Endangered Species Management Plan AssessmentBlack-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)

SUS-410 Conservation BiologyInstructor – Delia Malone

November 21, 2013By Jason E Evitt

Figure 1 Cascade (Blogs.jwatch.org 2011)

IntroductionThere is a cascade of effects when a keystone species is removed from an ecosystem. The Black-footed Ferret (BFF) recovery program is currently and irrevocably tied to the interconnections that occur between the BFF and prairie dogs (PD). The BFF is possibly the most endangered species on the planet. It was listed as endangered in 1967 pursuant to early endangered species legislation in the United States and was “grandfathered” into the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver 2013). The first recovery plan was published in 1978, when no wild ferrets were thought to exist. No subspecies are recognized (Gober 2008). A Population of BFFs was found in the 1980’s in Meeteetse, WY when it was thought they had gone extinct. After an outbreak of distemper and plague, the remaining 18 ferrets were captured and a recovery program was developed (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011). Because the entire known population lineage of BFFs that live today were bred in captivity from just 7 captive breeding founder animals from the Meeteetse population, the program has very good tabs on the numbers of BFFs, although they are very elusive. The greatest limiting factor to the BFF recovery program is by far the availability of PD habitat, the keystone species for the BFF; it takes 15,000 acres to support 100 ferrets, on

average. The species is one of five members of the genus Mustela in North America that also includes the ermine, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, and American mink. The BFF is the only ferret species native to the Americas (Gober 2008; Godbey 2013).

Description of BFFs By the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation TeamBlack-footed ferrets are 18-24 inches long, including a 5-6 inch tail. They weigh up to 2.5 pounds with males slightly larger than females. Their short, sleek fur is a pale yellow-buff color, lighter on the belly and nearly white on the face and throat. A black facemask, black feet and a black-tipped tail characterize them. They can travel at a rate of 5-7 miles per hour. Biologists have tracked ferrets that have traveled 6 miles in one night and one busy ferret checked out over 100 prairie dog burrows in a single night! Black-footed ferrets “bound” across the prairie ecosystem going from burrow to burrow.

2

Black-footed ferrets are susceptible to predation by a large number of predators, including coyotes, foxes, badgers, owls, hawks, eagles and rattlesnakes (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011).

BFF Biological Characteristics/Ecosystem Interactions-FEIS (Ulev 2013)

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family GenusAnimalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Mustelidae Mustela

Gestation Period

Litter Size

DevelopmentSexual Maturity

Social Organization

Diet

Captivity: 42-45 days

1-5 Kits

Altricial-6 weeks-July-Separation

1 yearSolitary-Except when breeding

Carnivore-Prairie dog obligate

Dispersal Habits MortalityIntercolony - 7 Months Nocturnal Wild - 1 to 3 YearsEarly September to Early November

Dusk to MidnightCaptivity -6 to 9 Years

0 to 4 Miles 4am -Midmorning Females Live LongerMales Have Longer Dispersal Distances

Late Summer and Early Fall

Habitat Loss and Disease

BFF Range Specifications-(Requires Prairie Dog Habitation)1 BFF 1 Litter 100 BFFs100-120 acres 99-148 acres 15,000 acres

Soils Structure Elevation Habitat Types

Shallow,Well Drained

Clay, Clay-Loam3,000-10,000’

Open HabitatGrassland

SteppeShrub Steppe

Distance Between WTPD Colonies- MovementsInhabited by BFF ≈ 3.4 miles Up to 6 miles in 1 Night-AdultUninhabited by BFF ≈ 0.57 miles 6.2-9.3 miles-Juvenile DispersalSeparation Distance ≈ 6.2 miles May Range 247 acres Over 3-8 days in Winter

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status Global Status G1

United States

Arizona (S1), Colorado (S1), Kansas (SX), Montana (S1), Navajo Nation (SX), Nebraska (SH), New Mexico (SH), North Dakota (S1), Oklahoma (SX), South Dakota (S1), Texas (SH), Utah (S1), Wyoming (S1)

Canada Alberta (SX), Saskatchewan (SX)

3

Factors to Consider for Evaluating Potential Ferret HabitatSize of PD Complex

PD Pop Density

Spatial Arrangement

Disease Potential

Expansion Potential

Predator Abundance

Resources Conflicts

Ownership Stability

Attitudes

Land Ownership is a Variable to Consider for any Species Management Plan-COGAP

4

Figure 2 Figure 1 Colorado Gap Analysis Project: Land Ownership/Status Map (Scott, 1997)

5

Figure 3 (“CNHP Maps for Download Page” 2013)

The types of habitat utilized by prairie dogs and BFFs would be much more widespread if there was far less anthropogenic disturbance and fragmentation. Above, a map depicts the Terrestrial Ecological Ecosystem Patches in Colorado. Information such as this is invaluable for the preparation of a species management plan.

Habitat Types Utilized by BFFs and Prairie Dogs

GrasslandsTallgrass PrairieSand Dune Complex (Grassland)Midgrass PrairieShortgrass PrairieFoothill/Mountain GrasslandDisturbed Grassland

Riparian TypeLowland, transitional, and highland

ShrublandsBitterbrush ShrubMountain Big SageWyoming Big SageBig Sagebrush ShrublandDesert ShrubSaltbrush Fans & FlatsGreasewood Fans & FlatsSand Dune Complex (Shrubland)Disturbed Shrubland (Scott 1997).

6

Figure 4 (“CNHP Maps for Download Page” 2013)

I. Biological Needs The earliest fossil record of the Black-footed Ferret is from approximately 100,000 years ago. The species was first formally described in 1851 by J.J. Audubon and J. Bachman (Gober 2008). BFFs have evolved with the current ecosystem and the specific balances that were present before humans began to drastically alter the ecosystem. Although the climate changes constantly, humans have created so much unnatural disturbance that is very detrimental that species cannot evolve together in the manner in the description that follows.

One study suggests that the historically documented “obligate” predator–prey relationship between M. nigripes (BFF) and Cynomys (PD) was a secondary effect of colonization by black-footed ferrets of Cynomys-dominated habitats sometime in the past 800,000 years. A phylogenetic perspective on the

7

behavior of ferrets combined with paleontological data indicates a broader range of possibilities for conservation of the black-footed ferret (Owen, Bell, and Mead 2000).

BFFs are not alone in their need for specific, dwindling and degrading habitat. As this map depicts, there are many G1, G2 and G3 species in Colorado. It is very difficult to know much about the history, behavior and ecology of Black-footed Ferrets because of their nocturnal and subterranean lifestyle (Ulev 2013).

A. Disease Although neoplasia is an important cause of mortality in captive adult black-footed ferrets, its impact on captive propagation of the species, and on the wild population, is probably limited because clinically significant tumors are encountered almost exclusively in postreproductive ferrets (>3 yr old) and because ferrets released into their natural habitat rarely reach susceptible age (Lair et al. 2002).

occurring in black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) from eight U.S. zoological institutions. Ferrets had nonregenerative anemia, serum chemistries consistent with chronic renal disease, and proteinuria. Concurrent diseases and genetic predisposition were considered the most important contributing factors to development of amyloidosis. Analysis of the genetic tree did not reveal convincing evidence of a common ancestor in the affected ferrets, but a genetic predisposition is likely because all the captive black-footed ferrets are related (Garner et al. 2007).

B. Prairie Dogs BFFs need a vast amount of prairie dog habitat to be able to migrate within. The area needs to viable habitat, not subjected to recreational shooting of prairie dogs by people and not subject to habitat fragmentation. BFFs are solitary animals until it is breeding season.

Prairie dogs are prey for many predators, dig burrows that are used by many species, and graze on and clip vegetation in ways that facilitate productivity of forbs, while reducing shrub encroachment. Since the early 1900s, prairie dog abundance has declined, primarily due to human persecution and introduction of the plague bacterium Yersinia pestis - a pathogen that can decimate prairie dog populations.

8

Currently, prairie dogs are so few that they cannot serve their historic ecological functions at most sites.

Prairie dogs currently occupy only a fraction of their historical range, around three percent, and they live in small, isolated colonies. Without prairie dogs, the millions of dollars that has been put into the Black-footed Ferret rehabilitation program will be lost and, more importantly, another valuable species of biodiversity will be lost. The whole idea of the Environmental Species Act is to preserve the ecosystems endangered species need to survive (Miller and Reading 2012).

One interesting pattern within the relationship of prairie dogs and Black-footed Ferrets is when ferrets inhabit an area prairie dogs will plug burrows on the surface (this research did not say if they plug holes underground). The ferrets can unplug the holes but there are other interactions to consider. BFFs like hunting in burrows with multiple openings. If one opening has been closed, there may be others plugged as well, which would require the ferret to unplug multiple holes. That requires a lot of energy expense and the ferrets may just move to a new location that has fewer plugged holes and the pattern will continue (D. A. . D. E. B. Eads 2012). This is perhaps one reason BFFs need such a large amount of habitat of prairie dog colonies, ≈ 15,000 A / 100 BFFs.

Researchers put an air blower over the holes and found sub-surface plugs as well. Then they considered the impact of recreational shooting of prairie dogs on those interactions; prairie dogs plug burrows that have dead prairie dogs in them. Indeed, the areas where recreational shooting of prairie dogs occurs had more plugs than otherwise. This has an impact on airflow and the microclimatic conditions in the burrows, which would alter the populations of flea colonies and increase the likelihood of problems with Sylvatic plague and other diseases. More plugs in the burrows alters escape routes and also increases the predation of prairie dogs to American badgers, and for BFFs for that matter, whereby the web of interactions grows (Biggins et al. 2012).

Habitat alteration, agricultural control, recreational shooting, and most recently, sylvatic plague (caused by Yersinia pestis) contributed to local extinctions and a steady decline of black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) throughout its range. As a consequence, prairie dogs

9

currently live in metapopulations, where their overall persistence will depend on a balance between extinction of colonies and recolonization from extant colonies. Patterns of genetic similarity among colonies, as measured by neutral molecular markers, provide an estimate of the dispersal and gene flow among colonies within prairie dog metapopulations. We sampled 13 colonies of black-tailed prairie dogs in short-grass prairie of northern Colorado, 100-km east of Fort Collins, Colorado. We used historical records and genetic analysis to show that colonies undergo regular extinctions, which subsequently are recolonized by individuals from multiple source colonies. We examined 155 individuals for variation at 7 microsatellite loci and found moderate levels of genetic differentiation among colonies (Θ [=FST] = 0.118). We also used assignment and exclusion tests based on multilocus genotypes of individuals to determine the probability that individuals originated from the same colony in which they were captured. About 39% of individuals could not be assigned to colonies where they were captured, indicating they were either immigrants (adults) or the offspring of immigrants (adults and juveniles). We tested for genetic isolation by distance among colonies by comparing genetic distances to geographic distances between colonies. Akaike's Information Criterion for model selection revealed that dispersal most likely occurred along low-lying dry creek drainages connecting isolated colonies. Genetic distances between colonies were also related to ages of colonies; older colonies were more similar genetically than younger colonies. This underscores the importance of dispersal among prairie dog colonies and has important implications for persistence of prairie dog metapopulations, in which all colonies, regardless of size, are vulnerable to extinction from plague (Roach et al. 2001).

Reading and Kellert (1993) found that ranchers within a proposed reintroduction site in Phillips County, Montana, were antagonistic toward the reintroduction program. As of 2005, there was an on-going conflict between ranchers wanting to control prairie dog populations on grazing lands (through poisoning and recreational shoorting) and those wishing to protect and expand ferret habitat (i.e., prairie dog populations) (Nature Serve 2003).

In addition to management of prairie dogs for better control of sylvatic plague, actions are needed to conserve prairie dogs in complexes of sufficient size and stability to support

10

reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. We believe that in some cases control at the periphery of reintroduction sites may be appropriate to facilitate cooperation of adjacent landowners. However, the type of poison applied to control prairie dogs and the extent of its use can impact the ability of a prairie dog complex to sustain ferrets. As previously noted, anticoagulant poisons can result in secondary impacts to any wildlife that consumes a poisoned prairie dog. In 2012, the Service completed formal consultation with the EPA to evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, including the black-footed ferret, from the use of the anticoagulant Rozol to poison prairie dogs. The final biological opinion prohibits application of Rozol within current and future ferret recovery sites (Gober 2008).

They eat the entire prairie dog (Scott 1997).

Figure 5 (“CNHP Maps for Download Page” 2013)

II. Habitat Needs A slide show of a Black-footed Ferret Release (Conley 2013)

11

Standing or running water along w/other habitat types (Scott 1997)

Predation by coyote and badger and dispersal have been the primary problems at the Shirley Basin site (Nature Serve 2003).The cascade of effects that ensues the removal of a keystone species are dramatic and immediate.

This species is limited to open habitat, the same habitat used by prairie dogs: grasslands, steppe, and shrub steppe. Resting and birthing sites are in underground burrows, generally made by prairie dogs. It has been estimated that about 40-60 hectares of prairie dog colony are needed to support one ferret. See Biggins et al. (in Oldemeyer et al. 1993) for information on evaluating areas as potential ferret habitat; factors include size of prairie dog complex, prairie dog population density, spatial arrangement of prairie dog colonies, potential for disease in prairie dogs and ferrets, potential for prairie dog expansion, abundance of predators, future resource conflicts and ownership stability, and public and landowner attitudes (Nature Serve 2003).

According to Carrier and Czech, where wildlife occupy ecosystems used for livestock forage, grazing often alters these ecosystems, and native species often experience population declines as a result. Black-footed ferrets are a "priority species" in Arizona and New Mexico, meaning that they should receive greater consideration than non-priority wildlife species during development of management strategies related to livestock grazing (Ulev 2013).

Oil and natural gas exploration and extraction can have detrimental impacts on prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. Seismic activity collapses prairie dog burrows. Other problems include potential leakages and spills, increased roads and fences, increased vehicle traffic and human presence, and an increased number of raptor perching sites on power poles. Traps set for coyotes, American mink (Mustela vison), and other animals may harm black-footed ferrets (Ulev 2013).

An FEIS review on the black-tailed prairie dog suggests that fire may have positive or negative effects, depending on burn severity and season. Low-severity burns conducted during

12

spring in non-drought years may stimulate the growth of black-tailed prairie dog colonies by reducing vegetational height and density at the colony periphery. Prescribed burning and mechanical brush removal around the perimeter of black-tailed prairie dog colonies may encourage the expansion of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. High-severity burns have the potential of reducing habitat quality in a black-tailed prairie dog colony, at least in the short-term. During the plant-growing season, the absence of fire provides optimal conditions for black-tailed prairie dog colony growth. For more information about habitat-related fire effects for the black-tailed prairie dog, see the FEIS review on the black-tailed prairie dog (Ulev 2013).

Given the positive growth of ferret populations at Conata Basin, management that increases the density of prairie dogs might enhance ferret success within natural areas. To achieve long-term recovery of ferrets in the wild, conservationists should increasingly work across and outside natural area boundaries to increase prairie dog populations (Jachowski et al. 2011).

the shift of high-density areas of active prairie dog burrows, likely associated with changes in vegetation, suggests that through the management of vegetation we might be able to indirectly improve habitat for ferrets. Finally, we found that prairie dog distributions within a colony are a naturally dynamic process and that management strategies should consider the long-term value of both active and inactive areas within colonies (Jachowski et al. 2008).

There are possibly other options for habitat management and predator/prey relationships of the BFF. In the study mentioned above, the obligate predator-prey relationship between BFFs and PDs was developed over time so the possibility of encouraging the same relationship with another species like ground squirrels exists (Owen, Bell, and Mead 2000).

13

Figure 6 (“CNHP Maps for Download Page” 2013)

III. Reproductive Needs Black-footed ferrets are probably polygynous, based on data collected from home range sizes, skewed sex ratios, and sexual dimorphism. Mating occurs in February and March. Unlike other mustelids, black-footed ferrets are habitat specialists and have low reproductive rates. The sex ratio of adults near Meeteetse, Wyoming, was 1 male: 2.2 females (n=128) (Ulev 2013).

GeneticsWe conducted a genetic analysis of the Conata Basin black-footed ferret population from 2001 to 2003 to determine if genetic variation had been lost since the cessation of reintroductions and if demographic- and genetic-based estimates of effective population size (Ne) accurately predicted observed levels of heterozygosity. We used DNA from wild-born kits (n = 254) in the Conata Basin    population (2001–2003) to calculate current genetic diversity levels. Both allelic diversity (A = 2, both    subpopulations) and mean heterozygosity were low for both subpopulations—0.39 ± 0.12 SE in Agate-Sage Creek and

14

0.39 ± 0.16 SE in Heck Table—but not significantly different from estimates made in 1999. We found no significant difference between observed and expected heterozygosity levels. Demographic-based estimates of Ne were an order of magnitude higher than genetic-based estimates of Ne, but the 2 estimates provide a range of Ne values for the population. This study shows that the Conata Basin ferret population is able to maintain its genetic diversity over time despite its population history (Cain, Livieri, and Swanson 2011).

15

Figure 7 (Nature Serve 2003)

16

Figure 8 (Nature Serve 2003)

IV. The Management Plan-2013 (Gober 2008) Recovery Strategy: In preparing this revised recovery plan, we solicited extensive partner review from the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team (BFFRIT). The BFFRIT was established by the Service in 1996. One of its guiding principles has been its focus on involvement by many partners across the historical range of the ferret, including tribes, States, Federal land management agencies, non-governmental organizations, Canada, and Mexico. Recovery will be achieved by establishing a number of ferret populations where appropriate habitat exists and by ameliorating threats impacting the species so as to allow the ferret’s persistence. Although ferret habitat has been dramatically reduced from historical times, a sufficient amount remains, if its quality and configuration is appropriately managed. This management, for the most part, is likely to be conducted by traditional State, tribal, and Federal fish and wildlife and land management agencies. Additionally, private parties, including landowners and conservation organizations, must continue to support ferret recovery. Many partners contributing to ferret recovery in

17

many places will help minimize the risk of loss of wild populations (Gober 2008).

Hurray!!! The management plan has been update for the better! The numbers required for delisting have been raised:Establish free-ranging black-footed ferrets totaling at least 3,000 breeding adults, in 30 or more populations, with at least one population in each of at least 9 of 12 States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population, and at least 10 populations with 100 or more breeding adults, and at least 5 populations within colonies of Gunnison’s or white-tailed prairie dogs. Maintain approximately 494,000 ac of prairie dog occupied habitat at reintroduction sites by planning and implementing actions to manage plague and conserve prairie dog populations

Downlisting Criteria• Conserve and manage a captive breeding population of black-footed ferrets with aminimum of 280 adults (105 males, 175 females) distributed among multiplefacilities (at least 3).• Establish free-ranging black-footed ferrets totaling at least 1,500 breeding adults,in 10 or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 States within the historical range ofthe species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population, and at least3 populations within colonies of Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dogs.• Maintain these population objectives for at least three years prior to downlisting.• Maintain approximately 247,000 acres (ac) (100,000 hectares (ha)) of prairie dogoccupied habitat at reintroduction sites (specific actions are described in Part II ofthis plan) by planning and implementing actions to manage plague and conserveprairie dog populations.

Delisting CriteriaDelisting criteria are new since the 1988 Recovery Plan. Delisting

18

may occur when the following recovery criteria are met.• Conserve and manage a captive breeding population of black-footed ferrets with aminimum of 280 adults (105 males, 175 females) distributed among multiplefacilities (at least 3).• Establish free-ranging black-footed ferrets totaling at least 3,000 breeding adults,in 30 or more populations, with at least one population in each of at least 9 of 12States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breedingadults in any population, and at least 10 populations with 100 or more breedingadults, and at least 5 populations within colonies of Gunnison’s or white-tailedprairie dogs.• Maintain these population objectives for at least three years prior to delisting.• Maintain approximately 494,000 ac (200,000 ha) of prairie dog occupied habitatat reintroduction sites by planning and implementing actions to manage plagueand conserve prairie dog populations (specific actions are described in Part II ofthis plan).• Complete and implement a post-delisting monitoring plan, in cooperation with the States and tribes, to ensure recovery goals are maintained.

After Delisting• Conserve and manage a reduced captive breeding population of black-footedferrets in order to maintain knowledge, incorporate developing technologies, andaddress potential population extirpations.

Actions NeededWe believe the single, most feasible action that would benefit black-footed ferret recovery is to improve prairie dog conservation. If efforts were undertaken to more proactively manage existing prairie dog habitat for ferret recovery, all other threats to the species would be substantially less difficult to address. Several States within the historical range of the species do not manage prairie dogs in a manner that supports ferret recovery. Some of these States have disease-

19

free areas that would be especially valuable to ferret recovery. We recommend that the following actions be undertaken.1. Conserve and manage a captive ferret population of reasonable size and structure to support genetic management and reintroduction efforts.2. Identify prairie dog habitats with the highest potential for supporting future free ranging populations of ferrets.3. Establish free-ranging populations of ferrets to meet downlisting and delisting goals.4. Ensure sufficient habitat to support a wide distribution of self-sustaining ferret populations.5. Reduce disease-related threats in wild populations of ferrets and associated species.6. Support partner involvement and conduct adaptive management through cooperative interchange.

Estimated Date of RecoveryWe believe that downlisting of the black-footed ferret could be accomplished in approximately 10 years if conservation actions continue at existing reintroduction sites and if additional reintroduction sites are established. Downlisting and delisting could occur more quickly if additional partners became involved in recovery efforts.

Estimated Cost of Recovery Actions ($1,000s) (not adjusted for inflation)

The following table summarizes the costs by decade of the various recovery actions that are described by individual task in Part II and prioritized in Part III of this revised recovery plan. Costs through 2020 address downlisting of the black-footed ferret. Subsequent costs address delisting the ferret.

Estimated Cost of Recovery Actions ($1,000’s) (not adjusted for inflation)Years Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Action 6 Total2010-2020 7,000 90 9,950 23,000 8,110 6,990 55,1402021-2030 5,000 60 10,960 22,000 4,940 5,040 48,0002031-2040 5,000 60 10,960 22,000 4,940 5,040 48,000Total 17,000 210 31,870 67,000 17,990 17,070 151,140

Critical habitat was not designated for the species; the species was listed prior to amendments that added critical habitat provisions.

20

We assigned the ferret a recovery priority number of 2C on a scale of 1C-18, with 1C equaling the highest priority. This number indicates that the ferret faces a high degree of threat, with potential economic conflicts regarding the ferret’s obligatory dependence on prairie dogs, which are viewed as pests by some parties

The high degree of threat is largely due to inadequate management and conservation of prairie dogs, and is described in detail in the section “Threats and Reasons for Listing.” The ranking also reflects the ferret’s taxonomic status as a full species. Table 1 further describes recovery prioritization. Notably, this species continues to have a high potential for recovery despite the management challenges noted.

There have been 20 specific black-footed ferret reintroduction projects, beginning in 1991 (Figure 1). These projects include: Shirley Basin, Wyoming, in 1991; Badlands National Park, South Dakota, in 1994; UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, in 1994; Conata Basin, South Dakota, in 1996; Aubrey Valley, Arizona, in 1996; Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana, in 1997; Coyote Basin, Utah, in 1999; Cheyenne 20 River Indian Reservation, South Dakota, in 2000; Wolf Creek, Colorado, in 2001; Bureau of Land Management 40 Complex, Montana, in 2001; Janos, Mexico, in 2001; Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota, in 2004; Lower Brule Indian Reservation South Dakota, in 2006; Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, in 2007; Espee Ranch, Arizona, in 2007; Logan County, Kansas, in 2007; Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, in 2008; Vermejo Ranch (black-tailed prairie dog habitat), New Mexico, in 2008; Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2009; and Vermejo Ranch (Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat), New Mexico, in 2012.

21

State Breeding adults

established to date Adults/acres to downlist Adults/acres to delist

Arizona 35 74 adults/17,000 ac 148 adults/34,000 ac

Colorado 4 149 adults/29,000 ac 288 adults/58,000 ac

Kansas 13 123 adults/18,500 ac 246 adults/37,000 ac

Montana 11 147 adults/22,000 ac 294 adults/44,000 ac

Nebraska 0 134 adults/20,000 ac 268 adults/44,000 ac

New Mexico 2 220 adults/39,000 ac 440 adults/78,000 ac

North Dakota 0 38 adults/6,000 ac 76 adults/12,000 ac

Oklahoma 0 70 adults/10,500 ac 140 adults/21,000 ac

South Dakota 185 102 adults/15,000 ac 204 adults/30,000 ac

Texas 0 254 adults/38,000 ac 508 adults/76,000 ac

Utah 7 25adults/6,000 ac 50 adults/12,000 ac

Wyoming 100 171 adults/35,000 ac 341 adults/70,000 ac

Total 357 1,507 adults/256,000 ac 3,004 adults/512,000 ac

Approximately 55 percent of all captive black-footed ferrets are located at the Service’s National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center near Wellington, Colorado. The remaining captive breeding populations are housed at the Smithsonian Biology Conservation Institute in Front Royal, Virginia; Louisville Zoological Garden in Louisville, Kentucky; Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Phoenix Zoo in Phoenix, Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo in Toronto, Ontario.

22

Current management techniques include dusting prairie dog burrows with flea control powder and vaccinating ferrets prior to release. At Conata Basin in South Dakota, wild ferrets are also being trapped and vaccinated in the field as protection against the ongoing epizootic. Research is currently investigating the potential of supporting ferrets by providing vaccine to protect wild prairie dogs via oral bait. This has the potential to limit periodic plague cycles more effectively and economically than direct vaccination of ferrets. Specific tasks are described under “Recovery Actions.” We believe that the threat from plague can be ameliorated by dusting, vaccines, and the maintenance of more reintroduction sites.

In addition to management of prairie dogs for better control of sylvatic plague, actions are needed to conserve prairie dogs in complexes of sufficient size and stability to support reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. We believe that in some cases control at the periphery of reintroduction sites may be appropriate to facilitate cooperation of adjacent landowners. However, the type of poison applied to control prairie dogs and the extent of its use can impact the ability of a prairie dog complex to sustain ferrets. As previously noted, anticoagulant poisons can result in secondary impacts to any wildlife that consumes a poisoned prairie dog. In 2012, the Service completed formal consultation with the EPA to evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, including the black-footed ferret, from the use of the anticoagulant Rozol to poison prairie dogs. The final biological opinion prohibits application of Rozol within current and future ferret recovery sites.

There are two primary objectives for achieving recovery of the black-footed ferret, which to some extent overlap: (1) improve management of prairie dogs and (2) protect against sylvatic plague.

Since the 1988 Recovery Plan, there have been several major reviews of black-footed ferret recovery efforts including reviews by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) of the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (CBSG 1992), Hutchins et al. (1996), CBSG (2004), Ray (2006), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008).

23

1 Conserve and manage a captive ferret population of reasonable size and structure to support genetic management and reintroduction efforts. 2 Identify prairie dog habitats with the highest potential for supporting future free-ranging populations of ferrets. 3 Establish free-ranging populations of ferrets to meet downlisting and delisting criteria. 4 Ensure sufficient habitat to support a wide distribution of self-sustaining ferret populations. 5 Reduce disease-related threats in wild populations of ferrets and associated species. 6 Support partner involvement and conduct adaptive management through cooperative interchange.

Ferret-related websites are maintained by the Service as well as many other affected agencies and organizations. Current information regarding the ferret is available from websites maintained by the Service (www.fws.gov/endangered/) and by the BFFRIT (www.blackfootedferret.org).

Support partner involvement and conduct adaptive management through cooperative interchange.

Public support can be lost due to confusion about why ferrets are being released into areas where they are at risk of being infected with diseases. Public education about the nature of the disease issues facing ferrets and other species in the prairie ecosystem, as well as humans, will help maintain support in the face of disease related mortalities.

Conduct periodic symposia and workshops to exchange information on diseases.Continue to adapt management procedures as new information becomes available.

Currently, there are many agencies, institutions and individuals researching various aspects of plague. A clearinghouse/repository of plague-related data, possibly internet based, should be developed to promote continued coordination and define further research needs.

We estimate that a minimum of approximately 191,000 ac (77,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat and 56,000 ac (23,000 ha) of white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie

24

dog occupied habitat will be required to meet downlisting criteria. Similarly, a minimum of 383,000 ac (154,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat and 112,000 ac (46,000 ha) of white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied habitat will be required to meet delisting criteria (see discussion on pp. 65–66). These estimates will be adjusted as necessary.

A routine level of periodic ferret population monitoring is required in a long-range management plan for each reintroduction site. The Service will periodically reviews site plans and monitoring efforts.

A broad management strategy should also be employed to ensure that ferrets are managed in a metapopulation context. Wild-born ferrets may be periodically exchanged between reintroduced populations to achieve demographic and/or genetic management goals. Demographic manipulations may include stocking, translocation, or removal of individuals from donor populations.

Recovery partners will summarize monitoring data and research results, evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of their efforts, and make appropriate modifications to their procedures based on new information.

Consider population viability, including potential effects of inbreeding, interspecific interactions, and disease

Methods of controlling plague in free-ranging populations through the use of vaccines, flea powders, growth inhibitors, or sterilants will continue to be explored. Regular monitoring for canine distemper in sympatric predators at reintroduction sites should continue.

Radiotelemetry is the only technique that has provided meaningful data on causes of mortality for free-ranging ferrets. Nevertheless, telemetry is problematic due to costs, short transmitter life, and increased risks of injury to individuals. Improved telemetry should be considered to address specific questions at certain reintroduction areas. What about a chip that’s inserted in the ferret like they do with dogs and cats to find them when they are lost? A business could be built around tracking monitored animals. With more volume, it would become more affordable.

25

Research has demonstrated that preconditioning is beneficial to post-release survival.

The Service and the BFFRIT support long-term monitoring of all ferret reintroduction sites to evaluate success and provide information of value to other reintroduction sites.

All ferret reintroduction programs are authorized under the principle that if a population becomes established, contributions of excess ferrets will be used to manage other recovery sites. As reintroduced ferret populations grow, the translocation of wild-born ferret kits to new reintroduction sites is expected to become increasingly important as a tool for ferret recovery. Disease-prevention protocols for translocation of wild-born stock will be updated as needed based on protocols for transfer of captive-born stock.

Plague screening will be conducted prior to release to access site conditions.

Comply with obligations of the ESA, NEPA, and other laws. State and Federal statutes, tribal statutes and resolutions, and other legal requirements will be evaluated and completed prior to implementing reintroduction projects.

Prairie dog colonies at existing and proposed reintroduction sites should be characterized, managed at appropriate levels, monitored and managed for plague, and managed for grazing as appropriate.

The Service uses a standardized ranking procedure for allocating ferrets to reintroduction sites. Reintroduction sites are ranked according to many site-specific criteria including project background and justification, involved agencies/parties, habitat conditions, ferret population information, predator management, disease monitoring and management, contingency plans, potential for preconditioning of released ferrets, veterinary and husbandry support, and research contributions. Site-specific values for each criterion are entered into an allocation matrix that allows sites to be ranked based on overall contribution to ferret recovery efforts. Reintroduction proposals and the Service’s rankings of the proposals are reviewed by BFFRIT members. The Service determines ferret allocations by mid-summer and incorporates site visit

26

information to resolve any outstanding concerns regarding specific reintroduction projects.

The likelihood of finding wild ferrets outside of reintroduction areas diminishes with time. However, if this occurred, the Service would immediately consult with members of the BFFRIT and take actions appropriate to the situation. Once discovered, new populations should be integrated into the monitoring and captive breeding programs to the extent possible.

Use current Service guidelines to dispose of ferrets that are considered surplus to the SSP®. Surplus animals not suitable for reintroduction should be used for research or live educational exhibit. All carcasses should be made available for scientific research or educational display. Ferret tissue samples should also be made available for scientific research.

The genetic contribution of the 7 founders could be substantially reduced or lost if they are inadequately represented in future generations or are represented through only one sex. The genetic contribution of the 7 founders remains disproportionate. Efforts by the captive breeding program to balance representation of all founders will continue and periodically be evaluated. These efforts include minimizing genetic relatedness among mates, transferring ferrets between SSP® facilities to maintain heterozygosity, and continuing development of techniques for cryopreservation of ferret semen for use in artificial insemination.

Canine distemper has also notably impacted ferret populations in the past. However, a commercial distemper vaccine has become available and is now widely employed in both captive and wild ferret population management

V. Assessment Proctor developed a GIS methodology to identify focal areas on the grasslands. Such focal areas target places where conservationists can most efficiently use time and other resources to recover prairie dogs. These authors define a focal area as a place of sufficient size to permit a complex of prairie dogs, or multiple complexes, to grow large enough, and have high enough quality, to support black-footed ferrets, burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and other species

27

that rely on prairie dogs. Proctor catalogued 84 focal areas for black-tailed prairie dogs that exceeded 4000 ha, which is set as the minimum size necessary for grassland function (Miller and Reading 2012).

Figure 9 (U.S. Forest Service 2011)

A. Global Climate Change Impacts We infer from these data that black-footed ferrets rapidly colonized western ecoregions in a stepwise fashion from the Great Plains to the intermountain regions of the Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateau after the last ice age. It appears that glacial retreat and global warming caused both range expansion and localized extinction in this North American mustelid species (Wisely, Statham, and Fleischer 2008).

Fragmentation and edge effects

The climate in Colorado is expected to change. The average temperature increase projected for Colorado by 2050 is around five degrees, based on a moderate output of greenhouse gases (Scott 1997)

28

Figure 10 (Guido 2008)

B. Long-term Population Sustainability

When I consider the long-term viability of the BFF, I cannot help but consider the impacts of the population of people. Long-term population sustainability for Black-footed Ferrets is grim without necessary changes in policy and attitude toward the anthropogenic impacts of prairie dogs. Prairie dogs are the keystone species in the interconnections of BFFs in the ecosystem. Without them, animal like burrowing owls, mountain plovers (Miller and Reading 2012), and BFFs will not have the burrows that prairie dogs create for habitat and their populations will decline with respect to prairie dog habitat. Remember, it takes approximately 15,000 A/100 ferrets on average for adequate and sustainable BFF habitat.

29

Figure 11 (Fire Fuel and Smoke Science Program 2013)

C. Vulnerability to Climate Change on Potential Long- term Population Sustainability

Fire is and important consideration when planning for habitat protection. The above graph shows the projected number of fires under historic and two climate prediction scenarios. The most noticeable metric of the graph to me is the relatively small increase in the overall number of fires that would create a very large impact. Increased temperatures have many cascading effects on the planet.

There have been studies that show some pathogens may increase in prevalence with an increase in atmospheric CO2 (Chakraborty and Datta 2003). Sylvatic plague is a large threat to prairie dogs and although it may not affect BFFs directly, the indirect link between prairie dogs and BFFs in well established. It is not likely to increase with global climate change, though, due to conditions not being favorable for fleas (Snall, Benestad, and Stenseth 2009)

Black-footed ferrets are susceptible to numerous diseases. They are fatally susceptible to canine distemper, introduced by striped skunks, common raccoons, red foxes, coyotes and American badgers. A short-term vaccine for canine distemper is available for captive black-footed ferrets, but no protection is available for young born in the wild; other diseases that black-footed ferrets are susceptible to include rabies, tularemia, and human influenza. Sylvatic plague

30

epidemics in prairie dog towns may completely destroy the black-footed ferrets' prey base (Ulev 2013).

Black-footed ferrets are highly susceptible to sylvatic plague. In nature, they could be exposed either by fleabite or consumption of infected prey. This disease has severely hampered efforts to restore ferrets to their historical range. Experimental results indicate that black-footed ferrets can be immunized against plague. However, control of plague in black-footed ferrets and the ultimate recovery of the species will require control of the disease in their primary prey-prairie dogs (Nature Serve 2003).

On challenge with 7,800 colony-forming units of virulent plague by s.c. injection, the three control animals died within 3 days, but six of seven vaccinates survived with no ill effects. The seventh vaccinate died on day 8. These results indicate that black-footed ferrets can be immunized against plague induced by the s.c. route, similar to fleabite injection (Rocke et al. 2004).

D. Landscape Connectivity: Will This Species Likely Suffer a Range Contraction?

DevelopmentSprawlReaction to climate change

Yes, if current trends continue. Prairie dogs are mobile and some have been know to disperse several miles. As with everything in ecosystems, the prairie dog colonies are always moving, gradually, over time. This allows access to new habitat and vegetation. The climate is changing on a period that is unaccounted for over the past 600,000 years. ????????

31

Figure 12 Renewable Energy Infrastructure (Natural Resources Defense Council 2013)

E. Will This Species Likely Suffer Population Reductions Due to Climate Change?

Yes, if current trends continue. One of the biggest impacts will be the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer that extends from South Dakota to Texas. It is one of the largest aquifers in the world and it is being pumped dry. As temperatures rise and the hydrologic cycle becomes erratic due to global warming, there will be an increased need for water and a reinforcing feedback loop is in the process of being established. Almost all of the farming done in the Midwest uses irrigation from this aquifer. There will be cascading effects from the loss of this precious resource. Prairie dog habitat and, subsequently BFF habitat, will decline without adequate moisture to grow the plants upon which the prairie dogs feed.

32

F. Will Habitat Fragmentation Diminish Survivability Potential?

Oh my goodness yes! It is the number one threat to habitat loss for these animals, and most animals. Many animals are subsidized by humans, inadvertently, and would not be able to survive in the numbers they do, if at all, like raccoons, skunks, coyotes, foxes, bears and mice. Wild animals that live away from human subsidization will not and are not doing well with habitat fragmentation.

There are many adverse affects from habitat fragmentation. Edge hunting animals increase activity in areas they did not enter before. These animals affect an area for many meters from the edge; around 50 meters on each side of 1 meter wide trail (Malone 2013). This means animals that need solitude for any part of their life cycles will be subjected to increased predation, less habitat availability and lower population numbers as a result. These animals cannot just move to a new area because those areas may not be accessible for all animals and other areas are fully inhabited already anyway.

Other effects include the ability for more penetration of environmental factors that normally would not have been able to breach the barrier that is inherently incorporated into natural landscapes. Typically, a natural edge, unless affected by disturbance, is structured in a tiered manner; graminoids, forbs, low shrubs, tall shrubs and then trees, respectively. This structure serves the necessary functions of blocking

33

wind, raindrop/soil impacts, sunlight, predators, people, and moisture loss.

These elementary impacts are significant. Soil moisture loss is a keystone factor in the cascade of effects from increased edge. Soil moisture, along with temperature, are the primary elements affecting the species and distribution of vegetation in an ecosystem. As soils dry, the fitness of the vegetation present will degrade and result in death and deadfall. This has further impacts on the area and the cascade of effects continues.

Figure 13 Defenders employees Russ Talmo, Kylie Paul, myself, and Jonathan Proctor greet the 32 black-footed ferrets in their transport vehicle (Defenders of Wildlife 2013).

VI. Science-based Recommendations that will Improve Survivability Potential

FORT Scientist Key to Ferret Recovery

The constant in the black-footed ferret research program has been USGS scientist Dean Biggins. He was there as a USFWS researcher in 1981 with the discovery of the Meeteetse black-footed ferret colony, and he captured one of the

34

last free-ranging ferrets when captive breeding was the only hope. He has designed countless studies to help resolve the seemingly insurmountable problems of ferret re-establishment. Dr. Biggins now designs and conducts studies on the effects of plague on ferret habitat. His dedication and that of the hundreds of other biologists, cooperators, technicians, and volunteers on the black-footed ferret project over the last 20 years are part of the reason there is now hope for the recovery of this endangered animal (Godbey 2013).

The first reintroduction was conducted at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, in the fall of 1991. Ferret researchers participated in the reintroductions, using custom-made radio telemetry systems to document the fate of the captive-born and raised, reintroduced ferrets. Survival was poor for the first year of reintroductions, so between 1992 and 1998 program researchers studied captive rearing and reintroduction techniques and developed minimal standards for reintroduction habitat. This was a massive effort requiring hundreds of biologists, technicians, and volunteers from many different agencies, countries, and backgrounds. The information gleaned from this work standardized much of the captive-rearing and reintroduction techniques for the black-footed ferret recovery program (Godbey 2013).

Beginning in 2000, the research emphasis changed once again. Although ferrets had been introduced into Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Arizona, only the South Dakota populations were flourishing. South Dakota was the only state that had not recorded the presence of plague and fluctuating prairie dog populations. The decision was made to focus future research on understanding how plague was affecting small-mammal populations and the prairie dog ecosystem. The cooperative project on plague has included partners and cooperators with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Centers for Disease Control, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service; state agencies in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and Arizona; the University of Virginia, Colorado State University, University of Colorado, Kansas State University; and organizations like the Denver Zoo, the Turner Endangered Species Foundation, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and many others. This research has begun to unravel the mystery of how plague operates in the wild (Godbey 2013).

35

Collecting data on a similar species would provide information that could act as a template. The Siberian polecat offers these similarities that could help the BFF recovery program. Examination of our data suggests that black-footed ferrets and Siberian polecats might be ecological equivalents but are not perfect surrogates. Nonetheless, polecats as surrogates for black-footed ferrets have provided critical insight needed, especially related to predation, to improve the success of ferret reintroductions (Biggins et al. 2011).

The Siberian polecat is the closest known relative to the black-footed ferret. Behavioral studies were also conducted to determine what rearing influence or conditioning might be required to increase survival of reintroduced ferrets (Godbey 2013).

Until the black-footed ferret becomes widespread and abundant at a reintroduction site, spotlighting will remain preferable as a means to generate indices of distribution and relative abundance for the black-footed ferret(Grenier, Buskirk, and Anderson-Sprecher 2009) .

Exposure to areas near likely owl perches reduced ferret survival, but landscape features potentially associated with coyote movements had no appreciable effect on survival. Ferrets were located within 90 m of perches more than expected in 2 study sites that also had higher ferret mortality due to owl predation. Densities of potential coyote travel routes near ferret locations were no different than expected in all 3 sites. Repatriated ferrets might have selected resources based on factors other than predator avoidance. Considering an easily quantified landscape feature (i.e., owl perches) can enhance success of reintroduction efforts for ferrets. Nonetheless, development of predictive models of predation risk and management strategies to mitigate that risk is not necessarily straightforward for more generalist predators such as coyotes (Poessel et al. 2011).

The majority of deaths in neonates were due to cannibalism (n = 42; 64.6%) and maternal trauma (n = 11; 16.9%); both of these causes of mortality decreased during the study period. Prior to 2001, juvenile mortality was most often caused by gastrointestinal disease (n = 11; 52.4%), including coccidiosis, salmonellosis, and clostridium

36

infection. In 2001, improvements in husbandry, hygiene, and medical treatment led to decreases in juvenile mortality associated with gastrointestinal disease. The most common causes of death in adult ferrets were renal or neoplastic disease. The etiology of the high prevalence of renal disease in the last 4 yr of the study is unknown; it was not associated with increasing age or inbreeding. Improved hygiene and vigilant monitoring for signs of gastrointestinal and renal disease will continue to improve the success of the captive propagation of this species (Bronson et al. 2007).

We tested the dogs on 4 test colonies that had no record of ferret presence and 7 colonies known to have ferrets inhabiting them. One dog was 100% accurate at detecting presence and the other was between 57% and 71% successful at detecting ferrets, with neither dog falsely indicating presence when ferrets were absent. For the 2 dogs, the mean time to detect ferrets on a prairie dog colony was 21 minutes and mean search rate was 26 ha/hour. The mean time to detection on the same sites was 208 minutes for spotlight surveys and mean search rate was 1.6 ha/hour. Although spotlight surveys are necessary for identifying population demographics, well-trained detection dogs show promise for detecting ferret presence in prairie dog colonies (REINDL-THOMPSON et al. 2006).

Wildlife-habitat relationships are often conceptualized as resource selection functions (RSFs)—models increasingly used to estimate species distributions and prioritize habitat conservation. We evaluated the predictive capabilities of 2 black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) RSFs developed on a 452-ha colony of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in the Conata Basin, South Dakota. We used the RSFs to project the relative probability of occurrence of ferrets throughout an adjacent 227-ha colony. We evaluated performance of the RSFs using ferret space use data collected via postbreeding spotlight surveys June–October 2005–2006. In home ranges and core areas, ferrets selected the predicted “very high” and “high” occurrence categories of both RSFs. Count metrics also suggested selection of these categories; for each model in each year, approximately 81% of ferret locations occurred in areas of very high or high predicted occurrence. These results suggest usefulness of the RSFs in estimating the distribution of ferrets throughout a black-tailed prairie dog colony. The RSFs provide a fine-scale habitat assessment for ferrets that can be used to

37

prioritize releases of ferrets and habitat restoration for prairie dogs and ferrets. A method to quickly inventory the distribution of prairie dog burrow openings would greatly facilitate application of the RSFs (D. A. Eads et al. 2012).

Vitrified-thawed CM/EB embryos cultured for 2 or 16 h before ET resulted in live birth rates of 71.3% and 77.4%, respectively. These rates were not significantly different from the control live birth rate (79.2%). However, culture for 32 h (25%) or 48 h (7.8%) after vitrification significantly reduced the rate of live births. These data indicate that the pipette chamber vitrification technique significantly improves the live birth rate of transferred ferret embryos relative to current state-of-the-art methods (Sun et al. 2008).

Challenges to Black-footed Ferret Recovery: Protecting Prairie-Western North American Naturalist 72(2), © 2012,

pp. 228–240 (Miller and Reading 2012)

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) recovery program is an example of single-species management to preserve flora and fauna. We argue that conservationists must move beyond that approach for success. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a down-listing goal of 1500 adult black-footed ferrets in 10 wild populations by 2010. The recovery program has only reached 23% of that goal. The overriding reason is the lack of regulatory mechanisms for poisoning and shooting prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) and our inability to control occurrence of plague (Yersinia pestis) in prairie dogs. We propose that prairie dogs need, and deserve, some level of federal protection to address these factors and that the primary goal for conservation of black-footed ferrets should be maintaining numbers and distributions of prairie dogs at sufficient temporal and geographic scales to restore them to a level of ecological function in the grasslands. We contend that prairie dogs qualify for protection in at least 4 of the 5 categories used to assess level of threat under the Endangered Species Act. A species needs to qualify in one of those categories to merit protection. The threat posed by plague should itself be sufficient reason to justify prairie dog protection, both for themselves and for the black-footed ferret recovery program (Miller and Reading 2012).

In the past, area was the factor that drove identification of potential prairie dog complexes for black-footed ferret

38

reintroduction, and area is important for the ecological function of prai rie dogs as well as for holding a sufficient number of black-footed ferrets to avoid natural stochastic events with minimal management. Plague, however, has changed that scenario. Because plague is an exotic disease that can obliterate prairie dog complexes, both large and small, it is of utmost importance that all prairie dog complexes considered for black-footed ferret reintroduction be protected from plague. This includes sites that qualify now (e.g., Proctor et al. 2006), as well as sites that could be managed to expand (e.g., Luce 2005). As shown by the example in Conata Basin, South Dakota, we lacked the political will and funding to protect more than one-third of the prairie dogs from plague (and allowed a level of poisoning, too) on what was the most successful black-footed ferret reintroduction site in North America. As a result, the population of black-footed ferrets dropped from 335 in 2007 to 72 in 2012 (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/crews-dust-prairie-dog-towns-to-help-endangered-ferrets/) (Miller and Reading 2012).

We propose an immediate goal of protecting existing reintroduction sites and potential reintroduction sites against plague. The prophylactic strategy of dusting burrows with flea powder is labor-intensive and expensive, thus placing an artificial cap on the potential size of a prairie dog complex. An oral vaccine delivered through bait will also be expensive, but it has the potential to expand the area occupied by prairie dogs (Miller and Reading 2012).

We contend that reintroduction sites managed by individual agencies will lack the political will and funding to offer adequate protection from plague without the power of protection from the ESA to change management of prairie dogs. Federal protection under the ESA would in crease chances of an incentive program to counter poisoning (Luce et al. 2006). Luce et al. (2006) stated that 93% of landowners in Wyoming indicated interest in a financial compensation for farmers and ranchers who agree to maintain prairie dog colonies on their land (Miller and Reading 2012).

We recommend that the USFWS not only protect prairie dogs but also write a multi-species recovery plan for the grassland or prairie dog ecosystem, similar to the South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan for the Everglades,

39

which considers 68 species (USFWS 1998). The USFWS web site lists more than 75 recovery plans that include multiple species or subspecies. Multispecies recovery provides a more economical, more efficient approach to conservation than separate plans for each species of prairie dog and each species dependent on prairie dogs. We, like Lockhart et al. (2006), recommend that policymakers revisit use of Section 10j for black-footed ferrets. Compromise with agricultural interests may have helped locate some release sites, but in most cases, it has not helped establish black-footed ferret populations because conservationists have done most of the compromising (Lockhart et al. 2006). As a result, black-footed ferrets released into the wild enjoy little habitat protection. Federal lands represent large, mostly contiguous blocks of uncultivated land that agencies manage under a mission of biodiversity (at a minimum, biodiversity is included in their man date for multiple use). However, agencies also poison prairie dogs on federal land because livestock often graze the land for at least several months per year. We argue that since agencies manage federal lands for the entire nation, federal lands should not be poisoned. We should seek to replace good-neighbor laws and regulations for poisoning with buffers of tall grass that reduce the chances that prairie dogs will leave the federal land and venture onto adjoining private land. Given that prairie dogs occupy only 1.1% of Forest Service lands on the Great Plains (Cooper and Gabriel 2005) and that 75% of federally owned grasslands may be suitable for prairie dogs (Sidle et al. 2006), poisoning should end on those lands (Miller and Reading 2012).

Black-footed ferrets received one of the first recovery programs for an endangered species in the United States. That program is an exam ple of the single-species management approach to preserving flora and fauna. We argue that conservationists must move beyond that ap -proach for success. The Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program only reached 23% of its 1988 goal of 1500 black-footed ferret adults in the wild by the year 2010 (USFWS 1988, 2008). We propose that the overriding reason for fail-ure to meet this goal is the lack of regulatory mechanisms for poisoning and shooting prairie dogs and our inability to control plague in prairie dogs. While the USFWS reviews of prai rie dog status have not recognized these threats as significant enough to protect prairie dogs (69 FR 51217, 18 Aug 2004; 69 FR 64889, 9 Nov 2004; 73 FR 6660, 5 Feb

40

2008), the USFWS (2008) review of black-footed ferret status recognized that lack of regulatory mechanisms for prairie dogs was preventing recovery of ferrets. Prairie dogs represent obligate food and habitat for black-footed ferrets (Miller et al. 1996); therefore, we cannot recover black-footed ferrets in the wild without protecting prairie dogs. Essentially, we have been reintroducing ferrets before we have neutralized the reason for their population decline. We argue that the primary goal for the conservation of black-footed ferrets is maintaining numbers and distributions of prairie dogs at sufficient temporal and geographic scales. A stable population of black-footed ferrets indicates that a prairie dog complex has achieved a significant level of ecological function. Failing to protect habitat (prairie dogs) for black-footed ferrets indicates a failure to take necessary steps toward ferret recovery (Miller and Reading 2012).

Defenders of Wildlife - Important Success Updates (Defenders of Wildlife 2013)

Ferrets Reintroduced to Fort Belknap Reservation

In 2013, Defenders helped reintroduce ferrets to Fort Belknap Reservation in northcentral Montana. Along with our partners from Fort Belknap Fish and Wildlife department and World Wildlife Fund, we mapped the recovering prairie dog colonies, dusted them to prevent plague, and reintroduced 32 ferrets in the fall. Our hope is that this site will grow in size and become home to a stable ferret population in future years.

Ferrets Reintroduced to Western Kansas

Defenders is also helping a group of ranchers in Kansas who are fighting to save prairie dogs and their newly-reintroduced ferret population from a century-old state law requiring the death of all prairie dogs. In December 2008, Defenders of Wildlife sent an alert to our members in Kansas and elsewhere to ask then-Governor Sebelius to do what she could to help these landowners. Almost 33,000 members responded, helping to raise the profile of this important conservation effort. For several years, Defenders has also helped these landowners with coexistence tools to reduce conflict with neighboring landowners who do not want prairie dog colonies expanding onto their properties. Finally, in 2013, after years of legal attacks from the county commissioners, these ranchers won their right to maintain wildlife –

41

including prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets – on their ranches.

Ferrets Now Reintroduced to 20 Locations

A successful black-footed ferret captive-breeding program was initiated in 1987 and continues to this day. As of 2013, an estimated 500 ferrets were living in the wild in 20 locations across the West, with four of the sites surpassing the required minimum of 30 breeding adults. Though we have a long way to go, by nearly all measurements, the ferret’s reintroduction to the wild has been a stunning accomplishment. Our challenge now is to establish more large colonies of prairie dogs so that we can finish the job of restoring one of the most endangered mammals on the continent.

Poisoning Halted at Conata Basin Ferret Recovery Area

In 2007, Defenders of Wildlife succeeded in preventing the U.S. Forest Service from poisoning tens of thousands of prairie dogs in Conata Basin, South Dakota, home to the most successful ferret recovery site. After tens of thousands of Defenders members took action to contact federal officials, the media picked up on the importance of this story and CNN brought it to the public’s attention on one of their “Broken Government” segments. Once people understood that this proposal entailed killing native wildlife on public lands, with public dollars, in an area critical for survival of an endangered species, the proposal was revoked.

PowerPoint Presentation Ideas

A slide show of a Black-footed Ferret Release (Conley 2013)

Please check out the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011)

Here is a video of Black-footed Ferret kits going in and out of their hole (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011)

There are only three ferret species on Earth; the European polecat, the Siberian polecat, and the black-footed ferret (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011).

42

Here is a way to pass some time watching Black-footed Ferrets in Live video from the Phoenix Zoo Black footed Ferret breeding center! (Phoenix Zoo 2013)

If you would like to donate specifically for the Black-footed Ferret, here is link to the World Wildlife Fund’s Gift Center to Adopt a Black-footed Ferret. (Gift Center 2013)

To adopt a Prairie Dog and help Black-footed Ferrets indirectly, visit the Defenders of Wildlife Adoption and Gift Center. (Adoption and Gift Center 2013)

Good direction and information about how you can make a difference can be found in the Defenders of Wildlife Citizen Advocate Handbook. The concepts in the handbook include:

• Wildlife and the American Spirit• Working with Congress

• Put It in Writing• Pick Up the Phone• Meet Face to Face

• Keys to Successful Lobbying• Working with the Media

• Write a Letter to the Editor• Tap into Social Media

• Place a Public Service Announcement• Working with Your Community

• Host an Event• Participate in Public Events

• Pass a Resolution (Lesky 2010)

43

VII. Citations

44

Adoption and Gift Center. 2013. “Adopt a Prairie Dog - Wildlife Adoption and Gift Center.” Defenders of Wildlife. https://secure.defenders.org/site/SPageNavigator/wagc_prairiedog.html.

Biggins, Dean E, Louis R Hanebury, Brian J Miller, and Roger A Powell. 2011. “Black-Footed Ferrets and Siberian Polecats as Ecological Surrogates and Ecological Equivalents.” Journal of Mammalogy 92 (4) (August 16): 710–720. doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-S-110.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-S-110.1.

Biggins, Dean E., Shantini Ramakrishnan, Amanda R. Goldberg, and David A. Eads. 2012. “BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING INFLUENCE THE ATTRIBUTES OF ...: EBSCOhost.” Western North American Naturalist. http://web.ebscohost.com.cmclibraries.coloradomtn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&sid=d83bcd6d-4965-42e0-ae34-89273dc6f474%40sessionmgr14&hid=23.

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team. 2011. “Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team.” Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Program. http://www.blackfootedferret.org/.

Blogs.jwatch.org. 2011. “Cascade.jpg (JPEG Image, 480 × 330 Pixels).” NEJM Journal Watch. http://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cascade.jpg.

Bronson, Ellen, Mitchell Bush, Tabitha Viner, Suzan Murray, Samantha M Wisely, and Sharon L Deem. 2007. “MORTALITY OF CAPTIVE BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS (MUSTELA NIGRIPES) AT SMITHSONIAN’S NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK, 1989–2004.” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 38 (2) (June 1): 169–176. doi:10.1638/1042-7260(2007)038[0169:MOCBFM]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260(2007)038[0169:MOCBFM]2.0.CO.

Cain, Cynthia M, Travis M Livieri, and Bradley J Swanson. 2011. “Genetic Evaluation of a Reintroduced Population

45

of Black-Footed Ferrets (Mustela Nigripes).” Journal of Mammalogy 92 (4) (August 16): 751–759. doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-S-104.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-S-104.1.

Chakraborty, Sukumar, and Somnath Datta. 2003. “How Will Plant Pathogens Adapt to Host Plant Resistance at Elevated CO2 Und...: EBSCOhost.” New Phytologist. http://web.ebscohost.com.cmclibraries.coloradomtn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=96c51e4c-a404-4883-8057-f5dccaf99b01%40sessionmgr12&vid=5&hid=25.

Conley, Charlotte. 2013. “Black-Footed Ferrets Return to Fort Belknap - Defenders Blog.” Defenders of Wildlife. http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/10/black-footed-ferrets-return-fort-belknap/#1.

Defenders of Wildlife. 2013. “Black-Footed Ferret | Success Stories | Defenders of Wildlife.” Defenders of Wildlife. http://www.defenders.org/black-footed-ferret/success-stories.

Eads, David A, David S Jachowski, Dean E Biggins, Travis M Livieri, Marc R Matchett, and Joshua J Millspaugh. 2012. “Resource Selection Models Are Useful in Predicting Fine-Scale Distributions of Black-Footed Ferrets in Prairie Dog Colonies.” Western North American Naturalist 72 (2) (August 1): 206–215. doi:10.3398/064.072.0210. http://dx.doi.org/10.3398/064.072.0210.

Eads, David A.; Dean E. Biggins. 2012. “PATTERNS OF SURFACE BURROW PLUGGING IN A COLONY OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG...: EBSCOhost.” Western North American Naturalist. http://web.ebscohost.com.cmclibraries.coloradomtn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?nobk=y&vid=4&sid=d83bcd6d-4965-42e0-ae34-89273dc6f474@sessionmgr14&hid=23.

Fire Fuel and Smoke Science Program. 2013. “Climate-Fire Dynamics Group.” FireLab.org. http://www.firelab.org/cfdg.

Garner, Michael M, James T Raymond, Timothy D O’Brien, Robert W Nordhausen, and William C Russell. 2007.

46

“AMYLOIDOSIS IN THE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET (MUSTELA NIGRIPES).” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 38 (1) (March 1): 32–41. doi:10.1638/06-023.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1638/06-023.1.

Gift Center. 2013. “World Wildlife Fund | Black-Footed Ferret Plush – Animal Adoptions from World Wildlife Fund - WWF Gift Center.” World Wildlife Fund. http://gifts.worldwildlife.org/gift-center/gifts/Species-Adoptions/Black-footed-Ferret.aspx.

Gober, Joy. 2008. “5 Year Review-BFF Final Draft_103108.doc - Doc2364.pdf.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2364.pdf.

Godbey, Jerry. 2013. “FORT Researchers Meet the Challenges of Re-Establishing the Endangered Black-Footed Ferret.” Fort Collins Science Center USGS. http://www.fort.usgs.gov/resources/research_briefs/BFF.asp.

Grenier, Martin B, Steven W Buskirk, and Richard Anderson-Sprecher. 2009. “Population Indices Versus Correlated Density Estimates of Black-Footed Ferret Abundance.” Journal of Wildlife Management 73 (5) (June 24): 669–676. doi:10.2193/2008-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-269.

Guido, Zach. 2008. “Groundwater in the Arid Southwest | Southwest Climate Change Network.” Southwest Climate Change Network. http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/water/groundwater.

Jachowski, David S, Joshua J Millspaugh, Dean E Biggins, Travis M Livieri, and Marc R Matchett. 2008. “Implications of Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Spatial Dynamics to Black-Footed Ferrets.” Natural Areas Journal 28 (1) (January 1): 14–25. doi:10.3375/0885-8608(2008)28[14:IOBPDS]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/0885-8608(2008)28[14:IOBPDS]2.0.CO.

47

Jachowski, David S, Joshua J Millspaugh, Dean E Biggins, Travis M Livieri, Marc R Matchett, and Chadwick D Rittenhouse. 2011. “Resource Selection by Black-Footed Ferrets in South Dakota and Montana.” Natural Areas Journal 31 (3) (July 1): 218–225. doi:10.3375/043.031.0304. http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.031.0304.

Lair, Stéphane, Ian K Barker, Kay G Mehren, and Elizabeth S Williams. 2002. “EPIDEMIOLOGY OF NEOPLASIA IN CAPTIVE BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS (MUSTELA NIGRIPES), 1986–1996.” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 33 (3) (September 1): 204–213. doi:10.1638/1042-7260(2002)033[0204:EONICB]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260(2002)033[0204:EONICB]2.0.CO.

Lesky, Marcia. 2010. “Advocate Handbook.qxp - Citizen-Advocate-Handbook-2012.pdf.” Defenders of Wildlife. http://www.defenders.org/publications/citizen-advocate-handbook-2012.pdf.

Miller, Brian, and Richard P. Reading. 2012. “CHALLENGES TO BLACK-FOOTED FERRET RECOVERY: PROTECTING PRAIRIE DOGS.” Western North American Naturalist. http://web.ebscohost.com.cmclibraries.coloradomtn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&sid=d83bcd6d-4965-42e0-ae34-89273dc6f474%40sessionmgr14&hid=23.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2013. “NRDC: Renewable Energy Infrastructure Map.” NRDC.org. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/map_wind.asp#.UpJxuaH3_qM.mendeley.

Nature Serve. 2003. “NatureServe-Comprehensive Species Report & Range Maps-Mustela Nigripes.” NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Mustela+nigripes.

Owen, Pamela R, Christopher J Bell, and Emilee M Mead. 2000. “FOSSILS, DIET, AND CONSERVATION OF BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS (MUSTELA NIGRIPES).” Journal of Mammalogy 81 (2) (May 1):

48

422–433. doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081<0422:FDACOB>2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081<0422:FDACOB>2.0.CO.

Phoenix Zoo. 2013. “Phoenix Zoo Black-Footed Ferret Web Cam Live Streaming Video.” Camzone Networks. http://www.camzone.com/phx-ferret.

Poessel, Sharon A, Stewart W Breck, Dean E Biggins, Travis M Livieri, Kevin R Crooks, and Lisa Angeloni. 2011. “Landscape Features Influence Postrelease Predation on Endangered Black-Footed Ferrets.” Journal of Mammalogy 92 (4) (August 16): 732–741. doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-S-061.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-S-061.1.

REINDL-THOMPSON, SARA A, JOHN A SHIVIK, ALICE WHITELAW, AIMEE HURT, KENNETH F HIGGINS, and McCleery. 2006. “Efficacy of Scent Dogs in Detecting Black-Footed Ferrets at a Reintroduction Site in South Dakota.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (5) (December 1): 1435–1439. doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1435:EOSDID]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1435:EOSDID]2.0.CO.

Roach, Jennifer L, Paul Stapp, Beatrice Van Horne, and Michael F Antolin. 2001. “GENETIC STRUCTURE OF A METAPOPULATION OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS.” Journal of Mammalogy 82 (4) (November 1): 946–959. doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082<0946:GSOAMO>2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082<0946:GSOAMO>2.0.CO.

Rocke, Tonie E, Jordan Mencher, Susan R Smith, Arthur M Friedlander, Gerard P Andrews, and Laurie A Baeten. 2004. “RECOMBINANT F1-V FUSION PROTEIN PROTECTS BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS (MUSTELA NIGRIPES) AGAINST VIRULENT YERSINIA PESTIS INFECTION.” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 35 (2) (June 1): 142–146. doi:10.1638/03-021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1638/03-021.

49

Scott. 1997. “Colorado Gap Homepage.” Colorado Gap Analysis Project. http://ndis1.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/.

Snall, T., R. E. Benestad, and N.C. Stenseth. 2009. “Expected Future Plague Levels in a Wildlife Host Under Different Scenarios of Climate Change: EBSCOhost.” GreenFILE. http://web.ebscohost.com.cmclibraries.coloradomtn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3a79da11-9c2a-4b8d-a01d-dd02a4c8892d%40sessionmgr12&vid=14&hid=25.

Sun, Xingshen, Ziyi Li, Yaling Yi, Juan Chen, Gregory H Leno, and John F Engelhardt. 2008. “Efficient Term Development of Vitrified Ferret Embryos Using a Novel Pipette Chamber Technique1.” Biology of Reproduction 79 (5) (November 1): 832–840. doi:10.1095/biolreprod.107.067371. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1095/biolreprod.107.067371.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 2013. “BFF Recovery Plan 2-25-13.docx - Draft Revised BFF Recovery Plan_2013 with RD Signatures_1.pdf.” http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Draft Revised BFF Recovery Plan_2013 with RD signatures_1.pdf.

U.S. Forest Service. 2011. “Celebrating Wildflowers - Pollinators - Animal Pollination.” Celebrating Wildflowers. http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/animals/index.shtml.

Ulev, Elena. 2013. “FEIS Database-Black-Footed Ferret-Mustela Nigripes.” FEIS. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/muni/all.html.

Wisely, Samantha M, Mark J Statham, and Robert C Fleischer. 2008. “Pleistocene Refugia and Holocene Expansion of a Grassland-Dependent Species, the Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela Nigripes).” Journal of Mammalogy 89 (1) (February 1): 87–96. doi:10.1644/07-MAMM-A-077.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-A-077.1.

50

51