Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual: 2009 Edition

Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual
2009 Edition
MEXICAN GRAY WOLF HUSBANDRY MANUAL:
GUIDELINES FOR CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan©
2009
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan© and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would
like to thank the following contributors for their assistance in the creation and updating of
the Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual:
• 1995 MWSSP Management Group for an earlier edition of the husbandry manual.
• Dr. Susan Lyndaker Lindsey and Kim Scott of the Wild Canid Survival and
Research Center in St. Louis for the initial rewrite of the husbandry manual as the
MWSSP Keeper Training Workshop Manual.
• Elizabeth Quandt-Evans of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center in St.
Louis for her work on the 2003-2004 rewrite.
• Dr. Susan Lyndaker Lindsey and the MWSSP Management Group and its
advisors for the 2006-2007 update of the manual.
• Cover photo: 2008 litter of SB572 and SB685 at one week of age taken by Wild
Canid Center staff member Julie Tasch. Litter totaling eleven pups was the result
of early induced ovulation research. All rights reserved by the Wild Canid
Survival and Research Center.
The 2009 edition of the Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual is a living document and
will be updated as new information becomes available. The Mexican Gray Wolf SSP
Management Group expresses its sincere gratitude to the many individuals who have
contributed their time and expertise to the care and recovery of this endangered species.
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D.

Wild Canid Survival and Research Center
MWSSP Behavior and Husbandry Advisor
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Acknowledgements i
2. Table of Contents ii
3. List of Figures iii
4. List of Appendices v
5. Introduction 1
6. SSP© Management Group 2
7. Chapter 1
Species Survival Plan (SSP©) for the Mexican Gray Wolf 6
8. Chapter 2
Population Management 8
9. Chapter 3
General Biology – Natural History – Reintroduction 12
10. Chapter 4
Behavioral and Social Characteristics 17
11. Chapter 5
Housing and Enclosure Requirements – Daily Maintenance 31
12. Chapter 6
Identification and Records 51
13. Chapter 7
Capture and Restraint 59
14. Chapter 8
Health and Medical Care 69
15. Chapter 9
Basic Nutrition 95
16. Chapter 10
Transport and Shipping 105
17. Bibliography 122
18. Appendices Title Page 137
19. Appendix A
Return of El Lobo: A Recovery Program Coming of Age
By Ken Kawata 138
20. Appendix B
Mexican Gray Wolf Restoration in the Southwest
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pamphlet 149
21. Appendix C
Facilities Currently Participating in the Mexican Gray Wolf
Species Survival Plan© 158
ii
List of Figures
Figure 3-A. Maps of historic range and recovery zones
of Mexican gray wolf 15
Figure 3-B. Important dates in Mexican gray wolf history 16
Figure 4-A. Facial expressions of the wolf 23
Figure 4-B. Expressive positions of the wolf’s tail 23
Figure 4-C. Presentation and withdrawal of the anal parts 24
Figure 4-D. A subordinate wolf usually shows “active submission”
by holding its tail and head down when approaching
a dominant animal 24
Figure 4-E. Management Ethogram 25
Figure 4-F. AZA Wildlife Contraception Center
Recommendations for Wolves 28
Figure 5-A. Typical den box design 37
Figure 5-B. Sample daily observation log 38
Figure 5-C. A Report on Stable Fly Problems
By Ken Kawata/Belle Isle Zoo Curator 39
Figure 5-D. Table 2 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Control methods used for
flies 43
Figure 5-E. Table 3 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Control methods used for
fleas and ticks. 45
Figure 5-F. Table 4 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Exhibit/management
modification used to reduce the problems with insects………………… 45
Figure 5-G. Smithsonian National Zoo stable fly trap design…………………………. 46
Figure 5-H. Request for Information on Alternative Fly, Flea, and Tick
Control Methods 47
Figure 5-I. Environmental Enrichment for Mexican Gray Wolves 48
Figure 6-A. Sample of an individual daily log 53
Figure 6-B. Sample ISIS Specimen Report 54
Figure 6-C. Mexican Wolf Record Keeping Guidelines 55
Figure 6-D. Sample Mexican Wolf Medical Report 57
Figure 6-E. Sample Mexican Wolf Reproduction Report 58
Figure 7-A. Capture Myopathy article from http://zcog.org 66
Figure 8-A. Mexican Wolf Vaccination Protocol 77
Figure 8-B. Antiparasitic Treatment Guidelines 78
Figure 8-C. Sample Medical/Capture Record 79
Figure 8-D. Anesthesia Regimen Guidelines 80
Figure 8-E. Average Weights and Measures 81
Figure 8-F. Hematologic values of captive Mexican wolves 82
Figure 8-G. Mexican wolf necropsy protocol 85
Figure 8-H. ISIS/MedArks Blood Values for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) 93
Figure 9-A. Analysis of a New Diet for Mexican Gray (Canis lupus baileyi)
and Red (Canis rufus gregoryi) Wolves 98
Figure 9-B. Hand-rearing guidelines 104
Figure 10-A. Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (Health certificate) 109
Figure 10-B. USDA Animal Transfer Form 110
iii
Figure 10-C. AAZK Animal Data Transfer Form 111
Figure 10-D. AAZK Enrichment Data Transfer Form 112
Figure 10-E. IATA Shipping crate requirements 115
Figure 10-F. Certificate of Acclimation 118
Figure 10-G. Example of crate label 118
Figure 10-H. Wolf shipment check list 119
Figure 10-I. Wolf arrival check list 120
Figure 10-J. International shipment check list 121
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Return of El Lobo: A Recovery Program Coming of Age

Ken Kawata 138
Appendix B. Mexican Gray Wolf Restoration in the Southwest

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pamphlet 149
Appendix C. Facilities currently participating in the Mexican gray wolf

Species Survival Plan© 158
v
INTRODUCTION
There are two important documents that are used as guidelines for the management of the
Mexican gray wolf SSP©. The first of these is the Mexican Wolf International Studbook.
This studbook is a compilation of the vital records of the entire historic captive
population of the Mexican gray wolf subspecies. Included are all the births, deaths, and
transfers that have occurred in the history of the subspecies, as well as the family
lineages.
Each wolf is assigned its own individual studbook number by the studbook keeper. By
utilizing the information contained in the studbook, the captive population can be
managed in a scientific manner that allows both genetic and demographic goals for the
preservation of the subspecies to be met. The studbook is maintained on a computer
program known as SPARKS.
The second document important to the management of the Mexican gray wolf SSP© is the
Mexican Wolf Husbandry Manual. It is a set of guidelines based upon the best current
scientific knowledge for the maintenance and propagation of the subspecies in captivity.
Contained within it is information on housing and enclosure requirements, behavior and
social organization, reproduction, nutrition, and veterinary care and medical concerns.
The guidelines in the husbandry manual benefit the subspecies in a number of ways.
They provide consistency among participating institutions and make it easier to transfer
wolves between institutions. Standardized practices allow easier detection of potential
health and husbandry problems. Good husbandry allows us to more easily achieve our
genetic and demographic goals by providing more efficient and predictable breeding, as
well as allowing us to preserve the natural behaviors necessary for wolves that may
eventually be reintroduced to the wild.
1
SSP© Management Group
D. Peter Siminski MWSSP Coordinator and International Studbook Keeper

The Living Desert
47-900 Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, CA 92260-6156
PH: 760-346-5694, ext. 2103
FX: 760-568-9685
Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
John Kiseda MWSSP Vice-Coordinator

El Paso Zoo
4001 East Paisano Drive
El Paso, TX 79905-4223
PH: 915-521-1865
FX: 915-521-1857
Email: kisedajj@elpasotexas.gov
Linda Moore MWSSP Secretary

Animal Care
Smithsonian National Zoological Park
P.O. Box 37012 MRC 5507
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012
PH: 202-633-3210
FX: 202-633-8727
Email: moore@si.edu
Dusty Lombardi MWSSP Treasurer

Columbus Zoological Garden
P.O. Box 400 (9990 Riverside Drive)
Powell, OH 43065-0400
PH: 614-645-3458
FX: 614-645-3465
Email: dusty.lombardi@columbuszoo.org
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D. MWSSP Husbandry and Behavioral Advisor

P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025-0760
PH: 636-938-5900 or 6490
FX: 636-938-6490
Email: slindsey@wildcanidcenter.org
John Linehan
Stone Memorial Zoo
Stoneham, MA
2
c/o Zoo New England
One Franklin Park Road
Boston, MA 02121-3220
PH: 617-989-2054
FX: 617-989-2025
Email: jlinehan@zoonewengland.com
Terry Lincoln
Dakota Zoo
P.O. Box 711
Bismarck, ND 58502-0711
PH: 701-223-7543, ext. 4
FX: 701-258-8350
Email: director@dakotazoo.org
Rick Janser
Albuquerque Biological Park
903 Tenth Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
PH: 505-764-6224
FX: 505-764-6281
Email: rjanser@cabq.gov
Vonceil Harmon
Oklahoma City Zoo
2101 NE 50th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73111-7199
PH: 405-424-3344, ext. 232
FX: 405-425-0207
Email: vharmon@okczoo.com
Roberto Wolf
Zoológico de Tamatán
Calle Ursulo Galván #250 esq. Rí0 Bravo
Col. Tamatán
87060 Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas
Mexico
PH: (+52-834) 318 14 92 / 312 00 86
FX: (+52-834) 312 00 86
EM: rwolf@zootamatan.org
USFWS Mexican gray wolf Website

3
SSP© Advisors
Jorge Servin Presidente del Subcomité Técnico Consultivo Nacional Para la

Recuperacion del Lobo Mexicano
Universidad Juarez del Estado de Durango
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales
Privada de Aquiles Serdan y Predio Canoas S/N
Col. Los Angeles: C.P. 34000
Durango, Durango
Mexico
Email: loboservin@yahoo.com
Xóchitl Ramos Magaña Vocal de Manejo en Cautivario de Subcomité Técnico

Consultivo Nacional para le Recuperacion del Lobo Mexicano
Zoológico “Alfonso L. Herrera” del Bosque de Chapultepec
Dirección General de Zoologicos de la Ciudad de Mexico
Av. Chivatito s/n
1a Sección del Bosque de Chapultepec
Col. San Miguel Chapultepec
11859 México, D.F.
Email: xramoslupus@hotmail.com
Maggie Dwire USFWS Advisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
2105 Osuna NE
PH: 505-761-4783
FX: 505-346-2542
Email: maggie_dwire@fws.gov
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D. Husbandry and Behavioral Advisor

P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025-0760
PH: 636-938-5900 or 636-938-6490
FX: 636-938-6490
Cheryl Asa, Ph. D. Reproductive Advisor

Saint Louis Zoo
One Government Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63110-1395
PH: 314-646-4523
FX: 314-646-5534
Email: asa@stlzoo.org
Jacquelyn M. Fallon Education Advisor

P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025-0760
4
PH: 636-938-5900 or 636-938-6490
FX: 636-938-6490
Email: jfallon@wildcanidcenter.org
Michael J. Richard, DVM Veterinary Advisor

903 Tenth Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102-4029
PH: 505-764-6262
FX: 505-764-6275
Email: mrichard@cabq.gov
Carlos Sanchez, DVM Veterinary Advisor

Animal Health
P.O. Box 37012 MRC 5502
PH: 202-633-3193
FX: 202-673-4733
Email: sanchezca@si.edu
Edward Spevak, Ph. D. Small Population Management Advisory Group Advisor

Saint Louis Zoo
St. Louis, MO 63110-1395
PH: 314-646-4706
Email: spevak@stlzoo.org
Linda Munson, D.V.M., Ph. D. Pathology Advisor

Dept. VM-PMI, Haring Hall
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
PH: 916-754-7963
FX: 916-752-3349
Email: lmunson@ucdavis.edu
VACANT Nutrition Advisor
Jack Grisham AZA Canid TAG Chair

Saint Louis Zoo
St. Louis, MO 63110-1395
PH: 314-646-4629
Email: grisham@stlzoo.org
5
CHAPTER 1:
SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN (SSP©) FOR THE MEXICAN GRAY WOLF
Mexican Wolf SSP© Mission Statement:
The mission of the Mexican gray wolf Species Survival Plan© is to support the
reestablishment of the Mexican wolf in the wild through captive breeding, public
education, and research.
Mexican Gray Wolf - Listing and Recovery Planning:
In 1976, the Mexican gray wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, was listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of listed species.
In 1979, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed and prepared the Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan. This plan was approved in 1982 and contains the following objective:
"To conserve and ensure the survival of C. l. 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-mile area within the Mexican
wolf's historic range."
In 2003, when the USFWS restructured the Endangered Species listing of the gray wolf,
the Mexican gray wolf within the Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment
was still considered endangered. Also in 2003, the service convened a new Recovery
Team to revise the outdated 1982 Recovery Plan. The new plan will contain delisting
and downlisting goals. The team is currently on hold and it is uncertain as to when the
new plan will be completed.
Under a joint agreement between the United States and Mexico, five Mexican wolves
were captured from the wild in Durango and Chihuahua, Mexico between 1977 and 1980.
In 1995, two additional lineages of captive gray wolves were genetically determined to be
Mexican gray wolves and added to the captive breeding program.
What is a Species Survival Plan or SSP©?:
The Species Survival Plan (SSP©) began in 1981 as a cooperative population

management and conservation program for selected species in zoos and aquariums in
North America. Each SSP© manages the breeding of a species in order to maintain a
healthy and self-sustaining captive population that is both genetically diverse and
demographically stable. SSP©s also participate in a variety of other cooperative
conservation activities, such as research, public education, reintroduction and field
projects.
6
The SSP© Master Plan:
An SSP© Master Plan outlines the goals for the population. It designs the "family tree" of
a particular captive population in order to achieve maximum genetic diversity and
demographic stability. Breeding and other management recommendations are made for
each animal with consideration given to the logistics and feasibility of transfers between
institutions, as well as maintenance of natural social groupings. Often, Master Plans
include recommendations not to breed animals, so as to avoid having the population
outgrow the available holding space.
How Species are Selected:
A species must satisfy a number of criteria to be selected for an SSP©. Most SSP©
species are endangered or threatened in the wild and have the interest of qualified
professionals with time to dedicate toward their conservation. Also, SSP© species are
often "flagship species", well-known animals which arouse strong feelings in the public
for their preservation and the protection of their habitat.
The Husbandry Manual:
Many SSP©s have developed husbandry manuals, which set guidelines based on the best
current scientific knowledge for the diet and care of the species in captivity. With
standardized practices, it is easier to detect potential health and husbandry problems. In
addition, because the guidelines provide consistency among participating institutions, it is
also easier to transfer animals between institutions when necessary.
The Studbook:
Studbooks are fundamental to the successful operation of SSP©s, as each contains the
vital records of an entire captive population of a species. With appropriate computer
analysis, a studbook enables the species coordinator and management group to develop a
Master Plan that contains sound breeding recommendations based on genetics,
demographics, and the species biology.
References (Referencias):
Anonymous. AZA Fact Sheet: Species Survival Plan. 1995. American Zoo and
Aquarium Association Conservation and Science Office. Betheseda, MD.
D. Peter Siminski and Edward M. Spevak. 2008. Population analysis and breeding plan: Mexican
wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 24-25 July 2008. Association of Zoos and
Aquariums.
7
CHAPTER 2:
POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Historical Perspective - Population Lineages:
Five wolves, (four males and one pregnant female) were captured from the wild to form a
captive breeding program between 1977 and 1980 by Roy McBride in Durango and
Chihuahua, Mexico. These five wolves were then transferred to the U.S. where three
(one female and two males) became the founders of a certified captive breeding program
for a species that was on the brink of extinction. Known as the McBride lineage, the
population had grown to 107 animals by 1995.
In July 1995, two additional lineages of captive Mexican wolves, the Ghost Ranch
population in the United States and the Aragon population in Mexico City, were
approved for addition to the SSP© breeding program. The Ghost Ranch lineage is
derived from two wolves taken from the wild in 1959 and 1961. The Aragon lineage is
derived from two wolves originating at the Chapultepec Zoo in the mid 1970s. Although
both lineages had been maintained in captivity since at least the 1960s, they were
previously uncertified because of uncertainties about their origins. However, genetic
investigations concluded that all three lineages were pure Canis lupus baileyi. Findings
revealed that the McBride lineage had the lowest level of inbreeding and had retained the
most founder alleles, while the Ghost Ranch lineage had a high level of inbreeding and
the fewest founder alleles. The study also confirmed the McBride lineage to have only
three founders versus the four previously assumed (one of the wild caught males was the
offspring of the wild caught female).
Findings from this research recommended that the three lineages be combined to increase
the number of founders and to postpone any inbreeding depression. The addition of
these two lineages added 4 new founders and 33 individuals (25 Ghost Ranch, 8 Aragon)
to the total captive population. [For more information regarding the three lineages of
Mexican gray please see Appendix A.]
Genetic Diversity - Carrying Capacity - Generation Time Management:
The overall goal set by the 1994 SSP© Master Plan is to preserve 75% of the gene
diversity in captivity for 50 years. The Master Plan projects a need for 240 wolves in
captivity to achieve the genetic goals. The calculated 2006 gene diversity of the captive
population was 82.41% (the amount of original genetic variability or heterozygosity
retained within the population) and the founder genome equivalents was 2.84. The
founder genome/population is a small number of individuals, originating from a large
population, that form the basis of a new, independent (isolated) population of that
species. These are slight increases over the previous year. Additionally, the mean
inbreeding coefficient (0.1497) is a slight decrease from the previous years. Inbreeding
8
occurs when two related individuals breed with each other ("consanguineous breeding").
Inbreeding results in an increase of homozygosity "by descent". The probability of
becoming homozygous by descent is called the inbreeding coefficient. The closer the
common ancestors are to the parents in the pedigree, the higher the inbreeding
coefficient, and the higher the proportion of loci at which the offspring will become
homozygous by descent. These improvements in the genetic picture of the captive
population are primarily the result of careful merging of the three Mexican wolf lineages
over the past eight years.
In order to maintain gene diversity, the Master Plan projects a need for a captive carrying
capacity of at least 240 wolves. However, the lack of sufficient captive space continues to
be of concern for the program, especially considering the carrying capacity does not
include wolves surplused for the reestablishment effort. As a means of creating more
captive space, the SSP© and its counterpart in Mexico (Subcomite Tecnico Consultivo
Nacional para la Recuperacion del Lobo Mexicano) continue to aggressively promote
participation by North American Zoos and their like in the captive breeding program.
Another way to maintain or even increase the gene diversity is by increasing the number
of founders. However, finding new founders seems unlikely: except for the reintroduced
population, the presence of wolves in the wild has not been confirmed for more than
fifteen years. Although 81% of the genetic diversity of the population has been retained,
it can be increased by managing the captive population better. One management practice
is to increase the generation time, the longer the generation time, the smaller the loss of
genetic diversity. Semen collection and cryopreservation is one way to increase
generation time, assuming artificial insemination techniques are perfected.
Management Strategies:
1. The first priority is to breed individuals of the lowest Mean Kinship (MK) which are
under-represented and, therefore, possess the rarest alleles in the population.
2. Among individuals with low MK, the second priority is to breed those individuals
whose alleles may be lost soon. Priorities should be determined by the manager's
knowledge of an individual's age, health, and/or reproductive condition. In the absence
of other information low Kinship Value (KV), printed on the Master Plan report, can be
used.
Criteria for Establishing Breeding Pairs:
There are five criteria that are considered in order during the establishment of annual
breeding pairs for the Mexican wolf captive population (in order of priority):
1. Mean Kinship Value: Mate individuals with roughly similar MK to avoid

combining rare and common alleles in offspring that reduces long term gene diversity.
2. Inbreeding Coefficient: Mate individuals whose offspring will have low
inbreeding coefficients (F), for the best probability of viable, healthy offspring.
9
3. Biology of Individual: Maximize mating success based on the species' biology,
including suitable age of individuals, mate choice, social structure, reproductive history,
etc.
4. General Logistics: Minimize logistical difficulties of moves (e.g. distance, cost,
quarantine).
5. Politics: Maximize interinstitutional harmony and minimize political conflicts.
It has been recommended that special attention be given to the behavioral characteristic
of the individual given how much this criterion weighs on the success of the release
candidate. Wolves that are potential candidates for release to the wild are evaluated
based on a number of behavioral and physiological criteria including genetic makeup,
age, reproductive performance, proven parental skills and appropriate social behavior,
and aversion to humans.
Rationale for Deciding the Location for SSP© Recommended Pairings:
As the SSP© captive population has matured to carrying capacity, there will be fewer
breeding opportunities for the many institutions involved with the holding and exhibition
of Mexican wolves. Also the SSP© population is still considered the primary source of
Mexican wolves that may be used in future reintroductions, and there will likely be future
introductions. For the above situation and the above need, the SSP© seeks to not only
minimize the loss of gene diversity in the captive population over time, but also to:
• Optimize the reproductive success and the predictability of success for our
recommended pairings.
• Optimally use the limited space within the SSP© institutions.
• Minimize domestication.
• Minimize wolf habituation to human presence.
• Optimize those behavioral characteristics that result in success in reintroduction.
To these ends, it needs to be recognized that the SSP© has a preference for placing
recommended breeding pairs in those institutions that have the capacity and flexibility for
multigenerational wolf pack management. The SSP© also has a preference for placing
breeding pairs in institutions that have off-exhibit breeding and holding, and
demonstrated wolf management expertise. The SSP© always seeks to be fair and
equitable in offering wolf breeding opportunities to the holding institutions, but with the
above goals in mind.
Hand-Rearing:
As a rule wolf pups are only removed for hand-rearing in extraordinary circumstances
and with prior approval of the USFWS. The genetic value of the pups will need to
greatly outweigh the domesticating influences of hand-rearing. However, when approval
has been granted for hand-rearing, see Chapter 9 and Figure 9-B for the recommended
protocol.
10
D. Peter Siminski. 1994. 1994 Mexican Wolf SSP© Master Plan. American Zoo and
Aquarium Association. Oglebay, WV.
D. Peter Siminski and Edward M. Spevak. 2008. Population analysis and breeding plan:
Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 24-25 July 2008. Association of Zoos
and Aquariums.
11
CHAPTER 3:
GENERAL BIOLOGY - NATURAL HISTORY - REINTRODUCTION
Population Status:
The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), or "lobo", is the rarest, southernmost, and
most genetically distinct subspecies of the North American gray wolf. The lobo was
extirpated from the southwestern United States by the mid 1900s due primarily to an
aggressive predator control program implemented by the federal government.
International wolf experts rate recovery of the Mexican gray wolf as the highest priority
of gray wolf recovery programs throughout the world. As of 1 January 2007, 291
Mexican gray wolves are in 48 captive facilities in the United States and Mexico, and
there are nine packs in a reintroduced population in Arizona and New Mexico.
Natural History:
Wild populations of Mexican gray wolves were exterminated before they were
extensively studied; therefore much of their natural history remains to be learned. The
average Mexican gray wolf weighs 50-80 lb (25.8-36.24 kg), is 4.5 to 5.5 ft (135-165 cm)
in total length (nose to tip of tail), stands 28-32 in (70-80 cm) at the shoulder and has a
richly colored coat of buff, gray, rust, and black. They mate sometime between late
January to mid March, and have a gestation of 63 days with an average litter size of 4-5
pups. Wolves have complex social behaviors, living in family groups called "packs", the
structure of which is maintained by communication through vocalizations, body postures,
and scent marking. Wolves play an important role in the ecosystem that is not filled by
other predators. Like all gray wolves, lobos evolved as a predator of large hoofed
mammals. Their tightly organized group structure enables them to work cooperatively to
bring down prey much larger than themselves. However, because the primary prey of the
Mexican gray (deer) is smaller than the moose and caribou hunted by northern wolves,
wolf pack sizes were probably smaller as well. A typical pack may have been five to six
animals consisting of an adult pair and their offspring, with a territory encompassing up
to several hundred square miles.
Historic Range - Habitat Preference:
Mexican gray wolves were found in a variety of southwestern habitats; however, they
were not low desert dwellers. They preferred mountain woodlands, probably because of
the favorable combination of cover, water, and available prey. The lobo inhabited
wooded foothills, mountains, and riparian corridors from central Mexico through
southeastern Arizona, southern New Mexico and western Texas (see Appendix B and
Figure 3-A).
12
Reasons for Decline:
In the early 1900s high cattle stocking rates coupled with overhunting of deer and elk by
humans, resulted in many wolves preying on livestock. This led to intensive efforts to
eradicate wolves in the United States. Wolves were shot, trapped, and poisoned by both
private individuals and government agents. By the mid-1900s, Mexican gray wolves had
been effectively eliminated from the United States, and Mexican populations were
severely reduced. Over the next 20 years dispersing wolves from Mexico were
occasionally caught and killed in the U.S. There have been no confirmed reports of
naturally occurring Mexican gray wolves in the U.S. since 1970, and no confirmed
reports in Mexico since 1980.
Reintroduction Objectives (as quoted from the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan):
1. Establish a captive population of 240 animals with at least 17 breeding pairs.

2. Reestablish a wild population of at least 100 animals within the wolf’s historic
range.
Reintroduction Area:
Wolf reintroduction has occurred in one area within the subspecies' historic range. The
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (see Figure 3-A) includes the Apache and Gila National
Forests in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico [(7,000 mi2); (18,200 km2)], and
also the White Mountain Apache Tribe lands on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation [(
2,500mi2) (6,475km2)]. (See also Figure 3-B).
The Reintroduction Plan - Soft Release:
The Mexican gray wolf reintroduction project plan is built upon the lessons learned from
previous predator reintroduction programs such as the red wolf in North Carolina and
Tennessee and the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The plan was to release
about 15 pairs or family groups over a period of five years into the Blue Range Wolf
Recovery Area. The USFWS predicted that it will take approximately 9 years to
establish a self-sustaining population of 100 wolves through release of captive animals
and natural reproduction in the wild. Although releases started in 1998, this goal has yet
to be realized.
Initially, biologists used a "soft release" approach, which entails holding the wolves in
acclimation pens for up to several months before the release. Wolves released into the
primary recovery zone in Arizona were allowed to disperse into the secondary recovery
zone in New Mexico.
The Nonessential Experimental Population Rule:
The USFWS and cooperating agencies use a flexible "adaptive management" approach
based on careful monitoring and research to evaluate and make decisions about recovery
13
actions. The reintroduction plan allows for wolves to be removed or relocated when
conflicts occur with livestock or humans. Selective removal of individuals or packs that
habitually prey on livestock increases the potential for wolf recovery to succeed because
it encourages a wolf population that focuses on native prey and builds a tolerance for
coexistence among livestock producers. Reintroduced Mexican gray wolves are
designated as nonessential experimental population under the Endangered Species Act,
which allows for greater management flexibility than would be possible if wolves were
classified as fully endangered. The rule delineates the population boundary, provides
guidance for wildlife managers on capturing, monitoring, and translocating wolves, and
defines the circumstances in which a citizen can legally harass or kill a wolf.
Criteria for Selecting Release Candidates:
Personnel working with Mexican gray wolves must not attempt to modify the animals’
behavior. As it is difficult to identify which wolves will ultimately be selected for release,
avoidance of socialization or familiarization of the wolves with humans is fundamental.
Remote feeding is preferred for release candidates and should be employed whenever
possible. Feed, give access to the food, and then leave the area. Wolves that are
potential candidates for release to the wild are evaluated based on a number of behavioral
and physiological criteria including genetic makeup, age, reproductive performance,
proven parental skills and appropriate social behavior, and aversion to humans.
For current information on field activities, visit:

Additional information is available through the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s
Mexican gray wolf website:
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/es/wolf_reintroduction.shtml
Past updates may be viewed on either website, or interested parties may sign up to
receive updates electronically by visiting:
http://www.azgfd.gov/signup
References (Referencias)/Suggested Readings:
Anonymous. 1997. Mexican Gray Wolf: Challenge in the Southwest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Albuquerque, NM.
Kent Newton. 1995. Mexican Wolf Husbandry Manual. Mexican Wolf SSP Management
Group.
1996. The Mexican Wolf: Natural History and Recovery Efforts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Albuquerque, NM.
D. Peter Siminski and Edward M. Spevak. 2008. Population analysis and breeding plan:
Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 24-25 July 2008. Association of Zoos
and Aquariums.
14
Figure 3-A Maps of the historic range and the recovery zones of Mexican gray wolf
15
Figure 3-B Important dates in Mexican gray wolf history.
EVENT DATE
Canis lupus baileyi listed as an endangered species. 1976
C. l. baileyi listed as extinct in the wild. 1980
First captive-born Mexican gray wolves released into the 1998
wild.
First pups born in the wild. 2001
First wild pairings formed. 2003
16
CHAPTER 4:
BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Optimal Social Groupings:
Canid social behavior has been well documented over the years. Like most canids, the
Mexican gray wolf shows a strong affinity to an organized social arrangement. This is
normally exhibited in the form of a family group consisting of a dominant breeding pair
and their offspring from current or previous litters, or both. Breeding pairs with young-
of-the-year or two consecutive litters have proven to be cohesive, advantageous
groupings and represent what would be considered an optimal social grouping. It must
be cautioned that the variables affecting stress (e.g., exhibit design, management
practices, human presence, environmental factors, etc.) are likely to have a more critical
influence on a larger multi-generational pack than a same sex, smaller group. However,
the benefits of a multi-generational pack are far reaching. The primary litter has the
benefit of experiencing and assisting with the growth and development of the secondary
litter. The secondary litter likewise can greatly benefit from all aspects of group social
interaction (including but not limited to aunting behavior, play, aggression, dominance,
submission, vocal communication, and hunting and feeding activities). Many possible
combinations of social pairings/groupings exist and may be suitable based on the
individual animals, the situation, and on the approval of the Mexican Wolf SSP©
Management Committee. For example:
1. adult breeding pair

2. adult breeding pair with offspring from 0 - 1.5 years of age
3. litter mates up to 1.5 years of age
4. same sex packs of either related or unrelated individuals
With regards to same sex packs, there are many factors which should be considered when
attempting to form such social groupings. Introductions should occur under close
supervision in large areas where each animal has the ability to retreat if feeling
threatened. A number of steps can be taken to help encourage the successful formation of
same sex packs. These include:
• Providing multiple feed, water, and resting sites so they can not be monopolized.
• Open feeding areas so that all animals feel secure enough to feed.
• Insuring that all areas are open during an introduction (indoors, outdoors) in a
manner that provides no opportunity for an animal to be cornered.
• Eliminating bones and raw meat enrichment during the introduction period.
Lock downs and separations serve only to accentuate strife between pack members. If
the situation is bad enough that separation is deemed necessary, do not try to put them
back together again until well out of the breeding season.
17
In same sex female packs it is very difficult to form unrelated groups. Female pack
formation seems to occur more smoothly out of breeding season with siblings or family
pack members that have not previously been paired with adult males. It is very important
that the pack members be of similar age groups. No matter how long a female pack has
been housed together, there may still be aggression problems during the breeding season.
The formation of same sex male packs is most successful if all wolves arrive at the same
time and are introduced to neutral ground. They should always be introduced outside of
breeding season, usually in the early fall. Age composition is important among males as
well. One older male with the rest of similar age, but no more than two years younger,
seems to work best. There has also been success in mixing subordinate males from large
family packs into mixed-age same-sex groups.
Animal Introductions and Separations:
Although Mexican wolf introductions are generally uneventful, interactions should be

closely monitored for the first few days to get a good idea of compatibility. If possible,
giving the animals visual and olfactory contact through a wire fence barrier for a period
of time prior to physical access is recommended. Although very few pairs have not been
successfully introduced, there have been a few reports in both Mexican and red wolves of
a resident wolf reacting to a newly introduced wolf as though it were intruding on an
established territory. In addition, there have been reports of females in this scenario
dominating an introduced male, which may have resulted in minimizing the chance for
successful breeding. Dominance during introductions may be minimized by holding the
resident animal in an adjacent holding area and allowing the newly introduced animal
access to the enclosure to become familiar with its new surrounding. (For a
representation of basic wolf behaviors, see Figures 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D and 4-E.)
The effects of removal of adults or pups from their parents or separation of adults or adult
pairs are highly variable. There have been reports of increased vocalization, pacing, or
lack of appetite when well-bonded pairs have been separated and held apart during the
breeding season. Other reports have described similar behavior when females have lost a
litter or an individual has lost a mate.
Stress:
A key factor in encouraging wolves to breed in captivity is the provision of surroundings

in which they feel comfortable and secure. The animals should not be unduly disturbed
through the breeding season, whelping, and pup rearing. There should be no major
changes in the routine to which the animals have become accustomed. If Mexican gray
wolves are managed as "wild" animals, the chances of having successful propagation can
be enhanced by providing them with a predictable routine and as much seclusion and
privacy as practical. It is also important to keep stress levels at a minimum at all times,
as it has been observed that animals that have been stressed throughout the year may not
breed during the season.
18
The trained observer can assess stress levels of wolves that are not afforded sufficient
privacy or security. Signs of stress may include: pacing, spinning or twirling, increase in
aggression or submission, overgrooming, excessive licking or chewing, diarrhea, hair
loss, disease, decreased appetite and/or weight loss, reproductive failure, or maternal
neglect. All efforts should be made to allow the animals to exhibit natural behaviors and
to restrict human-animal interaction.
Reproduction:
Mating:
Under no circumstances are "uncertified" wolves to mate with "certified" Mexican gray
wolves in the SSP© as indicated by the records of the studbook keeper, unless specifically
directed in writing by recovery program administrators for identified scientific purposes
that aid in the recovery of the species. Mating of certified wolves shall occur only with
approval of the SSP© Management Group and the USFWS or SEMARNAT.
Mexican grays are monestrous with mating taking place from the last week of January
through April 15th. Gestation is 60-63 days. Average litter size is 4-5 pups with
parturition taking place in April or May. Until safe, reliable and reversible contraception
has been demonstrated in this species the recommended means of mating prevention
remains temporary separation during the relatively short period that the female would be
in estrus. These dates are generally from late January through March.
Assisted reproduction and contraception are discussed later in this chapter.
Physical Characteristics & Determining Breeding Status:
The male wolf's testes regress in the spring and are quite reduced through the summer.
The testes will begin to develop again in the late fall, as indicated by a distinct
enlargement of the scrotum and a general loss of hair from the scrotal area. The breeding
status of the female is generally not as easily detected. During the short period the
female is in proestrus and estrus, depending on the individual, there may or may not be a
detectable enlargement of the nipples and/or a detectable discharge including blood from
the vulva area. It should be noted that vaginal discharge during pregnancy or around the
time of parturition may be normal; however, discharge after the season or at any other
time of the year may potentially indicate that the female has a uterine or bladder
infection. As with other canids, uterine infections can be fatal but can be effectively
treated if detected early. Most healthy female wolves will at least appear to undergo
estrus during their first breeding season at about nine months of age. Although female
wolves have successfully bred during their first "season" it is generally accepted that
female wolves are not reproductively mature until their second season at approximately
twenty-one months of age. Male captive-bred wolves have successfully bred during their
second breeding season at approximately twenty-two months of age, and it is generally
accepted that this is the age at which they first become reproductively viable. However,
there is at least one published record of a generic gray yearling reproducing and the
Mexican Wolf SSP© reproductive study has documented that a cross lineage Mexican
19
gray wolf at the Wild Canid Center produced viable semen at less than one year of age.
Good record keeping, and backdating from prior whelping dates may aid the keeper in
determining the period in which the animal is most likely to be in breeding status.
Occasionally, determination of a female's breeding status can be aided by noting changes
in the behavior of the male toward the female. Prior to copulation the male often
becomes increasingly more interested in the female's urine and licking or sniffing her
anogenital area.
Denning:
Mexican gray wolf females may excavate underground dens or make shallow depression
dens or digs. In captivity it is important to offer them several options for denning;
whether above or below ground, man-made structures or dirt mounds in which to dig.
Facilities have successfully utilized:
• Man made, wooden den boxes
• Large mounds the wolves have excavated
• Underground den constructed of two sections of polyethylene pipe and a
polyethylene manhole
The animal's seclusion should be respected by the keeper and such areas should be
entered only in an emergency or for an occasional inspection. During whelping season, if
a female disappears, attempt to establish her location from outside the enclosure. The
alpha male's behavior may help locate her den site; he will generally spend a lot of time
in close proximity to the den. If it appears that the female is denned up, all personnel
access should be restricted. Human presence at this critical time could cause animal
aggression towards the employee, den/pup abandonment, and/or infanticide with or
without consumption.
Offspring:
Parent-raised offspring are preferred by this program. At times this approach to

husbandry may be emotionally difficult for animal care staff that recognizes that they
could do more to aid the survival of individual pups. However, one must continually
bear in mind that the overall objective of the program is not to simply produce wolves but
to produce wolves that can withstand the rigors of nature once reintroduced to the wild.
Only in this way will the species be able to continue a natural existence. In the interest of
reducing interference with "natural selection" and to avoid conflicts with the objective of
producing "wild wolves", it is necessary to avoid hand-rearing or taking other
extraordinary measures to increase survival rates unless such care is absolutely necessary
for the survival of the species and approved by the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery
Coordinator. (If you have approval for hand-rearing, guidelines can be found in Figure 9-
B). Our concerns are that regularly taking such extreme measures may result in animals
that are attuned to humans or result in the survival of undetected "substandard" animals
that do not represent the wild species and would not survive once reintroduced to the
wild. Although interference and handling is not recommended, the confinement of
captivity tends to increase exposure of the animals to parasites and communicable
20
disease; therefore, some veterinary care of the very young is required to achieve litter
survival rates that would be expected in the wild. The care involves treatments to reduce
parasite infestations and inoculations to prevent disease.
Whenever possible, cross-fostering of pups would be preferred to pulling pups for hand-
rearing. In cross-fostering, pups would be placed with those being cared for by a
competent proven female at the same institution or another institution with a suitable
match. Consultation with and approval from the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery
Coordinator and MWSSP Coordinator are required as with hand-rearing.
Parental Care:
In general, adult Mexican gray wolves provide excellent parental care. Mexican gray
wolves have successfully whelped in man-made dens or in a place of their own choosing
such as a depression den or under a bush. Females may not allow the male access to the
den when occupied by the pups. At approximately 4-6 weeks of age when the pups start
venturing away from the den, the male and other pack members begin to take a more
active role in their care by feeding, guarding, and socializing with the pups.
There is always concern that human handling of young animals may disturb their parents
to the point that the young may be jeopardized. In most situations adults will provide for
their litter even after required human intervention; however, afterwards they may move
the pups to another location. Cautious, limited handling can occur under specialized
circumstances. If this becomes necessary, care should be taken to limit the transfer of
human scent to the pups by wearing surgical gloves, and not holding the pups up against
your clothes/body.
Assisted Reproduction:
If small, isolated populations are to be managed genetically, basic assisted reproductive

techniques such as artificial insemination (AI) can be an important substitute for
translocating animals. Additionally, since wolves are monogamous and form long-term
pair bonds in the wild, separating established pairs for genetic re-pairing can be stressful
to the animals, which may impact reproductive success. Shipment itself has been shown
to have negative effects on reproductive capacity in domestic species such as cows and
sheep, and it might be expected to have even more extensive consequences in wild
species. AI could be used to accomplish genetic pairings without the need for transfer.
Semen collection techniques for wolves are well-established, but handling and
cryopreservation techniques require further development. Sperm survive freezing, but
percentages are low and survival is short compared to other species. Semen has been
banked for many male Mexican gray wolves, but post-thaw sample quality has not yet
been verified by successful AI. Recent advances in semen cryopreservation methodology
for domestic dogs should continue to be evaluated with wolf semen.
21
Until recently it was not possible to cryopreserve female gametes (oocytes), but advances
with vitrification (freeze-drying) show promise for Mexican gray wolves. Although the
techniques that will be required for the thawed oocytes to develop have not been
completely successful, several labs around the world are concentrating solely on these
procedures for application to domestic dog oocytes. Meanwhile, genes from individual
genetically valuable Mexican gray females can be preserved in anticipation of future use.
Unfortunately, transfer of assisted reproduction techniques to canids, including domestic

dogs, has proven more difficult than for most other species. Recent successes include
induction of timed estrus and ovulation for AI in generic gray wolves and non-surgical AI
in both generic gray and Mexican gray wolves (Asa et al. 2006). More advanced
methods such as embryo transfer and in-vitro fertilization are likewise more difficult than
in other species and require even more handling and manipulation than does AI, so are
not yet practical for wolves. Fortunately, most applications of assisted reproduction in
Mexican gray wolves can be accomplished with AI. For other methods to become part of
recovery or management programs for wolves or other canids, considerable research and
development are necessary.
Endocrine monitoring of hormonal changes associated with estrus and ovulation using
fecal hormone assays can help diagnose reasons for reproductive failure. Similarly, fecal
samples can be analyzed for cortisol as a possible indicator of stress. However, hormonal
pregnancy diagnosis requires a blood sample for analysis of relaxin, the only hormone
that distinguishes pregnancy from pseudopregnancy in canids. Behavioral observations
can document courtship behaviors and determine whether copulation is complete, and
video can monitor the den box during the period of expected whelping to establish
whether pups are born (to distinguish pregnancy from pseudopregnancy) or if they are
born live. (See Figure 4-E.)
L. David Mech. 1970. The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. The
American Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
Group.
Will Waddell. 1998. Red Wolf Husbandry Manual Guidelines for Captive Management. Red
Wolf SSP Management Group.
José F. Bernal and Jane M. Packard. 1997. Differences in Winter Activity, Courtship, and Social
Behavior of Two Captive Family Groups of Mexican Wolves (Canis lupus baileyi). Zoo Biology
16:435-443.
C.S. Asa, K.L. Bauman, M. Callahan, J.E. Bauman, D.H. Volkmann and W. Jöchle. 2006.
Induction of fertile estrus with either natural mating or artificial insemination followed by birth of
pups in gray wolves (Canis lupus). Theriogenology 66:1778-1782.
22
Figure 4-A
Facial expressions of the wolf: a and b, normal expressions of a high ranking animal;
c and d, anxiety; e and f, threat; g and h, suspicion. (From Schenkel, 1947)
Figure 4-B
Expressive positions of the wolf’s tail: (a) self confidence in social intercourse; (b) certain threat, (c)
imposing attitude (with social pressure); (d) normal attitude (situation entirely without social pressure); (e) a
not-entirely-certain threat; (f) normal attitude (similar to “d”) particularly coming during eating and
observing; (g) depressed mood; (h) between threat and defense; (i) ; (j) actively casting oneself down (with
sideways brushing); (k) strong restraint. (From Schenkel, 1947)
All pictures taken from L. David Mech. 1970. The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. The American
Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
23
Figure 4-C
Presentation and withdrawal of the anal parts. Dominant wolf in rear is presenting his anal
area and is exerting control over the anal parts of the subordinate, who is withdrawing his
anal region. (From Schenkel, 1947)
Figure 4-D
A subordinate wolf usually shows “active submission” by holding its tail and head
down when approaching a dominant animal. (D.H. Pimlot)
All pictures taken from L. David Mech. 1970. The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. The American
Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
24
Adapted from the 1998 Red Wolf Husbandry Manual by W. Waddell Figure 4-E
Management Ethogram
General Canis behavior is well documented. It has been suggested by numerous

researchers that closely-related canids (such as the Canis spp.) exhibit similar forms of
behavior, though the frequency of the behaviors exhibited may differ significantly. This
ethogram is not comprehensive; instead it is intended that captive managers use the
following as a descriptive guide to Mexican gray wolf behavior to assist them in day-to-
day management. The behaviors listed below are grouped by general category. It should
be noted, however, that many of these behaviors may be observed in more than one
context.
General Behavior
Approach Wolf approaches another within 3 body lengths. An interaction is

not required. Distinguished from threat by lack of an aggressive
body posture or vocalizations.
Follow Wolf follows another. They do not have to be within 3 body

lengths, but actions must be simultaneous, i.e. both are locomoting,
one behind the other.
Pass Wolves locomote towards each other and pass (one going one
direction, one the other) without stopping or interacting.
Elimination Behavior
Leg lift Urination with one leg lifted off the ground.
urination
Squat urination Urination from a squatting position.
Over mark Wolf urinating or defecating almost immediately over the urination
or defecation of another.
Scent rolling Rub of head, neck, back on a surface; often where another urinated
or defecated. May include repeated full rolls in the area.
Defecate Wolf discharges fecal material.
Scrape mark Wolf uses both front paws and back to tear at the ground (dirt is
usually thrown up in the process). May follow the discharge of
urine.
25
Figure 4-E cont.
Social Behavior
Play Interactive behavior event identified by play initiator (see below)

performed by one wolf at some point in the interaction (most often
at the beginning, but does not have to be). Play initiator can
include any of the following: a) player bow-crouches on forelegs
with elevated rear-end and straightened rear legs, b) exaggerated
approach-gait is bouncy, or a rush; head and shoulders frequently
moved side to side; c) approach/withdrawal can be at different
speeds or showing physical intent to move away (e.g. rock back
and forth); d) general movements such as head tosses, paw raises,
etc. Play types include prone play, one up/one down play, wrestle
play, locomotor play, and ambush/stalk play. Wolves can show
any of the following: play “grin”, head up and alert, tail wag,
mouth open with lips drawn back and tongue out.
Unreciprocated play Wolf directs any play type towards another, who subsequently
does not respond, actively tries to avoid the initiator, or becomes
aggressive towards it.
Self play Wolf chasing its own tail, limb biting, etc.
Sniff or Lick A-G Sniff or lick another’s ano-genital area.
Present A-G Female stands or walks with hindquarters oriented to male’s face,
back slightly arched, base of tail deflected up or to the side.
Attempted mount Male attempts to mount female, though mount is unsuccessful

(may be from incorrect orientation.)
Mount Wolf standing behind another resting upon its back with forepaws
clasped around the midsection/pelvic region; may be followed by
pelvic thrusts.
Copulatory tie Male and female are joined in a ‘mount’ position that lasts a
minimum of 60 seconds. Seen after several short pelvic thrusts
followed by 2 or 3 deep thrusts resulting in the tie. Back to back
ties are sometimes seen.
26
Figure 4-E cont.
Agonistic Behavior
Charge Wolf locomotes rapidly towards another exhibiting one or more of

the following behaviors: ears back, head down, hair is piloerect,
forelegs are stiff. Recipient may either react (see fight,
passive/active submission) or retreat.
Threat Orientation towards another with threat facial expressions (vertical

retraction of the lips and baring of the front teeth), stiff legs, ears
forward and erect, elevated tail and hair piloerected. May be
accompanied by a growl.
Chase Wolf runs after another (both are running.)
Passive Submission Wolf approaches another in crouch or semi-crouch position with

body oriented sideways to partner; head typically rolled side ways
while looking at partner. May be accompanied by whimper/whine
and licking intentions towards partner.
Active Submission In presence of another, wolf falls or lies on its side or back, often
with hind legs raised and ears back. May be accompanied by
whimper/whine. Can follow passive submission.
Fight An interaction which is usually initiated by a charge from one

individual, followed by both growling, rising up or partially up on
their hind legs and batting at each other with the forepaws or
grasping each other around the neck or shoulders (sparring),
growling, threatening, and attempting to pin the other to the
ground.
Vocalization
Whimper/whine Soft whine, usually emitted while approaching another in a

submissive (ears back, somewhat crouched) posture.
Aggressive Growl, bark.

vocalization
Distress High pitched, whining or yelping vocalization. Often associated

with submissive vocalization behavior.
Howl A sustained vocalization in which the pitch can remain constant or

vary smoothly between pitches.
27
Figure 4-F.
AZA WILDLIFE CONTRACEPTION CENTER

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WOLVES
The progestin-based melengestrol acetate (MGA) implant, previously the most widely
used contraceptive in zoos, has been associated with uterine and mammary pathology in
large felids (Munson 1993), and these side effects are also likely to occur in other
carnivores. Instead, the AZA Wildlife Contraception Center recommends GnRH agonists
[e.g., Suprelorin® (deslorelin) implants, leuprolide acetate injectable implants, or
Lupron®] as safer alternatives. However, dosages and duration of efficacy have not been
well established for all species. The GnRH agonists can be used in either females or
males, and side effects are generally those associated with gonadectomy, especially
weight gain which should be managed through diet.
Following is general information on contraceptive options for Mexican wolves. More
details and ordering information can be found at www.stlzoo.org/contraception.
Ovariohysterectomy: Ovariohysterectomy of females is the safest method for long-term
control of reproduction for females that are eligible for permanent sterilization.
Vasectomy: Vasectomy of males will not prevent potential adverse effects to females that
can result from prolonged, cyclic exposure to the endogenous estradiol and progesterone
associated with the pseudo-pregnancy that follows all spontaneous ovulations in canids.
This approach is not recommended.
Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists [Suprelorin® (deslorelin) implants,

leuprolide acetate injectable implants, or Lupron®]: GnRH agonists achieve
contraception by reversibly suppressing the reproductive endocrine system, preventing
production of pituitary (FSH and LH) and gonadal hormones (estradiol and progesterone
in females and testosterone in males). The observed effects are similar to those following
gonadectomy, but are reversible. They first stimulate the reproductive system, which can
result in estrus and ovulation in females or temporary enhancement of testosterone and
semen production in males. Then, down-regulation follows the initial stimulation. The
stimulatory phase can be prevented in females by daily Ovaban administration for one
week before and one week after implant placement.
GnRH agonists should not be used during pregnancy, since they may cause spontaneous
abortion or prevent mammary development necessary for lactation. They may prevent
initiation of lactation by inhibiting progesterone secretion, but effects on established
lactation are less likely. New data from domestic cats have shown no effect on
subsequent reproduction when treatment began before puberty.
28
Figure 4-F cont.
Although they can also be an effective contraceptive in males, they are more commonly
used in females, because monitoring efficacy in females by suppression of estrous
behavior or gonadal steroids in feces is usually easier than ensuring continued absence of
sperm in males, since most institutions cannot perform regular semen collections.
Suprelorin® has been tested primarily in domestic dogs and cats, whereas leuprolide
acetate and Lupron® have been used primarily in humans, but should be as effective as
Suprelorin®, since the GnRH molecule is identical in all mammalian species.
If used in males, disappearance of sperm from the ejaculate following down-regulation of

testosterone may take an additional 6 weeks, as with vasectomy. It should be easier to
suppress the onset of spermatogenesis before the breeding season, but that process begins
at least 2 months before the first typical appearance of sperm. Thus, treatment should be
initiated at least 2 months before the anticipated onset of breeding.
Progestins: Melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants were previously the most commonly
used method. Other synthetic progestins include Depo-Provera® (medroxyprogesterone
acetate) injections and Ovaban® (megestrol acetate) pills. Although MGA has proven
effective in canids, possible side effects include uterine and mammary disease, in
addition to weight gain and symptoms of diabetes mellitus. Other progestins are also very
likely to cause these same side effects, although data are not available for them all.
Because estradiol seems to synergize with progestins to exacerbate deleterious effects on
uterine and mammary tissue, progestin treatment should never be initiated during
proestrus, a time when endogenous estradiol is elevated. In the gray wolf, proestrus
(based on blood in vaginal smears) begins an average of 6 weeks before estrus. This
means that for some individual females, estradiol may be elevated as much as 2 months
or more prior to what is considered the beginning of the breeding season. The ideal time
to begin progestin administration is during deep anestrus.
If progestins must be used, they should be administered for no more than 2 years and then
discontinued to allow for a pregnancy. Discontinuing progestin contraception and
allowing a non-pregnant cycle does not substitute for a pregnancy. In fact, non-fertile
cycles are more likely to exacerbate deleterious effects, since both estradiol and
progesterone are elevated during estrus, and ovulation is followed by hormonal pseudo-
pregnancy with high progesterone. Use of progestins for more than a total of 4 years is
not recommended. MGA implants last at least 2 years, and clearance of the hormone
from the system occurs rapidly after implant removal. Progestins are considered safe to
use during lactation.
Androgen: Mibolerone is a synthetic androgen in pill form that is approved for female
dogs, but it may stimulate aggressive behavior, so is not recommended.
Vaccines: The porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine may cause permanent sterility in
canids after only one treatment, due to a cellular response causing depletion of oocytes.
This approach is not recommended.
29
Figure 4-F cont.
AZA CONTRACEPTIVE HEALTH SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

Dr. Linda Munson conducts comprehensive pathologic examinations on reproductive
tracts to detect deleterious effects associated with contraceptives. The results of these
analyses become part of the AZA Contraceptive Advisory Group Pathology Database and
provide important information about contraceptive safety that is used to make informed
decisions for annually updated recommendations.
To conduct this study, complete reproductive tracts are needed from BOTH
CONTRACEPTED AND NON-CONTRACEPTED females, so that it can be determined
if diseases are spontaneous in a species or caused by the contraceptive. Reproductive
tracts collected by ovariohysterectomy or at necropsy are appropriate. Pathology
evaluations will be conducted free of charge and a report is sent to the contributing
institution for the animal’s medical records. For institutions with their own pathologist,
please contact Linda concerning the sharing of tissues for this study.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF TISSUE

Reproductive tracts can be fixed in buffered formalin by immersion of the entire tract for
72 hrs, if a small incision is made into the body of the uterus or each horn, making sure
there is a ratio of 1 part tissue to 10 part formalin. If sending the entire tract is
impractical, send a description (or photos) of necropsy results, samples of all lesions, 2
endometrial samples and both ovaries. A brief summary of the reproductive history of
each animal should be included.
Send tracts and history to:

Linda Munson, DVM, PhD
Dept. VM-PMI, Haring Hall
Davis, CA 95616
PH: 916-754-7963
FX: 916-752-3349
EM: lmunson@ucdavis.edu
30
CHAPTER 5:
HOUSING AND ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS - DAILY MAINTENANCE
HOUSING AND ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
Enclosure Size:
Mexican gray wolf enclosures should be as large as possible while still allowing for
observation and management of the animals. Mexican gray wolves have shown
considerable stress when housed in undersized areas as evidenced by pacing, aggression,
nervousness, poor reproduction, and care of offspring. Some facilities have successfully
bred and raised pups in smaller enclosures, and large size alone will not compensate for
other factors such as topography and exhibit "furniture." However, all other factors being
equal, it appears that larger enclosures are best. The following are the current housing
standards within the Mexican gray wolf program:
• For a same sex or non-reproductive grouping – 4,000 ft2 (371.6 m2) enclosure
plus two holding/shift areas of 150 ft2 (13.94 m2).
• For a single generation breeding enclosure – 10,000 ft2 (929 m2) enclosure plus
two holding/shift areas of 150 ft2 (13.94 m2).
• For a multi-generational breeding enclosure – 10,000 ft2 (929 m2) enclosure plus
an additional 4,000 ft2 (371.6 m2) enclosure, along with the two holding/shift
areas of 150 ft2 (13.94 m2).
• For a potential release grouping – 20,000 ft2 (1858 m2) enclosure plus an
additional 4,000 ft2 (371.6 m2) enclosure, along with the two holding/shift areas
of 150 ft2 (13.94 m2).
Containment Barriers:
Mexican gray wolves are relatively easy to maintain, but can be hard on their enclosure
through their daily travel patterns and propensity for digging. This may also be
compounded by pens that are too small, especially as pups get older. Barriers may be
constructed of a variety of materials. Metal bars, while sometimes used, are discouraged
for aesthetic and safety reasons. If used, bars must be spaced closer than 2 in (5 cm)
apart to prevent trapping limbs or wolf pup heads. This spacing also minimizes the
likelihood of injury from biting on the bars. Using bars for new construction is
discouraged. Wire fencing must be of sufficient strength to contain wolves; 9 gauge or
heavier 2 in (5 cm) chainlink is recommended suspended on 2 in (5 cm) metal pipes that
have been set in concrete. Vinyl coated wire is discouraged because wolves can easily
chew off and possibly swallow pieces of the coating. Because some wolves are skillful
climbers or jumpers, the vertical height must be at least 8 ft (2.5 m) with the addition of a
36 in (0.9 m) overhang extending into the enclosure at a 35-45 degree upward angle. To
prevent digging all containment barriers must have an underground component. Mesh
fencing 2-3 ft (0.6–0.9 m) wide extending horizontally into the enclosure 6-12 in (15.25
31
cm to 30 cm) below ground should be used to contain wolves. A concrete footing
approximately 8-12 in (20-30 cm) wide can be poured at the gate to prevent digging at
this area where a digging barrier can not be installed. All Mexican gray wolf enclosures
must be inside a facility with a perimeter fence to serve as a secondary barrier to escape.
Frequent fence inspection is recommended as one facility experienced a failure with 9
gauge fencing. Wolves are capable of snipping 9 gauge fencing with their carnassials;
check for gaps or stretching at bar attachments and take extra precautions at any
compromised fencing.
Unclimbable solid walls less than 11.55 ft (3.5 m) tall should also have an overhang as
described for wire mesh containment. In more confined areas such as catch pens or small
holding pens, overhangs may not be adequate to contain wolves and the entire top of the
pen may need to be covered.
Glass, plexiglas, or Lexan barriers offer a pleasant unobstructed view of wolves to zoo or
facility visitors. Care must be taken when introducing new wolves to enclosures with
viewing windows, as wolves are likely to perceive them as open space and may be
injured when jumping against them.
Cable mesh walls have been used in limited situations, such as viewing panels. It is very
important that the cable be greater than 9 gauge with no openings greater than 2” x 2”,
and with absolutely no slippage at the cable crosses. Of equal importance is that the
cable mesh be extremely taut. If it is even slightly loose it can trap the paw of a climbing
wolf with disastrous results. In addition, if a determined wolf can slip its muzzle through
the mesh, it will easily snip the cable strands with its carnassials. The support for a taut
cable mesh viewing panel will require a very stout structure; the larger the cable gauge,
the less stout the support needs to be to get the desired tautness. Cable mesh must also be
checked regularly for strand breakage and be replaced if any is found. Digging and
climbing barriers are still required with a cable mesh wall.
Wet moats may be used in Mexican gray wolf exhibits but should have an adequate
barrier as described earlier to contain wolves. Steep slopes to wet moats must be avoided
to prevent pups from falling in or becoming trapped in the water. If the water is two feet
(.6 m) deep or greater, there must be no more than a 30° angle between the water and the
adjacent substrate. Dry moats must be at least 18 ft. (6 m) wide to prevent wolves from
jumping out. All moats should have a ledge that allows easy access out of the moat.
Enclosure Design:
Care should be taken in designing enclosures to avoid tight corners (less than 90
degrees). Wolves tend to climb or jump in corners and trap subordinates in these areas. A
circular perimeter pen design may reduce stereotypic pacing and scattered running
responses during capture procedures. For facilities with multiple pens, common fence
lines must be avoided, when using 2 in (5 cm) mesh fencing. Past experience has taught
us that both young and adult wolves can sustain serious injuries when an appendage is
stuck through the fence housing another wolf. When the fence line is shared, a strong 9
32
gauge, 1 in (2.5 cm) chainlink mesh or comparable cable mesh must be used. An
alternative is to create at least an 18 in (45 cm) buffer between the two pens. Similar
precautions apply to any gaps between gates and gate hinges. Hot wire should not be
used as a primary containment feature, but rather as a deterrent.
Shelter:
Shelters should be provided either on exhibit or in off-exhibit areas to allow the animals
privacy, escape from inclement weather, or insects. Shelters can be either natural or
man-made. Examples of appropriate shelters include: hollow logs, rock overhangs,
underground dens, shade structures such as trees or bushes, holding buildings, or wooden
man-made den boxes. For breeding pairs, at least two den or shelter structures should be
available to the wolves at all times. This will give the female a choice for whelping and
the male an alternate source of shelter if the female occupies one den box with a litter.
a) Den Boxes: Via a removable lid or back door, den boxes should readily afford
keepers accessibility for cleaning, as well as, restraint or removal of wolves for routine
examination and inoculation, or transfers. See Figure 5-A for guidelines and
measurements of one version of a den box.
b) Natural Dens: Wolves will occasionally dig their own dens and may be encouraged
to do so by providing the proper substrate in the enclosure. Although allowing wolves to
dig natural dens is thought to encourage and strengthen "wild" behavior and skills, wolf-
made dens can make the task of inspecting, removing, treating or monitoring adults and
pups difficult and dangerous. There is also the possibility of the wolf-made den
collapsing or creating other problems. The length, depth and location of the den and soil
type should be considered when deciding whether to fill in the den or allow its continued
use by the wolves.
c) Man-made Dens: The Columbus Zoo initiated the use of a new type of man-made,
underground den built by Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.®. The den is constructed of
polyethylene, a material that is water proof, retains body warmth, and stands up to biting
and chewing without breaking or cracking. It is composed of two sections of drainage
pipe and a manhole with drainage holes drilled into the bottom. This structure was set on
a gravel bed and buried by a large dirt mound, with the two pipes acting as entrances for
the wolves into the den. A man door is installed into the back of the manhole/den area,
which is built into the exterior of the enclosure or the side of the mound. When the
tunnels are blocked off, this allows staff easy access to the interior of the den. The new
dens have been well received by the breeding pair at Columbus and are being installed at
other facilities. They allow the wolves the feeling and security of a natural underground
den without the dangers of collapse or flooding posed by natural dens.
Substrate, Topography, and Furnishings:
The combination of substrate, topography, and furnishings can combine to increase the
quality of the exhibit from the wolves’ perspective. Mexican gray wolves should be
33
housed on a natural substrate such as grass, dirt, sand, or forest litter. Temporary holding
or medical facilities may have cement or other hard surface flooring, but wolves should
not be housed on these for long periods of time. Joint discomfort, especially in older
animals, and excessive wear on nails and foot pads can result from prolonged housing on
rough concrete. Natural substrates also allow and encourage natural behaviors such as
caching bones and digging shallow depression resting dens. Enclosures should be
furnished with deadfall, logs, or boulders and should be planted with trees and bushes to
provide shelter and shade. "Furniture" should not be situated close to the perimeter
barrier where animals could use it for climbing or jumping. If possible, varied
topography such as terracing or earth berms should be provided. These features will
allow wolves the opportunity to climb, hide, play, mark territory, and carry out other
natural behaviors. A large and varied enclosure will minimize boredom and the
associated stress and unnatural behaviors associated with confinement in low quality
environments. Mexican gray wolves appear to enjoy access to water features. However,
safety precaution described above for wet moats should be applied to all water features.
Temperature and Humidity Requirements:
Mexican gray wolves have been kept successfully from Michigan to Texas in the United
States without environmental heating or cooling, but radiant or forced air heat and air
conditioning, mist systems, or swamp coolers may be used in extreme weather or for ill
individuals at the discretion of the facility.
Support Space:
Multi-purpose off-exhibit holding, shifting, and isolation areas for capture or quarantine
can enhance management capabilities. These areas should be easily accessible from the
main enclosure, and wolves should be made familiar with them through feeding and or
continuous access. Shift areas should be accessible to the wolves at times other than
capture or stressful procedures so they do not become reluctant to use them. Buildings
are less desirable than shift areas since some wolves are very reluctant to enter them and
releasable animals should not be attracted to buildings. If a holding building must be
used, it should be well lit and ventilated, easily sanitized, and have remotely operated
doors for shifting wolves.
DAILY MAINTENANCE
Daily Log Book:
Written daily reports should be maintained by the animal keepers indicating at the
minimum the wolves' general condition, food consumption, and animal interactions.
Additional information may be kept such as food supplements, enrichment, the animal’s
bowel habits, weather conditions for that day or maintenance/repairs of the enclosures
(see Figure 5-B for a daily record sheet example).
34
Enclosure Cleaning and Maintenance:
Good sanitation including daily removal of feces, old bones and uneaten meat from wolf
enclosures greatly reduces the incidence of intestinal parasites and disease in wolves.
Prompt removal also eliminates the attraction of insects such as biting flies or other pests
to the enclosure area (see Figures 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G, 5-H and Chapter 8 for
additional pest control information). However, daily removal must be evaluated in each
facility and weighed against the stress level it may cause the occupants. In addition,
proper foot wear and disinfecting procedures when moving between enclosures is also
imperative for reducing the incidence and spread of intestinal parasites and disease.
For keeper safety it is always a sound management practice to have more than one person
accessing an enclosure at a time. When moving about inside an enclosure for feeding or
cleaning, keepers should remain together throughout the enclosure moving in a circular
route. This allows the wolves to avoid the keepers and at the same time keep the greatest
amount of distance away. Keepers cutting through the center of an enclosure or failing to
remain together separate animals thereby causing confusion and increased levels of
stress, as well as, compromising their safety. Repeatedly using the same circular pattern
should reduce the wolves stress level as they learn to recognize the feeding and cleaning
routine.
General Feeding Practices:
The Mexican Wolf SSP© recommends feeding a high quality, meat-based dry dog food as
the basic diet for captive Mexican wolves. Supplemental feed items such as prepared
meats, bones and carcasses may also be fed, but should not be given in high enough
quantities as to interfere with the balanced composition of the principal diet.
Adult Mexican gray wolves can meet their maintenance requirements by feeding once a
day. Pairs or groups need not be separated for feeding, but enough separate feeding
stations should be provided to insure that the dominant animals can not monopolize all
feed. Many facilities feed their wolves in shift or holding areas which has the advantage
of providing privacy and of conditioning animals to use these areas. Care must be taken
to insure that conditioning the animals to an area does not include conditioning or
acclimating them to humans. As mentioned earlier, it is strongly suggested that potential
release candidates be fed through remote feeding. Feed - give access - then leave.
Feeding times vary among Mexican wolf facilities. Some facilities feed at the end of the
day since wolves may be reluctant to approach a feeding area when personnel are present,
the wolves are more active late in the day, or to avoid exposing food for long periods to
environmental factors, animal vectors (birds, ants, etc.), or spoilage. Other facilities that
feed an all dry diet and don't have to worry about spoilage have a morning feeding
routine in order to observe feeding problems such as aggression over food. In addition,
there are a number of accepted food containers or structures in which the food can be
presented. Many facilities feed from stainless steel bowls, others place the food directly
on an open surface such as a concrete pad, while still others utilize feeding trays that are
elevated off the ground and provide cover to keep the food dry from the outdoor
35
elements. Whichever method works best it is important that proper disinfection and
cleanliness of the food bowls or feeding areas is maintained.
Carcass Feeding Guidelines:
Whole or partial carcasses are often fed to captive Mexican gray wolves, mainly for
behavioral enrichment reasons (additional enrichment recommendations can be found in
Figure 5-I). Facilities have reported feeding the following: rabbit (brown, white, wild),
chicken, turkey, pheasant, rats, mice, pig, javalina, white-tailed and mule deer, cattle,
goat, sheep, elk, horse and donkey. Carcasses from animals of known health status are
preferable to those from animals of unknown health history (e.g. road kill) to reduce
possible exposure to endoparasites and other pathogens. If carcasses from animals of
unknown history are fed, they should be inspected for signs of communicable disease and
for freshness. In recent years chronic wasting disease has become a concern. If you are
feeding carcass from an area in which the deer population is known to be affected by this
disease, it is strongly recommended that the brain stem and spinal chord be removed or
that only the meat from the carcass be fed. As with any feed item, carcasses should be
stored and handled in a manner designed to minimize spoilage or contamination.
A distinction must be made between acceptable carcass feeding practices for wolves that
will never be released to the wild and potential release candidates. Wolves which may be
released to the wild must not be fed carcasses of domestic animals, as this may lead to
wolf/livestock (and livestock owner) conflicts after release. Prenatal chemosensory
learning has been demonstrated in the domestic dog as well; the mother’s diet affected
the chemosensory preferences of neonatal pups (Wells and Hepper, 2006). With this
distinct possibility in play with wolves raised for release, caution should be exercised
with the diet choices offered to pregnant females as well. If possible, carcasses from prey
species that will be found in release areas should be fed to release candidates. Wolves
which will never be released to the wild may be fed other carcasses.
Perimeter Checks and Safety Inspections:
Fence integrity is imperative to the safety of all the animals in an enclosure. Maintenance
checks and fence and perimeter inspections should be part of a keeper’s daily routine.
Fence lines must be inspected daily to detect any need for repairs, sharp protrusions, and
to fill any substantial holes which might provide opportunities for escapes or injuries.
Group.
Deborah L. Wells and Meter G. Hepper. 2006. Prenatal olfactory learning in the domestic dog.
Animal Behaviour. 72: 681-686.
36
12” x 18”
48
”
Figure 5-A Typical den box design.
~43”
48”
37
Figure 5-B
DAILY LOG
WILD CANID SURVIVAL AND RESEARCH CENTER
Personnel: Weather:
Perimeter Check: WED Date:
Observations:
ENCLOSURE STUD BOOK #’S CENSUS OBSVD LEFT GIVEN ENHANCEMENT P/U SCAT RATING
A 105, 204 2 2 0 4
B-1 619, 621 2 2 1 3

345g ♂ 700g ♂
B-2 2010, 2158 2 2 224g ♀ 700g ♀ rats X B
520, 547, 817,818,
C-1/2 819,820,821 7 7 3 11
536,685,804,805,
806,807,808,809,
D/E 810,811 10 10 5 10
F-1 572 1 1 1 1
F-2 606 1 1 ½ 1½
F-3 658 1 1 0 2
1030g Clindamycin,
ISO 740 1 1 0 DC Clavamox X A
2.5lb
2203, 2204, DC
G-1 2205,2208, 2214 5 5 2 2lb MZ
G-2 192, 546 2 2 3 1
R-1 819, 1120 2 2 0 4
R-2 66, 109, 681 3 3 2 4 #66 Rimadyl

1441, 1442,
S-1 20001, 20002 4 4 2c 4c mice
Rating Code: A= well formed B= poorly formed C= pile, no form D= semi-solid E= pool of H2O
Work accomplished: ______
FEED: Delivered # Box # Igloo Distributed
Reviewed:_____________
38
Figure 5-C
A Report On Stable Fly Problems
By Ken Kawata/Belle Isle Zoo Curator
For the Mexican Wolf Captive
Management Committee
June 1992
1. INTRODUCTION
During the Mexican Wolf Captive Management Committee meeting in August

1991, problems of stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans, were brought up. The
problem mainly stems from flies attacking wolf ears. It was decided that I
assemble a packet of information for all committee members, so that each facility
may develop a comprehensive approach to fly problem. What follows is a brief
summary of the information from written comments from member institutions and
my personal observations.
2. RANDOMNESS OF THE PROBLEM
A. Absence of fly attacks

One institution replied, “…we have not (to my knowledge) had any stable
fly problems.” Another institution wrote, “…we have had minimal
damage done by fly strike.”
B. Individuality
It appears that stable flies do not uniformly strike all wolves in the group.
One institution wrote, “the flies only attack to a great degree two or three
wolves a year.” Another institution pointed up, “…we have had certain
individual wolves in certain situations have a fly bite problem. None of
our wolves currently have a problem.”
3. WORKABLE SOLUTIONS
Approaches to the fly problems usually take two directions: environmental and
direct treatment. Some comments from member institutions and my observations:
A. Wild Canid Research and Survival Center (Vicki O’Toole)

“…we pick up scats and dispose of them every other day. Our primary
spray program is aimed at preventing ticks from taking hold, but we do
spray with some pyrethrin based products.”
B. Alameda Park Zoo (Steve Diehl; this institution has not experienced serious
problems)
“By removing fecal and other organic materials from the exhibit area
quickly, we have been able to keep the fly population somewhat under
control.”
39
Figure 5-C cont.
C. Phoenix Zoo (Reg Hoyt and my personal observations)

A water-based 0.15% pyrethins, manufactured by Vet Kem (Flea & Tick
Pump spray), has been used for environmental application (one other zoo
sprays over grass and shrubs in the enclosure with hose). A 2’ X 2’ piece
of burlap, hung on the chain link fence, may be sprayed daily by keepers;
this method proved efficient, as wolves rub against the chemical-saturated
burlap. (However, depending on the individual, wolves may shred it to
pieces). Another application is to use a garden spray with copper tubing,
permanently installed by the holding area, where feed and water are
placed. The mist head is directed over the entry, and wolves must enter
the holding area to eat and drink daily through the mist of solutions.
Every morning keepers pump in, build the pressure up and open the valve.
According to Reg Hoyt, an electrically operated spray system is now
commercially available (West Livestock Service 602-982-2509).
D. Belle Isle Zoo (My own observations)

Of the four wolves we have held, one animal (Studbook #41) has been
damaged severely. Flies have annoyed the other three animals but did not
traumatize them. During the summer, the ears of #41 were literally eaten
by the flies. Several control methods were devised, with varying degrees
of success, by the staff veterinarian, Dalen Agnew as follows:
a. Environmental
Dr. Agnew invited several entomologists from Michigan State
University to review the problem. One of their recommendations
was to change the zoo’s manure handling, in order to eliminate
breeding ground of the flies. This meant that no animal waste and
soiled bedding were to be exposed in the “manure bay” for later
pickup; rather, they were to be contained in plastic bags and in
garbage cans and picked up semi-weekly. By this approach, stable
flies would be less able to breed on the zoo premises.
Another approach was fly traps. One is called “Sticky Fly Traps”
(manufactured by Olson Products, PO Box 1043, Medina, OH
44258, 216-723-3210). A glued surface, when placed in the sun, is
expected to specifically attract stable flies. The trap is easily
assembled and not costly. It, however, requires direct sunlight
exposure and a specific height off the ground to be maximally
effective – neither of which could be accommodated due to the
exhibit design. Thus, it achieved a limited success in Detroit.
Another non-electrical fly trap, called “Big Stinky”, placed around
the perimeter of the exhibit, captured a large number of house flies,
but few stable flies. As for electrically operated fly traps, one zoo
commented that “fly zappers”, manufactured by Gardner
Manufacturing (P.O. Box 147, Horicon, WI 53032, 800-558-8890)
40
Figure 5-C cont.
attract stable flies. However, Belle Isle Zoo has not yet used this
product. We have also used permethrin on the premises semi-
weekly to little avail. Mowing grass and trimming shrubs in the
enclosure may have helped.
b. Direct Applications
Keepers tried to spray the wolves with Vet Kem products
(Pyrethrins, Piperonyl & Resmethrin) and reported a positive
impact. However, wolves eventually stayed away when they
found out that keepers had spray bottles, this method may work on
“tame” individuals. Another approach was to apply pyrethroid fly
repellent gel into the body surface whenever animals were
immobilized. To date, the most effective method at Belle Isle Zoo
has been the use of Fenvalerate insecticide impregnated eartags.
While other controls proved inadequate or unsatisfactory, the
eartags keep flies away from the ears. This may not be effective
where breeding pairs are maintained, since mates may not leave
them alone. However, at Belle Isle Zoo, where a “uni-sex” group
is maintained, and no intimate relationships develop between
group members, this approach has been highly preferable. In the
summer of 1991, Dr. Agnew discussed the use of Ectrin Insecticide
Impregnated Ear Tags on the wolves with the National Poison
Control Center at the University of Illinois, College of Veterinary
Medicine and the manufacturer, Fermenta. It appeared it would be
safe to use this product on the Mexican wolf. According to the
National Poison Control Center, the LD50 of Fenvalerate (the
active ingredient) is 450 mg/kg. Using a recorded wolf weight of
20 kg, we would have an exposure of 40 mg/kg, ten folds below
the LD50 value. Further, considering that (1) only one-eighth to a
quarter of a tag will be used, (2) the Fenvalerate is in a slow-
release formulation, and (3) the low probability that the animals
will get close enough to each other to ingest the tag, it seemed
unlikely that a toxicity problem would occur. They were fed 0.076
g/kg of Fenvalerate per day for several months with no ill effects.
Should the tag be used, there would be no more than 0.04g of
fenvalerate available for ingestion over one day. Based on the
above, eartags were applied. Since the tags were designed for
livestock, they were reduced in size for wolves’ ears. For exhibit
purposes, more “naturalistic” colors, such as brown and dark tan
were chosen as opposed to bright red or blue. A regular eartag
applicator was utilized. Even after the eartags were attached,
stable flies still followed wolves and continued to annoy them.
Yet, we saw no open wounds that would present not only an
animal welfare issue, but also a serious public relations problem.
41
Figure 5-C cont.
4. References
Integrated Pest Management of Nuisance and Biting Flies in a Michigan Resort:
Dealing with Secondary Pest Outbreaks. Richard W. Merritt, M. Keith
Kenneday, and Edward F. Gersabeck. In: Urban Entomology: Interdisciplinary
perspectives. G. W. Frankie and C. S. Koehler (eds.), pages 277-299, Praeger
Scien., NY. 1983
After this survey was conducted, the Minnesota Zoo (Nick Reindl) has had
success using Defend Exspot (manufactured by Pitman-Moore 1-800-842-3532).
42
Figure 5-D
TABLE 2 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Control methods used for fleas and ticks.
.
Institution Product Name Manufacturer Method/Freq. of Application Results Comments
Alligator River Fly Trap Sterling IPC Hang trap in area of fly Excellent Simple, very effective
source/replace every 3-4 months
Beardsley Zoo Repel-X Mix to proper dilution & mix with Good Helps but doesn’t solve
bedding or mulch/daily problem
Ectrin Cattle Tags Fermata Place in ear and cut to ¼ Poor Hard to keep tags in
Animal Health size/seasonally
Solar Fly Traps Arbico Set baited traps in problem areas. Good Need to be maintained
Revap E.C. Fermata Mix to proper dilution & spray Poor May work better if
Animal Health non-animal areas/weekly applied more often
Brevard Zoo Bronco-equine fly Farnam Impregnated fire hose strips placed ? Method just instituted
spray in mouth of night house/spray
strips biweekly
Brunet Park Zoo Fly wipe Various Sprayed directly on animal/daily Poor Could not get close;
worried about eyes;
worked well on Arctic
wolves
Garlic 1 clove/diet/day Fair (?)
Chaffee Zoo Crushed garlic In diet daily Good Worked on gray wolves,
not needed on reds
Fossil Rim Permectin II Direct spray on animals as
opportunity arises
Direct spray on grass & in Good
houses/monthly
Great Plains Zoo VIP Fly Repellent Pet Chemicals Smeared on ground & wolves roll Fair (?) Some wolves roll more
Oint. bodies in it (use on alternate days than others; have to use a
with Tick Killer) lot
Adam’s Tick Killer Smith-Kline- Smeared on ground & wolves roll No change Can spray timber wolf
Beekham bodies in it when he walks up to
fence, not red wolves
Defend exspot Pitman-Moore 1cc between shoulder blades, 1cc Method just implemented
at base of tail & a couple drops on
each ear/monthly
Miller Park Zoo Defend 1cc tube-1/2 dribbled on each ear; No change Just went from monthly to
other 1cc tube dribbled down bi-weekly application
middle of back/bi-weekly
Hang 3-5 around perimeter of ? Traps catch lots of flies
Trap-N-Toss fly 150’x150’ exhibit/replace when
traps full-usually 1-2 weeks
Hung in refillable dispersers on ? Use quite a bit of product
Golden Malrin Fly exterior of exhibit/refilled every 4-
Bait 6 weeks
Parasitic pupai spread around ?
Fly Parasite Beneficial exhibit/weekly from spring till fall
Insectary in 1995
Pittsburgh Zoo Swat Applied directly to ears/when Good Too few opportunities to
animal is down apply
Fly spray Sprayed around head avoiding Difficult to apply
eyes/daily Short duration of protect.
43
Point Defiance Schreiners Healing Restoration Applied by hand to both ears & top Excellent Used in severe cases only
Zoo Liniment Products of head/twice a day
Rescue disposable Sterling Hang around perimeter fence & in Excellent Still see an animal with a
fly traps International between pens/change as needed. problem
Racine Zoo Insectin X Hess & Clark Sprayed directly on animals from Good
Inc. pump sprayer/when flies are
covering ears
Permectrin Dust Anchor Sprinkled in wooden shelters & on Good Also added to straw that
ground where animals lay/weekly is given as enrichment
Permethrin LPS Dionne 40cc/gal water-spray outside Fair
perimeter in tall grass &
bushes/twice week (repeat after
rain)
Vectro System Fly Micro-gen electrical bug zapper in keeper area Excellent Building is free of flies
Zapper of building/sticky board replaced
as needed
Fly Terminator Farnam Placed on ground around perimeter Good
fence-baited per directions + one
dead fish/change as necessary
Trevor Zoo Fly Pest Strips Hang in key areas of zoo/changed
monthly
Wild Canid Permethrin spray Various Fine mist sprayed around facility Excellent County Health Dept.
Center perimeter/weekly applies
Permethrin spray Various Sprayed on ground in certain areas Fair Wolves stop rolling when
of enclosures to initiate scent they get used to scent
rolling/as needed
44
Figure 5-E
TABLE 3 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Control methods used for fleas and ticks.
Product Name Method/Freq. Of Application Results Institution Commments

Yard and Kennel Spray; Vet- Sprayed in pens with hose end sprayer/as Excellent Alligator River
Kem needed
Spot-ON; Miles, Inc. Applied directly to backline at .8cc per Excellent Alligator River Used for severe cases
10lbs/as needed
Program (Luferuron); Ciba- Oral during feeding/monthly year round Excellent Chaffee Zoo
Geigy Orally during feeding/monthly Prevention North Carolina Zoo
Orally during feeding/monthly during Excellent Racine Zoo Discontinued – could
flea season not separate easily
Orally during feeding/monthly Good The Texas Zoo
Basis; Ciba-Geigy Sprayed yard at beginning of flea season Excellent Chaffee Zoo No longer needed
Ivomectin Orally in food – 1ml per 110lbs/one time Fair (?) Fossil Rim Used for severe cases
dose
Ovitrol Plus; Vet Kem Wrapped pups in lightly sprayed Fair Mill Mountain Zoo No skin irritation
towels/when pups are handled for other seen
reasons
Permethrin Spray Sprayed from high powered hose into Excellent Wild Canid County Health Dept.
ground to penetrate ground & leaf litter applies
around perimeter of enclosures/beginning
& end of season
Figure 5-F
TABLE 4 from RWSSP Husbandry Manual: Exhibit/management modifications used to reduce the problems with
insects.
Modification Comments Institution

Keep grass between exhibits down. Beardsley Zoo
No standing water. Brevard Zoo
Exhibit mowed once a week. Cuts down on insect densities.
Drain standing water Burnet Park Zoo
Natural dens and low vegetation Chaffee Zoo
Keep vegetation low. Great Plains Zoo
Minimal vegetation, dens partially below ground & disinfected Knoxville Zoo
regularly, allow shallow holes to be dug.
Mow area when too tall, no standing water, added more shelters Miller Park Zoo
Minimal vegetation, allow holes to be dug. Mill Mountain Zoo
Drain standing water by filling in holes in yard. Pittsburgh Zoo
Occasionally trim vegetation The Wilds
Natural dens Trevor Zoo
Keep vegetation mowed. Extremely helpful in tick control. Wild Canid
Do not allow leaf litter to accumulate Eliminated tick cover.
Remove standing water. Extremely helpful in fly control.
Keep compost heaps & garbage containers covered.
45
Figure 5-G Smithsonian National Zoo stable fly trap design.
46
Figure 5-H
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVE

FLY, FLEA, AND TICK CONTROL METHODS
If your facility has had success controlling flies, fleas, or ticks with any methods
not listed in the following tables, please fill out the following form and mail or fax to Dr.
Linda Munson, Mexican Wolf SSP© Pathology Advisor, Department VM-PMI Haring
Hall, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; PH:
530-754-7963; FX: 530-752-3349, EM: lmunson@ucdavis.edu .
Please also send a duplicate copy to Peter Siminski, Mexican Wolf SSP© Coordinator,
The Living Desert, 47-900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260-6156; PH: 760-346-
5694, ext. 2103; FX: 760-568-9685; Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
Institution:
Product Name:
Manufacturer:
Method and Frequency of Application:
Results:
Comments:
Form completed by:

Address:
Phone number:
Email address:
47
Figure 5-I
Environmental Enrichment for Mexican Gray Wolves

(original dated 2000 with item updates through 2006 MWSSP meetings)
Jose Francisco Bernal Stoopen MVZ President of Mexican Wolf Technical

Advisory Committee
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey PhD MWSSP Management Group Member,
Ad-hoc Behavioral Advisor to USFWS
D. Peter Siminski MWSSP Species Coordinator
Colleen Buchanan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
At the April 2000 AZA Regional, the above people met to consider enrichment in
Mexican gray wolves. As part of the Mexican Wolf SSP Keeper Training Workshops, it
was determined that facilities in both the United States and Mexico were interested in
pursuing enrichment for this species. Dr. Stoopen performed a literature search to amass
a comprehensive list of enrichment items used for gray wolves.
Participants in the Mexican Wolf SSP Program are all well aware of our ultimate
goal which is to rear releasable wolves for reintroduction programs in the United States
and Mexico. Zoological institutions are also well aware of the importance of enrichment
in enhancing the lives of captive animals. Believing that enrichment would also enhance
the repertoire of natural behaviors which captive wolves display (i.e. scent marking,
predation, denning, etc.) and possibly increase the likelihood that a particular wolf makes
a smooth transition to a wild life, we have attempted to present here a list of
preferred/approved enrichment items for Mexican gray wolves. At any point in time it is
difficult to predict whether or not a particular wolf is a potential release candidate – needs
change for the program – and with this in mind we have chosen not to create separate
lists (one for releasable wolves and one for those not destined for release).
Institutions are encouraged to present as many of the items on this list as are
feasible for their situation. From a MWSSP or USFWS perspective, enrichment is not a
requirement but it is highly encouraged. At each annual meeting institutions may request
additional items be included; the list will be updated annually accordingly.
Feeding Enrichment
Presentation:
Vary feeding regime (feast/famine) Hide food items in enclosure
Vary time food given each day Novel food items in pond
Diet spread over the course of day Several feed pans/stations
Buried food Hang food items from trees/branches
Present food items when wolves cannot Frozen food items
see them being placed/hidden, if possible
48
Figure 5-I cont.
Specific Items:
Mealworms Crickets Ice cubes with meat
Pinkies Canine meat Blackberries
Ice blocks Dog chow Melons
Cherries Antlers Trout
Blueberries Pumpkins Orange
Snow Smelt Rawhide bones
Hair from game native to release area
Bones from game native to release area
Live prey, game native to release area (e.g., brown rabbit, turkey, quail)
Dead meat from game native to release area (e.g., deer, elk, rabbit, turkey, quail, beaver,
pronghorn, javelina, rodents, ground squirrels, vole, prairie dogs, pinkies, rats)
Olfactory Enrichment
Note: Be aware that there are possible medical risks associated with presentation
of urine and feces (bison brucellosis, etc.)
Urine (autoclaved) of: Feces (free of parasites) of:

Wolves Wolves
Coyotes Coyotes
Foxes Foxes
Black bears Black bears
Cougars/pumas Cougar/pumas
White-tailed deer White-tailed deer
Mule deer Mule deer
Lagomorphs Lagomorphs
Scents:
Note: No perfumes or aftershaves should be used
Vinegar Orange
Chamomile Mint
Vanilla Lemon
Peppermint Almond
Anise Cinnamon
Pecan Banana
Strawberry Maple
Honey
Spices:
Allspices Onion
Chives Paprika
Cinnamon Sage
Cumin Ground cloves
Coriander Rosemary
49
Figure 5-I cont.
Environmental Enrichment:
Note: No Christmas trees (concerns about disease transmission from
household pets).
Plant/grasses in several areas Straw
Substrate piles/dirt and brush piles Dry grasses
Grass patches for “hiding” Sand
Logs with holes drilled for food items White pine
Furniture rearrangement Hiding places
Burrows Bark mulch
Dead leaves Pine shavings
Pine cones Pine needles
Auditory Enrichment
Any naturally occurring sound (animals found at release sites)
No radios (could attract them to humans)
Sirens OK
Additions from 2001-2006 MWSSP Meetings:

Feeding Enrichment: superworms, rats
Olfactory Enrichment, scents: almond
Environmental Enrichment: bedding, logs, sticks from exhibits housing
specimens that would be game or predators native to release area; logs with holes
drilled for food items
50
CHAPTER 6:
IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDS
Identification Methods:
Properly marking individual animals for identification is an important function in the

management and husbandry of captive animals.
a) Tattoos: Early in the program all Mexican gray wolves were tattooed with an
institutional number inside the pinna of each ear and inside the upper thigh. A number of
tattoo methods have been tried. The most distinct and long-lasting marks can be made by
an electric tattoo kit. However, today it is recommended that all Mexican gray wolves be
identified with a microchip transponder instead of a tattoo mark.
b) Transponders: Until the August 1999 SSP© meeting, it was recommended that all
Mexican gray wolves be implanted with a Trovan Transponder. The Trovan System is
the global standard recommended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources and Captive Breeding Specialists Group (IUCN/CBSG) working
group on permanent animal identification. However, InfoPet, the company that
distributes the Trovan System has been involved in ongoing litigation with Avid, a
company that produces a microchip system widely used in the pet industry. The end
result is that Trovan transponders have been difficult, if not impossible, to procure in the
last few years. The Mexican Wolf SSP© Management Group is now recommending that
cooperators make use of a system that can read a wide variety of transponders, such as
the Destron System marketed by BioMark (134 N. Cloverdale Road, Boise, ID 83713,
phone 208/378-4900, www.biomark.com).
The expense of purchasing this equipment may be prohibitive for some facilities. For use
in the U.S. Mexican wolf recovery program, the USFWS has purchased two Trovan units
to be shared between institutions that do not own their own. In addition, InfoPet, the
company that distributes the Trovan system, has a list of zoological facilities, universities
and agencies that have the equipment. Since the recommendation for the use of the
Destron System is very recent, currently there are no such provisions made.
Transponder numbers should be sent to the SSP© Coordinator for inclusion in SPARKS
(Small Population Animal Record Keeping System) and should accompany paper work
when a wolf is being transferred to another facility. It is not necessary to anesthetize the
wolves to implant a transponder. The most common subcutaneous site to insert the chip
has been between the shoulder blades. However, at least one facility has placed the
transponder at the base of the ear. Wolf pups can be transponded in conjunction with the
first scheduled vaccination.
51
Tattoos and transponders should be checked at least annually and preferably each time
the animal is handled. Although such occurrences are rare, transponder chips have been
known to migrate or otherwise fail.
Record Keeping:
Health, medical, dietary, reproductive, and mortality records for each animal should be
kept in accordance with the holding facilities record keeping system (see Figure 6-A).
Written daily reports should be maintained indicating the wolves' general condition, food
consumption, bowel habits, animal interactions, etc. Copies of pertinent records should
accompany each animal whenever it is transferred to another facility. Records should also
be provided to the SSP© Coordinator, studbook keeper, and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service upon request or whenever the facility feels there is something significant to
report such as births and mortalities. Reports on reproductive status, mortalities, and
transfers should be made monthly to the International Species Information System (ISIS)
Record Keeper (see Figures 6-B). Please refer to Figure 6-C for the proper guidelines for
Mexican wolf record keeping within the ISIS system. Additionally, each U.S. facility is
required by their USFWS loan agreement to provide an annual report on all activities
concerning their Mexican gray wolves to the SSP© Coordinator (see Figures 6-D and 6-
E). In turn, the SSP© Coordinator prepares an annual report for AZA on the activities of
the SSP©.
Group.
Will Waddell. 1998. Red Wolf Husbandry Guidelines for Captive Management. Red
52
Figure 6-A Sample of an individual daily log.

P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025
(636) 938-6490
Scientific name: Canis lupus baileyi
Common name: Mexican gray wolf
WCSRC accession #: 105
Studbook #: 105
Birth date: 07 May 1992
Sex: Male
Sire/Dam: Francisco #60/Sheila #37
House name: “Alano”
Trovan identification 00-004F-7A11
___________________________________________________________
Vaccination/Capture Record:
10/17/00 (Detroit Zoo) Netted and manually restrained for

preshipment exam. Collected blood; vaccinated
using Vanguard, DA2PL, modified-live parvo,
killed rabies. Heartworm Negative.
10/10/01 ANNUAL EXAM
___________________________________________________________
Medical Alerts:
SB#105 is monorchid as of birth on 07 May 1992.
___________________________________________________________
Daily Log:
10/19/00 Received SB#105 from Belle Island on Northwest

Airline Flight #1203. Animal in good physical
condition upon arrival. Put in feeding area of
enclosure E until several fecals come back clean.
Will be introduced to SB#204 for the 2001
breeding season.
10/27/00 Diarrhea seen in holding area last few days.
Fecal taken in to Dr. Armon’s for check.
10/29/00 Alano still has diarrhea.
10/30/00 Diarrhea still not cleared up and appetite has
decreased.
53
Figure 6-B Sample ISIS report.
54
Figure 6-C
Mexican Wolf Record Keeping Guidelines

In order to ensure that your ISIS records for Mexican wolves are recorded accurately,
please refer to the following clarifications for verification of your historical records and
guidance for future transactions.
Appropriate Entry of Studbook Number

The studbook numbers for Mexican wolves should be recorded under the Global
Studbook identifier field.
Mnemonics, Acquisitions and Deacquisitions
§ All Mexican wolves residing in the United States should be recorded as Loan-In
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the appropriate ISIS mnemonic
USFWS. All records that currently reflect other ISIS or random mnemonics such
as USDI, USDI-LAW, FOREIGN, etc. should be corrected to USFWS.
§ All Mexican wolves residing in Mexico should be recorded as Loan-In from the
“Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales” with the appropriate ISIS
mnemonic SEMARNAT.
§ Dispositions should be recorded as loan transfers to the next facility with their
appropriate ISIS mnemonic and vendor/recipient ID.
§ The receiving institution, if located in the United States, should record the
acquisition as a Loan-In from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), while
the receiving institution in Mexico will record the acquisition as a Loan-In from
the “Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales” (SEMARNAT).
SEMARNAT is the revised ISIS mnemonic for all Mexican wolves residing in Mexico.
The mnemonic designates the following government entity:
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Direccion General de Vida Silvestre
Av. Revolución #1425 nivel 1
Col. Tlacopac
Mexico, DF 01040
MEXICO
This mnemonic will be included in the June 30th, 2003 DVD but you can enter the above-
referenced information in your ISIS institution list prior to that date or you can use the
previous mnemonic SEMARNAP. Since the mnemonic SEMARNAP has been set up as
a synonym to the new mnemonic, SEMARNAT, your historical records will
automatically be changed to the revised mnemonic once they are submitted to ISIS.
55
Figure 6-C cont.
Transactions for Mexican wolves changing ownership from SEMARNAT to USFWS

(traveling from Mexico to the United States) should be recorded as Loan-In directly from
USFWS.
Transactions for Mexican wolves changing ownership from USFWS to SEMARNAT

(traveling from the United States to Mexico) should be recorded as Loan-In directly from
SEMARNAT.
Vendor/Recipient ID
There are currently two conventions for data entry of the vendor/recipient ID for a non-
ISIS reporting facility in the Standards for Data Entry and Maintenance of North
American Zoo and Aquarium Animal Records Databases, Page 86. Since the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service uses the international studbook number for Mexican wolves as their
internal accession number, the Mexican Wolf SSP© would like you to record the
international studbook number (in its true form) in the vendor/recipient field as the
USFWS unique ID.
Record keepers are encouraged to address any discrepancies or inconsistencies in their

historic ARKS4 records. To facilitate this process, you can print a global taxon report for
Mexican wolves from the ISIS website at www.isis.org in addition to your institutional
taxon report.
These guidelines are to be incorporated into the Mexican Wolf Husbandry Manual.
File: MW Record Keeping Guidelines(1).doc 13 June 2003
56
Figure 6-D Sample Mexican wolf medical report.
2000
MEXICAN WOLF MEDICAL REPORT
Name of Reporting Institution: Return by 17 July to:
Wild Canid Surv. & Res. Cntr. Peter Siminski, Mexican Wolf SSP©
Coord.
PO Box 760, Eureka, MO 63025 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
2021 N. Kinney Road
Tucson, AZ 85743
Completed by: Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, PhD FAX: 520/883-2500
email: psiminski@desertmuseum.org
COMPLETING THIS REPORT WILL SATISFY THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT OF

YOUR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LOAN AGREEMENT.
Complete this sheet for each wolf in your facility that has had a significant
medical or behavioral problem or has died during the period 1 July 1999 through
30 June 2000.
Studbook number of the wolf: 058
Describe this individual’s medical or behavioral problem; attach MedArks reports

only if they are brief and informative:
Birthdate: 22 Apr 1987
Wolf shows evidence of having experienced a vestibular disorder (28 Sept 99) and has
continued to show deficiencies on her left side. Recent evidence of low thyroid (17 June
00) and is receiving thyroxin
28 Sept 1999: Found in A.M. on opposite side of enclosure than normal; dazed,
standing with rear legs splayed, circling and collapsing toward left side – symptomatic of
stroke. Veterinarian suspected vestibular disorder/syndrome and administered steroids
and fluids IV. In P.M. animal was a bit more stable in gait and alert; however, she
remained disoriented with head tilt to left.
7 June 2000: Blood panel indicates early signs of thyroid condition.
Attach any necropsy reports not already submitted.
Thank You.
File: MW medical report 1.wpd
57
Figure 6-E Sample Mexican wolf reproduction report.
2000
MEXICAN WOLF REPRODUCTION REPORT
Name of Reporting Institution: Return by 17 July to:
Wild Canid Surv. & Res. Cntr. Peter Siminski, Mexican Wolf SSP©
Coord.
PO Box 760, Eureka, MO 63025 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
2021 N. Kinney Road
Tucson, AZ 85743
Completed by: Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, PhD FAX: 520/883-2500
email:psiminski@desertmuseum.org
COMPLETING THIS REPORT WILL SATISFY THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT OF

YOUR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LOAN AGREEMENT.
Complete this sheet for each wolf pair together during the 2000 breeding season.
The pair: 284 X 547

(Male) (Female)
Date on which they were first housed together: 13 October 1999
Describe the breeding performance of this pair, e.g. compatibility, courtship,

evidence of reproductive cycling, evidence of estrous, mating behavior, ties, denning,
false pregnancies, births or signs of births, pup-rearing competency:
Male had been in several breeding situations in Mexico and the United States without
producing offspring – including two seasons with a receptive female at Wild Canid. It was
suggested that either he was dominated by his previous females or that he had reproductive
problems. 284 was placed with 547 (an inexperienced and young female) on 13 October 1999;
the introduction was unremarkable. Part of the Mexican Wolf Reproductive Study, behavioral
data was collected on the pair throughout the reproductive season. They appeared to be a highly
compatible and well-bonded pair. 547 showed typical estrous bleeding and repeated copulatory
ties between the pair were observed for three days from 24-26 February 2000 (durations: 17min,
15min, 20min, 15 min). the female showed some evidence of weight gain and den digging but a
relaxin assay performed mid-term (29 March) was negative (if reliable for Mexican gray wolves
this blood test would indicate that 547 was not impregnated by 284). The female did not “go to
den” and no evidence of pups was found at the time that would have been around term.
On 16 February and 1 March (before and after copulatory tie period was observed), 284
was captured and electro-ejaculated to evaluate his semen quality. Samples from both dates
showed a large number of immature semen and many defects (proximal or distal droplets were
prevalent). This male would be considered infertile; semen was very poor quality (75.5% motility,
92.5% living, but only 10.0% normal). Although 99 pellets are stores in the semen bank, most of
the sperm in his samples were immature and methods do not currently exist to mature it outside
of the living animal. Saric died from renal failure on 6 June 2000.
Failure to produce offspring attributable to reproductive problems of 284.
Describe the survival of each pup produced, e.g. stillborn, normal health, health or
physical problems, death and cause with attached necropsy report. Account for every
pup dead or alive. Refer to each pup by its studbook number.
Not applicable.
Thank You.
File: MW medical report 1.wpd
58
CHAPTER 7:
CAPTURE AND RESTRAINT
It is difficult to characterize or predict an individual wolf's response to a capture situation

except that they are probably frightened and most likely stressed by the experience. A
wolf may respond by lying quietly without much struggle or act defensively by
"snapping" at anything close to its mouth. In order to achieve a successful and timely
capture, keepers familiar with the habits of the wolves are vitally important to this
operation. Appropriate animal keepers, curatorial, and veterinary staff should coordinate,
in advance, all captures in a well planned manner.
Capture in a Confined Area:
One of the quickest and least stressful ways of capturing a Mexican gray wolf is to allow
it to run into its den or other confined areas such as a holding or shift area. Once in this
confined space, the wolf can be easily captured with a catch-pole, net, v-stick, or forced
into a smaller handling crate. This method of capture underscores the importance of
coordination with keepers familiar with the wolves' specific habits. Once the wolf has
been observed running into the den, the entrance of the den should be blocked with a net
or door incorporated into the den to prevent the animal from running out. At this point
personnel familiar with the habits of the animal and proficient in the use of a catch-pole
or v-stick can access the wolf from a rear den door, or from the top of a den equipped
with a hinged or removable roof. The noose of the catch-pole can be slipped over the
wolf's head and the animal secured by hand or using a net or v-stick. Most procedures
(inoculation, blood draws, etc.) can normally be accomplished without removing the wolf
from the den. Unless the animal is to be crated, it can be handled and then immediately
released. If a large pack is being handled you want to leave the denned animals confined
until all animals are processed in order to alleviate confused identifications and additional
stress to the animal.
Capture in an Open Area:
Wolves that can not be captured in a confined area may require a larger coordinated
effort with multiple keepers and nets. Personnel should form a line and move in a unified
and deliberate fashion to corner or work the animal into a desirable location for capture.
If the animal can not be worked into a corner of the pen for capture, the animal must be
caught as it runs the perimeter of the pen. Do not chase the animal; position yourself so
you can stick your net in front of the animal as it runs by you. Once the wolf is in the net,
position yourself to follow through with the animal’s movement and place the net flat
against the ground as soon as possible. To avoid further stress and possible injury from
excessive struggling, the animal should be quickly pinned to the ground or against the
fence by another member of the catch team using a tool such as a v-stick (CB). Unless the
animal is to be crated it can be handled at the point or location of capture and then
59
immediately released. When capturing a large pack it is recommended that each animal
caught in this manner be confined to a den area or crate until all the members of the pack
have been processed.
Equipment:
Catch-pole - The type of catch-pole recommended is a 5 ft (180 cm) pole

available from the Ketch-All Company. The ends of these particular snares have swivels
which help to prevent the noose from twisting down around the wolf's neck. It is also
recommended to add additional padding around the end of the catch-pole to prevent tooth
breakage in case the wolf bites on the pole.
Prior to use, the plastic coating on the cable should be examined for wear or
damage as this can cause the cable to stick inside the pole and fail to release properly.
Replacement cable kits are available. It is advisable to have cable cutters available
during a capture (high performance ratchet cable cutters are available at
www.greenlee.com, PH: 800-435-0786 or International +1-815-397-7070).
Nets - A hoop net consisting of a 4-5 ft (120-150 cm) handle, a hoop opening of
36 in x 40 in (90-100 cm), and a 1-1 ½ in (2.5-3.75 cm) mesh nylon net with a depth of 4
ft (120 cm) is recommended. The mesh size of the net must be small enough to prevent
feet and legs or noses from pushing through the net causing injuries.
The Wild Canid Center uses nets from Fuhrman Diversified, Inc. 2912 Bayport
Blvd. Seabrook TX 77586-1501; PH: (281) 474-1388; www.fdiequipment.com [Heavy
duty net system: rod diameter 5/8”, circumference 84” Ogive; handle DSA1 Ti5A 48”
double grip; net 84” circumference, 38” deep, brown, D mesh].
V-stick – A metal pole approximately 3 ½ ft (106 cm) tall, consisting of a cross

bar at the top and a y-shaped fork at the bottom may also be used. The v-stick is utilized
by placing it across the back of the neck of the wolf just in front of the shoulders applying
a downward pressure, being sure to make contact with the ground on either side of the
neck. This is typically done after the wolf has been secured by the catch-pole.
Crating:
Crating from a den or confined area - If the wolf is to be removed for transport, a crate
should already be positioned, and ready outside the den as the animal is lifted or pulled
from the den. The person holding the catch-pole is the person in control who coordinates
the operation. 1. One method is to place the crate door at the den or shift door and attempt
to run the wolf directly into the crate. 2. A second method would be to position the crate
by standing it on end. The wolf is then lifted in a coordinated manner for placement into
the crate. When the animal’s hind quarters are above the crate, that end is released as the
person controlling the catch-pole allows the weight of the wolf to drop into the crate.
The noose should then be released and removed from the wolf's head and the crate
lowered to its proper position. At no time should the wolf actually be lifted by the catch-
pole, as injuries such as a broken hyoid bone can occur.
60
Crating from a net or an open area - 1. Position the crate along a fence line with the
opening of the net abutted to the opening of the crate and force the wolf directly from the
net into the crate. 2. Using a catch-pole pick the wolf up or "walk" the wolf into the
crate. 3. If the wolf is too tangled in the net, it may be required to grab the wolf firmly by
the scruff of the neck by hand to secure it while someone works to untangle the wolf and
then transfer the wolf into the crate. Essentially, the hands act as a catch-pole; however,
this may be the least desirable method for obvious reasons. It also may be possible to
catch-pole the wolf from underneath the netting. 4. In some cases the transfer crate can
be set in a corner of the pen and positioned in such a way that when the animal is forced
to that corner it will seek refuge in the crate and can be captured without a great amount
of stress. However, this may not be the best method if hands-on are needed prior to
crating.
Handling:
During any capture or restraint of a Mexican gray wolf, the animal should be firmly but
humanely handled. During handling, a Mexican gray wolf will undergo such procedures
as inoculations, blood drawings, or a physical examination. Because sedation is not
recommended or necessary for these types of procedures the animal has complete
knowledge of the experience. It is essential that the Mexican wolf find the experience
distasteful each time that it is touched by humans. Keepers may understandably feel a
personal need to stroke, pet, or scratch a wolf behind the ears, etc., when the animal is
restrained. A clear understanding of the Mexican gray wolf recovery objectives, and the
potential problems associated with such actions should discourage such activity (e.g. a
non-socialized animal will be further stressed by being stroked or petted).
Additionally, keepers should be carefully selected for their knowledge and temperament
and must be aware of the overall purpose of managing these animals for release. One of
the most harmful characteristic a keeper can show is fear of the animals. Wolves are
sensitive to human emotion. Keepers must convey to the animals that, although there is
respect for them, the keeper is in charge. If the wolves sense fear in their handlers, they
may begin "testing" to determine how much control they have over daily situations and
may eventually become more aggressive and unmanageable during restraint procedures.
Stress:
Stress and heat are the two main concerns when capturing Mexican wolves; therefore a
capture should be coordinated with outdoor temperature in mind. Canids are extremely
susceptible to overheating when stressed at temperatures above 80oF (26.6oC). The first
indication of heat stress is generally excessive panting and drooling or a white frothy
foam corporal around the mouth, reddened eyes, pale gums due to poor capulatory refill
times (2 seconds or more), and in extreme cases vomiting. Work with the animal should
cease until their respiratory and heart rates have returned to normal. If the animal has
become comatose or there is a fear that it soon will, aid in reducing its body temperature
by cooling it immediately with water from a hose or submerging the animal in cool water.
Ice packs may be placed on the extremities or between the rear legs in the groin region
61
and rubbing alcohol may be poured on the pads and ears. IV fluid therapy may also be
utilized to lower body temperature, which should be monitored throughout treatment.
The normal body temperature range is between 99° and 104° F (37.2°C and 40°C). If the
animal has already been captured, it should be placed in a well-ventilated holding crate in
a shaded area or an air-conditioned building. The animal may be calmed by loosely
covering the holding crate with a light shade screen which restricts exposure to sights and
sounds without restricting ventilation. If covered, the animal should be periodically
monitored. If the symptoms of overheating are observed and the animal has not been
captured, attempts at capture should cease immediately. The veterinarian should
determine if further attempts at capture can resume or should be postponed until another
time.
Capture Myopathy (CM):
Although few deaths from capture myopathy have occurred in the Mexican wolf
program, it has been encountered and needs to be treated by your veterinarian as a
medical emergency. CM is a muscle disease associated with the stress of capture,
restraint, and transportation. It is a syndrome that occurs in wild (free-ranging or captive)
mammals and birds. It is thought that in nature capture myopathy is an inherent
mechanism that hastens the death of an animal following capture by a predator. Four
clinical syndromes of CM have been observed in animals, capture shock, ataxic
myoglobinuric, ruptured muscle, and delayed-peracute. Capture shock may be observed
in recently trapped or immobilized animals. Animals with this syndrome usually die
within 1 to 6 hours post-capture. Various clinical signs associated with a capture shock
death may include but are not limited to shallow rapid breathing, elevated body
temperature, weak thready pulse, painful stiff movement of the hind legs, or death.
Prevention is the most effective means of managing CM. Under field conditions, the
treatment of CM is usually unsuccessful. Numerous procedures may be carried out to
reduce the potential for CM. However, CM may still occur, even with the most well-
planned capture strategies. For treatment and control procedures, as well as, additional
clinical and post-mortem signs (see Figure 7-A).
Bite Incident Procedure:
Mexican gray wolves are federally owned animals. Recent incidents of bites to staff and
visitors have resulted in some confusion regarding jurisdiction when rabies control issues
are implemented. Most authorities will agree to quarantine wolves for observation
periods. However, some have requested or demanded euthanasia and necropsy
examination of the wolf’s brain. It is important to contact the MWSSP Coordinator and
USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator as soon as possible after the incident
occurs as they can assist in clarifying jurisdiction and authority issues. It is important that
each facility have a good relationship with their County Health Department and share
accurate information with them. The MWSSP Coordinator and USFWS Mexican Wolf
Recovery Coordinator are available for consultation. The final decision resides with the
62
County Health Department since in all cases, public health will take precedence over
individual wolf welfare.
It is recommended that all staff working with wolves receive the rabies vaccination with
titres monitored every two years.
Escape Procedures:
Over the years there have been a number of reports of Mexican gray wolves that have
escaped from their enclosures or facility. While each individual animal will react to such
a situation differently, having in place a set of standardized procedures to follow will aid
in a quick and safe recovery of an escaped wolf. The following procedural steps were
adapted from the Red Wolf SSP© husbandry manual. They should be incorporated into
your facility’s own escape procedures.
1. If a wolf escapes a facility:

v Immediately call USFWS MW Recovery Coordinator and MWSSP
Coordinator, and again after the wolf returns to the facility or is
recaptured. They may give special instructions or may be able to
provide special assistance.
USFWS Maggie Dwire 505.761.4783 maggie_dwire@fws.gov
MWSSP Coordinator Peter Siminski 760.346.5694 ext 2103
psiminski@livingdesert.org
v Every effort should be made to speak directly to the MWSSP
Coordinator, regardless of the time of day, weekends, holidays, etc. If
calls are made during normal business hours and you are given the
option of leaving a message or staying on the line to speak to an
operator; do both. Do not assume that the message will be retrieved
immediately, so it is important to speak to the zoo operator. The
Coordinator should be called, even if the animal has already been
captured, to review details of the escape, what did (or did not) work,
etc. Such communications will be valuable to the MWSSP should
other escapes occur.
v The facility should have all necessary equipment available, except for
leg-hold traps. Equipment should include 3-4 functional wolf nets,
catch poles, transfer crates, cap-chur or telinject equipment (gun, jab
stick, drugs, etc.), current county road maps, hand-held radios and
appropriate personnel available to handle any situation at any hour.
v If some of this equipment is not available, the MWSSP Coordinator
and FWS should be so advised, otherwise it will be assumed that the
facility has sufficient equipment.
v If a wolf leaves the facility property, it will likely travel where cover is
available, e.g., along wooded streams, old roadways, path margins, etc.
However, wolves will travel on roads with traffic.
v Additionally, determining the availability of food in the form of road
kills through appropriate agencies, e.g., State Wildlife or
Transportation Department, etc., may prove helpful.
63
2. If the wolf escapes its pen but not the facility:
v Call the MWSSP Coordinator after the wolf has been recaptured. The
MWSSP Coordinator will contact USFWS.
v When out of a pen, specific patterns that an escaped wolf will
demonstrate may be extremely variable. This could be dependent on
the property characteristics of the facility, how soon the escape is
detected, what and when food is set out, etc. If the facility property
contains wooded or other areas that may provide suitable shelter that is
not heavily used by people, the animal may not go far immediately.
v To increase the chances of keeping an escaped wolf (when visual
contact has been lost) within the facility’s perimeter fence and catching
the animal, food should be provided at strategic locations, e.g., outside
the pen where the animal escaped and at undisturbed places on the
facility property, especially near natural runways such as old roads,
paths, etc., as soon as possible. The food and the area around the food
should be checked morning and evening for evidence of the presence
of animals, including tracks.
3. Contacting the media will be at the discretion of the institution, unless
acted upon otherwise by the USFWS.
v There is no reason to involve the media if it is determined that the
animal is still on the facility’s property or if the animal is captured
within 24 hours.
v If it is determined that the animal has left the property and has not been
captured within 24 hours, the public is owed the truth, i.e., an animal
has escaped, we are attempting to capture it, and here are instructions
to the public regarding their observations of the animal, (including a
phone number to call and instructions for them not to attempt capturing
the animal).
v However, in all media contacts, efforts should be made to allay the
public’s fear to the degree possible. For example, inform them that the
animal is shy and afraid of humans and that it is therefore not likely to
be a danger. However, if cornered, it might respond aggressively to
humans, and it might injure or kill pets for food or in defense.
4. A follow-up report from the MWSSP representative should be sent to the
MWSSP Coordinator and the USFWS MW Recovery Coordinator.
v This report should address important points such as how the escape
occurred, what corrective measures will be taken, when the escape was
detected, was food provided and when the Coordinator was contacted,
news media interactions and response (attach newspaper articles), was
the animal recaptured, when was it recaptured and how, was FWS
called in and when, etc.
v The purpose of this report is not to direct blame but to be used to
evaluate these procedures and to minimize the likelihood of subsequent
escapes and to maximize response and efficiency in future escapes.
64
Group.
65
From http://zcog.org Figure 7-A
CAPTURE MYOPATHY
Capture myopathy is a muscle disease associated with the stress of capture, restraint, and
transportation. The disease is characterized by degeneration and necrosis of skeletal and cardiac
muscle. Other names for this disease include: exertional Rhabdomyolysis, muscle dystrophy,
overstraining disease, capture stress disease, white muscle disease, and idiopathic muscle
necrosis.
Numerous species of birds and mammals are susceptible to capture myopathy. It has
never been documented in reptiles or lower vertebrates. It seems to be more prevalent in prey
species or submissive members of non-prey species which can become easily excited, especially
when exposed to unusual stress such as restraint or chasing.
The disease develops within hours and up to 14 days after capture or transport. It may be
seen in both animals that exert themselves maximally and those that are relatively quiet although
it generally occurs after severe exertion and is often seen following a difficult, prolonged capture.
It can occur with either physical or chemical restraint.
Predisposing factors include fear, anxiety, overexertion, repeated handling, failure to

allow an exhausted animal to rest before transportation, and constant muscle tensions such as may
occur in protracted alarm reactions. A variety of stressors may function in concert or individually
to precipitate development of the classical syndrome.
Four different syndromes related to capture myopathy have been described. These four
symptoms are the peracute death syndrome, the acute death syndrome, the ataxic myoglobinuric
syndrome, and the ruptured muscle syndrome.
The peracute death syndrome is seen in animals shortly after capture. While the animal is
undisturbed, it appears normal, but if excited or stressed again, it may suddenly fall and die. A
peracute muscle tissue breakdown, which causes a release of cellular contents, (particularly, lactic
acid and potassium) is thought to be the underlying mechanism. The potassium causes the heart
to be hypersensitive to substances released by the adrenal glands during stress. The heart
develops a severe abnormal rhythm and death rapidly follows.
Acute death syndrome occurs 3-4 hours following capture and involves over-heating,
shock, adrenal gland exhaustion, and mild, acute muscle breakdown. Alternations in blood pH to
create an acidotic state appear to be a critical factor in the development of acute capture
myopathy. Clinical signs that may be observed prior to death include depression, shallow rapid
breathing, increased heart rate, cessation of urination, and rapid debilitation.
Ataxic myoglobinuric syndrome occurs hours to days post-capture. The animal becomes
progressively more wobbly until it is unable to stand. The urine may appear reddish-brown in
color due to the muscle break-down products. Renal failure follows.
In the ruptured muscle syndrome, animals are usually normal and appear healthy when
captured, but clinical signs may become noticeable twenty-four to forty-eight hours later and may
persist for three to four weeks. Clinical signs include a marked-drop in the hindquarters and
hyperflexion of the hocks due to bilateral rupture of the gastrocnemius muscles.
66
Figure 7-A cont.
The cause of all these syndromes is very similar but complex, involving fear, the
sympathetic nervous system and damage to skeletal and cardiac musculature. The biochemistry
of stress and fear create an atmosphere of increased metabolic activity and requirements. The
muscles use up all available oxygen and resort to anaerobic glycolysis, a normal physiological
process in muscle tissue. A by-product of glycolysis is lactic acid. Lactic acid is usually further
metabolized in the liver to glycogen, but with sudden strenuous exercise, the massive increase of
lactic acid creates a localized acidosis which progresses to a systemic acidosis.
The blood supply is pooled in the muscles and rapidly becomes deoxygenated.
Normally, with exercise, there is a “muscle pump,” whereby contractions squeeze blood out of
the muscle and relaxation again allows pooling. When an animal is captured, there is now an
isotonic state of contraction creating poor tissue perfusion and decreased heat dissipation and
hypoxia. All of these problems are magnified when the animal is tranquilized and the muscle
masses start to relax. A pooling of blood results in the venous system and a sudden drop in blood
pressure occurs. Shock can become a complication as in the acute death syndrome. In most
cases of capture myopathy, this hypoxia and local acidosis remains localized, especially in well-
perfused muscle, and focal muscle necrosis results.
Capture myopathy is an unfortunate complication of immobilization, restraint, or

transport. Prevention is very important by minimizing excitement that can result in overexertion.
All immobilizations must be planned in advance to offset possible difficulty in post-anaesthetic
recovery.
No reliable therapeutics have been documented to treat capture myopathy. Treatment for
capture myopathy is supportive and includes intravenous fluids, sodium bicarbonate to combat
acidosis, corticosteroids, vitamin E and selenium supplements, calcium channel blockers, and
antibiotics. Many of the pathologic changes are irreversible and, despite drastic supportive
measures, animals suffering from capture myopathy often die, so prevention is essential.
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION OF CAPTURE MYOPATHY AT AUDUBON

ZOO
The following procedures are observed during all planned capture events:
1. Immobilizations are scheduled during early morning hours when temperature and humidity
are lowest.
2. Each event is discussed by the veterinary and curatorial staff and a plan of action determined.
3. All necessary equipment is assembled and ready. Hospital staff are required to refer to a
capture equipment check list.
4. All persons participating in the capture event will be trained in the use of equipment such as
nets, snares, gloves, etc. Use of projective capture equipment is restricted to the hospital and
curatorial staff.
5. When using chemical restraint, an adequate dose of the immobilizing agent is administered
by the most efficient and least stressful method.
6. Blindfolds are used to decrease visual stimulation.
7. All personnel involved are to proceed quietly. Unnecessary conversation and noise are
avoided.
67
Figure 7-A cont.
8. All hospital, curatorial, and keeper staff are familiar with the human emergency protocol in
the event of a narcotic accident. It is required that hospital staff, mammal curator, and
assistant curator and hoofstock keepers be trained in CPR and that they keep their
certification current by attending an annual review course.
9. [N/A to canids]
10. Temperature, pulse, and respiration rates will be checked during all restraint procedures.
11. Animals with temperatures greater than or equal to 106° F will be cooled down with water
and receive IV fluid therapy if the condition is severe.
12. Animals showing increased heart rates (>250) or species seeming prone to capture
myopathy may prophylactically be given one liter LRS containing 1,000 meq. sodium
bicarbonate.
68
CHAPTER 8:
HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE
Medical management of Mexican gray wolves should be limited as much as possible to

preventative measures such as vaccination and parasite control and alleviating the
suffering of ill or injured animals. In order to produce animals able to survive and
reproduce in the wild, extraordinary measures like surgical repair of congenital defects or
hand-rearing of pups are to be avoided. For SSP© participants, if possible USFWS
should be notified prior to (not after the fact of) any major medical procedure. Complete
medical records should be maintained on all Mexican gray wolves.
It is not possible to document all unforeseen management events, especially regarding

medical/veterinary care. The following are guidelines based on the experience of the
MWSSP, USFWS, and associated personnel. Each facility's veterinarian should inspect
the animals visually on a routine basis and provide physical examinations for each animal
at least annually.
Quarantine:
Whenever possible, Mexican gray wolves should be quarantined prior to introduction to

the resident population. A thirty day quarantine period is recommended unless otherwise
directed by the veterinarian. Ideally the wolf is held in a separate quarantine area away
from the resident population. Appropriate disinfectants for equipment and foot baths
should be used as directed by the veterinarian to reduce the spread of infectious agents.
Quarantine is an appropriate time to perform a complete physical exam, evaluate for
endo- and ectoparasites as well as hematological and serological evaluations. Serological
evaluations should include serum chemistries and antibody titers against heartworm.
Parasite and Disease Control:
The prevalence of a particular disease or parasite common to Mexican gray wolves may
vary by the geographic location and climate of the veterinarian's home facility. In
general:
a) Adults: Previous medical records including past immunizations should be reviewed

thoroughly upon an animal’s arrival to a new facility. Vaccinations are generally given
in the fall and prior to a transfer to a new facility.
1. Parasite Control - good sanitation including daily removal of feces from wolf
enclosures greatly reduces the incidence of intestinal parasites in wolves. Fecal flotation,
direct smears, and an Eliza test of intestinal parasites should be performed at least every
three months or if an infestation is suspected and as a follow up to deworming procedures
69
following a positive fecal. Thorough surveillance is suggested just prior to breeding
season to eliminate infestations in pregnant or lactating females.
2. Vaccinations - Mexican gray wolves should be vaccinated annually with canine

distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parainfluenza, and parvovirus (DHLPP) vaccine and a
killed rabies vaccine. Modified live rabies vaccine should not be used on Mexican gray
wolves. In some areas, vaccination against coronavirus or lyme disease may also be
warranted at the discretion of the facility.
b) Pups: Mexican gray pups may be visually examined by the staff within the first
two weeks that they are discovered. Check the number of pups, sexes and overall
appearance. Unless there is a disease problem, it is recommended that handling be
avoided until vaccinations begin at six weeks of age.
1. Parasite Control - Intestinal parasites are very common in wolf pups in some
areas. Generally for canids, the suggested treatment is with oral strongid at 1cc/10
pounds (4.5kg) every two weeks beginning at 14 days of age through ten weeks of age.
Deworming of Mexican gray wolf pups should be in conjunction with scheduled
vaccinations to eliminate additional handling; these begin at 6-8 weeks of age. We
normally do not start deworming earlier unless we have a reason to have hands on or
think that there is a problem with the pups and deworming would be in their best interest.
2. Vaccinations - Mexican gray wolf pups should be vaccinated starting at 6-8

weeks of age, then every 2-4 weeks until the age of 16 weeks for canine distemper,
hepatitis, leptospirosis, parainfluenza, and parvovirus (DHLPP) (see Figure 8-A). At 16
weeks of age, pups should also be vaccinated with killed rabies vaccine. Modified live
rabies vaccine should not be used on Mexican gray wolves. At 20 weeks of age, pups
may be given boosters; the institutional veterinarian will determine whether this step is
needed based upon whether there have been recent regional outbreaks of a specific
disease. In 1999, outbreaks of parvovirus were seen in the Yellowstone Northern Rocky
Mountain gray wolf reintroduction and Arizona's Mexican gray wolves; 6-10% of
domestic dogs have been shown to need a parvo vaccine booster for effective protection
against parvovirus. In some areas, vaccination against coronavirus or lyme disease may
be warranted at the discretion of the facility.
Endo- and Ectoparasites (see Figure 8-B for dosages):
Roundworms (Toxocara or Toxascaris spp.), hookworms (Ancylostoma spp.), and

whipworms (Trichuris spp.) are fairly common in Mexican gray wolves. They can be
treated with any of several antiparasitic agents commonly used in domestic dogs such as
Ivermectin, Strongid T (pyrantel pamoate), or Panacur (fenbendazole) given orally at
standard canine doses. In areas where intestinal parasite infestations are especially
common, prophylactic deworming can be done at the discretion of the facility's
veterinarian.
70
Tapeworms (Taenia spp.) have been seen in Mexican gray wolves and have been
successfully treated with oral or injectable Droncit (praziquantel).
The most commonly reported protozoan parasites in Mexican gray wolves are Giardia
and Coccidia. Giardia may be treated with Metronidazole, Fenbendazole, or
Albendazole. Coccidia may be treated with Corid (amprolium) or Albon
(sulfadimethoxine) or other sulfa drugs (all at standard canine doses).
Mexican gray wolves should be tested annually for heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis).
Heartworm has been successfully treated in a Mexican gray wolf using Immiticide.
Wolves that have tested negative should be treated with heartworm prophylaxis as
commonly used for domestic dogs. Monthly treatment with Ivermectin or Micbemycin
should be used during mosquito season. Ivermectin and Micbemycin are also effective
against other internal parasites.
External parasites such as fleas and ticks are also seen in Mexican gray wolves.
Infestations can frequently be managed by dusting or spraying areas used by wolves for
resting with products containing carbaryl or pyrethrins. Severe infestations can be treated
by dusting or spraying wolves with the same products. Treating wolf enclosures with a
long-acting environmental spray like Duratrol (3M) is also recommended. Keeping
enclosures mowed and well trimmed is also an effective means of controlling
ectoparasites without chemicals. A 5% Sevin dust (carbaryl insecticide) is safe to use on
canids, but a 10% dust is not. It should be lightly dusted into leaves, sleeping areas, etc.
Fly bites, especially to ear tips, is a common problem in Mexican gray wolves. In many
parts of the country the problem fly appears to be the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans)
which likes wet shaded areas in which to breed; however, the problem fly may vary with
the location of the Mexican gray wolf facility.
Use of fly traps and fly strips have had limited success since they catch primarily non-
biting flies; however, Sterling IPC traps specifically target stable flies and have been very
effective at the Red Wolf Facility in Washington State. Smithsonian National Zoo has
also had success attracting stable flies to a self-designed large white plywood box topped
by a four-sided pyramid (see Figure 5-G) with all surfaces covered with clear, sticky fly
paper (“Olson” or similar brand); the stable flies appear to be attracted to bright white.
Spraying enclosures and environs with insecticide sprays such as Dursban or

Permethrins, combined with daily removal of feces, and prompt removal of uneaten meat
will help control fly populations. Fly repellent gels such as Swat or Pet Forte can be
applied to ears during normal physical examinations. Flea and tick control products such
as “Advantix”, “Defend ExSpot” and “Proticall” have had marked success preventing fly
bites to ears at several facilities particularly if application is started prior to the fly bite
season and when applications are made repeatedly (to the ears and body at
approximately 3-5 week intervals as needed) for the duration of the season. As with any
procedure, the need to repeatedly restrain in order to apply the product must be weighed
against medical concerns, stress, and other risk factors. [Example: “Proticall” available
71
from Schering-Plough Animal Health (not the over-the-counter version) is 65%
permethrin. Application is ½ tube to back of each ear and the rest of the dose applied to
body.] Insecticide misting systems have also had some success at certain facilities.
Proper disinfection, cleanliness, and chemical treatment in all areas of the facility will
also have beneficial effects (See also Figures 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G, 5-H.).
Common Medical Problems:
Very few medical problems have been reported in Mexican gray wolves. Careful
observation of wolves and thorough records of all medical conditions, procedures and
treatments will help to improve Mexican wolf medicine and husbandry and may also be
an important tool in assessing any problems arising from the small genetic base of the
population. The following are medical anomalies that have been documented in the
captive population.
a) Stomach Torsion - Although few deaths from stomach torsion have occurred in the
Mexican gray wolf program, it has been encountered and needs to be treated by
your veterinarian as a medical emergency. Although some concern has been
expressed that feeding a dry dog food may contribute to causing torsion, no studies
have established a cause and effect relationship. In fact, many facilities have fed
dry food to wolves for years without incidence. Some believe that stomach torsion
is related to pacing or strenuous exercise on a full stomach, so care should be
taken not to run or excite wolves for at least two hours after they have eaten.
b) Intermittent diarrhea - Intermittent diarrhea has been reported by several facilities

holding Mexican gray wolves. Causes are suspected to be due to stress, dietary
factors, or parasitism.
c) Ulcerative Pododermatitis - Foot pad ulceration can be a problem with captive

wild canids. Foot sores are generally related to excessive time spent on rough
concrete and can be prevented with housing modifications. Infected foot sores are
usually associated with Staphylococcus spp. overgrowth and septicemia and can
be treated with topical and/or systemic antibiotics.
d) Cryptorchidism - Unilateral and bilateral cryptorchidism has been reported in

several Mexican gray wolves. Cryptorchid wolves appear to be non-reproductive;
there is some debate regarding the reproductive viability of monorchid males.
Semen collection has generally indicated that monorchid males are reproductively
capable.
e) Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) – A few cases have been seen in Mexican gray
wolves. Retinal degeneration leads to blindness. Early symptoms include night
blindness and unusually dilated pupils. In domestic dogs this disease is genetically
linked. Cataract development can occur secondary to PRA. If you suspect PRA in
one of your wolves please notify the SSP©.
72
f) Other conditions or anomalies that have been reported are: congenital heart
murmurs from descendants of wolves #12 and #23, alopecia, positive ehrlichia
titer, meritis and mastitis.
Physical Examinations:
A physical exam should be done annually when wolves are restrained for vaccination
(see Figure 8-C for an example of a data form). This should include visual inspection of
overall condition, ears, eyes, and teeth, palpation (including testes, prostate, and
mammary gland), body weight, and auscultation of heart and lungs. Identification such
as Trovan chips or tattoos should be checked for readability. Blood should be drawn for
heartworm test, CBC and chemistry panel, and potential genetic tests. These same tests
are recommended prior to transferring wolves between facilities.
Blood Banking:
Blood samples from every Mexican gray wolf are being reposited at the University of
New Mexico for genetic data and historical value. Yearly exams are an opportune time to
acquire blood from an individual who has not yet had a sample submitted to the
repository. Samples for pups of the year should be collected at their 16-week pup
check. An adult need only be banked once in its lifetime; reminders will be sent out
periodically as to which wolves still need to have samples submitted for banking.
The protocol for collecting and shipping the blood is as follows.
To collect blood in a purple tube top (blood mixed with anticoagulant):

Fill tube that has been marked with the individual’s studbook number and the date
of collection. Thoroughly, but gently roll (no shaking) to ensure the anticoagulant
is distributed evenly and the sample will not clot. This can then be shipped as is,
unfrozen, on wet ice to the address below; be sure and put enough ice in the
shipment to keep it cool the entire time. A 2 ml sample is suggested (the lab will
then partition this into four individual 0.5 ml samples stored in 0.5 ml nunc tubes).
To collect serum:
Collect blood in a red top clot tube and spin down. Transfer the serum to a 1.5ml
nalgene cryovial marked with the individual’s studbook number and the date of
collection. Ship the sample on wet or dry ice to the address below. To date most
shipments have been about 1.0 ml serum. It would be best if you can send two
separate tubes per animal of at least 1.0 ml serum each for a total of 2.0 ml serum.
Please only use permanent ink to write on the cryotubes (e.g. Sharpies). Also,
please clearly mark the box that samples are being shipped in as perishable and
indicate whether or not to freeze or refrigerate the sample upon arrival.
Ship to:
Cheryl Parmenter
University of New Mexico
73
MSC03 2020, Dept. of Biology
PH: 505-277-7808
Email: cparment@sevilleta.unm.edu
Phone contacts:
Curator of the division:

Dr. Joseph Cook
Museum of Southwestern Biology
Curator of Mammals and the Division of Genomic Resources
PH: 505-277-1358
Email: cookjose@unm.edu
OR Cheryl Parmenter
Collection Manager
Division of Genomic Resources
PH: 505-277-7808
Email: cparment@unm.edu
OR Main Museum Number PH: 505-277-1360
Anesthesia:
Since many medical procedures, including vaccination and blood sample collection, can
and should be performed on manually restrained Mexican gray wolves, anesthesia should
only be done in exceptional circumstances.
Telazol (5-7mg/kg) or Ketamine (7-10mg/kg) and Rompun (1-2mg/kg) in combination

are recommended for anesthesia of adult Mexican gray wolves. Animals are generally
restrained and hand-injected or injected via pole syringe or blow dart so the above doses
are for IM injection. Doses for IV injection may be significantly lower.
Ketamine/Rompun anesthesia can be allowed to wear off through natural metabolism of

the anesthetic agents, or the Rompun component can be reversed with IV injection of
5mg of Yohimbine. Recovery from both protocols can be accelerated with IV fluid
therapy at 5-10 ml/kg/hr.
Animals can be maintained on Isoflurane, Halothane, or with additional injectable

anesthetic agents for longer procedures. (See also additional anesthesia regimen
guidelines in Figure 8-D.)
Physiological Norms:
Physiological norms and longevity for Mexican gray wolves are similar to those of other
wolves and domestic dogs. Developmental data on puppies and typical adult
74
measurements are provided in Figure 8-E. Blood chemistry data from a 1989 study
conducted at the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center are available in Figure 8-F.
What to Do if a Wolf Dies:
1. Notify SSP© and USFWS at earliest convenience.

2. Perform a complete necropsy by your institution or pathology service associate at
your institution’s expense.
3. Follow necropsy protocols as in Figure 8-G, and send reports and tissues to:
a. MWSSP Pathologist Dr. Linda Munson at University of California,
Department VM-PMI; 1126 Haring Hall, 1 Shields Ave.; Davis, CA 95616;
PH: 916-754-7567; FAX: 916-752-3349; EM: lmunson@ucdavis.edu
b. MWSSP Coordinator Peter Siminski, The Living Desert, 47-900 Portola
Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260-6156; PH: 760-346-5694, ext. 2103; FX:
760-568-9685; Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
4. Send the remainder of the carcass to the Museum of Southwestern Biology at the
University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM.
a. Be sure to include with the carcass information such as the studbook
number of the specimen and date of death; a copy of the necropsy report
can be affixed to the outside of the shipping container.
b. Call for shipping instructions.
Primary Contact: Collection Manager Jon Dunnum
PH: 505-277-9262; Email: jldunnum@unm.edu
Curator Dr. Joe Cook Email: cookjose@unm.edu
OR the main office at PH: 505-277-1360.
Euthanasia and Post Mortem Protocol:
When it is determined that a Mexican wolf's health is compromised, consultation with the
attending veterinarian, facility representative, the MWSSP Coordinator, the Mexican
Wolf Recovery Coordinator, and other specialists if warranted, will occur regarding
euthanizing a Mexican gray wolf. Therefore, these decisions will be made on a case by
case basis and always with the welfare of an individual wolf and the overall objectives of
the program in mind. In emergencies, the MWSSP’s institutional representative and the
veterinarian may together determine what is best for the animal in question.
Necropsies should be performed on all Mexican wolves as soon as possible after

death. The approved necropsy protocol was formulated by Linda Munson, DVM, Ph.D.,
Veterinary Pathology Advisor to the Mexican Wolf SPP© and Canid, Hyena, Aardwolf
Taxon Advisory Group of the AZA (see Figure 8-G). [Dr. Linda Munson, Mexican Wolf
SSP© Pathology Advisor; Dept. VM-PMI, Haring Hall; School of Veterinary Medicine;
University of California; Davis, CA 95616; PH: 530-754-7963; FAX: 530-752-3349,
EM: lmunson@ucdavis.edu] Copies of the completed necropsy reports should be faxed
or emailed to the SSP© Coordinator Peter Siminski, The Living Desert, 47-900 Portola
Avenue; Palm Desert, CA 92260-6156; PH: 760-346-5694, ext. 2103; FX: 760-568-
9685; Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
75
References (Referencias)/Suggested Readings:
Marlene Drag. 1991. Hematologic Values of Captive Mexican Wolves. American Journal of
Veterinary Research. 52(11): 1891-1892. (Note: included in MWSSP husbandry manual as
Figure 8-F)
Group.
76
Figure 8-A
Mexican Wolf Vaccination Protocol
PUPS:
8 weeks – DA2 PP (modified live)
distemper, adenovirus type 2, para influenza, parvovirus
12 weeks – DA2 PP (modified live)
16 weeks – DHLPP (DA2 PP with Lepto) and killed rabies vaccine
20 weeks booster – none required; institutional veterinarian determines need

based on whether there have been recent regional outbreaks of a specific disease.
ADULTS:
Annually DA2 PP and killed rabies vaccine
Booster, if they have pups – Nordens CPV (modified live parvo virus) – 2-3 more
times during the year. Each booster inhibits shedding of virus for 3 mo. – Pups
less likely to pick up virus.
77
Figure 8-B Antiparasitic Treatment
Guidelines
Antiparasitics
Roundworms (ascarids) and hookworms-

Fenbendazole (Panacur) 50 mg/kg orally for 3 days
Pyrantal pamoate (Nemex, Strongid) 5 mg/kg orally, repeat in 3 weeks
Ivermectin 0.2 mg/kg IM or orally – one
treatment
Whipworms (trichuris)-
Fenbenadazole (Panacur) 50 mg/kg orally once a day for 3
days, repeat dosing in 3 weeks and 2
months.
Tapeworms-
Praziquantel (Droncit) – see package insert for weight based dosages
1 dose – available in oral and
injectable forms
do not use in pups less than 6 weeks
of age
Coccidia-
Sulfadimethoxine 50 mg/kg orally on day 1,
then 25 mg/kg orally daily for
14-20 day
Amprolium 100 mg/kg orally for 7-10 days
Giardia-
Metronidazole 50mg/kg orally once a day for 5 days
Heartworm Prevention-
Ivermectin .006 mg/kg orally once a month
Commercial product – Heartguard,
weight appropriate dose
Milbemycin Commercial products – Sentinel and
Interceptor
Once a month, weight based dose
Also treats round, hook, and
whipworms.
Heartworm Treatment
Heartworm has been successfully treated in a Mexican gray wolf using Immiticide (68.64mg).
The case involved a 7-year-old male weighing 62.4 pounds (slightly overweight). He tested
positive for heartworm on snapp and direct tests. Treatment consisted of basic Immiticide
treatment according to label use for canines. 68.64 mg Immiticide were given in right expaxial
muscle at level of 4th lumbar vertebrae with a 21g 1 ½” needle and 3cc syringe. The dosage was
repeated in 24 hours and the animal was kept in the Animal Care Hospital during treatment. (If
78
Figure test
CBC and profile were not run at time of initial heartworm 8-Cblood
Sampledrawmedical/capture form
that was positive, I
recommend you run these when you grab up the wolf to administer the Immiticide.) Blood work
was repeated in 5 months and 3 yrs later-both test results were negative.
Wild Canid Center Date:
P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025 Species:
(636)-938-5900 Vet:
Medical/Capture Record
Sex: Studbook #: House Name:
Transponder I.D.#: Accession #:
Date of Birth: Enclosure:
Distinguishing Markings:
Reason for Capture:
Participants:
Drugs Administered Amount Administered Time Administered
Temperature:
Respiration/ minute:
Weight:
Procedures Yes: comments No: Comments Results
Bloodwork
Vaccinations
Worming
Other
Tests:
79
Comments:
Figure 8-D Anesthesia Regimen Guidelines
Anesthesia
Listed below are anesthetic regimes that holding institutions have used successfully.
Dose and regimen selected should take into account such things as: age, health, and
environmental conditions.
Telazol (2-3 mg/kg) mixed with medetomidine (0.02-0.03 mg/kg) IM

Reverse with atipamazole (same volume as medetomidine)
- Supplement with oxygen.
- Induction is rapid and smooth, recovery can be slow but is smooth.
- Mild decrease in heart rate, respiratory depression not noticed.
Ketamine (4-5 mg/kg) mixed with medetomidine (50-70 mcg/kg) IM

Reverse with atipamazole
- Supplement with oxygen.
- Wait at least 45 minutes after inducing anesthesia before reversing the
medetomidine.
Telazol (7-8 mg/kg) IM
Telazol (2.5 mg/kg) mixed with Ketamine (3.5 mg/kg) IM
Isoflurane and sevoflurane have been used to maintain an anesthetic plane.
80
Figure 8-E Average weights and measurements.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
APPROXIMATE BODY WEIGHTS
AGE ♀ ♂
5 days .9 kg .9 kg
21 days 1.8 kg 1.8 kg
45 days 3.9 kg 3.9 kg
2 months 5 kg 5 kg
3 months 10 kg 10 kg
2+ years 28 kg 34 kg
APPROXIMATE ADULT BODY

MEASUREMENTS
Tail length 39.4 cm

Ear length 11.7 cm
Shoulder height 67 cm
Total body length 143 cm
Hind foot length 23 cm
Front pad width 4 cm
Front pad length 7.6cm
81
Reprinted from the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH, Vol. 52, no. 11, Pages 1891-1892.
©
American Veterinary Medical Association, 1991. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 8-F
Hematologic values of captive Mexican wolves

Marlene D. Drag, DVM, MS
SUMMARY
Hematologic reference values were determined for a captive population of 11 Mexican wolves (Canis
lupus baileyi). Wolf pups from 4 to 24 weeks old had progressive age-related increases in PCV,
hemoglobin concentration, mean cell volume, and RBC counts similar to those seen in domestic dog pups
(C familiaris). Hematologic indices in wolves older than 24 weeks were comparable to those of the adult
domestic dog; however, PCV, hemoglobin concentration, and RBC counts were higher.
Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi), a subspecies of gray wolf (C lupus), originally ranged from
northern Mexico into Arizona and New Mexico.1 The Mexican wolf recovery team estimated that < 30
wolves still lived wild in Mexico in 1982.2 Mexican wolves have not been sighted in the United States in
over 20 years. As of December 1989, there were 33 Mexican wolves in captivity in the United States and
Mexico. Eleven of these wolves, protected by the US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service,
were housed at the Wild Canid Research and Survival Center, Tyson Research Center, Eureka, MO.
Presently, these wolves are involved in a planned propagation study of the species that is expected to
culminate with their reintroduction into the wild.
The purpose of the study reported here was to establish hematologic reference values for Mexican wolves.
Knowledge of the reference ranges for hematologic values in nondomestic species may allow earlier
diagnosis of disease, as well as recognition of causes of morbidity in the wild.
Materials and Methods

The wolves were housed in 0.2 to 0.65 hectare natural enclosures surrounded by chain link fencing. They
were provided dry dog fooda and water ad libitum. The food was treated with a heartworm preventive
medication.b
Blood samples were obtained from 20 adult wolves (> 6 months old, 13 males, 7 females) in the autumn
when routine physical examinations and vaccinations were administered. Blood was obtained from wolf
pups (≤ 6 months old, 8 males, 5 females) during physical examinations conducted approximately every 2
weeks in the spring and summer. Adult wolves were captured and restrained with nets and v-shaped poles.
Wolf pups were caught with nets and restrained by hand. Blood was obtained, using a 12-ml syringe and
20-gauge needle, from a cephalic, saphenous, or jugular vein. Actual time of restraint ranged from 5 to 10
minutes.
Samples for CBC were collected in evacuated tubes (3 ml)c containing EDTA. All samples were
refrigerated and processed by a commercial laboratory within 24 hours of collection. These values were
determined by use of an automate cell counterd: WBC count, RBC count, hemoglobin concentration, and
mean cell volume (MCV). Calculated from the preceding values were: PCV, mean cell hemoglobin
(MCH), and mean cell hemoglobin concentration (MCHC). Fresh blood smears for different leukocyte
counts were stained with Wright-Giemsa stain and performed manually.
Results
Wolf pups from 4 to 24 weeks old had progressive age-related increases in PCV, hemoglobin
concentration, MCV, and RBC count (Table 1). The MCH and MCHC values remained constant. The
WBC counts fluctuated.
The PCV, hemoglobin concentration, and RBC counts in adult wolves were higher than those of adult
dogs. The MCV, MCH, and MCHC values were comparable with those of dogs.3 Higher WBC values
also were seen in the adult wolves.
Received for publication June 6, 1990.

From the Wild Canid Research and Survival Center, PO Box 760, Eureka,
MO 63025 and the Division of Comparative Medicine, Washington
82
University School of Medicine, Box 8061, 660 S Euclid Ave, St Louis, MO
63110.
a
Purina Hi Pro, Ralston Purina Co, St Louis, Mo.
b
Styrid-Caricide Liquid, Shering-Plough Animal Health, Kenilworth, NJ
c
d
Becton, Dickinson & co, Rutherford, NJ. Figure 8-F cont.
Coulter-S plus 4, Coulter Instruments, Hialeah, Fla.
Discussion
The lower PCV, hemoglobin, MCV, and RBC values in 4-week-old wolf pups, and the subsequent
increases associated with growth, were consistent with values observed in domestic dog pups.4 Lee et al5
attributed this phenomenon to the destruction of fetal erythrocytes that are replaced by mature erythrocytes.
In domestic dogs, values continue to increase until adult values Am are Jreached
Vet Res, Vol 52. No. 11, November 6
at 9 to 12 months of age.
1991
These age related changes were evident in the wolf pups; however, the increase over time was slower. The
differences between wolf and dog pups may be species-dependent or may be the result of environmental
factors. Hookworm infection had been documented in the enclosures when food intake fluctuated. Tick
infestation also had occurred. These forms of chronic parasitism should result in microcytic anemia,
characterized by a decrease in PCV, MCH, and MCV, and an increase in MCHC. Although lower PCV
values were observed in the wolf pups, the MCHC and MCH were comparable with values in clinically
normal dog pups. The MCV values in wolf pups were higher than values documented for dog pups. Seal
et al7 suggested that lower values in wild-caught gray wolf pups were the result of nutritional differences.
The gray wolves that they studied were eating an all-meat diet, and possibly were not meeting their full
growth potential.
Mexican wolves, given a commercial diet ad libitum, should reach their growth potential unless their
dietary requirements vary from that of domestic dogs. Detailed dietary requirements of wolves are
unavailable.
The RBC, hemoglobin, and PCV values of adult wolves were greater than the values observed in adult
dogs.3 Comparison of erythrocyte indices (MCH, MCHC, and MCV) with those of adult dogs failed to
reveal differences. High RBC, hemoglobin, and PCV values with normal calculated indices indicated an
increase in peripheral erythrocyte circulation. In dogs, excitement and strenuous exercise can cause
contraction of the spleen, thus increasing the number of circulating RBC.3 The capture process of Mexican
wolves involved physical restraint, with most adult wolves captured after a short period of running.
Exercise, fear, and excitement experienced by nondomestic animals during the capture procedure would
likely provide the stimulus for splenic contraction. High RBC, hemoglobin, and PCV values appear to be
normal in situations of excitement and physical activity.
Leukocyte counts in the wolf pups were inconsistent. Shifrine et al8 reported that in Beagles, the WBC
values decreased during the first 3 weeks of life then increased until the eight week. The leukocyte counts
then decreased until the dogs were 4 years old and remained constant until they were 7 years old,9 when
increases were detected again. The inconsistency of the WBC counts in the wolf pups dictates that careful
evaluation must be given to the clinical state of pups to be able to interpret the WBC values and their
relationship to disease.
The leukocyte values of adult wolves were slightly higher than those of adult dogs. Exercise, excitement,
and stress can cause an increase in the number of WBC in the circulation.3 Athens et al,10 attributed the
83
physiologic leukocytosis to epinephrine release that mobilized neutrophils in Figure the marginal pool.
8-F cont.
Lymphocytosis can also develop in physiologic leukocytosis; however, the mechanism is unknown.
In dogs, leukocytosis has also been associated with release of corticosteroids from the adrenal cortex in
response to stress. Corticosteroids in dogs cause a leukocytosis consisting of neutrophilia, lymphopenia,
eosinopenia, and monocytosis.11 The values in our Mexican wolves suggested that this may have occurred.
The slightly higher eosinophil counts could have been the result of hookworm parasitism in previous years,
or their antigenic stimulation. As in Mexican wolf pups, analysis of WBC counts in adult wolves must be
evaluated and compared with results of physical examinations to adequately assess the true state of the
animal.
The objective of this study was to establish reasonable hematologic reference values in the Mexican wolf.
The data showed that the hematologic values of the Mexican wolves housed at the Wild Canid Research
and Survival Center were similar to those observed in domestic dogs. Physiologic stress may have
influenced some of the values. Similar stress-related hematologic changes have been observed in bighorn
sheep (Ovis Canadensis),12 wild coyotes (C latrans),13 and pronghorns (Antilocaptra Americana).14 though
the stress response was evident, knowledge of the expected range of normality should allow diagnosis of
disease states.
References
1. Nelson EW, Goldman EA. A new wolf from Mexico. J Mammal 1929; 10:165-166
2. Mexican wolf recovery team. Mexican wolf recovery plan, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Denver Colo,
1982.
3. Jain NC. Schalm’s veterinary hematology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1986;103-113
4. Earl FL, Melvegar BA, Wilson RL. The hemogram and bone marrow profile of normal neonatal and
weanling Beagle dogs. Lab Anim Sci 1973;23:690-695.
5. Lee P, Brown, ME, Hutzler PT. Blood volume changes and production and destruction of
erythrocytes in newborn dogs. AM J Vet Res 1976;37:561-565
6. Bounous DI, Hoskins JD, Boudreaux MK. The hematopoietic system. In: Hoskins JD, ed. Veterinary
pediatrics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1990;293-301
7. Seal US, Mech LD, Van Ballenberghe V. Blood analyses of wolf pups and their ecological and
metabolic interpretation. J Mammal 1975;56:64-75
8. Shifrine M. Munn SL, Rosenblatt LS, et al. Hematologic changes to 60 days of age in clinically
normal Beagles. Lab Anim Sci 1973;23:894-898.
9. Dougherty JH, Rosenblatt LS. Changes in the hemogram of the Beagle with age. J Gerontol
1965;20:131-138.
10. Athens JW, Haab O, Taab S, et al. Leukokinetic studies. IV. The total blood, circulating and
marginal granulocyte pools and the granulocyte turnover rate in normal subjects. J Clin Invest
1961;40:989-995.
11. Duncan JR, Prasse KW. Veterinary laboratory medicine: clinical pathology. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa
State University Press, 1977;33-43.
12. Franzmann AW. Environmental sources of variation of bighorn sheep physiologic values. J Wildl
Manage 1972;36:924-932.
13. Gates NL, Goering EK. Hematologic values of conditioned, captive wild coyotes. J Wildl Dis
1976;12:402-404
14. Seal US, Hoskinson RL. Metabolic indicators of habitat condition and capture stress in pronghorns. J
Wildl Manage 1978;42:755-763
84
Figure 8-G
MEXICAN WOLF NECROPSY Am

PROTOCOL
J Vet Res, Vol 52. No. 11, November
1991
INSTITUTION/OWNER
ADDRESS
CANID SPECIES ANIMAL ISIS ID #

STUD BOOK # SEX
BIRTH DATE/AGE WEIGHT
REPRODUCTIVE HISTORY:
SHOWN BEHAVIORAL ESTRUS?
EVER BRED?
PRODUCED PUPS?
EVER HOUSED WITH OPPOSITE SEX?
DATE OF DEATH DATE OF NECROPSY
HISTORY: (Briefly summarize clinical signs, circumstances of death.)
Please have your pathologist perform a histopathology on the tissues. Then send the
gross examination worksheets and pathologist’s report to Dr. Linda Munson, Mexican
Wolf SSP© Pathology Advisor; Department VM-PMI, Haring Hall; School of Veterinary
Medicine; University of California; Davis, CA 95616; PH: 530-754-7963; Fax: 530-752-
85
3349. Copies of the completed necropsy reports should be faxed to the SSP© Coordinator
Peter Siminski, The Living Desert, 47-900 Portola Avenue; Palm Desert, CA 8-G
Figure 92260-6156
cont.
PH: 760-346-5694, ext. 2103; FX: 760-568-9685; Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
Animal ISIS ID#
GROSS EXAMINATION
WORKSHEET
PROSECTOR:
GENERAL CONDITION: (Nutritional condition, physical condition)

NEONATES: Examine for malformations (cleft palate, deformed limbs, etc.)
SKIN: (Including pinna, feet)
MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM: (Bones, joints, muscles)
BODY CAVITIES: (Fat stores, abnormal fluids)

NEONATES: Assess hydration (tissue moistness)
HEMOLYMPHATIC: (Spleen, lymph nodes, thymus)
RESPIRATORY SYSTEM: (Nasal cavity, larynx, trachea, lungs, regional lymph

nodes)
NEONATES: Determine if breathing occurred (Do the lungs float in formalin?)
86
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: (Heart, pericardium, great vessels)
DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: (Mouth, teeth, esophagus, stomach, intestines, liver, pancreas,

mesenteric lymph nodes)
NEONATES: Is milk present in stomach?
URINARY SYSTEM: (Kidneys, ureters, urinary bladder, urethra)
REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM: (Testis/ovary, uterus, vagina, penis, prepuce, prostate,

mammary glands, placenta)
ENDOCRINE SYSTEM: (Adrenals, thyroid, parathyroids, pituitary)
NERVOUS SYSTEM: (Brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerves)
SENSORY ORGANS: (Eyes, ears)
PRELIMINARY DIAGNOSES:
87
Figure 8-G cont.
LABORATORY STUDIES: (List bacterial and viral cultures submitted and results, if
available.)
88
Figure 8-G cont.
FIXED TISSUE CHECK LIST
Preserve the following tissues in 10% buffered formalin at a ratio of 1 part tissue
to 10 parts formalin. Tissues should be no thicker than 1 cm. INCLUDE
SECTIONS OF ALL LESIONS AND SAMPLES OF ALL LISTED TISSUES.
For NEONATES, see the additional tissues on the NEONATAL PROTOCOL.
Information on specific TISSUE SECTIONING PROCEDURES are on the
following pages.
TISSUES TO SAMPLE (ALL TISSUES CAN BE PUT IN ONE

CONTAINER):
Heart
Trachea
Thyroid/parathyroid glands
Lungs
Thymus
Lymph nodes
Spleen
Liver
Stomach
Small intestines
Pancreas
Large intestines
Adrenal
Kidneys
Urinary bladder
Testis/Ovary
Uterus
Brain
Skin
Skeletal muscle
Bone marrow
Long bone (if bone disease)
Spinal cord (if neurological disease)
FROZEN TISSUE: Store in plastic bags at –70 or –20 C for toxicology: Liver,
brain, kidney, and (if possible) antemortem serum and plasma frozen. If you
suspect an infectious disease, also freeze samples of small intestines, lung, spleen,
and lymph nodes.
89
Figure 8-G cont.
NEONATAL NECROPSY PROTOCOL
Please follow the adult protocol in addition to the following:
1. Fix umbilical stump and surrounding tissues.
2. Examine of malformations (cleft palate, deformed limbs, heart defects).
3. Assess hydration (tissue moistness) and evidence of nursing (milk in stomach).
4. Determine if breathing occurred. (Do the lungs float in formalin?)
5. Check foot pads for erosions and ulcers.
Additional tissues for histopathology from neonates:

• All tissues from the adult necropsy check list
• Umbilicus (including external and internal vessels and surrounding skin)
• Foot pads from all feet.
• Extra sections of lung.
90
Figure 8-G cont.
RECOMMENDED TISSUE SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Adrenal glands: Entire gland with transverse incision.
Brain: Cut longitudinally along the midline. Submit entire brain and pituitary
gland except for frozen sections.
Eye: Both eyes intact. Remove extraocular muscles and periorbital tissues.
Gastrointestinal tract: Open carefully along the long axis.

Esophagus - 3 cm long section
Stomach - multiple sections from cardia, fundus (body), and atrium
of pylorus.
Small intestines - duodenum, jejunum, ileum
Large intestines - cecum, colon
Omentum - 3 cm square
Heart: longitudinal section including atrium, ventricle, and valves from (both)
right and left heart. (Include large vessels.)
Kidney: Cortex and medulla from each kidney.
Liver: Sections from 3 lobes with capsule and gall bladder.
Lungs: Sections from several lobes including a major bronchus.
Lymph nodes: Cervical, mediastinal, bronchial, mesenteric, and lumbar cut

transversely.
Opened rib or longitudinally sectioned half femur: Marrow must be exposed for
proper fixation.
Oral/pharyngeal mucosa and tonsil: Plus any areas with erosions, ulcerations, or
proliferative lesions.
Pancreas: Representative sections from two areas including central ducts.
Pituitary glands: Entire gland.
91
Figure 8-G cont.
Reproductive tract: Ovaries and entire uterus with longitudinal cut into lumens of
uterine horns. Both testes (transversely cut) with epididymis. Entire prostate,
transversely cut.
Salivary gland:
Sciatic nerve: 3 cm section.
Skeletal muscle: Cross section of thigh muscle.
Skin: Full thickness of abdominal skin, lip, and ear pinna.
Spinal Cord: If neurological disease, sections from cervical, thoracic, and lumbar
cord.
Spleen: Cross sections including capsule.
Thymus:
Thyroid/parathyroids: Leave glands intact.
Tongue: Cross section near tip including both mucosal surfaces.
Trachea:
Urinary bladder/ureters/urethra: Cross section of bladder and 2 cm sections of

tubular structures.
SHIPPING TISSUES:
After at least 72 hrs in fixative, ship tissues in a leak-proof container in
adequate formalin to keep tissues moist. Tissues can be shipped by U.S. Mail or
UPS to:
Dr. Linda Munson

Mexican Wolf SSP© Pathology Advisor
Department VM-PMI, Haring Hall
Davis, CA 95616
92
PH: 530-754-7963
FX: 530-752-3349
EM: lmunson@ucdavis.edu
Figure 8-H
ISIS/MedArks Blood Values for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

ISIS Values
Mean S.D. Min. Max. (N)
WBC *10^3/UL 9.707 + 3.161 3.500 20.30 (420)
RBC *10^6/UL 7.04 + 1.32 3.65 9.99 (291)
HGB GM/DL 16.5 + 3.2 7.9 25.2 (317)
HCT % 48.1 + 8.4 23.0 67.8 (426)
MCH 24.5 + 2.5 10.2 39.8 (265)
mchc 33.9 + 3.4 17.6 46.6 (301)
MCV 70.3 + 7.3 40.2 100.3 (273)
SEGS *10^3/UL 7.036 + 2.683 2.200 17.90 (409)
BANDS *10^3/UL 0.198 + 0.257 0.000 1.400 (100)
LYMPHOCYTES *10^3/UL 1.570 + 0.833 0.074 5.670 (415)
MONOCYTES *10^3/UL 0.468 + 0.345 0.000 2.136 (363)
EOSINOPHILS *10^3/UL 0.661 + 0.711 0.000 4.806 (382)
BASOPHILS *10^3/UL 0.055 + 0.072 0.000 0.336 (52)
NRBC /100 WBC 0+ 1 0 3 (70)
PLATE. CNT. *10^3/UL 251 + 85 69 544 (73)
RETICS % 0.8 + 0.7 0.1 2.1 (16)
GLUCOSE MG/DL 124 + 33 47 305 (347)
BUN MG/DL 22 + 8 6 72 (353)
CREAT. MG/DL 1.2 + 0.5 0.3 5.1 (347)
URIC ACID MG/DL 0.4 + 0.4 0.0 3.3 (120)
CA MG/DL 10.0 + 0.8 7.1 12.5 (336)
PHOS MG/DL 3.8 + 1.6 1.1 12.1 (294)
NA MEQ/L 149 + 5 128 182 (292)
K MEQ/L 4.6 + 0.5 3.1 6.8 (297)
CL MEQ/L 116 + 4 104 128 (277)
IRON MCG/DL 149 + 43 43 263 (61)
MG MG/DL 1.65 + 0.19 1.30 2.10 (30)
HCO3 MMOL/L 19.2 + 3.4 13.0 25.0 (31)
CHOL MG/DL 183 + 65 56 447 (331)
TRIG MG/DL 54 + 39 15 248 (166)
T. PROT. (C) GM/DL 6.2+ 0.7 4.4 8.7 (328)
T. PROT. (R) GM/DL 5.6 + 0.4 5.2 6.4 (11)
ALBUMIN (C) GM/DL 3.4 + 0.4 2.4 4.6 (280)
GLOBULIN (C) GM/DL 2.7 + 0.6 1.4 4.7 (278)
AST (SGOT) IU/L 48 + 24 13 190 (324)
93
ALT (SGPT) IU/L 54 + 28 13 189 (345)
T. BILI. MG/DL 0.2 + 0.2 0.0 1.6 (281)
D. BILI. MG/DL 0.1 + 0.1 0.0 0.5 (89)
I. BILI. MG/DL 0.2 + 0.2 0.0 1.6 (88)
AMYLASE SU 395 + 178 107 1001 8-H cont.
Figure (133)
LDH IU/L 156 + 142 14 676
CONT. (166)
CPK IU/L 226 + 173 32 864 (149)
OSMOLARITY MOSMOL/L 305 + 9 292 322 (34)
BODY TEMP. °C 39.0 + 1.3 36.0 43.2 (188)
CO2 MMOL/L 18.4 + 4.2 9.0 30.0 (81)
ESR MM/HR 0+ 0 0 0 (1)
FIBRINOGEN GM/DL 67 + 58 0 100 (3)
FREE T3 PGM/ML 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 3.0 (1)
GGT IU/L 4+ 3 0 13 (158)
LIPASE U/L 217 + 214 23 1095 (80)
PROGESTERONE NG/ML 1.600 + 0.424 1.300 1.900 (2)
Total Serum Solids (Refr) 6.7 + 0.0 6.7 6.7 (1)
TT4 (RIA) MCG/DL 1.5 + 0.7 0.7 3.3 (26)
TT3 (RIA) NG/DL 93.1 + 44.6 31.0 197.0 (15)
94
CHAPTER 9:
BASIC NUTRITION
General Considerations:
Mexican gray wolves must be provided with adequate quantities of fresh, high quality
feed and clean drinking water at all times. In general, it is not the responsibility of
Mexican Wolf SSP© cooperators to attempt to provide captive Mexican gray wolves with
a diet consistent with what they would find in the wild. Biologists in the field and at pre-
release site areas will assist the wolves in making the transition from a captive diet to
natural prey items. Wolves selected as potential release candidates may be fed native
wildlife when appropriate; the SSP© Coordinator and Management Group are to be
consulted (see also Supplemental Feed Items). Body weight and daily feed consumption
records should be maintained on all animals. Care must be taken to provide a consistent
amount and type of diet. Diet changes for any reason should be made gradually; this is of
particular concern when transferring animals between facilities.
Nutritional Requirements and Principal Diet:
Limited systematically collected information is available on the nutritional requirements

for captive wolves. The nutritional requirements of Mexican gray wolves can be met
feeding a high quality commercial (dry) dog food. Reports have indicated that wolves
fed canine diets containing low to medium levels of energy have difficulty maintaining
condition and tend to develop diarrhea. High quality extruded dog foods should be fed.
Such meat based diets are high in digestibility and are less likely to result in the digestive
upsets and diarrhea associated with high cereal diets. Although there is some
disagreement as to what is a suitable canine diet, the 1998 version of the Mexican Gray
Wolf Husbandry Manual reports nutritional guidelines for protein as 20-25%, and fat at
5%. However, many facilities with good success breeding Mexican grays use diets
which exceed these recommendations.
Nutritionists and wild canid managers have long recognized the need for the development
of a dry diet which could meet all the nutritional needs of the captive wolf. A 1994-95
study conducted at the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center helped facilitate the
development of such a diet. Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet (5MN2) with 28.5% protein,
18% fat, and 4.0% fiber, was developed by Purina Mills, Inc. specifically for the feeding
of canids requiring a high energy diet and where a low fecal volume is desired. The
objective of this study was to evaluate this diet as a ration for endangered wolves
maintained in naturalistic enclosures and to obtain documentation as to feed consumption
and fecal quality. All wolves participating in the study maintained good general condition
and showed dramatic improvements in fecal quality (see Figure 9-A for copy of AZA
publication).
95
All adult Mexican gray wolves weighing 48.4-70.4 lb (22-32 kg) should be fed
approximately 1,300 to 1,800 kcal of metabolizable energy (ME) per day for maintenance
in a thermoneutral environment with moderate activity. This amount of ME would be
supplied by 0.63 oz (18g) of good quality dry dog food (3.3 kcal ME/g) per kilogram of
body weight (1.5 - 2.5 lb or 0.68-1.13 kg of food per day per wolf). Energy requirements
will vary with climate, activity level, and individual animal.
No more than a three months supply of the diet should be purchased at one time; it should
be stored in a cool dry place to ensure that it will be fresh and free of rancidity. Vitamin
and mineral deficiency or toxicity is extremely rare in wolves fed a high quality diet.
Nutritional imbalances in Mexican gray wolves are most likely to be caused by feeding a
diet consisting wholly of organ or muscle meats. Such diets are very low in calcium and
have significant deficiencies or imbalances of other nutrients.
Supplemental Feed Items:
If a high quality, meat based dry dog food is used as the principal diet, supplements are
unnecessary. Feeding large quantities of supplemental items such as prepared meats or
carcasses is not recommended. Prepared meats like a commercial carnivore log are
commonly used to entice finicky eaters, or for "pilling" or administering oral
medications.
Care should be taken not to feed these items in high enough quantity as to interfere with
the balanced composition of the principal diet.
Bones such as beef or horse shank and knuckle bones may be fed but on a random basis.
These are valuable environmental/behavioral enrichment, promote good dental health,
and may aid in strengthening cranial muscle and bone. However, cow and horse bones
should not be fed to potential release candidates. They should be fed natural prey items
only.
Dietary vitamin and mineral supplements such as Pet Tabs are fed by some facilities but
do not appear to be essential for normal animal maintenance if a good quality diet is fed.
Recent discussions amongst SSP© cooperators and the MWSSP Management Committee
have reached a consensus that supplemental feeding high priority release candidates with
carcasses of native prey items (e.g., wild rabbit, javelina, elk, white-tailed and mule deer)
would be beneficial. It is thought that this exposure to native prey would help the wolves
to develop relevant skills associated with high survivability in the wild. Feeding
carcasses of a domestic livestock nature (e.g., chicken, cattle, goat, sheep, horse, donkey)
is not permitted as this may lead to wolf/livestock – and livestock owner – conflicts after
release. In addition, regular feeding of carcasses to animals that are to remain in captivity
is also not recommended due to an increased risk of exposure to pathogens.
96
Nutrition and Reproduction:
Good nutrition is essential to successful breeding and pup rearing. Facilities that have
good success breeding Mexican wolves begin reproductive-related diet changes near the
beginning of estrus as indicated by the pro-estrus bleed. Facilities may increase the
amount of dry feed or supplement with prepared meat diets.
Pregnant bitches have energy requirements approximately 30% higher than maintenance
requirements during the last third of pregnancy. Lactating wolves need two to three
times the energy needed for maintenance. A high quality, energy dense diet must be fed
at these times. Female wolves with these high nutritional needs cannot eat a large enough
quantity of poor quality diets to meet their needs. Frequency of feedings should be
increased to two to three feedings a day during these high demand periods. Pregnancy
and lactation also increase daily requirements for nutrients such as protein and calcium,
but increased food consumption to meet energy needs automatically increases food intake
of these nutrients. Therefore, supplementation of a properly formulated diet with minerals
and vitamins, is unnecessary, and unless done properly, may cause more harm than good.
Hand-Rearing Guidelines:
As a rule, wolf pups are only removed for hand-rearing in extraordinary circumstances
greatly outweigh the domesticating influences of hand-rearing. (When approval has been
granted for hand-rearing, see Figure 9-B for the recommended protocol.)
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey and Dan Hopkins. 1995. Analysis of a New Diet for Mexican Gray
(Canis lupus baileyi) and Red (Canis rufus gregori) Wolves. 1995 AZA Regional Conference
Proceedings, p. 295-299. AZA, Oglebay, WV. (Note: Included in Mexican Wolf SSP Husbandry
Manual as Figure 9-A.)
Group.
97
Figure 9-A
ANALYSIS OF A NEW DIET FOR

MEXICAN GRAY (Canis lupus baileyi)
AND RED (Canis rufus gregoryi) WOLVES
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D. Daniel T. Hopkins, Ph. D.

Executive Director Director Specialty Research
Wild Canid Survival and Research Center Purina Mills, Inc.
P.O. Box 760 P.O. Box 66812
Eureka, MO 63025 St. Louis, MO 63166
Limited systematically collected information is available on the nutritional requirements and

suitable feeding programs for captive wolves. Historically, many private facilities fed meat
obtained through various methods to adult wolves, and pups were reared on standard canine milk
replacer. In both cases, the nutritional needs of the animals were often not met (Mech, 1970;
Lyndaker, 1980; Vainisi et al. 1981). Dry omnivore and canine rations have been used with some
success in many zoological institutions housing endangered wolves.
Anecdotal reports indicate that wolves fed canine diets containing low to medium levels
of energy have difficulty maintaining condition and tend to develop diarrhea. While this has not
been well documented, these observations are consistent with what might be expected from
feeding low energy diets, which are not highly digestible, to active animals with a high
requirement for energy and a high level of feed intake as compared to most domesticated canines.
Generally, those housing wolves would agree that low quality “budget” dog foods are
undesirable. However, there is some disagreement as to what is a suitable canine diet. Draft
husbandry manuals for red wolves (Canis rufus gregoryi) (Waddell, 1994) and Mexican grays
(Canis lupus baileyi) (Newton and Dinon, 1994) currently outline somewhat different nutritional
guidelines (Protein: red, 21-22%; Mexican, 20-25%; Fat: red, 8-13%; Mexican, 5%; Fiber: red,
2%; Mexican, none given). However, many of the facilities with good success breeding Mexican
grays use diets which exceed these recommendations. In fact, a Mexican gray wolf husbandry
survey (Newton and Dinon, 1993) found that six of the ten reporting facilities clearly utilize diets
exceeding 25% protein and five supplemented various dry rations (which may have already
exceeded the reported guidelines) with Nebraska Brand canine or feline diet. With this addition,
the fecal quality often improves but the meat attracts flies with concomitant problems from fly
strikes. The development of a dry diet which could meet all the nutritional needs of the animals
and husbandry goals would be very desirable.
Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet (5M52), with 28.5% protein, 18% fat, and 4.0% fiber, was
developed specifically for the feeding of canids requiring a high energy diet and where a low
fecal volume is desired. The objective of this study was to evaluate this diet as a ration for
endangered wolves maintained in naturalistic enclosures and to obtain documentation as to feed
consumption and fecal quality.
BACKGROUND
Palatability and digestibility trials for Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet (5M52) were completed
(Hopkins and Roselina, 1993) using beagles (Canis lupus familiaris). In the palatability trial,
Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet was preferred 2.1:1 over a leading high density competitive product
(Analysis: 25% protein, 15% fat, 3% fiber) by 20 animals. Digestibility trials with six adults
98
Figure 9-A cont.
resulted in the following values: dry matter 85%, protein 87%, fat 97%, energy 90%,
metabolizable energy, 4.06 Kcal/gm. A growth study conducted with 10 beagle puppies
demonstrated that the product supported satisfactory growth (Hopkins and Roselina, 1993). This
was a good indication that the diet was nutritionally complete and ready for testing in exotic
canids.
In 1992-1993, the Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet was fed to 30 gray wolves as part of a wolf
contraception study at the Wildlife Science Center at Forest Lake, Minnesota (Hopkins and
Roselina, 1993). The feed was furnished as part of an overall study in which an oral
contraceptive was evaluated. Wolves fed Mazuri Exotic Canine did well, had good hair coats,
bright eyes and their fecal quality was excellent as measured by low volume, firmness and the
absence of diarrhea. Reproduction in the control group (those not receiving the oral
contraception) was satisfactory and they raised pups successfully while on the diet.
METHODS
Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet was fed to selected endangered red and Mexican gray wolves
at the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center as the sole regular source of diet. Diet was
treated with Caricide (diethylcarbamizine) onsite to prevent heartworm. Previously to being fed
Mazuri Exotic Canine, manufactured by Purina Mills, Inc., the study wolves had been fed HiPro
(not more than 27% protein, 10% fat, 4.0% fiber) manufactured by Ralston Purina Company
which had been treated with Caricide prior to delivery. All wolves were healthy and doing well
on the HiPro diet; however, fecal quality was less than desired.
Subjects: Four groups of wolves received Mazuri Exotic Canine for varying time
periods from spring 1994 to present. The four groups of animals included in the study to date are:
Pair of adult Mexican gray wolves (1.1)

Received diet: 7 May through 20 November 1994
Male Studbook #89, birth date 29 April 1991
Female SB# 109, birth date 7 May 1992
Pack I of red wolves (2.3; mother and four offspring)

Received diet: 13 May 1994 through March 1995
Female SB# 483, birth date 10 May 1991
Male SB# 625, male SB# 627, female SB# 628,
Female SB# 629; all born to SB#4823 on 3 May 1993
Pack II of red wolves (3.0; father and two offspring)

Received diet: 26 August 94 through present
Male SB# 350, birth date 3 May 1998, father to
Male SB# 615, male SB#616, birth date 27 April 1993
Pack I of Mexican gray wolves (currently 2.4; alpha pair, yearlings and expected pups)
Received diet: 16 December 1994 through present
Male SB# 60, birth date 15 April 1988;
Female SB# 37, birth date 15 April 1984;
Male SB# 166, female SB# 167, Female SB# 168,
99
Figure 9-A cont.
Female SB# 169, all born to SB# 60 and SB# 37
27 April 1994; pups expected late April 1995
Housing: The Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, founded in 1971 by
noted naturalist Dr. R. Marlin Perkins, is a private, nonprofit conservation organization
dedicated to the preservation of the wolf and its place in the natural ecosystem. It is
located on fifty isolated, wooded acres (20.24 ha) within Washington University’s 2000
acre (809.7 ha) Tyson Research Center approximately 20 miles (32.26 km) southwest of
St. Louis, Missouri. This small facility has had significant success in breeding
endangered red and Mexican gray wolves for federally sanctioned recovery efforts. The
study animals were housed within enclosures of varying size (from approximately 0.2 to
2.5 acres; .081 to 1.01 ha) within two wolf complexes. All exhibits have natural substrate
and vegetation; most exhibits have a man-made pond. Animals could excavate their own
dens or use man-made dens or houses for protection against the weather. All enclosures
have double-door keeper systems and shift areas for safety. Diet was placed in trays
housed within metal feeders of standard height (36 in; 92 cm) according to the number of
animals housed within that exhibit. Fresh water was always available in metal tubs (#3,
15 gal; 5.68 dal). Bones were provided weekly. All animals had the opportunity to
depredate within their enclosures. Common prey items include mammals (primarily
rabbits, raccoons, and opossum), rodents, birds (primarily passerines, waterfowl, grouse,
and turkey), reptiles, and fish.
Procedure: Each animal was offered 2 pounds (.906 kg) of diet each morning in
a communal feeder. Conversion from the HiPro diet to the new Mazuri Exotic Canine
diet was done gradually over a six day period. In all cases, the animals readily consumed
the Mazuri Exotic Canine Diet and often did so preferentially leaving behind what HiPro
could be separated easily from the new chow. Feces were graded according to a set
evaluation schedule at least weekly for the first month and monthly thereafter. The fecal
scale used is common to the pet food development industry and was as follows: A. well
formed; B. poorly formed; C. a pile, but no form; D. semi-solid; E. a pool of water.
RESULTS
Diet conversion and fecal ratings during Mazuri consumption were as follows:
A. Mexican gray wolf pair.

7 May 94 Begin conversion to Mazuri
12 May 94 Mazuri only
19 May 94 B
26 May 94 B
2 June 94 B
8 June 94 B
29 June 94 B
8 July 94 B
8 Aug 94 A
Completion of 90 day study
25 Aug 94 A
27 Oct 94 B
20 Nov 94 Switched back to HiPro; impending transfers
100
Figure 9-A cont.
22 Nov 94 Diarrhea reported
B. Red wolf pack I.

13 May 94 Begin conversion to Mazuri
19 May 94 Mazuri only
26 May 94 A
2 June 94 C
8 June 94 B
29 June 94 A
8 Aug 94 A
25 Aug 94 A
Completion of 90 day study
Sept 94 No data collected

27 Oct 94 A
11 Nov 94 A
23 Dec 94 A
14 Jan 94 Pack separated (males from females) for breeding season
April 94 Will reform pack and resume data collection
C. Red wolf pack II was converted gradually to the new diet beginning on 26
August 1994 and were totally on the new diet as of 1 September 1994. This
pack was not part of the original 90 day planned study but was added for
management reasons. The adult male had been losing weight and it was
thought that he might do better on the Mazuri diet. Although he had tested
positive for hookworms on 21 August 94 and the pack was successfully
treated, there was also some behavioral evidence that his weight loss might
be related to aggression from his offspring. A second feeding station was
added to decrease competition and Mazuri was offered. The adult male had
visibly increased appetite and weight by 6 Sept 94. The second feeder was
removed within a few weeks because it received few visits from the pack.
This pack, which continues to be fed Mazuri, has maintained good condition
and fecal ratings in the “A” and “B” categories.
D. Mexican wolf pack I (Breeding group 2.4).
Dec 94 Receiving HiPro, C (average; D and E also found)

16 Dec 94 C, yellow; begin conversion to Mazuri
22 Dec 94 Mazuri only
23 Dec 94 B, color change to dark brown
30 Dec 94 A
6 Jan 95 A
13 Jan 95 B
20 Jan 95 A
27 Jan 95 A
3 Feb 95 A
10 Feb 95 A
17 Feb 95 B
24 Feb 95 A
3 Mar 95 A
10 Mar 95 B
101
Figure 9-A cont.
17 Mar 95 A
DISCUSSION
Both Ralston Purina’s HiPro dog food and Purina Mills, Inc.’s Mazuri Exotic Canine
Diet maintained wolves in good condition. However, during the period of comparison fecals
were of a more desired consistency for those animals receiving the Mazuri diet.
All wolves participating in the Mazuri 90-day study (pair of Mexican grays and pack I of
reds) and those currently fed the new diet (pack II of reds and pack I of Mexican grays) have
maintained good general condition. Per visual inspection, hair coat was consistent and no animal
appeared to gain or lose weight, although none were weighed during the 90-day study. All
animals had good “brightness of eye”; however, the usual summer allergy eye drainages were
experienced with the pair of Mexican gray wolves. The most striking effect was the feces, which
improved quickly once the new diet was begun. The fecals for study animals were distinct piles
and either well or at least somewhat formed; none were watery. This was in contrast to the
droppings of wolves fed regular commercial dog food; their fecals were often either watery or
semi-solid.
This will be the first breeding and pup rearing seasons when breeding packs at the Wild
Canid Survival and Research Center have not received HiPro supplemented with Nebraska Brand
Canine Diet. Additional data, including weights, for the Mexican gray pack will be available
from the authors by winter 1995.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Wild Canid Survival and Research Center gratefully acknowledges the donation of
feeds from both Ralston Purina and Purina Mills, Inc. Ralston Purina has donated Caricide
treated feed since Marlin Perkins first founded the WCSRC in 1971. Purina Mills, Inc. donated
the Mazuri Exotic Canine diet and Caricide for the experimental groups. Keepers Kim Bishop,
Jim Hunter, Rachel Garcia, Steve Allain, and Deborah Bear all helped collect fecal scores. Dr.
William Armon, Kim Bishop, Frank Olive, Dave Payne, and Rich Zerillo assisted in obtaining
baseline weight information for the Mexican gray wolf pack.
REFERENCES
Hopkins, Daniel T. and Angel C. Roselina. 1993. Research results for Mazuri exotic canine diet
5m52. Private communication. Purina Mills, Inc.
Lyndaker, Susan M. 1980. The development of begging and regurgitation in wolf (Canis lupus)
pups. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
Mech, L. David. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural
History Press, Garden City, NY.
Newton, Kent and John Dinon. 1993. Mexican wolf husbandry survey summary. Report to the
Mexican Wolf Captive Management Committee.
102
Figure
Newton, Kent and John Dinon. 1994. Mexican gray wolf husbandry guidelines, 9-A cont.
1st draft.
Mexican Wolf Captive Management Committee and Mexican Gray Wolf SSP.
Vainisi, Stephen J., Henfry F. Edelhauser, E. Dan Wolf, Edward Cotlier, and Frederick Reeser.
1981. Nutritional cataracts in timber wolves. J. American Veterinary Medical Association.
179(11):1175-1180.
Waddell, Will. 1994. Red wolf husbandry guideline, 2nd draft. Red Wolf SSP Management
Group.
103
Figure 9-B
Hand-Rearing Guidelines
As a rule, wolf pups are only removed for hand-rearing in extraordinary circumstances
greatly outweigh the domesticating influences of hand-rearing.
Whenever possible, cross-fostering of pups would be preferred to pulling pups for hand-
rearing. In cross-fostering, pups would be placed with those being cared for by a
competent proven female at the same institution or another institution with a suitable
match. Consultation with and approval from the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery
Coordinator and MWSSP Coordinator are required as with hand-rearing.
If the pups are removed before they have suckled, they will not have received any passive
immunity from their mother's first milk. The pups need to be provided with their passive
immunity, and this can be done in two ways. First, the mother can be milked for her
colostrum which can then be fed directly to the pups. Second, 3cc to 5cc of mother's
blood serum can be injected subcutaneously to each pup. The serum can be administered
a few days after they have received their colostrum or twice the first week if colostrum is
not available.
The pups should be fed an unmodified Esbilac formula. The amount of formula fed per
twenty-four hour period should total about 20% of the pup's body weight. For example, a
700 g (24.5 oz) pup should receive 140 g (4.9 oz) or 140 ml (4.2 oz) of formula, divided
into several evenly spaced feedings, per twenty-four hour period. A regular human infant
nipple works well. Heat only the amount measured for each feeding to body temperature.
At three weeks of age begin to offer milk-soaked puppy chow, and then wean them from
the bottle.
Until the pups are at least twenty-one days old, they should be kept in an environment
above 85°F (29°C). A pup's rectal temperature should be about 100°-101°F (37.8°-
38.3°C).
Document the feeding schedule, the amounts of formula offered and taken at each
feeding, the stool condition, and daily weights. Vaccinate according to schedule.
On the few occasions when hand-rearing was necessary in the Mexican Wolf SSP©, the
pup(s) were placed with a suitable wolf companion at as early an age as possible.
Socialization to humans is very undesirable and not compatible with the goals of the
recovery program. Recommendations may include shipping pups to a facility where they
could be housed with age mates or a suitable older foster parent wolf. Close
communication with the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator and MWSSP
Coordinator is required throughout this process.
Information on parental care, hand-rearing, and cross-fostering can also be found in

Chapter 4.
104
CHAPTER 10:
TRANSPORT AND SHIPPING
General:
Medical specimen records should always be sent in advance of a shipment and should
also accompany the wolf during shipment. There should also be coordination between
the two facilities’ veterinary staff to determine which preshipment medical exams the
receiving facility would like performed.
Local Transport:
For local transport to another pen, veterinary clinic, etc., the animal should be placed in a
crate in a well-ventilated vehicle. Under no circumstances should a crated wolf be left
for any period in direct sunlight or in areas where there is excessive noise and
commotion. Adult wolves that have experience being crated will normally lie quietly in a
crate while being transported. Young wolves that have not been crated may thrash
around or periodically bite at the crate. This reaction can be reduced by loosely covering
the crate with a light shade screen or tarp.
When transporting wolves in vehicles over long distances, animals should be transported
in secured crates similar to those used for air transport. Equipment such as nets, noose,
medical kit, cellular phone should be taken along in the event that problems arise. The
vehicle should be well ventilated and the temperature monitored so that the wolves do not
become over-heated or chilled. At no time should wolves be transported over long
distances in the back of a pick-up truck. The maximum amount of time to consider
transporting wolves over long distances should not exceed twenty-four hours. Wolves
should never be crated the night before a scheduled transport (vehicle or air). If
departures are anticipated when it is dark, the wolf should be moved to a smaller holding
area to allow for easier crating.
Air or Long Distance Transport:
If the animal is to be transported over a great distance, it can be shipped by commercial

air freight. Mexican gray wolves should not be sedated for a long distance shipment. If
the animal should become ill while under sedation it may not be able to clear its throat of
obstruction and should it try to stand without having a full sense of balance, it may fall
and injure itself. Because of the hazard of motion sickness, animals should be fasted for
at least twelve hours prior to shipment. Water should be provided up until the animal is
crated for shipment.
Considerations when arranging animal shipments include ambient temperatures, length of

time the animal is confined to the shipping crate, and the amount of extra handling
105
required by the airlines. Most commercial airlines have internal, as well as Federal,
regulations that sufficiently address the welfare of the animal; however, facility
personnel should still monitor the shipment and do everything possible to coordinate with
the airlines. Due to the possibility of heat stress, it is recommended that animals be
shipped during the cooler months of the year or at night during the summer months. (It is
recommended to not ship wolves by air when the temperature is above 80o because of
heat stress.) Most airlines will not accept the animal shipment if air temperatures are
excessive (generally above 84oF or below 32oF; 28.9oC/0oC) at any point where the
animal will be on the ground. Whenever possible, non-stop flights should be scheduled
between the shipping points. If a shipment requires a change of planes it means layover
time for the animal with additional handling required by the airline, longer crate time for
the wolf, and potentially undesirable holding areas (such as on the tarmac or within stuffy
baggage carts). Although most airlines require a minimum of a two hour layover to
guarantee transfer to the new plane it often can be longer—sometimes as much as six
hours. For these reasons, layovers and indirect flights should be avoided if at all possible.
Inter-airline transfers pose even larger problems since they require more coordination and
there is also a risk of the animal missing its flight.
Shipper’s Responsibility:
The airline will require that a reservation to ship the animal be made several days in
advance. Once the shipping arrangements have been made and confirmed, the shipper, as
a precaution, should contact each airline freight manager that will be involved in the
shipment. The freight manager should be contacted to go over pertinent information on
the nature of the animal and any special precautions such as avoiding heat (by keeping
the animal's crate in a well-ventilated, shaded area during periods that it is on the
ground). Shippers must always be alert to changes, and the fact that sometimes airline
personnel may make a mistake and give out wrong information. A call to the airline, an
hour before leaving for the airport, is advisable to confirm times and check for
cancellations due to technical problems or weather conditions. Carriers may also place a
ban on animal shipments to certain locations if the temperature is considered too risky, or
during certain times of the year like Christmas and other holidays because cargo space is
full from extra mail and packages. After the animal has departed, the shipping facility
should contact the receiving facility to confirm that the shipment has been made and to
inform them of any known changes in routing of the wolf.
Required Documents - Depending on the carrier or the receiving facility, paperwork

required to accompany the animal may include, but not be limited to: two copies of a
health certificate from the shipper’s veterinarian stating the date of the animal’s last
rabies vaccination and that the animal is in good health (Figure 10-A); two copies of a
USDA animal transfer form (Figure 10-B); health records of the animal; and an
endangered species permit along with the shipper’s USFWS Mexican Wolf Loan
Agreement. Animal data transfer forms and Enrichment data transfer forms are available
through the American Association of Zookeepers (Figures 10-C and 10-D), plus the
animal’s transponder number should also be included. The AAZK forms are available
from aazkoffice@zk.kscoxmail.com or 1-800-242-4519 via Barbara Manspeaker.
106
Receiver’s Responsibilities:
The receiver should call the airline to confirm that the animal made its connection, if the
plane will be arriving on schedule or if the animal was loaded on an earlier flight etc.
Appropriate arrangements should be made if there were changes to the original flight.
After an animal has arrived and been transported to the receiving facility, the receiving
facility should call the shipper to inform them that the animal arrived safely. It is standard
procedure for the receiving facility to pay all shipping costs. Unless otherwise arranged
shipping crates should also be returned promptly to the sender at the receiving facility's
expense.
Transport Crate and Shipping Preparation:
Strict adherence by many airline carriers to IATA policies and in some cases outright
refusal to ship a wolf has compounded shipping difficulties. Acceptable crates will vary
according to airlines, the location (city) of the airline and even airline personnel accepting
a wolf for shipment. The crate selected for shipping should be strong enough to withstand
the rigors of shipping, enclosed to provide security for the animal, well ventilated, and
just large enough for the animal to lie down, turn around, and stand. If a standard 500 size
Vari-Kennel or its equivalent is used, modifications may be required to secure the animal
inside. The doors and windows should be fortified with welded wire fabric, the door
should be wired to the crate by way of pre-drilled holes through the plastic entrance, and
burlap is fitted over the doors and windows to reduce stress on the animals during
shipment. The shipper should confer with the airline to be certain that the dimensions of
the crate selected meet their minimum requirements for the size of the animal, as well as
any maximum size restrictions specific to the aircraft (Figure 10-E). In order to prevent
urine or feces from spilling out of the crate into the aircraft and to keep the animal dry,
airlines may require a bedding material to cover the bottom of the crate. In general, wood
shavings are recommended as bedding. However, refer to USDA guidelines when
shipping internationally, straw or certain other agricultural products may not be allowed
into the destination country. Water and/or food containers in the crate are not
recommended for shipping; wolves can and will chew the small plastic dishes supplied
with the crates. Some airlines or individual personnel may argue the need for this based
on USDA guidelines and/or their own airline policies. However, a letter from the
facility's veterinarian stating that it is not recommended often alleviates delays or refusal
to ship (Figure 10-F).
Clear instructions that USFWS personnel or cooperators would be made available to care
for the wolf if the animal should be delayed helps to alleviate concerns (i.e. the airline
isn't responsible for watering or feeding when a delay occurs). If the shipping facility has
had difficulty with particular airlines strictly enforcing this policy refer to USDA Subpart
F. Section 3.139(c), "A sufficient quantity of food and water shall accompany the live
animal to provide food and water for such animal for a period of at least 24 hours, except
as directed by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, and other professionally
accepted practices." If transport exceeds 24 hours, it is recommended that an attendant
from the shipping facility accompany the wolf. We are always concerned about heat
107
stress with shipments; however, the airlines may also express concern regarding cold
temperatures during our fall shipping season. These concerns can also be addressed
through the Certificate of Acclimation (Figure 10-F). The crate must be clearly marked
(Figure 10-G) with the shipper's name and address, the receiver's name and address,
contact names and phone numbers for the shipper and receiver, the species name and
indication that it is an endangered species. Most airlines also require upward arrows
indicating right side up for the crate. Examples of institutional shipment and arrival check
lists can be found in Figures 10-H and 10-I.
Transport between the United States and Mexico:

International shipment between countries obviously requires another level of preparation
and coordination. Shipments involving animal transfer across the United States – Mexico
border are generally designated at the summer meeting several months before an actual
shipment is done; this time is frequently required in order to be certain that appropriate
government paperwork is in order. Shipments have been coordinated to occur
simultaneously at a border checkpoint but are also frequently executed solely by air
travel. Institutions requested to be part of an international transport are urged to discuss
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service advisor and SSP Coordinator requirements of the
move and also use the expertise of other institutions which have been involved in recent
shipments. An international shipment document check list can be found in Figure10-J.
Group.
108
Figure 10-A. Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (Health certificate).
109
Figure 10-B. USDA Animal Transfer Form.
110
ANIMAL DATA TRANSFER FORM
1. Animal keepers’ information on a new arrival. Figure 10-C
2. Copy for keepers caring for this animal.
3. Copy for zoo files and/or veterinarian.
Date:
Common Name: Scientific Name:
Vendor
Individual Sex Birth Date* Weight* Specimen# Zoo ID Studbook #
Name (ISIS#)
1.
2.
3.
*Note if it is actual or estimated
Diet: Present diet and supplements, favored items, problem foods, feeding procedures.
Brief Reproduction Record: Relative data, introduction techniques, behavior towards young,
specific concerns.
General Medical History and Physical Conditions: Usual response to medicine, including
immobilizing agents and their successful mode of administration, recurring physical problems
and symptoms.
Enclosure, Maintenance Data: General exhibit description, cage mates, considerations to avoid
abnormal behavior, cleaning and disinfecting procedures.
Sending Institution: Please indicate if option is desired. Yes No
Option: State condition of animal(s) upon arrival and return a copy of this form to the institution
that shipped the animal(s).
Present Institution_______________________________________________________________
Previous Institution______________________________________________________________
Future Institution________________________________________________________________
Form completed by _______________________________Title___________________________
Telephone______________________________________________________________________
111
ENRICHMENT DATA TRANSFER FORM Figure 10-D
1. Quarantine keeper staff
2. Copy for keepers caring for this animal
3. Copy for zoo files and/or veterinarian
Date:
Institution Telephone
Contact person Fax/Email
Common name Scientific Name
House name Sex Age ISIS #
Behavioral History: Behavioral and medical problems, general behavior
Reactions to keepers (shy, likes males vs. females)

Stereotypic behavior: List How frequent
How severe Duration Triggers What helps
Other relevant information
Trained Behaviors
How often squeeze cage/chute
General Background Information: (Check or list all that apply)
Social – Housed alone Housed w/same species (#)
Housed with mixed species species housed with
Housed on exhibit off-exhibit access to both
Rearing type – mother hand-reared peer family/social
Preferred enrichment for this animal
Enrichment offered: daily weekly monthly scheduled
other
Naturalistic/Exhibit Enrichment: (When offered or provided, please list or check
where applicable)
Static:
Substrates sand gunite mulch leaf litter soil
other
Plants/rotten logs/termite mounds/trees in enclosure
Streams/Ponds Perches-artificial/natural
112
Figure 10-D cont.
Is indoor area – holding exhibit natural looking concrete/chain-link

has plants no indoors
Rotating
Substrates: sand mulch leaf litter soil other
How often enrichment given
Perches-artificial/natural Plants/rotten logs
Olfactory Auditory
Other (snake sheds, hot rocks/cooling/misting, etc.)
Food Enrichment: (variety, presentation, style, please list or check, includes diet and
food enrichment)
# of feedings per day varied times when food scattered
hidden
Carcass foods (roadkill, hides, parts, feeder animals, bones)
Live foods Diet varied - highly moderate slightly
not at all
Preferred foods Diet – blended dried diced whole
cut
Browse (list types)
Browse offered: daily weekly monthly frozen
fresh
Other (rawhide, popsicles, blood trails, etc.)
Artificial Enrichment: (Check and list)

PVC feeders Tires Burlap/towels
Plastic containers Puzzle feeder
Cardboard boxes/tubes/bags Robes/vines
Balls/kegs/barrels Toys (Kong®, dog chews, etc.)
Attachments used (chain, rope, bungee) How often enrichment given
113
Figure 10-D cont.
Other
Safety Concerns: (eats plastic or cardboard, items animals shouldn’t have, bad
experiences, failed items)
Comments:
114
Figure 10-E
From IATA Live Animal Regulations, 285th Edition effective 1 October 2001
Note: These are the published IATA recommendations, but many airlines allow shipments in adapted
Vari-Kennels. These kennels typically have the windows and doors covered with wire mesh and burlap (or some
CONTAINER REQUIREMENT 82
The illustrations shown in this Container Requirement are examples only. Containers that
conform to the principle of written guidelines for the species but look slightly different will
still meet the IATA standards.
Applicable to:
Aardwolf Dhole Jackal Panda (lessor or red)
Badger species Dog, bush wild Jaguarundi Tasmanian tiger
Bobcat Dog, hunting wild Lynx Wild cat species (small)
Bush dog Dog, fighting Maned wolf Wolf
Caracal Fox species Ocelot Wolverine
Coyote Hyaena species Otter species
See Variations GBG-05, HKG-01, SAG-02, USG-08 and other USG Variations in Chapter 2 and
Variations AF-01, BA-04, Co-04/05/09, IB-01 and SV-01 in Chapter 3.
1. CONTAINER CONSTRUCTION
(see Variation QF-01 in Chapter 3)
Materials
Wood, metal, weld mesh and wire mesh.
Principles of Design
The following principles of design must be met in addition to the General Container Requirements
outlined at the beginning of this chapter.
Dimension
The height of the container must allow the animal to stand in a natural position with its head
extended and the width must permit it to turn around and lie down comfortably. The actual
measurements will vary with the species involved.
Frame
The frame must be made from solid wood or metal parts bolted or screwed together. It must be
constructed so that it cannot be damaged from continual biting or scratching at the corners. If the
total weight of the container plus animal exceeds 60 kg (132 lb) metal bracing must be added to
the frame.
115
Figure 10-E cont.
Sides
The sides and door must be made of metal or solid wood. The front of the container must be
constructed of weld mesh. The mesh must have a diameter that will prevent the animal
protruding its nose or paws to the outside. The whole front must be covered by a sliding shutter
which can be raised and lowered to permit feeding and watering. It must have two observation
holes of at least 10 cm (4 inc) in the upper part and ventilation holes, with a minimum diameter of
2.5 cm (1 in), spread over the remainder of the surface in order to give good ventilation but at the
same time leave the animal in semi-darkness.
Floor
The floor must be slatted, over a leak-proof droppings tray.
Roof
Must be solid wood or metal with ventilation openings over its surface.
Doors
A sliding door must be provided, it can be made from the weld meshed ventilation front if
required. It must have a secure means of fastening so that it cannot be opened accidentally.
Ventilation
The main ventilation front must be supplemented by meshed openings along the upper part of the
container walls and/or holes with a minimum diameter of 2.5 cm (1 in) spread over the top third of
the sides and the whole of the back and top. These holes must be spaced both horizontally and
vertically at intervals of approximately 10 cm (4 in) centre to centre. It is essential that there is
some ventilation provided in the lower third of the sides for the removal of harmful waste gases.
The total ventilated area must be at least 20% of the total area of the surface of all four sides.
More ventilation and the use of larger meshed openings is permitted but the animal must not be
able to protrude its nose or paws to the outside from any opening.
If the mesh is fixed to the interior of the container all sharp edges must be protected.
Spacer Bars/Handles
Must be made to a depth of 2.5 cm (1 in), must be present on the sides of the container as shown
in the illustration.
Feed and Water Containers
Food and water containers must be provided with a means of access from the outside.
Special Requirements
Hyena, wolves, badger, otter, wolverine and wild dogs, must have the container completely lined
with sheet iron or other hard metal sheeting with through ventilation holes cut into it.
Palletized shipments must have the containers made entirely of weld mesh of a suitable
dimension that no part of the animal can protrude in order to ensure good ventilation.
Forklift Spacers
Must be provided if the total weight of the container plus the animal exceeds 60 kg (132 lb).
116
Figure 10-E cont.
Rigid Plastic Pet Containers

(see Container Requirement 1)
Some of the less destructive of these species can be transported individually in modified rigid
plastic pet containers.
Animals over 25 kg (56 lb) are carried at the discretion of the carrier.
The following modifications must be made:
the grill door must be covered with securely fixed weld mesh and all ventilation openings
covered with wire mesh;
the door of the larger containers must have secure fastenings at the top and the bottom;
a curtain, that can be raised and lowered and does not impede ventilation, must be fixed
over the door to reduce light inside the container;
a dropping tray must be fixed to the floor and filled with absorbent material;
there must be ventilation openings on the rear of the container, extra ventilation openings
may have to be made in order that the total ventilation area is at least 20% of the four
sides.;
food and water containers must be fixed inside with access from the outside;
the container must be correctly labeled.
If a container has wheels, they must be removed or rendered inoperable.
2. PREPARATIONS BEFORE DISPATCH

(see Chapters 5 and 10)
No special requirements.
3. FEEDING AND WATERING GUIDE
(for emergency use only)
Animals do not normally require additional feeding or watering during 24 hours following the time
of dispatch.
If feeding is required due to an unforeseen delay, canned dog or cat food must be provided but
care must be taken not to overfeed.
4. GENERAL CARE AND LOADING
(see chapters 5 and 10)
Animals in quarantine must be segregated from those which are not.
Hand-reared young may be loaded in the same container as long as they are used to cohabiting.
117
Figure 10-F
Certificate of Acclimation
Number of Animals:
Species:
The wolf contained in this crate/enclosure

is acclimated to air temperatures below
32° but not lower than 0° F.
Do not feed or water. Call for assistance

if animal is delayed (636) 938-6490.
Veterinarian Signature:
Date:
Figure 10-G
Example of
crate label.
118
WOLF SHIPMENT CHECK LIST
Figure 10-H
Date of shipment:________________________________________________________________________
House name and #:_______________________________________________________________________
Species:_______________________________________________________________________________
Receiving Facility:_______________________________________________________________________
Initial as completed, form is to remain with animal’s file.
Do not file away until all paper work has been returned and completed.
__________ Take away food by 5pm the night before shipment.

__________ Prepare crates for shipment:
_____name, address, and phone numbers of shipping facility
_____name, address, and phone numbers of receiving facility
_____live animal stickers
_____do not feed or water – see instructions inside message
_____designate animal’s endangered status, species, and to observe caution
while handling crate
_____bailing wire and metal rods to secure door
_____burlap pieces to cover door and windows
_____duct tape to secure burlap over windows and door
_____wood shavings in bottom of crate
__________ Paper work to accompany shipment:

_____ISIS transfer form
_____copy of animal’s file
_____two copies of the health certificate (a copy and the original)
_____acclimation letter
_____AAZK animal data transfer form
_____AAZK enrichment data transfer form
_____USDA transfer form
_____take copy of WCSRC permits to airport – just in case
If receiving facility is new:

_____include copy of our permits
_____include copy of their permits
__________ Paper work after completion of shipment:

_____take out of ISIS
_____copy of USDA transfer form into animal’s file
(if flying) _____copy of Airway bill in animal’s file
_____original airway bill (stapled to USDA form) filed in USDA folder for
inspector
_____pull original animal file from active and file in inactive
Date:
__________ Vari-kennel and/or other equipment returned from receiving institution.
__________ Receiving institution’s accession # for transfer animal.
___________ Communicate transfer info to SSP Studbook Keeper including receiving
institution’s accession # for transfer animal.
_________ Signed USDA transfer form returned from receiving institution (file in USDA
folder for inspector).
119
Figure 10-I
WOLF ARRIVAL CHECK LIST
Date of arrival:__________________________________________________________________
Mode of Transport (flight#):_______________________________________________________
House name and #:_______________________________________________________________

Species:_______________________________________________________________________
Shipping Facility:________________________________________________________________
Initial as completed – form is to remain with animal’s file.

Do not file away until all paper work has been returned and completed
__________ Prepare enclosure or holding area:

_____food/water pans
_____shelter
_____locks
_____other:________________________________
__________ Paper work:

_____prepare file for active file
_____prepare copy of file for safe
_____copy of USDA transfer form in USDA file (with airbill if applicable)
_____enter new animal in ISIS
_____assign WCSRC accession #
__________ Paper work etc. sent back to facility:

_____mail back signed USDA transfer form
_____send copy of our ISIS report indicating our accession # for new animal
_____communicate transfer info to SSP Studbook Keeper including accession #
_____return equipment and/or shipping crate
120
Figure 10-J
INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENT CHECK LIST

Mexican gray wolves being shipped from United States to Mexico
(as of 12/2008)
US Shipper:
_____ USDA interstate/international certificate of health – APHIS form 7001
_____ APHIS form 720 – Record of Acquisition/Disposition/ or Transfer of Animals
_____ USFWS form 3-177 pre-cleared for where animal is being loaded
_____ General precautionary instructions regarding: feeding, watering, not opening crate
_____ Broker arrangements for where the wolf is entering
_____ Rabies certificate from the shipping institution’s veterinarian
_____ Pro Forma Commercial Invoice
_____ US Customs North America Free Trade Agreement – Certificate of Origin (may
not need but better to have this document than to have the wolf turned back at border)
Need to get from Mexico:
_____ CITES Import Permit
_____ Hoja de Requisitos Zoosanitarios (some information on this form needs to be

transferred to the USDA form)
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2009
Allen, L.S. 1990. Habitat management for the Mexican wolf. 8pp. In Proc. Arizona
Wolf Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe,
Arizona.
Ames, N. 1980. Mexican wolves in captivity: a review of the lineage originating in the
1960s at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Unpublished report. New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 36pp.
Asa, C.S., K.L. Bauman, M. Callahan, J.E. Bauman, D.H. Volkmann, and W. Jöchle.
2006. Induction of fertile estrus with either natural mating or artificial
insemination followed by birth of pups in gray wolves (Canis lupus).
Theriogenology 66:1778-1782.
Asa, C., P. Miller, M. Agnew, J.A.R Rebolledo, S.L. Lindsey, M. Callahan, and K.
Bauman. 2007. Relationship of inbreeding with sperm quality and reproductive
success in Mexican gray wolves. Animal Conservation 10:326-331.
Bailey, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau

of Biological Survey, Washington, D.C. North American Fauna No. 53:1-412.
Baker, R.H. and B. Villa-R. 1960. Distribucion geographica y poblacion actuales del
lobo gris en Mexico. Anal. Inst. Biol. Univ. Nacional Mexico 30:369-374.
Bernal-Stoopen, J. 1989. Proyecto biológico para la recuperación del lobo mexicano

(Canis lupus baileyi). Pages 175-207 In Memorias del VI Simposio sobre Fauna
Silvestre. F.M.V.Z., U.N.A.M., Mexico, D.F.
______ and J.M. Packard. 1997. Differences in winter activity, courtship, and social
behavior of two captive family groups of Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi).
Zoo Biology 16(5): 435-443.
Bednarz, J.C. 1988. The Mexican wolf: biology, history, and prospects for
reestablishment in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report 18. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 70pp.
______. 1989. An evaluation of the ecological potential of White Sands Missile Range
to support a reintroduced population of Mexican wolves. Endangered Species
Report 19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 96pp.
Biggs, J.R. 1988. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into New Mexico: an attitude
survey. Masters thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
66pp.
122
Bogan, M.A., and P. Melhop. 1983. Systematic relationships of gray wolves (Canis
lupus) in southwestern North America. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Southwestern Biology, Univ. New Mexico, No.1. 21pp.
Bowdoin, J., R.J. Wiese, K. Willis, and M. Hutchins, eds. 1994. AZA annual report on
conservation and science. American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums, Bethesda, Maryland. 375pp.
Brown, D. E., ed. 1983. The wolf in the southwest: the making of an endangered
species. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 195pp.
______. 1990. Comparing southwestern and Mediterranean wolves. 8pp. In Proc.

Arizona Wolf Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society,
Tempe, Arizona.
Brown, W. 1999. Mexican wolf reintroduction annual report I. Reporting period:

January 1 – December 31, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,
New Mexico. 12pp.
______. 2000. Mexican wolf reintroduction annual report I. Reporting period: January 1
– December 31, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. 12pp.
______. 2001. Mexican wolf reintroduction annual report I. Reporting period: January 1
– December 31, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. 12pp.
Burbank, J. C. 1990. Vanishing lobo. Johnson Publishing Co., Boulder, Colorado.

208pp.
Carley, C.J. 1979. Narrative report on alleged Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)
lineages held in captivity. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6pp.
Carrera, J.A. 1990. Survival in Mexico today. 3pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf Symposium
'90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe, Arizona.
______. 1995. Mexican wolf recovery program, annual report 1994. Unpublished
report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 10pp.
Cerda-Ardura, A. 1992. Probabilities of extinction of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus

baileyi) and guidelines for its genetic and demographic management. Dissertation
submitted to the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust and the University of Kent at
Canterbury, England. 55pp.
______, and F. Soberon-Mobarak. 1993. Analisis de la poblacion certificada de lobo
123
mexicano y lineamientos para su manejo genetico y demografico. 5pp. In
Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico
de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
______ and ______. 1993. Probabilidades de extincion del lobo mexicano mediante
simulaciones de cambio estocastico. 7pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium
Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE,
DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
______ and ______. 1993. Estrategia general para la conservacion del potential
evolutivo del lobo mexicano. 6pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional
sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF,
UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
Cochran, C. 1990. A call for the wild: Mexican wolf slide show. 7pp. In Proc. Arizona
Arizona.
Crissey, S.D., K.D. Ange, K.A. Slifka, W. Sadler, S. Kahn and A.M. Ward. 2004.
Serum lipid concentrations in six canid and four ursid species in zoos. Journal of
Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 35(1): 34-39.
Defenders of Wildlife. 1994. Fact sheet - Wolf compensation fund. Defenders of

Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 2pp.
Drag, M.D. 1991. Hematologic values for captive Mexican wolves. Am. Jour. Vet. Res.
52:1891-1892.
______. 1995. Serum chemistry values for captive Mexican wolves. In L. Carbyn, S.
Fritts and D. Seips, eds. Ecology and management of wolves in a changing world.
Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publication No.35: 447-451.
Duffield, J., and C. Neher. 1994. Mexican wolf economic impacts. Contractor report by
Bioeconomics, Missoula, Montana, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Esquivel-Lacroix, C., Rivera-Rebolledo J.A., R.M. Paramo-Ramirez, G. Lopez-Islas, and

F. Mata-Castro. 1993. Utilizacion de la citogia vaginal exfoliativa para el
seguimiento del ciclo estral del lobo gris mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi), Parte II.
10pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano.
Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
______, J.A. Rivera-R., R.M. Paramo-R., G. Lopez-I., and E. Beatriz-A. 1993.

Diagnostico de gestacion in lobo mexicano, Canis lupus baileyi, a traves de
ultrasonido de tiempo real. 4pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre
el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM,
124
Mexico, D.F.
Fain, S.R., L.A. DeLisle, B.F. Taylor, J.P. LeMay, and P. Jarrell. 1995. Nuclear DNA
fingerprint and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation in captive populations of
Mexican gray wolves. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, NM.
Findley, J.S., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico.
Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 360pp.
Fredrickson, R. and P. Hedrick. 2002. Body size in endangered Mexican wolves: effects
of inbreeding and cross-lineage matings. Animal Conservation 5:39-43.
Fredrickson, R., P. Siminski, M. Woolf, and P.W. Hedrick. 2007. Genetic rescue and
inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 274.
7p.
García-Moreno, J., M.D. Matocq, M.S. Roy, E. Geffen, and R.K. Wayne. 1996.
Relationships and genetic purity of the endangered Mexican wolf based on
analysis of microsatellite loci. Conservation Biology 10:376-389.
Girmendonk, A.L. 1994a. Mexican wolf sighting reports in Arizona; 1983-1993.

Unpublished report, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 12pp.
______. 1994b. Mexican wolf prey densities: Arizona management zone, primary zone
and Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10. Unpublished report.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 16pp.
Gish, D.M. 1977. An historical look at the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in
early Arizona Territory and since statehood. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and
Groebner, D.J., A.L. Girmendonk, and T.B. Johnson. 1995. A proposed cooperative
reintroduction plan for the Mexican wolf in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program Technical Report 56. Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Phoenix, Arizona. 135pp.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. The Ronald Press
Co., New York, NY. Vol. I and II. 1083pp.
Harwell, G. 1984. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) studbook, 31 August
1982 to 1 November 1984. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona.
8pp.
Harwell, G., J. Angell and R.E. Merideth. 1985. Chronic superficial keratitis in a
Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi. J. Am Vet Med Assoc 187(11): 1268.
125
Hedrick, P.W. 1995. Genetic evaluation of the three captive Mexican wolf lineages and
consequent recommendations. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 23pp.
______, P.S. Miller, E. Geffen and R. Wayne. 1997. Genetic evaluation of the three
captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biology 16:47-69.
Hernandez, L., A. Lafon, and S. Gallina. 1985. Distributión actual de lobo mexicano
(Canis lupus baileyi, Nelson y Goldman). Reporte Primera Etapa. Instituto de
Ecología - SEDUE, Mexico City, D.F. 15pp.
Hernandez-A., R., C. Melendez-T., R. Molina-F., and F. Garza-S.. 1990. Evaluacion y

recuperacion del habitat del lobo mexicano en el estado de Sonora. Unpublished
report. Centro Ecologico de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, 54pp.
Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press and Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Tucson, Arizona. 602pp.
Housholder, B. 1959. The wolf in Arizona, part I. Arizona Wildlife-Sportsman, October

1959.
______. 1968. The wolf in Arizona. Private printing. 20pp.
Hubbard, J.P. 1994. Potential impacts of Mexican wolf reestablishment on indigenous,

endangered wildlife in New Mexico. Unpublished report, New Mexico
Department of Fish and Game, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 22pp.
Jenkins, P.T. 1993. Public scoping summary - Mexican wolf reintroduction.

Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
9pp.
Johnson, T.B. 1990. Preliminary results of a public opinion survey of Arizona residents
and interest groups about the Mexican wolf. Unpublished report, Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 55pp.
______. 1990. Habitat preferences of the Mexican wolf. 6pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf
Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe,
Arizona.
______, D.M. Noel, and L.Z. Ward. 1992. Summary of information on four potential
Mexican wolf reintroduction areas in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program Technical Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Phoenix, Arizona. 88pp.
Kalinowski, S.T., P.W. Hedrick and P.S. Miller. 1999. No evidence for inbreeding
126
depression in Mexican and red wolf captive breeding programs. Conservation
Biology 13(6):1371-1377.
Kawata, K. 1997. Return of el lobo: a recovery program coming of age. International

Zoo News 10/11:1-14.
Kelly, B. M. Brown and O. Byers, eds. 2001. Mexican wolf reintroduction program
three-year review workshop: final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. 130pp.
Kitchen, A.M. and F.F. Knowlton. 2006. Cross-fostering in coyotes: evaluation of a

Potential conservation and research tool for canids. Biological Conservation 129:
221-225.
Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico: the game birds and mammals. Univ. of
California Press, Berkeley, California. 568pp.
Lindsey, S. Lyndaker and D.P. Siminski. 2003, Return of the Mexican wolf – a
binational success story. WAZA Magazine No.4:20-22.
Lindsey, S. Lyndaker and P. Siminski. 2007. Return of the Mexican wolf – a

binational success story. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Connect, January
2007:12-13.
López-Islas, G. 1993. Potential aporte genetico del L-SJA de lobo mexicano al

programa de cria en cautiverio de Canis lupus baileyi. 7pp. In Memorias Primer
Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de
Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
______. 1993. Actividades de la subcomision de manejo en cautiverio. 4pp. In

______, and C.B. Vázquez-Gonzáles. 1993. Linaje de lobos mexicanos "San Juan de
Aragon": historia, evidencias de su authenticidad y posibilidad de certificacion.
Manrique-Nobara, B., M.I. Reyna-Medrano, and G. Islas-Dondé.(moderadors) 1993.

Conclusiones y recomendaciones del I Simposium Nacional sobre el lobo
mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi). 6pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional
sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF,
UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
Marinez-Meyer, E., A. Townsend Peterson, J.I. Servin and L.F. Kiff. 2006. Ecological
niche modelling and prioritizing areas for species reintroductions. Oryx, 40(4), 411-418.
127
Maqueda-Amador, N.L., J.A. Rivera-Rebolledo, and R. Marroquín-Gonzáles. 1993.
Manejo medico del lobo gris mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) en el Zoologico San
Juan de Aragon. 5pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo
Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico,
D.F.
McBride, R.T. 1978. Status of the gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in Mexico.
Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
72pp.
______. 1980. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi): a historical review and
observations on its status and distribution. Endangered Species Report 8. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38pp.
Mech, L.D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species.
Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 380pp.
Montero-Montero, E. 1993. Asociaciones civiles y el lobo mexicano en San Juan de

Aragon, (1981-1993). 3pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el
Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM,
Mexico, D.F.
Navarrete-Estrada, F.J., J.R. Aquilar-García, F. Acevedo-Arteaga, M.de C. Donovarros-

Aquilar, and I. Bronillet-Tarragó. 1993. Proyecto alternativo de recuperacion de
la subespecie Canis lupus baileyi Goldman 1929 (lobo mexicano). 7pp. In
Nelson, E.W. and E.A. Goldman. 1929. A new wolf from Mexico. J. Mamm. 10:165-
166.
Newton, K.A. 1990. Mexican wolf status in captivity. 7pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf
Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe, Arizona.
______. 1995. Mexican wolf husbandry manual. Unpublished report. Rio Grande Zoo,
Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. In L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and
D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world.
Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publication No.35:375-397.
Nunley, G.L. 1977. The Mexican gray wolf in New Mexico. Unpublished report, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 80pp.
Packard, J. and J. Bernal-Stoopen. 2000. Mexican wolf. In Richard P. Reading and Brian
128
Miller, eds. Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues.
Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. 383pp.
Parker, D. 1990. The Mexican wolf: a strategy for survival. 7pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf
Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe, Arizona.
Parsons, D.R. 1993a. Draft proposed action for reintroduction of the Mexican wolf
(Canis lupus baileyi). Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
______. 1993b. Comparison of habitat suitability attributes of five areas being

considered for the reintroduction of Mexican wolves. Draft unpublished report,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 8pp.
______. 1994. Wild predation scenarios. Unpublished report.U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
______, and J.E. Nicolopoulos. 1995. Status of the Mexican wolf recovery program in
the United States. In L. Carbyn, S. Fritts and D. Seips, eds. Ecology and
management of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute
Occasional Publication No.35:141-146.
_______. 1996. Case study: the Mexican wolf. Pages 1001-123 In E.A. Herrera and
L.F. Huenneke, eds. New Mexico’s Natural Heritage: Biological Diversity in the
Land of Enchantment. New Mexico Journal of Science, Volume 36.
Poglayen, I. 1980. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) studbook, 1973 to 2
June 1980. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 3pp.
______. 1981. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) studbook, 2 June 1980 to 1
September 1982. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 4pp.
______. 1982. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) studbook, 1 September
1981 to 31 August 1982. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona.
5pp.
Povilitis, A., D. R. Parsons, M. J. Robinson, and C. D. Becker. 2006. The

bureaucratically imperiled Mexican wolf. Conservation Biology 20(4):942-945.
Ramos-Magaℑa, X., F. Mata-Castro, G. López-Islas, and G. Islas-Dondé. 1993. Lobo

mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) aspecto zootecnico en el Zoologico San Juan de
Aragon. 6pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris
Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
Rangel-Rodriguez, I.C., L.A. Garcia-Camacho, and J.C. Valladares de la C. 1993.

Valores hematicos en la poblacion de lobo gris mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi)
129
albergada en el Zoologico de San Juan de Aragon, reporte preliminar. 6pp. In
______, L.A. Garcia-Camacho, and J.C. Valladares de la C. 1993. Perfil bioquimico en
la poblacion de lobo gris mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) existente en el Zoologico
de San Juan de Aragon, reporte preliminar. 5pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium
Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE,
DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
Resource Associates. 1997. Final public interaction needs assessment report. The
Mexican wolf reintroduction program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-
Region 2. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 28pp.
Reyes, J.M. and M.A. López. 1989. Estrategia para la recuperación del lobo mexicano
(Canis lupus baileyi). Memorias del VI Simposio sobre Fauna Silvestre.
F.M.V.Z., U.N.A.M., Mexico, D.F.
Rivera-Rebolledo, J.A., C. Esquivel-Lacroix, R.M. Paramo-Ramirez, G. Lopez-Islas, and

C. Vasquez. 1993. Utilizacion de la citogia vaginal exfoliativa para el
seguimiento del ciclo estral del lobo gris mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi), Parte I.
______, L.Maqueda-Amador and R. Marroquin Gonzales. 1993. Manejo medico del

lobo mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) en el Zoologico San Juan de Aragon. 8pp.
In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano.
______, G. Lopez-Islas, and C. Vasquez-G. 1993. Resupuesta conductuales de la

manada de lobos mexicanos linaje registrado (Canis lupus baileyi) al nuevo
alberque en el Zoologico San Juan de Aragon. 4pp. In Memorias Primer
Russell, K.R. 1990. Some administrative responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for the Mexican wolf. 1pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf Symposium '90,
P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society, Tempe, Arizona.
Schoenecker, K.A. and W.W. Shaw. 1997. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction
of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2(3):42-55.
Scudday, J.F. 1972. Two recent records of gray wolves in West Texas. J. Mamm.
53:598.
______. 1977. The Mexican gray wolf in Texas. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and
130
Seal, U.S. 1994. Draft report of Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) population viability
assessment (PVA) workshop, 22-24 October 1990, at the Fossil Rim Wildlife
Center, Texas. Unpublished report. IUCN/SSC/CBSG, Apple Valley, Minnesota.
86pp.
Servín-Martinez, J. 1983. Sobre el comportamiento reproductivo del lobo mexicano

(Canis lupus baileyi). Memorias sobre el I Simposio sobre Fauna Silvestre.
F.M.V.Z., U.N.A.M., Mexico, D.F.
______. 1984. Interacciones agonístico de una manada de lobos (Canis lupus baileyi).
Memorias del II Simposio sobre Fauna Silvestre. F.M.V.Z., U.N.A.M., Mexico,
D.F.
______. 1986. Estudio para la recuperacion del lobo mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) en
el Estado de Durango, II Etapa. Reporte Technico. Instituto de Ecologia -
SEDUE, Mexico, D.F. 41pp.
______. 1990. The Mexican wolf behavior y some ecological implications. 12pp. In
Proc. Arizona Wolf Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife
Society, Tempe, Arizona.
______. 1991. Algunos aspectos de la conducta social del lobo mexicano (Canis lupus
baileyi) en cautiverio. Acta Zool. Mex (n.s.). 45:1-43.
______. 1993. El ethograma del lobo mexicano: resumen. 1pp. In Memorias Primer
______. 1993. La conducta social del lobo mexicano y algunas implicaciones ecologicas.
______. 1993. Proyecto de investigacion del lobo mexicano en la reserva de la biosfera

"La Michilia", Durango. 8pp. In Memorias Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el
Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM,
Mexico, D.F.
______. 1993. Lobo...Estas ahi? Ciencias, No. 32:3-10.
______. 1997. El periodo de apareamiento, nacimiento y crecimiento del lobo Mexicano

(Canis lupus baileyi). Acta Zool. Mex. (n.s.) 71:45-56.
______. 2000. Duration and frequency of chorus howling of the Mexican wolf (Canis
lupus baileyi). Acta Zool. Mex. (n.s.) 80:223-231.
131
______. 2004. La caceria como estrategia conductual para determiner el tamano de
grupo del lobo Mexicano, CAP.38:451-464. In: Sanches-Cordero v. and Medellin
R.A. (eds.) Contribuciones Mastozoologicas en Homenaje a Bernardo Villa, 500p.
Instituto de Biologia e Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM, Mexico, 2004. ISBN 967-
3422-44-9.
Servin, J., S. Lyndaker Lindsey, and B. A. Loiselle. 2001. Pileated woodpecker

scavenges on a carcass in Missouri. Wilson Bull. 113(2):249-250.
Shields, W. M., A. Templeton, and S. Davis. 1987. Genetic assessment of the current
captive breeding program for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). Contract
report 516.6-73-13. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New
Mexico. 20pp.
Siminski, D. P. 1985. The synoptic studbook for the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi), 31 October 1985. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona.
5pp.
______. 1986. The synoptic studbook for the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi),
31 October 1986. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 6pp.
______. 1987. The synoptic studbook for the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi),
31 December 1987. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 7pp.
______. 1988. The Mexican gray wolf international studbook, 1989. Arizona-Sonora
Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 11pp.
______. 1990. The Mexican wolf recovery plan. 6pp. In Proc. Arizona Wolf
Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter of the Wildlife Society, Tempe,
Arizona.
______. 1991. The Mexican wolf international studbook, 1991. Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 13pp.
______. 1992. The Mexican wolf recovery effort. AAZPZ Reg. Conf. Proc.: 300-305.
______. 1993. International Studbook for the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi),
1992. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 24pp.
______. 1993. The Mexican wolf recovery effort in the United States of America. 8pp.
132
In Memoria de 4° Congreso Latinoamericano de Parques Zoologico, Acuarios y
Afines, ALPZA, AZCARM, Puebla, Puebla, Mexico.
______. 1994. Mexican wolf international studbook: update from 1 January 1993 to 31
December 1993. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 7pp.
______. 1994. 1994 Mexican wolf SSP master plan. The American Zoo and Aquarium
Association and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 57pp.
______. 1996. Mexican gray wolf international studbook, 1995. The Arizona-Sonora
______. 1998. Mexican gray wolf international studbook: update from 1 January 1997
to 31 December 1997. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 47pp.
______. 1999. Mexican wolf international studbook, 1998. The Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 104pp.
______. 2002. International studbook for the Mexican gray wolf. 20 November 2002.
Arizona –Sonora Desert Museum. Tucson, Arizona. 125pp.
______. 2004. Mexican gray wolf international studbook update: data current through
31 July 2004. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. 52pp.
______. 2005. Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, international studbook. 29 July 2005.
The Living Desert. Palm Desert, California. 125pp.
______. 2006. Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, international studbook update, for the
period 1 August 2005 through 31 July 2006. The Living Desert. Palm Desert,
California. 43pp.
______. 2007. Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, international studbook update for the
period 1 Aug 2006 through 31 July 2007. The Living Desert. Palm Desert,
California. 48pp.
133
______. 2008. Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, international studbook update, 31 July
2008. The Living Desert. Palm Desert, California. 89pp.
______ and E. Spevak. 2001. Breeding and transfer plan: Mexican wolf Species Survival
Plan. American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 19pp.
______ and E. Spevak. 2002. Breeding and transfer plan: Mexican wolf Species Survival
Plan. American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 20pp.
______ and E. Spevak. 2003. Population analysis and breeding plan: Mexican wolf
(Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 31 July – 1 August 2003. American
Zoo and Aquarium Association. 59pp.
(Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 29-30 July 2004. American Zoo and
Aquarium Association. 62pp.
(Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 28-29 July 2005. American Zoo and
Aquarium Association. 83pp.
(Canis lupus baileyi) Species Survival Plan. 27-28 July 2006. Association of
Zoos and Aquariums. 76pp.
Sloan, M. 1990. Captivity or freedom for the Mexican wolf. 5pp. In Proc. Arizona
Arizona.
Spicer, R.B. 1990. Public attitudes toward wolves in Arizona today. 7pp. In Proc.
Arizona Wolf Symposium '90, P.A.W.S. and AZ chapter The Wildlife Society,
Tempe, Arizona.
Swaringen, K., R.J. Wiese, K. Willis, and M. Hutchins. 1995. AZA annual report on
conservation and science. American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums, Bethesda, Maryland. 437pp.
Thompson, B. 2001. Mexican gray wolf recovery program interagency management
134
advisory group (IMAG) review. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, Las Cruces, NM.
Thompson, B.C., J.S. Prior-Magee, M.L. Munson-Mcgee, W. Brown, D. Parsons and L.

Moore. 1999. Beyond release: incorporating diverse publics in setting research
priorities for the Mexican wolf recovery program. Trans. 65th North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.278-291.
Townsend, S.E. 1997. The role of an audience in marking and caching in captive
wolves, Canis lupus lycaon and Canis lupus baileyi. Advances in Ethology
32:268.
Treviℑo-Fernández, J.C. 1993. El lobo mexicano: su futuro incierto. 7pp. In Memorias

Primer Simposium Nacional sobre el Lobo Gris Mexicano. Zoológico de San
Juan de Aragón, INE, DDF, UNAM, Mexico, D.F.
USFWS. 1982. Mexican wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
______. 1984. Recommendations pertinent to releases of Mexican wolves. Unpublished

report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1p.
______. 1988. The Mexican Wolf: Biology, History, and Prospects for Reestablishment
in New Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Endangered Species Report.
______. 1991. Proposal and general plan for an experimental release of the Mexican
wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
______. 1992. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the

experimental reintroduction of Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) into suitable
habitat within the historic range of the subspecies. Federal Register vol.57,
No.76:144427-144431.
______. 1995. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the
southwestern United States: draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
______. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the
southwestern United States: final environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 133pp.
______. 1997. Notice of record of decision and statement of findings on the

environmental impact statement on reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf to its
historic range in the southwestern United States. Albuquerque, NM.
135
______. 1998. Mexican wolf interagency management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Albuquerque, NM
Vásquez-Gonzáles, C.B., and G. López-Islas. 1995. L-SJA Catalog: Mexican wolf San
Juan de Aragon lineage (L-SJA). Unpublished report. Zoologico de San Juan de
Aragon, Mexico, D.F. 9pp.
Villa-R., B. 1960. Combate contra lobos y coyotes en el norte de Mexico: sus

repercuciones en la salubridad, en la economía y en la conservación de la fauna
silvestre. Instrucciones para el uso del 1080. Ana. Inst. Biol. U.N.A.M. 61:463-
499.
Wayne, R.K., N. Lehman, M.W. Allard, and R.L. Honeycutt. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA
variability of the gray wolf: genetic consequences of population decline and
habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 6:559-569.
Weber-Rodríguez, M. 1989. La pureza racial del lobo gris mexicano Canis lupus baileyi
en cautiverio en Mexico: estudio preliminares. Memorias del VI Simposio sobre
Fauna Silvestre. F.M.V.Z., U.N.A.M., Mexico, D.F. pp. 237-257.
______. 1993. El Parque Nacional Big Bend y la Sierra del Carmen, como las mejores
alternativas para ensayos de reintroduccion del lobo mexicano. 6pp. In
Wells, D.L. and M. G. Hepper. 2006. Prenatal olfactory learning in the domestic dog.
Animal Behaviour 72: 681-686.
Wolok, M. 1994. Reported wolf observations in New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.
Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
10pp.
Young, S. and E. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. Volume I and II.
American Wildlife Institute. Washington, D.C. 636pp.
Zia Research Associates. 1990. Executive report on 1989 New Mexico licensed deer
hunter's survey. Unpublished report, New Mexico Fish and Game Department,
Santa Fe, New Mexico. 280pp. [Note: contains survey results concerning public
attitude to Mexican wolf reintroduction].
136
APPENDICES
Table of Contents:
A. Return of El Lobo: A Recovery Program Coming of Age
B. Mexican Gray Wolf Restoration in the Southwest

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pamphlet
C. Facilities currently participating in the Mexican Gray Wolf Species Survival Plan©
137
Appendix A. From International Zoo News Vol. 44, No. 5 (1997), pp. 259-270
RETURN OF EL LOBO: A RECOVERY PROGRAM COMING OF AGE

by KEN KAWATA
Glory, fear and genocide
For unknown millennia, humans have been fascinated and intrigued by wild
animals. Particularly, large carnivorous species have mystified us because of their
strength and predatory habits. The legend of their mythical power survives today. On
one hand we have glorified and admired some of them. Eagles are considered majestic
lords of the air, and portrayed as national emblems. The lion, with its dignified and noble
face, has been known as the King of the Beasts. On the other hand, some animals have
evoked fear and hatred. One such example is the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which has
loomed sinisterly in our consciousness, immortalized by the story of Little Red Riding
Hood. This attitude is in ironical and nagging contrast to our relationship with another
species in the genus, C. familiaris, ‘man’s best friend’.
In North America, native peoples coexisted with wolves. With the arrival of
European colonists, the web connecting man with nature began to be torn, and the fate of
wolves was sealed. America’s wholesale destruction of wolves has been ably chronicled
by McIntyre (1995). The heritage of coexistence with the natural world was alien to the
colonists. In their livestock husbandry practice, few animals were fenced in or closely
supervised, making them vulnerable to predation. In 1630, the Massachusetts Bay
Colony instituted a wolf bounty. Soon other colonies followed suit, applying various
measures to exterminate wolves. Destruction of predators became a national heritage,
passed on from one generation to another.
The final phase of the war began in the 1880s. As the vast herds of bison, elk and
deer were exterminated in the West, many wolf packs had no choice but to turn to their
only remaining source of food, cattle and sheep. The war continued into the present
century – in 1914 Congress appropriated $125,000 to launch the Predator and Rodent
Control (PARC) program of the U.S. Biological Survey (USBS), predecessor of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). ‘No method was too cruel – wolves were shot,
trapped, poisoned, clubbed, burned alive in their dens and even hunt’ (Parent, 1990).
From 1915 to 1970 a total of 69,786 wolves, both gray and red (C. rufus), were
killed by USBS/FWS and their cooperators. This figure does not include wolves that
were killed by the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service, or wolves poisoned
but never found. By the 1950s, the wolf population in its historic range in the U.S.,
except Alaska, had dropped from two million to just a few hundred. Few of us would
oppose livestock owners’ right to defend their animals, and to kill ‘problem’ wolves.
However, as McIntyre put it (1995), ‘Where we went wrong was to go beyond killing just
problem wolves.’ It was a genocidal campaign, instead of a predator management
program.
138
From: International Zoo News Vol. 44, No. 5 (1997), pp. 259-270
The campaign has had other supporters. Some sports hunters assume that wolves
might deplete their target herbivores. Leopold (1966) commented: ‘One of the most
insidious invasions of wilderness is via predator control. It works thus: wolves and lions
are cleared out of a wilderness area in the interest of big-game management. The big-
game herds (usually deer or elk) then increase to the point of overbrowsing the range.
Hunters must then be encouraged to harvest the surplus, but modern hunters refuse to
operate far from a car; hence a road must be built to provide access to the surplus game.
Again and again, wilderness areas have been split by this process, but it still continues.’
[Lion here refers to puma (Felis concolor); elk means wapiti (Cervus elaphus).]
It was in the 1940s that this essay was first published. Decades have passed, yet
his words still hold true today. And it is hard to believe that Leopold, the pioneer
conservationist, was once a supporter of predator control. Interestingly, Leopold
proposed that wolves be brought back to their former home in Yellowstone National Park
(McIntyre, 1995). Half a century later, his suggestion was to become reality.
Clouds over the Rocky Mountains

The age of absolute extermination has now passed, and wolves are returning,
drifting across from Canada into the northern Midwest and Western states.
Coincidentally, in the era of awakening ecological concern, FWS has experienced a role
reversal, from exterminator to conservationist. When the Service conceived a plan to
reintroduce gray wolves to the Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Wyoming, and
to central Idaho, it was met with howls of protest. Not surprisingly, U.S. senators from
all three states succeeded in blocking reintroduction efforts during the 1980s (Mitchell,
1994).
Against the livestock industry and politicians stood the environmentalists, and
emotions, not facts, controlled the Yellowstone wolf debate. ‘Because of the passion and
politics involved, it is easy to oversimplify this debate. Just as unrealistic as the ranchers’
scare tactics are the claims by certain environmentalists that wolves are sweet and docile
animals; that the wolf is the ultimate symbol of harmony; and that everything noble, wise
and courageous is somehow embodied in this one creature.’ (Askins, 1995) Squeezed
between these two camps were the biologists. ‘Wolf biologists get beat up pretty bad in
this business,’ commented one of them (quoted by Mitchell, 1994); ‘We have to deal with
hysterical people at both ends.’
Greece, Italy and Spain, which are smaller and have higher human population
densities than the United States, still retain wild wolves, although their methods of
livestock husbandry may differ considerably from ours. People in these nations may
wonder why the U.S., a larger and wealthier nation, cannot accept wolves. North of the
border in Canada, Alberta has 5,000 wolves, and averages about one stock killing per
year for every 93 wolves. British Columbia has 6,300 wolves and estimates livestock
losses at about $60,000 per year (Bowden, 1992). Within the U.S., in Minnesota, a
Midwestern state, 1,700 wolves live among 7,000 farms. On the average, only 29 of
those farms suffer confirmed livestock losses to wolves annually (Mitchell, 1994).
Regarding reintroduced animals, in the four years since red wolves (C. rufus) were
reintroduced in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the south-eastern U.S., they
killed only 22 calves (Savage, 1995).
139
Although wolves seem to prefer more traditional prey over livestock, this fact
seems not to influence the opposition to reintroduction. The outrage over this issue in the
Rockies possibly stems, at least partially, from the regionality of the West. Under a cloud
of controversy, Canadian wolves were released in central Idaho and Yellowstone
National Park in 1995. Actually, the recovery efforts for the gray wolf had their roots in
a time before this success story came into the picture, originating in a region some 1,000
km south of the Yellowstone.
Wolves in the cowboy country

The Mexican wolf, C. l. baileyi, locally referred to as the ‘lobo’, is the
southernmost subspecies of the North American gray wolf, and once ranged over portions
of central and northern Mexico, western Texas, southern New Mexico and southeastern
and central Arizona. It is also the smallest subspecies. Its average weight and size are
known only from carcasses: males averaged 25-34 kg and females 22-25 kg, and adults
ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 m in total length. Confusion and disagreement persist over North
American wolf taxonomy; two other subspecies, mogollonensis and monstrabilis, were
described in the Southwest beside baileyi. FWS concurs with the theory that considers
baileyi to include the above two subspecies (Parsons et al., 1995).
Long before the coming of the Spanish explorers, the Mexican wolf lived in
harmony with the land and the native peoples. For nearly four hundred years, European
cattle raisers in the region managed to live with the wolf. All that would change during
the late 1800s, when a campaign to eradicate wolves was initiated by ranchers and
supported by federal, state and local governments (McIntyre, 1995). It is a familiar story;
the program against a predator eventually takes on the emotional overtone of a crusade,
as people are taught to abhor and fear the animal. The classic battle between ranchers
and Mexican wolves was vividly documented by Seton in his story ‘Lobo, the King of
Currumpaw’, which contains ‘almost no deviation from the truth.’ Lobo lived in the
Currumpaw region of New Mexico from 1889 to 1894; he died on 31 January of that year
(Seton, 1911). According to McIntyre (1995), the hide of this wolf is on display in a
glass case in the Ernest Thompson Seton Memorial Library and Museum near Cimarron,
New Mexico.
Mexican wolves were never numerous in their natural range. In more than 60
years of efforts at extirpation, PARC records show that only about 600 wolves were
killed in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas, compared to about 24,000 in
Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. The breeding populations of this subspecies were
practically eliminated around 1926, only 11 years after the federal government entered
the effort on the public land of the Southwest (Johnson, 1991). Records show that the
last wolf was killed in Arizona in 1966, and in Texas and New Mexico in 1970. FWS
added the wolf to the endangered species list in 1976.
Stories of wolf sighting persist on both sides of the border. However, since 1980
there has been no authenticated record of baileyi in the wild. Searches in northwestern
Chihuahua, Mexico, and within the U.S. portion of the historic range have not confirmed
the presence of any remnant populations (Lindsey, 1995). Surveys conducted by
Mexican scientists in 1994-1996 have turned up occasional tantalizing possibilities,
including recorded wolf-like howls, scats, tracks, and depredation records. However, no
confirming evidence has been found. FWS conducted extensive surveys throughout
140
historic Mexican wolf range in the U.S. during 1995-1996, and failed to document the
presence of wolves.
Recovery efforts begin

Captive populations of Mexican wolves began before an official conservation
program got off the ground. In 1959, a male was trapped in Tumacacori, Arizona. A
female was purchased as a pup in 1961 by a Canadian tourist in Yecora, Sonora, Mexico.
These animals founded the Ghost Ranch lineage, named after a facility in Abiquiu, New
Mexico. Another captive group, representing the Aragón lineage, originated at the
Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City in the mid-1970s. Because of the questions regarding
their ancestry, these two lineages were kept separate from the Certified lineage, the third
and largest population.
Under an agreement between the U.S.A. and Mexico, efforts to capture wolves in
Mexico were initiated in 1977. A contract was issued to Roy McBride of Alpine, Texas,
and he captured four males and one pregnant female between 1977 and 1980 in Durango
and Chihuahua. The capture represented the last-ditch effort to rescue the lobo. These
wolves became the nucleus of the Certified lineage, which was later renamed the
McBride lineage. They were transferred to the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in
Tucson, Arizona (Parsons et al., 1995). The application for an international studbook for
this subspecies by Dr. Inge Poglayen was approved by AAZPA, IUCN and IUDZG in
1979, and she published the first edition in 1980 (P. Siminski, pers. comm.).
The decline of the Mexican wolf had already alerted certain individuals and
groups in the 1960s. In February 1979, FWS sponsored a workshop at the Arizona-
Sonora Desert Museum to discuss a recovery program (Ames, 1983). In September of
that year in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team held its first
meeting under the leadership of Norma Ames, New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish. The Team, appointed by FWS, formulated plans and recommended action for
saving this subspecies from extinction and re-establishing it in the wild (Meritt, 1979).
The Team prepared the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, which was approved and signed by
the director of FWS and the Director General of the Dirección General de la Fauna
Silvestre (Mexico) on 15 September 1982.
The key objectives of this plan were to maintain a captive-breeding program, and
to re-establish a viable wild population (FWS, 1982). From the beginning, zoos have
played a vital role in the recovery efforts (e.g. Siminski, 1992). Until 1985, the Recovery
Team advised FWS on the management of the captive population. In that year, a
consortium of holders, the Mexican Wolf Captive Management Committee, was
established, and the Committee met annually to formulate recommendations to FWS.
While offspring from the Certified lineage were dispersed in zoos, the administration of
the recovery program itself was inching at a snail’s pace. In the absence of the full
backing of political leaders, it was difficult for the FWS official to implement the
recovery program. Stumbling blocks abounded, including the lack of funds, as well as
the public relations problem created by the perceived reputation of wolves (reviewed by
Bowden, 1992, Johnson, 1991 and Savage, 1995).
For four years after approval of the Recovery Plan in 1982, nothing happened to
move the project forward. Captive breeding was halted in 1983, as the number of pups
141
overwhelmed the small number of holding facilities. Early in 1986, partly as a result of
the alert from Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group, some 400 letters in support of
the Mexican wolf arrived at the FWS office in Albuquerque. For a while the project
seemed to come to life, as FWS asked three states in the historic range of the subspecies
to propose areas for future release. However, this led to more debates and controversies,
and things went downhill rapidly. The final blow came in 1987. One of the proposed
release sites was the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The missile range was
chosen primarily because no cattle graze in this area. In May of that year Major General
Joe Owens, new commandant of the range, stated: ‘We do not want wolves on the White
Sands Missile Range.’ As he withdrew permission for any wolf release, the controversy
over wolves entered a new stage.
In response to the situation, New Mexico conservationists founded the Mexican
Wolf Coalition; another group, Preserve Arizona’s Wolves (P.A.W.S.), was formed in
Arizona; and the Mexican Wolf Coalition of Texas was born. In April 1990, the New
Mexico Coalition and other wolf advocates sued the Department of the Interior (which
includes FWS under its jurisdiction) and the Department of Defense (which oversees the
U.S. Army) for failing to fulfill their obligation under the Endangered Species Act to
recover this endangered subspecies. Meantime, FWS disbanded the original Recovery
Team and appointed a new team in 1991.
The lawsuit was instrumental in getting the program back on track. Within
months David R. Parsons was appointed the full-time Recovery Coordinator. The
appointment made history in Mexican wolf conservation. According to U.S. Senator Pete
Domenici (pers. comm., 1991), ‘the military has agreed to allow White Sands Missile
Range to be included as one of a number of sites to be studied for the introduction of the
wolf.’ However, FWS still lacked sufficient funds for the Southwestern endangered
species program. For instance, of the $1,156,000 allocated in fiscal year 1990 for
endangered species recovery in the region, Congress earmarked near 46% for whooping
crane and sea turtle programs. After subtraction for another $407,000 for salaries, only
$218,000 was left for over 100 other endangered and threatened species.
After negative public opinion had thwarted government efforts to reintroduce
controversial species into the wild, Congress struck a compromise on the Endangered
Species Act. The product was ‘experimental/nonessential classification’, a 1982
amendment that is less stringent and allows the protection of the experimental population
to be specifically tailored to local circumstances. The Mexican wolf recovery was to
adopt this modified strategy. When fully implemented, the reintroduction was to cost
between $400,000 and $600,000 annually as of 1991. Release sites were being examined
carefully, as well as post-release management actions. The key to the success of the
recovery was the production of healthy animals in captivity who were surplus to the
captive population (Parsons, 1991).
In Of Wolves and Men, Lopez (1978) stated, without giving any specific details,
that ‘wolves in captivity represent pure strains of extinct races and therefore constitute a
genetic reservoir, that is probably meaningless. Zoo populations are sometimes derived
from animals of questionable genetic background and/or geographic origin, and in many
cases subspecific labels are casually applied. And pups raised in captivity are virtually
certain not to survive in the wild.’ He continued, again with no data to substantiate his
142
charges, that ‘wolves in zoos waste away,’ and ‘wolves kept in zoos die every year as a
result of poor cage design, faulty capture systems, and harassment.’
If Lopez were to write a similar volume today, one wonders whether or not he
would make the same charges. The successful red wolf recovery program has utilized
zoo-born animals (e.g. Waddell, 1996). Captive-breeding efforts, with zoos in both the
U.S.A. and Mexico participating, have contributed significantly to the recovery programs
of the red wolf and the lobo. Specifically, a handful of lesser-known, smaller zoos must
be given credit for supporting the Mexican wolf. In the U.S., those institutions are in the
historic range of the subspecies, with the exception of the Wild Canid Survival and
Research Center, popularly known as the Wolf Sanctuary, located outside of St. Louis,
Missouri. Away from the mainstream of the AAZPA (now AZA), they maintained the
captive populations during lean years. The Mexican wolf captive-breeding efforts have
been a low-keyed program. With the exception of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
and Rio Grande Zoo in Albuquerque, none was an AZA-accredited institution. The
roster included: Alameda Park Zoo (which later became AZA-accredited), Ghost Ranch
Living Museum, Living Desert State Park, Hillcrest Park Zoo, all in New Mexico, and
Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, Arizona.
Turning point: molecular biology helping lobo

In October 1990, a Mexican wolf PHVA was held in Fossil Rim Wildlife Center
in Glen Rose, Texas, under the guidance of CBSG chairman Dr. Ulie Seal. During this
meeting, it was disclosed that in spite of the small number of founders, heterozygosity in
the Certified lineage was very high. The highlight was the presentation by Dr. Robert
Wayne of the University of California at Los Angeles. He found unique gene alleles
(variants) in baileyi not found in any other gray wolf subspecies in North America,
indicating isolated evolutionary development over millennia. According to this young
scientist, the Mexican wolf is the most distinct subspecies of North American gray wolf,
and may be a relict form remaining from an early invasion of wolf-like canids that had
crossed into North America over the Bering land bridge from the Old World. The PHVA
marked a turning point for the lobo. In May of the following year, IUCN announced that
its Wolf Specialist Group considered the Mexican wolf recovery the highest priority need
for wolf conservation the world over. The Group, chaired by Dr. David Mech, urged
FWS to follow through with recovery efforts in the light of recent research identifying the
Mexican wolf’s unique genetic makeup (Anon., 1991 a).
On the Mexican side, baileyi is among the top five priorities for management
attention within the Terrestrial Wildlife Department of Mexico’s federal wildlife agency,
Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología (SEDUE), which has a captive propagation
program (Siminski, 1992). On the U.S. side, a petition was filed to include the Mexican
wolf in the Species Survival Plan (SSP). However, as of April 1992, AAZPA’s position
was that ‘the SSP program is not to be taken to the subspecific level’ (B. Read’s memo to
Siminski, 1992). But baileyi was no longer ‘just another subspecies’. Its uniqueness
seemed to have opened the door, and in December 1993 approval was given for a
Mexican Wolf SSP. At this time, the Mexican Wolf Captive Management Committee
was replaced by the SSP Management Group.
As of August 1989, the Certified lineage maintained a total of 37 animals, 29 in
six facilities in the U.S.A. and eight in four facilities in Mexico. By 1995, the Certified
143
lineage population hit the three-digit mark with 107 wolves. The genetic goal set in 1994
projected the need for a carrying capacity of 240 wolves, and preserving 75% of the gene
diversity in captivity for 50 years. However, one of the challenges facing the captive
management has been the limited number of founders. Since recruitment from the wild
was out of the question, the only way to increase the number of founders was to bring in
the two uncertified lineages. But there remained the lingering genetic question. In 1988,
FWS tentatively rejected the inclusion of the Ghost Ranch lineage in the U.S. breeding
program, because of uncertainty about its paternal lineage.
Then, in 1995, came the big boost. A team of genetic experts determined that the
Ghost Ranch and Aragón lineages are pure baileyi, bringing the number in the increased
population to 139 animals prior to the 1996 breeding season (Brown, 1996). Further, the
molecular data show that the Certified (McBride) lineage has three founders, instead of
four as previously assumed. The biologists recommended that the three lineages be
combined to increase the number of founders, and to postpone any inbreeding depression.
This brings up the number of founders to seven, with two added from each of the
previously uncertified lineages (Hedrick et al., 1997). As of the summer of 1996, there
were 149 animals in 30 institutions. Another piece of good news in the mid-1990s was
the increased number of participating zoos. In particular, the arrival of some ‘élite’ zoos
helped to strengthen the program. The Bronx Zoo received a pair in September 1994;
soon Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, and Minnesota Zoo, among others, followed the trend.
Meantime, a plan was being made for the eventual release of zoo-born wolves
into the wild, patterned after the red wolf program. It requires re-establishment of a
viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 wolves in the middle to high elevations
of an 8,000 km2 area within the historic range of the subspecies by about the year 2005
(Parsons et al., 1995). The plan calls for wolves to be reintroduced into the Apache
National Forest in Arizona and allowed to disperse throughout the adjacent Gila National
Forest in New Mexico. The entire area is called the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. A
second area, the White Sands Missile Range area, will be used only if it is feasible and
necessary to achieve the recovery objective of 100 wolves (see map). The FWS projects
that the Blue Range can support about 100 wolves. Beginning in 1998, three to five
family groups of captive-reared wolves will be released annually for approximately five
years, or until natural reproduction is adequate to sustain the population. Wolves and
their offspring will be classified as a ‘nonessential experimental population’ to allow
greater management flexibility (FWS, 1996).
Growth through struggles

The Endangered Species Act requires FWS not just to stem the loss of individual
species, but also to work toward recovering viable populations in their natural
surroundings. Between 1991 and 1996, in the Southwestern region, FWS conducted 24
public meetings to provide information and allow public comment and discussion.
Overall, the mostly urban areas turned out in large numbers in favor of reintroduction,
while just the reverse was true in the rural areas (Holaday, 1995). Regrettably, public
support does not translate into political support.
‘It is my hope that we can somehow find a way to prevent the extinction of this
endangered species,’ said U.S. Senator Domenici (pers. comm.). Ann Richards, then
governor of Texas, commented, ‘I support the reintroduction of endangered species of
144
wildlife, such as the Mexican wolf, to Texas, so long as it is done in a manner that does
not endanger other species of wildlife and does not harm the livelihood of residents of
areas where the potential exists for a new habitat’ (Anon., 1991 b). Unfortunately, these
voices represent the rarest of examples. The governors of Arizona and New Mexico have
publicly opposed reintroduction, and they are supported by a powerful segment of their
constituencies.
The livestock industry in the West is declining economically. Yet, it still
dominates the rural economy, and retains a power political stronghold. Defenders of
Wildlife established the Wolf Compensation Fund in 1987, to reimburse ranchers for
verified livestock losses to wolves. To help reduce animosity toward the wolf, Defenders
extended the program to the Southwest (Savage, 1995). Grass roots support for the
Mexican wolf reintroduction is high. However, it will be doomed to failure if the very
people who live in the region do not want wolves. Within the livestock industry, there is
a tendency to regard the wolf issue as largely ‘romantic’ (e.g. Dale, 1995). Such a
simplistic view overlooks reasons for re-establishment. One is the restoration of the
ecosystem by bringing back the top predator, an irreplaceable biological resource.
Another is to accept the wolf as the world’s heritage for all future generations. McIntyre
(1995) recalls a touching episode he witnessed at a small zoo in New Mexico. A
Hispanic family approached a Mexican wolf exhibit. A young girl, perhaps ten years old,
spotted one of the wolves and said excitedly, ‘It’s a Mexican wolf! He’s part of my
heritage!’ Aside from anthropocentric view points, there also exists the thought that
nature should be saved for the sake of nature itself.
For sure, within the livestock industry there are varying opinions. For instance,
the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association passed a resolution opposing reintroduction of
wolves in 1986. Five years later, the Association passed a resolution supporting the
reintroduction (Dale, 1992). The industry does not necessarily present a monolithic front.
However, in general, residents in this region traditionally tend to view the federal
government with profound suspicion and skepticism. Sometimes the atmosphere at
public ‘open house’ meetings was thick enough to slice. However, people were heard,
and FWS was able to make positive changes in the final plan largely in response to
comments received. The issue extends far beyond the realm of biology; what is at stake
is the question as to who will control the land.
Bowden (1992) asserted: ‘The Mexican wolf is not a biological problem. Nor a
true land problem. With the wolf, we dip into the potent waters of human emotions,
those parts of our being we can feel but not always recognize or name.’ Too often we
become prisoners of our own emotion, and fail to peer through the haze of emotions and
note that wolves must be recognized for what they are, not what we would want them to
be. It was five years ago that Bowden observed: ‘…a fight over where the wolf release
should take place, or if it should take place at all, has dragged on and on and now
involves three states (Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), a fistful of state and federal
wildlife agencies, pro-wolf coalitions, and anti-wolf ranchers’ and cattlemen’s
associations, and has generated bushels of papers with analyses, charges, and
countercharges.’ Five years have not changed the political landscape fundamentally, to
alter the tide of the anti-wolf force.
As for the captivity program, one major problem has been holding space
limitations. Some zoos prefer big, furry, white and ‘flashy’ subspecies, such as
145
hudsonicus, for public appeal. The challenge facing the SSP is that of how to persuade
zoo officials to provide space for more meaningful conservation programs. After all,
baileyi appears to exist only in captivity. It is said that this is one of the rarest land
mammals in the world (FWS, 1996; Savage, 1995), and on that account alone, deserves
more attention in the zoo field.
In spite of its biological significance, the Mexican wolf generated little press
coverage in comparison to the highly publicized Rockies wolf program, except in the
Southwest. In my survey there were at least 106 articles, editorials and comments in
three newspapers in New Mexico between 6 January 1993 and 12 June 1996. Around the
same period, there were 35 similar accounts in five newspapers in Texas. It began to
change in December 1996, when articles on the lobo appeared in USA Today, BBC
Wildlife Magazine and the New York Times (Kanamine, 1996; Owen, 1996, Zaslowsky,
1996). In spite of increased attention, problems still remain. Congress voted to cut fiscal
year 1996 spending on efforts to rescue endangered and threatened species. On the
brighter side, 1996 also saw the construction of FWS’s captive wolf management facility
at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge near Socorro, New Mexico. In November and
December, ten (5.5) wolves arrived here from eight zoos, including one in Mexico, to be
prepared for release into the wild.
Despite difficulties, captive breeding has brought the lobo back from the brink of
extinction to a point where it is now feasible to be re-established in the wild. On 4 March
1997, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, who oversees FWS and is himself a former
rancher and governor of Arizona, signed a document to give the Mexican wolf a chance
to reclaim its turf. With Mr. Babbitt’s approval, the lobo has taken yet another step
toward the return to the wild.
Epilogue
Seton’s ‘King of Currumpaw’ first introduced me to the Mexican wolf. It was in

post-war Japan, a devastated, poor nation, and the fate of wolves left a lasting impression
in a teenager’s heart. Little did I know that decades later and half-way around the world,
I was to participate in a conservation program for this animal. Over the years, my wife
and I toured the U.S. side of the historic range of the lobo. It is a familiar backdrop in
cowboy films – an arid landscape consisting of sweeping vistas with barren flats, colorful
geological formations and sharp-edged hills. The rugged and stark beauty of vast
expanses, interspersed with mesas and canyons, is often overwhelming. Somewhat
ironically, it is the rugged individualism of the American West that continues to refuse
the lobo.
Robert Redford, the movie actor, asserted (Anon., 1991 c): ‘We have made the
entire planet ours. Can’t we afford to give back a little to the wolf?’ Conflicts between
man and wolf ultimately boil down to competition for land. Lobo must return. It will
represent a process of reconciliation with nature; it will also represent the beginning of
healing. However, the possibility of lobo’s successful return now hinges on a thin edge;
it depends on whether or not the conservationists can gain enough strength in the political
arena.
146
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Wendy Brown, Mexican Wolf Recovery Biologist,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, and Peter Siminski, Mexican Wolf SSP
Coordinator and International Studbook Keeper, for critically reviewing the manuscript.
References
Ames, N. (1983): The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and AAZPA. AAZPA 1983
Regional Proceedings, pp. 259-265.
Anon. (1991 a): IUCN makes Mexican wolf number one priority. Mexican Wolf Recovery
Newsletter 2:2, p.1
Anon. (1991 b): Texas Governor Ann Richards: ‘You have my full support.’ Mexican
Wolf Recovery Newsletter 2:2, p.2
Anon. (1991 c): Momentum builds. Mexican Wolf Recovery Newsletter 2:1, p. 1.
Askins, R. (1995): Releasing wolves from symbolism (Congressional Testimony).

Harper’s Magazine (April), pp. 16-17.
Bowden, C. (1992): Lonesome Lobo. Wildlife Conservation (Jan.-Feb.), pp. 45-73.
Brown, W. (1996): Mexican gray wolves – back to the wild? Canid, Hyena and Aardwolf
TAG Newsletter (CHAT) 1:1, pp. 2-3.
Dale, D. (1992): Chances with wolves. Beef (Feb.), pp. 88-89.
Hedrick, P.H., Miller, P.S., Geffen, E., and Wayne, R. (1997): Genetic evaluation of the
three captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biology 16:1, 47-69.
Holaday, B. (1995): Open houses and hearings on Mexican wolf reintroduction. Wolf
Sanctuary Review (Fall), pp. 9-14.
Johnson, A.S. (1991): Will Lobo come home? Defenders (Jan.-Feb.), pp. 10-17.
Kanamine, L. (1996): Second chance for rarest wolf. USA Today (20 Dec.).
Leopold, A. (1996): A Sand County Almanac. Ballantine books, New York.
Lindsey, S. (1995): Mexican wolf update. The Wolf Sanctuary Review (Spring), pp. 4-5.
Lopez, B.H. (1978): Of Wolves and Men. C. Scribner’s Sons, New York.
McIntyre, R. (1995): War Against Wolf. Voyager Press, Stillwater, Minnesota.
147
Meritt, D. (1979): Mexican Wolf Recovery Team meeting held. AAZPA Newsletter
(Dec.), p. 26.
Mitchell, J. (1994): Uncle Sam’s undeclared war against wildlife. Wildlife Conservation
(Sept.-Oct.), pp. 19-31
Owen, J. (1996): El Lobo roams again. BBC Wildlife Magazine (Dec.), p. 61.
Parent, L. (1990): Last of the gray wolves. Texas Park and Wildlife (May), pp. 12-13.
Parsons, D.R., and Nicholopoulos, J.E. (1995): Status of the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi) Recovery Program in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque.
Savage, H. (1995): Waiting for El Lobo. Defenders (Fall), pp. 8-15.
Seton, E.T. (1911): ‘Lobo, the King of Currumpaw,’ in Wild Animals I Have Known. C.
Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Siminski, D.P. (1992): The Mexican wolf recovery effort. AAZPA 1992 Regional
Proceedings, pp. 300-307.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996): Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its
Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Summary of Final
Environmental Impact Statement. FWS, Albuquerque.
Waddell, W. (1996): Species Survival Plan profile: Red wolves. Endangered Species
Update Vol. 13, Nos 10/11, pp. 10-11.
Zaslowsky, D. (1996): Quietly, in isolated off-limits area, rarest of wolves is being

groomed for return to the southwest wild. New York Times (17 Dec.).
148
Click on the link below for Appendix B – Mexican Gray
Wolf Restoration in the Southwest
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pamphlet
"Appendix B.pdf"
149
Appendix C.
FACILITIES CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE MEXICAN

GRAY WOLF SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN©
MEXICAN FACILITIES
CAYETANO
Reserva “San Cayetano”
Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS), SEMARNAT
Av. Revolución #1425 Nivel 1
Col. Tlacopac San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregón C.P. 01040
México, D.F. MEXICO
PH: (+52-55) 56 24 33 09 / 56 24 36 65
FX: (+52-55) 56 24 36 42
Contact: Fernando Cortes or Martin Vargas Prieto
Email: fernando.cortes@semarnat.gob.mx , martin.vargas@semarnat.gob.mx
GUADALJR
Zoológico de Guadalajara
Paseo Del Zoológico #600
Huentitán El Alto
44100 Guadalajara, Jalisco
PH: (+52-33) 36 74 44 88 / 36 74 42 32
FX: (+52-33) 36 74 38 48
Director: MVZ. Francisco Rodríguez Herrejó Email: frodriguez@zooguadalajara.com.mx
Technical Contact: M.V.Z. Pablo Varela Martínez Negrete Email: pvarela@zooguadalajar.com.mx
Mexican Wolf Contact: M.V.Z. José Luis Rodríguez Avila Email: jrodriguez@zooguadalajar.com.mx
JU ARAGON
Zoológico de San Juan de Aragón
Dirección General de Zoológico de la Ciudad de México
Av. Chivatito s/n
1a. Sección del Bosque de Chapultepec
11850 México, D.F.
PH: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63
FX: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63 ext. 2005
Director General: Dr. Jose Bernal Stoopen Email: josebernalstoopen@yahoo.com
Director: Dr. Juan Gonzales Romero Email: romerogonzalesjuan@yahoo.com.mx
LA MESA
Rancho “La Mesa”
Organización Vida Silvestre, A.C. (OVIS)
Business address: Ave. Roble 660. Col.
Valle de Campestre, San Pedro Garza
Garcia, Nuevo León 66265 Mexico.
PH: 011 52 81 8863 1564
PH: (+52-81) 88 63 12 60 / 88 63 13 27
FX: (+52-81) 88 63 13 41
Director: M.V.Z. Sergio Jiménez Lezma Email: SJimenez@ovis.org.mx
Mexican Wolf Contact: Cecilia Hernandez Email: chernandez@ovis.org.mx
158
LEON
Zoológico de León
Apartado Postal 7-89
37271 León, Guanajuato
PH: (+52-477) 764 32 41 / 764 43 14
FX: (+52-477) 764 32 42
Director: M.V.Z. Ángel Ordaz Santos Email: director@zooleon.org
Curator: Richard Sheffield Email: curador@zooleon.org
Mexican Wolf Contact: Dr. Ivon Ruiz Email: iruiz@zooleon.org
LOS ENCIN
Rancho “Los Encinos”
Ave. Zarco #2401
Fracc. Zarco
31020 Chihuahua, Chihuahua
PH: (+52-) 14 18 62 62
FX: (+52-)
Director: Alberto Lafon Terrazas Email: alafon@vach.mx
LOSCOYOTE
Zoológico “Los Coyotes”
Dirección General de Zoológicos de la Ciudad de México
Av. Chivatito s/n
1a. Sección del Bosque de Chapultepec
11850 México, D.F.
PH: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63
FX: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63 ext. 2005
Mexican Wolf Contact: Xóchitl Ramos Magaña Email: xramoslupus@hotmail.com
MEXICOCTY
Zoológico “Alfonso L. Herrera” del Bosque de Chapultepec
Dirección General de Zoologicos de la Ciudad de Mexico
Av. Chivatito s/n
1a Sección del Bosque de Chapultepec
11859 México, D.F.
PH: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63
FX: (+52-55) 55 53 62 63 ext. 2005
Mexican Wolf Contact: Xóchitl Ramos Magaña Email: xramoslupus@hotmail.com
MICHILIA
Reserva “La Michilia”
Instituto de Ecología, A.C.
Apartado Postal 632,
34000 Durango, Durango
Contact:
MONTERREY
Parque Zoológico “La Pastora”
Av. Pablo Vilma y E. Cavazos
Guadalupe, Nuevo Leon
Director: M.V.Z. Judith Tallabs Salazar Email: tallabsju@hotmail.com
PH: (+52-81) 83 37 13 88
159
FX: (+52-81) 83 37 43 40 y 50
NETZAHUAL
Parque Zoológico del Pueblo
San Sabastian y San Garcia
Ciudad Netzahualcoyotl
Estado de Mexico
Contact: same as TOLUCA
PUEBLA
Africam Safari
11 Oriente 2407
Col. Azcárate
72007 Puebla, Puebla
PH: (+52-222) 281 70 00 ext 240
FX: (+52-222) 281 70 00 ext 257
Director: Sra. Amy L. Camacho Email: dirgeneral@africamsafari.com.mx
Technical Contact: Frank Carlos Camacho Wardle Email: fcamacho@africamsafari.com.mx
Mexican Wolf Contact: Juan Govea C. Email: jgovea@africamsafari.com.mx
SALTILLO
Museo del Desierto
Prol. Pérez Treviño 3745
Parque las Maravillas, C.P. 25015
Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico
PH: (+52-844) 986 90 00
FX: (+52-844) 986 90 00
Arturo González González, Director General Email: direccion@museodeldesierto.org ,
arteconciencia@yahoo.com PH: x 104, 105
Fernando Toledo González, Gerente de Fauna Email: ftoledo@museodeldesierto.org ,
fernandotoledo8@gmail.com PH: x 224, 207
SONORA EC
Centro Ecológico de Sonora (IMADES)
Comisión de Ecologia y Desarrollo Sustentable Estado de Sonora (CEDES)
Reyes y Aquascalientes esq. Col. San Benito
Hermosillo, Sonora
PH: (+52-622) 250-1225 or 250-8490
FX: (+52-622) 250-8490
Contact: Director Sr. Jose Francisco Ortega Molina Email: jortega@cedes.gob.mx
Records: Alejandro Ingio Gelain Email: aiglain@msn.com
TAMATAN (ISIS mnemonic TAMATAN Z)

Zoológico de Tamatán
Calle Úrsulo Galván #250 esq. Río Bravo
Col. Tamatán
87060 Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas
PH: (+52-834) 318 14 92 / 312 00 86
FX: (+52-834) 312 00 86
Contact: Dr. Vincente Mongrell Baviera Email: vicente.mongrell@tamaulipas.gob.mx
Contact: Roberto Wolf Email: rwolf@zootamatan.org robert.wolf@tamaulipas.gob.mx
Rwolf.zootamatan@correomex.net PH: (+52-834) 318 1492 x 36 97 Cell: (+52-834) 116 06 83
TOLUCA
Zoológico de Zacango
Comisión Estatal de Parques Naturales y de la Fauna (CEPANAF)
160
Av. José Vicente Villada #212, 4o. Piso
Col. Centro
50000 Toluca, Edo. De México
PH: (+52-722) 214 99 19
FX: (+52-722) 213 03 75
Director: Ing. Jorge Rescala Pérez Email: cepanaf@mexico.com
Technical Contact: M.V.Z. Jesús Frieventh Mondragón Email: cepanaf@mexico.com
Mexican Wolf Contact: M.V.Z. Guillermo Díaz Díaz Email: gdiazdiaz@hotmail.com
U.S. FACILITIES
ALAMEDA
Steve Diehl
Alameda Park Zoo
1376 East 9th Street
Alamogordo, NM 88310
PH: 505-439-4290
FX: 505-439-4103
Email: sdiehl@ci.alamogordo.nm.us
ASDM TUSC
Shawnee Riplog-Peterson
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
2021 N. Kinney Road
Tucson, AZ 85743-8910
PH: 520-883-3064
FX: 520-883-2500
Email: sriplog-peterson@desertmuseum.org
BATTLE CR
Jenny Barnett
Binder Park Zoo
7400 Division Dr.
Battle Creek, MI 49014
PH: 616-979-1381; ext.158
FX: 616-979-8834
Email: jbarnett@binderparkzoo.org
BISMARK
Terry Lincoln
Dakota Zoo
P.O. Box 711
Bismarck, ND 58502-0711
PH: 701-223-7543, ext. 4
FX: 701-258-8350
Email: director@dakotazoo.org
CARLSBAD
Holly Payne
Living Desert State Park
P.O. Box 100 (1504 Miehls Drive)
Carlsbad, NM 88220
PH: 505-887-5516
FX: 505-885-4478
Email: holly.payne@state.nm.us
161
CHICAGOBR
Joan Daniels Tantillo
Brookfield Zoo
3300 Golf Road
Brookfield, IL 60513-1095
PH: 708-485-0263, ext. 436
FX: 708-485-3532
Email: joan.daniels@czs.org
CINCINNAT
Doug Feist
Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden
3400 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45220-1399
PH: 513-569-7750
FX: 513-569-8213
Email: doug.feist@cincinnatizoo.org
CLEVELAND
Alan Sironen
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
3900 Wildlife Way
Cleveland, OH 44109-3132
PH: 216-635-3373
FX: 216-635-3373
Email: als@clevelandmetroparks.com
CLOVIS
Herschel Arnold
Hillcrest Park Zoo
P.O. Box 760
Clovis, NM 88101
PH: 505-769-7873
FX: 505-769-4800
Email: harnold@cityofclovis.org
COLO SPRG
Tracy Leeds
Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park
4250 Cheyenne Mountain Zoo Road
Box 158
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-5755
PH: 719-633-9925, ext. 113
FX: 719-633-2254
Email: tbrower@cmzoo.org
COLUMBUS
Dusty Lombardi
Columbus Zoological Garden
P.O. Box 400 (9990 Riverside Drive)
Powell, OH 43065-0400
PH: 614-645-3458
FX: 614-645-3465
Email: dusty.lombardi@columbuszoo.org
162
DIVIDE
Darlene Kobobel
Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center
P.O. Box 713
Divide, CO 80814
PH: 719-687-9742
FX: 719-687-9742
Email: darlene@wolfeducation.org
EL PASO
John Kiseda
El Paso Zoo
4011 East Paisano Drive
El Paso, TX 79905-4223
PH: 915-521-1865
FX: 915-521-1857
Email: kisedajj@elpasotexas.gov
FOSSILRIM
Mary Jo Stearns
Fossil Rim Wildlife Center
P.O. Box 2189
(2155 County Road 2008)
Glen Rose, TX 76043
PH: 254-898-4235
FX: 254-897-3785
Email: maryjos@fossilrim.org
JULIAN
Patrick Valentino
California Wolf Center
P.O. Box 1389
Julian, CA 92036-1389
PH: 619-236-9060
FX: 619-236-9030
Email: patrick@californiawolfcenter.org
LADDER RH
Bill Mader
Ladder Ranch
H.C. Box 95
Caballo, NM 87931
PH: 505-895-3360
Email: desertskythunder@hotmail.com
MINNESOTA
Chris Kline
Minnesota Zoological Garden
13000 Zoo Boulevard
Apple Valley, MN 55124-8199
PH: 952-431-9383
FX: 952-431-9267
Email: chris.kline@state.mn.us
NYWOLF
163
Rebecca Bose
New York Wolf Center
P.O. Box 421
South Salem, NY 10590
PH: 914-763-2373
Email: rebecca@nywolf.org
NZP-WASH
Linda Moore
Animal Care
PO Box 37102 MRC 5507
PH: 202-633-3210
FX: 202-633-8727
Email: moore@si.edu
OKLAHOMA
Vonciel Harmon
Oklahoma City Zoo
2101 NE 50th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73111-7199
PH: 405-424-3344, ext 232
FX: 405-425-0207
Email: vharmon@okczoo.com
PALM DES
D. Peter Siminski
The Living Desert
47-900 Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, CA 92260-6156
PH: 760-346-5694, ext. 2103
FX: 760-568-9685
Email: psiminski@livingdesert.org
PHOENIX
Kara Schilling
The Phoenix Zoo
455 N. Galvin Parkway
Phoenix, AZ 85008-3431
PH: 602-914-4311
FX: 602-914-4380
Email: kshilling@thephxzoo.com
PRESCOTT
Pam McLaren
Heritage Park Zoo
1403 Heritage Park Road
Prescott, AZ 86301
PH: 928-778-4242, ext. 11
FX: 928-778-1341
Email: pmclaren@heritageparkzoo.org
RIO GRANDE
Rick Janser
164
903 Tenth St., SW
PH: 505-764-6224
FX: 505-764-6281
Email: rjanser@cabq.gov
SEDGWICK
Nancy Smith
Sedgwick County Zoo
5555 Zoo Blvd.
Wichita, KS 67212-1698
PH: 316-266-8327
FX: 316-942-5228
Email: nsmith@scz.org
SEVILLETA
Melissa Kreutzian
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility
2105 Osuna NE
PH: 505-761-4728
FX: 505-346-2542
Email: melissa_kreutzian@fws.gov
STONEHAM
John Linehan
Stone Memorial Zoo
Stoneham, MA
c/o Zoo New England
One Franklin Park Road
Boston, MA 02121-3220
PH: 617-989-2054
FX: 617-989-2025
Email: jlinehan@zoonewengland.com
SWREF
Linda Searles
Southwest Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Foundation Inc.
8711 E. Pinnacle Peak Road #115
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
PH: 480-471-9109
FX: 480-471-0956
Email: lindasearles@gorvw.net swref@extremezone.com
UTICA
Mike Bates
Utica Zoo
99 Steele Hill Road
Utica, NY 13501
PH: 315-738-0472
FX: 315-738-0475
Email: mike.bates@uticazoo.org
WCSRC
165
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey
P.O. Box 760
Eureka, MO 63025-0760
PH: 636-938-5900 or 6490
FX: 636-938-6490
WILD WNP
Roger Alink
Wildlife West Nature Park
P.O. Box 1359
Edgewood, NM 87015
PH: 505-281-7655
FX: 505-281-7170
Email: wildlife@swcp.com
WINDOW RO
Matthew Holdgate
Zoo Curator
Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park
Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 9000
Window Rock, AZ 86515
PH: 520 or 928-871-6574
FX: 520 or 928-871-6644
E-mail: mholdgate@navajofishandwildlife.org
WOLFHAVEN
John Blankenship
Wolf Haven International
3111 Offut Lake Road
Tenino, WA 98589
PH: 360-264-4695 or 800-448-9653
FX: 360-267-4639
Email: director@wolfhaven.org
WCS MN
Peggy Callahan
Wildlife Science Center
5463 W. Broadway
Forest Lake, MN 55025
PH: 651-464-3993
FX: 651-464-6768
Email: peggy@wildlifesciencecenter.org
FREE RANGING IN THE WILD
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area

Contact information same as Sevilleta
166

Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual: 2009 Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual: 2009 Edition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual: 2009 Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this manual?

What is the purpose of this manual?

What facilities are involved in the Mexican gray wolf Species Survival Plan?

What facilities are involved in the Mexican gray wolf Species Survival Plan?

Mexican Gray Wolf Husbandry Manual

GUIDELINES FOR CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan©

Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D.

Appendix A. Return of El Lobo: A Recovery Program Coming of Age

Appendix B. Mexican Gray Wolf Restoration in the Southwest

Appendix C. Facilities currently participating in the Mexican gray wolf

D. Peter Siminski MWSSP Coordinator and International Studbook Keeper

John Kiseda MWSSP Vice-Coordinator

Linda Moore MWSSP Secretary

Dusty Lombardi MWSSP Treasurer

Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D. MWSSP Husbandry and Behavioral Advisor

USFWS Mexican gray wolf Website

Jorge Servin Presidente del Subcomité Técnico Consultivo Nacional Para la

Xóchitl Ramos Magaña Vocal de Manejo en Cautivario de Subcomité Técnico

Maggie Dwire USFWS Advisor

Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Ph. D. Husbandry and Behavioral Advisor

Cheryl Asa, Ph. D. Reproductive Advisor

Jacquelyn M. Fallon Education Advisor

Michael J. Richard, DVM Veterinary Advisor

Carlos Sanchez, DVM Veterinary Advisor

Edward Spevak, Ph. D. Small Population Management Advisory Group Advisor

Linda Munson, D.V.M., Ph. D. Pathology Advisor

VACANT Nutrition Advisor

Jack Grisham AZA Canid TAG Chair

Mexican Wolf SSP© Mission Statement:

Mexican Gray Wolf - Listing and Recovery Planning:

What is a Species Survival Plan or SSP©?:

The Species Survival Plan (SSP©) began in 1981 as a cooperative population

How Species are Selected:

The Husbandry Manual:

Historical Perspective - Population Lineages:

Genetic Diversity - Carrying Capacity - Generation Time Management:

Criteria for Establishing Breeding Pairs:

1. Mean Kinship Value: Mate individuals with roughly similar MK to avoid

Rationale for Deciding the Location for SSP© Recommended Pairings:

Historic Range - Habitat Preference:

1. Establish a captive population of 240 animals with at least 17 breeding pairs.

The Reintroduction Plan - Soft Release:

The Nonessential Experimental Population Rule:

Criteria for Selecting Release Candidates:

For current information on field activities, visit:

References (Referencias)/Suggested Readings:

Optimal Social Groupings:

1. adult breeding pair

Animal Introductions and Separations:

Although Mexican wolf introductions are generally uneventful, interactions should be

A key factor in encouraging wolves to breed in captivity is the provision of surroundings

Assisted reproduction and contraception are discussed later in this chapter.

Physical Characteristics & Determining Breeding Status:

Parent-raised offspring are preferred by this program. At times this approach to

If small, isolated populations are to be managed genetically, basic assisted reproductive

Unfortunately, transfer of assisted reproduction techniques to canids, including domestic

General Canis behavior is well documented. It has been suggested by numerous

Approach Wolf approaches another within 3 body lengths. An interaction is