Mexican Wolf Recovery Program:
Progress Report 4
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2001
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, 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. Mexican Wolf Program Three-Year Review………………. pg. 4
d. Research……………………………………………………. pg. 6
e. Litigation…………………………………………………… pg. 6

Part B: Reintroduction
A. Introduction………………………………………………………… pg. 7
B. Methods……………………………………………………………..pg. 8
C. Results
a. Population Status……………………………………………pg. 10
b. Releases and Translocations……………………………….. pg. 11
c. Mortality…………………………………………………….pg. 13
d. Home Ranges and Movements……………………………...pg. 13
e. Wolf Predation………………………………………………pg. 14
f. Wolf Depredation…………………………………………...pg. 14
g. Management Actions………………………………………..pg. 15
h. Outreach……………………………………………………. pg. 16
D. Summary…………………………………………………………… pg. 17
E. Discussion………………………………………………………….. pg. 18
F. Literature Cited……………………………………………………..pg. 24
G. Pack Summaries……………………………………………………. pg. 25
H. Individual Wolf Summaries………………………………………... pg. 27
I. Personnel……………………………………………………………pg. 29

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

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), 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.

Figure 1. Mexican gray wolf yearling male at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility.
PART 1: RECOVERY
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.

1

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
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
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 2001, there were
approximately 194 Mexican wolves being 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 2001, the annual SSP meeting occurred in Chihuahua City, Chihuahua,
Mexico. Throughout the year, the Service coordinated with the Mexican wolf SSP
program coordinator on myriad issues.

2

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

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 and are 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, 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.
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 2001, 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. Management
of this facility is supported by the Turner Endangered Species Fund.
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 4

Figure 2. Mexican Wolf at the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility. Photo
courtesy of Roger Holden.
b. Service Partnerships in Administering the BRWRA Reintroduction
In 2001, the Service sustained partnerships with AGFD, NMDGF, Texas Tech
University, TESF, USDA-WS, and WMAT 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 2001, 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%. The TESF provided all
costs to maintain the Ladder Ranch captive Mexican wolf facility and for salary and
supplies for their member of the IFT during 2001. All other listed cooperators received
100% of their funding for involvement in the Mexican wolf program from the Service
during 2001.
c. Mexican Wolf Program Three-Year Review
The Mexican wolf Final Rule requires the Service to evaluate Mexican wolf
reintroduction progress and prepare full evaluations after 3 and 5 years that recommend
continuation, modification, or termination of the reintroduction effort. March 28, 2001
marked the completion of the 3rd year. Prior to reintroducing wolves in 1998, the
program’s cooperators specified a series of questions in the BRWRA Mexican Wolf

4

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
Interagency Management Plan. The answers to the series of questions would determine
whether the Mexican wolf program would continue, continue with modification, or be
terminated and would constitute the three-year review of the program.
In planning the reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the BRWRA, the Service and its
partners planned to adhere to the principles of Adaptive Resource Management (ARM) to
guide program implementation as reintroduction progressed. However, by the end of
2000, it was clear that the program had failed to implement ARM in a meaningful and
effective way. A fundamental and essential component of ARM is stakeholder consensus
(Walters 1986). The mechanism employed by the Service and its partners in the
BRWRA reintroduction to seek such consensus prior to 2001 was the Mexican Wolf
Interagency Management Advisory Group (IMAG). The IMAG, however, consisted only
of representatives from Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and County Government.
Stakeholders such as livestock producers and wolf advocacy groups had no effective
voice in the implementation of the BRWRA reintroduction program through 2000.
Because of this, the Service chose to embrace an open and independent approach to the
three-year review of the program that would reflect a commitment to ARM.
In February 2001, the Service convened an IMAG meeting in Silver City, NM, to plan
the Mexican wolf program’s three-year review. Invited to this meeting were
representatives from a variety of stakeholder groups (e.g., NM/AZ Cattlegrowers
Association, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Gila Fish and Gun
Club), IMAG members, and a representative of the Conservation Breeding Specialist
Group (CBSG). CBSG is one of many specialist groups within the World Conservation
Union’s Species Survival Commission and has an international reputation for
successfully blending science and divergent stakeholder viewpoints to resolve
controversial conservation issues and reach consensus.
Initially, the evaluation of the three-year review questions was to be done by agency staff
involved in the program, who would then report their findings to the IMAG. However,
such an approach was not independent, and did not allow for stakeholder input per ARM
principles. Therefore, the Service requested that CBSG independently select scientists to
address the series of questions agreed to by the program’s cooperators prior to
reintroducing wolves in 1998. The evaluation of these questions would then represent the
three-year review of the Mexican wolf program.
CBSG explained at the February IMAG meeting that the Service wanted independent
scientists to derive answers to the three-year review questions using the program’s data,
and then, via CBSG’s standard 3.5 day workshop, discuss the findings of the scientists
with a group of stakeholders to make the determination whether the program should
continue, continue with modification, or be terminated. The stakeholders at the February
IMAG meeting objected to this approach, and asked that the scientists make their
determination first, and if the finding was for the program to continue, that they be part of
the discussion on how to modify the program. After conferring with IMAG in a meeting
in March of 2001, in Springerville, AZ, it was agreed that such an approach would be
followed to conduct and complete the three-year review. In April 2001, at an IMAG

5

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
meeting at Globe, AZ, a CBSG representative and the scientists they selected presented
their finding that the Mexican wolf program should continue, but that modifications were
necessary. The final report of the scientists was completed by June of 2001 (Paquet et
al. 2001). In August 2001, CBSG convened a workshop in Show Low, AZ, with
stakeholders, agency representatives, and 2 of the 4 scientists who analyzed the
program’s data to discuss modifications to the program and generate a report of their
findings. The final version of that report, after workshop participants reviewed a draft of
the report, was completed in October of 2001 (Kelly et al. 2001). More detail on the
three-year review and suggested Mexican wolf program modifications can be found in
these 2 reports.
d. 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. In 2001, at the annual SSP meeting in
Chihuahua City, Chihuahua Mexico, Dr. Cheryl Asa reported some preliminary findings
on sperm production in Mexican wolves that had direct application to pairing wolves for
release in the wild. The timing of stressful events, such as capture and transport of wolves
for release, can reduce sperm production and possibly inhibit reproduction. This finding
has been incorporated into pairing wolves for breeding and capture and transport of
Mexican wolves for release to the wild.
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 field work portion of this study
was completed in 2001 and laboratory results will be forthcoming in 2002.
e. Litigation
Nothing to report.

6

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
SECTION B: REINTRODUCTION
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Interagency Field Team Annual Report
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2001
November 2003
Prepared by:
Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cooperators:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)
USDA Wildlife Service (USDA-WS)
US Forest Service (USFS)
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
Turner Endangered Species Fund (TESF)
Defenders of Wildlife (DOW)
A. INTRODUCTION
Herein we report the progress of field efforts during 2001 to reestablish Mexican wolves
(Canis lupus baileyi) into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), (Fig. 1). In
2000, the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) agreed to allow wolves to inhabit
reservation lands, the Fort Apache Indian reservation (FAIR), adding approximately
2,440 square miles (mi2) to the recovery area. The recovery area encompasses 9,290 mi2
of the eastern portion of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (A-SNF) in east-central
Arizona and the Gila National Forest (GNF) in west-central New Mexico. The primary
goal of the reintroduction effort is to restore a self-sustaining population of about 100
wild Mexican wolves distributed across the BRWRA. In January 1998, the first Mexican
wolves were released into the Alpine District of the A-SNF of Arizona. At the end of
2002, approximately 26 wolves in 6 packs inhabited areas of both Arizona and New
Mexico. In addition, there were a few other wolves whose status was considered
unknown because their deaths or free-ranging existence could not be documented.
Abbreviations used in this document:
Wolf age and sex:
A = alpha
M = adult male (> 2 years old)
F = adult female (> 2 years old)
m = subadult male (1-2 years old)
f = subadult female (1-2 years old)
mp = male pup (< 1 year old)
fp = female pup (< 1 year old)

7

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
B. METHODS
The following methods section is primarily taken from previous Mexican wolf annual
reports (USFWS Mexican Wolf Annual Reports 1998-2000). For the purposes of this
project, “releases” are defined as wolves being released directly from captivity, with no
previous free-ranging experience, into the Primary Recovery Zone. “Translocations” are
defined as a project activity where free-ranging wolves are trapped and moved to an area
outside of their traditional home range. This includes wolves that have been temporarily
placed in captivity after they have been free-ranging. All other management actions that
include transporting a wolf to another location within its established home range is
defined simply as a “movement”.
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), (see
Appendix B). Sevilleta and the Ladder Ranch are in New Mexico and the Wolf Haven
facility is in northwestern Washington. 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,
and their pups and occasionally yearlings were included in the release group.
Wolves selected for release were radio-collared and given complete physical
examinations prior to being moved 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 mi of each pen.
Releases in 2001, utilized both a chain link (0.5 acres) and mesh acclimation pen (0.33
acres) at the Engineer Springs and Bear Wallow sites, respectively (Fig. 4). Since wolves
were held in the acclimation pens for a period prior to release, this was considered a “soft
release”. The translocation of a pack that occurred at Wildcat Point (Fig. 4) involved a
“hard release”, with wolves being released straight out of a portable kennel.
All wolves were provided with supplemental road-killed elk and deer, or occasionally
commercially produced “meat logs” for wild carnivores after release. 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.
Monitoring was most intensive during the initial weeks after release to determine when
wolves began hunting. Wolves were monitored using standard radio telemetry techniques
from the ground and once or twice weekly from the air. Visual observations and fresh

8

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
sign were also noted. Location data were entered into the project’s Access database for
analysis.
Range maps in this document were generated using ArcView software, based on aerial
telemetry locations. Home range sizes and locations were displayed using 2 different
methods. Minimum convex polygons were generated based on 95% of all aerial locations
with a “buffer” of either 3 or 5 miles, depending upon the number of locations used,
either < 20 or > 20, respectively. This method was based on the definition of occupied
wolf range in the Federal rule for the nonessential experimental Mexican wolf
population. In addition, all locations of wolves were plotted with a 3- or 5-mile buffer
depending on the number of locations gathered for each wolf. This figure also included
non-territorial dispersing wolves. The maps are intended to describe the range and
movements of wolves after release, and in some cases, movements in response to
management actions or other significant events, such as the death of a mate. They are not
intended as formal analysis of home range size.
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. Suspected wolf depredations on livestock were investigated by
USDA-WS wolf specialists as soon as the reports were received, most often within 24hrs. Results of all investigations were reported to the cooperators and to DOW, a nonprofit organization that compensates livestock owners for depredations when wolves are
probably involved. Unfortunately, not all wolf-killed livestock are found in time to
document the wolves’ involvement. Thus, depredation levels in this report represent the
minimum number of livestock killed by wolves.
If wolves localized near areas of human activity or were found feeding on cattle they
were hazed by chasing 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 that
the wolves were displaying. Under circumstances where wolves were not responding to
aversive conditioning attempts, animals were captured and either removed from the wild
or translocated into other areas within the recovery area. Capturing primarily occurs
through the use of leghold traps, however occasionally conditions require the use of
helicopters. In addition, the capturing of wolves is a necessary management action that
occurs annually to enhance the project’s monitoring capabilities, as well as remove
wolves that have localized outside of the BRWRA. Monitoring is enhanced by increasing
the number of radio-collared wolves, identifying and marking unknown wolves, and
inspecting the health and condition of wolves in the wild.
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 is facilitated through bi-weekly
updates, field contacts, handouts, informational display booths and formal presentations.

9

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
Information from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) was not included in this
report in accordance with an agreement with the WMAT.
C. RESULTS
a. Population status
At the end of 2001, there were 18 radio-collared wolves and approximately 8 un-collared
wolves free ranging within the BRWRA, documented through telemetry, visual
observations, and other evidence (Table 1). The population consisted of 6 packs (5 in
Arizona and 1 in New Mexico) and 3 dispersing wolves. In addition there were a few
other wolves whose status was considered unknown because their deaths or free-ranging
existence could not be documented.
In 2001, project personnel documented the 2nd consecutive year of wild conceived and
wild born litters. The Francisco and Cienega packs produced at least 2 pups per pack,
however only 3 were known to survive into 2002 (Table 1). Project personnel
documented pups in the Saddle and Wildcat packs, but no pups were thought to have
been recruited into the following year’s population.
Natural pack formation by free-ranging wolves occurred again in 2001. Hawk’s Nest
pack M674, a wild born pup from 2000, bonded with Francisco pack F587 going into the
2002 breeding season.

10

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
Table 1. Mexican wolf population estimates as of December 31, 2001.
Pack

Hawk’s Nest
Cienega
Francisco

Bonito Creek
Pipestem

Saddle

Lupine

Wildcat

Wolf ID

Recruitmenta

AF486,
AM619
AM194,
AF487, F621
AF511,
AM509, f644

AF587,
AM674
AM190, F628

AF510,
AM574, f646,
m647*
M632*
(Fate
unknown;
mp678,
fp679,
mp680)
M578*

Min. Pack
Sizeb

0

Number of
Collared
Wolves
2

1

3

5

2

3

0

2

8
(uncollared
pups from 2000
and 2001)
2

0

2

0

4

3
(1 uncollared
pup from 2000)
4

0

1

1

0
3

1
18

1
27

2

Totals
a

Recruitment - number of pups documented to survive through their 1st year
b
Min. Pack Size – total number of wolves (collared, uncollared, pups) documented at
Year-end
*Disperser – wolves traveling primarily apart from their pack of origin
b. Releases and Translocations
In 2001, 2 wolf packs were released and 5 wolves were translocated into the Primary
Recovery Zone, in the A-SNF of Arizona (Fig. 1 and Fig 2). On June 19, 2001 the Lupine
pack was transferred into the mesh enclosure at Bear Wallow Creek and on June 20, 2001
the pack released themselves. On July 3, 2001 the Saddle pack was transferred into the
chain link Engineer Springs pen and was subsequently released by project personnel on
July 11, 2001 (Table 2). The release was stimulated by the close proximity of other
wolves to the enclosure, in an attempt to avoid conflicts.

11

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
On March 17, 2001, the Wildcat pack was hard released from captivity back into the wild
at the Centerfire Creek site (Table 3). The pack consisted of M580, AM578, and AF624.
The 2 males were siblings and F624 was bonded with M578. AM578 had breed AF624 in
captivity and AF624 was pregnant when released. Shortly after their hard release all pack
members dispersed with AF624 eventually denning and producing at least 2 pups in New
Mexico. In addition, 3 other translocations occurred involving wolves that had localized
outside of the BRWRA or due to nuisance behavior (Table 3).

Table 2. Mexican wolves released from captivity without any prior history in the
wild during January 1- December 31, 2001.
Pack

Wolf

Saddle

AM574, AF510, fp645,
fp646, mp647, mp648
Lupine AM480, AF169, m630,
m631, m632, f634,
mp678, fp679, mp680

Release Site

Release
Date
01/11/2001

Engineer Springs,
AZ
Bear Wallow Crk, 06/19/2001
AZ

Acclimation
Facility
Sevilleta
Sevilleta

Table 3. Mexican wolves translocated from captivity or the wild during
January 1 – December 31, 2001.
Pack
Wildcat

Wildcat

Wolf
AM578,
M580,
AF624
(pregnant)
AM578

Release Site
Date
Centerfire
03/17/2001
Creek, AZ

Reason for Translocation
Stimulate population growth in
northern portion of primary zone
in Arizona.

Fish Bench, 11/10/2001
AZ

Helicopter capture outside of the
BRWRA on the Ladder Ranch,
NM; transported into an area with
potential female mates
Captured out of the BRWRA on
the San Carlos Reservation, AZ;
transported into an area with
potential female mates
Proximity to cattle; possible
nuisance behavior; transported into
an area with potential female
mates and away from cattle

Saddle

m648

Northwest
05/02/2001
of Big Lake,
AZ

Lupine

m631

Bear
Wallow, AZ

07/27/01

12

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

c. Mortality
Since 1998 there have been 21 wolf mortalities documented, 9 of which occurred in 2001
(Fig. 4). However, this should be considered a minimum estimate of mortalities since
pups and uncollared wolves can die and not be documented by project personnel. The
majority of mortalities in 2001 were human caused (Table 4), similar to previous years.
The naturally caused death of Lupine AM480 may have led to the break-up of the Lupine
pack. Prior to the alpha male’s death, 2 yearlings had left the area and after the male’s
death the rest of the pack dispersed. Five of 6 radio-collared wolves in the Lupine pack
died within 6 months of their release and it was assumed the pups did not survive as there
were no visuals or sign of them and the alpha female displayed widespread movement
patterns prior to her death (Table 4).
Alpha female AF191 of the Pipestem pack also died of natural causes during 2001,
significantly affecting her pack. She was not only the breeding female in the pack, but
she was also pregnant at the time of her death.

Table 4. Mexican wolf mortalities documented during January 1 – December 31,
2002.
Pack
Wolf ID
AF169
AF191
AM480
M580
m630
m631
f634
f645
fp682

Lupine
Pipestem
Lupine
Wildcat (disperser)
Lupine (disperser)
Lupine (disperser)
Lupine (disperser)
Saddle (disperser)
Wildcat

Cause of Death
Age
7.6
6.0
5.2
2.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.1

Date Found
11/12/2001
04/23/2001
07/08/2001
11/10/2001
11/28/2001
09/03/2001
12/07/2001
11/04/2001
06/08/2001

Illegal Shooting
Mastitis/Toxemia
Asphyxiation, Snake Bite
Capture Complications
Illegal Shooting
Vehicle Collision
Illegal Shooting
Illegal Shooting
Suspected Dehydration

d. Home Ranges and Movements
Most wolves exhibited normal home range use except for the Lupine pack after the alpha
male died, and the Wildcat pack, which was hard released in March. Home ranges were
plotted for general reference with a 3-mile buffer as described in the nonessential
experimental rule (Fig. 5). Home range sizes were calculated using the 95% convex
polygon method and revealed a 10-fold range of sizes from 36 mi2 to 368 mi2 (Table 5).
Known locations of the dispersing wolves were also plotted with a 5-mile buffer using
aerial and ground locations (Fig. 6). For reference, territorial packs are also included.

13

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

Table 5. Home range sizes of free-ranging Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

Home Range Size (mi2)
Pack
Hawk’s Nest
Cienega
Francisco
Bonito Creek
Pipestem
Saddle
Average

No. of Aerial Locations
24
82
89
31
127
70
57

127
36
106
182
368
195
169

e. Wolf Predation
Predator-prey relationships involving Mexican gray wolves have not yet been intensively
studied by the project. During 2000 and 2001, a dietary study was conducted by Texas
Tech. University, in association with the wolf project. Scat was collected throughout the
Primary Wolf Recovery Area for macroscopic and microscopic analysis to determine
feeding habits. Laboratory analysis is still ongoing with only preliminary results
available. Even though the results are not yet conclusive, the data reveals that wolves are
feeding primarily on elk (Cervus elaphus). Conservative estimates reveal that 75% of the
wolves diet consists of elk, an estimate that is not consistent with predictions made in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Initial predictions assumed that mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) would be the primary prey base of wolves due to their high
densities, 3-4 times greater than elk, prior to the inception of the project in 1998.
However, due to reasons unrelated to wolves, deer densities within the primary recovery
have dropped considerably while elk densities have increased to the point that elk now
constitute the primary prey base available to wolves. Elk were also the most commonly
documented wolf kills, however the number of carcasses collected was not large enough
to produce any statistically significant results.
f. Wolf Depredation
The FEIS (1996) predicted that there would be 1-34 cattle depredations per year when the
Mexican wolf population reaches the reintroduction goal of about 100 wolves. This
represents < 0.05% of all cattle present on the range, which is only a fraction of the
impact that other predators have on ranching within the Southwest.
During 2001 there were 7 confirmed and 5 possible depredations (Table 6). This is
consistent with depredation levels predicted by the FEIS for a wolf population of this size

14

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
(26 wolves). However, as stated previously, this should only be considered a minimum
estimate as some depredations may go undocumented. In 2001 project personnel and
USDA-WS captured and translocated 2 wolves into captivity as a result of wolves
localizing on private land and their direct association with repeated depredations. DOW
paid $10,594 to livestock producers for losses due to wolves in 2001.

Table 6. Wolf depredations occurring during January 1 – December 31, 2001.

Fatality
Injury

Confirmed Depredation
6 calves

Possible Depredation
1 cow and 3 calves

1 horse

1 cow

g. Management Actions
The capturing of wolves is a necessary management action that occurs annually to
enhance the project’s monitoring capabilities, as well as remove problem animals or
wolves that have localized outside of the BRWRA, on private land or on the San Carlos
Apache Reservation. These actions are authorized under the Special Rule for the
Nonessential Experimental population.
In 2001, there were 7 wolves captured for monitoring purposes, 2 were radio-collared and
all animals were processed and released on site. Some wolves were captured multiple
times. All wolves were captured by leg-hold traps except for Bonito Creek AF587 who
was net-gunned from a helicopter. In addition, there were 5 wolves removed from the
population and placed in captivity (Fig. 4), 4 wolves translocated into the A-SNF and 1
wolf that died of capture myopathy during an attempted translocation (Table 7). The
wolves that were removed by helicopter captures included AM166, AF592, AF624,
AM578, and M580.

15

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
Table 7. Mexican wolves captured during January 1 – December 31, 2001.
Pack

Wolf ID

Francisco
Francisco
Francisco
Francisco
Francisco
Saddle
Saddle
Saddle
Bonito Creek

AM509
AM509
AF511
AF511
f644
AF510
AM574
f646
AF587

Capture
Date
07/25/01
08/21/01
07/25/01
09/24/01
07/27/01
07/25/01
07/22/01
08/17/01
11/10/01

Saddle
Saddle

m648
m648

04/30/01
05/31/01

Campbell Blue

AM166

06/10/01

Campbell Blue

AF592

06/10/01

Wildcat

AF624

06/10/01

Wildcat
Lupine

mp681
m631

06/10/01
07/26/01

Wildcat

AM578

11/09/01

Wildcat

M580

11/09/01

Lupine

m632

12/31/01

Reason for Capture
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, released on site
Routine monitoring, helicopter capture,
released on site
On the SCAR; translocated into the A-SNF
Nuisance behavior on the FAIR; returned to
captivity
Associated with cattle depredations; outside
of BRWRA; helicopter capture; returned to
captivity
Associated with cattle depredations; outside
of BRWRA; helicopter capture; returned to
captivity
Out of BRWRA; helicopter capture; returned
to captivity
Out of BRWRA; returned to captivity
Proximity to cattle; possible nuisance
behavior; translocated into A-SNF
Out of BRWRA; helicopter capture;
translocated into A-SNF
On the SCAR; helicopter capture; died as a
result of capture
Out of BRWRA; feeding on cattle carcasses;
translocated into A-SNF (2002)

h. Outreach
During 2001, project updates were posted locally approximately every 2 weeks in the
wolf recovery area (Alpine, Nutrioso, and Springerville) in various places such as the US
Post Offices, libraries, US Forest Service offices, and the USFWS Mexican wolf web
site. Additionally, project updates were also emailed and faxed to numerous stakeholders
and interested citizens.

16

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
The Mexican Wolf Interagency Reporting Hotline, 1-888-459-WOLF (9653), was
maintained for citizens to report sightings, harassment, taking of Mexican wolves, or
livestock depredations.
Project personnel regularly contacted campers, hunters, and other recreationists in the
wolf-occupied recovery area to provide information and answer questions about the
Mexican wolf project. Direct mailings were sent to 4,100 hunters who drew permits to
hunt big game in the Arizona portion of the wolf recovery area. 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
nonessential experimental population rule. Project personnel gave 39 presentations and
status reports to over 2,080 people in federal and state agencies, conservation groups,
rural communities, guide/outfitter organizations, livestock associations, schools, and
various other public and private institutions throughout Arizona and New Mexico.
D. SUMMARY
At the end of 2001, there were 18 radio-collared wolves and approximately 8 uncollared
wolves free ranging within the BRWRA. The population includes 6 packs (5 in Arizona
and 1 in New Mexico) and 3 dispersing wolves. There could be other undocumented
wolves free-ranging whose radio-collars have failed or who were never radio-collared.
However, the number of undocumented wolves is probably very small as all credible
reports of wolf sightings are investigated and regular field operations has revealed no
evidence of extra wolves traveling with established packs. Undocumented wolves are
most likely loners, as wolf packs usually leave more sign that is easier to locate.
Since the inception of the project in 1998, there have been 24 wolf mortalities
documented in the wild, 3 of which occurred in 2002. This is the minimum number of
wolf mortalities documented during a calendar year. Wolves are feeding primarily on elk,
which is not consistent with predictions made in the FEIS. However, during 2001 there
were also 7 confirmed and 5 possible depredations. This level of depredation is consistent
with predictions in the FEIS for a wolf population of this size.
In 2001, there were 7 wolves captured for monitoring purposes, 2 were radio-collared and
all animals were processed and released on site. In addition, there were 5 wolves removed
from the population and placed in captivity, and 4 wolves translocated into the A-SNF.
Informational direct mailings were sent to 4,100 hunters who drew permits to hunt big
game in the Arizona portion of the wolf recovery area. Project personnel provided Biweekly updates, maintained a project web site, regularly contacted campers, hunters, and
other recreationists, and gave more than 39 presentations and status reports to over 2,080
people in an attempt to keep the public, government agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations informed about the program.

17

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
E. DISCUSSION
Overall, progress in the field went as expected and outlined in the FEIS. Packs formed
naturally on their own in the wild. Wolves conceived and gave birth to pups in the wild,
some surviving into their 1st year. Natural-caused deaths of 2 alpha wolves affected
productivity in 1 pack and completely disrupted another pack. Human caused mortality was
significant but did not threaten overall success. However, continued outreach, education,
and two-way communication should reduce accidental shootings. Project personnel
responded and resolved major conflicts with livestock and nuisance wolves. Responsive
management of depredating wolves should reduce the overall amount of depredation and
prevent wolves in the future from becoming habituated to livestock. Continuation of
existing procedures is recommended.

18

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

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

19

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

2001 Release and Translocation Sites
Quemado

Linden

Y
#

Vernon

Y Showlow
#

Y
#
Hw
y 60

60
Hwy

Springerville

Y
#

Hw

y3
2

# Pinetop
Y

r

FR 24 9

Y
#

Alpine

Apac he Creek

Luna

Hw
y1

Y
Whi teriver #

2

H wy 7
3

FR 7 3

0
y 26
Hw

r
r

Res erve
7
56
FR

&
91

Engineer Springs Pen

SAN CARLOS
APACHE RESERVATION

NEW MEXICO

ARIZONA

&

Hwy 1 80

Hw
y1

Bear Wallow Pen

FR 2 8
1

WHITE MOUNTAIN
APACHE RESE RVATION

Hw
y5
9
Alma

59
Hwy 1
Gl enwood

Gila Clif f Dwellings

Silver City

N
W

E
S

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
ARIZONA

Primary Recovery Zone

&

Release Sites

r

Translocation Sites

10

0

NEW MEXICO

10

20 Miles

Figure 2. Release and translocation sites for Mexican wolves within the Blue Range
Wolf Recovery Area in 2001.

20

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

45
40
35
30
25

Min. Population

20

Max. Population

15
10
5
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

Figure 3. Mexican wolf population estimates from 1998—2001. The difference
between the minimum and maximum population represents an estimate of
uncollared animals.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1998

1999

2000

Min. Population
Wolves Removed

2001
Wolves Released
Mortalities

Figure 4. Mexican wolf population estimates and associated population parameters.
Released wolves represents: pack translocations (wolves re-released from captivity back
into the wild) and initial direct releases (wolves with no wild experience).

21

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

2001 Mexican Wolf Home Ranges
Quemado

Linden

Y
#

Vernon

Y
#

Y Showlow
#

Hw
y6

H wy

0

60

Springervi lle

y2

60

$

Saddle
r

NEW MEXICO

91

y1

Hw

SAN CARLOS
APACHE RESERVATION

2
Hw
y1

Pipestem
Ú
Ê

0

$
$ $

Ú
Ê

Res erve

Hw y 18

rr
rr $ ÑÑÑ ÑÑ
ÑÑÑÑ
ÑÑ Ñ
rr rr ÑÑ
rr
Ñ
rr
ÑÑ
r
r
$$ $
r
rr r r
rr
Ñ
r
r
$rrr
$ ÑÑÑ
$
$
$
r
r
$
r
$
$ ÑÑ Ñ
r $r
r r
rrrrr$$$$$$$$$ÑÑ r
$

7
56

Francisco

Apac he Creek

Cienega
FR

Ñ

Luna

81

WHITE MOUNTAIN
APACHE RESE RVATION

FR 2

Whiteriver #
Y

Hawk's Nest

ð ð
249
ðFRð
Y
#
Big Lake
Ñ
ðð
Alpine
ðð
ððð
ð
$
ð $ $
ð
$$
ð
ð
$

ARIZONA

Hwy

73

FR 7

3

Hw

Hw
y3
2

Y
#

YPinetop
#

Alma
Gl enwood

59
Hwy 1

ÚÊ
Ê
Ú
Ú
Ê
Ú Ê
ÚÊ
Ê
ÚÊ
Ú
Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ê
Ú
Ú
Ê
ÚÊ
Ê
ÚÊ
ÚÊ
Ú Ê
Ú ÚÊ
Ê
Ú
ÚÊ
ÚÊ
ÚÊ
Ê
ÚÚ
Ú Ú
ÚÊ
Ê
ÚÊ
Ê
Ú Ê
Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ú Ê
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ê
Ú
ÚÊ
Ê
ÚÊ
Ú
Ú Ê
ÚÊ
ÚÊ
Ú
Ê
ÚÚ
Ê
Ú Ê
Ê
Ú
ÚÊ
Ê
Ú
Ú Ê
Ê

Ú
Ê
Ê
Ú
Ú
Ê
Hw
y5
9

Gila Clif f Dwellings

Ú
Ê

Silver City

N

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area

W

E
S

Primary Recovery Zone
ARIZONA

ð Hawk's Nest

Ñ

Cienega

$ Saddle

Ú
Ê

Pipestem

NEW MEXICO

r Francisco
10

0

10

20 Miles

Figure 5. Mexcian wolf home ranges in 2001 using the minimum convex polygon method with
a 3-mile buffer added.

22

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

2001 Mexican Wolf Locations
Flagstaff

Albuquerque
Winslow

#

#

#

Holbrook

#

Que mad o
Li nd en
Ve rno n
H
wy

Sh owl ow

60

w y
H

60

Sp rin ge rvi l e

#

H

w
y3

2

Pi ne top

w y
H

26

0

Soccorro

H wy

73

F R7

3

WHITE MOUNTAIN
APACHE RESERVATION

FR249

Alpine

Ap ac he Cre ek

Lun a
H

w

y

12

Bi g L ake
Wh ti eri ve r

F R2

y
w

56

H

FR

19

1

Phoenix

81

Re se rve

NEW MEXICO

Globe

Hw
y

0

SAN CARLOS
APACHE RESERVATION

Hwy 18

#

ARIZ ONA

7

#

Al ma

Hwy

59

15 9

Gle nwoo d
Gil a Cl fi f Dwe l i ngs

Clifton

Si vl er Cit y

#

Silver City
#

Lordsburg

#

#

Deming

Las Cruces

N

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area

W

E
S

All wolf locations (with 5 mile buffer)
ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

Fort Apache Indian Reservation
Roads and Highways
10

0

10

20 Miles

Figure 6. All Mexican wolf locations (aerial and ground) in 2001, with a 5-mile buffer added.

23

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
F. LITERUTURE CITED
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.
US 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

24

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

G. PACK SUMMARIES
Hawk’s Nest (AF486, AM619)
These 2 wolves were first located together in December of 2000. The pair soon
established a territory defined by the Campbell Blue River and Williams Valley near
Lake Sierra Blanca. This is the same area that AM131 and AF486 had used when they
were together in 1999 and 2000 prior to AM131 being euthanized. The female may have
denned near Lake Sierra Blanca, but no evidence of pups was documented.
Bonito Creek (AF587, AM674)
After leaving the Hawk’s Nest pack in December of 2000, M674 was located regularly
with the Francisco pack in January, and in the territory of the Francisco pack through
March of that year. In late April of 2001, F587 from the Francisco pack and M674 began
to move north and establish a territory south and west of Reservation Lake on the White
Mountain Apache Reservation. M674 was the first radio-collared wild-born wolf in the
Mexican wolf reintroduction program. This natural pairing is significant because it is the
first recorded pack formation from a wild born Mexican wolf.
Cienega (AM194, AF487, F621)
The Cienega pack was able to breed and raise pups in the wild for the first time in 2001.
The female denned in an area near Grant Creek east of Hannagan Meadow in the Blue
Range Primitive Area (BRPA). In September, IFT members observed two pups with the
alpha pair. In October, an elk hunter filmed four wolves, three collared (AM194, AF487,
F621) and one un-collared, walking through a meadow. F621 left the alpha pair during
the breeding season in January and February and made dispersal movements east and
north on three different occasions. Based on aerial telemetry flights, each of the
exploratory movements lasted for approximately two weeks. After May 15, F621 traveled
with the alpha pair for the remainder of the year.
Saddle (AF510, AM574, f646)
After being released in January of 2001, the pack established a territory in the area south
and west of Blue Vista, on the A-SNF. Three of the four yearlings released with the pack
dispersed before the end of the year (f645, m647, and m648). AF510 was believed to be
denning in April, but no pups were documented to survive. There were also suspected
depredations in the East Eagle Allotment where these wolves were located. Several
incidents were investigated, but no depredations were confirmed.
Francisco (AM509, AF511, f644)
The Francisco pack spent most of the winter months in the country below the Mogollon
Rim, between Baldy Bill Point and Malay Gap. The female denned in the area of Malay
Gap. In the early summer the wolves in this pack moved above the rim in the area of the
Bear Wallow Wilderness. Monitoring revealed that there were eight wolves in this pack
indicating that four pups had survived from 2000 and two pups from 2001. On July 27,
f644 was trapped and radio-collared. The pack continued to use the upper country until
late November, before moving back down below the Rim.

25

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

Lupine (AF169, AM480, m630, m631, m632, f634, fp678, mp679, mp680)
Soon after their release in 2001, sub-adult members (m630, m631, m632, m634) of the
Lupine pack dispersed. The alpha pair was localized near the release site for about the
first month. On July 9, AM480 was found dead from asphyxiation induced by snakebite
in the Bear Wallow wilderness. AF169 continued to use this area for most of the summer
and supplemental feeding continued in order to help support the pups released with the
pack. In the fall, AF169 began to expand her movements to the north and west. On
November 15, she was found dead from gunshot on the White Mountain Apache
Reservation (WMAT). The fates of the pups released with this pack are unknown.
Pipestem Pack (AF191, AM190, F628)
During the winter the Pipestem pack was located between Snow Lake and Black
Mountain along the north end of the Gila Wilderness, an area with high elk density. In
early January, four sets of tracks were observed indicating that one pup from 2000 was
traveling with the collared wolves. This was the last observation or sign of a fourth wolf.
On April 25, AF191 was found dead south of Loco Mountain in the Gila Wilderness. The
necropsy showed that she died of an infected uterus in association with pregnancy.
AM190 and F628 continued to use the Snow Lake to Black Mountain area but made
several trips farther south in the Gila Wilderness. In May, the pair was suspected in the
depredation of a domestic calf. In June, the pair began using the Cooney Prairie, Canyon
Creek Mountain to East Elk Mountain area, slightly north of their previously documented
locations. They continued to use this area through the end of the year.
Campbell Blue (AF592, AM166)
The Campbell Blue pair was captured at the request of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in
late August of 2000. On December 5, 2000, the pair was hard released in Tom Moore
Canyon on the east central side of the Gila Wilderness. In late December, the pair
traveled onto private lands within the re-introduction area. AF592 localized in the
vicinity of ranch buildings but AM166 moved away. In early January, AM166 left the
area and traveled back to his old territory in Arizona. Attempts to re-capture AF592 were
unsuccessful and during January, she began making regular long distance movements.
In late April of 2001, AF592 was involved in two domestic calf depredations near
Canyon Creek. AM166 returned from Arizona and during late May, reunited with
AF592. The pair localized on private lands outside the re-introduction area and began to
prey on domestic calves. On June 10, the pair was re-captured and returned to captivity.

26

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
H. INDIVIDUAL WOLF SUMMARIES
AF624
F624 was hard released pregnant in the Centerfire/Boggy Creek area of Arizona on
March 17, 2001, with M580 and AM578. The two males were siblings and AM578 was
pair-bonded to AF624. In April, AF624 traveled to New Mexico and denned on private
land within the reintroduction area. A visit to the den site on June 2 revealed two pups.
AF624 then relocated approximately one and a half miles from the former den but still on
private land. AF624 was re-captured on June 10, in an attempt to relocate her and her
pups to an area with fewer cattle. One pup was found dead and one was severely
malnourished and dehydrated. They were returned to captivity for treatment.
AM578
AM578 was hard released in the Centerfire/Boggy Creek area of Arizona on March 17,
2001, with AF624 and M580. Although AM578 appeared to follow AF624 to New
Mexico, there is no documentation of them being together. AM578’s signal was lost after
he moved into New Mexico. In July, he was located south of the re-introduction area near
Cooke’s Peak, New Mexico. AM578 traveled south, crossing Interstate 10 and continued
to the US – Mexico border near Columbus, New Mexico. Attempts were made to trap
him on several occasions outside the experimental population boundary. This wolf then
traveled north and localized in the vicinity of the Phelps Dodge Tyrone Copper Mine. At
the request of the Phelps Dodge Company, attempts were made to capture AM578. He
then traveled south towards Lordsburg, New Mexico then moved east to Rio Grande
Valley. On November 9, AM578 was captured on private land and was relocated to
Arizona northeast of Hannagan Meadow. He then traveled northeast towards Apache
Creek, New Mexico.
M580
M580 was hard released in the Centerfire/Boggy Creek area of Arizona on March 17,
2001, with AF624 and AM578. M580 appeared to make movements in the general area
of the release site, as well as, forays onto the San Carlos and White Mountain
reservations, for several months after the initial release. He continued to range widely
across the recovery area in a manor consistent of a lone wolf until November; upon the
request of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, an attempt was made to remove M580 from
tribal land. Although he was captured and removed with a helicopter on November 9,
2001, M580 died the next day due to capture myopathy.
m630
m630 was released as a yearling on June 20, 2001, with the Lupine Pack in the Bear
Wallow Wilderness of Arizona. He dispersed north through the BRWRA. On December
3, m630 was found dead from a gunshot north of Greens Peak in Arizona.
m631
m631 was released as a yearling on June 20, 2001, with the Lupine Pack in the Bear
Wallow Wilderness of Arizona. He dispersed to New Mexico and was captured near
Apache Creek, New Mexico; he was released back in the Bear Wallow Wilderness in the

27

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4
A-SNF. He returned to the area near Apache Creek and was found dead on September 4,
from a vehicle collision.
m632
m632 was released as a yearling on June 20, 2001, with the Lupine Pack in the Bear
Wallow Wilderness of Arizona. He dispersed north and east and was located on private
land outside the BRWRA feeding on dead livestock. At the request of the landowner,
m632 was captured on December 31, near the San Augustine Plains, in New Mexico. He
was transferred to the Engineer Springs release pen and held there until his release in
January, 2002.
f634
f634 was released as a yearling on June 20, 2001, with the Lupine Pack in the Bear
Wallow Wilderness of Arizona. She dispersed to the northwest and disappeared. She was
found dead on December 7, 2001, from a gunshot near Woods Canyon Lake, in Arizona.
She had been dead for several months.
f645
f645 was originally released as a member of the Saddle pack in Arizona on January 11,
2001. However, in March, f645 and two siblings (m647, m648) moved away from the
pack onto San Carlos Tribal land. f645 returned to the Saddle pack, while her two
siblings dispersed (see below). In early July, f645 moved into the area south of Highway
260 on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. However, she eventually rejoined the
Saddle pack one month later. f645 continued with this nomadic behavior in early October
when she moved into the Greens Peak area. She remained in this area until November 5,
2001, when she was found dead from a gunshot.
m647
m647 was originally released as a member of the Saddle pack in Arizona on January 11,
2001. However, in March, m647 and 2 siblings (f645, m648) moved away from the pack
onto San Carlos Tribal land. m647 dispersed north onto the White Mountain Apache
Reservation and eventually moved north towards Highway 260. He then moved several
miles north of Springerville, followed by dispersal into an area near Vernon, where he
remained until July, 2001. His movements in July are not known. m647 was documented
again in August northwest of Snowflake, Arizona around Chevelon Lake. In October,
m647 moved to the east and spent time in the area around Mormon Lake. Near the end of
the reporting period he moved back towards Show Low, near Wishbone Mountain.
m648
m648 was originally released as a member of the Saddle pack in Arizona on January 11,
2001. However, in March, m648 and 2 siblings (f645, m647) moved away from the pack
onto San Carlos Tribal land. Although the other wolves eventually left the San Carlos
Apache Reservation (SCAR), m648 remained in the area and was removed on May 2 and
relocated to the Big Lake area, in Arizona. Nuisance behavior by this wolf was
documented resulting in his capture on May 31, 2001; he was returned to captivity.

28

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report 4

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
Wendy Brown, Mexican Wolf Field Coordinator (until May 2001)
Colleen Buchanan, Mexican Wolf Captive Management Biologist
Dan Stark, Mexican Wolf Biologist
Maggie Dwire, Biological Technician (Apr-May 2001); Mexican Wolf Biologist (Nov
2001)
Michelle Brown, Outreach Coordinator (until September, 2001)
Theresa Olecksiew, Office Assistant
Vanessa Sanchez, Student Cooperative Education Program
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Dan Groebner, Regional Nongame Specialist and AGDF Wolf Project Leader
Stephanie Naftal, Field Team Leader (until Nov 2001)
Alexis Watts, Wolf Technician (until Sep 2001)
Paul Overy, Wolf Technician (after Aug 2001)
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
Nick Smith, Wolf Biologist
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Alan Armistead, Wolf Management Specialist
Turner Endangered Species Fund
Melissa Woolf, Mexican Wolf Biologist
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Krista Beazley, Tribal Mexican Wolf Biologist (after Mar 2001)
Texas Tech. University
Janet Reid, Master’s Student (Dietary Study)
Volunteers
Rich Bard
Cari Common
Ryan Hilgris

Brandon Barr
Maggie Dwire
Grant Merrill

Melany Benoit
Tamar Friedner
Julia Nelson

29

Anna Cellar
Jason Hawley
Melissa Peer