UPDATEEndangeredIncluding a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWS Bulletin October/November 1996 School of Natural Resources and Environment Vol. 13 Nos. 1O& 1 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

In this Issue Recent Directions in Red Wolf Species Black-footedFerret Recovery Survival Plan

Surprises Inherent in the Condors in Arizona No Surprises Policy Recent Directions in Black-footed Ferret Recovery Richard P. Reading Astrid Vargas Brian J. Miller Tim W. Clark Louis R. Hanebury Dean Biggins

Black-footed ferrets (Mustela tion between prairie dogs and live- facilities in the United States and nigripes) remain one of the world's stock (O'Meilia et al. 1984; Uresk & Canada. The Black-footed Ferret most endangered mammals despite 15 Paulson 1989), economic analyses that Recovery Plan, drafted after the years of conservation efforts. Al- indicate that eradication programs are Meeteetse population crash, calls for though the number of captive animals not cost effective (Collins et al. 1984), establishing at least 10 separate popu- has increased and ferrets have been and ecological research that illustrates lations of 30 or more over-wintering reintroduced into four sites within their the importance of prairie dogs as eco- adults with a minimum of 1,500 total former range, no wild population, apart system regulators (Krueger 1988; individuals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife from reintroductions, is known. This Whicker & Detling 1988; Reading et Service 1988). article briefly reviews the history of al. 1989). As a result, complexes of Reintroduction of ferrets bred in ferret decline and early recovery ef- prairie dog colonies cover less than captivity began in 1991 with release forts, discusses recent successes and 2% of their former range (Miller et al. of young of the year into Shirley Ba- failures, and concludes with a discus- 1994,1996; Roemer & Forrest 1996). sin, Wyoming. Reintroduction has sion of future recovery challenges. Ferret populations became small since expanded to sites in Montana, and fragmented following depletion South Dakota, and Arizona. Some A Brief History of Ferret Decline of their prey base. They began disap- advances in reintroduction techniques and Early Recovery Efforts pearing as a result of deterministic have occured, and some wild born and stochastic factors, including both animals have survived to reproduce. Black-footed ferrets are obligate plague and canine distemper (Thorne Although progress has occurred, fer- associates of prairie dogs (Cynomys & Williams 1988). The last known rets remain far from recovered, and spp.), upon which they depend for wild population of ferrets was discov- the program has been plagued by un- food and shelter (Forrest et al. 1985). ered near Meeteetse, Wyoming in productive conflict and policy and Ferret decline began as prairie dog num- 1981. This population was studied organizational problems (May 1986; bers and distribution declined through- until 1985 when both plague and ca- Clark & Harvey 1988; Clark 1989 in out the short and mid-grass prairies of nine distemper drove it to near extinc- press; Seal et al. 1989; Reading & North America. Large-scale conver- tion (Clark 1989). Eighteen ferrets, Miller 1994; Miller et al. 1996). sion to agriculture, prairie dog eradica- many closely related, were captured tion, and the effects of plague (Yersinia just prior to extinction of the wild Recent Developments pestis), an exotic disease (Miller et al. population, and captive breeding was 1990c), contributed to the loss of prai- initiated (Miller et al. 1988). Captive Captive Breeding rie dogs. Prairie dog eradication con- propagation succeeded in increasing After a relatively slow start in the tinues despite range science studies ferret numbers, and today over 350 mid- 1980s, the captive population be- which question the extent of competi- individuals are distributed among 7 gan increasing before leveling off in

Females Litters # Kits # Kits # Kits # Kits Year in Whelped Born Born per Weaned Weaned per Captivity Litter Litter

1987-1989 59 40 132 3.3t-1.6 105 2.6t-1.8 1990 56 32 90 2.8t- 1.1 66 2.1+-1.3 1991 93 59 219 3.7t-1.6 143 1.5+- 1.9 1992 126 76 250 3.3t-1.8 192 2.5+-2.0 1993 173 87 276 3.2+-1.7 116 1.3t-1.6 1994 192 75 266 3.5+-1.8 180 2.4t-2.1 1995 165 88 325 3.7t-1.7 185 2.1t-1.9

Table 1. Black-footed ferret captive breeding summary.

1 EndangeredSpecksUPDATE Vol. 13 Nos. 10&11 1996 the early 1990s (see Table 1). As the relative to wild populations (Russell captive population grew, it was even- et al. 1994), and because mortality of Endangered Specles tually split, with about half the ani- reintroduced animals is high. There- UPDATE mals remaining in the National Black- fore, only genetically "surplus" ani- A forum for information exchange on endangered species issues Footed Ferret Conservation Center mals (i.e., high inbreeding coefficients Oct./Nov. 1996 Vol. 13 Nos.lO&ll (NBFFCC) at Sybille, Wyoming. The and high representation in the captive remainder were maintained and bred population) and numbers produced in John Watson ...... Editor in several sites, including the Omaha excess of those needed to replace loss Katherine Irvine ...... Associate Editor Zoo, Nebraska; the National Zoo's DavidBidwell ...... Editorial Assistant of captive animals are available for Gideon Lachman...... Web Page Coordinator breeding facility at Front Royal, Vir- reintroduction (Godbey & Biggins Nicole Shutt ...... Subscription Coordinator ginia; the Toronto Zoo, Ontario; the 1994). Genetic studies to determine John Brosmn...... Subscription Coordinator Phoenix Zoo, Arizona; the Louisville relatedness of "founders" were called Terry Root ...... Faculty Advisor Zoo, Kentucky; and the Cheyenne for in 1985 but never conducted and BQvisorv Board Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs, ferret lineages remain estimates based Richard Block Colorado. Although the captive popu- on the locations of animals captured Indianapolis Zoo lation has been stabilized, productiv- from the wild. In addition, animals of Susan Huig ity has varied somewhat (see Table 1). National Biological Service, disputed paternity entered the breed- Oregon State University Ferret reproduction and kit sur- ing population in 1987-88. As a re- Norman Myers vival have been quite successful in sult, genetic management has been International Consultant in 1996 with 316 kits born in 89 litters compromised. Environment and Development and 234 kits surviving to weaning. Patrick O'Brien Chevron Ecological Services Approximately 125 of these animals Reintroduction Research Hal Salwasser were allocated for reintroduction into A variety of research has occured U.S. Forest Service, the three active release sites (Mon- on captive animals, the results of which Boone and Crockett Club tana, South Dakota, and Arizona), and have contributed substantially to fer- Inrtnrctionrfor Aurhors: ?he Endangered 106 kits (the most genetically valu- ret recovery efforts. Studies directed Species UPDATE welcomes articles, editorial able) were retained in the captive at increasing the captive productivity comments, and announcementsrelated to breeding program. of ferrets examined reproductive species protection. For tbther infodon the Older animals, which contribute physiology (Seal et al. 1989; Carvalho contact editor. little to reproduction, now comprise a et al. 1991; Williamset al. 1991,1992), Subscription Informarion: The Endangered substantial portion of the captive popu- artificial insemination (Howard et al. Species UPDATE is published six times per lation, creating problems of space for 199 1, 1996), reproductive behavior year by the School of Nahual Resources and younger, more reproductively valu- (Miller 1988; Miller et al. 1996), de- Envhnment at The University of Michgan. Annual rates are $23 for regular subscriptions, able animals. The increase in num- velopmental biology (Vargas 1994; and $18 for students and senior citizens (add $5 bers of older ferrets permitted alloca- Miller et al. 1996; Vargas & Ander- for postage outside the US). Send check or tion of some for exhibit at zoological son 1996a, 1996b), and captive man- money order (payable to The University of parks, and today eleven zoos, in addi- Michigan) to: agement (Miller et al. 1988, 1996; Endangered Species UPDATE tion to those breeding animals, dis- Williams et al. 1991). The risk of School of Natural Resources play ferrets. disease (Thorne & Williams 1988; and Environment The captive breeding program has Williams et al. 1994) led to disease The University of Michigan produced many kits; however, prob- prevention protocols and studies di- Ann Arbor, MI 48 109-11 15 (313) 763-3243 lems associated with inbreeding may rected at developing vaccinations E-mail: [email protected] develop. There are only 7 genetic (Williams et al. in press). Additional http://www.umich.edu/-esupdate founders represented in the breeding studies examined methods for increas- pool. Genetic analyses initially rec- ing chances of post-release survival. Cover: Red Wolf (Wrufw). Photograph by BmnCrawford, U.S. Fuh and Widlife ommended maintaining 200 breeding Studies included raising animals in Service. animals in captivity to maintain 80% enriched environments and in arenas of the genetic diversity of founders with resident prairie dogs to simulate The views expressed in the Endangered for over 200 years (Ballou & Oakleaf a more natural environment (Miller et Species UPDATE may not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1989); this was later increased to 240 al. 1990a, 1990b; Biggins et al. 1991, Service or The University of Michigan. adults. To increase the productive 1993a; Vargas 1994), providing young capacity of breeding animals, captive with opportunities to kill prey (Miller Production of this issue was made possible in the management strives to maintain a ra- & part by suppoa from Boone and Cmkett et al. 1990a; Vargas 1994; Vargas Club, Chevron Corpomtion, U.S. FWS tio of 3 males5 females. Emphasis is Anderson 1996a), providing aversive Division of Endangered Species Region 3, and placed on genetic management of the stimuli in the presence of potential Walt Disney World Company. captive population because of the com- predators (Miller et al. 1990b), and @y@aNMon parative ease of managing its genetics exploring the possibility of food im- u #Qn a@ Printed on recycled paper

Vol. 13 Nos. 108111 1996 EndangemdSpecies UPDATE 2 printing (Vargas & Anderson 1996b). biological and social science criteria animals survived the winter, produc- These latter studies were conducted in and development of proactive ing a minimum of 5 kits in 3 litters the collaboration with test reintroductions strategies to improve a site's following summer. The Montana re- of closely related Siberian polecats suitability for ferret reintroduction. introduction included intensive tele- (M, eversmanni) and actual reintro- metric monitoring of all animals and ductions of black-footed ferrets to ex- Reintroduction Efforts an experimental design to test pre- amine effects on survivorship. Reintroduction began in 1991 conditioning. Assessment ofdata from Prior to reintroducing black- with the release of 49 ferret kits into all three reintroduction sites showed a footed ferrets, biologists experimented Shirley Basin, Wyoming. All animals highly significant effect of pre-condi- with trial releases of Siberian polecats were young of the year, released dur- tioning on short-term and long-term to improve techniques. Siberian pole- ing autumn when young ferrets nor- survival (Biggins et al. in review). cats which had experience killing prey, mally disperse. The kits were accli- To test the potential contribution which had less contact with people, mated for a minimum of ten days in of adult reintroductions to the overall and which were raised in arenas as raised cages, given access to cages recovery effort, two releases in South opposed to cages were better preda- post release, and provided with supple- Dakota used 4- and 5-year-old ani- tors and exhibited more developed mentary food (Wyoming Game and mals. Only the second group of 14 predator avoidance behaviors Fish Department 1991). At least 4 animals was monitored with telem- (Biggins et al. 1991, 1993a; Miller ferrets survived the winter, with 2 etry; 12 were found dead soon after et al. 1990a, 1990b). Similarly, producing litters. release and the other 2 signals were more recent releases of black-footed An additional 90 kits were rein- lost. Because of the high losses, this ferrets found that animals raised in troduced into the same site in 1992. technique was canceled. enriched environments and those Seventeen of the animals released were Plague, coupled with a flooding with previous experience killed prey raised in outdoor arenas. These event, reduced white-tailed prairie more effectively (Vargas 1994). pre-conditioned animals dispersed less dogs (C. leucurus) in Shirley Basin, Nevertheless, only recently were these and survived significantly longer than Wyoming during 1994-95. Due to the techniques incorporated into reintro- cage-reared animals (Biggins et al. greatly depleted prey base no duction protocols (Miller et al. 1996). 1993a; Vargas 1994). A minimum additional animals were released into Other research focused on of 8 animals survived the winter the site in 1995 or 1996. However, at reintroduction sites. Research on and at least 4 litters were born the least 5 ferrets, including kits, were prairie dogs examined colony following summer. discovered in Wyoming during dynamics and habitat preferences A second site in Montana was spotlighting surveys during the (Reading et al. 1989; Reading 1993) biologically ready to receive ferrets in summer of 1996. Researchers were and developed standardized 1992, but political pressure at the state hopeful that these animals survived monitoring and evaluation methods governors' level delayed release by producing antibodies for plague, for complexes of prairie dog (Reading & Miller 1994; Miller et al. but blood tests on 2 animals did not colonies (Biggins et al. 1993b). 1996). By 1993 field preparations for support this hypothesis. Other studies assessed and a third release site in South Dakota Thirty-three young ferrets were monitored populations of potential were also completed. However, a released in South Dakota in the fall of ferre,t predators (Reading 1993) and large decline in captive production 1995. By late Novemberlearly De- sampled resident carnivores for precluded releases in either Montana cember at least 16 ferrets had sur- disease, especially canine distemper or South Dakota, thus Shirley Basin, vived, including 9 animals reintro- and plague. Local support is crucial Wyoming received all 48 animals in duced in 1995, 2 released in 1994, 3 for conservation efforts. An 1993. By late 1993, an estimated 24 kits born in 1995, and 2 unidentified evaluation of local values and ferrets survived. By October 1994about animals. This showed an increase in attitudes found that people were 10 adults and kits of unknown origin the number of animals known to be often antagonistic toward ferrets, (none were captured) were observed. alive through December from 22% in due to the perception that prairie Black-footed ferrets were rein- 1994 to 30% in 1995. An additional 7 dogs compete with livestock for troduced into all three sites in 1994: animals were released into the South forage and from the fact that ferrets 41 into Wyoming, 36 into the Conata Dakota site in February 1996 in an are listed as endangered, which Basin of South Dakota, and 40 into attempt to reduce over-winter mortal- elicited fears of loss of control over south Phillips County, Montana. The ity. Spotlighting surveys during the public grazing lands and of fate of ferrets released in Wyoming is summer of 1996 found a minimum restrictions on land uses (Reading unknown. In South Dakota at least 8 of 9 adults with at least 5 litters and 1993; Reading & Kellert 1993; ferrets were still alive by early De- 8 kits. Of significant interest is the Reading et al. in review). Results cember 1994 and, by July 1995, at fact that animals born in the wild in of these and other studies permitted least 4 surviving ferrets produced 5 1995 produced litters in 1996. South site ranking on a number of kits in 2 litters. In Montana at least 9 Dakota released an additional 67

3 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Vol. 13 Nos. 10& 11 1996 kits and 4 adult females during the 1991; Godbey & Biggins 1994; troduction and habitat conservation, fall of 1996. Reading & Miller 1994; Miller et al. and program administration and ac- Thirty-seven animals were rein- 1996). Despite broad recognition of countability. The working documents troduced into Montana in 1995. Both many of the program's organizational produced from these meetings are in- lethal control of coyotes and tempo- problems, participants interpreted the tended to help the FWS improve the rary electric fences were used to re- underlying reasons for these problems program, guide recovery efforts, and duce predation during the first couple differently, and the problems have draft a new recovery plan (Hutchins of weeks after release. All ferrets been given little explicit attention & Wiese 1996). were intensively monitored using ra- despite many recommendations. dio telemetry for several weeks and The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- Future Challenges then monitored periodically using vice (FWS) designated Wyoming spotlights. Thirty-day survivorship Game and Fish Department the lead Black-footed ferrets appear to be increased from 26% in 1994 to 58% in agency for ferret recovery soon after moving toward recovery, but numer- 1995. By December 1995, a mini- discovery of the Meeteetse, Wyoming ous challenges, both biological and mum of 28 ferrets survived and by population in 1981 (Clark 1989). The non-biological, remain. Perhaps the May 1996, a minimum of 19 animals state agency vigorously managed and largest biological obstacle to recov- were identified. Although coyote con- controlled the program from 1981- ery is posed by disease epizootics, trol and electric fences increased short- 1985, when the FWS took the lead in including canine distemper and term survival, long-term survival was what had become a large, complex, plague. Ferrets are highly and fatally not affected. The timing of pre-re- and multi-organizational program. susceptible to canine distemper (Wil- lease conditioning may be the most The program has continued to grow as liams et al. 1988). A temporary vac- important variable affecting survival. the number of captive facilities and cine for canine distemper is now avail- Survival was greatest for ferrets raised reintroduction sites has grown. At the able and a vaccine for lifetime immu- in large, dirt filled pens or transferred same time, however, Congressional nity is being researched (Williams et into these pens at an early age. In allocations for endangered species re- al. in press). Perhaps of greater con- 1996, a minimum of 10 females pro- covery programs have declined. cern is plague. Ferrets, until recently, duced litters with at least 15 kits, in- After 15 years, participants re- were thought not to be susceptible to cluding litters from wild-born females. quested the FWS assume greater in- plague. However, the loss of several Four kits produced in 1995 (67%) volvement in the ferret recovery pro- ferrets at two separate captive facili- survived to the 1996 breeding season. gram due in part to unresolved organi- ties has dramatically proven other- An additional 43 ferrets were released zational problems, an increasingly wise (Williams et al. 1994). onto Montanaprairie dog colonies un- national (even international) recov- Reduced numbers of prairie dogs occupied by ferrets in the fall of 1996. ery program, and reduced funding. also poses a threat to ferret conserva- Arizona became the recovery This, coupled with lingering uncer- tion. Prairie dogs continue to suffer program's fourth reintroduction site tainty about the success of the Wyo- marked declines across most of their when 4 ferrets were released into large ming reintroductions, led to several range from exotic disease and other (980 m2) fenced enclosures on a rein- changes in the mangementof the pro- causes (e.g., poisoning and shooting). troduction site in Coconina County's gram (Miller et al. 1996). In early Plague epidemics have already af- Aubrey Valley in March 1996. 1995, the FWS formed a body com- fected the reintroduction sites in Wyo- Thirty-five ferrets were later re- posed of agency representatives to ming and Montana and have periodi- leased into ten on-site enclosures, oversee recovery efforts. In early cally affected most known complexes each sub-divided into four smaller 1996, the FWS assumed direct re- of prairie dog colonies, with the no- pens, constructed to exclude terres- sponsibility for the captive breeding table exceptions of South Dakota and trial predators. The site received an facility at Sybille, Wyoming and as- perhaps Mexico. Combating plague additional 15 kits in the fall of 1996 signed captive breeding and reintro- probably poses the most significant and the state will strive to compare duction specialists to assist anew part- biological challenge to the conserva- behaviors and survival of kits with time Recovery Coordinator. To im- tion of ferrets and the entire prairie those of adults. prove coordination and management dog ecosystem. The FWS is coordi- of recovery efforts, the FWS estab- nating research directed at decreasing Program Organization and lished a formal recovery implementa- plague occurence within and around Management tion team in July 1996. ferret reintroduction sites. The FWS contracted the Ameri- Captive breeding continues to Organization and management of can Zoo and Aquarium Association produce relatively large numbers of ferret recovery efforts has been the (AZA) in 1995 to conduct a program- kits for reintroduction, but inbreeding subject of intense research and analysis matic evaluation of the ferret recov- could lead to problems with fertility, (May 1986; Clark & Harvey 1988; ery program. The AZA held a series survivorship and deformities. Clark 1989 in press; Thorne & Oakleaf of meetings on captive breeding, rein- Unfortunately, options are limited by

Vol. 13 Nos. lO&ll 1996 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE 4 the extremely small number of and control issues. These variables Biggins, D. E., J. Godbey, L. H. Hanebury, founders: only five are currently must be successfully addressed to R. Luce, P. Marinari, R. Matchett, and A. represented. Resolving issues of Vargas. In review. Survival of reduce further polemics, goal dis- reintroduced black-footed ferrets. Journal relatedness by performing the requisite placement, and unproductive conflict of Wildlife Management. genetic studies might aid the situation. (Miller et al. 1996; Clark in press). Carvahlo, C. F., J. G. Howard, L. Collins, C. The recovery program should also On a more positive note, the Wemmer, M. Bush, and D. E. Wildt. 1991. Captive breeding of black-footed ferrets develop contingency plans in case world's largest prairie dog complex (Mustela nigripes) and comparative inbreeding depression begins to affect in Chihuahua, Mexico, is being in- reproductive efficiency in I-year old the captive population. corporated into a new protected area. versus 2-year old animals. Journal of Zoo Several non-biological challenges This complex could, theoretically, Wildlife Medicine 22:96-106. Ceballos, G., E. Mellink, and L. R. Hanebury. also face ferret recovery. Antipathy support over 1,200 black-footed fer- 1993. Distribution and conservation status for prairie dogs remains prevalent ret families (Ceballos et al. 1993) of prairie dogs Cynomys mexicanus and among some people, especially relevant and is currently being assessed more Cynomys ludovicianus in Mexico. groups such as ranchers and many fully by biologists from the Biological Conservation 63: 105- 112. Clark, T. W. 1989. Conservation biology of employees of agriculture, wildlife, and Universidad Nacidnal Autonomh de the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes. public land management agencies MBxico. In addition, research during Wildlife Preservation Trust Special (Miller et al. 1990c; Reading 1993; reintroductions and captive breeding Scientific Report No. 3. 175pp. Reading et al, in review). Inducing continues to refine methods, improv- Clark, T. W. 1996. Learning as a strategy for improving endangered species these people to support, or at least not ing chances for future success at lower conservation. Endangered Species to oppose, ferret and prairie dog costs. Finally, many dedicated pro- UPDATE 13(1&2):5-6,22-24, conservation programs is crucial to fessionals are committed to the re- Clark, T. W. In press. Averting extinction: long-term success. Similarly, several covery of this charismatic ambassa- Reconstructing the endangered species process. Yale University Press, New groups actively oppose endangered dor of the threatened prairie dog eco- Haven, CT. species conservation programs because system, substantial progress has been Clark, T. W. and A. H. Harvey. 1988. of real and perceived restrictions made, and hopes remain high that Implementing endangered species associated with the Endangered Species wild, free-ranging populations of recovery policy: Learning as we go? Endangered Species UPDATE 5:35-42. Act (ESA). Anger and fears associated black-footed ferrets will once again Clark, T. W. and R. D. Brunner. 1996. with several sensitive issues, including roam the prairies of North America. Making partnerships work in endangered private property rights, states' rights species conservation: An introduction to versus federalism, and public land Acknowledgments the decision process. Endangered Species UPDATE 13(9):1-5. management, have produced a strong Paul Marinari and Beth Williams pro- Collins, A. R., J. P. Workman, and D. W. backlash against the ESA and vided reintroduction and captive breed- Uresk. 1984. An economic analysis of individual recovery programs (Reading ing data. Denise Casey critically re- black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys & Kellert 1993; Reading et al, in viewed the manuscript. ludovicianus) control. Journal of Range Management 37:358-361. review). Successful, long-term Literature Cited Forrest, S. C., T. W. Clark, L. Richardson, conservation requires addressing these Ballou, J. D. and B. Oakleaf. 1989. Demo- and T. M. Campbell, 111. 1985. concerns effectively. graphic and genetic captive-breeding rec- Black-footed ferret habitat: Some man- Organizational challenges have ommendations for black-footed ferrets. agement and reintroduction consider- ations. Wyoming BLM Wildlife Techni- significantly affected program perfor- Pages 247-267 in U. S. Seal, E. T. Thorne, M. A. Bogan, and S. H. Anderson, edi- cal Bulletin 2:!-49. mance in the past and a number of tors. Conservation biology of the Godbey, J, and D. E. Biggins. 1994. issues remain unresolved. Among the black-footed ferret. Yale University Recovery of the black-footed ferret: most fundamental of these problems is Press, New Haven, CT. Looking back, looking forward. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin an inability to learn more effectively, Biggins, D. E., L. H. Hanebury, B. J. Miller, R. A. Powell, and C. Wemmer. 1991. 19(1):10, 13. to utilize the potential of high perfor- Release of Siberian ferrets (Musrela Howard, J. G., M. Bush, C. Morton, F. mance teams and to prototype eversmanni) to facilitate reintroduction Morton, and D. E. Wildt. 1991. (Westrum 1994; Clark 1996). While of black-footed ferrets. U.S. Fish and Comparative semen cryopreservation in ferrets (Mustela purorius furo) and some issues are being addressed in the Wildlife Service Report (unpublished), Fort Collins, CO. pregnancies after laparoscopic current programmatic evaluation and Biggins, D. E., K. Godbey, and A. Vargas. intrauterine insemination with frozen- re-organization effort, many important 1993a. Influence of pre-release thawed spermatozoa. Journal of organizational challenges remain (e.g., experience on reintroduced black-footed Reproductive Fertility 92: 109-1 18. Howard, J. G., D. R. Kwiatkowstki, E. S. an effective decision-making process, ferrets (Musrela nigripes). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, 27 May Williams, R. W. Atherton, R. M. Kitchin, E. see Clark & Brunner 1996). Several 1993. Ft. Collins, CO. T. Thorne, M. Bush, and D. E. Wildt. 1996. past problems had their origins in dif- Biggins, D. E., B. Miller, L. Hanebury, B. Pregnancies in black-footed ferrets and fering biases of participants and were Oakleaf, A. Farmer, R. Crete, and A. Siberian polecats after laparoscopic artificial insemination with fresh and frozen-thawed manifest individually and organization- Dood. 1993b. A system for evaluating black-footed ferret habitat. U.S. Fish & semen. Proceedings: American Society of ally in differing values, organizational Wildlife Service. Biological Report Andrology. Journal of Andrololgy. cultures, operatingphilosophies, goals, 13:73-92. (Supp1ement):P-51 (abstract 115).

5 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE Vol. 13 Nos. 10&11 1996 Hutchins, M. and R. Wiese. 1996. Reading, R. P. and B. J. Miller. 1994. The nigripes) in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) black-footed ferret recovery program: Diseases 24:385-398. recovery program analysis and action plan. Unmasking professional and organiza- Williams. E. S., R. T. Thorne, D. R. American Zoo & Aquarium Association, tional weaknesses. Pages 73-100 in T. W. Kwiatkwoski, S. L. Anderson, and K. Lutz. Bethesda, MD. 13lpp. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, 1991. Reproductive biology and captive Krueger, K. 1988. Prairie dog overpopula- editors. Endangered species recovery: Find- management of black-footed ferrets (Mustela tion: Value judgment or ecological real- ing the lessons, improving the process. Is- nigripes). Zoo Biology 10:383-398. ity? USDA Forest Service General Tech- land Press, Washington, D.C. Williams, E. S., R. T. Thorne, D. R. nical Report. RM-154:39-45. Reading, R. P., B. J. Miller, and S. R. Kellert. Kwiatkwoski, K. Lutz, and S. L. Anderson. May, R. M. 1986. The cautionary tale of the In Review. Values and attitudes toward 1992. Comparative vaginal cytology of black-footed ferret. Nature 320: 13-14. prairie dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin. the estrous cycles of black-footed ferrets Miller, B. J. 1988. Conservation and Roemer, D. M. and S. C. Forrest. 1996. (Mustela nigripes), Siberian polecats behavior of the endangered black-footed Prairie dog poisoning in Northern Great (Mustela eversmanni), and domestic ferrets ferret (Mustela nigripes) with a Plains: An analysis of programs and (M.putorius furo). Journal of Veterinarian comparative analysis of reproductive policies. Environmental Management Diagnostic Investigation 4:38-44. behavior between the black-footed ferret 20:349-359. Wi1liams.E. S., K. Mills, D. R. Kwiatkowski, and the congeneric domestic ferret Russell, W. C., E. T. Thorne, R. Oakleaf, E. T. Thorne, and A. Boelger-Field. 1994. (Mustela putorius furo). Ph.D. and J. D. Ballou. 1994. The genetic basis Plague in a black-footed ferret (Mustela Dissertation, University of Wyoming, of black-footed ferret reintroduction. nigripes). Journal of Wildlife Disease Laramie. 195pp. Conservation Biology 8:263-266. 30:581-585. Miller, B. J., S. H. Anderson, M. W. Seal, U. S., E. T. Thorne, M. A. Bogan, and Williams, E. S., S. L. Anderson, J. Cavender, DonCarlos, and E. T. Thorne. 1988. S. H. Anderson, editors. 1989. Conserva- D. Lynn, K. List, C. Hearn, and M. J. G. Biology of the endangered black-footed tion biology and the black-footed ferret. Appel. In Press. Vaccination of black- ferret and the role of captive propagation Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) x Siberian in its conservation. Canadian Journal of Thorne, E. T. and B. Oakleaf. 199 1. Species polecat (M. eversmanni) hybrids and Zoology 66:765-733. rescue for captive breeding: Black-footed domestic ferrets (M.putorius furo) against Miller, B. J., D. E. Biggins, C. Wemmer, R. ferret as an example. Pages 241-261 in J. canine distemper. Journal of Wildlife A. Powell, L. Hanebury, D. Horn, and A. H. W. Gipps, editor. Beyond captive Disease. Vargas. 1990a. Development of survival breeding: Re-introducing endangered Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1991. skills in captive-raised Siberian polecats mammals to the wild. Clarendon Press, Black-footed ferret reintroduction in (Mustela eversmanni): I. Locating prey. Oxford. Wyoming: Project description and protocol. Journal of Ethology 8:89-94. Thorne, E. T. and E. Williams. 1988. Unpublished report, Cheyenne, WY. Miller, B. J., D. E. Biggins, C. Wemmer, R. Diseases and endangered species: The A. Powell, L. Calve, L. Hanebury, and T. black-footed ferret as a recent example. Wharton. 1990b. Development of survival Conservation Biology 2:66-73. skills in captive-raised Siberian polecats U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. (Mustela eversmanni): 11. Predator Black-footed ferret recovery plan. U.S. avoidance. Journal of Ethology 8:95- 104. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. Miller, B. J., C. Wemmer, D. E. Biggins, and Uresk, D. W. and D. B. Paulson. 1989. R. P. Reading. 1990~. A proposal to Estimated carrying capacity for cattle conserve black-footed ferrets and the competing with prairie dogs and forage prairie dog ecosystem. Environmental utilization in western South Dakota. Management 14:763-769. USDA Forest Service General Technical Miller, B. J., G. Ceballos, and R. P. Reading. Report RM-166:387-390. 1994. The prairie dog and biotic diversity. Vargas, A. 1994. Ontogeny of the Conservation Biology 8:677-68 1. endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela Miller, B. J., R. P. Reading, and S. C. Forrest. nigripes) and effects of captive upbringing 1996. Prairie Night: Black-footed ferrets on predatory behavior and post-release and the recovery of endangered species. survival for reintroduction. Ph.D. Smithsonian Institution Press, Dissertation. University of Wyoming, Washington, D.C. Laramie, WY. O'Meilia, M. E, F. L. Knopf, and J. G. Lewis. Vargas, A. and S. H. Anderson. 1996a. The 1982. Some consequences of competition effects of diet on black-footed ferret food between prairie dogs and beef cattle. Journal preferences. Zoo Biology 15:105-113. of Range Management 35:580-585. Vargas, A. and S. H. Anderson. 1996b. Reading, R.P. 1993. Toward an endangered Growth and development of captive-raised species reintroduction paradigm: A case black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). study of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. American Midland Nature 135:43-52. Richard P. Reading is Director of Conservation Dissertation. Yale University, New Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational Biology at the Denver Zoological Foundation Haven, CT. perspective: Designing recovery teams and Tim Clark is an adjunct professor and fellow Reading, R. P., J. J. Grensten, S. R. Beissinger, from the inside out. Pages 327-350 in T. at Yale University. Both Astrid Vargas and and T. W. Clark. 1989. Attributes of black- W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, Louis R. Hanebury work with the U.S. Fish and tailed prairie dog colonies in northcentral editors. Endangered species recovery: Wildlife Service, at the National Black-footed Montana, with management Finding the lessons, improving the Ferret Conservation Center and the Bowdoin recommendations for the conservation of process. Island Press, Washington, D.C. National Wildlife Refuge respectively. Brian J. biodiversity. Montana BLM Wildlife Whicker, A. D. and J. K. Detling. 1988. Miller is a professor at the Universidad Naci6nal Technical Buletin 2: 13-27. Ecological consequences of prairie dog Autonoma de Mexico and Dean Biggins works Reading, R. P. and S. R. Kellert. 1993. disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785. for the National Biological Service in Colorado. Attitudes toward a proposed black-footed Williams, E. S., E. T. Thorne, M. J. G. Contact RichardReadingattheDenverZoological ferret (Mustela nigripes) reintroduction. Appel, and D. W. Belitsky. 1988. Canine Foundation, 2300 Steele Street, Denver, CO Conservation Biology 7: 569-580. distemper in black-footed ferrets (Mustela 80205-4899 for further information.

Vol. 13 Nos. 10&71 1996 EndangmdSpecks UPDATE 6 Teaching Endangered Species Management Joel T. Heinen -

Inherent to implementation of the that the ESA as implemented through- posed incentive-based initiatives rel- Endangered Species Act (ESA) are con- out much of its history is heavily fo- evant to their specific recovery plans. flicts in the public and private sectors, cused on the technical aspects of recov- They presented information on educa- and at local, regional, and national lev- ery, and has paid less attention to the tion efforts achieved and further initia- els. Conflicts can arise from, for ex- socio-economic and political dimen- tives needed, and made specific recom- ample, differing priorities and manage- sions. This precedent may be partly mendations for implementing both so- ment styles of the individuals involved responsible for the level of conflict now cial and economic incentives to enhance in the process (Clarkand Brunner 1996). witnessed. recovery goals. Students were also Understanding and addressing the hu- asked to integrate their plans with plans man dimensions of these debates may Teaching the Issue for other listed Florida species found in help diminish the current polarization similar habitats, where relevant. in the reauthorization of the ESA and its To provide an opportunity for ex- Discussion indicated the last exer- implementation. ploration of the social and political di- cise was the most difficult and the rich- Humans have a propensity for self mensions of the ESA, I proposed a uni- est learning experience. Students were interest (Heinen and Low 1992; Low versity course entitled Endangered Spe- forced to consider, in a familiar geo- and Heinen 1993). This inclination cies Management. Topics included an graphical context, competing demands leads humans to discount problems, in- introduction to resource law and to the inherent to many resource management cluding environmental concerns, in both ESA, legal provisions of and challenges issues when the drive for development space and time. Thus, major environ- to the ESA, organizational issues re- is juxtaposed against a public will for mental issues, such as species extinc- lated to recovery planning, and case conservation. tion, are not necessarily perceived to be studies in recovery programs (e.g., the Exploring the short- and rnid-range as urgent as they really are. Relatively Northern Spotted Owl, the Red- solutions for conservation problems minor problems, such as household cockaded Woodpecker, Red Wolf). within the narrow context of recovery waste, are frequently perceived to be Students selected a Florida-based planning for Florida species listed un- urgent simply because they are close to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery der the ESA provided students with a the actor in both space and time. plan to analyze. Species chosen show unique, integrated and interdisciplinary How does one design solutions a fair amount of diversity and included learning experience. Students in fields based on this understanding of human some resident 'charismatics' (e.g., mana- such as biology, policy, and econom- nature? Solutions depend on the scale tees), plants, residential and migratory ics gained a deeper understanding of and scope of the problem and the degree birds, and reptiles. Students reviewed both their own disciplines and possible of societal heterogeneity of the target and provided an overview of a recovery interdisciplinary solutions. group. Some environmental problems plan, including a description of the spe- that are already perceived to be urgent. cies, habitat requirements, and a synop- Literature Cited such as household waste, may be solv- sis of the recovery timetable. Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Making partnerships work in endangered species able through the use of education cam- Discussions on the overlap and dif- conservation: An introduction to the decision paigns and social incentives. Examples ferences between plans showed that process. Endangered Species UPDATE include advertising the actions of those many had similar habitat conservation 13(9):1-5. who recycle to neighbors and friends, goals, yet planning efforts were singu- Heinen, J. T. 1995.Thoughts and the0ry on incentive- based endangered species conservation in the thus providing a social incentive for lar and disconnected. In a few cases, United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin creating recycling behavior. Many other management prescriptions conflicted for 23(3):338-345. problems, farther away in space and listed species found within the same Heinen, J. T. andB. S. Low. 1992.Human behavioral time, may be more difficult to solve. In areas (e.g., water management propos- ecology and environmental conservation. Environmental Conservation 19(2):105-116. cases where the impact of the problem als for the snail kite versus the wood Low, B. S. and J. T. Heinen. 1993. Population, is dispersed over time, the use of eco- stork in the Everglades). Thus the in- resources, and environment: Implications of nomic incentives is considered to be the herent inefficiency of single-species re- human behavioral ecology for conservation. most effective general strategy. covery planning was exposed. Subse- Population and Environment 15(1):7-41. A recent review (Heinen 1995) of quent study was devoted to ecosystem seve,ral private, state and federal endan- management, multi-species recovery Dr. Joel T. Heinen, a former editor of the gered species management initiatives planning, and case studies in habitat Endangered Species UPDATE, received his PhD in Natural Resources at the University of Michigan looked at potential solutions based both conservation planning. in 1992. He is now Assistant Professor in the on social and economic incentives in Based on theory and analysis of the Department of Environmental Studies at Florida recovery planning. Findings indicate earlier case studies, students then pro- International University, Miami, FL 33199.

-

7 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE Vol, 13 Nos. 10&11 1996 Opinion Surprises Inherent in the No Surprises Policy Kimberley K. Walley

On August 11, 1994, the the FWS could impose further mitiga- adopt additional conservation measures Department of the Interior (DOI) and tion measures on almost 90% of the would appreciably reduce the likeli- the Department of Commerce (DOC) habitat in the event of unforeseen cir- hood of survival and recovery of the jointly issued a new policy entitled "No cumstances. Thus, Congress specifi- affected species in the wild. Surprises: Assuring Certainty For cally stated that it "expect[ed] that More importantly, even if such Private Landowners In Endangered any plan approved for a long-term "extraordinary circumstances" are Species Act Habitat Conservation permit will contain a procedure by shown to exist, the "No Surprises" Planning" (the "No Surprises" policy). which the parties will deal with un- memorandum states that the Services: In doing so, they significantly revised foreseen circumstances" (emphasis "shall not seek additional how unforeseen circumstancesare to be added, H.R. Rep. No. 835,97thCong., mitigation for a species from addressed in Habitat Conservation Plans 2nd Sess. 32, 1982). an HCP permittee where the (HCPs). The revision was made In 1984 the FWS adopted regula- terms of a properly function- effective immediately and promulgated tions implementing the 1982 amend- ing HCP agreement were de- without opportunity for public notice ments. The regulations provided that signed to provide an overall and comment. specific measures must be included in net benefit for that particular each HCP that address changing cir- species and contained mea- Background cumstances which could jeopardize the surable criteria for the bio- survival and recovery of the threatened logical success of the HCP Under Section 9 of the 1973 En- and endangered species covered by the which have been or are being dangered Species Act (ESA), it is ille- plan (see50C.F.R. $$17.22b, 17.32b). met" (emphasis added, FWS gal for anyone to "take" an endangered In 1990,NMFS adopted similar regula- and NMFS 1994). or threatenedspecies. The "take" prohi- tions (see 50 C.F.R. $4 222.22). The policy places primary responsi- bition applies to any activity that would bility for developing mitigation mea- directly kill or harm a listed species, as The "No Surprises" Policy sures on the Services, not the land- well as many activities that cause indi- owner. Finally, under the policy, the rect harm. In 1982, Congress amended The "No Surprises" policy, how- Services promise that any section 10 of the ESA by adding an ever, hardly guarantees protection of "[aldditional mitigation re- exception to the Act's strict "take" species regardless of change. Rather, quirements shall not involve prohibition. This amendment allowed under this new policy, the Servicesmust the payment of additional the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide landowners with "general as- compensation [by the land- (FWS) and the National Marine Fish- surances" designed to ensure that land- owner] or apply to parcels eries Service (NMFS) (collectivelyre- owners do not have to take any respon- of land available for devel- ferred to as the Services) to issue an sibility for species protection if unfore- opment or land management incidental take permit (ITP) to a private seen circumstances arise, even if it under the original terms of party that would grant permission to means the extinction of a species. These the HCP without the con- "take" listed species, provided that the "assurances" apply not only to threat- sent of the HCP permittee" "take" is incidental to otherwise lawful ened and endangered species covered (emphasis added, FWS and activity and is accompanied by an HCP. by the HCP, but also to unlisted species NMFS 1994). Congress modeled this ITPIHCP covered in the plan. Therefore, under this new ap- exception "after a habitat conservation According to the "No Surprises" proach to HCPs, if circumstances plan developed by three Northern Cali- policy, after an HCP has been approved change for listed species or species fornia cities, the County of San Mateo, and an ITP has been issued, the Services not listed at the time of the HCP are and private landowners and developers cannot pursue any additional mitigation subsequently listed, additional miti- to provide for the conservation of the measures aimed at conserving endan- gation measures are substantially re- habitat of three endangered species and gered or threatened species until they stricted. For example, if the FWS finds, other unlisted species of concern within have demonstrated that "extraordinary after it has entered into an HCP, that a the San Bruno Mountain area of San circumstances" exist warranting such particular species needs certain addi- Mateo County" (H.R. Rep. No. 835, additional protection. "Extraordinary tional mitigation measures, and the land- 97thCong., 2nd Sess. 31,1982). In the circumstances" are based on a number owner refuses to allow the implementa- San Bruno HCP, the parties agreed that of factors, including whether failure to tion of those measures, the Services

Vol. 73 Nos. lO&ll 1996 EndangetedSpecies UPDATE 8 must bear the burden of finding a way occidentalis caurina), grey wolf (Ca- (Meffe et al. 1996). Some of the to implemer~tthe needed mitigation nis lupus), and grizzly bear (Ursus sources of uncertainty include: measures. arctos horribilus), and is scheduled to "unpredictable, localized The only way the FWS could then last between 50 to 100 years. Yet environmental events such ensure that the mitigation measures timber harvest under this plan is pro- as fires, disease outbreaks, are implemented would be to buy the hibited on only about 1,400 acres, and [and] storms that alter land in question. However, even as- is deferred for a 20 year period on [habitat] structure," suming the landowner is willing to about 2,900 acres (a total of 4,300 "losses or changes of ge- sell the property, the purchase of lands, acres, which is approximately 2.5% netic structure in small especially lands that are attractive to of the entire acreage). These and populations that affect developers, is extremely costly, and other massive HCPs contain the "No their future adaptability," the Services have offered no assur- Surprises" assurances. Thus, if the "the influence of random ance that adequate funding will be plans do not prove to adequately pro- events on survival of very available to purchase these lands. In- tect the affected species, as appears small populations," and deed, in light of existing budget con- probable, it will be almost impossible " [ilnsufficient knowledge" straints, such a guarantee is unlikely to revise them. (Meffe et al. 1996). to be forthcoming any time in the In light of the extensive duration Thus, according to these scientists, their foresee,able future. of these HCPs, the large area that each "collective scientific experience indi- Since its enactment, this new policy plan covers, and the enormous num- cates that there will be many surprises is being applied to HCPs at a dizzying bers of species that are supposed to be in conservation planning" (emphasis pace. Currently, there are more than protected under each of these plans, added, Meffe et al. 1996). 150 HCPs being negotiated nation- an obvious question about the "No Uncertainty, however, is not lim- wide-all of which must contain assur- Surprises" policy is: How can the ited to biological changes alone; com- ances that all species covered in the Services conceivably assure that all mon sense dictates that political and plans are considered by the Services to of the affected species will continue sociological changes are also likely to be "adequately" protected by the terms to survive and recover under the terms change over the course of time. For of the plans (SeeFrampton 1995). Many of these plans throughout the duration example, last year Congress passed the of these HCPs are scheduled to last for of the permit period? It is this over- logging rider, which allowed salvage up to 100 years, cover tens to hundreds riding question that has caused 164 logging of dead, diseased or dying trees of thousands of acres of land, and at- biologists, including some of the pre- without the benefit of any environmen- tempt to assure the continued survival mier conservation biologists in the tal analysis. As a result of this rider, and recovery of hundreds of listed and world, to write letters to members of HCPs that had been developed assum- unlisted species. the House Committee on Resources ing full protection of species habitat For example, on July 17, 1996, expressing their serious concern that within President Clinton's 1994 North- Secretary Babbitt signed off on the the "No Surprises" approach in habi- west Forest Plan are suddenly faced Natural Communities Conservation tat conservation planning "does not with changed circumstances that may Plan (NCCP) and HCP for the central reflect ecological reality and rejects affect the status of a species that is and coastal subregion of Orange the best scientific knowledge andjudg- covered by an HCP. As such, even the County, California, which is a 75- rnent of our era" (emphasis added, FWS has acknowledged that the rider year permit for construction, infra- Meffee et al. 1996; Soule 1996). has thrown these plans "out of balance," structure development, grazing, min- thus requiring additional mitigation un- ing and recreation. This HCP applies Scientific Concerns der those HCPs (Davies 1996). The to 208,713 acres, of which approxi- "No Surprises" guarantee, however, mately 78% are open to development. According to these leading scien- would effectively make such changes to The plan purports to adequately as- tists, the "No Surprises" policy is deeply an HCP impossible. sure the continued survival and recov- flawed for two interrelated reasons. This problem is further exacerbated ery of 47 species, including seven by the fact that many of the recent, threatened and endangered species and Changing Circumstances larger HCPs include numerous species four proposed threatened and endan- The first reason is related to the which have yet to be listed. For most of gered species. fact that change does occur. It is these species, scientists have not even In another example, the recently extremely unlikely that biological con- begun to assess what is required for approved Plum Creek HCP in Wash- ditions during the life of an HCP, their survival and recovery. The ques- ington covers approximately 170,000 especially an HCP that is expected to tion arises as to how the measures in an acres, claims to adequately ensure the last for 50 to 100 years, will remain HCP "adequately assure" the continued continued survival and recovery of static. To the contrary, "uncertainty, survival and recovery of a species if the 285 vertebrate species, including the dynamics, and flux" are the "best de- needs of a species are unknown at the threatened Northern spotted owl (Strix scriptors of ecological systems" time an HCP is approved by the Ser- (Continued on UPDATE p. 14)

9 EndangeredspeciesUPDATE Vol. I3 Nos. 10&11 1996 AZA Species Survival Plan Profile: Red Wolves Will Waddell Developing recovery plans for the red wolf (Canis Concurrent with initiating the recovery program rufils) has been a lesson in making tough decisions, in 1973, a captive-breeding/certification program was building partnerships and remaining flexible. His- organized through a cooperative agreement between torically, red wolves ranged from central Texas to theFWS and the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma Florida and north to the Ohio Valley (see Figure 1) at the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium (PDZA) in (Nowak 1972; Carley 1979). A combination of several Tacoma, Washington. Program officials identified factors, including substantial parasite infestation, three objectives for the captive-breeding program: predator control programs, and loss of habitat, con- (1) certify the genetic purity of wild-caught wolves; tributed to a decrease in the red wolf population (2) increase the number of genetically pure red wolves (Carley 1975; Nowak 1979). In 1967 the U.S. Fish and in captivity; and (3) maintain a continuing red wolf Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the species as endan- gene pool for re-establishment of the species in the gered. wild and for distribution to selected zoos (FWS 1984). By the early 1970s the red wolf's range was re- The red wolf was approved for a Species Survival stricted to the coastal prairies and marshes of extreme Plan (SSP) by the American Zoo and Aquarium Asso- southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana ciation (AZA) in 1984. At that time, PDZA and four (Carley 1979; McCarley & Carley 1979). Severely other facilities housed a total population of 63 ani- reduced numbers and interbreeding with an east- mals. As captive husbandry techniques were refined ward expanding population of coyotes threatened the and reproduction increased, preparations to initiate a genetic integrity of the remaining red wolves. As a reintroduction project in 1987 progressed. This his- result of these circumstances, program officials in the toric first attempt to restore a carnivore species con- early 1970s redirected the recovery objective from one sidered extinct in its former range generated tremen- of local preservation to planned removal of all red dous interest in recovery of the species (Phillips et al. wolves in the wild (FWS 1990). Although extreme, 1995).The zoological community demonstrated their the decision to remove the last red wolves from the support for the recovery program through commit- wild could be justified through the development of a ment of and cooperation between facilities: by 1991 long-range objective to eventually return the species an additional 19 facilities had become participants in to parts of its native range. the Red Wolf SSP (RWSSP). Presently, 34 SSP ap- proved facilities are involved in the RWSSP. The cooperative captive-breed- ing effort and the collective exper- tise and resources provided by the RWSSP have been an integral part of the recovery program. As with all AZA SSPs, a comprehensive ap- proach toward conservation is ap- plied to the RWSSP. Population management, training, technology transfer to the field, and reintro- duction of captive animals have all been equally important compo- nents. Free-ranging wolves are cur- rently distributed at two mainland release sites, eastern North Caro- lina and the southern Appala- chians (see Figure 1). Starting with the initial release in September 1987 of four adult pairs in the Alli- Figure 1. Historical and current range of red wolf (Canis rufus). Map courtesy of gator River National Wildlife Ref- Boone of Patuxent Environmental Science Center. uge, North Carolina, 69 captive-

Vol. 13 Nos. lO&ll 1996 Endangeredspecies UPDATE 10 born red wolves have been released and a minimum through four different arenas. First, the RWSSP will of 96 pups from 35 litters have been born in the wild. scientifically manage the population and supply Currently 89% of the free-ranging population were wolves for release when needed to add genetic vigor wild born and they have successfully formed family to the wild population or when additional reintro- groups and established territories. Although there duction areas are identified. Second, the RWSSP will has been occasional need to return wolves to captiv- continue to support FWS field conservation activities ity, some permanently, most have been re-released. at release sites. A third role will include working Support from private landowners-allowing the with the AZA Canid Taxon Advisory Group and wolves access to private land-is paramount to the Scientific Advisory Groups in areas such as genome continued success of the reintroduction program in banking and assisted reproduction, contraception, North Carolina. Of the eighteen verified packs that behavior and husbandry. Finally, the RWSSP will inhabit the eastern North Carolina release area, twelve promote awareness of the red wolf through educa- currently occupy private lands and do so without tional programs. any changes to how the land is managed. Incorporat- The partnership between the FWS and the AZA ing larger corporate private lands and the addition of RWSSP has been critical to implementing strategies the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in 1993 outlined for recovery of the red wolf. Clearly the have expanded the original reintroduction area to a program has changed since official recovery efforts total habitat base of approximately 550,000 acres. began in the early 1970s. Now, as then, flexibility is The release project in the southern Appalachians required, but always with an eye toward recovery for is centered in the Great Smoky Mountains National the red wolf and the role this unique predator plays Park (GSMNP). The project began in 1991 as a one- in the biologically diverse landscape of the south- year experiment to provide opportunities to gather eastern United States. information on interactions of red wolves with coy- otes, livestock and humans (Lucash & Crawford 1993). Literature Cited Findings resulted in a decision to proceed slowly Carley, C. J. 1975. Activities and findingsof theRed Wolf Recovery Program from late 1973 to July 1,1975. U.S. Fish and Wildlife with a full-scale reintroduction, evaluating results Service. Albuquerque, NM. 215pp. and problems as they occurred and modifying man- Carley, C. J. 1979. Status summary: the red wolf Canis rufus. agement accordingly. Since 1991, 37 wolves have Endangered Species Report No. 7. U. S. Fish and Wildlife been released at the GSMNP and 24 pups from six Service. Albuquerque, NM. 36pp. Henry, V. G., M. K. Phillips, W. T. Waddell, and T. Lewis. 1995. litters have been born in the wild, including 14 born Protocol for island propogation projects. Red Wolf this past spring. The number of free-ranging wolves Management Series Technical Report No. 11. U.S. Fish and has ranged from a high of 16 animals to none at all. Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 50pp. Fluctuations in the population are due to mortality of Lucash, C. F. and B. A. Crawford. 1993. Experimental release of red wolves into Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Red adults and offspring, removal of animals with an Wolf Management Series Technical Report No. 8. U.S. Fish and unacceptable tolerance of human presence, move- Wildlife Service. Townsend, TN. 13pp. ments out of the GSMNP, the release of new indi- McCarley, H. and C. J. Carley. 1979. Recent changes in the viduals, and reproduction in the wild (Weller 1995). distribution and status of wild red wolves Canis rufus. Endangered Species Report No. 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife While this project has proceeded slowly, the pace Service. Albuquerque, NM. 38pp. does not reflect any lack of effort by project biolo- Nowak, R. M. 1972. The mysterious wolf of the South. Natural gists; rather, it demonstrates the social and political History 81:50-77. hurdles inherent in wolf reintroduction. Nowak, R. M. 1979. North American Quaternary Canis. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas Monograph 6.154~~. In addition to the mainland reintroduction ef- Phillips, M. K., R. C. Smith, C. F. Lucash, and V. G. Henry. 1995. forts, there are three island projects coordinated by Red wolf recovery program. Pages 157-168 in L. N. Carbyn, S. the FWS: Bulls Island, South Carolina; St. Vincent H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Island, Florida; and Horn Island, Mississippi. The Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute. Occasional Publication No. 35. University of Alberta, primary purpose of the island projects is to give Edmonton, Canada. wolves some wild experience prior to release to main- U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Red wolf recovery plan. U. land reintroduction sites. Other objectives include S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 37pp. prey population control, public relations, and educa- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Red wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. IlOpp. tion in local areas-all of which could be beneficial Weller, J. 1995. Red wolf recovery in the Southern Appalachians: towards laying the foundation for possible mainland Conflicts and management. Unpublished paper at Wolves and reintroduction in the vicinity (Henry et al. 1995). Humans 2000: A Global Perspective for Managing Conflict. The RWSSP's role in the recovery equation has International Wolf Center and the University of Minnesota Center for Continuing Education and Extension, Duluth, MN. not diminished even as red wolves increase their numbers in the wild on their own, thus reducing total Will Waddell is Coordinator of the Red Wolf SSP and works at Point reliance on captive stock for release. The RWSSP will Defiance Zoo & Aquarium. He can be reached at 5400 North Pearl St., continue to be an integral part of recovery efforts Tacoma, WA 98407.

7 1 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE Vol. 13 Nos. 108171 1996 Conservation Spotlight: A Butterfly Ranch Takes Flight in Costa Rica

Butterfly ranching has proven to be a valuable conservation tool in several countries such as Papua New Guinea, where it is used as an economic incentive to protect wild butterflies and their rainforest habitat. This approach, however, has not been taken in other developing countries where very few of the numerous and prosperous butterfly farmers tie their product to the health of the surrounding eco-community. In fact, most butterfly farmers live and rear their crops in captivity, within the suburbs of large cities, ignoring the conservation potential of this 10-15 million dollar per year trade. The Zoological Society of San Diego, in in the rainforests near Barra del Colorado. Photo by Paul Spade. collaboration with the Xerces Society and support from the J. W. and Ida M. Jameson Foundation, has initiated plan to produce enoughbutterflies to stock not only the a butterfly ranching program in Costa Rica which ties school's butterfly house, but also to export pupae together economics, conservation and education. The internationally for income. The variety of customers site of the program is the small village of Barra del includes scientists for research, interior decoratorsusing Colorado. The village is located along the RioColorado butterflies for decoration, and private collectors buying River in the wet, northeastern comer of Costa Rica and and trading perfect specimens as others do rare stamps is accessible only by boat or air. U'hile much of the and coins. Most significantly, the pupae can be sold to economy of Costa Rica thrives on eco-tourism, economic zoos and aquariums and other public attractions that opportunities in this remote area are few and the local exhibit live specimens for education and appreciation. economy has traditionally been entirely dependent The butterflies' delicate nature, qtriking beauty, upon fishing. As a result, the surrounding rainforest and interesting behaviors make them perfect remains largely intact and is rich with wildlife, including ambassadors for conservation of important rainforest many butterflies. The butterfly ranching program habitat. Collaboration with the local school in Barra del focuses on teaching butterfly ranching, opening a Colorado provides an excellent opportunity to educate display to attract tourists, and funneling the money tomorrow's leaders in the community about the earned from tourism and exports back to the people of importance of their rainforest assets. Barra del Colorado. The display of their product in the zoos and aquariums The design of the project allows for involvement of of the United States provides another, equally important, the entire community. Children are involved in the opportunity: to show the people of a developed, project because the butterfly ranch is being developed consumption-oriented country the results of a in collaboration with the local elementary school. Older community-based program for economic development residents of Barra del Colorado have been encouraged and environmental protection. to plant nectar and host plants around their homes to Today, the school in Barra del Colorado has a draw butterflies from the surrounding rainforest. The butterfly house and the beginnings of educational process is then quite simple. The butterflies lay their curricula on conservation. Additionally, income from eggs on the host plants. These eggs are collected and the butterfly ranching project has funded better lights brought to the school in plastic petri dishes. The in the classrooms and books for use by the students. resulting caterpillars are placed on host plant cuttings (Excerptedfrom 1. Bowdoin, AZA Communique May 1995) maintained by the students. The caterpillars develop and eventually pupate, producing a collection of For more information, contact: beautiful butterflies. William Toone, Project Coordinator A live butterfly house with a walk-through display Curator of Birds and Invertebrates has been developed in hopes of making the community San Diego Wild Animal Park an eco-tourist destination for travelers taking wildlife 15500 San Pasqual Valley Road tours in the canals reaching out from the Tortuguero Escondido, CA 92027-7017 National Park to the south. Participants in the program Tel: (619) 738-5069

Vol. 13 Nos. 10&11 1996 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE 12 NEWS FROM ZOOS

Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species

The Audubon Institute opened the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species (ACRES),located in New Orleans, LA, in June 1996. ACRES is a state-of-the-art science research facility focusing on the protection and propagation of endangered wildlife. The Center provides research labs for reproduction study, molecular genetics and cryobiology as well as a computer- linked research information bank and resource library, a veterinary clinic, and an animal health and research center. ACRES will be headed by Dr. Betsy Dresser. Partial funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and one of the center's leading laboratories is named after the late Mollie Beatty, former director of the FWS.

North American Faunal Interest Group Formed

A petition to form a North American Faunal Interest Group (NAFIG) has been approved by AZA's Wildlife Conservation and Management Committee. Based on the Faunal Interest Group (FIG) concept, which focus the AZA's conservation programs on biologically diverse areas of the world, NAFIG would emphasize conservation activities "in our own backyard." Specific NAFIG responsibilities would include promoting stewardship of native North American ecosystems and fauna, providing a strategic planning forum for joint development of conservation programs, promoting alliances and facilitating cooperation among AZA institutions and state and federal agencies, and serving as an information clearing house. Elk (Cervus canadensis) Photo by Michael Hutchins

Conservation Award Recipients Named

Recipients of AZA's conservation awards were announced at the AZA's 72nd Annual Conference held 16-21 September 1996 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The top Conservation Award went to Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, Illinois, for their "Lincoln Park Zoo Scott Neotropic Fund," which provides direct support to wildlife conservation in Latin America and, to date, has supported over 86 projects in 17 countries. The Lubee Foundation, Inc. received a Significant Achievement Award in Conservation for their "Old World Fruit Bat" conservation program. The Foundation supports research in many areas including reproduction, ecology, conservation and clinical veterinary medicine as well as field research on endangered species in the Philippines, New Guinea and Malaysia. A National Conservation Award was presented to the Bronx Zoo/ Wildlife Conservation Society for their reintroduction of black howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) in the Cockscomb Wildlife Sanctuary in Belize, where the monkey has been locally extinct since 1978. While it is too soon to make any conclusions, this reintroduction effort has shown promise of howler monkeys establishing a viable population in this region. The National Aquarium in Baltimore also received a National Conservation Award for their "Project ReefAction" conservation program, a multifaceted, holistic conservation program designed to raise public awareness about the importance and plight of coral reefs.

13 EndangeredspeciesUPDATE Vol. 13 Nos. 1O&ll 1996 (Walley continued from p. 9) vices. The Keystone Report, which policy to the NCCP and HCP because the Services' major bargaining chips resulted from a dialogue between FWS it restricted the FWS's "no jeopardy" even before the parties reach the table. officials, developers and scientists, duty under section 7 of the ESA. The Thus, if "sound science and wise man- raised this same issue. Participants FWS responded to this criticism by agement" are truly to guide the stated that there was a "concern about summarily stating that the HCP accu- government's actions, the "No Sur- the application of the "No Surprises" rately reflects the FWS's new policy. prises" policy, in its present form, policy to unlisted species if there is no It is difficult to comprehend why must be abandoned. later opportunity to review whether the Services have not at least retained the HCP has contributed to the de- the regulatory flexibility to determine, Literature Cited cline of the species if the species is on a case by case basis, whether a "no Babbitt, B. July 13, 1995. Testimony on the Endangered Species Act before the subsequently listed" (Keystone Cen- surprises" guarantee will further the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries ter 1995, p. 25). Simply put, there is purposes of the ESA in any particular and Wildlife of the Senate Environment and no conceivable way the Services can instance. Instead, the agencies have, Public Works Committee. know that mitigation measures in an in effect, "shown their cards" before Davies, S. March 1996. Rider may cause FWS to revisit HCPs. Endangered Species and HCP will adequately protect a species even entering into negotiations with Wetlands Report. p. 5. which has been subjected to little or those wishing to "take" endangered or Frarnpton, G. May 25, 1996. Testimony on the no scientific scrutiny prior to listing. threatened species. In other words, Endangered Species Act before Endangered the policy effectively forfeits the use Species Task Force of the House Resources Committee. Addressing Change of a "no surprises" assurance as a Meffee, G. K., et al. July 22, 1996. Letter to A second gaping flaw, related to bargaining chip to secure better con- Senator John Chafee and Congressman the biological and political reality of servation commitments because it James Saxton. In K. Walley. Testimony on changing circumstances, is the issue mandates that all landowners will have the Endangered Species Act with regard to Section 10(a) permits (HCP and other of how to address change in the HCP the benefit of these assurances irre- incentives) before the House Resources process. A logical response to chang- spective of the conservation commit- Committee. July 24, 1996. ing circumstances would be to revise ments they are willing to make. Indi- Soule, M. June 18,1996. Letter to Senator John the management of the HCP in re- viduals now come to the bargaining Chafee and Congressman James Saxton. In K. Walley. Testimony on theEndangered Species sponse to these changes, an approach table expecting that these assurances Act withregard to Section 10(a) permits (HCP commonly referred to as "adaptive will be given by the FWS. They may and other incentives) before the House management" (See Soule 1996). How- even demand that these assurances Resources Committee. July 24, 1996. ever, the "No Surprises" policy sim- will cover any species that exists, or Keystone Center. July 25, 1995. The Keystone Dialogue on Incentives for Private ply "close[s] the door to adaptive man- may exist, on the land in question. Landowners to Protect Endangered Species. agement by saying that, once an agree- Hence, the policy not only forecloses Washington D. C. ment is made, new and better scien- case by case public input into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National tific information will not alter it" degree to which particular HCPs should Marine Fisheries Service. August, 11, 1994. No surprises: Assuring certainty for private (Soule 1996) except in the unlikely be susceptible to new mitigation mea- landowners in endangered species act habitat event that the landowner agrees to sures, but it also ties the hands of the conservation planning. Joint Memorandum. new restrictions or the event that the agencies' own biologists and other offi- In K. Walley. Testimony on the Endangered Services can afford to finance the al- cials in negotiating meaningful, bio- Species Act with regard to Section 10(a) permits (HCP and other incentives) before the terations themselves. logically sound HCPs. House Resources Committee. July 24, 1996. Process Considerations Conclusion

The "No Surprises" policy also Secretary Babbitt stated one year undermines the right of affected indi- ago that "[ilf sound science and wise viduals, conservation groups, and sci- management of our natural resources entists to comment on whether, and guide our actions, we will benefit not under what circumstances, an ITPI only threatened and endangered spe- HCP will be issued. Since the policy cies, but the human species as well" provides that "no surprises" guaran- (Babbitt 1995, p. 13). However, as tees will be included in every HCP, the "No Surprises" policy now stands, regardless of circumstances, it effec- it ignores the most basic of biological tively forecloses the public's ability to principles, that nature is anything but comment on whether such a guarantee predictable; fails to allow for the in- is biologically advisable or damaging corporation of the best scientific in- in any particular circumstances. For formation into HCPs; strips the public Kimberley Walley is an attorney with Meyer & exam.ple, commentators criticized the of the ability to offer meaningful com- Glitzenstein, a public-interest law firm in application of the "No Surprises" ment on HCPs; and gives away one of Washington, DC.

Yo/, 13 Nos. 1O&ll 1996 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE 14 Bulletin Board

New EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Eastern Cougar Conference highlighted. Several chapters focus on Format Proceedings Available currentmethods used for verifying impacts of change and disturbance on forest Starting with the first issue of 1997 The Conference Proceedings for the wildlife. Finally, the integration of the Endangered Species UPDATE will Eastern Cougar Conference, held in 1994, landscape ecology and its application to change to a bimonthly format. We regret is the first major publication relating tothe forest wildlife conservation is having to reduce the number of issues per eastern cougar in the past twenty five demonstrated. The publication is available year, but the change was necessitated by years. It includes discussions of cougar for $59.95 from Chapman & Hall, 115 financial constraints and we preferred not management, public attitudes, recovery Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003;Tel: to raise the subscription charge at this and restoration, genetics, and feline (800) 842-3636. time. The change will also align our melanism. Geographic areas addressed publishing schedule with the schedule of include the southern Appalachians, Rare Plant Conference the Fish and Wildlife Service'sEndangered Wisconsin, the Great Plains, the Great Species Bulletin, which comes out Lakes, Florida, Pennsylvania, the Western The 1997 Midwestern Rare Plant bimonthly. United States, andcanada. The volumeis Conference will be held February 19-21, Subscribers may notice that their available for $29.95 from the American 1997 at the Missouri Botanical Garden in renewal date has changed also. We have Ecological Research Institute (AERIE), St. Louis. The conference provides a added one or two months to each renewal P.O. Box 380, Fort Collins, CO 80522. forum for exchanging research results on date in order to ensure that each subscriber rare Midwestern plants, setting regional receives the eight issues promised, and Conservation of Faunal Diversity plant conservation priorities, and also tomake eachrenewal monthcoincide developing and implementing with a publication month. A new publication, Conservation of collaborative plant conservation projects On a positive note, we now have an Faunal Diversity in ForestedLandscapes, in the Midwest. For further information, email address([email protected])and focuses on the influence of current contact Dr. Kayri Havens, Missouri an operational world wide web page. The environmental changes on forest fauna. Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO 63 166; page is still under construction, but can be Editors R. M. DeGraaf and R. I. Miller Tel: (3 14) 577-9487; email: accessed for current and back issue ar- bring together knowledge and experience [email protected]. ticles and links to other endangered spe- of conservation scientists worldwide. cies sites. Readers can also email us Status of key forest vertebrates, effects Announcements for the Bulletin Board are directly from the web page, which is at that environmental change exerts upon welcomed. Some items from the Bulletin Board http://www,umich.edu/-esupdate. these populations, and evidence for have been provided by Jane Villa-Lobos, changes in forested ecosystems are Smithronian Institution.

Non-Profit Organization Endangered Species U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ann Arbor, MI UPDATE Permit No. 144

School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115