In 2013, Arizona Game and Fish began its on-going program to reintroduce bighorn sheep to the Santa Catalina Mountains. At the time, 31 of them were relocated to the area from Yuma.
More than half of that herd were killed by mountain lions a few months later – causing the department to eliminate three of them for preying on the sheep. They’ve been largely criticized for that move, and for the reintroduction as a whole by groups like Friends of Wild Animals.
Another 30 bighorns were reintroduced this past November and Game and Fish plans to release another 30 at the end of this year, too.
The department is now saying that the reintroduction is helping both bighorns and mountain lions.
Reportedly, the number of mountain lions killed by hunters in the Catalinas declined by 40 percent last year.
Hunting without dogs is allowed within the 22,500-acre protected area, according to a press release by the Center for Biological Diversity, but that technique is harder and thus less common – so that could have caused the decline.
To be clear, hunting with dogs in the area is banned.
The release gives some background, saying lion killings in the Catalinas were up to a couple of dozen by 2012, then when the bighorns were introduced, this leveled off, and last year the deaths dropped to 12 by hunters, 1 by bighorn program and 1 by a rancher as of December 2014.
From a press release sent by the Center for Biological Diversity:
The dramatic decline followed the establishment of a 22,500-acre bighorn
sheep protected area in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness in July, 2013. Hound
hunting of lions is prohibited within the protected area.Those seeking to prevent the return of bighorn sheep to the Pusch Ridge
Wilderness assert that depredation kills conducted by the program are
devastating the lion population. The decline in hunter kills, however,
greatly outnumbered the single lion killed by the program in 2014 and the
two killed in 2013. With these included, 2014 and 2013-2014 remain the
largest single and two-year declines in lion killings since 1982.
From Kierán Suckling, executive director of the center:
Restoring sheep to the Pusch Ridge Wilderness is good for the sheep, good for lions, and good for the mountain.The cautious, innovative ecosystem approach taken here should serve as a model for bighorn restoration everywhere.
I checked out the Friends of Wild Animals Facebook to see what they had to say:
Hunting lions with dogs is prohibited, but hunting lions is allowed. Also, the bighorn sheep advisory committee and the AZG&F Department sanction a houndsman hunting any lions that may have killed a sheep. The hunting of lions with hounds is bad for both lions and sheep because the lion dies for doing what lions do – eating sheep – and the hounds used by the houndsman are very bad for the ewes and their newly born lambs.
This article appears in Jan 1-7, 2015.
That’s because they can only kill them once. Eventually, they all end up killed and then there are no more. Kind of like what happened to the sheep…
In the January 2, 2015 news release Mr. Suckling wrote:
“The number of mountain lions killed by hunters in southern Arizona’s Catalina and Rincon Mountains declined 40 percent in 2014, according to Arizona Game and Fish Department records.”
“The dramatic decline followed the establishment of a 22,500 acre bighorn sheep protected area in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness in July 2013. Hound hunting of lions is prohibited within the protected area.”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/pr…
Mountain lion population numbers track prey species availability, often with a lag in time. When the number of prey, in this case deer, increase in one year, the following year often brings an increase in predators. And, when prey numbers decrease, predator numbers also decrease a year or two later.
Deer are the primary food of mountain lions in the Catalina and Rincon Mountains (Unit 33). The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Hunt Arizona 2014 Edition: Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game shows a dramatic decline in surveyed deer numbers for Unit 33 (Catalina and Rincon Mountains) from 2012 to 2013. No survey data were available for 2014, yet.
In 2012 the Arizona Game & Fish reported a survey total of 647 deer in Unit 33. That number consisted of 488 white-tailed deer and 159 mule deer. In 2013 the Arizona Game & Fish reported a survey total of 538 deer in Unit 33. That number consisted of 375 white-tailed deer and 163 mule deer. The total number of surveyed deer declined from 647 in 2012 to 548 in 2013, which is a 15% decline in the number of surveyed deer.
The decline in deer survey numbers compares to Mr. Suckling’s 2012-2013 nine percent (9%) decline in the number of mountain lion kill reports during the same two year period.
Mr. Suckling’s suggestion that the Center for Biological Diversity’s support for establishing a bighorn sheep protected area in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness led to the decline in the number of mountain lions killed in Unit 33 is utter nonsense. It is no more than a continuation of his grasping at straws to justify the Center’s support for a program that ignores the best available wildlife science. During the past couple of decades numerous scientific reports demonstrate that removing apex predators (mountain lions, wolves, etc) from ecosystems results in cascading detrimental consequences for ecological balance and reduces diversity.
The Catalina Bighorn Sheep Relocation Project involves paying two professional hounds men a $4,000 per month retainer to kill mountain lions that prey on relocated bighorn sheep. That is happening when the deer population is declining and is a very poor policy for an environmental group to become involved with. Those retained lion killers use hounds within the Pusch Ridge Wilderness. They are not prohibited from doing so.
Mr. Suckling also stated:
“Those seeking to prevent the return of bighorn sheep to the Pusch Ridge Wilderness assert that depredation kills conducted by the program are devastating the lion population.”
This is another grossly mistaken assertion. What I wrote in past communications about the program is that killing dominant adult mountain lions in an area might lead to a temporary increase in the number mountain lions in that same area. Young lions move into the territory of the killed dominant lions, until one of the young establishes dominance and drives out competitors.
Mr. Suckling’s January 2, 2015 news release is a failed defense of what is an indefensible lapse in environmental advocacy by the Center for Biological Diversity.
How many mountain lions were killed in the bighorn area that only allows the Advisory Committee’s professional hounds men to kill mountain lions with dogs BEFORE the area was established? To assert that the lack of mountain lions being killed in the area is a direct result of the Center’s participation on the Advisory Committee is a leap of faith NOT supported by data.
The Catalina Bighorn Sheep Relocation Project killed 25 bighorn sheep and three (3) mountain lions in 2013 and 2014. The Project will very likely kill more bighorn sheep and mountain lions in 2015. Most importantly, the long term prognosis for an independent desert bighorn sheep herd surviving in the Catalina Mountains is poor. The quality of habitat for bighorn sheep is not conducive for an independent bighorn herd. Human disturbance from proximity to a major urban center is exponentially more intense than during the 1990s, when the native herd of bighorns died out.
The Center for Biological Diversity should resign from the Advisory Committee and oppose the Arizona Game & Fish Department flying helicopters into wilderness areas. Mr. Suckling should stop being co-opted and compromised into a futile project that is nothing more than a political favor by the Arizona Game & Fish Department and Commission for a single species advocacy group of hunters, the Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, which has members on the Game & Fish Commission.
Why doesn’t everybody just leave the wildlife alone. It appears some make money off of it, much like Al Sharpton does.
For someone who supposedly wants to help mountain lions, Mr. Small expresses no happiness in the news that lion killing declined so much. A 40% decline in killing is huge. His anger at the bighorn introduction program seems to dwarf his love of lions. Its sad how a burning anger can make some respond to good news with finger pointing and blame.
Tim, I am NOTangry about fewer lions being killed. What is extremely aggravating is that Kieran Suckling’s news release mistakenly attributes the fewer number of dead lions to the establishment of the Pusch Ridge Bighorn Sheep Area. That is completely unsupported by any data. How many lions were killed in that Area before it was established? How many lions were available to be hunted after the deer population declined? Kieran is trying to defend the Center for Biological Diversity’s support for a lousy project that has killed at least 25 bighorn sheep and three lions.
Thanks for responding Tim. I didn’t mean to imply that you are angry about lions not being killed. I was just struck by how little happiness or celebration you show about the reduction in killing. Great fear was expressed by some people that the bighorn restoration would trigger a big increase in lion killing. We now know this didn’t happen. That’s a good thing. It’s an opportunity to celebrate a positive development.
Fear and anger are powerful motivating forces. They can propel us to get a lot of things done. But they can also blind us to seeing that good things are happening too. Let’s that both sheep and lions do well in this new year; and that Tucson can be proud and happy about it.
I don’t think Ricardo’s complaint that the project “killed at least 25 bighorn sheep” is very fair. Whether they stayed in their original home or were moved to the Catalina’s, some of them would have been killed by lions, heat, cold, falls, etc. That’s how nature works. It is misleading to blame humans for it.
Some of the sheep certainly died from the immediate stress of being moved, or later from not being accustomed to their new home. But others died for the completely natural reasons that all bighorns everywhere die from: they get eaten by lions, fall off cliffs, get sick, etc. I don’t know how many died from the introduction itself, but we can say with certainty that not all of them did. It’s indisputable that some of the 25 would now be dead even if they had not been relocated.
Everyone knows and is sad that reintroducing animals can’t be done without some of them dying. There’s no point, though, in exaggerating the number of deaths. That doesn’t help the sheep or us.
The Catalina Bighorn Sheep relocation project is nothing more than political favoritism for a single species advocacy group of shooters, the Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. The quality of habitat for bighorn sheep in the Catalina Mtns is mostly poor to fair, according to a map that the Advisory Committee refers to. Conditions that led to the die off of the native bighorn herd in the 1990s are worse today … exponentially so. The current project is a waste of bighorn lives, of mountain lion lives and of resources better devoted elsewhere. It is not okay for we humans to accept the killing of at least 25 bighorn sheep and three mountain lions, so far, in this attempt to establish another herd of sheep at the insistence of a single species advocacy group so they have another herd to shoot rams out of. Killing one of those creatures in these types of efforts is not okay. The likelihood of establishing an independent herd of bighorn sheep in the Catalina Mtns is slim to none.
Mr. Small,
Your assertion that the bighorn restoration project represents “single species advocacy groups” doesn’t seen right since its advisory committee includes the Center for Biological Diversity which works on hundred of species and the Arizona Wilderness Coalition whose primary focus is protecting wilderness areas. While the bighorn groups may fairly be called single species focused, these others surely are not. Please try to make your case without exaggerating so much.
Also odd is your insistence that the project has no chance of success since the Game and Fish Department has succeeded with many sheep introductions and all mountain ranges in Arizona with the same bighorn habitat quality rating as the Catalinas do have bighorn populations.
Finally, it is just not true that the habitat has gotten “exponentially worse” since the 1990s. Please provide us with a scientific reference for this obviously exaggerated claim. The reason these groups decided to try introducing the sheep is because of the habitat has improved due to several large fires after 1990 that improved sheep habitat.
I would love to see bighorn sheep living in the mountains that was their home for thousands of years before we came along and pushed them out. And since the project isn’t hurting mountain lions, killing has declined hugely since the project began, everybody wins.
The Bighorn Sheep Advisory Committee meeting notes indicate that the fires that were used as a basis for putting sheep back in Pusch Ridge did NOT change the habitat enough to make the area suitable habitat for reintroduced sheep – around 25% of the sheep habitat area burned. The project proceeded on the assumption that the USFS would use fire to restore more of the habitat and the meeting minutes make clear that this is not going to happen. The number of people using the area for recreation and living nearby has increased, dramatically. This is not a disputed fact. That begs the question – what makes the area suitable for sheep now?
I don’t think it is a safe assumption that simply because CBD or AWC is involved that biodiversity or wilderness are being considered nor protected in this project.
Please note that Sierra Club and other groups oppose the project.
All that i know, is that both, Cougars, and bighorn sheep are some of my favorite meats to eat. Icelandic reindeer is the third of my favorite meats to eat. In Nevada, I have had the privilege to eat California, Desert/Nelson bighorn sheep and Mtn Lion/Cougar. I financially support the bighorn sheep associations. When doing that, I’m also supporting the Cats. I was taught to always” put back into the society, Community, Environment, etc . more than what you take out. Therefore I’m a life member of the WSF wild sheep foundation to support wildlife at the top of the mountain, A life member of the RMEF Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to support the grazers habitat from the top of the mountain in the summer to the valley in the winter, a life member of the MDF Mule Deer Foundation, to support the browsers type of habitat from the top to the bottom, and a diamond life member of Ducks Unlimited to support all wildlife in the winter when the mountain top is covered with too much snow, as well as the migration of wildlife and waterfowl in their migration. Thanks Dad for teaching me the most productive way to return to the wildlife more than what I take!
Tammy L.,
I did NOT say single species advocacy groups. I said single species advocacy group – singular. Specifically that is the Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. This group of shooters benefits from political favoritism and advocates the killing of mountain lions in a futile attempt to bolster bighorn sheep numbers.
Members of the AZ Game & Fish Commission are also members of the DBSS and have not recused themselves from voting to establish multiple bag limits for mountain lions.
The Catalina Bighorn Sheep Project was approved in spite of most of the mountain range being classified at poor or fair quality for bighorn sheep. The remaining three environmental groups on the Advisory Committee do good work in other areas, but are grossly co-opted and compromised out of recognition during their participation on the Advisory Committee.
As you may already know, the Sky Island Alliance board of directors voted to withdraw from the Catalina Bighorn Sheep Advisory Committee and are to be commended. You may also know that the Sierra Club opposes the project, along with Friends of Wild Animals and numerous individuals.
Your reaction to the participation of the three groups who remain on the Advisory Committee is to be expected, because the three mistakenly give the project a green wash, which sadly is deceiving.