jsonMw (1)

1

Grand Experiments: A Review of Five Endangered Species Reintroductions in the US

Lynne Nemeth

Submitted in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts from Prescott College in Environmental Studies: Environmental Policy and Endangered Species

May, 2012

Cristina Eisenberg, PhD David Mattson, PhD Peter Sherman, PhD Graduate Advisor Second Reader Third Reader

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1510717Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.

UMI Number: 1510717

2

Abstract

Grand Experiments A Review of Five Endangered Species Reintroductions in the US

Striking changes in American society resulted in the passage of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) in 1973, one of many laws passed during the environmental era of the

1960s and 70s. In just a few decades, we as a society moved from vilification and

elimination of many species (or indifference to their decline) to protecting them legally

under the ESA—a ground-breaking law based on the belief that all species have a

fundamental right to exist.

The ESA calls for Recovery Plans to be written and implemented for species

listed as in danger of extinction, plans that are to be implemented cooperatively by both

federal and state agencies. When a species has been extirpated from a region or area, its

recovery plan may include reintroducing that species within areas of its former range.

Reintroduction of species is inherently difficult; those working in the field face a number

of challenges: high cost, behavioral issues in captive populations, genetic viability of

often small founding populations, and habitat availability, among others. Reintroduction

programs may face hostility from some sectors of the public—and even legal action.

Some reintroduction programs have been held up as successes; some species have

been approved for delisting. When I began my study, I wanted to understand how and

why the ESA and endangered species reintroductions have become so controversial. I

wanted to understand how species reintroductions worked. Some reintroduction programs

3

have been held up as successes; some species have been approved for delisting. What are

the criteria for success? How has recovery been defined? My primary objective was to

find out if several high-profile reintroduction programs had resulted in success on the

ground—and what parameters might contribute to that success. To answer this question, I

conducted comparative case studies of five well-known reintroductions. Four of the

species were on that first list in 1967: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes),

reintroduced 1991; California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), reintroduced 1992;

Gray wolf (Canis lupus), reintroduced 1995; and Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi),

reintroduced 1998. The fifth, listed as threatened in 2000, is the Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis.)

Reintroduction success can be defined in a number of ways: numbers of animals

in captivity or in the wild, genetic diversity preserved, public support, or efficient use of

resources. I chose to define success by numbers—numbers of animals in captivity and in

the wild, and reintroduced population demographics relative to principles of conservation

biology as exemplified by resiliency, redundancy, and representation. I judged success by

examining: 1) each species current status; 2) US Fish & Wildlife Recovery Plan goals for

each species; 3) The ESA’s Five Factor analysis [§4(a)1]; 4) Other government

documents evaluating the status of each species; and 5) Books and peer-reviewed articles

discussing the status of each species’ recovery.

In addition, I present the species’ natural history, historical conservation status,

and policy background. Finally, I provide my findings. Of the species reintroductions I

analyzed, all were somewhat successful in that each has a robust captive population, and

at least one population has been established in the wild. Extinction has been averted for

4

all species. However, with the exception of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf

population, all have been dependent on human intervention or assistance for survival in

the wild. Only the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population has achieved some degree

of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, and exceeded initial recovery plan goals.

The most successful reintroduction was the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population,

and the least successful was the Mexican wolf.

The most common reason for lack of success is that the reason(s) for initial

extirpation have not been mitigated. The most common factors that led to success were a

large initial release number and large recovery area. Overall, a successful reintroduction

program encompasses the following: 1) a wild-born population, 2) a large initial release

population, 3) a large release area, 4) connectivity among multiple populations, 5)

adequate prey, 6) species characteristics that are more generalist than specialist, 7) a

protected area, 8) public support.

Keywords: reintroduction, ESA, recovery

5

Copyright © 2011 by Lynne Marie Nemeth. All rights reserved.

No part of this thesis may be used, reproduced, stored, recorded, or transmitted in any form or manner whatsoever without written permission from the copyright holder or her agent(s), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in the papers of students, and in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Requests for such permission should be addressed to:

Lynne M. Nemeth 8783 E Neptune Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86004

6

Table of Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................2

Table of Contents............................................................................................6

List of Figures and Tables.............................................................................11

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................12

Introduction

Recovery........................................................................................................13

7

Part One: Policy

Chapter One

Human Values and the Environmental Movement of the 1960s...................22

Chapter Two

The Endangered Species Act & Species Recovery........................................47

Chapter Three

Conservation Biology & Species Reintroduction..........................................72

8

Part Two: Case Studies

Chapter Four

The Prairie Bandit: Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)........................94

Chapter Five A Prehistoric Relict: California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus)........111

Chapter Six

The Beast in the Garden: Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)................................... 125

Chapter Seven

The Return of the Lobo: Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi).................... 141

Chapter Eight

Snow Hunter: Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis)….....................................157

9

Part Three: Synthesis

Chapter Nine

Evaluating Reintroduction Success............................................................172

Epilogue

Reasons for Hope.......................................................................................188

10

Endnotes…………………………………………………………………190

Literature Cited…………………………………………………………..252

Interviews...................................................................................................278

Appendices……………………………………………………………… 279

11

List of Tables

Table 1.1 US Environmental Laws, Statutes, and Commissions of the 1970s 46

Table 2.1 Glossary of ESA Terminology 69

Table 2.2 ESA Amendments 71

Table 4.1 Status of the Black-footed Ferret in the Wild 110

Table 6.1 NRM Wolf Reintroduction Project Statistics 140

Table 7.1 Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Statistics 153

Table 7.2 MW Summary of Actions and Litigation 154

Table 7.3 Initial release and recovery area comparisons,

NRM and Mexican wolves 156

Table 9.1 Criteria used for conservation assessment of species 185

Table 9.2 Federal government documents evaluating recovery of species 186

Table 9.4 Comparisons of recovery parameters

for five reintroduction programs 187

12

Acknowledgements

My work has been inspired by my father and his animals—I hope he is with them

now. I want to thank my husband for his unwavering support and encouragement and for

taking on so many of the tasks of daily life while I researched and wrote this thesis.

I offer special thanks to my advisor, Cristina Eisenberg, whose expectations and

diligence have held me and my work to very high standards. I also want to thank Prescott

College for its dedication to independent study, as well as my thesis readers Dr. David

Mattson and Dr. Peter Sherman. I am grateful to my classmate cohorts in Environmental

Studies, Josh Barnes, Laurie Starr, and Sarah Drummond, for their intelligence, wit,

passion, and friendship. I also offer my thanks to Dr. Robert Braudy for taking the time to

read my thesis.

Finally, I want to acknowledge my sister, my compatriot, who loves animals as

much as I do. And to my greatest teachers—all the hundreds of animals I have known

over many years. I offer you my respect, and I hope that my work will benefit you.

13

Introduction: Recovery

My friends and I have driven over twelve miles of rutted, pot-holed, and winding

dirt road to get to the trailhead—going no more than twenty miles an hour. Dirt roads

don’t exist where I lived for thirty years, in the Washington, D.C. area. So I love driving

on these roads, where a different level of skill and concentration is required than on East

Coast highways. I also love these roads because I know that few other people will be on

them. In fact, at this site, only 20 people a day can get permits. Once we park at the

trailhead, we follow a steep and narrow path through what can only be described as lush

desert. The vegetation, in a mind-boggling assortment of greens, is over our heads. I

realize that this is what the Arizona Sonoran Desert looks like outside of a major

metropolitan area like Phoenix, something I’ve not experienced.

Our guide, an expert tracker, points out fox, coyote, and skunk tracks as we hike

down to the bottom of the canyon. Here flows the perennial Aravaipa Creek, a riparian

oasis in the midst of desert. Tall, many armed Saguaro cacti stand guard on the steep

cliffs, while the creek is lined with willows and cottonwoods. We stop to look at

mountain lion tracks and scan the towering rock formations, hoping to see a cat—just not

up close. Once we get to the wilderness area, the trail ends, and we wade through the

creek and scramble through overgrown brush on its banks as we hike.

The Bureau of Land Management designated the 19,400 acre (and 12-mile long)

Aravaipa Canyon a wilderness area in 1984—limited access, no motorized vehicles and

14

no dogs.1 A naturalist’s paradise, it encompasses five different plant communities:

Sonoran desert scrub, desert grassland, interior chaparral, evergreen woodland, and

deciduous riparian forest—and all the wildlife that lives in these communities, including

deer, elk, bear, cougar, big horn sheep, and coatimundi—the only creature we see on our

hike. Coati, a southwest cousin to raccoons, exhibit the same sort of curiosity. They

watch us from the ridge top, tails straight up in the air, long snouts poking through the

underbrush.

Although I enjoy the company and the tracking, mostly I am silent. I am here on a

pilgrimage. I want to see what the last Mexican wolf saw before he was killed. I wonder

if he trotted here, where I am now hiking. I imagine his long journey from Mexico,

hundreds of miles, looking for one of his kind. He made it here, to water and to food. I

imagine that the canyon looked the same in 1976 as he rested among the willow and

cottonwood, or hunted for mule deer. He must have howled, searching, because they

found him. They named him the Aravaipa Wolf.2 Local stockmen purportedly put up a

bounty of $500. I wonder if he knew he was the last of his kind.

* * *

The Aravaipa Wolf was trapped and killed in the same year that the Mexican wolf

was declared an endangered species, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service quickly

mobilized a former wolf hunter (known as a wolfer) to live-trap any remaining wolves in

Mexico to begin a captive breeding program. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

has been saved from extinction, and has been reintroduced into a small area of its former

habitat. Many others have been saved from extinction as well—the California condor

15

(Gymnogyps californianus) and the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and the bald

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)—thanks to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Striking changes in American society resulted in the passage of the ESA in 1973,

one of many laws passed during the environmental era of the 1960s and 70s. In just a few

decades, we as a society moved from vilification and elimination of many species (or

indifference to their decline) to protecting them legally under the ESA, a ground-breaking

law that some say communicates a belief that all species have a fundamental right to

exist.3

In 2001, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, in conjunction with other federal

agencies, published its interpretation of Section 4 of the ESA—Listing Endangered and

Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat—stating, “The Secretary shall make

any determination . . . solely on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial

information regarding a species’ status, without reference to possible economic or other

impacts of such determination.”4

The ESA explicitly recognizes the conservation value of all animals and plants,

and states that habitat protection is necessary to species conservation. It states as its

purpose the conservation of ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species

depend, as well as the provision of a program for the conservation of such species.5 The

ESA calls for Recovery Plans to be written and implemented for species listed as in

danger of extinction, plans that are to be implemented cooperatively by both federal and

state agencies.6 When a species has been extirpated (exterminated from a region or

area), or driven from areas of its habitat, its recovery plan may include reintroducing that

species within areas of its former range. Reintroduction of species is inherently difficult;

16

those working in the field face a number of challenges: high cost, behavioral issues in

captive populations, genetic viability of often small founding populations, and habitat

availability, among others.

Reintroduction programs may face hostility from some sectors of the public—and

even legal action. For example, in 1994, the American Farm Bureau and Montana

Stockgrowers and others filed suit to stop the reintroduction of gray wolves into

Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.7 While a number of species have been

reintroduced, attention has focused on large charismatic vertebrates, such as the gray wolf

(Canis lupus), and California condor.8 These sorts of high-profile animals may engender

publicity for conservation issues (and may also have totemic status among some people),

but they are often polarizing. Polls show, for example, vastly different support between

urban and rural dwellers for wolf reintroduction, and wolves in particular have become

symbolic of larger issues around use of public lands.9

Charismatic birds and mammals are often large and wide-ranging, making

reintroduction success (or recovery) difficult to achieve. Frequently the very reason for

initial extirpation—conflict with humans—remains unresolved at the time of

reintroduction.10 The California condor today remains as threatened by lead poisoning

(from hunter-discarded gutpiles), as it was in the 1970s.11 The ESA requires Recovery

Plans for endangered species, but this statute fails to define recovery or long-term health

of species.12 Nor does it specify criteria for determining population thresholds, extinction

risk, demographic trends, or threats.13 In 1973, we didn’t recognize the complexity of

biodiversity—or the complexity of its conservation. We didn’t know what species

recovery looked like, or what their habitat requirements might be. We didn’t fathom the

17

scope of the law when it was passed—who would have dreamed that over a thousand

species would be listed? Could anyone have realized how difficult it might be to live

among large carnivores or to require landowners to conserve a kangaroo rat?

Today we are experiencing a worldwide loss of species (or loss of biodiversity)

that can be compared with the mass prehistoric extinctions of the Permian-Triassic (245

million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Tertiary (65 million years ago).14 As of this

writing, 583 animals and 792 plants are in such danger of extinction in the US that

they’ve been placed on the endangered species list—among them 85 mammals, 92 birds,

and 140 fishes.15 Of the seventy-eight listed species in 1967 (under the precursor to the

ESA, the Endangered Species Protection Act), sixty-nine are still on the list.16

I participated in the first Earth Day in 1970; I remember that my junior high

school organized a recycling drive. When Congress passed the ESA, my family sighed in

relief, believing, along with most Americans, that we would now save endangered

species. We followed the saga of the bald eagle and the whooping crane, and cheered

when ranchers in Wyoming found the last wild black-footed ferrets. Growing up on a

hobby farm with hundreds of animals, my sister and I absorbed some fundamental

empathy for all our animals: horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, dogs, geese, cats. We came

to believe in the ineffable and intrinsic value of all creatures, a worldview that has greatly

influenced how we live our lives.

When I began my study, I wanted to understand how and why the ESA and

endangered species reintroductions have become so controversial. I wanted to understand

how species reintroductions worked. Some reintroduction programs have been held up as

successes; some species have been approved for delisting. What are the criteria for

18

success? How has recovery been defined? My primary objective was to find out if

several of the first high-profile reintroduction programs had resulted in success on the

ground—and what parameters might contribute to that success. To answer these

questions, I conducted comparative case studies of five well-known reintroductions. Four

of the species were on that first list in 1967: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes),




canadensis.)










The ESA’s Five Factor analysis [§4(a)1] is used as a criteria for adding a species

to the endangered species list, and in subsequent reviews of a species’ recovery, and

includes the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

19

(C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Other government documents evaluating the status of each species include 5-year

Reviews, Spotlight Action Plans, and Conservation Assessments.

The very nature of species reintroductions—which often involves returning a

species to a landscape in which it was deliberately removed—makes the topic not only

scientific, but political. Our predator poisoning programs ended just 40 years ago.17 The

same government agency (US Fish & Wildlife Service) responsible for saving the black-

footed ferret, also led the charge to poison prairie dogs.18 Wolves and other species have

become emblematic of larger cultural issues—about use of western lands, urban versus

rural values, and states rights versus federalism. 19

In this thesis, I examine the current status of five reintroduced species and

compare recovery plan goals with the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and

representation. In chapter 1, I examine how we arrived at our current thinking—the

evolution of environmental ethics and philosophy in US culture. I write about our values

and worldviews as Americans and how we have arrived at such a conflicted state about

wilderness and wildlife. We in the US have experienced huge paradigm shifts in the last

fifty years, yet remain wedded to myths and worldviews that in some cases are centuries

old. In chapter 2 I look at the development of the environmental era of the 1960s and the

ESA—its innovations and deficiencies, and the controversies that followed its passage. In

chapter 3 I examine what we have learned since recovery programs were mandated—

what current scientific study and research tells us with regard to species reintroductions

20

and ecosystem health. I look at species demographics, habitat issues, population

dynamics, and climate change—and how these may affect species’ reintroductions.

Case studies begin with chapter 4, and in this chapter and the following four, I

examine the status of five species’ reintroduction and recovery—ecologically, socially,

and politically, beginning with a review of each species’ natural history. I wanted to tell

each species’ story—to provide a feel for the landscape, and to explore the ecology of

each species. Specifically, I describe each species’ extirpation or disappearance from the

landscape, its recovery and reintroduction, current status, and prognosis, including

current controversies, which often remain related to the original reason for the animal’s

extirpation.

In chapter 4 I write about the recovery and reintroduction of the black-footed

ferret; in 1991, the first captive-bred ferrets were released into the million acre Shirley

Basin in Wyoming, a sweeping expanse of big sage steppe and mixed grassland. Today

the wild populations number approximately 1,000, after dropping to eighteen in 1981.20

Chapter 5 studies the growing population of the California condor, reintroduced in Sespe

Condor Sanctuary in California in 1992, and in northern Arizona in 1996. Reintroduction

of the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf, into Wyoming and Idaho in 1995, discussed

in chapter 6, has been touted as a success story, with a population numbering

approximately 1,774 in 2011.21 Part of this population was taken off the endangered

species list (delisted) in 2009, reinstated in August, 2010, and then delisted by Congress

in 2011. A sub-species of the gray wolf, the Mexican wolf, discussed in chapter 7, was

reintroduced into the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico and has never numbered

more than sixty since release in 1998.22 The current recovery plan dates from 1982, and

21

calls for a target population of 100 wolves.23 Chapter 8 discusses a state reintroduction of

the Canada lynx; in 1997, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) released thirteen

lynx in the San Juan Mountains of southern Colorado.

Finally, Chapter 9 provides a synthesis of findings and comparison of each of the

reintroduction programs, comparing 1) criteria used for assessing conservation status; 2)

federal government documents evaluating recovery; 3) current recovery goals; and 4)

recovery parameters. In conclusion, I offer a list of factors that create or contribute to a

successful reintroduction program, while the epilogue recounts a story of coincidence—

and hope.

22

Chapter One: Human Values and the Environmental Movement

of the 1960s

I often drive Arizona’s Interstate 17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff. About an

hour and a half north from Phoenix, you first catch a glimpse of the majestic San

Francisco Peaks, rising to 12,600 feet and often snow-capped. The trip from Phoenix to

Flagstaff covers about 140 miles and only takes two hours or so, but the transformation in

landscape during those two hours is remarkable. Mesquite and saguaro, people and urban

sprawl dominate the low desert of Phoenix at 1,000 feet above sea level. Driving north,

you ascend to the northernmost boundary of the Sonoran desert, saying farewell to the

last saguaros at 3,500 feet. Junipers and piñons take over and a steep climb up the

Mogollon Rim brings you up onto the southern end of the Colorado Plateau and into

sparsely populated Northern Arizona. At about 6,500 feet the first Ponderosa pines

appear, backed by impossibly blue sky, and then you see the Peaks.

Every time I see them on my way home, I am moved. I feel pulled to them; I call

them “our mountains.” I feel protective of them and their wildlife. Coyotes and fox, elk

and deer, mountain lions and bear live among the Peaks, part of which are designated the

Kachina Peaks Wilderness, an 18,960 acre roadless area in the larger Coconino National

Forest. Eleven Native American tribes call the Peaks sacred1, the “place of water,” and

indeed, snowmelt from the Peaks provides much of the water for Northern Arizona. The

tribes, along with environmental activists, are fighting the proposed expansion of the

23

Snowbowl, a 700-acre ski area in the Peaks. The Snowbowl opened in 1938, and in 2004,

the Forest Service approved the owner’s petition to expand and use reclaimed water to

make snow, as climate change and drought over the past decade have affected snowfall

rates and the Snowbowl’s survival. The Save the Peaks Coalition has been fighting the

issue in the courts since 2004, decrying the snowmaking as both detrimental to the sacred

nature of the Peaks—and to humans. The issue has gone all the way to the Supreme

Court, where the justices declined to review a 2009 ruling (against the tribes), of the 9th

Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.2 Supporters of snow-making argue that the

Snowbowl benefits the economy and that only 205 acres will be covered with artificial

snow—that this practice is not dangerous and does not interfere with the tribes’ beliefs.3

The preceding narrative provides a vivid example of our conflicting beliefs and

values about nature and the environment and illustrates several historic and current

threads of thought. Underlying this brief narrative, we have these messages, among

others:

• Wilderness means “no people,” which is good

• Nature is beautiful and awe-inspiring

• Nature belongs to humans and exists for our enjoyment

• Wildlife needs a home

• Nature is sacred, and must be honored and protected

• Nature is useful to humans, providing us with economic benefits

• Technology enables us to triumph over climate change and drought

• Business and the economy are more important than wilderness protection

24

• Protection of nature and indigenous people’s beliefs are more important than

business and the economy

Embedded in these messages are ways of looking at nature, wildlife, the

environment, technology, and humans that are directly correlated to various philosophical

worldviews. Within these statements are elements of Romanticism, utilitarianism,

preservationism, belief in human ingenuity, biocentrism, and dualism. Romanticism, a

literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, is

characterized by an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and an appreciation of

nature. Utilitarianism, a doctrine that the useful is good, embodies the rule of utility, “the

greatest good for the greatest number.” Biocentrism considers all forms of life as having

intrinsic value, and dualism is a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible

(and often opposing) elements.4

The opposing sides on the Snowbowl issue are arguing from irreconcilable moral

positions. They do not share the same values; they navigate the world—they see the

world—from different perspectives. We all possess a worldview, which can be defined as

“one’s comprehensive framework of beliefs about things.”5 This framework is

complicated and deeply held; James W. Sire, in Naming the Elephant, offers this

definition: “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that

can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions . . . which we hold (consciously

or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality,

and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”6 A

person’s worldview, or mental model of reality, is shaped by what each of us believe to

be good and right, and differing worldviews have become central to the debates about

25

environmental issues. Americans today include wilderness advocates and wildlife

conservation advocates. Some are animal welfare activists, protecting domestic animals;

others are animal rights activists, opposed to killing of any kind. Ecocentrists hold

ecosystem health to be most important (and are willing to remove non-native animals

from the landscape). Some ATV riders believe that national forests (as public spaces)

should have no roadless areas, while conservationists are fighting to close roads to protect

wildlife corridors. People’s beliefs seem to exist on an endless continuum, causing

endless conflict.

Where do humans and other creatures fit in the framework of our beliefs? What

is “nature”? We usually begin to learn our values and beliefs in childhood (from our

parents, religion, teachers, peers and various media) and hold them over time; they

become our worldviews. They are not necessarily articulated, and in that sense they are

our myths—things we all “know” or believe in—or as Sire says, what we express as a

story, or in a set of presuppositions. Every society has its myths; they help us find a place

in the world and provide us with a connection to others in our society—and they are so

important to our sense of self that we invest ourselves in them emotionally.7

Most of us in the US are able to articulate our best-known myths, those around

American individualism, or the American Dream, for example. But cultural norms

change and our personal and societal myths or values are not necessarily fixed. Over the

course of the last 200 years, as we have depleted our natural resources and come to

understand the interrelatedness of all creatures, our myths in the US about wilderness,

nature, and animals have radically transformed.

26

Western Myths and Colonial America

One of the most powerful beliefs in Western theology and philosophy is

dualism—which holds that reality consists of two basic and opposing principles or

elements. So a dualistic perspective trusts that two opposing principles form a totality;

this perspective has been applied to metaphysical, cosmologic, religious, and ontological

philosophies and systems of beliefs for centuries.8 Opposing principles may be, for

example, God and Devil, spirit and matter, mind and body, good and evil, humans and

animals—or wilderness and civilization. What makes the concept of dualism so germane

to our discussion is that the “antagonism” of any two principles often results with one

labeled as “good,” and the other as “evil.”9 At colonial settlement, the first Euro-

Americans described nature, wilderness, animals, and humans within this dualist

construct—and many of us still do so today. But the reality is more complicated: in

addition to being imbued with our myths, nature and wilderness are real things.10

Perhaps humans didn’t see themselves as apart from nature when all human

populations were still hunters and gatherers.11 As we began to herd, farm, and settle into

year-round villages, we began to see ourselves and the way we lived as distinct from

other animals and their habitats. There came to be two kinds of animals—domesticated

and wild, and two kinds of land—cultivated and untamed. Creating civilization was hard

work and survival not assured; humans dreamt of abundant harvests and gentle rain—of

Paradise—long before Biblical accounts of Eden.12 We developed the conceit of

ownership, and the belief that we had ultimate control over nature.13 Anything not under

our control was wild, and dangerous to our existence (and in reality it was). European

27

folklore and mythology were filled with tales of supernatural beings, monsters and

demons in the wilderness.14

The colonists, as they landed on the shores of the New World, believed that they

were confronting wilderness. Even though we now know that Native Americans exerted

much control over their environments, regularly burning forests to clear areas for

planting, for example,15 to Europeans accustomed to pastoral and cultivated landscapes,

the New World looked and felt like wilderness.16 These new Americans brought with

them the cultural and religious beliefs of Europe: wilderness was a physical threat as well

as a symbol of evil, and it was God’s will that we should tame it. Puritan minister Cotton

Mather (1663-1728) explicitly preached that wilderness was home to dragons, devils and

serpents.17

Westward expansion became a “morality play,” with the pioneers as heroes,

vanquishing the wilderness and the dangerous creatures that inhabited it.18 But wilderness

held other meanings as well. In the accounts of Exodus, wilderness was a place of

challenge, purification, and refuge, a belief which continued on in Christianity. The idea

of wilderness as a source of spiritual enlightenment became deeply rooted in the

Protestantism of New England, and greatly influenced the American nature romanticism

of the Transcendentalists as exemplified by the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry

David Thoreau, and others. A philosophical as well as literary movement of the early 19th

century, Transcendentalism sought solace in nature, believing that wildness could bring

humans closer to God and our true nature.19 The wilderness of America also represented

opportunity, a chance to “build a perfect society according to God’s plan.”20 The roots of

28

our current thinking began early in US history: wilderness (and its creatures) as

dangerous, wilderness as spiritual source—and wilderness as useful.

Wilderness as a Commodity

By the time New World settlement began, profound societal and cultural changes

had come to Europe. The 1517 Reformation had weakened the Roman Catholic Church

and the Scientific Revolution (c. 1550-1700) heralded a new way of looking at the

universe; rather than a divine mystery, the physical world could be understood through

empirical observation and scientific study. The invention of the steam engine and power-

driven machinery began what is now called the Industrial Revolution (c. 1750-1850),

which dramatically altered Europe’s landscape. Large-scale manufacturing and

innovations in transportation brought people into urban communities and new social

classes arose—as did urban blight and air pollution.21 These developments set the stage

for the Age of Enlightenment—a time when humans emerged from superstition into

reason, and recognized the “natural rights” of individuals.22 A repudiation of theocracy,

aristocracy, and the divine right of kings, the Enlightenment espoused freedom of the

common people based on self-governance, liberty, and individual rights.

Humans considered themselves to be above all else. René Descartes wrote his

famous words, “Je pense donc je suis,” (I think, therefore I am) in 1637, distinguishing

humans, from all other creatures, as able to reason and to arrive at knowledge; animals

were, therefore, “beast machines,” possessing no mind and unable to reason.23 Man was

basically good, rational, perfectible, capable of progress, and able to understand the

human condition and the world through reason.24 No longer did kings or the church

29

bestow value. Value came from labor and work. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations

(1776) espoused the idea of a natural order in economics, promoting the concept of

enlightened self-interest and a free-market economy.25 The divine right of kings turned

into the divine right of the individual. Triumph of reason, belief in empirical science,

social progress, capitalism, individual rights, and property ownership—the principles of

the Enlightenment were the principles of the founders of the United States.

Manifest Destiny

When Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), author of the Declaration of Independence

and third President of the US authorized the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in

1803, an additional 800,000 square miles became part of the US. This virtually limitless

expanse, brimming with natural resources, and an abundance of wildlife and fertile soils,

essentially made land and resources available to all Americans, fulfilling one of the tenets

of US founders.26 Westward expansion became our Manifest Destiny; John O’Sullivan,

editor of the United States Democratic Review first put the words together in 1839: “In its

magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest

to mankind the excellence of divine principles. . . Yes, we are the nation of progress, of

individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement . . . freedom of conscience, freedom of

person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This

is our high destiny . . .”27

The new Americans, familiar as they were with Europe’s Industrial Revolution,

possessed a radically different concept of the land than the Native Americans. The land,

rather than providing renewable resources for local sustenance, became a source for

30

global commodities and personal gain. The practice of agriculture became inextricably

intertwined with O’Sullivan’s “universal enfranchisement,” and “freedom of trade and

business pursuits,” in essence, capitalism—characterized by private ownership of capital

goods, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined

mainly by competition in a free market.28 Forests gave way to farmland.

By the 1850s, as a pastoral landscape became the new ideal in the east, the grand

vistas of the west embodied the new paradise. A new myth was born—wilderness was

pristine and devoid of humans, an ideal that chose to ignore the presence of Native

Americans on the landscape.29 Other myths were born as well. America’s wilderness

held unlimited natural resources. Capitalism and property ownership—access to land—

were moral imperatives, central to democracy. Jeremy Bentham enshrined the rule of

utility (or utilitarianism), “the greatest good for the greatest number,” as a moral as well

as political doctrine.30 Paradoxically, Bentham also proffered a new way of looking at

animals, ascribing to them sentience, or awareness and feeling, quite a revolutionary

concept at the time, and in contrast to Descartian thinking.31

Through the 19th century, US government environmental policy was one of

commercial development.32 Westward expansion came at a terrible price: hundreds of

thousands of Native Americans dead or displaced and massive environmental

transformation.33 Through most of the 19th century, no thought was given to conservation

or environmental protection. Loggers cut down forests, mining destroyed mountains,

farmers exhausted soil, levees wiped out wetlands, and hunting and trapping extirpated

many species over large areas of their former ranges.34 Commercial overhunting led to

the extinction of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) and near extinction of the

31

plains bison (Bison bison bison). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and beaver

(Castor canadensis) declined dramatically over much of their range, and many large

mammals were extirpated in the East.35

Romanticism

Some people were taking notice, however. Henry David Thoreau and Ralph

Waldo Emerson, once a Unitarian minister, were the first notable Americans to express a

different value for nature: the Romantic-Transcendental conservation ethic.36 This ethic

revered the beauty of nature and espoused that nature could satisfy our deep spiritual

needs. In 1855 Henry David Thoreau wrote of his beloved New England: “When I

consider that the nobler animals have been exterminated here,—the cougar, panther, lynx,

wolverene, wolf, bear, moose, deer, the beaver, the turkey, etc., etc.,—I cannot but feel as

I lived in a tamed, and, as it were, emasculated country.”37

Romanticism of wilderness, and the corresponding condemnation of civilization,

began in the cities of Europe and early America.38 A reaction against the rationalism of

the previous era and the environmental degradation of the Industrial Revolution,

Romanticism asserted the primacy of humans’ subjective experience and feeling, as well

as deep appreciation of nature.39 Deism, a principle of the Enlightenment that espoused a

belief in God as creator alone, contributed to the romanticism of nature: wilderness and

nature were a manifestation of God’s power and work,40 and we therefore should revere

its sublimity and rue its destruction. American naturalists, writers, and artists extolled the

beauty of nature, lamented its loss, and began calling for land preservation, believing that

wilderness was linked to our national identity;41 among them were Thomas Cole, of the

32

Hudson River School of landscape artists, author James Fennimore Cooper, John James

Audubon, and poet and journalist William Cullen Bryant, editor of the New York

Evening Post from 1828-1878.42

Preservation

Federal and State governments set aside the first permanently protected lands:

Yosemite Valley in 1864; Yellowstone National Park in 1872; and the Adirondack

Mountains in New York in 1885.43 Yosemite was designated a national park in 1890, as a

result of lobbying by John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. That same year, the

Superintendent of the Census, Robert P. Porter, stated that there was no identifiable

frontier left.44 A new outdoor movement had begun to extol wilderness and the “frontier

values” of hard work, self-reliance, inventiveness, and courage.

In the east, the Appalachian Mountain Club was founded in 1876, and in the west,

the Sierra Club in 1892.45 War hero, outdoorsman and big game hunter Theodore

Roosevelt, concerned with the loss of frontier values, founded the Boone and Crockett

Club in 1888,46 along with George Bird Grinnell, General William Tecumseh Sherman,

Gifford Pinchot, and twenty other conservationists, political leaders, and explorers.

Historian Frederick Jackson Turner ascribed our national character to the frontier, and

noted its passing with regret. He wrote, in 1903, that “the first rough conquest of the

wilderness is accomplished and the great supply of free lands which year after year has

served to reinforce the democratic influences in the United States is exhausted.”47

Congress took note, too, and passed the General Revision Act in 1891, creating the Forest

Reserve Act—which authorized the president to set aside forested lands as reserves—an

33

abrupt change by a government that had previously advocated Western expansion and

quickly transferred land to settlers.48 Although established to “reserve” timber and

enhance water quality for humans, these lands were indeed protected from outright

development, and by 1905, forest reserves encompassed 86 million acres of land.49

Wilderness advocates were pleased with preservation efforts, but local access was

now restricted, much to the dismay of rural settlers who lived off the land—and Western

legislators. Theodore Roosevelt found himself arguing for forest conservation and against

local “land skinners,” presaging battles to come.50 Through the 1900s, conflicts between

resource use and conservation would harden into rural hostility toward government

efforts at preservation. This set the stage for today’s battles over wilderness and wildlife,

battles fought along regional, economic, and social lines.51

Charles Darwin and Animal Welfare

There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties . . . . Even the lower animals . . . manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. —Charles Darwin, 1871

By the end of the 19th century, heavy trapping had nearly destroyed beaver

populations, buffalo were gone, the passenger pigeon was all but extinct, and other bird

populations were declining.52 Many large mammals in the East had been extirpated.

People were no longer as reliant on subsistence hunting, and a new urban class began to

see hunting as a sport.53 Both hunters and conservationists recognized that regulation was

necessary and they helped to create state fish and game agencies, funded by hunting

license fees and taxes on firearms.54 Hunting seasons and bag limits were established, and

rules of sportsmanship developed; and Congress passed the first wildlife protection act.

34

The Lacey Act, championed by Representative John F. Lacey of Iowa, a Boone &

Crockett Club member, was passed in 1900, making it illegal to transport from one state

or territory to another any wild animals or birds killed in violation of state or territorial

law.55

Human views of animals had begun to change mid-19th century, and escalated

with Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his theory of evolution, which proposed that

species change over time and may branch away from a common ancestor as the result of

a process of natural selection.56 Darwin, in Descent of Man (1871), wrote that there was

no fundamental difference between man and higher mammals in their mental faculties.57

Humane societies sprung up in Great Britain and the US; the American Society of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1866 in New York City as people noted

the deep bonds they had with their pets—and began to deplore the commercial

exploitation of wildlife.58

The Progressive Era, Muir and Pinchot

Conservation means the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time.

—Gifford Pinchot, 1910

Brought into right relationships with the wilderness, man would see that his appropriation of Earth's resources beyond his personal needs would only bring imbalance and begat ultimate loss and poverty by all.

—John Muir, 1913

The Forest Reserve Act in 1891 had laid the foundation for a radical change in US

environmental policy: namely, that large areas of land should remain in government

ownership and be managed by professionals. Like Jefferson, the Progressive Era

conservationists believed in equity; forest reserves held in trust by the government would

35

benefit many rather than few.59 Working together with reformer Gifford Pinchot and

preservationist John Muir, President Theodore Roosevelt ushered in a new era of planned

and managed conservation. He transformed government, greatly enlarging its role and

actively managing federal lands for conservation as well as other uses, setting the stage

for his cousin’s work during the New Deal.60

Pinchot, under Roosevelt, re-opened forest reserves to logging and grazing (albeit

with permits and fees); Congress designated these reserves “national forests” in 1902.61

Roosevelt, as an outdoorsman and naturalist, did advocate for land preservation. He

brought an additional 148 million acres under federal control, and created national parks,

national monuments, and wildlife refuges, advocating for roads, rail lines, and

campgrounds to improve access, but extirpating Native American presence from the

wilderness lands in the process.62 Roosevelt was not without his detractors, however;

among them were Muir, who was skeptical of strictly utilitarian objectives in

conservation.

Muir, born in Scotland and raised by austerely religious parents, found solace in

nature as a youth. Greatly influenced by his reading of Transcendentalists Emerson and

Thoreau, and by his travels through North American wilderness after his family

emigrated, he developed a “biocentric consciousness” and a belief that wilderness

embodied divinity.63 Pinchot hailed from eastern Pennsylvania, where his grandfather

and father were lumber entrepreneurs, clear-cutting forests and then selling the land to

farmers.64 But as his father witnessed the consequences of the family’s business, he

became a champion of the new profession of forestry, even sponsoring a summer forestry

school at the family estate in Milford, Pennsylvania.65 James Pinchot went on to endow

36

the Yale School of Forestry, and sent his son Gifford to France to study forestry; there he

began to see forest as a crop, able to yield a guaranteed and sustainable supply of trees ad

infinitum. Pinchot first met Muir in 1893 after Muir had already founded the Sierra Club.

The elder Muir, at 55, came to mentor the younger Pinchot, who was just 28, and they

were both appointed to the National Forest Commission in 1896, created by Secretary of

the Interior, Hoke Smith, to study the nation’s forest reserves.66

Muir and Pinchot became colleagues and close friends, but came to realize their

fundamentally different worldviews—one a naturalist and preservationist, the other a

forester and conservationist. In the end, their relationship became adversarial. Their

strategic alliance, however, is credited with creating a new conservation ethic in

government.67 Their competing worldviews still influence today’s debates about the

value of natural world—is it intrinsic or utilitarian?

Predators, Preservation and a New Science

Even with a new emphasis on preservation and conservation, predators had not

fared so well, interfering, it was supposed, with populations of game animals meant for

human consumption or sport.68 The government enacted bounties for wolves, bears,

mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats. Federal and state agencies, private bounty hunters,

individual farmers, and ranchers cleared wolves from most of the continental US by

1930s.69 Between 1921 and 1924, the US Biological Survey killed 400,000 predators;70

the professional hunters used strychnine, arsenic, and cyanide—and killed millions of

other animals in the process: ravens, eagles, foxes, raccoons, and others.71

37

In 1927, zoologist Charles Sutherland Elton published Animal Ecology, in which

he discussed the revolutionary concepts of food webs, ecological niches, and ecosystem

structure.72 The term, “oecology,” actually dates from 1867 and the work of German

biologist Ernst Haeckel, a concept he developed as he studied Darwin’s ideas. By the

1890’s, “ecologists,” like American botanist Frederic Clemens began to study species

interactions and talk about the balance of nature, which we now understand to be much

more fluid.73 Elton’s work led others to examine and question the conventional wisdom

of the time—that predators were bad for game species.

Game species’ populations, despite predator extermination, bag limits and

established hunting seasons, were uneven and in some cases declining and game

managers wanted to know why.74 A profusion of studies followed, looking at everything

from predators to food supply to snow cover. Naturalists, scientists, and game managers

studied the Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla

gambelii), coyote (Canis latrans), elk (Cervus canadensis), Dall sheep (Ovis dalli), and

wolves (Canis lupus). By the 1940s, study results prompted a new vision of conservation

that transformed game management; managers educated the public about the benefits of

cover, explained food webs, and defended predators.75

One game manager, turned conservationist and author, put a name to this new

way of looking at nature—the Evolutionary-Ecological Land Ethic. Aldo Leopold (1887-

1948), hunter, scientist, forester, and defender of wildlands, became instrumental in the

development of the science of wildlife ecology, and is considered the father of wildlife

management.76 He wrote the Forest Service’s first Game and Fish Handbook, and

developed the first comprehensive management plan for the Grand Canyon.77

38

Recognizing the importance of evolution and ecology and the interdependent processes

of the natural world, he wrote, “There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to the

land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it. The land-relation is still strictly

economic, entailing privileges but not obligations. . . . In short, a land ethic changes the

role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen

of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members and also respect for the community as

such.”78 Leopold was emblematic of the change in how scientists and wilderness

advocates understood the natural world, transformed by the studies of the 1930s.79 He

began as an anti-predator hunter, but eventually recognized the importance of predators

to healthy ecosystems, to the point of writing about his epiphany in Sand County

Almanac.80

The public began to link the ecological view of wildlife and nature with the anti-

killing humane view. The web of life idea “gave scientific warrant to the Romantic

conception of a world in which each part had a purpose and a place, [and] fostered an

emotional identification with nature through a vision of order based on the new

science.”81 Some people no longer judged predators using human standards of good and

evil; they were, rather, simply part of the web of life.

Public Policy and the New Deal

Congress created the National Park Service in 1916, the same year that it passed

the first Federal Highway Act; by 1920, it had established seventy federal wildlife

refuges. With the development of the automobile, outdoor recreation became a “cultural

imperative.”82 Government invested in infrastructure and roads on public lands. The

39

Great Depression further drove public policy; the financial and environmental destruction

of the Depression and Dust Bowl galvanized government activism. At its peak, the Dust

Bowl covered one hundred million acres—an area the size of Pennsylvania, and 250,000

people fled Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico during the 1930s.83

Roosevelt and his administration responded with massive federal intervention.

In addition to economic programs, FDR created numerous environmental

initiatives: the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Soil Conservation Service, and the

Tennessee Valley Authority, water resource development programs, reforms in grazing

and wildlife management (creating the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1939), and

agricultural stabilization policies, among others. The environmental policies of the New

Deal demonstrated that the environment did not exist only to be exploited for profit—and

that government leadership, rather than market forces, was an “effective instrument” to

conserve and restore nature.84 But the New Deal was also building roads and paths and

other recreational infrastructure on public lands, much to the dismay of wilderness

advocates. Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, Benton MacKaye, and Robert Sterling Yard

founded The Wilderness Society in 1935 as the first national organization dedicated to

preserving wilderness.85

The Modern Era

In the next thirty years, striking changes in American society would culminate in

the environmental movement of the 1960s and 70s.”86 People’s relationships to the land

became attenuated, as they moved off the farm and started purchasing, rather than raising

their own food. Between 1940 and 1970, agricultural employment dropped 72 percent

40

and white collar jobs increased 250 percent.87 The post World War II years saw

supermarkets and suburbs, mass consumption and the baby-boom. All these people

needed lumber and water; western states built dams and timber production escalated in

national forests, intensifying debates between preservationists and resource users.88 For

the first time, pesticides, fertilizers, detergents and plastics were put into widespread

use.89 Congress passed the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, which along with a huge

increase in automobile ownership, led to unprecedented visitation to public lands.90

People in the suburbs needed cars, and people in white-collar jobs sitting at desks all day

needed to take a drive into the countryside on the weekend, or visit National Parks during

their paid vacations.

Even as they enjoyed previously unimagined prosperity, the post-war generation

became increasingly interested in experiencing the outdoors, in hopes of encountering the

wild landscapes of the frontiersmen and pioneers. Conservation groups, buoyed by these

recreational users, enjoyed revitalization and new political clout.91 But the wilderness

was being loved to death; the new threats to public lands and increased recreational use

led to a push to preserve what little wilderness was left, leading to the passage of The

Wilderness Act in 1964.92 Americans’ increasing prosperity and consumptive demand

had additional environmental consequences. Researchers found dangerous carcinogenic

pesticides in cranberries, triggering the 1959 Cranberry Scare and Rachel Carson wrote

Silent Spring in 1962, exposing the dangers of pesticides to wildlife.93 In 1969 the Santa

Barbara oil spill contaminated miles and miles of coastline and the Cuyahoga River

caught on fire, burning for eight days.94 And it all happened on television. Americans

began to connect it all: pollution, extinction of species, destruction of wilderness. In

41

short, we began to realize that everything was joined together on our small planet. By the

end of the 1960s, diverse interest groups—from nature preservationists to sportsmen to

the League of Woman Voters—mobilized and demanded new environmental laws

addressing air and water pollution, pesticides, wilderness and wildlife.95

The precursor to the Endangered Species Act, the Endangered Species Protection

Act, was passed in 1966. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into

law in 1970, was the first of the modern environmental statutes, requiring that federal

agencies conduct thorough assessments of the environmental impacts of all major

activities undertaken or funded by the federal government.96 The US government created

the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, and the first Earth Day mobilized millions

of people.97

Congress and the Nixon and Carter administrations created agencies and

commissions and enacted dozens of environmental statutes and laws in the 1970s,

including the Clean Air Act (1970), Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species

Act (1973).98 (Table 1.1.) People began to refine their views of wildlife and animals. In

1954, two new humane organizations had taken revolutionary positions: the Humane

Society of the United States broke from the American Humane Association with an anti-

hunting stance, and the Anti-Steel Trap League reorganized itself as Defenders of

Wildlife. Peter Singer wrote Animal Liberation in 1975, a seminal text for the animal

rights movement that took Bentham and his argument for humane treatment of animals

based on sentience one step further, applying it to all animals.99

42

Backlash and Polarization

Even as so many groups came together during the 1960s and 70s, they did so for

different reasons, and the informal coalition of conservationists, sportsmen, and anti-

pollution activists began to unravel. Between the Wilderness Act and its mandated review

of public lands and NEPA’s public review of all government actions, rural westerners

(hunters, ranchers and off-road vehicle [ORV] users) and the resource industry (timber,

oil and gas, mining) feared that their access would be further limited.100 The coalition

fractured completely with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act of 1980, as locals joined together with the resource industry in populist opposition to

a sophisticated national campaign led by the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society.101

The environmentalists won protection of nearly one-third of Alaska as parks, preserves,

and wilderness, but the battle instilled a bitterness in the opposition that remains today;

wilderness and its advocates came to be seen as a threat to progress and threat to access

of public lands.102

The battles escalated even further in the 1980s, with the spotted owl and the

timber industry controversy over old-growth forest in the Northwest; now the issue

became “jobs vs. the environment.”103 Concurrently, backlash against mainstream

environmentalism emerged from opposite forces. Radical environmentalists decried what

they saw as too much compromise with government agencies, and the anti-

environmentalists organized the Sagebrush Rebellion.104 Named after the Western states

in which it began, the Sagebrush Rebellion called for lands in the public domain to be

transferred to state control.105

43

As Congress changed guidelines for disposition of federal lands with the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act passed, Western states believed that the federal government favored preservation

over commercial and resource development. By 1981, fifteen states had passed

legislation calling for federal lands to be transferred to state control.106 Ranchers in the

Western states fought against national forest rehabilitation and designation of forest lands

as wilderness areas, and soon found one of their own in the White House. Ronald Reagan

ran on an anti-government, anti-regulation platform. He went so far as to install as his

Interior Secretary, James Watt—who had headed up the Mountain States Legal

Foundation, an organization that sues the government on behalf of private landowners.

Reagan didn’t roll back environmental regulations as much as his supporters had hoped,

but he did stall progress on wilderness designations.107 In reaction, environmental groups

saw huge growth under Reagan.108

But the anti-environmental/anti-government groups didn’t give up. The Wise Use

movement, founded in the late 1980s by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, both of the

Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, aimed to speak for people in the West who

believed that environmental laws interfered with private property rights. Among other

issues, the Wise Use movement advocated for developing oil and gas reserves in the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opening all public lands to mineral exploration, and

redesignating the majority of wilderness lands for motorized travel. 109 In 1989, Catron

County, New Mexico began the “county supremacy movement,” when it passed an

ordinance giving itself the authority to veto federal regulations; more than thirty-five

counties eventually joined the movement.110 These groups and others came together in

44

1991 to form the Alliance for America, whose agenda it was to dismantle environmental

regulations affecting both private and public lands.

Environmental Thinking Today

In the 1980s, a new science came to the fore—and for the last 20 years, the

science of conservation biology has affected how we look at wilderness and wildlife and

our efforts at conservation. Today, many forward-thinking biologists and land managers

look at biodiversity (biological diversity), as well as species’ interactions in ecosystems,

rather than focusing on the presence or absence of a single species. Today, ecologists

know that the “balance of nature” is a myth. Humans have altered ecosystems for

millennia, and conservation biologists now recognize that nature is always in flux, with

flora and fauna responding to weather, or fire, or disease—or human influences.111 Those

working in the fields of ecology and conservation biology also know that habitat

fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity112 and wilderness areas we

have set aside may not be sufficient in size to protect it.113 This means that conservation

of biodiversity and our ecosystem health now depends on us, and entails our

“management,” and in some cases restoration, which have led to new controversies—on

both sides.

Today the groups that came together in the 1960s and 70s in support of diverse

environmental issues are often at odds. With regard to the Snowbowl and the San

Francisco Peaks, one could argue that the discussion involves differing utilitarian values,

for both sides see wilderness as providing or embodying something for them. Wilderness

advocates are just one more special interest group, characterized by opponents as well-off

45

backpackers who value wildlife over humans.114 Government policy about public lands

and predator control has changed drastically. Federal and state agencies are reintroducing

species previously extirpated (by government funded bounty hunters)—something

unthinkable 50 years ago. Rural hostility in the west continues, as locals continue to lose

access to land.115 Environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies to enforce

federal statutes. And our views about animals have been described as “moral

schizophrenia.”116

Our complex cultural history, reaction to societal changes, and economic

challenges inform our thinking about wilderness and nature and wildlife and animals.

Americans’ conflicted worldviews about nature and wilderness, some centuries old, have

stayed with us. Do we value wilderness and wildlife for what they provide humans or

because they have an intrinsic right to exist? As discussed in the next chapter, this

question is central to how we view the Endangered Species Act and species recovery.

46

Table 1.1. US environmental laws, statutes and commissions of the 1970s. 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Creation of the Council on Environmental Quality Clean Air Act Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) created Water Quality Improvement Act Public Land Law Review Commission created 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act Coastal Zone Management Act Marine Mammal Protection Act 1973 Endangered Species Act International agreement Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species EPA begins phasedown of leaded gasoline 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) 1976 National Forest Management Act Federal Lands Policy and Management Act Fisheries Management and Conservation Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Toxic Substances Control Act 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act 1978 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) banned for most uses Public Utilities Regulatory Act 1979 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”)

Source: Andrews, 2006, pp. 425-428

47

Chapter Two: The Endangered Species Act and Species Recovery

As of this writing, 583 animals and 792 plants in the US are in such danger of

extinction that they’ve been placed on the endangered species list—among them 85

mammals, 92 birds, and 140 fishes.1 At the time the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was

passed in 1973, an estimated 500 species or subspecies had already been driven to

extinction in North America—including the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius),

Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis), Eastern elk (Cervus canadensis

canadiensis), and great auk (Pinguinus impennis).2 On the first endangered species list

were wolves and grizzly bears and the Florida panther.3 All of them are still on it.

The Endangered Species Act, one of dozens of environmental laws passed in the

1970s, is considered to be one of the most far-reaching environmental laws ever enacted.4

Has it fulfilled its mission of conserving endangered and threatened species? Since its

inception, our understanding of natural world processes has greatly evolved. Does the

ESA still make sense thirty-eight years later? Why has it become so controversial? In

this chapter I discuss the history and background of the ESA, and its framework and

mechanics, as well as the criticisms directed at the statute. I also discuss various

perspectives on whether or not the ESA has indeed fulfilled its mission.

History and Background

The ESA has its roots in the conservation movement of late 19th century, as the

American public began to think about landscape preservation and to view animals in a

48

different way. We have also seen that further societal changes after World War II

transformed our thinking about nature and public safety, culminating in the

environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s.5 Work on conservation and pollution

issues had begun earlier, late in the 1950s. The Congressional Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Committee (ORRRC), convened in 1958, involved policy makers who

later developed major air and water pollution and wilderness legislation, including the

Wilderness Act of 1964.6 The Forest Service’s Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960

explicitly added recreation as a new official use of the national forests,7 and President

John F. Kennedy signed legislation creating a subsidy program for wastewater treatment.

Kennedy convened a White House Conference on Conservation in 1961, and President

Lyndon B. Johnson included natural beauty and pollution cleanup as part of his “Great

Society” vision.8

The Endangered Species Act

Republican President Richard M. Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into

law on December 28, 1973, stating, “At a time when Americans are more concerned than

ever with conserving our natural resources, this legislation provides the Federal

Government with needed authority to protect an irreplaceable part of our national

heritage—threatened wildlife. . . Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of

preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It

is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it

forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”9 After settling their

49

differences in conference, the US Senate passed the bill on a voice vote (after originally

voting 92-0), and it passed in the House by 355-4.10

Framework of the ESA

The ESA, administered by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department

of the Interior, recognizes that certain species are in danger or threatened with extinction,

and states that, “these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological,

educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people

[§2(a)].” The term endangered species, defined in Section 3(6), refers to any species that

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, while the

term threatened species “means any species which is likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

[§3(20)].”

The purpose of the ESA is to provide “a means whereby the ecosystems upon

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a

program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to

take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and

conventions set forth . . . [§2(b)].”11 This clause established the importance of taking an

ecosystem approach to conserving species, and led to the requirement in the 1978

reauthorization to designate critical habitat for species. As discussed later in this chapter,

less that half of listed species have had critical habitat designated, and since 1978,

additional amendments and administrative changes have weakened the requirement.

50

The ESA also declares that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to

conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in

furtherance of the purposes of this act [§2(c)].” Determinations are to be made by the

Secretary “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available . . . [§

4(b)]” and the Secretary is to develop recovery plans “for the conservation and survival

of endangered species and threatened species [§4(f)(1)] . . . without regard to taxonomic

classification . . . [§ 4(f)(1)(A)].” Take, meaning “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” is

prohibited in Section 9. In addition, the ESA mandates federal and state interagency

cooperation for implementation of recovery plans and monitoring after de-listing.12

(Table 2.1 contains additional ESA terminology.)

Listing a Species

The USFWS utilizes a Five Factor analysis as criteria for adding a species to the

endangered species list [§4(a)1], and in subsequent reviews of a species’ recovery, as

discussed in later chapters:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Any individual or organization may petition the ESA with a formal request to list a

species (or take a species off the list) based on supporting biological data, such as species

distribution or threats. USFWS biologists also conduct their own assessments of

51

candidate species, and may propose listing.13 Within one year of receiving a petition, the

USFWS will publish in the Federal Register a proposed listing rule, with a 60-day

comment period. Subsequently, USFWS will: 1) publish a final listing rule, either as

proposed or amended; 2) withdraw the proposal because the listing is not supported by

biological information; or 3) issue a six-month extension of the proposal. Even if a

species is found to be a candidate for listing, the finding by USFWS may be “warranted

but precluded,” meaning that action is delayed because of higher priority candidates.14

Species Recovery

When an animal or plant is added to the list, it gains protections as well as efforts

to avert its extinction. The ESA provides for restrictions on Federal activities that may

affect a species [§7], as well as restrictions on take and selling or transporting a species.

USFWS is also required to develop and implement recovery plans for species, to “stop

the decline of an endangered or threatened species by removing or reducing threats,” with

the goal of ensuring the “long-term survival of the species in the wild.”15 In addition,

state agencies that have cooperative agreements with USFWS for species recovery

receive federal dollars for those activities.16 Recovery plans, although non-regulatory

documents, detail management actions necessary to achieve recovery of a species. These

may include restoring habitat, removing invasive species, or reintroducing species to

areas of their former range(s), which may entail propagation or captive breeding of

species for reintroduction.17

In 1981, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) created the Species

Survival Program (SSP) to assist with long-term conservation of species by initiating

52

captive breeding programs, public education, and research projects; today the AZA

monitors all captive breeding programs. Among others, the AZA and the Center for Plant

Conservation (CPC) each have Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS

providing for joint efforts to conserve North American animals and plants.18 The

Peregrine Fund, one of the other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that assists

with endangered species recovery, manages one of the condor reintroduction programs.19

When the USFWS considers a species to be recovered, (i.e., its long-term survival

is ensured), the species is removed from the endangered species list, or “delisted.” If a

species is reclassified from endangered to threatened, it is “downlisted.” Again, USFWS

utilizes the five factors discussed earlier to make such recommendations, and a proposed

rule is published in the Federal Register. Once a species is removed from the list, a five-

year monitoring period ensues, ensuring that the animal or plant maintains adequate

numbers.

Amendments to the ESA

The current version of the ESA is not as prohibitive as the original; amendments

and administrative changes adopted over the years have transformed the law into a much

more flexible instrument. As with many legislative acts, Congress periodically

reauthorizes the ESA, thereby extending it, and sometimes amending it. Among other

changes, the 1978 reauthorization required: 1) listing of critical habitat if necessary (one

of the more controversial provisions); and 2) written biological opinions as part of ESA

consultations. It also created the Endangered Species Committee [§7(e)], nicknamed the

“God Squad,” because it can determine the fate of a species by exempting it from

53

protection, thereby enabling its extinction.20 Composed of the Secretary of Agriculture,

the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the Interior, the

Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a

Presidential appointee from the affected state(s), the God Squad has been convened only

three times.21

The 1982 reauthorization provided for the reintroduction of “experimental

populations,” with relaxed taking restrictions. This amendment, under Section 10, also

removes the requirement for consultation with other federal agencies for these

populations. The 1982 reauthorization also created “habitat conservation plans,” allowing

for incidental takings on private property. Administrative changes to the law regarding

implementation saved the ESA in the 1990s during the Clinton administration.

Republican opposition threatened to gut the law, and in response, Clinton’s Secretary of

the Interior Bruce Babbitt introduced incentive-based strategies to placate private

landowners and developers.22 These include candidate conservation agreements, and safe

harbor agreements, which, when implemented, include assurances that no further

restrictions will apply. In candidate conservation agreements, landowners may

voluntarily undertake specified actions to conserve candidate or proposed species; safe

harbor agreements pertain to conservation of endangered species.23 (Tables 2.1 and 2.2.)

Despite the amendments and administrative changes, the ESA remains a ground-

breaking law. It explicitly recognizes the value of all animals and plants, for “esthetic,

ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” reasons [§2(a)(3)], and

states that habitat protection is necessary to species conservation [§2(b)]. Listing of

54

species is to be based solely upon science [§4(b)], implying species’ fundamental right to

exist.24 It is not perfect, however; during the 1960s and 70s, we didn’t know what we do

today. The ESA, although it speaks to habitat conservation, really focused on take—

hunting, overharvesting, or killing of species. We didn’t fully understand the importance

of biodiversity, and conservation biology as a science was just emerging.25

Conservation biology is defined as the science of not only preserving species, but

their interactions within functioning ecosystems, as discussed in the next few pages. The

law was designed to treat a symptom—extinction—rather than addressing the underlying

causes for it. Americans came together in the 1960s and 70s, trying to avert crises,

wanting to save the animals they saw on television—large, charismatic animals—iconic

species such as wolves, grizzly bears, whales, whooping cranes, and bald eagles.26 The

first endangered species list was compiled in 1967, and listed seventy-eight species, all

vertebrates.27 Today the list includes invertebrates and plants, and numbers 1,375;

another twenty-eight are proposed for listing and 269 more are candidate species.28

The Extinction Curve

Averting extinction and conserving animal populations has proven to be much

more problematic and the work much more difficult than we anticipated forty years ago.

More species have been listed than have recovered. In fact, a term, the “extinction curve”

was coined by the editors of The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Dale D. Goble and J.

Michael Scott, both professors at the University of Idaho, to describe the growing number

of species in danger of extinction.29 Is that a failure of the ESA—or a failure of

implementation? Of the seventy-eight listed species in 1967, sixty-nine remain on the

55

list. Three have fully recovered and have been removed from the list: the bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and Aleutian

Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia); several have been downlisted to

threatened; others incorrectly listed; and eleven most likely extinct.30 The majority of the

species listed in 1967 were threatened by habitat destruction (76 percent), followed by

invasive species (38 percent), overharvest, disease, and pollution.

These threats still stand today,31 and when habitat destruction or degradation is

the primary threat to species, recovery is extremely difficult.32 Habitat threats include

human activities such as urbanization, agriculture, outdoor recreation, domestic livestock

and ranching, reservoirs and dams, mineral and oil extraction, logging, road presence and

construction, aquifer depletion and wetland draining, and fire suppression, fire regime

modification, and forest management practices such as clear-cutting.33 But habitat

destruction is symptomatic of much larger and more complex reasons for species

endangerment—social and cultural values, politics and power, and economics—reasons

that often lead to conflict.34

Has the ESA recovered any species? Consensus is that it has: twenty-two of the

1,370 species listed as of 2004 have become extinct, while hundreds more probably

would have become extinct without ESA protection.35 But prevention of extinction is not

the same as recovery, and only fifteen have been removed from the list as recovered.

Why? For most recovered species, something other than habitat loss was the problem.36

Other issues affect recovery as well. From the time a species is proposed for the list to the

time of listing averages eleven years, which further jeopardizes survival as populations

continue to dwindle.37 The ESA doesn’t define what recovery or long-term health of

56

species means.38 Nor does it specify criteria for determining population thresholds,

extinction risk or demographic trends or threats, as does the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) global “red list.”39

The ESA states that a species is endangered when it is “in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” [§3(6)] or threatened when it is

“likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. . . ” [§3(20)]. The

lack of thresholds for determining population trends or risk means that far fewer species

are listed under the ESA than, for example, NatureServe. A non-profit conservation

organization, NatureServe seeks to provide a scientific basis for effective conservation

action and is one of the leading sources for information about rare and endangered

species and threatened ecosystems. The organization, which utilizes similar criteria as

IUCN, including population number and size, trends, and threats, lists 11,069 species in

the US as imperiled or critically imperiled, far more than are on the US endangered

species list.40

Researchers and government agencies began tackling the issue of species’

population viability in the 1970s: how do we know when a population has gotten too

small to persist? The development of Population Viability Analysis (PVA) enabled

wildlife researchers to model the probability of extinction by developing computer

models. In 1978, doctoral candidate Mark Shaffer developed a model for grizzly bears

that utilized demographic data and chance environmental events—and estimated a

minimum viable population size. His model could find the “smallest population size with

a 95% chance of remaining extant after the simulated 100-year period.”41 With the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 mandating that the Forest Service maintain

57

viable populations of vertebrates, the concept of MVP was embraced by the agency and

wildlife managers—they could ascertain the smallest number of a species likely to persist

over a given length of time.42

Today, however, we know that minimum viable populations don’t necessarily

address the issue of functionality in ecosystems, nor can models address all the specifics

of a species’ characteristics or random events.43 Yet, agencies generally manage for

minimum viable populations, or for goals influenced by political considerations.44 Some

recovery plans were written before we fully understood species’ population dynamics.

For example, population goals for both the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf

(proposed in 1987), and the Mexican wolf (proposed in 1982) are thought to be low, and

not at all consistent with current science. Delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountain gray

wolf in 2011 was based upon recovery goals of 15 packs and 150 animals in each of the

three states45—Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. And the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan

dates from 1982, and calls for a target population of only 100 wolves,46 although the

Recovery Plan is currently being rewritten (See Chapter 7).

Some species’ numbers are improving: the whooping crane, Key deer

(Odocoileus virginianus clavium), gray wolf, grizzly bear, black-footed ferret, and

California condor, among others.47 Will they recover? It’s really too soon to tell; most

species have been listed less than forty years, a mere moment in evolutionary time.

Perhaps we have expected too much of the law, thinking that we’d list, fix, and recover

species quickly. What we do know is this: the longer a species is listed, the more likely it

is increasing in numbers.48

58

The ESA and Conservation Biology

We are not only losing species in the US, but globally. The current worldwide

loss of species (or loss of biodiversity) can be compared with the mass prehistoric

extinctions of the Permian-Triassic (245 million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Tertiary

(65 million years ago).49 But those previous extinctions were likely caused by natural

disasters, and new worlds arose. Today, human activities are to blame for the coming

mass extinction. Activities like overharvesting and overfishing, farming, logging, mining,

and road-building have caused loss and degradation of habitat, and habitat

fragmentation.50 The results will not just affect other species, but may ultimately affect us

as well. First documented in the 1960s and 70s, this extinction crisis led to the creation of

a new discipline—conservation biology. Michael Soulé, founder of the Society for

Conservation Biology, in 1985 described the new field as a “synthetic discipline [that]

addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and

ecosystems,” with the goal of providing the tools needed to preserve biological

diversity.51

How does the field of conservation biology address threats to biodiversity—or

species endangerment? Biodiversity is much more than species diversity. It also includes

genetic and population-level diversity, as well as community, ecosystem, and landscape

diversity—in short, the variety of life on earth—from the smallest level of organization to

the largest.52 Each level (which can also be called a system of its own) is nested within

the next; for example, a tree is part of a forest stand which is part of landscape, and that

landscape is part of an ecoregion.

59

Thus, conservation of biodiversity is about more than mere survival, or preventing

extinction; it is about functioning systems. Conservation biology attempts to provide a

scientific basis for the management, conservation and restoration of each of these systems

as related to the whole. Conservation biologists believe, as I do, that consideration of

these systems is essential to species recovery. We also know that humans depend on the

services provided by these systems as well. Ecosystem services are benefits humans can

receive from the earth. Tangible services include the formation of soil and nutrient

cycling—supporting services; production of food and water—provisioning services; and

favorable climate and water purification—regulating services. Intangible services include

cultural elements, such as spirituality, education, and recreation--those that are harder to

measure in economic terms.53

Conservation biologists consider many issues when assessing, evaluating and

planning for species and ecosystem management and survival: species demographics,

genetic variation and population dynamics; systems considerations of habitat

fragmentation, species interactions, and conservation reserves; invasive species; and

climate change, and others.54

Another way to talk about these issues is by utilizing the terms representation,

redundancy, and resiliency. Representation refers to maintaining or establishing

genetically diverse populations among a number of habitats, which ideally would

encompass as much of the original range of a species as possible. Prairie dog

populations, discussed in chapter 4, occupy about 2 percent of their former range—and so

lack representation. Redundancy provides for multiple populations and reduces risk to a

population in the face of catastrophe. The Wallow Fire in Arizona, for example, burned

60

more that 500,000 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in June and July of

2011—much of the habitat of the only wild population of the Mexican wolf. The fire

burned over three dens, and several previously documented pups have not been seen

since.55 Resiliency speaks to the likelihood of a population’s persistence in the face of

ecological perturbations (such as climate change), and addresses the genetic and

demographic health of a population. In other words, it speaks to how large a population

should be, one of the most vexing questions that conservation biologists are asked. There

appears to be, however, general agreement that populations numbering at a minimum

several thousand are needed to achieve representation, redundancy, and resiliency.56

Recovery plans would have more likelihood of success if they specifically

addressed the above concepts, rather than equating recovery with viability.57 In fact,

Carlos Carroll of the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in California and his

colleagues argue that habitat connectivity (corridors or areas that link different

populations), and ecological effectiveness, should be added to recovery goals, as well.58

An ecologically effective population exists in numbers high enough and over a wide

enough area for a species to play its role within an ecosystem.59

Some species play particularly important roles within ecosystems, and are

considered to be “strongly interactive.” They exert influence within an ecosystem

disproportionate to their numbers in they way they interact, demonstrating habitat

enrichment, mutualism, predation, and competition; they may be species that are (or

were) extremely abundant or widespread or that exhibit ecological dominance.60 Beavers

(Castor canadensis), for example, engineer significant changes in habitat by building

dams and creating ponds and wetlands. Other species, like the Abert squirrel (Sciurus

61

aberti), depend almost exclusively upon ponderosa pine trees for food—and in return

provide soil enrichment for the trees by dispersing seed and mycorrhizal fungi61 (fungi

which live on the roots of the pines.) Wolves, as apex predators, may dominate

ecosystems and influence ungulate populations by predation, while prairie dog colonies

support burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), badgers (Taxidea taxus), rabbits, snakes—

and black-footed ferrets, among other species.62

The influence of large carnivores on trophic structure (the structure of food webs)

cannot be overestimated. Absence of predators can lead to a surge in population (also

called an irruption) of elk or deer, for example, leading to significant changes in forest

composition. Or it may lead to a release in the population of mesopredators, or mid-size

predators, such as foxes.63

The idea of ecological effectiveness was created by Michael Soulé and his

colleagues, who most often apply this concept to strongly interactive species. Soulé et al.

describe two conservation goals that address ecological effectiveness: that strongly

interactive species be conserved or recovered over wide geographic areas (geographic

representation of interactions); and that they are recovered in densities great enough to

ensure ecosystem functionality (ecologically effective densities).64 Current recovery

goals are not only inadequate for strongly interactive species, but for most species, as

they are based upon demographics (MVP) rather than recovery of ecological

functionality.65

Quite obviously, then, populations numbering several thousand individuals would

need large areas of habitat, further adding to the importance of habitat connectivity.

What about habitat conservation under the ESA? The 1978 amendments to the ESA

62

provide for designation of “critical habitat” for species [§3], defined as a “specific

geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or

endangered species and that may require special management and protection.”66 This

designation only applies to situations that involve federal agency actions or federally

funded activities and may include habitat that is currently unoccupied by the species in

question. Critical habitat has been designated for 601 species as of June, 2011, and those

species are more likely to be improving in status as a result.67

Private landowners were given some flexibility in development of their property

with amendments in 1982 that enabled Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) under §10,

which allow some incidental take of endangered species if the plans do not reduce the

likelihood of survival or recovery of species. For example, ranchers living on the border

between Arizona and Mexico created the 828,000-acre Malpai Borderlands Group to

address issues of common concern. The group’s HCP was approved in 2008 and allows

for grassland improvement and ranching activities while also improving habitat for nine

listed species, including the Yaqui Chub (Gila purpurea), northern Aplomado falcon

(Falco femoralis), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), and Chiricahua

leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). Today, 679 HCPs are active (and 392 expired), but

results are not promising. Most species covered by HCPs are declining in numbers.68

Politics and the ESA

Competing world views and economic issues led to political conflict around

conservation, preservation, and the ESA after President Nixon signed it into law.

Economic uncertainty in the rural West during the 1980s due to overproduction and

63

international competition, led to further polarization. James Morton Turner, Assistant

Professor at Wellesley College, writes in American Wilderness: A New History, “. . .

wilderness politics hardened into a bitter stalemate pitting jobs against wilderness, rural

communities against urban environmentalists, and Republicans against Democrats.”69

Perhaps no action exemplifies this polarization better than when President Clinton twice

let the federal government shut down (in 1995 and 1996) until the Republican Party

removed various anti-environmental budget riders.

Clinton cemented his legacy as a conservationist president by protecting more

lands in the continental US than any other previous president.70 But his actions served to

further enrage Western state and local governments, resource extraction industries, and

off-road vehicle users. The Alliance for America and Republican Revolution hadn’t

succeeded, but they brought together a coalition of anti-environmentalists under the

banner of the American values of individual freedom and antipathy to government.

George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, a signal to some that

environmentalism was dead.71 Along with a Republican Congress, Bush began to

dismantle Clinton’s land protection policies; he appointed business leaders to positions in

Agriculture, Energy and Interior, withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations on

greenhouse-gas emissions, and announced that he would consider opening all public

lands to oil and gas drilling. In short, by 2004, many of Clinton’s initiatives, and a

number of longstanding environmental policies had been discarded or reversed.

Environmental groups again mobilized, and many Bush administration actions ended up

being challenged in the courts.

64

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on an anti-Bush platform, but his

administration, too, has been criticized for his responses to Western land interests.72 In

June 2011, the Obama administration reversed previous decisions and announced that the

Department of Interior would not designate any “wild lands” without consultation with

“interested parties.” Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, in a memo to the director of the

BLM, stated, “The protection of America’s wilderness for hunting, fishing, and

backcountry recreation should be a unifying issue that mobilizes us to a common

purpose.”73 Also under Obama’s administration, the most direct attack on the ESA

successfully removed protection from wolves in five Western states with a simple rider

attached to the hotly debated budget bill, H.R. 1473 (Department of Defense and Full-

Year Continuing Appropriations Act). Section 1713 of the bill, signed in April of 2011,

follows:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final

rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without

regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to

issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be

subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any

effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court

for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–

138J on November 18, 2010.74

Quite clearly, ESA listing, recovery plan approval and implementation, and de-

listing have been and continue to be subject to political influence.75 Competing

65

government agency missions further complicate matters. US Fish and Wildlife is

responsible for endangered species, but many reintroduction programs take place on

USDA Forest Service land. Another factor complicating agencies’ cooperation is the

“experimental population” designation (called the 10(j) Rule), which as we have seen,

allows for more flexible “take” and disallows critical habitat designation. This

amendment, made in 1982, may treat a reintroduced species as if it were threatened and

not endangered, and so does not require that other federal agencies consult with the

USFWS [§ 10(j)]. Of the species discussed in this thesis, all are designated as

“nonessential experimental,” except for the Canada lynx, designated as threatened, and

the first reintroduced population of California condors.

A Flawed Law?

A number of criticisms have been directed at the Endangered Species Act, from

both supporters and detractors: the listing process is biased; the ESA deprives landowners

of their property rights; it costs too much; it is underfunded; it doesn’t work; the focus

should be on biodiversity, not species; the process and management are flawed; economic

growth is limited by the ESA; and more. Democratic administrations generally provide

more funding than Republican administrations,76 but underfunding has also been blamed

on the Department of the Interior itself, for requesting less funding than needed. The

listing process is biased towards vertebrates, and, on average, takes too long.77

Expenditures are unequally distributed. As of 2009, 87 percent of ESA funding,

or close to $1.1 billion, went to 100 species (of 1,145 on the list); 43 of those were fishes

and 35 mammals and birds.78 For the species discussed in this thesis, Federal

66

expenditures during FY 2010 were as follows: California Condor— $1,601,115; Black-

footed Ferret—$2,256,035; Gray Wolf—$8,783,782; Mexican Gray Wolf—$2,460,775;

Canada lynx—$4,191,798.79

One of the flaws of the original ESA was the presumption that most endangered

species would probably be located on federal land; this is obviously not the case, as 80

percent include some private land within their range.80 Several amendments to the ESA

(discussed previously) have attempted to address the issue of endangered species on

private property, but “the roots of American belief in the sanctity of private property are

deep,” as they were codified in the Bill of Rights, and enshrined during Western

expansion.81 Opponents claim that the ESA deprives them of their property rights, lowers

land values, and causes ruinous financial losses.82 Wolves are blamed, for example, for

destroying the livelihood of ranchers, hence Sec. 1713 of the April 2011 Budget Bill

removing them from protection and allowing them to be hunted. In reality, predators

account for far less cattle loss than other causes such as illness, weather, and calving

problems. During 2011, in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, home to wolves, bears, and

mountain lions, 7.5 percent of the cattle loss was attributed to predators (including dogs),

while 92 percent or 198,800 cattle deaths were attributed to other causes.83

Why has the ESA become so contentious? In 1973, we didn’t recognize the

complexity of biodiversity. We didn’t know what species’ recovery looked like, or what

their habitat requirements might be. We didn’t fathom the scope of the law when it was

passed—who would have dreamed that over a thousand species would be on the list?

Could anyone have realized how difficult it might be to live among large carnivores or to

require landowners to conserve a kangaroo rat? How one views the ESA also depends on

67

how one sees the role of government. Public choice theory, for example, influenced the

ideology of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, as well

as the proponents of Wise Use. This theory holds the free market or privatization as the

dominant (and best) form of social organization—one that harkens back to Manifest

Destiny. Unfortunately, this belief system can lead to avoidance of social responsibility

and civic duty, and to the ascendancy of individual rights over the public good.84

Lessons Learned

A number of strategies to improve the efficacy of the ESA have been proposed,

some already discussed in this paper. Potential improvements include applying

conservation planning to recovery plans, and forecasting realistic expectations of species

recovery. We can list more species (taking into consideration demographic factors), more

quickly, thus theoretically saving funds. We can provide sufficient funding to fully

implement the law. Other options include incentive mechanisms, such as developer

impact fees, subsidies to landowners, conservation banking, land acquisition, and

conservation easements;85 and incentive programs for ranchers, such as compensation for

livestock loss, or interdiction programs (that can help prevent predator attacks) that

provide monies for hazing, range riders, and pasture rotations.86

Our Challenge

Without a doubt, the biggest challenge to species conservation resides in the

conflict between conservation and capitalism. Interestingly, both are promoted and

deemed important by our society, yet they are at odds. As long as human populations

68

continue to increase, and economic growth and per capita consumption are held up as the

overarching goal of our society, other species will lose. Although the ESA is an ethical

law, and many refuse to place monetary value on endangered species, it may behoove us

to focus on the law’s economic benefits.87 At the current extinction rate and depletion of

biodiversity, we risk losing ecosystem services. Perhaps conservation biologists can

estimate how much ecosystem structure we as humans need to maintain in order to ensure

our survival.88 There is something else we can do, too. Allow wild species to share our

spaces. We need to remember that set-asides and reserves for species simply aren’t large

enough.

Reasons for Hope

What we’ve done as a society to protect other species is quite remarkable. The US

government has spent billions of dollars because the American public supports and

believes in the ESA. A recent Harris poll (February, 2011), showed that 84 percent of

respondents supported the ESA, with 64 percent believing that “the ESA is a safety net . .

. to save wildlife, plants and fish that are at risk of extinction.” 89 But in order for the ESA

to truly live up to its full potential in our rapidly changing world, we need to use best,

current science to inform its application.

69

Table 2.1. Glossary of ESA terminology. Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA)

A formal, voluntary agreement between FWS and a landowner that identifies specific conservation measures for candidate species—with the intention of preventing any need to list the species in the future.¹

Consultation Required by Section 7(a)(2). Federal agencies shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.”

Critical habitat

As defined in Section 3(5)(A), a specific geographic area, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that is “essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection.” Critical habitat is formally designated by rule in the Federal Register.

Delist To remove an animal or plant species from the endangered species list.

Distinct population segment (DPS) A subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a species for purposes of listing or delisting under the Endangered Species Act.²

Downlist

To reclassify a species from endangered to threatened.

Experimental population As described in Section 10(j) of the ESA, a population (including its offspring) of a listed species that is wholly separate geographically from other populations of the same species. An experimental population is treated as threatened rather than endangered, and critical habitat may not be designated.

Federal Register The official daily publication for actions taken by the Federal government, such as Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders and other Presidential Documents.

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) A plan that is required as part of an application for an incidental take permit for listed species under Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, covering projects or actions by private citizens, states or counties. Usually includes measures to minimize impacts, and may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another area.³

70

Listing The formal process through which FWS or NOAA Fisheries adds species to the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.

“No Surprises” Assurances

Provided to non-Federal landowners through Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Should a species’ circumstances change, landowners will not be subject to any further restrictions as long as the terms of the original Habitat Conservation Plans are met.³

Petition

A formal request to list, reclassify, or delist a species, or to revise critical habitat for a listed species under ESA.

Recovery The process “that stops the decline of an endangered or threatened species by removing or reducing threats,” so that its long-term survival in the wild can be ensured.4

Recovery team A group of people appointed by the lead FWS Regional Director to develop a recovery plan or provide guidance on recovery implementation. A recovery team may include species experts from the USFWS, academic institutions, State governments, conservation organizations and the private sector, as well as stakeholders.5

Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) A voluntary agreement (similar to the CCA) between the FWS and non-Federal landowner, but covering listed rather than candidate species. A property owner will agree to improve or maintain habitat for species covered by the agreement, with assurances of no further land-use limitations or restrictions without the owner’s consent.6

Sources: 1USFWS. Candidate Conservation Agreements. 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CCAs.pdf. (Accessed November 26, 2011). 2As described in Interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the ESA. Federal Register Vol. 61, February 7, 1996, 4722-4725. 3 USFWS. Habitat Conservation Plans Under the Endangered Species Act. 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/hcp.pdf. (Accessed November 26, 2011). 4 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Recovery Program, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/recovery.pdf. (Accessed November 25, 2011). 5 USFWS, Interagency Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation under the ESA . 1994. Federal Register (Vol. 59), 34272. 6 US Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, 2011. ESA Basics. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf

71

Table 2.2. ESA amendments and administrative changes.

Amendment/ Change

Designation of Critical Habitat

Establishment of Endangered Species Committee

Determination of species’ status

Designation of Experimental Populations [Section 10]

Creation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) [Section 10]

Creation of Safe Harbor Agreements (SHA)

Creation of Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA)

Year 1978 1978 1982 1982 1982 1997 1997

Affects Only Federal agency actions or federally funded activities; generally not private landowners

Listed species Listing and de-listing decisions

-critical habitat -interagency cooperation -prohibitions on take

Activities of private citizens, tribes, states, and counties

Non-Federal landowners who aid in recovery of listed species

Federal and non-Federal landowners

Applies to Section 4 Section 7 Section 4 Sections 4, 7, 9

Provides for Designation of critical habitat for species when “prudent and determinable”

Revoking species protection

Decision-making to be biologically (rather than economically) based

Relaxed taking restrictions and less interagency cooperation

Incidental take of listed species if HCP has been developed

Regulatory assurances and incidental take

Voluntary agreements to reduce or remove threats to candidate species

Sources: US Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, 2011. ESA Basics. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf; US Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, 2011. A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa-history.html.

72

Chapter Three: Conservation Biology and Species Reintroductions

On August 11, 2010 scientists confirmed the sighting of a rare Sierra Nevada red

fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) near Sonora Pass in California, about 90 miles south of Reno,

Nevada. This sub-species of fox, native to high elevations in California, was thought to

be extirpated from the Sierra Nevada; this sighting confirms the possibility that at least

two remnant populations remain, the other 150 miles north in the Southern Cascades in

Northern California.1 Little is known about the Sierra Nevada red fox, listed as

threatened by the State of California; in fact, the first documented photographs of the fox

weren’t taken until 1990. Scientists believe that while it has always been rare within its

range, its numbers have further declined due to trapping (banned in 1974), competition

with non-native fox populations, and possibly climate change.2

How encouraging to read that an animal has survived against all odds. But for a

number of reasons, the Sierra Nevada red fox is probably doomed. We know little about

the species and it is threatened on a number of levels. Perhaps if it is ever listed under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), a recovery plan will be written, but we don’t even know

how many exist in the wild, nor are any held in captivity. So this subspecies most likely

will become extinct. Populations of the fox are small and isolated, and compete with non-

native red fox as well as coyotes. Climate change is probably causing a reduction in its

high-elevation habitat, and human development and recreation have resulted in habitat

fragmentation.3 Conservation biologists consider these issues (demographics, invasive

species, climate change, and human activities) when analyzing, evaluating, and planning

73

for species and ecosystem survival, as well as: genetic variation and population dynamics

of species, systems considerations of habitat fragmentation, species interactions, and

conservation reserves.4

Development of Reintroduction Biology

As I discussed in the last chapter, we are in the midst of a human-caused

extinction crisis rivaling the mass prehistoric extinctions. Today, according to the

International Union of Concerned Scientists, more than 19,000 species are in danger

worldwide, including 25 percent of known mammals, 41 percent of amphibians, and 13

percent of birds.5 Habitat loss and fragmentation, caused by human activities and land

use, are considered to be the root cause of today’s biodiversity crisis, and a major cause

of extinction.6 Most human activities, including agriculture, recreation, and resource

extraction, require roadways, one of the leading causes of habitat fragmentation, present

even in remote areas.7 For example, there are 6,360 miles of roads in the 4,060 square

mile Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, where Mexican wolves have been reintroduced

in Northern Arizona.8

As the loss of species and habitat continues, scientists, wildlife managers, and

others in the conservation community have turned to ecological restoration as a way to

save biodiversity, countering the threat of extinction by reintroducing endangered species

into the wild (and establishing captive breeding programs), as well as assisting the

recovery of ecosystems through the field of restoration ecology. To be sure, restoration of

habitat and reintroduction of species is not a new endeavor. Federal and state wildlife

agencies have been restoring wildlife populations (by reintroduction or introduction) for

74

over a century, although most were undertaken to restock extirpated game species.9 In

Pennsylvania, for example, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were reintroduced

in the early 1900s after massive deforestation and unregulated hunting extirpated the

species from many areas. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus), arrived in Arizona via

train from Yellowstone National Park, after hunters extirpated the native Merriam’s elk

(Cervus elaphus merriani).10 There are many more examples. Reintroduction of wild

turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) began in the eastern US during the 1920s, and the

Pennsylvania Game Commission reintroduced American beavers (Castor canadensis)

beginning in 1917.11

Perhaps the first reintroduction for preservation (or restoration) took place in

1907, when fifteen captive-bred bison (Bison bison) were translocated to a reserve in

Oklahoma from the Bronx Zoo.12 But not until the 1970s, with several successful

reintroductions of charismatic vertebrates, e.g. Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), golden lion

tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia), and Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), did

reintroduction of species to restore populations and avert extinction become a workable

conservation option.13 However, during the 1980s, data began to show that the majority

of reintroductions failed to establish viable populations.14 As a result, the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established the Species Survival Commission

reintroduction specialist group in 1988 to develop guidelines for wildlife restoration. In

1995, the IUCN developed and approved Guidelines for Re-introductions with the

following aims and objectives:

The principle aim of any re-introduction should be to establish a viable,

free ranging population in the wild, of a species, subspecies or race, which

75

has become globally or locally extinct, or extirpated, in the wild. It should

be reintroduced within the species' former natural habitat and range and

should require minimal long-term management.

The objectives of a reintroduction may include: to enhance the long-term

survival of a species; to re-establish a keystone species (in the ecological

or cultural sense) in an ecosystem; to maintain and/or restore natural

biodiversity; to provide long-term economic benefits to the local and/or

national economy; to promote conservation awareness; or a combination

of these. 15

Subsequent planning workshops identified the need for strategic research direction,

which led to a symposium in 2003, entitled Developing the Science of Reintroduction

Biology (held at the Third International Wildlife Management Congress), which focused

on developing the science of reintroduction biology.16

Scientists generally define reintroduction success by the following criteria: 1)

breeding by the first wild-born population; 2) a three-year breeding population with

recruitment exceeding adult death rate; 3) an unsupported wild population of at least 500

(although that number is most likely low, as discussed); and 4) the establishment of a

self-sustaining wild population. Factors affecting success include habitat suitability, type

of release (hard or soft), and the source of animals.17 A hard release transports and

releases animals immediately into a new environment, while a soft release allows the

animal to acclimate to the new area over some time period while provided with food and

water.18

76

Species reintroduction is inherently difficult, and those working in the field face a

number of challenges: high cost, behavioral issues in captive populations, genetic

viability of often small founding populations, and habitat availability, among others.

Captive animals may demonstrate less fitness when released into the wild; they may be

less skilled at hunting or foraging, social interactions, or breeding. In 2008, the journal

Biological Conservation published a meta-analysis of carnivore reintroductions (Jule et

al. 2008), analyzing forty-five reintroduction efforts all undertaken after 1990. The study

covered seventeen species, ranging from lynx and cheetah, to bears, otters (Lontra

Canadensis), and wolves—and demonstrates that wild-caught animals are more likely to

survive than their captive-bred counterparts, regardless of species.19 In some cases,

prerelease conditioning has been beneficial. Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes), for

example, are now reared in semi-natural outdoor areas along with prairie dogs prior to

release (so they can learn to hunt them), which has increased their survival rate.20

In addition, the majority of reintroductions focus on charismatic birds or

mammals, which add further challenges.21 While these sorts of high-profile animals may

engender publicity for conservation issues (and may also have totemic status among some

people), they are often polarizing. Wolves and other charismatic species have become a

scapegoat for larger cultural issues—about use of western lands, urban versus rural

values, states rights versus federalism, and even gun control.22 The National Rifle

Association announced its opposition to a petition in 2010 by several conservation groups

to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban lead bullets because of toxicity to

endangered condors and other birds, even though alternatives exist. The argument was

that the petition was yet another way to implement gun control.23

77

Charismatic birds and mammals are often large and wide-ranging. Frequently the

very reason for initial extirpation—conflict with humans—remains unresolved at the time

of reintroduction.24 The very characteristic of largeness, biologically, affects animals’

interactions with humans, increasing their likelihood of extinction—and decreasing their

likelihood of recovery.25 Body size is related to longevity, reproductive rates, range size,

species distribution, and prey size. Wide-ranging birds and mammals will more often

encounter humans and be affected by habitat fragmentation. Carnivores will more likely

be killed by humans because they depredate livestock, and less likely to replace

themselves because of low densities and birth rates.26

Reintroduced animals may also face other on-the-ground challenges because of

human-altered landscapes. Translocated elk may have no experience with wolves, for

example, which may lead to high mortality after release.27 Mexican wolves have been

released into an area where thousands of cattle graze; grazing allotments cover 70 percent

of the recovery area in Arizona and New Mexico, which has led to conflict with local

ranchers.28 Red wolves (Canis rufus), reintroduced into North Carolina, are threatened

by interbreeding with coyotes as that species has spread eastward and taken over territory

that once sustained wolf populations.29

Climate Change and Ecological Restoration

As we refine and develop the fields of reintroduction biology and ecological

restoration, we must contend with ecosystems that have been completely altered. What

should our goals for restoration be? Restoration ecology has been criticized for focusing

on restoration of ecosystems to a sometimes arbitrary or subjective historical point.30

78

Today, however, many scientists are calling for a model of restoration that can be

sustained into the future by taking climate change into consideration, with a goal of

restoring ecosystem functions rather than recreating a static historical target.31

As discussed in chapter 2, ecosystem functions include regulation of atmosphere, water

supply, and climate; habitat for plants and animals (including humans); and production of raw

materials and food. These functions provide for the “maintenance of essential ecological

processes and life support processes,” for all creatures on earth.32 In human terms, ecosystems

provide “goods and services,” such as:

• UVb protection by ozone

• Maintenance of favorable climate

• Provision of water

• Maintenance of biological and genetic diversity

• Food, fuel, structural materials, clothing

On a more esoteric level, ecosystems also provide an information function, offering humans

the opportunity for cultural and artistic experiences and information.33

Climate change researchers worldwide concur that we will be facing the following

impacts as a result of climate change, with great potential risk to biodiversity:

• Changes in weather patterns

• Increases in mean temperatures

• Changes in patterns of precipitation

• Increasing incidence of extreme climatic events

• Increasing sea level 34

79

These impacts will cause drought, increased wildfire occurrence, and altered precipitation

patterns, as well as increased numbers of invasive species, species range shifts, and

coastal habitat loss, among others.35 We already know what the effects of habitat

fragmentation are: population decline and extinction; loss of genetic diversity; lower

densities; stronger effects of disturbances, causing temporary extinction at the regional

level; and reduced growth rate causing slower recovery time.36 When climate change

intersects with habitat fragmentation, it is reasonable to surmise that at-risk species will

be further compromised as altered and fragmented habitats fail to withstand the severe

weather and temperature variations predicted.37

What can we do? While reintroduction and ecological restoration in past decades

have been focused on specific site-specific management objectives rather than on

understanding how things work within broader systems, current research in

reintroduction biology is moving toward gaining reliable and replicable knowledge, and

key questions have been proposed.

Scientists Dr. Phillip Seddon and Doug Armstrong, members of the IUCN

Reintroduction Specialist Group, published a paper in 2007, “Directions in

Reintroduction Biology,” in which they propose ten key questions for reintroduction:

1. How is establishment probability affected by size and composition of the release group?

2. How are post-release survival and dispersal affected by pre-and post-release

management?

3. What habitat conditions are needed for persistence of the reintroduced population?

4. How will genetic makeup affect persistence of the reintroduced population?

5. How heavily should source populations be harvested?

80

6. What is the optimal allocation of translocated individuals among sites?

7. Should translocation be used to compensate for isolation?

8. Are the target species/taxon and its parasites native to the ecosystem?

9. How will the ecosystem be affected by the target species and its parasites?

10. How does the order of reintroductions affect the ultimate species

composition? 38

Zoologist Philip J. Seddon of the University of Otago, New Zealand, et al., in

Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology are studying ways to mitigate the

effects of captivity, evaluating reintroductions by utilizing population modeling, and

finding suitable release sites by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to evaluate

habitat.39 Seddon and Doug P. Armstrong, Professor of Conservation Biology at Massey

University in New Zealand, have called for closer connection between the fields of

reintroduction and restoration; the success rate of reintroductions may improve if

ecosystem questions are considered and ecosystem function may improve if trophic (or

food web) connections are restored by conserving or reintroducing strongly interacting

species, such as large carnivores.40 We can also take concrete steps on the ground to

anticipate and mitigate the effects of climate change by conserving and stabilizing key

areas, increasing habitat heterogeneity, and developing connectivity and wildlands

networks.41

81

Why Reintroduce Species and Restore Ecosystems?

Given the inherent difficulties in reintroducing species and restoring ecosystems

in the face of climate change, why do conservationists and managers and the public

support these endeavors? Moral reasons, surely. The ESA, as an example, explicitly

recognizes the value of all taxa of wildlife (not just game species), and states that habitat

protection is necessary to species conservation. Dr. Andre Clewell, a specialist in

ecological restoration and James Aronson, head of the Restoration Ecology Group in the

Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in France, have co-authored a number of

books and papers, among them, “Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems.” They

describe five rationales: idealistic, technocratic, biotic, heuristic, and pragmatic. A moral

or ethical motivation has been termed an “idealistic” rationale, and includes other

elements: atonement for environmental destruction; communion with nature (to seek

respite from urbanization); and spiritual renewal.

The technocratic rationale seeks restoration as recovery of degraded ecosystem

services, such as water quality, erosion control, and wildlife habitat. Informed by science,

the biotic rationale, sees the reason for restoration as the preservation of biodiversity,

while a heuristic (or learning-based) rationale seeks knowledge to expand the science of

restoration ecology. Finally, a pragmatic rationale recognizes that humans are dependent

upon ecosystem services, and that we will suffer without restoration of natural capital.42

These interrelated rationales ultimately add up to an overarching imperative.

Preservation of biodiversity is important in and of itself, because of the inherent value of

all living creatures, and because without biodiversity, humans lose ecosystem functions

and services.

82

Ecological Resilience

Another way of talking about this imperative is to address ecological resilience, a

concept introduced by Canadian ecologist C.S. Holling in 1973, as “the persistence of

relationships within a system,” and “a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb

changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist.” 43 Holling

describes two types of resilience, engineering resilience, measured by the speed of

recovery of a system (and emphasizing efficiency, control, constancy and predictability),

and ecological resilience, measured by the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed

before the system changes its structure (focusing on persistence, adaptability,

variability).44

Resilient systems can be highly dynamic (e.g. grasslands that are fire-driven

ecosystems, or shifting shoreline communities). Engineering resilience is exemplified by

the management objective of “maximum sustained yield,” which assumes—and manages

for—predictable and constant replacement of a harvested natural resource (e.g. timber or

fish) over time. Ecological resilience, on the other hand, would set timber harvest goals

based upon a forest’s ability to maintain its broadscale structure and function, leading to

adaptive management practices. With its genesis in the concept of resilience, adaptive

management of natural resources integrates design, management and monitoring in order

to test assumptions—and then changes course as needed.45

Another way to define ecological resilience is the ability of a system “to absorb

change and disturbance, but still maintain the same relationships among population

variables.”46 A resilient ecosystem resists damage and recovers quickly from stochastic

(or random) disturbances such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population

83

explosions, and human activities such as deforestation and the introduction of exotic

plant or animal species. The more degraded a system is, such as might be found in an

overgrazed area, the less likely it would be to recover from (or adapt to) drought, for

example. In the west, fire naturally occurs in many ecosystems, but has been suppressed

for years, resulting in altered forest conditions that can lead to catastrophic fire events.

These kinds of human activities that adversely affect ecosystem resilience—which also

include reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, and

anthropogenic climate change—are increasingly causing regime shifts in ecosystems,

often to less desirable and degraded conditions, thus affecting the ecosystem’s ability to

function and provide services.

Conservation of biodiversity contributes to the resilience of all systems, natural or

human-impacted.47 Of special importance are keystone species and those necessary to

retain ecologically effective function. An ecologically effective population exists in

numbers high enough and over a wide enough area for a species to play its role within an

ecosystem, as we discussed in chapter 2. This leads us back to that vexing question when

considering endangered populations—how much is enough? Conservation biologists

have attempted to develop a method to find out, called population viability analysis or

PVA.48 Researchers have looked at minimum viable population (MVP) estimates (or the

smallest size required for a population to persist over some time frame), as well as

simulation approaches utilizing computer programs, which generally estimate the

probability of extinction.49 In other words, researchers look at the probability of a

population’s survival by examining the effects of various threats to the population over

time.50

84

While policy-makers and politicians want hard numbers, figuring out what

constitutes a viable population is problematic. We generally lack detailed data for most

endangered species, much less agreement about how to define viability.51 The consensus

today among conservation biologists is that 500 individuals in a population are too few,

but a ‘magic number’ has yet to be identified (although some researchers have stated that

5,000 is the universal threshold).52 So we return to representation, redundancy, and

resiliency (discussed in the last chapter)—and to a widely shared opinion that several

thousand individuals (over more than one population), will better ensure persistence.53

Corridors, Connectivity, and Habitat Patches

As discussed, when habitat fragmentation is coupled with climate change, the

threats to biodiversity intensify, which in turn can affect ecosystem resilience. Human

impact is detectable across 83 percent of the globe, and often remaining wilderness or

intact natural areas exist only in isolated patches.54 We now know the limitations of

protected areas for conservation (e.g. 80 percent of endangered and threatened species

reside partly on private land),55 and so scientists and other practitioners are increasingly

turning to corridors to maintain connectivity among fragmented habitats and

populations.56 A corridor is defined “as any space, usually linear in shape, that improves

the ability of organisms to move among patches of their habitat,” while connectivity is the

“measure of the ability of organisms to move among separated patches of suitable

habitat.”57 Habitat patches and corridors are situated within a matrix, defined as the

landscape, either natural or human-dominated, that surrounds habitat patches and

influences the populations or communities of concern. With or without corridors, species

85

must travel across the matrix as they move among habitat patches—and each species will

perceive the matrix and its permeability (or traversability) differently.58

Species may travel when migrating or dispersing. Dispersal generally refers to

movement away from the natal area in order to breed and establish new territory.

Migration, however, often involves movement of whole populations driven by resource

availability, and can occur over long distances.59 Matrix, just like patches and corridors,

exist in varying degrees of scale, depending upon the type of species being considered. A

core habitat patch for a field mouse (and its surrounding matrix) will obviously exist on a

much smaller scale than habitat and matrix for a coyote.

Wide-ranging species, in particular, rely upon habitat patches in order to survive,

and researchers have documented local extinctions when access to patches has been cut

off by human activities.60 But patches in and of themselves are not a solution.

Considerations include:

• The size of a retained patch, which will influence species survival. Larger patches

generally benefit more species, while smaller patches are correlated with higher

extinction rates; because they are wide-ranging, large predators are often the first

species to become extinct.

• Distance from patch to patch, and the landscape characteristics between patches.

Some species exhibit higher vagility (ability or tendency to move about or disperse)

than others, and certain species, particularly habitat generalists, are more likely to

move through human-dominated landscapes—or even inhabit them. For example,

researchers have been tracking some 300 coyotes (highly vagile habitat generalists)

living in Chicago since 2000.61

86

• Distance from source populations. Larger fragments that are closer to source

populations demonstrate higher species richness.

• Number of patches or habitat fragments. Retaining only one protected area,

population segment or habitat area can be risky, as disease, fire, or some other natural

event could eliminate an entire population and/or habitat.62

One of the most important aspects of patches is their configuration or shape, and

the resultant edge. Edges, obviously, are boundaries, but they are not necessarily obvious

to humans; for purposes of corridor ecology, edges create “boundaries between places

[that are] perceived by an organism to be significantly different from each another.”63

Edges do occur naturally, but “edge effect” is often amplified by human-altered

landscapes. Habitat fragments left in the wake of land use changes generally demonstrate

harder edges, or edges with little transition between natural habitat and human-altered

landscapes.

Shape matters as well, as the ratio of edge to core habitat can affect species;

changes due to edge effect can benefit some species but negatively affect forest interior

species.64 Microclimate alteration can occur due to increased exposure to sun, wind, and

snow. Within the edge of a forest patch, for example, soil temperature may rise due to

increased direct sun exposure, affecting seed regeneration and vegetation composition,

which may in turn affect species composition. Strongly edge-tolerant species, like

raccoons (Procyon lotor) and brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), can contribute to

increased predation and parasitism on native interior species, as can opossums (Didelphis

virginiana), foxes (e.g. Vulpes vulpes), and skunks (Mephitis mephitis).65 Domestic and

feral dogs and cats, as well as livestock, can further affect native species and encroach

87

upon remaining habitat at edges. And of course, increased edge also can lead to

intensified human use, directly affecting habitat and species through hunting, adjacent

roads, off-road vehicle use, and even passive recreation.66

Corridors provide a way of maintaining or achieving connectivity and can link

individuals, species or communities.

Important considerations include:

• Width and length

• Vegetative cover

• Habitat quality

• Location

• Human influences

• Noise and light

• Edge effects

• Presence of barriers67

Corridors that work, i.e. provide for movement of individuals, genetic exchange,

and ecological processes, may not be linear, continuous or even distinct from surrounding

matrix; they simply provide linkage on the landscape.68 Movement along or through

corridors may take place over greatly divergent gradients of time: minutes, hours, days,

or epochs. Corridors can be planned or unplanned, natural or human-made, and may also

provide various amenities to humans; they can serve as retained open space or

recreational areas. They exist on multiple scales and may connect continents—or be a run

for black-tailed jack rabbits (Lepus californicus).69

88

Corridors may be designed for different levels of biodiversity and spatial scale—

from a highway underpass for an individual species to a cross-continental linkage for

wide-ranging carnivores. Goals of corridors may include: facilitating daily movements of

species, increasing survivorship of dispersers, providing seasonal migration routes,

creating habitat, and enhancing ecological resilience by providing a way for species to

adapt to climate change.70 The characteristics of the matrix must be considered as well, as

adjacent landscapes can influence the success of movement among habitat patches.

Matrix can be a resource for food, or secondary habitat, but it can also be a population

sink (where a population sustains losses), or habitat for invasive species and predators.71

Our protected lands alone are inadequate for conservation of biodiversity, and we

know that landscape-scale protection of ecosystems is critical to maintaining ecological

function and resilience, particularly in the face of climate change. In addition, many

strongly interacting species, such as large carnivores, require wide functional ranges.

These factors have led scientists like Michael Soulé to envision conservation at a

continental scale and call for a new conservation paradigm.72

Continental corridors or wildlands networks link multiple core protected areas

over large areas. The Wildlands Network (a non-governmental organization, or NGO)

founded by Soulé, among others, and various partners are working to restore and connect

national parks and critical core habitat areas in various networks across the US.

Hundreds of organizations are focusing on four continental wildways; Eastern, which

runs from the Everglades to the Canadian Maritime Provinces; Western, also called the

Spine of the Continent, running from Mexico, through the Rocky Mountains, and to the

Yukon; Pacific, from Baja to Alaska; and the Boreal, running through Canada. These

89

immense wildways encompass a number of regional corridor network initiatives, among

them the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative; the Sky Islands Wildlands Network in

Arizona, New Mexico, and across the borderlands into Mexico; and the Maine Wildlands

Network.73

Biological benefits of connectivity are legion, and include increased habitat,

greater number of individuals, greater species richness, overall increased persistence, and

facilitation of dispersal and genetic exchange.74 Corridors across roads decrease wildlife

deaths and vehicle damage, as well as human injury. Studies of the well-known crossing

structures under (and over) the Trans-Canada Highway between Banff and Jasper show

that species indeed do utilize them. 75

Not all species may utilize a corridor for a variety of reasons, which can lead to a

cascade of extinctions within patches. Artificial or heavily-modified corridors, or

corridors lacking preferred habitat will discourage use.76 Sometimes landscape pattern

and structure dictate corridor planning and application, rather than the process of animal

movement, with the result that any remaining habitat or open space in a given area is

designated as a “corridor,” whether it works as such or not.77 Chetkiewicz et al., for

example, discuss a corridor in Alberta, poorly sited and too narrow, that resulted in the

deaths of both a young woman and a grizzly bear. Canmore, Alberta, lies in a high

elevation valley that provides wildlife connectivity to adjacent protected areas; rapid

development in the 1990s destroyed most of the wildlife habitat in the valley, and

planners sited a narrow wildlife corridor above the town, in an area crisscrossed by

hiking trails. When a grizzly bear wandered into town in 2005, wildlife officers relocated

it—but it returned to the corridor and attacked a young woman.78

90

Other studies have shown that wolves and elk quickly adapt to corridor restoration

and the resulting reduction in habitat fragmentation. In Jasper National Park, researchers

restored fencing within a golf course, creating a corridor through a forested area. Prior to

restoration, wolves traveled around the golf course and away from humans, while elk

sought shelter from wolves on the golf course, near human structures. Fence restoration

excluded elk from the golf course and provided wolves with a corridor through it; results

showed that wolves preferred the corridor, which limited contact with humans, and

provided them with increased access to elk, their primary prey.79 Similarly, Danah Duke,

et al., describe a successful corridor restoration around the town of Banff, Alberta. A

substantial reduction in human activity within the Cascade Corridor, a travel route for

large carnivores linking habitat to the east and west of Banff, led to increased use by wolf

packs in the area.80

Metapopulations and Metacommunities

As habitat becomes more and more fragmented, maintaining a metapopulation (or

a collection of linked populations) has become increasing important to species’ survival

and the work of conservation biologists. Small isolated populations, like those of our

remnant Sierra Nevada red foxes or the singular wild Mexican wolf population, often

experience decreased genetic diversity, inbreeding, and reduced fitness. But even a very

small population can survive if immigration from a neighboring patch occurs.81 Without

linkages to other populations, species extinction is a high probability. Mathematician

Robert Levin first used the term metapopulation, recognizing that long-term persistence

of populations depends on the number of patches and level of emigration and

91

immigration between them, or connectivity.82 Biologists consider two types of

metapopulation configuration resistant to extinction:

Patchy. Individual populations (or demes) are well-connected and dispersal is

common. If a deme becomes extinct, the patch is recolonized. This pattern is most

resistant to metapopulation extinction.

Core-satellite. One large population within a large habitat patch disperses to

smaller satellite patches which occasionally become extinct. Recolonization is common

and this pattern is also resistant to extinction.83

Metacommunity, a newer concept, is defined as “an array of patches of a

particular type of community variously connected by dispersers.”84 Similar in concept to

a metapopulation, the unit of organization, however, is an assembly of species, rather

than only one. Dispersal of individuals connects metacommunity patches, often called

habitats; like metapopulations, they can also suffer extinction and subsequent

recolonization. Persistence of metapopulations (and hence metacommunities) depends on

two things: risk of population (demic) extinction, or mortality rate, and the rate of

colonization of empty fragments, or birth rate. Births (colonizations) must exceed or

equal deaths for persistence of a metapopulation. The ability to move among patches (or

level of connectivity) influences both death and birth rates, and so is critically important

to maintain persistence.

Conclusion

Maintaining connectivity among multiple populations is critical to species

survival. Do corridors work? Some do and some don’t, but they definitely are one tool to

92

restoring biodiversity and mitigating climate change. We need to know more about the

processes of wildlife habitat selection and movement. One approach might be to identify

the most important species in a particular ecosystem (perhaps an umbrella species, i.e., a

large species that covers a wide territory) and its habitat requirements, learn about its

process for habitat selection, and then move to restore, retain and manage that habitat to

promote connectivity.85 Habitat needs for such species, like grizzly bears, may

encompass a number of other species’ needs. Whether an umbrella species or not, a focal

species or community is requisite to functional design; then consideration of habitat,

dispersal, behavior, physical needs, and landscape context (matrix) will determine overall

corridor design and utility.86

Paul Opdam and Dirk Wascher, landscape ecologists at Wageningen University in

the Netherlands prescribe on-the-ground changes we can make to anticipate and mitigate

the effects of climate change:

1. Stabilizing key areas. Ecosystems most vulnerable to the combined stress of

climate change and fragmentation can be developed as a spatial network, lowering

the risk of regional extinction under extreme weather perturbations and serving as

sources of regional recovery.

2. Increasing heterogeneity of habitat in large nature areas and landscapes,

possibly making local populations and metapopulations less vulnerable to weather

variability.

3. Enhancing permeability of the landscape, by developing bold

connectivity zones, networks of narrow corridors, landscapes with a high

93

density of small semi-natural landscape elements, and wildlife passages

in infrastructure barriers. 87

Our well-being as humans partly depends upon adequately functioning

ecosystems—not only in protected areas, but in more human-impacted systems.

Conservation or preservation of biodiversity through reintroduction and restoration will

contribute to ensuring that systems retain (or regain) resilience and function. As I will

discuss in the following chapters, agencies have variously applied principles of

conservation biology and other concepts like ecologically effective populations to

reintroduction programs and assessments, leading to inconsistencies among programs—

and questionable successes.

94

Chapter Four: The Prairie Bandit Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

At 5:30 am, the faintly orange moon seems to race toward the horizon as the sky

is turning pink in the east. I’m sitting in a huge van with the door open and my feet

dangling over the side above the running board. The heater is blasting, but I’m shaking

from the cold and lack of sleep. The van belongs to my volunteer partner Warren—he

appears to live out of it. Like me, he is volunteering to search out ferrets, and is currently

running around in the bunch grass and rabbitbrush, trying to get a photograph of a black-

footed ferret that we just released. We had trapped her earlier, taken her for a vet check,

and then released her back at her burrow with a special treat that only a ferret would

love—a prairie dog meatball.

March at full moon time in Aubrey Valley, about seventy-five miles west of

Flagstaff, Arizona, is ferret spotlighting time, and Warren and I were paired up by the

Arizona Game and Fish “BFF Crew.” We spent the entire night, starting at 9:00 pm,

driving back and forth on an old ranch road looking for green eyeshine—which could be

a ferret, badger, coyote, or pronghorn. (We ended up tracking down a coyote at one point

during the night—luckily he or she ran faster than I did.)

Twice a year, the Arizona Game and Fish Department conducts five-night ferret

counting events; staff and volunteers work from 9:00 pm to 5:00 am, driving back and

forth along Forest Service and old ranch roads, sweeping the landscape with huge

spotlights—looking for the telltale green eyeshine. (Spotlighting, the most effective way

95

of counting ferrets, utilizes high intensity aircraft landing lights—which can detect

eyeshine as far away as 600 feet.) Ferrets, we learned, are the closest to the ground, and

don’t run away—they just drop into their burrows and pop out again. I had no idea that

they were so curious. When I had set the trap earlier in the night, the ferret was dancing

around my feet as I approached her burrow. They are indeed, cute. I held her in the trap

on my lap as we raced back to the trailer set up on Route 66 for the vet checks. She was

cold, too, and shaking, and as I talked to her I realized that I was entrusted with the safety

of a creature whose kind had almost vanished from the earth. When I had checked into

the motel earlier in the evening, the clerk took one look at me, and asked “are you one of

them crazy ferret counters?” “Yes,” I said, laughing, “I am.” Turns out it was an honor.

* * *

The rediscovery of black-footed ferrets in the 1980s is now the stuff of legend.

On September 26, 1981, Shep, a blue-heeler ranch dog, killed a weasel-like animal that

reportedly was robbing his food bowl. Shep’s owners, John and Lucille Hogg, weren’t

sure what Shep had gotten, but the local taxidermist did—and called the authorities. The

animal was a black-footed ferret. Almost declared extinct twice, black-footed ferrets

were alive and well—in a white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) complex outside

Meeteetse, Wyoming.1 The find and subsequent ups and downs of the population were

chronicled on both coasts in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times through the

80s.2

The Meeteetse population—the only remaining in the world at the time—ranged

from 79-129 animals through 1984, but crashed in 1985 due to a combination of plague

96

and canine distemper.3 As the population continued to decline, US Fish & Wildlife

(USFWS) and Wyoming Game and Fish rescued the remaining animals and began a

captive breeding program. The last ferret was captured from Meeteetse in February

1987. Numbering only eighteen—and now truly extinct in the wild—they were among

the rarest mammals in the world.

Today the black-footed ferret remains one of the most endangered mammals in

the US, due to a combination of threats which we will discuss in the next pages.4 As of

fall 2010, the minimum population in the wild numbered more than 425 at seventeen

reintroduction sites encompassing approximately 375,000 acres. Biologists estimate the

entire wild population at around 1,000 animals.5 (Table 4.1.) The captive population is

maintained at a minimum of 240 adults; since 1986, more than 7,000 kits have been born

in captivity.6 The Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team (BFFRIT), a

group of thirty agencies and conservation organizations led by the US Fish and Wildlife

Service, manages the recovery program. BFFRIT maintains a web site,

www.blackfootedferret.org, on which the organization publishes status reports on ferret

recovery and reintroduction.7 The black-footed ferret is a member of the “Class of 1967,”

one of seventy-eight species on the first official list of US endangered species published

in the Federal Register on March 11, 1967.8 At that time, habitat destruction was the

primary threat to three-quarters of the listed species, and habitat destruction remains the

primary threat more than thirty years later.9

97

Black-footed Ferret Natural History

In the case of the black-footed ferret (ferret), both its biology and human activity

have conspired to create an endangered species. The ferret is an extreme specialist,

obligate (or dependant) on prairie dogs for both food and shelter, and the only species of

ferret in North America.10 Ferrets live in prairie dog burrows, and prairie dogs comprise

about 90 percent of a ferret’s diet.11 Imprinted as juveniles to eat and hunt prairie dogs,

ferrets exhibit clear preference for prairie dogs as food, although they will

opportunistically take mice and voles.12 A member of Mustelidae family (ferrets and

weasels), the ferret shares many of the same characteristics as the other sixty some

species of mustelids—long, thin body and short legs. Tan or buckskin in color, ferrets

are marked with a black saddle, black feet, and a black mask (hence the moniker prairie

bandit). As a specialized carnivore of prairie dogs, they developed unique adaptations to

a fossorial (or underground) existence associated with their primary prey. The long, thin

body, adapted for life within underground burrows, provides for disproportionate muscle

strength relative to body mass. Their fossorial existence also protects them from

numerous predators; badgers (Taxidea taxus), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus),

coyotes, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus), and

domestic dogs and cats all prey on ferrets.

Ferrets lead solitary and territorial lives, and may travel long distances to establish

new territories; should they survive the dangerous trek above ground, they can live two or

three years in the wild.13 Similar in size and weight to mink (Neovison vison), ferrets

measure about 22 inches in length, including tail, with females slightly smaller; weights

average from 2 pounds, 5 ounces in males to 1 pound, 9 ounces in females.14 However,

98

ferrets can overpower and quickly move prey that are larger than they (prairie dogs can

weight more than 3 pounds), again an adaptation only seen in specialized carnivores.15 A

disadvantage of the long, thin body is sacrifice of thermal efficiency (because of

increased body surface area and lack of fat stores) and therefore increased energy needs

and metabolic rate. Their fossorial existence provides compensation for this

disadvantage: shelter from the elements, minimal temperature variation underground, and

a place to store food.16

As perfectly adapted as the ferret may be to life with prairie dogs, such

specialization is a gamble, and especially so in today’s rapidly changing world. Ferret

territories are large, about 200 acres per adult animal, so a viable population of ferrets

will require a huge area of prairie dog colonies.17 Ferret litters are smaller than those of

other mustelids, possibly because habitat stability was always ensured (provided by an

inexhaustible population of prairie dogs) and large litters conferred no advantage.18

For 30,000 years, modern ferrets populated the Great Plains of North America,

living their highly specialized lives among habitats of the black-tailed prairie dog (C.

ludovicianus), Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. gunnisoni) and the white-tailed prairie dog (C.

leucurus).19 (Ferrets have not been found within populations of either the Utah prairie

dog (C. parvidens) or the Mexican prairie dog (C. mexicanus).) Prior to the 1800s, an

estimated five billion prairie dogs occupied more than 100 million acres—within 562

million acres of potential habitat of various prairie types.20 Prairie dog and black-footed

ferret habitat ranged from what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, south through

ten western states, and into Arizona and Mexico.21 The Aubrey Valley ferret

reintroduction site, where Warren and I spotlighted, is home to a large population of

99

Gunnison’s prairie dogs in desert grassland. Other reintroduction sites encompass

shortgrass and mixed grass prairies.

Prairie dogs are considered to be strongly interacting species; i.e., they maintain

and provide habitat for other species as well as improving grasslands and increasing plant

productivity—essentially creating an ecosystem. A host of species depend on or are

connected to prairie dog colonies in addition to ferrets: mountain plovers (Charadrius

montanus), burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos),

coyotes, swift foxes (Vulpes velox), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bison, and pronghorn

(Antilocapra americana).22

Extirpation from the Landscape

European settlement profoundly altered the intermountain and prairie grassland

homes of prairie dogs and ferrets. Between the late 1800s through the 1960s, conversion

to cropland reduced prairie dog habitat by 97 percent—affecting all the other inhabitants

of prairie dog colonies as well.23 Sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), not endemic to North

America, was inadvertently introduced around 1900, and has been detected throughout

the range of the black-footed ferret. Both prairie dogs and ferrets are highly susceptible to

plague, with mortality rates in prairie dogs of 90 percent or more.24 Poisoning of prairie

dogs began in the 1880s, with the federal government’s US Biological Survey (USBS)

taking over in 1915.

Millions of prairie dogs and ground squirrels were poisoned every year, seen as

competitors with livestock. The federal government created a new USBS division in

1929, Predatory Animal and Rodent Control, eventually renamed Animal Damage

100

Control. Ironically, Animal Damage Control was transferred in 1939 to the new US Fish

and Wildlife Service. At the time of the listing of the ferret through the ESA, the agency

that was responsible for eradicating prairie dogs was also responsible for saving black-

footed ferrets.25 Poisoning would continue until 1972, when President Nixon, in an

environmental State-of-the-Union address, announced the end of the federal predator

poisoning programs with Executive Order 11643.26 President Reagan, however, reversed

the order and transferred Animal Damage Control to the Department of Agriculture

(USDA). During 2009, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Damage Management removed

4,138,765 mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, including more than 28,525 prairie

dogs.27

As prairie dog populations were eradicated, ferret numbers declined. By the

1950s, few sightings and specimens were reported and remaining prairie dog colonies

were small and isolated. A small population of ferrets was discovered in Mellette

County, South Dakota in 1964, just as the government was about to declare them extinct.

In 1971, with no regulatory action to preserve the population amidst declining numbers,

USFWS captured six ferrets to begin a captive breeding program. By 1974, ferrets were

gone from Mellette County.28 USFWS ferret biologist Conrad Hillman continued to

search for ferrets in the wild for eight years, unsuccessfully.29 While kits were born in

captivity, none survived, and the last captive ferret died in 1979. Again, USFWS was

ready to declare the species extinct.

101

Recovery and Reintroduction

And then Shep made history in 1981. A Recovery Plan had been written in 1978,

as mandated by the Endangered Species Act, when USFWS thought the species extinct,

so it provided no guidance for an existing population. Critical decisions had to be made

by the partner agencies in the face of “poor planning, inadequate resources, controversy

and crisis,” as agencies battled for control.30 According to Mike Lockhart, former Black-

footed Ferret Recovery Coordinator,31 several critical issues probably should have been

addressed by the state and federal agencies, including:

• analysis and consideration of probabilities of extinction of the small Meeteetse

black-footed ferret population

• when and how to best initiate captive breeding efforts

• how to fund captive breeding; potential responses to epizootics of canine

distemper and sylvatic plague

• when and how to remove the last free-ranging animals to prevent extinction;

appropriate responses to discovery of another wild ferret population

• advance identification and preparation of suitable reintroduction sites

Without having addressed these issues, when the Meeteetse population crashed

and remaining animals were removed from the wild (1985-87), just eighteen animals

provided the last hope for the species—as well as the biologists and wildlife managers

responsible for developing a successful captive breeding program. Between 1981 and

1986, biologists were able to gather considerable field data from the Meeteetse

population, just as they had from the Mellette County population, providing valuable

information about the species.32 But captive husbandry was another thing completely.

102

The captive breeding program began in 1986 at the Sybille Research Center near

Wheatland, Wyoming. Wyoming Fish and Game, with the assistance of the Conservation

Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) of the International Union for the Conservation of

Nature had to develop protocols, a genetic management plan, and monitor reproductive

cycles of the captive ferrets. Husbandry techniques had to minimize stress and

productivity without domesticating the animals. When two litters were born and seven

kits weaned in 1987, a milestone was reached: black-footed ferrets could be bred and

reared in captivity.33

USFWS wrote a revised Recovery Plan in 1988, with the goals of establishing a

captive population of 200 breeding adults by 1991, and establishing ten or more

populations in the wild numbering 1,500 by 2010. In addition, the Plan states, “A six-

step process has been outlined to reach this objective, beginning with ensuring success of

captive breeding, locating reintroduction habitat, finding other populations of ferrets,

devising release strategies, managing reintroduced and other populations, and building

programs for public support of the recovery effort. The recovery goals are attainable,

requiring less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total western rangelands (185,000-

250,000 ac, or 75,000-100,000 ha) to secure sufficient habitat for recovery. Initial success

with captive breeding in 1987 suggests sufficient ferret stock can be produced to fill those

habitats.” 34 The Recovery Plan also calls for preserving at least 80 percent of the

original genetic diversity of the founding animals, locating and maintaining prairie dog

habitat, and monitoring and researching plague in both populations.35

Captive breeding and management proved to be so successful that reintroduction

began in 1991; today the captive population numbers some 290 animals.36 In addition to

103

the captive population at Sybille, captive populations have been established at the

National Zoo, Front Royal, Virginia; Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Colorado Springs,

Colorado.; the Louisville Zoo, Louisville, Kentucky.; the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, Arizona.37 As with captive

management, biologists and managers had to develop protocols for reintroducing ferrets.

Biologists released a different, non-native species, Siberian ferrets (Mustela eversmanni

satunini), on the landscape (and subsequently recaptured them) to learn more about ferret

behavior. Researchers studied several different pre-release protocols, but now we know

that enabling ferrets to learn to behave like wild ferrets—by raising them in outdoor pens

with live prairie dog prey—has proven to increase survival rates for animals released in

the wild.38 Several free-ranging populations have been so successful that kits from these

populations have been translocated to other sites (the Aubrey Valley population being

one of them).39 Ferrets have been released at nineteen reintroduction sites; all but three

of the sites continue to support ferret populations as of fall 2010. These include locations

in Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico,

Canada and Mexico.40 (Table 4.1.) The majority of releases were done under Section

10(j), the nonessential experimental designation, which treats the population as if it were

threatened (rather than endangered), and allows for more flexible management. Although

captive population goals have been reached, reintroduction goals have not, due to a

combination of factors.

104

Five Factor Analysis

Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act lists five factors to be utilized when

determining whether any species is endangered or threatened. The Five Factor Analysis

includes: present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or

range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or

manmade factors. The most recent Black-footed Ferret 5-Year Status Review (Status

Review), published in 2008 by the USFWS, provides detailed analysis of the above

factors.41

A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

Black-footed ferrets cannot live without prairie dogs. Not only are they dependent upon

prairie dogs for food (90 percent of their diet is prairie dogs), but they also rely upon

prairie dog burrows for nesting and shelter. Although several million acres of prairie dog

habitat remain, much of it is highly fragmented and routinely poisoned. According to the

Status Review, this factor is considered to be “a high magnitude, imminent threat, unless

poisoning is ameliorated.”

B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes

Although humans do not utilize ferrets commercially, or for scientific and educational

purposes, they do shoot prairie dogs for recreational purposes. This practice adversely

affects prairie dog populations, thus limiting ferret recovery. However, the Status

Review does not consider this factor a current threat to black-footed ferrets.

105

C) Disease or predation

Both canine distemper and sylvatic plague have reduced black-footed ferrets populations.

A distemper vaccine has been developed and is now widely used in both captive and wild

ferret population management. Plague, however, has been documented close to or within

most current reintroduction sites, and can cause very high mortality rates in ferrets as

well as their host animal, the prairie dog. Federal agencies frequently dust prairie dog

colonies with deltamethrin to combat fleas, the likely vector, and researchers are working

on oral vaccines for both ferrets and prairie dogs. The federal government considers

plague a high magnitude, imminent threat to the black-footed ferret; but predation has not

been deemed a threat.

D) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

USFWS considers this factor to be a high magnitude, imminent threat to the ferret—

because of prairie dog poisoning. In fact, the Status Review states, “Recovery of the

black-footed ferret cannot be achieved without more assertive restoration and

management of sufficient prairie dog habitat,” and “more protective regulations,

particularly those related to poisoning. . .”

E) Other natural or manmade factors

Other factors include poisoning of prairie dogs, genetic fitness, and climate change. The

Status Review considers poisoning a high magnitude, imminent threat; genetic fitness is

not considered a threat, and there is uncertainty around the effects of climate change.

Although poisoning can completely eradicate a prairie dog population, in most cases the

population is reduced only temporarily; however, even a temporary reduction can wipe

106

out all the ferrets. Prairie dog poisoning continues on private, state, tribal, and federal

lands. The US Forest Service (USFS) began poisoning prairie dog colonies at the edge of

the Conata Basin, South Dakota reintroduction site in 2004 after the USFWS decided not

to list the black-tailed prairie dog. (The USFS suspended poisoning in 2008, because of a

plague outbreak—and switched to pesticide dusting for fleas to try to save the ferret

population.42)

The USFWS states in its 2008 Status Review, “We believe that the single, most

feasible action that would be most beneficial for recovery of the black-footed ferret

would be to improve regulations and/or increase management actions regarding prairie

dog conservation. If an effort were undertaken to proactively manage certain areas of

prairie dog habitat for ferret recovery, all other threats to the species could be more

efficiently addressed.”43 But the USFWS hasn’t designated any critical habitat for the

black-footed ferret.44 Three prairie dog species have been petitioned for listing under the

ESA; the USFWS removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the candidate list and

determined that protection is not warranted for the white-tailed prairie dog. The finding

on the petition to list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) was warranted (in

part of its range), but precluded by higher priority actions.45

To fully understand the reluctance to protect prairie dogs, we must go back to

1902, when the director of the USBS wrote that prairie dogs decrease the productive

capacity of land by 50-70 percent.46 The federal government sponsored poisoning

programs against prairie dogs until 1971; and landowners contributed to the cost of

poisoning programs through a tax on livestock, giving them a considerable say in range

management.47 And poisoning continues.48 Although we now know that prairie dogs do

107

not destroy vegetation and soils, as was thought in 1902, the actual impact is difficult to

quantify. Below are some of the facts known about prairie dog conservation and

landscape impacts:

• Prairie dogs today occupy approximately 2 percent of the habitat they did 200

years ago, minimizing their overall impact on vegetation and soils.49

• Prairie dogs inhabit landscapes that are subject to extended drought, which

affects grazing conditions.50

• Prairie dogs coexisted with large ungulates for millennia; in fact, bison prefer

prairie dog colony sites.51

• Prairie dogs, ungulates and livestock have significant dietary overlap, which

may vary from 10 percent of available grasses to almost 100 percent. The

actual impact on livestock remains unclear.52

• Prairie dogs move colonies within suitable habitat as resources decline,

allowing for regeneration.53

• The effect of prairie dog colonies on vegetation depends on age of the colony;

plague reduces size and age of colonies, therefore reducing prairie dog

impact.54

• The presence of prairie dogs is often an effect of prior heavy grazing by

domestic livestock, as prairie dogs prefer areas with shorter vegetation that are

easily accessible.55

But perhaps more important than what we know is what we believe. Surveys

show that ranchers and farmers believe that prairie dogs directly compete with their

108

livestock for food, and that any financial loss caused by prairie dogs (as a result of that

competition) is unacceptable.56 Even more telling are these beliefs:57

• Prairie dogs are symbols of poor land stewardship.

• Management by federal or state agencies to increase prairie dog populations

might lead to a loss of control over public and private grazing lands.

• Conservation of wildlife, especially for species protected by the ESA, might

lead to restrictions on ranching operations.

Prognosis and Signs of Hope

In some ways black-footed ferret reintroduction has been successful. First and

foremost, the black-footed ferret is no longer in danger of becoming extinct; the captive

population goals have been reached. Today the USFWS estimates that the three species

of prairie dogs that support ferrets occupy approximately 5.8 million acres.

Approximately 3.5 million acres of suitable habitat is managed by the Forest Service.58

Habitat exists, but few prairie dog complexes are sufficiently large to support viable

ferret populations, and prairie dogs are still threatened by agricultural interests, as well as

USFS policies.59 Drought conditions in the West have adversely affected rangelands and

caused prairie dog dispersal outside of ferret recovery areas—and when ferrets follow the

prairie dogs, they too are at risk of poisoning.

In Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, Robert J. Luce et al. suggest the

following: 1) stop recreation shooting of prairie dogs, 2) offer financial incentives to

landowners for conserving prairie dogs, 3) stop poisoning, 4) develop comprehensive

education programs.60 A revised Recovery Plan is expected to be published for public

109

comment in the Federal Register in fall of 2012. This plan will contain new downlisting

criteria: 3000 adult ferrets in 30 sites, with at least 10 of those sites having 100 or more

ferrets. Additionally, in spring of 2011, USFWS and the Black-footed Ferret Recovery

Implementation Team presented a concept paper entitled “From Liability to Asset: A

Cooperative Conservation Initiative for Ranching & Wildlife on Prairie Dog Occupied

Rangeland,” which describes an incentive program and cooperative approach between

government agencies and local ranchers in the 12-state prairie dog population area. While

details have not yet been worked out, the federal government created the program to

address the single most important issue facing black-footed ferrets: conservation of

prairie dog habitat.

Biologists with the National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center expect that

an oral vaccine will be developed for plague within two years, the other “high magnitude,

imminent threat.” Heather Branvold, wildlife biologist and veterinarian with the

NBFFCC and her colleagues believe that, “With purposeful prairie dog management

including a plague vaccine, and the continued support and inclusion of private

landowners, black-footed ferret recovery is attainable.”61

110

Table 4.1. Status of the black-footed ferret in the wild.

Reintroduction Site

State

Year of Release

Acres of PD Habitat

Ferrets Released

Minimum Population Fall 2010

Plague Documented?

Reason for Population Loss

Shirley Basin Wyoming

1991 150,000 450 93

Y

Badlands NP S. Dakota

1994 5,800 239 38

Y

UL Bend NWR Montana

1994 1,300 235 29

Y

Conata Basin S. Dakota

1996 15,000 ~160 91

Y

Aubrey Valley Arizona

1996 51,000 ~315 58

N

Ft. Belknap Indian Res. Montana

1997 15,000 180 0

Y Plague

Coyote Basin Utah

1999 28,000 ~300 unknown

Y

Cheyenne River Indian Res. S. Dakota

2000 50,000 ~200 unknown

Y

Wolf Creek Colorado

2001 19,000 ~230 1

Y

Plague

BLM 40-Complex Montana

2001 600 95 0

Y

Plague

Rosebud Indian Res. S. Dakota

2004 -- 99 unknown

Y

Lower Brule Indian Res. S. Dakota

2006 4,300 ~60 29

Y

Wind Cave NP S. Dakota

2007 2,800 61 23

N

Espee Ranch (2007) Arizona

2007 5,523 71 0

Y Plague

Logan County Kansas

2007 10,000 113 58

N

No. Cheyenne Indian Res. Montana

2008 4,000 111 unknown

Y

Vermejo Ranch New Mexico

2008 11,000 175 5

N

Total:

373,323 3094 425

Sources: Reintroduction Site Profiles, 2010. Black Footed Ferret Recovery Program

111

Chapter Five: A Prehistoric Relict California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

I live in northern Arizona, northeast of Flagstaff, at about 7,000 feet in elevation.

This is “high country,” part of the Colorado Plateau, much of it covered with Ponderosa

pine and understory of Gambel oak—a gorgeous and relatively unpopulated area. Only

one paved road traverses all of northern Arizona to Utah. Route 89 runs from Flagstaff to

Lake Powell and into Utah, dropping in elevation to around 3,500 feet above sea level

close to the border. The landscape transforms to juniper and piñon, and then desert scrub,

but one thing remains constant—ferocious winds, often fifty or sixty miles an hour, scour

the land. At Bitter Springs on the Navajo Nation (population 452), you can turn off Route

89 and take 89A to Lee’s Ferry and Marble Canyon, where the Grand Canyon starts.

The landscape opens up as you drive, impossibly vast, desolate and beautiful, and

soon you begin to see the Vermilion Cliffs, marking the Paria Plateau, miles away on the

other side of the Colorado River. Rising 3,000 feet from the high desert below, the long

ochre and purple sandstone cliffs date from the age of dinosaurs. I often drive from

Flagstaff to Marble Canyon, and each time as I turn onto 89A, I begin to scan the sky,

looking for the bird with the nine-foot wingspan, the bird that brings thunder to the

skies—the California condor. Less than two hours from where I live, this windswept and

unforgiving land of cliff faces and canyons is one of the last places where condors were

still soaring at the time of European settlement.

112

They live here again, in this remote place where the Peregrine Fund has

established a release site—seventy-one birds soaring free over their ancient homesite.

Some forty miles from Marble Canyon (population 28), the pre-release holding pens sit

atop the Paria Plateau, accessible only by bone-shattering jeep ride with recovery staff.

Birds wait in the pre-release pens, and I am able to see them at a relatively close distance.

As we approach the holding pen, hidden at cliff’s edge among juniper trees, the staff asks

us to be quiet and to conceal ourselves behind blinds. Intelligent and curious, and easily

habituated to humans, the condors know that we are here.

They wait, these juveniles, to be released over House Rock Valley below to join

the older free-flying birds and learn to forage on their own. I gasp at their size. They look

like old monks, bent over and clothed in black vestments. The free-flying condors who

frequent the release site soon notice us and are swooping overhead to check out the new

humans. Our guides instruct us to pay no attention to them as the birds are already

habituated to humans. Their immensity and curiosity astonishes us. We pretend to not

notice them, and speak in hushed voices. The birds alternate—seemingly taking turns,

flying in low, eyeing us. Eventually they retreat high into the thermals, realizing that we

are not going to engage with or feed them. I’m sorry to see them turn into black specks in

the sky, and I envy the biologists that work here, keeping these ancient birds alive.

* * *

Two months after the last free roaming black-footed ferret was captured and

removed from the wild, so too was the last California condor—on Easter Sunday in April,

1987.1 He was called AC-9, and in a testament to both our species’ tenacity, AC-9 was

released back into the wild and is alive and well in the mountains of southern California.

113

He is now 31 years old, and a father of four.2 Emblematic of remote wilderness, like the

wolf and grizzly bear, condors are large and charismatic, and hark back to another era.

The story of the condor’s demise and comeback from the brink of extinction captured

public interest from the very beginning.

Down to just 22 birds in 1982, the condor population had drastically declined

since the 1960s, and no one really knew why. A number of reasons had been suggested,

including habitat loss, shooting, poisoning, and reproductive or mortality factors.3 By

1979, Congress had approved an intensified research program, with US Fish and Wildlife

as one of the lead agencies. Researchers needed data to understand the species’ demise—

and also wanted to initiate a captive breeding program. Today it seems surprising that

such a plan would cause controversy, but it did. Friends of the Earth and the California

chapter of the Sierra Club attributed the species’ decline to pesticides and shooting, and

argued that banning both would save the condor—and that removing the bird from the

wild would open wilderness areas for development.4 Others simply couldn’t accept

intrusive handling and radio-tagging or removal of such a majestic bird. California Fish

and Game was reluctant to give approval for an aggressive recovery effort in the face of

such opposition, but by 1983 had permitted radio-telemetry of the birds as well as a

captive breeding program.

Noel Snyder, then director of the recovery program, and Bill Toone, of the San

Diego Zoo, set about retrieving the first egg from a nesting pair of condors. Baby

Sisquoc hatched in captivity in March of 1983, offering hope that the species could be

saved.5 Sisquoc’s birth (hatch) announcement made both the The New York Times and

The Washington Post.6

114

Three more chicks hatched in captivity that spring, but the wild population

continued to plummet. By 1985, only nine birds remained in the wild. But once the birds

had radio transmitters, some of the missing could be retrieved—and finally biologists

could figure out why they were dying. Even though eleven of the fifteen birds that went

missing between 1982 and 1986 were never recovered, four were—and three of those had

died from lead poisoning. Studies had shown that golden eagles and turkey vultures had

died of lead ingestion,7 but condors had always been rare and favored wilderness areas.

There were just no data—until then. USFWS trapped all remaining condors in the wild

and brought them into the captive breeding program. The California condor was now

extinct in the wild, after flying free for epochs.

California Condor Natural History

For at least 100,000 years, condors had flown free throughout most of North

America; fossil records have been found from upstate New York to Mexico.8 Around

10,000 years ago, their range contracted with the late Pleistocene extinction of

mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, and giant ground sloths—the North

American megafauna and the food they scavenged. By the time of colonial settlement,

condors ranged only from British Columbia to Baja California. Lewis and Clark, in 1805,

made the first field observation of the condor, “the First Vulture of the Columbia,” as

they explored the mouth of the Columbia River.9 The last recorded sighting of a

California condor in northern Arizona was in 1924; it was feeding on a carcass with

golden eagles near Williams, Arizona, about 60 miles south of Grand Canyon.10 By the

1960s, condors were restricted to just six counties in California—a single population

115

ranging over 4,942,000 acres north of Los Angeles.11 Like the black-footed ferret, their

demise was caused by an unfortunate conflagration of biology and human activity, as we

will see.

The California condor is a large soaring vulture, one of seven species of New

World vultures (Cathartidae), the family that includes turkey vultures (Cathartes aura)

and Andean condors (Vultur gryphus). The largest flying bird in North America, it has a

wingspan of approximately nine feet, and weighs between seventeen and twenty-nine

pounds.12 For condors, size dictates habitat. Because condors cannot “take off” from a

standing position (lift their body weight by flapping their wings), they need updrafts to

lift them from cliff faces or tall trees—habitats like those in northern Arizona or southern

California.

Condors reach sexual maturity at five to seven years and can live up to sixty

years. They appear to mate for life, and generally lay only one egg every other year; both

male and female birds share incubation, feeding and rearing of young birds, who may

stay with their parents for up to a year. Rather than building a nest, they use caves or

crevices to lay eggs. They cannot grasp objects or food, as they have blunt claws or nails,

rather than the sharp, curved talons of birds of prey.13 Documented nesting success

ranges around fifty-two percent.14 Quite clearly, with delayed sexual maturity and low

reproductive rates, stable populations depend upon long-lived birds. Condors are

obligate scavengers (dependent upon scavenging), searching long distances for carrion;

they are known to forage over areas as large as 2,700 square miles, riding thermal air

currents for hours.15

116


At the time of European settlement of the West, condors were feeding on remains

of deer, elk, pronghorn (probably left by large predators), and marine mammal carcasses.

As ungulate and large carnivore populations decreased due to hunting and land

conversion to ranching and agriculture, condors turned to cattle and sheep—and were

routinely shot.16 As early as 1890, naturalist J.G. Cooper, writing in Zoe: A Biological

Journal, referred to the condor as “doomed.”17 Condors also turned to poisoned carcasses

left for wolves, grizzly bears, and coyotes, as predator control programs ramped up

throughout the West. The US Biological Survey utilized strychnine and cyanide,

completely eliminating grizzlies and wolves from California by the 1920s, but campaigns

against coyotes continued well after that.18

The state of California enacted laws protecting condors and other birds at the turn

of the century, but did little to protect the bird from shooting and egg collection—or

poisoning. As early as 1937, the US Forest Service established the Sisquoc Condor

Sanctuary in Santa Barbara County, and in 1947, the Sespe Condor Sanctuary in the Los

Padres National Forest in Ventura County.19 But the bird continued to decline in

numbers. DDT, a powerful pesticide, had come into widespread use by 1945, and before

it was completely banned in 1975, 1.35 billion pounds were used in the US20—

contributing to the decline of numerous bird species through eggshell thinning and

increased egg breakage. Although biologists disagree as to the impact of DDT on condor

reproduction, researchers found condor eggshell fragments from the 1960s to be heavily

contaminated, and most likely DDT severely compromised condor reproduction.21 DDT

may have affected condor reproduction in later years as well, as it can persist in soil for

117

hundreds of years, accumulate in run-off, and can reach very high levels in marine

mammals as it percolates up the aquatic food chain.22 When we couple the condors’

relative scarcity and low reproductive rate with all these anthropogenic factors—

shooting, habitat conversion, and multiple sources of poisoning—the decline of the

species was inevitable.


The California condor, like the black-footed ferret, is among the “Class of 1967,”

one of seventy-eight species on the first official list of endangered species in the US

published in the Federal Register on March 11, 1967.23 The initial US Fish & Wildlife

Service (USFWS) Condor Recovery Plan was developed in 1974, with revisions

published in 1979, 1984, and 1996. The first two plans focused primarily on reduction of

mortality through habitat preservation, and in 1976, the USFWS designated critical

habitat for the condor covering some 530,000 acres in California.

The 1984 Condor Recovery Plan called for more intensive management and

research, including the need for radio-telemetry studies, accelerated productivity through

inducement of multiple clutching by manipulating nesting in wild breeding pairs, and

incubating and hatching captive-reared eggs for reintroduction.24 The current Condor

Recovery Plan, which dates from 1996, has a recovery objective of downlisting the

California condor to threatened status. The Plan further states that the “minimum

criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance of at least two non-captive

populations and one captive population. These populations (1) must each number at least

150 individuals, (2) must each contain at least 15 breeding pairs, and (3) be

118

reproductively self-sustaining and have a positive rate of population growth. In addition,

the noncaptive populations (4) must be spatially disjunct and non-interacting, and (5)

must contain individuals descended from each of the 14 founders.”25

Actions to reach these objectives include:

1. Establish a captive breeding program to preserve the gene pool.

2. Reintroduce California condors to the wild.

3. Minimize mortality factors in the natural environment.

4. Maintain habitat for condor recovery.

5. Implement condor information and education programs.26

The federal government is currently reintroducing condors at five release sites

managed by five independent organizations: southern California (USFWS); Big Sur

(Ventana Wildlife Society); Pinnacles National Monument (National Park Service);

northern Arizona (The Peregrine Fund); and Sierra San Pedro de Martir National Park in

northern Baja California, Mexico (Zoological Society of San Diego). Captive populations

are located at seven facilities: Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Zoo, San Diego Zoo Safari

Park, Oregon Zoo (Portland), Santa Barbara Zoo, the World Center for Birds of Prey

(Boise, ID), and the Chapultepec Zoo (Mexico City). Although condors are released at

five separate sites in California, they interact in the wild and recovery staff consider them

to be a single sub-population; biologists treat the birds in Arizona and Mexico as separate

sub-populations.27

Like the black-footed ferret recovery program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

California Condor Recovery Program is a multi-entity effort that includes government

agencies and NGOs.28 In northern Arizona, partnership agencies include US Fish and

119

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Forest

Service, and state agencies including the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Utah

Division of Wildlife Resources. The Peregrine Fund, a private/nonprofit organization,

manages the day-to-day operations of the field program, which include releases,

monitoring, working with local land owners, and providing needed care for the birds.29

Unlike California, where condors are fully protected as endangered under the

ESA, reintroduction in Arizona is conducted under the 10(j) rule, which allows for

“nonessential experimental” designation—providing for greater management flexibility

and relaxed protection. Section 10(j) treats a population “as a threatened species

regardless of its designation in other parts of its range . . . and gives the [US Fish and

Wildlife] Service greater flexibility in the development and implementation of

regulations to manage threatened species than it does for endangered species. This

flexibility allows the Service to manage the experimental population in a manner that will

ensure that current and future land, water or air uses and activities should not be restricted

. . . .” The Final Rule authorizing the reintroduction in northern Arizona also states that

persons “will not be in violation of the [Endangered Species] Act if you unavoidably and

unintentionally take (including killing or injuring) a California condor, provided such

take is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or

recreational activities, and you report the take as soon as possible.”30 The condor

recovery area in Arizona and Utah encompasses approximately 110,000 square miles.

Birds released at the Vermilion Cliffs site frequent the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab

Plateau in Arizona and Zion National Park in Utah.31

120

In 1988, the first successful captive breeding took place at the San Diego Wild

Animal Park when two wild caught condors produced a chick. The captive population

continued to produce chicks, and by 1991 the Condor Recovery Team was ready to

release young condors into the wild. But like the black-footed ferrets raised in captivity,

young condors didn’t necessarily know how to be “wild.” Helpless at birth, or altricial,

condors rely on their parents and other condors to mentor them. The Team had decided

to experiment with Andean condors, releasing them in 1988 with the following

objectives:

• To refine condor release and recapture techniques; test the criteria being

used

• To select condor release sites

• To develop written protocols for releases, monitoring, and recapture of

condors

• To field test rearing protocols being used, or proposed for use to produce

condors suitable for release

• To evaluate radio-telemetry packages

• To evaluate supplemental feeding strategies

• To train a team of biologists for releasing condors

• To identify potential problems peculiar to the California environment.32

In 1991, at the conclusion of the Andean condor experimental release, two

California condors were released into the Sespe Condor Sanctuary. Subsequent releases

followed, but all birds were brought back into captivity in 1994. With few natural

enemies, condors are inquisitive and bold; the highly social birds were drawn to humans

121

and human made structures, including power lines; collisions with power lines killed four

of the eight birds released. As of 1995, all birds were subject to aversive conditioning

prior to release, trained to avoid power poles and lines, as well as humans. Aversion

training began at the Los Angeles Zoo and is common practice now; condors released

since 1995 avoid power poles and human activities.33

The first wild chick successfully fledged (grew feathers enough to fly) in Arizona

in 2003, and in California in 2004.34 As of November 2011, 209 condors are free flying

in North America, with another 182 in captivity. Twenty-seven have fledged in the

wild.35 The recovery program looks to be successful, and the public believes it to be so.

However, in a recently published status review of condor recovery, lead author Jeffrey

Walters, biology professor at Virginia Tech University, wrote, “. . . enormous obstacles

to recovery still exist, so much so that the possibility that condors could once again be

extirpated in the wild is as conceivable as recovery.”36

Noel Snyder writes that it is “a well-established principle” that prior to a species

reintroduction the reasons for its extirpation should be corrected—but that has not

happened in the case of the condor.37 In fact, according to Walters, “lead poisoning from

ingestion of ammunition fragments in carcasses is so severe and chronic a problem at all

release sites that the program partners are unified in the belief that condor recovery

cannot be achieved so long as such lead exposure continues.”38 The very reason that

USFWS and the California Fish and Game removed the condors from the wild—back in

1985—is the very same reason that they are threatened today. Condors are routinely

trapped and tested for lead poisoning both in California and Arizona, and provided with

chelation therapy to remove lead if needed.

122

In 2009, for example, twenty-six wild condors in California were treated for lead

toxicosis—this after lead ammunition had been banned.39 Birds are subject to frequent

human contact, not only causing stress but making them less “wild.” Field teams provide

the birds with supplemental carcasses, to preclude poisoning, and to more easily trap

them—as well as to provide them with a food source when carcasses are hard to find.

Continuous exposure to lead, even in sublethal amounts, probably affects condor

behavior and demography.40

Supplemental feeding may also be affecting condor behavior regarding their

nestlings; chicks are fed microtrash, such as nuts, bolts, bottle caps, and pieces of wire,

requiring treatment on site by veterinarians and biologists; microtrash foraging may be a

result of boredom since food is provided to the birds.41 USFWS recognizes the issues,

stating in its recent Spotlight Species Action Plan (2009), “Major threats to the

conservation of California Condors in the wild include: loss of foraging habitat, lead

poisoning, disease, as well as depressed reproductive success due to ingestion of trash

items by nestlings and organochlorine exposure, namely DDE, by breeding females.”42

DDE, a derivative of DDT, still in marine mammal carcasses, may be causing eggshell

thinning in the population at Big Sur. Decades after DDT has been banned, sea lions still

contains high levels of DDE, the breakdown product of DDT.43

The program has reached a crossroads. More than $5 million is spent every year,

including $1.5 million by USFWS, on intensive monitoring and management of both

captive and free-flying populations.44 The California condor today cannot survive without

human assistance—unless exposure to lead in carcasses and gutpiles is eliminated. Lead

shot was outlawed for waterfowl hunting in the 1980s, and affects of lead on raptors and

123

scavengers are well-known, and may affect humans who eat animal flesh contaminated

with lead shot.45 Alternative ammunition exists in copper, and the price has declined now

that more hunters are using it. Skepticism about the impact of lead ammunition on

condors has turned to acknowledgement of the problem.46 Indeed, in 2008, the Peregrine

Fund’s “Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition” conference featured fifty papers about the

dangers of lead to wildlife and to humans.47 But the issue has become politicized. After

California banned lead ammunition in condor range, several conservation groups filed a

petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to ban lead in bullets and shot

nationwide, citing numerous scientific papers that speak to the health risks of lead

exposure.48 The National Rifle Association intervened and stated its opposition, arguing

that the petition was yet another way to implement gun control.49 The petition to ban

lead in bullets and shot was denied in August, 2010.50


The public believes that condor recovery is a success, and in some ways it is.

Three chicks hatched in Grand Canyon National Park in 2011—a record. The species has

been saved from extinction, and we again have condors flying free in the wild. Millions

of acres are protected for condors, and lead ammunition has been banned within the

recovery area in California. Multiple agencies and NGOs are working to keep the condor

alive, and, in fact, the private sector contributes more money for recovery than the

government. However, the populations in the wild would not be self-sustaining without

massive human effort—and that very effort may be causing unforeseen consequences.

Wild condors today, because of routine feeding, trapping and testing, are subject to a

124

great deal of human contact, which is probably creating a habituated species. We really

don’t know how well they would survive on their own because we’ve been providing

them with supplemental food for so long.51 As Chris Parish, Condor Project Director with

the Peregrine Fund in Arizona says, “This is an experiment. When we no longer have to

trap the birds and monitor them for lead, they will have to forage on their own, over a

much wider area. I think they will make it, but we really don’t know what the free-flying

population will look like.”52 And we don’t know the long-term consequences of lead

exposure to a bird that is highly intelligent and long-lived. As the condor population

grows, the level of management required to keep the species alive will require more and

more human effort and become more and more expensive.

Certainly progress has been made. In addition to California’s lead ban, Arizona

initiated a voluntary lead reduction effort in 2005 within condor range that provides

vouchers for free copper bullets; in 2010, 71 percent of big game hunters used non-lead

ammunition.53 Now that condors are ranging into Utah, that state has begun a lead

reduction program as well, although participation in the first year (2010) was only five

percent.54 Right now, this is not enough. Three birds in Arizona died in May of 2011

from ingesting lead shot, not bullets—which speaks to the need for more education of

people living in condor range.55 Perhaps one of the greatest successes of the condor

recovery program is that we know how to make it work. Walters, et al., in the 2010 status

report recommends that the USFWS and its partners make the case to the public and the

agencies that regulate lead ammunition use—to move to alternate ammunition to save the

condor.

125

Chapter Six: The Beast in the Garden Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

I first visited Yellowstone National Park to see the wolves (Canis lupus) in the

winter of 2004. I rented a car in Bozeman and drove to Gardiner, entering the Park

through the Roosevelt Arch at the north entrance on the only road that’s kept open during

the winter. Fifty-three breathtaking miles through the northern range of the Park connect

Gardiner and Silver Gate, Montana. No snowmobiles are permitted in this part of the

Park. Having visited Yellowstone in the summer, along with millions of other people, I

was unprepared for winter in the Park. I saw no other cars on the road, and while there

were a few people at Mammoth Hot Springs, more elk and bison were about than

humans. As I drove out of Mammoth, climbing in elevation, the road soon became

completely packed with ice and snow, rather unnerving for a then Maryland driver. I

drove very slowly, concerned about sliding off. Then I saw a bald eagle in flight. Oh

my, I thought. And then I saw all the other animals—first a herd of pronghorn, more

bison crowding the road, coyotes trotting along side my car, big horn sheep foraging next

to the road. I kept jumping out of my car to take photos, each time stunned by the cold.

Further into the Park, at Hellroaring Overlook, dozens of wildlife watchers had

parked haphazardly and had set up scopes in the deep snow. I too pulled over and ran,

struggling over the snow to find out what was going on. Someone offered me a scope. I

had just missed seeing a cougar and four cubs. Down the road, another driver waved me

126

over. “Wolf,” he shouted, pointing, “wolf!” I jumped out again, sliding on the ice,

thinking, “All these people are so excited about the animals!” I hated to disappoint him,

but the animal was a coyote. A large, beautiful one, but a coyote nonetheless—wrestling

with an elk leg.

I was on my way to the Lamar Buffalo Ranch Field Campus, where the

Yellowstone Association holds field classes—going to learn more about wolves, joining

the thousands of wolf-watchers who trek to Yellowstone every year. What I didn’t know

until I arrived was that Yellowstone has been called the American Serengeti. I didn’t

know that I would to see a landscape not that different from what it was centuries ago.

Coyotes came into camp every night, yipping us awake at 2:00am. Bison blocked the

walkways to the bathrooms. And on that trip, I heard—and saw—wolves every day. The

Druid pack was down in the Lamar Valley, directly across the road from the Field

Campus. They had killed an elk very close to the road, and stayed with it, playing in the

snow, feeding, dozing—and watching the wolf-watchers. My fellow-adventurers and I

watched films, talked with Doug Smith, leader of Yellowstone’s Wolf Project, and Rick

McIntyre, biological technician with the Park Service, and learned about wolf ecology

and reintroduction. I fell in love with Yellowstone that trip, and remain moved all these

years later that we brought the wolves back home.

* * *

Since that trip, I’ve seen wolves in the wild many times, and I never cease to be

awed by their beauty and grace—by their very wildness. More than any other animal,

wolves carry with them centuries of symbolism and stigma—and their reintroduction to

the landscape has been hailed, decried, and litigated. Books have been written, and

127

television specials aired. In this chapter and the next, I will discuss two wolf

reintroductions and their relative success. As we will see, one reintroduction has been

successful, though now it is threatened, and the other has been problematic.

Wolves and humans coexisted for millennia, albeit uneasily, when there was

enough habitat for both. Our association dates to the Pleistocene era, a million years ago,

when evolution brought the modern wolf and early humans together.1 But as humans

built settlements, and began farming and herding domestic animals, the relationship

became increasingly complex. Some wolves, those less fearful of humans, began to

frequent our dumps and gradually domesticated themselves about 15,000 years ago,

eventually becoming our beloved dogs.2 Others, the still wild wolves, were seen as a

despised threat to our domestic livestock and livelihoods. The long history of wolves as

fearsome and dangerous beasts began. As Martin Nie of the University of Montana

writes,

. . . humans-as-hunters often saw wolves symbolizing skill, intelligence,

teamwork and courage. Those in agriculture, on the other hand, often saw

wolves symbolizing danger and posing a sinister threat to their livelihoods

and well-being. The wolf in American history cannot be understood

outside of its larger political and cultural context, including manifest

destiny, the sanctity of private property and the perceived need to tame the

Western frontier wilderness. From the historical ‘war on the wolf’ to the

more rhetorical and contemporary ‘war on the West’, context will

continue to shape and influence the future of the wolf.3

128

Medieval Christianity had adopted the wolf as a symbol of evil—the Devil’s

hound or the Devil in disguise.4 European colonists brought these views with them to the

New World, and added another twist: wilderness and wolves were an affront to God.5

Today, some people still see wolves as vicious, evil killers. And wolves in the US have

also become symbolically identified with larger cultural issues—about use of western

lands, urban versus rural values, and states rights versus federalism.6

For others, the wolf has become a symbol of wilderness, and a chance to atone

and make amends for past destruction.7 Thousands of wolf-watchers flock to

Yellowstone National Park each year since the first wolves were reintroduced in 1995.8

They stand in frigid sub-zero temperatures for hours, watching with scopes just for a

glimpse. Wolves and other canids share so many characteristics with us—they exhibit

care-giving behavior, and they are social animals who communicate with one another.

They are capable of bonding with us. They became our dogs.

Other than humans, wolves were once the most widely distributed land mammal.9

Old and New World populations of gray wolves today exhibit genetic differentiation, but

not a great deal, suggesting multiple migrations of wolves across the Bering land bridge

into North America. Indeed, waves of wolf immigrations most likely occurred on both

continents during glacial retreats, resulting in populations today with little genetic

differentiation.10 Until recently, some twenty-four subspecies of C. lupus were

recognized in North America. A species as widespread as C. lupus would evolve regional

differences in morphology or genetic composition over time, but whether distinctive

enough to warrant sub-species status is another matter entirely.11

129

Mammologist Ronald M. Nowak believes that modern genetic analysis would not

identify so many subspecies. As a result of his work, today, five subspecies are

recognized12: arctos, which as its name suggests, is the Arctic wolf; occidentalis, of

Alaska and western Canada; nubilus, the plains wolf and inhabitant of the Rocky

Mountains; baileyi, the Mexican wolf, inhabitant of the southwest US, and the most

differentiated genetically of the North American wolves13; and lycaon, of southeastern

Canada. A separate species, the red wolf (Canis rufus), once inhabited the southeastern

US. The original distribution of species and subspecies supports the hypothesis that

wolves colonized North America in waves, as those subspecies found at the periphery

exhibit greater genetic differentiation.14

Gray Wolf Natural History

Gray wolves are the largest member of Canidae, the dog family, which includes

coyotes, jackals, foxes, and dogs.15 Adult males weigh 65 – 132 lbs and females 55 – 110

lbs.16 Wolves usually have coats of gray, but can be black or white. They breed February

through March, depending on latitude; gestation is 63 days, as it is for all members of the

genus Canis.17 Pups are born in early spring, corresponding to the birth time of ungulates,

which provide abundant prey for the parents.18 Litters average five pups and are generally

born in a den of some kind—a hole in the ground, under a rock or log, or in a cave, often

located near water.19

Wolves are obligate carnivores, which means that they almost exclusively eat

meat. Although they have evolved as cursorial (or running) hunters of large ungulates,

they will also hunt snowshoe hares and bison, scavenge carrion, and occasionally eat

130

garbage.20 Wolves are highly adapted to a wide variety of climates and habitats as

demonstrated by their physiology, tolerating temperatures from -70° to 120° Fahrenheit.

Wolves in Israel may weigh 29 lbs, whereas wolves of the tundra can weigh over 172

lbs.21 Long legs and highly-oxygenated muscles22 enable them to travel more than 43

miles per day, run at 34 – 38 miles per hour, and swim long distances.23

Wolves live in packs, or family groups of a breeding pair and their offspring, and

occupy particular areas, or territories.24 They are generally monogamous, and incest is

uncommon in wild wolves—unless no other choice for breeding exists.25 Pack sizes can

vary considerably, from two wolves to forty-two wolves, but most range from four to

six.26 Pups will remain with their parents for ten to fifty-four months, but most will

disperse (or leave their natal pack) by three years of age.27 Young wolves disperse (or

delay dispersal) for a number of reasons. Availability of food, breeding competition,

habitat availability, and level of human exploitation can all affect age at dispersal and

pack size.28 (In recovering and reintroduced species, dispersal is of paramount

importance, providing for genetic exchange among populations and colonization of new

territory.29)

Wolves are territorial, each pack occupying a mini-ecosystem that provides a

sufficient prey base.30 The size of the territory is dependent upon the abundance of prey

and the size of the pack, and can vary from 13 square miles to 1,693 square miles.31

Wolves have extraordinary olfactory abilities; little is known about their auditory

abilities.32 If we extrapolate from the ability of domestic dogs, then a wolf’s sense of

smell is a hundred to millions of times more sensitive than a human’s.33 Olfactory

signals are produced all over the wolf’s body, within and out—skin, feet, back and tail,

131

ears, saliva, urine, and feces. From these signals, wolves may be able to distinguish each

other’s individual identity, sex, gender, emotional state, age and condition.34 This

olfactory ability, obviously used to communicate with other wolves, is also utilized in

hunting.

Wolf packs, which are essentially families, have developed a system of

communication that maintains cohesion and order. In addition to scent, they also

communicate via complex visual signals involving facial expressions, body postures, and

tail positions. Generally, older wolves (parents or older siblings) dominate younger

wolves (offspring or younger siblings); the term “alpha” is used for the male and female

breeding pair that lead the pack35 Wolf families, like human families, are not static, and

various step-relationships or extended family arrangements do occur, so social roles in

wolf packs can be difficult to determine.36

Along with their superior olfactory sense, wolves use a highly developed visual

system to aid in hunting. Dogs and wolves have fundamentally different vision than

humans.37 We can see color, operate best in daylight, possess fine visual acuity, and have

good binocular vision. They can see in day or night (although not as acutely as cats in

the dark).38 Rather than seeing in full color, they see in shades of blue and green, and can

distinguish various shades of gray much better than we can. Although they don’t share

our fine visual acuity, they have a much wider field of view and demonstrate relatively

sharp vision along an entire visual horizon without having to shift gaze.39 Dogs, and most

likely wolves, are more sensitive to motion than humans, possessing a faster flicker

fusion rate.40 In other words, they see and react to stimuli in the environment more

quickly than we do.

132

The wolf diet has been one of the major sources of conflict with humans.41

Ungulates (hooved animals such as deer and elk), their primary food source, live

throughout wolf range (or did in the past).42 When domestic ungulates replace wild

ungulates, wolves will eat them.43 Concerns about livestock depredation and competition

with hunters for elk and deer are primary reasons that wolf recovery and reintroduction

have been so controversial in the US.44

In North America (so far), wolves have had sufficient natural prey and rarely feed

on domestic livestock.45 The latest report from the US Department of Agriculture

documents that less that one percent of cattle deaths in the US were caused by animal

predators, with the majority of those attributable to coyotes and domestic dogs.46

According to the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2011 Interagency

Annual Report, 193 cattle were lost to wolf depredation during 2011--about the same as

during 2010--while the 162 sheep lost to wolves during 2011 was less than the 245 lost

during 2010.47


Federal and state agencies, private bounty hunters, individual farmers, and

ranchers cleared wolves from most of the continental US by 1950.48 After the federal

government was petitioned by the ranchers and farmers in the West, the US Biological

Survey took the lead in 1906,49 and it was the professionals that finally exterminated

what few wolves were left—the hold-outs and outlaws, who were even given names like

Old Lefty, Old Whitey, and Old Aguila.50 Between 1921 and 1924, the US Biological

Survey killed 400,000 predators: wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, and coyotes.51

Started in 1885 as the USDA Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy, the research unit

133

was renamed in 1896 as the Bureau of Biological Survey, with the charge of eradicating

pests and vermin from agricultural land. In 1940, the Bureau of Biological Survey was

transferred to the Department of Interior along with the Bureau of Fisheries to become

the new US Fish and Wildlife Service.52

Wolves (and other large predators) were exterminated in the national parks as

well. The last wolf was killed in Yellowstone National Park in 1926—by the National

Park Service.53 The professional hunters used strychnine, arsenic, and cyanide—and

killed millions of other animals in the process: ravens, eagles, foxes, raccoons, and

others.54 The federal wolf control program was terminated in 1942.55 There were no

wolves left on federal land. By the 1930s, wolves were essentially gone from the

continental US, except in Minnesota, and both the gray wolf and red wolf were placed on

the first endangered species list in 1967. In 1978 the Federal Government listed all North

American gray wolves, regardless of subspecies, as endangered under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) except those in Minnesota, which were listed as threatened.56


Wolves and other large carnivores reaped the benefits of the environmentalism

era of the 1960s and 70s. Once extirpated, wolves, along with the idea of wilderness,

became romanticized. We could afford to protect them because they were gone, and

public support for wolf reintroduction continued to grow, particularly for a population in

Yellowstone National Park.57 Wolves quietly returned to northwest Montana near Glacier

National Park in the 1980s, dispersing from Canada, spurring the states and federal

government into action.58 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) completed the

134

Recovery Plan by 1987 and the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by 1994.

USFWS proposed that two populations be reintroduced, one into Yellowstone National

Park (which would be fully protected) and the other into central Idaho. The recovery area

included the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and central Idaho—a total of 45,000

square miles, which includes 5,000 square miles of rugged roadless wilderness in Idaho.

Land ownership is primarily federal: 99 percent in Idaho and 76 percent GYA, with

approximately 29 percent in seasonal grazing allotments for livestock.

The USFWS responded to the outcry of ranchers, hunters and politicians in 1987

by designating the wolves as “nonessential experimental,” allowing for lethal control, and

by stating a recovery goal as follows: “To remove the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf

from the endangered and threatened species list by securing and maintaining a minimum

of 10 breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas for a minimum of three successive

years,” 59 one that today is considered to be far too low by environmentalists and

conservation biologists—and one that was chosen to make possible the acceptance of the

reintroduction by local politicians, ranchers and hunters.60 The 1994 EIS subsequently

revised the goal to include the following statement, ‘‘Thirty or more breeding pair

comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially

isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should

have a high probability of long-term persistence.”61

During 1995 and 1996, a total of 66 wolves from Alberta and British Columbia

were trapped and translocated to the northern Rocky Mountains: 31 into Yellowstone

National Park and 34 into central Idaho—despite an ongoing suit by the American Farm

Bureau and Montana Stockgrowers and others filed in 1994.62 The Federal District Court

135

in Wyoming issued a final ruling in 1997 stating that the reintroduction had been illegal

and that the wolves should be removed, even though the court had allowed them to be

released. Defenders of Wildlife appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in

Denver and in January 2000, the Circuit Court overturned the lower court’s decision.63

The reintroduction faced other hurdles. Idaho passed a state law prohibiting participation

in the program, and Wyoming law, recognizing wolves as predators, essentially

prevented any involvement by the Wyoming Fish and Game Department. (Idaho signed

an MOU and developed a state management plan in 2005.)64

State and local opposition to wolves never receded, and legal battles continued.

By 2002, USFWS had determined that the recovery goal of thirty breeding pairs had been

met, and in 2003 released its plan for downlisting.65 Nineteen conservation groups filed

to block the plan. The courts ruled against the USFWS at the same time that Wyoming

was petitioning the USFWS to remove the NRM population from the endangered species

list. Ultimately, after six years of lawsuits and court decisions, the wolves were removed

from the endangered species list and hunting began.

In September of 2009, wolf hunts began, and by the time they closed, 260 wolves

were harvested. In August of 2010, the US District Court in Montana restored federal

protection for wolves in the Northern Rockies. Congress removed all protection for

wolves in the Northern Rockies on May 5, 2011 with a budget rider reinstating the 2009

Final Rule delisting the species in the NRM DPS (except for Wyoming)—and

disallowing any judicial review of the action.66 That same day, USFWS also announced

the proposed rule to delist wolves in the Western Great Lakes, and to initiate a “status

review” of all gray wolves in the conterminous US.67

136

The Final Rule issued on April 2, 2009 included the following statement: “To

ensure that the NRM wolf population always exceeds the recovery goal of 30 breeding

pairs and 300 wolves, wolves in each State [Idaho and Montana] shall be managed for at

least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter.” According to the USFWS,

state wolf management plans must be approved, and USFWS will be monitoring the

populations for five years as required by the ESA.68 Montana’s wolf management plan

allows the state to manage wolves as game species, to be legally killed only:

• during an official hunting season authorized by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP)

Commission.

• if the wolf is seen killing or threatening to kill dogs or livestock.

• to protect human life.

• as authorized by FWP to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts.69

The plan further states that Montana will comply with the Final Rule in order to avoid

relisting. Idaho’s plan also manages wolves as big game species, and similarly states

compliance with the delisting rule; the state intends to manage the population to 2005-

2007 levels, 518-732 wolves.70 As of December 13, 2011, Idaho hunters had shot 157

wolves and trapped another five. Out of thirteen “wolf zones” created by Idaho Fish and

Game, only five have set harvest limits.71 Montana will allow hunters to kill up to 220

wolves, up from 75 allowed in 2009. However, as of December 13, 2011, only 109

wolves had been shot—with the season closing December 31.72

So, do wolves limit ungulate populations and interfere with human hunting? This

has been a topic of scientific debate and public controversy (and has been one of the

reasons that wolf populations were previously extirpated).73 The short answer is that we

are not sure, but we are able to agree on a few points. Wolf predation can limit prey

137

populations; and, in combination with grizzly bear predation on new-born animals during

spring, can directly reduce prey populations.74 Is this a bad thing? Certainly research has

demonstrated the importance of large carnivores to the maintenance of biodiversity.75

Recovery of wolf populations has the potential to limit overgrazing by herbivores, but

can offer much more as well: increased species interactions; recovery of riparian and

other woody vegetation; improved nutrient cycling; limited mesopredator populations

(coyotes, raccoons, skunks, foxes, cats); and food for scavengers.76 Much has been

written about trophic cascades and predator-prey relationships, particularly in

Yellowstone National Park after wolf reintroduction. A trophic cascade can be defined as

the cascade of effects on a food web, or the movement of energy though a food web,

which can be top-down, such as predator-prey relationships—or bottom-up, from plant to

herbivore.77

Predators influence prey populations, including those of elk by wolves, and those

of deer by mountain lions. Aldo Leopold spoke to this phenomenon when he documented

the deer irruption on the North Kaibab Plateau after the federal government eradicated

wolves.78 But what about the wolves and elk in Yellowstone? Are the wolves controlling

elk populations and ultimately enabling regeneration of aspen and willows? The elk herd

in Yellowstone that numbered 16,791 in 1995 has dropped to 4,635 as of the December

2010 count.79 Although trophic cascades certainly occur, a variety of factors make the

phenomenon exceptionally complicated. Even though predators do influence prey

populations from the top down, bottom up influences occur as well—and they interact

with each other. Elk populations have declined in some areas, most notably on

Yellowstone’s northern range, but so too have grizzly bear and wolf populations,

138

providing evidence that trophic relationships work both ways. Ungulate populations cycle

for many reasons: drought, snowpack, fire—and humans building subdivisions. Wolf

populations cycle as well—due to decreased prey,disease, and hunting—and the NRM

population was down as of 2010.80

Prognosis

The reintroduction of the gray wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains has clearly

been successful. Up through 2010, numbers and breeding pairs had increased every year

despite removal of wolves for in retaliation for depredation. How will they fare under

state management? Most likely population numbers will decrease as wolves are hunted

and continue to be removed for livestock depredation. While wolves are able to sustain a

high mortality rate (ranging from 28–47 percent), human-caused mortality can disrupt

pack structure and breeding, and research suggests that hunting quotas like those set for

Montana and Idaho will cause populations to decline.81

Recovery goals for wolves in the NRM contradict current science, and persistence

will likely entail a population of at least several thousand. (See Chapter 3.) The Final

Rule, however, states differently, asserting that suitable habitat is currently “saturated,”

and that, “Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than

indicated by theory and theoretical treatments of population viability have created

unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population

size.”82 The question remains, how much is enough? Is the “required population size”

referring to viability or recovery? Defining either of these terms is difficult, but the

USFWS utilizes several methods for evaluating the status of a species: the Five Factor

139

Analysis, and the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. In delisting

the NRM population of gray wolves, USFWS does not appear to follow its own

precedents.

Bradley J. Bergstrom, Chair of the Conservation Committee of the American

Society of Mammalogists, and colleagues, recently wrote that that “the current delisting

rule for the NRM gray wolf is premature and inadequate because it is not based on the

best available science, is insufficient for maintaining a viable metapopulation . . . and

does not address deficiencies in state management plans. . . .”83 In other words, by de-

listing the population, we are putting it at risk demographically, and it is again being

threatened by the very same actions that extirpated the population in the first place—

human-caused mortality. In addition, the connectivity of the Yellowstone population with

the others is in question. 84 Rather than recovering the gray wolf over a “significant

portion of its range” (which is the terminology used in the ESA), the delisting rule creates

a DPS, states that the DPS is “saturated,” and then delists the population in the DPS.

In summary, the reintroduction of the gray wolf into the northern Rocky

Mountains has been successful in that, to date, it has achieved an enormous amount of

resiliency, and some redundancy and representation. Unfortunately, it is once again at

risk, as state management objectives are not aligned with long-term persistence of the

species in the northern Rockies. I will further discuss the success of this population in the

next chapter and compare it with the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into Arizona and

New Mexico.

140

Table 6.1. NRM Wolf Reintroduction Project statistics December 201085

Initial release number 66

Number born in wild/surviving 3,356

Average litter size 5

Management removals (killed) since 1995 1,511

Legal harvesting/hunting (2009) 260

Current population 1651

141

Chapter Seven: The Return of the Lobo Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

It was this wolf, the Mexican wolf, that Aldo Leopold famously wrote of in his

seminal essay Thinking Like a Mountain. The essay dates from the 1940s when he

worked for the US Forest Service in Arizona and New Mexico.

When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was

dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her

eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something

new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the

mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because

fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters'

paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf

nor the mountain agreed with such a view.1

—Aldo Leopold, 1949

Forty years later, On March 29, 1998, eleven wolves were released into the Apache

National Forest in Arizona—not far from the very mountain in Leopold’s essay,

142

Escudilla. His granddaughter helped to carry one of the wolves to the release site.2 That

same year, four wolves were illegally shot.3

The southernmost and most genetically distinct subspecies of gray wolf, the

Mexican wolf, or “lobo,” once ranged through portions of central and northern Mexico,

western Texas, southern New Mexico, and southeastern and central Arizona. What little

we know about the natural history of the species comes from accounts of ranchers and

“wolfers” hired to trap, shoot, and poison the wolves, and remove them from the

landscape.4 We can extrapolate, however, from gray wolf ecology (see chapter 6). In the

1970s, with the species all but extirpated from the US by predator extermination

programs, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) hired veteran wolfer Roy McBride

to survey and live-trap wolves in Mexico for captive breeding purposes in an effort to

save the species. From 1977-1980, McBride captured the last five wolves remaining in

the mountains of Mexico, saving the lobo from extinction.5 The last wolf in the

Southwest was purportedly killed in Aravaipa canyon, northeast of Tucson, for a bounty

of $500 in 1976—the same year that the Mexican wolf was declared an endangered

species.6


A Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed in 1979 and published the Mexican

Wolf Recovery Plan in 1982 with the following objective: “To conserve and ensure the

survival of C. l. baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishing a

viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in middle to high

elevations of a 5,000 mi² area within the Mexican wolf’s historic range.”7 By 1983, 15

143

pups had been born in captivity, ensuring continuation of the species.8 The Final

Environmental Impact Statement, completed in 1996, established the Apache-Sitgreaves

National Forests in Arizona and the Gila National Forest in New Mexico as the Blue

Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), an area of 6,845 square miles also encompassing

parts of Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo counties in Arizona, and Catron and Sierra

counties in New Mexico.9 On March 29, 1998, eleven wolves were released into the

Apache National Forest under the “nonessential experimental” designation, or section

10(j). The 1998 Final Rule states that “This reintroduction will be the first step toward

recovery of the Mexican wolf in the wild.” 10 In 2002, 2,500 square miles of the

adjoining Fort Apache Indian Reservation were added to the BRWRA.

The BRWRA provides a large area of suitable habitat for wolves. Prey species are

abundant, water is available, and human and road density are low.11 Elevations in the

BRWRA range from under 4,000 to 11,000 feet; vegetation varies from mixed conifer at

higher elevations to ponderosa and white pine at mid-elevations and piñon-juniper at

lower elevations. Grasslands are interspersed throughout. Prey species in the BRWRA

include elk, white-tailed and mule deer, javelina, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep, as well

as small mammals such as cottontail, beaver, and squirrel. The majority of the land

within the BRWRA (94 percent in Arizona, and 96 percent in New Mexico) is managed

by the U.S. Forest Service for multiple uses that include grazing, recreation, and resource

extraction. Approximately one million acres are designated wilderness and managed to

minimize human development. Livestock graze on sixty-nine percent of the BRWRA

under 208 grazing allotments.12 Recreational activities include hiking, horseback riding,

hunting, fishing, and camping.

144

Project data show that elk are the preferred prey of the reintroduced population,

although historically white-tailed and mule deer were the primary sources of prey.13 The

native Merriam’s elk (Cervus canadensis merriani), probably never numerous, was

hunted to extinction early in the early 1900s, and elk from Yellowstone National Park

(Cervus canadensis nelsoni), a non-native species, were introduced to Arizona in 1913.14

Deer populations in the BRWRA appear to have declined as a result of habitat loss due to

decades of fire suppression.15

Today, the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project is managed by the

USFWS in cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), White

Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, and the USDA Forest Service.

An Interagency Field Team (IFT) composed of field staff from USFWS, AZGFD, and

New Mexico Fish and Game Department has been responsible for the day-to-day

activities of the reintroduction project. As of July 2011, the New Mexico Game and Fish

Department no longer participates in the reintroduction project; with the support of New

Mexico’s governor, the Commissioners voted 6-0 to suspend state participation—as a

result of local opposition to the program.16 Arizona’s Game and Fish Commission voted

on December 2, 2011 against any further wolf releases until the federal government

completes the new recovery plan.17

At the end of 2010, USFWS announced a minimum population count of fifty

Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. (Table 7.1). Approximately 320 additional

wolves are housed in forty-nine facilities in the United States and Mexico as part of the

Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP) captive breeding program.18 Like all captive

populations, Mexican wolves are managed genetically under an SSP, coordinated by the

145

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). The current population is the offspring of

three lineages, each of which had become inbred. These three lineages were combined in

1995 to form a population with seven founders. Previously documented inbreeding

depression has been eradicated and indicates a genetically healthy captive population.19

USFWS had originally projected that the population objective would be achieved

by 2006. Why hasn’t that happened? The cumulative effect of biological, sociological,

and regulatory factors has prevented the species from flourishing. And the program has

been beset with lawsuits—on both sides of the issues. (Table 7.2.) Since reintroduction,

causes of Mexican gray wolf mortality have been predominantly human-caused. Illegal

gunshot and vehicle collision have been the most prevalent causes of death, followed by

lethal control and capture complications. Prior to December 2009, a controversial

standard operating procedure (SOP 13) allowed for wolves to be eliminated for livestock

depredation.20

In total, 151 wolves have been removed by managers because they dispersed

outside the BRWRA or killed livestock.21 Recent research suggests that inbreeding

depression in the reintroduced population has resulted in smaller litter sizes in

comparison to Mexican gray wolf litters produced in captivity. In response, the AZA has

recommended that the genetic diversity of the reintroduced population be taken into

consideration prior to removing wolves from the landscape.22 Indeed, as a result of the

suspension of SOP 13, fewer wolves have been removed.23

The Mexican gray wolf has been called a “bureaucratically imperiled species,” a

term coined by Povilitis et al. (2006) to describe what happens when economic interests

and entrenched opposition have co-opted public agencies and jeopardized conservation

146

goals.24 By policy, government agencies imposed major constraints on Mexican wolves.

Wolves cannot establish territories outside the BRWRA, and if they attempt to, they are

trapped and removed, which is particularly problematic because a wolf dispersing an

average distance of 54 miles from the center of the BRWRA will end up outside the

recovery area 66 percent of the time.25 Agencies permit initial releases only into the

smaller primary zone in Arizona (1,000 square miles), not into the secondary zone (in

New Mexico). In addition, the nonessential experimental designation in the Final Rule

allows for less restrictive management and killing animals that depredate livestock.26

The USFWS completed a Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment in 2010. This

document specifies that recovery criteria for the species were never developed as part of

the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan as required by Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA. It

further states that the reintroduction effort has proceeded “without any guidance in terms

of the number and distribution of wolves considered adequate for recovery and

delisting.”27


In the Conservation Assessment, the USFWS also looks at the five factors noted

in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA—those that justify threatened or endangered status—to

evaluate current threats to the Mexican gray wolf:

A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat

or range;

B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes;

C) Disease or predation;

147

D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;

E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The assessment concludes that at the present time there are no habitat threats to the

population (Factor A), as the recovery area is of adequate size and sufficient prey is

present, although increasing human population and future development may impact

present and future recovery area(s). Habitat curtailment due to regulations regarding the

boundaries of the recovery area and depredation is mentioned in the assessment of Factor

A, but is considered under Factor D in the document.28 Factor B and C are not

considered to be threats. Factor D again speaks to management issues and regulations. A

number of issues have been identified in various reviews and reports over the years:

1) Impediments caused by the internal and external boundaries of the

BRWRA, including the configuration of the Primary and Secondary

Recovery Zones and the regulations governing removal of wolves due to

boundary violations;

2) Lack of regulations or management procedures for livestock

management (e.g., carcass removal);

3) Management procedures related to livestock depredation that remove

wolves from the wild (SOP 13) [suspended as of December 2009];

4) Lack of implementation of conservation actions by other Federal

agencies pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. “The Secretary shall

review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in

furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in

consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out

148

programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened

species . . . .”;

5) Lack of revision of the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.29

All prior reviews of the reintroduction program have recommended revising the

Final Rule to modify the boundaries of the BRWRA, and USFWS has discussed doing

so—but that has not yet happened. The amount of grazing permitted in the BRWRA has

also repeatedly been raised as an issue, but neither USFWS nor USFS has specifically

addressed grazing or animal husbandry practices.30 However, USFWS and the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation signed an agreement in October of 2009 to create the

Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund. Program guidelines are to be developed by a

Stakeholder Council of local ranchers and community members, sportsmen, and

conservation groups. They will:

• Establish guidelines for fulfilling compensation requests and managing payment of

depredation compensation.

• Facilitate payment and funds disbursement for compensation, interdiction, and

incentive programs.

• When appropriate, provide up-front payments for potential livestock losses caused

directly by Mexican wolves or by the presence of wolves on private lands.31

Regarding Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, WildEarth Guardians filed suit in 2007 and

asked “the Court to decide what ESA, section 7(a)(1) requires of the US Forest Service:

1) whether section 7(a)(1) requires the USFS to develop and implement its own agency-

specific conservation program for the wolf, and if not–then whether section 7(a)(1)

requires the USFS to execute USFWS’s wolf programs in a manner that significantly

149

furthers the wolf’s conservation.” In June 2011, the court found that “USFS has complied

with ESA, section 7(a)(1), requirements to act, in consultation with and with the

assistance of USFWS, to utilize its authorities in furtherance of the ESA by carrying out

programs for the conservation of the Mexican gray wolf,” and denied the motion.32 The

Court further stated that “Guardians has not proved USFS has failed totally to act to

conserve the Mexican gray wolf.”33

Finally, Factor E discusses illegal shooting of wolves, mentioned previously as the

predominant cause of death. However, the Conservation Assessment does not consider

Factor E to be of consequence because of recent polling that shows broad public support

for Mexican wolf reintroduction.34

I have previously discussed the conservation principles of resiliency, redundancy

and representation, and the Conservation Assessment speaks to these principles. The

USFWS utilizes resiliency, redundancy and representation to provide a framework for

assessing all gray wolf recovery efforts in the U.S.35 Resiliency refers to the likelihood

of persistence in the face of ecological threats and addresses genetic and demographic

health of the population. Redundancy speaks to redundant or multiple populations within

a species’ range—which reduces risk to the population. Representation refers both to

genetic diversity as well as the numbers of individuals represented in a diversity of

habitats, or ecosystem representation.

The current population of fifty Mexican wolves is not resilient; as a small

population, every mortality matters. A small population faces a higher risk of extinction,

and it faces inbreeding depression. Only one wild population exists at present, and in

numbers too small to provide representation of the species. Viable population estimates

150

for wolves vary greatly, from 1,400 to 6,300, although others call for a population of 600

wolves—or 450 wolves, as in the NRM population.36 (See Chapter 6.) As noted by the

Conservation Assessment, “estimations of viability vary not only between previous gray

wolf recovery plans, but also between recovery plans and the scientific literature.”37 No

viability analysis has been conducted to determine the extinction risk faced by this

population nor has any other population objective been set. Neither the number of

subpopulations nor method of connectivity has been specified. And finally, no

determination of effective population size for recovery has been made.

What accounts for such vast differences between two wolf reintroduction

programs? Let’s compare initial release and recovery area data. (Table 7.1.) Stark

differences are immediately apparent: initial release numbers; subsequent releases;

recovery area size; and percentage of grazing land. Dave Parsons was Recovery

Coordinator for the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program from 1990-1999, and is currently

participating on the Recovery Planning Team’s stakeholder liaison group. He describes

the issues in a different way.

Unlike the Northern Rocky Mountains, we don’t have a place where 10(j) rules don’t apply [i.e. Yellowstone National Park]. We lack core cow-free zones. It is also important to understand that the reintroduction in the northern Rockies was designed for full recovery, and the Mexican wolf reintroduction was intended as a first step toward full recovery of the subspecies. Federal policy at the time required state support for wolf reintroduction. The New Mexico Game Commission opposed wolf releases, and the support of the Arizona Game Commission was contingent upon addressing the concerns of Arizona Cattle Growers Association on management responses to cattle depredations and establishing hard boundaries around the wolf recovery area. The Mexican wolf reintroduction program was heavily influenced by the political positions of the states.38

151

As I stated previously, the Conservation Assessment does not consider Factor E to

be of consequence because of recent polling that shows broad public support for Mexican

wolf reintroduction. Polls in Arizona and New Mexico in 2008 did indeed find substantial

support for wolf reintroduction: 77 percent of Arizonans support the program while 69

percent of New Mexicans do. However, people who live in wolf country (farmers and

ranchers) do not support wolf reintroduction.39 Wolves have been illegally killed, and

now the State of New Mexico is no longer participating in the program. It appears to be

disingenuous for the USFWS to state that Factor E, “Other natural or manmade factors

affecting [the wolves’] continued existence” is not an important consideration, and that

polls indicate widespread support of reintroduction. In 2011, three bills were filed in the

US House and Senate proposing to amend the ESA and to remove all gray wolves (Canis

lupus) from federal protection, including the Mexican wolf.40 None were passed.41


It is difficult to be hopeful about Mexican wolf recovery. However, the USFWS,

in the Conservation Assessment, does recognize that “. . . establishment of a single

population of at least 100 wolves does not achieve resiliency, redundancy, or

representation.”42 And a new Recovery Plan is in the works. In addition, the USFWS is

undertaking a status review of the Mexican wolf, and will make a determination about

listing the sub-species separately from the gray wolf. 43

We also know, from observations of the NRM wolf reintroduction, that if wolves

are given enough territory and allowed to live, they will prosper. All one has to do is

look at the numbers. If 151 wolves had not been removed from Arizona and New Mexico

152

for various infractions, perhaps we’d have achieved the population goal. In fact, without

removals or illegal killings, the population would have been increasing at a rate of 51

percent per year. (See Appendix A.) If the revised Recovery Plan takes into account

boundary issues of the recovery area—so that the animals may naturally disperse—

Mexican wolves may have a chance, even if the political landscape doesn’t change.

153

Table 7.1. Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project statistics December 2010.1

Mexican wolves released since 1998 92

Number born in wild/surviving 189

Mortality since 1998 80 (37 illegal shootings

Management removals 1998-2010 151(livestock depredation, nuisance, boundary issues)

Current population 50

154

Table 7.2. Mexican wolf reintroduction summary of actions and corresponding litigation.

1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan completed; contains goal of maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishment of 100 wolves within their historic range.

1990 Wolf Action Group files suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service alleging failure to implement the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.

1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service releases the first Mexican wolves into the wild in the BRWRA.

1998 New Mexico Cattle Growers Association et. al., file suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service alleging violations of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in authorizing and implementing the Mexican wolf reintroduction project.

1999 Courts rule U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complied with NEPA, ESA, and APA; lawsuit is dismissed.

2002 Coalition of Arizona and New Mexico Counties, et al. file a 60-day Notice of Intent for violations of NEPA, ESA, and APA alleging Mexican wolves are hybridizing with domestic dogs.

2002 San Carlos Apache Tribe passes resolution to remove all Mexican wolves from the Reservation.

2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies the gray wolf into 3 Distinct Population Segments. Mexican wolves maintain classification as endangered or non-essential and became part of the Southwestern Distinct Population Segment.

2003 Coalition of Arizona and New Mexico Counties et al., files suit regarding the 2002 Notice of Intent alleging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1) failed to consider the impacts of hybridization; 2) failed to prepare a supplemental EIS; and 3) violated FOIA by improperly withholding documents.

2003 San Carlos Apache Tribe enters into a cooperative agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf monitoring and management to include removal.

2003 Defenders of Wildlife et al., files suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Gray Wolf Reclassification Rule.

2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalizes the MOU with Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, USDA-Forest Service, White Mountain Apache Tribe, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, and several counties. The MOU restructures the Mexican wolf recovery program to allow the States and Tribes to implement the BRWRA reintroduction project while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains responsibilities for recovery. The MOU establishes an Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) and an Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG).

2004 Pursuant to the Final Rule, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and AMOC cooperators begin the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review; draft reports released to public for review and comment in December.

2005 Courts rule in favor of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Arizona and New Mexico Coalition of Counties, et al., hybrid lawsuit; lawsuit dismissed.

2005 Court enjoins and vacates the 2003 Reclassification Rule; the ruling negates the 3 previously established DPS’s including the Southwestern DPS. Recovery planning for the Mexican wolf is

155

put on hold.

2005 Arizona and New Mexico Coalition of Counties, et. al., file for appeal regarding the hybrid lawsuit.

2005

The AMOC completes the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review and submits to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration. Included are a set of 37 recommendations for improving management of the Blue Range wolf reintroduction project, many of which would require a change to the Final Rule.

2007 WildEarth Guardians file lawsuit alleging that USWFS and USDA-FS are failing to meeting the requirements of Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA

2008 WildEarth Guardians and Rewilding Institute file lawsuit alleging that USWFS and USDA-FS are failing to meeting the requirements of Section 10(j) of the ESA

2008 Defenders of Wildlife and ten other conservation groups file lawsuit alleging that USFWS have violated NEPA & ESA in creating AMOC and authorizing SOP 13

2008 The court consolidates the lawsuits

2009 Court denies the USFWS motion to dismiss

2009 USFWS and plaintiffs settle in a Consent Decree: AMOC no longer oversees actions of FWS or the Recovery program; FWS no longer follows SOP 13

2011 USFWS and WildEarth Guardians reach settlement agreement: USFWS will respond to petition to list the Mexican wolf as a separate subspecies by the end FY 2012.

2011 H.R.1819, S.249, and H.R.509 filed; all bills would remove protection for the Mexican Wolf

Sources: USFWS, Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Chronology; USFWS news releases.

156

Table 7.3. Initial release & recovery area comparison, NRM and Mexican wolf.

NRM Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

Initial release and number of wolves released

1994-95 66

1998 13

Subsequent releases None 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 2004, 2006, 2008 79 animals

Recovery area size 45,000 square miles ID & GYA

9,345 square miles AZ & NM

Size of release area No restriction 1000 square miles

Land ownership of recovery area ID: 99% federal GYA: 76% federal

70% federal 25% tribal

Human population density ID: 2.6/square mile GYA: 5.2/square mile

2.2 square mile

Percentage of grazing land 29% Seasonal allotments

69% non-tribal lands 100% tribal lands 50% year-round allotments

Sources: USFWS, Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, 1982; USFWS, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, 1987; USFWS, Final Environmental Impact Statement on Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States (1996)

157

Chapter Eight: Snow Hunter Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

At 9,000 feet above sea level, even horses need to acclimate. My sister and I are

at a ranch in southwest Colorado, just north of Chama, NM, on the eastern edge of the

San Juan Mountains, to ride. The horses vacation for the winter in Alamosa, where there

is far less snow, and are brought up to the ranch only during the summer to work—and

are given time to adjust to the altitude. We ride every day, sometimes up to 12,000 feet,

with a small group of intrepid folks from all over the country. We see no other people,

except for the occasional cowboy and cow dog. We gallop down old logging roads, and

walk nose to tail on ledge trails only wide enough for one horse, looking down rocky

cliff-faces onto sparkling creeks. We ford the Conejos River, climb to waterfalls, stop at

beaver ponds to rest and water the horses. We race through pine and spruce forests and

rein in to take in breathtaking views of the continental divide from wide open alpine

meadows. Weather doesn’t stop us. In wind and rain and thunderstorms, the horses slide

down steep trails on their hind quarters in mud so slick that our wrangler tells us to be

ready for emergency dismount. We are silent and watchful as cats, letting the horses do

their work, hoping their traction holds. We survive—and cheer our mounts.

Snow comes early here. It is only early September and the aspen glow—brilliant

orange and gold and yellow. The nights are already getting cold, and the ranch will close

soon. We’ve seen deer and elk and coyotes on our rides, and heard some good bear and

158

lion stories, but no one has seen a lynx. They are here though—this is their country. High,

rugged, and cold.

* * *

A grand experiment took place in these mountains when Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis) were reintroduced in 1999. Researchers and biologists don’t know much

about pre-European-settlement Canada lynx (lynx) ecology or population densities here

in the southern reaches of the species’ range, even though the animal may have

historically occurred across a wide geographic range in the US. Lynx are closely

associated with cool, moist conifer forest, ranging from the classic boreal forest or taiga

in Canada and Alaska to the subalpine forest in the western US—where we rode in the

San Juan Mountains.

In 2000, US Forest Service researchers Kevin McKelvey, Keith Aubry, and

Yvette Ortega reconstructed the probable historical distribution of lynx in the US using

written accounts and trapping records. Although not a true census, their study showed

that between 1842 and 1998 lynx occurred across the northern tier of the US in twenty-

four states; the highest population densities of the species occurred in the White

Mountains of New Hampshire, northern Minnesota, and at high elevations in the Rocky

Mountains.1 We do know that lynx in the US are most likely subpopulations of the larger

population in Canada, with immigration and dispersal periodically populating smaller and

more isolated groups in the south.2

Boreal forest or taiga covers a wide swath of Canada and Alaska, ranging from

the Canadian Maritime Provinces to the interior of Alaska, and is dominated by spruce

159

and fir trees, with birch and willow in younger successional stands. Much more

heterogeneous (or variable) than the taiga, boreal forests in the western US occur only at

higher elevations characterized by subalpine species such as Engelmann spruce,

subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. In Colorado, for example, historical records of lynx

occurrence are generally limited to elevations of 9,000 to 11,500 feet.3 Like the boreal

forests of the western US, those in the Great Lakes region and the northeastern US are

southern extensions of the classic boreal forest; lynx habitat in these areas is

characterized by mixed conifer and hardwood forests.4

Today, lynx are “known or believed to occur” in the following states: Colorado,

Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon,

Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.5 In its 2005 Recovery Outline,

the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated “core areas,” (areas that evidence long-term

lynx occurrence) on which to focus conservation efforts. These include areas in northern

Maine and New Hampshire, northeastern Minnesota, the Greater Yellowstone Area

(Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana), northwestern Montana, and northern Washington state;

other areas within Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Colorado, Utah,

Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon were designated as “provisional

core areas,” “secondary,” or “peripheral,” areas where lynx may have occurred or

through which they have traveled.6

In 2009, the USFWS announced Critical Habitat designation for 39,000 square

miles of Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington—the only states

with verifiable populations of lynx considered to be viable.7 Lynx have probably never

160

been common in the contiguous US; that, coupled with their remote and high elevation

habitat—and high vagility—have made population numbers difficult to ascertain.

Canada Lynx Natural History

Lynx are a highly specialized species within a family of highly specialized

predators—Felidae, or cats. Felids comprise thirty-six species of obligate carnivores, all

designed by evolution to hunt, capture, and kill live prey.8 In fact, all cats are

morphologically so similar that taxonomic classification has been problematic. What we

do know is that all extant species of wild cats (as well as our domestic cat) evolved from

eight lineages some 10-15 million years ago, one of which is the lynx.9 All cats possess

well-muscled limbs and a flexible spine, providing them with agility and power. Strong

sagittal crests on the skull anchor powerful jaw muscles in a foreshortened face,

providing increased bite force. As ambush rather than coursing predators like wolves or

dogs, cats do not possess highly oxygenated red muscle.

Cats’ eyes, probably their most valuable hunting tool, are very large relative to

body size, providing for enhanced light-gathering ability. Their eyes contain a relatively

high proportion of rod cells, adapted for seeing in conditions of dim light. In addition,

the tapetum lucidum, a layer of tissue beneath the retina, reflects light back inside the eye

(magnifying available light at night), and gives cats (and dogs) their distinctive green

eyeshine. Cats’ binocular vision, the most highly developed of any carnivore, enables

them to judge distances accurately, a necessary skill for ambush predators. Domestic cats

hear well above the human capacity, in the range of many rodent sounds; many felids

have large ears and can discern sound directionally—and can even use their outer ears as

161

amplifiers.10 Cats have one of the highest ratios of olfactory receptors to respiratory

surface area, indicating an exceptionally well developed sense of smell.11

Within this highly specialized family of hunters, the Canada lynx further

specializes; its primary prey is snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), which accounts for

the majority of its diet—from 60-97 percent.12 Lynx are restricted to areas with boreal

forests, cold winters, and snow cover from December through March—where there are

also sufficient snowshoe hare populations. The snowshoe hare occurs throughout Canada

and Alaska in boreal forests, with a more patchy distribution in the contiguous US in

available boreal, subalpine, and mixed deciduous forests. This species occurs in the

western mountain states of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,

North and South Dakota, and Colorado, and in high elevation areas in New Mexico,

Utah, and California. It also occurs in the Great Lakes and Northeastern regions of the

US. Lynx and snowshoe hare exhibit a classic predator-prey relationship in the boreal

forests of Canada and Alaska, and their ten-year synchronistic population fluctuations

have been well-documented.13 However, southern populations of snowshoe hare

occurring in more heterogeneous habitat appear to fluctuate with reduced amplitude—

with population densities similar to cyclical lows in northern regions.14 Snowshoe hare

range may be contracting northward, related to habitat loss, human activity, and increase

in coyote and bobcat numbers. Climate change and corresponding loss of snow cover

may be affecting its range as well.15

Morphologically adapted to hunt snowshoe hare in deep snow, Canada lynx

possess long legs, large furred feet and low foot load in snow (weight per unit surface of

foot), giving it a competitive advantage over other predators, such as coyotes (Canis

162

latrans) or bobcats (Lynx rufus), even though bobcats are similar in size.16 Lynx are

closely related to bobcats (in the same genus), almost identical in size, and sometimes

difficult to tell apart. Like the bobcat, the lynx is a medium-sized cat with a short, black-

tipped tail, one of its distinguishing features; bobcat tails are banded. Male lynx average

22 pounds and females 19 pounds, whereas bobcats average between 26.5 pounds (males)

and 20 pounds (females).17 Both have dense fur and ear tufts. But while the lynx is a

specialist, the bobcat is not. As opportunistic hunters, bobcats have the greatest range of

native North American cats, but are not adapted to deep snow. Nonetheless, bobcats and

other predators are moving into lynx territory in its southern range, which as we will see,

may increase competition for prey.18

In the northern latitudes, hare and lynx exhibit very strong cyclical association,

with hare populations peaking every ten years and the lynx following in one to two years.

This pattern, first identified from the Hudson Bay Company’s trapping records, has been

a focus of inquiry for a century.19 Krebs et al., in studying trophic relationships among

snowshoe hare and their predators postulate that the population cycles are the result of a

three-level trophic interaction among plant-herbivore-predator rather than simply a

predator-prey interaction.20 A more recent study undertaken by researchers at the

University of British Columbia indicates that three predators of snowshoe hare—coyote,

great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and lynx—may play a role in the hare-lynx

dynamic.21

Lynx in southern populations appear to share the characteristics of northern

populations during their cyclical lows.22 For example, lynx will rely on red squirrels

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) when hare populations are low, suggesting that lynx at lower

163

latitudes may be more generalist predators.23 When contending with a lower density of

snowshoe hares, lynx exhibit low yearling pregnancy and litter sizes, low kitten

production, high kitten mortality—and low lynx population densities.24 Again, because

of naturally fragmented and patchy habitat (in comparison to the vast taiga of Canada and

Alaska), lynx in the southern part of their range also utilize larger home ranges, and

appear to disperse or explore far from their home ranges.25 Colorado Division of Wildlife

(CDOW) monitoring between 1999 and 2007 tracked the reintroduced lynx over eleven

states—as far north as Idaho and as far east as Iowa.26

At low population densities, lynx in the south are more vulnerable to stressors.

These may include a variety of human activities in forests, as well as other factors such as

expansion of the range of competing predators, and climate change. Logging, thinning,

and fire suppression, as well as recreational use of forests may affect lynx and snowshoe

hare habitat, and may also increase fragmentation in an already fragmented and patchy

habitat. Fragmentation may cause a decrease in total habitat available, increase isolation

of patches, reduce connectivity, and facilitate access for generalist predators. For lynx,

this means the reduction of area and patch size of optimal snowshoe hare habitat; changes

in the structure and successional stages of forest; and creation of openings that increase

access for competing carnivores.27 As populations of bobcats, coyotes and cougars have

grown in the West, each of these is a potential threat to lynx. Cougars do kill bobcat and

lynx.28 And coyotes and bobcats will prey on snowshoe hare. However, studies

conducted thus far linking roads and snowmobile trails with coyote expansion into lynx

territory (thus causing declines in lynx populations) are inconclusive.29

164

Species such as lynx and snowshoe hare, habitat specialists linked to snow cover,

are likely more vulnerable to climate change. Models run by Gonzalez et al. for the US

Forest Service, published in 2007, show a significant loss of boreal forest—or

lynx/snowshoe hare habitat—in the western US, due to the increased temperatures and

precipitation changes characteristic of climate change.30 Climate change has already

reduced snowpack in the western mountains and shifted boreal forest northward and up in

elevation—thus currently threatening the viability of lynx in the conterminous US.31

Gonzalez et al. describe a loss of suitable snow for lynx in the conterminous US in the

range of 46 to 84 percent between 2071 and 2100—a potential future decrease of one-half

to two-thirds of lynx habitat.32

Lynx Conservation in the US

The federal government first classified the lynx in 1982 as a Category 2 candidate

species, defined as a species that was possibly appropriate for listing as threatened or

endangered, but without enough evidence to do so; USFWS discontinued this

classification in 1996.33 Although first petitioned in 1991, USFWS did not list the Canada

lynx as threatened until 2000, after more than thirty environmental groups, including the

National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife filed petitions and lawsuits over the

course of six years.34 USFWS generally utilizes the Five Factor Analysis when

determining species’ appropriateness for listing. The single factor for listing the lynx in

2000 was “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the lack of

guidance for conservation of lynx in National Forest Land and Resource Plans, and BLM

Land Use Plans.”35

165


The USFWS published a Recovery Outline in 2005 summarizing the Five Factor

Analysis for Canada lynx listing previously published in the Federal Register. Although

the only determining factor for listing in 2000 was “inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms,” the outline includes discussion of additional factors that might affect lynx

recovery.

A) The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range.

According to USFWS, timber harvest, recreation and their related activities affect

lynx habitat within the entire range of the species.

B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Biologists and wildlife managers had assumed that over-trapping had caused low

lynx populations in the contiguous US, but research conducted in the 1990s suggested

that lynx and their prey are naturally limited by habitat availability and climate. In

addition, the USFWS states that restrictions on commercial trapping of lynx adopted

since the 1980s currently prevents the overharvest of resident lynx.

C) Disease or predation.

Neither disease nor predation are considered to be factors.

D) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

In the 2000 Final Rule listing the lynx as threatened, this factor was the sole

reason stated. As of 2005, both the Forest Service and BLM entered into Lynx

Conservation Agreements, and several Forest Plans were revised as well; in the Recovery

Outline, USFWS considers threats to lynx from the inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms to be reduced.

166

E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence.

Lynx populations in the US depend upon immigration of lynx from Canada. The

USFWS states that “maintaining landscape connectivity between lynx habitats and

populations in Canada and the contiguous United States is critical.” Other issues

discussed include continued warming trends that will probably affect lynx and hare

habitat, and lynx-bobcat hybridization.36

The Recovery Outline also includes preliminary recovery objectives for the

contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx.

Objective 1: Retain adequate habitat of sufficient quality to support the

long-term persistence of lynx populations within each of the identified

core areas: northern Maine and New Hampshire; Northeastern Minnesota;

and areas in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington. Colorado is

identified as a provisional Core Area because of the reintroduced

population.

Objective 2: Ensure that sufficient habitat is available to accommodate

the long-term persistence of immigration and emigration between each

core area and adjacent populations in Canada or secondary areas in the

United States.

Objective 3: Ensure that habitat in secondary areas remains available for

continued occupancy by lynx.

Objective 4: Ensure that threats have been addressed so that lynx

populations will persist in the contiguous United States for at least the next

100 years.37

167

However, the Recovery Outline does not include demographic delisting criteria,

both because methodology to develop population estimates does not exist, and because

lynx populations naturally fluctuate.38

Reintroduction in Colorado

Lynx were essentially extirpated from Colorado by the early 1970s, most likely as

a result of habitat alteration, overtrapping, and poisoning through predator control

programs.39 They were listed as a state endangered species in 1973.40 The Colorado

Division of Wildlife (CDOW) initiated a lynx reintroduction program in 1997, with the

goal of “establishing a self-sustaining, viable population of lynx” in a core area in the San

Juan Mountains—and the hope “that lynx would remain in this area and disperse on their

own into suitable habitat throughout the state.” Gene Byrne, a biologist with CDOW at

the time, had evaluated five areas within Colorado as potential lynx habitat based on (1)

relative snowshoe hare densities, (2) road density, (3) size of area, (4) juxtaposition of

habitats within the area, (5) historical records of lynx observations, and (6) public

issues—and CDOW selected the San Juan Mountains.41

Wild lynx trapped in Canada and Alaska were transported to Colorado; of the first

thirteen animals released in 1999, four starved and a fifth was found emaciated and

recaptured.42 Marc Bekoff, then Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the

University of Colorado questioned the morality and efficacy of the program, and the

animals’ demise was covered in the New York Times as well.43 From the start, advocacy

groups and animal rights activists criticized the program, and the deaths of animals by

starvation added to the controversy.44 The project held many risks. A previous

168

reintroduction effort in the Adirondack Park had failed when a number of lynx died as a

result of vehicle collisions, and the animals dispersed beyond park boundaries; today the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation considers the species

extirpated in the state.45 Lynx in Colorado were being reintroduced at the southern end of

their range, in habitat already affected by climate change. Colorado wildlife managers

stated that they expected high mortality of the translocated animals, and the state was

accused of initiating the program to keep the federal government from getting involved.46

By 2003, 96 lynx had been released, 43 were known to be dead, and the animals were not

reproducing. CDOW planned additional releases in the face of opposition on both sides

of the issue, including a lawsuit filed by the Mountain States Legal Foundation which

stated that lynx interfered with human use of the land.47

CDOW released additional lynx from 2003-2006, for a total of 218 between 1999

and 2006. As of June 2010, there were 122 known mortalities of released adult lynx,

with the majority caused by vehicles or gunshot (29.7 percent). Other causes of death

included starvation and disease/illness (18.6 percent); the remaining 37.3 percent were

from unknown causes. Twenty-six percent of the mortalities occurred in other states—

one as far away as Iowa.48 Reproduction among the released population first occurred in

2003, and subsequently in 2004, 2005, and 2006, when two kittens were found of parents

born in Colorado, documenting the first successful recruitment into the breeding

population. After no reproduction in 2007 and 2008, kittens were again born in 2009 and

2010. Since 2003, 141 kittens have been born in the wild.49 Animals have dispersed and

colonized an additional area in central Colorado in the high elevation Collegiate Peaks

Wilderness area. Key to the success of this program is both dispersal and migration--

169

migration between the larger population of lynx in Canada, and dispersal in Colorado to

suitable habitat.

In 2002, CDOW had established seven criteria for achieving a viable lynx

population in Colorado:

1) To develop release protocols that lead to a high initial post-release

survival of reintroduced animals.

2) To demonstrate long-term survival of lynx in Colorado.

3) To observe site fidelity by the lynx to areas supporting good habitat in

densities sufficient to breed.

4) To establish that reintroduced lynx were breeding.

5) To establish that kittens were surviving

6) To observe that lynx born in Colorado were reproducing successfully

7) To establish that recruitment was equal to or greater than mortality over

an extended period of time.50

On September 17, 2010, CDOW published a news release declaring the Colorado

Lynx Reintroduction Program a success, stating that all seven criteria had been met, and

that the program was transitioning to monitoring the population’s “long-term

persistence.”51

Prognosis

At the present time, CDOW does not have any estimation of population numbers,

and is in the process of creating a monitoring program.52 CDOW will be utilizing snow-

tracking and remote cameras as the agency creates a monitoring system based upon

170

occupancy estimation, which utilizes various methods to estimate the occupancy of a

population within pre-selected sites or plots. The population is not without threats, as we

have seen. Human activities, such as logging, thinning, fire suppression, recreational use

of forests, and development remain a challenge, as does possible decline in suitable

habitat due to climate change. Is ten years a long enough time to assess species recovery

or the success of a reintroduction program? We have seen that in the case of the

Northern Rocky Mountain wolf reintroduction, ten years showed substantial increase in

numbers and breeding pairs. But wolves are not habitat or prey specialists, and have

been very highly monitored—unlike the lynx in Colorado.

Up to this point in time, lynx have successfully adapted to their new home in

Colorado and are producing cubs. CDOW considers the population to be self-sustaining,

stating that “the lynx population in the core area should be able to sustain itself at existing

densities into the foreseeable future with no further augmentation, assuming the patterns

of annual reproduction and survival observed to date repeat themselves during the next

20 or more years.” 53

I question CDOW’s declaration of success. Scientists are still studying the

species’ ecology in the southern part of their range, which includes most of the

conterminous US. We do not know, for example, whether or not lynx are more generalist

predators in the south, or if human activities like snowmobiling are aiding their

competitors—coyote and bobcat. Finally, given their propensity for rugged, high altitude

terrain, they are difficult to monitor; no agency has an accurate census of the US

population. Only intensive monitoring will be able to provide enough information to

171

gauge the population’s continued success, and to determine if recruitment is equal to or

greater than mortality over an extended period of time.

172

Chapter Nine: Evaluating Reintroduction Success

Today we are experiencing a worldwide loss of species (or loss of biodiversity)

that can be compared with the mass prehistoric extinctions of the Permian-Triassic (245

million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Tertiary (65 million years ago).1 Human activities

are contributing to this loss, activities such as urbanization, agriculture, outdoor

recreation, domestic livestock and ranching, reservoirs and dams, mineral and oil

extraction, logging, road presence and construction, aquifer depletion and wetland

draining, and fire suppression, fire regime modification, and forest management practices

such as clear-cutting.2

As of this writing, 583 animals and 792 plants are in such danger of extinction in

the US that they’ve been placed on the endangered species list—among them 85

mammals, 92 birds, and 140 fishes.3 Of the seventy-eight listed species in 1967 (under

the precursor to the ESA, the Endangered Species Protection Act), sixty-nine are still on

the list.4 Striking changes in American society resulted in the passage of the ESA in

1973, one of many laws passed during the environmental era of the 1960s and 70s. In just

a few decades, we as a society moved from vilification and elimination of many species

(or indifference to their decline) to protecting them legally under the ESA, a ground-

breaking law that some say communicates a belief that all species have a fundamental

right to exist.5 The ESA explicitly recognizes the conservation value of all animals and

plants, and states that habitat protection is necessary to species conservation. It states as

its purpose the conservation of ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened

173

species depend, as well as the provision of a program for the conservation of such

species.6

The ESA calls for Recovery Plans to be written and implemented for species

listed as in danger of extinction, plans to “stop the decline of an endangered or threatened

species by removing or reducing threats,” with the goal of ensuring the “long-term

survival of the species in the wild.”7 When a species has been extirpated from a region or

area, its recovery plan may include reintroducing that species within areas of its former

range. Recovery plans, while non-regulatory documents, detail management actions

necessary to achieve recovery of a species. These may include restoring habitat,

removing invasive species, or reintroducing species to areas of their former range(s),

which may entail propagation or captive breeding of species for reintroduction.8

Reintroduction of species is inherently difficult; those working in the field face a number

of challenges: high cost, behavioral issues in captive populations, genetic viability of

often small founding populations, and habitat availability, among others. Reintroduction

programs may face hostility from some sectors of the public—and even legal action.

I wanted to understand how and why the ESA and endangered species

reintroductions have become so controversial. I wanted to understand how species

reintroductions worked. Some reintroduction programs have been held up as successes;

some species have been approved for delisting. What are the criteria for success? How

has recovery been defined? My primary objective was to find out if any high-profile

reintroduction programs had resulted in success on the ground—and what parameters

might contribute to that success.

174

I conducted comparative case studies of five well-known reintroductions. Four of

the species were on that first list in 1967: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes),




canadensis.)










In this chapter, I provide a synthesis of findings and compare each of the

reintroduction programs, based upon 1) criteria used for assessing conservation status; 2)

federal government documents evaluating recovery; 3) current recovery goals; and 4)

recovery parameters.

Noel Snyder writes that it is “a well-established principle” that prior to a species

reintroduction the reasons for its extirpation should be corrected.9 In none of the species

reintroductions that I reviewed is that the case. The black-footed ferret remains

threatened by federal and state practices of poisoning prairie dogs (their primary prey), as

175

many westerners view prairie dogs as vermin.10 California condors came close to

extinction because of lead ingestion from hunter-discarded gut piles and that threat

continues today.11 Wolves have long been viewed as evil predators, and were extirpated

from the landscape as cattle and sheep ranching spread westward. They are still viewed

as threats to the livestock industry, and now that the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM)

population has been delisted, it is again being hunted by humans. Canada lynx remain

threatened as well, due to human activities such as logging and development.12

The intransigence of these issues—in spite of the vast societal changes of the last

40 years—speak to the strong influence of historic worldviews on present-day

conservation issues. Codified in the Bill of Rights, and enshrined during Western

expansion “the roots of American belief in the sanctity of private property are deep.”13

Opponents of the ESA claim that it deprives them of their property rights, lowers land

values, and causes ruinous financial losses.14 Americans’ views on such issues as use of

public lands, urban and rural values, federalism and states rights, individualism, and

property rights are widely divergent—and some endangered species reintroductions have

become symbolic stand-ins for these issues.15

Even as the federal government attempts to uphold the ESA, agencies and land

managers often must contend with local opposition. In the case of the Northern Rocky

Mountain wolf, recovery numbers were set to appease local ranchers and elected

officials.16 Black-footed ferrets have no critical habitat designated even though they are

entirely dependent upon prairie dog habitat.17 The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan set a

boundary for the recovery area to placate ranching interests.18 And yet these species

numbers have improved.

176

Historically, scientists have defined reintroduction success by the following

criteria: 1) breeding by the first wild-born population, 2) a three-year breeding

population with recruitment exceeding adult death rate, 3) an unsupported wild

population of at least 500 (which is probably not adequate for long-term persistence), and

4) the establishment of a self-sustaining wild population.19 I have also looked at other

factors that influence these criteria and affect judgments regarding reintroduction success

or failure. On the individual or population level, factors that affect species’ success

include:

• Availability of sufficient suitable habitat, which includes location and size of

recovery area.

• Sufficient food or prey base.

• Ecology of the species, e.g., the black-footed ferret is dependent upon another

species, the prairie dog, which complicates its recovery.

• Existence of source population, i.e., captive or wild-born.

At a broader level are additional factors, which include:

• Existence of metapopulations (or multiple populations) and their level of

connectivity (or linkage).

• Genetic health of the population.

• Ecological effectiveness of the population.

• Elimination of the factors that caused extirpation in the first place.

• Human activities that may affect a species survival.

Many of these factors are encompassed under the conservation principles of resiliency,

redundancy, and representation. Resiliency speaks to the likelihood of a population’s

177

persistence in the face of ecological and human threats, and addresses the genetic and

demographic health of a population. Redundancy provides for multiple populations and

reduces risk to a population in the face of catastrophe. And representation refers to

maintaining or establishing genetically diverse populations among a number of habitats

on the landscape, which ideally would encompass as much of the original range of a

species as possible. Today, there appears to be general agreement among conservation

biologists that multiple populations numbering in aggregate at a minimum several

thousand are required to achieve representation, redundancy, and resiliency.20

The ESA utilizes five factors, specified in §4(a)(1), when determining

justification for threatened or endangered status—the Five-Factor Analysis.

These factors, too, covers a number of issues that affect reintroduction success. When

USFWS proposes a species for listing, when its recovery plan is written, and when its

status is reviewed, these factors are generally discussed, but not always.

For assessing the status of the black-footed ferret, reintroduced during 1991, the

USFWS utilized 1988 Recovery Plan goals, as well as the Five-Factor Analysis in its

2008 5-Year Status Review, but not the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and

representation.21 Conservation assessments of the California condor (reintroduced during

1992), although addressing recovery plan goals, have not used the Five-Factor Analysis

or resiliency, redundancy, or representation; however, the American Ornithological

Union (AOU) provided a thorough independent review of the species status in 2010.

The USFWS utilizes the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation

for both wolf species, stating in the Final Rule delisting the Northern Rocky Mountain

population (reintroduced 1995), “Our recovery and post-delisting management goals

178

were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient representation,

resilience, and redundancy for their long-term conservation.”22 The 2010 Conservation

Assessment for the Mexican Wolf (reintroduced 1998) utilized both the Five-Factor

Analysis and resiliency, redundancy, and representation. At present, USFWS has not

completed a Recovery Plan for the Canada lynx (reintroduced 1999), but did publish a

Recovery Outline in 2005 which spoke to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, and

the Five Factors; Colorado Department of Wildlife published its own criteria for

assessment, which included, among others, long-term survival of lynx in Colorado, and

proof that recruitment must equal or be greater than mortality over an extended period of

time.23 (Table 9.1.)

Each USFWS recovery program team or lead field office provides various reports,

which may include a 5-year Review, yearly program updates or annual reports, monthly

population reports, Spotlight Species Action Plans, or conservation assessments. In the

case of the condor, the assessment was undertaken by the AOU, and not USWFS. (Table

9.2.) USFWS provides yearly or monthly program reports for all five species, and 5-

Year Reviews for all but the NRM wolf population. Agencies provide monthly

population reports for the condor and Mexican wolf, and Species Spotlight Action Plans

were published in 2009 for the ferret, condor, and Mexican wolf. USFWS recovery plans

state goals for reintroduction programs, which may or may not specifically include

downlisting targets—and which are utilized to determine program success. These goals

exhibit vast dissimilarity.24

179

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)

Establish captive population of 200 breeding adults by 1991, and 10 or more populations in the wild numbering 1,500 by 2010. New downlisting criteria: 2,650 breeding adults.

California condor (Gymnogyps californianus

Downlist the California condor to threatened status. Minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance of at least two non-captive populations and one captive population. each numbering at least 150 individuals, containing at least 15 breeding pairs, and self-sustaining.

NRM Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Remove the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf from the endangered and threatened species list by securing and maintaining a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas for a minimum of three successive years, clarified by specifying that “thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation,” would be required to reach that goal.

Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi)

Conserve and ensure the survival of C. l. baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in middle to high elevations of a 5,000 mi² area within the Mexican wolf’s historic range.

Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis)

USFWS: Retain adequate habitat of sufficient quality to support the long-term persistence of lynx populations within each of the identified core areas. Ensure that threats have been addressed so that lynx populations will persist in the contiguous United States for at least the next 100 years. CDOW: Ensure long-term survival of lynx in Colorado. Recruitment must equal or be greater than mortality over an extended period of time

Within the reintroduction programs that I have reviewed in this thesis, scientists

and reintroduction managers have defined success in a variety of ways:

1) meeting recovery goals or program objectives

2) meeting the conservation principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation

3) mitigating threats outlined in the Five-Factor analysis

4) mitigating threats outlined in other assessments

Despite the lack of consistency in methods of evaluation, recovery goals, and

determination of success among recovery plans, goals, and assessments, I have gathered

180

data for each species and compared it against various criteria in order to make an

assessment. How have each of these species fared? (Table 9.3.)

Long delays between listing, completion of recovery plans, and reintroduction on

the ground typified the black-footed ferret, California condor, and wolf species recovery

programs. The longest delays occurred for the NRM wolf—twenty-eight years. Black-

footed ferrets, condors, and the Mexican wolf reintroductions began with captive stock.

With the exception of the NRM wolf, all initial releases have been augmented with

captive or wild-born populations. As of 2010, 3,198 black-footed ferrets had been

released, 298 condors, 92 Mexican wolves, and 218 Canada lynx. Approximately 425

black-footed ferrets were distributed among sixteen sites. Two hundred nine condors

were flying free at two sites. Approximately 1,650 NRM wolves inhabited Wyoming,

Montana, and Idaho, and some fifty Mexican wolves roamed Arizona and New Mexico.

Colorado Department of Wildlife is unable to ascertain the number of lynx in the state.

Only the NRM wolf population has achieved the goal set forth in the recovery plan.

Each of these programs has had breeding success in the wild. However, by all

other measures, only one of the programs has been successful. A more complete list of

criteria for success might include: 1) a three-year breeding population with recruitment

exceeding adult death rate; 2) an unsupported and self-sustaining wild population in the

thousands; that 3) meets the conservation principles of resiliency, redundancy, and

representation; with 4) elimination of the factors that caused extirpation in the first place.

Michael Soulé and others have called for additional criteria: connectivity of populations

and ecological effectiveness. The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf reintroduction program

has met all these criteria, although it is again at risk from human-caused mortality. What

181

has made this particular reintroduction work is that all the factors coalesced to create a

successful program.

• A wild-born, disease-free population

• A large initial release population

• A large release area

• Connectivity among multiple populations

• More than adequate prey

• Species characteristics that are more generalist than specialist

• A protected area in Yellowstone National Park

• Public support from across the US

• Substantial areas without livestock

• Flexible management that allowed for removal of depredating wolves

• Statutory penalties for illegal killing

As discussed in Chapter 7, the Mexican wolf reintroduction program, in contrast, shares

few of these factors. Its single population is captive-born and was released in small

numbers into a restricted area. The area has no designated cow-free or protected place,

and the program has little local public support. However, without removal of 151 wolves

for management reasons, the population may have become self-sustaining. There are

some hopeful signs. USFWS has begun development of a new recovery plan, and the

2010 Conservation Assessment clearly states that the current program does not achieve

resiliency, redundancy, or representation.

Black-footed ferrets are captive-born and specialists, reliant upon a species that

most consider to be a pest—prairie dogs. The ferret reintroduction program however, has

182

demonstrated some success. Multiple populations do exist, and four of those populations

are self-sustaining. Most ferret reintroductions have taken place on federal land, and so

have some level of protection. However, most ferret reintroduction sites depend upon

population augmentation due to disease, and when plague strikes, USFWS personnel

attempt to trap and inoculate every animal and dust prairie dog burrows for fleas.

Managers are hopeful that scientists are close to developing a plague vaccine—and that

an incentive program may help ranchers tolerate prairie dogs.

Like ferrets, condors are heavily dependent upon human assistance for survival.

Their delayed sexual maturity and low reproductive rate add to the difficulty of recovery.

Even though there are multiple populations of condors established in the wild, they would

not survive without constant monitoring and treatment for lead poisoning. In addition,

program managers do not know condors’ ability to fare on their own because of such

close contact with humans. Without better control (or a ban) of lead shot use, the

prognosis is poor.

Canada lynx in Colorado, prey and habitat specialists, are particularly susceptible

to habitat changes from human activities, including climate change. Scientists are still

studying the species’ ecology in the southern part of their range, which includes most of

the conterminous US. We do not know, for example, whether or not lynx are more

generalist predators in the south, or if human activities like snowmobiling are aiding their

competitors—coyote and bobcat. Finally, given their propensity for rugged, high altitude

terrain, they are difficult to monitor; we’ve seen that USFWS does not have an accurate

estimate of the US population.

183

Based upon the research I’ve conducted on this small sample of endangered

species reintroductions, I have found that:

1) Sufficient and suitable habitat with adequate food appears to exist for each of the

species I’ve reviewed.

2) Disease is not a factor for the California condor, Canada lynx, or either wolf

population.

3) Genetic health and diversity appears to be adequate for all populations, even those

with few founders.

4) We know what is needed to successfully establish wild populations of each

species, having established captive breeding and release protocols, and utilizing

adaptive management.

5) Human activities and opposition, particularly from resource users, such as

ranchers and outdoor recreators, often preclude successful reintroductions.

The Five-Year Status Reviews, Spotlight Species Action Plans, Conservation

Assessments, and annual reports for the black-footed ferret, California condor, Mexican

wolf, and Canada lynx clearly state the issues impeding reintroduction success, as well as

uncertainties regarding long-term persistence of these species in the face of human

activities.

When I began this project, I didn’t know what I would find. In some ways I am

heartened, because we do indeed have the knowledge and ability to reintroduce species,

at least these five. What we lack is political will—and in some quarters, public support.

In 1985, Stephen Kellert, of the Yale School of Forestry, wrote, “A compelling rationale

184

and an effective strategy for protecting endangered species will require recognition that

contemporary extinction problems are the result of socioeconomic and political forces.” 25

Indeed—and these forces are influenced by our values. I do not have an answer for how

we can arrive at consensus, or even if it is possible, for we are having the same

discussions twenty-six years after Kellert wrote the above quote. Complex cultural,

social, and religious beliefs have contributed to Americans’ conflicted worldviews and

ideas about wilderness, wildlife, and the ESA. We have changed, though, as a society. I

am heartened that we—our government—sees as its responsibility enforcing the ESA and

working to recover species. After all, it is the very same government that sponsored

predator poisoning programs.

I am heartened for another reason as well. I feel privileged to have met and

spoken with the people working for endangered species. They are pioneers, as are the

animals they are releasing onto the landscape. Reintroduction of previously extirpated

species is a grand experiment, but we appear to have the tools and knowledge. What we

(or some of us) don’t have is the desire to make some room for these species that we’ve

taken off the landscape. Perhaps with incentive programs, experience, and education,

hearts and minds will begin to change. In the meantime, we have the ESA.

185

Table 9.1. Methods used for conservation assessment of species.

Recovery Plan/Program Goals

ESA Five-Factor Analysis

Conservation Principles Resiliency, Redundancy, Representation

Other


�

�


� � Independent Status Review by

AOU (2010) NRM Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

� �


� � �


� CDOW criteria

� �

186

Table 9.2. Federal government documents evaluating recovery of species

5-Year Review/Date

Yearly Program Updates/Annual Reports

Monthly Population Reports

Spotlight Species Action Plan/Date

Conservation Assessment


� (2008)

� � (2009)


� (only SW population)

�

� � (2009)

NRM Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

�


� (2005)

� � � (2009)

USFWS (2010)


� (due 2012)

� (CDOW)

187

Table 9.3. Comparisons of recovery parameters for five reintroduction programs

Species and Year of Data

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) 2010

California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) 2011

NRM Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 2010

Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) 2010

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 2010

Year species listed 1967 1967 1967 1976 2000

Year extinct in wild/region 1987 1987 1930s/US 1970s 1970s/Colorado

Date of Recovery Plan(s) 1978, 1988 1975, 1979, 1984, 1996 1987 1982 2005 (outline only)

Number removed from wild to begin captive breeding

18 27 n/a 5 n/a

Founder population/Initial number used in breeding

7 14 n/a 7 (included already

captive population)

n/a

Number in captivity 240 182 n/a 340 n/a

Year reintroduction began 1991 1992 1995, 1996 1998 1999

Number of attempted reintroduction sites

19 2 2 1 1

Number reintroduced/released 3,198 298 66 92 (13 initially)

218

Reintroduction sites, currently populated

16 2 2 1 1

Number in wild ~425 209 ~1,650 ~50 unknown

Current Recovery Plan/Project goal for wild population

1,500 300 300 (450) 100 unstated

188

Epilogue: Reasons for Hope I met Doug Brown in Seligman, Arizona, at the Arizona Game and Fish

Department’s black-footed ferret office, which is actually a very small house in a very

small town—population 545. Perhaps thirty people were crowded into what was once a

living room, waiting to go out to look for ferrets, and I noticed a tall older man in a

cowboy hat. While cowboy hats are not unusual in Arizona, I was somewhat surprised to

see someone who looked like a ranch hand volunteering to spend all night driving around

looking for black-footed ferrets, since I didn’t think that ranch hands were particularly

keen on prairie dogs. As it turned out, the man in the hat offered to drive some of us out

to the headquarters (a trailer) on Route 66, west of town. I took him up on his offer. Four

of us and our gear piled into his bright yellow Ford Escape for the drive. I introduced

myself and then asked him how he came to be here in Seligman looking for ferrets. In a

western drawl, he told us that he had been a ranch hand in Wyoming in the 1980s,

working near Meeteesee when Shep the ranch dog made his big discovery. Doug worked

the Pitchfork Ranch, next to the Hogg Ranch, where Shep lived. After Shep brought his

trophy home, Doug and everyone else working the ranches were on the lookout for

ferrets. Doug is Doug Brown, the very same man that Brian Miller and others wrote

about in Prairie Night—whose very same story is in the book about black-footed ferret

recovery. Imagine my incredulity and delight that I was riding in Doug’s truck all these

years later.

Doug believes that he actually saw the first live ferret after they were thought to

be extinct. He was on horseback at sunrise with his cow dog, and noticed some tracks

around a prairie dog colony that looked like mink tracks. Meanwhile, his dog was

189

carrying on at a burrow, and he got off his horse to see what the dog had. The angle of the

sun was just right, and he was able to see right into the burrow—into the eyes of a black-

footed ferret hissing at him and his dog. He marked the spot, and brought the researchers

and scientists back—and sure enough, there were ferrets. Doug has tried to follow the

saga of the ferrets all along, and has collected news articles and stories over the years. He

and his wife now live in the Chino Valley in Arizona, and when he saw the Arizona

Game and Fish announcement looking for volunteers, he signed up—so here he was in

Seligman. Doug and his spotlighting partner caught four ferrets over three nights. He had

never had the opportunity to handle ferrets in Wyoming—the researchers at the time were

very cautious and knew very little about ferrets. Doug described himself as “ecstatic,” in

his slow drawl, since he hadn’t seen a ferret since the mid-1980s. He went on to say,

“Driving up and down Route 66, spotlighting ferrets, what more could you ask for?”

Over the five nights of spotlighting, 78 ferrets were caught by 87 volunteers—a

record for the reintroduction site (AZGFD “BFF Team,” pers. comm.). I tell this story

because it gives me hope. Doug worked on a ranch and doesn’t think that prairie dogs are

vermin. He and 86 other people, some from as far away as Massachusetts, traveled to

Arizona to look for ferrets. I understand that the overarching issues facing endangered

species recovery are complicated and involve worldview and economic issues—and that

volunteering for a few nights won’t change the world. But it can change the person

volunteering. I believe that conservation happens one person at a time, through

experience and empathy, and answering very difficult questions about what we want our

world to look like.

190

Notes for Introduction

1 US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Aravaipa Canyon

Wilderness, http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/arolrsmain/aravaipa.html. (Accessed January 7,

2012).

2 David E. Brown, The Wolf in the Southwest ( Silver City, NM: High Lonesome Press,

2002): 114.

3 Peter Kareiva, Timothy H. Tear, Stacey Solie, Michelle L. Brown, Leonardo

Sotomayor, and Christopher Yuan-Farrell, “Nongovernmental Organizations,” The

Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and

Frank W. Davis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 176.

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department ff The Interior and National

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Department of Commerce, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries,

Chapter 4, §424.11. 2001.

5 United States Congress, Endangered Species Act [§2(b)], 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.,

1973.

6 Ibid., [§4(f)(1)]

7 Edward E. Bangs and Steven H. Fritts, Reintroducing the Gray Wolf to Center Idaho

and Yellowstone National Park, Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, no. 3 (1996): 411.

8 Kristen R. Jule, Lisa A. Leaver, and Stephen E.G. Lea, The effects of captive experience

on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis, Biological Conservation

141 (2008): 357; Philip J. Seddon, Doug P. Armstrong, and Richard F. Maloney,

191

Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology, Conservation Biology 21, no. 2

(2007): 305.

9 Christopher K. Williams, Göran Ericsson, and Thomas A. Heberlein, “A quantitative

summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000),” Wildlife

Society Bulletin 30, no. 2 (2002): 1-2.

10 Jule et al., 357.

11 Sophie A. H. Osborn, Condors in Canyon Country (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon

Association, 2007), 97-99.

12 Steve Primm and Karen Murray, “Grizzly Bear Recovery: Living with Success?,”

Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone, ed. Tim W. Clark,

Murray B. Rutherford and Denise Casey (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), 121.

13 J. Michael Scott, Dale D. Goble, Leona K. Svancara and Anna Pidgorna, “By the

Numbers,” The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J.

Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 21.

14 Brian Czech and Paul R. Krausman, The Endangered Species Act: History,

Conservation, Biology, and Public Policy (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press, 2001), 14.

15 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, Species Reports,

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessStatReport. (Accessed June 15, 2011.) Summary of

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, Listed Species Listed

Populations and Recovery Plans

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/boxScore.jsp#listedPops (Accessed June 15, 2011.)

16 David S. Wilcove and Margaret McMillan, “The Class of ’67,” The Endangered

192

Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006): 48-49.

17 Thomas R. Dunlap, Saving America’s Wildlife, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press): 140. President Richard M. Nixon announced a federal ban on predator poisons

and the general reduction of predator populations. Predators are still individually

removed by both state and federal governments.

18 Brian Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Steve Forrest, Prairie Night: Black-Footed

Ferrets and the Recovery of Endangered Species (Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press, 1996), 23

19 Steven A. Primm and Tim W. Clark, “Making sense of the policy process for carnivore

conservation,” Conservation Biology 10, no. 4 (1996): 1037.

20 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2011. Reintroduction.

http://www.blackfootedferret.org/reintroduction. (Accessed December 8, 2011)..

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish,

Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation,

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2012. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf

Recovery Program 2011 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds.

USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana,.

22 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, Mexican Wolf Blue

Range Reintroduction Project Statistics,

193

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MW_popcount.pdf (Accessed

October 17, 2010).

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Draft Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment.

(Albuquerque, NM, 2008), 7.

Notes for Chapter One

1 Save the Peaks Coalition, “Tribes & Environmental Groups Petition Supreme Court in

Appeal to Protect Religious Freedom & Environmental Integrity of Sacred Mountain,”

news release, January 6, 2009. The city of Flagstaff receives much of its water from

snowmelt in the Peaks.

2 Howard Fischer, “Snowmaking wins legal OK,” Capitol Media Services. June 9, 2009. 3 Associated Press, “Court says Snowmaking OK at Arizona Snowbowl,” Tucson Citizen.

August 9, 2008; US Forest Service, “Forest Service Approves Snowmaking at Arizona

Snowbowl,” news release, March 8, 2005.

4 Definitions from Merriam Webster, www.merriam-webster.com. 5 James W. Sire, Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2004), 38.

6 Ibid., 122.

7 Thomas Dunlap, Saving America’s Wildife (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), ix 8 Lucia Afloroaei, “Religious Dualism: Some Logical and Philosophical Difficulties,”

Journal for Interdiscipliniary Research on Religion and Science 4 (2009), 84-85.

9 Ibid., 86.

194

10 Michael Lewis, American Wilderness: A New History (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2007), 5.

11 Roderick Frazier Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1982), xi- xii

12 Nash, 8-9.

13 Ibid., xii 14 Nash, 10-11; Melanie Perreault, “American Wilderness and First Contact,” American

Wilderness: A New History, ed. Michael Lewis ((New York: Oxford University Press,

2007), 17-18.

15 Perreault, “American Wilderness and First Contact,” 20 16 Ibid., 20. 17 Nash, 29.

18 Nash, 24

19 Peter Hay, Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought, (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2002), 7-9; Goodman, Russell, "Transcendentalism", The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/transcendentalism/>.

20 Mark Stoll, “Religion Irradiates the Wilderness,” American Wilderness: A New

History, ed. Michael Lewis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 35-36 and 44-

47.

195

21 Richard N. L. Andrews, Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History

of American Environmental Policy, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

2006), 23-24.

22 Ibid., 25-26.

23 Henry Plotkin, Evolutionary thought in psychology: a brief history (Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell, 2004), 15–16.

24 Andrews, 25-26.

25 Ibid., 26.

26 Steven Stoll, “Farm against Forest,” American Wilderness: A New History, ed. Michael

Lewis ((New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 59-60.

27 Excerpted from John O’Sullivan, “The Great Nation of Futurity,” The United States

Democratic Review 6, no. 23: 426-430.

28 Stoll, “Farm against Forest,” 56. 29 Angela Miller, “The Fate of Wilderness in American Landscape Art,” American


2007), 102-107; Benjamin Johnson, “Wilderness Parks and their Discontents,” American


2007), 117.

30 J. Baird Callicott, “Whither Conservation Ethics,” Conservation Biology 4, no. 1

(1990): 16; Benthan wrote Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1789.

31 Thomas R. Dunlap, Saving America’s Wildlife (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1988), 20.

32 Andrews, Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, 71.

196

33 Ibid., 77, 93.

34 Ibid., 93.

35 Ibid., 93; Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Leonard

Harrison State Park, “Human Influence on the Canyon,”

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/leonardharrison.aspx. (Accessed September

20, 2010.)

36 Callicott, “Whither Conservation Ethics,” 15.

37 Henry David Thoreau, The Journal of Henry D. Thoreau, ed. Bradford Torrey and

Francis H. Allen, 2 vols. (New York: Dover, 1962), 220-221.

38 Nash, 44. 39 Miller, “The Fate of Wilderness in American Landscape Art,” 93. 40 Nash, 44-47. 41 Bradley P. Dean, “Natural History, Romanticism, and Thoreau,” American Wilderness:

A New History, ed. Michael Lewis ((New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 76.

42 Nash, 96-97. 43 Nash, 106-108. 44 Andrews, 104.

45 Nash, 154. 46 Nash, 145-152.

47 Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in America (New York: Henry Holt & Co,

1921), 244-245. First published as “The Contribution of the West to Democracy,” in the

Atlantic Monthly in 1903.

48 Johnson, “Wilderness Parks and their Discontencts, 114.

197

49 Andrews, 106.

50 Char Miller, “A Sylvan Prospect: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Early Twentieth-

Cenury Conservationism,” American Wilderness: A New History, ed. Michael Lewis

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 131.

51 Johnson, “Wilderness Parks and their Discontents,” 114-115. 52 Andrews, 93. 53 Thomas Heberlein, and Goran Ericsson, “Ties to the Countryside: Accounting for

Urbanites Attitudes toward Hunting, Wolves, and Wildlife,” Human Dimensions of

Wildlife 10 (2005): 213.

54 Wayne Pacelle, “Forging a New Wildlife Management Paradigm,” Human Dimensions

of Wildlife 3, no. 2 (1998): 43–44.

55 US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Nation Marks Lacey Act Centennial,” news release,

May 30, 2000.

56 Pacelle, “Forging a New Wildlife Management Paradigm,” 44.; Sloan, Phillip,

"Evolution", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N.

Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/evolution/>.

57 Pacelle, 45.

58 Ibid., 44.

59 Char Miller, 136.

60 Andrews, Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, 137; Miller, “A Sylvan

Prospect,” 141.

61 Ibid., 145.

62 Johnson, “Wilderness Parks and their Discontents,” 116-121.

198

63 Miller, “A Sylvan Prospect . . . ,” 132-134.

64 Ibid., 135.

65 Char Miller, “The Greening of Gifford Pinchot,” Environmental History Review 16, no.

3 (1992): 5-6.

66 Miller, 135.

67 Ibid., 132. 68 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949),

170-171.

69 Jon T. Coleman, Vicious: Wolves and Men in America (New Haven, CT: Yale


70 Andrews, Managing the Environment, 158.

71 Lopez, Of Wolves and Men, 139.

72 Dunlap, 70-71.

73 Michael Lewis, “Wilderness and Conservation Science,” American Wilderness: A New

History, ed. Michael Lewis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 208-9.

74 Dunlap, 65, 70-71.

75 Lewis, 206; Dunlap, 77.

76 Curt Meine, Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Press, 1988), 526.

77 Meine, 144, 146. 78 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949),

203-204.

79 Lewis, 206-207.

199

80 Bryan G. Norton, “The Constancy of Leopold’s Land Ethic,” Conservation Biology 2, no. 1 (1988): 94. 81 Dunlap, 84-86 82 Paul Sutter, “Putting Wilderness in Context: The Interwar Origins of the Modern

Wilderness Idea,” American Wilderness: A New History, ed. Michael Lewis ((New York:

Oxford University Press, 2007), 170.

83 Timothy Egan, The Worst Hard Time (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 8.


85 Sutter, “Putting Wilderness in Context,” 169, 173.

86 David J. Webber, “Earth Day and Its Precursors: Continuity and Change in the

Evolution of Midtwentieth-Century U.S. Environmental Policy,” Review of Policy

Research 25, no. 4 (2008):322; Dunlap, 98-105.


88 Sutter, “Putting Wilderness in Context,” 183. 89 Andrews, 188.

90 Mark Harvey, “Loving the Wild in Postwar America,” American Wilderness: A New

History, ed. Michael Lewis ((New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 188.

91 Andrews, 200.

92 Harvey, 187.

93 Andrews, 213-217.

94 Ibid., 224.

95 Ibid., 202-203

200

96 Ibid., 285.

97 Webber, 318.

98 United States Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et

seq. United States Congress. 1970. Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.; United States

Congress. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.; United

States Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

99 Dunlap, 132.

100 James Morton Turner, “The Politics of Modern Wilderness,” American Wilderness: A

New History, ed. Michael Lewis ((New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 249.

101 Ibid., 243.

102 Ibid., 244. 103 Judith Layzer, The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy (Washington,

DC: CQ

Press, 2002), 165.

104 Turner, “The Politics of Modern Wilderness,”249-250. 105 Carroll B. Foster, “The 'Sagebrush Rebellion' and the Alaska Lands Bill in the U. S.

Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1983): 655.

106 Ibid., 658. 107 Turner, 252 108 Layzer, The Environmental Case, 241.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., 242.

111 Lewis, 210.

201

112 Paul Opdam and Dirk Wascher, Climate Change meets habitat fragmentation: linking

landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation, Biological

Conservation 117 (2004): 288-289.

113 Harvey, 200.

114 Turner, “The Politics of Modern Wilderness,” 244, 256-258. 116 Gary Francione, “Animals—Property or Persons?,” Animal Rights, ed. Cass R.

Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 108.

Notes for Chapter Two






2 Since colonization: Brian Czech and Paul R. Krausman, The Endangered Species Act:

History, Conservation, Biology, and Public Policy (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins


3 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program,

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/1966listing.html. (Accessed February 4, 2010)

4 Czech and Krausman, 3. A number of authors and scientists have referred to the ESA as

ground-breaking legislation, including William Reffalt, Holmes Rolston, and Steven

Yaffee.

202

5 David J. Webber, “Earth Day and Its Precursors: Continuity and Change in the

Evolution of Midtwentieth-Century U.S. Environmental Policy,” Review of Policy

Research 25, no. 4 (2008), 322; Czech and Krausman, 9-10.

6 Webber, “Earth Day and Its Precursors,” 314. United States Congress. 1964. Wilderness

Act. 16 U.S.C. §1131-1136, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 890.

7 United States Congress. 1960. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. 16 U.S.C. § 528-531;

Andrews, Managing the Environment, 196.

8 Ibid., 222.

9 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa

Barbara, CA. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4090. (Accessed February 8,

2010.)

10 J. Michael Scott, Dale D. Goble, and Frank W. Davis, “Introduction,” The Endangered

Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 7.

11 These include migratory bird treaties with various countries, international fisheries

conventions, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES).

12 United States Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; US .

Interagency Cooperation, Section 7; Monitoring after de-listing, Section 4(g)(1);

Cooperation with States, Section 6.

13 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 2011. Listing and Critical

Habitat Overview. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-overview.html.

(Accessed November 26, 2011).

203

14 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 2011. Listing a Species as

Threatened or Endangered. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf.


15 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Recovery Program, 2011.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/recovery.pdf. (Accessed November 25,

2011).

16 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 2011. Listing a Species as

Threatened or Endangered. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf.



18 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 2011.Partnerships in

Conservation | Non-Governmental Organizations Programs.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ngo-programs.html.

19 Ibid. 20 Bonnie Burgess, Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of

Biodiversity (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2003), 9; Eric Yuknis, “Would a

"God Squad" Exemption Under the Endangered Species Act Solve the California Water

Crisis?,”Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 38, no. 2 (2011), 574.

21 Ibid., 578 22 Scott et al., 10. 23 Ibid., 10-11.



204



25 A. Dan Tarlock, “The Dynamic Urban Landscape,” The Endangered Species Act at

Thirty Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis (Washington,

DC: Island Press, 2006), 127; Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll.

Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Edition. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,

2006), 6-7.

26 Burgess, 27; Holly Doremus, “Why Listing May Be Forever: Perspectives on Delisting

under the US Endangered Species Act,” Conservation Biology 15, no. 5 (2001), 259;

Richard Reading and Brian Miller, Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to

Conflicting Issues, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), xvi, xvii.




28 USFWS, Endangered Species, Species Reports, General Statistics for Endangered

Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessStatReport. (Accessed June 16, 2011).

29 Kareiva et al., “Nongovernmental Organizations,” 181.

30 Wilcove and McMillan, “The Class of ’67,” 48-49.

31 Wilcove and McMillan, 48; Czech and Krausman, 92.

32 J. Michael Scott, Dale D. Goble, Leona K. Svancara and Anna Pidgorna, “By the

Numbers,” The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J.

Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 29.

33 Czech and Krausman, 92.

205

34 Reading and Miller, xvi-xvii.

35 Estimates of species saved range from 227 to 900. Scott, et al., “By the Numbers,” 21;

Kieran F. Suckling and Martin Taylor, “Critical Habitat and Recovery,” The Endangered


(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 75; Michelle Morgan, Krishna Gifford, Elena

Babij, Debby Crouse, et al. “Overcoming Challenges to Species Recovery.” Endangered

Species Update 31, no. 1 (2006): 5.

36 Scott, et al., “By the Numbers,” 29.

37 D. Noah Greenwald, Kieran F. Suckling, and Martin Taylor, “The Listing Record,”

The Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and


38 Steve Primm and Karen Murray, “Grizzly Bear Recovery: Living with Success?,”

Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone, ed. Tim W. Clark,

Murray B. Rutherford and Denise Casey (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), 121.

39 Scott, et al., “By the Numbers,” 21.

40 NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed June 16, 2011 ).

41 Steven R. Beissinger, “Population Viability Analysis: Past, Present, Future,”

Population Viability Analysis, ed. Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 6-7.

42 Ibid.

206

43 David H. Reed, Julian J. O’Grady, Barry W. Brook, Jonathan D. Ballou, and Rickard

Frankham, “Estimates of Minumum Viable Population Sizes for Vertebrates and Factors

Influencing those Estimates,” Biological Conservation 113 (2003): 24.

44 Suckling and Taylor, “Critical Habitat and Recovery,” 75. Bradley J. Bergstrom, Sacha

Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffield, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A. Carlson, “The Northern Rocky

Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered,” BioScience 59, no. 11 (2009): 991.

45 Ibid., 992.

46 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Draft Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment.

(Albuquerque, NM, 2008), 7.

47 Wilcove and McMillan, “The Class of ’67,” 48-49; “Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly

Bears Returned to Threatened Status,” Yellowstone Science 17, no. 3 (2009): 2.

48 Holly Doremus, “Lessons Learned,” The Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1,

ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis (Washington, DC: Island Press,

2006), 197.




50 Ibid., 12-14. 51 Michael Soule, “What is Conservation Biology?,” BioScience 35, no. 11(1985): 727.

52 Reed F. Noss, “Hierarchical Indicators for Monitoring Changes in Biodiversity,”

Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Edition, ed. Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe,

and C. Ronald Carroll. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.,2006), 28-29.

207

53 Gordon H. Orians and Martha J. Groom, “Global Biodiversity,” Principles of

Conservation Biology, 3rd Edition., ed. Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald

Carroll (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2006), 53

54 Michael Soulé, 726.

55 USFWS, Mexican Wolf Program Update—Mexican Wolves and the Wallow Fire,

July, 2011.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican%20Wolves%20and%20Wal

low%20Fire%20Update%207-11-11.pdf. (Accessed December 30, 2011); AZGFD,

Endangered Species Updates, October 6, 2011, Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project

News, Monthly Status Report: Sept. 1-30, 2011.

56 Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough, editors, Population Viability Analysis

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 131; Curtis H. Flather, Gregory D.

Hayward, Steven R. Beissinger, and Philip A. Stephens, “Minimum viable populations: is

there a ‘magic number’ for conservation practitioners?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution

26, no. 6 (2011): 314.

57 Carlos Carroll, Michael K. Phillips, Carlos Lopez-Gonzalez, CA, and Nathan H.

Schumaker, “Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species: the wolf as a

case study,” BioScience 56, no. 1 (2006):26-27.

58 Ibid., 26. 59 Michael Soulé, James A. Estes, Joel Berger, and Carlos Martinez del Rio, “Ecological

effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species,” Conservation Biology 17, no. 5

(2003):1239

208

60 Michael Soulé, James A. Estes, Brian Miller, and Douglas L. Honnold, “Strongly

interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics,” BioScience 55, no. 2

(2005):169.

61 James O. Keith, Abert’s Squirrel (Sciurus aberti): A Technical Conservation

Assessment. (Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 2003), 26.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/abertsquirrel.pdf (Accessed December

8, 2011).

62 Michael Soulé, James A. Estes, Brian Miller, and Douglas L. Honnold, “Strongly

interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics,” BioScience 55, no. 2

(2005):173.

63 Ibid., 172. 64 Michael Soulé, James A. Estes, Joel Berger, and Carlos Martinez del Rio, “Ecological

effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species,” Conservation Biology 17, no. 5

(2003):1239.

65 Soulé et al., 169; Suckling and Taylor, “Critical Habitat and Recovery,” 75. 66 US Fish & Wildlife Service, “Critical Habitat: What is it?,” 2009,

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/critical_habitat.pdf. (Accessed February 11,

2010).

67 Suckling and Taylor, “Critical Habitat and Recovery, 86.

68 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, Habitat

Conservation Plans.

http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/servlet/gov.doi.hcp.servlets.PlanReport (Accessed

February 11, 2010.); Gregory A. Thomas, “Where Property Rights and Biodiversity

209

Converge Part 1: Conservation Planning at the Regional Scale,” Endangered Species

Update 17, no. 6 (2000):140.

69 James Morton Turner, “The Politics of Modern Wilderness,” American Wilderness: A

New History, ed. Michael Lewis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 253.


71 Ibid., 395.

72 Bergstrom et al., 991.

73 US Department of the Interior, “Salazar Outlines Broad Opportunities for Common

Ground on Wilderness,” news release, 6-01-2011.

74 US Congress, H.R. 1473, Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2011, Section 1713, (April 11, 2011), 286.

75 John R. Stinchcombe, “US Endangered Species Management: the Influence of

Politics,” Endangered Species Update 17, no. 6 (2000): 118.

76 Stinchcombe, 120.

77 Greenwald, et al., 64-65.

78 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, Federal and State

Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2009,

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2009_EXP_Report.pdf (Accessed June

16, 2011).

79 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, Federal and State

Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2010,

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2010.EXP.FINAL.pdf. (Accessed April

16, 2012.)

210

80 Barton H. Thompson, “Managing the Working Landscape,” The Endangered Species

Act at Thirty,Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006); Tarlock, 127.

81 Burgess, 67.

82 Competitive Enterprise Institute (and 100 signers), Letter to Senator James M. Inhofe,

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 27, 2006,

http://cei.org/gencon/032%2C05162.cfm. (Accessed February 4, 2010.).

83 USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Cattle Death Loss,” Released May

12, 2011, 5-6.

84 Czech, 37.

85 Gregory M. Parkhurst and Jason F. Shogren, “Incentive Mechanisms,” The

Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and

Frank W. Davis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), Chapter 20.

86 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. “Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund

Cooperative Agreement Signed.”

http://www.nfwf.org/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?section=Who_we_are&template=/CM/Co

ntentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13937. (Accessed December 7, 2009).

87 Joshua Farley, “The Role of Prices in Conserving Critical Natural Capital,”

Conservation Biology 22, no. 6 (2008): 1403.

88 Ibid., 1406.

89 Endangered Species Coalition, Harris Interactive, “Endangered Species Act Poll,”

Summary of Findings.

211

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conserva

tion/imperiled_species/endangered_species_act_poll.pdf. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

1 US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, “Rare Sierra Nevada Fox ‘Population’

Rediscovered,” news release, December 3, 2010.

2 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park

Threatened Mammals, http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/threatened-mammals.htm

(Accessed September 20, 2010). John D. Perrine, Lori A. Campbell, and Gregory A.

Green, Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A Conservation Assessment

(USDA Publication R5-FR-010, 2010), i.

3 Ibid.; Sierra Nevada Red Fox Interagency Working Group, Sierra Nevada Red Fox Fact

Sheet (US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, 2010), 1.

4 Michael Soule, “What is Conservation Biology?,” BioScience 35, no. 11(1985): 726 5 International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN Red List, Numbers of threatened

species by major groups of organisms (1996–2011),

http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf.

(Accessed June 23, 2011).

6 Jodi Hilty, William Z. Lidicker Jr., and Adina Merenlender, editors, Corridor Ecology:

The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation


7 Jon P. Beckmann and Jodi Hilty, “Connecting Wildlife Populations in Fractured

Landscapes,” Safe Passages: Highways, Wildlife, and Habitat Connectivity, ed. Jon P.

Beckmann, Anthony P. Clevenger, Marcel Huijser, and Jodi Hilty (Washington, DC:

Island Press, 2010), 5.

212

8 USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Travel

Management EIS, Travel Management and Infrastructure Specialist Report, 2009,

http://www.cmlua.com/uploads/Transportation_Specialist_Report.pdf. (Accessed June

23, 2011).

9 Jan Dizard, “In Wolves’ Clothing: Restoration and the Challenge to Stewardship,”

Wolves and Human Communities: Biology, Politics, and Ethics, ed. Virginia A. Sharpe,

Bryan Norton, and Strachan Donnelley (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001), 77.

10 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Leonard Harrison

State Park, “Human Influence on the Canyon,”

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/leonardharrison.aspx. (Accessed September

20, 2010.); Arizona Game and Fish Department, Big Game Species: Elk.

http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/game_elk.shtml. (Accessed September 20, 2010.); J. Rick

Purdue, James R. Heffelfinger, and Ken E. Nicholls, Is Merriam’s Elk Really Extinct?,

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Proceedings of the 2001 Deer/Elk

Workshop, August 1-4, 2001. Merriam’s elk was extinct by 1906.

11 Paul L. Leberg, Peter W. Stangel, Hilburn O. Hillestad, R. Larry Marchinton, Michael

H. Smith, Genetic Structure of Reintroduced Wild Turkey and White-Tailed Deer

Populations, The Journal of Wildlife Management 58, no. 4 (1994): 699; Wes Bower,

Managing Pennsylvania’s Furbearers, Pennsylvania Outdoor Times, April 1, 2010.

http://www.outdoortimes.com/page/content.detail/id/500032/Managing-Pennsylvania-s-

furbearers.html?nav=5006 (Accessed October 10, 2010).

12 Devra Kleiman, “Reintroduction of Captive Mammals for Conservation,” Bioscience

39, no. 3 (1989): 152.

213

13 Philip J. Seddon, Doug P. Armstrong, and Richard F. Maloney, Developing the

Science of Reintroduction Biology, Conservation Biology 21, no. 2 (2007): 304.

14 Doug P. Armstrong and Philip J. Seddon, Directions in reintroduction biology,

TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 23, no. 1 (2007): 20. Armstrong and Seddon cite a

number of studies.

15 IUCN/SSC Guidelines For Re-Introductions, Prepared by the SSC Re-introduction

Specialist Group, 1995.

http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/Reintroduction_

guidelines.pdf. (Accessed September 22, 2010.)

16 Seddon et al., 305 17 Kristen R. Jule, Lisa A. Leaver, and Stephen E.G. Lea, The effects of captive

experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis, Biological

Conservation 141 (2008): 356.

18 Olivier Devineau, Tanya M. Shenk, Paul F. Doherty, Gary C. White, and Rick H.

Kahn, Assessing Release Protocols for Canada Lynx Reintroduction in Colorado, The

Journal of Wildlife Management 75, no. 3 (2011): 623.

19 Jule et al., 356, 358, and 360-61.

20 Seddon et al., 308. 21 Jule et al., 357; Seddon et al., 305



23 Paul Bedard, “NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push . . . From EPA,” US News

and World Report, August 27, 2010.

214

24 Jule et al., 357 25 Leonard Morris Gosling, “Adaptive Behavior and Population Viability,” Animal

Behavior and Wildlife Conservation, ed. Marco Festa-Bianchet and Marco Apollonio


26 David J. Mattson, “Living with Fierce Creatures? An Overview and Models of

Mammalian Carnivore Conservation,” People and Predators: From Conflict to

Coexistence, ed. Nina Fascione, Aimee Delach, and Martin E. Smith, (Washington, DC:


27 Jacqueline L. Frair, Evelyn H. Merrill, James R. Allen, and Mark S. Boyce, Know Thy

Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes, The Journal

of Wildlife Management 71, no. 2 (2007): 545-46.

28 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and

Fish Dept; New Mexico Dep’t of Game and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Dept of

Agriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control; U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Dep’t of the Army, White Sands Missile Range, Final Environmental Impact

Statement on Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the

Southwestern United States, (Albuquerque, NM, 1996), Chapter 3: 11.

29 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Red Wolf Recovery Program Office, Red Wolf (Canis

rufus) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation, (Alligator River National

Wildlife Refuge

Manteo, NC, 2007): 10-11; Kleiman, 155.

30 Young D. Choi, Restoration Ecology to the Future: A Call for New Paradigm,

Restoration Ecology 15, no. 2 (2007): 351; James A Harris, Richard L. Hobbs, Eric

215

Higgs, and James Aronson, 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate change.

Restoration Ecology 14, no. 2 (2006): 170.

31 Choi, 352; Harris et al., 170.

32 Harris et al., 173. 33 Ibid. 34 Paul Opdam and Dirk Wascher, Climate Change meets habitat fragmentation: linking

landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation, Biological

Conservation 117 (2004): 287; Harris et al., 170.

35 Anthony Povilitis and Kieran Suckling, Addressing Climate Change Threats to

Endangered Species in US Recovery Plans, Conservation Biology 24, no. 2 (2009): 372-

74.

36 Opdam and Wascher, 288-89.

37 Ibid., 290

38 Armstrong and Seddon, 21

39 Seddon et al., 305, 308-9,

40 Martha Lipsey and Matthew R. Child, Combining the Fields of Reintroduction Biology

and Restoration Ecology, Conservation Biology 21, no. 6 (2007): 1387; Armstrong and

Seddon, 23.

41 Opdam and Wascher, 293. 42 Andre F. Clewell and James Aronson, “Motivations for the Restoration of

Ecosystems,” Conservation Biology 20, no. 2 (2006): 421-25.

216

43 C.S. Holling, “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,” Foundations of

Ecological Resilience, ed. Lance Gunderson, Craig Allen, and C. Holling (Washington,

DC: Island Press, 2009), 41.

44 Lance Gunderson, Craig Allen, and C. Holling, editors, Foundations of Ecological

Resilience, (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009), xv.

45 Ibid., xx; Justina C. Ray, Kent H. Redford, Joel Berger, and Robert Steneck, “Is Large

Carnivore Conservation Equivalent to Biodiversity Conservation and How Can We

Achieve Both?”, Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity, ed. Justina C

Ray, Kent H. Redford, Robert S. Steneck, and Joel Berger (Washington, DC: Island

Press, 2005), 424.

46 Gunderson et al., 5. 47 Carl Folke, C.S. Holling, and Charles Perrings, “Biological Diversity, Ecosystems, and

the Human Scale,” Foundations of Ecological Resilience, ed. Lance Gunderson, Craig

Allen, and C. Holling (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009), 152.

48 John B. Dunning Jr., Martha J. Groom, and H. Ronald Pulliam, “Species and

Landscape Approaches to Conservation,” Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Ed., ed.

Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates, Inc., 2006), 432.

49 Gerber, L. & González-Suárez, M. (2010) Population Viability Analysis: Origins and

Contributions. Nature Education Knowledge 1(11):15,

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/population-viability-analysis-origins-

and-contributions-16091427. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

50 Dunning et al., “Species and Landscape Approaches to Conservation,” 432

217

51 Mark Shaffer, Laura Hood Watchman, William J. Snape III, and Ingrid K. Latchis,

“Population Viability Analysis and Conservation Policy,” Population Viability Analysis,

ed. Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2002), 123.

52 Shaffer, et al., 131; Curtis H. Flather, Gregory D. Hayward, Steven R. Beissinger, and

Philip A. Stephens, “Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic number’ for

conservation practitioners?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26, no. 6 (2011): 314.

53 Ibid., 131; Flather, et al., 314.

54 Hilty et al., 7

55 Barton H. Thompson, “Managing the Working Landscape,” The Endangered Species

Act at Thirty, Volume 1, ed. Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis


56 Cheryl-Lesley Chetkiewicz, Colleen Cassady St. Clair, and Mark S. Boyce, Corridors

for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution

and Systematics 37 (2006): 318-19.

57 Hilty et al., 50. 58 Hilty et al., 116, 121-23.

59 Hugh Dingle and V. Alistair Drake, “What is Migration?,” BioScience 57, no. 2 (2007): 114, 119. 60 Hilty et al., 38-9

61 Ted Nelson, “Chicago urban coyote project returns surprising results,” examiner.com.

http://www.examiner.com/adventure-travel-in-chicago/chicago-urban-coyote-project-

returns-surprising-results October 20, 2009 (Accessed September 25, 2010).

218

62 Hugh P. Possingham, Kerrie A. Wilson, Sandy J. Andelman, and Carly H. Vynne,

“Protected Areas,” Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition, ed. Martha J.

Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C. Ronald Carroll (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Inc.,

2006), 523-4.

63 Ibid., 40-41.

64 Reed Noss, Blair Csuti, and Martha J. Groom, “Habitat Fragmentation,” Principles of

Conservation Biology, Third Edition, ed. Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C. Ronald

Carroll (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Inc., 2006), 228-29.

65 Ibid., 228.

66 Hilty, 40-44.

67 Danah L. Duke, Mark Hebblewhite, Paul C. Paquet, Carolyn Callaghna, and Melanie

Percy, “Restoring a Large-Carnivore Corridor in Banff National Park,” Large Mammal

Restoration, ed. David S. Maehr, Reed F. Noss, Jeffery L Larkin (Washington, DC:


68 Chetkiewicz et al., 321.

69 Hilty, 90-92

70 Chetkiewicz et al., 319..

71 Hilty, 133-143.

72 Michael E. Soule and John Terborgh, editors, Continental Conservation (Washington,

DC, Island Press, 1999), 2.

73 Hilty et al., 104-106; The Wildlands Network, Wildways,

http://www.twp.org/wildways (Accessed October 10, 2010).

74 Ibid., 108-110.

219

75 Ibid., 111.

76 Hilty et al., 148-49.

77 Cheryl-Lesley Chetkiewicz, Colleen Cassady St. Clair, and Mark S. Boyce, Corridors

for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution

and Systematics 37 (2006): 320.

78 Chetkiewicz et al., 318. 79 Brenda Shepherd and Jesse Whittington, Response of Wolves to Corridor Restoration

and Human Use Management, Ecology & Society 11, no. 2 (2006): 414.

80 Duke et al., 270-71. 81 Dunning, et al. “Species and Landscape Approaches to Conservation,” 427.

82 Ibid. 83 Hilty et al., 59. 84 Hilty et al., 80

85 Chetkeiwicz et al., 333.

86 Ibid. 87 Opdam and Wascher, 293. Notes for Chapter Four 1 Brian Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Steve Forrest, Prairie Night: Black-Footed


Institution Press, 1996), 26.

220

2 Science Watch, “Ferret’s Comeback from ‘Extinction’ Continues,” New York Times,

October 11, 1983; Earl Gutsky, “Rare Black-footed Ferret Hangs on in Wyoming,” Los

Angeles Times, August 8, 1985. (Accessed July 6, 2011).

3 USFWS, Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and

Evaluation (Pierre, SD, 2008): 16.

4 Ibid., 29.

5 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. FAQs. http://www.blackfootedferret.org/faqs.

(Accessed December 8, 2011).

6 USFWS, Endangered Species Mountain-Prairie Region, Black-footed Ferret.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/; Black-footed

Ferret Recovery Program. http://www.blackfootedferret.org/captive-breeding. (Accessed

July 6, 2011.)

7 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2011. http://www.blackfootedferret.org/who-

we-are. (Accessed July 6, 2011.)




9 Ibid., 48.

10 Natasha B. Kotliar, Brian J. Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Timothy Clark, “The

Prairie Dog as a Keystone Species,” Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, ed.

John L. Hoogland (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 56.

221

11 Brian J. Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Timothy Clark, “Black-footed Ferret,”

Endangered Animals, ed. Richard P. Reading and Brian J. Miller (Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press, 2000), 55.

12 Miller et al., Prairie Night, 54-55. 13 Ibid., 55.

14 Ibid., 54.

15 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 56.

16 Ibid., 13-14.

17 Mike Lockhart, “Successes and Setbacks in Black-footed Ferret Recovery,”

Endangered Species Update 24, no. 3 (2007): 81.

18 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 72.

19 Ibid., 11.

20 USFWS, 5-Year Status Review, 13.

21 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 7. 22 Michael E. Soulé, James A. Estes, Brian Miller, and Douglas L. Honnold, “Strongly

Interacting Species: Conservation Policy, Management, and Ethics,” BioScience 55, no. 2

(2005): 169, 173.

23 Ibid., 173.

24 USGS National Wildlife Health Center. Sylvatic Plague Immunization in Black-footed

Ferrets and Prairie Dogs.

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/sylvatic_plague.

25 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 23 26 Ibid.

222

27 USDA-APHIS – Wildlife Damage Management. Table G. Animals Taken by Wildlife

Services - FY 2009.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/B

asic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdf

28 J. Michael Lockhart, E. Tom Thorne, and Donald R. (Pete) Gober, “A Historical

Perspective on Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret and the Biological and Political

Challenges Affecting Its Future,” Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret—Progress and

Continuing Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5293, ed. J.E. Roelle, B. J. Miller, J. L. Godbey, and D.E. Biggins, (Reston, VA: USGS,

2006), 8.

29 USFWS, Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. (Denver, CO, 1988): 1.

30 Agencies included the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, USFWS, the Black-

footed Ferret Advisory Team, established in 1982, and the Conservation Breeding

Specialist Group (CBSG) of the Species Survival Commission of the International Union

for the Conservation of Nature, brought on board in 1985; Lockhart, et al. “A Historical

Perspective,” 9-11; Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 206-207

31 Ibid., 12.

32 Ibid., 7-8.

33 Ibid., 12.

34 USFWS, Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan, Preface, iii, 19.

35 Ibid., 20, 22-24.

36 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Mountain-Prairie Region. Black-

footed Ferret. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/.

223

37 Lockhart, et al., 12.


39 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Mountain-Prairie Region. Black-

footed Ferret. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/

40 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. Reintroduction.

http://www.blackfootedferret.org/reintroduction. (Accessed December 8, 2011).

41 USFWS, 5-Year Status Review,13-26.

42 Jim Robbins, “Efforts on 2 Fronts to Save a Population of Ferrets,” The New York

Times, July 15, 2008.


44 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 151. 45 USFWS, “Black-tailed Prairie Dog Removed from Candidate Species List,” news

release, August 12, 2004; USFWS, “Endangered Species Act Protection for the White-

tailed Prairie Dog is not warranted,” news release, May 27, 2010; USFWS, “Gunnison’s

Prairie Dog Populations in Portions of Colorado and New Mexico Warranted For Listing

Under the Endangered Species Act,” news release, February 1, 2008.

46 Miller, et al., Prairie Night, 22 47 Ibid.

48 USDA-APHIS – Wildlife Damage Management. Table G. Animals Taken by Wildlife

Services - FY 2009.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/B

asic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdf

224

49 James K. Detling, “Do Prairie Dogs Compete with Livestock?” Conservation of the

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, ed. John L. Hoogland (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006),

65.

50 Lockhart, “Successes and Setbacks,” 80-81. 51 Detling, 72.

52 Ibid., 74.

53 Lockhart, “Successes and Setbacks,” 81.

54 Laurel M. Hartley, James K. Detling, and Lisa T. Savage, “Introduced Plague Lessens

effects of an Herbivorous Rodent on Grassland Vegetation,” Journal of Applied Ecology

46, (2009): 865.

55 Detling, 82.

56 Berton Lee Lamb, Richard P. Reading, and William F. Andelt, “Attitudes and

Perceptions About Prairie Dogs,” Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, ed. John

L. Hoogland (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 109.

57 Ibid., 110.

58 USFWS, Spotlight Species Action Plan, Black-footed Ferret, (Pierre, SD, 2009): 2;

Lockhart, “Successes and Setbacks,” 81; USFWS, 5-Year Status Review, 13.

59 Lockhart, “Successes and Setbacks,” 78-79

60 Robert J. Luce, Rob Manes, and Bill Van Pelt, “A Multi-state Plan to Conserve Prairie

Dogs,” Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, ed. John L. Hoogland


61 Heather Branvold, interview by Lynne Nemeth, July 7, 2011, by phone.

225

Notes to Chapter Five 1 USWFS, California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision (Portland, OR, 1996), 16.

2 USFWS, Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Southern California

Condor Profiles.

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/CACORecoveryProgram/CACOProfiles.html.

(Accessed July 7, 2011).

3 Noel F.R. Snyder, “Limiting Factors for Wild California Condors,” California Condors

in the 21st Century, ed. Allan Mee and Linnea S. Hall (Cambridge, MA: Nuttall

Ornithological Club; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’Union, 2007), 12,

17.

4 John Moir, Return of the Condor (Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2006), 28

5 Ibid., 96-101.

6 Week in Review, “Half a Pound of Hope for Condors,” The New York Times, April 3,

1983; Jay Matthews, “Scientists Hatch California Condor Back From Brink of

Extinction,” The Washington Post, September 10, 1983.

7 Snyder, “Limiting Factors for Wild California Condors,” 21.

8 USWFS, California Condor Recovery Plan, 2.

9 Moir, 32.

10 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a

Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona, Final

Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61, no. 201 (1996), 54049.

11 Jeffrey R. Walters, Scott R. Derrickson, D. Michael Fry, Susan M. Haig, John M

Marzluff, and Joseph M Wunderle, Jr., “Status of the California Condor (Gymnogyps

226

californianus) and Efforts to Achieve its Recovery,” The Auk 127, no. 4 (2010): 971;

USFWS, California Condor Recovery Plan, 2, 8.

12 San Diego Zoo, Fact Sheet, California Condor, Gymnogyps californianus, 2009.

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/california_condor/condor_summary.htm.

(Accessed July 7, 2011.)

13 Vicky Meretsky, Noel F.R. Snyer, Steven R. Beissinger, David A. Clendenen, and

James W. Wiley, “Demography of the California Condor: Implications for

Reestablishment,” Conservation Biology 14, no. 4 (2000): 958.

14 USFWS, California Condor Spotlight Species Action Plan, 2010-2014, (Ventura, CA,

2009), 2.

15 Walters, et al., 971. 16 Snyder, “Limiting Factors for Wild California Condors,” 11; Molly E. Church, Roberto

Gwiazda, Robert W. Risebrough, Kelly Sorenson, C. Page Chamberlain, Sean Farry,

William Heinrich, Bruce A. Rideout, and Donald R. Smith, “Ammunition is the Principal

Source of Lead Accumulated by California Condors Re-Introduced to the Wild,”

Environmental Science & Technology 40, no. 19 (2006): 6143.

17 Ibid., 6143. Zoe: a biological journal was published between 1890 and 1906.

18 Snyder, 11.

19 USFWS, California Condor Recovery Plan, 13.

20 Environmental Protection Agency. DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975).

Excerpt from DDT, A Review of Scientific and Economic Aspects of the Decision To Ban

Its Use as a Pesticide, prepared for the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House

227

of Representatives by EPA, July 1975, EPA-540/1-75-022.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/02.htm. (Accessed March 31, 2011).

21 Snyder, 17.

22 Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD.

September 2002.




24 USFWS, California Condor Recovery Plan, vii. 25 Ibid., v.

26 Ibid., v.

27 USFWS, Species Spotlight Action Plan, 4.

28 Partners include the U.S. Forest Service, San Diego Wild Animal Park, Los Angeles

Zoo, Oregon Zoo, California Department of Fish and Game, the Peregrine Fund, Ventana

Wildlife Society, the Center for Scientific Investigation and Graduate Studies in

Ensenada, La Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAP),

National Park Service at Pinnacles National Monument, Santa Barbara Zoo, the

Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City and others. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Hopper

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. California Condor Recovery Program.

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/CACORecoveryProgram/CACondorRecoveryProgr

am.html. (Accessed March 31, 2011.)

228

29 William Austin, Keith Day, Scot Franklin, Jeff Humphrey, W. Grainger Hunt, Chris

Parish, Ron Sieg, and Kathy Sullivan, Southwest Condor Review Team. A Review of the

Second Five Years of the California Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest

(Southwest Condor Review Team, 2007), 1.

30 USFWS, Final Rule, 54044.

31 USFWS, Arizona Ecological Services, California Condor.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/California%20Condor%2

0RB.pdf. (Accessed December 13, 2011).

32 Ibid., 54046.

33 Ibid., 54047.

34 Walters, et al., 972. 35 US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge

Complex. California Condor Recovery Program. Population Size and Distribution.

Condor Program Monthly Status Report & Locations.

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/CACORecoveryProgram/PopulationReportMonthly

/2011/Condor%20Program%20Monthly%20Status%20Report%20&%20Locations%202

011-11-30.pdf. (Accessed January 4, 2012).

36 Walters, et al., 972. 37 Snyder, 29. 38 Walters, et al., 972.

39 USFWS, California Condor Blood Lead Levels (2009): Southern and Central

California Populations (California Condor Recovery Program, 2010): 2.

40 Walters, et al., 976.

229

41 Walters, et al., 979. 42 USFWS, Spotlight Species Action Plan, 2; Walters, et al., 984.

43 John Moir, “New Hurdle For California Condors May Be DDT From Years Ago,” The

New York Times, November 15, 2010.

44 Walters, et al., 973. 45 Walters, et al., 974.

46 See Church, et al.

47 John Platt, “Fight to Protect California Condors from Lead Ammunition Moves to

Arizona,” Scientific American, November 20, 2009.

48 Ibid.

49 Paul Bedard, “NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push . . . From EPA,” US News


50 US Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead

Ammunition Ban,” news release, 8-27-2010.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/48d939

b5009411038525778c00768006!opendocument. (Accessed January 5, 2012).

51 Walters, et al., 980.

52 Chris Parish, interview by Lynne Nemeth, April 14, 2011, Marble Canyon, AZ. 53 Arizona Game & Fish Department, Summary Voluntary Lead Reduction Efforts within

Condor Range, 2011.

54 Ibid.

230

55 Green Zone, “Lead Poisoning Kills, Sickens More Condors,” Arizona Republic, June

6, 2011.

Notes for Chapter 6

1 Ronald M. Novak, “Wolf Evolution and Taxomony,” Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and

Conservation, ed. L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2003), 239.

2 Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger, Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine

Origin,Behavior, and Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 39-67;

Novak, “Wolf Evolution and Taxomony,” 256-257.

3 Martin Nie, “Wolf Recovery and Management as Value-based Political Conflict,”

Ethics, Place & Environment 5, no. 1 (2002), 66.

4 Barry Lopez, Of Wolves and Men (New York: Scribner, 1978), 140.

5 Lopez, 140-142; Stephen Fritts, Robert O. Stephenson, Robert D. Hayes, and Luigi

Boitani, “Wolves and Humans,” Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, ed. L.

David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 293.



7 Stephen R. Kellert, Matthew Black, Colleen Reid Rush, and Alistair Bath, “Human

culture and large carnivore conservation in North America,” Conservation Biology 10,

no. 4 (1996), 979; Martin Nie, Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and

Management (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 5.

231

8 Douglas Smith and Gary Ferguson, Decade of the Wolf (Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press,

2005), 98; John W. Duffield, Chris J. Neher, and David A. Patterson, “Wolf Recovery in

Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts,” The George

Wright Forum 25, no. 1 (2008): 15.

9 Novak, “Wolf Evolution and Taxomony,”, 244.

10 Robert K. Wayne and Carlos Vilà, “Molecular Studies of Wolves,” Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation, ed. L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2003), 226.

11 Novak, “Wolf Evolution and Taxomony,” 244. 12 Ibid., 245.

13 Wayne and Vilà, ““Molecular Studies of Wolves,”228.

14 Novak, 247.

15 Douglas W. Smith and Michael K. Phillips, “Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis

lupus nubilius),” Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues, ed.

Richard P. Reading and Brian Miller (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 219.

16 Smith and Phillips, 219.

17 Smith and Phillips, 219; Coppinger and Coppinger, 299.

18 Jayne Packard, “Wolf Behavior: Reproductive, Social, and Intelligent,” Wolves:

Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, ed. L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2003), 42.

19 Smith and Phillips, 219; Packard, “Wolf Behavior”, 45.

20 Rolf O. Peterson and Paolo Ciucci, “The Wolf as a Carnivore,” Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation, ed. L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago: University of

232

Chicago Press, 2003), 104; L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, editors, Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), xv.

21 Mech and Boitani, xv

22 See Coppinger and Coppinger, 162, for a discussion of oxygenation of muscles in dogs

and cats.

23 Mech and Boitani, xv

24 Ibid., 21, unless they are following migrating herds.

25 Smith and Phillips, 220; Packard, “Wolf Behavior”, 59

26 Mech and Boitani, 2

27 Mech and Boitani, 2; Smith and Phillips, 220.

28 Mech and Boitani, 12-13; Diane K. Boyd and Daniel H. Pletscher, “Characteristics of

dispersal in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky Mountains,” Journal of

Wildlife Management 63:1094.

29 Boyd and Pletscher, 1094.

30 Mech and Boitani, 20

31 Ibid., 21

32 Fred H. Harrington and Cheryl S. Asa, “Wolf Communication,” Wolves: Behavior,


Chicago Press, 2003), 78, 88-89, and 78. We assume that wolves’ auditory ability is

similar to dogs’.

33 Harrington and Asa, 89.

34 Ibid., 80.

35 Packard, 52-55.

233

36 Ibid., 55.

37 Harrington and Asa, 97

38 Ibid., 96.

39 Ibid., 97

40 Ibid., p. 99

41 Peterson and Ciucci, 104.

42 L. David Mech and Rolf O. Peterson, “Wolf-Prey Relations,” Wolves: Behavior,


Chicago Press, 2003), 131.

43 David E. Brown, The Wolf in the Southwest (Silver City, NM: High Lonesome Press,

2002), 133

44 Smith and Phillips, 221.

45 Peterson and Ciucci, 109.

46 USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Cattle Death Loss,” Released May

12, 2011.

47 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish,

Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation,

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery

Program 2011 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds. USFWS,

Ecological Services, (Helena, MT, 2012), i.

234

48 Jon T. Coleman, Vicious: Wolves and Men in America (New Haven, CT: Yale


49 Ibid., 12.

50 Brown, 155; Coleman, 212-213.

51 Richard N. L. Andrews, Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History

of American Environmental Policy, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

2006), 158.

52 Ibid., 132. 53 Smith and Ferguson, 10.

54 Lopez, Of Wolves and Men, 139.

55 Ibid., 187.

56 David R. Parsons, “‘Green fire’ returns to the Southwest: reintroduction of the

Mexican Wolf,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, no. 4 (1998):799-807.

57 Bradley J. Bergstrom, Sacha Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffield, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A.

Carlson, “The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered,”

BioScience 59, no. 11 (2009):991.

58 Edward E. Bangs and Steven H. Fritts, Reintroducing the Gray Wolf to Center Idaho

and Yellowstone National Park, Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, no. 3 (1996): 403.

59 USFWS, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, Executive Summary

(Denver, CO, 1987), v.; Bergstrom et al., 991.

60 Bergstrom et al., 991. 61 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the

Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment

235

and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Vol. 74, no. 62 (2009):

15130-15131.

62 Bangs and Fritts, 411.

63 Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 987 F.Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo.

1997), rev’d 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000). (Accessed December 15, 2011)

64 C. Mack, J. Rachael, J. Holyan, J. Husseman, M. Lucid, B. Thomas. Wolf Conservation

and Management in Idaho Progress Report 2009, Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery

Project and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Lapwai, ID and Boise, ID) 2010, ii.

65 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 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, Vol. 68, no. 62 (April 1, 2003): 15804.

66 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the


and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Volume 76, no. 87 (May

5, 2011): 25911.

67 Ibid., 26086. 68 USFWS, Gray Wolf Recovery and Delisting Questions and Answers, May 2011.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/delisting/QAsPropRuleMay2001.html (Accessed June

30, 2011.)

69 FWP Fact Sheet: Congress Delists Montana Wolf Population. Montana Fish, Wildlife

and Parks. (April 15, 2011). http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=50145. (Accessed

December 15, 2011.)

236

70 Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game. (Boise, ID, 2008): 1.

71 Wolf Harvest Information, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (December 13, 2011).

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getpage=121. (Accessed December 16, 2011).

72 2011 Wolf Hunting Guide, Wolf Hunting Season Status, Montana Fish, Wildlife &

Parks. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/. (Accessed December

16, 2011).

73 Mech and Peterson, 146.

74 William J. Ripple and Robert L. Beschta, “Wolves and the Ecology of Fear: Can

Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems?,” BioScience 54, no. 8 (2004): 756.

75 William Ripple and Robert L. Beschta, “Linking Wolves and Plants: Aldo Leopold on

Trophic Cascades,” BioScience 55, no. 7 (2005):613.

76 Ibid., 613.

77 Cristina Eisenberg, The Wolf’s Tooth, (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010): 80, 99- 101. 78 Ibid., 616. 79 National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, “Count Shows Decline in Northern

Elk Herd Population,” news release, January 12, 2011.

80 USFWS, Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report, 1. 81 Ibid., 3-4, 6.



237


15165, 15130.

83 Bergstrom et al., 991.

84 Ibid., 992-994.

85 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe,

National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind

River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah

Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. Rocky Mountain Wolf

Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report, C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. (Helena,

MT, 2011), 1.

Notes for Chapter Seven

1 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949),

130

2 Parsons, D. R. 1998. “Green fire” returns to the Southwest: reintroduction of the

Mexican Wolf. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(4):799.

3 USFWS. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. Mexican Wolf Population Statistics, 2010.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWPS.shtml. (Accessed July 4, 2011.)

4 David E. Brown, The Wolf in the Southwest (Silver City, NM: High Lonesome Press,

2002), 130.

5 Bobbie Holaday, The Return of the Mexican Gray Wolf (Tucson: University of Arizona

238

Press, 2003), 22-23; US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Recovery Program:

Progress Report #12, (2010), Background.

6 Brown, 114

7 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, Albuquerque, NM (1982):23 8 Parsons, 801.

9 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf

within its Historic Range in the United States, Final Environmental Impact Statement,

(1996), 51.

10 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental

Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. Final Rule. Federal

Register, Vol. 63, no. 7 (1998), 1752.

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. Region 2,

Albuquerque, NM, (2010), 44.

12 USFWS, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 3-11.

13 J.E. Reed, W.B. Ballard, P.S. Gipson, B.T. Kelly, P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D. B.

Wester. 2006. Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New

Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):1129; Brown, 132.

14 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Big Game Species: Elk.

http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/game_elk.shtml. (Accessed September 20, 2010.); J. Rick

Purdue, James R. Heffelfinger, and Ken E. Nicholls, Is Merriam’s Elk Really Extinct?,

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Proceedings of the 2001 Deer/Elk

Workshop, August 1-4, 2001. Merriam’s elk was extinct by 1906.

239

15 USFWS, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 3-6.

16 New Mexico Game and Fish Department, Minutes, New Mexico State Game

Commission, June 9, 2011.

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/commission/minutes/documents/6-9-11OFFICIAL.pdf

(Accessed January 5, 2012.)

17 Arizona Game and Fish Department, “Arizona Game and Fish Commission affirms

wolf conservation support, objects to new wolf releases until appropriate planning

occurs,” news release, December 2, 2011.

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment, 1.

19 Philip.W. Hedrick and R. J. Fredrickson, Captive Breeding and the Reintroduction of

Mexican and Red Wolves, Molecular Ecology 17 (2008), 347.

20 Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Adaptive Management Oversight

Committee, Standard Operating Procedure 13, 2005.


22 USFWS, Conservation Assessment, 59-60.

23 USFWS. Mexican Wolf Population Statistics.

24 Povilitus, 942

25 USFWS, Conservation Assessment, 52.

26 USFWS, Final Rule 1998, 1752.

27 USFWS, Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment, 7.

28 Ibid., 46-47.

29 Ibid., 51-52.

30 Ibid., 54

240

31 USFWS, “Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement Signed,”

news release, October 6, 2009.

32 United States District Court District of Arizona, Order, CV 08-820 PHX DCB,

WildEarth Guardians, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Fish and Wildlife et al.,

Defendants, 1-2

33 Ibid., 25.

34 USFWS, Conservation Assessment, 57.

35 Ibid., 63.

36 Ibid., 65-67; David H. Reed, Julian J. O’Grady, Barry W. Brook, Jonathan D. Ballou,

and Richard Frankham, Estimates of Minimum Viable Population Sizes for Vertebrates

and Factors Influencing Those Estimates, Biological Conservation 113 (2003): 32.

37 USFWS, Conservation Assessment, 65

38 David Parsons, interview with Lynne Nemeth, June 29, 2011, by phone. 39 Research & Polling, Inc. Wolf Recovery Survey – Arizona and Wolf Recovery Survey –

New Mexico. (2008). http://www.mexicanwolves.org/pdf/Reading17WolfSurveyAZ.pdf;

http://www.mexicanwolves.org/pdf/Reading18WolfSurveyNM.pdf. (Accessed July 4,

2011).

40 Library of Congress, H.R.1819 -- State Wildlife Management Act of 2011.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1819.IH:; H.R.509 -- To amend the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to the gray wolf

(canis lupus), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.509:; S.249 -- To amend

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to any gray wolf

241

(Canis lupus), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.249: (Accessed December

17, 2011).

41 According to govtrack.us. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr509;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s249;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1819. (Accessed April 18, 2012).

42 Ibid., 79.

43 United States District Court For The District Of Columbia, In Re Endangered Species

Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, Misc. Action No. 10-377, Docket No. 2165, Stipulated

Settlement Agreement, Filed July 12, 2011.


http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWPS.shtml (Accessed July 4, 2011.)

Notes for Chapter Eight

1 Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Yvette K. Ortega, “History and Distribution

of Lynx in the Contiguous United States,” Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the

United States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M.

Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO:

University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station),

207-209, 244.

2 Kevin S. McKelvey, Steven W. Buskirk, and Charles J. Krebs, “Theoretical Insights

into the Population Viability of Lynx,” Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United

States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler,

Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO: University Press

242

of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station), 33-34;

McKelvey, “History and Distribution of Lynx in the Contiguous United States,” 239-40.

3 McKelvey, 245.

4 James K. Agee, “Disturbance Ecology of North American Boreal Forests and

Associated Northern Mixed/Subalpine Forests,” Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the

United States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M.

Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO:

University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station),

39-42.

5 USFWS, Environmental Conservation Online System, Species Profile. Canada Lynx

(Lynx canadensis).

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. (Accessed

April 16, 2011).

6 USFWS, Recovery Outline, Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of

the Canada Lynx (Helena, MT, 2005), 3-4. 7 USFWS, Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States

Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx, Federal Register, Vol. 74, no. 36

(2009): 8640-8642.

8 Mel Sunquist and Fiona Sunquist, Wild Cats of the World (University of Chicago Press,

2002), 5. Cats are hypercarnivores.

9 Ibid., 14

10 Ibid, 5-10: Full description of cat’s biology. Lynx means “lamp” in latin.

11 Fred H. Harrington and Cheryl S. Asa, “Wolf Communication,” Wolves: Behavior,

243

Ecology, and Conservation, ed. L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 2003), 88.

12 IUCN, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Lynx canadensis. Habitat and Ecology.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12518/0. (Accessed December 29, 2011);

Garth Mowat, Kim G. Poole, and Mark O’Donoghue, “Ecology of Lynx in Northern

Canada and Alaska,” Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, ed. Leonard

F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs,

Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado;

Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station), 267; Keith B. Aubrey, Gary

M. Koehler, and John R. Squires, “Ecology of Canada Lynx in Southern Boreal Forests,”

Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith

B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy,

and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA

Rocky Mountain Research Station), 376. Lynx will also eat red squirrels, mice and voles,

flying squirrels, and birds.

13 Mowat, et al., 270

14 McKelvey, et al., 33

15 D. Murray, D. & Smith, A.T. 2008. Lepus americanus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species.

16 Steven W. Buskirk, Leonard F. Ruggiero, and Charles J. Krebs, “Habitat

Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition: Implications for Lynx Conservation,”



244


Rocky Mountain Research Station), 90.

17 USFWS, Species Profile, Canada Lynx; Smithsonian National Zoological Park,

Bobcat Facts. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/northamerica/facts/bobcatfacts.cfm.

(Accessed April 16, 2011.)

18 Buskirk, et al., “Habitat Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition. . .”, 83, 89.

19 Rebecca Tyson, Sheena Haines, Karen E. Hodges, “Modelling the Canada lynx and

snowshoe hare population cycle: the role of specialist predators,” Theoretical Ecology 3

(2010): 97.

20 Charles J. Krebs, Stan Boutin, Rudy Boonstra, A.R.E. Sinclair, J.N.M. Smith, Mark R.

T. Dale, K. Martin, R. Turkington, “Impact of Food and Predation on the Snowshoe Hare

Cycle,” Science 269 (1995): 1114.

21 Tyson et al., 109-110. 22 McKelvey, et al., “Theoretical Insights into the Population Viability of Lynx,” 33;

Clayton D. Apps, “Space-Use, Diet, Demographics, and Topographic Associations of

Lynx in the Southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: A Study,” Ecology and Conservation

of Lynx in the United States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W.

Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires

(Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain

Research Station), 352

23 Dennis L. Murray, Todd D. Steury, and James D. Roth, “Assessment of Cananda Lynx

Research and Conservation Needs in the Southern Range: Another Kick at the Cat,”

Journal of Wildlife Management 72, no. 7 (2008): 1465.

245

24 Aubry, et al., 389

25 John R. Squires and Tom Laurion, “Lynx Home Range and Movements in Montana

and Wyoming: Preliminary Results,” Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United

States, ed. Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler,

Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires (Boulder, CO: University Press

of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station), 347; Aubry, et

al., 386

26 Colorado Division of Wildlife, Success of the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s Lynx

Reintroduction Program (2010), 2. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/6EBDE944-

FF9A-4CE4-894D-

8547184CB8BA/0/ColoradoLynxReintroductionAssessment_090710.pdf. (Accessed July

5, 2011).

27 Buskirk, et al., “Habitat Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition. . .”, 83-86.

28 Ibid., 83, 89

29 Jay Kolbe, John R. Squires, Daniel H. Pletscher, Leonard F. Ruggiero, “The Effect of

Snowmobile Trails on Coyote Movements Within Lynx Home Ranges,” Journal of

Wildlife Management 71, no. 5 (2007): 1415; Kevin D. Bunnell, Jerran T. Flinders,

Michael L. Wolfe, “Potential Impacts of Coyotes and Snowmobiles on Lynx

Conservation in the Intermountain West,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, no. 3 (2006): 836.

30 Patrick Gonzalez, Ronald P. Neilson, Kevin S. McKelvey, James M. Lenihan,

Raymond J. Drapek, “Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Habitat and Conservation

Priority Areas for Lynx canadensis (Canada Lynx),” Report to US Forest Service,

246

Washington, DC and NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (Arlington, VA: The Nature

Conservancy, 2007): 4.

31 Ibid., 5. 32 Ibid., 7-8. 33 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Final Decision on

Identification of Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register,

Vol. 61, no. 235 (1996): 64481.

34 USFWS, Mountain-Prairie Region, Endangered Species Program, A Chronology of

Canada Lynx Events. (2000). http://www.fws.gov/mountain-

prairie/species/mammals/lynx/chron032000.htm. (Accessed December 27, 2011).

35 USFWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada

Lynx, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 65, no. 58 (2000): 16082

36 USFWS, Recovery Outline, Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of

the Canada Lynx (Helena, MT, 2005), 8-10.

37 Ibid., 12.

38 Ibid., 14.

39 Olivier Devineau, Tanya M. Shenk, Gary C. White, Paul F. Doherty, Jr., Paul M.

Lukacs, and Richard H. Kahn, Evaluating the Canada Lynx Reintroduction Programme in

Colorado: Patterns in Mortality, Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (2010): 525.

40 McKelvey, et al. “History and Distribution of Lynx in the Contiguous United States,”

231.

41 Tanya Shenk, Wildlife Research Report, Post Release Monitoring of Lynx

247

Reintroduced to Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife (2010), 3-4.

42 Devineau, et al., 526.

43 Marc Bekoff, “Jinxed Lynx? Some Very Difficult Questions with Few Simple

Answers,” Human Ecology Forum 6, no 1 (1999): 57-8; Mark Derr, “Starvation Intrudes

in a Bid to Save the Lynx,” New York Times, April 27, 1999.

44 Devineau, et al., 526

45 Todd D. Steury and Dennis L. Murray, “Modeling the Reintroduction of Lynx to the

Southern Portion of its Range,” Biological Conservation 117 (2004): 128; New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation, Canada Lynx, Species Status.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/6980.html. Accessed December 28, 2011.

46 Bekoff, 57.

47 Mindy Sink, “Agonizing, Inhospitable Homecoming of Lynx to Colorado,” New York

Times, March 3, 2003.

48 Shenk, 5.

49 Colorado Division of Wildlife, “DOW Declares Colorado Lynx Reintroduction

Program a Success,” news release, September 17, 2010.


Reintroduction Program (2010), 2.

51 Colorado Division of Wildlife, “DOW Declares Colorado Lynx Reintroduction

Program a Success.”

52 Colorado Division of Wildlife, Success. . . , 3.

248

Notes for Chapter Nine




2 Ibid., 14-16.








(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006): 48-49.





6 United States Congress, Endangered Species Act [§2(b)], 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.,

1973.


http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/recovery.pdf. (Accessed November 25,

2011).


249

9 Noel F.R. Snyder, “Limiting Factors for Wild California Condors,” California Condors

in the 21st Century, ed. Allan Mee and Linnea S. Hall (Cambridge, MA: Nuttall

Ornithological Club; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’Union, 2007), 29.


Evaluation (Pierre, SD, 2008), 13-26.

11 Jeffrey R. Walters, Scott R. Derrickson, D. Michael Fry, Susan M. Haig, John M

Marzluff, and Joseph M Wunderle, Jr., “Status of the California Condor (Gymnogyps

californianus) and Efforts to Achieve its Recovery,” The Auk 127, no. 4 (2010): 971

12 Steven W. Buskirk, Leonard F. Ruggiero, and Charles J. Krebs, “Habitat

Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition: Implications for Lynx Conservation,”




Rocky Mountain Research Station), 83-86.

13 Bonnie Burgess, Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of

Biodiversity (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2003), 67.

14 Competitive Enterprise Institute (and 100 signers), Letter to Senator James M. Inhofe,

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 27, 2006,

http://cei.org/gencon/032%2C05162.cfm. (Accessed February 4, 2010.).



16 Bradley J. Bergstrom, Sacha Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffield, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A.

250

Carlson, “The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered,” BioScience 59,

no. 11 (2009): 991

17 Brian Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Steve Forrest, Prairie Night: Black-Footed


Institution Press, 1996), 151.

18 David Parsons, interview with Lynne Nemeth, June 29, 2011, by phone. 19 Kristen R. Jule, Lisa A. Leaver, and Stephen E.G. Lea, The effects of captive

experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis, Biological

Conservation 141 (2008): 356.

20 Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough, editors, Population Viability Analysis

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 131; Curtis H. Flather, Gregory D.

Hayward, Steven R. Beissinger, and Philip A. Stephens, “Minimum viable populations: is

there a ‘magic number’ for conservation practitioners?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution

26, no. 6 (2011): 314.


Evaluation (Pierre, SD, 2008): 13-26.




15133.


Reintroduction Program (2010), 2.

251

24 USFWS, Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan, (Denver, CO, 1988); Black-footed Ferret

Recovery Program, http://www.blackfootedferret.org/recovery-plan-goals; USFWS,

California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision (Portland, OR, 1996); USFWS,

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, (Denver, CO, 1987); USFWS,

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Northern

Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To

Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Vol. 74, no. 62 (2009); USFWS,

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, (Albuquerque, NM, 1982); USFWS, Recovery Outline,

Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx (Helena, MT,

2005); Colorado Division of Wildlife, Success of the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s

Lynx Reintroduction Program (2010).

25 Richard P. Reading, Tim W. Clark, and Stephen R. Kellert, “Towards and Endangered

Species Reintroduction Paradigm,” Endangered Species Update 19, no. 4 (2002): 142.

252

Literature Cited Agee, James K. “Disturbance Ecology of North American Boreal Forests and

Associated Northern Mixed/Subalpine Forests,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 39-82. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Afloroaei, Lucia. 2009. Religious Dualism: Some Logical and Philosophical Difficulties.

Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 4: 83-111. Anderson, Elizabeth. “Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life.” In Animal

Rights, edited by Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum, 277-298. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Andrews, Richard N.L. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of

American Environmental Policy, 2nd Ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.

Apps, Clayton. “Space-Use, Diet, Demographics, and Topographic Associations of Lynx

in the Southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: A Study,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 351-372. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Big Game Species: Elk.

http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/game_elk.shtml. (Accessed September 20, 2010.) Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2011.Endangered Species Updates, October 6,

2011, Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project News, Monthly Status Report: Sept. 1-30, 2011.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. “Arizona Game and Fish Commission affirms wolf

conservation support, objects to new wolf releases until appropriate planning occurs,” news release, December 2, 2011.

Arizona Game & Fish Department. 2011. Summary Voluntary Lead Reduction Efforts

within Condor Range, 2003-2010. Armstrong, Doug P., and Philip J. Seddon. 2007. Directions in reintroduction biology.

TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 23(1):20-25. Associated Press, “Court says Snowmaking OK at Arizona Snowbowl,” Tucson Citizen.

253

August 9, 2008

Aubrey, Keith B., Gary M. Koehler, and John R. Squires. “Ecology of Canada Lynx in

Southern Boreal Forests,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 373-398. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Austin, William, Keith Day, Scot Franklin, Jeff Humphrey, W. Grainger Hunt, Chris

Parish, Ron Sieg, and Kathy Sullivan, Southwest Condor Review Team. 2007. A Review of the Second Five Years of the California Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest. Phoenix, AZ: Southwest Condor Review Team.

Ballard, Warren B., Ludwig N Carbyn, and Douglas W. Smith. “Wolf Interactions with

Non-prey.” In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 259-271. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Bangs, Edward E. and Steven H. Fritts. 1996. Reintroducing the Gray Wolf to Central

Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(3): 402-413. Beckmann, Jon P., and Jodi Hilty. “Connecting Wildlife Populations in Fractured

Landscapes,” In Safe Passages: Highways, Wildlife, and Habitat Connectivity, edited by Jon P. Beckmann, Anthony P. Clevenger, Marcel Huijser, and Jodi Hilty, 3-16. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010.

Bedard, Paul. “NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push . . . From EPA.” US News


Steven R. Beissinger, Steven R. Population Viability Analysis: Past, Present, Future. In Population Viability Analysis, edited by Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough, 5-17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Bekoff, Marc. 1999. Jinxed Lynx? Some Very Difficult Questions with Few Simple

Answers. Human Ecology Forum 6(1): 57-58. Bergstrom, Bradley J, Sacha Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffield, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A.

Carlson. 2009. The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered. BioScience 59(11):991-999.

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2011. http://www.blackfootedferret.org.

(Accessed July 6, 2011.) Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2011. FAQs.

http://www.blackfootedferret.org/faqs. (Accessed December 8, 2011).

254

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2011. Reintroduction.

http://www.blackfootedferret.org/reintroduction. (Accessed December 8, 2011). Bower, Wes Bower. Managing Pennsylvania’s Furbearers, Pennsylvania Outdoor Times,

April 1, 2010. http://www.outdoortimes.com/page/content.detail/id/500032/Managing-Pennsylvania-s-furbearers.html?nav=5006 (Accessed October 10, 2010).

Boyd, Diane K., and Daniel H. Pletscher. Characteristics of dispersal in a colonizing wolf

population in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 63 (1999): 1094-1108.

Brown, David E. The Wolf in the Southwest. Silver City, NM: High Lonesome Press, 2002

Bunnell, Kevin D., Jerran T. Flinders, Michael L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential Impacts of

Coyotes and Snowmobiles on Lynx Conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3): 828-838.

Burgess, Bonnie. Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of

Biodiversity. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2003. Buskirk, Steven W., Leonard F. Ruggiero, and Charles J. Krebs. “Habitat

Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition: Implications for Lynx Conservation,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 83-100. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Callicott, J. Baird. “Whither Conservation Ethics.” Conservation Biology 4, no. 1

(1990): 15–20. Carroll, Carlos, Michael K. Phillips, Carlos Lopez-Gonzalez, and Nathan H. Schumaker.

2006. Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species: the wolf as a case study. BioScience 56(1):25-36.

Chetkiewicz, Cheryl-Lesley B., Colleen Cassady St. Clair, and Mark S. Boyce. 2006.

Corridors for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 37:317-42

Choi, Young D. 2007. Restoration Ecology to the Future: A Call for New Paradigm,

Restoration Ecology 15(2): 351-353.

255

Church, Molly E., Roberto Gwiazda, Robert W. Risebrough, Kelly Sorenson, C. Page

Chamberlain, Sean Farry, William Heinrich, Bruce A. Rideout, and Donald R. Smith. 2006. Ammunition is the Principal Source of Lead Accumulated by California Condors Re-Introduced to the Wild. Environmental Science & Technology 40(19): 6143-6150.

Clevenger, Anthony P. and Adam T. Ford. “Wildlife Crossing Structures, Fencing, and

Other Highway Design Considerations,” In Safe Passages: Highways, Wildlife, and Habitat Connectivity, edited by Jon P. Beckmann, Anthony P. Clevenger, Marcel Huijser, and Jodi Hilty, 17-50. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010.

Clewell, Andre F. and James Aronson. 2006. Motivations for the Restoration of

Ecosystems. Conservation Biology 20 (2): 420-428. Coleman, Jon T. Vicious: Wolves and Men in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press, 2004. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2010. Success of the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s

Lynx Reintroduction Program. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/6EBDE944-FF9A-4CE4-894D-8547184CB8BA/0/ColoradoLynxReintroductionAssessment_090710.pdf. (Accessed July 5, 2011).

Colorado Division of Wildlife, “DOW Declares Colorado Lynx Reintroduction

Program a Success,” news release, September 17, 2010.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (and 100 signers), Letter to Senator James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 27, 2006, http://cei.org/gencon/032%2C05162.cfm. (Accessed February 4, 2010.)

Coppinger, Raymond, and Lorna Coppinger. Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine

Origin,Behavior, and Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Creel, Scott, and Jay J. Rotella. 2010. Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Human

Offtake, Total Mortality and Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves. PLoS ONE 5(9): 1-7.

Czech, Brian, and Paul R. Krausman. The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation, Biology, and Public Policy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Dean, Bradley. “Natural History, Romanticism, and Thoreau.” In American Wilderness:

A New History, edited Michael Lewis, 73-90. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

256

Derr, Mark. “Starvation Intrudes in a Bid to Save the Lynx,” New York Times, April 27,

1999.

Detling, James K. “Do Prairie Dogs Compete with Livestock?” In Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, edited by John L. Hoogland, 65-88. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Devineau, Olivier, Tanya M. Shenk, Gary C. White, Paul F. Doherty, Jr., Paul M.

Lukacs, and Richard H. Kahn. 2010. Evaluating the Canada Lynx Reintroduction Programme in Colorado: Patterns in Mortality. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 524-531.

Devineau, Olivier, Tanya M. Shenk, Paul F. Doherty, Gary C. White, and Rick H. Kahn.

2011. Assessing Release Protocols for Canada Lynx Reintroduction in Colorado. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3): 623-630.

Dizard, Jan E. “In Wolves’ Clothing: Restoration and the Challenge to Stewardship.” In

Wolves and Human Communities: Biology, Politics and Ethics, edited by Virginia A. Sharpe, Bryan G. Norton, and Strachan Donnelley, 75-92. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.

Doremus, Holly. “Lessons Learned.” In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1,

edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 195-207. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Doremus, Holly, and Joel Pagel. 2001. Why Listing May Be Forever: Perspectives on

Delisting under the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15(5):1258-1268.

Duffield, John W., Chris J. Neher, and David A. Patterson. 2008. Wolf Recovery in

Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. The George Wright Forum 25(1): 13-19.

Duke, Danah L., Mark Hebblewhite, Paul C. Paquet, Carolyn Callaghna, and Melanie

Percy. “Restoring a Large-Carnivore Corridor in Banff National Park,” In Large Mammal Restoration, edited by David S. Maehr, Reed F. Noss, Jeffery L Larkin, 261-276. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.

Dunlap, Thomas R. Saving America’s Wildlife: Ecology and the American Mind, 1850-

1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Dunning, John B., Jr., Martha J. Groom, and H. Ronald Pulliam. “Species and Landscape

Approaches to Conservation.” In Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Ed., edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll, 419-466. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2006.

257

Egan, Timothy. The Worst Hard Time. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Eisenberg, Cristina. The Wolf’s Tooth. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010. Endangered Species Coalition, Harris Interactive, “Endangered Species Act Poll,”

Summary of Findings. http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/endangered_species_act_poll.pdf. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

Farley, Joshua. 2008. The Role of Prices in Conserving Critical Natural Capital.

Conservation Biology 22(6):1399–1408. Fischer, Howard. “Snowmaking wins legal OK,” Capitol Media Services. June 9, 2009. Flather, Curtis H., Gregory D. Hayward, Steven R. Beissinger, and Philip A. Stephens,

Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic number’ for conservation practitioners? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26(6): 307-316.

Frair, Jacqueline L., Evelyn H. Merrill, James R. Allen, and Mark S. Boyce. 2007. Know

Thy Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2): 541-554.

Francione, Gary. “Animals—Property or Persons?.” In Animal Rights, edited by Cass R

Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum, 108-142. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Fritts, Stephen, Robert O. Stephenson, Robert D. Hayes, and Luigi Boitani. “Wolves and

Humans.” In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 289-316. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Folke, Carl, C.S. Holling, and Charles Perrings. “Biological Diversity, Ecosystems, and

the Human Scale,” In Foundations of Ecological Resilience, edited by Lance Gunderson, Craig Allen, and C. Holling, 151-166. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009.

Foster, Carroll B. 1983. The 'Sagebrush Rebellion' and the Alaska Lands Bill in the U. S.

Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 8(4): 655-672. Gerber, L. & González-Suárez, M. (2010) Population Viability Analysis: Origins and

Contributions. Nature Education Knowledge 1(11). http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/population-viability-analysis-origins-and-contributions-16091427. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

258

Goble, Dale. D., J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, editors. The Endangered Species

Act at Thirty, Volume 1. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006. Gonzalez, Patrick, Ronald P. Neilson, Kevin S. McKelvey, James M. Lenihan,

Raymond J. Drapek. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Habitat and Conservation Priority Areas for Lynx canadensis (Canada Lynx). Report to US Forest Service, Washington, DC and NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 2007.

Goodman, Russell, "Transcendentalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/transcendentalism/>.

Gosling, Leonard Morris Gosling. “Adaptive Behavior and Population Viability.” In

AnimalBehavior and Wildlife Conservation, edited by Marco Festa-Bianchet and Marco Apollonio, 13-29. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.

Greenwald, D. Noah, Kieran F. Suckling, and Martin Taylor. “The Listing Record.” In

The Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 51-67. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Green Zone. “Lead Poisoning Kills, Sickens More Condors,” Arizona Republic, June 6,

2011. Groom, M. J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology,

3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Gunderson, Lance, Craig Allen, C. Holling, editors. Foundations of Ecological

Resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009. Gutsky, Earl. “Rare Black-footed Ferret Hangs on in Wyoming,” Los Angeles Times,

August 8, 1985 Hartley, Laurel M., James K. Detling, and Lisa T. Savage. 2009. Introduced Plague

Lessens effects of an Herbivorous Rodent on Grassland Vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 861-869.

Harvey, Mark. “Loving the Wild in Postwar American.” In American Wilderness: A New

History, edited Michael Lewis, 187-204. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Harrington, Fred H., and Cheryl S. Asa. “Wolf Communication.” In Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 66-103. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

259

Harris, J.A., Hobbs, R.J, Higgs, E. and Aronson, J. 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14(2): 170-176. Hay, Peter. Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2002. Heberlein, Thomas, and Goran Ericsson. “Ties to the Countryside: Accounting for

Urbanites Attitudes toward Hunting, Wolves, and Wildlife.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10 (2005): 213-227.

Hedrick, Philip W. and R. J. Fredrickson. 2008. Captive Breeding and the Reintroduction

of Mexican and Red Wolves, Molecular Ecology 17: 344-350. Herring, Hal, “Wolf Whiplash,” High Country News, May 30, 2011. Hilty, Jodi, William Z. Lidicker Jr., and Adina Merenlender, editors. Corridor Ecology:

The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Holaday, Bobbie. The Return of the Mexican Gray Wolf. Tucson: University of Arizona

Press, 2003. Holling, C.S. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” In Foundations of

Ecological Resilience, edited by Lance Gunderson, Craig Allen, and C. Holling, 19-50. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan

2008-2012. Boise, ID. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Wolf Harvest Information.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getpage=121. (Accessed December 16, 2011).

International Union for Conservation of Nature. IUCN Red List. Numbers of threatened

species by major groups of organisms (1996–2011). http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

IUCN, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Lynx canadensis. Habitat and Ecology.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12518/0. (Accessed December 29, 2011).

260

IUCN/SSC Guidelines For Re-Introductions, Prepared by the SSC Re-introduction

Specialist Group, 1995. http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/Reintroduction_guidelines.pdf. (Accessed September 22, 2010.)

Johnson, Benjamin. “Wilderness Parks and their Discontents.” In American Wilderness:


Jule, Kristen R., Lisa A. Leaver, and Stephen E.G. Lea. 2008. The effects of captive

experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation 141: 355-363.

Kareiva, Peter, Timothy H. Tear, Stacey Solie, Michelle L. Brown, Leonardo Sotomayor, and Christopher Yuan-Farrell. “Nongovernmental Organizations.” In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 176-191. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Kellert, Stephen R., Matthew Black, Colleen Reid Rush, and Alistair Bath. Human

culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10, no. 4 (1996):977-990.

Kleiman, Devra. 1989. Reintroduction of Captive Mammals for Conservation.

Bioscience 39(3): 152-161. Keith, James O. 2003. Abert’s Squirrel (Sciurus aberti): A Technical Conservation

Assessment. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/abertsquirrel.pdf (Accessed December 8, 2011).

Kolbe, Jay, John R. Squires, Daniel H. Pletscher, Leonard F. Ruggiero. 2007. The Effect

of Snowmobile Trails on Coyote Movements Within Lynx Home Ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5): 1409-1418.

Krebs, Charles J., Stan Boutin, Rudy Boonstra, A.R.E. Sinclair, J.N.M. Smith, Mark R.

T. Dale, K. Martin, R. Turkington. 1995. Impact of Food and Predation on the Snowshoe Hare Cycle. Science 269: 1112-1115.

Kotliar, Natasha B., Brian J. Miller, Richard P. Reading, and Timothy Clark. “The

Prairie Dog as a Keystone Species.” In Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, edited by John L. Hoogland, 53-64. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Kunkel, Kyran E., Daniel H. Pletscher, Diane K. Boyd, Robert R. Ream, and Michael W.

Fairchild. Factors correlated with foraging behavior of wolves in and near Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 68, no. 1 (2003):167-178.

261

Lamb, Berton Lee, Richard P. Reading, and William F. Andelt. “Attitudes and

Perceptions About Prairie Dogs” In Conservation of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, edited by John L. Hoogland, 108-114. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Layzer, Judith A. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. Washington,

D.C.: CQ Press, 2002. Leberg, Paul L., Peter W. Stangel, Hilburn O. Hillestad, R. Larry Marchinton, Michael H.

Smith. 1994. Genetic Structure of Reintroduced Wild Turkey and White-Tailed Deer Populations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 58(4): 698-711.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1949. Lewis, Michael Lewis, “Wilderness and Conservation Science,” In American Wilderness:


Lipsey, Martha and Matthew R. Child. 2007. Combining the Fields of Reintroduction

Biology and Restoration Ecology. Conservation Biology 21(6): 1387-1390. Lockhart, J. Michael, E. Tom Thorne, and Donald R. (Pete) Gober. “A Historical

Perspective on Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret and the Biological and Political Challenges Affecting Its Future.” In Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret—Progress and Continuing Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5293, edited by J.E. Roelle, B. J. Miller, J. L. Godbey, and D.E. Biggins, 6-18. Reston, VA: USGS, 2006.

Lockhart, Mike. 2007. An Opinion: Successes and Setbacks in Black-footed Ferret

Recovery. . . .Endangered Species Update 24(3):75-83. Lopez, Barry. Of Wolves and Men. New York: Scribner, 1978. Mack, C., J. Rachael, J. Holyan, J. Husseman, M. Lucid, B. Thomas. 2010. Wolf

Conservation and Management in Idaho Progress Report 2009. Lapwai, ID and Boise, ID: Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery Project and Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Matthews, Jay. “Scientists Hatch California Condor Back From Brink of Extinction,” The

Washington Post, September 10, 1983. Mattson, David J. “Living with Fierce Creatures? An Overview and Models of

Mammalian Carnivore Conservation.” In People and Predators: From Conflict to Coexistence, edited by Nina Fascione, Aimee Delach, and Martin E. Smith, 151-178. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004.

262

McKelvey, Kevin S. “History and Distribution of Lynx in the Contiguous United

States,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 207-264. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

McKelvey, Kevin S., Steven W. Buskirk, and Charles J. Krebs. “Theoretical Insights

into the Population Viability of Lynx,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 21-38. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Mech, L. David, and Luigi Boitani. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Mech, L. David, and Rolf O. Peterson. “Wolf-Prey Relations.” In Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology,and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 131-160. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Meretsky, Vicky, Noel F.R. Snyer, Steven R. Beissinger, David A. Clendenen, and James

W. Wiley. 2000. Demography of the California Condor: Implications for Reestablishment. Conservation Biology 14(4): 957-966.

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Adaptive Management Oversight

Committee, Standard Operating Procedure 13, 2005. Miller, Angela. “The Fate of Wilderness in American Landscape Art.” In American

Wilderness: A New History, edited Michael Lewis, 91-112. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Miller, Brian, Richard P. Reading, and Steve Forrest. Prairie Night: Black-footed Ferrets

and the Recovery of Endangered Species. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996.

Miller, Brian J., Richard P. Reading, and Timothy Clark. “Black-footed Ferret,” In

Endangered Animals, edited Richard P. Reading and Brian J. Miller, 53-59. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000.

Miller, Char. 1992. The Greening of Gifford Pinchot. Environmental History Review

16(3): 1-20.

263

Miller, Char. “A Sylvan Prospect: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Early Twentieth-

Cenury Conservationism.” In American Wilderness: A New History, edited Michael Lewis, 131-148. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Moir, John. Return of the Condor. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2006. Moir, John. “New Hurdle For California Condors May Be DDT From Years Ago,” The

New York Times, November 15, 2010. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2011 Wolf Hunting Guide. Wolf Hunting Season Status.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/. (Accessed December 16, 2011).

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Fact Sheet: Congress Delists Montana Wolf

Population. 2011. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=50145. (Accessed December 15, 2011.)

Morgan, Michelle, Krishna Gifford, Elena Babij, Debby Crouse; et al. 2006. Overcoming

Challenges to Species Recovery. Endangered Species Update 31(1):4-9. Mowat, Garth, Kim G. Poole, and Mark O’Donoghue. “Ecology of Lynx in Northern

Canada and Alaska,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 265-306. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Murray, D. & Smith, A.T. 2008. Lepus americanus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/41273/0. (Accessed April 16, 2011).

Murray, Dennis L., Todd D. Steury, and James D. Roth. 2008. Assessment of Canada

Lynx Research and Conservation Needs in the Southern Range: Another Kick at the Cat. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7): 1463-1472.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd Ed. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1982.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. “Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement Signed.” http://www.nfwf.org/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?section=Who_we_are&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13937. (Accessed June 16, 2011).

National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, “Count Shows Decline in Northern

Elk Herd Population,” news release, January 12, 2011.

264

NatureServe. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 2010. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed June 16, 2011).

New Mexico Game and Fish Department. 2011. Minutes, New Mexico State Game

Commission, June 9, 2011. http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/commission/minutes/documents/6-9-11OFFICIAL.pdf (Accessed January 5, 2012.)

Nie, Martin. 2002. Wolf Recovery and Management as Value-based Political Conflict.

Ethics, Place & Environment 5(1): 65-71. Nie, Martin. Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Nelson, Ted. “Chicago urban coyote project returns surprising results.” examiner.com.

http://www.examiner.com/adventure-travel-in-chicago/chicago-urban-coyote-project-returns-surprising-results. October 20, 2009 (Accessed September 25, 2010).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2011. Canada Lynx,

Species Status. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/6980.html. (Accessed December 28, 2011).

Noss, Reed F. “Hierarchical Indicators for Monitoring Changes in Biodiversity.” In

Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Edition, edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll, 28-29. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.,2006.

Noss, Reed, Blair Csuti, and Martha J. Groom. “Habitat Fragmentation” In Principles of

Conservation Biology, Third Edition, edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C. Ronald Carroll, 213-252. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Inc., 2006.

Novak, Ronald. “Wolf Evolution and Taxomony.” In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and

Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 239-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Opdam, Paul and Dirk Wascher. 2004. Climate Change meets habitat fragmentation:

Linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117: 285-297.

Orians, Gordon H., and Martha J. Groom, “Global Biodiversity,” In Principles of

ConservationBiology, 3rd Edition., edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll, 27-62. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2006.

265

O’Sullivan, John. “The Great Nation of Futurity.” The United States Democratic Review

6, no. 23 (1839): 426–430. Pacelle, Wayne. “Forging a New Wildlife Management Paradigm.” Human Dimensions

of Wildlife 3, no. 2 (1998): 42–50. Packard, Jayne. “Wolf Behavior: Reproductive, Social, and Intelligent.” In Wolves:

Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, edited L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 35-65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Parkhurst, Gregory M., and Jason F. Shogren. “Incentive Mechanisms.” In The

Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, Chapter 20. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Parsons, David R. “Green fire” returns to the Southwest: reintroduction of the Mexican

Wolf. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, no. 4 (1998):799-807. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Leonard Harrison

State Park, “Human Influence on the Canyon,” http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/leonardharrison.aspx. (Accessed September 20, 2010.)

Perreault, Melanie. “American Wilderness and First Contact,” In American Wilderness: A New History, edited Michael Lewis, 15-34. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Perrine, John D., Lori A. Campbell, and Gregory A. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada Red Fox

(Vulpes vulpes necator): A Conservation Assessment (USDA Publication R5-FR-010).

Peterson, Rolf O., and Paolo Ciucci “The Wolf as a Carnivore.” In Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 104-130. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Platt, John. “Fight to Protect California Condors from Lead Ammunition Moves to

Arizona,” Scientific American, November 20, 2009. Plotkin, Henry C. Evolutionary thought in psychology: a brief history. Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell, 2004. Possingham, Hugh P., Kerrie A. Wilson, Sandy J. Andelman, and Carly H. Vynne.

“Protected Areas,” In Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition, edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C. Ronald Carroll, 509-552. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Inc., 2006.

266

Povilitis, Anthony and Kieran Suckling. 2009. Addressing Climate Change Threats to

Endangered Species in US Recovery Plans. Conservation Biology 24(2): 372-376. Primm, Steven A., and Tim W. Clark. Making Sense of the Policy Process for Carnivore

Conservation. Conservation Biology 10, no. 4 (1996): 1036-1045. Primm, Steve, and Karen Murray, “Grizzly Bear Recovery: Living with Success?” In

Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone, edited by Tim W. Clark, Murray B. Rutherford and Denise Casey, 99-137. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

Purdue, J. Rick, James R. Heffelfinger, and Ken E. Nicholls. 2001. Is Merriam’s Elk

Really Extinct? Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Proceedings of the 2001 Deer/Elk Workshop.

Ralls, Katherine, Steven R. Beissinger, and Jean Fitts Cochrane. “Guidelines for Using

Population Viability Analysis in Endangered Species Management.” In Population Viability Analysis, edited by Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough, 521-550. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Ray, Justina C., Kent H. Redford, Joel Berger, and Robert Steneck. “Is Large Carnivore

Conservation Equivalent to Biodiversity Conservation and How Can We Achieve Both?” In Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity, edited by Justina C Ray, Kent H. Redford, Robert S. Steneck, and Joel Berger, 400-427. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

Reading, Richard, and Brian Miller, eds. Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to

ConflictingIssues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000. Reading, Richard P., Tim W. Clark, and Stephen R. Kellert. 2002. Towards an

Endangered Species Reintroduction Paradigm. Endangered Species Update 19(4): 142-146.

Research & Polling, Inc. 2008. Wolf Recovery Survey – Arizona and Wolf Recovery

Survey – New Mexico. http://www.mexicanwolves.org/pdf/Reading17WolfSurveyAZ.pdf; http://www.mexicanwolves.org/pdf/Reading18WolfSurveyNM.pdf. (Accessed July 4, 2011).

Reed, David H, Julian J. O’Grady, Barry W. Brook, Jonathan D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biological Conservation 113:23-34.

Reed, J.E., W.B. Ballard, P.S. Gipson, B.T. Kelly, P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D. B.

267

Wester. 2006. Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4): 1127-1133.

Restuccia, Andrew. “Republican Says Petition to Ban Lead Bullets is ‘Attack on Rural

America,” The Washington Independent, August 27, 2010. http://washingtonindependent.com/96040/republican-says-petition-to-ban-lead-bullets-is-attack-on-rural-america. (Accessed April 6, 2011).

Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. Linking Wolves and Plants: Aldo Leopold on Trophic Cascades. BioScience 55, no. 7 (2005):613-621. Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation

Risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54, no. 8 (2004):755-766. Robbins, Jim. “Efforts on 2 Fronts to Save a Population of Ferrets,” The New York Times,

July 15, 2008. San Diego Zoo. 2009. Fact Sheet, California Condor, Gymnogyps californianus.

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/california_condor/condor_summary.htm. (Accessed July 7, 2011.)

Save the Peaks Coalition, “Tribes & Environmental Groups Petition Supreme Court in

Appeal to Protect Religious Freedom & Environmental Integrity of Sacred Mountain,” news release, January 6, 2009

Science Watch, “Ferret’s Comeback from ‘Extinction’ Continues,” New York Times,

October 11, 1983. (Accessed July 6, 2011). Scott, J. Michael, and Dale D. Goble, Leona K. Svancara and Anna Pidgorna. “By the

Numbers.” In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 16-35. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Scribner, Kim, Gary K. Meffe, and Martha J. Groom. “Conservation Genetics.” In Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Ed, edited by Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll, 375-416. Sunderland, MA; Sinauer Associates, 2006.

Seddon, Philip J. Doug P. Armstrong, and Richard F. Maloney. 2007. Developing the

Science of Reintroduction Biology. Conservation Biology 21(2): 303–312 Shaffer, Mark, Laura Hood Watchman, William J. Snape III, and Ingrid K. Latchis.

“Population Viability Analysis and Conservation Policy.” In Population Viability Analysis, edited by Steven R. Beissinger and Dale R. McCullough, 123-146. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

268

Shenk, Tanya. 2010. Wildlife Research Report, Post Release Monitoring of Lynx

Reintroduced to Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Shepherd, B., and J. Whittington. 2006. Response of Wolves to Corridor Restoration and

Human Use Management. Ecology & Society 11(2): 403–417. Sink, Mindy. “Agonizing, Inhospitable Homecoming of Lynx to Colorado,” New York

Times, March 3, 2003. Sire, James W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2004. Sloan, Phillip, "Evolution", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/evolution/>.

Smith, Douglas W., and Gary Ferguson. Decade of the Wolf. Guilford, CT: The Lyons

Press, 2005. Smith, Douglas W. and Michael K. Phillips. “Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis

lupus nubilius).” In Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues, edited by Richard P. Reading and Brian Miller, 219–223. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Smith, Douglas W., Daniel R. Stahler, Erin Albers, Matthew Metz, Libby Williamson,

Nick Ehlers, Kira Cassidy, Joshua Irving, Rebecca Raymond, Emily Almberg, and Richard McIntyre. Yellowstone Wolf Project: Annual Report, 2008. Yellowstone Naitonal Park, WY: National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, 2009.

Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Bobcat Facts.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/northamerica/facts/bobcatfacts.cfm. (Accessed April 16, 2011.)

Snyder, Noel F.R. “Limiting Factors for Wild California Condors.” In California

Condors in the 21st Century, edited by Allan Mee and Linnea S. Hall, 9-34. Cambridge, MA: Nuttall Ornithological Club; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’Union, 2007.

Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. A Short History of Philosophy. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Soulé, Michael. 1985. What is Conservation Biology? BioScience 35(11): 727-734.

269

Soulé, Michael, and John Terborgh, editors. Continental Conservation. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 1999. Soulé , Michael, James A. Estes, Joel Berger, and Carlos Martinez del Rio. 2003.

Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17 (5):1238-1250.

Soulé, Michael, James A. Estes, Brian Miller, and Douglas L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly

interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55(2):68-176.

Squires, John R. and Tom Laurion. “Lynx Home Range and Movements in Montana

and Wyoming: Preliminary Results,” In Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, Gary M. Koehler, Charles J. Krebs, Kevin S. McKelvy, and John R. Squires, 337-350. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; Missoula, MT: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.

Steury, Todd D. and Dennis L. Murray. 2004. Modeling the Reintroduction of Lynx to

the Southern Portion of its Range. Biological Conservation 117:127-141. Stinchcombe, John R. 2000. US Endangered Species Management: the Influence of

Politics,” Endangered Species Update 17(6):118-121. Stoll, Mark. “Religion Irradiates the Wilderness.” In American Wilderness: A New

History, edited Michael Lewis, 35-54. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Stoll, Steven. “Farm against Forest.” In American Wilderness: A New History, edited

Michael Lewis, 55-72. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Suckling, Kieran F., and Martin Taylor. “Critical Habitat and Recovery.” In The

Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 75-89. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Sunquist, Mel, and Fiona Sunquist. Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press,

2002. Sutter, Paul. “Putting Wilderness in Context: The Interwar Origins of the Modern

Wilderness Idea.” In American Wilderness: A New History, edited Michael Lewis, 167-186. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Stahler, Daniel R., Douglas W. Smith, Debra S. Guernsey. Foraging and Feeding

Ecology of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Nutrition July 2006 Supplement 136 (2006):1923S-1926S.

Tarlock, A. Dan. “The Dynamic Urban Landscape.” In The Endangered Species Act at

270

Thirty Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 127-138. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Thomas, Gregory A. 2000. Where Property Rights and Biodiversity Converge Part 1:

Conservation Planning at the Regional Scale. Endangered Species Update 17(6): 139-146.

Thompson, Barton H. “Managing the Working Landscape.” In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1, edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 101-126. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Thoreau, Henry David. The Journal of Henry D. Thoreau, ed. Bradford Torrey and

Francis H. Allen. New York: Dover, 1962. Turner, James Morton. “The Politics of Modern Wilderness.” In American Wilderness: A

New History, edited Michael Lewis, 167-186. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Tyson, Rebecca, Sheena Haines, Karen E. Hodges. 2010. Modelling the Canada lynx and

snowshoe hare population cycle: the role of specialist predators. Theoretical Ecology 3: 97-111.

United States Congress. 1960. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. 16 U.S.C. § 528-531. United States Congress. 1964. Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. §1131-1136, Public Law 88-

577, 78 Stat. 890. United States Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et

seq. United States Congress. 1970. Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. United States Congress. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et

seq. United States Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

US Congress. 2011. H.R. 1473. Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Section 1713, (April 11, 2011).

US Congress. 2011. H.R.1819 -- State Wildlife Management Act of 2011.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1819.IH. US Congress. 2011. H.R.509 -- To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide

271

that Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (canis lupus), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.509.

US Department of Agriculture APHIS – Wildlife Damage Management. Table G.

Animals Taken by Wildlife Services - FY 2009. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdf. (Accessed June 15, 2011).

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region. Apache-Sitgreaves

National Forests Travel Management EIS. Travel Management and Infrastructure Specialist Report, 2009. http://www.cmlua.com/uploads/Transportation_Specialist_Report.pdf. (Accessed June 23, 2011).

US Department of Agriculture. 2011. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cattle

Death Loss, 2010. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2002. Public Health Service, Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD.

US Department of the Interior, “Salazar Outlines Broad Opportunities for Common

Ground on Wilderness,” news release, June 1, 2011. US Department of the Interior National Park Service. Yosemite National Park Threatened

Mammals. http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/threatened-mammals.htm (Accessed September 20, 2010).

United States District Court District of Arizona. 2011. Order, CV 08-820 PHX DCB,

WildEarth Guardians, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Fish and Wildlife et al., Defendants, Filed June 13, 2011.

United States District Court For The District Of Columbia. 2011. In Re Endangered

Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, Misc. Action No. 10-377, Docket No. 2165, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Filed July 12, 2011.

United States District Court for the District of Montana. 2009. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Ken Salazar, et al. 2009. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. CV-09-77-M-DWM. Filed June 2, 2009.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey

(to 1975). Excerpt from DDT, A Review of Scientific and Economic Aspects of the Decision To Ban Its Use as a Pesticide, prepared for the Committee on

272

Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives by EPA. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/02.htm. (Accessed March 31, 2011).

US Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead

Ammunition Ban,” news release, August 27, 2010. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/48d939b5009411038525778c00768006!opendocument. (Accessed January 5, 2012).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan,

Executive Summary. Denver, CO. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision

Portland, OR. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Dept; New Mexico Dep’t of Game

and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Dept of Agriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control; U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Dep’t of the Army, White Sands Missile Range. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States. Albuquerque, NM.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61, no. 201.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. The Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf

within its Historic Range in the United States, Final Environmental Impact Statement.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Notice of Final Decision on Identification of Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register, Vol. 61, no. 235.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental

Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 63, no. 7.


Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 65, no. 58.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Mountain-Prairie Region, Endangered Species

273

Program. A Chronology of Canada Lynx Events. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/chron032000.htm. Accessed December 27, 2011.


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. Federal Register, Vol. 68, no. 62.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-

day Finding on Petitions to establish the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and to Remove the Gray Wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Federal Register, Volume 70, no. 86.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Outline, Contiguous United States Distinct

Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. Helena, MT. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, Volume 73, no. 39.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) 5-Year

Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. Pierre, SD. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment.

Albuquerque, NM.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, Volume 74, no. 62.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. California Condor Spotlight Species Action Plan,

2010-2014. Ventura, CA. US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009. “Critical Habitat: What is it?”

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/critical_habitat.pdf. (Accessed February 11, 2010).


Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx, Federal Register, Volume 74, no. 36.

274


Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, Volume 74, no. 62.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Spotlight Species Action Plan, Black-footed Ferret,

Pierre, SD.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. California Condor Blood Lead Levels (2009): Southern and Central California Populations. Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, California Condor Recovery Program.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered Species Program, Federal and State

Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2009, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2009_EXP_Report.pdf (Accessed June 16, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2010. Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, Habitat

Conservation Plans. http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/servlet/gov.doi.hcp.servlets.PlanReport (Accessed February 11, 2010.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. Region 2,

Albuquerque, NM. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report

#12. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. Mexican Wolf

Population Statistics, 2010. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWPS.shtml. (Accessed July 4, 2011.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Arizona Ecological Services, California Condor.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/California%20Condor%20RB.pdf. (Accessed December 13, 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Mexican Wolf Program Update—Mexican Wolves

and the Wallow Fire, July, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican%20Wolves%20and%20Wallow%20Fire%20Update%207-11-11.pdf. (Accessed December 30, 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Mountain-Prairie Region,

275

Black-footed Ferret. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/. (Accessed July 6, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Program. Listing and Critical

Habitat Overview. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-overview.html. (Accessed November 26, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Program. Listing a Species as

Threatened or Endangered. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf. (Accessed November 25, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Recovery Program. Recovery.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/recovery.pdf. (Accessed November 25, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Program. Listing a Species as

Threatened or Endangered. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf. (Accessed November 25, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Program. ESA Basics.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf. (Accessed June 15, 2011.)

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Program. Partnerships in

Conservation | Non-Governmental Organizations Programs. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ngo-programs.html. (Accessed November 25, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011.Endangered Species Program. A History of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa-history.html (Accessed June 15, 2011.)


Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Volume 76, no. 87.

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), Current Population in the United States, 2010. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/WolfPopUS.htm. (Accessed June 30, 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Gray Wolf Recovery and Delisting Questions and

Answers, May 2011. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/delisting/QAsPropRuleMay2001.html

276

(Accessed June 30, 2011.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge

Complex, Southern California Condor Profiles. http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/CACORecoveryProgram/CACOProfiles.html. (Accessed July 7, 2011).

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

California Condor Recovery Program. Population Size and Distribution. Condor Program Monthly Status Report & Locations.

US Fish & Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis).

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. (Accessed April 16, 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe,

National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2011. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report. Helena, MT.

US Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered Species, Species Reports, General Statistics for

Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessStatReport. (Accessed June 16, 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/1966listing.html. (Accessed February 4, 2010.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program Species Reports. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessStatReport. (Accessed June 15, 2011.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Nation Marks Lacey Act Centennial,” news release, May

30, 2000. US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Black-tailed Prairie Dog Removed from Candidate

Species List,” news release, August 12, 2004. (Accessed June 15, 2011.) US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Endangered Species Act Protection for the White-tailed

Prairie Dog is not warranted,” news release, May 27, 2010. (Accessed June 15, 2011.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Populations in Portions of

Colorado and New Mexico Warranted For Listing Under the Endangered Species Act,” news release, February 1, 2008. (Accessed June 15, 2011.)

277

US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2010. Sierra Nevada Red Fox Fact Sheet

Sierra Nevada Red Fox Interagency Working Group. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, “Rare Sierra Nevada Fox ‘Population’

Rediscovered,” news release, December 3, 2010. USGS National Wildlife Health Center. Sylvatic Plague Immunization in Black-footed

Ferrets and Prairie Dogs. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/sylvatic_plague. (Accessed June 15, 2011).

US Senate. 2011. S.249 -- To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that

Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.249: (Accessed December 17, 2011).

Walters, Jeffrey R., Scott R. Derrickson, D. Michael Fry, Susan M. Haig, John M

Marzluff, and Joseph M Wunderle, Jr. 2010. “Status of the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and Efforts to Achieve its Recovery,” The Auk 127(4): 969-1001.

Wayne, Robert K. and Carlos Vilà. “Molecular Studies of Wolves.” In Wolves: Behavior,

Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 218-238. PAGES. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Webber, David J. 2008. “Earth Day and Its Precursors: Continuity and Change in the

Evolution of Midtwentieth-Century U.S. Environmental Policy.” Review of Policy Research 25, no. 4 (2008): 313–332.

Week in Review, “Half a Pound of Hope for Condors,” The New York Times, April 3,

1983 Wilcove, David S., and Margaret McMillan. “The Class of ’67.” In The Endangered

Species Act at Thirty,Volume 1 edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, 45-50. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Woolley, John T., and Gerhard Peters. The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa

Barbara, CA. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4090.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. 2000. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt. 987 F.Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev’d 199 F.3d 1224. Filed January 13, 2000. http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/01/97-8127.htm. (Accessed December 15, 2011).

Yellowstone Science News and Notes. 2009. “Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bears

278

Returned to Threatened Status.” Yellowstone Science 17(3):2.

Yuknis, Eric. 2011. Would a "God Squad" Exemption Under the Endangered Species Act

Solve the California Water Crisis?” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 38(2): 567-596.

Interviews Chris Parish, interviewed by Lynne Nemeth, April 14, 2011, Marble Canyon, AZ Dave Parsons, interviewed by Lynne Nemeth, June 29, 2011, by phone and email Heather Branvold, interviewed by Lynne Nemeth, July 7, 2011, by phone and email

279

Appendix A: Attrition Calculations Based on Mexican Wolf Population Data

Year

Nu

mb

er of W

olves R

eleased

Po

pu

lation

Co

un

t (Min

imu

m)

Rem

oval (T

otal)

Mo

rtality (To

tal)

Ob

served P

op

ulatio

n in

Wild

In T

his year

Ob

served P

op

ulatio

n in

Wild

In F

ollo

win

g Y

ear

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e Du

e to R

eleases

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e Du

e to D

eath o

r Rem

oval

No

n-B

irth P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e Du

e to B

irths (E

stimated

)

Ob

served P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e Exclu

din

g R

eleases

% P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge D

ue to

Releases

% P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge D

ue to

Death

or R

emo

val

% N

on

-Birth

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e

% P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge D

ue to

Birth

s (Estim

ated)

% O

bserved

Po

pu

lation

Ch

ang

e

% P

op

ulatio

n C

han

ge E

xclud

ing

Releases (A

ttrition

)

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1998 13 4 6 5 4 15 13 -11 2 9 11 -2 325.0% -

275.0% 50.0% 225.0% 275.0% -50.0%

1999 21 15 12 3 15 22 21 -15 6 1 7 -14 140.0% -

100.0% 40.0% 6.7% 46.7% -93.3%

2000 16 22 23 4 22 26 16 -27 -11 15 4 -12 72.7% -

122.7% -50.0% 68.2% 18.2% -54.5% 2001 15 26 10 9 26 42 15 -19 -4 20 16 1 57.7% -73.1% -15.4% 76.9% 61.5% 3.8% 2002 9 42 7 3 42 55 9 -10 -1 14 13 4 21.4% -23.8% -2.4% 33.3% 31.0% 9.5% 2003 8 55 15 12 55 48 8 -27 -19 12 -7 -15 14.5% -49.1% -34.5% 21.8% -12.7% -27.3% 2004 5 48 7 3 48 49 5 -10 -5 6 1 -4 10.4% -20.8% -10.4% 12.5% 2.1% -8.3% 2005 0 49 21 4 49 59 0 -25 -25 35 10 10 0.0% -51.0% -51.0% 71.4% 20.4% 20.4% 2006 4 59 18 6 59 52 4 -24 -20 13 -7 -11 6.8% -40.7% -33.9% 22.0% -11.9% -18.6% 2007 0 52 23 4 52 52 0 -27 -27 27 0 0 0.0% -51.9% -51.9% 51.9% 0.0% 0.0%

2008 1 52 2 13 52 42 1 -15 -14 4 -

10 -11 1.9% -28.8% -26.9% 7.7% -19.2% -21.2% 2009 0 42 7 8 42 50 0 -15 -15 23 8 8 0.0% -35.7% -35.7% 54.8% 19.0% 19.0% 2010 0 50 0 6 50 50 0 -6 -6 6 0 0 0.0% -12.0% -12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 92 151 80 92 -231 -139 185 46 -46

Average Yearly % changes 50.0% -68.1% -18.0% 51.1% 33.1% -17.0%

Ratio of births to deaths and removals 0.80087

Ratio of births to deaths 2.3125

280

Appendix B. Field Activities Program Location Date Activity Guide/Supervisor

Peregrine Fund

Marble Canyon, AZ

March 2008 California Condor Class

Chris Parish

Mexican Wolf Program

Alpine, AZ August 2009 Serve on Interagency Field Team

Chris Bagnioli

AZ Game & Fish Ferret Program

Aubrey Valley, AZ

March 2011 Spotlighting for annual spring count

Jeff Corcoran

jsonMw (1)

Documents

laura hood

colleen cassady

colleen reid

nez perce

pinnacles

ralph waldo

canadian maritime

sand county