ANNUAL REPORT ON THE JAGUAR CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
FOR ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
Prepared by:
William E. Van Pelt, Nongame Mammals Program Manager
Terry B. Johnson, Nongame Branch Chief
Wildlife Management Division
Arizona Game and Fish Department
in cooperation with the
Jaguar Conservation Team

Technical Report 132
Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program
Program Chief: Terry B. Johnson
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2221 West Greenway Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399
July 1998

RECOMMENDED CITATION
Van Pelt, W.E. and T.B. Johnson. 1998. Annual report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement for
Arizona and New Mexico. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 132.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the members of the Jaguar Conservation Team and Working Group for thoughtful
comments and enthusiastic participation in this new approach to conserving jaguars.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE
The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting Terry B. Johnson,
Nongame Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 West Greenway Road, Phoenix,
Arizona 85023-4399 -- (602) 789-3501.
PROJECT FUNDING
Funding for this project was provided by: voluntary contributions to the Arizona Game and Fish
Department's Heritage Fund (Lottery Dollars Working for Wildlife); Arizona's Nongame Wildlife
Checkoff; and Project W-95-M, under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (PittmanRobertson Act).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1
Background...............................................................................................................................................1
Conservation Objectives, Strategies, and Objectives..............................................................................3
Results.......................................................................................................................................................3
Implementation of the Conservation Agreement .......................................................................3
Establishment of JAGCT and JAGWG ......................................................................................4
Species distribution and status ....................................................................................................4
Cooperation with Mexico............................................................................................................5
Identify, maintain, and promote existing and other suitable jaguar habitats.............................6
Promote scientific jaguar management and public education....................................................7
Increase legal protection..............................................................................................................7
Evaluation of progress .................................................................................................................8
Discussion.................................................................................................................................................8
Literature Cited.........................................................................................................................................9
Appendixes .............................................................................................................................................10
Appendix I. Subcommittees assembled by the JAGCT in 1997..............................................10
Appendix II. Jaguar handling protocol established by the JAGCT in 1997............................11
Appendix III. Ranking system and sighting form for jaguar sightings established by
the JAGCT in 1997. ......................................................................................................14
Appendix IV. Assessment of the use of M-44s in Arizona and New Mexico. .......................16
Appendix V. Reporting form for suspected predator kill and track measurements
established by the JAGCT in 1997...............................................................................19
Appendix VI. Compensation criteria and values established by the JAGCT in 1997............21

i

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE JAGUAR CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
FOR ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
William E. Van Pelt and Terry B. Johnson
INTRODUCTION
In March 1997, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (NMDGF) entered into a Conservation Agreement with other state, local and federal
cooperators, with voluntary participation by many private individuals, to conserve the jaguar
(Panthera onca) along borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico and to stimulate parallel efforts in
Mexico (Johnson and Van Pelt 1997). The 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 Conservation Agreement has many elements that provide opportunities and incentives for
interested and affected parties to become involved with conservation activities. The approaches
included in the agreement are: biological information collection (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.
The Conservation Agreement embraces two main components. The first is a Conservation
Assessment, which describes the current 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 of the jaguar, and thus contribute to recovery of the species.
Under the Conservation Agreement, an annual evaluation and progress report is submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and New
Mexico Game and Fish Department directors. This is the first of those reports. Information provided
in this report was compiled by AGFD and NMDGF, with considerable assistance from various
members of the Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) and Working Group (JAGWG). The JAGCT
and JAGWG were established to gather information and promote jaguar conservation and
management in Arizona and New Mexico. These annual evaluations will help ensure that objectives
outlined in the Conservation Agreement are being accomplished and that any deficiencies identified
are addressed and corrective measures are implemented.
BACKGROUND
Historically, jaguars occurred widely but sparsely in the American Southwest and adjacent Mexico.
In Arizona and New Mexico, the number of records indicates the jaguar was probably resident, but
evidence of breeding is scant. More recent records (post 1960) are largely, if not entirely, of young

1

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 2

males, suggesting dispersal from a core population persisting in Sonora, Mexico. Through the 1980s,
most of the jaguars seen in Arizona-New Mexico were killed.
In August 1992, the USFWS was petitioned by the American Southwest Sierra Institute/Lifenet to
list the jaguar as endangered in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. In April 1993, the USFWS published a finding that the petition presented sufficient
information to warrant the petitioned action and requested public comment and biological data on
the status of the jaguar. In July 1994, the USFWS concluded the listing action was warranted and
published a proposed rule (USFWS 1994). The USFWS conducted three public hearings in Arizona
and Texas to solicit additional comments. Of the 60 people attending the meetings, 21 provided
written or oral comment. Before a final decision on listing could be made, Congress enacted a
moratorium prohibiting work on listing actions in April 1995 and eliminated funding for the
USFWS to conduct final listing activities (Public Law 104-6). In April 1996, the moratorium was
lifted by Presidential waiver.
In September 1996, AGFD and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department began discussing the need for
a conservation agreement for jaguars. Before anything could be developed, the Southwest Center for
Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit and motion for summary judgement for the Secretary of the
Interior to finalize listing the jaguar, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, and three cienega species
occurring in southern Arizona.
On January 15, 1997, AGFD and NMDGF asked USFWS to reopen the public comment period for
the jaguar for 70 days so a Jaguar Conservation Agreement could be fully developed with public
input. USFWS considered a final Conservation Agreement as new information relevant to the listing
determination, and thus reopened the comment period from January 31 to February 14. The
completion date for the final listing determination was reassigned to April 1.
AGFD and NMDGF held nine public meetings in Arizona and New Mexico during January,
February, and March 1997 to solicit comment and support for a Jaguar Conservation Agreement. On
March 27, AGFD submitted a final agreement to USFWS for use in determining the need to list the
jaguar in the United States (Johnson and Van Pelt 1997).
On March 14, the U.S. District Court for the District including Arizona ordered USFWS to list the
jaguar as endangered no later than 120 days from the date of the order. On July 3, the court issued a
clarification merely requiring USFWS to make a decision as to whether or not to extend endangered
status for the jaguar in the United States. On July 22, USFWS published a final rule in the Federal
Register extending endangered status to the jaguar in the United States, with an effective date of
August 21 (USFWS 1997).
Despite not yet having a final decision on federal listing of the jaguar, in April 1997 the cooperators
in the Jaguar Conservation Agreement began implementing the conservation activities outlined in
the agreement. Late that month, the Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) held its first meeting in
Douglas, Arizona. Additional meetings in the first year of JAGCT activities were held meetings in
July and October 1997 and January 1998.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 3

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND OBJECTIVES
The Jaguar Conservation Agreement has eight main objectives, with a varying number of activities
under each objective, for conserving jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico. They are:
1.

Implement the Conservation Agreement

2.

Establish a Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) and an Arizona-New Mexico Working
Group (JAGWG).

3.

Determine species distribution and status.

4.

Cooperate with Mexico.

5.

Identify, maintain, and promote existing and other suitable jaguar habitats.

6.

Promote scientific jaguar management and public education.

7.

Increase legal protection.

8.

Evaluate progress and accomplishments.

The various activities implemented this year were accomplished in cooperation with members of the
JAGCT or JAGWG.
RESULTS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
The Conservation Agreement was implemented through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on
March 26, 1997. Signatures or letters of intent were received from 16 entities representing state and
federal agencies and local governments with land management responsibilities in southeastern
Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.
The 16 signatories to the MOA are:
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Arizona State Land Department
Cochise County, Arizona
Pima County, Arizona
Santa Cruz County, Arizona
U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region
Bureau of Land Management, Arizona

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
New Mexico Department of Agriculture
New Mexico State Land Office
Hidalgo Soil and Conservation District
Otero County, New Mexico
U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Wildlife Services
National Park Service, Intermountain Region
Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 4

Hidalgo County, New Mexico also signed the Conservation Agreement. However, on December 9,
1997, the County submitted a letter notifying the JAGCT of its intent to withdraw from the
agreement to maintain sovereignty over its affairs. Per the agreement, the JAGCT gave the County
60 days to rescind its withdrawal letter. The County did not, and the withdrawal took effect on
February 9, 1998.
Before signing on as a cooperator, USFWS requested that the agreement be amended to recognize
the federal status of the jaguar. The proposed amendments were sent to the signatories for review
and the JAGCT Chair requested comment back by January 28, 1998. At the January 22, 1998
JAGCT meeting, a verbal vote was taken. Participants at the meeting voted to accept the
amendments proposed by USFWS. To comply with the Conservation Agreement procedures,
written votes were requested. As of the April 23, 1998 JAGCT meeting, all letters received by the
JAGCT Chair were in favor of amending the agreement as requested by USFWS.
ESTABLISHMENT OF JAGCT AND JAGWG
On April 30, 1997, the first meeting establishing the JAGCT and JAGWG was held in Douglas,
Arizona. Terry B. Johnson, AGFD, was elected Chair. Additional JAGCT/JAGWG meetings were
held in Lordsburg (July 30, 1997) and Animas (October 15, 1997), New Mexico and again in
Douglas on January 22, 1998, respectively.
Activities in the JAGCT/JAGWG meetings include subcommittee reports, discussions of action
items, and task assignments. Summary notes of the meetings were distributed to the Jaguar Mailing
List, which now totals 450 entries. In addition, final summary notes are posted on the AGFD
Website (www.gf.state.az.us).
To accomplish some of the tasks outlined in the Conservation Agreement, subcommittees were
formed (Appendix I). Subcommittee chairs give briefings at JAGCT meetings.
SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS
To determine the jaguar's distribution and status, four tasks were identified in the Conservation
Agreement: 1) collect and compile jaguar distribution and occurrence information by the second
JAGCT meeting and submit the results to three experts in the field; 2) establish a protocol for
handling jaguars; 3) establish a sighting report procedure; and 4) within one year (April 1998), draft
a report on the current status of the jaguar in Arizona-New Mexico. Progress on these tasks is as
follows:
Task 1: Collect and compile jaguar distribution and occurrence information by the second JAGCT
meeting and submit the results to three experts in the field. AGFD and NMDGF compiled
occurrence records and distributed the information at the July 1997 JAGCT meeting for comment.
Corrections were made and the information was redistributed at the October 1997 meeting. The
information has now been sent to the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group for review.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 5

Task 2: Establish a protocol for handling jaguars. At the July meeting a subcommittee was
established to draft a handling protocol. Information was collected from AGFD, USDA APHIS
Wildlife Services, and The Phoenix Zoo. The final handling protocol (Appendix II) was distributed
at the October 1997 JAGCT meeting. It was in place when members of the JAGCT and JAGWG
pursued a suspected jaguar in south-central Arizona on October 18, 1997. The animal was not
captured, but hair samples were collected by JAGWG team members. The samples are being
analyzed to confirm the sighting.
In May 1998, members of the JAGWG will travel to Brazil to collect additional handling
information. After the trip, the handling protocol will reviewed to see if it needs to be modified from
the October 1997 version.
Task 3: Establish a sighting report procedure. At the July 1997 JAGCT meeting, a rating system for
jaguar sightings was distributed for comment. Corrections were made and the rating system and
report form were redistributed. Additional suggestions for modifications were received in January
1998, and the ranking system and form for sightings was redrafted (Appendix III).
Three sightings were documented and ranked by AGFD during 1997. The sightings are classified as
two class IIs and one class I.
Task 4: Within one year (April 1998) the JAGCT would draft a report on the current status of the
jaguar in Arizona-New Mexico. No progress has been made on this task.
COOPERATION WITH MEXICO
To encourage cooperation with Mexico to conserve jaguars, two tasks were identified in the
conservation agreement: 1) coordinate jaguar activities at the annual Trilateral Commission meeting
and 2) encourage Mexico to determine the present distribution of jaguars and identify travel
corridors. Progress on these tasks is as follows:
Task 1: Coordinate jaguar activities at the annual Trilateral Commission meeting. In 1997, the
Trilateral meeting was held in Toronto, Canada. Participants exchanged information about jaguar
management activities in their countries. AGFD represented JAGCT interests. The Mexican
Conservation Fund is now soliciting proposals from Mexican entities for endangered species work in
Mexico (Mexico also classifies the jaguar as endangered [Johnson and Van Pelt 1997). Various
jaguar proposals will be submitted by JAGWG cooperators.
Task 2: Encourage Mexico to determine the present distribution of jaguars and identify travel
corridors. JAGCT encouraged jaguar conservation work in Mexico in an invited presentation to an
international conference of mammalogists in Acapulco, Mexico, in September 1997. In May 1998,
Dr. Raul Valdez, New Mexico State University, will initiate jaguar surveys along the international
border, similar to work he is conducting in southern Sonora, Mexico. Carlos Lopez, Instituto de
Ecologia, A.C., continues to work on ocelot and jaguars in Jalisco, Mexico. Both scientists are
members of the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 6

IDENTIFY, MAINTAIN, AND PROMOTE EXISTING AND OTHER SUITABLE JAGUAR HABITATS
To identify, maintain, and promote existing and other suitable jaguar habitats, eight tasks were
outlined in the Conservation Agreement: 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 would coordinate with land management agencies, state lands, and
private landowners to inventory jaguar habitat; 4) in 24 months (April 1999), AGFD and NMDGF
will produce maps delineating jaguar habitat and land ownership patterns; 5) encourage protection
and enhancement of jaguar habitat and travel corridors; 6) AGFD and NMDGF will pursue
protection and enhancement agreements for suitable jaguar habitat; 7) monitor and identify new,
continued, and diminishing threats to jaguar population expansion; and 8) identify livestock
depredation and control measures. Progress on these tasks is as follows:
Task 1: Review relevant scientific literature to identify habitat use patterns and develop range-wide
habitat suitability criteria applicable to habitats in Mexico, Arizona, and New Mexico. In May 1997,
a literature review began. Bibliographies were presented at all JAGCT meetings. Additional entries
were added to the bibliography after each meeting. At the October 1997 meeting, a technical
committee was appointed to begin reviewing the 400 jaguar articles for habitat information.
Task 2: Review proposed and on-going projects and activities for potential impacts on jaguars and
jaguar habitats. The Habitat Subcommittee has not developed guidelines for land management
agencies to use to evaluate proposed and existing projects. The subcommittee will have its
information to the JAGCT for distribution during the 1998 reporting period.
Task 3: Beginning 12 months after establishment of JAGCT (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF
would coordinate with land management agencies, state lands, and private landowners to inventory
jaguar habitat. Because Task 2 has not been completed, no progress has been made on Task 3. Once
the habitat guidelines are established, JAGCT cooperators will begin to inventory potential jaguar
habitat.
Task 4: In 24 months (April 1999), AGFD and NMDGF will produce maps delineating jaguar
habitat and land ownership patterns. This task is not due during this reporting period.
Task 5: Encourage protection and enhancement of jaguar habitat and travel corridors. No progress
was made on this task during this reporting period. As inventories for potential habitat are completed
and important use areas are identified, JAGCT will work to ensure their protection and
enhancement.
Task 6: AGFD and NMDGF will pursue protection and enhancement agreements for suitable jaguar
habitat. In 1997, AGFD's Heritage granting program solicited proposals for habitat protection and
enhancement projects in Arizona. JAGCT were reminded of the program at various meetings.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 7

Another funding mechanism for habitat enhancements is available through the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program in the 1996 USDA Farm Bill.
Task 7: Monitor and identify new, continued, and diminishing threats to jaguar population
expansion. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services provided JAGCT with an assessment of the use of M44s (Appendix IV), indicating no felids were killed by M-44s in Arizona or New Mexico.
Task 8: Identify livestock depredation and control measures. A depredation subcommittee was
established at the April 1997 JAGCT meeting. The subcommittee established and distributed kill
verification procedures (Appendix V) and compensation values (Appendix VI) at the July and
October JAGCT meetings. No depredations were attributable to jaguars during this reporting period.
In regard to another depredation control measure, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services agreed to restrict
its use of leghold traps to rubber-padded (or functionally equivalent) traps with a jaw spread
equivalent to a #3N or smaller in occupied jaguar range.
PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC JAGUAR MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
Two tasks were identified in the Conservation Agreement to promote sound scientific decisions
regarding jaguar management and public education: 1) establish a Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group,
and 2) promote public support through the development and distribution of informational and
educational material. Progress on these tasks is as follows:
Task 1: Establish a Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group. At the January 1998 JAGCT meeting, it was
announced that all scientists who had been asked to sit on the Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group
(JAGSAG) had accepted their nominations. The six scientist are: Alan Rabinowitz of the Wildlife
Conservation Society, Brian Miller of the Denver Zoo, Michael Tewes of Texas A&M University,
Howard Quigley of Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Raul Valdez of New Mexico State University, and
Carlos Lopez of Instituto de Ecologia, A.C.
Task 2: Promote public support through the development and distribution of informational and
educational material. Various strategies were implemented in 1997 to educate the public about
jaguar conservation efforts. AGFD placed an advisory in its 1998 hunt regulations booklet to
announce a jaguar page on the AGFD Website. The Arizona Houndsmen posted a $5000 reward for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person intentionally killing a jaguar while it
is federally listed as an endangered species. In addition, JAGCT formed an education subcommittee
to develop an education program. An outline for the program was distributed at the January 1998
JAGCT meeting. Work will continue on the program through 1998.
INCREASE LEGAL PROTECTION
To increase legal protection for jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico, three tasks were identified in
the Conservation Agreement: 1) within one year (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF would attempt
to increase state legal disincentives for unlawful take of jaguars; 2) AGFD would consider whether if

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 8

changes are needed in A.R.S. 17.239 to preclude legal killing of jaguars as stock-killers; and 3)
USFWS will consider whether listing the jaguar under the "similarity of appearance" clause is
appropriate. Progress on these tasks is as follows:
Task 1: Within one year (April 1998), AGFD and NMDGF would attempt to increase state legal
disincentives for unlawful take of jaguars. In 1997, NMDGF could not introduce legislation because
the New Mexico legislature only handled budgets during that legislative cycle. NMDGF will
advocate appropriate legislation during the 1998 legislative session.
In Arizona, AGFD successfully advocated legislation (Senate Bill 1106) imposing a $2,500 criminal
penalty (Class 2 Misdemeanor) and up to $72,500 in civil penalties for unlawful take of a jaguar.
These fines are commensurate with the federal penalties. However, Senate Bill 1106 only becomes
law if the jaguar is removed from the federal endangered species list. The legislation was signed into
law by the Governor of Arizona on May 7, 1998.
Task 2: AGFD would consider whether if changes are needed in A.R.S. 17.239 to preclude legal
killing of jaguars as stock-killers. After reviewing A.R.S. 17.239, AGFD determined that no changes
were needed in the law; since the jaguar is federally listed as endangered, it cannot be legally killed
as a stock-killer.
Task 3: USFWS will consider whether listing the jaguar under the "similarity of appearance" clause
is appropriate. To address inadequate penalties for take of a non-listed jaguar in the United States,
USFWS considered listing the jaguar under the "Similarity of Appearance" provision of the
Endangered Species Act. This provision affords protection to a species only from take, based on an
inability to distinguish the non-listed species from a similar listed entity (species or population). The
Act's civil and criminal penalties would apply in the United States for take of jaguars of unknown
origin and those known to be from Mexico (a previously fully listed population). However, those
penalties would not apply to jaguars which were known to be taken from within the United States.
After evaluating this information, the USFWS decided not to pursue the "Similarity of Appearance"
provision.
EVALUATION OF PROGRESS
Each January, AGFD and NMDGF are to report to USFWS on progress on tasks identified in the
Conservation Agreement. This report is the evaluation for 1997.
DISCUSSION
During its first year of existence, the JAGCT and JAGWG have completed three of the eight main
objectives identified in the Conservation Agreement. Of the 28 tasks identified under the remaining
five objectives, eight have been completed and 11 have been initiated. Public support generated by
the Conservation Agreement has forged an alliance with local communities that has opened
constructive dialogue and cooperation promoting jaguar conservation in Arizona and New Mexico.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 9

We do not believe this would have occurred with a traditional approach to jaguar recovery under the
Endangered Species Act.
LITERATURE CITED
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed
endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. Federal Register Vol. 59 No. 133, Wed.
July 13. pp. 35674-35679.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final rule to
extend endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. Federal Register Vol. 62 No.
140, Tues. July 22. pp. 39147-39157.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 10

APPENDIXES
Appendix I. Subcommittees assembled by the JAGCT in 1997.
KILL VERIFICATION\DEPREDATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS: Warner Glenn, Chairperson.
Members: Kelly Glenn-Kimbro, Jack Childs, Chas Erickson, Levi Klump, Mike Pruss, Steve
Fairaizl, Brandon Jones, Paul Pirtle, Matt Colvin, Craig Miller, Keel Price, Gabrial Paz
COMPENSATION SUBCOMMITTEE: Ed Sanchez, Chairperson. Members: Warner Glenn, Bill Moore,
Levi Klump, Ron Bemis, Chuck Chambers.
HABITAT SUBCOMMITTEE: Mike Pruss, Chairperson. Members: Bill Moore, Lee Benson, Don
Cullum, Ron Bemis.
EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE: Sue Krentz, Chairperson. Members: Don Cullum, Karen Kay Husted,
Rod Mondt, Craig Miller.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 11

Appendix II. Jaguar handling protocol established by the JAGCT in 1997.
Policy: State wildlife agency representatives on the conservation team or designees will respond to
all jaguar calls, including stock killers, in accordance with procedures prescribed in this protocol.
Procedures:
A.

The purpose of these procedures is to create a situation where jaguars and humans can coexist. In dealing with jaguars, there are a number of factors that must be considered. These
factors may include the individual jaguar's physical condition, damage of personal property,
and public safety. We must be aware of the effects jaguars may have on landowners and
government agencies, and be sensitive to what people and agencies feel their role is when we
handle jaguars.

B.

During normal working hours, reports of jaguars that may need to be handled, should be
reported to the conservation team's state wildlife agency representative. Handling
requirements of jaguars are outlined below by category. Each agency will have its own
policy of how to route information on a jaguar that must be handled, but the end results
should be the same, involvement of all affected parties and timely resolution of any situation.

C.

The conservation team member receiving the call will determine if the jaguar call requires an
immediate response (Appropriate response for each category are described below in Section
D).
1.

Category 1: Jaguar which is considered to be in immediate danger because:
a.
b.

2.

Category 2: Jaguar which is not considered in immediate danger, but is of special
interest to the Conservation Team or may be in danger in the future because:
a.
b.

3.

the jaguar is defending a kill, or has been involved in a depredation;
the jaguar is uncollared and/or marked and is temporarily confined or
restrained, i.e. treed by dogs

Category 3: Jaguar is not in immediate danger, nor is there reason to believe that it
will become one because:
a.

D.

the jaguar is injured;
the jaguar is confined or restrained and unable to leave the area, i.e. foot
snare

the jaguar is only observed traveling through or resting, and is uninjured and
posing no threat to personal property;

As soon as the category has been determined, the conservation team member responding to

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 12

the call will follow the procedure for the appropriate category listed below.
1.

Category I situations require an immediate response by a state wildlife agency
representative of the conservation team or their designee. If a depredation is
involved, a depredation team member should also respond.
a.

The reporting party will be advised that the jaguar poses a threat to public
safety and that all people should keep out of the area where the jaguar is
located. The reporting party will also be told not to do anything that might
cause the animal to injure itself.

b.

The conservation team member or their qualified designee will travel to the
site and assess the situation as soon as possible.

c.

The safety of the jaguar and any people present are the most important aspect
of handling. If for any reason, any of the actions below would imperil the
jaguar or the people present, those actions should not take place, and the
jaguar should be released immediately.

d.

Injured jaguars will be anesthetized and the extent of injuries evaluated. Nondebilitating injuries that can be treated on-site, will be treated and the animal
will be processed and released, if appropriate. Debilitating injuries will be
treated on-site, as best possible. Then the jaguar will be transported to a
veterinarian experienced in working with large carnivores and/or wild
animals for treatment, and if necessary, to an appropriate holding facility for
rehabilitation. Rehabilitated jaguars will be released as soon as possible at or
near the capture site. Non-releasible, rehabilitated jaguars will be placed at a
captive facility.

e.

Jaguars that are handled will be anesthetized, processed and released on-site.
Recommended anesthesia is Telezol at a dose of 5 mg/kg (2.3 mg/lb)
[Schobert 1987, Kock et. al. 1989, Barnett and Lewis 1990] administered by
experienced personnel only, with a jab stick or dart pistol or rifle (long range
only). Processing includes taking standard physical measurements (weight,
length, girth, pad sizes, skull and tooth dimensions); estimating age;
assessing physical condition; taking blood samples for genetics evaluation;
assessing physical parameters and parasites/disease testing; photographing;
ear-tagging and radio collaring. Ear-tags should be numbered and nonprotruding; round plastic tags are preferred.

f.

When a Category I jaguar is captured on private property and the landowner
does not want it released on-site, the jaguar will be moved to and released at
a pre-approved release site. Both state wildlife agencies will pre-determine at
least one release site where jaguars can be relocated. If a jaguar is moved to

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 13

the release site, and remains in the area, a second site must also be identified
for the release of a second jaguar, if needed. If the jaguar does not remain in
the vicinity of the release site, successive jaguars can also be released there
until one does occupy the area. In the case of depredation, the landowner will
be offered fair compensation for the loss, after verification by a depredation
team member that the depredation was by a jaguar.
2.

If a Category II jaguar is on a natural kill, the location of the kill will be visited, the
kill verified and documented, and habitat data recorded. If the kill is a depredation,
the landowner will be offered fair compensation for the loss, after verification by a
depredation team member that the depredation was by a jaguar. The conservation
team's checklist for suspected predator kills and the track documentation guide
should be used.

3.

If a Category III jaguar is reported, the reporting party will be asked to describe the
animal, and a record of the date, time, location and circumstances of the observation
will be recorded on a jaguar sighting form. The reporting party will be encouraged to
photo-document the animal when possible. No action is required for this category;
however, if tracks are present, a qualified conservation team member should attempt
to verify the sighting by track identification as soon as possible.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 14

Appendix III. Ranking system and sighting form for jaguar sightings established by the JAGCT in
1997.
Ranking Criteria
Class I-some sort of physical evidence is provided for verification
10

A jaguar is in the possession of the observer, via trapping, hunting, treeing by hounds, or a
road-kill, and visual evidence of the sighting can be provided for verification. Examples of
evidence are: photographs, videos, pelage or hair follicle, skull, or carcass.

9

Verifiable jaguar sign is presented for evaluation. Examples of sign are: tracks (measurable
or plaster casts), scat, kill verification, or hair follicles.

8

A jaguar is observed, and reported separately, by two reliable individuals. Inconclusive
physical evidence is provided. Examples of inconclusive evidence is shadowy photographs
or incomplete measurements of tracks or scats.

Class II-Detailed information of sighting is provided. Attempts to verify the sighting will be made
by the state wildlife agencies.
7

An experienced observer, who is familiar with wildlife in the area and spends long hours in
the field reports a jaguar sighting. No physical evidence is provided. Examples of an
experienced observer are: biologist, trapper, hunting guide, and naturalist.

6

An observer accustomed to looking for details and spending long hours in the field provides
an accurate description of a jaguar. Examples of a detailed observer include bird watchers,
rock collectors, and ranch hands.

5

An observer is not "experienced in the outdoors" but seems reliable. Examples of reliable
observers include college professors, and zoo keepers.

Class III-Information of a cat sighting is provided. No follow-up will be attempted.
4

Details of observer are vague and not specific or account is inconsistent.

3

Observer seems to have questionable credibility and exaggerates other events.

2

Observer describes a cat-like sighting.

1

Observer describes something besides a jaguar or provides information of no value.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 15

Jaguar Sighting Form
Interviewer ____________________________________ Date __________________ Class/# __________________
Observer: Name ________________________________ (H) Telephone ___________________________________
Address _______________________________________________________________________________________
Occupation ____________________________________ (W) Telephone ___________________________________
Recreational/Outdoor Experience __________________________________________________________________
2nd Observer: Name ________________________________ (H) Telephone _______________________________
Address _______________________________________________________________________________________
Occupation ____________________________________ (W) Telephone ___________________________________
Recreational/Outdoor Experience __________________________________________________________________
Other Observers _______________________________________________________________________________
Original report date ___________________________ via phone _____ via letter ____ in person ____
Sighting date ________________________________ Report received by __________________________________
Agency ______________________ Address _______________________________ Telephone _________________
Second report date ____________________________ via phone _____ via letter ____ in person ____
Report received by ______________________________________________________________________________
Agency ______________________ Address _______________________________ Telephone _________________
Time of day and duration of sighting: _______________________________________________________________
Location of sun to observer: ______________________________________________________________________
Location: (state, county, landmarks & legal description) ________________________________________________
______ 1/4 ______ 1/4 Section ______ Township ______ Range _______ Other ___________________________
Describe site: (habitat type, land use, visibility, etc.)___________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Description of animal: (color, markings, etc.) ________________________________________________________
Body length __________________________________________________ Legs and Feet _____________________
Tail length ___________________________________________________ Head and Face ____________________
Other comments: _______________________________________________________________________________
Number of animals seen _______________________________ Distance of observation ______________________
Optical aids used ____________________________________ Photograph taken ____________________________
Occurrence description: __________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Behavior: (Describe in observer's words) ____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Jaguar sign (evidence) observed in area: (tracks, scat, prey remains) _____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 16

Appendix IV. Assessment of the use of M-44s in Arizona and New Mexico.
As part of the Jaguar Conservation Agreement (JAGCA), which was finalized and submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March 1997, USDA APHIS ADC (now Wildlife Services) agreed
to conduct an assessment of the risk of accidental killing of a jaguar in Arizona and New Mexico
from use of M-44 devices1. These devices are used routinely to take coyotes suspected of preying on
livestock. M-44 devices are currently registered for use by ADC personnel in Arizona and New
Mexico and by private applicators in New Mexico. Private applicator use in New Mexico is
regulated by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. M-44s have not been nor are they
currently registered for private applicator use in Arizona. Since Proposition 201 became effective
July 1, 1995, M-44 use in Arizona has been prohibited on public land.
The Conservation Assessment and Strategy in the JAGCA called for an analysis of M-44 use in
Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties in Arizona and Hidalgo County in New Mexico for the
previous five years. It called for determination of (1) the number and species of felids taken by such
methods; (2) the amount of area worked in the above counties; and (3) expert opinion on baits that
would be least likely to attract jaguars while still allowing for effective M-44 use.
Data for conducting the assessment were generated from the ADC Management Information
Systems in the Arizona and New Mexico ADC programs, and using records from Federal Fiscal
Years 92-93, 93-94, 94-95, 95-96, and year-to-date 96-97. These were the latest years that have been
maintained in the current MIS systems and for which data were retrievable at the ADC state offices.
Each fiscal year begins October 1 and ends the following September 30. Information on private
applicator use and species take was obtained from the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
The maximum potential number of M-44 devices in use by ADC personnel in the five counties at
any one time during each of the five fiscal years was retrieved from the MIS records. Each number
represents the sum of the maximum number of M-44s that were in the field on each cooperating
property under agreement on which ADC used M-44s during each fiscal year. The actual time or
number of days that each M-44 was in the field is not retrievable from the MIS system. Therefore, it
must be emphasized that the numbers of M-44s shown are not the actual number that were present at
any one time, but represent the maximum number that could have been present at some time during
the fiscal year.
New Mexico Department of Agriculture records of private applicator M-44 use in Hidalgo County
show no take of felids has ever occurred by private applicator use of this method (B. Moore,
Wildlife Specialist, NMDA, pers. comm.). Currently, six private applicators are licensed to use M44s in the county, three of which live on the same ranch. No data are available on the sizes of the
ranches where private M-44 use could occur. Collectively, the six applicators have a total of 59 M1

The M-44 device is a spring-loaded cyanide ejector mechanism that is anchored in the ground and which uses a fetid
bait to attract coyotes. When a coyote pulls up on the baited top of the device, the spring-loaded plunger is triggered so
it pops upward, through a small plastic capsule containing a small (0.8 g) amount of powdered/granular sodium
cyanide, into the coyote's mouth. The coyote is generally killed within seconds.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 17

44 devices in possession. Use records indicate that about 30 of the devices may be set at any one
time. BLM and USFS policies do not allow private use of M-44 devices on federal public lands.
Therefore, the only land status areas on which private use of M-44 devices is allowed are private and
State Trust lands in Hidalgo County.
M-44 BAITS TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE FELID TAKE
In general, members of the cat family are not attracted to the most commonly used M-44 baits
because such baits contain fetid or rotten scented meat as the base material. Also, ADC personnel
frequently incorporate glandular lures containing coyote pheromone in M-44 baits which greatly
enhances species specific attraction and lessening the attractiveness to felids. When setting M-44
devices, ADC Specialists avoid techniques such as sight attractants which would make the devices
more attractive to felids. These canid-specific use patterns serve to greatly reduce the risk of taking
felids. Table 1 suggests that M-44 use by ADC over the past five years has been successful in
avoiding nontarget felid take. Nevertheless, opinions of ADC personnel experienced with M-44 use
and baits indicate that the risks to felids (members of the cat family) could be further minimized by
avoiding use of any fresh meat baits, avoiding baits that rely on fresh fish as the base, and to avoid
using anise oil as a bait ingredient (B. Fletcher, ADC Specialist, Hope, NM).
CONCLUSIONS
The above information indicates that M-44 devices have not resulted in the mortality of any felids in
the affected area in the last five years despite use of these devices by ADC personnel in Arizona and
New Mexico and by private applicators in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. ADC M-44 use has not
been widespread in the area. It is estimated the areas with M-44 use totaled no more than about onehalf of 1% of the area of the four counties in any one year. No use has occurred on National Forest
lands which are presumed to encompass the majority of the habitat most likely to be used by jaguars.
Although M-44 use on the New Mexico portion of the Coronado National Forest could occur, it is
expected to be relatively infrequent and of low intensity. M-44 use in Arizona is only allowed on
private land. In general, M-44 devices are not attractive to felids because fetid or rotten scented bait
materials and, in many cases, canid specific gland lures, are used as the attractive agents. Cats
generally prefer fresh meat and are not generally attracted to bait materials that are composed of
animal flesh that is in an advanced state of decomposition, and are not generally attracted to coyote
pheromone. This assessment indicates accidental or incidental take of a jaguar by M-44 use is highly
unlikely to occur.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 18

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Because the risk to jaguars from M-44 use is exceedingly small, the mitigation measures currently
established in the Jaguar Conservation Assessment and Strategy (dated March 24, 1997) should be
adequate to minimize risk. Those measures cover M-44 use by ADC and are:
In the event that APHIS-ADC agents kill, or cause debilitating injury that precludes
successful release of, a jaguar during lawfully authorized predator control activities, the
incident shall immediately be reported to the primary cooperators; the capture method
resulting in such take will cease immediately within five miles of the take location and
within five miles of any other location of a confirmed reliable jaguar occurrence within the
preceding six months; and APHIS-ADC will consult with the primary cooperators to
determine how to proceed and whether additional guidelines and/or mitigation measures
should be established for use of such methods in Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Hidalgo
counties.
If requested by the Jaguar Conservation Team, ADC will instruct personnel working in areas
suspected to be inhabited by one or more jaguars to avoid using M-44 baits that have fresh meat or
fish or anise oil as ingredients.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 19

Appendix V. Reporting form for suspected predator kill and track measurements established by the
JAGCT in 1997.
Checklist for Suspected Predator Kill
Date Inspected: __________________________________

How located: found by AGFD personnel, reported by
rancher, forester, hunter, other? Note which.
Note: Look for tracks prior to inspection and follow track documentation guide.
Gather feces and hair samples if available. Make a extensive photographic record of the site and carcass.
Notify Depredation Committee Leader-Warner Glenn (520) 558-2470
Species: _______________________________________________________________________________________
Location: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Estimated time since death: _____________________________________________________________________
Kill site description:
Slope direction ________________________________________ Percent __________________________________
Cover vegetation type ____________________________________________________________________
Tree or shrub species where kill is stashed __________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
General Appearance:
Drag marks present ___________________________ How far dragged ____________________________
Predator tracks present _______
Species __________________
Msmts _______________________
Kill covered ________________________ Type of debris ______________________________________
Has kill been moved ___________________________ How many times__________________________
Number of burial sites ____________________________________________________________________
Carcass Characteristics
Carcass fed upon _________________________________ Percent consumed ____________________________
Position of carcass (on side, extended, curled up, other) ________________________________________________
Point of first feeding (rib cage, hind quarters, front quarters, other) ______________________________________
Use of entails (parts missing, parts present, percent consumed) __________________________________________
Use of muscle and fat (front and hind quarters, neck etc. Percent consumed) ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Signs of predator damage on carcass:
Tooth marks-location _____________________________ Claw marks-location ____________________
Msmts (between canines, claws etc.) ________________________________________________________
Blood on ground or carcass-describe ________________________________________________________
Signs of subcutaneous or internal bleeding-describe location _____________________________________
Probable means of kill (choked, broken neck or vertebrae, other) ________________________________________
Teeth marks on vertebrae ______________ Signs of struggle or chase at kill site _________________________
Assessment of predator involvement
Certain ______ High Probability ______ Possible ______ Predator not cause of death ______ Other ________
Condition of prey prior to death:
Sex ______ Age ______ Antlers or horns ______ Lactating ______ Unborn young present _____________
Fat present on: intestines, liver, kidneys, heart, saddle, hips, ribs brisket. Note parts not present for examination.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Femur marrow (circle): solid or gelatinous color (circle): red, yellow, white, spotted pink, dark pink
Parasites present: Ticks ______ Load (circle): heavy, medium, light nose bots ______ other parasites ______
Evidence of old injuries or disease: _______________________________________________________________
Notes (continue on back if necessary): ______________________________________________________________

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 20

Appendix V. Continued.
Track Documentation Guide
Date: ___________________ Time: ______________________ Investigator: _________________________
Prevailing conditions (circle): windy, cloudy, dry still, rainy, other _______________________________________
Track Media:
Snow (circle): wet, dry
_________________

Dry (circle): hard, soft

Mud (circle) soft, dry

Sand

Other

Please sketch track and mark measurements as described below. Make all measurements in millimeters. Toes are
numbered from left to right.
Measurement 1: From top of the second and third toes to bottom of the lowest point of pad: ______________
Measurement 2: From the outer edge of first toe to the outer edge of the fourth toe: ______________
Measurement 3: From the left outer edge of the pad to the right outer edge of pad: ______________
Measurement 4: From the top edge of the pad to bottom of the lowest point of the pad:
Each toe should be measured and there are three measurements per toe.
Toe 1:

Sketch track below:

Measurement 1: Width of toe one third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 2: Width of toe two third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________
Toe 2:
Measurement 1: Width of toe one third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 2: Width of toe two third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________
Toe 3:
Measurement 1: Width of toe one third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 2: Width of toe two third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________
Toe 4:
Measurement 1: Width of toe one third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 2: Width of toe two third distance down from top of toe: ______________
Measurement 3: Length of toe from top to bottom: ______________
If track is suspected to be a jaguar take pictures with scale indication.
Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Arizona Game and Fish Department
NGTR 132: Annual Progress Report on the Jaguar Conservation Agreement

July 1998
Page 21

Appendix VI. Compensation criteria and values established by the JAGCT in 1997.
Five items pertain to compensating livestock owners for losses attributed to jaguars:
1.

Notification of depredation committee member-the kill site needs to be examined by
someone knowledgeable about jaguar sign. The Depredation Subcommittee needs to notify
the livestock associations in Arizona and New Mexico about who to notify if a jaguar is
suspected of making a kill.

2.

Examination of the kill site must occur within two or three days. Verification of a predator
can only be successful on fresh kills. If it is impossible to tell, it may be necessary to trail
with hounds until treed or bayed. This has to be done with extreme caution and as a last
resort.

3.

Values placed on livestock killed by jaguars needs to be reasonable (market value) but
enough to fully compensate the owner for the loss. Although prices may seem high, livestock
owners must feel they are being compensated fairly, causing them to want to leave the jaguar
alive. The suggested values for 1997 are as follows:
Calf:
$400.00
Yearling:
$500.00
Cow:
$600.00
Horse:
$1500.00
Sheep: $200.00
Goat:
$200.00

4.

Notification of compensation fund. For as long as it lasts, the Malpai Borderlands Group has
funds set aside to pay for confirmed jaguar kills. Payments can be made immediately if the
need arises.

5.

Upon verification, make payment to owner. Payments to owners must be made as quickly as
possible by check from the fund holder.

Document NGTR-132.FNL