Visitor Counter

hitwebcounter web counter
Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions. This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization. Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

Subscribe via email to get updates

Enter your email address:

Receive New Posting Alerts

(A Maximum of One Alert Per Day)

Friday, September 21, 2018

So much truth in the following profound, yet simple statement by Connecticut ecology and evolutionary biology professor David Wagner--"Ornamental, non-native and exotic plants rarely support the local food chain like native plants do"..........."Native insects, native plants, native birds and animals evolved together over time, developing intimate associations and adaptations for one another"............."Planting exotic species limits the potential of yards and parks to support wildlife"............ "And non-native plants become doubly problematic if they are invasive"............. Many forests, prairies, and chaparral natural communities across North America are becoming dense thickets of Oriental bittersweet, multiflora rose, Japanese barberry, winged burning bush, bamboo, tumbleweed, sahara mustard, devils thorn and quickgrass---plants that are able to thrive in part because many native animals cannot or will not eat them"...........In my 19 and 16 years respectively gardening in my current Southern California and former northern new Jersey homes, I turned about half of my once monolithic non-native lawn areas into "a smorgasbord of native plants that support a healthy mix of insects, songbirds and other animals all the way up the food chain"............ "To make a songbird, you have to have caterpillars – to raise a clutch of nestlings, a mother bird will need hundreds"............"Plant exotic ornamentals that don't attract local insects and you might as well hang a sign that reads, Songbirds not welcome"...........I encourage you to join me in reversing our downward spiraling biodiversity loss by creating your own native plant backyard habitat--Fun it is to see the immediate return of birds, butterflys and the rest of the critters that once called your neighborhood home




How to fight Insectageddon with a garden of native plants


March 23, 2018 by Nina M. Zitani, The Conversation

People across North America love to garden, yet the vast majority of garden plants are non-native species. Day-lilies, peonies, roses, chrysanthemums and butterfly bushes, just to name a few, are all non-natives. They evolved in far-away places such as Europe and Asia and people transported them to North America.
With Insectageddon —the great insect die-off —upon us, it's time to rethink our gardens.
Habitat destruction is the primary cause of the decline in biodiversity. Around the world, wildlife habitat has been destroyed by a variety of human activities such as residential and commercial development, agriculture and mining operations.
But gardeners can help to reverse the trend in biodiversity loss by creating backyard habitat, and native plants are the key.
Gardening with native plants has a long history in North America, but it remains under the radar of mainstream gardening. It's time we embraced our native plants and the biodiversity that comes with them.
Our feathered —and furry —friends will thank us for it.
And if you're an insect hater, now might be a good time to rethink that attitude
A giant swallowtail butterfly feeds from the flower of an alternate-leaved dogwood. Credit: Nina Zitani, Author provided














Many insects are picky eaters

The caterpillar of the giant swallowtail butterfly feeds on the leaves of hoptree. Credit: Nina Zitani














It was hot and steamy in the Costa Rican tropical forest. I was looking for  —the cute, wiggly, multi-legged and often furry larval stages of moths and butterflies.
As a graduate student at the University of Wyoming, I wasn't studying caterpillars per se, but looking for new insect species. My job was to search for parasitoid wasps —minute, non-stinging wasps that spend their immature stage living inside caterpillars.
I collected the caterpillars in plastic bags along with the fresh green leaves they were feeding on, and brought them back to the field station for rearing.
But before I knew it, I was headed back into the forest. The caterpillars were leaf-eating machines and needed fresh leaves often. But I couldn't just go into the forest and grab some leaves. I had to find the exact plant species the caterpillars were eating, or they would starve and die.
And that's how I learned that caterpillars, most of them anyway, are picky eaters.
Neatly tucked away in the scientific literature, you'll find the fascinating story of plant-animal co-evolution that began millions of years ago during the Mesozoic Era. There are many outcomes of that co-evolution, such as pollination, seed dispersal and the close relationship caterpillars (and other plant-feeders) have with their food plants.
Today, flowering plants produce toxic chemicals in their leaves to deter animals from eating them. But some animals, namely caterpillars, have adapted to eat the plant leaves —toxins and all.
So if you're interested in creating wildlife habitat in your backyard, then you're going to need the favourite food plants of insects. Insects will then thrive in your  —as will the many larger animals that depend on insects for food.
The caterpillar of a monarch butterfly on a milkweed plant. Credit: Shutterstock










What is a native plant?
To better understand the concept of a , consider common milkweed and its relative, the dog-strangling vine.
Both are members of the milkweed family and found today in North America. Common milkweed is a native plant —it evolved in North America thousands of years ago, along with some other animals, including the monarch butterfly and the milkweed tussock moth. Today it is vital to the survival of those species.
But dog-strangling vine is a non-native plant from Europe that was introduced to North America by settlers in the 1800s. Monarch caterpillars and other native milkweed specialists that hatch on dog-strangling vine die because they can't eat it.
To make matters worse, dog-strangling vine has become an invasive species, forming dense colonies that displace native plants and their associated animals, contributing to biodiversity loss.
Planting for the birds
Birds (and other larger animals) depend on bugs. "Nearly all terrestrial birds rear their young on insects, not seeds or berries," writes Doug Tallamy in his book Bringing Nature Home.

A caterpillar and a bumblebee on native Carolina rose. Credit: Nina Zitani















A simple way to think of it is this: Native plants maintain natural ecosystem food webs, whereas non-native plants don't. Native plants will attract and support healthy insect populations in your garden, which will provide essential food for birds and other animals.
There are thousands of native, or wild, North American pollinator species, including approximately 4,000 native bees and about 700 native butterflies, not to mention other pollinating insects such as moths, flies and beetles.
The leaves of native plants provide the food for caterpillars. The flowers of native plants provide food —pollen and nectar —for the pollinators.
When we consider the entire life cycle of insects, the essential role of native plants becomes clear.
And let's not forget the non-native honey bee, one of the few domesticated insect species. Although the honey bee is not wildlife, it does pollinate some crops and produces honey. It too will find plenty of food in a native plant garden.
Small gardens, big impact
My family kicked off our native garden by planting a single common milkweed plant into our tiny urban garden. The following summer it bloomed, and when a monarch butterfly landed on it, we were hooked.
When we moved to a larger property years later, we decided to create a monumental garden full of biodiversity.

A simple way to think of it is this: Native plants maintain natural ecosystem food webs, whereas non-native plants don't. Native plants will attract and support healthy insect populations in your garden, which will provide essential food for birds and other animals.
There are thousands of native, or wild, North American pollinator species, including approximately 4,000 native bees and about 700 native butterflies, not to mention other pollinating insects such as moths, flies and beetles.
The leaves of native plants provide the food for caterpillars. The flowers of native plants provide food —pollen and nectar —for the pollinators.
When we consider the entire life cycle of insects, the essential role of native plants becomes clear.
And let's not forget the non-native honey bee, one of the few domesticated insect species. Although the honey bee is not wildlife, it does pollinate some crops and produces honey. It too will find plenty of food in a native plant garden.
Small gardens, big impact
My family kicked off our native garden by planting a single common milkweed plant into our tiny urban garden. The following summer it bloomed, and when a monarch butterfly landed on it, we were hooked.
When we moved to a larger property years later, we decided to create a monumental garden full of biodiversity.
A monarch butterfly gathers nectar on a native daisy commonly called cup plant. Credit: Nina Zitani













We travelled for hours to purchase plants from nurseries that specialized in locally sourced native plants. Over several years, we planted more than 100 native species, including two kinds of milkweed, nannyberry, daisies of all sorts, multiple kinds of roses, dogwoods, elderberry and more.
We also planted hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata, a Citrus relative), the food plant for the caterpillar of the giant swallowtail, North America's largest butterfly.
You don't need to have a huge garden to support wildlife. Start small, and plant just one native plant. Butterfly milkweed is a great choice, but there are thousands of native species to choose from. Starting small is better than not starting at all.
It's easy to get started. The Nature Conservancy of Canada publishes the "Native Gardening 101" guide. The USDA Plants Database has species range maps for all of North America and allows you to search on common names of plants such as butterfly milkweed. The Ontario Invasive Plant Council's "Grow Me Instead" guide includes many  options.
Nature Needs Half is a growing conservation movement. A reasonable end goal might be to devote half of your garden to native .
A year after we planted the hoptree, we spotted a giant swallowtail butterfly laying eggs on its leaves. Several days later we found the caterpillars eating the leaves, and we celebrated.
But not for long —we had gardening to do!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Native Plants Support the Local Food Chain

For those hoping to support local insect species, Wagner says the place to start is at the bottom of the food chain, by ensuring that there is a wide variety of native plants available as food for insects and other wildlife.
A sparrow feeds a caterpillar to its young. A mother bird needs hundreds of caterpillars to raise a clutch of nestlings. Credit: Doug Tallamy

Connecticut ecology and evolutionary biology professor David Wagner, points out an important but often overlooked concept, that ornamental and exotic plants rarely support the local food chain like native plants do. Native insects and native plants evolved together, and over time, developed intimate associations and adaptations for one another.

Planting exotic species limits the potential of yards and parks to support wildlife. And non-native plants become doubly problematic if they are invasive. Many forests in the Northeast are becoming dense thickets of Oriental bittersweet, multiflora rose, Japanese barberry, and winged burning bush, plants that are able to thrive in part because many native animals cannot or will not eat them.

"Invasive plants usually don't have close associations with native species," Wagner says. "Among the biggest losers are herbivorous insects that are dietary specialists – their fates are inextricably bound to those of their host plants. As native plants are overrun by barberry and bittersweet, so will go Connecticut's specialized bees, butterflies, and other natives. In habitats overrun with invasive plants, we often get more 'weedy' species higher up the food chain: robins, starlings, English house sparrows, while losing the buntings, warblers, and more specialized birds.

A smorgasbord of plants will support a healthy mix of insects that in turn will support a healthy mix of songbirds and other animals all the way up the food chain. To make a songbird, you have to have caterpillars – to raise a clutch of nestlings, a mother bird will need hundreds. Plant exotic ornamentals that don't attract local insects and you might as well hang a sign that reads, "Songbirds not welcome."

"We need to be more mindful about the decisions we make, one tree at a time, one yard at a time, one campus at a time," says Wagner. "We need to plant things that will support local biodiversity."

Wagner encourages homeowners to explore their own backyard biodiversity, as he did when he first moved to Connecticut, by going out into the yard by day, by night, exploring by flashlight, or simply by shining a light on a sheet to attract insects, and of course take pictures or make notes on what is observed.

"There's so much going on in one's backyard in Connecticut," says Wagner. "It's a mini-jungle of sorts, rife with creatures." Let's keep it that way. Instead of a gingko, plant a white oak, native cherry, or highbush blueberry.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

As any of you who have followed this blog know so well, "a litany of scientific studies demonstrates that lethal methods are ineffective at controlling coyotes because they disrupt the animals’ social ecology and ultimately fail to reduce predation losses"..............."A breeding pair of coyotes will stake out and defend a territory"........... "If unmolested, a breeding pair will have pups and form a pack(family unit) of some 4-6, ranging up to 10-12 individuals".............."Each pack has a dominant breeding pair"............."Other adults are behaviorally sterile and do not breed"........... "This has implications for coyote control because in areas with heavy coyote mortality, these typically sterile females are released and can breed".............In addition, the elimination of the initial breeding pair creates a territory vacuum, enabling transient Coyotes to come in and potentially divide up what was once one Coyote's family territory into two or more family territories, exponentially expanding Coyote numbers via the breeding of multiple females........."In addition to these behavioral controls on breeding, in unexploited coyote populations that are near the saturation point in terms of food availability, many pups die of starvation and never reach maturity"..........."In exploited populations, a greater number of pups will survive into adulthood"................"A further limit on coyote livestock predation is due to learned behavior".................."Coyotes, like most predators, are reluctant to sample new food".............. "If they are not preying upon livestock, they are unlikely to begin".............."However, in exploited populations, young orphaned coyotes must fend for themselves and in desperation will prey upon livestock and become livestock killers"................"To be successful at reducing coyote populations, a minimum of 70 percent of the population must be killed on a sustained basis, virtually impoosible to achieve"................"In the end, the only alternative that is effective is nonlethal measures such as guard animals, corralling livestock at night and herding"





Coyote Killing is 

Counter Productive

 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Redditother predators at the behest of the livestock industry (and sometimes Email
In June, four environmental groups prevailed in a
 lawsuit against the euphemistically named federal
 killing agency known as Wildlife Services. The
U.S. District Court for Idaho ruled that Wildlife
 Services had not adequately studied the impacts
 on wildlife of its predator-killing activities in
 the state. The court is formulating a remedy.
The plaintiffs asserted that Wildlife Services’
lethal control of coyotes and hunters) is based
upon political expediency, not sound science.
A litany of scientific studies demonstrates that
lethal methods are ineffective at controlling
 coyotes because they disrupt the animals’
social ecology and ultimately fail to reduce
 predation losses.









Wildlife Services is a secretive taxpayer-supported
 federal agency whose prime purpose is to kill
wildlife.
 It uses a host of cruel methods to kill coyotes,
including trapping, poison, hunting, aerial gunning
and snares, all based on the flawed assumption that
such procedures will reduce coyote predation on
 livestock, as well as huntable species like deer.
 Ironically, such control measures increase the
likelihood of predation.
In a sense, Wildlife Services control begets
 more coyotes and more predation, thus creating
 a circular feedback mechanism that creates
 political support for continued agency funding.
 In other words, Wildlife Services does not
 want to see coyote predation reduced since
the more predation it can create by its activities,
the more funding support it receives.
The basic issue is that Wildlife Services ignores
 coyote social ecology.












A breeding pair of coyotes will stake out and
defend a territory. If unmolested, a breeding
 pair will have pups and form a pack of up
to 10 individuals. Each pack has a dominant
 breeding pair. Other adults are behaviorally
“sterile” and do not breed.
This has implications for coyote control,
because in areas with heavy coyote mortality,
 these typically “sterile” females are released
 and can breed.
In addition to pack members, there are
always random individuals known as floaters,
 which usually do not maintain a territory
but are available to breed if the dominant
breeders are killed. These floaters form a
reservoir of replacement breeders should a
 breeding coyote be killed.
In addition to these behavioral controls on
breeding, in unexploited coyote populations
that are near the saturation point in terms
of food availability, many pups die of
 starvation and never reach maturity.
In exploited populations, a greater
number of pups will survive into
 adulthood, often negating any losses
 from Wildlife Services’ control efforts.
A further limit on coyote livestock
 predation is due to learned behavior.
Coyotes, like most predators, are
 reluctant to sample “new” food. If
 they are not preying upon livestock,
 they are unlikely to begin. However,
 in exploited populations, young
orphaned coyotes must fend for
themselves and in desperation will prey
 upon livestock and become livestock
killers.







To be successful at reducing coyote
 populations, a minimum of 70 percent of
 the population must be killed on a
sustained basis. That is almost never
achieved, and a vacant territory is quickly
 filled by floating individuals, or by a nearby
pack.
Furthermore, due to extreme competition
for food and territories, there are
compensatory mechanisms that quickly
repopulate any vacant space.
First, more females breed. Second, due to
 reduced competition for food, a greater
 percentage of pups survive and mature
 into adults. Finally, in exploited
populations, female coyotes breed at a
 younger age. All those mechanisms
 ensure that coyote numbers seldom
 decline for any significant period.
Livestock grazing can also lead to more
coyote predation by reducing cover for the
 preferred prey of mice and voles, which results
in lower small-mammal populations.










Exploited coyote populations also have fewer adults
 in a pack to feed pups, thus are more likely to attack
the easier prey available—which often is domestic
animals.
In the end, the only alternative that is effective is
 nonlethal measures such as guard animals,
corralling livestock at night and herding.
 Indeed, in some California counties, tax dollars
 that previously went to Wildlife Services were
 used for nonlethal methods, resulting in lower
 predation losses and lower costs.
It’s time to put the Wildlife Services killing
 machine out of business, and to put more
responsibility upon ranchers to manage
 their animals in a way that reduces
 predator opportunity.
More articles by:
Ecologist George Wuerthner has published
36 books including Wildfire: A Century of
 Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the 
board of the Western Watersheds Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Famous scientist tells USDA 

Wildlife Services their age old 

coyote killing program 

actually increases number 

of coyotes and depredations-


USDA Wildlife Services and its prior incarnations
 such as Animal Damage Control and Predator
and Rodent Control has been indiscriminately
 killing coyotes for as long as the agency existed.
This practice has often irritated a diffuse
collection of conservationists, scientists,
 and the general public.  However, politically
better placed livestock interests have been
able to keep the program going year after year.






Overall, it seems Wildlife Service’s hundred years of
efforts in killing coyotes has not been effective. In fact,
 it seems to the contrary. Coyotes have gone to being
a medium sized predator in the Western United
States to occupying all of North America.
Indiscriminate killing, as opposed to targeted control,
refers to killing as many coyotes as possible in an
 area, given the resources available. Targeted
control is the effort to kill or otherwise deter
specific coyotes that are preying on livestock
 (usually sheep).
In a letter to Wildlife Services, Dr. Robert
Crabtree, founder, chief scientist and president
of the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center, http://www.yellowstoneresearch.org
answers the question “What effect does 
reduction of coyotes (older than 6 months) 
have on the remaining population?”
 He wrote the scientific opinion letter because
 of a request from Brooks Fahy, Executive
Director of Predator Defense.









Dr. Crabtree wrote “Prior to widespread human
 persecution starting in the mid-nineteenth century,
wolves have provided a constant selection factor
inflicting mortality, competition, and numerous
 other sub-lethal effects.”  He then said this tremendous
 pressure on coyotes from wolves resulted in the
evolution of a species that is in a nearly constant
state of colonization to make up for mortality and
displacement by wolves. When the wolves were
eliminated, the coyote’s drive to colonize did not end.
Human attempts to reduce or eliminate coyotes
were actually relative mild compared to the previous
 presence of wolves. Coyote populations often
 expanded to “near saturation” of the available
 habitat. Whenever coyotes were killed
 indiscriminately in large numbers in an area,
there was immediate immigration. Also,
while “unexploited” coyote populations had
 low pup survival rates, with human caused
 mortality (“exploited populations”) coupled
with no wolves, coyote pup survival increased
 greatly due to a prey surplus. As the unusual
number of surviving pups grew, there was
 pressure for hunting coyotes to overcome
caution and attack more concentrated sources
of calories, i.e., sheep and deer, rather than
 voles, rabbits, insects, etc.
Crabtree said that in order for humans to
reduce coyote populations, there needed
to be 70% or greater coyote mortality. This
 was not just for a year, but all of the time.
 Significant indiscriminate reductions of
coyotes triggers a switchover of the coyote
 population back to one of constant colonization.
















Crabtree concluded, “Coyotes are still products of their
 evolutionary past. Biological, economical, and
ecological evaluation of control practices should be a
requirement undertaken before any public or private
effort to reduce losses due to coyotes or any other
 predator. In conclusion, it is my opinion based on
 decades of field research that the common practice
of reducing adult coyote populations on western
 rangelands is most likely ineffective and likely
 causes an increase the number of lambs, fawns,
and calves killed by coyotes.”
Here is Dr. Crabtree’s full letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Double-litters in Coywolf, 
Canis latrans × lycaon, Packs 
Following the Death or 
Disappearance of a Resident
 Territorial Male

JONATHAN G. WAY Eastern Coyote Research,
89 Ebenezer Road, Osterville Massachusetts 02655 USA;
 e-mail: jw9802@yahoo.com. Way, Jonathan G. 2010.

 Previous research on my Cape Cod,
 Massachusetts study site documented 
the killing of a breeding male Coywolf 
(Canis latrans x lycaon; also called
 Eastern Coyote) and a subsequent
 increase in local pack density one
 year later. This study documents 
double-litters produced in two packs 
following the death or disappearance 
of the original breeding male








 


The fact that the new males were not
 resident in those territories until the 
original males disappeared raises the 
possibility that the disappearance of 
the original breeding males allowed the
 unrelated males to join the resident pack
 and breed more than one female because
 they both were probably not related to
 either female in the respective packs. 

Circumstances prevented my verifying
litter survival in these packs, increase 
in density of either pack, increase in
 transients (i.e., dispersal of the pups),
 or decrease in territory size 
(Way et al. 2009), which 
distracts 
from these findings. 



















However, I did document four 
adults/ yearlings (i.e., a normal
 pack size) in both groups 
during winter. 

Therefore, the possibility 
remains that most pups in 
the double litters died or
 dispersed in their first autumn.

 Despite not documenting 
litter survival or increase 
in local Coywolf density, 
it is nonetheless noteworthy
 that two double-litters were
 documented following the 
turnover of breeding males. 

This indicates the potential 
for densities of 
Coyotes/Coywolves to
 increase following loss 
of breeding males
 (Way et al. 2009).

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

While certainly reaching their most southern territorial limits due to lack of moisture-rich grasslands, both archaelogical and historical records do in fact indicate that populations of Bison did occupy the Mexican regions of Sonnora and Chichuahua immediately adjacent to Arizona and New Mexico as well as the touch more southerly regions of Durango, Coachula, Zacatecas and Nuevo Leon..............Records seem to indicate that by 1850, the last of the wild herds had been extirpated by a combination of warming weather and hunting by both Native Tribes, Spaniards and the admix of these people(Mexicans)......................."A detailed report from Sonora, by Ignaz Pfefferkon, who lived for 11 years in Sonora as a missionary (∼1756–1767) wrote, 'In northeastern Sonora, in the uninhabited regions which border with the mountains of the Apache], there is a kind of wild cattle, called forest oxen by some, but known generally in Sonora and in the New Spain as cibulos or ciboros [c´Ä±bolos]"................ "These animals have a fine, thick, curly hair rather like sheep’s wool but reddish-brown in color (Treutlein 1949)"

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7809/1108b65d0416fc6cf16bf99515a5723b19e4.pdf

Historic Distribution and Challenges to Bison Recovery in the Northern Chihuahuan Desert(Mexico)

RURIK LIST,∗†† GERARDO CEBALLOS,∗ CHARLES CURTIN,† PETER J. P. GOGAN,‡ JESUS PACHECO, ´ ∗ AND JOE TRUETT§ ∗Instituto de Ecolog´Ä±a, Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico, 3er Circuito Exteriror Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoac´an, 04510 M´exico, D. F. M´exico †Arid Lands Project, P.O. Box 29, Animas, NM 88020 ‡USGS – Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, U.S.A. §Turner Endangered Species Fund, P.O. Box 211, Glenwood, NM 88039, U.S.A

. Abstract: Ecologists and conservationists have long assumed that large grazers, including bison (Bison bison), did not occur in post-Pleistocene southwestern North America. 

Re-introduced Bison on the El Uno Ranch in present day Chihuahua, Mexico









However, archeological records and historical accounts from Mexican archives from AD 700 to the 19th century document that the historic range of the bison included northern Mexico and adjoining areas in the United States.


Archaelogical records of Bison in Mexico indicated
by square boxes and Historical records of frontiersman, soldiers
and Explorers indicated by circles below






























The  Janos-Hidalgo bison herd, one of the few free-ranging bison herds in North America, has moved between Chihuahua, Mexico, and New Mexico, United States, since at least the 1920s. The persistence of this cross-border bison herd in Chihuahuan Desert grasslands and shrublands demonstrates that the species can persist in desert landscapes. 

There is only one report of bison in central Mexico. Berlandier (1850) mentions that two bison were used to pull a cart in the city of Zacatecas in the 17th century, which suggests that bison ranged far south occasionally. 

In northwestern Mexico the first written accounts of bison date from the mid-16th century. In 1565 Baltazar de Obregon observed hides, bones, and bison ´ droppings in the Paquime ruins of Casas Grandes, Chi- ´ huahua, during an expedition with Francisco de Ibarra. 

Jose Agust ´ ´Ä±n Escudero (in Di Peso et al. 1974), who was Vocal of the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics, visited the Casas Grandes region in 1819, where he saw and described bison.

 Escudero (1834) often mentioned the presence of bison in Chihuahua.

Indian hunters killing Bison in 19th century Mexico 







A detailed report from Sonora, by Ignaz Pfefferkon, who lived for 11 years in Sonora as a missionary (∼1756–1767) wrote, “In northeastern Sonora, in the uninhabited regions which border with the mountains of the Apache], there is a kind of wild cattle, called forest oxen by some, but known generally in Sonora and in the New Spain as cibulos or ciboros [c´Ä±bolos]. These animals have a fine, thick, curly hair rather like sheep’s wool but reddish-brown in color” (Treutlein 1949).

 In his account of Sonora, J. Escudero (1849) mentions bison as one of the game animals of Sonora. 








The earliest historical report we found from bison in northeastern Mexico was from the 17th century, when Franciscan friars found bison in the valley of Monterrey (Berlandier 1850).

 All other reports for this region are from the 19th century. The first account (Dobie 1953) indicated that bison hunting was common in Coahuila in 1806. 

From 1827 to 1829 Jean Louis Berlandier (1850) a physician-botanist of the Mexico–United States Border Survey, saw and hunted bison in Coahuila, Mexico, and reported their seasonal movement patterns. 








 Escudero (1834) reported that wars among Apaches, Comanches, Mezcaleros, Faraones, Llaneros, and Lipanes were fought over control of the bison herds, which abounded in the territorial limits of these tribes in eastern Chihuahua and Coahuila. He also noted seasonality in the bison movements. 

General L. A. Guajardo (Daugherty & Lopez Eli- ´ zondo 1997) reported that a Lipan Indian from a party that attacked the Hacienda La Mota, Coahuila (Fig. 1), in 1848 was wearing a well-prepared bison pelt.

 Lew Wallace, Governor of New Mexico, killed a bison from a herd while taking part in a hunt near the town of Parras, Coahuila, Mexico, in 1866 (Wallace 1879).

Mexican hunters killing Bison in 19th Century Mexico













Apparently bison were extirpated from Coahuila toward the second half of the 19th century, but whether they persisted that long in the Janos-Casas Grandes region in Chihuahua is less clear. We think it most likely that bison disappeared from the Janos region after 1820 and that the present herd is derived from reintroduced animals

 The archeological record we examined confirmed the late prehistoric and historic presence of bison in five states in northern Mexico. 

The oldest record (two molars and a phalange) from an individual of the genus Bison from this region came from Rancho La Brisca, Sonora, 180 km northeast of Hermosillo and 90 km south of the U.S. border at an elevation of 1000 m. These specimens have not been identified to species or dated, but are believed to represent the presence of Bison <150 1985="" ago="" al.="" an="" devender="" et="" font="" nbsp="" years="">

American hunters killing Bison in 19th century Mexico






More recent records are from the municipality of Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, where remains of 6 modern bison of the Viejo Period (AD 700–1150) and 48 of the Medio Period (AD 1150– 1450) were found in the Paquime archeological site (Di Peso et al. 1974). 

Numerous bison bones were collected by E.B. Sayles from the neighboring municipality of Janos, 1.6 km east of Ejido Tres Alamos (Di Peso et al. 1974; site CH D:3:11 Gila Pueblo Archeological Survey, lot GP 39961; M. Jacobs, personal communication). 

Archeological evidence of bison in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, 200–300 km north and northwest of Janos, during AD 0–1700 (Agenbroad & Haynes 1975; Truett 1996; Fig. 1) add to the evidence for the late prehistoric and early historic occurrence of bison in this borderland region.