Mexican Wolf Recovery Program:
Progress Report #14
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2011

Prepared by: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cooperators: Arizona Game and Fish Department, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services,
US Forest Service, and White Mountain Apache Tribe

M1049 released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. USFWS Photo

Table of Contents
Foreword
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. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
7.
Litigation
a. Wild Earth Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity
b. Lawsuit from interested parties in New Mexico
8.
Rule Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement
9.
Mexican Wolf Interdiction Fund and Stakeholder Council
10.
Literature Cited

Page
1
1
1
3
4
4
6
6
6
8
9
9
10
10
10
11

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
10.
Addendum to the 2011 Progress Report

12
13
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
27
27
27
28
29
30
53
57
60
62

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, 2011.
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 at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility. Photo courtesy of Dan Shaw.

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 2011, there were approximately 283 captive Mexican wolves
managed in 52 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.
In the United States, 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 2011, the annual SSP meeting was held in Mexico City and hosted by
El Subcomité Técnico Consultivo Nacional de Recuperación del Lobo Mexican, SEMARNAT
with CONANP and DGVS, and Universidad Autóma Metropolitana.
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
2011 Progress Report

1

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 2011 the staff of SNWR continued to assist in the maintenance and
administration of the SWMF. Through the course of the year, 24 individual wolves were housed
at the SWMF. Of these, one wolf was transferred to the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management
Facility, and two wolves were transferred to the Endangered Wolf Center, MO. Five pups were
born and no deaths occurred at the SWMF. At year’s end, the SWMF housed 21 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 2011, 8
individual wolves were housed at the LRWMF. Three 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 2011, WHI housed 12
individual Mexican wolves in the pre-release enclosures. No births or deaths of pre-release
candidates occurred at the WHI. At year’s end, WHI housed 12 Mexican wolves in the prerelease enclosures.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

2

M1037 at the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility. USFWS Photo.
2. Recovery Planning
The current recovery plan for Mexican wolves was published by the Service in 1982. It
recommends a two-pronged approach to recovery that includes establishment of a captive
breeding program and reintroduction of wolves to the wild. This plan, however, does not
establish recovery criteria for the Mexican wolf. Although substantial progress in implementing
the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan has been achieved, a revised recovery plan has never
been developed to establish recovery criteria specific to the Mexican wolf subspecies or the gray
wolf in the Southwest Region.
In December, 2010, the Service sent letters inviting participants to a new Mexican Wolf
Recovery Team. This new team consists of four subgroups – Science and Planning, Tribal
Liaisons, Stakeholder Liaisons, and Agency Liaisons. The Science and Planning subgroup is
tasked with assisting the Service in writing the recovery plan, working together to update the
scientific background and develop recovery strategies that include goals, objectives, criteria, and
implementation of actions that promote successful Mexican wolf recovery and delisting. The
Tribal and Agency Liaison subgroups provide applied management perspectives during recovery
plan development with respect to both their natural resource expertise and their understanding of
their respective communities and constituents. Those representing the Stakeholder Liaison
subgroup provide a diverse source of expertise regarding their particular interest in wolf
recovery. These perspectives may include discussions of human, social, and economic
considerations.
During 2011 all four subgroups met together three times, and the Science and Planning subgroup
met an additional two times. A draft version of a new recovery plan is expected in November,
2012.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

3

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 (see section 7, Litigation).
At the end of 2008, a team of Service biologists and administrators, led by experts in structured
decision making from the United States Geological Survey, began a comprehensive evaluation of
a suite of alternative gray wolf listing classifications using decision analytical techniques. This
process continued through 2010 and included a national workshop of Service managers,
technical experts, and state management partners. Although this team did not reach consensus for
wolf listing nationwide, additional smaller workshops have included convening experts and
partners in Mexican wolf biology and management to apply a DPS or subspecies tradeoff
analysis to the Mexican wolf. In 2011, the United States Geological Survey led Service managers
and biologists, together with state management partners, through another such iterative process.
4. Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Project Structure
Beginning in 2003, the BRWRA Reintroduction Project was managed jointly by the AGFD,
NMDGF, USDA-Forest Service, USDA-WS, WMAT, and the Service. These agencies and
additional cooperating counties worked together under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), and a member from each formed the Adaptive Management Oversight Committee
(AMOC) that provided guidance to the IFT on policy issues related to the BRWRA. Under this
structure the IFT was guided by Standard Operating Procedures, which provided management
for the free-ranging population (see the Arizona Game and Fish Department website at
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/wolf/sop.shtml)
In December 2009 the Service finalized a settlement agreement with plaintiffs Wild Earth
Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife, agreeing to make no further decisions that relate to the
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program pursuant to the MOU that created AMOC, and to Standard
Operating Procedure 13.0: Control of Mexican Wolves. In 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. Signatories to the
2010 MOU formally met twice during 2011.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

4

On June 9, 2011, the New Mexico State Game Commission directed the NMDGF to suspend its
participation in the Mexican Gray Wolf Restoration Program as of June 30, 2011. NMDGF
subsequently withdrew their participation in the New Mexico Wolf/Livestock Demonstration
program on October 31, 2011, and on December 6, 2011, the Director of the NMDGF issued a
letter to the Service formally withdrawing from the 2010 MOU.
On December 2, 2011, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted to continue both its
financial and infrastructure support of Mexican wolf conservation in the state, but voted not to
support the release of any new wolves until the Service completes a new recovery plan,
management plan, and a new 10(j) rule is in place. Previously, all initial releases of captive
Mexican wolves in the U.S. have occurred in Arizona with the concurrence and support of the
Game and Fish Department. Note: on January 13, 2012, the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission amended this policy stating the AGFD Director has the authority to approve a wolf
release in cases where an animal is lost from the population due to an unlawful act, and when a
wolf is lost to any other cause of mortality the Arizona Game and Fish Commission must
approve a release.

Middle Fork Pack. Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.
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 2011 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.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

5

5. Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
In 2011, 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%. Funding to NMDGF ceased when its participation in the program was suspended.
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 2011 by USFWS from Mexican Wolf Project Funds
$ 205,000
$0
$ 165,000
$ 30,000
$ 40,000
$ 29,000
$ 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
2011. 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 2011. These included semen collection and
freezing, oocyte vitrification, testing two new semen extenders, examination of the female
ovulatory cycle hormone profiles to establish a database of normal pregnant and non-pregnant
cycles to help diagnose female infertility, deslorelin (Suprelorin) for use as a contraceptive.
Dr. Cheryl Asa and Karen Bauman at the Saint Louis Zoo, and Anneke Moresco with the
University of California, Davis, examined the identification of factors related to uterine
endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and incidence of pyometra (a potentially fatal uterine infection) in
canids. The research surveyed several canid SSPs for historic incidence of EH and pyometra, and
also looked retrospectively at factors associated with the risk of EH and pyometra. Results

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

6

indicated the risk of EH or pyometra was highest based on the number of years a female was
treated with deslorelin only. An intermediate risk was associated with females that were not
contracepted but also not reproducing, and the number of years a female was treated with
melengestrol acetate implants. The lowest risk of EH or pyometra was associated with the
number of years a female gave birth, and the number of years a female was treated with
deslorelin plus melengestrol acetate to prevent the initial deslorelin stimulation phase.
Dr. Melanie Culver and Ph.D. candidate Robert Fitak with the University of Arizona are
examining the effects of extirpation and reintroduction on the Mexican wolf through genomewide association. The study has the potential to characterize the genetic loci responsible for any
lost adaptive and accrued detrimental variation. The results will potentially aid in optimizing the
management strategies of captive and wild populations of Mexican wolves to protect against
concerns like inbreeding. A final report submitted for publication is expected in 2012.
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, and conducted two
trials during 2011 that resulted in the treatment of 8 animals.

F1108 at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility during CTA trials. USFWS Photo

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

7

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 2011 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.
The USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services has initiated a canine measurement study in order to
provide scientific information useful for potentially identifying the species of predator involved
in a depredation. In 2011, the Service requested that SSP facilities capable of measuring wolf
canine tooth spread during annual handling events do so to increase the reliability of
identifications that would otherwise rely on qualitative evidence.
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 chromosomal alterations that might indicate a genetic relationship that could
link the susceptibility of Mexican wolves to this specific neoplasia.
In 2011 the Service, with the assistance of Stewart Breck, Ph.D., USDA National Wildlife
Research Center, proposed a study to look at methods that might boost wild wolf pup survival.
The four hypotheses cited that might lead to reduced pup survival were inbreeding, disease,
malnourishment, and inadvertent illegal shootings due to a resemblance to coyotes at certain
ages. In order to minimize negative consequences to wild pups, a pilot study occurred in 2011 in
which two litters of captive-born pups were fitted with expandable radio collars. The collar used
had good success on mountain lion cubs, and if deemed safe and effective the goal is to deploy
them on wild wolf pups to examine pup movement and mortality. Unfortunately 100 percent of
the collars failed on the captive Mexican wolves. In one litter all of the collars fell or were pulled
off, perhaps in part due to the presence of yearling animals in the pack. In the other litter the
collars did not expand as anticipated and were all eventually removed by a veterinarian as they
began to cause injury to the pups. The Service is currently working on modifications to the
collars in hopes of deploying them on captive wolves again in the future.
b. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
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 and published in 2011.
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
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

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

8

dissertation involving this research was completed in 2010. This work is expected to be
published in 2012.
Sarah E. Rinkevich, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources
and the Environment conducted her field work in 2008 and 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. A low sample size of wolf scats were
detected thus, a minimum number of wolves on the reservation for 2008 and 2009 will be
reported. 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 in order to understand the cultural significance of the wolf. These interviews revealed
cultural consensus (shared knowledge) about the wolf's role in Apache culture as well as
documenting Traditional Ecological Knowledge regarding wolf ecology. Rinkevich is expected
to defend her dissertation in April of 2012.
John K. Oakleaf senior wolf biologist with the Service and Ph.D. candidate at Texas Tech
University, in collaboration with Dr. Warren Ballard, Dr. Stewart Breck, Dr. James Cain, and Dr.
Phil Gipson, began looking at the population dynamics and reintroduction characteristics of
Mexican wolves in the BRWRA. The objective of this study is to investigate: 1) habitat
colonization preferences of Mexican wolves and the distribution of preferred wolf habitat across
the southwestern United States, 2) factors that promote successful initial releases and
translocations of Mexican wolves, 3) factors that contribute to increased reproduction rates, 4)
survival of Mexican wolves, and 5) dispersal patterns of Mexican wolves. Mr. Oakleaf is
expected to complete this work in 2015.
7. Litigation
a. WildEarth Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity
The Service submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia a multi-year listing
work plan that will enable the agency to review and address the needs of more than 250 species
listed on the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review. The multi-year listing work plan was first
developed through an agreement with the plaintiff group WildEarth Guardians and filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 10, 2011. On July 12, 2011, the Service
reached an agreement with plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity that reinforced the multi-year
work plan.
On August 4, 2010, the Service announced in the Federal Register a positive 90-day finding on
two petitions to list the Mexican wolf as a subspecies. Pursuant to the above court-approved
settlement agreements, “the Service shall submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted
finding to the Federal Register for the Mexican wolf no later than the end of FY 2012.”

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

9

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. On February 1, 2011, the
parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice as to the Federal Defendants.
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 a new Mexican Wolf Recovery 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.
In April, 2011, the Service appointed an 11-member Interdiction Fund Stakeholder council
(ISC), which has the authority to identify, recommend, and approve conservations activities,
identify recipients, and approve the amount of the direct disbursement of funds to qualified
recipients. In 2011, the ISC developed an interim program to compensate livestock producers for
wolf depredations and continued to work on a long-term strategic interdiction plan that focuses
more on coexistence than direct compensation for livestock losses.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

10

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.

Luna Pack pup. Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

11

PART B: REINTRODUCTION
Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project
Interagency Field Team Annual Report
Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2011
Prepared by:
Arizona Game and Fish Department, 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)
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (USDA-WS)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
As of July 1, 2011 following a New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NDGF) commission
vote, NDGF terminated participation as a cooperating agency on the Mexican Wolf Blue Range
Reintroduction Project.
1. Introduction
This report summarizes results of Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) activities during
2011. 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 2011, the wild population totaled a minimum of
58 wolves, 7 breeding pairs, and 13 packs. More information on population statistics can be
found at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

12

Wolf age and sex abbreviations used in this document:
A = alpha
M = adult male (> two years old)
F = adult female (> two years old)
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 SOP 13.0: Control of Livestock. All other
SOPs are considered valid. 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).
Operational breeding pair: an adult male and an adult female that have produced at least
two pups during the previous breeding season and of which at least 2 pups survived until
December 31 of the year of their birth, despite the loss and replacement of at least one
biological parent of the offspring. This is a modification of the “Breeding pair” definition
per the final 10j rule, to include pairs where alphas (one or both of the breeding adults in
a pack) have been replaced but are functioning as a biological unit with a high probability
of breeding success in the subsequent year.
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.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

13

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.
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.
Prior to release, wolves may be adversely conditioned to food types (i.e., domestic livestock) and
human presence. In management facilities, as close to release as possible, wolves may be
subjected to taste aversion conditioning in efforts to deter their use of domestic livestock as a
food source. Separately, or in addition to taste aversion conditioning, wolves at management
facilities may be hazed prior to release in efforts to increase their avoidance of humans and/or
inhabited areas.
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 2011 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

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

14

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 2011.
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.
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. In 2010 and 2011, the
number of confirmed cattle killed by wolves was less than or equal to the predicted FEIS
depredation rate at 14 depredations and 34 depredations per 100 wolves, respectively.
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

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

15

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. Range
Riders without telemetry equipment provided additional human presence to deter wolves.
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.
Radio Telemetry Equipment: monitoring equipment used by the IFT and in some cases
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 2011 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, remote cameras, howling, scats, and tracks. Ground survey efforts for suspected, but
uncollared packs, were documented using global positioning system (GPS) and geographical

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

16

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 2012, aircraft were used to document free-ranging wolves for the end-of-year 2011
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 2011 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 2011 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
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.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

17

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 weekly and
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 two public meetings to gather comment on proposed Mexican wolf translocation
actions 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 2011, 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
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.
In May 2011, the IFT hosted three proactive livestock and wolf management workshops with
Tim Kaminski from the Mountain Livestock Cooperative in Montana. Workshops were held at
the Ranching Heritage Alliance meeting in South Fork, Arizona, the community center in
Reserve, New Mexico and at the conference center at the Hon Dah casino on the FAIR. The
workshops were designed to examine efforts in the northwest where Tim Kaminski and livestock
producers are working together; designing and implementing management approaches to reduce

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

18

livestock vulnerability to wolves. Discussions regarding practices that could be implemented in
the BRWRA also occurred.
3. Results
Note: In 2012 the Service created an addendum that updates the minimum population estimate
numbers provided in this report, specifically Table 1. The addendum is attached on page 63,
and is based on information documented by the IFT following publication of this report.
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 2011 was 58 wolves and 7 breeding pairs; one of
which was an “Operational Breeding Pair”. Pups comprised 33% (19 of 58) of this population
which is an increase from the previous year.
At the beginning of 2011, the collared population consisted of 23 wolves among 10 packs and 3
singles. More intensive and focused trapping efforts increased the collared population to 34
wolves among 13 packs at the end of 2011 (20 adults, 5 subadults, and 9 pups).
Twenty-four uncollared wolves were documented in the Mexican Wolf Nonessential
Experimental Population Zone (MWNEPZ) (note: uncollared wolves captured during the
January 2012 helicopter operation would have been included as uncollared animals associated
with known packs above). Ten of the 24 uncollared wolves were associated with seven radiocollared packs (Table 1).
The IFT observed wolf sign and other information indicating the potential for five single
uncollared animals (two in AZ, three 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 2012.
Two natural pairings occurred in 2011. In the Hawks Nest pack f1208 replaced AF1110, following
AF1110s death, and in September began exhibiting behaviors suggesting a pair-bond with
AM1038. The natural pairing of M1185 with an unknown uncollared female wolf resulted in the
designation of the Willow Springs pack.
There were four radio-collared single wolves (f1211, f1212, m1248, m1252) for a portion of the
year. Three of the wolves (f1212, m1248, m1252) were known to be alive at the end of the year.
The three remaining single wolves began dispersing in the fall and were all located away from their
natal packs during the 2012 population count; f1212 was located with an uncollared wolf during
the January count and m1248 was located with f1246. Approximately 91% (31 out of 34 wolves)
of the radio-collared individuals alive at the end of the year and 95% (55 out of 58 wolves) of all
documented wolves at the end of the year were born in the wild.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

19

b. Reproduction
In 2011, 12 packs exhibited denning behavior; 6 packs in Arizona (Hawks Nest, Bluestem,
Paradise, Rim, Maverick, Tsay-O-Ah) and 6 packs in New Mexico (Luna, Dark Canyon, Middle
Fork, San Mateo, Fox Mountain, Willow Springs). All but Rim, Fox Mountain, and Willow
Springs were confirmed to have produced wild-conceived, wild-born litters. The IFT
documented a minimum of 38 pups born with a minimum of 19 pups (12 in Arizona, 7 in New
Mexico) surviving in the wild until year-end (Table 1); a 50% survival rate of documented pups.
This marked the tenth consecutive year in which wild born wolves bred and raised pups in the
wild. Of the 13 known packs at the end of 2011, all were formed naturally and all but one
(Middle Fork pack) was composed of at least one wild-born breeding wolf.

Hawks Nest Pack. Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.
c. Releases and Translocations
The IFT conducted one soft release and one hard release translocation in an attempt to increase
genetic diversity, the number of breeding pairs and the number of wolves in the wild. Two hard
release translocations were conducted for boundary issues.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

20

On January 26, the IFT captured Morgart’s pack M1155 outside the BRWRA near Railroad Canyon
on New Mexico State Lands. The IFT translocated M1155 to the SA Creek release site inside the
BRWRA in an effort to facilitate a pair-bond with subsequently released F1105. On January 26,
while the IFT was preparing F1105 for translocation, M1155 self-released from the release site.
On January 27, the IFT translocated F1105 from captivity. This wolf was hard released at the SA
Creek release-site, in close proximity to M1155. These animals did not pair-bond and subsequently
traveled in separate directions.
On January 18, the IFT translocated M1049 from captivity to the Engineer Springs release site on the
ASNF. M1049 was held at the release site while the IFT conducted efforts to capture AF1110 of the
Hawks Nest pack. The IFT hoped to facilitate a pair-bond between M1049 and AF1110 following the
illegal shooting of AM1044. Efforts to capture AF1110 were not successful, thus, on January 28, the
IFT hard released M1049 in proximity to AF1110 on the ASNF near St. Mary’s Lake. These animals
did not pair-bond and subsequently traveled in separate directions. In February, M1049 was captured
and returned to captivity following unsuccessful efforts by the IFT to deter the wolf’s use of
inhabited areas in Nutrioso, Arizona.
On March 8, while trapping for removal of the Rim pack from the SCAR, the IFT captured an
uncollared yearling female. This animal was collared, assigned studbook number F1213, and hard
released inside the BRWRA on the ASNF near Blue Vista.

d. Home Ranges and Movements
The IFT calculated home ranges for 12 packs exhibiting territorial behavior. The MCP method
produced an average home range size of 178 mi2 (461 km2), with home ranges varying from 50
mi2 to 620 mi2 (130 km2 to 1607 km2) (Fig. 4, Table 3). The Morgart’s pack exhibited a larger
home range as compared to the previous year (204 mi2 in 2010 vs. 620 mi2 in 2011). Morgart’s
pack M1155 displayed larger movements adjacent to the 2010 home range following the death of
F1106 in October 2010. Home ranges were not calculated for 5 wolves (f1211, F1105, m1248,
m1252 and M1253) that dispersed, traveled alone during all or portions of 2011, had less than 20
aerial locations or were deceased by the end of 2011 (see Appendix A for detailed summaries of
these individuals).
Mexican wolves occupied 4434 mi2 (11,484 km2) of the Mexican Wolf Nonessential
Experimental Zone (MWNEPZ) during 2011 (Fig. 5). Within the BRWRA there were 2687 mi2
(6,959 km2) of occupied range. On the SCAR there were 150 mi2 (388 km2) of occupied range.
Outside of the BRWRA 1037 mi2 (2,686 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 5245 mi2 (13,579 km2) of the MWNEPZ during 2010.
e. Mortality
The IFT has documented 88 wolf mortalities in the wild since 1998 (Table 4), 8 of which
occurred in 2011 (Table 5). Mortalities in 2011 included: mp1210, f1211, and mp1242 from
illegal shooting; mp1209 and F1187 from vehicle strikes; M1214 from pneumonia, AF1110 from

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

21

a lightning strike and F1213 from complications associated with a wound most likely caused by
an elk antler. This should be considered a minimum estimate of mortalities, since some pups and
uncollared wolves die without being documented. One wolf from New Mexico (AM1156) is
“fate unknown”.
The IFT monitored 44 individual radio-collared wolves for a total of 10,212 radio days during
2011. A total of 10 radio-collared wolves were considered removed (n = 2), dead (n = 7), or
missing (n = 1). The overall survival rate was 0.70, or a corresponding failure rate of 0.30.
The overall failure rate was composed of the human caused mortality rate (0.15; n = 5), natural
mortality rate (0.06; n = 2), unknown/awaiting necropsy mortality rate (0.00; n = 0), boundary
removal rate (0.00; n = 0), missing radio-collared wolves rate (0.03; n = 1), cattle depredation
removal rate (0.00; n = 0), nuisance removal rate (0.06; n = 2), and other removal rate (0.00; n =
0).
f. Wolf Predation
A total of 14 carcasses (14 elk, 0 mule deer) were investigated opportunistically. Age
determinations of the elk revealed: nine adults, five calves and no yearlings. Sex determinations
of elk revealed one male, five females and eight of unknown sex.
Of the 14 carcasses investigated: 13 elk were confirmed or probable wolf kills; and one elk was
determined to be a possible wolf kill.
g. Wolf Depredation
USDA-WS members of the IFT completed 36 investigations on 54 animals with potential
Mexican wolf involvement. Of these 36 investigations, 34 involved cattle (n = 52), 1 involved
horses (n = 1) and 1 investigation involved sheep (n = 1). Average IFT response time between
the reporting of an incident to the initiation of an on-site investigation was < 24 hours.
Of the 36 investigations, 22 (61%) were confirmed as being wolf related. Twenty cattle deaths,
one horse and one sheep were confirmed as wolf depredations, 4 cattle deaths were probable
wolf depredations, and 4 injured cows were confirmed as being wolf related. Sixty-four percent
(n = 14) of these occurred in New Mexico and 36% (n = 8 occurred in Arizona (Table 7).
Twenty-eight percent of the investigations (n = 10) were determined to be unknown or non-wolf
related. These mortality causes included: unknown (n = 5), black bear (n = 3), shipping fever (n
= 1), and lightning strike (n = 1).
Ninety-two percent (n = 33) of the 36 investigations conducted were in response to reports from
ranchers and the public and the remaining 8% (n = 3) were initiated by the IFT. Nine percent (n
= 2) of the confirmed or probable wolf-caused livestock mortalities were found and reported by
the IFT (Table 7).
In total, 8 of the 22 (36%) confirmed depredations involved uncollared wolves (Table 7). No
wolves were permanently removed in 2011 for repeated depredations. The confirmed killed

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

22

cattle rate for 2011 extrapolates to 34 depredations/100 wolves using the number of confirmed
killed cattle (n = 20; Table 7) compared to the final population count (n = 58). This projected
number of depredations is within the 1-34 confirmed killed cattle per 100 wolves predicted in the
FEIS.
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 are now 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. This fund targets agency confirmed livestock
losses that have not been reimbursed by another method of compensation. The ELAP Program
was part of the Farm Bill and the authority for this program expired on November 30, 2011
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in cooperation with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation established the Mexican Wolf / Livestock Interdiction Fund (Interdiction Fund) on
September 23, 2009. The objective of the Interdiction Fund is to generate long-term funding for
prolonged financial support of livestock operators within the framework of cooperative
conservation and recovery of the Mexican wolf population in the Southwest. In April 2011 the
Service appointed an 11 member Interdiction Fund Stakeholder Council (Stakeholder Council)
which has the authority to identify, recommend, and approve conservation activities, identify
recipients, and approve the amount of direct disbursement of funds to qualified recipients.
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
grant requires a state or tribal match of 100%. So far, neither state has spent a large amount of
these funds.
h. Management Actions
In 2011, 26 wolves were captured, collared, processed, and released on site for routine
monitoring purposes for a total of 33 times (Table 8). Two captured wolves were held overnight
prior to release at the capture site, to ensure recovery from anesthesia. Two wolves, M1049 and
F1105, were caught for management actions. M1214 and mp1242 were caught for needed
medical attention. Five wolves, AM795, AF1056, mp1240, mp1241 and fp1247, were caught
twice. M1155 and F1213 were caught for being outside of the boundary. M1155 was also
translocated to facilitate pair-bonding with F1105. M1155 self-released prior to implementation
of the pairing with F1105. F1105 was subsequently released in the immediate vicinity of M1155,
but pair-bonding was not documented.
During the summer, the IFT conducted pup counts in Arizona and New Mexico utilizing remote
trail cameras placed at den sites (Arizona) and diversionary food caches (New Mexico). In
Arizona, six pups were documented produced by the Hawks Nest pack, five pups by the Paradise

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

23

Pack, and three pups by the Bluestem pack. In New Mexico, seven pups were documented
produced by the Middle Fork pack, six pups by the Luna pack, and five by the San Mateo pack.
Two pups were documented produced by the Dark Canyon pack in New Mexico via visual
observation during October. Trapping efforts to capture and collar pups were initiated in August.
A total of ten pups and three yearlings were captured and collared during these operations.
Captures included two pups and one yearling from the Hawks Nest pack, two pups from the
Paradise pack, two pups from the Bluestem pack, one pup and one yearling from the Luna pack,
one pup and one yearling from the San Mateo pack, and two pups from the Dark Canyon pack.
No pups were documented having been produced by the Rim pack, Fox Mountain pack, or
Willow Springs pack. Trapping was also conducted on the FAIR, however, wolf numbers on the
FAIR are proprietary and are not provided as requested by the WMAT.
One wolf was lethally removed (F1105) and one was temporarily removed (M1049) from the
wild in 2011. Three wolves were translocated (M1155, F1105, M1049) in an attempt to facilitate
pair-bonding. M1155 remained in the wild as a single wolf as of December 31. F1105 was
lethally removed on December 14, 2011. M1049 was temporarily removed on February 2, 2011.
Both removals were the result of continued nuisance behavior.
The IFT conducted investigations in response to 18 cases of nuisance wolf behavior in 2011
(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 two private individuals who had
reported nuisance behavior near livestock or residences. One wolf was captured and returned to
captivity (M1049) and another was lethally removed (F1105) after repeated nuisance incidents.
Trail cameras, tracking, telemetry, and howling were used to gather evidence about reported
nuisance problems.
i. Proactive Management Activities
The IFT, working with Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), used proactive management to
assist in eliminating or reducing wolf livestock conflicts in the BRWRA (Table 10). The Project
and NGOs spent approximately $89,100 on proactive management activities affecting an
estimated 10,930 livestock (6720 in Arizona, 4210 in New Mexico), representing about 23% of
the permitted livestock grazing in the BRWRA. The IFT, agency contract employees, and NGO
contract employees spent approximately 6290 hours implementing proactive management
activities.
The IFT installed and maintained turbo fladry around one large pasture for one stakeholder in
Arizona to protect livestock (sheep) on both public land and private property. No livestock
depredation incidences occurred within the enclosed area. Additional fladry was installed in
smaller areas for night enclosures. One ram was killed by wolves when it got out of a night
enclosure.
The Project and NGOs purchased hay during the calving season for one stakeholder in Arizona,
one stakeholder in NM, and supplements for two stakeholders. Two livestock depredation
incidents occurred on grazing lands associated with these ranches, one in AZ and one in NM.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

24

The project assisted another rancher in the purchase of water, allowing grazing in an allotment
away from an active wolf den in NM. No depredations are known to have occurred on the used
allotment during 2011.
Project personnel met with District Rangers, biologists and range staffs, to discuss livestock
management during the wolf denning season. The Project coordinated with the Alpine, Clifton,
Springerville, Black Range, Quemado, and Reserve Ranger Districts and stakeholders in AZ and
NM to address potential conflicts between livestock and wolves. In several of these cases,
livestock were scheduled to graze in or near pastures where wolves were denning. In efforts to
reduce interactions between livestock and denning wolves, the Districts and ranchers changed
pasture rotations and moved livestock into alternate pastures for the denning season. A total of
three depredations occurred on two of the seven alternate pastures, however, there would likely
have been additional depredations if livestock had grazed near the den-sites. In one case, there
were no options for moving livestock away from a den site; the den site was near the intersection
of three pastures. This particular allotment sustained 3 depredations in 2011.
The Project and NGOs contracted seven range riders (five in Arizona, two in New Mexico) to
assist nine stakeholders (five in Arizona, four in New Mexico) in monitoring wolves in relation
to cattle. Range riders monitored approximately 6050 livestock within seven wolf pack home
ranges, and provided additional oversight of livestock and light hazing of wolves when they were
among the livestock. Two depredations occurred on allotments (1 in Arizona, 1 in New Mexico)
while ranger riders were under contract.
The IFT issued radio telemetry equipment to stakeholders in areas where wolf-livestock conflicts
were prevalent. Six sets of telemetry equipment were issued to ranches in Arizona and four sets
were issued in New Mexico. Equipment loans were often in response to past conflicts between
livestock and 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.
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.
Supplemental food caches are utilized to assist a pack or remnant of a pack in feeding young of
the year when extenuating circumstances (such as a death of one of the adults) reduce their own
ability to do so. Supplemental food caches also serve to reduce potential conflicts between
wolves and livestock. Supplemental food caches were utilized for three packs in 2011.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

25

Middle Fork Pack. Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.
In two instances, a breeding adult wolf (Luna pack AM1156, Hawks Nest pack AF1110) was
documented to no longer be active in raising pups produced in 2011. In April, the IFT could no
longer document the presence of AM1156 on the landscape and he was considered fate
unknown, leaving AF1115 as the only breeding animal in the pack providing for six pups. In
August, AF1110 was confirmed dead, leaving AM1038 as the only adult animal in the pack
providing for six pups. The IFT established supplemental food caches within a reasonable
distance of the den and rendezvous sites to help the remaining adult and sub adult wolves in each
pack 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. During the Wallow Fire, two
packs, the Bluestem and Hawks Nest packs were located denning within the fire perimeter. The
Wallow Fire was the largest fire in Arizona history, and was an active fire for nearly six weeks.
Because wildfires temporarily displace native prey species (Singer et al. 1989), the IFT
collaborated with fire personnel to establish supplementary food caches for these denning packs.
The Bluestem pack used a supplementary food cache though the Hawks Nest pack did not.
Although both packs moved their dens during the fire, the IFT documented the same number or
more pups after the fire as they had prior to the fire. Supplemental feeding likely contributed to
the survival of pups until the end of the year, in all of these cases. Although the Rim pack was
displaying denning behavior prior to and during the Wallow Fire, no pups were documented with
this pack immediately after the fire and throughout the remainder of the summer and fall seasons.
Diversionary food caches are utilized to reduce potential conflicts between wolves and livestock,
primarily in areas where depredations have occurred in the past. Diversionary food caches were
established for the Paradise, San Mateo, and Middle Fork packs during the 2011 denning season.
Additional caches were established to draw F1105 away from private property and to determine
whether she was travelling with an uncollared wolf. Another cache was established for a short

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

26

period (2 weeks) for the Fox Mountain pack following two confirmed depredations. They moved
away from the area after a short time.
The IFT implemented additional proactive management activities in 2011. During the Wallow
Fire, IFT personnel accompanied Incident Management Team personnel on reconnaissance
flights to monitor the Hawks Nest, Bluestem, and Rim packs within the fire perimeter. Following
the containment of the fire, the Forest Service received funds for activities and supplies to help
reduce the fires impact on wolves and to replace or supplement equipment destroyed by the fire.
These funds supplied the IFT with a freezer, carnivore logs, radio collars, telemetry equipment,
and remote cameras. In addition, materials were purchased to replace three water catchments for
wild ungulates that were destroyed by the fire.
Often, livestock die of many causes within wolf territories. To reduce the possibility that wolves
would be attracted to the carcasses where livestock were grazing, the IFT covered several
livestock carcasses with lime in Paradise, San Mateo, and Luna pack territories.
j. Non-IFT Wolf Sighting Reports
In 2011, the IFT received a total of 66 wolf-sighting reports from the public, which included 42
reports from Arizona and 24 reports from New Mexico (Appendix B). The IFT determined 23
reports were non-wolf sightings (coyote, dogs, etc.), 13 reports were sightings from known
wolves within established territories (Arizona n = 10, New Mexico n = 3), eight reports were
likely uncollared/unknown wolves (Arizona n = 3, New Mexico n = 5), with three reports being
probable wolf sightings (wolves located in area; however, weak sighting descriptions cannot be
proven) (Arizona n = 3, New Mexico n = 0), and 19 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.
k. Uncollared wolf sign
The IFT used uncollared wolf sign and sighting reports to target 15 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 2438 mi (3924km) of roads and trails. Two single wolves were documented in
Arizona and three single wolves were documented in New Mexico (Fig. 7).
l. Outreach
The IFT and other project personnel gave 20 presentations and status reports to approximately
777 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. Sixty-five percent of the presentations were
for the BRWRA target audience. In addition, 6078 weekly contacts were made to cooperating
agencies and stakeholders. Project updates were faxed to, or posted at, 41 different
individuals/locations monthly across the BRWRA. Endangered Species Updates containing
current project and recovery program information also went out to an average of 1,284 people a

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

27

month. The AGFD Mexican wolf website was visited 9,666 times throughout 2011. 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.
The IFT organized three rancher workshops conducted by Timm Kaminski from the Mountain
Livestock Cooperative in Montana which were attended by 81 people (31 in South Fork, AZ, 40
in Reserve, NM, 10 in Hon Dah, FAIR). Mr.Kaminski outlined his work with producers in the
northwest to design and implement management approaches to reduce livestock vulnerability to
wolves. Participants discussed how practices could be implemented in the BRWRA.
4. Summary
The 2011 end-of-year count confirmed 34 radio-collared wolves (20 adults, 5 subadults, and 9
pups). The population consisted of 13 packs (6 in Arizona, 7 in New Mexico). Twenty-four
uncollared wolves, including uncollared singles and groups were documented throughout 2011.
Ten of the 24 uncollared wolves were associated with seven radio-collared packs (Table 1).
Three radio-collared single wolves (f1212, m1248, m1252) were still alive. 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 one soft release and three hard release translocations of one wolf each. Two
wolves, M1155 and F1213, were translocated for being outside the boundary. M1155 was
subsequently transported and held temporarily to facilitate pair-bonding with F1105. Two
wolves, M1049 and F1105, were translocated in attempt to increase genetic diversity, the number
of breeding pairs, and the number of wolves in the wild.
Nine packs produced wild-conceived, wild-born litters. This is the tenth consecutive year wildborn Mexican wolves bred and raised pups in the wild. In addition, 91% of the radio-collared
individuals and 95% of all documented wolves were wild-born.
The IFT documented eight mortalities of free-ranging wolves in 2011, including four adults and
four subadults.
Home ranges were calculated for 12 packs exhibiting territorial behavior. The MCP method
produced an average home range size of 178 mi2 (461 km2), with home ranges varying from 50
mi2 to 620 mi2 (130 km2 to 1607 km2).
Native prey used by wolves consisted primarily of elk; however, there were also twenty-two
confirmed livestock depredations and four probable livestock depredations. There were three
confirmed livestock injuries attributed to wolves.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

28

The IFT captured 26 wolves a total of 33 times for routine monitoring (n = 21), management
actions (n = 2), medical attention (n = 2), movement outside the BRWRA boundary (n = 2) and
incidental catch (n = 6). Two wolves, M1049 and F1105, were caught for management actions.
M1214 and mp1242 were caught for medical attention. Five wolves, AM795, AF1056, mp1240,
mp1241 and fp1247, were caught a second time while the IFT trapped for uncollared wolves in
associated packs. M1155 and F1213 were outside of the boundary and translocated back into the
BRWRA; M1155 was also translocated to facilitate pair-bonding with F1105. AF1056 was
caught three times, twice for recollaring and once while trapping for an unknown alpha male
traveling with the pack.
The IFT analyzed 66 reports of wolf sightings from the public; 35% of these reports were nonwolf sightings (coyote, dogs, deer, etc.), 20% were sightings of known wolves within established
territories, <1% were probable wolf sightings, 12% were likely uncollared/unknown wolves, and
the remainder was categorized as unknown due to insufficient information. In response to these
sightings, the IFT searched 2438 mi (3924 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 three single wolves in New Mexico.
Project personnel gave 20 presentations and status reports to approximately 777 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, 6078 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 1,284 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 58 wolves in 2011
(Table 1, Fig. 8). The minimum number of breeding pairs increased from two in 2010 to seven in
2011, one of which was an “Operational Breeding Pair” (Table 1, Fig. 4). The Hawks Nest pack
AF1110 died from lightning strike in August and in September the IFT observed Hawks Nest
f1208 exhibiting behavior suggesting that f1208 replaced AF1110 as the dominant female in the
pack.
The minimum total number of pups alive at the end of the year was higher (n = 19: Table 1) than
the previous year (n = 14) and the number of known mortalities increased from six in 2010 to eight
in 2011 (Table 4). Of the four single wolves: one died (f1211) and three remain in the wild with
functioning radio-collars (f1212, m1248, M1252). The three remaining single wolves began
dispersing in the fall and were all located away from their natal packs during the 2012 population
count; f1212 was located with an uncollared wolf during the January count.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

29

Two natural parings occurred in 2011. In the Hawks Nest pack f1208 replaced AF1110 following
its death by lightning strike and M1185 paired with an uncollared female wolf. 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 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
0.30 in 2011, largely due to minimal (n = 2) management removals of wolves in the population.
While the significant reduction in the number of management removals is encouraging, the
majority of the population losses in 2011 were due to human-caused mortalities rather than
removals. In 2011, the IFT documented five human-caused mortalities (three illegal shootings
and two vehicle collisions) and three natural mortalities. 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 2011 confirmed killed cattle rate extrapolates to approximately 34 depredations/100 wolves
using the number of confirmed killed cattle (n = 20) compared to the final 2011 population count
(n = 58). 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 2011. 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 2012 could result in another increase in the Mexican wolf
population. The Project management objective for 2012 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 2012.
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.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

30

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 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.
Singer, F. J., W. Schreier, J. Oppenheim, and E. O. Garton. 1989. Drought, fires, and large
mammals. BioScience. 39:716-722.
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 Interagency Field Team trail camera photo.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

31

Table 1. Status of Mexican wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico, as of December 31, 2011. Note: The information reported in this
table is superseded by the addendum provided on page 63.
Pack
Bluestem, AZ*
Dark Canyon, NM*
Fox Mountain, NM
Hawks Nest, AZm
Luna, NM
Middle Fork, NM*
Paradise, AZ*
Rim, AZ
San Mateo, NM
Willow Springs, NM
Morgart, NM
Radio collared wolf, AZ
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Radio collared wolf, NM
Sipe Wildlife Area, AZ
Beaver Creek, AZ
Indian Creek, NM
Indian Peaks, NM
Poverty Flat, NM
FAIR*
SCAR
Totalsl

Wolf ID
AM806, AF1042, mp1240, mp1242e
AM992, AF923, fp1250, fp1251
M1158, F1188
AF1110e, AM1038j, f1208, mp1209e,
mp1210e , mp1244, fp1247
AF1115, AM1156f, f1246, mp1241
AM871, AF861
AM795, AF1056, mp1243, mp1245
AM1107, AF858, F1187e, F1213e
AM1157, AF903, mp1249
M1185h
M1155
f1211e
f1212i
m1248i
m1252i
M1214e
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolves
Uncollared wolves

Reproductiona
3
2
0
6
6
7
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
38

Pups at Year Endb No. Collared
2
3
2
4
0
2
3
2
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
19

4
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/Ad
N/Ad
34

No. Uncollared
1
0
0

Min pack Sizec
4
4
2

0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
N/Ad
N/Ad
24

5
4
4
5
2
3
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
N/Ad
N/Ad
58

a

Reproduction-maximum number of pups documented in 2011.
b
Pups at year end documented surviving until December 31, 2011.
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 2011.
f
Fate unknown during 2011.
h
Dispersed to form new pack.
i
Dispersed off and on throughout year; counted as single in table.
j
Telemetry collar not functioning, but counted as collared in table.
l
Totals include wolves occurring on FAIR and SCAR..
m
A pack that meets the definition of an operational breeding pair.
*A pack that meets the definition of a breeding pair per the final rule.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

32

Table 2. Mexican wolves translocated from captivity or the wild in Arizona and New Mexico
during January 1 – December 31, 2011.
Wolf pack
Morgart’s
Single
Single
Rim

Wolf #
M1155
F1105
M1049
F1213

Release Site
SA Creek, NM
SA Creek, NM
St. Mary’s Lake, AZ
Blue Vista, AZ

Release Date
January 26
January 27
January 28
March 8

Released or Translocated
Translocated from wild
Translocated from captivity
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, 2011.
Home Range Size
Number of
95% Min. Convex Polygon mi2
Independent Aerial
(km2)
Locations
91 (235)
47
Paradise
137 (355)
60
Hawks Nest
182 (471)
52
Bluestem
141 (366)
67
Rim
145 (376)
39
Fox Mountain
232 (600)
71
San Mateo
131 (340)
54
Dark Canyon
155 (403)
57
Luna
50
(130)
48
Middle Fork
620 (1607)
37
Morgart’s
Willow Springs
108 (280)
38
Maverick
142 (367)
45
Averagea
178 (461)
51
a
Averages were based on packs with enough locations to calculate home ranges.
Wolf ID

Duration of Time
Radio Locations were
Available during 2011
12 months
12 months
12 months
12 months
11 months
12 months
12 months
12 months
12 months
11 Months
11 months
12 months
11.8 months

Table 4. Wild Mexican wolf mortalities documented in Arizona and New Mexico, 1998-2011.
Illegal
Vehicle
Awaiting
Annual
Naturala
Otherb
Unknown
shooting
collision
necropsy
Total
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
4
0
0
0
8
2010
5
0
1
0
0
0
6
2011
3
2
3
0
0
0
8
Total
43
14
17
4
9
1
88
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
2011 Progress Report

33

Table 5. Mexican wolf mortalities documented in Arizona and New Mexico during January 1 December 31, 2011.
Wolf ID
mp1209
mp1210
M1214
AF1110
F1187
F1213
f1211
mp1242

Pack
Hawks Nest
Hawks Nest
Single
Hawks Nest
Rim
Rim
Single
Bluestem

Age (years)
<1
<1
2-3
5-6
2
2
<2
<1

Date Found
February 27
April 1
May 6
August 23
September 22
November 15
November 22
December 3

Cause of Death
Vehicle
Illegal shooting
Pneumonia
Lightning Strike
Vehicle
Elk related injury
Illegal Shooting
Illegal Shooting

Table 6. Mexican wolf depredations of livestock documented in Arizona and New Mexico
during January 1 – December 31, 2011.
Fatal
Injury

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Confirmed
22
4

Probable
4
0

Total
26
4

34

Table 7. Investigations of confirmed and probable depredation and injuries caused by Mexican wolves to livestock during 2011 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

Investigation
Date

Located By
IFT

Species

State

Killed/
Injured

Call

Wolves
Responsible

Depredation
Incident

No. of
Incidents
for 2011

Management Action

1

Unknown

January 15

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

Yes

1

2

Unknown

January 18

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

Yes

1

3

1105

February 7

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1105

Yes

1

Set camera in area

4

Unknown

February 7

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

Yes

1

Set traps in area

5

Unknown

February 10

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

Yes

1

Set traps in area

6

Unknown

March 18

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

Uncollared

Yes

1

Set traps in area

7

Unknown

April 17

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Probable

Uncollared

No

0

Monitoring

8

Rim

April 22

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

858, 1107

Yes

1

Monitoring

9

Rim

April 22

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Probable

Rim

No

0

Monitoring

10

San Mateo

May 24

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1157, 1212

Yes

1

Monitoring

11

May 24

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Probable

1157, 1212

No

0

Monitoring

June 9

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1211

Yes

1

Ranger rider extended,
increased monitoring

June 9

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1211

Yes

2

Ranger rider extended,
increased monitoring

14

San Mateo
Morgart’s
(1155), and
1211
Morgart’s
(1155), and
1211
Fox Mountain

June 17

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1188, 1158

Yes

1

Increased Monitoring

15

Paradise

July 3

No

Sheep

AZ

Killed

Confirmed

795

Yes

1

Intensive Monitoring

16

Fox Mountain

July 6

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

1188, 1158

Yes

2

17

Middle Fork
(871)

July 9

Yes

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirmed

871

Yes

1

12

13

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Intensive Monitoring,
food cache established
Provided range rider,
established additional
food cache, monitoring

35

Table 7. Continued.
Wolves in Area

Investigation
Date

Located By
IFT

Species

State

Killed/
Injured

Call

Wolves
Responsible

Depredation
Incident

No. of
Incidents
for 2011

Confirme
d

871

Yes

2

923, 992

Yes

1

858, 1107

Yes

2

18

Middle Fork
(871)

July 9

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

19

Dark Canyon,
F1211

July 12

No

Horse

NM

Killed

20

Rim

July 19

Yes

Cattle

AZ

Killed

21

Fox Mountain

August 11

Yes

Cattle

NM

Killed

Probable

Fox
Mountain

No

0

22

Fox Mountain

August 22

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirme
d

Uncollared

Yes

1

23

Middle Fork
and 1105

September 1

Yes

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirme
d

1105

Yes

2

24

Unknown

November 13

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirme
d

Uncollared

Yes

0

25

Unknown

November 17

No

Cattle

AZ

Killed

Confirme
d

Uncollared

Yes

0

26

Morgart’s
(1155)

November 21

No

Cattle

NM

Killed

Confirme
d

1155

Yes

1

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Confirme
d
Confirme
d

Management Action
Provided range rider,
established additional
food cache, monitoring
Increased monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Increased Monitoring
Established 2 food
caches, intensive
monitoring
Increased monitoring
Set traps and camera in
area, increased
monitoring
Increased Monitoring

36

Table 8. Mexican wolves captured in Arizona and New Mexico from January 1, 2010 – December 31,
2011.
Pack

Wolf ID

Capture
Date

Bluestem

AF1042

January 20

Helicopter capture, re-collared and released on January 21.

Paradise

AF1056

January 20

Helicopter capture, re-collared and released.

Middle
Fork
Dark
Canyon
San
Mateo
Morgart’s

fp1211

January 21

Helicopter capture. Collared and released.

AM992

January 22

Helicopter capture, re-collared and released on January 23.

fp1212

January 24

Helicopter capture. Collared and released.

M1155

January 25

Helicopter capture. Outside of BRWRA and translocated to pair
with F1105
Helicopter capture, re-collared and released.

San
Mateo
Single

AF903

January 30

M1049

February 2

Rim

F1213

March 8

Paradise

AF1056

April 4

Saddle

M1214

May 6

Paradise

AM795

June 20

Single

F1105

July 20

Bluestem

mp1240

August 13

Luna

mp1241

August 17

Bluestem

mp1242

August 21

Bluestem

mp1240

August 21

Paradise

mp1243

Paradise

AM795

Hawks
Nest
Paradise

mp1244

September
14
September
16
September
21
September
25

mp1245

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Reason for Capture

Excessive nuisance behavior. Captured and temporarily removed
from wild
Captured on SCAR for boundary issues. Translocated to the Blue
Vista area in AZ and released.
Captured during efforts to catch an unknown alpha male. Recollared, blood drawn for pregnancy testing and released on site.
Captured for medical treatment. Uncollared, Died during
transport to veterinarian.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, re-collared and released
on site.
Captured for management purposes. Re-collared 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. Released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released on
site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released on
site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released on
site.

37

Table 8. Continued.
Pack

Wolf ID

Capture
Date

Luna

mp1241

Luna

F1246

Hawks
Nest
Paradise

fp1247
AF1056

September
26
September
27
September
27
October 1

M1248

October 2

mp1249

October 5

fp1247

October 6

fp1250

October 10

fp1251

October 10

M1252

October 14

AM1253

October 21

mp1242

December 3

Hawks
Nest
San
Mateo
Hawks
Nest
Dark
Canyon
Dark
Canyon
San
Mateo
Tsay-OhAh
Bluestem

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Reason for Capture
WS captured wolf while coyote trapping. Vaccinated and
released on site.
WS captured wolf while coyote trapping. Vaccinated, collared
and released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released
on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured and re-collared after
slipping collar in June, 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. Captured, collared and released
on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released
on site.
WS captured wolf while coyote trapping. Vaccinated, collared
and released on site.
Routine monitoring purposes. Captured, collared and released
on site.
Captured for medical treatment. Died during transport to
veterinarian.

38

Table 9. IFT management actions resulting from Mexican wolf nuisance activities in Arizona and New Mexico during 2011.
Date

Wolf ID

General Location

January 29

M1049

Rudd Creek/Benton
Creek

Wolf unafraid of humans,
approached IFT member

Shot off 3 Cracker Shells

Wolf moved away

February 1

M1049

Nutrioso, AZ

Wolf playing with domestic dogs,
showed no fear of people, chased
colt in corral, at least 6 reports

Hazed wolf throughout the
day, with 7 cracker shells
and 8 rounds of bean bags

Wolf ran off, on 3 separate occasions

February 2

M1049

Nutrioso, AZ

Wolves near residences and
playing with dogs.

IFT investigated the report.

M1049 was captured and taken back
to captivity.

February 18

F1105

Old Horse Springs,
NM

Near Church

IFT investigated and hazed
with 1 cracker shell

F1105 ran off

February 20

Bluestem

Alpine, AZ

IFT investigated the report,
walked in on wolves.

Wolves moved off and away from
residence.

February 21

Bluestem

Alpine, AZ

Pair walked through yard,
interacted with dog, left yard when
chased.
Wolf near private residence

IFT investigated the report.

No action taken, wolves had left area.

March 2011

F1105

Wolf entering Private Elk Ranch
fenced area

F1105 located within the exclosure
fence on several occasions. No dead
elk found within exclosure.

March 27

Hawks Nest

March 29

San Mateo

April 15

Middle Fork

IFT set up a carcass with
field camera, got wolf
pictures, worked on
exclosure fence, hazed
IFT investigated the report
but no signals heard.
IFT investigated and hazed
wolves out of area.
IFT investigated and hazed
wolves away from area.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Horse Springs, NM

South Fork, AZ
Mangas
NM
Yellow
NM

Mountain,
Mountain,

Type of Activity

Wolf on private property near
calving area
Wolves on private property
chasing cows
Wolves on private property near
livestock

IFT Response

Management Result

Staff continued to monitor area.
Staff continued to monitor area and
haze when required.
Staff continued to monitor area. No
dead livestock were found.

39

Table 9. Continued.
Date

Wolf ID

May 17

Uncollared

Pinetop, AZ

May 19

Uncollared

Pie Town, NM

May 20

Uncollared

Blue River, AZ

July 11

Uncollared

Nutrioso, AZ

Wolf reported on private property

July 16
November
15

Uncollared

San Antonio, NM

F1105

Beaverhead, NM

December
13 and 14

F1105

Beaverhead, NM

December
15

Dark Canyon

Negrito, NM

May 17

Uncollared

Pinetop, AZ

May 19

Uncollared

Pie Town, NM

Wolf reported on private property
Wolf interacting (non-aggressive)
with a dog in campground
Wolf on private residence loitering
near house and interacting with
domestic dogs
Wolves reported on private
property
Wolf filmed on video camera near
private residence area
Wolves reported on private
property

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

General Location

Type of Activity
Wolf filmed on video camera near
private residence area
Wolves reported on private
property
Wolves reported traveling through
private property

IFT Response
IFT investigated the
report.

Management Result
Staff attempted to trap animal but were
unsuccessful.

IFT investigated report.

No wolf tracks documented.

IFT investigated the
report.
IFT investigated the
report.
IFT investigated the report
IFT investigated the
report.

Potential wolf tracks and scat observed
on property.
Set up trail camera. No wolves
documented in area.
No wolf tracks documented.
Staff monitored the area for hazing
and/or capture opportunities.

IFT investigated the
report.

USFWS issued a lethal removal order.
Order carried out by WS.

IFT investigated the
report.
IFT investigated the
report.

Staff attempted to trap animal but were
unsuccessful.

IFT investigated report.

No wolf tracks documented.

No action taken, wolves left the area.

40

Table 10. IFT proactive management activities in Arizona and New Mexico during 2011.
Proactive
Management
Activity
Fladry – 3 miles

Fladry – variable

Fladry -

Hay

Hay and
Supplements
Water and Feed

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Range Rider

Purpose
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
within a small area.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
on sheep at night.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
within a small area.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
during calving season.
Reduce the probability
of livestock depredation
during calving season.
Allow use of alternate
Allotment during
drought, to reduce
problems
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.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Management
Result

Date

Location

Wolf ID

May to
June

Sheep Springs,
AZ

Paradise,
uncollared?

May to
September

Sheep Springs,
AZ

Paradise,
uncollared?

March

Indian Creek,
NM

Middle Fork

January
through
September

Collins Park,
NM

Luna

January to
March

Blue River,
AZ

Uncollared
Wolves

No confirmed
livestock
depredations

April

Glenwood,
NM

Dark Canyon

No known
livestock
depredations

January
through
May

Eagle Creek,
AZ

Rim

No known
Livestock
depredations

June
through
October

Mangas, NM

San Mateo

No known
livestock
depredations

June
through
August

Springerville
AZ

Paradise

No known
livestock
depredations

July to
October

Greens Peak,
AZ

Paradise,
Uncollared
Wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

July to
October

Greens Peak,
AZ

Paradise,
Uncollared
Wolves

No known
livestock
depredations

June
through
August

Beaverhead
NM

Morgart,
Middle Fork

1 depredation with
RR, 2 without RR

January
through
May

Strayhorse, AZ

Uncollared
wolves

One known
livestock
depredations

No known
livestock
depredations
1 Ram killed
outside of
exclosure
Problem with elk in
area, taken down
1 depredation in
September

41

Table 10. Continued
Proactive
Management
Activity
Flights and
Supplemental Feeding

Purchase of radio
collars, trail cameras,
carnivore logs, freezer

Purchase of materials
to build water
catchments
Proactive Measures
Workshops

Cover Livestock
Carcasses with Lime

Purpose
Monitor wolves being
impacted by Wallow Fire
and provide food for
feeding pups
Provide food for wolves
during Wallow Fire, and
equipment to monitor
wolves and enhance
management
Replace water catchments
for wild ungulates
destroyed in the Wallow
Fire
IFT hosted 3 workshops
for producers to learn
about potential proactive
measures
Render Carcasses
unpalatable so wolves not
attracted

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Date

Location

Wolf ID

Management
Result

June

Alpine and
Springerville
AZ

Hawks
Nest,
Bluestem,
Rim

Pups in 2 of the 3
packs survived the
Wallow Fire

July

Springerville
AZ

Hawks
Nest,
Bluestem,
Rim

Gained insight into
how wolves react
to large fires

July

Springerville,
AZ

Hawks
Nest,
Bluestem,
Rim

Catchments will
be rebuilt in 2012

May

Eagar AZ
Hondah AZ
Reserve NM

JulySept

AZ and NM

81 people attended
the workshops
Paradise,
Luna,
San Mateo

Unknown

42

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
2011 Progress Report

43

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

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

44

Figure 3. Translocation sites used during 2011 in Arizona and New Mexico within the Blue
Range Wolf Recovery Area.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

45

Figure 4. Mexican wolf home ranges for 2011 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 2011.
See the following page for information regarding the wolf packs and home ranges.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

46

Figure 4. Continued.
Map
Number of
Wolf Fate at the
Breeding Pair
Home Range
Wolf Pack
Number
Wolves
End of 2011
Status
Size (mi2)
1
Paradise
5
Free-ranging
Yes
91
2
Hawks Nest
5
Free-ranging
Yesa
137
3
Bluestem
4
Free-ranging
Yes
182
4
Rim
2
Free-ranging
No
141
5
Fox Mountain
2
Free-ranging
No
145
6
San Mateo
3
Free-ranging
No
232
7
Dark Canyon
4
Free-ranging
Yes
131
8
Luna
3
Free-ranging
No
155
9
Middle Fork
4
Free-ranging
Yes
50
10
Morgart’s
1b
Free-ranging
No
620
11
Willow Springs
2
Free-ranging
No
108
12
Maverick
N/Ac
Free-ranging
Yes
142
a
This pack did not meet the strict definition of a breeding pair as per the definition in the 10j rule, however they did
meet the definition of an “operational breeding pair.”
b
This wolf spent the majority of 2011 as a single wolf however it retained the pack name Morgart because it
continued to utilize a specific territory on the BRWRA throughout the year.
c
Wolf information (including numbers) on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is proprietary and is not displayed.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

47

Figure 5. Mexican wolf occupied range in Arizona and New Mexico (2011) within the Mexican
Wolf Nonessential Experimental Zone as defined in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998).

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

48

Figure 6. Areas searched and corresponding miles searched (driven or hiked) for uncollared wolf
sign in Arizona and New Mexico during 2011. Search areas corresponding to “map numbers” as
follows:

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

49

Figure 6 continued.
Map Numbers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Search Area
Macks Crossing
McCarty Ridge
Mogollon Plateau
Juniper Ridge
Sunrise
Escudilla
Campbell Blue Creek
Blue River
Strayhorse
Spur Lake Basin
Whitewater
Cold Springs
Tularosa
Indian Peaks
San Mateo Mountains
Total
Grand Total for AZ and NM

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Miles Searched in
AZ
17
16
44
51
87
509
803
399
132
0
0
0
0
0
0

Miles Searched in
NM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
190
34
5
2
60
72

2058

380
2438

50

Figure 7. Uncollared wolves documented and counted in the 2011 wolf population in Arizona
and New Mexico.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

51

70
60
50
40
Minimum Population

30
20
10
0
1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Figure 8. Mexican wolf minimum population estimates from 1998 through 2011 in Arizona and
New Mexico.
70
60
50
Minimum Population

40

Releases

30

Removals
Mortalities

20
10
0
1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

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 (19982011).

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

52

Appendix A. 2011 Pack and Single Wolf Summaries
7. Pack Summaries
Bluestem pack (AM806, AF1042, mp1240, mp1242)
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 two wolves with
functioning radio collars (AM806, and AF1042). In late April, the IFT documented denning
behavior in the Bluestem pack. On May 19, the IFT documented the production of at least 3
pups. The denning area for this pack was directly impacted by the Wallow Fire. In June, the IFT
set up a food cache to help insure the survival of the Bluestem pack during the Wallow Fire. The
food cache was maintained into August. By the end of July 2 pups were documented as having
survived. On August 13, a pup was trapped, collared, and assigned stud book number mp1240.
On August 21, a pup was trapped, collared, and assigned stud book number mp1242. On
November 24, an injured wolf, which the IFT confirmed as mp1242, was reported South of Big
Lake. On November 24, the IFT determined that mp1242 had sustained an injury to its rear leg.
On November 26, the IFT initiated efforts to capture mp1242 for needed medical attention.
During capture attempts for mp1242 the IFT observed an uncollared wolf with the Bluestem
pack, believed to be a pup of the year. On December 23, mp1242 was captured, however, it died
en route to a veterinarian for medical attention. As of January 2012, the Bluestem pack consisted
of four animals (AM806, AF1042, mp1240 and one uncollared pup); therefore, this pack was
considered a “Breeding Pair” per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). There were no
depredations, removals, or translocations involving the Bluestem pack in 2011.
Dark Canyon pack (AM992, AF923, fp1250, fp1251)
In January, the Dark Canyon pack consisted of AF923 and AM992. Throughout the year, the IFT
located the Dark Canyon pack within its traditional territory in the west-central portion of the
GNF. In May, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Dark Canyon pack.
On July 12, a colt suffered injuries to its legs and had to be euthanized as a result of the injuries.
The depredation incident was assigned to the Dark Canyon pack. Although adult behavior
indicated that pups survived, the IFT was not able to document the production of pups through
the summer. On October 2, the IFT observed AF923 with two uncollared wolves. In early
October, following the observation of the three wolves, the IFT initiated trapping efforts. On
October10, two pups were trapped, collared, and assigned stud book numbers fp1250 and
fp1251. As of December 31, the Dark Canyon pack consisted of AM992, AF923, fp1250, and
fp1251; therefore, this pack was considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2011, per the definition in the
final rule. No confirmed removals, translocations, or mortalities involving the Dark Canyon pack
occurred in 2011.
Fox Mountain pack (F1188 and M1158)
Throughout January, the IFT documented M1158 traveling with Hawks Nest pack f1188 in the
northeast-central portion of the ASNF in Arizona. In February, M1158 and f1188 (now
considered part of the Fox Mountain pack) began traveling in the northwestern portion of the
GNF in New Mexico. In April, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Fox Mountain pack.
Throughout the summer, pack behavior suggested that pups were produced and survived,
however, the IFT was unable to document neither pup production nor survival through July. On

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

53

June 17, an injured calf was investigated north of Luna on the GNF. The calf died three days
later. The depredation incident was assigned to the Fox Mountain pack. On July 6, a dead calf
was investigated near Romero Creek on the GNF. The depredation incident was assigned to the
Fox Mountain pack. Throughout the remainder of 2011, the Fox Mountain pack was regularly
located in the northwestern portion of the GNF. The IFT never confirmed the production nor
survival of pups with this pack, thus, the Fox Mountain pack was not considered a ”Breeding
Pair” in 2011 per the definition in the final rule. No confirmed removals, translocations, or
mortalities involving the Fox Mountain pack occurred in 2011.
Hawks Nest pack (AF1110, AM1038, f1208, m1248, mp1209, mp1210, mp1244, fp1247)
In January 2011, the Hawks Nest pack consisted of AF1110, fp1208, mp1209, mp1210 and three
uncollared wolves. In January, mp1209 began displaying movements away from the pack. On
February 27, mp1209 was found dead after being hit by a car on highway 191 north of
Springerville. In March, mp1210 began displaying dispersal movements to the northeast and into
New Mexico. On April 1, mp1210 was found dead from a gunshot wound outside the BRWRA.
In late April, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Hawks Nest pack. On May 27, the IFT
documented the production of at least five pups. The denning area for this pack was directly
impacted by the Wallow Fire. On June 12, a dead elk was placed in the vicinity of the den site in
an effort to enhance pup survival during the Wallow Fire. On June 16, the IFT investigated the
den site and did not document any dead wolves, and another supplementary food cache was set
up in the vicinity of the previous den location. In July the IFT documented the presence of six
pups with the pack. On August 23, the IFT found AF1110 dead due to a lightning strike. During
September and October, the IFT observed f1208 displaying dominant and maternal behaviors,
suggesting that f1208 may assume the alpha role within the pack in the subsequent year. On
September 19, the IFT observed three pups and three adults/subadults north of the rendezvous
site. One of the adults observed had a non-functioning rear leg and white radio collar. This wolf
was later confirmed to be AM1038, formerly of the Fox Mountain pack. The results of genetic
testing confirmed that AM1038 was the breeding male in 2011. On September 21, a pup was
trapped, collared, and assigned stud book number mp1244. On September 27, a pup was trapped
collard, and assigned stud book number fp1247. On October 2, subadult was trapped, collared,
and assigned stud book number m1248. Wolf m1248 showed dispersal movements shortly after
being trapped and remained apart from the pack throughout the remainder of the year. On
October 6, fp1247 was caught again and given a second vaccination series. As of January 2012,
the Hawks Nest pack consisted of five animals (AM1038, f1208, mp1244, fp1247, and one
uncollared pup); therefore, the Hawks Nest pack was considered an “Operational Breeding Pair”,
a modification of the “Breeding Pair” definition adopted by USFWS in 2008. No confirmed
depredations or removals involving the Hawks Nest pack occurred in 2011.
Luna pack (AF1115, f1246, mp1241)
In January, the Luna pack consisted of AM1156 and AF1115. Throughout the year, the IFT
located the Luna Pack within its traditional territory in the north-central portion of the GNF. In
late April, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Luna pack. In June, the IFT was unable
to locate AM1156. In June, AM1156 was considered “fate unknown”; the last location for
AM1156 was obtained in mid-April via telemetry. In July, the IFT documented the production of
six pups with the Luna pack. On August 17, a pup was trapped, collared, and assigned stud-book
number mp1241. In September, a subadult was caught, collared, and assigned stud-book number

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

54

f1246 by WS personnel while trapping for coyotes. During the same trapping effort, mp1241 was
recaptured, revaccinated and released. In mid-November, remote camera photos documented
nine wolves in the Luna pack; AF115, mp1241, f1246, and six uncollared wolves. In late
November, F1246 began displaying dispersal behavior, but was relocated with the Luna pack
prior to December 31, 2011. On December 27, Morgart’s pack M1155 was located in proximity
to the Luna pack and between the two collared females (AF1115 and f1246) and mp1241. In
January 2012, during the annual population count, AF1115 was located with M1155, f1246 was
located with m1248 of the Hawks Nest pack, and mp1241 was located alone. During this time,
remote cameras revealed that one uncollared pup was traveling with AF1115 and M1155. No
other uncollared wolves were documented during the January population count. Although
M1155 was located with AF1115 during the population count, they were not pair-bonded as of
December 31, therefore: the Luna pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” per the definition
in the final rule. No confirmed removals, translocations, or mortalities involving the Luna pack
occurred in 2011.
Middle Fork pack (AM871 and AF861)
In January, the Middle Fork pack consisted of AM871, AF861, and f1211. Throughout the year,
the pack remained within their traditional territory in the central portion of the GNF and Gila
Wilderness. On several occasions during April, the IFT located f1211 traveling away from the
pack; however, it was relocated with the pack at the end of the month. In May, the IFT
documented denning behavior in the Middle Fork pack. In June, the IFT again located f1211
traveling away from AF861 and AM871. In June, two dead calves were investigated and
confirmed as wolf depredations. Because the calves died greater than 24 hours apart, f1211 who
was traveling away from the pack and in the vicinity of the dead livestock was assigned two
depredation incidents. In July, the IFT documented the production of at least six pups. In July,
dispersing wolf f1211 had not been located with the pack since May and was considered a single
wolf. On July 9, two dead yearling cows were investigated near Cooney Point. The depredation
incidents were assigned to M871. In August, the IFT documented the survival of seven pups.
During the January 2012 annual population count, the Middle Fork pack consisted of the two
alpha animals and two uncollared pups, therefore; the Middle Fork pack was considered a
“Breeding Pair” per the definition in the final rule. No confirmed removals, translocations, or
mortalities involving the Middle Fork pack occurred in 2011.
Morgart’s pack (M1155)
In January, the Morgart’s pack consisted of M1155. On January 25, M1155 was captured outside
the BRWRA and translocated to facilitate pair-bonding with F1105. On January 26, M1155 selfreleased form the holding pen prior to the arrival of F1105 from captivity; M1155 did not pairbond with F1105 and returned to its traditional territory in the northeastern portion of the GNF.
In May, the IFT documented M1155 traveling in central portions of the GNF. In late May, the
IFT received information that this wolf may be traveling with another smaller-sized wolf. In
June, the IFT confirmed that M1155 was traveling with another wolf. On November 21, a dead
calf was investigated near O Bar O Canyon on the GNF. The depredation incident was assigned
to M1155. Throughout December, the IFT documented M1155 traveling in the north-central
portion of the GNF, largely within the Luna Pack territory. On December 27, M1155 was
located in proximity to the Luna pack and between the two collared females (AF1115 and f1246)
and mp1241. Per the final rule, Morgart’s pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2011.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

55

No confirmed removals, translocations, or mortalities involving the Morgart’s pack occurred in
2011.
Paradise pack (AM795, AF1056, mp1243, mp1245)
At the beginning of 2011, the Paradise pack consisted of AF1056 and one other adult wolf. On
January 20, AF1056 was captured and fitted with a new radio collar during the helicopter count
and capture operation. On January 27, the IFT observed a large wolf with AF1056. On April 3,
the IFT initiated effort to trap the animal traveling with AF1056. On April 4, AF1056 was
trapped and fitted with a new radio collar. Blood collected during the capture event indicated that
AF1056 was pregnant, suggesting that the animal traveling with AF1056 was a mature male. In
early May, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Paradise pack. On June 3, the IFT
documented the production of at least five pups. On June 20, AM795 was trapped and fitted with
a new radio collar; confirming that the previous radio collar had failed in April 2010. Later in
June the IFT determined that AF1056 had slipped her collar. On July 3, the Paradise pack was
assigned a depredation involving one sheep. The sheep had escaped from an electric enclosure
and was stuck in the mud near a pond during the night. On September 14, a pup was trapped,
collared, and assigned stud book number mp1243. On September 16, AM795 was trapped again
and given a second vaccination series. On September 25, a pup was trapped, collared, and
assigned stud book number mp1245. On October 1, AF1056 was trapped again, and fitted with a
new radio collar. On December 19, the IFT observed three pups, two of which were collared,
with AM795. As of December 31, 2011 the Paradise pack consisted of five animals (AM795,
AF1056, mp1243, mp1245, and an uncollared pup); therefore, the Paradise pack was considered
a “Breeding Pair” per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). There were no confirmed
mortalities, removals, or translocations involving the Paradise pack in 2011.
Rim pack (AF858, AM1107, F1187, F1213)
Throughout the year, the Rim pack was located within its traditional home range in the central
portion of the ASNF. In January 2011, the Rim pack consisted of four wolves (AF858, AM1107,
F1187, and one uncollared wolf). On March 8, an adult wolf was caught, collared, and assigned
stud book number F1213. This wolf was translocated from the SCAR to the Blue Vista area on
the ASNF. On April 12, F1213 was located back with the Rim pack. On April 22, two separate
depredation incidents were investigated on the SCAR, one incident was a confirmed wolf
depredation and the other was a probable wolf depredation. Both incidents were assigned to the
Rim pack. In late April, the IFT documented denning behavior in the Rim pack. The denning
area for this pack was directly impacted by the Wallow Fire. In late July, the IFT located a
potential den site and an elk carcass with potential pup sized tracks, however the IFT was unable
to confirm the production or recruitment of pups from this pack during 2011. On July 19, AF858
and AM1107 were involved in a second confirmed depredation on the SCAR. On September 22,
F1187 was found dead following a vehicle strike. On November 16, F1213 was confirmed dead.
Necropsy results indicated that F1213 died from complications associated with a wound most
likely caused by an elk antler. In January 2012, only AF858 and AM1107 were documented
during the annual population count; therefore, the Rim pack was not considered a “breeding
pair” in 2011 per the definition in the Final Rule (USFWS 1998). There were two confirmed
mortalities, two confirmed depredations, and one translocation involving the Rim pack in 2011.
No removals involving the Rim pack occurred in 2011.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

56

San Mateo pack (AF903, AM1157, M1252, f1212, mp1249)
During January and February, the IFT located M1157 of the Fox Mountain pack traveling with
AF903 in the traditional San Mateo territory. In February, following consistent documentation of
AF903 and M1157 traveling together, the IFT considered M1157 part of the Sam Mateo pack. In
late April, the IFT documented denning behavior in the San Mateo pack. On April 28, the IFT
located the den and documented the production of five pups. On May 24, WS personnel
investigated a dead cow and calf in the vicinity of Sand Flat on the GNF in New Mexico. It was
determined that the cow was killed by a wolf; the calf was determined a probable wolf kill. The
incident was assigned to AM1157 and f1212 from the San Mateo pack. During August, the IFT
documented at least one pup and one adult-sized, uncollared wolf with the San Mateo pack. In
October, a pup and subadult were captured, collared, and assigned stud-book numbers mp1249
and m1252. In November, the IFT documented f1212 traveling away from the pack on the edges
of the pack territory. The IFT also documented m1252 displaying dispersal behavior, traveling
widely through the BRWRA in Arizona and New Mexico, during November and December,
respectively. During the January 2012 annual population count, the San Mateo pack consisted of
three wolves (AF903, AM1157, mp1249); f1212 was located with an uncollared wolf to the
south of San Mateo’s traditional territory and M1252 was located alone in NM. San Mateo had
only one surviving pup as of December 31 and therefore, was not considered a “Breeding Pair”
per the definition in the final rule. No confirmed removals, translocations, or mortalities
involving the San Mateo pack occurred in 2011.
Willow Springs pack (M1185)
In January, M1185, originally from the Middle Fork pack, traveled widely through northern
portions of the BRWRA in both Arizona and New Mexico. Throughout February, the IFT
located this wolf traveling widely through the north-central portions of the GNF. In March,
M1185 began to localize in the north-central portion of the GNF. Spring locations of M1185
indicated the potential for denning behavior, however, the IFT had no evidence of M1185
traveling with another animal. In September, the IFT confirmed that M1185 was traveling with
an uncollared wolf; evidence suggested that the uncollared wolf was a female. In October,
M1185 and the associated uncollared wolf were named the Willow Springs pack. During the
annual population count in January 2012, Willow Springs consisted of M1185 and an uncollared
female wolf, therefore; the Willow Springs pack was not considered a “Breeding Pair” in 2011
per the final rule definition. No confirmed depredations, removals, translocations, or mortalities
involving the Willow Springs pack occurred in 2011.
8. Individual Wolf Summaries
M1049
On January 28, the IFT translocated M1049 into the Hawks Nest Pack territory in efforts to
facilitate pair-bonding with AF110. Unfortunately, this wolf did not pair-bond with AF1110 and
instead became localized next to private residences in Nutrioso, Arizona. After multiple hazing
attempts failed to deter this wolf from multiple nuisance incidents at residences, the IFT captured
M1049 on February 2 and moved it to captivity. This wolf remains eligible for translocation back
into the BRWRA.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

57

F1105
In January 2011, F1105 was translocated from captivity into the wild in an attempt to facilitate
pair-bonding with M1155. On February 7, F1105 was involved in the depredation of cow and a
calf on private property near Cow Springs draw outside the BRWRA in NM. In April, the IFT
documented this wolf traveling alone through northern portions of the GNF, repeatedly located
near and on property and interacting with domestic dogs. The IFT initiated trapping efforts to
capture F1105 and perform an inspection regarding its breeding status. During these efforts,
F1105 localized in late April and the IFT documented the production of five pups. The IFT
collected blood samples to determine the genetic makeup of the pups. Results indicated that the
pups were not pure Mexican wolves, but the offspring of F1105 and a domestic dog. The IFT
relocated the den, removed and humanely euthanized 4 pups; the fifth pup was not located at the
den site. In June, the IFT confirmed that the wolf was traveling with a pup-sized canid, and
initiated efforts to capture F1105 and the pup. On July 20, F1105 was captured, fitted with a new
radio collar, and temporarily held in a pen to facilitate locating and capturing the remaining pup.
The pup was not caught, however, by the end August, no evidence of the pup was collected by
the IFT and F1105 began to travel more widely through the BRWRA in New Mexico, suggesting
that the remaining pup may not have survived. At the end of August, the IFT located F1105 in
the central portion of the GNF, where it remained through the fall. Despite continued efforts to
document the presence of the hybrid pup, the IFT found no evidence of its survival. On
September 1, F1105 was involved in the depredation of a calf near Cooney Prairie on the GNF.
At the end of November, F1105 was documented associating with a domestic dog at a hunter’s
camp, and IFT personnel implemented capture efforts. In December, the IFT received several
reports of F1105 interacting with domestic dogs and in proximity to private residences within the
BRWRA in the central portion of the GNF. Due to these continued nuisance issues, a lethal
removal order was issued by USFWS for F1105. On December 14, F1105 was lethally removed
from the wild by Wildlife Services.
f1211
From May to July 2011, f1211 of the Middle Fork pack displayed dispersal behavior and was not
located with its natal pack, therefore; f1211 was considered a single wolf in July. While
dispersing from its natal territory, f1211 was assigned two depredation incidents. From August
through November, f1211 was located in the north-central portion of the GNF. On November 18
and 19, the IFT documented f1211 traveling with another larger wolf. On November 22, f1211
was found dead. Necropsy results indicated that f1211 died of illegal gunshot.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

58

Appendix B. Summary of sighting reports received from the public from January 1
through December 31, 2011.
Jan
# AZ Reports
0
Known Wolf Reports 0
Unknown/Uncollared 0
Reports
0
Non-wolf Reports
0
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
0
Month

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

Feb
4
1
1

Mar
6
2
0

Apr
5
2
0

May
3
0
1

Jun
2
0
0

Jul
2
0
0

Aug
5
1
0

Sept
4
2
0

Oct
2
0
0

Nov
6
2
1

Dec
3
0
0

Total
42
10
3

1
0

3
0

2
0

1
0

1
0

0
1

4
0

0
1

2
0

1
1

3
0

18
3

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

8

0
0
0

2
0
2

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0

2
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
1

2
0
1

3
1
0

9
2
1

25
3
5

0
0

0
0

1
0

1
0

1
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

2
0

5
0

0

0

2

1

0

2

0

0

1

2

4

12

4

8

8

5

3

4

5

5

4

9

12

67

59

9. Personnel
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Chris Bagnoli, Field Team Leader
Jeff Dolphin, Wolf Biologist
Beth Wojcik, Wolf Technician
Quinn Harrison, Wolf Technician
Allison Greenleaf, Wolf Technician
Mike Godwin, Wildlife Manager Supervisor
Joel Weiss, Wildlife Manager
Aaron Hartzell, Wildlife Manager
Dave Cagle, Wildlife Program Manager
John Hervert, Wildlife Program Manager
Bill David, Chief Pilot
Basil Coffman, Pilot
Pete Applegate, Pilot
Steve Sunde, Pilot
Steve Dubois, Pilot
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Agency cooperation ceased July 1, 2011.
Ellen Heilhecker, Wolf Biologist
Mischa Larisch, 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
Sherry Barrett, Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
Maggie Dwire, Assistant Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
Elizabeth Jozwiak, Interagency Field Projects Coordinator

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

60

John Oakleaf, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Melissa Kreutzian, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Colby Gardner, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Susan Dicks, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Janess Vartanian, Wildlife Biologist
Dewey Wesley, Biological Technician
Tracy Pinter, Biological Technician
Peter Fitzpatrick, Biological Technician
Bonnie McDonald, Biological Technician (60 day hire)
Jim Ashburner, Lead Special Agent
USFWS Interns
Ryan Wilbur
Melissa Ruszczyk
Jacob Humm
Bonnie McDonald
Kyle Crowson
Adair McNear
Rob Wise
Sara Eno
Aaron Koehlinger
Trevor Smith
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Krista Beazley, Field Team Leader
Deon Hinton, Wolf Technician
Ivan Kasey, Wolf Technician
Bobby Tobin, Wolf Technician
Project Veterinarians
Dr. Ole Alcumbrac
Dr. Susan Dicks

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

61

Addendum to the 2011 Mexican wolf Annual Progress Report
The following addendum addresses population information documented by Wolf Project staff following the publication of the 2011 minimum
population estimate and the 2011 annual report. Information in the addendum supersedes relevant portions of the 2011 Mexican wolf Annual
Progress Report, including information in Table 1. Status of Mexican wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico, as of December 31, 2011; and
information found in Appendix A. 2011 Pack and Single Wolf Summaries.
Middle Fork
At the end of 2011, the IFT documented the Middle Fork pack to consist of a minimum of four wolves, AF861, AM871 and two pups (2011 Annual
Report Table 1). During the summer of 2012, photographic evidence documented the existence of four yearlings with the pack. With the addition
of this new information, the Middle Fork pack is now known to have consisted of a minimum of six wolves at the end of 2011, the alpha pair and
four pups.
Uncollared wolf in Indian Creek NM – This wolf was observed in the core use area of the Middle Fork home range in November of 2011. After
documenting the existence of two additional Middle Fork pups, the IFT now consider the Indian Creek wolf to be a Middle Fork pup of the year.
Luna
At the end of 2011, the IFT documented the Luna pack to consist of a minimum of four wolves, AF1115, F1246, mp1241 and one uncollared pup
(2011 Annual Report Table 1). During the winter of 2012, photographic evidence documented the existence of six uncollared wolves with the
pack. With the addition of this new information, the Luna pack is now known to have consisted of a minimum of nine wolves at the end of 2011,
AF1115, F1246, mp1241, and six uncollared wolves. Photographic evidence suggests the six uncollared wolves were two yearlings and four
pups.
Dark Canyon
At the end of 2011, the IFT documented the Dark Canyon pack to consist of a minimum of four wolves, AF923, AM992 and two pups fp1250 and
fp1251 (2011 Annual Report Table 1). During the 2012 end of the year population count and capture operation, the IFT captured a yearling male
with the Dark Canyon pack M1293. With the addition of this new information, the Dark Canyon pack is now known to have consisted of a
minimum of five wolves at the end of 2011, the alpha pair and three pups.
San Mateo
At the end of 2011, the IFT documented the San Mateo pack to consist of a minimum of three wolves, AF903, AM1157 and one pup mp1249
(2011 Annual Report Table 1). During the summer of 2012, the IFT documented the existence of an uncollared yearling with the pack. With the
addition of this new information, the San Mateo pack is now known to have consisted of a minimum of four wolves at the end of 2011, the alpha
pair and two pups. The documentation of a second pup in the pack means that the San Mateo pack met the definition of a breeding pair in 2011.
Fox Mountain
At the end of 2011, the IFT documented the Fox Mountain pack to consist of a minimum of two wolves, AF1188 and AM1158 (2011 Annual Report
Table1). Although denning behavior was documented in 2011, no pups were observed with the pack. In August 2012, the IFT captured a yearling
male with the Fox Mountain pack M1276. With the addition of this new information, the Fox Mountain pack is now known to have consisted of a
minimum of three wolves at the end of 2011, the alpha pair and one pup.

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

62

Additional population data documented in 2012 pertaining to the 2011 end of year count represents a 15% increase over the 2011 end of the year
minimum estimate. In addition to documenting an increase of 9 wolves in the Blue Range Wolf Population, the San Mateo pack was documented
as a breeding pair. Data represented in Bold, Italics, Underline indicates changes from the original 2011 minimum population estimate. Wolf
packs and individual wolves are represented in bold and italics, if they have associated addendum information.
Addendum to Table 1. Status of Mexican wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico, as of December 31, 2011.
a

Pack
Bluestem, AZ*

Wolf ID
AM806, AF1042, mp1240,
e
mp1242
AM992, AF923, fp1250, fp1251
M1158, F1188
e
j
e
AF1110 ,AM1038 ,f1208,mp1209 ,
e
mp1210 , mp1244, fp1247
f
AF1115, AM1156 , f1246, mp1241
AM871, AF861
AM795, AF1056, mp1243,mp1245
e
e
AM1107, AF858, F1187 , F1213
AM1157, AF903, mp1249
h
M1185
M1155
e
f1211
i
f1212
i
m1248
i
m1252
e
M1214
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolf
Uncollared wolves
Uncollared wolves

Reproduction
2011
2011
count
addendum

c

Min pack Size
2011
2011
count
addendum

3
4
2

1
0
0

1
1
1

4
4
2

4
5
3

6
6
3
3
Hawks Nest, AZ
Luna, NM
6
6
2
5
Middle Fork, NM*
7
7
2
4
Paradise, AZ*
5
5
3
3
Rim, AZ
0
0
0
0
San Mateo, NM*
5
5
1
2
Willow Springs, NM
0
0
0
0
Morgart, NM
0
0
0
0
Radio collared wolf, AZ
0
0
0
0
Radio collared wolf, NM
0
0
0
0
Radio collared wolf, NM
0
0
0
0
Radio collared wolf, NM
0
0
0
0
Radio collared wolf, NM
0
0
0
0
Sipe Wildlife Area, AZ
0
0
0
0
Beaver Creek, AZ
0
0
0
0
Indian Creek, NM
0
0
0
0
Indian Peaks, NM
0
0
0
0
Poverty Flat, NM
0
0
0
0
d
d
d
d
FAIR*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
d
d
d
d
SCAR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
l
Totals
38
40
19
27
a
Reproduction-maximum number of pups documented in 2011.
b
Pups at year end documented surviving until December 31, 2011.
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 2011.
f
Fate unknown during 2011.
h
Dispersed to form new pack.
i
Dispersed off and on throughout year; counted as single in table.
j
Telemetry collar not functioning, but counted as collared in table.
l
Totals include wolves occurring on FAIR and SCAR..
m
A pack that meets the definition of an operational breeding pair.
*A pack that meets the definition of a breeding pair per the final rule.

4
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
N/A
d
N/A
34

4
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
d
N/A
d
N/A
24

0
6
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1

5
4
4
5
2
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
d
N/A
d
N/A
58

5
9
6
5
2
4
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2011 Progress Report

2
2
0

No. Uncollared
2011
2011
count
addendum

3
4
2

m

3
3
1

No. Collared
2011
2011
count
addendum

2
3
1

Dark Canyon, NM*
Fox Mountain, NM

3
2
0

b

Pups at Year End
2011
2011
count
addendum

d

N/A
d
N/A
34

d

N/A
d
N/A
33

d

N/A
d
N/A
67

63