Potential jaguar habitat in Arizona and New Mexico: Summary of work and recommendations of
the Jaguar Habitat Subcommittee for the Jaguar Conservation Team
By William E. Van Pelt, Chair

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 contribute to
conserving the jaguar (Panthera onca) of Arizona and New Mexico and to encourage parallel
efforts in Mexico (Johnson and Van Pelt 1997; Table 1). The two 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 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 two 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 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. While there are eight conservation objectives identified in the strategy,
this summary focuses on activities associated with Objective 5-Identify, maintain, and promote
existing and other suitable jaguar habitats.
There were eight tasks identified for Objective 5. They were: 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 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. This summary

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 2

will focus on the mapping efforts and make recommendations to the Jaguar Conservation Team
on conservation measures for potential jaguar habitat.

BACKGROUND
In 1997, a Habitat Subcommittee (JAGHAB) was formed by the JAGCT. The first assignment
completed was a literature search, which identified nearly 400 jaguar-related articles. In 1999,
much of this information was included in a more extensive jaguar bibliography developed by
independent researchers (Fitzhugh and others 1999). The JAGHAB reviewed the material
referenced by Fitzhugh and others (1999) to glean information relevant to our efforts to develop
habitat, depredation, and educational publications.
Starting in April 1998, the JAGHAB held 10 meetings and conference calls to develop and
recommend habitat suitability criteria for Arizona and New Mexico using the information from
the extensive literature review. Jaguars have been noted for their adaptability to a variety of
environmental conditions (Rabinowitz and Nottingham 1986; Seymour 1989). Habitat studies in
the core part of their range indicate a close association with water, dense cover (Schaller and
Crawshaw 1980; Quigley and Crawshaw 1992), and sufficient prey (Seymour 1989; Swank and
Teer 1989) and an avoidance of highly disturbed areas (Quigley and Crawshaw 1992). Jaguars
have been found from sea level to 3800 m (Tewes and Schmidly 1987), but rarely over 1000 m
(Seymour 1989). They have also been found in a wide variety of vegetation communities from
tropical rainforest and flooded grassland mosaics to deciduous dry forest Madrean evergreen
woodland, coniferous forest, semi-desert grasslands, and rocky canyons (Rabinowitz 1999,
Brown and Lopez Gonzales 2001).The JAGHAB identified, and the Jaguar Scientific Advisory
Group (JAGSAG) concurred with 4criteria for determining potential jaguar habitat: 1) Jaguar
Presence. A 50-mile radius polygon will be delineated around documented jaguar occurrence.
This would include an entire mountain range, if a portion of that mountain range occurs within
the 50 miles polygon.; 2) Vegetation type. In Arizona the following habitat associations that will
be considered were based on Brown and Lowe (1980) habitat associations. The area must be in
the Semi-desert Grassland, Plains Grassland, Great Basin Grassland, Interior Chaparral, Madrean
Evergreen Woodland, Great Basin Conifer Woodland, or Petran Montane Conifer Forest, or in a
riparian area or major wash in the Arizona Upland Sonoran Desertscrub. Areas in the Lower
Colorado River Sonoran Desertscrub and Petran Subalpine Conifer Forest are not considered
jaguar habitat.; 3) Prey densities. Area must have adequate prey densities to maintain a jaguar, at
least seasonally. This is most likely not a limiting factor, as prey densities in areas that are
otherwise jaguar habitat usually contain more than ample prey resources for jaguars.; 4) Human
impacts. Areas with continuous row crop agriculture over an area greater than 1 square mile and
any agricultural crop areas immediately adjacent to those areas are not considered adequate
habitat. Areas with human residential development in excess of 1 house per 10 acres are not
considered jaguar habitat. Areas developed for industrial purposes or a combination of industrial
and residential development that create a footprint equal to or greater than 1 house per 10 acres
are not suitable jaguar habitat.; and 5) Water presence. Areas must have seasonal water available
for jaguar use. This would include springs, streams, rivers, and stock tanks. JAGSAG identified
the lack of connectivity between habitats as a threat to jaguars and recommended that a “terrain

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 3

ruggedness index” be included to identify connectivity, and elevation be removed from the
criteria.
Even though habitats in Arizona and New Mexico have been described to varying degrees in
quality and quantity, even by members of JAGSAG, it was recommended by JAGSAG to
continue modeling potential jaguar habitat in Arizona and New Mexico using the general criteria
mentioned above and that specific habitat-use data from jaguars be incorporated when it
becomes available. Justification for this recommendation, and for conservation activities,
revolved around the recognition that a jaguar on the periphery of its range could contribute to the
maintenance of a metapopulation.
An example of this metapopulation maintenance provided in the JAGSAG response was the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes). In that case, the last remaining population of the species was
discovered in an area considered to be outside of its historic range (based on museum skins and
published in Hall 1981). That single population has been the source for reintroduction projects to
establish wild black-footed ferrets populations in South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, and
Wyoming (Miller et al. 1996).
The JAGSAG also explained that range-collapse does not always occur from the periphery in
toward the center in all populations, and in some cases, individuals of an endangered or
threatened species are important whether they exist on the periphery or in the core of the historic
range.
In addition, the members of JAGSAG have commented that jaguars in other parts of the species’
range are known to move long distances and return to establish a territory in its original area.
This may indicate that the any habitat found in Arizona and New Mexico may be important to
maintaining the population of jaguars found in Sonora, Mexico. Even if such habitat is only used
for a short period of time, it may allow a dispersing animal to survive until a territory opens in
the breeding population. The important issue conveyed by JAGSAG was to maintain, and if
necessary, restore connectivity of habitats throughout the range and to allow for movement. In
addition, for years, wildlife management has recognized that it is better, and less expensive, to
maintain the existing habitats than trying to restore them in the future.

MAPPING EFFORTS USING JAGCT HABITAT CRITERIA
After having JAGSAG review the criteria, JAGCT approved the criteria, the Sierra Institute Field
Studies Program in Arizona (Institute; University of California Extension, Santa Cruz, CA) used
them in a report and map submitted to the Habitat Subcommittee in June 2000 (Appendix 1). The
report identified potential jaguar habitat including important travel corridors (mountain ranges,
canyons, riparian areas, and major washes and wash complexes) in southeastern Arizona and
southwestern New Mexico. The report also examined historical changes to habitat and discussed
how habitat information can be used within the framework of the Jaguar Conservation
Agreement.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 4

The subcommittee asked JAGSAG to review the report. JAGSAG generally agreed with the
approach taken, but not with all its 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.
In September 2000, the JAGHAB asked JAGSAG to answer 12 questions relating to jaguar
conservation and identification of potential habitat. The responses to these questions were made
available at the January 2001 meeting. A summary of the JAGSAG's recommendations can be
found at the end of their response: "A top priority, therefore, is studying the habitat-use of
territorial adult jaguars (particularly females) in the northern population of Sonora, Mexico. If
the habitat that those animals use resembles the physical structure and dominant plant forms
available in the U.S., then one can say that jaguar habitat (or potential habitat) exists in the U.S.
Until those data are gathered, modeling should continue using the general categories of plant
forms, physical structures, terrain ruggedness, human population, etc. that are now being placed
in GIS systems."
In October 2000, the Arizona Game and Fish Department initiated a GIS analysis for identifying
jaguar habitat in Arizona. Jim Hatten, GIS Senior Analyst for AGFD, modeled the habitat
components for the jaguar. Jim stressed that this was more of a "land use/land cover suitability
model" rather than a "habitat suitability" model. There is a lack of data on jaguar habitat use for a
quantitative, GIS-based modeling effort for jaguars in the northern portion of their range.
Keeping this in mind, this modeling exercise would identify relationships between historic jaguar
sightings and physical factors identified by the JAGHAB (e.g., , distance to water, vegetation
biomes, prey abundances, and human densities) and determine the suitability of constructing a
GIS-based model with any or all of the above variables.
At the January 2001 JAGCT/JAGWG meeting, GIS Senior Analyst Jim Hatten (AGFD)
presented a land-cover/habitat suitability map for the jaguar in Arizona created using overlays of
the habitat criteria identified by the subcommittee. The general conclusions of the modeling
exercise were that jaguars have been most often observed in low human density areas; jaguars
were more common in javelina, white-tailed or mule deer habitats, less common in elk habitats;
jaguars were usually within 16-km of perennial or intermittent waters; and jaguars were observed
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
three distinct areas of potential jaguar habitat in Arizona: southeastern Arizona, central Arizona,
and north-central Arizona.
The report was sent to the JAGSAG for review in June 2001. Alan Rabinowitz, JAGSAG
member, responded on July 17, 2001 by saying, “It is a good presentation and analysis of known
data and it provides a good starting point for assessing potential jaguar habitat in the United
States. One word of caution to the authors, however, since the jaguar sightings data were never
based on any kind of methodical data collection or survey techniques, any correlation between
existing sightings and habitat characteristics must be viewed very critically. The authors should

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 5

point this out in the report as a potential bias or source of error. Otherwise, the report is well
done.”
Revisions to the Arizona report occurred in 2002 and the final review by JAGHAB occurred in
September 2002. The final report identified “the amount of area as potential suitable jaguar
habitat in Arizona ranging from 21 to approximately 30 percent of the state.). Of the 3 models
run, Model A is the most restrictive and resulted in a more patchy arrangement of potential
habitat across the landscape. By omitting the Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) filter (Models B
and C), approximately 8% more of the state was classified as potential habitat and the habitat
patches became more connected, particularly in the southeastern part of the state. Model C,
which included all potential biomes, added very little to the model and only improved the
classification rate of Class 3 sites. The lack of potentially suitable jaguar habitat in riparian areas
can largely be attributed to agricultural and urban development and the concurrent loss of 90% of
Arizona’s historic cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and willow (Salix spp.) gallery forest
(Krueper 1993). The lack of suitable habitat in other habitat classifications can be attributed
mostly to proximity to water.”
The Arizona report recommended, “The best-suited area for jaguar conservation is located in
southeastern Arizona in Santa Cruz, Pima, Cochise and Graham Counties. This area resembles
an inverted V with the southern end separated by a swath of agricultural and developed land, or
land that is >5 km from a spring or >10 km from perennial/intermittent waters. When the TRI
filter is not applied, habitat corridors form to the south and north of the Cochise/Graham County
boundary. Based upon the jaguar distribution patterns in southeast Arizona, we suspect there are
habitat corridors in Mexico that connect southeast Arizona to the northern-most established
jaguar population in the Sierra Madres. These habitat relationships will become clearer when a
biogeographic analysis similar to the one described in this paper is completed for Sonora,
Mexico. “
Although some of the criteria in the Arizona report were modified from the original ones
identified by JAGHAB, no fatal flaws were identified for any of these modifications during the
reviews by JAGHAB or JAGSAG. The report was submitted and accepted by the JAGCT at the
January 2003 meeting (Appendix 2). Upon acceptance by JAGCT, the Arizona habitat report
was submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management, where it was peer reviewed, accepted, and
published in 2005 (Hatten and others 2005).
At the July 2001 JAGCT meeting, the NMDGF announced they were going to contract with the
Earth Data Analysis Center of the University of New Mexico to model potential jaguar habitat in
the state. At the January 2002 JAGCT meeting, NMDGF distributed the handout Developing a
model to help evaluate the relative suitability of potential jaguar habitat in New Mexico. New
Mexico took a different approach to the modeling effort than Arizona. Arizona determined
thresholds of suitability for each criterion. New Mexico looked at a combination of habitat
variables (listed below) to determine relative suitability of areas within New Mexico for jaguars.
In addition, not all class I and II sightings were included in the draft New Mexico map. By not
including all of the sightings, New Mexico’s analysis was restricted to the southwestern quadrant

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 6

of the state. Nor were all of the documented jaguar occurrences within the area analyzed
included in the draft New Mexico map.
Variables used in New Mexico’s analysis of potential habitat were terrain ruggedness, prey
distribution, road density, proximity to water, and the presence of Madrean evergreen woodland
community. New Mexico’s analysis differed from Arizona’s in the following manner:
1. Terrain Ruggedness: the same parameters were used for the New Mexico and Arizona
analyses except NM compared the elevation in each cell to the neighboring 8 rather than
4 cells.
2. Prey Species: New Mexico looked at the distribution of 5 prey species (elk, mule deer,
white-tailed deer, javelina, and coati) for their model. Arizona did not examine the
distribution of jaguar prey because the JAGSAG believed it to be too restrictive of a
criterion.
3. Human Density Patterns. Both New Mexico and Arizona excluded a direct examination
of human-density patterns obtained from census data. New Mexico used road density as
an index of human populations, and Arizona excluded urban and high-density rural areas
and agricultural areas from analyses.
4. Distance to Water. New Mexico included areas within 16 km from streams and lakes and
1 km from springs as potential jaguar habitat, and weighted perennial waters over
intermittent waters. Arizona included areas within 10 km of perennial/intermittent creeks
or rivers and 5 km of springs as potential jaguar habitat.
5. Vegetation Associations. New Mexico only examined the relationship between jaguar
sightings and the Madrean evergreen woodland community (based on NM-GAP) due to
the low number of jaguar occurrence records. Arizona examined the relative frequency of
jaguar sightings in different biomes and vegetation series based on AZ-GAP covers.
The report was given to JAGWG for review at the January 2002. The composite map of potential
jaguar habitat in New Mexico was confusing because of the transition from the methodology
mentioned in the paper to the final map. The report was modified and sent out for review to
JAGWG and JAGSAG after the July 2002 JAGCT meeting. While no comments were received
from JAGSAG, a member of JAGWG expressed a concern that the NMDGF “did not attempt to
establish a threshold for suitable vs. unsuitable potential habitat” in its report, though the
assignment was to identify potential habitat.
At the January 2003 JAGCT meeting, the NMDGF presented another version of its habitat maps
for New Mexico. The NDMDGF made some modifications to the criteria established by
JAGHAB in an effort to fit data layers that were available in New Mexico.. Comments were
requested for the individual maps or on the composite map. At the July 2003 JAGCT meeting,
the report Evaluation of the relative suitability of potential jaguar habitat in New Mexico was
distributed by NMDGF for finalization (Appendix 3). A proposal was received prior to the
January 2004 from a member of JAGHAB to not accept the report as final because it did not
meet the requirements of the assignment. Although the NMDGF agreed the analysis could be
built upon and improved, the 2003 New Mexico habitat report is considered the final and is
intended to be a starting point. Although it was discussed at the January JAGCT 2004 meeting,

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 7

action on this item was tabled. At the August 2004 JAGCT meeting, it was agreed upon the
JAGHAB would meet in Albuquerque by the end of the month to review the conflicts identified
in the New Mexico habitat report.
At the August 2004 JAGHAB meeting, it was recommended that the New Mexico report be
redone using the established criteria and incorporating the comments made during the meeting.
However, NMDGF informed the group the earliest it could work on the report would be July
2006 due to the lack of funds available or programmed at the time. The Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), volunteered to assist with developing the GIS layers for New Mexico. It was
decided to contract with CBD to produce a new report and maps.
In August 2005, the CBD draft of the report was sent out for review. Comments were provided
and a second version Suitable habitat for jaguars in New Mexico was sent out prior to the
November 2005 JAGHAB meeting (Appendix 4). At the meeting, some JAGHAB members
were concerned that by strictly applying the habitat criteria a map is produced that does not
accurately reflect potential jaguar habitat. They questioned previously approved habitat
suitability criterion #5, arguing that the fifty miles around each sighting is an arbitrary distance.
To complete the habitat assignment, a compromise was reached by JAGHAB. It was agreed that
the maps in the CBD report accurately represented and strictly applied the criteria agreed upon
by JAGCT, and that the report and maps would be conditionally accepted pending edits proposed
by JAGHAB. In addition, the NMDGF’s jaguar habitat suitability report and map products also
would be accepted as a analysis/interpretation of potential habitat using modifications to the
agreed upon criteria. Both of these are identified as assignments in the Jaguar Conservation
Agreement. The CBD would also include a map of Arizona with the criteria strictly applied. A
report summarizing the mapping efforts would be produced highlighting the differences between
the mapping efforts and recommendations to the JAGCT for action. This report is to reflect this
compromise.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The JAGHAB recommends the following:
A.

The Jaguar Habitat Subcommittee is forwarding the four maps and their underlying
documentation to the Jaguar Conservation Team. The maps meet Objective 5 of the
Conservation Agreement and are the following:
o The Arizona map produced by the CBD, which strictly apply to the habitat criteria
approved by the JAGCT,
o The New Mexico map produced by the CBD, which strictly apply to the habitat
criteria approved by the JAGCT,
o The maps from the July 2003 NMDGF as an alternative analysis not based on the
habitat criteria approved by the JAGCT; and
o The maps in the AGFD and Sierra Institute reports as an alternative analysis not
based on the habitat criteria approved by the JAGCT.”

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

B.

April 2006
Page 8

The Jaguar Habitat Subcommittee recommends that the JAGCT use the completed maps
to prioritize conservation efforts for potential habitat. Prioritization would begin with
areas where the maps are in agreement.”

DISCLAIMER
“The findings, opinions, and recommendations in the attached reports are those of the
investigators who have received partial or full funding from members of the Jaguar Conservation
Team. The findings, opinions, and recommendations do not necessarily reflect those of the
individual members of the Jaguar Habitat Subcommittee of the Jaguar Conservation Team.”

LITERATURE CITED
Brown, DE and CA Lopez Gonzalez. 2001. Borderland jaguars/Tigres de la frontera. The
University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Fitzhugh, E.L., G. Rios, P.M. Gros, W.E. Van Pelt and R. Valdez. 1999. An extensive bibliography of
the jaguar. University of California, Davis. Unpublished report.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Hatten, J.R., A. Averill-Murray, and W.B. Van Pelt. 2005. A spatial model of potential jaguar
habitat in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1024-1033.
Johnson, T.B. and W.E. 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.
Miller, B., R.P. Reading, and S. Forrest. 1996. Prairie night: Recovery of the black-footed ferret
and other endangered species. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Quigley, H.B. and P.G. Crawshaw, Jr. 1992. A conservation plan for jaguar Panthera onca in the
Pantanal region in Brazil. Biological Conservation 61:149-157.
Rabinowitz, A.R. 1999. Present status of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southwestern United
States. Southwest. Nat. 44(1):96-100.
Rabinowitz, A.R. and B.G. Nottingham, Jr. 1986. Ecology and behaviour of the jaguar
(Panthera onca) in Belize, Central America. Journal of the Zoological Society of London
210:149-159.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summary report on identifying potential jaguar habitat

April 2006
Page 9

Seymour, K.L. 1989. Mammalian species Panthera onca. American Society of
Mammalogists Species Accounts No. 340:1-9.
Swank, W.G. and J.G. Teer. 1989. Status of the jaguar-1987. Oryx 23:14-21.