White Paper 2-Endangered Species Management Plan Assessment-Black-footed Ferret-In Progress-11.25.13
1. Endangered Species Management Plan Assessment
Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)
SUS-410 Conservation Biology
Instructor – Delia Malone
November 21, 2013
By Jason E Evitt
Figure 1 Cascade (Blogs.jwatch.org 2011)
Introduction
There 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
2. 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 Team
Black-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
3. 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 Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Mustelidae Mustela
Gestation
Period
Litter
Size
Development
Sexual
Maturity
Social
Organization
Diet
Captivity:
42-45 days
1-5
Kits
Altricial-
6 weeks-July-
Separation
1 year
Solitary-
Except when
breeding
Carnivore-
Prairie dog
obligate
Dispersal Habits Mortality
Intercolony - 7 Months Nocturnal Wild - 1 to 3 Years
Early September to Early
November
Dusk to Midnight
Captivity -
6 to 9 Years
0 to 4 Miles 4am -Midmorning Females Live Longer
Males 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 BFFs
100-120 acres 99-148 acres 15,000 acres
Soils Structure Elevation Habitat Types
Shallow,
Well Drained
Clay, Clay-Loam
3,000-10,000’
Open Habitat
Grassland
Steppe
Shrub Steppe
Distance Between WTPD Colonies- Movements
Inhabited by BFF ≈ 3.4 miles Up to 6 miles in 1 Night-Adult
Uninhabited by BFF ≈ 0.57 miles 6.2-9.3 miles-Juvenile Dispersal
Separation 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
4. Factors to Consider for Evaluating Potential Ferret Habitat
Size 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
5. Figure 2 Figure 1 Colorado Gap Analysis Project: Land Ownership/Status Map (Scott, 1997)
5
6. 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
Grasslands
Tallgrass Prairie
Sand Dune Complex
(Grassland)
Midgrass Prairie
Shortgrass Prairie
Foothill/Mountain
Grassland
Disturbed Grassland
Riparian Type
Lowland, transitional, and
highland
Shrublands
Bitterbrush Shrub
Mountain Big Sage
Wyoming Big Sage
Big Sagebrush Shrubland
Desert Shrub
Saltbrush Fans & Flats
Greasewood Fans & Flats
Sand Dune Complex
(Shrubland)
Disturbed Shrubland
(Scott 1997).
6
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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).
Genetics
We 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
15. 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
17. 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
18. 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 a
minimum of 280 adults (105 males, 175 females) distributed
among multiple
facilities (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 of
the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any
population, and at least
3 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 dog
occupied habitat at reintroduction sites (specific actions are
described in Part II of
this plan) by planning and implementing actions to manage
plague and conserve
prairie dog populations.
Delisting Criteria
Delisting criteria are new since the 1988 Recovery Plan.
Delisting
18
19. may occur when the following recovery criteria are met.
•Conserve and manage a captive breeding population of
black-footed ferrets with a
minimum of 280 adults (105 males, 175 females) distributed
among multiple
facilities (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 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 these population objectives for at least three
years prior to delisting.
•Maintain approximately 494,000 ac (200,000 ha) of prairie
dog occupied habitat
at reintroduction sites by planning and implementing actions
to manage plague
and conserve prairie dog populations (specific actions are
described in Part II of
this 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-footed
ferrets in order to maintain knowledge, incorporate
developing technologies, and
address potential population extirpations.
Actions Needed
We 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
20. 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 Recovery
We 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 Total
2010-2020 7,000 90 9,950 23,000 8,110 6,990 55,140
2021-2030 5,000 60 10,960 22,000 4,940 5,040 48,000
2031-2040 5,000 60 10,960 22,000 4,940 5,040 48,000
Total 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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?
Development
Sprawl
Reaction 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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
43. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. “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
48. 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/NatureServ
e?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
49. 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
50. 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/in
dex.shtml.
Ulev, Elena. 2013. “FEIS Database-Black-Footed Ferret-
Mustela Nigripes.” FEIS.
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/mu
ni/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
