches tall at their shoulders, and are 5 to 5.5 feet long, including their tails (14 to 17 inches).

History
In the early 1900s, high stocking rates of livestock and declining populations of native prey such as deer and elk stimulated increased wolf attacks on livestock.  Wolf conflicts with livestock and wildlife led to intense efforts to eliminate the threat to the livelihood and food supply of early ranchers and sportsmen.  By 1970, private individuals and federal and state governments had nearly eradicated the wolves from the southwestern United States and Mexico.  In an effort to save the wolf population, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the gray wolf and the Mexican gray wolf subspecies as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1976.  The listing of the Mexican gray wolf spurred recovery efforts.

Between 1977 and 1980, a captive breeding program was initiated by the United States and Mexico.  In all, five wolves were captured in the wild in order to initiate the breeding program and save the Mexican gray wolf from extinction.  The five wild wolves and two captive wolves became the seven individuals certified as pure-bred Mexican gray wolves and founded the first lineage of the certified captive population.  In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service organized a team to determine a recovery strategy for the Mexican gray wolf.  The team created the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan with the objectives of maintaining a captive breeding program and eventually reintroducing captive wolves into parts of their historic home range.

Wolf Reintroduction Plan
In 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to reintroduce a self-sustaining population of Mexican gray wolves.  The project was administrated by five primary agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and USDA Forest Service.  The goal of the project was to re-establish at least 100 wild wolves within a portion of the subspecies’ historic range in the southwest United States.  With secondary goals of managing wolves and their habitat in a manner that would not negatively impact the lifestyles and economy of local residents, cooperating agencies would closely monitor and study the reintroduced wolves.

The Environmental Impact Statement proposed releasing Mexican gray wolves into the Apache National Forest in eastern Arizona and allowing them to expand into the Gila National Forest in western New Mexico.  The area is known as the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.  This portion of the historic range includes middle to high elevations, and is a total of 5,000 square miles.

All wolves within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area are designated as a nonessential experimental (10j) population under the Endangered Species Act. The ‘experimental’ designation means that the reintroduced population is threatened or endangered.  The ‘nonessential’ designation means that the population is nonessential to the continued existence of the species.  This status allows for greater management flexibility during the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf to address potential conflicts, including conflicts between livestock and wolves.  The nonessential experimental status allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to respond to the needs of the wolves, relocate wolves, mitigate livestock depredations, and address concerns of local citizens.

On March 28, 1998, the first captive raised Mexican gray wolves were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.

George Andrejko

Mexican Gray Wolf - Overview

Mexican Gray Wolf - Overview

The Mexican gray wolf (Canus lupus baileyi, often called the Mexican wolf) is a small, rare, genetically distinct subspecies of the gray wolf [1].  The Mexican wolf is native to the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico, with its home range extending into southeastern Arizona [1].  By 1970, private individuals and federal and state governments on both sides of the United States Mexico border had nearly eradicated the species due to wolf conflicts with livestock and other human interests [1].  Recognizing the need to save the species, the two countries worked together to capture the last remaining wild Mexican wolves [2].  The five wild wolves along with two wolves in captivity founded the first lineage of the certified captive Mexican wolf population [2]. 


In accordance with the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan [3], the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1996 [4].  The EIS proposed to reintroduce a self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican gray wolves into a portion of the subspecies’ historic home range [4].  The EIS proposed releasing the Mexican wolves from the captive breeding program into the Apache National Forest in eastern Arizona and allowing them to expand into the Gila National Forest in western New Mexico [4].  This area is called the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area [4]. Wolves within this region are designated as a nonessential experiment population (10j) under federal law [4].  On May 28, 1998, the first captive raised Mexican wolves were released in the Recovery Area [2].

Following the first release, wolves organized themselves into packs and produced wild-born wolves the following summer [2].  By 2005, the need to release captive wolves had declined [5].  By 2010, nearly all wolves in the wild were born in the wild [5].  As of 2013, at least 83 wolves were counted roaming in Arizona and New Mexico and there are between 250 and 300 Mexican wolves in the captive breeding program [6].

Wolves in the wild are closely monitored by the Interagency Field Team (IFT).  The IFT monitors their genetic diversity [7,8], diet (80-90% elk) [7,9], movements (using radio telemetry collars) [7,10], mortalities (99 between 1998 and 2013) [7,11], and depredations on livestock [7] in addition to drafting annual working reports and other documentation required by law.  Given the labor and time intensive management activities, it is estimated that federal and state governments have contributed a minimum of $28.8 million between 1977 and 2012 in addition to private investments and volunteer costs [12].

In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed two changes related to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.  The first aims to delist the gray wolf from the endangered species list and add the Mexican gray wolf to the endangered species list in order to maintain protections for the subspecies [13].  The second proposal aims to expand the areas where wolves are allowed to establish to avoid translocations and enlarge the release zone for captive wolves to avoid overlapping pack territories and interspecies strife [14].

Not all people are enthusiastic over the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.  Some big game hunters, big game guides, and livestock operators view the reintroduced wolf population as a pest.  For hunters and guides, there are concerns on whether elk populations will decline with an increase in the wolf population since Mexican wolves feed primarily on elk [9,15].  Wolves occasionally prey livestock, which harms livestock and hurts ranchers financially.  Livestock that witness or are attacked by wolves tend to show signs of stress (reduced reproduction, decreased weight gain), that cause financial hardship to ranchers already dealing with small profit margins [16,17].  In an attempt to address this issue, the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Coexistence Council was created in 2011.  The Coexistence Council includes individuals affected by the wolf recovery program.  The goal of the Council is to distribute compensation for livestock depredations and work toward a Pay for Wolf Presence program [18,19]. 

Wolves will continue to spark debate.  Federal and state agencies are committed to the recovery of the Mexican gray wolf, as required by law.  The challenge has been and will continue to be balancing the needs of wild wolves, wildlife, and human interests.


References

  1. Natural History of the Mexican Gray Wolf - Description of the Mexican gray wolf, including animal description, social interactions, and habitats.
  2. Mexican Wolf Recovery Efforts - Background information about the Mexican wolf, including their history, endangered species listing, the captive breeding program (start of the recovery efforts), and reintroduction into the wild.
  3. 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan 
  4. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States 
  5. Initial Release Numbers - Outlines initial releases and translocations of wolves between 1998 and 2013.
  6. Population Statistics - Minimum population estimate, minimum breeding pair estimate, and population estimate numbers depicted per state within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, 1998 to 2013.
  7. 2012 Progress Report - At the year's end, at least 75 wolves in 13 packs are in the wild.
  8. Cross-Fostering to Promote Genetic Diversity - News Release stating that the Interagency Field Team has conducted the first cross-fostering of the Mexican wolf pups in the wild.
  9. Genetic Analysis of Mexican Wolf Scat -  Genetic analysis of scats to identify prey remains in scats of Mexican wolves and two sympatric carnivores
  10. Number of Radio-Collared Wolves - As of December 31, 2013, 46 wolves wear radio telemetry collars out of 93 wolves (minimum population), which is 55% of the population.
  11. Mortality Statistics - Causes of documented Mexican wolf mortalities in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, Arizona and New Mexico, 1998-2013. Management-related permanent removals, including lethal control, are not included in this table.
  12. Estimated Funds Expended by Lead Agencies for Mexican Wolf Recovery and Reintroduction - Summary provides the best available information on costs to date of the primary agencies involved in the Mexican wolf recovery and reintroduction.  Estimates are not an exact accounting of actual costs, simply the best available estimates.
  13. Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing it as Endangered
  14. Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf
  15. Mexican Wolf Impacts on Deer and Elk Populations in Arizona 1998 through 2012 - The Mexican gray wolf population has not causes changes to elk calf recruitment, mule deer recruitment, total elk hunting licenses available, or hunter success. 
  16. Reestablishment of the Mexican Gray Wolf: The Economics of Depredation - Discusses the economic impacts of the wolf recovery program on livestock operations.  Evaluates whether there is a disproportionate burden or economic impact on a few individuals for the good of the American society.
  17. Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Locations and Depredations on Calf Weight - Ranchers in Montana that experienced a confirmed livestock depredation by wolves had a negative and statically significant impact (~22 pounds) on the average calf weight across the herd, possibly due to inefficient foraging behavior or stress to the mother cows.
  18. Depredation Companion Guidelines - Outlines Depredation Compensation Guidelines to compensate livestock producers for wolf depredations.  
  19. Mexican Wolf / Livestock Coexistence Council: 2014 Strategic Plan - The Mexican Wolf / Livestock Coexistence Council is an organization dedicated to supporting viable ranching, self-sustaining wolf populations, and healthy western landscapes in the American southwest.  The strategic plan was collaboratively developed by the Council to articulate the wide range of perspectives around wolf recovery efforts.
George Andrejko

Mexican Gray Wolf

Mexican Gray Wolf


In the Southwest, the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi​, often called the Mexican wolf) is a small, rare, genetically distinct subspecies from the Northern gray wolf.  Mexican gray wolves were largely eliminated by the 1970s due to widespread eradication efforts in the United States and Mexico.  The recovery strategy for the region aims to use a captive breeding program to increase the population of wolves and reintroduce captive wolves into eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.  

Also view AZPM "AZ Illustrated" Program on Mexcian Gray Wolf

The objective of this section is to provide background on the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and outline the complex relationship between humans and wolves.  

 
 
George Andrejko

Wolf Recovery

Wolf Recovery

Wolves and wolf recovery programs are polarizing issues throughout most of the United States. Some livestock operators, big game hunters, and big game guides view wolves as a predator that reduces livestock, elk, and deer populations, which in turn reduces financial gains.  Wolf conservationists and advocates view wolves as an apex carnivore necessary for ecosystem restoration.

George Andrejko

What has been done to help Sage-Grouse? What else can be done?

What has been done to help Sage-Grouse? What else can be done?

By Beth Burritt, Utah State University

Community-Based Conservation Local Working Groups: Throughout the area inhabited by sage-grouse, a valuable addition to the range-wide conservation effort is a community-based process referred to as Local Working Groups (LWG). LWG members include stakeholders in the area such as farmers, ranchers, state and federal agency staff, tribal and local governments, energy industry, environmental groups, non-governmental organizations, and other concerned citizens. LWG participants are keenly aware of the issues affecting sage-grouse at a local level.  They also have suggested research needs in their area.  Each LWG should have developed a conservation plan to address the threats to sage-grouse populations and habitats in their area. Implementation of projects identified in the LWG plan is voluntary and projects are adapted as needed to be successful in the area.  LWG members work together to identify resources that are available to complete conservation projects.  Several LWGs have been active in supporting research which has added to our knowledge about sage-grouse.  The Utah Community-based Conservation Program has a website highlighting extensive work by Utah LWGs and their partners in the state.  You can identify the LWG in your area with a locator developed by USGS.

Conifer removal:  Fires once kept the native conifers from expanding into treeless country. In the last 150 years, junipers and pinyon pines have invaded areas formerly dominated by sagebrush, grasses and forbs.  The trees are major water users, drying up precious springs in arid country; sage-grouse must then travel farther to reach water sources.  Trees also provide perches for avian predators to more effectively hunt sage-grouse.  Large conifer trees can completely overtake the native bunchgrasses and sagebrush and eliminate native seed sources making restoration difficult and expensive. In contrast, removing the younger trees rather than letting them grow is cost-efficient and beneficial for sage grouse by saving habitat and removing undue predator advantage.

Grazing systems that enhance habitat:  Sage-grouse need to use large tracts of land during the year for survival and habitat fragmentation was one of the primary concerns of the USFWS when they listed sage-grouse as a candidate species. Practices that improve rangelands for livestock can also improve the habitat for sage-grouse.  NRCS helps land managers develop grazing plans that will improve sage-grouse habitat and livestock production.  NRCS can also provide information on easements or conservation agreements. These practices offer ranchers some protection from further regulations.  Examples of beneficial grazing practices are:

  • Rotating livestock to different pastures, while resting others to establish a diversity of habitat types.
  • Changing seasons of use within pastures to ensure all plants have the ability to reproduce.
  • Leaving residual cover (grass from the past season) to increase hiding and nesting cover for sage grouse.
  • Managing the frequency and intensity of grazing to sustain native grasses, wildflowers, and shrubs.
  • Managing livestock access to water to ensure healthy livestock and healthy watersheds.

Fence Marking:  Wildlife can run into or become entangled in wire fences.  Sage-grouse are no exception.  A startled bird may fly into a fence which often results in death.  Fortunately there is a way to help make the wires more visible to sage-grouse.  NRCS has an initiative to mark fences near leks that appear to be most problematic.  Boy scouts, Future Farmers of America, dedicated hunters, and other concerned groups have worked with local NRCS agents to obtain fence markers and landowner permission to install them on fences.  More information can be obtained here. 

Prevent or reduce cheatgrass and other noxious weeds.  Cheatgrass is a highly flammable grass that can lead to frequent and very hot fires that kills sagebrush. Cheatgrass seeds germinate in the fall or early winter, so that the plants grow rapidly in early spring and seeds are produced by early summer. By the time cheatgrass dries out, native bunchgrasses are still green and working on producing their seedheads. The native grasses that have not produced seeds have trouble reestablishing after a fire, while cheatgrass flourishes after fires. With every fire, cheatgrass becomes more dominant.  Other invasive weeds causing problems in sage-grouse habitat include medusahead rye, white-top, leafy spurge, various thistles, and knapweed.  These weeds compete with native and desirable plant species used by sage-grouse, and also often lead to increased soil erosion, reduced water quality, and increased fire frequency.

Prevent wildfire: While fire is a natural part of the sagebrush-steppe, currently we have unnatural forces at work such as cheatgrass that fuels fast, hot fires that kills sagebrush and destroys sagebrush habitat.  Noxious weeds invade very quickly into burned areas and often out-compete native or desirable species.  Restoration after wildfire or other disturbance is expensive and often difficult.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology

Sage-Grouse: Management Plans & Status Updates

Sage-Grouse: Management Plans & Status Updates

By Beth Burritt, Utah State University

Although sage-grouse are an ESA candidate species, management authority currently remains with the states. The states, in exercising their management authority, have developed conservation plans that are tailored to the unique landscapes and environmental conditions and stressors that may affect local sage-grouse population dynamics. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service (USFS) also have developed sage-grouse conservation plans for the public lands they manage. In addition, many conservation local working groups have developed plans that address threats in their area.  Because of wide variability in range-wide populations and habitats, for any conservation strategy to be successful, it must be locally adapted to address specific needs of sage-grouse in area.

Links to management plans are listed below:

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Subscribe to