Outdoor Writer

USFWS is proposing to change the experimental status of the Mexican wolf by placing it on the t on the endangered species list. It's a long read, but here is the entire proposal; pay lots of attention to the text I bolded in RED!!! **************************************************************************************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056] [FXES11130900000C2-134-FF09E32000] RIN 1018-AY46 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This action is being taken in coordination with our proposed rule in today’s Federal Register to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf species necessitates that we revise the nonessential experimental population designation of Mexican wolves in order to correctly associate this designation with the properly listed entity. In addition, we are proposing several revisions to the section 10(j) rule. We are seeking comment from the public on the proposed revisions and on additional possible modifications that we may analyze and incorporate into our final determination. DATES: We will accept comments received on or before [iNSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION]. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by [iNSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before any such hearing. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for more information). To increase our efficiency in downloading comments, groups providing mass submissions should submit their comments in an Excel file. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505–761–4704; or by facsimile 505–346–2542. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Why we need to publish a rule. This rule is being proposed for two reasons: (1) To ensure this nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves will be associated with the Mexican wolf subspecies listing, if finalized, rather than with the listing of the gray wolf at the species level; and (2) to allow for public comment on our proposed revisions and modifications to the 1998 final rule that established a Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998) (1998 Final Rule) (In our 1998 Final Rule, we established two recovery areas (the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area [bRWRA] and the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area) within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area [MWEPA]. We established primary recovery zones within each of these recovery areas where initial releases of Mexican wolves would occur, while dispersal and translocations were allowed throughout the recovery areas. We also established provisions to remove Mexican wolves that occupied territories that were wholly outside of the recovery areas, or wolves that depredated on livestock outside of the recovery areas. Since 1998, we have only released Mexican wolves into the BRWRA; we have not utilized the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area. On tribal lands within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area, we established provisions where the Service in cooperation with tribal government would develop management actions, including the capture and removal of Mexican wolves, if requested by the tribe. In 2000, the White Mountain Apache Tribe agreed to allow free-ranging Mexican wolves to inhabit the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, in accordance with this provision of the Final Rule. We recognize that continued occupancy of Mexican wolves on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is dependent upon tribal agreement. This proposal is necessitated by a related action we are taking to propose the reclassification of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf species (Canis lupus). The Mexican wolf has been listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) under a species-wide gray wolf listing since 1978; therefore, when we designated the Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population in 1998 (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998), it corresponded to the gray wolf listing in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) even though it was specific to our Mexican wolf recovery effort. With the proposed removal of the gray wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and classification of the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies, we recognize the need to revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) such that the nonessential population will be associated with the Mexican wolf subspecies listing rather than with the gray wolf species. In order to improve implementation and conservation, we are proposing several changes to the section 10(j) rule and management regulations of the Mexican wolves. The basis for our action. The 1982 amendments to the Act included the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed species as “experimental populations.” Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species’ current natural range (but within its probable historical range, absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed). With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its range. Treating the experimental population as threatened allows us the discretion to devise management programs and special regulations for such a population. Section 4(d) of the Act allows us to adopt any regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a threatened species. When designating an experimental population, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the section 10(j) rule contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species. We are preparing an environmental impact statement. We are preparing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). To ensure that we consider the environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule, we are preparing a draft EIS to analyze the proposed nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves. From October through December 2007, we conducted a public scoping process under NEPA based on our intent to modify the 1998 Final Rule. We developed a scoping report in April 2008, but we did not propose or finalize any modifications to the 1998 Final Rule at that time. We will utilize all information collected since that scoping process began in the development of a draft EIS. We will use information from this analysis to inform our final decision. We will seek peer review. We will obtain opinions from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on our technical assumptions, analysis, adherence to regulations, and whether or not we used the best available information. These peer reviewers will analyze our methods and conclusions and provide additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final determination. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. Information Requested We are seeking public comments on this proposed rule. We are particularly interested in public comments on a number of specific issues we are proposing, and on other options being considered that are not included in today’s proposed rule. We may include any of the modifications discussed in this proposed rule in our final determination. We particularly seek comments and information concerning the following revisions being proposed in today’s action: (1) Expanding the area for direct initial release of captive-raised Mexican wolves to include the entire BRWRA, thereby eliminating the primary and secondary recovery zones of the BRWRA (Figure 2). Figure 2 —Revised Geographic Boundaries for the Mexican Wolf Nonessential Experimental Population Area. (2) Allowing Mexican wolves to disperse naturally from the BRWRA into the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) and occupy the MWEPA without the requirement to bring them back into the BRWRA (Figure 2). (3) Removing the portion of west Texas lying north of US Highway 62/180 to the Texas–New Mexico boundary from the MWEPA (Figure 2). (4) Removing reference to possible reintroduction of Mexican wolves to the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (Figure 2). (5) Developing and implementing management actions on private land within the MWEPA by the Service or an authorized agency to benefit Mexican wolf recovery in voluntary cooperation with private landowners, including but not limited to initial release, proactive measures to prevent conflicts, and translocation of wolves if requested by the landowner. (6) Developing and implementing management actions on tribal land within the MWEPA by the Service or an authorized agency in voluntary cooperation with tribal governments including but not limited to initial release, translocation, proactive measures to prevent conflicts, capture, and removal of Mexican wolves if requested by the tribal government. (7) Identifying section 6 of the Act as authorizing language for take pursuant to 50 CFR 17.31 for State wildlife agencies with authority to manage Mexican wolves under the nonessential experimental population rule. (8) Clarifying that an individual can be authorized to take Mexican wolves under specific circumstances. (9) Clarifying allowable take for Federal agencies and authorized personnel. (10) Revising the conditions that determine when we would issue a permit to livestock owners or their agents to allow take of Mexican wolves that are engaged in the act of killing, wounding or biting livestock on public lands allotted for grazing from “6 breeding pairs” to “100 Mexican wolves” to be consistent with our population objective of establishing a population of at least 100 wolves. (11) Modifying the prohibitions for take such that taking a Mexican wolf with a trap, snare, or other type of capture device within occupied Mexican wolf range is prohibited and will not be considered unavoidable or unintentional take, unless due care was exercised to avoid injury or death to a Mexican wolf. Due care includes: (1) Following the regulations, proclamations, and/or laws within the State where the trapping takes place; (2) if securely fastening traps, use double stake traps, cable stakes (at least 18 inches (in) (46 centimeters (cm)) deep) or otherwise securely fasten traps to immovable objects with aircraft cable or chain so that if captured, a Mexican wolf is unable to pull the trap free; (3) if using drags, use one of sufficient size and weight or grapples made from steel at least 0.5 in (1.3 cm) in diameter of cross section attached to chains or cables hours; (4) reporting the capture of a Mexican wolf (even if the wolf has pulled free) within 24 hours to the Service; and (5) not taking a Mexican wolf via neck snares. Trappers can call the Interagency Field Team (IFT) (1–888–459–WOLF [9653]) as soon as possible to arrange for radio-collaring and releasing of the Mexican wolf. Per State regulations for releasing nontarget animals, trappers may also choose to release the animal alive and subsequently contact the Service or IFT. Taking a Mexican wolf by shooting will not be considered unavoidable or unintentional take. (12) Establishing a new provision to conduct a one-time overall evaluation of the nonessential experimental population 5 years after our final determination on this rule. We will still conduct a status review of the listed species once every 5 years as required by section 4©(2) of the Act. (13) Clarifying that the Service will consider State-owned lands within the boundaries of the MWEPA in the same manner as we consider lands owned and managed by other public land management agencies. We are also taking comments on the following options being considered for possible inclusion in the final rule, but not proposed in today’s action: (14) Moving the southern boundary of the MWEPA in Arizona and New Mexico from Interstate Highway 10 to the United States–Mexico international border (Figure 3). The geographic boundaries being considered for possible inclusion in the final rule include expansion of the BRWRA to include any or all of the ranger districts of the Sitgreaves National Forest (labeled as 1 in the map), three of the ranger districts within the Tonto National Forest (labeled as 2 in the map), one ranger district within the Cibola National Forest (labeled as 3 in the map), and expansion of the MWEPA boundary from I–10 south across Arizona and New Mexico to the United States–Mexico international border.) (15) Expanding the BRWRA to include the entire Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona; (16) Expanding the BRWRA to include the Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona (Figure 3). (17) Expanding the BRWRA to include the Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico (Figure 3). (18) Replacing the term “depredation” with the term “depredation incident” and defining it as, “the aggregate number of livestock killed or mortally wounded by an individual Mexican wolf or single pack of Mexican wolves at a single location within one 24-hour period, beginning with the first confirmed kill or injury.” (19) Including provisions for take by pet owners of any Mexican wolf engaged in the act of killing, wounding, or biting pets on private or tribal land anywhere within the MWEPA, provided that evidence of a freshly wounded or killed pet by wolves is present. The take must be reported to the Service’s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator or a designated representative of the Service within 24 hours. (20) Including provisions for the issuance of permits on private or tribal land anywhere within the MWEPA to allow livestock owners or their agents to take (including kill or injure) any Mexican wolf that is present on private or tribal land and what conditions must be met before such a permit is issued, such as a minimum population size or population trend of Mexican wolves present in the MWEPA or other established populations based on the most recently reported population count; other relevant measures of population status such as genetic diversity; documentation by the Service or our authorized agent of previous loss or injury of livestock on the private or tribal land, caused by wolves; implementation of agency efforts to resolve the problem and determination that conflict is likely to continue; and enactment of this provision by a formal statement from the Service. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We request that you make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. Previous Federal Actions The Mexican wolf was listed under the Act as an endangered subspecies in 1976 (41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976). In 1978, the Service listed the entire gray wolf species in North America south of Canada as endangered, except in Minnesota where it was listed as threatened (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). This 1978 listing at the species level subsumed the previous Mexican wolf subspecies listing. However, the 1978 listing rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) stated that we would continue to recognize the Mexican wolf as a valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation. After the 1978 listing, the Service initiated recovery programs for the gray wolf in three broad geographical regions of the country: the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Western Great Lakes, and the Southwest. In the Southwest, a recovery plan was developed specifically for the Mexican wolf, acknowledging and implementing the regional gray wolf recovery focus on the conservation of the Mexican wolf as a subspecies (Service 1982). The 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not provide recovery criteria, but recommended an initial two-pronged approach to recovery to establish a captive-breeding program and reintroduce captive Mexican wolves to the wild (Service 1982, p. 28). In 1996, we completed a final EIS, “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States,” after assessing potential locations for reintroduction of the Mexican wolf (Service 1996). On April 3, 1997, the Department of the Interior issued its Record of Decision on the final EIS (62 FR 15915), and on January 12, 1998, we published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish the MWEPA in central Arizona and New Mexico, “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico” (63 FR 1752). Between 2003 and 2009, the Service published several rules revising the 1978 conterminous listing for the gray wolf in an attempt to recognize recovery progress achieved in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes populations but leave the Mexican wolf in the southwestern United States and Mexico listed as endangered (except for the nonessential experimental population in Arizona and New Mexico) (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). However, these revisions were challenged in court, which left the 1978 listing unchanged through 2010 (Service 2012, pp. 3–4). Effective January 27, 2012, the Service designated a Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and portions of adjacent States, and removed this segment from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011). The Service removed the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS (Montana, Idaho, and portions of adjacent states, not including Wyoming) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife pursuant to Section 1713 of Public Law 112–10 on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590), and subsequently removed gray wolves in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on September 10, 2012 (77 FR 55530). On August 4, 2010, we published a 90-day finding on two petitions to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies with critical habitat (75 FR 46894). In the 90-day finding, we determined that the petitions presented substantial scientific information that the Mexican wolf may warrant reclassification as a subspecies or DPS. As a result of this finding, we initiated a status review. On October 9, 2012, we published our 12-month finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 61375) stating that the listing of the Mexican wolf as a subspecies or DPS was not warranted at that time because Mexican wolves already receive the protections of the Act under the specieslevel gray wolf listing of 1978. During 2011 and 2012, we conducted a 5-year review of the gray wolf finding that the entity currently described on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife should be revised to reflect the distribution and status of gray wolf populations in the lower 48 States and Mexico by removing all areas currently included in its range, as described in the CFR, except where there is a valid species, subspecies, or DPS that is threatened or endangered (Service 2012). From October through December 2007, we conducted a public scoping process under NEPA based on our intent to modify the 1998 Final Rule. We developed a final scoping report in April 2008, but we did not propose or finalize any modifications to the 1998 Final Rule at that time. We will utilize the information collected during that scoping process in the development of a draft EIS. Today, we concurrently proposed a rule in the Federal Register to delist the gray wolf as a species and list the Mexican wolf subspecies as endangered. The proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies necessitates that we propose a revision to the nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico in order to correctly document this population as an experimental population of the Mexican wolf subspecies rather than the gray wolf species found in the current CFR. We are also proposing and seeking comment on a number of substantive modifications and technical corrections to the regulation governing the Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population designation. Background Our approach in this proposed rule is to refer to the 1998 Final Rule as necessary to describe the current situation and the changes we are proposing, and to propose new language where appropriate at this time. Species Information The Mexican wolf is the smallest extant gray wolf subspecies in North America. Adults weigh 50 to 90 pounds (lb) (23 to 41 kilograms (kg)) with a length of 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m) and height at shoulder of 25 to 32 in (63 to 81 cm) (Brown 1988, p. 119). Mexican wolves are typically a patchy black, brown to cinnamon, and cream color, with primarily light underparts (Brown 1988, p. 118). Solid black or white coloration, as seen in other North American gray wolves, does not exist in Mexican wolves. The basic life history for the Mexican wolf is similar to that of other gray wolves (Mech 1970, entire; Service 1982, p. 11; Service 2010, pp. 32–41). Historically, Mexican wolves were distributed across portions of the southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico. In the United States, this range included eastern, central, and southern Arizona; southern New Mexico; and western Texas (Brown 1983, pp. 10–11; Parsons 1996, pp. 102–104). Maps of Mexican wolf historical range are available in the scientific literature (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson, 1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995, p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). The southernmost extent of the Mexican wolf’s range in Mexico is consistently portrayed as ending near Oaxaca (Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395). Depiction of the northern extent of the Mexican wolf’s pre-settlement range among the available descriptions varies depending on the authors’ taxonomic treatment of several subspecies and their interpretation of where reproductive interaction between neighboring wolf populations occurred (see today’s Federal Register publication of the Proposed Rule Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing it as Endangered). Mexican wolves were associated with montane woodlands characterized by sparsely to densely forested mountainous terrain consisting of evergreen oaks (Quercus spp.) or pinyon (Pinus edulus) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) to higher elevation pine (Pinus spp.), mixed-conifer forests, and adjacent grasslands at elevations of 4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,219 to 1,524 m) where ungulate prey were abundant. Mexican wolves were believed to have preyed upon white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), collared peccaries (javelina) (Tayassu tajacu), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), and small rodents (Parsons and Nicholopoulos 1995, pp. 141–142); white-tailed deer and mule deer were believed to be the primary sources of prey (Brown 1988, p. 132; Bednarz 1988, p. 29). Today, Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico inhabit evergreen pine-oak woodlands (i.e., Madrean woodlands), pinyon-juniper woodlands (i.e., Great Basin conifer forests), and mixed-conifer montane forests (i.e., Rocky Mountain, or petran, forests) that are inhabited by elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer (Service 1996, pp. 3–5; AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC-3). Mexican wolves in the BRWRA show a strong preference for elk compared to other ungulates (Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) and Interagency Field Team (IFT) 2005, p. TC-14, Reed et al. 2006, pp. 56, 61; Merkle et al. 2009, p. 482). Other documented sources of prey include deer and occasionally small mammals and birds (Reed et al. 2006, p. 55). Mexican wolves are also known to prey and scavenge on livestock (Merkle et al. 2009, p. 482; Breck et al. 2011, entire; Reed et al. 2006, p. 1129; AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC-15)). Recovery Efforts The United States and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in 1982 (Service 1982). The recovery plan did not contain objective and measurable recovery criteria for delisting as required by section 4(f)(1) of the Act because the status of the Mexican wolf was so dire that the recovery team could not foresee full recovery and eventual delisting (Service 1982, p. 23). Instead, the recovery plan contained a “prime objective” to ensure the immediate survival of the Mexican wolf. The prime objective of the 1982 recovery plan was: “To conserve and ensure the survival of Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and reestablishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the middle to high elevations of a 5,000- square-mi area (12,950-square-km) within the Mexican wolf’s historic range” (Service 1982, p. 23). This objective has since guided the recovery effort for the Mexican wolf in the United States. A binational captive-breeding program between the United States and Mexico, referred to as the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP), was initiated in 1977 to 1980 with the capture of the last remaining Mexican wolves in the wild in Mexico and subsequent addition of wolves from captivity in Mexico and the United States. Through the breeding of the 7 founding Mexican wolves and generations of their offspring, the captive population has expanded to its current size of close to 258 wolves in 52 facilities, including 34 facilities in the United States and 18 facilities in Mexico (as of October 12, 2012) (Siminski and Spevak 2012, p. 2). The primary purpose of the SSP is to raise Mexican wolves for the Service and the General del Vida Silvestre (in Mexico) for reintroduction into the wild. This program is an essential component of Mexican wolf recovery. Specifically, the purpose of the SSP is to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the wild through captive breeding, public education, and research. This captive population is the sole source of Mexican wolves available to reestablish the species in the wild and is imperative to the success of reintroduction efforts in the United States and Mexico. Reintroduction efforts to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the wild have taken place in both the United States and Mexico. Mexico initiated a reintroduction program with the release of five captive-bred Mexican wolves into the San Luis Mountains just south of the United States–Mexico border in October 2011. As of February 2012, four of the five released animals were confirmed dead due to ingestion of illegal poison. The status of the fifth Mexican wolf is unknown. A sixth Mexican wolf was released in March 2012; its fate is unknown as only its collar was found in April 2012 (Service, our files). A pair of Mexican wolves was released in October 2012 and was alive as of March 3, 2013. Mexico plans to release additional Mexican wolves in this area, and possibly several other identified locations (including Nuevo Leon and Coahuila) in Mexico in 2013 and beyond; however, a schedule of releases is not publicly available at this time. We expect the number of Mexican wolves in Mexico to fluctuate from zero to several wolves or packs of wolves during 2013 and into the future in or around Sonora and Chihuahua or other Mexican States. In the United States, we have focused our recovery efforts on the reestablishment of Mexican wolves as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Act in Arizona and New Mexico. We established the nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves in 1998 to pursue the prime objective of the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Figure 1). The reintroduction project is a collaborative effort conducted by the Service, Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. In March of 1998 we released 11 Mexican wolves from the captive-breeding program to the wild. Additional individuals and family groups have been initial-released or translocated into the BRWRA each year through 2012. Initial-released refers to Mexican wolves released to the wild that have only been in captivity, and translocated wolves are ones with previous wild experience that were removed from the wild for management reasons and subsequently rereleased into the wild at a later time. We expect to pursue additional recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf outside of the MWEPA in the future and to determine the capacity of the nonessential experimental population to contribute to recovery. We initiated the revision of the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in 2010. The revised plan will provide information about suitable habitat and population sizes for Mexican wolf recovery in the United States and Mexico. A draft plan will be provided for public and peer review before being finalized. More information about the life history, decline, and current status of the Mexican wolf in the southwestern United States can be found in the “Proposed Rule Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing it as Endangered” (published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register), the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1982, pp. 5–8, 11–12), the 1996 FEIS (Service 1996, pp. 1–7), the 1998 Final Rule (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998), the Mexican Gray Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review (Mexican Wolf Blue Range Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team 2005, pp. TC–1 to TC– 2), the Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment (Service 2010, pp. 7–15, 20–42), and Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Progress reports from 2001 to 2011. These documents are available on-line at htttp://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf. Why We Need to Revise the 1998 Final Rule We are proposing to modify the MWEPA designation to improve our ability to establish a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the wild, which is the population objective provided in the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. Over time and through project reviews, annual reports, monitoring, and communication with our partners and the public, we recognize that elements of the 1998 Final Rule designation need to be revised to help us enhance the growth, stability, and success of the nonessential experimental population. Specifically, the 1998 Final Rule currently restricts initial releases of captive Mexican wolves to the wild to the Primary Recovery Zone, which constitutes only 16 percent of the BRWRA. This has constrained the number and location of Mexican wolves that can be released into the wild. Also, the 1998 Final Rule has a requirement that Mexican wolves stay within the BRWRA, which does not allow for natural dispersal movements from the BRWRA or occupation of the MWEPA. Currently, we are required to implement management actions that disrupt social structure or lead to removal of wolves from the wild when a Mexican wolf naturally disperses from the BRWRA into the MWEPA. In addition, we are proposing a number of modifications that will improve our communication and coordination implementing the nonessential experimental population designation. We intend our actions to demonstrate an adaptive management approach in which we utilize the lessons learned since we began reestablishing Mexican wolves in 1998. Statutory and Regulatory Framework The Act provides that species listed as endangered are afforded protection primarily through the prohibitions of section 9 and the requirements of section 7. Section 9 of the Act, among other things, prohibits the take of endangered wildlife. “Take” is defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and protect designated critical habitat. It mandates that all Federal agencies use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. It also states that Federal agencies must, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken on private land unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. The 1982 amendments to the Act included the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed species as “experimental populations.” Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species’ current natural range, but within its probable historical range. With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its range. Threatened status allows us discretion in devising management programs and special regulations for such a population through the use of section 4(d) of the Act. Section 4(d) allows us to adopt any regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a threatened species. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the section 10(j) rule contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species. Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find, by regulation, that such release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a finding, the Service uses the best scientific and commercial data available to consider: (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction elsewhere; (2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will become established and survive in the foreseeable future; (3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental population will have on the recovery of the species; and (4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area. Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.81©, all regulations designating experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental population(s); (2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild; (3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special management concerns of that population, which may include but are not limited to, measures to isolate and contain the experimental population designated in the regulation from natural populations; and (4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or failure of the release and the effect of the release on the conservation and recovery of the species. Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in land that may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine whether the experimental population is essential or nonessential to the continued existence of the species. The regulations (50 CFR 17.80( ) state that an experimental population is considered essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. All other populations are considered nonessential. For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat a nonessential experimental population as a threatened species when it is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service, and Federal agency conservation requirements under section 7(a)(1) and the Federal agency consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. When a nonessential experimental population is located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, a nonessential experimental population provides additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. Because the nonessential experimental population is, by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, the effects of proposed actions affecting the nonessential experimental population will generally not rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. As a result, a formal conference will likely never be required for Mexican wolves established within the nonessential experimental population area. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect a proposed species. Activities that are not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies are not subject to provisions or requirements in section 7. Section 10(j)(2)©(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate critical habitat in areas where we establish a nonessential experimental population. Proposed Experimental Population Area We are continuing our effort to establish a population of Mexican wolves within the subspecies’ historical range in Arizona and New Mexico by proposing to revise the 1998 Final Rule (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998). The current and proposed revision to the experimental population area is the entirety of the species’ current range in the United States. The purpose of the nonessential experimental population was, and remains, to accomplish the prime objective of the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan to establish a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the wild (Service 1982, p. 23). With this rule, we propose to revise the geographic boundaries of the MWEPA described in the 1998 Final Rule by removing the small portion of the MWEPA in Texas. This area is not likely to contribute substantially to our population objective based on habitat suitability. The proposed MWEPA is the geographic area lying north of Interstate Highway 10 and south of Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona and New Mexico (Figure 2). Also, we are proposing to maintain the geographic boundaries of the BRWRA as described in our 1998 Final Rule (i.e., the Apache National Forest in Arizona and the Gila National Forest in New Mexico), but to eliminate the primary and secondary recovery zones inside the BRWRA (Figure 2). We are proposing to modify the regulations associated with initial releases within the BRWRA and the regulations associated with natural dispersal of Mexican wolves from the BRWRA into the MWEPA; both of these modifications are described below in Management of the Reintroduced Population. We are not carrying forward the recommendation from the 1998 Final Rule to consider the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area as a possible reintroduction site for Mexican wolves (Figure 2). Under the 1998 Final Rule, initial releases and reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area is authorized if the Service finds it necessary and feasible in order to achieve the recovery goal of at least 100 Mexican wolves occupying 5,000 square mi (12,950 square km) (Service 1998). While this recovery area lies within the probable historical range of the Mexican wolf, and could be an important reestablishment site if prey densities increased substantially, it is now considered a marginally suitable area for Mexican wolf release and reestablishment primarily due to the low density of prey. For these reasons the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review recommended that any amended or new Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population rule not include White Sands Missile Range as a Mexican Wolf Recovery Area or as a reintroduction zone (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. ARC-3). Additional Revisions to the Previous Experimental Population Area Under Consideration As stated above (see Information Req)

Congrats, Dale. Great job on a unique mount. .

I did a bit more reading. You guys are correct. MY BAD!! First mistake I made this year.

Federal Protection of Gray Wolves May Be Lifted, Agency Says By FELICITY BARRINGER New York Times - Published: June 7, 2013 Gray wolves, whose packs now prowl through the northern Rockies and the forests along the Great Lakes, no longer need endangered-species protection to prevent their extinction, the Obama administration said Friday. The only wolf populations to have protection going forward would be Mexican wolves in southern Arizona and New Mexico. The Fish and Wildlife Service unveiled a proposal to eliminate the remaining restrictions across the country, saying wolves are flourishing again. The only populations to have protection, under the proposal, would be Mexican wolves in southern Arizona and New Mexico and a small experimental population in North Carolina. The announcement by Daniel M. Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, marked the imminent end of 50 years of controversial efforts to bring back a predator that once roamed the continent but had been all but exterminated in the United States by the mid-20th century. “Wolves are recovered and they are now in good hands,” Mr. Ashe told reporters on a conference call. “States are the most competent people to make the decisions in the future about how many wolves” there should be and “where wolves can add value to the landscape in the years ahead,” he said. States like California, Colorado and Utah have few, if any, packs now. It is unclear, if the proposal is made final, whether migrating wolves from the Rockies could flourish there. Environmental groups were quick to criticize the decision, saying that it reflected a parsimonious view of the Endangered Species Act and would hinder the further expansion of the wolves’ current range. Protections have already been lifted for the largest populations of wolves in the Midwest and northern Rockies. Kieran Suckling, the president of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, said, “What this is really about is the agency saying: We’re closing the door on the recovery of wolves, new wolf populations in new areas. We’re going to be satisfied with a northern Rockies population, a Great Lakes population and a Southwest population.” The protections available for wolf populations in the northern Midwest have been largely uncontroversial, as was the removal of these populations from the endangered species list in 2011. But in Montana and Idaho, where wolves were reintroduced a generation ago, they were a magnet for bitter controversy, pitting ranchers and hunters against groups dedicated to helping transplanted populations thrive. Gray wolves in Wyoming had some protections until last year. The most obvious result of the loss of protections was state-authorized wolf hunts. Because some of the wolves hunted and killed were favorites of tourists in Yellowstone National Park or collared animals being tracked by wildlife biologists, the news of their deaths left raw emotions among conservation advocates. Friday’s announcement of the proposal to leave management of wolves to state wildlife officials was expected; a version of the proposal had been reported by The Los Angeles Times. But that did not make it any more palatable to environmental groups. “This proposal is really an unfortunate low bar for endangered-species recovery in the United States,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, the president of Defenders of Wildlife. “I’m not saying we have to restore them to their whole historic range, but this cuts off wolf recovery in the middle of the movie.” “We didn’t do this with bald eagles,” she added. “Grizzlies and wolves, the top predators, need the cover of the law. The social tolerance for predators in the West is very low. There is concern that states will follow the race to the bottom. We’re talking about a predator that people are very emotional about to begin with.” Mr. Ashe, in his news conference, said, “The recovery of the gray wolf is one of the most remarkable successes in the history of conservation. He stoutly defended the state agencies, saying: “We need to be dependent on the states to carry out wildlife management on a broad scale. And states are very competent to do that.” Ron Aasheim, a spokesman for Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said that after three hunting seasons, the most recent of which ended with 225 dead wolves, “the population remains robust and very healthy.” He added that the packs are spreading “in every direction.” But Mr. Suckling does not share the optimism. “There are large areas of big wild habitats outside those three locations that could and should have wolf populations in them, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is closing that opportunity,” he said. “That on one hand is really bad news for wolf recovery because it sets a low standard. And that is really bad news for those ecosystems.”

Only 20% of the total can go into the BP pass. In units with three permits, one would go to the BP pass, i.e. 20% X 3 = .6 rounded to one and the other two would go to the 1-2 round. But once the TOTAL permits issued in the BP pass reaches 20%, the BP pass ends even though a unit might have a permit left. Thus, if there are 100 permits available, the BP pass is shut down as soon as the total issued hits. 20 and the other 80 go to the 1-2 pass. Pertinent snipes from the regs: The Department shall reserve a maximum of 20% of the hunt permit tags for all hunt numbers combined statewide for bighorn sheep and buffalo to issue to individuals and groups that have bonus points. D. The Department shall not make available more than one hunt permit-tag or 10% of the total hunt permit-tags, whichever is greater, for bighorn sheep or buffalo in any draw to nonresidents. The Department shall not make available more than 50% nor more than two bighorn sheep or buffalo hunt permit-tags of the total in any hunt number to nonresidents.

As a resident, I drew 2nd choice last year with 21 points in the 1-2 round. Even though you might not draw in the BP pass, 20 points gives you lots of numbers to shuffle for the 1-2 pass. Yesterday, I applied for a RM permit with only my loyalty and app points. Perhaps I ight draw before I'm 100 yrs old.

I'm guessing they listed those four because they are swing votes that could alter the result. The others, including Grijalva, are likely locked into their votes, be it a nay or a yea.

That's often the case. 90% draw odds means o;ly 9 out of 10 applicants get their first or second choice. So that shows tha NO permits are left for the 10% that missed out or for the last 3-5 go-'round. Your last comment is a dead-on "bingo."

If it had 90% for the 1-2 pass, that means only 90% of those who applied for 1-2 got permits. It would be 100% if every 1-2 applicant got them. So it's not likely to see any permits even go to the next 3rd-choice draw level, which is a reshuffle of assigned numbers and AN0THER separate one draw for the 3-4-5 choices.

"To restore a viable population of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) in the Santa Catalina Mountains of GMU 33. Recent habitat assessments have confirmed suitable, but unoccupied habitat in the Catalinas. Krausman et al. (2004) reevaluated bighorn sheep habitat in the Catalinas following the Bullock and Aspen fires in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Using their GIS model, they calculated 39,201 ha of potential habitat in the entire Santa Catalina Mountains and 9,017 ha of historic habitat in the western portion of the range. Approximately 21% of the potential bighorn sheep habitat and approximately 24% of the historic bighorn sheep habitat was burned during the Bullock and Aspen fires."

The Decline of Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona Paul R. Krausman, William W. Shaw, Richard C. Etchberger, and Lisa K. Harris The research study (circa 1994-95) at the link above is a good read *********************************************************** February 02, 2010 12:00 am • Doug Kreutz Arizona Daily Star Critters of Southern Arizona Signs at two popular trailheads north of Tucson tout a small herd of bighorn sheep in the Catalina Mountains - and they list hiking restrictions to protect the animals. Only one problem: The herd apparently has died out. The signs and restrictions remain, but they apply to what might be described as "phantom bighorns." "The Catalina population of bighorns is gone," said Jim Heffelfinger, a spokesman for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. "I haven't had any good reports of sheep from the herd up there for seven or eight years." Heffelfinger said that means the resident herd - which once numbered more than 100 bighorns in the Pusch Ridge area on the southwestern side of the Catalinas - no longer exists. It's still possible that people might spot "transient" bighorns from other ranges from time to time. A recent reported sighting involved a sheep with a yellow ear tag, Heffelfinger said. That indicates the animal might have been a transient from mountains near Superior, where bighorns have been fitted with yellow tags. Heffelfinger said likely reasons for the demise of the Catalina herd include: • Extensive urbanization around the base of Pusch Ridge, with streets and buildings taking over terrain ever nearer bighorn habitat. • Hikers - especially hikers with dogs - who disturb sheep and "have a slow, pervasive influence on survival and reproduction." • Heavy growth of brush, a result of former fire suppression policies, that makes bighorns vulnerable to predators such as mountain lions. "The sheep didn't disappear all of a sudden," Heffelfinger said. "We just saw less and less and less over the years." He said what turned out to be the last survey of bighorns in the Catalinas, conducted in 1997, found only one animal. So what about those signs at the Finger Rock Canyon trailhead, at the northern end of Alvernon Way, and the Pima Canyon trailhead, on Magee Road east of First Avenue? The signs state that "the bighorn herd in Pusch Ridge Wilderness represents the last remnant of herds" that once roamed several mountain ranges around Tucson. "The Pusch Ridge herd is now in serious jeopardy," the signs say. "Less than 20 bighorns survive in the area." Such information would appear to be misleading, at best, if nothing is left of the herd. Is it time to take down the signs and drop regulations that prohibit dogs and limit off-trail hiking? Not yet, say officials of the Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Forest Service. Heffelfinger and Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Schewel said one reason for leaving the signs in place is that there's at least some chance that bighorns might be reintroduced into the Catalinas. "We've been in discussions with Arizona Game and Fish about Pusch Ridge being a possible site" for transplanting bighorns from other parts of the state, Schewel said. "Leaving the signs and restrictions in place seemed like a good idea, given that there might be a reintroduction." But a reintroduction wouldn't happen anytime soon, Heffelfinger said, because sufficient source populations from other sites aren't available now. "And if they became available three or four years down the way, the Catalinas probably wouldn't be the first place we put sheep," Heffelfinger said. That's because transplanted animals would face the same conditions that apparently led to the demise of the original herd. Heffelfinger acknowledged that leaving the inaccurate signs up indefinitely might not be a good idea. "After a while, it becomes kind of meaningless," he said. Meanwhile, tourist David Tzeutschler, preparing to take a walk on the Pima Canyon Trail last week with his 3-year-old son, Timothy, chose to take a hopeful approach. "Maybe we'll see a bighorn," he said to Timothy as the two started up the trail. ************************* ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT HABITAT PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL Game Branch / HPC Project Number: 11-507 Possible Funding Partners: PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Restoration of Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Catalina Mountains Region and Game Management Unit: 5, 33 Local Habitat Partnership Committee (LHPC): • Tucson Was the project presented to the LHPC? YES[X] NO[] Has this project been submitted in previous years? YES[] NO[X] If Yes, was it funded? YES[] NO[] HPC Project #: Project Type: Bighorn Sheep Restoration Brief Project Summary: To restore a viable population of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) in the Santa Catalina Mountains of GMU 33. Recent habitat assessments have confirmed suitable, but unoccupied habitat in the Catalinas. Krausman et al. (2004) reevaluated bighorn sheep habitat in the Catalinas following the Bullock and Aspen fires in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Using their GIS model, they calculated 39,201 ha of potential habitat in the entire Santa Catalina Mountains and 9,017 ha of historic habitat in the western portion of the range. Approximately 21% of the potential bighorn sheep habitat and approximately 24% of the historic bighorn sheep habitat was burned during the Bullock and Aspen fires. This year, AGFD Regional personnel and the Forest Service used the Cunningham/Hansen method (Cunningham 1989) to evaluate bighorn sheep habitat in the Catalinas and concluded that the range is suitable for bighorn sheep. Approximately 30 bighorn sheep will be captured from Region’s 4, 5, and 6 pending availability, and fitted with real time mortality sensing satellite GPS collars. The collars will provide cause-specific mortality data, as well as other important information for sheep, which will be used to drive the Adaptive Cougar Management Plan. This plan has been developed to address cougar predation on bighorn sheep for the restoration effort. As suggested by the Bighorn Species Management Guidelines, preferred ratios will be 65% ewes, 20% yearlings, and 15% medium aged rams [Classes II and III]). Approximately 22 females and 8 males (or a ratio of about 3 females to 1 male if fewer than 30 sheep are captured) will be captured. Secondary and tertiary releases of 30 sheep may be considered and deemed necessary depending on the success of the initial release, funding and availability of source sheep. If funding is available to facilitate post-release monitoring, future releases of sheep may be outfitted with GPS collars. Aerial monitoring of the transplanted animals will be conducted for a minimum of 5 years post release to monitor population trends. Big Game Wildlife Species to Benefit: Bighorn sheep

These are snippets from two of my articles on bighorn sheep . Both were written in the late 1980s-early 90s ********************************* .................The biologists claim sheep first came here more than half a million years ago by crossing the Bering land-bridge from Asia. They eventually spread across the western half of the North America. The scientists haven't pinpointed just how far the expansion went before the last glacial age, but many of them believe the glaciers affected the animals' movement and evolution. As the ice retreated, the sheep followed and settled in different areas of the continent, where they adapted to the terrain and climate. The evolution resulted in several subspecies from the white sheep of the cold northern climates to the desert bighorn of the arid southwest regions. The Rocky Mountain variety filled the climate zone between the extremes. Prior to the influx of civilization to Arizona in the late 1800s, both the desert and the Rocky Mountain bighorns actually inhabited Arizona's mountain ranges. James Ohio Pattie wandered the wilds of Arizona and New Mexico in 1824. His diary, THE PERSONAL NARRATIVE OF JAMES OHIO PATTIE OF KENTUCKY, contained the following: "We called it the San Francisco River. After traveling up its banks about four miles, we encamped and set out all traps and killed a couple of fat turkeys. In the morning we examined our traps, and found in them 37 beavers! This success restored our spirits instantaneously. Exhilarating prospects now opened before us, and we pushed on with animation. The banks of this river for the most part incapable of cultivation being in most part formed of high and rugged mountains. Upon these we saw multitudes of mountain sheep. These animals are not found on level ground, being they slow of foot, but on these cliffs and rocks they are so nimble and expert in jumping from point to point, that no dog or wolf can overtake them. One of them that we killed had the largest horns that I ever saw on animals of any description. One of them would hold a gallon of water. Their meat tastes like our mutton. Their hair is short like deer's, though fine. The French call them "gros cornes," from the size of their horns which curl around their ears, like our domestic sheep. These animals are about the size of deer." Because the terrain around the San Francisco River is atypical for desert sheep, the experts concluded Pattie's "mountain sheep" were Rocky Mountain bighorns. Sadly, they didn't exist in Arizona too long after the settlement of the West began. Both the Rocky Mountain bighorn and the Merriam's elk disappeared from the state during the late 1800s. The desert bighorns, victims of indiscriminate hunting and diseases borne by domestic livestock, almost suffered the same fate. In 1897, the first Arizona game law -- Title 16, Relative to the Preservation of Game Birds and Animals -- outlawed the hunting of sheep from February to October. It still wasn't enough to stem the decline and possible extinction. The state game warden reported to the governor in 1914: "Our mountain sheep have already been exterminated or driven out of a vast area of our once-good game country, and at the present rate at which the work of destruction is going on, largely through the convenient and efficient medium of the automobile, our 20,000 or so licensed hunters, will finish the work of extermination before the general public awakens to a realization of the situation, and demands a sudden and abrupt halt, in order to give our few remnants of a game a chance to replenish." Although the warden's dire prediction led to closing the sheep hunting season, even more measures to prevent the desert bighorn's demise came to fruition in 1939 with the establishment of the Kofa Game Range and Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Arizona. They served as the last strongholds for the desert sheep and subsequently provided the nucleus for experimental sheep relocations that culminated in 1957 with the first transplant to Aravaipa Canyon. More importantly, though, the short-term protection of the bighorns at the two refuges led to the reopening of a hunting season in 1953. Unit 46A, where both of the Varners hunted, covers the eastern half of the Cabeza Prieta Refuge........................ ******************************** .............At one time the desert bighorn inhabited most of Arizona's mountain ranges. Human encroachment, the enigma of the elk, played a major role in their decline, too. Meat hunters, unparticular as to what type of game graced the table, haphazardly slaughtered hundreds of sheep. In addition, hordes of domestic livestock competed with the bighorns for the sometimes scarce, available food and water. Disease, introduced and transmitted by the livestock, decimated entire herds. Finally, interested citizens, who feared the demise of the bighorn, sought to protect it. To prevent the sheep's extinction, government agencies established the Kofa Game Range and Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in 1939. Located in southeastern Arizona, they constituted the last remaining strongholds for the bighorn. In time, the two areas provided a nucleus herd, subsequently permitting game researchers to undertake transplants into other historical bighorn areas. The AGFD selected Aravaipa Canyon, near Klondyke, as the site for the initial restocking. They constructed a 112-acre enclosure in 1957 and released 8 sheep within the following two years. The herd failed to reproduce and dwindled to two rams by 1964. Determined personnel transferred eight more bighorns from the Kofa Game Range. The second effort produced the desired results when the herd grew to 22. Hopeful the sheep would adapt, game specialists released them from the control area. Sheep in Aravaipa steadily increased to the present estimated population of 100. In 1980, permits to hunt desert bighorn in the canyon became a reality. The unit has produced exceptional rams, including a record book head taken in 1982 by John Harris. In December, Jim Ferguson of Yuma, who won a raffled permit that the state had donated to the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, pursued a ram at Aravaipa in December. Elated with the apparent success of the first bighorn transplant, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, with the aid of advanced trapping techniques, has continued to reestablish the sheep. Since 1980 it has relocated animals into the Superstition, Virgin, Galiuro and Eagletail Mountains; the Paria Canyon Primitive Area, the Grand Wash Cliffs and Goat Mountain. Some of these ranges have had recent, supplemental stockings. In November, 1984 the Kofa Game Range supplied 30 sheep for release at Coffee Flat in the Superstitions. Redfield Canyon, in the Galiuros, recieved 10 bighorns taken from the Plamosa Mountains. Long-term plans include more than 20 sites already designated as ideal habitat for future releases. Because transplants are extremely expensive, funding sometimes creates an obstacle; it takes $850 to move one sheep. Multiplying this amount times the 54 sheep captured near Lake Mead last year comes to $45,900 --- give or take a few cents! The Arizona Game and Fish Department, a self-supporting entity, found it extremely difficult to budget all of the needed funds for transplant efforts. Even though beneficial, some were postponed, while more urgent matters emptied the department's coffers. A group of hunters and conservationists, aware of the need for better sheep management programs, banded together and organized the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society in 1967. Since then, the society has raised thousands of dollars, and members, none of whom receive money for their efforts, have spent hours improving and building waterholes; assisting at sheep captures and releases and donating time for adminstrative work. Last year the ADBSS persuaded the Game Commission to donate two permits for fund-raising efforts. Because no provision for this unprecedented request was ever enacted, the legislature passed an amended law in July 1983. The first permit, auctioned on February 24, 1984 in California at a benefit conducted by the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, raised $64,000 --- the amount bid by Don Pocapalia of Ranchos Palos Verdes, California.The second one, mentioned earlier, brought another $82,450. The total monies from both permits, along with other fund-raising activities, amounted to $149,000. Since all of this money will help safeguard the bighorn's welfare, the department can use other funds on additional projects. Now, by using this year's society funds only, game managers can relocate 175 1/2 sheep!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U.S. being sued over policy on killing endangered wildlife Published: May 30, 2013 By JULIE CART — Los Angeles Times Environmental groups are taking the U.S. Justice Department to court over a policy that prohibits prosecuting individuals who kill endangered wildlife unless it can be proved that they knew they were targeting a protected animal. Critics charge that the 15-year-old "McKittrick Policy" provides a loophole that has prevented criminal prosecution of dozens of individuals who killed grizzly bears, highly endangered California condors and whooping cranes as well as 48 federally protected Mexican wolves. The policy stems from a Montana case in which a man named Chad McKittrick was convicted under the Endangered Species Act for killing a wolf near Yellowstone National Park in 1995. He argued that he was not guilty because he thought he was shooting a wild dog. McKittrick appealed the conviction and lost, but Justice nonetheless adopted a policy that became the threshold for taking on similar cases: prosecutors must prove that an individual knowingly killed a protected species. The lawsuit claims that the policy sets a higher burden of proof than previously required, arguing, "The DOJ's McKittrick Policy is a policy that is so extreme that it amounts to a conscious and express abdication of DOJ's statutory responsibility to prosecute criminal violations of the ESA as general intent crimes." WildEarth Guardians and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance said they intend to file a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Arizona, one of the states where Mexican wolves were reintroduced. The Los Angeles Times received an advance copy of the lawsuit. Federal wildlife managers responsible for protecting endangered animals have long criticized the policy as providing a pretext for illegal trophy hunters and activists. A June 2000 memo from the law enforcement division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Wyoming warned, "As soon as word about this policy gets around the West, the ability for the average person to distinguish a grizzly bear from a black bear or a wolf from a coyote will decline sharply. Under this policy a hen mallard is afforded more protection than any of the animals listed as endangered." Earlier this year a man in Texas shot and killed a whooping crane, telling authorities that he thought it was a legally hunted Sandhill crane. He was not charged under the Endangered Species Act but was prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which carries lesser penalties. Wendy Keefover of WildEarth Guardians compared Justice's policy to "district attorneys rescinding speeding tickets issued by traffic cops when then speeder claims he or she believed the legal speed limit was greater than what was posted, and that he or she had no intention to break the law." The unspoken attitude toward endangered species among some Western ranchers is summed up by the expression: "Shoot. Shovel. And shut up," suggesting that the most efficient way to deal with the unwanted bureaucracy associated with protected species was to quietly remove them. Mexican wolves have been decimated by illegal shootings, causing the death of more than half of the animals released in the wild since the start of the reintroduction program in 1998. Forty-eight Mexican wolves have been illegally killed, according to the lawsuit. It notes that the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that illegal shooting and trapping was likely to be a major impediment to recovery of the species, but the agency thought that strong enforcement could discourage the illegal acts. Wolves are often killed by hunters who say they thought they were shooting at coyotes, which may be shot on sight in most states. Mistaken identity is also frequently given in black bear-grizzly mix-ups that lead to grizzly deaths. The Wyoming Fish and Wildlife memo included this example: In May of 1996, a man hunting for black bear in Wyoming shot and killed a collared grizzly bear, an endangered species. The hunter and three friends then moved the bear carcass, destroyed the collar, dug a hole, dumped in the bear, poured lye over it and covered the hole. When the animal's remains were recovered, the man claimed he thought he was shooting at a common black bear. The U.S. Attorney's office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute it, citing the McKittrick Policy.

photo of baby leech http://www.flickr.com/photos/robandstephanielevy/2212070602/ photo of planaria

I did give what i thought, but what do you think the percentage is? The question is what percentage of bucks do you think will eventually go over 110. 7.87%

For Pegggy: You go girl!!! Congrats on harvesting Big Bird.

All those rotting fish has to put out one heck of stench.

Big Lake circa 1968 or so. Here's a more readable copy of the layout; click to enlarge

Agree. I doubt there's an official tally anywhere, and no one asked me what I used. That said, the AZ Bowhunting Record Book might list many if not all of them. I do know of at least three who killed sheep with bows: Brian Hamn and Cindi and Corky Richardson.

It's been many years since I actually drove to the lake itself. Other than a minimal puddle, it was basically dry then. When it held a decent water level years ago, the main species in it were yellow perch and northern pike. I'm not sure if the water level is any better now, but G&F has both it and Mormon as having "No Fish."

The only "natural" lakes in AZ are Mormon and Stoneman, but any fishing is dependent on good rain years and stocking. Every other lake in the state is the result of a man-made dam.

Nice job, Lance. That's an impressive bull.

I didn't bring your daddy into this; you did that early on. If you don't know anything about the sheep incident, why did you bring it up?? Perhaps you just like reading what you type? Once again -- when did the "sting operation" take place in Arizona?

Did your daddy tell you about this one too? And when pray tell did this "sting operation" take place in Arizona????