Mexican Wolf Recovery Program:
Progress Report #13
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2010

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
Foreward
Background
Part A: Recovery Administration
1.
Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
a. Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan
b. Mexican Wolf Pre-Release Facilities
2.
Recovery Planning
3.
Reclassification
4.
Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Project Structure
5.
Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
6.
Research
a. Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
b. Carnivore-Cattle Studies
c. Non-invasive Monitoring Studies
7.
Litigation
a. Wild Earth Guardians, Rewilding Institute, and Defenders of
Wildlife Lawsuit
b. Lawsuit from interested parties in New Mexico
c. Gray Wolf Reclassification Lawsuits
8.
Rule Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement
9.
Mexican Wolf Interdiction Fund and Stakeholder Council
10.
Literature Cited
Part B: Reintroduction
1.
Introduction
2.
Methods
3.
Results
a. Population Status
b. Reproduction
c. Releases and Translocations
d. Home Ranges and Movements
e. Mortality
f. Wolf Predation
g. Wolf Depredation
h. Management Actions
i. Proactive Management Activities
j. Non-IFT Wolf Sighting Reports
k. Uncollared Wolf Sign
l. Outreach
4.
Summary
5.
Discussion
6.
Literature Cited
7.
Pack Summaries
8.
Individual Wolf Summaries
9.
Personnel

Page
1
1
1
3
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11

12
13
18
18
19
20
20
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
27
27
28
29
48
51
54

Foreword
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the
Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf
Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery –
includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain to the overall
goal of Mexican wolf recovery and delisting from the list of threatened and endangered species,
and 2) Reintroduction – includes aspects of the program implemented by the Service and
cooperating States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies that pertain to management of the
reintroduced Mexican wolf population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), which
consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This report
details all aspects of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. The reporting period for this progress
report is January 1 – December 31, 2010.
Background
The Mexican wolf, or “lobo,” is the smallest, rarest, southernmost occurring, and most
genetically distinct subspecies of the North American gray wolf. It once occurred in the
mountainous regions of the Southwest from central Mexico throughout portions of Texas, New
Mexico, and Arizona, and perhaps even farther north, as suggested by more recent research.
Mexican wolves were extirpated from the wild in the United States by 1970, primarily as a result
of a concerted effort to eradicate them due to livestock conflicts. Recovery efforts for the
Mexican wolf began when it was listed as an endangered species in 1976. A captive breeding
program was initiated and saved the Mexican wolf from extinction with the capture of the last
five remaining Mexican wolves in the wild in Mexico from 1977 - 1980.
A Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was convened in 1979 to write a recovery plan, which was
approved by the Service in 1982. The recovery plan contains objectives for maintaining a captive
population and reestablishing Mexican wolves within their historic range. In June 1995, with the
captive population numbers secure, the Service released a 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
BRWRA. The Mexican wolf Final Rule - Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental
Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (Final Rule) - was published
in the Federal Register on January 12, 1998, and provided regulations for how the reintroduced
population would be managed (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). On March 29, 1998, the first
Mexican wolves were released into the wild. All wolves within the BRWRA are designated as a
nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act which
allows for greater management flexibility to address potential conflicts such as livestock
depredations and nuisance behavior. An Interagency Field Team (IFT) comprised of members
from the Service, Arizona of Game and Fish Department (AGFD), New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (NMDGF), White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT), US Forest Service, and

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) has been formed to monitor and
manage the reintroduced population.

Mexican wolf, M1050. Photo courtesy of the Endangered Wolf Center.

PART A: RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
1. Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
a. Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan
The 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan contains the objective of establishing and maintaining a
captive breeding program as an essential component of recovery (US Fish and Wildlife Service
1982). A captive breeding program was initiated in 1977 through 1980 with the capture of the
five remaining wild Mexican wolves in Mexico. The captive breeding program is managed for
the Service under the American Zoological and Aquarium Association’s (AZAA) Mexican Wolf
Species Survival Plan (SSP) program. The SSP is a bi-national (United States and Mexico)
captive breeding program. Its mission is to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the wild through
captive breeding, public education, and research. The SSP designation is significant because it
indicates to AZAA member facilities the need for the species to be conserved, and triggers
internal support to member facilities to help conserve such imperiled species. Wolves in these
facilities are managed in accordance with a Service approved standard protocol. The SSP is the
sole source population to reestablish the species in the wild, thus, without the SSP recovery of
the Mexican wolf would not be possible. The SSP has been extremely successful and has steadily
expanded throughout the years. In 2010, there were approximately 283 captive Mexican wolves
managed in 49 facilities in the United States and Mexico. The SSP members routinely transfer
Mexican wolves to facilitate genetic exchange and maintain the health and genetic diversity of
the captive population.
The SSP’s goal of housing a minimum of 240 wolves with a target population size of 300
ensures the security of the species in captivity and produces surplus animals for reintroduction.
Potential Mexican wolf release candidates are sent to one of three Service approved pre-release
facilities (see below) where they are evaluated for release suitability and undergo an acclimation
process. All wolves selected for release are genetically redundant to the captive population,
meaning their genes are already well represented. This minimizes any adverse effects to the
genetic integrity of the captive population, in the event that wolves released to the wild do not
survive.
Each July, the SSP holds a bi-national meeting to plan and coordinate wolf breeding, transfers
and related activities among facilities. The location of these meetings alternates between Mexico
and the United States. In 2010, the annual SSP meeting was held in South Salem, New York and
hosted by Wolf Conservation Center.
b. Mexican Wolf Pre-Release Facilities
Mexican wolves are acclimated prior to release to the wild at these Service-approved facilities,
which are designed to house wolves in a manner that fosters wild characteristics and behaviors.
These facilities are the Ladder Ranch and Sevilleta Wolf Management Facilities, located in New
Mexico near the BRWRA, and Wolf Haven International, located in Tenino, Washington. At
these facilities, wolves are managed with minimal exposure to humans for the purpose of

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 1 of 55

minimizing habituation to humans and maximizing pair bonding, breeding, pup rearing, and
healthy pack structure development. Wolves are evaluated and selected for release to the wild
based on genetic makeup, reproductive performance, behavior, physical suitability, and overall
response to the adaptation process. These facilities have been successful in breeding wolves for
release and are integral to Mexican wolf recovery efforts. To further minimize habituation to
humans, public visitation to the Ladder Ranch and Sevilleta facilities is not permitted.
Release candidates are sustained on a zoo-based diet of carnivore logs and a kibble diet
formulated for wild canids. Diets of release candidates are supplemented with carcasses of roadkilled ungulate species, such as deer and elk, and scraps from local game processors (meat,
organs, hides, and bones) from wild game/prey species only. Release candidates are given annual
examinations to vaccinate for canine diseases (e.g., parvo, adeno2, parinfluenza, distemper and
rabies viruses, etc.), are dewormed, have laboratory evaluations performed, and have their
overall health condition evaluated. Animals are treated for other veterinary purposes on an asneeded basis.
Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility (SWMF)
The SWMF is located on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR) near Socorro, New
Mexico and is the only Mexican wolf pre-release facility managed entirely by the Service. There
are a total of eight enclosures, ranging in size from 0.25 acre to approximately 1.25 acres, and a
quarantine pen. In 2010 the staff of SNWR continued to assist in the maintenance and
administration of the SWMF. Through the course of the year, 19 individual wolves were housed
at the SWMF. Of these, one wolf was released into the BRWRA, and two wolves were received
from the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility. Five pups were born and no deaths occurred
at the SWMF. At year’s end, the SWMF housed 18 wolves.
Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility (LRWMF)
The LRWMF, owned by R. E. Turner, is located on the Ladder Ranch near Truth or
Consequences, New Mexico. There are a total of five enclosures, ranging in size of 0.25 acre to
1.0 acre. The LRWMF is maintained by an employee of the Turner Endangered Species Fund
(TESF), though the facility is managed and supported financially by the Service to keep it
operating and available for housing and pre-conditioning release candidates. During 2010, 10
individual wolves were housed at the LRWMF. Three wolves were transferred to a participating
SSP facility, and two wolves were transferred to the SWMF. No births or deaths occurred at the
LRWMF. At year’s end, the LRWMF housed 5 wolves.
Wolf Haven International (WHI)
The WHI is located in Tenino, Washington. There are 2 Mexican wolf pre-release enclosures at
the facility, each just over 0.50 acre in size. Management and funding is supported entirely by
WHI. The pre-release enclosures are entirely off exhibit, though WHI does house other gray
wolves on display for viewing and educational purposes. During 2010, WHI housed 13
individual Mexican wolves in the pre-release enclosures. None of these wolves were released
into the BRWRA, one was transferred to another facility in the SSP, and three animals were
received from other facilities in the SSP. At year’s end, WHI housed 12 Mexican wolves in the
pre-release enclosures.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 2 of 55

Mexican wolf F168. Photo courtesy of the California Wolf Center. Note: F168 was first released
to the wild in 1999 and eventually removed for livestock depredations. F168 was retired to the
California Wolf Center and lived to be 16 years old. F168 died on March 27, 2010.

2. Recovery Planning
On April 1, 2003, the Service published a final rule revising the listing status of the gray wolf
across most of the conterminous United States (68 Federal Register 15804). Within that rule, the
Service established three distinct population segments (DPS) for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in
the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS were reclassified from endangered to threatened, except
where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Mexican wolves in the
Southwestern DPS retained their previous endangered or experimental population status. Under
this ruling, the Southwestern DPS became the listed entity to base recovery planning. The
Service’s Southwest Region formed a Southwestern DPS Recovery Team in July 2003 to
develop a recovery plan for the Southwestern DPS that would address recovery actions for the
Mexican wolf. The Service intended the Southwestern DPS recovery plan to supersede and
replace the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan which does not contain recovery (downlisting or
delisting) criteria. The team met five times between October 2003 and October 2004 and made
progress towards developing the recovery plan. On January 31 and August 19, 2005, U.S.
District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, ruled that the April 1, 2003, final rule
violated the Endangered Species Act (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 1:03-1348-JO, D.OR2005
and National Wildlife Federation v Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D.VT.2005). The Courts’ rulings
invalidated the revisions of the gray wolf listing. Therefore, the status of gray wolves outside of

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 3 of 55

Minnesota and outside of areas designated as nonessential experimental populations reverted
back to endangered (as had been the case prior to the 2003 reclassification). The Courts also
invalidated the three DPS designations in the April 1, 2003, rule and the associated special
regulations.
In response to these rulings, the Service placed the Southwestern DPS Recovery Team on hold,
because its charge to develop a recovery plan for the Southwestern DPS was no longer valid
since the DPS no longer existed. The Service instructed the Recovery Team that its work could
not continue until legal issues were resolved at the national level. On December 16, 2005, the
Department of Interior issued a statement that the Service would not appeal the 2005 U.S.
District Courts’ decisions on the reclassification of the gray wolf. On July 30, 2010, the Service
issued letters disbanding the Southwest DPS Recovery Team, citing that it intended to form a
new recovery team in the near future.
Since the April 1, 2003, final rule was rendered invalid in 2005, the Service has been involved in
several listing activities that have resolved neither the nationwide status of the gray wolf nor the
listing status of the Mexican wolf. In April, 2008, the Service initiated a process to compile and
assess the data generated by past recovery planning efforts. The result of this process is the
Mexican Gray Wolf Conservation Assessment, a non-regulatory document containing a
synthesis and summary of data generated during all previous recovery planning for the Mexican
wolf, which was released in 2010.
The invalidation of the 2003 final rule, and court opinions on subsequent rules (see section 7,
“Litigation,” for further information) attempting to address the Northern Rockies and Great
Lakes wolf populations, displayed the need to take a more comprehensive look at how best to
recover wolves in the contiguous United States. Thus, a team of Service biologists, led by
experts in structured decision making from the United States Geological Survey, and
administrators in affected regions, undertook a comprehensive evaluation of a suite of alternative
gray wolf listing classifications, including the existing classification, using decision analytical
techniques. At the end of 2008 and throughout 2010 the group met to evaluate and discuss the
alternatives, including convening experts on Mexican wolf biology and management to apply a
DPS or subspecies tradeoff analysis to the Mexican wolf.
In addition, the structured decision making team undertook a preliminary status assessment of
the geographic units identified by the analysis, to plan how to proceed with further assessment
and regulatory action. This workshop did not result in a consensus solution for wolf listing
nationwide, although many issues were resolved and a constrained range of alternatives was
established. In August 2010, the Service hosted a national workshop to bring together Service
managers, technical experts, and state management partners. At the workshop, a course national
vision for wolf assessment was developed, and three breakout teams began to analyze regional
details. Although the team has not reached consensus for wolf listing nationwide, it is generally
agreed upon that the Southwest qualifies as a listable entity at either the Mexican wolf
subspecies level or as a DPS, and is a desired part of the distribution of wolves in North
America.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 4 of 55

In December 2010, the Service sent letters inviting participants to the new Mexican Wolf
Recovery Team. This new team consists of four subgroups – Science and Planning, Tribal
Liaisons, Stakeholder Liaisons, and Agency Liaisons.
3. Reclassification
On August 11, 2009, the Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity
requesting that the Mexican wolf be listed as an endangered subspecies or DPS and critical
habitat be designated under the Endangered Species Act. On August 12, 2009, we received a
petition dated August 10, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute
requesting that the Mexican wolf be listed as an endangered subspecies and critical habitat be
designated under the Endangered Species Act. On August 4, 2010, the Service announced a 90day finding on the two petitions, stating the petitions presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the Mexican wolf subspecies may warrant listing such
that reclassifying the Mexican wolf as a separate subspecies may be warranted. The Service is
conducting a status review and will issue a 12-month finding on the petitions to address whether
the petitioned action is warranted.
4. Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Project Structure
In 2003, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program was restructured to allow States and Tribes to
assume lead responsibility for implementing the BRWRA Reintroduction Project on lands under
their jurisdiction. Under this structure the BRWRA Reintroduction Project was managed jointly
by the AGFD, NMDGF, USDA-Forest Service, USDA-WS, WMAT, and the Service. Other
cooperators included Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties in Arizona, Sierra County in New
Mexico, and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. The agencies worked together under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which defined and formalized the role of each
cooperator in the program. An Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC), consisting
of members from each of the cooperating agencies, provided guidance to the Interagency Field
Team (IFT) on policy issues related to the management of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA and
coordinated the BRWRA reintroduction project between the various entities and the public. The
AMOC was chaired by AGFD since inception, and that chairmanship continued through 2009.
Under this structure the IFT was guided by 27 Standard Operating Procedures, which provided
management for the free-ranging wolf population.
The 2003 restructuring of the program also included the creation of an Adaptive Management
Working Group (AMWG). AMWG was comprised of any member of the interested public. The
purpose of the AMWG was to provide a forum for all interested parties to participate in the
BRWRA Reintroduction Project. AMWG meetings were hosted quarterly throughout the year by
the AMOC in an open forum accessible to any interested party to discuss pertinent Mexican wolf
management issues specific to the BRWRA. Meetings alternated between Arizona and New
Mexico.
In December 2009 the Service finalized a settlement agreement with plaintiffs Wild Earth
Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. In the Consent Decree, the Service agreed to make no
further decisions that relate to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program pursuant to the MOU that

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 5 of 55

created AMOC, and to Standard Operating Procedure 13.0: Control of Mexican Wolves (see
section 7, “Litigation,” for further discussion). During 2010 the Service worked with its partners
and cooperators to prepare and establish a new MOU that adheres to the Consent Decree while
upholding its commitment to the many agencies involved in the recovery of the Mexican wolf.
The 2010 MOU was signed by AGFD, NMDGF, USDA-Forest Service, USDA-WS, WMAT,
and the Service, as well as the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and Graham, Greenlee,
and Navajo counties in Arizona, and Sierra County in New Mexico.
Each year the IFT produces an Annual Report, detailing Mexican wolf field activities (e.g.,
population status, reproduction, mortalities, releases/translocations, dispersal, depredations, etc.)
in the BRWRA. The 2010 report is included as PART B of this report. Monthly BRWRA project
updates are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf or you may sign up to
receive them electronically by visiting http://azgfd.gov/signup. Additional information about the
BRWRA Reintroduction Project can be found on the Service’s web page at:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf or AGFD’s web page at: http://azgfd.gov/wolf.
5. Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
In 2010, the Service continued funding cooperative agreements with AGFD, NMDGF, TESF,
WMAT, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe (SCAT). Agreements with AGFD and NMDGF have
been matching agreements where the Service provides 75% of costs and each state agency
provides 25%. The Service also provided funding through cooperative agreements to the
University of New Mexico for curatorial services, to The Living Desert for services associated
with the captive breeding program, and to the Mexican Wolf Fund for contribution toward the
administration and facilitation of recovery planning efforts.
Cooperator
WMAT
NMDGF
AGFD
Mexican Wolf Fund
SCAT
TESF
The Living Desert
University of New Mexico

Amount Funded in 2010 by USFWS from Mexican Wolf Project Funds
$ 205,000
$145,000
$ 133,000
$ 43,000
$ 40,000
$ 39,000
$ 15,000
$ 7,000

In addition to the above agreements, the Service also provided funding for several miscellaneous
contracts for veterinary and other services.
6. Research
a. Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program
The Mexican Wolf SSP program conducts a variety of research projects on behalf of the
conservation of captive Mexican wolves as well as the reintroduction program.
Dr. Cheryl Asa and the Research Department at the Saint Louis Zoo and J. Arturo Rivera at San
Juan de Aragon Zoo in Mexico City continued reproductive research on Mexican wolves in

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 6 of 55

2010. In 1991, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team selected the Saint Louis Zoo to establish and
maintain a semen bank to preserve germplasm of genetically important males. Since that time the
lab has been collecting, evaluating and freezing semen samples from individual wolves as
directed by the Service and the SSP. In 2008 oocyte vitrification (freeze drying of eggs) was
added so that female gametes could be preserved. As part of their ongoing reproductive research
efforts, several projects were conducted during 2010. These included semen collection and
freezing, oocyte vitrification, testing two new semen extenders, evaluation of cabergoline to
terminate pseudopregnancy, deslorelin (Suprelorin) for use as a contraceptive, development of an
improved trans-cervical insemination technique, and identification of factors related to uterine
endometrial hyperplasia (which can cause infertility) and incidence of pyometra (a potentially
fatal uterine infection).
In 2008 Dr. Dan Moriarty, University of San Diego, and Lowell Nicolaus, Northern Illinois
University, began work analyzing thiabendazole as an aversion agent for use in Mexican wolves.
This research focused on the potential to mitigate wolf conflicts with domestic livestock via
conditioned taste aversion. A captive application of the study was completed at the California
Wolf Center, near Julian, CA in October 2008. This study was performed on generic gray wolves
and had the support of the Humane Society of the United States. Results demonstrated the safety
and efficacy of thiabendazole-based aversions in a captive setting. During 2010 the Service made
preparations to replicate this effort on several Mexican wolves at the SWMF. These wolves have
been proposed for release during 2011.
Krista Hausig, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services continued research efforts to determine the
efficacy of various rabies vaccines used in gray wolves by correlating rabies antibody titer levels
with the known vaccination history for each animal. Currently, there is no rabies vaccine labeled
for gray wolves. During 2010 facilities participating in the Mexican Wolf SSP continued to
collect data (wolf ID, age, sex, vaccination history, route of administration, etc.) and serum for
use in this study.
Itzel Yanez , Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, continued researching an explanation for the
higher than expected incidence of nasal squamous cell carcinoma in Mexican wolves. Current
research is looking at chromosomal alterations that might indicate a genetic relationship that
could link the susceptibility of Mexican wolves to this specific neoplasia.
b. Carnivore-Cattle Studies
A publication was completed by Dr. Stewart Breck and colleagues entitled “Domestic calf
mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: Implications for
livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes.” This article was accepted by
Biological Conservation in 2010 and is expected to appear in the journal in early 2011.
c. Noninvasive Monitoring Studies
C.A. Cariappa and Warren Ballard, Texas Tech University, and Stewart Breck, National Wildlife
Research Center, are attempting species and individual identification using DNA extracted from
wolf scat as a potential noninvasive technique to estimate population size. The lab tested the

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 7 of 55

ability to identify individual Mexican wolves using scat collected from eight wolves at the
SWMF and was successful in obtaining individual genotypes for all eight wolves. In September
2007 scat was collected within an area of the BRWRA known to share occupancy of four wolf
packs. The area was surveyed again in late 2007, February 2008, and April 2008. The
dissertation involving this research was completed in 2010. This work is expected to be
published in 2011.
Sarah Rinkevich, Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources
and the Environment completed her field work in 2009 using non-invasive genetic sampling to
estimate the population size of Mexican wolves on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Tribal
members were hired as field technicians and scat samples from large carnivores were collected
using scat detection dogs. Diet analyses were also performed. Due to a large amount of coyote
scat collected incidentally, analyses will include coyote diet and abundance. Rinkevich also
interviewed 32 tribal members knowledgeable about the wolf. These interviews documented
traditional ecological knowledge about the wolf as well as how Western Apaches view the wolf
both traditionally and contemporarily. A draft dissertation is expected late in 2011.
7. Litigation
a. WildEarth Guardians, Rewilding Institute, and Defenders of Wildlife Lawsuit.
On April 30, 2008, WildEarth Guardians and the Rewilding Institute filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the Service and the USDA-Forest Service
had failed to meet the requirement of Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act that any
release of an experimental population of an endangered or threatened species will further the
conservation of such species (WildEarth Guardians, et al. v U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No.
2:08-CV-820, D. Ariz). On May 1, 2008, Defenders of Wildlife and ten other conservation nongovernmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
alleging that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species
Act and Administrative Procedures Act in creating AMOC and authorizing Standard Operating
Procedure 13, which required permanent removal of wolves that have engaged in three livestock
depredation incidents during a one-year period (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v Hall, 4:08-CV289, D.Ariz).
On July 21, 2008, the court consolidated the WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife
cases due to their similarity. From July 28 through October 20, 2008, the parties filed briefs in
response to the Service’s motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2009, the court denied the Service’s
motion to dismiss, and on December 2, 2009, the Service and the plaintiffs finalized settlement
in a Consent Decree in which the Service stated it would make no further decisions that relate to
the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program pursuant to the MOU that established AMOC, nor would
the Service make decisions that relate to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program pursuant to
Standard Operating Procedure 13.0: Control of Mexican Wolves. In the December 3, 2009
Consent Decree the Service also recognized that AMOC does not oversee the actions of the
Service, and has no decision-making authority over the Service with regard to the Service’s
management of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program or the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction
Project.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 8 of 55

The only remaining claim in this case was between WildEarth Guardians and the U.S. Forest
Service. It was not resolved by year’s end.
b. Lawsuit from interested parties in New Mexico
On August 20, 2010, Americans for the Preservation of the Western Environment, Adobe Ranch,
Beaverhead Ranch, Alan Tackman, the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees’ Association,
Inc., the Otero County Board of Commissioners and the Catron County Board of Commissioners
filed a lawsuit against the Service and the NMDGF in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico alleging National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedures Act
violations relative to the Service’s management decisions regarding Mexican wolves,
specifically claiming the Service violated the enabling rules and altered the program without
completing the environmental review required by NEPA (Americans for the Preservation of the
Western Environment, et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 1:10-CV-00788 (D. N.M.).
NMDGF’s motion to dismiss was granted on December 16, 2010. This case remained open
through 2010, however, on February 1, 2011, the parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the
case without prejudice as to the Federal Defendants.
c. Gray Wolf Reclassification Lawsuits
On April 1, 2003, the Service changed the classification of gray wolves under the Endangered
Species Act from endangered to threatened, in portions of the lower 48 states and established 3
DPS’s for the gray wolf that encompasses the entire historical range of wolves in the United
States and Mexico. A Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS was created by this ruling and encompassed
all of Arizona and New Mexico, and portions of Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico.
Several environmental groups subsequently filed lawsuits or Notices of Intents to sue regarding
the Service’s reclassification of gray wolves.
In 2005, the Service lost the lawsuits and the 2003 reclassification was invalidated. The Service
reverted to the 1978 gray wolf listing. On December 16, 2005, the Department of Interior issued
a statement that we would not appeal the 2005 U.S. District Courts’ decisions and further, we
planned to issue separate, proposed rules to delist new DPS’s of gray wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes.
On February 27, 2008, a final rule was issued recognizing a Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM)
DPS and removing all of this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR
10514). On April 28, 2008, a lawsuit was filed challenging the identification and delisting of the
NRM DPS, and on July 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted the
plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined our implementation of the final
delisting rule for the NRM DPS. The court held that the Service’s actions with respect to
delisting a population that lacked evidence of genetic exchange, and in approving Wyoming’s
State wolf management plan were arbitrary and capricious. On September 22, 2008, we asked
the court to vacate the final rule and remand it to us which it did on October 14, 2008.
Similarly, on February 8, 2007, the Service recognized a Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and
removed it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). This was also

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 9 of 55

challenged in court, with plaintiff’s arguing that we may not identify a DPS within a broader preexisting listed entity for the purpose of delisting the DPS (Humane Society of the United States v.
Kempthorne, Civil action No. 07-0677 (PLF)(D.D.C)). On September 29, 2008, the court
vacated the WGL DPS final rule and remanded it to the Service.
On April 2, 2009, two final rules were issued, one recognizing a new NRM DPS and removing
all of this DPS, except for Wyoming, from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (74
FR 15123). This final rule was litigated and on August 5, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana vacated the rule (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F. Suppl.
2d 1207 (D. Mont.). The second final rule identified and removed a WGL DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (74 FR 15070). In response to legal challenge, this delisting
action was withdrawn because sufficient opportunity for public comment, as required by law,
was not provided before the decision was published.
8. Rule Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement
On August 7, 2007, the Service issued a notice of scoping meetings and intent to prepare an EIS
and socio-economic assessment for the proposed amendment of the rule establishing a
nonessential experimental population of the Arizona and New Mexico population of the gray
wolf (72 Federal Register 44065-44069). The Service held scoping meetings in 12 Arizona and
New Mexico communities in 2007, and received approximately 13,500 written comments from
the public, non-governmental organizations and government agencies at the local, state and
federal levels. Work has been temporarily suspended on the EIS, and is now pending the
completion of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team Plan, which will guide the revisions to the
experimental population boundaries and management actions.
9. Mexican Wolf Interdiction Fund and Stakeholder Council
The Service in cooperation with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, established the
Mexican Wolf /Livestock Interdiction Trust Fund (Interdiction Fund) on September 23, 2009.
The objective of the Interdiction Fund is to generate long-term funding for prolonged financial
support to livestock operators within the framework of conservation and recovery of Mexican
gray wolf populations in the Southwest. Funding will be applied to initiatives that address
management, monitoring, and other proactive conservation needs for Mexican gray wolves as
they relate to livestock, including alternative livestock husbandry practices, grazing management
alternatives, livestock protection, measures to avoid and minimize depredation, habitat
protection, species protection, scientific research, conflict resolution, compensation for damage,
education, and outreach activities.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 10 of 55

10. Literature Cited
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982, Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan 1982, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996, Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its Historic
Range in the Southwestern United States, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998, Final Rule - Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental
Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico, 63 Federal Register
1752-1772.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003, Final Rule To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United
States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 68
Federal Register 15803-15875.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006, Proposed Rule, Western Great Lakes Population of Gray
Wolves, 71 Federal Register 15265-15305.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007, Final Rule Designating the Western Great Lakes
Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western
Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife, 72 Federal Register 6051-6103.

Mexican wolf M1155 on an elk carcass. Photo courtesy of Tim Booth and the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 11 of 55

PART B: REINTRODUCTION
Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
Interagency Field Team Annual Report
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2010
Prepared by:
Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S.
Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and White Mountain Apache Tribe.
Lead Agencies:
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (USDA-WS)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
1. Introduction
This report summarizes results of Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) activities during
2010. The Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project (Reintroduction Project) is part of a
larger recovery program that is intended to reestablish the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)
across its historical range.
The Reintroduction Project is conducted in accordance with a nonessential experimental
population final rule (USFWS 1998) that established the 6850 mi2 (17,740 km2) Blue Range
Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) (Fig. 1). In 2000, the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
agreed to allow free-ranging Mexican wolves to inhabit the Fort Apache Indian Reservation
(FAIR). The reintroduction area lies within the Alpine, Clifton, and Springerville Ranger
Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF) and the FAIR in east-central
Arizona, and the Gila National Forest (GNF) in west-central New Mexico.
In March 1998, the first release of Mexican wolves occurred on the Alpine and Clifton Ranger
Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona. At the end of 1998, the wild
population in Arizona and New Mexico consisted of four wolves in two packs. The wild
population grew to its highest minimal count of 59 wolves in 2006 through natural reproduction,
translocations, and initial releases. At the end of 2010, the wild population totaled a minimum of
50 wolves, 2 breeding pairs, and 10 packs. More information on population statistics can be
found at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/
Wolf age and sex abbreviations used in this document:
A = alpha
M = adult male (> two years old)
F = adult female (> two years old)

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 12 of 55

m = subadult male (one - two years old)
f = subadult female (one - two years old)
mp = male pup (< one year old)
fp = female pup (< one year old)
2. Methods
The IFT followed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) approved by the Lead Agencies. These
SOPs can be found at http://azgfd.gov/wolf. Note: In December 2009 the USFWS finalized a
settlement agreement and in a Consent Decree agreed to make no further decisions that relate to
the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program pursuant to Standard Operating Procedure 13.0: Control of
Livestock. The following definitions apply to the SOPs and to this report:
Breeding pair: an adult male and an adult female that have produced at least two pups
during the previous breeding season and which survived until December 31 of the year of
their birth (USFWS 1998).
Wolf pack: two or more wolves that maintain an established territory. In the event one of
the two alpha (dominant) wolves dies, the remaining alpha wolf, regardless of pack size,
retains the name.
Releases: wolves released directly from captivity, with no previous free-ranging
experience. These “initial releases” may only occur in the Primary Recovery Zone, which
is entirely within Greenlee County, Arizona (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Translocations: free-ranging wolves that are captured and moved to a location away from
their site of capture; this includes captured free-ranging wolves that have been
temporarily placed in captivity. Unlike initial releases, translocations can occur in the
Primary Recovery Zone or in the Secondary Recovery Zone (Fig. 1). The Secondary
Recovery Zone contains portions of Apache and Greenlee counties in Arizona, and
portions of Catron, Sierra, and Grant counties in New Mexico (Fig. 2).
Depredation: confirmed killing or wounding of lawfully-present domestic livestock by
one or more wolves.
Depredation incident: means the aggregate number of livestock killed or mortally
wounded by an individual wolf or by a single pack of wolves at a single location within a
one-day (24 hr) period, beginning with the first confirmed kill, as documented in an
initial IFT incident investigation pursuant to SOP 11.0.
Releases and Translocations
Initial release candidates are genetic surpluses to the captive breeding program. Once selected for
release, wolves are acclimated in USFWS-approved facilities prior to release. These facilities
include the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility, managed by the Turner Endangered
Species Fund, and the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility, managed by the USFWS at Sevilleta
National Wildlife Refuge. Both facilities are located in New Mexico.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 13 of 55

In management facilities, contact between wolves and humans is minimized. Carcasses of roadkilled native prey species primarily deer (Odocoileus spp.) and elk (Cervus elaphus) supplement
the routine diet of processed canine food. Genetically and socially compatible breeding pairs are
established and evaluated for physical, reproductive, and behavioral suitability for direct release
into the wild. Single wolves are also evaluated for release and potential pairing with wolves in
the wild.
Wolves are released using either a soft release or a hard release method. The soft release method
holds wolves at the release site for one day to several months to acclimate them to the specific
area. Soft release pens are constructed of chain link. A modified soft release consists of placing
the wolves in an acclimation pen approximately 0.13 acres (526 m2) in size and built of nylon
mesh, with electric fencing interwoven into the structure. Flagging is also attached to the pen
walls approximately every two feet, as a visual barrier to discourage wolves from running into
pen walls. Wolves generally self release within a few days. A hard release is a direct release of a
wolf (or wolves) from a crate into the wild or into an enclosure built of fladry (flagging hanging
on a rope surrounding a small protected area; sometimes the fladry “fence-line” is electrified).
Radio Telemetry Monitoring
In 2010 all radio-collared wolves were monitored by standard radio telemetry from the ground
and once weekly from the air as opportunity allowed. Visual observations, wolf behavior,
evidence of a kill site, associated uncollared wolves, and fresh sign were also noted when
possible. Location data were entered into the project’s Access database for analysis.
Aerial locations of wolves were used to develop home ranges (White and Garrott 1990), which
were calculated based on the definition in the final rule (USFWS 1998). Home ranges were
calculated using >20 individual aerial locations on a pack, pair, or single wolf exhibiting
territorial behavior over a period of > six months. To maximize sample independence, individual
radio-collared wolf locations were included in home range calculations only if individual wolf
locations were spatially or temporally separated from other radio-collared pack members. This
limited pseudo-replication of locations. Home range polygons were generated at the 95%
confidence level, using the minimum convex polygon (MCP) method (White and Garrott 1990)
in the animal movement extension in the program ArcView (Hooge et al. 1999; ESRI, Redlands,
CA, USA). Home ranges were not calculated for wolves that had <20 aerial radio locations,
displayed dispersal behavior, or exhibited non-territorial behavior during 2010.
Occupied Range
Occupied wolf range was calculated based on the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998)
and using the following criteria: (1) a five mi (eight km) radius around all locations of non radio
monitored wolves and wolf sign occurring in an area consistently used over a period of at least
one month; (2) a five mi (eight km) radius around radio locations of resident wolves when < 20
radio locations are available (for radio monitored wolves only); (3) a five mi (eight km) radius
around radio monitored wolf locations (for wolves exhibiting dispersal or non-territorial
behavior); and (4) a three mi (five km) radius around the minimum convex polygon developed
from >20 radio locations of a pack, pair, or single wolf exhibiting territorial behavior.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 14 of 55

Predation and Depredation Investigations
Throughout the year, project personnel investigated ungulate carcasses as they were discovered
to determine sex, age, general body condition, and whether the carcass had been scavenged or
was a wolf kill. USDA-WS wolf specialists investigated suspected wolf depredations on
livestock within 24 hours of receiving a report. On occasion, USFWS biologists conducted
parallel investigations to determine if any discernable events caused the depredation to occur.
Not all dead livestock were found, or found in time to document cause of death. Accordingly,
depredation numbers in this report represent the minimum number of livestock killed by wolves.
The 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) predicted 1-34 confirmed killed cattle
per year with a population of 100 Mexican wolves. This represents <0.05 % of all cattle present
on the range (USFWS 1996). The Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-year
Review (AMOC and IFT 2005) reported, between 1998 and 2003, the mean number of cattle
confirmed killed per year by wolves was 3.8, which extrapolates to 13.8 cattle killed per year
from a population of 100 Mexican wolves. From 2005 to 2009, the number of confirmed cattle
killed by wolves exceeded the predicted rate by the FEIS, and ranged between 36.5 depredations
per 100 wolves in 2008 to 50 depredations per 100 wolves in 2007.
Wolf Management
The IFT hazed (purposefully harassed) wolves on foot or by vehicle if the wolves localized near
areas of human activity or were found feeding on, chasing, or killing livestock. When necessary,
the IFT used rubber bullets, cracker shells, and fladry to encourage aversive response to humans
and to discourage nuisance and depredation behavior. The IFT captured wolves with leg hold
traps. In addition, wolves that established themselves outside the BRWRA were captured and
brought back into the BRWRA or temporarily held in captivity, per the final rule (USFWS
1998).
Proactive Management Activities
The IFT utilized proactive management activities in an attempt to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts
in the BRWRA. These activities included:
Turbo Fladry: electric fence with red flagging installed around livestock holding pastures
and private property to discourage wolf utilization inside the perimeter.
Hay: feed purchased for livestock owners who opted to keep livestock on private
property during calving season.
Range Riders: contract employees with radio telemetry equipment to assist stakeholders
in monitoring wolf movements in relation to cattle on USFS grazing allotments.
Livestock Grazing Rotation: moving livestock between different pastures within USFS
grazing allotments in order to avoid areas of high wolf use including den and rendezvous
sites.
Exclusionary Fencing: eight-foot-high fence enclosing areas of private property for the
purposes of protecting especially vulnerable animals or other specific reasons.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 15 of 55

Radio Telemetry Equipment: monitoring equipment issued to stakeholders to facilitate
their own proactive management activities and aid in the detection and prevention of
depredations.
Diversionary Food Cache: road-killed native prey carcasses or carnivore logs provided to
wolves in areas so as to reduce potential conflicts with livestock.
Supplemental Food Cache: road-killed native prey carcasses or carnivore logs provided
to wolves in order to assist a pack or remnant of a pack in feeding young of the year
when extenuating circumstances reduce their own ability to do so. Supplemental food
caches also serve to reduce potential conflicts between wolves and livestock.
Population Estimation
The IFT continued the expanded efforts that were initiated in 2006 to make the 2010 year-end
population estimate more comprehensive. Actions included increased ground surveys and
trapping for uncollared wolves, greater coordination of wolf sightings by the public and other
agencies, and use of remote cameras.
Wolf sign (i.e. tracks, scats) was documented by driving roads and hiking canyons, trails, or
other areas closed to motor vehicles. Confirmation of uncollared wolves was achieved via visual
observation, howling, scats, and tracks. Ground survey efforts for suspected, but uncollared
packs, were documented using global positioning system (GPS) and geographical information
systems (GIS) software and hardware. GPS locations were recorded and downloaded into GIS
software for analysis and mapping. Survey data were also recorded daily on forms and a
dedicated survey effort spreadsheet.
In January 2011, aircraft were used to document free-ranging wolves for the end-of-year 2010
population count and to capture wolves as necessary to affix radio-collars. Including January
data in the December 31 end-of-year count (and in this 2010 annual report) is appropriate,
because wolves alive in January were also alive in December (i.e. whelping does not occur in
mid-winter). Fixed-wing aircraft were used to locate wolves and assess the potential for darting
wolves from the helicopter. A helicopter was used to more accurately count the number of
uncollared wolves associated with collared wolves in all areas and to capture target animals (e.g.
uncollared wolves, injured wolves, wolves with old collars, or wolves outside the 10j boundary)
where the terrain allowed.
As part of the 2010 population estimate, members of the local public were also surveyed for
possible wolf sightings. Ranchers, private landowners, wildlife managers, USFS personnel, and
others were contacted to develop a wolf sighting database. Sighting reports from agency
cooperators were also collected. All sightings were analyzed to determine those that most likely
represented unknown wolves or packs.
Remote digital cameras (regular flash and infrared) were used to document wolf presence.
Information gleaned from public reports, surveys, and wolf sign were used to guide IFT efforts
to trap uncollared single wolves or groups. The objective was to have at least one member of

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 16 of 55

each pack collared. Using these methods, the IFT counted the number of uncollared wolves not
associated with collared wolves.
Mortality
Wolf mortalities were identified via telemetry and public reports. Mortality signals from radio
collars were investigated within 12 hours of detection to determine the status of the wolf.
Carcasses were investigated by law enforcement agents and necropsies were conducted to
determine proximate cause of death. Causes were summarized for all known deaths. For radiocollared wolves, mortality, missing, and removal rates were calculated using methods presented
in Heisey and Fuller (1985).
The IFT calculated yearly cause-specific mortality rates (i.e. human-caused versus
natural/unknown mortality). Management removals have an effect equivalent to mortalities on
the free-ranging population of Mexican wolves (see Paquet et al. 2001). Thus, the IFT also
calculated yearly cause-specific removal rates for radio-collared wolves. Wolves are removed
from the population for four primary causes: (1) dispersal outside the BRWRA, (2) cattle
depredations, (3) nuisance to humans, and (4) other (principally to pair with other wolves or to
move a wolf to a better area without any of the other causes occurring first). Each time a wolf
was moved, it was considered a removal, regardless of the animal’s status later in the year (e.g. if
the wolf was translocated or held in captivity). The IFT calculated an overall failure rate of
wolves in the wild by combining mortality, missing (only those wolves that went missing under
questionable scenarios), and removal rates to represent the overall yearly rate of wolves affected
(i.e. dead, missing, or managed) in a given year.
Outreach
The IFT outreach efforts affirm the project’s commitment to engage in effective communication,
identify various outreach mechanisms, and standardize certain outreach activities. These goals
help ensure timely, accurate, and effective two-way communication between, and among,
cooperating agencies and the public. Project personnel conducted outreach activities on a regular
basis, as a means of disseminating information to stakeholders, concerned citizens, and
government and non-government organizations. This was facilitated through monthly updates,
field contacts, handouts, informational display booths, Web page updates and phone contacts.
The IFT gave formal presentations at local livestock producer meetings and conducted one
public meeting to gather comment on a proposed Mexican wolf Translocation action within the
BRWRA.
The IFT conducted outreach activities by continuing to utilize the Mexican Wolf Blue Range
Reintroduction Project Outreach Plan developed during 2007. The plan provides an outline of
activities the IFT uses to inform various target audiences about the reintroduction project and
stimulate productive dialogue between stakeholders and cooperating agencies.
During 2010, the IFT posted Mexican wolf reintroduction project updates within the BRWRA
once each month, at places such as USFS offices, US post offices, and libraries, as well as on the
AGFD Mexican wolf web site at http://azgfd.gov/wolf and the USFWS Mexican wolf web site at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf. Interested parties could sign up to receive the

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 17 of 55

update electronically by visiting the AGFD web site at http://azgfd.gov/signup. The IFT faxed
monthly project updates to primary cooperating agencies, stakeholders and interested citizens.
The IFT produced a location map to inform cooperators and the public of areas occupied by
wolves. The map was updated quarterly and contained the previous three months of wolf aerial
locations. The map was posted on the AGFD web site at http://azgfd.gov/wolf. In addition to the
map, a description of wolf locations from weekly flights was posted to this web site within 48
hours of each flight per SOP 26. IFT personnel conducted weekly contacts of specific grazing
permittees to provide the general locations of wolves on or adjacent to their grazing allotments or
private lands.
Project personnel made contact with campers, hunters, and other members of the public within
the BRWRA and provided them with information about the wolf project. These contacts advised
the public of the potential for encountering wolves, provided general recommendations for
recreating in wolf-occupied areas and explained legal provisions of the non-essential
experimental population rule. The IFT collected information on wolf sightings, tracks and scat
from these public contacts.
3. Results
Information on the number of wolves and specific locations from the FAIR and the San Carlos
Apache Reservation (SCAR) is not included in this report in accordance with Tribal agreements.
a. Population Status
The minimum population estimate at the end of 2010 was 50 wolves and 2 breeding pairs. Pups
comprised 28% (14 of 50) of this population which is an increase from the previous year.
At the beginning of 2010, the collared population consisted of 28 wolves among 9 packs and 3
singles. Documented mortalities during the year reduced the collared population to 23 wolves
among 10 packs towards the end of 2010 (16 adults, 4 subadults, and 3 pups).
Twenty-seven uncollared wolves were documented in the Mexican Wolf Nonessential
Experimental Population Zone (MWNEPZ) (note: uncollared wolves captured during the
January 2011 helicopter operation were included as uncollared animals associated with known
packs above). Eleven of the 27 uncollared wolves were associated with 6 radio-collared packs
(Table 1).
The IFT observed wolf sign indicating the potential for four single uncollared animals (two in
AZ, two in NM) not associated with known collared packs. Additional uncollared animals were
found on the FAIR and on the SCAR. These areas will be priorities for IFT trapping efforts in
the spring and summer of 2011.
One natural pairing was detected in 2010. In February, M1155 (Hawks Nest wolf born in 2008)
paired with F1106 (originally from the Aspen pack and translocated into NM in 2008) within the

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 18 of 55

GNF. The pair was named Morgart’s pack. No denning was evident from telemetry locations. In
October F1106 was found dead.
There were five radio-collared single wolves (M619, F1106, f1154, M1155, m1185) for a
portion of the year. Two of the wolves were known to be alive (M1155, m1185) at the end of the
year. M1155 retained the Morgart’s pack name after F1106 died. m1185 of the Middle Fork pack
dispersed from his natal pack in May, but returned in August only to leave again in November.
In December, m1185 again exhibited extraterritorial movements and moved outside the pack’s
traditional home range. Approximately 91% (21 out of 23 wolves) of the radio-collared
individuals alive at the end of the year and 96% (48 out of 50 wolves) of all documented wolves
at the end of the year were born in the wild.
b. Reproduction
In 2010, eight packs (Dark Canyon, Bluestem, Hawks Nest, Luna, Middle Fork, Paradise, Rim,
and San Mateo) exhibited denning behavior, and all but Bluestem and Paradise were believed to
have produced wild-conceived, wild-born litters. The IFT documented a minimum of 18 pups
born with a minimum of 14 surviving in the wild until year-end (Table 1). This marked the ninth
consecutive year in which wild born wolves bred and raised pups in the wild. Of the ten known
packs at the end of 2010, all packs were formed naturally in the wild and composed of at least
one wild-born wolf.

Mexican wolf pups. Mexican Wolf Interagency photo, taken by a trail camera above the Hawks
Nest Pack den.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 19 of 55

c. Releases and Translocations
The IFT conducted two hard release translocations. One wolf was translocated for a boundary
violation; the other translocation was an attempt to increase genetic diversity, the number of
breeding pairs, and the number of wolves in the wild.
On January 10, the IFT translocated f1154 from captivity. This wolf was born in 2008 to the Bacho
pack on the FAIR. In June 2009, f1154 was placed into captivity for being outside the BRWRA on
the SCAR. The wolf was released at the Gila Flat release site on the GNF.
On January 25, the IFT captured an uncollared male wolf outside the BRWRA, north of Antelope
Peak on Arizona State Trust lands. The wolf was located with M1155 of the Hawks Nest Pack. The
yearling male wolf was collared and assigned studbook number M1189. The IFT released it back
inside the BRWRA on the ASNF near Carnero Lake.

d. Home Ranges and Movements
The IFT calculated home ranges for 10 packs exhibiting territorial behavior. The MCP method
produced an average home range size of 237 mi2 (613 km2), with home ranges varying from 66
mi2 to 830 mi2 (171 km2 to 2149 km2) (Fig. 4, Table 3). The Fox Mountain pack exhibited a
much larger than normal home range in 2010 as compared to previous years (830 mi2 in 2010 vs.
463 mi2 in 2009). This pack did not breed in 2010 and their movements reflected this situation.
The Fox Mountain pack’s movements were responsible for the overall increase in average home
range sizes for all wolves this year. Home ranges were not calculated for 7 wolves (F521, M619,
F1106, f1154, M1157, M1158, and m1185) that dispersed or traveled alone during all or portions
of 2010 (see Appendix A for detailed summaries of these individuals).
Mexican wolves occupied 5245 mi2 (13,579 km2) of the Mexican Wolf Nonessential
Experimental Zone (MWNEPZ) during 2010 (Fig. 5). Within the BRWRA there were 3565 mi2
(9229 km2) of occupied range. On the SCAR there were 76 mi2 (197 km2) of occupied range.
Outside of the BRWRA 1193 mi2 (3088 km2) of occupied range was documented. Occupied
wolf range occurred and was documented on the FAIR; however, this information is not
displayed on the map and specific area values are not provided as requested by the WMAT. In
comparison, Mexican wolves occupied 5325 mi2 (13786 km2) of the MWNEPZ during 2009.
e. Mortality
The IFT has documented 80 wolf mortalities in the wild since 1998 (Table 4), 6 of which
occurred in 2010 (Table 5). Mortalities in 2010 included: AM1044, M1189 and F521 from
illegal shooting; F1106 from intestinal blockage; and f1154 and AM1114 have necropsy reports
pending. This should be considered a minimum estimate of mortalities, since some pups and
uncollared wolves die without being documented. Two wolves from Arizona (M619, AM795)
are “fate unknown”.
The IFT monitored 31 individual radio-collared wolves for a total of 8856 radio days during
2010. A total of 7 radio-collared wolves were considered removed (n = 0), dead (n = 6), or
missing (n = 1). The overall survival rate was 0.748, or a corresponding failure rate of 0.252.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 20 of 55

The overall failure rate was composed of the human caused mortality rate (0.11; n = 3), natural
mortality rate (0.036; n = 1), unknown/awaiting necropsy mortality rate (0.07; n = 2), boundary
removal rate (0.00; n = 0), missing radio-collared wolves rate (0.036; n = 1), cattle depredation
removal rate (0.00; n = 0), nuisance removal rate (0.00; n = 0), and other removal rate (0.00; n =
0).

Mexican wolf M795 of the Paradise Pack. Mexican Wolf Interagency trail camera photo.

f. Wolf Predation
A total of nine carcasses (seven elk, two mule deer) were investigated opportunistically. Age
determinations of the elk revealed: four adults, three calves and no yearlings. The age estimation
of the mule deer revealed: one adult, and one yearling. Sex determinations of elk revealed four
females and three of unknown sex, one male mule deer and one yearling mule deer of unknown
sex.
Of the nine carcasses investigated: seven elk were confirmed or probable wolf kills; and two
mule deer were probable wolf kills.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 21 of 55

g. Wolf Depredation
USDA-WS members of the IFT completed 30 investigations on 48 animals with potential
Mexican wolf involvement. Of these 30 investigations, 27 involved cattle (n = 38), 2 involved
horses (n = 2) and 1 investigation involved sheep (n = 1). In addition, the IFT conducted 1 nonlivestock investigation involving seven dead chickens. Average IFT response time between the
reporting of an incident to the initiation of an on-site investigation was < 24 hours.
Of the 30 investigations, 12 (40%) were confirmed as being wolf related. Eight cattle deaths
were confirmed as wolf depredations, 2 cattle deaths were probable wolf depredations, and 3
injured calves were confirmed as being wolf related. Sixty-seven percent (n = 8) of these
occurred in New Mexico and 33% (n = 4) occurred in Arizona (Table 7). Fifty-six percent of the
investigations (n=18) were determined to be unknown or non-wolf related. Mortality causes
included: unknown (n = 11), coyote (C. latrans) (n = 1), bloat (n = 2), black bear (n = 1), gunshot
(n = 1), dog (n = 1), vehicle (n = 1).
Seventy-three percent (n = 22) of the 30 investigations conducted were in response to reports
from ranchers and the public and the remaining 27% (n = 8) were initiated by the IFT. Ten
percent (n = 1) of the confirmed or probable wolf-caused livestock mortalities were found and
reported by the IFT (Table 7).
In total, 4 of the 8 (50%) confirmed depredations involved uncollared wolves (Table 7). No
wolves were permanently removed in 2010 for repeated depredations. The confirmed killed
cattle rate for 2010 extrapolates to 14 depredations/100 wolves using the number of confirmed
killed cattle (n = 7; table 7) compared to the final population count (n = 50). This projected
number of depredations was within the 1-34 confirmed killed cattle per 100 wolves predicted in
the FEIS.
In 2010, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) paid a total of $3,568 to individuals who filed wolfrelated depredation claims (this can include veterinary expenses in addition to compensation for
losses). In September 2010, Defenders of Wildlife ended its long standing wolf compensation
trust fund program. This program had provided compensation to livestock producers for
confirmed or probable livestock kills that were attributable to wolves. They will now be shifting
their focus to collaborative efforts to help livestock producers coexist with wolves. In March
2010, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) added
wolf depredation as one of a list of potential events for which compensation funds can be
dispersed to agricultural growers. Percentage (likely 25% up to 75%) reimbursed depends upon
the total demand for ELAP funds nationally. FY 2010 funds will cover events occurring in 2008,
2009, and 2010. Funds will be dispersed after the end of year 2010. The ELAP Program is part
of the Farm Bill and will undergo reauthorization starting in 2011, but its future status is
unknown at this time. This fund targets agency confirmed livestock losses that have not been
reimbursed by another method of compensation.
Arizona and New Mexico were each granted $60,000, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe was
granted $4,000, from the Wolf Livestock Demonstration Project (Omnibus Bill/Tester Bill). The

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 22 of 55

grant requires a state or tribal match of 100%. So far, neither state has spent a large amount of
these funds. There is currently no proposal to continue funding this Project in 2011.
h. Management Actions
In 2010, one uncollared wolf was captured for routine monitoring, in addition to being outside
the BRWRA boundary. This wolf was collared, assigned studbook number M1189, and
translocated back inside the BRWRA. Eight wolves were captured, collared, processed, and
released on site for routine monitoring purposes for a total of nine times (Table 8). One pup,
fp1208 was captured twice. The pup was originally fitted with a pup sized collar; however, an
adult sized collar was attached after the second capture.
During the summer, the IFT conducted pup counts in Arizona utilizing remote trail cameras
placed at den sites. Seven pups were documented as having been produced by the Hawks Nest
pack and at least one pup was produced by the Rim pack. Trapping efforts to capture and collar
pups from these two packs were initiated in August and three of the seven pups from the Hawks
Nest pack were captured and collared during these operations.
During October, the IFT conducted a helicopter count and capture operation in New Mexico.
Goals of the operation included: 1) conduct pup counts, 2) fit VHF collars on pups, and 3)
replace existing VHF collars with GPS collars on alpha wolves. During the pack counts, the IFT
saw pups from the helicopter; however, trail camera photos from the summer indicated there
were more pups in the Luna and San Mateo packs (three and five pups, respectively) than were
seen from the air (one pup in each pack). In the Middle Fork pack, the IFT observed one pup
from the helicopter, whereas trail cameras had photographed two pups. The IFT did not observe
from the helicopter any pups with the Dark Canyon pack. No photographic evidence or visual
observation of pups was ever documented in this pack, despite having heard pup howling and
observed potential pup tracks in August. Attempts to dart alpha females or pups were not
successful. Three alpha males were captured and fitted with GPS collars, including AM1156 of
the Luna pack, M1155 of Morgart’s pack and AM871 of the Middle Fork pack.
No wolves were lethally removed in 2010 and none were permanently removed from the wild.
Two wolves were translocated (f1154, M1189). f1154 was found dead on April 28. On July 15,
M1189 was killed by illegal gunshot. Both incidents are under investigation.
The IFT conducted investigations in response to 11 cases of nuisance wolf behavior in 2010
(Table 9). Nuisance reports of collared animals involved wolves near residences or livestock.
The remaining reports concerned possible uncollared wolves; however, IFT personnel could not
confirm these sightings. The IFT issued cracker shells to one private individual who had multiple
reports of f1154 in the area of his residence. Additionally, the IFT issued cracker shells to a
private landowner who reported wolves adjacent to his livestock in Arizona. Trail cameras,
tracking, telemetry, and howling were used to gather evidence about reported nuisance problems.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 23 of 55

i. Proactive Management Activities
The IFT, working with Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), utilized proactive management
to assist in eliminating or reducing wolf livestock conflicts in the BRWRA (Table 10). The
Project and NGOs spent approximately $100,000 on proactive management activities affecting
an estimated 7100 livestock. This represented approximately 15% of the permitted livestock
grazing in the BRWRA. The IFT, agency contract employees, and NGO contract employees
spent approximately 5750 hours implementing proactive management activities.
The IFT installed and maintained turbo fladry around one large pasture for one stakeholder in
Arizona to protect livestock on both public land and private property. No livestock depredation
incidences occurred within the enclosed areas following the installation of the turbo fladry.
Additional fladry was installed in smaller areas for night enclosures.
The IFT intensively monitored and hazed the Hawks Nest pack in response to the close
proximity of livestock to this pack during the summer grazing season on public lands in Arizona.
No livestock depredation was documented in the area where these wolves were present.
The Project and NGOs purchased hay during the calving season for one stakeholder in Arizona,
and supplements for two stakeholders. One livestock depredation incident occurred on grazing
lands associated with these ranches.
The Project coordinated with the Reserve Ranger District and a stakeholder in NM to address
potential conflicts between livestock and wolves. Livestock were scheduled to graze in the
pasture where the wolves had denned. The District and the rancher changed the pasture rotation
and moved livestock into an alternate pasture for the denning season. Previous analyses and a
decision by the District identified the need for two dirt water tanks in order for the alternate
pasture to accommodate livestock. The District funded and pushed up the construction of the two
tanks to allow the pasture to be grazed during the denning season. No known depredations
occurred on the allotment during 2010.
Project personnel met with District Rangers, biologists and range staffs, to discuss livestock
management during the wolf denning season. In several cases, Districts in both states changed
Annual Operating Plans and pasture rotations to potentially reduce interactions between
livestock and denning wolves.
The Project and NGOs contracted eight range riders to assist eight stakeholders (six in Arizona,
two in New Mexico) in monitoring wolves in relation to cattle. Range riders monitored
approximately 6200 livestock within six wolf pack home ranges, and provided additional
oversight of livestock and light hazing of wolves when they were among the livestock.
The IFT coordinated with two NGOs, NMDGF, and the FS who contracted to build a fence to
split a pasture in order to keep livestock out of a traditional wolf denning area during the denning
season. Unfortunately, the contractor was unable to complete the fence during 2010 due to
extenuating circumstances. The fence is slated for completion in 2011.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 24 of 55

The IFT issued radio telemetry equipment to stakeholders in areas where wolf-livestock conflicts
were prevalent. Two sets of telemetry equipment were issued to ranches in Arizona and five sets
were issued in New Mexico. Two of these loans were in response to depredations by wolves on
specific allotments. The IFT trained stakeholders to use the telemetry equipment to monitor
wolves in the vicinity of cattle or residences. The IFT instructed stakeholders on non-injurious
hazing techniques. Stakeholders were encouraged to contact the IFT for assistance and were
required to report any wolf-livestock conflicts requiring intensive hazing efforts. These measures
resulted in stakeholders increasing their vigilance over livestock when wolves were in the
vicinity and stakeholders felt the equipment helped them to reduce the potential for livestock
depredations. No depredations are known to have occurred on the allotments during the periods
when range riders were under contract.
Diversionary or supplemental food caches were utilized for three packs in 2010. Diversionary
food caches are utilized in order to reduce potential conflicts between wolves and livestock.
Supplemental food caches are utilized to assist a pack or remnant of a pack in feeding young of
the year when extenuating circumstances reduce their own ability to do so. Supplemental food
caches also serve to reduce potential conflicts between wolves and livestock. The alpha male of
the San Mateo pack died in June, while the alpha male and a yearling male of the Hawks Nest
pack died in July. Both of these packs were denning and assumed to have young pups when the
adults died. The IFT established supplemental food caches within a reasonable distance of the
two dens in order to help the remaining adults feed the young of the year and to reduce the
likelihood of livestock depredations. In both situations, two or more pups survived until the end
of the year. In a third situation, a diversionary food cache was established for the Middle Fork
pack during the denning season to reduce depredation potential after the pack was confirmed by
IFT personnel in 2009 for ten depredations on livestock.
One stakeholder moved livestock out of their winter range pastures and pastured them on leased
land outside of the BRWRA. This change in management allowed the winter range to be rested
from livestock grazing, providing an area free of livestock where native ungulates congregate.
The potential for winter depredations was greatly reduced in the area. An NGO paid for the
trucking costs.
Cracker shells were allocated to two stakeholders for use in hazing wolves that entered private
land. IFT personnel hazed wolves on a number of occasions when they were creating nuisances
to private landowners or were in close proximity to livestock on private and public land. In many
cases, the wolves moved away though a few were persistent in returning.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 25 of 55

Mexican wolf F903 of the San Mateo Pack with young of the year at a supplemental food cache.
Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.

j. Non-IFT Wolf Sighting Reports
In 2010, the IFT received a total of 55 wolf-sighting reports from the public, which included 45
reports from Arizona and 10 reports from New Mexico (Appendix B). The IFT determined 30
reports were non-wolf sightings (coyote, dogs, etc.), seven reports were sightings from known
wolves within established territories (Arizona n = 6, New Mexico n = 1), one report was likely
an uncollared/unknown wolf (Arizona n = 1, New Mexico n = 0), with five reports being
probable wolf sightings (wolves located in area; however, weak sighting descriptions cannot be
proven) (Arizona n = 6, New Mexico n = 1), and twelve reports did not have enough information
to make a determination. To report a sighting of a Mexican wolf, please call 1-888-495-WOLF
(9653). The public is encouraged to report Mexican wolf sightings to help the IFT locate
undocumented packs and track movements of wolves within and around the BRWRA.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 26 of 55

k. Uncollared wolf sign
The IFT used uncollared wolf sign and sighting reports to target 14 core areas (Fig. 6) in an
effort to document and/or radio collar unknown wolves in and around the BRWRA. The IFT
searched a total of 932 mi (1500 km) of roads and trails. Two single wolves were documented in
AZ and two single wolves were documented in New Mexico (Fig. 7).
l. Outreach
The IFT and other project personnel gave 23 presentations and status reports to approximately
676 people in federal and state agencies, conservation groups, rural communities, schools,
wildlife workshops, and various other public and private institutions throughout Arizona, New
Mexico and White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Seventy-eight percent of the presentations
were for the BRWRA target audience. In addition, 5683 weekly contacts were made to
cooperating agencies and stakeholders. The monthly project update was faxed to, or posted at, 40
different individuals/locations across the BRWRA. Endangered Species Updates containing
current project and recovery program information also went out to an average of 12,712 people a
month. Outreach presentations can be scheduled by contacting the IFT at 1-888-495-WOLF
(9653).
At available USFS kiosks and various road pullouts in the BRWRA, the IFT maintained metal
signs and laminated posters that provide information on how to minimize conflicts with wolves.
The IFT also maintained USFWS reward posters at USFS kiosks and local businesses in the
BRWRA as necessary, to provide notice of a $10,000 reward for information leading to the
apprehension of individuals responsible for illegal Mexican wolf killings.
4. Summary
The 2010 end-of-year count confirmed 23 radio-collared wolves (16 adults, 4 subadults, and 3
pups). The population consisted of 10 packs (4 in Arizona, 6 in New Mexico). Twenty-seven
uncollared wolves, including uncollared singles and groups were documented throughout 2010.
Eleven of the 27 uncollared wolves were associated with 6 radio-collared packs (Table 1). There
were 3 radio-collared single wolves (M619, f1154, m1185) but only m1185 was known to be
alive at the end of the year (Note: M1155 and F1106 were single wolves for a portion of the year,
but had naturally paired by year’s end). There are likely more undocumented, free-ranging
wolves in the population, but most of these are likely single animals, as a wolf pack generally
leaves more sign and its existence is easier to document.
The IFT conducted two hard release translocations of one wolf each. One wolf, M1189, was
translocated for being outside the boundary. F1106 was translocated in attempt to increase
genetic diversity, the number of breeding pairs, and the number of wolves in the wild.
Seven packs produced wild-conceived, wild-born litters. This is the ninth consecutive year wildborn Mexican wolves bred and raised pups in the wild. In addition, 91% of the radio-collared
individuals and 96% of all documented wolves were wild-born.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 27 of 55

The IFT documented six mortalities of free-ranging wolves in 2010, including five adults and
one subadult.
Home ranges were calculated for 10 packs exhibiting territorial behavior. The MCP method
produced an average home range size of 237 mi2 (613 km2), with home ranges varying from 66
mi2 to 830 mi2 (171 km2 to 2149 km2).
Native prey used by wolves consisted primarily of elk; however, there were also eight confirmed
livestock depredations and two probable livestock depredation. There were three confirmed
livestock injuries attributed to wolves.
The IFT captured eight wolves a total of nine times for routine monitoring (n = 7), movement
outside the BRWRA boundary (n = 1) and incidental catch (n = 1). One wolf, fp1208, was
caught a second time while the IFT continued the trap line for additional pups in that litter. The
wolf, M1189, was outside of the boundary was translocated back into the BRWRA.
The IFT analyzed 51 reports of wolf sightings from the public; 59% of these reports were nonwolf sightings (coyote, dogs, deer, etc.), 14% were sightings of known wolves within established
territories, 10% were probable wolf sightings, 2% were likely uncollared/unknown wolves, and
the remainder was categorized as unknown due to insufficient information. In response to these
sightings, the IFT searched 932 mi (1500 km) of roads, trails, and canyons looking for unknown
wolves in and around the BRWRA. As a result, the IFT was successful in documenting two
single wolves in AZ and two single wolves in New Mexico.
Project personnel gave 23 presentations and status reports to approximately 676 people in federal
and state agencies, conservation groups, rural and urban communities, guide/outfitter
organizations, livestock associations, schools, fairs, and various other public and private
institutions. In addition, 5683 weekly contacts were made to cooperating agencies and
stakeholders. Endangered Species Updates containing current project and recovery program
information went out to an average of 12712 people a month.
The IFT acknowledges the assistance of all agency personnel and volunteers who provided data
and support services for the operational field portion of the Mexican wolf reintroduction project
during this reporting period. Individuals listed in Appendix C collected data or provided other
information for this report.
5. Discussion
The IFT documented the Mexican wolf population at a minimum population of 50 wolves in 2010
(Table 1, Fig. 8). The minimum number of breeding pairs (two) remained the same in 2010 as in
2008 and 2009 (Table 1, Fig. 4). The minimum total number of pups alive at the end of the year
was higher (n = 14 (Table 1) than the previous year (n = 7) and the number of known mortalities
decreased from eight in 2009 to six in 2010 (Table 4). Of the three single wolves: one is fate
unknown (M619); one died (f1154) and one remains in the wild with a functioning radio-collared
(m1185). The subadult male (m1185) left the Middle Fork pack in May but returned in August,
only to leave again in November. Morgart’s pack (F1106, M1155) was the only natural pair

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 28 of 55

formation. Fewer known adult wolves available for pair formation are likely a compounding result
of low pup survival in the previous years in addition to human caused mortality and lack of
appropriate initial releases and successful translocations from captivity.
Based on meta-analysis of gray wolf literature, Fuller et al. (2003) identified a 0.34 mortality rate
as the inflection point of wolf populations. Theoretically, wolf populations below a 0.34
mortality rate would increase naturally, and wolf populations above a 0.34 mortality rate would
decrease. The Mexican wolf population had an overall failure (mortality plus removal) rate of
0.252 in 2010, largely due to no management removals of wolves in the population this year.
While the significant reduction in the number of management removals is encouraging, the
majority of the population losses in 2010 were due to human-caused mortalities rather than
removals. Efforts to document the uncollared wolf component of the population will continue to
be a priority activity. The project will also continue to attempt to reduce the level of mortality,
while replacing the individual animals lost through initial releases and translocations.
The 2010 confirmed killed cattle rate extrapolates to approximately 14 depredations/100 wolves
using the number of confirmed killed cattle (n = 7) compared to the final 2010 population count
(n = 50). This projected number of depredations was within the 1-34 confirmed killed cattle per
100 wolves predicted in the FEIS. It is important to note the standard for extrapolating the annual
confirmed killed cattle rate/100 wolves uses the end of year wolf population count, which does
not include wolves that died during 2010. Thus, the confirmed killed cattle rate per 100 wolves,
as a matter of practice, underestimated the denominator which inflates the total rate.
A high number of mortalities may exceed growth from natural recruitment, translocations, and
initial releases in a given year. Nonetheless, a combination of initial releases, translocations, natural
pair formations, and reproduction in 2011 could result in another increase in the Mexican wolf
population. The Project management objective for 2011 is a 10% increase in the minimum wolf
population counts and/or the addition of at least two breeding pairs, while minimizing negative
impacts of wolves. Critical suggested changes to the Mexican wolf reintroduction project are
outlined in the Five Year Review. The Project will continue to work on implementing these
improvements in 2011.
6. Literature Cited
Heisey, DM and TK Fuller. 1985. Evaluation of survival and cause-specific mortality rates using
telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:668-674.
Hooge, PN, W Eichenlaub, and E Solomon. 1999. The animal movement program. USGS.
Alaska Biological Science Center.
Fuller, TK, LD Mech, and JF Cochrane. 2003. Wolf population dynamics. Pages 161-191 in L.
D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 29 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field
Team. 2005. Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review. USFWS,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Paquet, PC, J Vucetich, ML Phillips, and L Vuetich. 2001. Mexican wolf recovery: three year
program review and assessment. Prepared by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. USA.
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. USFWS,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. The final Mexican wolf experimental rule. 63 Federal
Register. Pp 1763-1772.
White, GC and RA Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press
Incorporated, New York, New York, USA.

Mexican wolf M871 of the Middle Fork Pack. Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail
camera photo.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 30 of 55

Table 1. Status of Mexican wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico, as of December 31, 2010.
Reproductiona
0
0

Pack
Bluestem, AZ
Dark Canyon, NM

Wolf ID
AM806, AF1042, m1183
AM992, AF923

Fox Mountain, NM

F521e, M1157, M1158
AM1044e, AF1110, M1155i, f1188, M1189e
fp1208, mp1209, mp1210
M1156, F1115
AM871, AF861, m1185j, fp1211h
F1106, M1155
AM795f, AF1056
AM1107, AF858, f1187
AM1114e, AF903, fp1212h
F1106e,i
f1154e
m1185j
M619f

Hawks Nest, AZ
Luna, NM*
Middle Fork, NM*
Morgart’s Pack, NM
Paradise, AZ
Rim, AZ
San Mateo, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf,
AZ/NM
Raspberry Creek, AZ
Coleman Creek, AZ
Iron Creek, NM
Leggett Peak, NM
FAIR
SCAR
Totalsl

Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolves
Uncollared wolves

Pups at Year Endb No. Collared
0
3
0
2

No. Uncollared
0
0

Min pack Sizec
3
2

0

0

2

0

2

7
3
2
0
0
1
5
0
0
0

5
3
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
0

5
2
2
1
1
3
1
0
0
1

3
3
2
0
1
1
3
0
0
0

8
5
4
1
2
4
4
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
18

0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
14

0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
23

0
1
1
1
1
N/Ad
N/Ad
27

0
1
1
1
1
N/Ad
N/Ad
50

a

Reproduction-maximum number of pups documented in 2010.
b
Pups at year end documented surviving until December 31, 2010.
c
Min pack size-total number of wolves (collared, uncollared, pups) documented at year end.
d
Wolf numbers on FAIR and SCAR are proprietary and therefore not displayed.
e
Died during 2010.
f
Fate unknown during 2010.
h
Counted as uncollared in 2010, collared in 2011.
i
Dispersed to form new pack.
J
Dispersed off and on throughout year; counted as single in table.
l
Totals include wolves occurring on FAIR and SCAR.
*A pack that meets the definition of a breeding pair per the final rule.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 31 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 34 of 59

Table 2. Mexican wolves translocated from captivity or the wild in Arizona and New Mexico
during January 1 – December 31, 2010.
Wolf pack
Single
Hawks Nest

Wolf #
f1154
M1189

Release Site
Gila Flat, NM
Carnero Lake, AZ

Release Date
January 10
January 25

Released or Translocated
Translocated from captivity
Translocated from wild

Table 3. Home range sizes of free-ranging Mexican wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico,
January 1 – December 31, 2010.
Home Range Size
Number of
95% Min. Convex Polygon mi2
Independent Aerial
(km2)
Locations
Bluestem
185 (479)
45
Dark Canyon
116 (300)
41
Fox Mountain
830 (2149)
41
Hawks Nest
210 (543)
46
Luna
185 (479)
45
Middle Fork
66 (171)
44
Morgart’s
204 (528)
32
Paradise
142 (367)
43
Rim
89 (230)
45
San Mateo
349 (903)
43
Averagea
237 (615)
43
a
Averages were based on packs with enough locations to calculate home ranges.
Wolf ID

Duration of Time
Radio Locations were
Available during 2010
12 months
12 months
7 months
12 months
12 months
12 months
7 Months
12 months
12 months
12 months
11.6 months

Table 4. Wild Mexican wolf mortalities documented in Arizona and New Mexico, 1998-2010.
Awaiting
Annual
Illegal
Vehicle
Otherb
Unknown
Naturala
necropsy
Total
shooting
collision
1998
4
0
0
1
0
0
5
1999
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
2000
1
2
1
0
0
0
4
2001
4
1
2
1
1
0
9
2002
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
2003
7
4
0
0
1
0
12
2004
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
2005
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
2006
1
1
1
1
2
0
6
2007
1
0
1
0
2
0
4
2008
6
2
2
1
2
0
13
2009
4
0
3
0
0
1
8
2010
2
0
1
0
0
3
6
Total
37
12
14
4
9
4
80
a
Includes three wolves lost to predation, two to starvation, two to disease (canine parvovirus and chronic bacterial
pleuritis), and one each to asphyxiation (snake bite), euthanasia, toxemia, and ingestion of a foreign object.
b
Includes 2 capture-related mortalities and 1 legal public shooting.
Year

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 32 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 35 of 59

Table 5. Mexican wolf mortalities documented in Arizona and New Mexico during January 1 December 31, 2010.
Wolf ID
f1154
M1044
M1114
M1189
F1106
F521

Pack
Single
Hawks Nest
San Mateo
Hawks Nest
Morgart’s
Fox Mountain

Age (years)
2
5-6
5
2-3
3
13

Date Found
April 28
June 18
June 23
July 15
October 12
December 2

Cause of Death
Awaiting necropsy
Illegal shooting
Awaiting necropsy
Illegal shooting
Intestinal blockage
Illegal shooting

Table 6. Mexican wolf depredations of livestock documented in Arizona and New Mexico
during January 1 – December 31, 2010.
Fatal
Injury

Confirmed
8
3

Probable
2
0

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Total
10
3

Page 33 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 36 of 59

Table 7. Investigations of confirmed and probable depredation and injuries caused by Mexican wolves to livestock during 2010 in New Mexico and
Arizona. Depredation incidents are defined as the aggregate number of livestock confirmed killed or mortally wounded by an individual wolf or a single
pack of wolves at a single location within a 1-day (24-hour) period, beginning with the first confirmed kill, as documented in the initial IFT incident
investigation pursuant to SOP 11.0.
Wolves in
Area
Paradise

1

Fox Mountain
(521, 1157)
Fox Mountain
and San Mateo

2
3

Investigation
Date

Located By
IFT

Species

State

Killed/
Injured

Call

Wolves
Responsible

Depredation
Incident

No. of
Incidents
for 2010

February 1

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

795, 1056

Noa

0

Monitoring

February 3

Yes

Cattle

NM

Killed

Probable

521, 1157

No

0

Monitoring

February 19

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

unknown

Nob

0

Monitoring
Monitoring

4

Middle Fork

April 28

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

unknown

Nob

0

5

San Mateo

June 19

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

uncollared

Yes

1

6

San Mateo

June 19

No

Cattle

NM

Injured

Confirmed

AM1114

No

0

7

San Mateo

June 22

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Probable

San Mateo

No

0

8

Bluestem

July 1

Yes

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

Bluestem

Yes

1

9

Bluestem

July 3

No

Cattle

AZ

Injured

Confirmed

Bluestem

No

1

10

Unknown

April 2

No

Horse

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

No

0

11

Unknown

April 26

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

No

0

12

Unknown

May 14

No

Cattle

NM

Injured

Confirmed

Uncollared

No

0

13

Unknown

August 30

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

No

0

a

Management Action

Monitoring; food
cache established
Monitoring; food
cache established
Monitoring; food
cache established
Monitoring; Intensive
hazing
Monitoring; Intensive
hazing
Set traps in area.
Searched area for
trapping opportunity
Searched area for
trapping opportunity
Searched area for
trapping opportunity

Cattle were not lawfully present. Therefore, based on the definition of a depredation this event is not tallied in the document text in Part B, 3, g.
No depredation incident was assigned. Evidence was not definitive as to which wolves were involved.

b

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 34 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 37 of 59

Table 8. Mexican wolves captured in Arizona and New Mexico from January 1, 2010 – December 31,
2010.
Pack

Wolf ID

Capture
Date

Hawks Nest

M1189

January 25

San Mateo

AF903

January 30

Hawks Nest

fp1208

August 19

Hawks Nest

mp1209

August 21

Hawks Nest

fp1208

October 1

Hawks Nest

mp1210

October 3

Middle Fork

AM871

October 5

Morgart’s

M1155

October 7

AM1156

October 7

Luna

Reason for Capture
Helicopter capture, outside the BRWRA boundary,
collared and released inside BRWRA boundary.
Helicopter capture, collar replaced and released.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and
released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and
released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and
released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and
released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Helicopter capture.
Captured, collared and released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Helicopter capture .
Captured, collared and released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Helicopter capture.
Captured, collared and released on site.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 35 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 38 of 59

Table 9. IFT management actions resulting from Mexican wolf nuisance activities in Arizona and New Mexico during 2010.
Date

Wolf ID

General Location

Type of Activity

IFT Response

February 13

San Mateo

North of Apache
Creek, NM

Wolves near residence and cattle

IFT investigated the report.

February 27

Uncollared

Heber, AZ

Wolves were near residence

IFT investigated the report.

February 19
March 10

Uncollared

Cliff, NM

Wolves on private property near residence

IFT investigated the report.

mid-March

F1154

North of Mimbres,
NM

Wolf on private property near residence

IFT investigated the report.

July 10

Hawks Nest

ASNF

Wolves testing group of 6 cows and 1 calf

IFT investigated the report and hazed
wolves out of the area.

July 24 to
30

Uncollared

Reserve, NM

Wolf tracks on private property

IFT investigated report.

August 6

Uncollared

Springerville, AZ

Wolf tracks near residence

IFT investigated the report.

September
6 to 20

Hawks Nest

ASNF

Wolves near cows

IFT investigated and hazed wolves out
of area.

September
7 to 22,
November 9

Uncollared

Glenwood, NM

Wolves seen in campground

IFT investigated the report.

September
8

Morgart’s

Winston, NM

Wolves ran horses through fence

Owner declined investigation

No action taken.

December
10

Uncollared

Eagar, AZ

Wolf reported on private property near
boneyard

IFT investigated report.

Set up trail camera. No
wolves documented in
area.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Management Result
No action taken, wolves
had left area.
No wolves documented in
area, coyote and dog
tracks.
Staff monitored for
uncollared wolves and
found one potential wolf
size track.
Cracker shells issued to
landowner. Wolf left area.
Staff continued to monitor
weekly and haze when
required.
Set up trail camera. No
wolf tracks found.
Set up trail camera. No
wolf tracks documented.
Staff continued to monitor
weekly and haze when
required.
Set up trail camera. Photos
of wolves shown to
individual and determined
it was not the animal
observed. No wolves
documented in the area.

Page 36 of 55

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
2010 Interagency Field Team Annual Report

Draft: April 2011
Page 39 of 59

Table 10. IFT proactive management activities in Arizona and New Mexico during 2010.
Proactive
Management
Activity
Fladry – 3 miles

Fladry – variable

Transport

Hay and
Supplements
Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Built 2 Water Dirt
Tanks

Purpose
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
within a small area.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
on sheep at night.
Move livestock out of
area in winter.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
during calving season.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Reduce the probability
of predator depredation
on free-ranging
livestock.
Allow use of alternate
pasture to reduce wolf
depredation.

Date
May to
October
May to
September

Location
Sheep
Springs,
AZ
Sheep
Springs,
AZ

Wolf ID
Paradise,
uncollared?
Paradise,
uncollared?

Management
Result
No known
livestock
depredations
No known
livestock
depredations

December

Greer, AZ

Paradise,
Hawks Nest,
Uncollared

No livestock
depredation

January to
March

Blue River,
AZ

Uncollared
Wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

June
through
September

Crosby
Crossing,
AZ

Hawks Nest

No known
livestock
depredations

July
through
November

Mangas,
NM

San Mateo

No known
livestock
depredations

July to
October

Greens
Peak, AZ

Paradise,
Uncollared
Wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

July
through
October

Beaverhead
NM

Morgart,
Middle Fork

No known
livestock
depredations

August to
November

Black
River, AZ

Bluestem

No additional
livestock
depredations

December

Strayhorse,
AZ

Uncollared
wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

May
through
August

Pole Knoll,
AZ

Paradise,
Uncollared
Wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

September

Greer, AZ

Uncollared

No additional
livestock
depredations

May

Elk
Mountain,
NM

Middle Fork

No known
livestock
depredations

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 37 of 55

Figure 1. The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area and Mexican wolf nonessential experimental zone
(cross-hatched area) in Arizona and New Mexico.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 38 of 55

Figure 2. Counties that occur in or adjacent to the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Arizona
and New Mexico.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 39 of 55

Figure 3. Translocation sites used during 2010 in Arizona and New Mexico within the Blue
Range Wolf Recovery Area.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 40 of 55

Figure 4. Mexican wolf home ranges for 2010 in Arizona and New Mexico. The shaded
polygons and corresponding numbers on the map represent wolves having >20 independent radio
locations and exhibiting movement characteristics consistent with a home range during 2010.
See the following page for information regarding the wolf packs and home ranges.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 41 of 55

Figure 4. Continued.
Map
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Wolf Pack
Paradise
Hawks Nest
Bluestem
Rim
Fox Mountain
San Mateo
Dark Canyon
Luna
Middle Fork
Morgart’s

Number of
Wolves
2
7
3
4
2
5
2
5
4
1a

Wolf Fate at the
End of 2010
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging
Free-ranging

Breeding Pair
Status
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No

Home Range Size
(mi2)
142
210
185
89
830
349
116
185
66
204

a

This pack met the requirements for consideration as an independent pack from April through October of 2010, until
F1106 was located dead in the BRWRA.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 42 of 55

Figure 5. Mexican wolf occupied range in Arizona and New Mexico within the Mexican Wolf
Nonessential Experimental Zone as defined in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998).

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 43 of 55

Figure 6. Areas searched and corresponding miles searched (driven or hiked) for uncollared wolf
sign in Arizona and New Mexico. Search areas corresponding to “map numbers” as follows:

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 44 of 55

Figure 6 continued.
Map Numbers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Search Area
Heber
Antelope Mountain
Johnson Basin
Datil
Big Lake
Coleman Creek
Escudilla
Torriette Lakes
Bull Basin
Pueblo Park
Negrito Creek
Strayhorse
Glenwood
Iron Creek
Total
Grand Total for AZ and NM

Miles Searched in
AZ
6
19
0
0
17
222
44
0
0
0
0
313
0
0
621

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Miles Searched in
NM
0
0
69
28
0
0
44
45
54
6
4
0
25
36
311
932

Page 45 of 55

Figure 7. Uncollared wolves documented and counted in the 2010 wolf population in Arizona
and New Mexico.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 46 of 55

70
60
50
40
Minimum Population

30
20
10
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 8. Mexican wolf minimum population estimates from 1998 through 2010 in Arizona and
New Mexico.
70
60
50
Minimum Population

40

Releases
30

Removals
Mortalities

20
10
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 9. Mexican wolf population estimates and associated population parameters. Wolves
released included: translocations (wolves re-released from captivity back into the wild) and
initial releases (wolves released with no wild experience). Lethal control of wolves was counted
within the wolves removed figures because they are associated with management actions.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 47 of 55

Appendix A. 2010 Pack and Single Wolf Summaries
7. Pack Summaries
Bluestem pack (AM806, AF1042, m1183)
Throughout the year the Bluestem pack utilized their traditional territory in the central portion of
the ASNF and the FAIR. In January, the Bluestem pack consisted of three wolves with
functioning radio collars (AM806, AF1042, and m1183). The IFT documented denning behavior
from AM806 and AF1042 in May. In June, the Bluestem pack started making large movements
through their territory, which indicated an abandonment of denning activities. On July 1, IFT
personnel confirmed that multiple wolves killed a cow south of Big Lake. The incident was
assigned to the Bluestem pack. The Bluestem pack injured a calf on July 3 south of Big Lake.
The calf was expected to survive the injuries. In December, m1183 made dispersal movements
and remained apart from AM806 and AF1042. As of January 2011, the Bluestem pack consisted
of two animals (AM806, AF1042); therefore, this pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” per
the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). No mortalities, removals or translocations
involving the Bluestem pack occurred in 2010.
Dark Canyon pack (AF923, AM992)
In January, the pack consisted of AF923 and AM992. Throughout the year, the Dark Canyon
pack remained in its traditional territory in the west-central portion of the GNF. In May, the IFT
documented denning behavior; however, the IFT could not confirm pups even though adult
behavior suggested pups survived past the denning period. During the annual population count in
January 2011, no uncollared animals were spotted with the alpha pair despite numerous attempts.
Therefore, per the definition in the Final Rule, the Dark Canyon pack was not considered a
“Breeding Pair” in 2010 (USFWS 1998). No confirmed depredations, mortalities, removals or
translocations involving the Dark Canyon pack occurred in 2010.
Fox Mountain pack (F521, M1157, M1158)
In January, the Fox Mountain pack consisted of M1157, M1158, and F521. Throughout the year,
the pack moved throughout the north, north central and northwestern portion of the GNF. On
January 30, the IFT observed F521 and M1157 next to two calf carcasses in the Tularosa
Mountains. On January 31, IFT personnel attempted to reach the carcasses on ATVs, but were
unsuccessful due to snow conditions. On February 3, IFT personnel used a Sno-cat to access the
area and conducted an investigation. One calf was a probable wolf depredation and was assigned
to the Fox Mountain pack. Tthe other calf died from unknown causes. On February 19, the IFT
responded to a report of wolves feeding on a dead calf located on private property near Govina
Canyon. Investigators determined at least two different wolves killed the calf. A dead bull in the
immediate vicinity died from unknown causes. The IFT documented telemetry signals from six
different wolves from two packs (San Mateo and Fox Mountain) in the general area. The IFT did
not assign the depredation to any specific wolves given the inconclusive information regarding
which wolves may have killed the calf. In April and May, the pack showed no indications of
denning. Given F521 was 13 years old, the likelihood of denning was quite low. In early July,
the IFT documented F521 localizing near the state border. The IFT attempted to capture the wolf
to evaluate its condition; however, this wolf was more mobile than initially assessed and was
never captured. A Project veterinarian then viewed F521 from a close distance and determined

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 48 of 55

the animal could evaluate its environment for threats and other stimuli. Shortly after, F521
traveled more widely with M1157 and M1158. During August, the three wolves began traveling
separately and by November, M1158 was traveling apart in the east central portion of the ASNF
in Arizona. A trail camera photo taken in Arizona documented M1158 with an uncollared wolf.
On December 2, F521 died from a gunshot. Per the definition in the Final Rule, the Fox
Mountain pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2010. There were no removals or
translocations involving the Fox Mountain pack in 2010.
Hawks Nest pack (AF1110, AM1044, M1155, f1188, M1189, fp1208, mp1209, mp1210)
In January, the Hawks Nest pack consisted of AM1044, AF1110, M1155, fp1188, M1189 and an
uncollared animal observed during the annual population count. In February, M1155 dispersed
from Hawks Nest and remained apart from the pack for the rest of the year. On February 25,
M1155 was located with F1106 traveling together in New Mexico. In March, the IFT designated
M1155 and F1106 as Morgart’s Pack. In May, the IFT documented denning behavior in the
Hawks Nest pack. On June 3, the IFT documented seven pups. On June 18, AM1044 was found
dead due to gunshot wounds. On July 15, M1189 was found dead due to gunshot wounds. On
August 19, a pup was trapped, collared and assigned studbook number fp1208. On August 24, a
pup was trapped, collared, and assigned studbook number mp1209. On September 6, IFT
personnel observed AF1110, F1188, fp1208, mp1209, one uncollared subadult, and five
uncollared pups for a total of ten wolves at the rendezvous site. On October 1, fp1208 was
trapped again and fitted with a larger collar and released on site. On October 3, a pup was
trapped, collared, and assigned studbook number mp1210. On December 4, IFT personnel
observed eight wolves (collared and uncollared) in the pack. At the end of 2010 f1188 began to
disperse and travel away from the pack. During the January 2011 helicopter operation AF1110,
fp1208, mp1209, and mp1210 were observed with three uncollared wolves. As of the end of
2010 it does not appear that an adult male wolf had replaced AM1044. Due to the loss of
AM1044, the Hawks Nest pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2010 per the definition
in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). No confirmed depredations or removals involving the Hawks
Nest pack occurred in 2010.
Luna pack (AF1115, AM1156)
In January, the Luna pack consisted of F1115 and M1156. Throughout the year, the IFT located
the Luna pack within its traditional territory in the central portion of the GNF. In May, the IFT
documented denning behavior. The IFT documented three pups in August. On October 7,
AM1156 was fitted with a GPS collar. In December, the IFT documented three uncollared
animals with F1115. During the 2010 annual population count in January 2011, three pups were
documented with this pack; therefore, per the definition in the Final Rule, the Luna pack was
considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2010 (USFWS 1998). No confirmed depredations, mortalities,
removals or translocations involving the Luna pack occurred in 2010.
Middle Fork pack (AF861, AM871, m1185)
In January, the Middle Fork pack consisted of AF861, AM871 and m1185. Throughout the year,
the pack remained in its traditional territory in the central portion of the GNF. In May, the IFT
documented denning behavior. Around the same time m1185 began traveling away from the
Middle Fork pack. By the end of the month, m1185 was documented in Arizona; however,
towards the end of August, m1185 returned to the pack. During mid-June, the IFT established a

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 49 of 55

diversionary food cache to prevent depredations. The food cache lasted until the middle of
November. In late June, trail camera photos documented an adult sized, uncollared wolf with the
pack. In September, the IFT documented two pups. On October 5, AM871 was fitted with a GPS
collar. During the 2010 annual population count in January 2011, two pups were observed;
therefore, per the definition in the Final Rule, the Middle Fork pack was considered a “Breeding
Pair” in 2010 (USFWS 1998). There were no confirmed depredations, mortalities, removals or
translocations involving the Middle Fork pack in 2010.
Morgart’s Pack (F1106, M1155)
In February through April, the IFT located F1106 and M1155 traveling together in the northwestern
portion of the GNF. The IFT did not document any denning behavior in May. The wolves moved to
the eastern portion of the GNF. The pair established a territory in this area with occasional random,
wide ranging movements to other areas. On October 7, M1155 was fitted with a GPS collar. On
October 12, F1106 was found dead from intestinal blockage. Morgart’s pack was not considered
a “breeding pair” in 2010 per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). No confirmed
depredations, removals or translocations involving Morgart’s pack occurred in 2010.
Paradise pack (AM795, AF1056)
At the beginning of 2010, the Paradise pack consisted of AM795 and AF1056. On February 1,
the Paradise pack killed a calf, which was snowbound in a drainage with 8 other cattle. Because
the calf was not legally present on the allotment, a depredation incident was not assigned. The
three cattle that were still alive were removed from the area via snowmobile and returned to the
permittee. On April 24, the IFT triangulated AM795 for the last time and is now considered “fate
unknown”. In May, the IFT documented denning behavior. AF1056 remained near the den site
throughout the summer. On October 18, the IFT found two adult sized tracks indicating at least
one additional wolf with AF1056. During the annual population count in January 2011, IFT
personnel counted one apparently uncollared wolf in addition to AF1056. The Paradise pack was
not considered a “breeding pair” in 2010 per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998).
There were no confirmed mortalities, removals, or translocations involving the Paradise pack in
2010.
Rim pack (AF858, AM1107, f1187)
In January 2010, the Rim pack consisted of three wolves (AF858, AM1107, and f1187).
Throughout the year, the Rim pack was located within its traditional home range in the central
portion of the ASNF. In April, the IFT documented denning behavior. On June 9, the IFT
documented one pup with the Rim pack. In September, the IFT observed an uncollared adult
sized wolf with the Rim pack. In January 2011, during the annual population count, IFT
personnel documented AF858, AM1107, f1187, and one uncollared wolf; therefore, the Rim
pack was not considered a “breeding pair” in 2010 per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS
1998). There were no confirmed depredations, mortalities, removals or translocations involving
the Rim pack occurred in 2010.
San Mateo pack (AF903, AM1114)
In January, the San Mateo pack consisted of AM1114 and AF903. Throughout the year, the IFT
located the pack within its traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF. On
January 30, the IFT capture AF903 during the annual population count to replace the radio
collar. The wolf was released near the capture site in Sand Canyon on the GNF. On February 19,

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 50 of 55

the IFT responded to a report of wolves feeding on a dead calf located on private property near
Govina Canyon. Investigators determined at least two different wolves killed the calf. A dead
bull in the immediate vicinity died from unknown causes. The IFT documented telemetry signals
from six different wolves from two packs (San Mateo and Fox Mountain) in the general area.
The IFT did not assign the depredation to any specific wolves given the inconclusive information
regarding which wolves may have killed the calf. In April, the IFT documented denning
behavior. On June 19, the IFT investigated injured calves on a ranch just north of the BRWRA.
Both calves were determined to be attacked by at least one wolf. One was injured severely and
euthanized, while the other calf recovered. The IFT concluded an unknown wolf from the San
Mateo pack was involved. On June 23, AM1114 was found dead. The death is currently under
investigation. The IFT established a supplemental food cache in mid-June to deter depredations
and assist AF903 in raising pups. Five pups were documented from September to the end of
October. The wolves abandoned the cache in December. Due to the death of AM1114, the San
Mateo pack was not considered a “breeding pair” in 2010 per the definition in the Final Rule
(USFWS 1998). There were no confirmed removals or translocations in 2010.
8. Individual Wolf Summaries
M619
In January 2010, M619 was observed traveling alone. On January 23, a member of the public
observed M619 trying to kill an elk in the South Fork of the Little Colorado River. Members of
the IFT confirmed the incident the same day. From January through May, M619 was located in
the north central portions of the ASNF and the GNF. On May 27, the IFT located M619 for the
last time. M619 is now considered fate unknown.
F1106
During January, the IFT located the wolf in the northeast and northwest portions of the GNF and
continued to make large movements as a single wolf. In late February, the IFT located this wolf in
the vicinity of M1155 from the Hawks Nest pack. The pair was subsequently named Morgart’s pack.
F1106 was found dead in October and a necropsy determined that she died of an intestinal rupture
due to an ingested foreign object.
f1154
On January 10, the IFT released f1154 from captivity at the Gila Flat release site in New Mexico.
This wolf was wild born in 2008 as part of the Bacho Pack. In 2009, f1154 was moved to
captivity for being outside the BRWRA area on the SCAR. From January to March 2010, the
IFT located this wolf in the Aldo Leopold and Gila Wilderness areas and the GNF in Grant
County, NM. The wolf was observed near a residence and cracker shells were issued to the land
owner. Eventually the wolf moved out of the area on its own. During the early part of April, the
wolf traveled north and eventually ended up outside the BRWRA, north of the San Mateo
Mountains. At the end of April, the IFT located f1154 dead in New Mexico. The cause of death
is under investigation and a necropsy is pending.
M1155
M1155 began dispersing from the Hawks Nest pack in January. The wolf continued to travel alone in
Arizona until late February when the IFT located it in the northwest portion of the GNF with F1106.
The pair was subsequently named Morgart’s pack.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 51 of 55

m1185
m1185 began dispersing from the Middle Fork pack in May and traveled through the BRWRA in
both Arizona and New Mexico until August at which time the wolf returned to the pack only to leave
again in November. At the end of 2010 this wolf was traveling alone in New Mexico.

Three Mexican wolf pups documented with the Luna Pack (one pup in photo, a pup tail each on
the left and right side of the image). Mexican wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 52 of 55

Appendix B. Summary of sighting reports received from the public from January 1
through December 31, 2010.
Jan
# AZ Reports
3
Known Wolf Reports 0
Unknown/Uncollared 0
Reports
2
Non-wolf Reports
1
Probable Wolf
Reports
0
Not Enough
Information
# NM Reports
0
Known Wolf Reports 0
Unknown/Uncollared 0
Reports
0
Non-wolf Reports
0
Probable Wolf
Reports
0
Not Enough
Information
Total Sightings per
3
Month

Feb
4
0
0

Mar
4
0
0

Apr
1
0
0

May
6
0
0

Jun
1
0
0

Jul
5
1
0

Aug
0
0
0

Sept
1
0
0

Oct
3
0
0

Nov
6
0
0

Dec
5
0
0

Total
45
1
0

2
1

1
0

0
0

1
1

1
0

2
0

4
0

0
1

0
1

2
2

2
1

17
8

1

3

1

4

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

19

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

5
0
0

1
0
0

2
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

10
0
0

0
1

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
2

0

0

0

4

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

7

5

4

1

11

2

7

0

1

4

6

5

55

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 53 of 55

9. Personnel
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Chris Bagnoli, Field Team Leader
Colby Gardner, Wolf Biologist
Jeff Dolphin, Wolf Technician/Wolf Biologist
Beth Wojcik, Wolf Technician
Mike Godwin, Wildlife Manager Supervisor
Joel Weiss, Wildlife Manager
Aaron Hartzell, Wildlife Manager
Dave Cagle, Wildlife Program Manager
John Hervert, Capture Specialist
Bill David, Chief Pilot
Basil Coffman, Pilot
Steve Sunde, Pilot
Steve Dubois, Pilot
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
Ellen Heilhecker, Wolf Biologist
Mischa Larisch, District Officer / Wolf Biologist
K.C. Gehrt, District Officer
Bobby Griego, District Supervisor
Ty Jackson, District Officer
Mike Matthews, District Supervisor
Andrew Teaschner, District Officer
Derek Theobald, District Officer
Storm Usrey, District Officer
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Sterling Simpson, Field Team Leader/Wolf Management Specialist
Bill Nelson, Wolf Depredation Specialist
Armando Orona, Wolf Management Specialist
Chris Carrillo, District Supervisor
Keel Price, District Supervisor
Mike Kelly, Wildlife Biological Science Technician
Jedediah Murphy, Wildlife Biological Science Technician
U.S. Forest Service
Cathy Taylor – Forest Service Liaison to the Wolf Project
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bud Fazio, Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
Sherry Barrett, Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
Maggie Dwire, Assistant Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
AnnMarie Houser, Wildlife Biologist
Susan Dicks, Wildlife Biologist

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 54 of 55

Melissa Kreutzian, Wildlife Biologist
John Oakleaf, Wildlife Biologist
Dewey Wesley, Biological Technician
Ryan Gordon, Biologist (detailed)
Sarah Rinkevich, Endangered Species Biologist (detailed)
Jim Ashburner, Lead Special Agent
USFWS Volunteers
Jason D’Agostino
Julie Dewilde
Quinn Harrison
Carrisa Michaud
Tara Poloski
Michael Robinson
Kim Romano
Elina Suvilampi
Linda WhiteTrifaro
Ryan Wilbur
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Krista Beazley, Field Team Leader
Deon Hinton, Wolf Technician
Ivan Kasey, Wolf Technician
Bobby Tovin, Wolf Technician
Project Veterinarians
Dr. Ole Alcumbrac
Dr. Susan Dicks

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #13

Page 55 of 55