Wildlife Specialist report
Wildlife Specialist report
Wildlife Specialist report
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
established wolf populations may not be applicable to fragmented, recovering<br />
populations in western states. Wolf populations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana<br />
have become more habituated to humans through time since recolonization has occurred<br />
in these recovering populations (Claar et al. 1999, and Thiel et al. 1988).<br />
Mexican Gray Wolves are the southernmost occurring, rarest, and most genetically distinct<br />
gray wolf in North America. They historically occurred in the mountainous regions of the<br />
Southwest from throughout portions of southern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas into<br />
central Mexico. Mexican Gray Wolves were extirpated in the United States by aggressive<br />
predator control programs. Gray wolves were once common in the Gila National Forest,<br />
New Mexico (Frey, 1995).<br />
On January 12, 1998, the U. S. Fish and <strong>Wildlife</strong> Service published an Endangered Species<br />
Act section 10(j) rule for the Mexican Gray Wolf that provided for the designation of specific<br />
populations of listed species in the United States as “experimental populations”. The<br />
Mexican Gray Wolf is in the process of being reintroduced on the entire 3.3 million acres of<br />
the Gila National Forest in New Mexico and on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in<br />
Arizona. These wolves have been designated as a non-essential experimental population,<br />
pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act as amended.<br />
The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction EIS did not recognize road densities on the Gila<br />
National Forest as problem. This EIS did recognize roads adjacent to dens as a concern.<br />
To mitigate the potential for motorized recreation to affect wolf dens the Gila will<br />
continue to issue closure orders adjacent to these areas as recommended by the US Fish<br />
and <strong>Wildlife</strong> Service (see design criteria). Again, road density changes will be the<br />
indicator that is used to analyze the potential harvest and disturbance affects under the<br />
different alternatives, and the analysis area will be the 5 th code watershed.<br />
Mountain Lion (Game Species identified as a species of concern during scoping) -<br />
This species is adapted to thrive in a wide variety of habitats (Claar et al. 1999). Human<br />
development and disturbance are a long term threat to this species. Research in Arizona<br />
documented that lions selected areas with lower road densities than average in two areas,<br />
but in another area tolerated higher road densities (Van Dyke et al. 1986). Increased<br />
access for lion hunters poses one of the greatest road associated threats to mountain lions<br />
(Claar et al. 1999). Road density will be the indicator that is used to analyze the potential<br />
harvest and disturbance affects under the different alternatives, and the analysis area will<br />
be mountain lion core habitats as mapped by the New Mexico Department of Game and<br />
Fish.<br />
Black Bear (Game Species identified as a species of concern during scoping) - This<br />
species habitat can generally be categorized as forested lands with suitable amounts food<br />
(Claar et al. 1999). Bears are natural scavengers and seek food opportunistically<br />
therefore they readily become habituated to human food sources. Claar et al. (1999) does<br />
<strong>report</strong> that habitat quality is the ultimate limiting factor for bear density. They also state<br />
that harvest can affect these densities. Claar et al. (1999), documents that black bears<br />
may react to increases in road densities by shifting their home range to an area of lower<br />
density. Claar et al. (1999) <strong>report</strong> that black bears prefer to stay a minimum of 50 yards<br />
32