Mexican Wolf Recovery Program:
Progress Report 6
Reporting Period: January 1– December 31, 2003
Prepared by: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cooperators: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, US Forest Service, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and
White Mountain Apache Tribe

Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………pg. 1
Part A: Recovery
A. Background ……………………………………………………….. pg. 1
B. Recovery Administration
a. Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program ………………... pg. 2
b. Service Partnerships in Administering the Blue Range …… pg. 4
Wolf Recovery Area Reintroduction
c. Restructuring of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program …... pg. 4
d. Mexican Wolf Recovery Planning ………………………… pg. 5
e. Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator …………………….. pg. 5
f. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Five-Year Review ……. pg. 5
g. Research …………………………………………………… pg. 6
h. Litigation ………………………………………………….. pg. 6
i. Mexican Wolf International Intern ……………………….. pg. 7
Part B: Reintroduction
A. Introduction ……………………………………………………….. pg. 8
B. Methods
a. Population Status ………………………………………….. pg. 10
b. Releases and Translocations ………………………………. pg. 10
c. Mortality ……………………………………………………pg. 11
d. Home Ranges and Movements ……………………………. pg. 11
e. Wolf Predation ……………………………………………. pg. 12
f. Wolf Depredation …………………………………………. pg. 12
g. Management Activities ……………………………………. pg. 13
h. Outreach …………………………………………………… pg. 13
C. Results
a. Population Status ………………………………………….. pg. 13
b. Releases and Translocations ………………………………. pg. 16
c. Mortality …………………………………………………... pg. 17
d. Home Ranges and Movements ……………………………. pg. 20
e. Wolf Predation ……………………………………………. pg. 22
f. Wolf Depredation …………………………………………. pg. 23
g. Management Action ………………………………………. pg. 24
h. Outreach …………………………………………………… pg. 25
D. Summary ………………………………………………………….. pg. 26
E. Discussion ………………………………………………………… pg. 28
F. Literature Cited ……………………………………………………. pg. 29
G. Pack Summaries …………………………………………………… pg. 31
H. Individual Wolf Summaries ……………………………………….. pg. 34
I. Personnel ………………………………………………………….. pg. 35

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

INTRODUCTION
The Mexican wolf project is a multi-agency cooperative effort between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (USDAWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT), the San
Carlos Apache Tribe (SCAT), and other supporting organizations including the Turner
Endangered Species Fund (TESF) and Defenders of Wildlife (DOW).
This report is divided into two main sections as follows: Part A (Recovery), indicating
aspects of the Mexican wolf program administered by the Service; and Part B
(Reintroduction), indicating those aspects of the program related to the management of
the reintroduced Mexican wolf population. Part B of this report is taken directly from the
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Interagency Field Team Annual Report.
A. BACKGROUND
The Mexican wolf is the southernmost and most genetically distinct subspecies of the
North American gray wolf. Mexican wolves were extirpated from the wild in the United
States by 1970 as a result of a concerted effort to eradicate them due to livestock
conflicts. As a result, they were listed as endangered in 1976. Five wolves were
captured in Mexico between 1977 and 1980. These wolves were the stock for a captive
breeding program managed for the Service under a bi-national Species Survival Plan
program between the United States and Mexico.
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed in 1979 and prepared the Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan, which contains the objectives of maintaining a captive population and reestablishing Mexican wolves within their historic range. In June 1995, the Service
released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled: “Reintroduction of the
Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States.” After an
extensive public review and comment period, the Final EIS was released in December
1996.
In March 1997, the Secretary of the Interior signed a Record of Decision approving the
Service’s preferred alternative in the EIS to release captive-reared Mexican wolves into a
portion of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which consists of the entire Apache and
Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. The Mexican wolf Final Rule
(Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in
Arizona and New Mexico, 63 Federal Register 1763-1772; 50 CFR Section 17.84(k)) was
published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1998 and provides regulations for how
the reintroduced population will be managed. On March 29, 1998, the first Mexican
wolves were released into the wild. All wolves within the BRWRA are designated as a
non-essential experimental population under the Endangered Species Act which allows
for greater management flexibility. An Interagency Field Team (IFT) comprised of

1

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
members from the Service, AGFD, NMDGF, WMAT, and USDA-WS has been formed
to monitor and manage the reintroduced population.
B. RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
a. Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan Captive Breeding Program
The current recovery plan for the Mexican wolf (USFWS 1982) stipulates that a captive
population of Mexican wolves is an essential component of recovery. A captive breeding
program was initiated in 1977 with the capture of the last remaining Mexican wolves in
the wild in Mexico and is managed for the Service under the American Zoological and
Aquarium Association’s Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan program (SSP). The SSP
designation is significant as it indicates to AZA member facilities the need for the species
to be conserved, and triggers internal support to member facilities to help conserve such
imperiled species. Without the support of the Mexican wolf SSP program, reintroduction
and recovery of Mexican wolves would not be possible. In 2003, there were
approximately 250 Mexican wolves managed in captivity in over 40 facilities in the
United States and Mexico.
The Mexican wolf captive breeding program holds an annual, bi-national meeting to plan
wolf breeding and transfers between facilities for the coming year, and to coordinate and
plan related activities. The location of these meetings alternate between Mexico and the
United States. In 2003, the annual SSP meeting was held in Cuidad Victoria,
Tamaulipas, Mexico, and was hosted by the Zoologico de Tamatan. Throughout the
year, the Service coordinated with the Mexican wolf SSP program coordinator on myriad
issues.
Captive Management of Pre-Release Mexican Wolf Facilities
One of the primary goals of the Mexican wolf SSP captive breeding program is to
provide wolves for the Service for reintroduction purposes. Captive Mexican wolves are
selected for release based on their genetic makeup, reproductive performance, behavioral
criteria, physical suitability, and response to the adaptation process. All wolves selected
for release are genetically redundant to the captive population (i.e., their genes are
already well-represented) to minimize any adverse effects on the genetic integrity of the
remaining captive population in the event those wolves released to the wild do not
survive.
Release candidate Mexican wolves are acclimated prior to release in Service-approved
facilities designed to house wolves in a manner that fosters wild characteristics and
behaviors. They include the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility, the Ladder Ranch
Wolf Management Facility, and Wolf Haven International (described below). Wolves at
these facilities are managed in a manner that minimizes human contact in order to
promote the development of wolf behaviors such as pair bonding, breeding, pup rearing,

2

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
and pack structure development. Additionally, limiting the wolves’ exposure to humans
also serves to promote avoidance behavior.
Release candidate Mexican wolves are sustained on a zoo-based diet of carnivore logs
and a kibble diet formulized for wild canids. Additionally, carcasses of road-killed native
ungulate species, such as deer and elk, are supplemented when available to mimic prey
items the wolves would encounter in the wild. Mexican wolves held at pre-release
facilities are given an annual exam to vaccinate for canine diseases and to evaluate
overall health conditions, and are treated for other veterinary purposes on an as-needed
basis.

Figure 1. Unknown Mexican wolf in the wild. Photo courtesy of the US Forest Service.
Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility (SWMF)
The SWMF is located on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge near Socorro, New
Mexico and is the only Mexican wolf pre-release facility managed by the Service. There
are a total of seven enclosures, ranging in size from ¼ of an acre to approximately 1¼
acre, plus an additional quarantine pen. During 2003, the staff of SNWR continued to
assist in the maintenance and administration of the SNWR wolf facility and conducted
important outreach related to the Mexican wolf recovery program.
Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility (LRWMF)
The LRWMF is located on the Ladder Ranch near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
There are a total of five enclosures, ranging in size from ¼ acre to 1 acre. Prior to 2003,
management of this facility was supported solely by the Turner Endangered Species Fund
(TESF); however, due to funding shortfalls encountered by TESF, the Service financially
supported the LRWMF in 2003 in order to keep the facility operating and available for
much-needed captive Mexican wolf housing.
Wolf Haven International (WHI)
WHI is located in Tenino, Washington. There are a total of two pre-release enclosures at
the facility for housing Mexican wolves, each just over ½ -acre in size. Management of
this facility is supported solely by WHI.

3

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

b. Service Partnerships in Administering the BRWRA Reintroduction
In 2003, the Service sustained partnerships with AGFD, NMDGF, Texas Tech
University, TESF, USDA-WS, WMAT, and SCAT via formal agreements with each
entity. Each of these cooperators provided at least one employee to serve on the
BRWRA Interagency Field Team (IFT) during 2003, or, in the case of Texas Tech
University provided a graduate student to work in conjunction with the IFT.
Agreements with AGFD and NMDGF are matching agreements where the Service
provides 75% of costs and each state agency provides 25%. All other listed cooperators
received 100% of their funding for involvement in the Mexican wolf program from the
Service during 2002, with the exception of Wildlife Services which received additional
Congressional funding for responding to livestock depredations by Mexican wolves.
In May, 2003, the Service and the SCAT entered into a cooperative agreement to monitor
and manage (to include removal) Mexican wolves that inhabit the San Carlos Apache
Reservation (SCAR). The agreement provides funding annually to support a tribal
biologist to focus on wolf management issues on the reservation. The SCAT currently
does not support wolf recovery and they have passed a resolution that requires the
Service to remove Mexican wolves that inhabit the reservation. As a result, many wolves
were removed from SCAR in 2003 (See Part B for more information on removals).
c. Restructuring of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
As previously reported (See 2002 Progress Report #5), the Mexican wolf program was
restructured in 2002 to allow the State’s and Tribes to assume lead responsibility for
implementing the reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the BRWRA. Throughout
2003, the Service worked closely with program cooperators to transition into this
structure and worked to formalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to re-define
and re-formalize the roles of all cooperators in the program. The MOU was near
completion by the end of this reporting period. As part of the restructuring of the
program, a Mexican Wolf Oversight Committee (AMOC) has been formed. It consists of
members from each of the primary cooperating agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, US
Forest Service, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, and White Mountain Apache Tribe), as
well as county and other representatives, and provides guidance to the Interagency Field
Team on policy issues related to the management of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA.
Additionally, a Mexican Wolf Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) has been
formed and has replaced the former Interagency Management Advisory Group (IMAG).
The purpose of the AMWG is to provide a forum to afford any and all interested parties
substantive opportunities to constructively and productively participate in the program.
Both the AMOC and AMWG meet quarterly throughout the year to discuss pertinent
Mexican wolf management issues.

4

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
d. Mexican Wolf Recovery Planning
In August, 2003, the Service disbanded the former 1979 Mexican Wolf Recovery Team
and convened the Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Recovery
Team to revise the outdated 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The plan will include
collaboration with Mexico and will contain biologically-based recovery goals and
objectives, downlisting/delisting criteria, and a description of necessary actions to
achieve recovery of the gray wolf in the Southwest DPS. The Recovery Team consists of
both a scientific and stakeholder component, the latter of which is comprised of a variety
of interest groups including livestock associations, ranchers, guide/outfitters, hunters, and
environmental groups. The first Recovery Team meeting was held on October 21 - 22,
2003 in Albuquerque. The plan is expected to be completed by the end of 2005.
e. Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
In June, 2003, Brian Kelly, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, accepted another
position with the Service in Wyoming as the Ecological Services State Field Supervisor.
The program continued to operate with existing staff personnel filling in for the Recovery
Coordinator’s responsibilities for the remainder of 2003. The Service plans to advertise
for the position and anticipates a new Recovery Coordinator to be hired by early 2004.

Figure 2. Mexican wolf. Photo courtesy of the California Wolf Center, Julian, CA.
f. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Five-Year Review
The Mexican wolf Final Rule (Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population
of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico, 63 Federal Register 1763-1772;
50 CFR Section 17.84(k)) states that the Service will evaluate Mexican wolf
reintroduction progress and prepare full evaluations after 3 and 5 years that recommend
continuation, modification, or termination of the reintroduction. March 28, 2003 marked
the end of five years of the reintroduction program; however, due to the absence of a
Recovery Coordinator and ensuing workloads related to litigation and other coordination
issues, the Service was unable to make significant progress with the five-year review in
2003 and expects to initiate the review with program cooperators and the public in early
2004.

5

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

g. Research
Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
The Mexican wolf SSP program conducts a variety of research on behalf of the
conservation of Mexican wolves in captivity. Several ongoing reproductive, artificial
insemination, and semen collection research projects continued in 2003.
Mexican Wolf Food Habits Study
In 2000, Ms. Janet Reed, a Master of Science candidate under the direction of Dr. Warren
Ballard at Texas Tech University, began a research project to determine the food habits
of wild Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico by collecting scat throughout the
BRWRA for macroscopic and microscopic analysis. The efforts of Ms. Reed and Dr.
Ballard continued in 2002. In 2001 field work on this study was completed and
laboratory work commenced in 2002. Specific efforts in 2002 included genetic
identification of scats and quantification of the contents of the scats collected.
Completion of this project is expected during 2003; however, the data suggests that
wolves are feeding primarily on elk (Cervus elaphus).
Cattle Mortality Study
In 2003, USDA-WS, in conjunction with other primary cooperators in the Mexican wolf
program, began a research study in Arizona to assess domestic cattle mortality in an area
of sympatric carnivores (Mexican wolves, mountain lions, bears, and coyotes). 2003
represents the first year of a proposed five-year study with the ultimate goad of
identifying methods for reducing livestock mortality. No results are available for
dissemination at this time.
h. Litigation
Coalition of Counties Lawsuit
In April, 2002, the Coalition of Arizona and New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic
Growth, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, and the Gila Permittees
Association (collectively the “Coalition”) filed a sixty-day Notice of Intent (NOI) to sue
the Service for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) relating to the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into
the southwestern United States. One of the primary premises of the NOI is that the
Service has failed to protect the genetic purity of Mexican wolves in the wild due to the
Pipestem Pack alpha female breeding with a domestic dog in 2002 (See 2002 Progress
Report #5 for further details).
No further legal action occurred until May 5, 2003, when the Coalition formally filed suit
against the Service regarding the above mentioned NOI. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs

6

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
allege that the Service: (1) failed to comply with Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA by failing
to adequately consider the impacts of hybridization, (2) violated NEPA by failing to
prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, and (3) violated the Freedom of
Information Act by failing to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ request and by improperly
withholding documents. On October 6, 2003, Plaintiffs then filed a motion for
preliminary injunction to seek an emergency order halting any more releases or
translocations of Mexican wolves into the wild and to require the Service to remove all
Mexican wolves from the wild. A ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction is not
expected until 2004 when the case will be heard in court.
Reclassification Lawsuit
On April 1, 2003, the Service changed the classification of gray wolves under the
Endangered Species Act from endangered to threatened in portions of the lower 48 states.
The Service also established three “Distinct Population Segments “(DPS) for the gray
wolf that encompasses the entire historical range of wolves in the United States and
Mexico. This action did not change the status of Mexican wolves, and they continue to
be listed as experimental non-essential or endangered. However, Mexican wolves are
now part of the Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS. Many environmental groups have since
filed NOI’s to sue the Service over a variety of issues surrounding the delisting of wolves
to threatened classification and the creation of the three DPS’s.
i. Mexican Wolf International Intern
In the fall of 2003, the Service, in partnership with Defenders of Wildlife, hired Nahum
Sanchez, a Mexican intern, to work in Alpine, Arizona as a member of the IFT in the
BRWRA in order for him to gain experience with monitoring and management of
Mexican wolves. The intent is for Nahum to bring the knowledge and techniques he
acquired during the internship back to Mexico to use for Mexico’s reintroduction plans.
Mexico anticipates releasing Mexican wolves into Mexico as early as 2004. The four
month intern stipend was supported solely by Defenders of Wildlife, while the Service
provided housing, vehicle, and other logistical support for Nahum.

7

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
PART B: RECOVERY
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Interagency Field Team Annual Report
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2003
Prepared by:
Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and White Mountain Apache Tribe
Agency Cooperators
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
U.S.D.A.-A.P.H.I.S Wildlife Service (USDA-WS)
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
Other Cooperators
Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders)
Turner Endangered Species Fund (TESF)
A. INTRODUCTION
Herein, we report the progress of field efforts during 2003 to reestablish Mexican wolves
(Canis lupus baileyi) into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) of Arizona
and New Mexico (Fig. 1). The BRWRA encompasses approximately 6,850 mi2,
composed of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (A-SNF) in east-central Arizona
and the Gila National Forest (GNF) in west-central New Mexico. In 2000, the WMAT
agreed to allow wolves to inhabit its reservation lands, adding approximately 2,440 mi2 to
the recovery area. In 2002, the WMAT signed on as a primary cooperator, providing the
potential for wolves to be directly released on tribal lands.
The primary goal of this reintroduction effort is to restore a self-sustaining population of
at least 100 wild Mexican wolves distributed across the BRWRA. In January 1998, the
first release of Mexican wolves occurred, on the A-SNF of Arizona. At the end of 2003,
approximately 55 wolves in nine packs inhabited recovery areas in Arizona and New
Mexico. In addition, there are other wolves that are considered “status unknown”,
because their deaths or continued free-ranging existence have not been documented.
Abbreviations used in this document:
Wolf age and sex:
A = alpha
M = adult male (> 2 years old)
F = adult female (> 2 years old)
f = subadult female (1-2 years old)

m = subadult male (1-2 years old)
mp = male pup (< 1 year old)
fp = female pup (< 1 year old)

8

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

Figure 1. The Mexican wolf Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Arizona and New
Mexico.

9

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
B. METHODS
The following methods section is primarily taken from previous Mexican wolf annual
reports (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mexican Wolf Annual Reports 1998, 1999, 2000;
Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, 2002). For
purposes of this project, a wolf “pack” is defined as ≥ two wolves (including at least one
collared wolf) that maintain an established territory and are proven breeders. In the event
that an alpha wolf dies, the pack status or name is retained by the remaining alpha wolf,
regardless of pack size. A “group” of wolves is defined as ≥ two wolves that travel
together on a consistent basis but are not proven breeders. “Releases” are defined as
wolves released directly from captivity, with no previous free-ranging experience, into
the Primary Recovery Zone. “Translocations” are defined as free-ranging wolves that
have been captured and moved from one area to another. This includes wolves that have
been temporarily placed in captivity after they have been free-ranging.
a. Population Status
Wolves were monitored using standard radio telemetry techniques from the ground and
once or twice weekly from the air. Location data were entered into the project’s Access™
database for analysis. Population estimates were determined via howling surveys, visual
observations, and ground tracking. Minimum population estimates incorporated the total
number of collared wolves, uncollared wolves, and pups, documented by the end of
September, 2003. Pup and uncollared wolf counts were based on the latest date in the
year in which accurate estimates were available. Pups, in general, are closely associated
with collared animals prior to September, at den or rendezvous sites. After September,
pups gradually become indistinguishable from other uncollared subadult wolves and
occasionally display dispersal behavior or travel separately from the alphas with other
uncollared members of the pack. This causes difficulties in accurately representing pup
and uncollared wolf numbers after September.
b. Releases and Translocations
Release candidate wolves were acclimated prior to release in USFWS approved facilities,
where contact between wolves and humans was minimized and carcasses of road-killed
native prey species (mostly deer and elk) supplemented their routine diet of processed
canine food. These included the Ladder Ranch Captive Management Facility managed by
the TESF (Ladder Ranch), the Sevilleta Captive Management Facility managed by the
USFWS at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (Sevilleta), and the Wolf Haven Captive
Management Facility managed by Wolf Haven International (Wolf Haven). Sevilleta and
the Ladder Ranch are in New Mexico and the Wolf Haven facility is in northwestern
Washington. At each facility, genetically and socially compatible breeding pairs were
established and evaluated for physical, reproductive, and behavioral suitability for direct
releases into the wild. Some pairs produced pups in captivity before release; their pups
and occasionally yearlings were included in the release group.

10

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
Wolves selected for release were radio-collared and given complete physical
examinations prior to being transferred to the release locations. Caretaker camps were
established approximately 0.5 miles away from pen sites. Carcasses of native prey and
fresh water were provided as needed. When necessary, security was maintained by posted
USFS closures of areas within approximately 0.5 miles of each pen.
Releases and translocations of wolf packs in 2003 used nylon mesh acclimation pens
approximately 0.33 acres in size, with electric fencing interwoven into the structure.
Flagging was attached to the pen walls approximately every two feet, as a deterrent to
wolves running into the pen walls.
One pack was released in 2003, at Maness Peak (Fig. 3), on the A-SNF in Arizona. Three
translocations of packs occurred in 2003, two at Miller Spring (Fig. 3), on the GNF in
New Mexico, and a third on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) in Arizona. The
translocation on the FAIR also included the release of offspring that were born in
captivity.
All released and translocated wolf packs were provided supplemental road-killed elk and
deer, or occasionally commercially produced “meat logs” formulated for wild carnivores.
The duration of supplemental feeding varied, depending on time of year, availability of
vulnerable prey, and whether pups were present. Supplemental feeding was gradually
discontinued when wolves began killing prey.
c. Mortality
Wolf mortalities were identified via telemetry and later confirmed by visual observation.
The cause of death was investigated and determined by USFWS law enforcement agents
in conjunction with the USFWS Forensics Lab (Ashland, Oregon). Financial rewards are
offered for information leading to the conviction of individuals responsible for the
shooting deaths of Mexican gray wolves.
d. Home Ranges and Movements
Aerial locations of wolves were used to develop home ranges (White and Garrott 1990).
We based home range polygons on one year (January-December) of locations evenly
distributed across summer and winter seasons for wolves from a given pack (Mladenoff
et al. 1995, Wydeven et al. 1995). To maximize sample independence, individual
locations were only recognized for radio-marked wolves that were spatially or temporally
separated from other radio-marked pack members. This approach limits potential
pseudoreplication of locations.
Wolf home range size reaches an asymptote at around 30 locations; increasing the
number of locations beyond this level has little effect (Carbyn 1983, Fuller and Snow
1988). We elected to use ≥20 locations per year as a threshold for analyzing home ranges.
To account for this potential sampling bias (sometimes using < 30 locations), we used the

11

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
fixed kernel (FK) method to estimate wolf home ranges due to its low bias when sample
sizes are small (Kernohan et al. 2001).
In contrast, previous wolf home range analysis has relied largely on the more liberal
minimum convex polygon (MCP) method (e.g. Carbyn 1983, Fuller and Snow 1988,
Burch 2001). FK home ranges derived from smaller sample sizes typically yield more
accurate home range size estimates than other estimates that are more dependent on
increased sample size to develop accurate home ranges (Seaman et al. 1999, Powell 2000,
Kernohan et al. 2001). Thus, we used 95% FK approach to describe home range sizes due
to its improved performance relative to other home range estimators. However, we used
the 95% MCP method to describe occupied wolf range, in accordance with the Final Rule
for the Nonessential Experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf (50 CFR
17.84(k)).
Home range polygons were generated at the 95% level to represent home range use areas
by wolves (White and Garrott 1990), using the FK method (Worton 1989) with leastsquares cross-validation (LSCV) as the smoothing option in the animal movement
extension in the program Arcview (Hooge et al. 1999; ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA).
Occupied Mexican Wolf Range was defined by the 95% MCP, with a three mile buffer
around all packs or groups that had ≥ 20 locations and five mile buffers around individual
locations of wolves traveling alone and pack or group locations that had < 20 locations, in
accordance with the Final Rule for the Nonessential Experimental population of the
Mexican gray wolf (50 CFR 17.84(k)).
e. Wolf Predation
Project personnel investigated wolf-killed ungulates as they were found, analyzing the
carcasses to determine sex, age, health, and whether or not the carcass was scavenged or
was an actual wolf kill. In addition, we conducted intensive winter monitoring of four
packs over a three-week period during March, to determine the health and type of prey
consumed and to document minimum winter kill rates. Intensive winter monitoring
involved acquiring daily locations of the four packs via aerial telemetry, to pinpoint kills
and observe wolf numbers. Ground crews then examined kill sites to verify the type of
species and determine the health and cause of death, when evidence was present.
f. Wolf Depredation
USDA-WS personnel investigated suspected wolf depredations on livestock as soon as
reports were received, most often within 24 hours. Results of all investigations were
reported to the Cooperators and to DOW, a non-profit organization that compensates
livestock owners for wolf depredations. Unfortunately, not all wolf-killed livestock are
found in time to document wolf involvement. Thus, depredation levels in this report
represent the minimum number of livestock killed by wolves (see Bangs et al. 1998,
Oakleaf et al. 2003).

12

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
g. Management Actions
If wolves localized near areas of human activity or were found feeding on cattle, they
were hazed by chasing them on foot, horseback, or all-terrain vehicles. When necessary,
rubber bullets, cracker shells, radio-activated guard (RAG) boxes, and other pyrotechnics
were used to encourage a flight response to humans and discourage the nuisance behavior
the wolves were displaying. Under circumstances where wolves were not responding to
aversive conditioning attempts, animals were captured and removed from the wild or
translocated into other areas within the recovery area. In addition, wolves that established
territories outside the BRWRA, on private land or on the San Carlos Apache Reservation
(SCAR), were captured and brought back into the BRWRA or returned to captivity, as
mandated by the Final Rule for the Nonessential Experimental population of the Mexican
gray wolf (50 CFR 17.84(k)). Capturing primarily occurred through the use of leghold
traps; however, occasionally conditions required the use of helicopters. Trapping was
also used to enhance the project’s ability to monitor the population by increasing the
number of radio-collared wolves, identifying and marking unknown wolves, and
inspecting the health and condition of wolves in the wild.
h. Outreach
Project personnel conducted outreach activities on a regular basis as a means of
disseminating information from the field team to stakeholders, concerned citizens, and
government and non-government organizations. This was facilitated through bi-weekly
updates, field contacts, handouts, informational display booths, and formal presentations.
C. RESULTS
a. Population status
At the end of 2003, 23 radio-collared wolves were free ranging within the BRWRA,
documented through telemetry, visual observations, and other evidence. There were also
approximately 12 uncollared adult/subadult wolves and at least 20 pups documented by
the end of September, via howling surveys, visual observations and ground tracking
(Table 1, Fig. 2). The population consisted of nine packs (six in Arizona and three in
New Mexico), four groups, and five single collared wolves. In addition, two packs
(Sycamore, Red Rock) and one group (Cerro) were either removed or died during the
year (see Mortality and Management Actions). Furthermore, there are other wolves that
are considered “status unknown”, because their deaths or continued free-ranging
existence have not been documented. In addition, there are likely other undocumented
wolves free-ranging that have never been radio-collared. Undocumented wolves are most
likely loners, but project personnel have investigated credible reports and have confirmed
at least one group of uncollared wolves occupying an area along the Arizona/New
Mexico border, east of Escudilla Mountain.

13

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
In 2003, seven packs (Hawks Nest, Cienega, Saddle, Bluestem, Bonito Creek, Gapiwi,
and Luna) produced wild–conceived and wild-born litters. The Francisco pack bred in the
wild, but presence of this pack on the SCAR forced their removal from the wild into
captivity, where the pups were born and unexpectedly died.
A wild-born wolf bred and raised a litter of pups for the second time in 2003. This
occurred with the Bonito Creek pack (F587 and M794), that pair bonded at the end of
2002, after the death of the original Bonito Creek AM674. The pair bred and produced at
least two pups in 2003. In addition, due to the current number of dispersing adult and
subadult wolves present in the wild several packs may form naturally in 2004, increasing
the number of wild born wolves in the breeding population.

14

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
Table 1. Mexican wolf population estimates as of December 31, 2003.
Wolf ID

Reproductiona

Number of
Collared
Wolves

Hawks Nest
Cienega
Saddle
Bluestem

AF486, AM619
AF487
AM574, f797
AF521, AM507

Hon-Dah
Bonito Creek
Francisco 2c
Gapiwi
Luna
Group

AM578
AF587, AM794
AF511
AF624
AF562, AM583
f799, m729

2
2
5
2
(3 – 1 dead)
Undisclosed
Undisclosed
0
3
1
NA

Group

m798

Pack

NA

Group

f858

NA

Group

NA

NA

Single
wolves

M832, f800*,
mp859*,
m795*, m796*

NA

20

Min Pack Sizeb

2
1
2
2

Number of
Uncollared
Adult and
Subadult
Wolves
0
2
1
3

1
2
1
1
2
2
1

Undisclosed
Undisclosed
0
0
1
0
1

Undisclosed
Undisclosed
1
4
4
2
2

1

1e

2

NA

2

2

5

NA

NA

23

12

55d

4
5
8
7

Totals
a

Reproduction - number of pups documented at the end of September 2003
Minimum Pack Size – total number of collared and uncollared wolves documented at
the end of the year and pups documented at the end of September
c
Francisco 2 – modified pack name due to translocation from the wild, back into the wild,
after being held in captivity
d
Total Minimum Population Estimate - includes 10 total wolves on the FAIR, from the
Hon-Dah and Bonito Creek packs
e
Uncollared wolf documented after the end of September, 2003
*Disperser – wolves traveling primarily apart from their pack of origin
b

15

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

Min Population
60
50
40
30

Min Population

20
10
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 2. Mexican wolf minimum population estimates from 1998 — 2003.
b. Releases and Translocations
In 2003, one wolf pack was released into the Primary Recovery Zone, in the A-SNF of
Arizona (Table 2, Fig. 3). On June 13, 2003, the Red Rock pack was released into the
Maness Peak pen on the Alpine Ranger District; the pack broke out of the pen on the
same day. Shortly after their release, the pack split, dispersing in different directions. At
the end of 2003, only one of the four original pack members remained in the wild.
In 2003, three wolf packs were translocated from captivity back into the wild. Two
translocations occurred in the GNF and one pack was translocated onto the FAIR (Table
3, Fig. 3). On April 8, 2003, the Sycamore Pack was transported to the Miller Spring site
and remained in the pen until they were released on April 18. AF592 was bred in
captivity and was pregnant at the time of the translocation (we think AF592 produced
pups that, for unknown reasons, died shortly after birth). The Sycamore pair then traveled
onto a ranch where they were involved in a cattle depredation, causing the removal of
both wolves (see Management Actions). The Francisco pack was transported on June 25,
2003, to the Miller Springs pen, as a family unit without pups and were released on June
26. Initially the pack remained together; however, pack members soon began to disperse
until the entire pack separated. The Hon-Dah pack was transported on June 23, 2003, to a
pen on the FAIR. Five additional translocations occurred in 2003; each case involved a
single wolf being removed from the SCAR and moved onto the A-SNF or the GNF
(Table 3).

16

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

Table 2. Mexican wolves released from captivity without any prior history in the wild
during January 1- December 31, 2003.
Pack
Red Rock

Wolf #s
AM593, AF613,
m729, m732

Release Site
Maness Peak,
AZ

Release Date
06/13/2003

Reason for
Release
Increase genetic
diversity in the
BRWRA

Table 3. Mexican wolves translocated from captivity or the wild during January 1 –
December 31, 2003.
Pack

Wolf

Release Site

Release Date

Sycamore

AM648, AF592
(pregnant)

Miller Spring,
NM

04/08/03

Hon-Dah

AM578, AF637
(plus offspring)

FAIR, AZ

06/23/03

Francisco

Miller Spring,
NM

06/25/03

Bluestem

AM509, AF511,
m798, f799, f800,
m801
m639

01/30/03

Bluestem

mp756

Poll Knoll,
AZ
PS Knoll, AZ

Unknown

M832

Unknown

f858

Unknown

mp859

02/21/03

Turner Peak,
05/29/03
NM
Escudilla
11/22/03
Mountain, AZ
Escudilla
11/23/03
Mountain, AZ

17

Reason for
Translocation
Increase genetic
diversity in the
BRWRA
Increase genetic
diversity in the
BRWRA
Return the pack
to the wild
Out of BRWRA,
on SCAR
Out of BRWRA,
on SCAR
Out of BRWRA,
on SCAR
Out of BRWRA,
on SCAR
Out of BRWRA,
on SCAR

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

18

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
c. Mortality
Since 1998, 37 wolf mortalities have been documented, 13 of which occurred in 2003
(Fig. 4). This is the highest number of mortalities documented in a single year since the
inception of the project. However, due to the increased number of wolves in the
environment, the level of mortality versus the population size, is comparable to that
observed in previous years. In addition, this should be considered a minimum estimate of
mortalities, since pups and uncollared wolves can die and not be documented by project
personnel. Most mortalities in 2003 for which cause of death was determined, were
human caused, but some cases are still under investigation (Table 4).
Table 4. Mexican wolf mortalities documented during January 1 – December 31,
2003.
Wolf ID

Pack

Age

Cause of Death

M639
F644
AF592
m756

Cerro
Cerro
Sycamore
Bluestem

2.9
3.1
4.1
1.1

Date Found
03/09/03
05/25/03
05/27/03
06/09/03

AM593
fp856
AF510
m857
AM509

Red Rock
Bluestem
Saddle
Luna
Francisco

4.2
0.3
6.4
1.4
6.4

06/28/03
08/26/03
09/15/03
09/19/03
09/24/03

AM584

Gapiwi

4.5

09/28/03

m801

Francisco

1.4

10/07/03

AM194

Cienega

8.8

12/21/03

AF637

Hon-Dah

3.7

12/24/03

19

Illegal shooting
Illegal shooting
Lethal control
Unknown/
decomposed
Vehicle collision
Illegal shooting
Illegal shooting
Vehicle collision
Preliminary results;
vehicle collision
Preliminary results;
illegal shooting
Preliminary results;
vehicle collision
Preliminary results;
illegal shooting
Under investigation

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1998

1999

2000

Min. Population
Wolves Removed

2001

2002

2003

Wolves Released
Mortalities

Figure 4. Mexican wolf population estimates and associated population parameters.
Released wolves represent: translocations (wolves re-released from captivity back into
the wild, and wolves removed from the wild and immediately re-released) and initial
direct releases (wolves with no wild experience).
d. Home Ranges and Movements
Most wolves exhibited normal home range use, except for four subadult wolves that
exhibited typical dispersal behavior. Home ranges were plotted with a number to
represent each pack or group respectively (Fig. 5). Home range sizes were calculated
using the 95% FK method. The average home range was 280 mi2 (725 km2), with a range
of 40 mi2 (103.6 km2) to 397 mi2 (996.47 km2). Occupied Mexican wolf range using 95%
MCP is displayed in Figure 6, along with pack and group home ranges calculated using
the 95% FK method. In all, Mexican wolves occupied 5,138 mi2 (13,307 km2) of the
BRWRA during 2003.

20

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

Figure 5. Mexican wolf packs and groups in 2003.

21

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

Figure 6. Occupied Mexican Wolf Range during 2003, based on 95% MCP home ranges
with a 3-mile buffer and a 5-mile buffer around locations of individual wolves. At the
request of WMAT, wolf home ranges (95% FK) are not shown on the Fort Apache Indian
Reservation (FAIR) and occupied wolf range is shown as larger than the actual occupied
range on the FAIR.
e. Wolf Predation
During 2000 and 2001, a dietary study was conducted by Texas Tech. University, in
association with the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project (Janet Reed, Texas Tech.
University, personal communication). Scat was collected throughout the Primary Wolf
Recovery Area for macroscopic and microscopic analysis to determine feeding habits.
Percent frequency of occurrence (number of prey/total prey items) was used to determine
the proportion of each prey species found in wolf scats. The following is a list of species
found, with corresponding percentages: adult elk 36.6%, calf elk 36.2%, adult deer 2.6%,
deer fawn 2.3%, unknown wild ungulate 10.4%, cattle 4.2%, small mammal 5.3%, birds

22

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
0.4%, insects 0.8%, plants 0.8%. These data support project observations that wolves are
feeding primarily on elk (Cervus elaphus).
In 2003, the project began intensive winter monitoring to determine predator/prey
relationships in the form of kill rates. This monitoring operation was conducted as a
preliminary model to determine feasibility and its practical application, with intent to
incorporate this form of monitoring into future, yearly operational plans. Over a threeweek period that monitoring was conducted, nine carcasses were found (eight elk and one
deer), of which only six were investigated: four elk calves, 1 adult deer, and 1 bull elk
that had obvious ligament damage and bruising on one of its front legs. Elk were also the
most commonly documented wolf kills found opportunistically throughout the year.
f. Wolf Depredation
The 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) predicted 1-34 cattle
depredations per year when the Mexican wolf population reached the reintroduction goal
of about 100 wolves. This represented < 0.05% of all cattle present on the range (at the
time the FEIS was written), which is only a fraction of the impact that other predators
have on ranching within the Southwest (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1996).
During 2003, 15 depredations were documented, including five confirmed, seven
probable, and three possible depredations (Table 6). This is consistent with depredation
levels predicted by the FEIS for a wolf population of this size (55 wolves). However, this
should only be considered a minimum estimate, as some depredations may go
undocumented (see Bangs et al. 1998, Oakleaf et. al. 2003). In 2003, project personnel
and USDA-WS captured and removed two wolves to captivity because they localized
outside the BRWRA and were associated with depredations. Another wolf was lethally
removed for repeated depredations, after aversive conditioning and trapping efforts
proved unsuccessful. Since the inception of the project in 1998, Defenders has paid a
total of $30,613 to livestock producers for losses due to Mexican wolves (Craig Miller,
Defenders of Wildlife, personal communication).
Table 6. Wolf depredations occurring during January 1 – December 31, 2003.

Fatality
Injury

Confirmed Depredation
Probable Depredation
1 cow
1 cow
2 calves
3 calves
1 lamb
3 calves

Possible Depredation
1 cow
1 horse
1 calf

In 2003, USDA-WS, in conjunction with the primary cooperators of the Mexican Wolf
Reintroduction Project, began a research study in Arizona to assess domestic cattle
mortality in an area of sympatric carnivores (Mexican wolves, mountain lions, black
bears, and coyotes). 2003 represents the first year of a proposed five-year study, with the
ultimate goal of identifying methods for reducing livestock mortality. Results from 2003
are not available for dissemination at this time.

23

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

g. Management Actions
Capturing of wolves is a necessary management action used to enhance the project’s
monitoring capabilities, as well as to remove problem animals or wolves that have
localized outside of the BRWRA, on private land or on the SCAR.
In 2003, 15 wolves in total were captured for management purposes. Ten of these wolves
were removed from the SCAR and translocated to the A-SNF or GNF. Some wolves
were temporarily placed in captivity prior to being translocated (Table 7). Four of the ten
wolves removed from SCAR were uncollared when captured and outfitted with radio
collars for monitoring purposes. In addition, five other wolves were captured for the
following reasons: one wolf was captured for routine monitoring purposes, and four were
removed for depredation and/or nuisance behavior (one was removed using lethal control,
the others were returned to captivity). One of the wolves captured for nuisance behavior
was returned to captivity for veterinary care because of broken metatarsal bones in a rear
leg, which was not related to trapping activities.
Table 7. Mexican wolves captured during January 1 – December 31, 2003
Pack
Wolf ID
Capture
Reason for Capture
Date
Francisco f800
01/19/03
Removed from SCAR; transferred to captivity
Bluestem m639
01/30/03
Removed from SCAR; re-collared/processed;
translocated to Poll Knoll (A-SNF)
Bluestem mp756
02/21/03
Removed from SCAR; collared/processed;
translocated to PS Knoll (A-SNF)
Francisco m801
04/07/03
Removed from SCAR; transferred to captivity
Francisco AF511
04/09/03
Removed from SCAR; transferred to captivity
Francisco f799
04/30/03
Removed from SCAR; transferred to captivity
Francisco AM509 05/02/03
Removed from SCAR; transferred to captivity
Sycamore AM648 05/21/03
Associated with cattle depredation; nuisance
behavior; returned to captivity
Sycamore AF592
05/27/03
Confirmed cattle depredation; lethally removed
lethal
after trapping efforts proved unsuccessful
control
Unknown M832
05/28/03
Removed from SCAR; collared/processed;
translocated to Turner Peak (GNF)
Red Rock AF613
07/31/03
Injured; nuisance behavior; returned to captivity
Red Rock m732
08/26/03
Confirmed cattle depredation; outside of
BRWRA; returned to captivity
Gapiwi
AF624
09/12/03
Routine monitoring; collared/processed; released
on site (GNF)
Unknown f858
11/22/03
Removed from SCAR; collared/processed;
translocated to Escudilla Mountain (A-SNF)
Unknown mp859
11/23/03
Removed from SCAR; collared processed;
translocated to Escudilla Mountain (A-SNF)

24

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
Aversive conditioning, in the form of pyrotechnics, rubber bullets, and RAG boxes, was
used on seven wolves (two pairs and three single wolves) to discourage depredation,
nuisance behavior, and localizing around rural residential areas. In most instances, hazing
attempts had only short-term effects. However, project personnel did not document any
depredations by m729 and f799, which had previously been associated with harassing
cattle, after they were hazed.
h. Outreach
To increase communication with the public, the Mexican Wolf Interagency Reporting
Hotline, 1-888-459-WOLF (9653), was changed in July 2003 to ring directly through to
the Alpine field office. In addition, a toll free number (1-800-352-8407) accessing a 24hour dispatch was established for citizens to report wolf sightings, incidents, mortalities,
and livestock depredations. Dispatch staff relayed information concerning wolf issues to
the appropriate field project personnel, thus enhancing project response to critical issues.
During 2003, a two-tiered system was developed to facilitate internal discussions
between project cooperators and to provide a forum for public participation in the
adaptive management process. As a result, an Adaptive Management Oversight
Committee (AMOC), including lead representatives from agency and county cooperators,
and an Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), composed of agency cooperators,
county cooperators, and the public, were developed. This system replaced the Interagency
Management Advisory Group (IMAG), initiated in 2000. The primary focus of AMOC
and AMWG is to maintain an evolving adaptive management and public participation
process. The initial objective for AMOC was development and completion of a
Memorandum of Understanding among the cooperators that identifies the implementation
process, roles and responsibilities, accountability, and how business will be conducted
among the reintroduction cooperators. AMWG acts as a conduit between AMOC and the
public, where information is disseminated to the public, questions and concerns are
addressed, and opinions can be heard. To encourage public participation, AMWG
meetings are rotated between northern and southern Arizona and New Mexico, held
within the reintroduction area, and held at least quarterly. In 2003, an IMAG meeting was
conducted in Bayard, New Mexico (in March), and AMWG sessions were conducted
twice in Arizona (Hon-Dah, in April and Safford, in October) and once in New Mexico
(Glenwood, in July), with a combined public attendance of approximately 160 people.
Project updates were posted locally once a month in Alpine, Nutrioso, and Springerville,
in places such as USFS offices, U.S. Post Offices, libraries, and on the USFWS Mexican
wolf web site at http://mexicanwolf.fws.gov. Monthly project updates were also emailed
and faxed from the Alpine field office to stakeholders and interested citizens. Interested
parties were also sign up to the Mexican wolf list serve and receive the update
electronically by visiting the AGFD website at www.azgfd.com. The AGFD website and
list serve provide additional information about the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project,
such as meeting agendas for AMWG, the interagency Memorandum of Understanding,
Wildlife News Archives, news releases, and other resources that pertain to the

25

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
reintroduction project. By the end of 2003, approximately 800 people had subscribed to
the Mexican wolf list serve.
A brochure was created in 2003, with the assistance of a private individual, entitled
“Living and Camping in Wolf Country.” The brochure provides information on Mexican
wolf and coyote identification, ways to avoid problems with wolves, and what may and
may not legally be done when encountering wild wolves. The brochure is intended to be
mailed to individuals reporting wolf sightings, and will be available at the AGFD
Regional Office in Pinetop, all USFS Ranger Districts, and local businesses throughout
the BRWRA. An informational poster, presenting similar information to what is in the
brochure, was posted on kiosks at Blue Vista, Hannagan Meadow Lodge, Buffalo
Crossing and the USFS Alpine District Office. The informational kiosk at Buffalo
Crossing was erected by the project in cooperation with the USFS. Also, reward posters
and "Wolf Country" metal signs were placed at trailheads, USFS kiosks, and local
business in the BRWRA to provide information on how to avoid conflicts with wolves.
Project personnel contacted campers, hunters, and other recreationists in the BRWRA,
providing them with information about the project. Notices were sent to 5,663 hunters
who drew AGFD permits to hunt in management units 1 and 27 in Arizona. These notices
advised hunters of the potential for encountering wolves, provided general
recommendations for camping and hunting in wolf-occupied areas, and explained the
legal provisions of the non-essential experimental population rule. In addition, the
WMAT broadcasted an advisory message about wolves on the tribal radio station during
the hunting season.
Project personnel gave 45 presentations and status reports to more than 5,040 people in
federal and state agencies, IMAG and AMWG meetings, professional conferences,
conservation groups, rural communities, guide/outfitter organizations, livestock
associates, schools, fairs, and various other public and private institutions throughout
Arizona and New Mexico. In addition, project personnel provided interviews for local
newspapers, National Public Radio (NPR), and NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. In
June, Animal Planet filmed and documented the capture and translocation of the
Francisco pack into the GNF, in New Mexico. The program has been aired on Animal
Planet’s “The Jeff Corwin Experience” on numerous occasions.
If you are interested in receiving a wolf presentation, please contact alpinewolf@fws.gov
or (928) 339-4329 to schedule an informational program.
D. SUMMARY
The reintroduction project’s population estimate for 2003, consisted of 23 radio-collared
wolves, approximately 12 uncollared adult/subadult wolves, and 20 pups free ranging
within the BRWRA. The population included nine packs (six in Arizona and three in
New Mexico), four groups, and five single collared wolves. There are other wolves that
are considered “status unknown”, because their deaths or continued free-ranging
existence have not been documented. In addition, there are likely other undocumented

26

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
wolves free-ranging that have never been radio-collared. Undocumented wolves are most
likely loners; however, project personnel have investigated credible reports of at least one
group of uncollared wolves occupying an area along the Arizona/New Mexico border.
2003 marked the second year that a wild-born wolf bred and produced a litter of pups. In
addition, five packs or groups have formed naturally during 2003. Each contained at least
one wild-born wolf. Thus, the number of wild-born wolves in the breeding population
should increase in 2004.
Since 1998, 37 wolf mortalities have been documented in the wild, 13 of which occurred
in 2003. This is the highest number of mortalities documented in a single year since the
inception of the project. However, because the total wild population is larger than before,
this level of mortality is comparable to that of previous years in this project. Even so, the
number of alpha wolves lost to confirmed or suspected shooting (three to six animals) is
disturbing.
In 2003, wolves again fed primarily on elk. The number of livestock depredations in 2003
(five confirmed, seven probable, and three possible) was consistent with predictions in
the FEIS for a wolf population of this size (55 wolves).
In 2003, 15 wolves were captured for management purposes. Ten were removed from the
SCAR and translocated into the A-SNF or GNF. Four were removed from the population
for depredating, nuisance behavior, or localizing around rural residential areas, including
three that were placed in captivity and one that was lethally removed. Finally, one wolf
was captured and collared for routine monitoring.
During 2003, two pairs and three single wolves were aversively conditioned with
pyrotechnics, rubber bullets, or RAG boxes. Aversive conditioning attempts temporarily
moved wolves out of sensitive areas, but the effects were primarily short term.
Project personnel provided monthly updates, posted signs, erected a kiosk, maintained
project web-sites, developed a project list serve for disseminating information to the
public, regularly contacted campers, hunters, and other recreationists, and gave 45
presentations and status reports to more than 5,040 people to keep the public, government
agencies, and non-government organizations informed about the program. Project
personnel also provided interviews for local newspapers, National Public Radio (NPR),
NBC Nightly News, and Animal Planet filmed and broadcasted a documentary on the
reintroduction project. In addition, response time to critical issues has been enhanced
through the development of a toll-free number at the field office and a corresponding 24hour dispatch number.

27

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
E. DISCUSSION
As outlined in the FEIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996), the project has met
expectations for the total number of wolves, packs, wolves surviving from previous years,
control losses, and the level of depredation that occurred in 2003. The total area occupied
by Mexican wolves was twice the amount projected in the FEIS, indicating a larger average
home range size for packs than was predicted. However, there have been shortfalls in the
projected number of successful releases, number of pups born, number of breeding pairs,
and a greater number of mortalities (e.g. “other losses” from the FEIS). This may in part be
due to the number of wolves the project has removed for being outside of the BRWRA, the
number of wolves that have been illegally shot, and the learning curve that captive-reared
wolves face after being released into the wild.
Despite problems, Mexican wolves are persisting in the wild, and over time they are
occupying more area in greater numbers. Packs continued to form naturally in the wild, and
for the second time in project history, a wild-born wolf reproduced successfully. We believe
more wild-born wolves will reproduce in 2004, and on into the future. In addition, more
wolves conceived and gave birth to pups in the wild in 2003, when compared with previous
years, with a significant number surviving into their first year. Project personnel also
continued to respond and resolve major conflicts with livestock and nuisance wolves. In
conclusion, Mexican wolves are producing pups, primarily feeding on wild ungulates, and
showing expected population growth.

28

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
F. LITERATURE CITED
Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Mexican
Wolf Reintroduction Project Interagency Field Team Annual Report, Reporting Period:
January 1 – December 31, 2001. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Mexican
Wolf Reintroduction Project Interagency Field Team Annual Report, Reporting Period:
January 1 – December 31, 2002. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
Bangs, E. E., S. H. Fritts, J. A. Fontaine, D. W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, C. M. Mack, and C.
C. Niemeyer. 1998. Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785-798.
Brown, W. 2001. Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Annual Report 1; 1998. in Conservation
and Breeding Specialists Group. 2001. Mexican Gray Wolf Three year Review: Briefing
Book. CBSG. Apple Valley, MN.
Brown, W. 2001. Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Annual Report 2; 1999. in Conservation
and Breeding Specialists Group. 2001. Mexican Gray Wolf Three year Review: Briefing
Book. CBSG. Apple Valley, MN.
Brown, W. 2001. Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Annual Report 3; 2000. in Conservation
and Breeding Specialists Group. 2001. Mexican Gray Wolf Three year Review: Briefing
Book. CBSG. Apple Valley, MN.
Burch, J. W. 2001. Evaluation of wolf density estimation from radiotelemetry data. M.S.
Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
Carbyn, L. N. 1983. Management of non-endangered wolf populations in Canada. Acta
Zoologica Fennica 174: 239-243.
Fuller, T. K. and W. J. Snow. 1988. Estimating wolf densities from radiotelemetry data.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:367-370.
Hooge, P. N., W. Eichenlaub, and E. Solomon. 1999. The animal movement program.
USGS. Alaska Biological Science Center.
Kernohan, B. J., R. A. Gitzen, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2001. Analysis of Animal Space Use
and Movements. Pages 125-187 in J. J. Millspaugh, and J. M. Marzluff, editors. Radio
Tracking and Animal Populations. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.
Mladenoff, D., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haight, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional
landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in northern Great Lakes
region. Conservation Biology 9:279-294.

29

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
Oakleaf, J.K., C. M. Mack, and D. L. Murray. 2003. Effects of wolves on livestock calf
survival and movements in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(2):299306.
Powell, R. A. 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators.
Pages 65-110 in L. Boitani and T. K. Fuller, editors. Research techniques in animal
ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, New
York, USA.
Seaman, D. E., J. J. Millspaugh, B. J. Kernohan, G. C. Brundige, K. J. Raedeke, and R.
A. Gitzen. 1999. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of
Wildlife Management 63:739-747.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the southwestern United
States. Albuquerque, NM
White, G. C. and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic
Press Incorporated, New York, New York, USA.
Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home
range studies. Ecology 70:164-168.
Wydeven, A. P., R. N. Schultz, and R. P. Thiel. 1995. Monitoring of a recovering gray
wolf population in Wisconsin. Pages 169-175 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R.
Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian
Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

30

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6

G. PACK SUMMARIES
Bluestem Pack (AM507, AF521, M639, m756, fp856)
At the beginning of 2003, the known wolves in the Bluestem pack were AM507, AF521
and M639. The fate of the five pups released with the pack in 2002 was unknown,
although up to four uncollared wolves were seen with the pack on several occasions. On
February 21, 2003, one of the pups released in 2002, m756 was captured on the SCAR
while personnel were trapping other wolves. After his capture and re-release within
Bluestem’s territory, m756 was usually located with the alpha pair, until he was found
dead on June 9. His carcass was too badly decomposed to determine a cause of death.
M639 was trapped on SCAR on January 30 while personnel were trying to remove the
Francisco pack from the reservation. He was translocated to the Poll Knoll area of the ASNF. He eventually localized in the area of Cerro Montoso and Green’s Peak. After being
located with F644, the new pair became known as the Cerro pack (see Cerro Pack
summary for further information). On August 26, a wolf pup carcass was found near
Forest Road 25 in the A-SNF. The female pup was assigned the identification number
fp856. Genetic tests revealed that she was a pup of the Bluestem pack. A necropsy
determined the cause of death to be gunshot. Throughout the year, project personnel
documented two additional pups and three uncollared sub-adults with this pack.
Cerro Pack (F644, M639)
Dispersing Francisco F644 was first located with dispersing Bluestem M639 on February
24. They remained together around Greens Peak and Cerro Montoso in the A-SNF, in
Arizona, until M639 was found dead on March 9. Necropsy results determined that he
had died from gunshot. F644 remained in that area and was seen with an uncollared wolf
on May 14. She was found dead on May 25. Necropsy results determined that she had
died from gunshot. The fate of the uncollared wolf is unknown, although on December 29
an uncollared wolf was seen in the same area with m798, originally from the Francisco
pack.
Cienega Pack (AF487, AM194, m795, m796)
The alpha pair remained mostly within their traditional home range during 2003,
although they seem to have shifted the core of their home range toward the northern
portion of this area, compared with previous years. The pair denned and is believed to
have weaned at least 2 pups this year. AM194 was found dead on December 21. Cause of
death was unknown at the end of the reporting period. Wolf m795, wild-born in 2002,
stayed with the alpha pair for most of the year. He began dispersal movements in early
December and was located west of Cienega’s traditional home range throughout
December. Wolf m796, wild-born in 2002, stayed with the alpha pair for most of the
year. During portions of March, April, and May, he was located north of Alpine, Arizona,
around Escudilla Mountain, but returned to the alpha pair in May. Beginning in late
November, personnel were unable to locate m796, but he was found in late December
outside the BRWRA south of Magdalena, New Mexico, in the San Mateo Mountains.

31

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
Saddle Pack (AM574, AF510)
The alpha pair was believed to be the only members of the pack in the beginning of 2003.
In April/May they denned and produced pups. Project personnel saw an adult uncollared
wolf and five pups with the alpha pair in early summer. This would indicate that at least
one pup from previous years survived, although this cannot be confirmed. Neither the
pups nor the uncollared adult were definitively seen again. AF510 was found dead on
September 15. The necropsy revealed that she was wounded by a bullet and later died of
complications from the wound. AM574 was believed to be alone after the death of his
mate until being located with f797 from the Francisco pack in October. The new pair
remained together for the rest of the year.
Hawks Nest Pack (AM619, AF487)
Project personnel were unable to determine whether the pair denned based on telemetry.
Later in the spring, however, project personnel heard at least two pups howl with the
alpha pair on several occasions, proving that the pair denned and produced pups. In spite
of this, no pups or uncollared adults were seen with the pair during 2003.
Bonito Creek Pack (AM794, AF587)
The Bonito Creek pack shifted their territory westward toward the north-central part of
the FAIR and used a new denning area. They were seen with uncollared wolves during
the year, and project personnel documented pups through howling surveys.
Hon-Dah Pack (AM578, AF637, mp823, mp824, mp825, fp826)
The alpha wolves were previously released with other packs but recaptured for
management purposes. The pair was united in captivity and they produced pups, which
were released with the alphas on the FAIR, on June 23, 2003. The pack explored a
relatively small territory during the rest of the year. On several occasions the alpha pair
was seen with pups. AF637 was found dead on December 24, on the FAIR. The cause of
death is under investigation.
Francisco (AM509, AF511, f797, m798, f799, f800, m801)
The SCAR requested the removal of the Francisco pack from tribal lands at the end of
2002. One by one, the pack was captured and transferred into captivity, except for f797,
which evaded trapping efforts. AF511, which was pregnant at the time of capture,
whelped in captivity; however, the pups did not survive. On June 26, the remainder of the
pack was translocated into the Miller Springs pen, where they remained for two days
before breaking out of the pen. Wolf f800 remained in the area, while the rest of the pack
moved north out of the Gila Wilderness and separated. AF511 localized in the Corner
Mountain and Bearwallow Mountain areas. AM509 used the Bearwallow Mountain area;
however, it is unknown whether or not he and AF511 came in contact with one another.
In September, AM509 moved south and was found dead near Silver City. The probable
cause of death was vehicle collision. Wolf m801 moved into Arizona near Escudilla
Mountain, then to the west of Springerville, Arizona, where he died on October 7.
Preliminary results suggest that cause of death was vehicle collision. Wolf m798 spent a
short time in the Rainy Mesa area before moving northwest into Arizona. He has
localized in the Greens Peak area and has been observed traveling with an uncollared

32

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
wolf. Wolf f799 localized in the Rainy Mesa area and began to travel with m729 from the
Red Rock pack. Wolf f800 moved from Mogollon Creek and then localized north of the
translocation site near Brushy Mountain. In October, f800 moved northeast to the Aldo
Leopold Wilderness and began using the area south of Beaverhead, New Mexico.
Although the Francisco pack was confirmed to have depredated on livestock in Arizona,
no evidence has been found to indicate that any members of the pack have depredated
since the translocation.
Wolf f797 has remained in the Francisco pack’s previous home range. In October, after
the death of Saddle pack AF510, f797 began traveling with Saddle pack AM574. These
two animals were still together at the end of 2003.
Gapiwi (AM584, AF624)
The Gapiwi pack was translocated into the Gila Wilderness in 2002. One pup was known
to be with the pair until December 20, 2002. The fate of this pup is unknown. AF624
denned in 2003 on the northern edge of the Gila Wilderness; at least three pups were
documented with the pair. In late September, AM584 was found dead west of Snow
Lake. AM584’s death remains under investigation; however, preliminary results suggest
that he was shot. AF624 and the pups continued to use the Canyon Creek Mountains.
Unsuccessful efforts were made to capture and radio collar the pups in October. The three
pups were last observed in November. Although cattle were in the Gapiwi territory
throughout the year, no depredations were documented.
Luna (AM583, AF562)
The Luna pack was translocated to the Gila Wilderness in 2002. The pair successfully
raised two pups. In late February, two uncollared wolves were observed with the alpha
pair. In 2003, Luna denned in the north/central area of the Gila Wilderness and remained
there until December when they were located near Snow Lake. In September, sign
indicated that the pair had at least one pup and one yearling with them. On September 19,
an uncollared male wolf was found dead near Willow Creek, just north of the Gila
Wilderness. The cause of death was collision with a vehicle. Genetic testing indicated
that he was a member of the Luna Pack and was designated the identification number
m857.
Sycamore (AM648, AF592)
AF592 and AM648 were released prior to whelping in the Miller Springs area of the Gila
Wilderness. The pair was supplementally fed carnivore logs. AF592 appeared to den;
however, on May 19, the pair moved northeast approximately 35 miles, indicating that
AF592 had lost her pups. The pair was located near a ranch and were observed attacking
cattle. AM648 was captured and returned to captivity on May 21. AF592 remained in the
area and killed a domestic calf on May 27. Due to her previous history of livestock
depredations, AF592 was lethally controlled on May 27.
Redrock (AM593, AF613, m729, m732)
On June 13, 2003, the Red Rock pack was released into the Maness Peak pen on the ASNF, in Arizona. Shortly after the release, the pack separated and dispersed in different

33

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
directions. AM593 moved north towards Springerville, Arizona and on June 28 was
found dead on US Highway 60 west of Quemado, New Mexico. The cause of death was
collision with a vehicle. AF613 moved northeast to the Tularosa River near Cruzville and
Aragon, New Mexico. As a result of her frequenting areas of human development,
unsuccessful aversive conditioning attempts, and the killing of a domestic turkey, AF613
was captured. Examination revealed a broken rear foot, consequently she was returned to
captivity to receive veterinary treatment, where she remained until the end of 2003. Wolf
m729 moved east to the Rainy Mesa area of the GNF. Successful aversive conditioning
was implemented after he was observed harassing cattle. Wolf m729 began associating
with f799, originally from the Francisco pack, and remains with her in the Rainy Mesa
area. Wolf m732 moved west to the FAIR then south out of the BRWRA to the Black
Hills east of Safford, Arizona. After depredating on a domestic calf, m732 was captured
and returned to captivity.
H. INDIVIDUAL WOLF SUMMARIES
M832
M832 was trapped by project personnel on SCAR, at the Tribe’s request, on May 28,
2003 after several sightings of an uncollared wolf near Point of Pines. He was collared
and translocated to Turner Peak, north of Luna, NM. Genetic tests showed that he was
most likely linked with the Francisco pack; however, definitive results are still pending.
He ranged widely throughout the A-SNF, FAIR, and SCAR. He traveled briefly with the
Bluestem pack in October, but was believed to be alone for the remainder of the year.
f858
Wolf f858 was trapped on SCAR by a coyote trapper on November 22. She was removed
from the reservation at the Tribe’s request, and collared and translocated to Escudilla
Mountain, in Arizona. She traveled south and spent December south of the Mogollon
Rim on the A-SNF. Genetic tests to determine her pedigree were pending at the end of
2003.
mp859
Wolf mp859 was trapped on SCAR by a coyote trapper on November 23. He was
removed from the reservation at the Tribe’s request, and collared and translocated to
Escudilla Mountain, in Arizona. Wolf f858 was captured a day earlier from the same
location, which lead project personnel to believe that the two wolves were either traveling
together and/or related. As a result of this assumption, mp859 was released at the same
site; however, the two wolves were never located together again. Wolf mp859 spent
December around Escudilla Mountain and in nearby areas of New Mexico. Genetic tests
to determine his pedigree were pending at the end of 2003.

34

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 6
I. PERSONNEL
The following personnel were involved in the project during this reporting period.
Individuals listed below collected data or provided other information for this report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Brian Kelly, Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator (left June 2003)
Colleen Buchanan, Assistant Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
John Oakleaf, Mexican Wolf Field Coordinator
Dan Stark, Assistant Mexican Wolf Field Coordinator
Maggie Dwire, Mexican Wolf Biologist
Curtis Graves, Special Agent (left November 2003)
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Dan Groebner, Region I Nongame Specialist
Paul Overy, Arizona Field Team Leader
Rich Bard, Wolf Technician
Shawna Nelson, Wolf Technician
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
Nick Smith, New Mexico Field Team Leader
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Alan Armistead, Wolf Management Specialist (left November 2003)
J Brad Miller, Wolf Management Specialist (started June 2003)
J.R. Murdock, Wildlife Services Technician
Turner Endangered Species Fund
Melissa Woolf, Mexican Wolf Biologist
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Krista Beazley, Tribal Field Team Leader
Texas Tech. University
Janet Reed, Masters Student (Dietary Study)
Volunteers
Jeanine Colby
Steven Roenfeldt
Melissa Watkins

Colby Gardner
Melanie Skane

Jesse Lewis
Josh Smith

Defenders of Wildlife
Helen Trotman, Intern
Nahum Sanchez, Mexican Intern

35

Janet Reed
Helen Trotman