CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the American Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939. RECOMMENDED CITATION O’Neill, D. M. and W. E. Van Pelt. 2004. Review of Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy activities March 1997 through December 2003. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report XXX. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the members of the Jaguar Conservation Team and the participants in the Conservation Team's Working Group for thoughtful comments, and for their persistent, enthusiastic participation in this new approach to conserving jaguars. We also thank the members of the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group and the various Jaguar Conservation Team subcommittees for volunteering their time and expertise to help shape a science and reason-based course for this conservation effort. PROJECT FUNDING Funding for AGFD participation in this project was provided by: voluntary contributions to Arizona's Nongame Wildlife Checkoff; the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Heritage Fund (Lottery Dollars Working for Wildlife); Arizona's Nongame Wildlife Checkoff; and Project W-95-M, under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act). Funding for NMDGF participation in this project was provided by New Mexico hunting license revenues and matching funds from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act). Many volunteers have actively participated in the Jaguar Conservation Team and Jaguar Working Group. They have contributed significantly to this effort in terms of donated time and money. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................................2 Conservation Objectives and Activities ...........................................................................................2 Results ..............................................................................................................................................3 Objective 1. Implement the Conservation Assessment and Strategy........................................3 Objective 2. Establish a Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) and an Arizona-New Mexico Working Group (JAGWG) ...............................................................................3 Objective 3. Determine species distribution and status .............................................................4 Objective 4. Cooperate with Mexico..........................................................................................6 Objective 5. Identify, maintain, and promote existing and other suitable jaguar habitats.............................................................................................................................9 Objective 6. Promote scientific jaguar management and public education............................14 Objective 7. Increase legal protection.......................................................................................16 Objective 8. Evaluate progress and accomplishments.............................................................17 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................19 Appendices.....................................................................................................................................20 TABLES Table 1. Signatories to the Memorandum of Agreement, March 26, 1997. ................................... 2 FIGURES Figure 1. Photo of adult male jaguar taken by remote camera on December 9, 2001 at 9:23 p.m. ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Photo of same jaguar taken by remote camera on August 6, 2003 at 2:47 a.m. ............. 7 APPENDICES Appendix I. Subcommittees, and current members, assembled by the Jaguar Conservation Team since 1997. .................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix II. Jaguar handling protocol established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997....................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix III. Capture protocol and equipment needed to immobilize, radio-collar, and monitor a jaguar. ................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix IV. Ranking system for jaguar sightings and sighting form established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997....................................................................................... 31 Appendix V. History of reported jaguar sightings in Arizona, 1997-2003. ................................. 33 Appendix VI. History of reported jaguar sightings in New Mexico, 1997-2003. ........................ 35 Appendix VII. Assessment of M-44s use in Arizona and New Mexico....................................... 36 Appendix VIII. Checklist for suspected predator kill and track documentation guide established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997......................................................... 39 Appendix IX. Compensation criteria and monetary values for livestock loss attributed to jaguars established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997. ........................................... 41 REVIEW OF JAGUAR CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ACTIVITIES MARCH 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 2003 Deborah M. O’Neill and William E. Van Pelt INTRODUCTION In March 1997, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) entered into a Conservation Agreement with other state, local, and federal cooperators, with voluntary participation by many private individuals, to conserve the jaguar (Panthera onca) along borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico and to stimulate parallel efforts in Mexico (Johnson and Van Pelt 1997; Table 1). The 2 state wildlife agencies believed that if strong partnerships could be developed under this approach, it would be a significant step forward in bringing local governments, private landowners, and nongovernmental organizations directly into jaguar management. The Jaguar Conservation Agreement provides opportunities and incentives for interested and affected parties to become involved with conservation activities. These activities include collection of biological information (to provide a sound scientific basis for decisions); consideration of relevant cultural, economic, and political factors; design and implementation of a comprehensive approach to conservation (including public education); and monitoring, evaluation, and feedback. In addition to an over-arching Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the signatories, the Conservation Agreement embraces 2 main components. The first is a Conservation Assessment, which describes the status of the jaguar in the United States and identifies threats to the jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico. The assessment focuses the second component, the Conservation Assessment and Strategy, on reducing or eliminating threats in Arizona and New Mexico that might prevent expansion of the current range and distribution of the jaguar, and thus contribute to recovery of the species. Under the Conservation Agreement, an annual evaluation and progress report must be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by AGFD and NMDGF directors. The first of these reports was completed in July 1998 (Van Pelt and Johnson 1998) and the second in June 2000 (Johnson and Van Pelt 2000). This third report is a comprehensive review of all Jaguar Conservation Agreement activities from March 1997 through December 2003. We compiled the information herein with assistance from members of the Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) and Jaguar Working Group (JAGWG), to help ensure that objectives outlined in the Conservation Agreement are being accomplished and that any deficiencies identified are addressed and corrective measures are implemented. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 2 Table 1. Signatories to the Memorandum of Agreement, March 26, 1997. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona State Land Department Cochise County, Arizona Pima County, Arizona Santa Cruz County Arizona U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region Bureau of Land Management, Arizona New Mexico Department of Game and Fish New Mexico Department of Agriculture New Mexico State Land Office Hidalgo Soil and Conservation District Otero County, New Mexico U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services National Park Service, Intermountain Region Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico BACKGROUND Johnson and Van Pelt (1997, 2000) and Van Pelt and Johnson (1998) summarized the biological, legal, and conservation status of the jaguar in the Arizona-New Mexico-Mexico borderlands, and the activities of the JAGCT from conception through June 2000. In this report, we will identify progress, or lack thereof, in accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth by and for the JAGCT for the last 6 years. To do this, we present those goals and objectives as they were described in Johnson and Van Pelt (1997). CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES The Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy outlined 8 main objectives, each with a varying number of activities, for conserving jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico. The objectives are: 1. Implement the Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 2. Establish a Jaguar Conservation Team and an Arizona-New Mexico Working Group. 3. Determine species distribution and status. 4. Cooperate with Mexico. 5. Identify, maintain, and promote existing and other suitable jaguar habitats. 6. Promote scientific jaguar management and public education. 7. Increase legal protection. 8. Evaluate progress and accomplishments. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 3 RESULTS OBJECTIVE 1. IMPLEMENT THE CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY The Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy was implemented through an MOA on 26 March 1997. Signatures or letters of intent were received from 16 entities representing state and federal agencies and local governments with land management responsibilities in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Table 1). The signatories to this agreement formed the JAGCT. Hidalgo County, New Mexico also signed the MOA in 1997. However, on 9 December 1997, the County submitted a letter notifying the JAGCT of its intent to withdraw from the agreement because they believed that the MOA would affect their ability to maintain sovereignty over its affairs. Per the MOA, the JAGCT gave the County 60 days to rescind its withdrawal letter. The County did not, and the withdrawal took effect on 9 February 1998. Notably, withdrawal as a signatory for broader legal reasons has not diminished the County's participation in the JAGWG. Before signing on as a JAGCT cooperator, USFWS requested an amendment to the MOA to recognize the federal status of the jaguar and the need for activities to comply with the federal law. The proposed amendments were sent to the signatories for review. At the 22 January 1998 JAGCT meeting, a verbal vote by members present accepted the amendments proposed by USFWS. To comply with the MOA procedures, written votes were requested by 25 May 1998. The written vote was again in favor of amending the agreement as requested by USFWS. Though the amendments were approved, the document was never modified. Thus, the USFWS never signed the MOA. OBJECTIVE 2. ESTABLISH WORKING GROUP A JAGUAR CONSERVATION TEAM AND AN ARIZONA-NEW MEXICO The first JAGCT meeting was held on 30 April 1997 in Douglas, Arizona. Terry B. Johnson, AGFD, was elected Chair. For the first year, meetings were held on a quarterly basis (30 July and 15 October 1997; and 22 January 1998). Quarterly meetings continued through July 1998, when the JAGCT decided that henceforth it would meet only twice each year, starting in January 1999. All JAGCT meetings are held in public settings, and participation is voluntary. Those present that are not signatories to the MOA constitute the JAGWG. Sixteen JAGCT/JAGWG meetings have been held through December 2003. To accomplish some of the tasks outlined in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy, various subcommittees have been formed (Appendix I). Some subcommittees have met frequently since formed to accomplish work assigned to them. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 4 Primary activities at JAGCT/JAGWG meetings include subcommittee reports, discussion of action and information items, and task assignments. Summary notes of the meetings are distributed to the jaguar mailing list, which has approximately 400 entries. In addition, final summary notes are posted on the AGFD website (http://www.azgfd.com/w_c/jaguar_management.shtml). OBJECTIVE 3. DETERMINE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS To determine the jaguar's distribution and status, 4 tasks were identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy: 1) collect and compile jaguar distribution and occurrence information by the second JAGCT/JAGWG meeting and submit the results to 3 experts in the field; 2) establish a protocol for handling jaguars; 3) establish a sighting report procedure; and 4) within 1 year (April 1998), draft a report on the current status of the jaguar in Arizona-New Mexico. Progress on these tasks is as follows: Task 1: Collect and compile jaguar distribution and occurrence information by the second JAGCT meeting and submit the results to 3 experts in the field. AGFD and NMDGF compiled occurrence records and distributed the information at the July 1997 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting for comment. Corrected information was redistributed at the October 1997 meeting. The final information was referred to the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group (JAGSAG; see Objective 6, Task 1) for review. The JAGSAG accepted the records as verifying jaguar presence in the borderlands area. However, because the majority of the confirmed occurrences were prior to 1960, the JAGSAG recommended that 1 or more jaguars be radio-collared as quickly as possible to collect current data, especially on habitat use and movement patterns. Although the JAGSAG accepted the records as confirmation of jaguar presence in the borderlands area, there was some concern whether jaguar habitat persisted in this region. Task 2: Establish a protocol for handling jaguars. At the July 1997 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting, a subcommittee was established to draft a jaguar handling protocol. Subcommittee members collected relevant information from AGFD; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services); and The Phoenix Zoo. They distributed the final handling protocol at the October 1997 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting (Appendix II). The protocol was effective when members of the JAGCT/JAGWG pursued a suspected jaguar near Arivaca, Arizona on 18 October 1997. The animal was not captured, and hair samples collected by JAGWG team members during the pursuit proved not to be from a jaguar. After the October 1997 pursuit, the JAGCT asked the Depredation Subcommittee to develop a capture protocol to specify the actions, supplies, and personnel necessary to pursue and capture a jaguar. After being reviewed by Dr. Howard Quigley, Beringia South, the protocol was finished in July 2000 (Appendix III) and was distributed to appropriate parties. AGFD personnel have Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 5 assembled a capture kit, including all equipment needed to anaesthetize and collar a jaguar. The kit is being maintained and stored at AGFD’s Region V office in Tucson. Task 3: Establish a sighting report procedure. At the July 1997 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting, AGFD distributed a jaguar sighting rating system for comment. The rating system was modified from Tewes and Everett’s (1986) criteria for evaluating cat sighting reports. AGFD incorporated suggestions from members of the working group, and distributed a final ranking system and jaguar sighting form to the JAGCT/JAGWG in 1998 (Appendix IV). In 1999, AGFD personnel presented a training workshop in Safford for AGFD Region V Wildlife Managers. This workshop taught the necessary skills to identify large cat sign, take accurate measurements, and rate potential jaguar sightings. Each Wildlife Manager in the region (15) received a track identification kit, the rating criteria, and Jack Childs’ book Tracking the Felids of the Borderlands (1998; see Objective 5, task 8). To date, AGFD has obtained over 75 copies of his book and track identification kits, most of which have been distributed to field personnel. Additionally, Childs distributed this material to USFWS (1 copy each to New Mexico and Arizona), NMDGF (2 copies to Wildlife Managers in southern New Mexico), and Wildlife Services (2 copies to Arizona and 4 to New Mexico). In January 1999, JAGCT/JAGWG began developing a brochure for the public and other government agencies to provide information on how to report a jaguar sighting. The draft brochure was distributed for comments at the July 2000 and January 2001 JAGCT meetings. The final brochure was sent for printing in April 2001 and distributed to members at the July 2001 meeting. The U. S. Forest Service (USFS), AGFD, and Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) all contributed money for printing additional copies of the brochure. Seventy-four reputed jaguar sightings were documented, ranked, and when appropriate, investigated by AGFD from March 1997 through December 2003 (Appendix V). Fifty-six reports were either received too late for follow-up investigations, or the information provided did not require an investigation. Fifteen of the 56 of these were ranked as Class II sightings and the remaining 41 were ranked as Class III sightings. Eighteen sightings were reported in a time frame that allowed immediate investigation, or were accompanied by some form of physical evidence that was suitable for analysis. Nine of these investigations were ranked Class III after concluding the observer misidentified either the tracks (that is, mountain lion, black bear) or the animal (that is, mountain lion, bobcat, domestic cat). The remaining 9 sightings investigated proved inconclusive. Five were ranked as Class III, 3 were ranked Class II, and 1 was ranked a low Class I. There were 2 definitive jaguar sightings in Arizona during the past 6 years. After 9 months of camera monitoring, the first photo documentation of a jaguar occurred on 9 December 2001 at 9:23 p.m., when a remote camera set by Jack Childs, captured a photograph of an adult male jaguar (Figure 1). The animal appeared to be healthy and, according to Howard Quigley, was Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 6 probably not a formerly captive animal. This was based on no visible evidence of pad wear from pacing or calluses on legs from lying down. A distinct color pattern on the inside of the leg and tail helps distinguish individual jaguars. This was used to identify this jaguar as a different individual from either of the 2 jaguars sighted in 1996 or from those that Dr. Carlos Lopez Gonzalez, University of Queretaro, is studying in Mexico. This same jaguar was photographed again on 6 August 2003 at 2:47 a.m. by a remote camera set by Childs (Figure 2). One additional jaguar sighting was reported to AGFD, though the sighting was in the Burro Mountains of New Mexico. This sighting was ranked Class I based on a plaster cast of a track taken by a high school biology teacher who observed a large, black felid in the Burro Mountains in May 1999. Two members from the depredation committee and 2 researchers conducting studies in Mexico examined the cast. Everyone agreed the track belonged to a large felid, but because the cast was incomplete (1 toe and the back of the heel pad were missing), the cat species was not identified. Five reputed jaguar sightings were reported to NMDGF from March 1997 through December 2003; all were ranked Class III sightings (Appendix VI). All 5 were followed up with either phone calls or e-mails, and 2 deemed field investigations worthy. The 2 field investigations resulted in a positive identification of a mountain lion, and a probable mountain lion. Two of the 3 not field investigated were considered probable mountain lions, and the third remains unknown. Two jaguar vocalizations were also reported, but are not considered sightings by NMDGF. Task 4: Within one year (April 1998) the JAGCT would draft a report on the current status of the jaguar in Arizona-New Mexico. This task has been deferred, as Johnson and Van Pelt (1997) adequately summarized the existing information relevant to the jaguar's status along the Arizona-New Mexico borderlands. In addition, a new book, Borderland Jaguars/Tigres de la Frontera (Brown and Lopez Gonzalez 2001) outlines the jaguar’s status in the borderland region. The scientific community accepts that Arizona and New Mexico are the northern limits of jaguar range, and the jaguars recently occurring there are probably transient, dispersing individuals from Sonora, Mexico. The 2 state wildlife agencies consider the jaguar an extremely rare, but naturally occurring species in both Arizona and New Mexico. OBJECTIVE 4. COOPERATE WITH MEXICO To encourage cooperation with Mexico in regards to jaguar conservation, 2 tasks were identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy: 1) coordinate jaguar activities at the annual Trilateral Commission meeting and 2) encourage Mexico to determine the present distribution of jaguars and identify travel corridors. Progress on these tasks is as follows: Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 8 Task 1: Coordinate jaguar activities at the annual Trilateral Commission meeting. Participants from Canada, Mexico, and the United States exchange information about a variety of subjects, including jaguar conservation, at the Trilateral meetings. AGFD has represented JAGCT interests at these meetings. Trilateral Commission support has been especially important in promoting jaguar conservation activities in Mexico. One of the challenges in conducting jaguar research is insufficient funding. At the July 2000 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting, the working group suggested that JAGCT draft a letter to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to request inclusion of the jaguar on their list of high-priority species and projects to fund. In August 2000, AGFD participated in a meeting of the Shared Species Workgroup of the Trilateral Commission in Denver, Colorado to discuss priority species and projects. Jaguar research was identified as 1 of the top 5 priorities. This designation allows funding to be made available through the CEC, although no funding has been received to date. In March 1999, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) assembled 30 of the world’s jaguar experts in Morelos, Mexico to develop a strategy for an international jaguar conservation effort. The JAGCT Chair was invited to participate in this meeting to provide expertise on the northern limits of the species; Bill Van Pelt, AGFD, attended in the Chair’s place. The workshop, “Jaguars in the New Millennium,” was designed to assess the status and distribution of jaguars across their range and to develop geographic priorities to guide jaguar conservation. The geographic priorities for jaguar conservation can be found at www.savethejaguar.com. The printed workshop proceedings were published in Spanish, with English abstracts, in 2002. Sanderson and others (2002) used the priority setting and planning exercise conducted at the meeting, to outline what is required to save an imperiled species. In October 1999 the Mexican Federal Agency Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales requested that a JAGCT representative make a presentation at a meeting in Moctezuma, Mexico to outline the conservation approach being taken by Arizona and New Mexico for jaguars. Bill Van Pelt made the presentation, which was well received. Mexico continues to work toward convening a team similar to the JAGCT in the state of Sonora. At least 3 “exploratory” meetings have been held in Sonora thus far, where local communities, ranchers, and state and federal entities discussed this issue. Task 2: Encourage Mexico to determine the present distribution of jaguars and identify travel corridors. The JAGCT has provided considerable encouragement on this issue to Mexico and to scientists interested in working in Mexico; the WCS workshop was partially rooted in JAGCT’s efforts. Additionally, 2 important studies in Mexico have been initiated in close cooperation with JAGCT efforts. Since 1997, Dr. Raul Valdez, New Mexico State University, and Dr. Carlos Lopez Gonzalez have been conducting jaguar surveys in Sonora, Mexico. As a result of these 2 studies, a breeding population of jaguars has been identified approximately 216 km (135 miles) south of Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 9 the U. S. – Mexico International Border. The primary threat to jaguar survival in this region appears to be opportunistic killing of individuals. As many as 14 jaguars, including young, were killed from 1999 through 2003. Both Valdez and Lopez Gonzalez hope to radio-collar jaguars to gather detailed information on habitat use and travel corridors. Since Lopez Gonzalez initiated snaring attempts in his study area in 2001, he had 1 jaguar escape, has captured and collared 5 mountain lions and 1 lactating female jaguar. Jack Childs, Matt Colvin, both members of the Depredation Subcommittee, and Brandon Jones, Wildlife Services, visited Lopez Gonzalez’s study area in April 2002. Although they did not capture a jaguar while there, they investigated several cattle kills that had been depredated by jaguars. Dr. Valdez’s work involves the human dimensions aspect, and he is working with the first landowner based conservation association in Mexico. Valdez and the landowners are developing a plan for sustainable use of natural resources on approximately 29,947 hectares (74,000 acres) to improve ecological conditions. Though the landowners lose 10-20 heads of livestock per year by jaguar depredation, they are still participating in the group and have decided that they will no longer kill jaguars. Prior to this, 1 young jaguar and 6 adult mountain lions were killed in this area, and one 3-year old female jaguar was killed just northeast of this area. The landowners are very cooperative in this endeavor and have been reducing cattle grazing across portions of the area. In some sections, they have eliminated cattle grazing entirely. The landowners are beginning to realize financial benefits from the land through means other than grazing, such as guided hunts, and will pursue these opportunities to supplement their income from ranching. Oscar Moctezuma with Naturalia, a nonprofit organization in Mexico, was invited to speak to the JAGCT/JAGWG in July 2003 about the organization’s conservation activities. Naturalia is committed to conserving diversity especially where endangered species are concerned. The organization’s new project is the “Preserving Mexico Campaign” in which money raised will be used to purchase and protect priority areas. This campaign has allowed Naturalia to purchase a 4047 hectare (10,000 acre) ranch in Mexico. This ranch is the first reserve in Mexico specifically purchased to protect jaguars. The ranch is managed by Naturalia and the Northern Jaguar Project, a non-profit organization that supports Lopez Gonzalez’s research. OBJECTIVE 5. IDENTIFY, MAINTAIN, AND PROMOTE EXISTING AND OTHER SUITABLE JAGUAR HABITATS Eight tasks were outlined in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy to achieve this objective: 1) review relevant scientific literature to identify habitat use patterns and develop range-wide habitat suitability criteria applicable to habitats in Mexico, Arizona, and New Mexico; 2) review proposed and on-going projects and activities for potential impacts on jaguars and jaguar habitats; 3) beginning 12 months after establishment of JAGCT (April 1998), AGFD and Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 10 NMDGF will coordinate with land-management agencies and private landowners to inventory jaguar habitat; 4) in 24 months (April 1999), AGFD and NMDGF will produce maps delineating jaguar habitat and land ownership patterns; 5) encourage protection and enhancement of jaguar habitat and travel corridors; 6) AGFD and NMDGF will pursue protection and enhancement agreements for suitable jaguar habitat; 7) monitor and identify new, continued, and diminishing threats to jaguar population expansion; and 8) identify livestock depredation and control measures. Progress on these tasks is as follows: Task 1: Review relevant scientific literature to identify habitat use patterns and develop rangewide habitat suitability criteria applicable to habitats in Mexico, Arizona, and New Mexico. In 1997, a literature search by the JAGCT Habitat Subcommittee identified nearly 400 jaguarrelated articles. In 1999, much of this information was included in a more extensive jaguar bibliography developed by independent researchers (Fitzhugh and others 1999). The JAGCT/JAGWG has reviewed the material referenced by Fitzhugh and others (1999) to glean information relevant to our efforts to develop habitat, depredation, and educational publications. The JAGCT Habitat Subcommittee has held 10 meetings and conference calls to develop draft habitat suitability criteria for Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico. They also drafted a map of areas in Arizona that may have 1 or more jaguar habitat characteristics (see Objective 5, task 4). The subcommittee identified, and JAGSAG accepted, 5 criteria for determining potential jaguar habitat: 1) vegetation community associations; 2) prey densities; 3) human densities and proximity to agriculture and urban areas; 4) distance to water; and 5) areas must be within 80 km (50 miles) of documented jaguar sightings. JAGSAG recommended that a “terrain ruggedness index” be included in and elevation removed from the criteria to determine habitat suitability. The Sierra Institute Field Studies Program in Arizona (Institute; University of California Extension, Santa Cruz, CA) submitted a report to the Habitat Subcommittee in June 2000. Faculty and students at the Institute identified potential jaguar habitat in Arizona and New Mexico using methods outlined by the JAGCT Habitat Subcommittee. The report identified potentially suitable jaguar habitat and important travel corridors by mountain range, valley, and wash complex. The subcommittee asked JAGSAG to review the report. JAGSAG generally agreed with the approach taken, but not with all final recommendations (for example, using reintroduction as a tool to study habitat use). JAGSAG agreed with the finding of the report that insufficient prey should not automatically eliminate an area as potential jaguar habitat as prey numbers may be manipulated through appropriate management. Finally, JAGSAG recommended that the Habitat Subcommittee continue modeling potential jaguar habitat in the southwestern U.S. using the general criteria mentioned above until specific habitat-use data from jaguar populations in northern Mexico become available. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 11 Task 2: Review proposed and on-going projects and activities for potential impacts on jaguars and jaguar habitats. Fundamental to this objective is a definition of what is and is not jaguar habitat, and what areas provide the most likely linkages between these areas of potential habitat in northern Mexico and the southwestern United States. Although AGFD and NMDGF have identified potential jaguar habitat, there is little detailed information on habitat use by jaguars in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico. Current studies by Valdez and Lopez Gonzalez in Sonora, Mexico offer great promise. Lopez Gonzalez has provided AGFD with the GPS locations of areas considered suitable jaguar habitat on his study area in Mexico. This information will eventually be used to refine the jaguar land-use/habitat suitability model. In 1997, as part of the Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy, Wildlife Services agreed to conduct a risk assessment for accidentally killing a jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico from the use of M-44 devices. The general conclusion of their investigation was that no felids have died due to M-44 devices in the area of concern in the last 5 years (Appendix VII). Some JAGCT/JAGWG members were concerned the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)/Border Patrol’s proposed border developments, which include an extensive 4.6 meter (15 foot) fence, 24-hour lighting, new roads, and other items, may pose serious threats to potential jaguar connectivity routes between the U. S. and Mexico. The Environmental Impact Statement failed to address the potential impacts on jaguars. The JAGCT agreed to send INS a copy of the recently completed AGFD report on potentially suitable habitat for jaguars and offer assistance in identifying key landscape linkages between the U. S. and Mexico. Task 3: Beginning 12 months after establishment of JAGCT (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF would coordinate with land management agencies, state lands, and private landowners to inventory jaguar habitat. AGFD did not complete the final report, Characterizing and Mapping Potential Jaguar Habitat in Arizona until January 2003, and NMDGF did not complete their final report, Evaluation of the Relative Suitability of Potential Jaguar Habitat in New Mexico until July 2003. Because of this, no progress has been made on this task. A new timeline should be established for this task. Task 4: In 24 months (April 1999), AGFD and NMDGF will produce maps delineating jaguar habitat and land ownership patterns. At the December 2000 Habitat Subcommittee meeting, members voted that AGFD should take the lead in writing a jaguar land-use/habitat suitability report. This prompted the JAGCT/JAGWG to invite GIS Senior Analyst Jim Hatten, AGFD, to the January 2001 meeting to present a land-cover/habitat suitability map for the jaguar in Arizona, created using overlays of habitat criteria. These criteria were vegetation community associations, human densities and proximity to agriculture and urban areas, distance to water, elevation, terrain ruggedness, and documented jaguar sightings. The general conclusions of the model were that jaguars have been most often observed in low human density areas; in javelina, white-tailed or mule deer habitats Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 12 and less common in elk habitats; usually within 16 km (10 miles) of perennial or intermittent waters; and twice as often in scrub grasslands as any other biome classification. Jaguar sightings were clumped in southern and southeastern Arizona and scattered in the central part of the state, with “hotspots” to the north and south of Tucson. The land-cover/habitat suitability map identified 3 distinct areas of potential jaguar habitat in Arizona: southeastern Arizona, central Arizona, and north-central Arizona. AGFD submitted the final report, Characterizing and Mapping Potential Jaguar Habitat in Arizona (Hatten and others 2003) to the JAGCT in January 2003. In 2001, NMDGF contracted with the Earth Data Analysis Center (EDAC) of the University of New Mexico to model potential jaguar habitat in the state. EDAC looked at a combination of habitat variables within 31 km (50 miles) of Class I or II sighting locations in New Mexico to determine the relative suitability of areas for jaguars. The variables evaluated were terrain ruggedness, prey abundance, road density as an index to human activity, and proximity to water. Thresholds of suitability for each variable were determined by AGFD, and GIS was used to map potential jaguar habitat. The model predicted 2 areas with the highest probability of being able to support jaguars in New Mexico, the Peloncillo and Animas Mountains, and adjacent areas of the Gila and San Francisco river drainages along the New Mexico-Arizona border. NMDGF completed their report, Evaluation of the Relative Suitability of Potential Jaguar Habitat in New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003), and distributed it at the July 2003 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting. Task 5: Encourage protection and enhancement of jaguar habitat and travel corridors. No substantial progress was made on this task during this reporting period, although JAGCT/JAGWG members have encouraged broad-scale protection or enhancement of several “known” jaguar travel corridors and areas of recent occurrence. To date, such encouragement has been made largely within land-management planning processes of federal and state agencies and in fact is largely redundant to recommendations for other large carnivores and their ungulate prey bases. In 2003, the New Mexico State Legislature passed a resolution supporting the development of safe crossings for wildlife travel areas across highways, and directing the New Mexico Transportation and Game and Fish Departments to work cooperatively toward long-term planning of road projects that allow successful linkage of wildlife habitats. These efforts should consider linkage areas between potential jaguar habitats, and provide an opportunity to protect and enhance travel corridors. As inventories for potential jaguar habitat are completed and important use areas (if any) are identified, JAGCT/JAGWG members will be better able to work toward ensuring their protection and enhancement. Several JAGWG members have established remote-sensing cameras near the Mexican border along potential jaguar travel corridors. In 1997, Warner Glenn, Wendy Glenn, and the Malpai Borderlands Group set a camera in the lower Pelloncillo Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona and, in 1999, Jack Childs set a camera in the Baboquivari Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Childs also received a grant from WCS to start the Borderlands Jaguar Detection Project. This grant provided for setting up 6 additional cameras, hair snares, and track transects/plots Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 13 beginning in March 2001. In January 2002, The Phoenix Zoo donated 6 additional cameras to this project, and in November 2003 an informal group, Friends of the Jaguar, donated an additional camera to the project. There are 12 cameras currently being used in the field, and 1 is being repaired. Several other groups, including DOW, have cameras set up in potential jaguar habitat. At the December 2000 Habitat Subcommittee meeting, members expressed the need for coordination among these monitoring efforts to achieve the widest coverage possible. Hair collected from snares monitored by Childs eventually will be sent to a lab for genetic analysis. If jaguar hair is found, it will be compared to samples from Mexican populations to determine the origin of the individual. Task 6: AGFD and NMDGF will pursue protection and enhancement agreements for suitable jaguar habitat. From 1998-2003, AGFD's Heritage Fund (Lottery Dollars Working for Wildlife) granting program solicited proposals for jaguar habitat and travel corridor identification, protection, and enhancement projects in Arizona. Although 2 proposals were submitted regarding this topic, neither was eligible for funding. Task 7: Monitor and identify new, continued, and diminishing threats to jaguar population expansion. As a result of recent jaguar research activities in Mexico, JAGCT recently learned that an openpit mining operation and road development has been proposed for areas adjacent to the ArizonaNew Mexico borderlands area. These 2 projects potentially threaten the linkage between the U.S. and the northern-most known population of jaguars. In July 2003, the Habitat Subcommittee was assigned to investigate these potential threats and provide JAGCT with a better understanding of their scope and possible impact. Nothing has been reported to date. Additionally, the Habitat Subcommittee suggested that JAGCT invite INS to attend JAGCT/JAGWG meetings. Several INS projects (for example, brush-clearing and installation of stadium lights along the border) could affect jaguar movements between Mexico and the United States. Bill Van Pelt invited INS to attend the January 2001 meeting, and they expressed interest in becoming involved with the working group. Since then, they have been attending meetings. Task 8: Identify livestock depredation and control measures. A Depredation Subcommittee was established at the April 1997 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting to accomplish this task. The subcommittee subsequently developed kill verification procedures (Appendix VIII) and recommendations for compensation values (Appendix IX) that were approved and implemented by the JAGCT (Van Pelt and Johnson 1998). In May 1998, JAGCT cooperated with The Phoenix Zoo and the Malpai Borderlands Group to send 2 members from the Depredation Subcommittee to Brazil to collect first-hand information regarding livestock depredation. Jack Childs compiled the information collected into a field Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 14 guide, Tracking the Felids of the Borderlands (Childs 1998). This guide has been provided to Wildlife Managers and Wildlife Services agents in Arizona and New Mexico to help them identify potential jaguar sign. Additionally, more than 900 copies of the book have been sold and distributed throughout the United States, Brazil, and Australia. In August 1999, Jack Childs conducted a workshop in Silver City, New Mexico on the identification of jaguar sign and depredation. USFWS requested that all large-cat depredation work temporarily cease until after the workshop. This class was attended by personnel from USFWS, Wildlife Services (Arizona and New Mexico), and NMDGF. This workshop was mandatory for all Wildlife Services’ employees involved in mountain lion depredation control in the borderlands region. Childs distributed 10 copies of his book and track identification kit to workshop attendees. At the July 2000 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting, the role of Depredation Subcommittee chair was transferred from Warner Glen to Jack Childs. Childs reported to the JAGCT at the July 2000 meeting that he had recently received 1 potential jaguar depredation call. Upon investigation, the depredation was attributed to a mountain lion. OBJECTIVE 6. PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC JAGUAR MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC EDUCATION Two tasks were identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy to promote sound scientific decisions regarding jaguar management and public education: 1) establish a Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group and 2) promote public support through the development and distribution of informational and educational material. Progress on these tasks is as follows: Task 1: Establish a Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group. At the January 1998 JAGCT meeting, it was announced that all scientists who had been asked to sit on the JAGSAG had accepted their nominations. The 6 scientists are: Alan Rabinowitz, Wildlife Conservation Society; Brian Miller, the Denver Zoo; Michael Tewes, Texas A&M University; Howard Quigley; Raul Valdez; and Carlos Lopez Gonzalez. JAGSAG members have reviewed and commented on habitat criteria and JAGCT priorities. The highest priority identified for jaguar work in the borderlands is to radio-collar at least 1 individual to enable collection of detailed information on habitat use and movement patterns. Task 2: Promote public support through the development and distribution of informational and educational material. Various strategies have been implemented by JAGCT since 1997 to educate the public about jaguar conservation efforts. Since 1998, AGFD has carried a jaguar advisory in its hunt regulation booklet to advise hunters about the possibility of encountering a jaguar in southern Arizona. Similar information is included in general news releases with the onset of big game seasons. The information includes a reference to a $5000 reward posted by The Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 15 Houndsmen for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person intentionally killing a jaguar while it is federally listed as an endangered species. AGFD has established a jaguar page on their website (http://www.azgfd.com/w_c/jaguar_management.shtml). The jaguar page includes information from JAGCT and is one of the most visited pages on the AGFD website. AGFD printed and distributed a brochure designed to inform people about reporting jaguar sightings. This brochure also can be found on the website. Since 1998, the Education Subcommittee has been developing an educational packet regarding jaguars. These efforts have been discussed at each JAGCT meeting to date, and significant progress has been made. Originally, the subcommittee wanted to design a program for all grade levels, however this was too ambitious and they recently scaled back to grades 4 through 8 or 9. In February 2000, 9 educators met in Willcox, Arizona to create a jaguar-integrated program that will allow students to use problem-solving and critical-thinking skills to explore various issues surrounding jaguars such as economic, social, environmental, and land management concerns. The subcommittee disseminated the lesson plan developed to 15 educators in May 2001 for critical review. The educators’ primary responsibility was to ensure that the materials met state and national education standards and would be “user friendly” to educators serving grades 5 through 8. The lesson plan was finalized in April 2003, but will be revised as new information becomes available. This guide was translated into Spanish in fall 2003. One hundred each English and Spanish copies have been printed. Any educator who requests a copy must attend a workshop to learn how to use the materials to ensure that the materials are going to those who will definitely use them in their curriculum. During the Felines Natural History workshop, held in conjunction with the annual track count at Ft. Huachuca, 25 educators (formal and informal) were trained in using the guide with students. Additional training was provided to 23 participants (including several from northern Mexico) via the 2003 fall Senderos conference, sponsored by the Arizona Association for Environmental Education. These educators will be tracked closely over the next year to determine what works and what adaptations can/should be made to the guide. The Education Subcommittee also assembled 22 resource trunks which contain 4 replicated skulls (jaguar, bobcat, mountain lion, domestic cat); a mapping exercise with range maps, precipitation maps, vegetation maps, and jaguar distribution maps; literature comparisons including cultural attitudes and comparisons of past and present lion hunters; changing land use patterns; the history of jaguar conservation; and activities in developing conservation strategies (for example, group processes, identifying areas). Additional classroom resources included within each trunk are the books Tracking the Felids of the Borderlands (Childs 1998), Borderlands Jaguar/Tigres de la Frontera (Brown and Lopez 2001), and Eyes of Fire (Glenn 1996), as well as 3 videos from PBS/Nature, National Geographic, and Dorling Kindersley. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 16 In January 2004, the renovated AGFD exhibit at the Arizona Capitol Museum opened, featuring a small exhibit on the jaguar in Arizona. Funding to develop and finalize the curriculum and resource trunks was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Malpai Borderlands Group. An Outreach Subcommittee was formed in July 2002 to develop a long-term strategy for public education and outreach. Suggestions for outreach included holding public meetings in rural, borderland communities. Scotty Johnson, DOW, is the chairperson and members are Steve Pavlik, Sarah Rinkevich, Don Cullum, Janice Przybyl, and Levi Klump. Wendy Glenn, Malpai Borderlands Group, will help distribute information generated by the subcommittee but will not actively participate on the subcommittee. Several outreach events have been held involving 1) a presentation centered on Jack Childs’ camera monitoring work and his documentation of a jaguar in Arizona and 2) panel discussion with representatives from different agencies. In addition to public education, the purpose of these meetings is to re-engage some of the parties that have stopped coming to the JAGCT meetings. The Outreach Subcommittee received a $1000 grant from WCS for outreach efforts. Additionally, 4 other organizations (DOW, AGFD, USFWS, and NMDGF) have each contributed $1000 to the JAGCT for use in outreach efforts. Members of the Depredation Subcommittee have conducted or participated in at least 43 workshops or presentations on jaguar sign identification since August 1998. Jack Childs’ book Tracking the Felids of the Borderlands (1998) is being translated into Spanish, and a new book, Borderland Jaguars/Tigres de la Frontera (Brown and Lopez Gonzalez 2001) is available. OBJECTIVE 7. INCREASE LEGAL PROTECTION To increase legal protection for jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico, 3 tasks were identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy: 1) within 1 year (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF would attempt to increase state legal disincentives for unlawful take of jaguars; 2) AGFD would consider whether changes are needed in A.R.S. 17.239 to preclude legal killing of jaguars as stock-killers; and 3) USFWS will consider whether listing the jaguar under the "Similarity of Appearance" clause is appropriate. Progress on these tasks is as follows: Task 1: Within 1 year (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF would attempt to increase state legal disincentives for unlawful take of jaguars. In Arizona, AGFD successfully advocated state legislation (Senate Bill 1106) in 1998 imposing a $2500 criminal penalty (Class 2 Misdemeanor) and up to $72,500 in civil penalties for the Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 17 unlawful take of a jaguar. These fines are commensurate with current federal penalties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The legislation was signed into law by Jane Hull, Governor of Arizona, on May 7, 1998, but only takes effect if the jaguar is removed from the federal endangered species list. The legislature’s stated desire was to ensure that state penalties would not be additive to current federal penalties and would serve as an inducement to federal delisting. In the 1998 legislative session, NMDGF could not introduce legislation because the New Mexico legislature only addressed budgets during that legislative cycle. In 1999, during the 44th New Mexican Legislative Session, Senate Bill 252 was signed into law establishing new regulations and penalties for illegally killing a jaguar. Although this law provides state penalties as high as the amounts for any animal protected by the state of New Mexico, these penalties are not as high as those under the federal ESA. If these penalties are to serve as an inducement to delisting, they need to be revisited and modified. Task 2: AGFD would consider whether changes are needed in A.R.S. 17.239 to preclude legal killing of jaguars as stock-killers. After reviewing A.R.S. 17.239, AGFD determined that no changes were needed in the law. Because the jaguar is federally listed as endangered, it cannot be legally killed even if livestock have been harmed. Task 3: USFWS will consider whether listing the jaguar under the "Similarity of Appearance" clause is appropriate. The jaguar has been listed as an endangered species under the ESA subsequent to the Conservation Agreement. This task no longer is applicable. OBJECTIVE 8. EVALUATE PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS The Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy stipulates that AGFD and NMDGF are to report to USFWS each January on progress of tasks identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy. This report is to be an evaluation of the JAGCT efforts to date. Although greatly limited by lack of financial and staff resources and a continuing lack of detailed biological information about the jaguar at the northern edge of its range, the JAGCT continued to make progress since their inception on all 8 objectives identified in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Of the 19 individual tasks identified under Objectives 3-7, 10 have been completed and an additional 7 have been initiated. During this reporting period, significant progress has been made on completing a jaguar capture protocol (Objective 3, Task 2); designing a brochure to educate the public on how to report jaguar sightings (Obj 3, Task 3 and Objective 6, Task 2); modeling jaguar land use/potential habitat in Arizona and New Mexico (Objective 5, Task 4); and preparing and distributing a jaguar lesson plan to educators (Objective 6, Task 2). The JAGCT has made no progress on 2 tasks (Objective 3, Task 4 and Objective 5, Task 3) because Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 18 of the paucity of biological information on jaguar habitat requirements at the northern edge of their range. The public remains generally supportive of and involved in the Conservation Assessment and Strategy. The collaboration among agencies and local communities has opened constructive dialogue and cooperation on jaguar conservation in Arizona and New Mexico. We do not believe this would have occurred with a traditional regulatory approach to recovery under the Endangered Species Act. For example, interested citizens involved in the Education Subcommittee have contributed approximately $20,000 to the effort, including in-kind contributions. We can only hope that sufficient funding and staff resources are soon allocated to properly support the public involvement that has been evident throughout this effort. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 19 LITERATURE CITED Brown, DE and CA Lopez Gonzalez. 2001. Borderland jaguars/Tigres de la frontera. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. Childs, JL. 1998. Tracking the felids of the borderlands. Printing Corner Press. El Paso, Texas. Fitzhugh, EL, G Rios, PM Gros, WE Van Pelt and R Valdez. 1999. An extensive bibliography of the jaguar. University of California, Davis. Unpublished report. Glenn, W. 1996. Eyes of fire: encounter with a borderlands jaguar. Printing Corner Press, El Paso, Texas. Hatten, JR, A Averill-Murray, and WE Van Pelt. 2002. Characterizing and mapping potential jaguar habitat in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 203. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Johnson, TB and WE Van Pelt. 1997. Conservation assessment and strategy for the jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 105. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Johnson, TB and WE Van Pelt. 2000. Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement activities from July 1998 to June 2000. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 168. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Menke, KA and CL Hayes. 2003. Evaluation of the relative suitability of potential jaguar habitat in New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Sanderson, EW, KH Redford, C-LB Chetkiewicz, RA Medellin, AR Rabinowitz, JG Robinson, and AB Taber. 2002. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model. Conservation Biology. 16(1): 58-71. Tewes, ME and DD Everett. 1986. Status and distribution of the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi in Texas. Pages 147-158 in Cats of the World: Biology, Conservation, and Management (SD Miller and DD Everett, eds.). National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 501 pp. Van Pelt, WE and TB Johnson. 1998. Annual report on the jaguar conservation agreement for Arizona and New Mexico. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 132. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 20 APPENDICES Appendix I. Subcommittees, and current members, assembled by the Jaguar Conservation Team since 1997. KILL VERIFICATION\DEPREDATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS: Jack Childs, Chairperson. Members: Kelly Glenn-Kimbro, Warner Glenn, Chas Erickson, Levi Klump, Steve Fairaizl, Brandon Jones, Paul Pirtle, Matt Colvin, Craig Miller, Keel Price, and Gabrial Paz. COMPENSATION SUBCOMMITTEE: Ed Sanchez, Chairperson. Members: Warner Glenn, Levi Klump, Ron Bemis, and Chuck Chambers. HABITAT SUBCOMMITTEE: Bill Van Pelt, Chairperson. Members: Bill Moore, Lee Benson, Don Cullum, Tim Snow, Michael Robinson, Craig Miller, Ben Brown, Sarah Rinkevich, Steve Spangle, Jeff Williamson, Gary Helbing, Judy Keeler, Warner Glenn, Wendy Glenn, Cordy Cowan, Tony Povalitis, Reese Woodling, Meira Gualt, Bill Cowan, Jimmy Stewart, and Stephen Williams. EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE: Sue Krentz, Chairperson. Members: Don Cullum, Karen Kay Husted, Rod Mondt, Craig Miller, Karen Schedler, Michael Robinson, and Steve Pavlik. OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE: Scotty Johnson, Chairperson. Members: Steve Pavlik, Sarah Rinkevich, Don Cullum, Janice Przybyl, and Levi Klump. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 21 Appendix II. Jaguar handling protocol established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997. Policy: State wildlife agency representatives on the conservation team or designees will respond to all jaguar calls, including stock killers, in accordance with procedures prescribed in this protocol. Procedures: A. The purpose of these procedures is to create a situation where jaguars and humans can coexist. In dealing with jaguars, there are a number of factors that must be considered. These factors may include the individual jaguar's physical condition, damage of personal property, and public safety. We must be aware of the effects jaguars may have on landowners and government agencies, and be sensitive to what people and agencies feel their role is when we handle jaguars. B. During normal working hours, reports of jaguars that may need to be handled, should be reported to the conservation team's state wildlife agency representative. Handling requirements of jaguars are outlined below by category. Each agency will have its own policy of how to route information on a jaguar that must be handled, but the end results should be the same, involvement of all affected parties and timely resolution of any situation. C. The conservation team member receiving the call will determine if the jaguar call requires an immediate response (Appropriate response for each category are described below in Section D). 1. Category 1: Jaguar which is considered to be in immediate danger because: a. b. 2. the jaguar is injured; the jaguar is confined or restrained and unable to leave the area, i.e. foot snare Category 2: Jaguar which is not considered in immediate danger, but is of special interest to the Conservation Team or may be in danger in the future because: a. b. the jaguar is defending a kill, or has been involved in a depredation; the jaguar is uncollared and/or marked and is temporarily confined or restrained, i.e. treed by dogs Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 3. Category 3: Jaguar is not in immediate danger, nor is there reason to believe that it will become one because: a. D. January 2004 Page 22 the jaguar is only observed traveling through or resting, and is uninjured and posing no threat to personal property; As soon as the category has been determined, the conservation team member responding to the call will follow the procedure for the appropriate category listed below. 1. Category I situations require an immediate response by a state wildlife agency representative of the conservation team or their designee. If a depredation is involved, a depredation team member should also respond. a. The reporting party will be advised that the jaguar poses a threat to public safety and that all people should keep out of the area where the jaguar is located. The reporting party will also be told not to do anything that might cause the animal to injure itself. b. The conservation team member or their qualified designee will travel to the site and assess the situation as soon as possible. c. The safety of the jaguar and any people present are the most important aspect of handling. If for any reason, any of the actions below would imperil the jaguar or the people present, those actions should not take place, and the jaguar should be released immediately. d. Injured jaguars will be anesthetized and the extent of injuries evaluated. Non-debilitating injuries that can be treated on-site, will be treated and the animal will be processed and released, if appropriate. Debilitating injuries will be treated on-site, as best possible. Then the jaguar will be transported to a veterinarian experienced in working with large carnivores and/or wild animals for treatment, and if necessary, to an appropriate holding facility for rehabilitation. Rehabilitated jaguars will be released as soon as possible at or near the capture site. Non-releasable, rehabilitated jaguars will be placed at a captive facility. e. Jaguars that are handled will be anesthetized, processed and released on-site. Recommended anesthesia is Telazol at a dose of 5 mg/kg (2.3 mg/lb) [Schobert 1987, Kock and others 1989, Barnett and Lewis 1990] administered by experienced personnel only, with a jab stick or dart pistol or rifle (long range only). Processing includes taking standard physical measurements (weight, length, girth, pad sizes, skull and tooth dimensions); Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 23 estimating age; assessing physical condition; taking blood samples for genetics evaluation; assessing physical parameters and parasites/disease testing; photographing; ear-tagging and radio collaring. Ear-tags should be numbered and non-protruding; round plastic tags are preferred. f. When a Category I jaguar is captured on private property and the landowner does not want it released on-site, the jaguar will be moved to and released at a pre-approved release site. Both state wildlife agencies will pre-determine at least one release site where jaguars can be relocated. If a jaguar is moved to the release site, and remains in the area, a second site must also be identified for the release of a second jaguar, if needed. If the jaguar does not remain in the vicinity of the release site, successive jaguars can also be released there until one does occupy the area. In the case of depredation, the landowner will be offered fair compensation for the loss, after verification by a depredation team member that the depredation was by a jaguar. 2. If a Category II jaguar is on a natural kill, the location of the kill will be visited, the kill verified and documented, and habitat data recorded. If the kill is a depredation, the landowner will be offered fair compensation for the loss, after verification by a depredation team member that the depredation was by a jaguar. The conservation team's checklist for suspected predator kills and the track documentation guide should be used. 3. If a Category III jaguar is reported, the reporting party will be asked to describe the animal, and a record of the date, time, location and circumstances of the observation will be recorded on a jaguar sighting form. The reporting party will be encouraged to photo-document the animal when possible. No action is required for this category; however, if tracks are present, a qualified conservation team member should attempt to verify the sighting by track identification as soon as possible. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 24 Appendix III. Capture protocol and equipment needed to immobilize, radio-collar, and monitor a jaguar. Calling Order to Assemble Capture Team In Arizona Bill Van Pelt or Terry Johnson Contacts US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to verify permission to proceed with capture. Will transport USFWS representative and veterinarian, if necessary. Either Bill or Terry will have in hand, a copy of the USFWS permit allowing the capture to take place. Tim Snow or Ron Olding Has possession of radio tracking equipment. Will contact qualified dart person and qualified veterinarian. Will transport veterinarian if necessary. Warner Glenn or Jack Childs Makes arrangements for hunters, hounds, and mules. Note: The appropriate land management agency will be notified of capture attempt. Also, anyone holding use permits on public lands or owning private lands in the immediate vicinity of the capture attempt will be notified. The calling order may vary depending on geographical location of sighting. This calling order is based on the fact that the greater frequency of sightings has historically been in Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 25 In New Mexico Chuck Hayes, Pat Mathis, or Greg Schmitt Contacts US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to verify permission to proceed with capture. Will transport USFWS representative and veterinarian, if necessary. Pat Mathis, Nick Smith, or Kerry Mower Has possession of radio tracking equipment. Will contact qualified dart person and qualified veterinarian. Will transport veterinarian if necessary. Warner Glenn or Jack Childs Makes arrangements for hunters, hounds, and mules. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 26 Capture Protocol After a capture team has been assembled (a hunter, dart gunner, veterinarian, and appropriate agency staff with a copy of the USFWS permit in hand), a capture attempt can be initiated. Each team member should be in good physical condition and be prepared for long hours in the saddle. Bring your own water and sack lunch. The following should be done in advance of a capture: Procure a copy of a current permit from the USFWS to allow the capture of jaguars, including take provisions for capture related jaguar mortality. The permit should be sufficient to account for liability of capture participants in case of injury or death to humans or the jaguar in order to protect the members of the capture team. The capture team is made up of volunteers and needs to be protected against lawsuits. Required permit(s) issued by USFWS will be written in such a manner that live-capture of a jaguar is legal in Arizona and New Mexico provided that live-capture, handling and attachment of radio-telemetry, and subsequent monitoring is done as outlined in the Jaguar Conservation Agreement. Permits from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish will be issued to appropriate members of the Jaguar Conservation Team provided that live-capture of a jaguar or jaguars, handling and attachment of radio-telemetry, and subsequent monitoring of jaguars is done as outlined in the Jaguar Conservation Agreement and as approved by the USFWS. Note: A permit allowing for the capture of a jaguar has been issued to the Arizona Game and Fish Department by The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Permit was issued on March 2, 2000, and is good for two years. The following procedure will be followed in the event that hounds are used to bring the jaguar to bay: When the capture team arrives at the place where the jaguar was sighted, the capture team will allow the hunter and hounds to start the track. During the chase, it will be necessary to follow the instructions of the hunter so as not to interfere with the hounds. The hunter will attempt to stay as close to the hounds as is practical and shall have in hand a portable 2-way radio in order to maintain contact with the rest of the capture team. At the time the jaguar is bayed or treed, the following procedure will be followed: A. All people except the dart shooter and the dog handler will move back and all hounds will be leashed and tied or held within sight of the jaguar. When the veterinarian has determined that the anesthetic has taken effect, the hounds will Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 27 be removed from the area by the dog handlers so as to minimize the risk of mishap. B. The cat will be darted and the shooter will attempt to unobtrusively maintain visual contact until the cat is asleep. Note: The cat should be anesthetized as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of injury to the cat, the hounds and the capture team. The drug of choice will be Telazol at a dose of +5mg/kg. to be calculated by darter and veterinarian. C. In the event that the jaguar leaves the area after it has been darted, 15 minutes will be allowed for the anesthetic to take affect. At this time, the dog handler will take one or two hounds on a leash and trail the cat to where it is sleeping. D. If the cat does not leave the area and is in a dangerous situation, such as on a bluff or high in a tree where injury from a fall is likely, the cat will be chased from the area before the drug takes affect. If that is not possible, the cat will be assisted out of the tree when the drug has partially taken affect and the veterinarian decides it is safe to do so. If necessary, a tarp will be used to catch the animal if it falls. It may be necessary to call off the capture if the situation is assessed to be too risky to the jaguar or capture team. E. At this time the cat will be moved into the shade. The veterinarian will: Monitor breathing and heart rate, cover and protect the eyes, take blood samples for genetics and disease, treat dart wound site, assess physical parameters such as gums, eyes, coat condition, and obtain fecal and urine samples if possible. The collar team will: Affix radio collar on cat and collect tissue and mid-dorsal hair samples. Dried blood and tissue can be scraped from under the claws for DNA analysis to determine the prey species of the jaguar’s previous meal. Photographs should be taken of the head, teeth and bottoms of feet (close up) and the full body. A close up photo of the end of the tail should be taken to show the pattern of the black and white rings and spots. Any unusual or distinguishing features should be photographed. The data team will: Record data such as sex of animal, length of body and tail, heart girth, skull length, width and girth, weight and age of cat. The canine tooth length and bite width should be measured to help determine age. Measure length and width of front and rear footpads. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 F. January 2004 Page 28 When the work is completed and the veterinarian has determined that the cat is stable, everyone will leave the area, with a spotter watching from a distance until the cat is able to leave the area. In the event of accidental mortality of the cat, the veterinarian will document the reasons causing the death of the cat and list the first aid procedures used in the attempt to resuscitate the animal. Necropsy procedures can be performed at this time if deemed necessary by the veterinarian. The carcass will be turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Materials list The following materials will be broken down into kits that will easily fit into a backpack or saddlebag. The kits will be stored in the office of the Nongame Specialist at the AGF D Region V office in Tucson. Additional kits may be kept available at other locations. Backpack Collar with extra collar material Collar wrench Telazol-2 bottles Syringes Darts-2 each (3cc, 2cc, 1cc) Sterile water Dart gun Chapstick Duct tape Hole punch Calipers Tape measure Disposable camera *2- hand held 2-way radios Jab stick Empty film containers (for samples) Blindfold Filled water bottle Rubber gloves Forceps Ziplock bags Flashlight Batteries Plastic tarp (10X10) 30 foot nylon rope and portable scale (to be furnished by Jack Childs) DNA tissue collecting kit (to be furnished by Jack Childs) *Radios need to be added to kit just prior to use to ensure battery life. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 29 Veterinarian Supply List The following is a list of items that that would be necessary in a Vet bag. Additional items were included in a kit the last time a capture was attempted, and may be necessary. Inputs from the veterinarians on additions and modifications to this list based on their own experience and expertise is encouraged. Consideration of the terrain and distance that materials must be carried in a backpack by capture personal on foot should be considered. Blood tubes (sst, rt, lt) Syringes Swabs and tubes Parasite tubes Water (in a spray bottle) Tubes for feces and urine Antibiotics (such as triple antibiotic ointment) Eye wash / wetting gel Surgical pack containing sutures and needles Intubation tubes Breathing bag Betadine Neosporin or similar topical ointment Cotton balls Gauze Medical/Athletic tape Rubber gloves Atropine Epinephrine Dopram Dexamethasone Soludelta cortef Ivomec Some of the items on this list will be included in the veterinarians personal travel kit. Other items can be kept on hand in the offices of the respective game and fish departments, to be determined by game and fish personal at regional office. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 30 Monitoring Funding: A commitment of funds and equipment to monitor the jaguar’s movements and activities must be made prior to the animal being collared. Responsible Agencies: The Arizona Game and Fish Department will monitor the jaguar within the state of Arizona. To the degree feasible, the New Mexico Game and Fish Department will monitor the jaguar within the state of New Mexico. Qualified members of the Jaguar Conservation Team will be authorized to monitor jaguars in New Mexico according to objectives of the Jaguar Conservation Agreement. Methodology: Ground telemetry will be used when possible. Arial telemetry will be used if necessary, including for locations in Mexico if a jaguar crosses the border. The JAGCT will contact the appropriate Mexican Governmental agency in order to coordinate monitoring efforts back and forth across the border. Dr. Carlos Lopez Gonzalez has volunteered to contact the appropriate Mexican Government officials and assist in coordinating monitoring efforts back and forth across the border. 1. The jaguar will be monitored after release from a distance sufficient to avoid detection of the observer by the jaguar, while allowing the observer to monitor the cat’s physical recovery from drugs. 2. The jaguar will be monitored daily for 3 days to ensure no immediate negative effects (capture myopathy, etc.) occur from capture. Ideally, monitoring should take place daily for as long as possible, however, monitoring shall be done in such a manner so as not to interfere with the animal’s normal habits and movements. Also, monitoring should take place in such as manner so as not to alert the general public to the location of the jaguar. 3. The jaguar will be monitored weekly for one month and then biweekly until end of collar life. Aerial telemetry may be used as necessary to monitor the animal. 4. Additional monitoring will occur if resources allow, including weekly locations and prey use investigation. 5. Monitoring information will be made available to the conservation team at a level sufficient to evaluate progress and maintain the confidential nature of jaguar location data. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 31 Appendix IV. Ranking system for jaguar sightings and sighting form established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997. Ranking Criteria Class I-some sort of physical evidence is provided for verification 10 A jaguar is in the possession of the observer, via trapping, hunting, treeing by hounds, or a road-kill, and visual evidence of the sighting can be provided for verification. Examples of evidence are: photographs, videos, pelage or hair follicle, skull, or carcass. 9 Verifiable jaguar sign is presented for evaluation. Examples of sign are: tracks (measurable or plaster casts), scat, kill verification, or hair follicles. 8 A jaguar is observed, and reported separately, by two reliable individuals. Inconclusive physical evidence is provided. Examples of inconclusive evidence are shadowy photographs or incomplete measurements of tracks or scats. Class II-Detailed information of sighting is provided. Attempts to verify the sighting will be made by the state wildlife agencies. 7 An experienced observer, who is familiar with wildlife in the area and spends long hours in the field reports a jaguar sighting. No physical evidence is provided. Examples of an experienced observer are: biologist, trapper, hunting guide, and naturalist. 6 An observer accustomed to looking for details and spending long hours in the field provides an accurate description of a jaguar. Examples of a detailed observer include bird watchers, rock collectors, and ranch hands. 5 An observer is not "experienced in the outdoors" but seems reliable. Examples of reliable observers include college professors, and zookeepers. Class III-Information of a cat sighting is provided. No follow-up will be attempted. 4 Details of observer are vague and not specific or account is inconsistent. 3 Observer seems to have questionable credibility and exaggerates other events. 2 Observer describes a cat-like sighting. 1 Observer describes something besides a jaguar or provides information of no value. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 32 Jaguar Sighting Form Interviewer____________________________________Date __________________ Class/# Observer: Name ________________________________ (H) Telephone Address Occupation___________________________________ (W) Telephone Recreational/Outdoor experience 2ndObserver: Name ________________________________ (H) Telephone Address Occupation____________________________________(W) Telephone Recreational/Outdoor Experience Other Observers Original report date _______________________________________ via phone _____ via letter ____ in person ____ Sighting date ________________________________ Report received by Agency______________________Address _______________________________ Telephone Second report date _______________________________________ via phone _____ via letter ____ in person Report received by Agency_____________________ Address _______________________________ Telephone Time of day and duration of sighting: Location of sun to observer: Location: (state, county, landmarks & legal description) ______ 1/4 ______ 1/4 Section ______ Township ______ Range _______ Other Describe site: (habitat type, land use, visibility, etc.) Description of animal: (color, markings, etc.) Body length __________________________________________________ Legs and Feet Tail length ___________________________________________________ Head and Face Other comments: Number of animals seen _______________________________ Distance of observation Optical aids used ____________________________________ Photograph taken Occurrence description: Behavior: (Describe in observer's words) Jaguar sign (evidence) observed in area: (tracks, scat, prey remains) Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 33 Appendix V. History of reported jaguar sightings in Arizona, 1997-2003. Year 1997 Class III-1 Location Patagonia Mountains 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 III-1 I-9 II-7 II-7 II-5 III-1 Tucson Mountains Cerro Colorado Mountains Santa Rita Mountains Huachuca Mountains Huachuca Mountains Elfrida 1998 III-4 Near Marana 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 III-2 II-7 III-2 III-2 II-5 III-2 III-2 III-4 III-2 Cienega Creek Near Hereford Catalina foothills Whetstone Mountains Santa Rita Mountains San Pedro/Redington Tucson Santa Rita Mountains Aravaipa Creek 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 III-2 III-4 III-2 III-2 III-4 III-3 III-2 III-2 III-4 II-6 II-7 III-4 III-2 II-7 Huachuca Mountains Huachuca Mountains Catalina Peloncillo Mountains Davidson Canyon/I-10 Patagonia Mountains Aravaipa Creek Benson White Mountains/Alpine Oro Valley Portal Prescott Douglas Little Dry Creek, New Mexico 2000 II-7 Gila National Forest, New Mexico 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 III-2 III-2 III-2 III-2 II-7 III-1 III-2 Hereford Catalina Oracle California Gulch Baboquivari Mountains Dos Cabezas Mountains Santa Rita Mountains Comments No file; account described in JAGCT notes. Not investigated. Third-party observation; unable to confirm. Not investigated. Animal pursued with hounds; no capture. Interview too late for field investigation. Reported too late for field investigation. All black; seen from less than 50 feet. Not investigated. No file; account described in JAGCT notes. Not investigated. Reported in October. All black, details sketchy. Not investigated. Tracks reported were found to be bear tracks. Reported too late for field investigation. Reported as ocelot w/ kittens. Investigated. Reported as jaguarundi. Not investigated. Reported too late for field investigation. Black; reported too late to for field investigation. Description too bobcat-like; long tail? Not investigated. Reported as a dark puma; Outreach provided. Describes young lion; tannish-gray with spots. Not investigated. Investigation found that tracks were from a mountain lion. Describes and reported as jaguarundi. Not investigated. Picture provided with report, bobcat. Investigation found tracks reported were bear tracks. Description vague; no evidence found. No actual sighting; observation by smell. Not investigated. Dead ocelot reported; animal was a bobcat. Investigation found tracks of multiple lions. Coordination too late to obtain evidence. Reported in August. Not investigated Black; interview too late for investigation. Black; no file. Not investigated. Small cat, ocelot-like. Not investigated. Duffy sighting; interview request – JAGCT. Not investigated. Jacobi sighting; interview request – JAGCT. Not investigated. Reported smaller than lion. Not investigated. Investigation found small, bobcat-size tracks. Description of young lion. Not investigated. Investigation found evidence of a Mountain lion. Conflicting info reported. Investigation conducted. Hunter found deer in tree. Not investigated. Juvenile male; gray with black spots; report 2002. Not investigated. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 Year 2001 2001 2001 Class III-1 III-2 III-2 Location Unknown Phoenix NW Tucson 2001 2001 2001 III-2 III-3 III-2 Clay Springs Flagstaff Catalina foothills 2001 2001 2001 2001 II-5 III-2 III-4 III-4 Catalina foothills Willcox Whetstone Mountains Mule Mountains 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 I-10 II-7 III-2 III-1 III-1 III-3 South of Tucson Atascosa Mountains Tortolita Mountains Catalina foothills Whetstone Mountains Tucson 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 II-6 III-2 II-7 III-3 III-4 III-2 II-6 Catalina foothills East Tucson Near Amado Tucson Catalina foothills Catalina foothills San Pedro/Charleston 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 III-2 III-4 II-5 III-4 III-4 III-2 III-2 Green Valley Huachuca Mountains Safford Santa Rita Mountains Benson Saguaro Lake Tucson 2003 2003 II-5 I-10 Tucson South of Tucson 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 III-4 II-7 III-4 III-2 III-2 Catalina foothills San Pedro/Hereford Atascosa Mountains Tortolita Mountains Catalina foothills January 2004 Page 34 Comments Very dark cat; first thought it was a bear. Not investigated. Description of bobcat. Not investigated. Size was between a bobcat and a mountain lion. Not investigated. Black cat photo. Investigation found it was a house cat. Reported after seeing web-site information. Not investigated. Describes jaguarundi; thinner than a mountain lion. Not investigated. Reported in Feb 2002. Not investigated. Describes bobcats. Not investigated. Sighted between ½ - 1 mile away. Not investigated. Description sketchy; black cat; reported late. Not investigated. Jack Childs photo. Black. Reported too late for investigation. Gray, not jaguar or lion. Investigation produced no evidence. Third party report; unable to confirm. Not investigated. Tracks in snow; reported one week later. Not investigated. 12th and Valencia; reported after newspaper. Not investigated. Interview too late for investigation. Described as ocelot-sized animal. Not investigated. Reported too late for field investigation. Saw same cat 4 years ago. Not investigated. Details sketchy; black; report late. Not investigated. Describes young mountain lion. Not investigated. Observer sending track photos; none sent in. Not investigated. Cocoa-brown with gold spots. Not investigated. Dark, face spotted perhaps; report late. Not investigated. Black; A Wildlife Manager was asked to investigate. Glossy black; only hindquarters seen. Not investigated. Black; rest of description vague. Not investigated. Black; possibly jaguarundi. Not investigated. Smaller than a mountain lion. Investigation found no evidence. Black. Investigation found no evidence. Jack Childs photo. Same jaguar as photographed in December 2001. Reported after seeing photo in newspaper. Not investigated. Observer tracing tracks; none received. Not investigated. Black with brown spots; report too late for investigation. Description too small. Not investigated. Reported as jaguarundi. Not investigated. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 35 Appendix VI. History of reported jaguar sightings in New Mexico, 1997-2003. Year Class Location Comments 2000 NA SW New Mexico 2002 NA SW New Mexico 2002 III-2 SE New Mexico Report of jaguar-like sound (roaring outside a tent). An interview was conducted, but no field investigation was conducted of the site. A field investigation of the site was attempted but was inaccessible due to weather and road conditions. The general area was searched, and no sign of any large felid was observed. This was not considered a sighting. Report of jaguar-like sound (hissing emanating from a cave). An interview was conducted. No evidence of jaguar presence was identified. This was not considered a sighting. The observer initially reported a spotted cat (initially believed to be a young mountain lion after discussion with NMDGF personnel). After seeing a jaguar photo in the newspaper, the individual then reported the sighting as a jaguar. A follow-up interview was attempted, but there was no response. A field check and remote cameras revealed no evidence of jaguar. Probable mountain lion. 2002 III-2 Near Silver City 2003 III-2 Near Lake Roberts 2003 III-2 Datil area 2003 III-2 Near Tres Piedras Report of road killed black cat. The carcass was salvaged and taken to University of New Mexico-Museum of Southwestern Biology. After cleaning, the specimen was identified as a mountain lion that had been covered with asphalt and run over by multiple vehicles. Report of black cat observed crossing the road at dusk by 2 individuals walking along the road. The sighting occurred in the same location where the reporting individual had previously observed mountain lion sign on several occasions. A field investigation was not conducted given the duration of time since the sighting and the probability of it being a mountain lion. Secondhand report of hunter observation of a jaguar. The hunter is a seasonal firefighter, and several attempts to contact and interview the individual were unsuccessful. Report by motorist of jaguar crossing highway. The individual saw a cat-like animal crossing the highway and pulled over. The animal was obscured by brush, but it had spots and a long tail. A field investigation was not conducted given the age of the sighting and probability of it being a mountain lion. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 36 Appendix VII. Assessment of M-44s use in Arizona and New Mexico. As part of the Jaguar Conservation Agreement (JAGCA), which was finalized and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March 1997, USDA APHIS ADC (now Wildlife Services) agreed to conduct an assessment of the risk of accidental killing of a jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico from use of M-44 devices1. These devices are used routinely to take coyotes suspected of preying on livestock. M-44 devices are currently registered for use by ADC personnel in Arizona and New Mexico and by private applicators in New Mexico. Private applicator use in New Mexico is regulated by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. M-44s have not been nor are they currently registered for private applicator use in Arizona. Since Proposition 201 became effective July 1, 1995, M-44 use in Arizona has been prohibited on public land. The Conservation Assessment and Strategy in the JAGCA called for an analysis of M-44 use in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties in Arizona and Hidalgo County in New Mexico for the previous five years. It called for determination of (1) the number and species of felids taken by such methods; (2) the amount of area worked in the above counties; and (3) expert opinion on baits that would be least likely to attract jaguars while still allowing for effective M-44 use. Data for conducting the assessment were generated from the ADC Management Information Systems in the Arizona and New Mexico ADC programs, and using records from Federal Fiscal Years 92-93, 93-94, 94-95, 95-96, and year-to-date 96-97. These were the latest years that have been maintained in the current MIS systems and for which data were retrievable at the ADC state offices. Each fiscal year begins October 1 and ends the following September 30. Information on private applicator use and species take was obtained from the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. The maximum potential number of M-44 devices in use by ADC personnel in the five counties at any one time during each of the five fiscal years was retrieved from the MIS records. Each number represents the sum of the maximum number of M-44s that were in the field on each cooperating property under agreement on which ADC used M-44s during each fiscal year. The actual time or number of days that each M-44 was in the field is not retrievable from the MIS system. Therefore, it must be emphasized that the numbers of M-44s shown are not the actual number that were present at any one time, but represent the maximum number that could have been present at some time during the fiscal year. New Mexico Department of Agriculture records of private applicator M-44 use in Hidalgo County show no take of felids has ever occurred by private applicator use of this method (B. 1 The M-44 device is a spring-loaded cyanide ejector mechanism that is anchored in the ground and which uses a fetid bait to attract coyotes. When a coyote pulls up on the baited top of the device, the spring-loaded plunger is triggered so it pops upward, through a small plastic capsule containing a small (0.8 g) amount of powdered/granular sodium cyanide, into the coyote's mouth. The coyote is generally killed within seconds. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 37 Moore, Wildlife Specialist, NMDA, pers. comm.). Currently, six private applicators are licensed to use M-44s in the county, three of which live on the same ranch. No data are available on the sizes of the ranches where private M-44 use could occur. Collectively, the six applicators have a total of 59 M-44 devices in possession. Use records indicate that about 30 of the devices may be set at any one time. BLM and USFS policies do not allow private use of M-44 devices on federal public lands. Therefore, the only land status areas on which private use of M-44 devices is allowed are private and State Trust lands in Hidalgo County. M-44 BAITS TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE FELID TAKE In general, members of the cat family are not attracted to the most commonly used M-44 baits because such baits contain fetid or rotten scented meat as the base material. Also, ADC personnel frequently incorporate glandular lures containing coyote pheromone in M-44 baits which greatly enhances species specific attraction and lessening the attractiveness to felids. When setting M-44 devices, ADC Specialists avoid techniques such as sight attractants which would make the devices more attractive to felids. These canid-specific use patterns serve to greatly reduce the risk of taking felids. Table 1 suggests that M-44 use by ADC over the past five years has been successful in avoiding non-target felid take. Nevertheless, opinions of ADC personnel experienced with M-44 use and baits indicate that the risks to felids (members of the cat family) could be further minimized by avoiding use of any fresh meat baits, avoiding baits that rely on fresh fish as the base, and to avoid using anise oil as a bait ingredient (B. Fletcher, ADC Specialist, Hope, NM). CONCLUSIONS The above information indicates that M-44 devices have not resulted in the mortality of any felids in the affected area in the last five years despite use of these devices by ADC personnel in Arizona and New Mexico and by private applicators in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. ADC M44 use has not been widespread in the area. It is estimated the areas with M-44 use totaled no more than about one-half of 1% of the area of the four counties in any one year. No use has occurred on National Forest lands which are presumed to encompass the majority of the habitat most likely to be used by jaguars. Although M-44 use on the New Mexico portion of the Coronado National Forest could occur, it is expected to be relatively infrequent and of low intensity. M-44 use in Arizona is only allowed on private land. In general, M-44 devices are not attractive to felids because fetid or rotten scented bait materials and, in many cases, canidspecific gland lures, are used as the attractive agents. Cats generally prefer fresh meat and are not generally attracted to bait materials that are composed of animal flesh that is in an advanced state of decomposition, and are not generally attracted to coyote pheromone. This assessment indicates accidental or incidental take of a jaguar by M-44 use is highly unlikely to occur. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 38 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Because the risk to jaguars from M-44 use is exceedingly small, the mitigation measures currently established in the Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy (dated March 24, 1997) should be adequate to minimize risk. Those measures cover M-44 use by ADC and are: In the event that APHIS-ADC agents kill, or cause debilitating injury that precludes successful release of, a jaguar during lawfully authorized predator control activities, the incident shall immediately be reported to the primary cooperators; the capture method resulting in such take will cease immediately within five miles of the take location and within five miles of any other location of a confirmed reliable jaguar occurrence within the preceding six months; and APHIS-ADC will consult with the primary cooperators to determine how to proceed and whether additional guidelines and/or mitigation measures should be established for use of such methods in Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Hidalgo counties. If requested by the Jaguar Conservation Team, ADC will instruct personnel working in areas suspected to be inhabited by one or more jaguars to avoid using M-44 baits that have fresh meat or fish or anise oil as ingredients. Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 39 Appendix VIII. Checklist for suspected predator kill and track documentation guide established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997. Checklist for Suspected Predator Kill Date Inspected: __________________________________ Note: How located: found by AGFD personnel, reported by rancher, forester, hunter, other? Note which. Look for tracks prior to inspection and follow track documentation guide. Gather feces and hair samples if available. Make an extensive photographic record of the site and carcass. Notify Depredation Committee Leader-Warner Glenn (520) 558-2470 Species: Location: Estimated time since death: Kill site description: Slope direction: ________________________________________ Percent: Cover vegetation type: Tree or shrub species where kill is stashed: General Appearance: Drag marks present ___________________________ How far dragged Predator tracks present Species Type of debris Kill covered Has kill been moved __________________________ How many times Number of burial sites Carcass Characteristics: Carcass fed upon _____________________________ Percent consumed Position of carcass (on side, extended, curled up, other) Point of first feeding (rib cage, hind quarters, front quarters, other) Use of entails (parts missing, parts present, percent consumed) Use of muscle and fat (front and hindquarters, neck etc. Percent consumed) Signs of predator damage on carcass: Claw marks-location Tooth marks-location Measurements (between canines, claws etc.) Blood on ground or carcass-describe Signs of subcutaneous or internal bleeding-describe location Probable means of kill (choked, broken neck or vertebrae, other) Signs of struggle or chase at kill site Teeth marks on vertebrae Assessment of predator involvement: Certain _______ High Probability _______ Possible _______ Predator not cause of death _______ Other ______ Condition of prey prior to death: Sex ________ Age ________ Antlers or horns ________ Lactating ________ Unborn young present ________ Fat present on: intestines, liver, kidneys, heart, saddle, hips, ribs brisket. Note parts not present for examination. Femur marrow (circle): solid or gelatinous Parasites present: Ticks Nose bots Evidence of old injuries or disease Notes (continue on back if necessary) Color (circle): red, yellow, white, spotted pink, dark pink Load (circle): heavy, medium, light Other parasites Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 40 Track Documentation Guide Date: ___________________ Time: ______________________ Investigator: _________________________ Prevailing conditions (circle): windy, cloudy, dry still, rainy, other ______________________________________ Track Media: Snow (circle): wet, dry Dry (circle): hard, soft Mud (circle) soft, dry Sand Other ________________ Please sketch track and mark measurements as described below. Make all measurements in millimeters. Toes are numbered from left to right. Measurement 1: From top of the second and third toes to bottom of the lowest point of pad: ______________ Measurement 2: From the outer edge of first toe to the outer edge of the fourth toe: ______________ Measurement 3: From the left outer edge of the pad to the right outer edge of pad: ______________ Measurement 4: From the top edge of the pad to bottom of the lowest point of the pad: __________ Each toe should be measured and there are three measurements per toe. Toe 1: Sketch track below: Measurement 1: Width of toe one-third distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 2: Width of toe two-thirds distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________ Toe 2: Measurement 1: Width of toe one-third distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 2: Width of toe two-thirds distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________ Toe 3: Measurement 1: Width of toe one-third distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 2: Width of toe two-thirds distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________ Toe 4: Measurement 1: Width of toe one-third distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 2: Width of toe two-thirds distance down from top of toe: ______________ Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________ If track is suspected to be a jaguar, take pictures with scale indication. Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________ Arizona Game and Fish Department DRAFT Report on Jaguar Conservation Agreement Activities 1997-2003 January 2004 Page 41 Appendix IX. Compensation criteria and monetary values for livestock loss attributed to jaguars established by the Jaguar Conservation Team in 1997. Five items pertain to compensating livestock owners for losses attributed to jaguars: 1. Notification of depredation committee member-the kill site needs to be examined by someone knowledgeable about jaguar sign. The Depredation Subcommittee needs to notify the livestock associations in Arizona and New Mexico about who to notify if a jaguar is suspected of making a kill. 2. Examination of the kill site must occur within two or three days. Verification of a predator can only be successful on fresh kills. If it is impossible to tell, it may be necessary to trail with hounds until treed or bayed. This has to be done with extreme caution and as a last resort. 3. Values placed on livestock killed by jaguars needs to be reasonable (market value) but enough to fully compensate the owner for the loss. Although prices may seem high, livestock owners must feel they are being compensated fairly, causing them to want to leave the jaguar alive. The suggested values for 1997 are as follows: Calf: Yearling: Cow: Horse: Sheep: Goat: $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $ 600.00 $1500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 4. Notification of compensation fund. For as long as it lasts, the Malpai Borderlands Group has funds set aside to pay for confirmed jaguar kills. Payments can be made immediately if the need arises. 5. Upon verification, make payment to owner. Payments to owners must be made as quickly as possible by check from the fund holder.