Asha, a Mexican gray wolf, left the Rocky Prairie pack in Arizona when she reached maturity in 2022, setting out for what biologists believe was a trek to find a mate and perhaps start her own pack. 

Over 200 endangered Mexican gray wolves live in the repopulation area in Arizona and New Mexico, giving Asha plenty of chances to find other wolves.

Wildlife managers tracked her movements through her radio collar and assumed she was seeking a mate, watching the lone wolf traverse 500 miles. She wandered through national forests, skirted Albuquerque and eventually crossed Interstate 40 into northern New Mexico. 

She didn’t know it, but she’d wandered past a line drawn by government wildlife managers who had decided the endangered subspecies should stay within a specific area marked by the freeway. 

Unable to recognize where her designated territory ended, Asha did what wild animals do — she roamed. Whether seeking a mate, food or quality habitat, wild animals follow instincts and can travel hundreds of miles. 

The I-40 alignment marks the northern boundary of the species’ reintroduction area, and this seemingly natural exploration of wildlands made headlines and caused a stir among conservationists, state and federal wildlife agencies and biologists. 

Asha, known officially as Mexican wolf F2754, left the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area, which encompasses parts of Arizona and New Mexico south of I-40, in 2022 and a second time after she was returned to the wild in 2023. 

She was monitored and captured using a telemetric collar after both excursions and has been paired with two potential mates in captivity during the 2024 breeding season. Asha is one of multiple wolves who have crossed I-40 since the repopulation program began. 

When an endangered animal wanders outside of a reintroduction site and protected critical habitat, it raises concern among federal and state agencies monitoring and preserving endangered species. 

“They’re out there all by themselves, there’s no benefit to conservation,” said Jim deVos, the Mexican wolf coordinator for Arizona Game and Fish Department, who believes Asha was seeking a mate in an area where no Mexican wolves live. 

Despite animals’ instincts to roam, officials continue to enforce boundaries on wildlife and believe rules ultimately protect and support the conservation of endangered species. 

Yet some wildlife advocates say Arizona’s endangered species should be allowed to traverse the wild freely, reclaiming the land they were largely eliminated from. 

“Science should drive the recovery and management of these animals,” said Bryan Bird, the Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife. “I think putting arbitrary and political lines around them doesn’t work and is not biologically justified.”

“Look at Asha, she’s wandering,” he said. “She’s trying to leave this arbitrary experimental population area.”

Mexican wolves, black-footed ferrets and jaguars are three of the most studied endangered species in Arizona, but wildlife managers have differing approaches to preservation and allocating land for their habitats. 

Managers expanded ferret reintroduction territory to include much of the state and parts of the Navajo Nation, using a rule under the Endangered Species Act allowing land owners more flexibility and legal protection when hosting colonies.

The Mexican wolf reintroduction program has seen recent success in rebuilding a wild population, which AZGFD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attribute to strict rules like limiting the wolves to the recovery area. 

Jaguars have about 650,000 acres of protected critical habitat in Arizona, but conservationists believe the allocation that could support a population of six jaguars is not enough. Yet only eight cats have been spotted in the U.S. in the last 30 years, and many are apprehensive about adding to this designation. 

Ferrets struggle to reestablish even with vast land designations

Black-footed ferrets seem to coexist on public and private land more easily than their apex predator counterparts on the endangered species list, but despite a large allocation of land, reintroduction has been difficult. 

The ferrets are one of the most endangered mammals in North America and officials hope to maintain a healthy wild population at multiple reintroduction sites across the state. But ferrets rely on a common farm pest for survival that is also on the decline —  prairie dogs. 

The ferrets were believed to be completely extinct in the 1970s until a farm dog named Shep made a discovery in 1981. Shep brought his prey to his owners on Hog Family Ranch near Meeteetse, Wyoming, and it turned out to be a dead black-footed ferret. 

USFWS found a ferret colony in the area and eventually launched a captive breeding program because the colony was declining from the sylvatic plague, the bubonic plague in humans. 

The agency captured 18 ferrets, seven males and 11 females, to help recover the species. Wildlife agencies have released thousands of captive-born ferrets since 1991, and Arizona, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota and Utah have designated land for non-essential populations. 

Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act allows reintroduced populations in a species’ historic range to be labeled as experimental, protecting land managers from repercussions if animals are accidentally harmed during day-to-day activities. 

Ferrets were primarily released at three sites in Arizona, Aubrey Valley, Espee Ranch and Double O Ranch, until last year when officials expanded the Southwest Nonessential Experimental Population Area, allowing for more reintroduction sites across the state. 

According to USFWS fish and wildlife biologist Jessi Miller, this expansion encompasses the ferrets’ entire historic range of Gunnison’s prairie dogs and black-tailed prairie dogs in Arizona and parts of the Navajo Nation. 

The problem is, prairie dogs are almost as rare as ferrets in the Southwest. They’re an important species because other animals rely on them for food and shelter. Ferrets invade prairie dog dens, eat the prairie dogs and move into the burrow. 

While prairie dogs are not as imperiled as ferrets, they fall victim to disease and pest control, and with fewer prairie dogs, there were fewer ferrets. Officials hope by adding more reintroduction sites across the state where prairie dog activity is prevalent, they can build up the wild ferret population in Arizona. 

According to Miller, ferret colonies have declined in recent years despite numerous reintroductions. She said 216 ferrets were released in Aubrey Valley between 2005 and 2015, another 99 at Espee Ranch from 2007 to 2009 and 41 ferrets at Double O Ranch between 2016 to 2019. 

USFWS believes four to five ferrets still live at Double O Ranch and none at Aubrey Valley and Espree Ranch, attributing this decrease to plague. 

Double O Ranch and Aubrey Valley are being managed for habitat, as officials control fleas that cause plague and maintain prairie dog numbers. They plan to continue releasing captive-born ferrets at these sites. 

AZGFD has identified four additional sites for release, and although they do not have enough prairie dogs to support a ferret population, Miller believes they could with some management. 

Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, believes the recent 10(j) expansion provides ample land for recovery but worries it lacks enough prairie dogs. 

“Tens of millions of acres is a lot of land, but within that land, how much is actually survivable for the ferrets?” Robinson said. “The answer is only where they allow the prairie dogs to live.” 

And that’s fewer places than in the past, in part because ranchers see prairie dogs as pests. The burrowing animals forage grass the livestock rely on and their holes can injure horses and cattle. Populations have declined through the years, and AZGFD is attempting to conserve numbers by monitoring and re-establishing prairie dogs each year. 

“It’s imperative that they do it right,” Robinson said. “That they halt prairie dog killings within the dispersal distance of the black-footed ferrets and allow the prairie dog population to grow large enough to actually support a substantial ferret population.”             

Following the 10(j) expansion, new reintroduction sites will be approved and ferrets introduced annually to strengthen populations. 

“We expect that populations will blink out every once in a while because of plague, that’s a constant threat,” Miller said. “Having multiple populations out there provides the assurance that if some do become extirpated, there’s still other populations out there.” 

Habitat areas:Wildlife officials drew a line at I-40 for Mexican gray wolves, but has it hurt recovery?

Should Mexican wolves roam past I-40?

The I-40 boundary for Mexican wolf recovery has been a point of contention. Biologists and conservation groups want to see wolves like Asha wander where they please, but state and federal wildlife agencies believe strict enforcement of the I-40 boundary has helped rather than hindered wolves. 

The subspecies was largely eliminated from the U.S. by the 1970s, and USFWS launched a captive breeding program in 1976. Officials began reintroducing captive-born wolves in 1998 into the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in Arizona and New Mexico. 

While the population area has defined borders, deVos said these borderlines, particularly I-40, are not imposed by humans. 

“I-40 is the boundary that was evolutionarily established by the wolves themselves,” said deVos. “It’s not arbitrary. It’s based where the animals evolved from.”  

State and federal agencies have established the subspecies’ historical range to include the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico, and southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and sometimes western Texas. 

Science and politics have clashed over this boundary, as some believe wolves’ historic range extended farther north. 

In the current recovery plan, any wolves that roam outside the experimental population area can be captured and returned at the agency’s discretion.

deVos justifies removals and enforcing the I-40 boundary in part because suitable habitat for Mexican wolves is “markedly reduced” north of I-40 as wolves rely on a strong prey base primarily of elk. They will consume deer, javelina, rabbits and other small mammals and prefer mountain woodlands with ample cover and water. 

In the population area, residents know there are wolves around. If a wolf wanders north where people do not expect to see wolves, it could be mistaken for a coyote and shot, so deVos believes the boundary protects individuals from harm.

By limiting wolves to the experimental area, ranchers can legally haze or kill wolves to protect their cattle. If wolves wander outside of the experimental area, they are fully protected under ESA, limiting rancher’s ability to interfere with packs’ activities, according to deVos.

Wolves like Asha wandering north also will not find other Mexican wolves to mate with and could encounter and breed with dogs, coyotes or northern gray wolves recently released in Colorado. 

deVos says there is “great concern of mixing with northern gray wolves,” and AZGFD wishes to maintain the genetic integrity of the Mexican wolf subspecies. 

Conservation biologists like Joanna Lambert, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, believe wolves should be allowed to roam the northern hemisphere as they did historically. 

According to Lambert, gray wolves bred with each other freely, regardless of subspecies. 

“Fast forward a million years into the 1800s and early portions of the 20th century, and that’s when we start to see the fragmentation or disruption of this gene flow,” she said. 

The current Mexican wolf population, both in captivity and the wild, stems from the remaining seven purebred Mexican wolves in the 1970s. The wild population has about the genetic equivalence of each wolf being brother and sister. 

Conservationists believe by allowing Mexican wolves to travel north of I-40 and naturally mix with northern wolves, the genetic diversity of the wild Mexican wolf population would increase and prevent possible extinction. 

Endangered species:Environmental group asks the federal government to return jaguars to Arizona, New Mexico

Despite minimal jaguar activity, activists call for more protected habitat

When a new jaguar prowled by a game camera in southern Arizona in December, it reinvigorated a decades-long discourse about jaguar recovery in the U.S. and how much land should be allocated to a handful of cats. 

Some conservationists believe more land should be designated for critical habitat, or even reintroduction, while others think the current allocation is ample, possibly too much, given there have only been eight jaguar sightings in the area over the last 30 years. 

Jaguars’ range extends from northern Argentina to the southwestern U.S., with most cats living in the Amazon basin. Jaguars need vast territories of land to hunt, find mates and roam.

Federal managers originally designated approximately 764,207 acres of land in New Mexico and Arizona as critical habitat for jaguars in 2014. Critical habitat was reduced to about 640,122 acres all in Arizona after land was removed from portions of Arizona for copper mining and all of the New Mexico allocation following legal action by ranchers.

By definition, critical habitat contains physical or biological assets that are imperative to the conservation of threatened or endangered species. 

This designation affects federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities but does not limit the actions of private landowners. 

The current allocation includes enough habitat for six cats, but conservation groups wish to expand the protected habitat substantially to support more jaguars. 

How many cats?Feds say no to reintroducing jaguars in NM but could expand habitat there and in AZ

Defenders of Wildlife supports studies that provide a framework for adding 2 million acres, which could support between 90 and 150 cats, and also supports reintroducing jaguars in the U.S. 

“We know biologically and ecologically that these cats roamed all over Arizona and New Mexico,” Bird said. “We eradicated this native animal from the landscape in the 20th century and we need to reverse that and restore the native biodiversity to the United States.”

Bird believes returning jaguars to the Southwest would bring balance back to ecosystems, as apex predators prevent overpopulation of species lower in the food chain. 

AZGFD and other conservation groups question the necessity of adding large areas of land to the critical habitat designation, citing minimal jaguar activity north of the border. 

“The department’s position is that the core of jaguar habitat is in Central and South America,” said Clay Crowder, assistant director for the wildlife management division of AZGFD. “Yes, there are fringes here in the United States, but the habitat that is here is not required for the survival of the species.” 

Crowder said the department believes too much habitat was designated and identified for the survival of the species in the U.S. 

Of the eight jaguars seen in the southwest in the last 30 years, all of them were male. The last known female was killed by a hunter in Arizona in 1963.

Males roam widely, which is why these cats have wandered across the Mexico border from the northernmost breeding population in Sonora. Females tend to stay close to their place of birth.

It could take years for female cats to move far enough to reach the United States, and without an active breeding population, jaguars cannot reestablish themselves at the northernmost portion of their historic range. 

Allison Devlin, the jaguar program deputy director for Panthera, a global wild cat conservation organization, believes a measured approach with a “mosaic” of different protected areas is called for rather than significantly expanding protected habitat.  

“I would say the evidence suggests it’s likely a more pragmatic approach to be measured in these efforts,” said Devlin. “Jaguars should be protected when they’re present, and it’s really important to have intact habitat.” 

She believes working in smaller spaces to mitigate conflict with cattle, communicating with landowners to create jaguar-friendly areas and keeping corridors open for natural dispersal is the best path forward as the population remains low.  

Devlin believes the best chance to have a breeding population naturally return to the U.S. is to maintain connectivity between populations throughout the jaguars’ range, especially between Sonora and the Southwest. 

“Any gain back from that overall decline of habitat and range would be a net positive for the species,” Devlin said.

USFWS says maintaining a jaguar population in the U.S. is not essential to preserving the species’ existence in the wild and denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity to begin reintroducing jaguars on the landscape. 

The center hopes USFWS will consider another petition to expand critical habitat, but ultimately believe jaguars will roam where they wish. 

“They have proven, against all odds, they will cross militarized borders, open desert and highways regardless of critical habitat designations to arrive where they choose,” said Russ McSpadden, a Southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. “They live outside so many of the abstractions that humans have created in hopes of controlling the environment.” 

Hayleigh Evans covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Send tips or questions to[email protected].

Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram.

You can support environmental journalism in Arizona by subscribing to azcentral today.