OCELOT RECOVERY PLAN 

(Leopardus pardalis) 

DRAFT FIRST REVISION 

Original Approval: August 22, 1990 

Southwest Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 
ii 

DISCLAIMER

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires the 

development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the 

conservation of a particular species. In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act and to the 

maximum extent practicable, recovery plans delineate actions which the best available science 

indicates are required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery 

teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary 

funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as 

well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a 

commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of 

the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not 

necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or 

agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the USFWS. They represent the official 

position of USFWS only after they have been signed by the Regional Director. Approved 

recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species 

status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the 

website below before using. 

The ocelot (Leopardis pardalis) is listed throughout its range including 22 countries. The United 

States (U.S.) contains only a small proportion of the ocelot’s range and habitat. Recovery of 

endangered species is the fundamental goal of the ESA. Recovery planning is addressed in 

Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA. However, the USFWS has limited resources and little authority to 

address the major threats to the ocelot’s recovery outside its own borders (killing and habitat 

destruction). Also, our knowledge regarding the status of the species in much of its range is very 

limited, and we lack the resources and authority to coordinate large scale international research 

and recovery for the entire species. Therefore, it is not practicable to establish site-specific 

management actions, objective and measurable recovery criteria, or cost estimates throughout the 

species’ entire range. However, we have an established relationship with Mexico to address a 

number of issues of mutual concern, including managing cross-border populations of rare and 

endangered species. Because the USFWS’s limited resources are better applied to planning and 

on-the-ground implementation of conservation actions within the boundaries of the U.S. and in 

partnership with adjacent Mexico, we focused this plan on two management units that cover the 

entire subspecies L. p. sonoriensis and L. p. albescens (see Figure 3, page 87). We also 

summarized information available in scientific literature regarding the status and threats to the 

ocelot throughout its range, and recommended general actions and criteria for addressing these 

threats and evaluating range-wide recovery, that may be applied, or refined, in the future. 

Literature citation of this document should read as follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Draft Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) Recovery Plan, First 

Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
iii 

Copies may be obtained on line (species search, ocelot): 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered 

or by contacting: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge 

22817 Ocelot Rd. 

Los Fresnos, TX 78566 

or 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southwest Regional Office 

P.O. Box 1306 

Albuquerque, NM 87103 
iv 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gratefully acknowledge the commitment, dedication, and 

efforts of the Bi-National Ocelot Recovery Team in the development of this recovery plan. 

Special thanks to the recovery team leaders David Maehr and Arturo Caso for their leadership. 

Wendy Brown served as the Service’s liaison to the Recovery Team from its formation in 2002 

until 2008. David Maehr, Wendy Brown, and Brady McGee served as editors to the plan. We 

also appreciate the assistance of Texas A&M University Ph.D. students, Aaron Haines and Jan 

Janecka, the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group’s Phil Miller, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Julie McIntyre, and Universidad Nacional – Mexico’s Dulce Brousset in compiling 

information, preparing figures, updating literature, and otherwise facilitating the effectiveness of 

the Ocelot Recovery Team. We are particularly grateful to the Dallas Zoo and Deborah Fripp, 

Cynthia Bennett, and Sue Booth-Binczik for making our team meetings as comfortable and 

efficient as possible. Steve Chambers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provided valuable 

insights into the genetics and demographics of small populations during our meetings. 

The Technical Subcommittee of the Ocelot Recovery Team

David S. Maehr, deceased

University of Kentucky 

Recovery Team Leader, United States 

Ken Kaemmerer 

Pittsburg Zoo 

Arturo Caso 

Los Ebanos Ranch, Tamaulipas, Mexico 

Texas A&M University, Kingsville 

Recovery Team Leader, Mexico

Linda Laack 

Travis County, Texas - Natural Resources and 

Environmental Quality Division 

Paul Beier 

Northern Arizona University 

Jody Mays 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Brady McGee 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

USFWS Liason

Michael Tewes 

Texas A&M University, Kingsville 

Melanie Culver 

University of Arizona 

Bill VanPelt 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Carlos Lopez Gonzalez 

Universidad Queretaro 

John Young 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

The U.S. Fish and Wildife Service would also like to thank the Implementation Subcommittee of 

the Bi-National Ocelot Recovery Team for their participation and valuable insights provided 

during the development of this plan, and for all the work they do to conserve and recover ocelots. 

We look forward to future collaboration with the following individuals and others without whom 

ocelot recovery will not succeed: Alfonso Banda, Don Blanton, Doug Booher, Marylou 

Campbell, Jorge Cardenas, Karen Chapman, Hollie Colahan, Michael Corbett, Dave DeLaney, 
v 

Oscar Ramirez Flores, Paul Gheno, Melissa Grigione, Aaron Haines, Karen Hunke, Mark 

Iglesias, Jan Janeka, Scotty Johnson, Terry Johnson, Stacy McReynolds, Brent Ortego, Eva 

Sargent, Mitch Sternberg, Sylvia Waggoner, Lisa Williams, and Roberto Wolf. 

Dedication 

DAVID Steffen MAEHR, PhD, 

SEPTEMBER 18, 1955 – JUNE 20, 2008 

The USFWS and the Ocelot Recovery Team are honored to dedicate this plan to the memory of 

Dave Maehr, with the hope that the objectives within it may be achieved for the benefit of the 

ocelot and the ecosystem in which it plays a role. 

Dave Maehr was named co-leader of the Bi-National Ocelot Recovery Team by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director, and served in that role from the first team 

meeting in May 2003 until June 2008 when he tragically died in a single-engine plane accident. 

As United States leader, Dave had primary responsibility for guiding the team to meet the 

USFWS’s standards, policies, and priorities. 

Dave was Professor of Conservation Biology in the Department of Forestry at the University of 

Kentucky, Lexington, and was known internationally as a world expert on large carnivores, most 

notably black bear and Florida panther, and for the reintroduction of the elk population in eastern 

Kentucky. He was an accomplished scientist, author and editor, and has been described as the 

“quintessential field biologist; outdoorsman, highly observant, an incredible naturalist, wonderful 

at handling animals, and talented artist and photographer.” 

Although he did not have previous experience with ocelots, Dave accepted the challenge of 

leading the Ocelot Recovery Team with humility, enthusiasm, and commitment. He worked 

closely with the USFWS to assure that scientific and policy standards were met, and with his 

Mexican co-leader to integrate the objectives of both countries. Dave also brought his 

considerable facilitation and editorial skills to bear in knitting the contributions of the entire team 

into a cohesive and focused recovery plan. Along with a ferocious intellect, Dave brought a 

gracious and light-hearted presence to his role as team co-leader. Finally, he never lost sight of 

the importance of considering human communities in conserving endangered species. 
vi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

DRAFT OCELOT RECOVERY PLAN, FIRST REVISION

Current Status of the Species 

The ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) is listed as endangered throughout its range in the western 

hemisphere where it is distributed from southern Texas and southern Arizona through Central 

and South America into northern Argentina and Uruguay. The ocelot is listed as endangered by 

the State of Texas and is protected from hunting and live collection in Arizona where it is listed 

as a species of “special concern.” In the 1982 final rule (47 FR 31670), the Service made a 

determination that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent because such a designation 

would not be in the best interests of conservation of the species. Currently the Texas population 

has fewer than 50 ocelots, found in 2 separated populations in southern Texas, at the northern 

limit of the species’ distribution. As of February 2010, there were fewer than 25 total known 

individuals in the 2 populations in south Texas, with the possibility that more cats inhabit 

surrounding ranches. A third and much larger population of the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot (L. p. 

albescens) occurs in Tamaulipas, Mexico, but is geographically isolated from ocelots in Texas. 

In November 2009, an ocelot (L. p. sonoriensis) was documented in Arizona (in Cochise 

County) with the use of camera traps (Sky Island Alliance 2010, unpubl. data). Additionally, in 

April 2010, an ocelot was found dead on a road near Globe, Arizona, and a genetic analysis is 

underway to determine the origin of this specimen, although preliminary data indicate the young 

male ocelot was not of captive origin (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2010, unpubl. data). 

Prior to these findings, the last known ocelot in Arizona was lawfully shot on Pat Scott Peak in 

the Huachuca Mountains in 1964 (Hoffmeister 1986, Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2003). In addition to 

the recent Arizona sightings, a number of ocelots have been documented just south of the U.S. 

border in Sonora, Mexico. While this plan considers the ocelot throughout its range, its major 

focus is on two cross-border management units, the Texas/Tamaulipas Management Unit 

(TTMU) and the Arizona/Sonora Management Unit (ASMU). Establishing management units is 

a useful tool for species occurring across wide ranges with multiple populations, varying 

ecological pressures, or different threats in different parts of their range. By using this approach, 

we were able to set recovery goals for each unit and will be able to measure their contribution 

toward recovery. 

Habitat Requirements, Threats, and Other Limiting Factors 

Habitats used by the ocelot throughout its range vary from tropical rainforest, pine forest, gallery 

forest, riparian forest, semi-deciduous forest, and dry tropical forest, to savanna, shrublands, and 

marshlands. In south Texas, the ocelot inhabits dense thornscrub1

 communities on Laguna 

Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (LANWR) and on private lands in three Texas counties. The 

ocelot requires dense vegetation (>75% canopy cover), with 95% cover of the shrub layer 

preferred in Texas. Its prey consists primarily of rabbits, rodents, birds, and lizards. 

 

1

 In a number of ocelot publications the term “thornshrub” is used instead of thornscrub. These terms are 

interchangeable. The term thornscrub is used in this document. 
vii 

Habitat conversion, fragmentation, and loss comprise the primary threats to the ocelot today. 

Human population growth and development continue throughout the ocelot’s range. In Texas, 

more than 95% of the dense thornscrub habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been 

converted to agriculture, rangelands, or urban land uses. Small population sizes in Texas and 

isolation from conspecifics in Mexico threaten the ocelot in Texas with inbreeding. Connectivity 

among ocelot populations or colonization of new habitats is inhibited by road mortality among 

dispersing ocelots. Issues associated with border barrier development and patrolling the 

boundary between the United States and Mexico further exacerbate the isolation of Texas and 

Arizona ocelots from those in Mexico. Commercial exploitation and illegal hunting were 

significant threats to the species when the ocelot was originally listed. Although some hunting of 

the ocelot continues, and regulations remain challenging to enforce, the harvest and export of 

ocelots has significantly declined and is controlled by the Convention on International Trade of 

Endangered Species (CITES). 

Recovery Strategy 

The strategy for recovery involves: the assessment, protection, reconnection, and restoration of 

sufficient habitat to support viable populations of the ocelot in the borderlands of the U.S. and 

Mexico; the reduction of effects of human population growth and development to ocelot survival 

and mortality; the maintenance or improvement of genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and 

health of the ocelot; the assurance of long-term viability of ocelot conservation through 

partnerships, the development and application of incentives for landowners, application of 

existing regulations, and public education and outreach; the use of adaptive management, in 

which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are revised by the USFWS in coordination with 

the Ocelot Recovery Implementation Team as new information becomes available; and the 

support of international efforts to ascertain the status of and conserve the ocelot south of 

Tamaulipas and Sonora. 

Recovery Goals 

The goal of this revised recovery plan is to recover and delist the ocelot, with downlisting from 

endangered to threatened status as an intermediate goal. 

Recovery Criteria 

Reclassification from endangered to threatened may be considered when: 

1. Populations south of Tamaulipas and Sonora continuously qualify for “Least Concern” under 

the International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUCN) Red List criteria (World Conservation 

Union, 2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org) for five years; and threats from habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and poaching have been reduced such that the ocelot is no longer in danger of 

extinction. 

2. The Texas/Tamaulipas (TTMU) population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring 

to be above 200 in Texas and 1,000 in Tamaulipas for at least 5 years. The 200 ocelots in Texas 

should be distributed as either (1) a single core population of at least 150 ocelots with 
viii 

interchange between it and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic 

variability; or (2) at least 2 core populations of 75 ocelots each, with interchange between the 2 

core populations and between the core populations and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to 

maintain genetic variability. Interchange may be facilitated by moving ocelots between 

populations to simulate natural dispersal and recruitment. Core populations may include the 

current populations at LANWR and in Kenedy-Willacy Counties, but may also include a 

reintroduced population established within currently unoccupied historical range. Habitat 

protection must be in place to support core ocelot populations for the foreseeable future, and 

potential corridors and mechanisms must be identified to restore habitat connectivity between 

core populations. 

3. The Arizona/Sonora Management Unit (ASMU) population is estimated through reliable 

scientific monitoring to be above 1,000 animals for 5 years. Habitat linkages to support an 

ASMU metapopulation have been identified. Threats to this population have been identified and 

are determined to be below the threshold of endangerment of extinction within the foreseeable 

future. Methods to address significant threats have been identified. 

The ocelot should be considered for removal from the list of threatened and endangered species 

when: 

1. Populations south of Tamaulipas and Sonora continue to qualify for “Least Concern” under 

the IUCN Red List criteria (World Conservation Union, 2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org) for 10 

years and populations are stable or increasing; and threats from habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and poaching are reduced such that the ocelot can maintain healthy, viable 

populations for the foreseeable future. 

2. The TTMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 200 in 

Texas and 1,000 in Tamaulipas for at least 10 years. The 200 ocelots in Texas should be 

distributed as either (1) a single core population of at least 150 ocelots with interchange between 

it and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability; or (2) at least 2 core 

populations of 75 ocelots each, with interchange between the 2 core populations and between the 

core populations and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability. 

Interchange among populations must occur through natural dispersal rather than by moving 

ocelots between population; or (3) if natural interchange between Texas and Tamaulipas is 

impossible, cross-border interchange may be facilitated by moving ocelots to simulate natural 

dispersal and recruitment and an additional population of at least 75 ocelots is established within 

currently unoccupied historical range in Texas. This additional population should be established 

in a location that would expand the geographical range of the species in Texas to provide 

sufficient insurance against loss of the entire Texas population from catastrophic weather events 

or infectious disease. Habitat protection must be in place to support and connect all core ocelot 

populations within Texas and within Tamaulipas for the foreseeable future. 

3. The ASMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 1,000 

animals for 10 years. Significant threats to this population have been identified and addressed. 

Habitat linkages to facilitate an ASMU metapopulation have been identified and are conserved 

for the foreseeable future. 
ix 

Actions Needed 

• Assess, protect, and enhance ocelot populations and habitat in the borderlands of the U.S. 

and Mexico; 

• Reduce the effects of human population growth and development on the ocelot; 

• Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot in 

borderland populations; 

• Assure the long-term success of ocelot conservation through partnerships, landowner 

incentives, community involvement, application of regulations, and public education and 

outreach; 

• Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are 

revised by USFWS in coordination with recovery implementation team subgroups as new 

information becomes available; and, 

• Support efforts to ascertain the status and conserve ocelot populations south of 

Tamaulipas and Sonora. 

Total Estimated Actual Cost of Recovery (in U.S. dollars)1

Year Priority 1a Priority 1b Priority 2 Priority 3 Total 

2010 1,817,000 345,500 5,054,000 1,628,000 8,844,500 

2011 1,802,000 280,500 5,225,000 2,068,000 9,375,500 

2012 1,787,000 275,500 4,972,000 1,680,000 8,714,500 

2013 1,787,000 262,500 5,027,000 2,144,000 9,220,500 

2014 1,787,000 237,500 4,752,000 1,918,000 8,694,500 

2015 1,787,000 227,500 4,284,000 1,955,000 8,253,500 

2016+ 1,787,000 237,500 4,109,000 1,634,000 7,767,500 

Total 12,554,000 1,866,500 33,423,000 13,027,000 60,870,500 

1

Priority definitions can be found in section 3.2. 

Date of Recovery 

If recovery efforts are fully funded and carried out as outlined in this plan, recovery criteria for 

downlisting could be met by 2030. Based on continued recovery actions outlined and 

implemented into the future, we estimate that delisting for the ocelot could be initiated by 2040. 
x 

RESUMEN EJECUTIVO 

PLAN DE RECUPERACIÓN DEL OCELOTE

Estatus Actual de la Especie 

El ocelote en el hemisferio Oeste, está dentro de la lista de especies en peligro de extinción en 

todo su rango y se distribuye desde el sur de Texas, pasando por Centro y Sudamérica, hasta el 

norte de Argentina y Uruguay. También, el ocelote está listado como en peligro de extinción 

para el Estado de Texas y está protegido de la caza o captura de animales vivos en Arizona, 

donde está en la lista de especies de “protección especial”. En la regla final de 1982 (47 FR 

31670), el USFWS hizo la determinación de que la designación del hábitat critico no era 

prudente, debido a que esta designación podría no estar estipulada en la conservación de esta 

especie. En este momento la población de ocelote de los E.U. posee menos de 50 individuos, los 

cuales se encuentran en el Sur de Texas, en 2 poblaciones separadas. Estas poblaciones 

representan el límite norte de distribución para la especie. En Febrero del 2010, se estimó que 

había menos de 25 individuos en las dos poblaciones reconocidas para Texas, pero con la 

posibilidad que mas ocelotes puedan habitar en Ranchos aledaños a estas poblaciones. Una 

tercera población y de mayor tamaño de la especie de ocelote que habita Texas (Leopardus

pardalis albescens), habita en Tamaulipas, México. Sin embargo, la población de Tamaulipas 

está geográficamente separada de la población de Texas. El ocelote de Sonora (Leopardus 

pardalis sonoriensis) fue documentado por última vez en Arizona en 1964, pero en este 

momento aun habita el Noroeste de México. Sin embargo, se sabe muy poco sobre su 

abundancia y distribución. Aunque este plan considera al ocelote dentro de todo su rango, el 

mayor enfoque se da en dos unidades de manejo de la frontera, que son: la Unidad de Manejo 

Texas/Tamaulipas (TTMU) y la Unidad de Manejo Arizona/Sonora (ASMU). El establecer 

unidades de manejo, es una herramienta adecuada para especies que habitan en rangos amplios y 

con poblaciones múltiples, pues existe variación en presiones ecológicas, o diferentes amenazas 

en los diferentes rangos. Al utilizar este aproche, nosotros pudimos establecer metas de 

recuperación por cada unidad y también podremos medir su contribución hacia la recuperación 

de la especie. 

Requerimientos de Hábitat, Amenazas, y Otros Factores Limitantes 

El ocelote requiere de vegetación densa (>75% de cobertura), con preferencia del 95% de 

cobertura en Texas. Dentro de los hábitats utilizados por el ocelote dentro de su rango de 

distribución, se encuentran: la selva tropical, el bosque de pino, el bosque ripario, el bosque subcaducifolio, la selva tropical baja, la sabana, las áreas pantanosas y de matorral. Las áreas de 

vegetación contiguas son necesarias para permitir los movimientos de dispersión del ocelote. 

En el sur de Texas, el ocelote habita en las comunidades de matorral denso del Refugio de Fauna 

Silvestre de Laguna Atascosa y también en tierras privadas de 3 condados. Sus presas consisten 

principalmente en conejos, roedores, aves, y reptiles. 

 

La conversión, la fragmentación y la pérdida de hábitat, comprenden las principales amenazas 

para el ocelote en nuestros días. La población humana y el desarrollo urbano se ha incrementado 
xi 

en todo el rango de distribución del ocelote. En Texas, más del 95% del matorral denso del 

Valle del “Lower Rio Grande” se ha convertido en campos de agricultura, ranchos, o en terrenos 

urbanos. Al tener la población de ocelote un tamaño pequeño y al mismo tiempo al estar aislada 

de las poblaciones co-específicas de México, crean una mayor amenaza para el ocelote en Texas, 

pues el banco genético es muy pobre y existe una alta posibilidad de daño en la población por 

factores externos. La conectividad entre las poblaciones de ocelote y la colonización de nuevas 

áreas por ocelotes en Texas, se ven afectadas por la proliferación de carreteras lo que conlleva a 

una alta incidencia de atropellamientos de ocelotes en movimientos de dispersión. Las 

actividades en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, incrementan el aislamiento de los 

ocelotes de Texas con los de México. La explotación comercial y la caza furtiva fueron 

amenazas significativas cuando al ocelote se le incluyo en la lista de especies en peligro de 

extinción. Aunque todavía existe caza (ilegal) del ocelote en algunas partes de su rango y es 

muy difícil el implementar regulaciones en áreas rurales, la explotación y la exportación de los 

ocelotes han disminuido significativamente y ahora es controlada por el CITES. 

 

Estrategia de Recuperación 

La estrategia de recuperación involucra: la evaluación, protección, reconexión y restauración de 

suficiente hábitat para poder soportar las poblaciones viables de ocelote en las regiones 

fronterizas de los E.U. y México; la reducción de los efectos del crecimiento de la población 

humana y el desarrollo urbano que causan mortalidad y baja supervivencia del ocelote; el 

mantenimiento e incremento de la variabilidad genética, condiciones demográficas y salud del 

ocelote; el aseguramiento del mantenimiento a largo plazo de la viabilidad de la conservación del 

ocelote a través de acuerdos, incentivos para los dueños de la tierra, la aplicación de la 

regulación existente, y la educación del público en general; el uso de un manejo adaptable, en 

donde la recuperación es evaluada y las tareas de recuperación son revisadas por el USFWS en 

coordinación con el Grupo de Recuperación (Recovery Team) de acuerdo a la nueva información 

que se vaya generando; y el apoyar los esfuerzos internacionales para mantener el estatus y al 

mismo tiempo conservar al ocelote al sur de Tamaulipas y Sonora. 

Metas de Recuperación 

La meta de este plan de recuperación es el recuperar al ocelote y al mismo tiempo retirarlo de la 

lista de especies en peligro de extinción y como meta intermedia colocarlo en la lista de especies 

amenazadas. 

Criterio de Recuperación 

El ocelote puede ser removido de la lista de especies amenazadas y en peligro de extinción 

cuando: 

1. Las poblaciones al sur de Tamaulipas y Sonora continúen en la calificación de “baja 

importancia” por la Unión Internacional de Científicos (UICN) criterio de Lista Roja (World 

Conservation Union, 2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org) por cinco años y las poblaciones se 

mantengan estables o en incremento. Y cuando las amenazas de la pérdida de hábitat y 

fragmentación del mismo y la cacería ilegal se hayan reducido del tal manera que al ocelote 
xii 

mantenga poblaciones viables y ya no se le considera en peligro de extinción en un futuro 

cercano. 

2. La población de ocelote de la Unidad de Manejo Texas-Tamaulipas (TTMU) es estimada a 

través de monitoreos científicos confiables, de ser de más de 200 ocelotes en Texas y más de 

1000 para Tamaulipas, por un período de por lo menos 10 años. Los 200 ocelotes en Texas 

deberán de estar distribuidos ya sea (1) como una sola población núcleo de por lo menos 150 

individuos con contacto e intercambio con los ocelotes de Tamaulipas y que con esto sea 

suficiente para mantener la variabilidad genética: o (2) por lo menos dos poblaciones núcleo de 

75 ocelotes cada una con contacto e intercambio con los ocelotes de Tamaulipas y que con esto 

sea suficiente para mantener la variabilidad genética. El intercambio entre las poblaciones deber 

de ser debido a la dispersión natural en lugar de mover los ocelotes de una población a otra. 

Alternativamente, si el intercambio natural y/o entre las fronteras no es posible, una tercera 

población de por lo menos 75 ocelotes debe de establecerse dentro del rango histórico pero no 

ocupado en Texas. Esta tercera población debe de establecerse en un área que pueda expandir el 

rango geográfico de la especie en Texas y que pueda prever la pérdida de la población entera de 

Texas debido a una catástrofe. La protección del hábitat debe de estar sujeto para apoyar y 

conectar por lo menos dos poblaciones de ocelote núcleo en el futuro cercano en Texas. 

3. La población de ocelote de la Unidad de Manejo Sonora-Arizona (ASMU) es estimada 

a través de monitoreos científicos confiables, de ser de más de 1000 ocelotes por 10 años. Las 

amenazas significativas para esta población se han identificado y tomado en cuenta. Los lazos de 

hábitat para facilitar una meta-población en Sonora y Arizona se han identificado y estan 

protegidos para un futuro cercano. 

Acciones que se Necesitan 

• Evaluar, proteger e incrementar las poblaciones de ocelote y su hábitat en las regiones 

fronterizas ente México y los E.U; 

• Reducir los efectos del desarrollo y crecimiento de la población humana en el ocelote. 

• Mantener o incrementar el estado genético, las condiciones demográficas, y la salud del 

ocelote en las poblaciones fronterizas; 

• Asegurar el éxito a largo plazo de la conservación del ocelote a través de acuerdos, 

incentivos para los dueños de la tierra, involucramiento de las comunidades, aplicación 

de los reglamentos, y educación del público en general; 

• Prácticas de manejo en donde la recuperación es evaluada y las tareas de recuperación 

son revisadas por el USFWS en coordinación con el Grupo de Recuperación (Recovery 

Team) y subgrupos de acuerdo a la nueva información que se vaya generando; 

• Apoyar los esfuerzos para establecer el estatus y conservar las poblaciones al sur de 

Tamaulipas y Sonora. 
xiii 

Costo Total Estimado de la Recuperación del Ocelote en U.S. dolares.

Year Priority 1a Priority 1b Priority 2 Priority 3 Total 

2010 1,817,000 345,500 5,054,000 1,628,000 8,844,500 

2011 1,802,000 280,500 5,225,000 2,068,000 9,375,500 

2012 1,787,000 275,500 4,972,000 1,680,000 8,714,500 

2013 1,787,000 262,500 5,027,000 2,144,000 9,220,500 

2014 1,787,000 237,500 4,752,000 1,918,000 8,694,500 

2015 1,787,000 227,500 4,284,000 1,955,000 8,253,500 

2016+ 1,787,000 237,500 4,109,000 1,634,000 7,767,500 

Total 12,554,000 1,866,500 33,423,000 13,027,000 60,870,500 

Fecha de Recuperación 

Si los esfuerzos de recuperación son completamente financiados y llevar a cabo el resume escrito 

del plan de recuperación, el criterio de recuperación para bajar este especie de la lista en peligro 

de extinción a amenazada puede ser hecho para el año 2030. Basado en continuar las aciónes de 

recuperación por el resume escrito y implementado para el futuro, nosotros estimamos quitar el 

ocelote de la lista amenazada para el año 2040. 
xiv 

Table of Contents 

Page 

Disclaimer.................................................................................. ii 

Acknowledgments......................................................................... iv 

Executive Summary....................................................................... vi 

Resumen Ejectuivo........................................................................ x 

Table of Contents.......................................................................... xiv 

Part I. BACKGROUND.................................................... 1

 Introduction............................................................ 1

 Status of the Species.............................................. 3

 Description and Taxonomy....................................... 4

 Population Trends and Distribution............................ 5

 Life History and Demography.................................. 8

 Population size, home range, and density.................. 8

 Age at first reproduction, litter size, birth interval........ 9

 Dispersal........................................................ 10

 Survival and mortality........................................ 12

 Competition with other carnivores.......................... 12

 Genetics......................................................... 13

 Habitat Characteristics and Ecosystem........................ 17

 Habitat.......................................................... 17

 Habitat restoration............................................. 18

 Private lands................................................... 19

Reasons for Listing/Threats......................................... 20

 Factor A - The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range... 20

 Factor B - Over Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, 

Scientific, or Educational Purposes........................ 21

 Factor C - Disease or Predation................................. 22

 Factor D - The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms................................................... 23

 Factor E - Other Natural or Anthropogenic Factors Affecting 

its Continued Existence...................................... 24

 Roads............................................................ 24

 Border issues................................................... 25

 Genetics......................................................... 26

 Miscellaneous.................................................. 

Climate change................................................ 

26

27

 Biological Constraints to Ocelot Recovery........................ 28

Captive Breeding and Management................................ 29

 Public Education...................................................... 31

Conservation Actions to Date....................................... 32

 

Part II. RECOVERY........................................................... 34

 Recovery Goal......................................................... 34
xv 

Recovery Strategy...................................................... 

Recovery Objectives................................................... 

34

37

 Recovery Criteria....................................................... 

Threats Tracking Table................................................. 

37

41

Outline of Recovery Actions.......................................... 48

Narrative of Recovery Actions......................................... 52

 

Part III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE................................. 68

 

 Literature Cited......................................................... 80

 

Appendix I. Figures Cited in Text................................................... 91

 

Appendix II. Status of Other Neotropical Felids in the United States.......... 98

 

Appendix III. Status of the Ocelot Outside of the United States.................. 99

 

Appendix IV. Ocelot Population Viability Analysis............................... 122

 

Appendix V. Programs and Resources to Assist Landowners and Partners in 

implementing the Ocelot Recovery Plan. 

160

 

Appendix VI. Comments on the Draft Ocelot Recovery Plan and Responses to 

Comments 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
1 

PART I: BACKGROUND 

Introduction 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) calls for preparation of recovery plans for 

threatened and endangered species likely to benefit from the effort, and authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to appoint recovery teams to prepare the plans (U.S. Congress 1988). According 

to section 4(f)(1) of the ESA, recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, describe 

site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goals, incorporate 

objective and measurable delisting criteria, and estimate the time and cost required for recovery. 

A recovery plan is not self-implementing, but presents a set of recommendations that are 

endorsed by an official of the Department of Interior for managers. Recovery plans also serve as 

a source of information on the overall biology, status, and threats of a species. It is the intent of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to modify this recovery plan in response to 

management, monitoring, and research data. 

The first recovery plan for the ocelot, The Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With 

Emphasis on the Ocelot), was completed in 1990 (USFWS 1990). This plan briefly addressed 

the jaguar, jaguarundi, and margay, and focused on the ocelot, primarily in Texas. 

While considerable progress was made in conducting ocelot research in Texas, a number of 

recovery actions have received little attention. In addition, the demographic, economic, and 

political landscapes in south Texas, Arizona, and northern Mexico have changed since 1990. 

Finally, there is a need to address the ocelot as it is listed, throughout its range. In May 2003, a 

new bi-national ocelot recovery team was formed to revise the outdated plan. The team is 

composed of both Technical and Implementation subgroups with representation from the United 

States and Mexico. The Technical subgroup is composed of 10 scientists, researchers, and 

biologists with expertise in feline biology and ecology, genetics, landscape ecology, and 

conservation planning. The Technical subgroup’s function is to compile and review extensive 

scientific information and develop recovery goals, criteria, strategies, and recommended actions. 

The Implementation subgroup consists of a broad range of interested parties including 

landowners, conservation organizations, biologists, academics, and state and Federal agencies. 

The role of the Implementation subgroup is to assist the USFWS in developing an effective 

strategy for, and implementing the recovery actions developed through, the ocelot recovery 

planning process. 

Because the ocelot is listed throughout its range, which includes 22 countries, the ocelot presents 

a significant challenge for recovery planning. Our knowledge regarding the status of the species 

in much of its range is very limited, and the USFWS and its partners lack the resources and 

authority to coordinate large scale international research and recovery for the entire species. 

Therefore, it is not practicable to establish site-specific management actions, objective and 

measurable recovery criteria, or cost estmates throughout the species’ entire range. However, we 

can establish the framework to better understand the status and conservation needs of ocelots 

throughout their range by identifying research needs as outlined in the recovery actions of this 

plan. The USFWS needs information on populations and threats internationally in order to 

evaluate whether its current listing status is appropriate. However, the USFWS does not have 
2 

the potential to address the major threats to the species’ recovery outside the U.S. Because the 

USFWS’s limited resources are better applied to planning and on-the-ground implementation of 

conservation actions within the boundaries of the U.S and in partnership with adjacent Mexico, 

we have established specific criteria for recovery, and actions that, if implemented, will conserve 

viable ocelot populations in the borderlands (Arizona-Sonora and Texas-Tamaulipas). Priority is 

being given to the two subspecies that occur in this area, L. p. sonoriensis and L. p. albescens, 

which are most likely to benefit from such plans because this is where the USFWS has the most 

jurisdiction and we have an established working relationship for issues of mutual concern with 

adjacent Mexico. Also, these subspecies are known to conflict with construction or other 

development projects or other forms of economic activity. If the criteria in this plan are met, we 

believe that it would be feasible and appropriate to consider downlisting or delisting these 

populations as either Distinct Population Segments (DPS) or subspecies units. 

At this time, the Texas/Tamaulipas Management Unit (TTMU) and the Arizona/Sonora 

Management Unit (ASMU) are only “potential” DPSs or subspecies units and cannot be 

considered for delisting separately from the listed entity (i.e., the entire species) until meeting 

both the recovery criteria for each management unit and the USFWS has completed a formal 

listing evaluation and designation, which would involve a proposed rulemaking, public review 

and comment, and a final rulemaking. The USFWS understands that a future listing of ocelot in 

the TTMU and ASMU as subspecies or DPSs are not guaranteed. In 1996, USFWS and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a joint policy defining the phrase “distinct 

population segment” (USFWS and NMFS 1996, 61 FR 4722). Three elements are considered in 

a decision regarding the listing, delisting, or reclassification of a DPS as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA: discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species, significance of the population segment to the species, and conservation status. 

Thus, our approach in this revision to the ocelot portion of the 1990 recovery plan is as follows: 

• This plan focuses exclusively on the ocelot. 

• We summarize what is known about the status of the ocelot throughout its range and 

identify primary information gaps and broad actions necessary to address conservation of 

the species outside of the borderlands of the U.S. and Mexico. 

• We address in detail the actions necessary to conserve the existing and highly imperiled 

breeding populations in Texas and their source population across the border in 

Tamaulipas, Mexico. 

• We address the status of the existing population in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and 

identify the actions necessary to understand its status and to conserve the population 

through cooperative efforts in the borderlands of Arizona/Sonora. 

We submit that the approach described above meets our statutory requirements to the 

maximum extent practicable. As our knowledge of the ocelot range-wide increases and as 

the recovery actions described in this plan are implemented, the plan may be revised and 

refined. 
3 

Status of the Species 

The ocelot was upgraded to CITES Appendix I in 1986 (Fuller et al. 1987) and is considered 

endangered in Mexico by the Ley General del Equilibrio Ecologico (LEGEPA) (nom-ecol059/94) (Vargas and Huerta 2001). The ocelot is one of the least known wild cat species of the 

world (Nowell and Jackson 1996) and its northernmost distribution occurs in southern Arizona 

and northwestern Mexico. 

The ocelot in the U.S. is listed as endangered under the authority of the ESA. The species has a 

recovery priority number of 5C, meaning that it has a low potential for recovery with a relatively 

high degree of conflict with development projects. The ocelot was listed as endangered in 1972 

under the authority of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (USFWS 1972). The 

1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act maintained separate lists for foreign and native 

wildlife. The ocelot appeared on the foreign list, but due to an oversight, not on the native list. 

Following passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (ESA), the ocelot was included on the 

January 4, 1974, list of “Endangered Foreign Wildlife” that “grandfathered” species from the 

lists under the 1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act into a new list under the ESA 

(USFWS 1974). The entry for the ocelot included “Central and South America” under the 

“Where found” column in the new ESA list. Endangered status was extended to the U.S. portion 

of the ocelot’s range for the first time with a final rule published July 21, 1982 (USFWS 1982). 

The “Historic range” column for the ocelot’s entry in the rule reads, “U.S.A. (TX, AZ) south 

through Central America to South America.” The entry on the current list (USFWS 2003) is 

essentially the same, and reads, “U.S.A. (TX, AZ) to Central and South America” (Figure 1). 

In Arizona, the ocelot is included on the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) list of 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy: 2005-2015 (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/cwcs_downloads.shtml). This conservation 

strategy provides policy guidance to both state and Federal agencies and the public on AGFD’s 

priorities. It does not provide specific legal or regulatory protection for listed species. However, the 

general provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17 protect all native wildlife, including 

federally-listed species. 

In Texas, the ocelot is protected by state law and has state endangered species status (Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is the 

state agency responsible for protection of the ocelot in Texas. 

Status South of the U.S. – We briefly review the status of the ocelot outside U.S. boundaries 

below. Please see Appendix III of this document for a more complete, fully cited review of 

ocelot status and threats in other countries. 

The ocelot is found in every mainland country south of the U.S. except Chile, and 11 subspecies 

have been described (Pocock 1941, Cabrera 1961, Hall 1981, Eizirik et al. 1998). International 

trade of the ocelot was banned by CITES in 1975 in response to dwindling populations 

throughout its range, and as of 1990, all ocelot subspecies are listed under Appendix I, as a 

species threatened with extinction. The IUCN Red List, formed by the World Conservation 
4 

Union (2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org), lists the ocelot as Least Concern (populations 

estimated to be at least 50,000), except for the Texas subspecies, Leopardus pardalis albescens, 

which meets criteria D (populations less than 250 adults) and is endangered. There is very little 

information regarding actual population status south of the U.S. As a widespread species with 

cryptic habits and a low population density in any one country, understanding the ocelot’s status 

requires not only scientific knowledge of its distribution, ecological requirements, and 

population dynamics, but also an appreciation for international relations. 

Ocelot population density estimates for particular habitats include: 5.7/100 km2

 for subtropical 

thornscrub to tropical deciduous forest in the province of Sonora, Mexico; 19.8/100 km2

 in 

tropical rainforest and 3.0/100 km2 in pine forest in Belize; 2.8/5 km2 for gallery forest, semideciduous forest, savanna, and marshlands of the Pantanal Reserve of southwestern Brazil; 0.8/5 

km2

 in Amazon rainforest in both eastern and southern Peru; and 0.4/ km2 and 1.9/ 5km2 for the 

llanos (interspersed dry tropical forest in savanna) of central Venezuela. In the past 15 years, 

trapped animals or their sign were noted but no quantitative measures of population were 

approximated during studies conducted in the States of Campeche, Chiapas, Durango, Sinaloa, 

Tabasco, Tamaulipas in Mexico; and in Brazil; Costa Rica; Guatemala; Paraguay; and 

Venezuela. Tropical lowlands of eastern and southern Peru appear to support the highest known 

densities. 

Many of the threats to the ocelot are common to all Latin American countries where most studies 

have occurred on nationally-recognized preserves. Threats generally include habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, logging, and harvest of the ocelot and its prey. Ocelot hunting varies between 

and within countries, and is legal in Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, and Peru. 

Ocelot populations appear to be rebounding in parts of its range, perhaps due to a decrease of 

hunting since the end of the 1980s. In the absence of hunting the ocelot seems tolerant of human 

settlement and activities if large forests and sufficient prey are available. 

Description and Taxonomy 

The ocelot (Leopardus pardalis; Linnaeus, 1758) is a medium-sized spotted cat (Figure 2). The 

coloration of the upper parts of the body is pale gray to cinnamon. There are spots on the head, 

two black stripes on the cheeks, and four to five longitudinal black stripes on the neck. The body 

shows elongated black-edged spots arranged in chain-like bands. The rounded ears are black 

dorsally, with a conspicuous white spot. The underparts are whitish, spotted with black. The tail 

is marked with dark bars or incomplete rings (Hall 1981). The dental formula is i3/3, c1/1, 

pm3/2, m 1/1, for a total of 30 teeth. Weights range from 7-16 kg (15-35 lbs), with males 

weighing more than females. 

The ocelot belongs to the genus Leopardus which also includes the margay (Leopardus wiedii)

and the oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus). The ocelot is further divided into as many as 11 subspecies 

that ranged from the southwestern U.S. to northern Argentina (Pocock 1941, Cabrera 1961, 

Eizirik et al. 1998). Two subspecies occurred in the United States: the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot 

(L. p. albescens) and the Arizona/Sonora ocelot (L. p. sonoriensis) (Hall 1981) (Figure 3). For 

purposes of this recovery plan, we are using these common names for these subspecies. 
5 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Fossils of ocelots have been reported from the U.S., primarily in California, Arizona, and Florida 

(Navarro-Lopez 1985). Ocelot fossils from North America include the proximal end of a right 

femur from Alachua County, Florida (Kurten 1965), and a left mandibular ramus from the 

Rancholabrean Reddick I fauna in Marion County, Florida (Ray et al. 1963, Kurten 1965). This 

sparse North America record may represent a brief extension of ocelot range during the 

Sangamonian paleo-environment (Werdelin 1985). 

Although the exact date of habitation is unknown, a Native American archaeological site on the 

San Pedro River, near Redington, Arizona, had ocelot remains that predated the arrival of 

Spaniards (Burt 1961). There are no fossil records from Texas, but the ocelot probably occurred 

there in prehistoric times and may have ranged over much of the southern U.S. (Navarro-Lopez 

1985). Moorehead (1968) reported a picture of an ocelot carved on human bone found in the 

Hopewell Mound Group in Ross County, Ohio, from between 1400 and 1500 A.D. Cahalane 

(1947) suggested this finding indicated the prehistoric range of the ocelot might have extended as 

far north as Ohio. However, Moorehead (1968) noted that many objects in the Hopewell burial 

mounds were the result of exchange with distant human populations. 

The Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot once inhabited southern and eastern Texas, north to Hedley, Texas, 

and west to Marfa, Texas (Sealander 1979, Hall 1981). The type specimen for the 

Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot is from an unspecified locality in southwestern Arkansas along the Red 

River (Goldman 1943, Sealander 1979). The Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot may have also ranged 

into western Louisiana, but verified records from the Pleistocene are lacking (Ray et al. 1963, 

Kurten 1965, Lowery 1974, Navarro-Lopez 1985). Navarro et al. (1993) questioned whether L. 

p. albescens still occurred in Texas or whether it was represented by another subspecies. In 

Mexico, the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot was found from the foothills of the Sierra Madre Oriental 

in Coahuila, through Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas to the Gulf Coast. The Texas/Tamaulipas 

ocelot is isolated from the Arizona/Sonora ocelot by the Sierra Madre highlands, and the dry 

areas of the Mexican Plateau (Tewes and Schmidly 1987, Caso 1994). 

The late 19th century range of the Arizona/Sonora ocelot (Leopardus pardalis sonoriensis) 

included southeastern Arizona as far north as Fort Verde (Cockrum 1960, Hall 1981). 

Hoffmeister (1986) questioned the validity of the Fort Verde specimen and believed its origin 

may have been Mexico or Texas. In Mexico, the Arizona/Sonora ocelot occurs in the foothills of 

the Sierra Madre Occidental and associated sky island ranges from northeastern Sonora south 

into northern Sinaloa (Hall 1981), but it is absent from the desert scrub of western Sonora. 

Currently, the ocelot ranges from extreme southern Texas and southern Arizona (although recent 

documentation in Arizona is sparse) through the coastal lowlands of Mexico to Central America, 

Ecuador and northern Argentina. It does not occur south of the Province of Entre Rios in 

Argentina (Denis 1964, Redford and Eisenberg 1992). The ocelot also is known from Trinidad 

and Isla de Margarita, Venezuela, but not from the Antilles (Tewes and Schmidly 1987, Sunquist 

and Sunquist 2002). There are no recent verified reports of ocelots from California or Florida. 
6 

Between 1980 and 2010 the ocelot was documented in Texas by photographs or specimens in 

Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Hidalgo, and Jim Wells Counties (L. Laack and M. Tewes, 

unpublished records; Figure 4). The two U.S. ocelot populations occur in southern Texas 

(Tewes and Everett 1986). One occurs in Willacy and Kenedy Counties primarily on private 

ranches (Navarro-Lopez 1985) and the other in eastern Cameron County primarily on the Laguna 

Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (LANWR; Laack 1991). Both populations are isolated from 

each other by at least 30 km and occupy remnant habitat fragments. Individuals have occurred 

outside of these two populations, but there is no recent evidence that a breeding population 

occurs in other areas of Texas. A male ocelot moved from the Willacy population to the Arroyo 

Colorado Unit of TPWD where he was photographed several times between 2000 and 2003 and 

again on January 16, 2006. The Arroyo Colorado Unit is located 18 miles southeast of the 

Yturria Ranch and 5 miles west of LANWR. The ocelot was trapped again on the Yturria Ranch 

during March 2006. Ocelots from LANWR have been found on the Arroyo Colorado Unit 

previously; therefore, this series of records represents the first documentation of an ocelot 

moving between the Willacy and Cameron populations in Texas. Genetic data suggest little or 

no interchange between the Cameron and Willacy-Kenedy populations (Walker 1997), although 

at least one male has moved back and forth between them during the period of 1996 to 2006 

(USFWS 2010, unpubl. data). Also, genetic analyses indicate that little to no genetic exchange 

has occurred between Texas and Mexico populations in recent decades, and that both Texas 

populations have lost genetic diversity and become increasingly isolated (Janecka 2006). 

In Texas, the effective breeding populations are estimated at 5.9 to 14.4 for Cameron and 2.4 to 

3.6 for Willacy-Kenedy populations (Janecka 2006). In 2009, the USFWS estimated there to be 

7 ocelots (2 adult females, 3 adult males, and 2 juveniles) using conservation easements in 

Willacy County based on camera-trapping (USFWS 2010, unpubl. data). Between November, 

24, 2009 and March 19, 2010, 13 ocelots (8 adult males, 4 adult females, and 1 juvenile) were 

found on LANWR based on camera-trapping, live-trapping, and a single road-killed specimen 

(USFWS 2010, unpubl. data). 

The first “endangered cats” recovery plan depicted “occupied habitat” in Jim Wells, Nueces, 

Live Oak, and Kleberg Counties, 50 miles (80 km) north of the Willacy-Kenedy population 

(USFWS 1990). Recent road kills (n=3) on SR-77 south of Kingsville (M. Tewes, personal 

communication, May 2003 Recovery Team meeting) suggest continued ocelot presence there, 

but there is no evidence of a reproducing population. Tuovila (1999) trapped 17 bobcats and 238 

non-target animals, but no ocelots, in the southern half of Live Oak County and northernmost 

Jim Wells County in 1997 and 1998. 

An adult, lactating female was tagged and radio-tracked from 1992 through 1996 along the Rio 

Grande River on and around Santa Ana NWR, where she “was possibly the only ocelot” in the 

study area (Fischer 1998). Fischer (1998) caught 21 bobcats, 300 non-target animals, and no 

ocelots in 8,304 trap-nights in Hidalgo County (the single ocelot in his study had been captured 

earlier). Shinn (2002) used camera traps and hair snares on 27 widely scattered tracts managed 

by the South Texas Refuges Complex (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), but did not find evidence 

of ocelot west of Brownsville on the Rio Grande River. He confirmed the presence of the 

species in extreme southern Cameron County and in extreme western Willacy County. Shinn 

(2002) felt that these latter animals probably were transient males that returned to nearby known 
7 

population centers after failing to find mates. Highways, agriculture, and human development 

may inhibit dispersal by females into these areas (Shinn 2002). Similarly, Grassman et al. (2006) 

failed to document ocelot presence at Choke Canyon Reservoir in Live Oak and McMullen 

Counties, Texas, despite a 10-year increase in optimal ocelot cover. 

A third and much larger population of the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot subspecies occurs more than 

200 km (~124 mi) south of the Texas/Mexico border in the Sierra of Tamaulipas, Mexico (Caso 

1994). In February 2009, the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute began camera trapping 

on Rancho Caracol, Mexico, which is located about 193 km (120 mi) south of the Texas/Mexico 

border. Box-trapping was done in December 2009 and February 2010 from which 11 ocelots 

were captured and radio-collared in 314 trap nights (S. Carvajal, 2010 pers. comm.). In addition, 

Chad Stasey found 33 different individuals on 120 km2

 using a remote sensing camera grid (A. 

Caso, 2010 pers. comm.). 

The Arizona/Sonora ocelot subspecies (L. p. sonoriensis) occurs in southern Arizona and 

northwestern Mexico (Sonora and northern Sinaloa) (Sky Island Alliance 2010, unpubl. data; 

López-Gonzalez et al. 2003; Murray and Gardner 1997). Breeding populations occur in the 

States of Sonora and northern Sinaloa. Two other subspecies are present in the Pacific coast 

region of Mexico, L. p. nelsoni (including the States of Sinaloa, Nayarit, Jalisco, Michoacan, 

Guerrero, and parts of Oaxaca), and L. p. pardalis (in southern Oaxaca and Chiapas into Central 

America) (Murray and Gardner 1997). 

The Arizona/Sonora ocelot is isolated from the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot by the Sierra Madre 

highlands and the dry areas of the Mexican Plateau, and once ranged from southeastern Arizona 

into Mexico’s States of Sonora and northern Sinaloa (Goldman 1943) (Figure 3). The type 

specimen for the Arizona/Sonora ocelot was taken along the Rio Mayo, near Camoa, Sonora 

(Goldman 1943). In November 2009, the first live ocelot was documented in Arizona (in 

Cochise County) with the use of camera traps (Sky Island Alliance 2010, unpubl. data). 

Additionally, in April 2010, an ocelot was found dead on a road near Globe, Arizona, and a 

genetic analysis is underway to determine the origin of this specimen, although preliminary data 

indicate the young male ocelot was not of captive origin (Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2010, unpubl. data). Prior to these findings, the last known ocelot in Arizona was lawfully shot 

on Pat Scott Peak in the Huachuca Mountains in 1964 (Hoffmeister 1986, Lopez Gonzalez et al. 

2003). In addition to the recent Arizona sightings, a number of ocelots have been documented 

just south of the U.S. border in Sonora, Mexico. Specifically, with the use of camera traps, at 

least 4 ocelots have been documented since February 2007 in the Sierra Azul, 30-35 miles 

southeast of Nogales; and 1 ocelot was documented in 2009 in the Sierra de Los Ajos, about 30 

miles south of the U.S. border near Naco, Mexico. Lopez Gonzalez et al. (2003) obtained 36 

verified ocelot records for Sonora, 21 of which were obtained after 1990. A population of 2,025 

+ 675 ocelots in Sonora was estimated by Lopez Gonzalez et al. (2003) based on the distribution 

of these records and the availability of potential habitat. The original recovery plan (USFWS 

1990) did not include recommendations or contingency plans in the event that the ocelot reoccupied southeastern Arizona. 
8 

Life History and Demography 

Population size, home range, and density - Estimating population sizes of secretive nocturnal 

carnivores, especially species that inhabit dense vegetative cover, such as the ocelot, is difficult. 

Thus, it is challenging to generalize about the status and distribution of this species in the U.S. 

and northern Mexico. Tewes and Everett (1986) provided “a crude estimate” of 80-120 

individuals in Texas based on distribution of radio-tagged ocelots extrapolated to areas that were 

probably suitable habitat. Based on several years of intensive study, Laack (1991) estimated a 

total of about 30 ocelots on LANWR during the mid-1980’s and believed this was considerably 

higher than the population estimate from 5 years earlier. More recently, Haines et al. (2005a) 

estimated an effective population size (number of breeding individuals) in the LANWR 

population of 19 ocelots, and a total population of 38 ocelots in Cameron County. These 

estimates were calculated by averaging ocelot home range sizes reported by Navarro-Lopez 

(1985), Tewes (1986), and Laack (1991) and extrapolating this estimate to the amount of 

available dense thornscrub habitat. The mean home range size for adult male and female ocelots 

was 10.5 km2

 (SD = 5.1 km2) and 6.5 km2 (SD = 2.0 km2), respectively. The amount of dense 

thornscrub habitat available in LANWR and a 22 km buffer around the refuge was 75 km2. The 

average effective population size based on extrapolation includes 7 (range = 5-14) adult males 

and 12 (range = 9-17) adult females. Assuming adults equal half of the total population, a total 

population size of 38 ocelots was estimated for this population. Note that it is likely not all the 

available habitat is occupied by ocelots so the actual population estimates and densities are much 

less than what is determined by extrapolation. 

In 2009, there were estimated to be 7 ocelots (2 adult females, 3 adult males, and 2 juveniles) 

using conservation easements in Willacy County based on camera-trapping (USFWS 2010, 

unpubl. data). Between November, 24, 2009, and March 19, 2010, 13 ocelots (8 adult males, 4 

adult females, and 1 juvenile) were found on LANWR based on camera-trapping, live-trapping, 

and a single road-killed specimen (USFWS 2010, unpubl. data). 

Emmons (1988) reported 0.8 ocelots (excluding transients) per km2

 at Cocha Cashu in Peru, a 

density she characterized as “high.” Ludlow and Sunquist (1987) estimated 0.4 adult ocelots per 

km2

 on their study site in Venezuela. All of these estimates were based on the spatial 

distribution of radio-tagged animals and evidence of unmarked animals (tracks, scats and other 

sign). In the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve of western Mexico, Casariego-Madorell 

(1998) estimated 0.45 to 2.25 ocelots per km2

 based on camera traps, radio-telemetry, and 

capture-recapture methods. Fernandez (2002) estimated the density of ocelots in Chamela as 

0.25 to 0.39 ocelots per km2

. Both of Fernandez’s (2002) estimates were likely conservative; the 

lower estimate did not take overlap among ocelots into consideration. Smallwood and 

Schonewald (1996) documented a strong negative correlation between estimated population 

density and size of study area. Maffei et al. (2005) used camera trap surveys to estimate a mean 

of 0.3 adult ocelots per km2

 in Bolivian dry-forests and noted an association between ocelot 

density and mean annual precipitation. 

Because of limited overlap among adult male ocelots (Tewes 1986, Laack 1991, Caso 1994) and 

among adult female ocelots (Laack 1991, Emmons 1988), home range size may help 

approximate population density. Most studies have been based on small numbers of animals and 
9 

most researchers report that some untagged adults (especially females) occurred on their study 

sites, raising the possibility that females may be less territorial than indicated by measures of 

home range overlap. However, Emmons (1988) supported her data on low overlap between 

adult females with additional observations of interactions among females, and the observation 

that females concentrated their activity at the periphery of the home range such that the entire 

home range boundary was visited every two to four days. 

Caso (1994), Fernandez (2002), Ludlow and Sunquist (1987), Konecny (1989), Martinez-Meyer 

(1997), Sunquist et al. (1989), and Dillon (2005) estimated home ranges of ocelots outside the 

U.S. In Texas, Tewes (1986) reported ocelot home range size of 18 km2 (5 males) and 11 km2 (3 

females), using 95% harmonic mean estimators for ocelots on Willacy County ranches and 

LANWR. In contrast, Laack (1991) reported 3 male home ranges averaged 3.6 km2

 (95% 

harmonic mean) or 6.25 km2 (minimum convex polygon), compared to 3 female home ranges 

that averaged 2.1 km2 (harmonic mean) or 2.9 km2

 (minimum convex polygon) on LANWR. 

Laack attributed the smaller home ranges for ocelots on the same LANWR study area (including 

some of the same individual ocelots studied by Tewes) to a higher density of ocelots during the 

more recent study. This interpretation is supported by the fact that two female subadults 

captured in the earlier study did not disperse, but remained in their natal range as adults. The 

relatively long duration of dispersal (7 to 9.5 months) also suggested a lack of vacant territories 

during the latter study period. These results demonstrate considerable temporal variation in 

population size, and further indicate the utility of home range size as an index of population 

density. 

Realistic estimates of population dynamics and distribution are fundamental to successful 

management and recovery of the ocelot. Use of noninvasive techniques to estimate species 

presence as well as population size would be a valuable tool for ocelot conservation. Application 

of automatically-triggered cameras can be used to detect ocelot presence (Heilbrun et al. 2003, 

Trolle and Kery 2003). Trolle and Kery (2003) used capture-recapture analysis of cameratrapping data to estimate ocelot density in the Brazilian Pantanal. Although they used an 

arbitrary method to estimate the area sampled by their cameras (this area forms the denominator 

of any density estimate), the sharp edges of suitable habitat in south Texas would obviate this 

hurdle if the camera array covered the entire area of interest. These methods have been used 

effectively for secretive species such as tiger (Panthera tigris) and will support the use of markrecapture models in estimating population size (Karanth 1995, Karanth and Nichols 1998). 

Increasingly, evaluation of fecal DNA is being used to estimate population size and distribution 

of vertebrates (Kovach et al. 2003, Zuercher et al. 2003). In particular, small populations may 

benefit from a combination of population estimation approaches including remote-activated 

cameras, hair samples from snares, scat samples, and radio telemetry (Brown 2004). 

Age at first reproduction, litter size, birth interval - There are few data on reproductive rates of 

wild ocelots. Eaton (1977) and Tewes and Schmidly (1987) summarized relevant data, mostly 

from studies of captive animals. 

Gestation lasts about 70-80 days, and breeding reaches a peak during autumn in Texas (Tewes 

and Schmidly (1987). Interestrous periods of six weeks have been documented in captive 

animals (Eaton 1977). Wild ocelots probably first produce young at about 18 to 30 months-of-
10 

age (Eaton 1977, Tewes and Schmidly 1987). Laack (1991) observed first reproduction in wild 

female ocelots between 30 and 45 months-of-age. Bragin (1994) reported that reproduction 

among females in captivity occurred between about 20 months to 15 years and for male captive 

ocelots between about 22 months to 17 years. Eaton (1977) reported that captive ocelots produce 

an average of about 1.4 young per litter, but suggested that the average in the wild may be closer 

to 2.0. Mora et al. (2000) suggested that ocelots in the Lower Rio Grande Valley averaged 1.5 

kittens per litter over “the last 10 years” (number of litters not stated). Laack et al. (2005) 

reported an average of 1.2 kittens per litter for 16 litters born to 12 ocelots in Texas. 

Citing “circumstantial evidence,” Emmons (1988) suggested that females in Peru produced 

young “about every other year.” However, this estimate did not take into account occasional 

losses of complete litters, which would expand the interval of successful reproduction. No 

comparable data are available for Texas. Although an interbirth interval of two years or less 

suggests that half or more of adult females breed each year, felid populations may contain 

females that never produce litters (Beier 1993, Logan and Sweanor 2001), and this can have 

important effects on demography (Beier 1993). There are no published reports of what fraction 

of adult female ocelots fail to produce litters. 

Dispersal - An understanding of movements of ocelots during dispersal is central to evaluating 

the impact of habitat fragmentation on the population, and evaluating the potential for corridors 

as a remedy for fragmentation. The literature summarizes only a handful of dispersal events. 

Tewes (1986) reported that 1 male ocelot apparently dispersed about 13 km before it died of 

injuries (likely from an automobile collision). The death site was an isolated 150-ha brush patch 

surrounded by farms and grasslands. Tewes (1986) also reported movements by a young adult 

female, which probably represented dispersal from LANWR into croplands with small fragments 

of brushy habitat. Most of her locations were in the remnant shrublands until she was killed by a 

vehicle. Navarro-Lopez (1985) reported that 2 young adult ocelots dispersed 10 km and 3.5 km. 

In Tamaulipas, Caso (1994) reported 1 male dispersing 8 km. In Jalisco, Fernandez (2002) 

reported that 1 male dispersed 23 km from his capture site. Ludlow and Sunquist (1987) 

reported that dense woody cover was important in facilitating dispersal movements of two 

subadult male ocelots in Venezuela. 

Laack (1991) provided the most detailed information on ocelot dispersal, reporting on dispersal 

of five male and four female subadult ocelots at LANWR. One ocelot dispersed at 14 monthsof-age, 1 at 20 months-of-age, and 5 at 30-35 months-of-age. Two others were captured as 

dispersers at <23 months-of-age. There was no obvious sex difference in age at dispersal. Only 

four dispersers (3 M, 1 F) lived to establish home ranges, but one female was still dispersing at 

the end of the study. Duration of successful dispersal (time elapsed between leaving natal range 

and establishing an independent home range) was 7 to 9.5 months. The one successful female 

disperser moved 2.5 km (distance between home range centers) whereas the successful males 

moved 7 to 9 km. In addition to these dispersers, one subadult female did not disperse but 

remained in her natal range after reaching adulthood. The extensive explorations of these 

animals, use of agricultural and other marginal habitat during dispersal, and the dispersal interval 

suggest that suitable habitat in LANWR was saturated with resident ocelots during this study 

(Laack 1991). 
11 

All dispersers in the Laack (1991) study used narrow (5-100 m) corridors of brush during 

dispersal. Most of these were along resacas (remnants of former river meanders) and drainage 

ditches. Each disperser avoided areas occupied by adults, and repeatedly returned to one or more 

small, semi-isolated patches of thornscrub during dispersal. The established adult home ranges 

of these same animals did not include these semi-isolated patches. Transient home ranges were 

often farther from the natal range than the animal’s eventual home range. Dispersal from 

LANWR typically involved movements to and beyond the point that scrub habitat became 

scarce, use of transient home ranges centered on small scrub patches within agricultural or 

pasture land, and eventual settling within the source population when a vacancy occurred, or 

when the animal gained enough mass and experience to displace a resident adult. Dispersal was 

generally frustrated and circular – similar to that of pumas (Puma concolor) in urban southern 

California (Beier 1995) and panthers (P. c. coryi) in south Florida (Maehr et al. 2002). 

Dispersers may have moved farther if corridors or even stepping stones of suitable habitat were 

available. Although such dispersal zones are technically “sink habitats” (sites where mortality 

exceeds reproduction), they also serve as areas free of resident adults where some young ocelots 

survive as a pool of non-breeding “floaters” that can be an important stabilizing force in 

population dynamics. 

According to Laack (1991), no disperser successfully joined a population outside of LANWR. 

Subsequent to the thesis of Laack (1991) it was discovered that a male ocelot moved from the 

Willacy County population to the Arroyo Colorado Unit of TPWD where he was photographed 

several times between 2000 and 2003. The Arroyo Colorado Unit is located 18 miles southeast 

of the Yturria Ranch and 5 miles west of LANWR. The male moved back to the Willacy County 

population where he was photographed in 2005, then back to the Arroyo Colorado Unit and 

photographed again on January 16, 2006, and then back to the Willacy County population again 

by March 2006 where he was captured (Tewes et al. 2010, upubl. data). Photographs in 2009 

showed the male was still in the area of the Willacy County population (USFWS 2010, unpubl. 

data). Ocelots from LANWR have been found on the Arroyo Colorado Unit previously; 

therefore this series of records represents the first documentation of an ocelot moving between 

the Willacy and Cameron populations in Texas. However, genetic evidence indicates there is a 

lack of or insufficient gene flow between LANWR and the Willacy-Kenedy populations, and 

between either of these populations and ocelots in Mexico (Janecka 2006) (see Genetics section). 

Although the number of dispersers was small in each study, it appears that ocelots follow the 

typical felid pattern of obligatory male dispersal but that females can either disperse or remain 

philopatric depending on density of adult females and perhaps other factors (Logan and Sweanor 

2001, Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). 

Resacas, rivers, irrigation canals, irrigation drains, natural drainages, shorelines, fencelines, and 

road verges all provide suitable travel corridors for ocelots, especially as density and percent 

cover of thornscrub vegetation increase (Tewes et al. 1995). Where a corridor of thornscrub 

passed through otherwise barren agricultural fields, Tewes et al. (1995) recommended grass-forb 

strips to enhance eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) populations. They also recommended 

managing for wide corridors, dense thornscrub cover, earthen ridges or rows of trees to screen 

corridors from urban developments, retaining vegetation on at least one side of irrigation canals 

and drains, and reduced frequency of prescribed fire on margins of farms and ditches. 
12 

Survival and mortality - Tewes (1986) reported a survival rate of 71% based on 4 mortalities 

during 5,022 ocelot-days of monitoring 12 radio-tagged ocelots. Haines et al. (2005b) estimated 

an annual survival rate at 87% for resident adults and 57% for transient ocelots (post-dispersal 

and before a stable home range is formed), with small and statistically non-significant 

differences between males and females. Laack et al. (2005) estimated 68% annual survival for 

newborn ocelots. 

Collisions with vehicles represent the largest known cause of ocelot mortality (45%) in south 

Texas (Haines et al. 2005b). Aggression and predation by other animals also account for some 

mortality (Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2002, M. Tewes and L. Laack, unpublished data). Poaching 

and hunting ocelots for their skins is still a significant source of mortality in some countries 

(Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). At her study site, which included the Chamela-Cuixmala 

Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico, Fernandez (2002) noted that 3 of 25 ocelots captured were 

presumably illegally killed as she only found collars that had been cut off the cats. 

Competition with other carnivores - In his comments on the draft recovery plan in 1987, H. 

Quigley observed “The Draft lists the bobcat as both a predator of, and competitor with, the 

ocelot (p. 16). In the proposed research, why not experiment with a brief removal of bobcats 

from small areas and monitor the response (if any) in the ocelot population. It’s highly unlikely 

that this would have a negative effect on ocelots in the removal area” (USFWS 1990). Prior to 

the completion of the recovery plan, no direct evidence of competition with or predation on the 

ocelot had been published. Since Quigley’s suggestion, there has not been an experimental look 

into meso-predator competition with the ocelot. Emmons (1987) suggested that the ocelot is “in 

competition for...prey with many snakes, raptors, and other small Carnivora of several families,” 

however. Konecny (1989) suggested that the ocelot in Belize avoided competition with 

jaguarundi, margay, and tayra through temporal separation and the utilization of different prey. 

This latter observation seems to be the pattern among small carnivores in the Serengeti (Waser 

1980), large carnivores in south Florida (Maehr 1997), and predators in Poland and Belarus 

(Jedrzejewska and Jedrzejewski 1998). Elsewhere, measurable competitive interactions have 

been observed between tiger and leopard (Panthera pardus) in Nepal (Seidensticker et al. 1990), 

and between grey fox (Dusicyon griseus) and culpeo fox (Dusicyon culpaeus) in Chile (Creel et 

al. 2001). However, in different settings many of these same carnivore assemblages can exhibit 

a lack of measurable competitive interactions (Johnson et al. 1996). 

Emmons’ (1987) observation notwithstanding, other studies that have examined ocelot food 

habits relative to sympatric small and medium-sized carnivores suggest that direct competition 

with the ocelot is minimal (Brisbal 1986, Konecny 1989, Sunquist et al. 1989). Due to its similar 

size, relatively aggressive nature, and overlapping distribution, the bobcat (Lynx rufus), which 

does not occur in the tropical systems referenced above, is most likely to compete with the ocelot 

for food and space in Texas and northern Mexico. Regardless, the current ecological separation 

may reflect past competition (Connell 1980). 

Competition between the ocelot and the bobcat may be minimal because the ocelot is more of a 

habitat specialist than the bobcat, and it lives in areas of dense cover and high prey populations 

(Sunquist 2002). However, Tewes and colleagues have examined several scats and found that 
13 

ocelot and bobcat diets were similar – both consumed primarily cottontails and rodents, with 

about 30% of food items represented by birds (M. Tewes, Texas A&M at Kingsville, unpubl. 

data). Perhaps spatial separation and habitat preferences permit such dietary overlap from 

becoming interference competition. Nonetheless, studies that are targeted at such relationships 

are warranted. A better understanding of the interactions between the ocelot and competitors 

will be important in the evaluation of habitat management actions targeted at improving 

landscape conditions and recovery potential for the species. 

Genetics - Small and declining populations, such as the ocelot in Texas, face a variety of genetic 

challenges. Maintaining overall genetic variability of small populations is vital for persistence, 

as is preserving natural genetic differentiation of declining populations relative to other 

populations of the same species. Heterozygosity levels, allelic diversity, gene flow, level of 

inbreeding, and census and effective population size (Ne), are all important to estimate in 

managing declining populations. In a phylogeographic context, managers of small populations 

may need to determine evolutionary significant units (ESUs) and management units (MUs) 

(Moritz 1994). An ESU is a group that can be thought of as a subspecies-level category and 

refers to a population that is evolving (based on genetic data) on a unique trajectory relative to 

other populations of the same species; a MU refers to populations that should be managed as an 

independent interbreeding group and is usually a smaller subdivision than ESU. 

From an evolutionary perspective, resolving the correct taxonomy and genetic lineages for 

species or populations that are in decline are critical to selecting the most effective management 

strategy. Genetic diversity estimates are more meaningful when compared to diversity of closely 

related populations and species. Evolutionary forces such as migration (a potentially strong 

force for regenerating genetic diversity) can be an important factor in recovering populations. 

From a genetic perspective, migration can be estimated by examining gene flow among 

populations. Genetic data on the ocelot are limited to four studies: a species-wide study (Eizirik 

et al. 1998), one using ocelots in captivity (Newman et al. 1985), and two studies in Texas and 

northern Mexico (Walker 1997, Janecka 2006). 

Species-wide, there are two variable regions and one conserved region contained within the 

mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Control Region (CR). The CR is a useful genetic 

marker to resolve evolutionary lineages within a species. Human variable sequence 1 (HVS-1) is 

the variable region on the 5’ portion of the CR, is 600-1000 base pairs in length (including an 81 

base pair minisatellite-like repeat, named RS2 for “Repetitive Sequence 2”) and was utilized in a 

species-wide ocelot genetic study. DNA sequencing was performed on the HVS-1 region for 

ocelots from throughout their range excluding northern Mexico and southern Texas (Eizirik et al. 

1998). HVS-1 sequences were generated for 39 ocelots originating from Brazil to southern 

Mexico and a total of 24 unique sequences (haplotypes) were found. Haplotypes were shared 

only among ocelots from nearby geographic regions. A phylogenetic analysis of these 24 

sequences, using several phylogenetic approaches, revealed 4 phylogeographic groups: 1) 

southern South America including Brazil (south of the Amazon River) and Bolivia; 2) northnorthwest South America including Brazil (north of the Amazon River), Venezuela, Trinidad and 

Panama; 3) north-northeast South America including French Guyana and northern Brazil; and 4) 

Central America from southern Mexico to northern Panama. Janecka (2006) compared mtDNA 

control region sequences from nine ocelots in Texas and Tamaulipas to sequences derived by 
14 

Eizirik et al. (1998) from ocelots in southern Mexico, Central America, and South America. The 

four haplotypes found in the Texas-Tamaulipas ocelot (L. p. albescens) as a group were most 

closely aligned with a haplotype from Nicaragua, followed by haplotypes from southern Mexico 

and Guatemala. 

The ocelot exhibits high CR genetic variability compared to all other mammalian species 

suggesting a long evolutionary history. This is consistent with previous analyses of captive 

ocelots that showed high genetic variability based on protein electrophoresis (Newman et al. 

1985). A major evolutionary split was observed at the Amazon River, which apparently 

separates southern South America and north-northwest South America from Central America 

and north-northeast South America. Another major split was found within northern South 

America resulting in four distinct geographic regions. High levels of subdivision were found 

between the four geographic regions as shown by high FST values (a statistic to indicate levels of 

subdivision among populations, an FST of 1 equals complete subdivision or no gene flow, an FST

of zero means complete panmixia) and few estimated migrants. The inferred direction of 

historical colonization was south to north suggesting that Central America was the most recent 

area of colonization for the ocelots studied by Eizirik et al. (1998). 

The implication of this study for ocelot conservation is the indication of four evolutionary 

significant units (ESUs, Ryder 1986). As suggested by Eizirik et al. (1998), the Central 

American and southern South American group of ocelots fulfills the major requirement for ESU 

designation, that of reciprocal monophyly of mtDNA lineages (Moritz 1994), and should be 

managed as such. To be conservative, the two groups of northern South American ocelots could 

provisionally be considered separate ESUs (for a total of 4 ESUs) although additional samples 

are required to improve the understanding of population structure in that region. 

Nuclear and mtDNA markers were also examined to determine if genetic differentiation is 

present in ocelots from northern Mexico and southern Texas (Walker 1997, Janecka 2006). 

Target populations included: 1) LANWR in Cameron County; 2) Willacy County including 

three contiguous ranches; and 3) northern Mexico including four private ranches in Tamaulipas 

and Vera Cruz, Mexico. 

Ten felid nuclear microsatellite markers (highly polymorphic nuclear DNA loci, informative to 

resolve population-level subdivisions and even distinguish individual ocelots), and 2 regions of 

mtDNA, a portion of the CR and the Cytochrome B (cytb) gene, were genotyped in 53 ocelots 

from the 3 populations (Walker 1997). The distribution of samples was 27 from LANWR, 25 

from Willacy, and 18 from Mexico. Janecka (2006) expanded on Walker's analyses to include 

15 microsatellite loci and 113 samples from the 3 populations (47 from LANWR, 30 from 

Willacy and 18 from Mexico). Differing levels of genetic variation and genetic subdivision were 

found in all datasets with Texas populations containing less variation than Mexico. Because 

ocelot habitat in the U.S. has experienced range reduction and fragmentation, low variability is 

expected within the Texas populations. 

Microsatellite markers generated an average of 2.8 alleles in LANWR, 3.5 alleles in Willacy, and 

6.1 alleles in Mexico. Private alleles found across all 10 loci included 2 in LANWR, 3 in 

Willacy, and 30 in Mexico. Mean heterozygosity followed the same pattern with 0.369 in 
15 

LANWR, 0.550 in Willacy, and 0.698 in Mexico. Tests for subdivision indicated greatest 

differentiation between LANWR and Mexico, moderate differentiation between LANWR and 

Willacy, and the lowest differentiation between Willacy and Mexico. No interbreeding was 

detected among the three populations. Migration rates among populations were estimated by 

Walker (1997) using three algorithms (FST, RhoST and private alleles), all of which estimate 

migration based on alleles in common among populations based on FIS estimates (Mexico = 

0.118), Willacy = -0.062, LANWR = -0.063). Haplotype diversity declined from 0.673 in 

historic Texas populations (1890-1956) to 0.536 by 1984 and 0.000 in 2005 for Willacy-Kenedy 

(Janecka 2006). Cameron was already at 0.000 by 1986. The current effective breeding sizes of 

these populations are 5.9 to 14.4 breeders in Cameron and 2.4 to 3.6 breeders in WillacyKenedy. It is likely ocelots in the U.S. will begin to manifest problems associated with 

inbreeding and genetic erosion (Janecka 2006). In theory, a migration rate of 1 ocelot per 

generation is enough to prevent the 2 populations from diverging completely, whereas, a rate of 

10 or more per generation is enough for the 2 populations to appear panmictic, meaning an 

appearance of random mating between the 2 populations (Mills and Allendorf 1996). Estimated 

migration rates were: 1) LANWR versus Mexico (0.65, 0.75, 0.47 respectively – for the 3 

estimators); 2) LANWR versus Willacy (1.45, 1.47, 0.30 respectively); and 3) Willacy versus 

Mexico (2.01, 1.29, 0.83 respectively). The private alleles method did not yield significant 

migration rates (all estimates were less than one). Migration rates barely above “one” were 

detected between Willacy and the two other populations using the FST and RhoST estimators. 

Phylogenetic relationships (the evolutionary history of a group of organisms) confirmed 

clustering of individuals by population of origin, with indication of historical connection 

between Willacy and Mexico. Janecka (2006) used an FST test for population differentiation and 

found similar results, with the most differentiation between LANWR and Mexico (0.351) and the 

least differentiation between Willacy and Mexico (0.139). Janecka (2006) also found that 

between 1998 and 2005, the heterozygosity of the Willacy-Kenedy population declined 12%. 

Between 1989 and 2001, the heterozygosity of the Cameron population declined 23.3%. The 

current loss of genetic variation in the Cameron population is 3.5% per generation. 

The mtDNA CR sequence for this study was the 3’ variable region, which included the repetitive 

sequence RS3, and was largely uninformative among these three Texas and Mexico ocelot 

populations. However, the LANWR population is nearly fixed in repeat length, for the RS3 

repeat, indicating a possible bottleneck event in the history of that population. The cyt b gene 

sequence analysis revealed two unique haplotypes, A and B. Both haplotypes occurred in 

Mexico and Willacy, whereas, LANWR was fixed for the A haplotype. An analysis of 

molecular variance (AMOVA) indicated significant subdivision between LANWR and both 

Mexico and Willacy. Estimates of migrants using cyt b haplotypes were effectively none 

between LANWR and both Mexico and Willacy with 35 migrants estimated between Mexico 

and Willacy. This is indicative of historical connection between Mexico and Willacy. The fact 

that no connection is found between Mexico and LANWR could be an artifact resulting from 

LANWR’s isolation, population reduction and subsequent loss of alleles (thus a loss of shared 

alleles which affects migration estimates). There are several factors that may explain why little 

to no migration was detected using microsatellite data, and a reasonably high migration rate 

(between Willacy and Mexico) was detected from cyt b data. The cyt b gene evolves at a much 

slower rate than microsatellite regions and is therefore better at resolving older historical events, 

whereas microsatellites can resolve more recent events. Assuming this is the case, a reasonable 
16 

conclusion is that the Mexico and Willacy populations were connected historically, but that this 

connection has recently been lost. Alternately, the high estimate of 35 migrants between Mexico 

and Willacy may be due to bias of having only 2 cyt b haplotypes. 

This study indicates closer genetic relatedness between Willacy and Mexico, than between 

LANWR and either Willacy or Mexico. Walker (1997) suggested that LANWR and Willacy 

became isolated from ocelots in Mexico and from each other, and both have lost genetic 

variation. The LANWR population has probably undergone a more severe bottleneck event 

causing a more extensive reduction in genetic variation compared to the Willacy population. 

Because the Willacy population has retained more genetic variation, it has retained evidence of 

its historical connection with Mexico (as evidenced by the estimated migration rate). The 

LANWR population, having lost more genetic variation, has by chance lost evidence of its 

historical connection with Mexico. Thus, the Texas populations are not differentiated from 

Mexico at the level of being distinct ESUs. Instead, as suggested by Walker (1997), for 

conservation purposes the two Texas populations should be considered separate MUs (Moritz 

1994). 

Because Eizirik et al. (1998) did not include individuals from the northern Mexico and southern 

Texas regions, and different portions of the CR were used for each study, it is unknown if the 

Texas and northern Mexico ocelots would be most closely related to the Central American ESU. 

Microsatellite DNA has been collected for the species-wide ocelot samples (E. Eizirik, personal 

communication), but not yet analyzed. These data would be particularly valuable to the ocelot 

recovery effort because microsatellite DNA data are also available for the southern 

Texas/northern Mexico ocelots, and would allow a direct comparison among samples from both 

studies. 

Population Viability Analyses for the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot 

Prior to 2004, no viability analysis had been conducted for the U.S. ocelot population. The 

Population Viability Analysis (PVA) workshop conducted in conjunction with the April 2004 

meeting of the Technical Subcommittee suggested a number of challenges facing the species in 

Texas (Appendix IV). The ocelot in south Texas appears to be at considerable risk of extinction 

through intrinsic, stochastic fluctuations in demographic rates that are exacerbated by human 

activity, especially road construction, in ocelot habitat. The proportion of adult females 

successfully producing a litter in a given year and additional mortality caused by vehicles are 

primary factors in determining future population growth. Range increase through habitat 

improvements may facilitate ocelot population growth and reduced extinction risk. Connecting 

small, disjunct ocelot populations may provide an additional buffer against extinction risk if: 1) 

subpopulations are increased in size in a way that approaches viability in the absence of 

connectivity; 2) dispersal rates – whether natural or artificial – are sufficiently high to maintain a 

functioning metapopulation; and 3) anthropogenic sources of mortality are reduced to acceptable 

levels. As few as one or two translocated females every two years may be enough to compensate 

for the destabilizing effect of stochastic demography operating on this small population. 

However, it is important that a better understanding of ocelot population size in Tamaulipas be 

obtained to avoid negative demographic consequences on the source population. Future research 

should investigate the influences of continued habitat loss in Texas, the impacts of epizootics, 
17 

and the role of density-dependent survival as population size changes. Haines et al. (2005a) used 

Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) to evaluate four recovery strategies for the 

Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot and concluded that protection and restoration of habitat had the greatest 

positive impact on predicted population persistence, followed by linking the two known breeding 

populations and reduction of road mortality, with supplementation from Tamualipas the least 

effective strategy. A 2006 PVA predicted a 33% probability that ocelots in southern Texas 

would become extinct within 50 years under current conditions (Haines et al. 2006). 

The first ocelot recovery plan (USFWS 1990) recommended some major demography-related 

activities for ocelot recovery, namely “determining the precise population sizes and habitat sizes 

required for viability and the necessary spatial arrangement of habitat, and determining the 

impact of disease and other factors on the population; increasing ocelot numbers in Texas, in part 

by protecting at least 20,000 hectares of prime ocelot habitat in Texas (either in a single block or 

continuous blocks connected by corridors).” The first goal reflected the optimism of the late 

1980s about the ability of PVA and PHVA to provide “precise population sizes and habitat 

sizes” needed for viability. Since 1990, initial exuberance for these tools has been replaced by 

the view that PVA and PHVA are useful mostly to rank and compare alternative scenarios 

(Beissinger and Westphal 1998, Ludwig 1999). Another important use of PHVA is to use 

sensitivity analysis to identify which natural history attributes (e.g., survival rate of a particular 

age class) and environmental attributes (e.g., lack of corridors) are the crucial determinants of 

viability. 

Habitat Characteristics and Ecosystem 

Habitat - The ocelot uses a wide range of habitats throughout its range in the Western 

Hemisphere (Tewes and Schmidly 1987). Despite this, the species does not appear to be a 

habitat generalist. Ocelot spatial patterns are strongly linked to dense cover or vegetation, 

suggesting it uses a fairly narrow range of microhabitats (Emmons 1988, Horne 1998). 

In Venezuela, ocelots used palm savanna, sandhills, shrub woodlands, and deciduous or gallery 

forest (Mondolfi 1986, Ludlow and Sunquist 1987, Sunquist et al. 1989). During diurnal resting 

periods, ocelots were primarily found in gallery forest. During the night, ocelots used the 

sandhills more than the diurnal periods, but still predominately occupied the gallery forest. 

Emmons (1987) found that ocelots in Peru generally avoided open habitats during the day, but 

sometimes foraged in them at night. Three ocelots used primarily forest or woody communities 

in Belize (Konecny 1989). A study of three females in the Pantanal Region of Brazil found them 

primarily in semi-deciduous forest with lesser use of marsh, riverine forest, and grassland 

(Crawshaw and Quigley 1989). 

Lack of suitable habitat has been cited as an important reason for the endangered status of the 

ocelot in the U.S. (Tewes and Everett 1986, Tewes and Miller 1987). In south Texas, the species 

occurs predominantly in dense thornscrub communities (Navarro-Lopez 1985, Tewes 1986, 

Laack 1991). Over 95% of this habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been altered for 

agricultural and urban development (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988). Tewes and Everett (1986) 

found <1% of south Texas supported the extremely dense thornscrub used by ocelots. 
18 

Tewes (1986) found that core areas of ocelot home ranges contained more thornscrub than 

peripheral areas of their home ranges on LANWR in southern Texas. Laack (1991) also found 

ocelot use of dense thornscrub on this study site. Caso (1994) found ocelots used primarily 

forest or woody communities in Tamaulipas, Mexico, and used the open pastures much less 

often. The pastures that were seldom used by ocelots supported little woody cover and were 

dominated by bunchgrasses (e.g., guinea grass, Panicum maximum). Jackson et al. (2005) 

suggested that the ocelot in Texas prefers closed canopy over other land cover types, but that 

areas used by this species tended to consist of more patches with greater edge. 

South Texas ocelots apparently prefer shrub communities with >95% canopy cover and avoid 

areas with intermediate (50-75%) to no canopy cover (Horne 1998). Ocelots did not prefer or 

avoid communities with 75-95% canopy cover. Other microhabitat features important to ocelots 

appear to be canopy height (>2.4 m) and vertical cover (89% visual obscurity at 1-2 m). Ground 

cover at locations used by ocelots was characterized by a high percentage of coarse woody debris 

(50%) and very little herbaceous ground cover (3%), both consequences of the dense woody 

canopy (Horne 1998). 

Shindle and Tewes (1998) quantified species composition of shrubs in three plant communities 

used by ocelots. Two of these communities occurred in southern Texas and another was located 

in northeastern Mexico (Caso 1994). Within the dense thornscrub communities used by ocelots, 

45 woody species were found at the LANWR in Cameron County and 28 woody species on the 

San Francisco Ranch in Willacy County (Shindle and Tewes 1998). The dominant species were 

granjeno (Celtis pallida), crucita (Eupatorium odoratum), Berlandier fiddlewood (Citharexylum 

berlandieri), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and desert olive (Forestiera angustifolia) at 

LANWR, and honey mesquite and snake-eyes (Phaulothamnus spinescens) contributed >50% of 

the total relative cover in Willacy County. 

Little is known about ocelot habitat use in Arizona and Sonora; however, Lopez Gonzalez et al. 

(2003) found that 27 of the 36 records (75%) of ocelots in Sonora were associated with tropical 

or subtropical habitat, namely subtropical thornscrub, tropical deciduous forest, and tropical 

thornscrub. Only males (11.1% of the total records) were recorded in temperate oak and pineoak woodland. 

Habitat restoration - Ocelots will use narrow strips of shrub or forests for travel and dispersal 

(Ludlow and Sunquist 1987, Caso 1994, Tewes et al. 1995). Such corridors can provide critical 

landscape connectivity, thus they are important aspects of ocelot conservation (Tewes et al. 

1995, Tewes and Blanton 1998). Although transportation corridors represent a significant 

danger, wildlife underpasses at the intersections of roads and linear habitat features used by 

ocelots can mitigate potential losses (Tewes and Hughes 2001). 

Where habitat is degraded and fragmented, as in south Texas, restoration is critical to recovery of 

the ocelot. The success of ocelot habitat restoration is likely a product of an area’s proximity to 

other ocelot populations, the presence of travel corridors, and its revegetation potential. Ocelots 

and their habitat are associated with certain soil types in southern Texas (Harveson et al. 2004). 

Camargo, Laredo, Olmito, and Point Isabel soil series support habitats that have been used by 

ocelots in greater proportion than they were available (Harveson et al. 2004). This ocelot/soil 
19 

relationship is probably a consequence of ocelot preference of dense thornscrub cover that 

appears more frequently on these soil series (Harveson et al. 2004). Planning for revegetation 

must consider soil types and conditions to properly restore habitat. Soil maps should be useful in 

identifying potential habitat restoration zones. The selection of specific restoration areas should 

be a function of their potential to serve as occupied breeding habitat and travel corridors that link 

currently disjunct tracts of occupied or potential habitat. The re-establishment of thornscrub 

habitat in appropriate locations and spatial configurations will facilitate ocelot colonization. 

Some revegetation techniques have been examined for restoring ocelot habitat, although much 

information is needed to maximize their efficiency and ultimate use by ocelots. Young and 

Tewes (1994) evaluated tree shelters, fertilizer, tree branch trimming, and elimination of 

herbaceous growth to increase and enhance growth of woody seedlings. They concluded that 

fertilizer, clipping, and weeding did not impact seedling growth or survival. Tree shelters 

significantly increased survival and growth of tree seedlings, but may not be economically 

feasible (Young and Tewes 1994). Identification of ocelot cover types, mapping of important 

corridors and habitat patches, and development of restoration blueprints for the ocelot can be 

facilitated by the application of remote sensing (e.g., satellite imagery) and geographic 

information systems (Anderson et al. 1997, Tewes et al. 1999). Such technology would also be 

helpful in identifying the most likely pathways of dispersal and potential restoration zones 

needed to link disjunct populations.

Private lands - Much of the area required to provide habitat for viable ocelot populations in 

Texas and Mexico, and to a lesser extent in Arizona, occurs on private ranches. Landowner 

anxiety over the implications of having an endangered species on their land may prevent 

adequate cooperation from this key group of stakeholders. Genho et al. (2003) described the 

early human settlement patterns in southern Texas and the development of ranching in this area. 

The region is becoming increasingly urban (Figure 5). Although agriculture is in part a cause of 

the decline of the ocelot in North America, it is the modern habitats associated with ranches that 

account for most of the species’ current and potential range. South Texas is bordered on the 

north and on the south by regions of rapid human population growth (Fulbright and Bryant 

2003). To the north, the population of the San Antonio area grew 16% from 1990 to 2000 with 

an estimated population of over 1.5 million people in 1995. The Lower Rio Grande Valley, 

location of the primary ocelot population in the U.S., has the poorest and most rapidly growing 

border population of humans in the U.S. (Fulbright and Bryant 2003). The expanding human 

population, poverty, and high unemployment represent increasing threats to ocelot habitat and 

ultimate recovery (Figure 6). 

The agricultural economy that has supported large south Texas ranches, and that formerly 

supported the biodiversity of the area, is changing (Potts 2003). These changes, including the 

subdivision or liquidation of existing ownership patterns, represent challenges to ocelot recovery 

(Wilkins et al. 2000). Potts (2003) outlined three strategies that landowners use to help increase 

the profitability of their ranches and reduce the chances that they will have to sell their ranches 

for economic or tax reasons. The first strategy emphasizes the private markets currently 

operating for wildlife in southern Texas. Hunting and outdoor recreation potentially contribute 

more to land value than agriculture or urban development in many south Texas counties 

(Fulbright and Bryant 2002). The demand for beef has declined and traditional sources of 
20 

revenue from ranches have been declining or inconsistent since 1980 (Ryne 1998). However, the 

market for both consumptive and nonconsumptive use of natural resources has grown over the 

last decade, with recreational uses of private lands providing more value to landowners than 

cattle ranching alone (Ryne 1998). Undoubtedly, many ranches in Texas would have been 

subdivided and sold if not for hunting income. This reality is reflected in area land appraisals 

that value hunting uses above agricultural uses (Potts 2003). 

Non-consumptive resource use could be beneficial to the ocelot’s future. Ecotourism and birdwatching are growing markets in southern Texas and Arizona. Eubanks and Stoll (1999) found 

that a person spent an average of $117 per day while participating in the Rio Grande Valley 

Birding Festival. Economic incentives for private landowners to maintain ocelot habitat on their 

land, and the promotion of tourist-related activities, could promote recovery of the species. Safe 

harbor agreements (USFWS 1997a) may provide the security umbrella and incentives sought by 

private landowners that enable proactive conservation of the ocelot in the U.S. 

The second strategy for private lands conservation is government incentives, particularly those 

for habitat conservation provided by the Farm Bill (Potts 2003). These funds could greatly 

complement consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife markets. 

The third strategy would promote conservation easements and tax incentives that allow 

landowners to retain ownership and keep the habitat intact without fragmentation (Fulbright and 

Bryant 2003). One of the primary threats to the continuation of large family ranches in the U.S. 

is the transfer of property to subsequent generations. Death of a landowner can produce estate 

taxes that result in the heirs selling property to pay inheritance taxes. Often, the end result is 

fragmentation of the initial large property into several smaller units with a mosaic of land uses 

that can have negative effects on biodiversity. Ocelots in the Rio Grande Valley experience 

several problems that ultimately relate to recent fragmentation events. 

Reasons for Listing/Threats 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA outlines five factors to consider when a species is a candidate for 

listing as threatened or endangered. The following analysis considers these factors in 

contributing to the endangered status of the ocelot. Below, we address threats throughout the 

species range but focus upon the northern units in the borderlands where we have the most 

information. Additional information about threats to the ocelot south of the United States is 

provided in Appendix 3. 

Factor A - The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range. 

The final rule listing the ocelot as endangered in the U.S. (47 FR 31670, July 21, 1982) stated 

that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range 

poses the greatest threat to the survival of the ocelot in the U.S. The ocelot’s range and 

distribution in the U.S. have been drastically reduced in the last two centuries. In the mid-1800s 

ocelots occurred from the Red River in Arkansas south through central and eastern Texas to the 

Rio Grande (Hall 1981; Navarro et al. 1993). Known ocelot distribution in the U.S. is limited to 

just a few counties in southernmost Texas (Navarro-Lopez 1985; Tewes and Everett 1986; Laack 
21 

1991; Walker 1997; Haines et al. 2006) and two counties in Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 2010, unpubl. data). 

Loss of ocelot habitat in the U.S. has been extensive. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, 

over 95% of the dense thornscrub habitat that supports the ocelot has been altered for agricultural 

and urban development (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988). In Cameron County, 91% of native 

woodlands were lost during the mid-1900s, primarily for agricultural use (Tremblay et al. 2005). 

Currently, rapid population growth in the region is causing agricultural land to be converted to 

more urban development resulting in land and habitat fragmentation (Wilkins et al. 2000). The 

human population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley increased 39.8% from 1990 to 2000, 

compared to an increase of 22.8% in Texas and 13.2% in the U.S. during the same period 

(Murdock et al. 2002). Population levels in the Lower Rio Grande Valley are projected to 

increase 130.1 – 181.1% from 2000 to 2040 (Murdock et al. 2002). 

Throughout its range, the ocelot has declined in most areas because of illegal hunting and habitat 

loss (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Currently, habitat loss is probably replacing hunting as the 

major threat (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Habitat alteration, particularly from deforestation, 

agriculture, and ranching, has reduced and fragmented ocelot habitat (Ceballos and Garcia 1995, 

Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2003). In Central America, less than half of the region retains its original 

forest cover (Conservation International 2004). 

Factor B - Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

In the 1960s and early 1970s, ocelot pelts were heavily exploited while some ocelots were 

imported for the pet trade. Ocelot imports peaked in the U.S. in 1970, with 140,000 skins 

documented by U.S. Customs (McMahan 1986). Between 1967 and 1973 the commercial export 

of wildlife was outlawed from many countries in Central and South America (Mann and 

Plummer 1995). Following these prohibitions, the commercial trade in ocelot skins dropped 

significantly, and continues to decline (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Many European countries 

banned the import of ocelot skins in 1986. Also, the ocelot was included on Appendix I of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora during 1989, 

an action that outlawed international commerce in skins and live animals (Sunquist and Sunquist 

2002). However, implementation of these laws and regulations is not universal. Ocelots are still 

hunted for their skins, and furs appear regularly in local markets in some countries (Sunquist and 

Sunquist 2002). Moreover, continued subsistence hunting and poaching of the ocelot are causes 

of decline or impediments to population recovery (Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2003, Villa Meza et al. 

2002, Ceballos and Garcia 1995). 

In the U.S., predator control and fur trapping could be a significant source of mortality, and is 

likely under-reported by trappers. Tewes and Everett (1986) recommended that lethal traps be 

prohibited in ocelot habitat and daily trap checks should be mandated to reduce deaths and 

injuries in traps. They also recommended selective methods of predator control, and educating 

hunters not to shoot ocelots. It is not clear whether these recommendations have been 

implemented since 1986. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has no special restrictions 

regarding trapping for furbearing animals in or near areas occupied by the ocelot. In Arizona, fur 
22 

trapping is prohibited on public lands (57% of the state) as well as in most areas where ocelots 

are most likely to occur. 

The USFWS completed a section 7 consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Animal Damage Control (ADC; now Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services [APHIS]) 

program regarding the ocelot in 1997 (Starnes 1997), and concluded that after implementing 

ocelot-protective practices, Wildlife Services’ use of leg-hold traps, snares, and M-44s in south 

Texas was unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Although ocelots were 

regularly taken before the species was listed, no take has been documented from the ADC 

program since 1983. It is unclear from the biological opinion whether any cats were taken 

between 1967 and 1983. Major provisions of the protective practices by ADC included using 

only shooting and cage traps for control of predators in occupied ocelot habitat, and prohibition 

of neck snares or leg-hold traps larger than #3 within three miles of occupied territories and 

adjacent travel corridors. The USFWS, in its Conservation Recommendations, asked that ADC 

personnel alert landowners with whom it conducts control activities of the need to limit lethal 

activities within ocelot habitat, and that ADC report any non-ADC control activities that fail to 

comply with state or Federal laws to law enforcement agents. 

Factor C - Disease or predation. 

Disease can have dramatic impacts on wild populations including those of wild cat species (May 

1988, Roelke-Parker et al. 1996). Some of these species are not only endangered, but they serve 

as “bioaccumulators” at the top of food chains and can be indicators of ecosystem health 

(Munson and Karesh 2002). Population and ecosystem trends can be derived by studying 

individuals. For the ocelot this could be done by the opportunistic collection of samples during 

routine management activities or field studies (Karesh and Cook 1995). Anesthetized animals 

can easily have blood, hair and fecal samples taken for immediate analysis or archived for future 

study (Munson and Karesh 2002). Such data are important in understanding major mortality 

events and in examining long term trends in disease and condition. 

There are limited data regarding disease in the ocelot, although several diseases and parasites 

have been documented. Notoedric mange (Notoedres cati) may have killed at least one ocelot in 

south Texas, and has the potential to cause a mange epizootic in this small population (Pence et 

al. 1995). Of the 13 ocelots sampled by Mercer et al. (1988), 6 had Hepatozoon in the blood, 3 

had Cytauxzoon in their red blood cells, and all were infested with fleas (Pulex sp.) and dog ticks 

(Dermacentor variabilis). An unreported number also had Amblyomma ticks. Because Mercer 

et al. (1988) reported that all ocelots were in “good physical condition,” the impact of these 

parasites on health and survival is not clear. The tapeworm (Taenia taeniaeformis) also occurs in 

ocelots (USFWS 1990). Pence et al. (2003) reported helminths in 100% of 15 adult road-killed 

ocelots, with low abundances of potentially pathogenic species. Although a single heartworm 

(Dirofilaria imitis) infection may have contributed to the death of one ocelot, Pence et al. (2003) 

concluded that helminths in general were probably of little significance to the population. 

Bobcats, feral cats, coyotes, and raccoons provide potential reservoirs for most diseases to which 

ocelots are susceptible. 
23 

Based on blood samples from 20 ocelots, hair samples from 32 ocelots, and tissue samples from 

4 ocelots, Mora et al. (2000) reported low concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

mercury, and DDE (dichloro-diphenyldichloro-ethylene). They concluded that these 

environmental toxins “currently do not pose any threat to health or survival of the ocelot.”

The studies above, while important, have done little to assess the potential for disease and 

contaminants to affect the ocelot at the population scale. As habitat becomes more fragmented 

and denatured, interactions with domestic cats, dogs and livestock increase while prey 

populations and the ability to understand the dynamics of disease decline. Establishing a 

baseline of “normal” disease dynamics should be part of the basic foundation of ocelot 

conservation and management. A possible model for the development of such a database can be 

found in the Jaguar Health Program Manual (Deem and Karesh 2005). This document outlines 

procedures that must occur in both the field and the laboratory for proper sampling and 

diagnoses. The protocol in this document would: 1) provide standardized methods to assess the 

overall health of ocelots in the wild; 2) allow the determination of disease threats (e.g., infectious 

diseases - intraspecific and conspecific via domestic animals, livestock, other free-ranging felids, 

prey) and indirect threats (e.g., habitat fragmentation and degradation that may increase disease 

risks); and 3) facilitate recommendations for the long-term management and conservation of the 

ocelot. 

Artois and Remond (1994) suggested why disease-monitoring in wild populations deserves more 

emphasis in field studies: 

1. Disease can have a devastating impact on small populations. A proper disease 

monitoring program for small populations allows the best chance for successful 

intervention. 

2. Even for larger populations, disease can be a major environmental influence. 

Infectious disease can affect populations in a manner independent of host density such 

that sparse and widely dispersed populations are nonetheless at risk. 

3. Biological samples promote clinical and ecological knowledge of the circulation of 

pathogens. 

Aggression and predation by other animals also account for some ocelot mortality. Ocelots were 

killed by other ocelots (2), domestic dogs (3), coyotes (1), unknown mammals (2), and a 

diamondback rattlesnake (1) (M. Tewes and L. Laack, unpublished data). The remains of two 

ocelots were found in ponds occupied by American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis). 

Pumas killed three radio-collared ocelots (one male and two females) between 1994 and 2001 in 

the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve (Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2002). 

Factor D - The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. 

The ocelot and some of its habitat is protected by the ESA in the United States. In Texas, most 

of the remaining ocelot habitat is on private lands. Due to landowner anxiety about the potential 

implications of having an endangered species on their property, much of the remaining habitat 

has not been surveyed. It is also mostly unprotected from development. In Arizona, 

Commission Order 14, an active law under Title 17, prohibits the take of ocelots. Arizona Game 
24 

and Fish Department regulation, R12-4-404, regarding the taking of live wildlife under a hunting 

or fishing license, prohibits live possession of ocelots and other species. In addition, the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department has authority over scientific collection permits, and can approve, 

modify, or deny permit applications for ocelot research. In Mexico, although the ocelot was 

formerly an important game species, hunting was banned in 1986 and now is considered 

endangered by Mexican Law (NOM-059-ECOL-2001)(Lopez Gonzalez et al. 2003, Caso 1994). 

Illegal hunting of the species appears to continue in many rural areas of Mexico. 

Throughout Central and South America, poverty, ineffective law enforcement, and lack of 

incentives that support conservation, are root causes of poaching, logging, and human 

encroachment that threaten the ocelot in many parts of its range (Conservation International 

2004). Hunting is still allowed in Peru, in addition to Ecuador, El Salvador, and Guyana offering 

no legal protection for the ocelot (Fuller et al. 1987). 

The U.S. has little authority to implement actions needed to recover species outside its borders, 

especially when recovery requires the employment of laws and regulations. In many of the 

foreign countries in the range of the ocelot, key threats include the killing of ocelots and 

destruction of their habitat. The powers that the USFWS can employ in this regard are limited to 

prohibiting unauthorized importation of listed species into the U.S., prohibiting persons subject 

to U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in commercial transportation or sale of listed species in 

foreign commerce, and assisting foreign entities with education, outreach, and other aspects of 

conservation through our authorities in section 8 of the ESA. The “take” prohibitions of section 

9 of the ESA only apply within the U.S., within the territorial seas of the U.S., and on the high 

seas. They do not apply in the foreign countries where the majority of ocelots are actually found. 

Section 7 of the ESA, which provides for all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry 

out programs for the conservation of the species, and to insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species or adversely modify its critical habitat, is the primary tool within the ESA to address 

conflict with development or construction. The USFWS has no section 7 authority outside the 

boundaries of the U.S. Within the U.S., section 7 authority has been waived in a specific 

instance regarding threats to the jaguar and construction of the border barrier pursuant to the 

Real ID Act (P.L. 109-13; for more details see below in Factor E). 

Factor E - Other natural or anthropogenic factors affecting its continued existence. 

Roads – Roads have two documented impacts, and a third potential impact, on ocelot 

populations. First, collisions with motor vehicles in Texas appear to be the leading cause of 

known ocelot mortality (Tewes 1986, Tuovila 1999) and accounted for 45% of deaths of 80 

radio-tagged ocelots (Haines et al. 2005b) between 1983 and 2002. Twenty-six of 61 ocelot 

deaths between 1983 and 2004 were caused by vehicle collisions (Laack and Tewes unpublished 

data) in Texas. While some underpasses and culverts have been installed for ocelots in Texas, 

more are needed and correct placement is critical for them to be used by ocelots as travel 

corridors (Tuovila 1999, Cain 1999). Second, roads can decrease the probability of successful 

dispersal between patches of suitable habitat, thus increasing demographic and genetic isolation 

of populations. Third, to the extent that ocelots might avoid areas of high road density, some 

otherwise suitable habitats may not be occupied by ocelots. Such avoidance of otherwise 
25 

suitable habitat has been reported for wolves (Canis lupus - Theil 1985, Mech et al. 1988) and 

black bears (Ursus americanus - Brody and Pelton 1989, Orlando 2003). Recovery efforts 

would benefit from information on how ocelots locate home ranges relative to roads, or use 

culverts or underpasses to negotiate roads. Additionally, roads in ocelot habitat facilitate 

increased human presence which may lead to increased poaching of ocelots and their prey, as 

well as increased disturbance to ocelots. 

Border issues - Recent actions such as the signing of the North America Free Trade Act in 1994, 

increased border monitoring associated with illegal immigration starting in 1998, and homeland 

security since 2001 have impacted current and future ocelot recovery efforts. Borderland factors 

that impact ocelots include urbanization (brush clearing for buildings, sewage dumped into Rio 

Grande River and tributaries, and road construction and maintenance), water development (brush 

clearing, channeling, draining), agriculture (brush clearing, pesticide run-off), U.S. Border Patrol 

Operations (lighting; road construction and maintenance; tower construction and maintenance; 

brush clearing; human activity, including on and off-road vehicular activity) (Jahrsdorfer and 

Leslie 1988, Lorey 1999), and the construction of fences to prevent illegal immigration into the 

U.S. (Defenders of Wildlife www.defenders.org/border/border-report.pdf). Also, there are nine 

existing international bridges, two additional bridges under construction, and three more bridges 

under consideration within Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties in Texas that act as east-west 

barriers for ocelot movement. 

In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, mandating that 700 miles of physical fencing be 

installed along the U.S./Mexico border by the end of 2008. The Secure Fence Act also gave the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the ability to waive any law or treaty to erect 

the fence, including environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean 

Water and Clean Air Acts, Refuge Improvement Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and 

Endangered Species Act. On April 1, 2008, Department of Homeland Security Secretary 

Michael Chertoff invoked his ability to waive these laws and continued construction without 

compliance. 

Approximately, 70 miles of pedestrian fence in 21 sections have been proposed in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley and will directly and indirectly impact the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, 

TPWD, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Audubon Sabel Palm Sanctuary lands. Of these 70 

miles, 22 miles of flood control wall/fence have been proposed in Hidalgo County that will 

impede north-south connectivity for the ocelot. Construction on the flood control wall/fence in 

Hidalgo County began on July 21, 2008. 

In Arizona, the border from the Tohono O’odham Nation to the Arizona-New Mexico border is a 

mix of pedestrian fence (not permeable to ocelots), vehicle fence (fence designed to prevent 

vehicle but not pedestrian entry; it is generally permeable enough to allow for the passage of 

ocelots), legacy (older) pedestrian and vehicle fence, and unfenced segments. Pedestrian fence 

exists from Nogales east to the boundary of the Coronado National Forest and from Douglas 

west through the Coronado National Memorial. Most of the Coronado National Forest, which 

lies between Nogales and Naco, is bordered by vehicle fence, but the steepest areas are unfenced. 

The San Rafael Valley is bordered by vehicle fence. Vehicle fence also exists from two miles 

west of the Arizona/New Mexico border west to the terminus of the pedestrian fence on the east 
26 

side of Douglas. The Arizona Ecological Services Field Office continues to recommend to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that openings large enough to allow for the passage of 

ocelots be installed in pedestrian fence in Arizona. Impenetrable fences are and will continue to 

be barriers to non-volant species such as the ocelot (Bies 2007). Specific impacts to the ocelot 

are the losses of habitat and travel corridors necessary for population maintenance (Tewes et al. 

1995). In addition, opportunities for recreating landscape connectivity across this international 

border will be much more difficult in the future. Thus, ocelot recovery in the U.S. will be greatly 

hindered as they become more genetically and demographically isolated from the much larger 

Mexican population. 

Another factor affecting the continued existence of ocelots in the U.S. is the increased pressure 

by the CBP on traditionally used points of entry by undocumented immigrants which shifts 

immigration into the most inaccessible zones where impacts on the ocelot and other species may 

be high (Ackerman 1998, Klein 2000). For example, after implementing Operation Gatekeeper 

near San Diego in 1994, apprehension of undocumented immigrants dropped 46% in California 

whereas apprehensions increased 88% in Arizona and Texas where intense monitoring efforts 

were not implemented (Ackerman 1998). With the drafting of the Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for US Border Patrol Activities within the Border Areas of the Tucson and 

Yuma Sectors, AZ (Immigration and Naturalization Service 2002a), and the Final Biological 

Assessment for Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species Relative to Operation Rio 

Grande in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties, Texas (Immigration and Naturalization 

Service 2002b), border security actions will need to be addressed as they relate to ocelot 

recovery and maintaining connectivity with Mexican populations. Actions on behalf of the 

ocelot will need to consider the cumulative impacts of fencing, lighting, highway traffic, and 

habitat avoidance due to human activities. 

Genetics - Small and declining populations, such as the ocelot in Texas, face a variety of genetic 

challenges. Maintaining overall genetic variability of small populations is vital for persistence, 

as is preserving natural genetic differentiation of declining populations relative to other 

populations of the same species. Heterozygosity levels, allelic diversity, gene flow, level of 

inbreeding, and census and effective population sizes (Ne), are all important to estimate in 

managing declining populations. 

When managing small isolated populations, genetic health can be maintained most effectively by 

connecting them either with landscape connections or through translocations. In Texas, the 

LANWR population currently has the greatest need for linkage to other ocelot populations. If 

translocations are pursued as a recovery action, it will be important to monitor the genetic 

characteristics of the source and recipient populations prior to each translocation event. This 

should be followed by monitoring the recipient population after each translocation event. 

Miscellaneous - Agricultural pesticides and herbicides may also have negative impacts on the 

ocelot. While common contaminants have appeared in ocelots, they occur at low levels and do 

not seem to be a major problem (Mora et al. 2000). On the other hand, impacts to potential prey 

have been observed. For example, in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas the number of 

amphibian and reptile species has been reduced by 65% and 51%, respectively, perhaps the result 

of decreased prey availability (Jahrsdorfer and Leslie 1988). Continued monitoring for impacts 
27 

to ocelots will be needed. Recently Seth Riley and Ray Sauvajot (National Park Service, 

personal communication) documented 80% of bobcats and half the mountain lions tested in the 

Santa Monica Mountains of California had secondary poisoning from anticoagulant rodenticides. 

In 2002-2003, survival rates of both felids dropped by about 50% due to deaths attributable to an 

interaction between notoedric mange and these secondary poisons. 

In 1991, an ocelot was poisoned by a hunter who was trying to rid his deer feeder of raccoons. 

The hunter apparently laced chicken meat with aldicarb and threw it in the brush, 

indiscriminately poisoning all carnivores that ate the meat (Laack, unpublished data). In 1999, 

an archery hunter misidentified an ocelot as a bobcat and killed it (M. Fain, Texas Parks and 

Wildlife, retired, personal communication). 

Climate change – According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), 

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases 

in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising 

global average sea level.” Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of 

the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 

years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007). It is very likely that 

over the past 50 years cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land 

areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent (IPCC 2007). It is likely that heat 

waves have become more frequent over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy 

precipitation events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007). 

The IPCC (2007) predicts that changes in the global climate system during the 21st century are 

very likely to be larger than those observed during the 20th century. For the next two decades a 

warming of about 0.2°C (0.4°F) per decade is projected (IPCC 2007). Afterwards, temperature 

projections increasingly depend on specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). Various emission 

scenarios suggest that by the end of the 21st century, average global temperatures are expected to 

increase 0.6°C to 4.0°C (1.1°F to 7.2°F) with the greatest warming expected over land (IPCC 

2007). Localized projections suggest the southwestern U.S. may experience the greatest 

temperature increase of any area in the lower 48 states (IPCC 2007). The IPCC says it is very 

likely hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007). 

There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas like the western U.S. will suffer a 

decrease in water resources due to climate change (IPCC 2007). 

We do not know whether the changes that have already occurred have affected ocelot 

populations or distribution, nor can we predict how the species will be affected by the type and 

degree of climate changes forecast by a range of models. But, ongoing and future changes in 

climate have the potential to adversely affect the ocelot within the next 50 to 100 years. 

Stochastic threats such as drought and wildfires in ocelot habitat may make this species 

especially vulnerable. Monitoring of habitat and populations will be needed to address the 

potential threat of climate change. Therefore, we will continue to monitor the species and its 

habitat, and will adapt our recovery and management strategies when necessary to address the 

changing conditions. 
28 

Biological Constraints to Ocelot Recovery

Little is known about biological constraints to ocelot recovery outside of the borderlands of the 

U.S. and Mexico. It is likely, however, that some of the constraints exhibited in the borderlands 

at the northern extremity of the ocelot’s range, are of less importance towards the core of its 

range. Within the borderlands, the ocelot is a tropical felid residing within the subtropics 

(Thornthwaite 1948, Lonard and Judd 1985). Extreme cold temperatures may limit ocelot 

reproduction and survival more so than other native cat species (i.e., bobcat with a more 

widespread distribution in the U.S; Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). However, the ocelot as well as 

the jaguar (Panthera onca) (both felids that range throughout the neotropics [Sunquist and 

Sunquist 2002]) once were found in eastern and central Texas during the pre-settlement era 

(Bailey 1905), but they may not have been in great abundance. Navarro-Lopez (1985) suggested 

that habitat around riparian corridors allowed ocelots to move northward. However, they 

suggested that ocelot range has been shrinking southward since at least the Pleistocene due to a 

cooler climate, with few recent records of the ocelot north of 30o N latitude. 

The ocelot is a habitat specialist preferring thick thornscrub habitat within its fragmented range 

in southern Texas (Navarro-Lopez 1985, Tewes 1986, Laack 1991, Horne 1998, Harveson et al. 

2004). Its recovery in Texas will depend on the protection and reestablishment of thick 

thornscrub habitat as core habitat and landscape linkages among population segments (Tewes 

and Everett 1986, Tewes and Miller 1987). Such connectivity may permit the expansion of 

ocelot numbers from areas such as LANWR (Laack 1991). Other biological constraints include 

low fecundity compared to the bobcat and mountain lion (Puma concolor)(Cisin 1967, Eaton 

1977, Fagan and Wiley 1978, Mellen 1989), species that range more widely in North America. 

Low fecundity decreases the intrinsic growth rate so populations will take longer to expand. 

However, the ocelot’s short-interparturition periods and ability to breed year-round may 

compensate for low fecundity in tropical environments (Eaton 1977, Laack et al. 2005). Another 

potential biological constraint may be a low percentage of breeding females. Emmons (1988) 

believed that female ocelots breed only every other year as an adaptation to low expected rates of 

energy acquisition. However, both captive (Eaton 1977) and wild ocelots (Laack et al. 2005) can 

breed every year. 

Short-interparturition periods, the ability to breed year round, concentration of resources on few 

young and the preference for thick canopy cover for den sites (Laack et al. 2005) may be better 

suited for species in tropical environments. Similar reproductive adaptations are found in other 

small to medium-sized Neotropical cats such as the oncilla and margay (Fagan and Wiley 1974, 

Quillen 1981, Widholzer et al. 1981, Eaton 1984). However, these adaptations may not be 

advantageous in climates that are more temperate. The Lower Rio Grande Valley and Gulf 

Coast of Texas are in a sub-tropical region – some years are more tropical (i.e., warm 

temperatures year-round, moist conditions) than other years (i.e., cold winters, drought 

conditions) (Thornthwaite 1948, Lonard et al. 1991). In Arizona and Sonoram, Lopez Gonzalez 

et al. (2003) found that ocelots were associated with tropical or subtropical habitat, namely 

subtropical thornscrub, tropical deciduous forest, and tropical thornscrub. Ocelots may be 

constrained by their reproductive ecology and preference for dense canopy cover, and their level 

of fitness may not be as high within subtropical regions as in more tropical areas. These 
29 

variables should be considered when developing recovery strategies and defining delisting 

parameters for ocelots in the U.S. 

The possibility for competition for space and food resources may exist with other native cat 

species and possibly the coyote. The potential for competition is discussed elsewhere in this 

document, but is likely more of an issue for a species such as the ocelot that exists at the limits of 

its distribution where a variety of factors may interact synergistically to limit fecundity, survival, 

and the potential for range expansion. 

CAPTIVE BREEDING AND MANAGEMENT 

The first ocelot recovery plan (USFWS 1990) did not describe a role for breeding and 

management of captive wild ocelots (L. pardalis albescens). However, the authors did consider 

the need in the step-down outline (15) to “Develop contingency plans for captive maintenance of 

unplanned ocelot acquisitions.” To that end, USFWS developed a verbal agreement with the 

Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas to care for injured or sick ocelots recovered from 

LANWR (L. Laack personal communication 2003). The development of a more formal 

agreement that covers the welfare of sick, injured, or otherwise obtained wild ocelots is 

warranted. 

Since the publication of the first recovery plan in 1990, much work and research has been done 

on ocelot biology, husbandry, and breeding strategies in captivity. In Texas, member institutions 

of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (now the Association of Zoos and Aquariums) 

formed the Texas Ocelot Research and Conservation Consortium (Kaemmerer et al. 1996, 

Kaemmerer 1999). Its primary purpose was to facilitate research on captive generic (i.e., of 

unknown geographic origin) ocelots based on recommendations from experts who identified 

topics that could not be adequately addressed in the field, but could be done in captivity. Studies 

included physiology (Weller and Bennett 2001), responses to olfactory cues (Cooke 1999, 

Rypkema 2000), nutrition and digestion of prey, and behavioral ontogeny of kittens and motherkitten interactions (C. Bennett, Dallas Zoo, personal communication). 

Studies on basic reproductive function and enhancement through assisted reproductive 

technologies have occurred (Morais et al. 1996, Moreira et al. 2001, Swanson 2002). Collecting 

and storing ocelot semen and embryos, examining nutrition and stress, understanding captive 

husbandry factors that affect sperm quality (Swanson et al. 2003), artificial insemination 

(Swanson et al. 1996), and in vitro reproduction (Swanson 2002) have taken place. In 2000, an 

ocelot embryo was successfully transplanted into an unrelated female ocelot that subsequently 

gave birth (Swanson 2001). Ongoing studies include transferring frozen embryos from captive 

ocelots in Brazil (L. pardalis mitis) to generic captive ocelots in North America (W. Swanson, 

Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, personal communication). 

There are records of ocelots in captivity since 1891 (Bragin 1994). The first studbook for North 

America was developed under the auspices of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association 

(AZA), and recorded in the International Species Inventory System (ISIS) (Bragin 1994). This is 

a listing of all ISIS ocelots, living and deceased, their origin, if known, their dams and sires, if 

known, when and to where they were transferred, and their last captive location. Other 
30 

individual information is often recorded including identifying marks, rearing history, medical 

conditions, geographic origin, etc. Changes in the captive population through births, deaths, 

imports or exports are tracked through updated studbooks (Bragin 2003). There are no ocelots in 

the studbook identified as L. p. albescens or L. p. sonoriensis. Beginning in 1997 a population 

management master plan recommended potential reproductive pairings in the population to 

improve genetic representation of founder lines and demographic structure; this has been done 

regularly as population changes have occurred (Bragin et al. 2001) 

Under the conservation and science branch of the AZA, the Felid Taxon Advisory Group (Felid 

TAG) serves as an umbrella group to advise, monitor, and represent all activities performed 

through felid studbooks, Species Survival Plan (SSP) committees, and specialized felid task 

force groups. When a felid species, which has a viable captive population being tracked through 

a studbook, is also threatened or endangered in the wild, has significant educational relevance, 

and has the potential to be an umbrella species for particular ecosystems, the Felid TAG may 

develop a Species Survival Plan (SSP)(Wiese and Hutchins 1994). The SSP has a steering 

committee elected by representatives from every AZA institution holding that species. The 

steering committee is responsible for setting goals for captive population structure and growth, 

initiatives to educate the public, research needs, and initiatives to enhance and promote 

conservation in the wild. To further conserve the species, the SSP collaborates with 

governmental organizations including the USFWS, as well as non-governmental organizations. 

The Ocelot SSP, formed in 2001, has a goal in North America of supporting the efforts of the 

USFWS Ocelot Recovery Team and Recovery Plan. “The SSP supports the efforts of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Endangered Ocelot Recovery Team and the Ocelot Recovery Plan, both of 

which impact ocelot conservation efforts in N. America” (Kaemmerer et al. 2004). The Felid 

TAG directed that the future North American captive population should represent the Brazilian 

subspecies L. p. mitis so that it eventually replaces the current mostly generic population. As 

such, one of the SSP’s primary goals has been to collaborate with Brazilian governmental and 

non-governmental organizations to fund six projects through the formation and administration of 

the Brazilian Ocelot Consortium. These include publication of felid studbooks and husbandry 

manuals, captive propagation and management of Brazilian ocelots, professional training of 

Brazilian zoo staff and scientists, maintenance of a biological resource bank for Brazilian felids, 

environmental education, and habitat restoration. In return, 10 pairs of unrelated Brazilian 

ocelots are to be imported over a 5-year period to form the nucleus of the future North American 

captive population (Swanson 2003). 

One of several tools for conservation of an endangered species is the creation of a captive 

population to serve as “insurance” in the event the wild population suffers catastrophic losses, as 

well as to facilitate research that could not be done in the wild (Wiese and Hutchins 1994). 

Some captive breeding programs and management plans developed from agreements among 

SSPs (e.g., black-footed ferret, red wolf), USFWS, and other agencies have provided valuable 

information through research, as well as directly augmenting wild populations through release of 

captive animals. With the vast experience of captive husbandry, education, and research, the 

AZA and Ocelot SSP can assist in the recovery of the Texas/Tamaulipian ocelot, L. p. albescens 

and/or the Arizona/Sonoran ocelot, L. p. sonoriensis. The potential and need for such assistance 

should be examined for the ocelot. 
31 

PUBLIC EDUCATION 

Because ocelot recovery in Texas/Tamalipas and Arizona/Sonora is a bi-national effort, it is 

important for education to address school systems and regional cultures specific to northern 

Mexico, south Texas, and other areas where ocelots occur or may be introduced. 

The Dallas Zoo’s Conservation Education and Science Department has developed an interactive 

bilingual web-based program about the ocelot, entitled “The Ocelot Experience,” which may be 

accessed at www.dallaszooed.com. It was designed to be useful for students in both Texas and 

Mexico. It can also be used as a resource for developing a more comprehensive conservation 

education program (e.g., adopt a school programs, bilingual training, bilingual coloring books, 

curricula that can be adapted by teachers from either country, a mechanism to address the digital 

divide, etc.), and can provide connections between the citizens of the United States and Mexico 

by focusing on species that concern both countries. 

This website adds an educational component to ocelot conservation and was created to help raise 

the awareness of the species’ endangered status, and to encourage its protection. The targeted 

audience for the website is 4th through 6th grade students with either English or Spanish as the 

primary language; the opening page allows viewers to choose the language. It contains basic 

information on the natural history and conservation status of the ocelot, as well as an interactive 

demonstration of field research. Interactive components include a matching game and a section 

allowing viewers to paint line drawings of ocelots and other wildlife in assorted colors and then 

print them. The website encourages students to become field researchers and to utilize math, 

science, reading, and geography skills. The education components were designed to meet Texas 

State Education and National Science standards. The most recent update of the program 

provides a mechanism to evaluate its effectiveness. To date, this is the only internationally 

accessible public education program with the ocelot as its primary focus. 

Friends of Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, a nonprofit group, has created the Adopt-an-Ocelot 

program. This program allows supporters to symbolically ‘adopt’ an ocelot by contributing to a 

fund to be used for education, research, and habitat restoration for the ocelot. Supporters receive 

educational materials about ocelot ecology, the species’ conservation challenges, and details of 

the lives of individual ocelots found at LANWR. To date the program has gained supporters 

from throughout the United States and Canada. 

LANWR, Friends of Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, and Valley Morning Star host an annual 

Ocelot Conservation Festival in Harlingen, Texas. This outreach and educational event raises 

awareness about the ocelot and its ecology and promotes ocelot and habitat conservation in local 

communities. The event includes captive-reared ocelots, live wildlife exhibits, educational 

nature programs, and family-oriented nature activities. Proceeds from the event go to the Adoptan-Ocelot program of the Friends of Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge. 

In Sonora, Mexico, Naturalia does environmental education and outreach on spotted cats, the 

Northern Jaguar Project runs a photo incentive program for cats, and the National Commission 

on Natural Protected Areas does a lot of public outreach. 
32 

CONSERVATION ACTIONS TO DATE 

While loss and fragmentation of habitat adversely affect ocelot populations, a number of 

conservation actions have occurred which are improving habitat conditions for the species in 

Texas and northern Mexico: 

• The Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron and Willacy 

Counties, Texas, has grown from 18,287 ha in 1999 to 35,952 ha in 2010. LANWR has a 

Refuge Expansion Plan (USFWS 1999) which approves the acquisition of up to 43,758 

ha. LANWR and surrounding lands within 15 km of LANWR contain 7,500 ha of dense 

thornscrub habitat (Haines et al. 2005a). Recent additions to the refuge provide protected 

habitat and buffers from incompatible land uses. 

• The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR), located in Starr, 

Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron Counties, Texas has grown from 5,526 ha in 1984 to 

32,045 ha in 2010. The LRGVNWR Land Protection Plan (USFWS 1984) targets the 

acquisition of up to 53,621 ha. Several areas of the LRGVNWR have habitat suitable for 

ocelots, including the area around the Salt Lakes in Hidalgo and Willacy Counties and 

parts of eastern Cameron County. LRGVNWR also has an easement with a private 

landowner in Willacy County that is occupied by ocelots. 

• Both LANWR and LRGVNWR are restoring agricultural land to native thornscrub. 

LRGVNWR reforests about 300 ha/year through cooperative farming agreements 

(USFWS 1997c). LANWR set aside about 400 ha of farmland in the 1980s where the 

planting of native shrubs and natural plant colonization from surrounding brushland 

occurred. These tracts are being utilized by foraging ocelots. LANWR is also restoring 

an additional 162 ha of thornscrub through a cooperative farming agreement. 

• A separate but parallel habitat restoration program, operated by the STRC, the Burned 

Area Emergency Response (BAER) provides funding for restoration of areas impacted by 

wildfires. From 2006 to 2009, 4 sites totaling 172 acres were treated with herbicide for 

invasive grass control and replanted with native brush species. This program currently 

has more than 570 acres in approved/funded BAER plans for restoration in the next 3 

years. An additional 10 acres of retired oil and gas pads have been restored to native 

brushlands. 

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has acquired thousands of acres in land to help protect 

ocelot habitat and create corridors between existing habitats. On January 31, 2008, TNC 

purchased a conservation easement of 697 acres to further protect the Willacy County 

population and other wildlife. On December 14, 2009, TNC purchased an additional 

1,300-acre conservation easement for the protection of wildlife corridors in south Texas 

and to help in the recovery of ocelots. These TNC easements compliment the adjacent 

472 acres under conservation easement with USFWS. 

• The National Commission on Natural Protected Areas (known by its Spanish acronym 

CONANP) announced in April 2005 that a new Flora and Fauna Protected Area, Laguna 

Madre and Delta del Rio Bravo, was created in Tamaulipas, Mexico. It covers 572,808 

ha of the Laguna Madre and adjoining coastline and will protect ocelot habitat that occurs 

in the region. 

• In 2003, the Mexican non-profit group, Naturalia, purchased a 4,047 ha ranch in northern 

Sonora to protect the jaguars and its habitat. Ocelots also occur there and will benefit 
33 

from this protection. In 2008, they purchased an additional 14,164 ha, making what is 

now called the Northern Jaguar Reserve a total of 18,211 ha. 

• The Rancho El Aribabi in northern Sonora, where ocelots have been documented 

recently, is seeking to be recognized as a national reserve. 

• The USFWS approved a Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) developed by the Environmental 

Defense Fund for the ocelot in 2006. The SHA is designed to encourage restoration of 

private lands to provide suitable habitat for the ocelot and to provide connectivity 

between areas currently occupied by ocelot. So far 4 landowners in south Texas have 

enrolled for a total of 15,800 acres. Two landowners in Tamaulipas have enrolled for a 

total of 3,580 acres in Mexico. 

• In 2005, a new USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service standard was written 

which describes how to establish thornscrub on cropland for the benefit of the ocelot 

(http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/references/public/TX/RestorationofDecliningHabitatsSpecific

ation10-11-05.pdf). This standard is being employed under the Farm Services Agency 

practice cp4d (www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2-crp.pdf). This program provides a 

financial incentive for landowners to restore ocelot habitat on their property. 

• The Texas Department of Transportation has installed a number of highway underpasses 

for ocelots, including along Highways 106 and 48 in Cameron County, Texas. Both 

roads run through or adjacent to LANWR, and ocelot mortalities due to vehicle collisions 

have been documented on both roads in the past.
34 

Part II 

RECOVERY 

2.1 Goals, Objectives, and Criteria 

2.1.1. Recovery Goal 

The goal for this plan is to restore and protect the ocelot and its habitat so that its long-term 

survival is secured and it can be considered for removal from the list of threatened and 

endangered species (delisted). 

As a species that is listed throughout its range (21 countries in addition to the United States), the 

ocelot presents a significant challenge for recovery planning. Our knowledge regarding the 

status of the species in much of its range is limited, and the USFWS and its partners lack the 

resources and authority to coordinate large scale international research and recovery for the 

entire species. However, we can establish the framework to better understand the status and 

conservation needs of ocelots for recovery throughout their range. We can cooperate with our 

partners in the border states of Mexico to focus efforts within our respective jurisdictions to 

conserve and recover ocelot populations in the northern limits of the species’ range. We can 

establish specific criteria for recovery, and actions that, if implemented, will conserve viable 

ocelot populations in the borderlands (Arizona, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Texas). If these criteria 

are met, we believe that it may be feasible and appropriate to consider downlisting or delisting 

these populations as Distinct Population Segment (DPS) or as separate subspecies. Further 

details regarding this consideration are at the end of the following section. 

2.1.2 Recovery Strategy 

Our approach in this revision to the ocelot portion of the 1990 “endangered cats” recovery plan is 

as follows: 

• To summarize what is known about the status of the ocelot throughout its range, and 

identify primary information gaps and broad actions necessary to address conservation of 

the species outside of the U.S. and in the bordering states of Mexico. 

• To address in significant detail the actions necessary to conserve the existing and highly 

imperiled breeding populations in Texas and their source population across the border in 

Tamaulipas, Mexico. 

• To address the status of the existing population in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and 

identify the actions necessary to understand its status and to conserve the population 

through cooperative efforts in the borderlands of Arizona and Sonora. 

While we consider the ocelot throughout its range, we focus the details of this recovery plan on 

two management units, the Texas/Tamaulipas Management Unit (TTMU) and the 

Arizona/Sonora Management Unit (ASMU). We recognize the conservation needs and 
35 

challenges facing the ocelot elsewhere in its range, but there are compelling circumstances that 

dictate this focus. The USFWS has little authority to implement actions needed to recover 

species outside the U.S. borders. The management and recovery of listed species outside the 

U.S. borders, including the ocelot, is primarily the responsibility of the countries in which the 

species occur, with the help of available technical and monetary assistance from the U.S. Thus, 

it is appropriate to focus our efforts and resources on conservation of the ocelot in the northern 

part of its range as our contribution toward an international effort to conserve and recover the 

ocelot rangewide. 

Recovery management units are subunits of the listed species that are geographically or 

otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species. Management units are 

individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness, demographic robustness, important life 

history stages, or some other feature necessary for long-term sustainability of the species. 

Establishing management units is a useful tool for species occurring across wide ranges with 

multiple populations, varying ecological pressures, or different threats in different parts of their 

range. Management units are primarily delineated on a biological basis; however, boundaries 

may be modified to reflect differing management regimes. Management units are not necessarily 

self-sustaining viable units on their own, but instead need to be collectively recovered to ensure 

recovery of the entire listed entity. 

Texas supports an isolated, highly imperiled population that once was demographically linked to 

the State of Tamaulipas. The TTMU is a logical management unit because: 1) it encompasses 

the current known range of the subspecies (L. p. albescens); 2) the U.S. population was 

historically contiguous with a larger regional population across the Rio Grande River; 3) it has 

distinct habitat conditions that occur nowhere else in the species’ range; 4) peripheral 

populations such as these are important genetic resources; and 5) there are established 

international cooperative efforts on behalf of the species in this area that are currently underway. 

Further, peripheral populations may be beneficial to the protection of evolutionary processes and 

the environmental systems that are likely to generate future evolutionary diversity (Lesica and 

Allendorf 1995). This may be particulary important considering the potential threats of global 

climate change (see Factor E above). 

The ASMU is similarly logical, although less is known about this population. Although we lack 

any evidence of an historic breeding population in the Arizona, it is clear that the subspecies (L. 

p. sonoriensis) occurs in the state at least as dispersing individuals. Due to unique habitat that 

occurs in northern Sonora and southern Arizona, the ASMU also represents a distributional 

extreme and the important genetic/adaptive resources that can characterize peripheral 

populations (Lomolino and Channell 1995). Thus, we have defined the boundaries of these two 

management units as the original subspecies’ ranges as described by Hall (1981). 

TTMU: Habitat loss and the fragmentation of remaining suitable habitat is clearly the greatest 

threat to the persistence and recovery of the ocelot in this borderland population. Whereas a 

variety of recovery actions are needed to fully address the conservation challenges of the ocelot, 

the most immediate concerns relate to the negative consequences of habitat limitations in Texas 

and loss of connectivity with ocelots in Tamaulipas. Recent records of the ocelot are known 

only for five south Texas counties, a tiny fraction of the ocelot’s overall distribution. Reduced 
36 

genetic variability in Texas ocelots suggests that this small population has been isolated from 

conspecifics for many generations. The widespread conversion of thornscrub habitat to 

agriculture and other intensive land uses has not only reduced the total population, but has 

reduced the potential for habitat fragments to be reached by dispersing ocelots, and has made the 

natural recolonization of vacant range unlikely. Such isolation is exacerbated by the 

proliferation of highways throughout the region, and the subsequent habitat effects and mortality 

that directly impact both resident and dispersing ocelots. 

In the absence of population expansion and the restoration of demographic linkages with other 

populations, the ocelot in Texas faces a high risk of extinction in less than 40 years as the result 

of the combined effects of reduced genetic variability and environmental stochasticity (Miller 

2005). Successful recovery will be the product of population management that improves genetic 

fitness and population size, and longer term efforts that protect and restore habitat, enhance 

landscape linkages among populations, promote range expansion, and reduce threats from roads 

and other sources of development-related mortality (Haines et al. 2005a). 

ASMU: Less is known about this population. Lopez Gonzalez (2003) estimated a population of 

2,025 ± 675 in the State of Sonora. However, with such a wide confidence interval based on 

relatively short-term efforts, a more refined estimate is needed. Further, there have been no field 

studies conducted to examine population density, demographics, habitat use, food habits, and 

spatial ecology. 

International border issues such as fencing, lighting, U.S. Border Patrol and illegal immigrant 

activities including vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and habitat alteration to facilitate law 

enforcement and reduce illegal immigration into the U.S. are increasing threats to the ocelot in 

this area. These challenges can be addressed, in part, through interagency cooperation and 

research. Recovery planning for the ASMU should focus on basic research that details habitat 

suitability, distribution, and threats. More than two decades of research investment in the 

Texas/Tamaulipas population have been necessary to understand the spatial and demographic 

challenges of recovery planning in this area. Certainly, many of the issues facing the current 

ocelot population in Texas will pertain to ocelots that may be in Arizona, or in populations that 

are identified in Sonora. Nonetheless, dramatic climatic and landscape differences will dictate 

original research and conservation planning for the ASMU. 

As previously stated, the ocelot is listed as endangered throughout its range, which includes 21 

countries in addition to the United States. The entire species is the listed entity. In this recovery 

plan, we have identified two recovery management units for the Texas/Tamaulipas and 

Arizona/Sonora subspecies, L. p. albescens and L. p. sonoriensis, respectively. At this time, 

these management units cover the range of these two ocelot subspecies and only represent 

“potential” distinct population segments (DPSs) or subspecies units. These management units 

cannot be considered for delisting separately from the listed entity (i.e., the entire species) until it 

meets both the recovery criteria for each unit and has completed a formal reclassificaiton 

evaluation and designation, which would involve a proposed rulemaking, public review and 

comment, and a final rulemaking (USFWS and NMFS 1996, 61 FR 4722). We used a 

combination of geographic distribution and separation, genetic differences, geopolitical 
37 

boundaries, and distinct habitat conditions to assess the designation of these TTMU and ASMU 

“potential” DPSs or subspecies units. 

2.1.3 Recovery Objectives 

Recovery objectives collectively describe the specific conditions under which the goals for 

recovery of the ocelot will be met. These objectives apply to the recovery of the ocelot 

throughout its range and the five listing factors: 

1) Assess, protect, and restore sufficient habitat to support viable populations of the ocelot 

in the borderlands of the United States and Mexico (Listing Factor A). 

2) Reduce the effects of human population growth and development on ocelot survival and 

mortality (Listing Factors A,E). 

3) Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot 

(Listing Factors C,E). 

4) Assure the long-term viability of ocelot conservation through partnerships, the 

development and application of incentives for landowners, application of existing 

regulations, and public education and outreach (Listing Factors A,D,E). 

5) Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are 

revised by the USFWS in coordination with the Recovery Team as new information 

becomes available. 

6) Support international efforts to ascertain the status of and conserve the ocelot south of 

Tamaulipas and in Sonora (Listing Factors A,B,C,D,E). 

Please see “Reasons for Listing/Threats” for a description of the five Listing Factors. 

2.1.4 Recovery Criteria 

Recovery criteria are the objective, measurable criteria that if met, provide a basis for 

determining whether a species can be considered for reclassification (downlisting to threatened 

status or removing it from the list of threatened and endangered species [delisted]). Because the 

same five statutory factors must be considered in delisting as in listing, 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (a), 

(b),(c), the USFWS, in designing objective, measurable criteria, must address each of the five 

statutory delisting factors and measure whether threats to the [species] have been ameliorated 

(see Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C1995). The criteria below were 

established for the ocelot throughout its range, as listed by the ESA to the maximum extent 

practicable, with specific objectives that can be met for the borderland management units. If 

these are met, the borderland populations could be considered for reclassification as Distinct 

Population Segments or as subspecies, and be considered for downlisting or delisting as such. 

We submit that the approach described above meets our statutory requirements to the maximum 

extent practicable. As our knowledge of the ocelot range-wide increases and as the recovery 

actions described in this plan are implemented, the plan may be revised and refined. 

Downlisting Criteria 

The ocelot should be considered for downlisting to threatened status when: 
38 

1. Populations south of Tamaulipas and Sonora have been reevaluated by the IUCN Cat 

Specialist Group (due by 2012) and continue to qualify for “Least Concern” under the 

International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUCN) Red List criteria (World Conservation 

Union, 2008, http://www.iucnredlist.org) for five years after this reevaluation. Threats from 

habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and poaching have been reduced such that the ocelot is no 

longer in danger of extinction. The IUCN currently lists the ocelot (except supbspecies L. p. 

albescens) as “Least Concern” with a decreasing global population trend (Cat Specialist Group 

2008). The Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot was assessed as a separate subspecies by the IUCN Cat 

Specialist Group in 1996 and meets “Endangered” criteria B (occupied area <5000 km2, 

fragmented populations, declining area of occupancy), D (<250 mature individuals), and E (high 

probability of extinction within 100 years) (Cat Specialist Group 1996). 

Rational for Downlisting Criterion 1: We acknowledge that this criterion is broad and general, 

but it was developed to the maximum extent practicable based on our limited knowledge of the 

species throughout its range south of Tamaulipas and Sonora. As we learn more about the 

species in this part of its range, this criterion may be modified in the future. 

2. The TTMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 200 in 

Texas and 1,000 in Tamaulipas for at least 5 years. The 200 ocelots in Texas should be 

distributed as either (1) a single core population of at least 150 ocelots with interchange between 

it and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability; or (2) at least 2 core 

populations of 75 ocelots each, with interchange between the 2 core populations and between the 

core populations and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability. 

Interchange may be facilitated by moving ocelots between populations to simulate natural 

dispersal and recruitment. Core populations may include the current populations at LANWR and 

Kenedy-Willacy, but may also include a reintroduced population established within currently 

unoccupied historical range. Habitat protection must be in place to support core ocelot 

populations for the foreseeable future, and potential corridors and mechanisms must be identified 

to restore habitat connectivity between core populations. 

Rationale for Downlisting Criterion 2: 

Minimum sizes of core population in Texas of 75 ocelots. The results of the ocelot PVA 

(Appendix IV) indicate that sizes of current populations in Texas (30 and 40 ocelots for 

LANWR and Kenedy-Willacy, respectively) are not sufficient to avoid extinction of the 

species in Texas within the next 100 years. Increasing the initial population size in the 

PVA to 70 ocelots reduces the extinction risk of a population compared to initial 

population sizes of 50 or 60 ocelots under a variety of conditions (Appendix IV, Table 4, 

Figure 4). Population sizes of 70 ocelots in Texas are also achievable with the 

implementation of feasible habitat enhancement tasks identified in the plan. 

Minimum population size in Tamaulipas of 1,000 ocelots. The PVA (Appendix IV) 

suggests that the number of translocated ocelots needed to maintain the Texas 

populations would demographically impact the source population in Tamaulipas. A 

population of 1,000 ocelots in Tamaulipas would reduce the proportion of the population 
39 

that would be translocated and result in a much smaller demographic impact to the 

Tamaulipan population. A population of 1,000 is also realistic and could represent the 

current population of ocelot in the entire State of Tamaulipas. 

3. The ASMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 1,000 

animals for 5 years. Habitat linkages to support an ASMU metapopulation have been identified. 

Threats to this population have been identified and are determined to be below the threshold of 

endangerment of extinction within the foreseeable future. Methods to address significant threats 

have been identified. Currently this population meets the “Data Deficient” category as 

determined by the IUCN (World Conservation Union 2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org). 

Rationale for Downlisting Criterion 3: 

Minimum population size of 1,000 ocelots in the ASMU population. Based on the results 

of the PVA for the ocelot in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas, we determined that 

1,000 animals are needed for the persistence of the ASMU into the foreseeable future. 

Lopez Gonzalez et al. (2003) estimated a Sonoran population of 2,025 + 675 ocelots. We 

surmise that more research is needed to refine this estimate, but a minimum population 

size of 1,000 animals is appropriate and within the confidence limits of the 2003 estimate. 

As additional monitoring and population data are acquired for the ASMU, this recovery 

criterion may need to be modified in the future. 

Delisting Criteria 

The ocelot should be considered for delisting when: 

1. Populations south of Tamaulipas and Sonora have been reevaluated by the IUCN Cat 

Specialist Group (due by 2012) and continue to qualify for “Least Concern” under the IUCN Red 

List criteria (World Conservation Union, 2006, http://www.iucnredlist.org) for 10 years after this 

reevaluation and populations are stable or increasing. Threats from habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and poaching are reduced such that the ocelot can maintain healthy, viable 

populations for the foreseeable future. 

Rational for Delisting Criterion 1: This is similar to Downlisting Criterion 1, except it was 

extended over a longer time frame to ensure populations are sufficiently stable. 

2. The TTMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 200 in 

Texas and 1,000 in Tamaulipas for at least 10 years. The 200 ocelots in Texas should be 

distributed as either (1) a single core population of at least 150 ocelots with interchange between 

it and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability; or (2) at least 2 core 

populations of 75 ocelots each, with interchange between the 2 core populations and between the 

core populations and ocelots in Tamaulipas that is sufficient to maintain genetic variability. 

Interchange among populations must occur through natural dispersal rather than by moving 

ocelots between population; or (3) if natural interchange between Texas and Tamaulipas is 

impossible, cross-border interchange may be facilitated by moving ocelots to simulate natural 

dispersal and recruitment and an additional population of at least 75 ocelots should be 
40 

established within currently unoccupied historical range in Texas. This additional population 

should be established in a location that would expand the geographical range of the species in 

Texas to provide sufficient insurance against loss of the entire Texas population from 

catastrophic weather events or infectious disease. Habitat protection must be in place to support 

and connect all core ocelot populations within Texas and within Tamaulipas for the foreseeable 

future. 

Rationale for Delisting Criterion 2: 

This delisting criterion differs from element two of the downlisting criterion as follows: 

The criteria must be met for 10 years. The increase in time is appropriate to ensure that 

the populations and their management are sufficiently stable to project that the population 

is recovered. 

Connectivity among populations is through natural dispersal rather than by translocation. 

Adequate natural corridors for dispersal should be more reliable because they do not rely 

on long-term commitments by management agencies to translocate animals. In addition, 

natural connectivity avoids or minimizes the risk to individual animals by capture and 

handling and avoids the disruption of local populations by removal or supplementation. 

Allows for the establishment of an additional Texas population as an alternative to 

natural colonization from Tamaulipas. This allows for delisting even if natural 

connectivity cannot be maintained between Texas and Tamaulipas, by substantially 

increasing the security of the species in Texas. 

3. The ASMU population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 1,000 

animals for 10 years. Significant threats to this population have been identified and addressed. 

Habitat linkages to facilitate an ASMU metapopulation have been identified and are conserved 

for the foreseeable future. 

Rational for Delisting Criterion 3: This is similar to Downlisting Criterion 3, except it was 

extended over a longer time frame to ensure populations are sufficiently stable. 
41 

Threats Tracking Table 

SUMMARY OF OCELOT LISTING FACTORS AND THREATS 

AND THE RECOVERY ACTIONS TO CONTROL THOSE THREATS 

Listing 

Factor Threats

Recovery 

Criteria Recovery Actions

ALL All threat factors: 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

(A, B, C, D, E A = habitat modification or loss 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

Collectively) B = overutilization 3 1.5 Reduce, alleviate threats to ASMU 

C = disease, predation 1,2,3 2.1.4.1 Support interagency planning 

D = inadequacy of regulations 2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

E = other natural or manmade 

factors 1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

 2,3 4.1.6 Develop partnerships with Mexico 

 2 5.1 Develop monitoring plan for core populations 

 2 5.2 Develop agreements for non-federal land surveys 

 1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare report of ocelot monitoring 

 1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations 

 1,2,3 6.2.1 Provide support for workshops 

 1 6.2.2 Support Meso-american corridor 

Factor A Population and Habitat Loss 2 1.1.1 Map habitat in Texas 

 2 1.1.2 Map habitat in Tamaulipas 

 2 1.1.3 Document status in Texas habitat 

 2 1.1.4 Document status in Tamaulipas habitat 

 2 1.1.5 Estimate areas needed in Texas 

 2 1.1.6 Identify conservation lands in TTMU range 

 1,2,3 1.2.3.1 Protect habitat around core populations 

 1,2,3 1.2.3.2 Connect known Texas populations 

 1,2,3 1.2.3.3 Protect habitat recently occupied by ocelots 

 1,2,3 

1.2.3.4 Create a bi-national corridor connecting Texas 

and Tamaulipas ocelot populations 

 1,2,3 

1.2.3.5 Protect habitat in the historic range of the ocelot 

in Arizona, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Texas 

 3 1.3.1.1 Map habitat in Sonora and AZ 

 3 1.3.1.2 Expand surveys in ASMU habitat 

 3 

1.3.1.3 Establish 3+ monitoring areas in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 3 1.3.1.4 Identify lands in ASMU range 

 2 

3.1.1 Monitor genetic diversity, evaluate genetic 

augmentation in Texas 

 2 

3.1.2 Monitor genetic diversity, evaluate genetic 

augmentation in Tamaulipas 

 3 3.1.3 Characterize genetic status in Sonora 

 2 

3.1.4 Develop genetic augmentation for core 

populations 

 2,3 3.1.5 Evaluate artificial reproduction, gene bank 

 2 3.1.6 Evaluate genetic breeding program 
42 

 2 3.2.1 Conduct experimental translocations 

 2 3.2.2 Augment populations through translocation 

 2 3.2.3 Evaluate use of confiscated ocelots 

 2 3.3 Identify area for new population in TX 

 2 3.4 Establish new population in TX 

Factor A Habitat Modification (Management) 1,2,3 1.2.1 Develop, distribute, implement habitat guidelines 

 1,2,3 1.2.2 Foster partnerships with landowners 

 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

 3 1.5 Identify ASMU threats reduction, alleviation 

 1,2,3 2.1.4.1 Support interagency planning 

 1,2,3 

2.3 Minimize impacts from other development and 

human activities 

2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

1,2,3 4.1.5 Support Mexican habitat surveys 

2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

2,3 4.1.7 Partner with Homeland Security, Border Patrol 

2,3 4.2.2 Assure compliance of oil, gas, seismic operations 

2,3 4.3.1 Maintain education/outreach working group 

2 4.3.2.1 Develop education materials for TX and AZ 

 2,3 

4.3.2.2 Develop education materials for Tamaulipas, 

Sonora 

2,3 4.3.3 Monitor, evaluate outreach efforts 

2 5.1 Develop monitoring protocol for core populations 

2 5.2 Develop agreements to survey on non-federal land 

1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

 1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations internationally 

 1,2,3 6.2.1 Support workshops every 3-5 years 

 1 6.2.2 Support implementation of Meso-american corridor 

Factor A Habitat Degradation 2,3 1.1.10 Identify, prioritize lands for habitat restoration 

 2 

1.2.4.1 Develop methods to restore Tamaulipan 

thornscrub 

 2 1.2.4.2 Identify, map soils for thornscrub restoration 

 2 

1.2.4.3 Restore thornscrub around core Texas 

populations 

 2 1.2.4.4 Prioritize, implement thornscrub restoration 

 2 1.2.4.5 Implement thornscrub restoration monitoring 

Factor A Loss of Habitat Connectivity 2 1.1.7 Map connections between TTMU populations 

 1,2,3 1.1.8 Study dispersal of ocelots 

 1,2,3 1.1.9 Model movement and dispersal 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.2 Determine movements and dispersal in Arizona 

and Sonora 
43 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.3 Identify conduits and barriers in Arizona and 

Sonora 

 1,2,3 1.3.2.4 Identify food and prey habits in Sonora 

 2,3 2.2.1 Identify border crossings 

 2,3 2.2.2 Reduce impacts of border structures 

 2,3 

2.2.3 Maintain, enhance border thornscrub and other 

appropriate habitats 

Factor A Road Fragmentation and Mortality 2 

1.1.11 Identify, maintain habitat linkages and crossing 

structures in south Texas and Arizona 

 2 

2.1.1 Quantify road and bridge effects, road density 

threshold 

 2 2.1.2 Identify locations for road-crossing structures 

 2 2.1.3 Design crossing structures, features 

 2,3 2.1.4.2 Minimize new road and bridge impacts 

 2,3 2.1.4.3 Implement crossing structures and designs 

 2 

2.1.4.4 Construct crossing structures in heavy use 

zones 

Factor B Overutilization 3 

1.3.1.3 Establish monitoring areas in Arizona and 

Sonora 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

 3 1.5 Identify ASMU threats reduction, alleviation 

 1,2,3 2.1.4.1 Support interagency planning 

 2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

 1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

 2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

 2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

 2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

 2,3 4.3.1 Maintain education/outreach working group 

 2 4.3.2.1 Develop education materials for TX and Arizona 

 2,3 

4.3.2.2 Develop education materials for Tamaulipas, 

Sonora 

 2,3 4.3.3 Monitor, evaluate outreach efforts 

 1,2,3 4.3.4 Educate hunters to refrain from killing ocelots 

 2 5.1 Develop monitoring protocol for core populations 

 2 5.2 Develop agreements to survey on non-federal land 

 1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

 1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations internationally 

 1,2,3 6.2.1 Support workshops every 3-5 years 

 1 6.2.2 Support implementation of Meso-american corridor 

Factor C Disease, Toxins, Predation 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 1,2,3 1.3.2.4 Identify food and prey habits in Sonora 

 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

3 1.5 Reduce, alleviate threats to ASMU 

1,2,3 2.1.4.1 Support interagency planning 
44 

2,3 3.5.1 Establish physiological, identification protocols 

2,3 3.5.2 Conduct serology and pathology surveys 

2,3 3.5.3 Create tissue bank 

2,3 3.5.4 Establish protocols for injury, diseases, parasites 

1,2,3 3.5.5 Establish medical and genetic database 

1,2,3 3.5.6 Investigate disease prevention 

2,3 3.6.1 Research contamination 

 1,2,3 

3.7.1 Research niche overlap with competitors, 

predators 

2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

2 5.1 Develop monitoring protocol 

2 5.2 Develop agreements to survey on non-federal land 

1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

 1,2,3 5.5 Develop data sharing and repository 

 1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations internationally 

 1,2,3 6.2.1 Support workshops every 3-5 years 

 1 6.2.2 Support implementation of Meso-american corridor 

Factor D Inadequacy of Regulation 3 

1.3.1.3 Establish 3+ monitoring areas in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

 3 1.5 Identify ASMU threats reduction, alleviation 

 1,2,3 2.1.4.1 Support interagency planning 

 2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

 1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

 2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

 2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

 2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

 1,2,3 4.2.1 Encourage regulations in Mexico 

 2,3 4.2.2 Assure compliance of oil, gas, seismic operations 

 2,3 

4.3.1.2 Develop education materials for Tamaulipas, 

Sonora 

 2,3 4.3.3 Monitor, evaluate outreach efforts 

 2 5.1 Develop monitoring protocol 

 2 5.2 Develop agreements to survey on non-federal land 

 1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

 1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations internationally 

 1,2,3 6.2.1 Support workshops every 3-5 years 

 1 6.2.2 Support implementation of Meso-american corridor 

Factor E Roads 2 

1.1.11 Identify, maintain habitat linkages and necessary 

crossing structures in south Texas and Arizona 
45 

 1,2,3 1.1.8 Study dispersal 

 1,2,3 1.1.9 Model movement and dispersal 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.1 Determine habitat selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.2 Determine movements and dispersal in Sonora 

and Arizona 

 1,2,3 

1.3.2.3 Identify conduits and barriers in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 2 2.1.1 Quantify road effects, road density threshold 

 2 2.1.2 Identify locations for road-crossing structures 

 2 2.1.3 Design crossing structures, features 

 2,3 2.1.4.2 Minimize new road impacts 

 2,3 2.1.4.3 Implement crossing structures and designs 

 2 

2.1.4.4 Construct crossing structures in heavy use 

zones 

Factor E Border issues 1,2,3 1.1.8 Study dispersal 

 1,2,3 1.1.9 Model movement and dispersal 

2,3 2.2.1 Identify border crossings 

 2,3 2.2.2 Reduce impacts of border structures 

 2,3 2.2.3 Maintain, enhance border thornscrub habitats 

 2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

 2,3 4.1.7 Partner with Homeland Security, Border Patrol 

 2,3 4.3.1 Maintain education/outreach working group 

 2 4.3.2.1 Develop education materials for TX 

 2,3 

4.3.2.2 Develop education materials for Tamaulipas, 

Sonora 

 2,3 4.3.3 Monitor, evaluate outreach efforts 

Factor E Genetics 2 

3.1.1 Monitor genetic diversity, evaluate genetic 

augmentation in Texas 

 2 

3.1.2 Monitor genetic diversity, evaluate genetic 

augmentation in Tamaulipas 

 3 3.1.3 Characterize genetic status in Sonora 

2 3.1.4 Develop genetic augmentation 

2,3 3.1.5 Evaluate artificial reproduction, gene bank 

2 3.1.6 Evaluate genetic breeding program 

2 3.2.1 Conduct experimental translocations 

2 3.2.2 Augment populations through translocation 

2 3.2.3 Evaluate use of confiscated ocelots 

2 3.3 Identify area for new population in TX 

2 3.4 Establish new population in TX 

1,2,3 3.5.5 Establish medical and genetic database 

2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 
46 

 1,2,3 5.5 Develop data sharing and repository 

 1,2,3 6.3 Coordinate genetic zoo data 

Factor E Pesticides, Herbicides 2,3 3.5.1 Establish physiological, identification protocols 

 2 3.5.2 Conduct serology and pathology surveys 

 2,3 3.5.3 Create tissue bank 

 2,3 3.5.4 Establish protocols for injury, diseases, parasites 

 1,2,3 3.5.5 Establish medical and genetic database 

 2,3 3.6.1 Research contamination 

 2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

 1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

 2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

 2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

 2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

 1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

 1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

 1,2,3 5.5 Develop data sharing and repository 

Factor E Competition 1,2,3 1.3.2.4 Identify food and prey habits 

1,2,3 3.7.1 Research niche overlap with competitors 

Factor E Information Needs 2 1.1.5 Estimate areas needed in Texas 

2 1.1.6 Identify conservation lands in TTMU range 

 1,2,3 1.1.8 Study dispersal 

 1,2,3 1.1.9 Model movement and dispersal 

 1,2,3 1.2.2 Foster partnerships 

 3 1.3.1.2 Expand surveys in ASMU habitat 

 3 

1.3.1.3 Establish 3+ monitoring areas in Sonora and 

Arizona 

 3 1.4 Identify threats to ASMU populations 

 3 1.5 Identify ASMU threats reduction 

2,3 4.1.1 Develop recovery working groups 

1,2,3 4.1.2 Continue recovery through subgroups 

2 4.1.3 Develop projects with landowners 

2 4.1.4 Develop incentive programs for landowners 

2,3 4.1.6 Partner with Mexican agencies, landowners 

2,3 4.1.7 Partner with Homeland Security, Border Patrol 

2,3 4.3.1 Maintain education/outreach working group 

2 4.3.2.1 Develop education materials for TX and Arizona 

 2,3 

4.3.2.2 Develop education materials for Tamaulipas, 

Sonora 

2,3 4.3.3 Monitor, evaluate outreach efforts 

2 5.1 Develop monitoring protocol 

2 5.2 Develop agreements to survey on non-federal land 

1,2,3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of recovery 

1,2,3 5.4 Prepare annual report of monitoring results 

1,2,3 5.5 Develop data sharing and repository 
47 

1,2,3 6.1 Track skin locations internationally 

1,2,3 6.2.1 Support workshops every 3-5 years 

1 6.2.2 Support implementation of Meso-american corridor 

Factor E Natural Factors - Drought 1 1.2.5 Provide available drinking water 
48 

Outline of Recovery Actions 

Underlined recovery actions represent the most stepped-down levels for the recovery program 

narrative. These items are discrete, specific actions and are the actions listed in the 

Implementation Schedule found at the end of this document. 

1. Assess, protect, and enhance ocelot populations and habitat in the borderlands of the 

U.S. and Mexico.

1.1. Develop a comprehensive habitat model for conservation of ocelots in the TTMU that 

address core population needs and habitat connectivity 

1.1.1. Map existing brushlands suitable for supporting ocelots in Texas

1.1.2. Map existing brushlands suitable for supporting ocelots in Tamaulipas

1.1.3. Document the status of ocelots in known and potential habitat in Texas

1.1.4. Document the status of ocelots in known and potential habitat in Tamaulipas

1.1.5. Estimate the area necessary to support 200 ocelots in Texas and 1,000 ocelots in 

Tamaulipas

1.1.6. Identify existing and proposed conservation lands in current and potential ocelot 

range in Texas and Tamaulipas

1.1.7. Identify, field verify, and map the most practical connections between areas of 

TTMU populations 

1.1.8. Study ocelot dispersal behavior 

1.1.9. Develop computer simulations to identify and predict the conditions associated 

with dispersal and movement of ocelots 

1.1.10. Identify and prioritize lands for habitat restoration

1.1.11. Collaborate with landowners and experts to develop feasible landscape design to 

manage habitat and specify the location and types of crossing structures at roads 

necessary to maintain linkages in south Texas

1.2. Develop and implement strategies to preserve and expand habitat and enhance habitat 

connectivity in the TTMU 

1.2.1. Develop, distribute, and implement guidelines for managing and enhancing 

existing ocelot habitat

1.2.2. Develop and implement strategies and incentives to foster partnerships and enlist 

landowner cooperation

1.2.3. Where feasible, prioritize and acquire necessary conservation easements/lands 

1.2.3.1.Protect habitat occupied by and surrounding known ocelot populations. 

1.2.3.2.Protect a corridor of habitat to connect known populations in Texas.

1.2.3.3.Protect habitat in areas recently occupied by ocelots.

1.2.3.4.Protect a bi-national corridor of habitat to connect the Cameron County ocelot 

population to the northernmost known ocelot population in Tamaulipas.

1.2.3.5.Protect habitat in other portions of the historic range in Arizona, Texas, 

Sonora, and Tamaulipas.

1.2.4. Restore thornscrub habitat 

1.2.4.1.Develop methodologies for thornscrub restoration

1.2.4.2.Identify and map appropriate soils for thornscrub restoration

1.2.4.3.Restore thornscrub habitat around core ocelot populations in Texas.

1.2.4.4.Implement thornscrub restoration on a priority basis to benefit ocelots
49 

1.2.4.5.Develop and implement a monitoring program for restored thornscrub

1.2.5. Assure available drinking water during periods of drought

1.3. Determine the status, trends, ecology, and threats to ocelots in the ASMU. 

1.3.1. Refine current distribution map of the regional population. 

1.3.1.1.Map existing habitat suitable for supporting ocelots in Sonora and Arizona

1.3.1.2.Continue and expand surveys to document the presence of ocelots in known 

and potential habitat

1.3.1.3.Establish a minimum of three long-term monitoring areas in Sonora and 

Arizona

1.3.1.4.Identify existing and proposed conservation lands in current and potential 

ocelot range in Sonora and Arizona

1.3.2. Determine spatial requirements of ocelot population in Sonora and if possible, 

Arizona 

1.3.2.1.Determine habitat selection in Sonora and Arizona 

1.3.2.2.Determine daily and seasonal movements, including patterns of subadult 

dispersal in Sonora and Arizona

1.3.2.3.Identify conduits and barriers to movements in Sonora and Arizona

1.3.2.4.Identify food habits, prey preferences, prey abundance and distribution in 

Sonora and Arizona

1.4. Identify significant threats to ASMU populations

1.5. Identify mechanisms to reduce or alleviate significant threats to ASMU populations

2. Reduce the effects of human population growth and development on the ocelot 

2.1. Reduce road impacts to ocelots

2.1.1. Avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts of roads and bridges to the ocelot. Quantify 

the effects of roads and bridges on habitat suitability and determine road density 

threshold for ocelots

2.1.2. Identify optimal locations for crossing structures

2.1.3. Identify design specifications for crossing structures and other features to reduce 

mortality

2.1.4. Engage Federal and State Departments of Transportation in ocelot conservation

2.1.4.1.Support participation in interagency planning to conserve ocelots

2.1.4.2.Minimize the impacts of new roads and bridges in ocelot habitat and corridors

(section 7 consultations)

2.1.4.3.Where new roads or bridges are unavoidable, implement crossing structures 

and other appropriate designs to minimize road mortality and habitat loss

2.1.4.4.Construct new crossing structures or other design features on existing roads to 

reduce mortality in areas of heavy ocelot use

2.2. Avoid, reduce, and minimize U.S.-Mexican border infrastructure, maintenance, and 

development impacts on ocelot habitat and behavior 

2.2.1. Identify strategic locations for ocelot border crossings

2.2.2. Avoid and reduce impacts of border-associated structures, including ensuring 

border fences in ocelot habitat allow for the passage of ocelots 

2.2.3. Maintain and enhance protective thornscrub and other appropriate habitats near 

the border
50 

2.3. Avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts from other development projects and human 

activities, including residential and commercial construction, wind farms, and other 

developments and activities in ocelot habitat or corridors (section 7 consultations). 

3. Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot in 

borderland populations 

3.1. Maintain or increase genetic diversity within core populations 

3.1.1. Monitor genetic health and diversity in Texas ocelot populations; evaluate genetic 

augmentation

3.1.2. Monitor genetic health and diversity in Tamaulipas ocelot populations; evaluate 

genetic augmentation

3.1.3. Characterize the genetic status and variability of the ocelot in Sonora 

3.1.4. Design a genetic and population augmentation program and protocols for core 

populations as necessary

3.1.5. Evaluate the need and feasibility of artificial reproductive techniques to manage 

genetic diversity; if appropriate, implement techniques for and development of a 

genetic gamete tissue bank program

3.1.6. Evaluate the need and efficacy of establishing a captive breeding program

3.2. Increase the number of ocelots in core populations as necessary 

3.2.1. Conduct experimental translocations

3.2.2. Augment existing populations as necessary through translocation

3.2.3. Evaluate the feasibility of using confiscated ocelots to augment populations 

3.3. Identify an area for establishing a new ocelot population within historic range in Texas 

3.4. If an area suitable for a new ocelot population is identified, establish a new population 

within historic range in Texas 

3.5. Protect ocelots from life threatening diseases, parasites, and injuries 

3.5.1. Establish protocols for physiological assessment and individual identification 

3.5.2. Conduct serology and pathology surveys to determine genetic profile, overall 

condition, and the presence and effect of diseases and parasites

3.5.3. Create a tissue bank for ocelot samples

3.5.4. Establish protocols for treatment of injury, diseases, and parasites as appropriate

3.5.5. Establish a database of medical and genetic ocelot data

3.5.6. Investigate measures to prevent disease

3.6. Identify and reduce the impacts of environmental contaminants on the ocelot 

3.6.1. Conduct research that identifies pathways of contamination in ocelots and their 

prey and provides solutions to existing toxicity problems

3.7. Investigate competitive interactions among bobcat, coyote, and ocelot 

3.7.1. Conduct field studies designed to explicate the degree of niche overlap between 

the ocelot and its potential competitors

4. Assure the long-term success of ocelot conservation through partnerships, landowner 

incentives, community involvement, application of regulations, and public education 

and outreach 

4.1. Develop partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and citizens 

4.1.1. Develop regional recovery working groups that practice broad-based community 

planning for ocelot conservation 

4.1.2. Continue momentum for recovery through the implementation and technical 

subgroups of the Recovery Team
51 

4.1.3. Restore and protect habitat through cooperative conservation projects such as Safe 

Harbor Agreements, Habitat Conservation Plans, acquiring key property through 

easements or fee title with willing landowners on non-Federal lands in the U.S.

4.1.4. Develop incentive programs for landowners that have existing brush to implement 

recovery on non-Federal lands in the U.S.

4.1.5. Support work by biologists in Mexico to survey existing and potential habitat 

4.1.6. Develop partnerships with Mexican agencies and landowners to implement 

recovery actions

4.1.7. Encourage participation by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. 

Border Patrol with agencies responsible for ocelot conservation

4.2. Protect the ocelot by using or developing regulations where necessary 

4.2.1. Encourage development and enforcement of regulations in Mexico to protect 

ocelots

4.2.2. Assure compliance with existing regulations for oil and gas development and 

seismic exploration that could negatively affect the ocelot

4.3. Expand education and outreach to promote ocelot conservation 

4.3.1. Maintain an education/outreach working group under the Ocelot Recovery Team 

Implementation Subgroup to coordinate efforts for the ocelot

4.3.2. Develop a regional outreach plan for the TTMU and ASMU 

4.3.2.1.Develop education materials and plans for Texas and Arizona

4.3.2.2.Develop education materials and plans for Tamaulipas and Sonora

4.3.3. Monitor and assess the effectiveness of outreach efforts

4.3.4. Educate hunters, landowners, and predator control personnel to recognize ocelots 

and refrain from killing them 

5. Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are 

revised by USFWS in coordination with Recovery Team subgroups as new information 

becomes available 

5.1. Develop a monitoring schedule and protocol for core populations 

5.2. Develop agreements with willing landowners to survey for and monitor populations and 

habitats on non-Federal lands

5.3. Conduct monitoring

5.4. Prepare annual reports of ocelot monitoring results

5.5. Develop cooperation among agencies and organizations for data sharing and data 

repository

6. Support efforts to ascertain the status and conserve ocelot populations south of 

Tamaulipas and Sonora 

6.1. Track locations of skins to determine source of illegal harvest

6.2. Promote data collection and sharing among countries with ocelots

6.2.1. Provide support for a routine workshop every three to five years to gather ocelot 

information

6.2.2. Support efforts of international conservation groups to implement the MesoAmerican corridor (formerly the Paseo Pantera Corridor) 

6.3. Coordinate recommendations and available genetic data from international zoos
52 

Narrative of Recovery Actions 

Underlined recovery actions represent the most stepped-down levels of the recovery program 

narrative. These items are discrete, specific actions and are the actions listed in the 

Implementation Schedule found at the end of this document. 

1. Assess, protect, and enhance ocelot populations and habitat in the borderlands of the 

U.S. and Mexico. 

1.1. Develop a comprehensive habitat model for conservation of ocelots in the TTMU that 

addresses core population needs and habitat connectivity. 

1.1.1. Map existing brushlands suitable for supporting ocelots in Texas. GIS maps of all 

remaining brushlands in Texas should be developed to determine where suitable 

habitat remains, where populations may be found or reestablished, and where it 

may be feasible to establish habitat connectivity through restoration. 

1.1.2. Map existing brushlands suitable for supporting ocelots in Tamaulipas. 

Identification of existing habitat in Tamaulipas is vital to monitoring and 

protecting this population. This population may provide genetic and demographic 

enhancement essential to ocelot populations in the U.S. Ideally, landscape 

linkages will facilitate interchange between ocelot populations in these countries. 

1.1.3. Document the status of ocelots in known and potential habitat in Texas. A focus 

on building relationships and trust with landowners is necessary to obtain 

information about ocelots on private lands. A combination of efforts using 

remote imaging technology, ocelot sign, camera traps, hairs snares, existing 

reports, and accessing unsurveyed lands will be needed. 

1.1.4. Document the status of ocelots in known and potential habitat in Tamaulipas. 

The northernmost population in Tamaulipas is estimated at approximately 200 

animals, but less is known further south. A combination of efforts using remote 

imaging technology, ocelot sign, camera traps, anecdotal information, and 

accessing unsurveyed lands will be needed. 

1.1.5. Estimate the area necessary to support 200 ocelots in Texas and 1,000 ocelots in 

Tamaulipas. This action will require analysis of digital land cover data, field 

verification, and integration of the most current knowledge of ocelot habitat 

requirements. 

1.1.6. Identify existing and proposed conservation lands in current and potential ocelot 

range in Texas and Tamaulipas. A graphic representation of all occupied and 

suitable areas in Texas and Tamaulipas is fundamental to understanding 

population dynamics, potential locations for corridors, and long-term population 

sustainability. It will be necessary to identify and prioritize those lands most 

critical to target for conservation status. 
53 

1.1.7. Identify, field verify, and map the most practical connections between areas of 

existing and potential ocelot populations. Identification of linkages will be a 

critical component of a comprehensive habitat conservation model. Priority 

should be given to areas with minimal need for habitat restoration and a 

maximum potential for long-term protection. 

1.1.8. Study ocelot dispersal behavior. A better understanding of ocelot dispersal 

behavior and associated demography should be obtained using current satellite 

monitoring technology. 

 

1.1.9. Develop computer simulations to identify and predict the conditions associated 

with dispersal and movement of ocelots. Software such as that available for use 

with ArcMAP GIS (e.g., cost Distance Grid extension; ESRI, Redland, CA) is 

useful for modeling the virtual resistance of a landscape to the movements of 

wide-ranging carnivores (Larkin et al. 2004). Such modeling can assist with the 

identification of dispersal barriers, filters, and conduits, and can be an aid in 

designing blueprints for habitat restoration and habitat protection. Beier et al. 

(2006) described other GIS approaches to linkage design. 

1.1.10. Identify and prioritize lands for habitat restoration. Ultimately, adding habitat to 

the range of the ocelot will depend on the cooperation and interest of the 

landowner in restoration, or the availability of the land in question and the 

resources to acquire it or otherwise protect it. Where these challenges can be met, 

habitat with restoration potential should be prioritized according to its proximity 

to occupied range, its ability to serve as occupied range, and its utility as a 

landscape linkage between occupied areas. In addition, the difficulty of the 

restoration should be estimated and based on the condition of existing soils and 

vegetation (i.e., all things being equal, the area in need of less retrofitting should 

have a higher restoration priority than an area that requires more). 

1.1.11. Collaborate with landowners and experts to develop feasible landscape designs to 

manage habitat and specify the location and types of crossing structures at roads 

necessary to maintain linkages in southern Texas. Linkages are needed between 

LANWR and Kenedy – Willacy populations; within coastal habitat for Texas – 

Mexico corridors; within Starr County for Texas – Mexico corridors; within 

Willacy County for east to west corridors; and in other areas as necessary. 

1.2. Develop and implement strategies to preserve and expand habitat and enhance habitat 

connectivity in the TTMU. 

1.2.1. Develop, distribute, and implement guidelines for managing and enhancing 

existing ocelot habitat. Guidelines, in the form of a detailed brochure or manual, 

should be developed that describe best management practices for ocelot habitat, 

tools and resources for assistance, and benefits and incentives for land managers. 
54 

Guidelines should be distributed to interested managers, landowners, and posted 

on appropriate web sites. 

1.2.2. Develop and implement strategies and incentives to foster partnerships and enlist 

landowner cooperation. Successful recovery of the ocelot will require significant 

cooperation among organizations and participation of private landowners. Most 

of the important habitat for the species in both the U.S. and Mexico occurs on 

non-Federal lands or on public lands where wildlife may not be the primary target 

of management. Overcoming the perception that endangered species may be a 

liability on private lands is a significant challenge in parts of the species range, 

whereas, conflict with land use such as conversion to agriculture or development 

is more important in others. Strategies to conduct outreach to local communities 

and create incentives for their specific needs will need to be developed through 

the efforts of focused, long-term efforts. An outreach working group of the 

Recovery Team Implementation Subcommittee should be formed with this as a 

primary priority. 

1.2.3. Where feasible, prioritize and acquire necessary conservation easements/lands. 

Land acquisition from willing sellers should be pursued as resources and 

necessity allow. The priorities for acquisition should be evaluated regularly and 

opportunities for funding through partnerships of interested organizations (e.g., 

non-traditional section 6 grants) aggressively pursued. Create a task force of the 

Implementation Team to provide the guidance and make initial contacts 

pertaining to this action. 

1.2.3.1.Protect habitat occupied by and surrounding known ocelot populations. 

Habitat protection can include conservation easements or fee title acquisition 

from willing sellers. Protected habitat around LANWR in Cameron County 

and around currently occupied habitat in Willacy County must be expanded in 

order to meet recovery goals. In Willacy County, at least 4,000 acres of 

additional habitat around currently occupied habitat should be protected. 

Protection of habitat occupied by and surrounding known ocelot populations 

in Tamaulipas and Sonora should be promoted and supported through 

landowner agreements, national protection, or other programs in Mexico. 

1.2.3.2.Protect a corridor of habitat to connect known populations in Texas. 

Accomplish connectivity by protecting at least 3,000 acres of habitat in a 

corridor at least 0.25 mile wide and approximately 19 miles long between the 

ocelot populations in Willacy and Cameron Counties. This protection can be 

accomplished through a combination of USFWS Partners agreements, 

conservation easements, or fee title acquisition from willing sellers. 

1.2.3.3.Protect habitat in areas recently occupied by ocelots. Habitat protection can 

include conservation easements or fee title acquisition from willing sellers. 

Protected habitat in areas known to be recently occupied by ocelots, such as 

the area around the Salt Lakes Units of LRGVNWR, should be increased. 
55 

1.2.3.4.Protect a bi-national corridor of habitat to connect the Cameron County ocelot 

population to the northernmost known ocelot population in Tamaulipas. 

Habitat protection can include conservation easements or fee title acquisition 

from willing sellers. Creation of a Bi-national Coastal Wildlife Corridor from 

LANWR, Cameron County, Texas to the Laguna Madre y Delta del Rio 

Bravo National Natural Protected Area in Tamaulipas, Mexico has been 

identified as a shared goal of the USFWS and CONANP. This corridor 

should be at least 0.25 mile wide and provide habitat connectivity from the 

Cameron County ocelot population at LANWR in Texas to the northernmost 

known ocelot population in Tamaulipas. 

1.2.3.5.Protect habitat in other portions of the historic range in Arizona, Texas, 

Sonora, and Tamaulipas. Where feasible, remaining habitat in southern 

Arizona, Sonora, Texas, and Tamaulipas should be protected through partner 

agreements, conservation easements or fee title acquisition from willing 

sellers. 

1.2.4. Restore thornscrub habitat. 

1.2.4.1.Develop methodologies for thornscrub restoration. Small scale experiments 

have demonstrated that some aspects of thornscrub can be restored relatively 

quickly on suitable soils. However, such efforts have not resulted in the 

measurable expansion of ocelot habitat or the restoration of landscape 

connectivity. Monitoring should continue on existing restoration sites, and 

new methodologies should be developed that encourage the species diversity 

and structure that constitute occupied ocelot habitat in Texas. 

1.2.4.2.Identify and map appropriate soils for thornscrub restoration. Suitable ocelot 

habitat in Texas is associated with soils that are also desirable for agricultural 

uses. Existing soil maps should be available and useful in identifying 

potential habitat restoration zones. The selection of specific restoration areas 

should be a function of their potential to serve as occupied breeding habitat 

and travel corridors that link currently disjunct tracts of occupied or potential 

habitat. The re-establishment of thornscrub habitat in appropriate locations 

and spatial configurations will facilitate colonization by ocelots. 

1.2.4.3.Restore thornscrub habitat around core ocelot populations in Texas. In 

Willacy County, at least 2,000 acres of thornscrub habitat around existing, 

occupied habitat should be restored through invasive grass control and 

planting native seedlings. In Cameron County, at least 1,000 acres of 

thornscrub habitat around existing, occupied habitat on LANWR should be 

restored through invasive grass control and planting native seedlings. 

1.2.4.4.Implement thornscrub restoration on a priority basis to benefit ocelots. 

Restoration habitat should be prioritized according to its proximity to 
56 

occupied range, its ability to serve as occupied range, and its utility as a 

landscape linkage between occupied areas, and its suitability with regard to 

soils and water regimes. Thornscrub retention should be encouraged with 

landowners whenever possible, e.g., when irrigation ditches are being 

converted to underground water delivery systems. 

1.2.4.5.Develop and implement a monitoring program for restored thornscrub. 

The rate of recovery, growth, and spread of restored thornscrub should be 

systematically monitored and the information used to adapt and improve 

restoration methodologies. 

1.2.5 Assure available drinking water during periods of drought.

 Identify strategic well sites and install solar-powered pumps to provide assured 

water during dry years. Also, restore freshwater wetlands. 

1.3. Determine the status, trends, ecology, and threats to ocelots in the ASMU. 

1.3.1. Refine current distribution map of the regional population. Greater precision 

concerning ocelot presence, numbers, and specific habitat requirements will 

enable biologists and managers to establish the most efficient approaches to 

ocelot conservation, management, and recovery. 

1.3.1.1.Map existing habitat potentially suitable for supporting ocelots in Sonora and 

Arizona. Incorporate satellite data, topographic maps, and elevation maps 

into GIS to estimate land cover throughout the region and determine suitable 

habitat. Identify areas that could provide corridors for movement between 

Sonora and Arizona. 

1.3.1.2.Continue and expand surveys to document the presence of ocelots in known 

and potential habitat. Presence/absence surveys and systematic field 

monitoring are needed to determine the current status and distribution of the 

ocelot in ASMU. Field data will be combined with GIS data to extrapolate 

the location and abundance of potential ocelot populations in Sonora and 

Arizona. 

1.3.1.3.Establish a minimum of three long-term monitoring areas in Sonora and 

Arizona. This information will provide baseline population data (with small 

confidence intervals) to detect population trends and establish whether 

recovery criteria are met. 

1.3.1.4.Identify existing and proposed conservation lands in current and potential 

ocelot range in Sonora and Arizona. Property boundaries, and state and 

Federal lands in Sonora and Arizona need to be incorporated into GIS models 

to understand the spatial configurations of conserved areas and preferred 

ocelot habitats. Land of property owners willing to support ocelot recovery 

and would be incorporated into the model. 
57 

1.3.2. Determine spatial requirements of ocelot populations in Sonora and Arizona. 

1.3.2.1.Conduct GPS telemetry studies and other noninvasive monitoring to 

determine habitat selection. An understanding of habitat use in core areas and 

peripheral areas, especially in northern Sonora, will assist with calculating the 

quantity and quality of habitat required to support viable ocelot populations. 

1.3.2.2.Determine daily and seasonal movements, including patterns of subadult 

dispersal. GPS telemetry data complemented with track/scat transects will aid 

in providing home range size, travel routes, and connectivity between core 

areas and peripheral habitats. 

1.3.2.3.Identify conduits and barriers to movements. Studies of vegetation types, 

degree of cover, topography, water distribution, in conjunction with ocelot 

presence and repeated use will reveal habitat linkages important to ocelot 

dispersal. After these corridors are identified, ocelots can be monitored and 

barriers to movement can be detected and managed. 

1.3.2.4.Identify food habits, prey preferences, prey abundance and distribution. As 

ocelots tend to be found where there is adequate vegetative cover and prey, an 

analysis of the quantity of prey needed in conjunction with the location of 

favored prey species is a valuable predictor suitable ocelot habitat. 

1.4. Identify significant threats to ASMU populations. The extent to which habitat loss is 

affecting ocelots in Sonora or Arizona should be determined. Increasing border activity, 

human population growth and its accompanying development may be decreasing and 

fragmenting available habitat. 

1.5. Identify mechanisms to reduce or alleviate significant threats to ASMU populations. As 

understanding of the scope and significance of threats to the ASMU are identified, 

corresponding solutions should be developed to protect habitat and promote 

conservation and recovery.

2. Reduce the effects of human population growth and development on the ocelot. 

2.1. Avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts of roads and bridges to the ocelot.

2.1.1. Quantify the effects of roads and bridges on habitat suitability and determine road 

density threshold for ocelots. Noss and Cooperrider (1994) observed that “Open 

road density has been found to be a good predictor of habitat suitability for large 

mammals, with habitat ‘effectiveness’ and population viability declining as road 

density increases.” The relation between roads and ocelot presence needs better 

quantification to determine thresholds of tolerance. This information can be 

obtained by examining the distribution of occupied and unoccupied tracts of 

thornscrub and other appropriate habitats and comparing structural characteristics 
58 

that are related to highways and bridges such as nearness to traffic, traffic noise, 

traffic levels, and daily patterns of vehicle use.

2.1.2. Identify optimal locations for crossing structures. This should incorporate ocelot 

density and movement data from radio telemetry, camera studies, live trapping, 

dens, scats, tracks, road kills, and digital land cover analysis from ongoing field 

studies. 

2.1.3. Identify design specifications for crossing structures and other features to reduce 

mortality. Examples from Europe, Florida, and the western U.S. should serve as 

preliminary models for ocelot-specific designs (Forman et al. 2003). Designs 

should also incorporate ocelot behavioral information (i.e., aversion to open 

areas). Appropriate vegetation should be maintained around crossing areas to 

shield and funnel ocelots to crossing structures, or in some cases, integrate 

fencing with crossing structures. 

2.1.4. Engage Federal and state departments of transportation in ocelot conservation.

2.1.4.1.Support participation in interagency planning to conserve ocelots.

Coordination, including section 7 consultations and other mechanisms, 

between wildlife management agencies and transportation departments is 

critical to implementation. The participation of representatives from these 

departments on the ocelot Recovery Team Implementation subgroup and local 

working groups should be cultivated and supported.

2.1.4.2.Avoid, reduce, and minimize the impacts of new roads and bridges in ocelot 

habitat and corridors. Good coordination among agencies, as described 

above, will assist in genuine assessment of possible alternatives to or 

mitigation of construction of new roads and bridges in prime ocelot habitat 

through preplanning of route adjustment, maximum retention or restoration of 

vegetation, and strategic location of crossing structures.

2.1.4.3.Where new roads or bridges are unavoidable, implement crossing structures 

and other appropriate designs to minimize road mortality and habitat loss. 

Information from ocelot monitoring data and vegetation mapping should be 

used to include crossing structures in new road and bridge construction where 

appropriate. In ocelot habitat, crossing structures should be built where new 

roads or bridges bisect natural landscape pathways such as drainages.

2.1.4.4.Construct new crossing structures or other design features on existing roads 

and bridges to reduce mortality in areas of heavy ocelot use. A minimum of 

10 crossings should be constructed at key locations, including Highway 77 (I69), Highway 186, FM106, FM510, Highway 100, Highway 4, and Highway 

281. Information from monitoring data and design development (Recovery 

Actions 2.1.1 and 2.1.3) should be used to prioritize and construct crossing 

structures on existing roads to reduce ocelot mortality.
59 

2.2. Avoid, reduce, and minimize U.S.-Mexican border infrastructure, maintenance, and 

development impacts on ocelot habitat and behavior. 

2.2.1. Identify and communicate strategic locations for ocelot border crossings. This 

will require the application of knowledge about ocelot habitat requirements and 

dispersal behavior, and the mapping information developed for the model in 

Recovery Actions 1.1.1 – 1.1.10. 

 

2.2.2. Design border-associated structures and activities to address necessary border 

security and facilitate cross border movements by ocelots. Coordination through 

NEPA and other procedures with agencies on both sides of the border is needed to 

affect changes in current use and management of borderlands structures and 

activities. Minor modifications to planned or existing structures such as 

maintaining natural vegetation (especially thornscrub or structurally similar 

vegetation) under bridges, around dams, within power line corridors, or beside 

roads can provide opportunities for ocelot travel and discourage illegal human 

travel. When dredging occurs, spoil should be placed where it will not block 

shore access or river crossings by ocelots. Lighting should be minimized in 

strategic ocelot crossing locations and pointed away from dense woody 

vegetation. Openings large enough to allow for the passage of ocelots should be 

incorporated into existing and planned border fences in ocelot habitat, such as has 

been done in some areas in Texas. 

2.2.3. Maintain and enhance thornscrub habitats or similar vegetative structure near the 

border. Thornscrub and structurally similar habitats along border riparian zones 

are especially important to encourage river crossings and provide year-round 

access to water. Fires set by patrolling vehicles or illegal immigrants and other 

associated activities along the border sometimes destroy thornscrub and 

structurally similar habitat. However, dense thornscrub or structurally similar 

habitat may be a deterrent to illegal border crossings by humans, making its 

maintenance or restoration potentially attractive to enforcement authorities. 

Communication and relationship development with enforcement authorities, as 

described in Recovery Actions 2.1.4 and 2.3.2 are critical to making progress in 

this area. 

2.3. Avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts from other development projects and human 

activities, including residential and commercial construction, wind farms, and other 

developments and activities in ocelot habitat or corridors. Partnerships and collaboration 

between wildlife management agencies and private landowners, developers, irrigation 

and drainage districts, utility companies, and other entities should be cultivated in order 

to promote preservation of and reduce impacts to ocelot habitat and corridors. Section 7 

consultations and other mechanisms should be used to ensure impacts are minimized or 

avoided. Where feasible, agreements to protect a corridor of habitat along one side of 

irrigation and drainage ditches should be developed to protect ditch habitat corridors 

used by ocelots. 
60 

 

3. Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot in 

borderland populations. 

3.1. Maintain or increase genetic diversity within core populations. 

3.1.1. Monitor genetic health and diversity in Texas ocelot populations; evaluate genetic 

augmentation. Reduced genetic diversity in Texas is a threat. Analysis of the 

Texas populations should continue to assess its status and track progress towards 

recovery as translocations occur and as the population grows. Tissue samples 

collected during routine capture activities and the use of hair collected from baited 

hair snares can provide the samples necessary for standard protocols to track 

genetic changes in the population. The genetic augmentation plan should include 

a monitoring protocol for evaluating results and appropriate adaptive 

management. The protocol will include monitoring of microsatellites, specifically 

for levels of heterozygosity and allele diversity, and mitochondrial cytochrome-b 

haplotypes. Both source and recipient populations will be evaluated prior to 

translocation. After translocation, monitor recipient populations for multiple 

generations. 

3.1.2. Monitor genetic health and diversity in Tamaulipas populations; evaluate genetic 

augmentation. Research and monitoring of ocelots in Tamaulipas should include 

genetic studies, including microsatellite diversity and mitochondrial cytochrome-b 

haplotypes analyses, to establish and track the genetic structure and stability of 

translocation source populations and determine the efficacy of any translocation 

programs to augment populations in Texas. 

3.1.3. Characterize the genetic status and variability of the ocelots Sonora. Although the 

ocelot populations in Arizona/Sonora and those of Texas/Tamaulipas are 

considered separate subspecies, the genetic variability between the two ocelot 

populations is unknown, as is the genetic diversity within the Arizona/Sonora 

population. This information could assist in management of borderland 

populations. 

3.1.4. Design a genetic and population augmentation program and protocols for core 

populations as necessary. PVA analysis (Appendix IV; Haines et al. 2005a) have 

indicated that LANWR and Kenedy -Willacy ocelot populations have limited 

gene diversity and would benefit from augmentation from Tamaulipas ocelots. A 

cooperative plan between Mexico and the U.S. should be developed with the 

oversight of the Recovery Team to address both genetic and population 

augmentation. 

3.1.5. Evaluate the need and feasibility of artificial reproductive techniques to manage 

genetic diversity; if appropriate, implement techniques for and develop of a 

genetic gamete tissue bank program. Artificial reproduction techniques such as 

artificial insemination may be an alternative or supplement to translocation to 
61 

improve genetic structure of the population. Developing a gamete tissue bank 

will organize and maintain frozen samples and broaden options for genetic 

enhancement. 

3.1.6. Evaluate the need and efficacy of establishing a captive breeding program. 

Ocelots are well represented in zoos and much is known about their husbandry. 

Resources at appropriate zoos should be examined to determine the feasibility of 

expanding numbers of wild-captured or captive animals of known origin in 

zoological parks to be used in genetic augmentation and for reintroduction. 

However, at this time, no wild animals should be removed from Texas 

populations to augment a captive population. Any captive breeding program 

should be explicitly organized to support and not replace in situ conservation 

(Snyder et al. 1996). 

3.2. Increase the number of ocelots in core populations as necessary. 

3.2.1. Conduct experimental translocations. Once a plan has been developed (see 

Recovery Action 3.1.3), conduct experimental translocations to evaluate and 

refine techniques as necessary. Capture and translocation methodology and the 

characteristics (such as age and sex) of ocelots that contribute to successful 

translocation should be evaluated. 

3.2.2. Augment existing populations as necessary through translocation. If suitable 

habitat exists near core areas that are currently unoccupied, ocelots may be 

translocated to improve demographic and genetic stability. 

3.2.3. Evaluate the feasibility of using confiscated ocelots to augment populations. If 

the subspecific origin of individuals can be determined and they are sufficiently 

healthy, such animals should be considered for supplementation of captive 

populations. 

3.3. Identify an area for establishing a new ocelot population within the historic range in 

Texas. The potential for establishing additional ocelot populations in Texas should be 

thoroughly evaluated. Additional populations would enhance recovery of the ocelot by 

reducing the loss of genetic variability and by spreading the extinction risk to multiple 

units that are geographically and therefore demographically independent. Within the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System, ocelots are known to 

occur on Laguna Atascosa NWR and conservation easements of Lower Rio Grande 

Valley NWR. Aransas NWR may have potential as a reintroduction site, and the Lower 

Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana NWRs historically supported ocelots and are 

important links to Mexico. However, these refuges currently exist in denatured 

landscapes and the potential for existing and future occupation by the ocelot has not 

been thoroughly investigated. Evaluation of the potential for reintroduction would 

include a thorough NEPA analysis to determine relevant biological factors as well as 

social, environmental, and economic impact analyses. 
62 

3.4. If an area suitable for a new ocelot population is identified, establish a new population 

within historic range in Texas. Social acceptance of reintroduction is critical to success 

of the effort and to building tolerance and support for endangered species. If ocelots are 

reintroduced on public lands, the surrounding private landowners must be engaged and 

assured of protection from real or perceived liability from endangered species. 

Introduction of a non-essential experimental population would be appropriate if the 

reintroduced population is geographically separated from ocelots with fully endangered 

status at the time of introduction. A special rule under section 4(D) of the ESA could be 

written to provide flexibility of management which would apply to all ocelots within the 

experimental population area boundary. 

3.5. Protect ocelots from life threatening diseases, parasites, and injuries. 

3.5.1. Establish protocols for physiological assessment and individual identification. 

For all ocelots handled, collect physical data reflecting health and reproductive 

status (e.g., gender, weight, body measurements, age, body temperature, pulse, 

respiration, and overall condition). Photographs of each individual will be taken 

to record distinguishing patterns and other unique features and passive integrated 

transponder (PIT) tags should be injected under the skin between the shoulder 

blades for permanent identification. 

3.5.2. Conduct serology and pathology surveys to determine genetic profile, overall 

condition, and the presence and effect of diseases and parasites. Blood, hair, 

urine, and fecal samples (as possible) will be collected antiseptically by 

experienced researchers to document genetic status, disease, parasites, hormone 

levels, and general health of captured or injured ocelots. 

3.5.3. Create a tissue bank for ocelot samples. A tissue bank would maintain samples 

for reference and future study. A list of what samples to collect, how to collect 

them, where to store samples, and other useful data will standardize data 

collection and proper storage. 

3.5.4. Establish protocols for treatment of injury, diseases, and parasites as appropriate. 

Specific to each type of condition, treatment protocols may bring more rapid and 

efficient assistance to ailing ocelots and can give field researchers guidance for 

administering ocelot first aid should immediate assistance be required. 

3.5.5. Establish a database of medical and genetic ocelot data. A computer database 

containing health, identity, and treatment information from captured or injured 

ocelots will help to maintain a record of each ocelot’s condition. A standardized, 

long-term database will allow the detection of trends, predictions, and will 

facilitate recovery. Links to protocol procedures and equipment lists will be 

included. 

3.5.6. Investigate measures to prevent disease. The efficacy of preventative measures, 

such as vaccinations vs. biological methods, such as controlling vectors of 
63 

disease, needs to be investigated. Killed-virus rabies vaccines have been given to 

captured ocelots since 1995 and this practice should be continued. 

3.6. Identify and reduce the impacts of environmental contaminants on the ocelot. 

3.6.1. Conduct research that identifies pathways of contamination in ocelots and their 

prey and provides solutions to existing toxicity problems. Evaluate the effects of 

rodenticides, crop-spraying, water contamination, and bioaccumulation on ocelots 

and their prey. This will include an examination of the physiological effects of 

these toxins on the ocelot, the differences in pesticide usage in the U.S. and 

Mexico, and recommendations for solving the problems revealed in this research. 

3.7. Investigate competitive interactions among the bobcat, coyote, and ocelot. 

3.7.1. Conduct field studies designed to explicate the degree of niche overlap between 

the ocelot and its potential competitors. Studies that are targeted at such 

relationships are warranted. A better understanding of the interactions between 

the ocelot and competitors will be important in the evaluation of habitat 

management targeted at improving landscape conditions and recovery potential 

for the species. Continue to document food habits and direct interactions between 

individuals of all three species. Consider conducting experiments whereby 

bobcats and coyotes are removed from ocelot home ranges. 

4. Assure the long-term success of ocelot conservation through partnerships, landowner 

incentives, community involvement, application of regulations, and public education 

and outreach. 

4.1. Develop partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and citizens. 

4.1.1. Develop regional recovery working groups that practice broad-based community 

planning for ocelot conservation. Implementation of recovery actions for the 

ocelot throughout its range are necessary. However, breaking down the tasks with 

a regional or local focus makes recovery more manageable and feasible. Working 

groups with a membership and focus on locally important issues in U.S. and 

Mexico should be formed as a function of the Implementation Subgroup of the 

Recovery Team, and encouraged and supported by the USFWS over the long 

term. Because funding for recovery is a significant challenge, each working 

group should consider establishing a funding coordinator to ensure viability of 

local recovery efforts. Many agency and private programs, grants, and 

foundations are available to assist in recovery efforts. 

 

4.1.2. Continue momentum for recovery through the implementation and technical 

subgroups of the Recovery Team. The Ocelot Recovery Team Implementation 

Subcommittee should function as an oversight body for the implementation of the 

recovery plan. A system of communication among working groups, the Technical 

Team, and the USFWS should be implemented through periodic reporting or 
64 

meetings so that adaptive management can be used to support their efforts, track 

recovery, and modify the plan as necessary. 

4.1.3. Restore and protect habitat through cooperative conservation projects such as Safe 

Harbor Agreements, Habitat Conservation Plans, acquiring key property through 

easements or fee title with willing landowners on non-Federal lands in the U.S. 

One of the primary roles of the USFWS in recovery is to assure that appropriate 

resources and tools for partnership implementation are understood and available 

to its partners. Because of the significant amount of private lands essential to 

ocelot recovery, the USFWS should be vigilant in making such resources 

available that support projects with willing landowners. 

4.1.4. Develop other incentive programs with landowners who have existing brush or 

who want to restore thornscrub habitat on non-Federal lands in the U.S. 

Incentives need to be developed for landowners to encourage them to maintain 

existing thornscrub habitat and to restore habitat where it was previously cleared. 

A system of communication between local working groups and the USFWS is 

essential to identify opportunities, work with local people, and provide the 

appropriate technical or financial support. 

4.1.5. Support work by biologists in Mexico to survey existing and potential habitat. 

Resources, including funding and technical support will be essential to assuring 

that information regarding the ocelot in Tamaulipas and Sonora is obtained and 

shared. Local communities will benefit and generate more interest if resources 

are made directly available to Mexican biologists. 

4.1.6. Develop partnerships with Mexican agencies and landowners to implement 

recovery actions. Ocelot conservation in Mexico is fundamental to recovery for 

the ocelot in the U.S. A working group for transborder and Mexico issues should 

be formed to develop partnerships, research incentives, and find support for 

recovery and conservation in Mexico. Continued support of Mexican partners on 

the Ocelot Recovery Team will be key to coordination of these actions. 

4.1.7. Encourage participation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Border 

Patrol with agencies responsible for ocelot conservation. It is important to 

develop relationships with DHS and CBP to assure that conservation needs of 

ocelots are considered within the context of the charges and missions of the CBP, 

DHS, and the USFWS. Collaborations among agencies will minimize potential 

conflicts and enable Federal agencies to balance the needs of immigration policies 

and wildlife conservation. 

4.2. Protect the ocelot by using or developing regulations where necessary. 

4.2.1. Encourage development and enforcement of regulations in Mexico to protect 

ocelots. Technical assistance and conservation recommendations should be made 

available to Mexican authorities. Although national and international laws exist 
65 

to protect the ocelot in Mexico, funding is insufficient for effective enforcement. 

Because ocelot harvest is likely only a local problem, the Mexican government 

should be encouraged to protect areas where ocelots are present. 

4.2.2. Assure compliance with existing regulations for oil and gas development and 

seismic exploration that could negatively affect the ocelot. Through section 7 

compliance and other means, the USFWS should lead efforts to coordinate with 

other regulatory agencies and developers to promote activities that would not 

constrain movement of ocelots or alter potential ocelot habitat. Use mitigation 

opportunities to enhance ocelot habitat. 

4.3. Expand education and outreach to promote ocelot conservation. 

4.3.1. Maintain an education/outreach working group under the Ocelot Recovery Team 

Implementation Subgroup to coordinate efforts for the ocelot. Outreach and 

education are crucial and should be performed at all levels of the recovery effort, 

including interactions with private landowners by researchers and managers, 

education in schools, outreach to hunters, non-government organizations (NGO), 

and legislators. Many current members of the Recovery Team have expertise, and 

work in environments that have resources for outreach. Zoos, NGOs, 

Universities, USFWS, state agencies, and other partners should collaborate in a 

working group to coordinate outreach and assist in implementation efforts. Many 

outreach materials and efforts will need to have a local focus and purpose; 

therefore, frequent interaction between outreach and regional working groups is 

important. Materials will be provided in both Spanish and English. 

4.3.2. Develop a regional outreach plans for the TTMU and ASMU. An education and 

outreach program will create additional landowner participation in ocelot 

conservation, raise public awareness, build advocacy and support, and help 

generate human behavioral changes that will abet ocelot conservation. 

4.3.2.1.Develop education materials and plans for Texas and Arizona. An outreach 

plan should identify and cultivate the most effective partners and audiences 

and develop targeted educational materials. Development of materials should 

consider what may motivate the public to get involved with or support the 

recovery effort, and promote such incentives. Involving a marketing specialist 

in the development of a plan is advised. All possible venues, including 

websites, interconnectivity of web links, list server messages, paper, film and 

other media should be considered. 

4.3.2.2.Develop education materials and plans for Tamaulipas and Sonora. Efforts 

and audiences in Mexico will be different from those in the U.S. and may 

require a different strategy. An education and outreach specialist from 

Mexico should be cultivated for the Implementation Team and working group 

to assure the effort is effective. 

 
66 

4.3.3. Monitor and assess the effectiveness of outreach efforts. To the extent possible, 

methods for monitoring the effectiveness of outreach strategies should be built 

into the outreach plans. The working group should seek funding for appropriate 

research or survey work to monitor and adapt the effort as necessary. 

4.3.4. Educate hunters, landowners, and predator control personnel to recognize ocelots 

and refrain from killing them. Hunter education programs should be promoted by 

state wildlife agencies to prevent accidental shooting. Brochures (in both Spanish 

and English) with basic information and identification keys should be distributed 

to landowners, hunters, and predator control agents at appropriate venues. 

5. Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are 

revised by USFWS in coordination with Recovery Team subgroups as new information 

becomes available. 

5.1. Develop a monitoring schedule and protocol for core populations. To track progress for 

recovery, population monitoring must be regular, thorough, and standardized. Funding 

for monitoring by researchers and USFWS in both Texas and northern Mexico should be 

a priority. A monitoring protocol that utilizes remote-activated cameras was described 

by Grassman et al. (2006).

5.2. Develop agreements with willing landowners to survey for and monitor populations and 

habitats on non-Federal lands. The lack of information about ocelot populations on 

private lands is a major impediment to its recovery. Developing landowner trust and 

cooperation is essential. The Technical and Implementation Subgroups of the Recovery 

Team should work closely together to develop and implement strategies to involve 

landowners, build trust, and encourage information sharing.

5.3. Conduct monitoring. Monitoring on public lands and private lands as landowner 

agreement is gained should be a high priority and conducted with standardized protocols. 

Monitoring of core populations should be increased. 

5.4. Prepare annual reports of ocelot monitoring results. Monitoring data should be compiled 

and provided to the USFWS and Recovery Team annually to track progress towards 

recovery. Monitoring data at the scale of country and ocelot population segment should 

be compiled and provided to the Recovery Team annually to track progress toward 

recovery. 

5.5. Develop cooperation among agencies and organizations for data sharing and data 

repository. Cooperation and communication among all the partners working towards 

recovery of the ocelot is essential to success. Population data should be regularly shared 

with the Recovery Team so that the status of the ocelot, progress towards recovery, and 

necessary adjustments to planning and implementation efforts are made. Data should be 

reported at a scale that protects landowner privacy and proprietary rights to original data 

while conveying needed biological and management information. Building trust with 
67 

landowners and assuring the protection of unpublished research data is fundamental to 

achieving this action. 

6. Support efforts to ascertain the status and conserve ocelot populations south of 

Tamaulipas and Sonora. 

6.1. Track locations of skins to determine source of illegal harvest. Genetic markers exist 

that can be used to pinpoint source populations using specific alleles. The collection and 

assessment of ocelot genetic information from different countries and their unique 

genetic markers can be used to compare to those of illegally obtained pelts to determine 

the location of harvest. 

6.2. Promote data collection and sharing among countries with ocelots.

6.2.1. Provide support for a routine workshop every three to five years to gather ocelot 

information. Seek financial resources to bring IUCN Cat Specialist Group 

together with the Ocelot Recovery Team and other researchers to share data and 

ideas. Such a meeting would provide a forum for information exchange to assess 

the status, address research, education, and conservation needs for ocelots. 

. 

6.2.2. Support efforts of international conservation groups to implement the MesoAmerican corridor (formerly the Paseo Pantera Corridor). The Ocelot Recovery 

Team will assist land and resource managers from any interested nations with 

developing guidelines for habitat conservation and the preservation of key 

linkages, such as those involved in the Meso-American corridor. This is to ensure 

that the ocelot’s current and future needs for natural dispersal are addressed. 

6.3. Coordinate recommendations and available genetic data from international zoos. Zoos 

are a valuable source of ocelot reproduction, food requirements, and habitat conditions. 

Much information of ocelot genetics and habits comes from zoo studies. Establishing a 

link within the ocelot database of the future that provides rearing and genetic 

information may be helpful for global monitoring of ocelot genetic diversity and might 

assist with the care of captive ocelots. 
68 

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The following implementation schedule outlines priorities, potential or responsible parties, and 

estimated costs for the specific actions for recovering the ocelot. It is a guide to meeting the 

goals, objectives, and criteria from Section 2 RECOVERY of this recovery plan. The schedule: 

(a) lists the specific recovery actions, corresponding outline numbers, the action priorities, and 

the expected duration of actions; (b) recommends agencies or groups for carrying out these 

actions; and (c) estimates the financial costs for implementing the actions. These actions, when 

complete, should accomplish the goal of this plan – recovery of the ocelot. 

3.1 Responsible Parties and Cost Estimates 

The value of this plan depends on the extent to which it is implemented; the USFWS has neither 

the authority nor the resources to implement many of the proposed recovery actions. The 

recovery of the ocelot is dependent upon the voluntary cooperation of many other organizations 

and individuals who are willing to implement the recovery actions. The implementation 

schedule identifies agencies and other potential “responsible parties” (private and public) to help 

implement the recovery of this species. This plan does not commit any “responsible party” to 

carry out a particular recovery action or to expend the estimated funds. It is only recognition that 

particular groups may possess the expertise, resources, and opportunity to assist in the 

implementation of recovery actions. Although collaboration with private landowners and others 

is called for in the recovery plan, no one is obligated by this plan to any recovery action or 

expenditure of funds. Likewise, this schedule is not intended to preclude or limit others from 

participating in this recovery program. 

The cost estimates provided are not intended to be a specific budget but are provided solely to 

assist in planning. The total estimated cost of recovery, by priority, is provided in the Executive 

Summary. The schedule provides cost estimates for each action on an annual or biannual basis. 

Estimated funds for agencies included only project-specific contract, staff, or operations costs in 

excess of base budgets. They do not include ordinary operating costs (such as staff) for existing 

responsibilities. 

3.2 Recovery action priorities and abbreviations 

Priorities in column 1 of the following implementation schedule are assigned using the following 

guidelines: 

Priority 1a = An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species 

 from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

Priority 1b = An action that by itself will not prevent extinction, but which is needed to 

 carry out a Priority 1a action. 

Priority 2 = An action that must be taken to prevent a substantial decline in species 

 population/habitat quality or some other substantial negative effect short of 

 extinction. 
69 

Priority 3 = All other actions necessary to meet the recovery objectives. 

The assignment of these priorities does not imply that some recovery actions are of low 

importance, but instead implies that lower priority items may be deferred while higher priority 

items are being implemented. 

The following abbreviations are used in the Implementation Schedule: 

 ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation 

 AGFD = Arizona Game and Fish Department 

 AZA = Association of Zoos and Aquariums 

 CBP = U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

 CKWRI = Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute 

 DHS = Department of Homeland Security 

 DOW = Defenders of Wildlife 

 DZ = Dallas Zoo 

 ED = Environmental Defense 

 GPZ = Gladys Porter Zoo 

 IBWC = International Boundary and Water Commission 

IEA = Instituto de Ecologia y Alimentos 

 NAT = Naturalia 

 PL = Private Landowners 

 PRNA = Pronatura 

 SCT = Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes 

 SEM = La Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMERNAT) 

 TNC = The Nature Conservancy 

TPWD = Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation 

UA = University of Arizona 

UNAM = Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University 

 of Mexico) 

USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
70 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

1b 1.1.1 

Map existing and 

suitable brushlands in 

Texas 

2 A 1 USFWS, TPWD, ED YES 70 70 

1b 1.1.2 

Map existing and 

suitable brushlands in 

Tamaulipas 

2 A 7 USFWS, IEA, PRNA, SEM YES 

1b 1.1.3 

Document ocelot's 

status in known and 

potential habitat in 

Texas 

2 A 7 CKWRI, USFWS, TPWD NO 470 65 65 65 65 70 70 

1b 1.1.4 

Document ocelot's 

status in known and 

potential habitat in 

Tamaulipas 

2 A 7 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM 

NO 400 55 55 55 55 60 60 

1b 1.1.5 

Estimate area for 200 

ocelots in Texas and 

1,000 in Tamaulipas 

2 A,E 1 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM 

NO 15 15 

2 1.1.6 Identify conservation lands in TTMU range 2 A,E 1 CKWRI, ED, USFWS, PRNA, SEM, TNC YES 15 15 2 1.1.7 

Identify, field verify, 

and map connections 

between TTMU 

populations 

2 A 1 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM 

YES 25 25 

2 1.1.8 Study ocelot dispersal behavior 1,2,3 A,E 4 CKWRI, USFWS, PRNA, SEM NO 210 60 50 50 50 2 1.1.9 

Develop computer 

simulations of ocelot 

movement and 

dispersal 

1,2,3 A,E 4 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM 

NO 160 45 40 40 35 
71 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2 1.1.10 

Identify and prioritize 

lands for habitat 

restoration 

2,3 A 1 

CKWRI, ED, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM, TPWD 

NO 25 25 

1b 1.1.11 

Identify habitat linkages 

and necessary 

crossing structures in 

south Texas and 

Arizona 

2 A,E 3 

CKWRI, ED, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM, TPWD, 

TxDOT, USDOT 

NO 9 3 3 3 

3 1.2.1 

Develop, distribute, 

and implement habitat 

guidelines 

1,2,3 A 1 ED, USFWS, TPWD NO 20 20 

2 1.2.2 Foster partnerships with landowners 1,2,3 A,E 7 

AGFD, CKWRI, 

USFWS, IEA, 

PRNA, SEM, 

TPWD, ED 

NO 45 10 10 5 5 5 5 

2 1.2.3.1 

Protect habitat in and 

around known 

populations 

1,2,3 A 7 

USFWS, ED, 

PRNA, SEM, 

TNC, TPWD 

YES 7000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 

2 1.2.3.2 

Create a corridor 

connecting Texas 

populations 

1,2,3 A 7 USFWS, ED, TNC, TPWD YES 1050 150 150 150 150 150 150 

2 1.2.3.3 

Protect habitat in 

recently occupied 

areas 

1,2,3 A 7 

AGFD, ED, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM, TNC, 

TPWD 

YES 10000 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1000 

2 1.2.3.4 

Create a bi-national 

corridor connecting 

Texas and Tamaulipas 

populations 

1,2,3 A 7 

USFWS, ED, 

PRNA, SEM, 

TNC, TPWD 

YES 11200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 
72 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2 1.2.3.5 

Protect habitat within 

historical range in 

Arizona, Texas, 

Sonora, and 

Tamaulipas 

1,2,3 A 7 

AGFD, ED, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM, TNC, 

TPWD 

YES 1700 200 250 250 250 250 250 

3 1.2.4.1 Develop methods to restore thornscrub 2 A CKWRI, USFWS, TPWP NO 175 50 45 45 35 3 1.2.4.2 

Identify and map soils 

for thornscrub 

restoration 

2 A 1 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

TPWD 

YES 31 31 

3 1.2.4.3 

Restore thornscrub 

around core 

populations in Texas 

2 A 7 USFWS, TNC, PL, ED YES 1785 255 255 255 255 255 255 

3 1.2.4.4 

Implement thornscrub 

restoration in other 

areas 

2 A 7 

DOW, ED, 

USFWS, PL, 

TNC, TPWD, 

TxDOT 

NO 1750 250 250 250 250 250 250 

3 1.2.4.5 

Develop and 

implement a monitoring 

program for restored 

thornscrub 

2 A 7 CKWRI, ED, USFWS, TPWD NO 15 2 1 1 2 2 4 

2 1.2.5 

Assure available 

drinking water during 

periods of drought 

2 E 5 USFWS, EDF, TNC, TPWD YES 215 43 43 43 43 43 
73 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2 1.3.1.1 

Map existing habitat 

suitable for ocelots in 

Sonora and Arizona 

3 A 1 AGFD, USFWS, PRNA, SEM NO 200 100 100 

2 1.3.1.2 

Continue and expand 

surveys in ASMU 

habitat 

3 A,E 7 AGFD, USFWS, SEM NO 350 50 50 50 50 50 50 

3 1.3.1.3 

Establish at least 3 

long-term monitoring 

areas in Sonora and 

Arizona 

3 A,B,D, E 6 SEM, AGFD, USFWS NO 1200 200 200 200 200 200 

2 1.3.1.4 Identify conservation lands in ASMU range 3 A 2 AGFD, USFWS, SEM NO 50 25 25 3 1.3.2.1 

Determine habitat 

selection in Sonora and 

Arizona 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E 5 SEM, AGFD, USFWS NO 1000 200 200 100 200 200 100 

3 1.3.2.2 

Determine movements 

and sub-adult dispersal 

in Sonora and Arizona 

1,2,3 A,E 3 SEM, AGFD, USFWS NO 750 250 250 250 

2 1.3.2.3 

Identify conduits and 

barriers to movements 

in Sonora and Arizona 

1,2,3 A,E 3 AGFD, USFWS, SEM NO 150 50 50 50 

3 1.3.2.4 

Identify food habits and 

prey preference, 

abundance, and 

distribution in Sonora 

1,2,3 A,E 5 SEM NO 500 100 100 100 100 100 

2 1.4 

Identify significant 

threats to ASMU 

populations 

3 A,B,C, D,E 3 AGFD, USFWS, SEM NO 150 50 50 50 

2 1.5 

Identify mechanisms to 

reduce and alleviate 

threats to ASMU 

3 A,B,C, D,E 3 AGFD, CBP, USFWS, SEM NO 150 50 50 50 
74 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

1b 2.1.1 

Quantify road and 

bridge effects on 

habitat suitability; 

determine ocelot road 

density threshold 

2 A,E 4 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, 

TPWD, TxDOT, 

USDOT 

YES 205 60 50 50 45 

1a 2.1.2 

Identify optimal 

locations for road 

crossing structures 

2 A,E 2 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, 

TPWD, TxDOT, 

USDOT 

YES 30 15 15 

1a 2.1.3 

Identify design 

specifications for 

crossing structures and 

other mortalityreducing features 

2 A,E 1 

CKWRI, 

TxDOT, USDOT 

NO 15 15 

1a 2.1.4.1 

Support participation in 

interagency planning to 

conserve ocelots 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E ongoing 

AGFD, 

USFWS, SCT, 

TPWD, TXDOT, 

USDOT 

YES 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 

1a 2.1.4.2 

Minimize impacts of 

new roads and bridges 

in ocelot habitat 

2,3 A,E 7 

ADOT, USFWS, 

SCT, TPWD, 

TXDOT 

NO 105 15 15 15 15 15 15 

1a 2.1.4.3 Implement crossing structures and designs 2,3 A,E ongoing 

ADOT, USFWS, 

SCT, TPWD, 

TXDOT, 

USDOT 

NO 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 

1a 2.1.4.4 

Construct new crossing 

structures in heavy use 

areas 

2 A,E ongoing 

ADOT, USFWS, 

SCT, TPWD, 

TXDOT, 

USDOT 

NO 11900 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 

1b 2.2.1 Identify locations for ocelot border crossings 2,3 A,E 1 CKWRI, USFWS, PRNA, SEM YES 40 10 10 10 1b 2.2.2 

Reduce impacts of 

border-associated 

structures 

2,3 A,E ongoing 

CKWRI, CBP, 

DHS, USFWS, 

IBWC, SCT, 

TxDOT, USDOT 

NO 210 30 30 30 30 30 30 
75 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2 2.2.3 

Maintain and enhance 

thornscrub and other 

appropriate habitats 

near the border 

2 A,E ongoing DHS, USFWS, IBWC, TNC NO 140 20 20 20 20 20 20 

1a 2.3 

Minimize impacts to 

ocelots from residential 

and commercial 

development, wind 

farms, and other 

activities 

2,3 A,E ongoing USFWS YES 364 52 52 52 52 52 52 

1b 3.1.1 

Monitor genetic health 

and diversity in Texas 

populations; evaluate 

genetic augmentation 

2 A,E 7 CKWRI, DZ, USFWS, UA YES 42 6 6 6 6 6 6 

1b 3.1.2 

Monitor genetic health 

and diversity in 

Tamaulipas 

populations; evaluate 

genetic augmentation 

2 A,E 7 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, SEM, 

UNAM 

YES 42 6 6 6 6 6 6 

3 3.1.3 

Characterize genetic 

status and variability of 

the Arizona/Sonora 

ocelots 

3 A,E 2 USFWS, SEM, UA NO 20 12 8 

2 3.1.4 

Design genetic 

augmentation program 

and protocols for core 

populations 

2 A,E 4 CKWRI, DZ, USFWS, UA NO 115 40 25 25 25 

2 3.1.5 

Evaluate artificial 

reproductive 

techniques; if 

appropriate, create 

gene bank 

2,3 A,E 7 AZA, DZ, USFWS NO 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 

3 3.1.6 

Evaluate establishment 

of genetic breeding 

program 

2 A,E 1 AZA, CKWRI, USFWS NO 10 10 
76 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

3 3.2.1 Conduct experimental translocations 2 A,E 2 CKWRI, USFWS, SEM, TPWD YES 1500 500 500 500 3 3.2.2 

Augment existing 

populations as 

necessary through 

translocation 

2 A,E 2 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, SEM, 

TPWD 

NO 2000 500 500 500 

3 3.2.3 

Evaluate feasibility of 

using confiscated 

ocelots to augment 

populations 

2 A,E 1 DZ, USFWS, GPZ NO 5 5 

2 3.3 

Identify an area in 

Texas for establishing 

a new ocelot 

population 

2 A,E USFWS, PL, TPWD YES 40 10 30 

3 3.4 

If appropriate, establish 

a new population in 

Texas 

2 A,E USFWS YES 850 150 200 250 

2 3.5.1 

Establish protocols for 

physiological 

assessment and 

individual identification 

2,3 C,E 1 

CKWRI, 

USFWS, SEM, 

UNAM 

NO 2 2 

3 3.5.2 Conduct serology and pathology surveys 2,3 C,E 7 CKWRI, USFWS, SEM, UNAM NO 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 3.5.3 Create a tissue bank for ocelot samples 2,3 C,E 7 CKWRI, USFWS, SEM, UNAM NO 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3.5.4 

Establish protocols for 

treatment of injury, 

diseases, parasites 

2,3 C,E 1 AZA, UNAM NO 2 2 

3 3.5.5 

Establish database of 

medical and genetic 

ocelot data 

1,2,3 C,E 7 AZA, CKWRI, USFWS, UNAM NO 10 4 1 1 1 1 1 

3 3.5.6 Investigate measures to prevent disease 1,2,3 C 4 AZA, CKWRI, USFWS, UNAM NO 5 2 1 1 1 
77 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

3 3.6.1 

Research 

contamination in 

ocelots and prey; 

provide solutions to 

toxicity problems 

2,3 C,E 3 CKWRI, USFWS, UNAM NO 95 35 35 25 

3 3.7.1 

Conduct field studies of 

niche overlap between 

ocelot and competitors 

1,2,3 E 4 ADGF, CKWRI, USFWS, UNAM NO 205 60 50 50 45 

2 4.1.1 

Develop regional 

recovery working 

groups for ocelot 

conservation 

2,3 A,B,C, D,E 3 USFWS, SEM, TPWD YES 30 10 10 10 

2 4.1.2 

Continue recovery 

through 

Implementation and 

Technical Subgroups 

of Recovery Team 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E ongoing AGFD, AZA, USFWS, PL, TPWD YES 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 

1b 4.1.3 

Develop cooperative 

conservation projects 

with willing landowners 

2 A,B,D, E ongoing AGFD, DOW, ED, USFWS, SEM, TPWD YES 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 

1b 4.1.4 

Develop and 

implement incentive 

programs for 

landowners to 

implement recovery on 

non-federal lands 

2 A,B,D, E ongoing AGFD, ED, USFWS, SEM, TPWD YES 115 5 15 15 20 20 20 

2 4.1.5 

Support work by 

biologists in Mexico to 

survey habitat 

1,2,3 A 

AGFD, DOW, 

USFWS, PRNA, 

SEM, TPWD 

NO 100 50 50 

2 4.1.6 

Develop partnerships 

with Mexican agencies 

and landowners to 

implement recovery 

actions 

2,3 A,B,C, D,E 3 

DOW, ED, 

USFWS, NAT, 

PRNA, SEM, 

TNC 

YES 40 10 10 10 10 

1b 4.1.7 

Encourage 

participation by DHS 

and CPB with 

conservation agencies 

2,3 A,E 3 USFWS YES 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 
78 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

1b 4.2.1 

Encourage 

development and 

enforcement of 

regulations in Mexico 

to protect ocelots 

1,2,3 D USFWS, PRNA, SEM NO 140 20 20 20 20 20 20 

2 4.2.2 

Assure compliance 

with regulations for oil 

and gas development 

and seismic operations 

2,3 A,D ongoing USFWS YES 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 

2 4.3.1 

Maintain an 

education/outreach 

working group 

2,3 A,B,E 7+ 

AGFD, AZA, 

DOW, ED, 

USFWS, TPWD 

NO 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 

2 4.3.2.1 

Develop education 

materials and plans for 

Texas and Arizona 

2 A,B,E 7 AZA, USFWS, TPWD, AGFD NO 50 5 10 10 10 5 5 

2 4.3.2.2 

Develop education 

materials and plans for 

Tamaulipas and 

Sonora 

2,3 A,B,D, E 7-Jan AZA, DOW, PRNA, NAT, SEM NO 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 

3 4.3.3 

Monitor and assess 

effectiveness of 

outreach efforts 

2,3 A,B,D, E 5 AZA, DOW, PRNA NO 40 10 5 10 5 

1b 4.3.4 

Educate hunters, 

landowners, and 

predator control 

personnel to refrain 

from killing ocelots 

1,2,3 B 7 TPWD NO 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 5.1 

Develop monitoring 

schedule and protocol 

for core populations 

2 A,B,C, D,E 2 CKWRI, USFWS, SEM YES 10 5 5 

1b 5.2 

Develop agreements to 

survey populations and 

habitats on non-federal 

lands 

2 A,B,C, D,E ongoing AGFD, CKWRI, ED, USFWS, TPW NO 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 
79 

Priority Number 

Action Number Recovery Action Description 

Recovery Criterion 

Number(s) 

Threats 

Action Duration 

(Years) 

Responsible Parties 

Is USFWS Lead? 

Total Cost ($1,000s) Cost Estimate by Year (by 1,000s) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

3 5.3 Conduct monitoring of 

recovery 1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E 7 AGFD, CKWRI, USFWS, SEM, TPWD YES 896 128 128 128 128 128 128 

3 5.4 

Prepare annual report 

of ocelot monitoring 

results 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E 7 CKWRI, USFWS, TPWD NO 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 

2 5.5 Develop data sharing and data repository 1,2,3 C,E 7 AGFD, CKWRI, USFWS, SEM, TPWD NO 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 6.1 

Track skin locations to 

determine source of 

illegal harvest 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E 7 CKWRI, USFWS NO 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 

3 6.2.1 

Provide support for a 

routine workshop every 

3-5 years to gather 

ocelot information 

1,2,3 A,B,C, D,E ongoing DOW, USFWS, NAT, PRNA, SEM YES 75 25 25 

2 6.2.2 

Support international 

groups to implement 

Meso-american 

corridor 

1 A,B,C, D,E ongoing DOW, USFWS, NAT, PRNA, SEM YES 24 2 2 4 4 4 4 

3 6.3 

Coordinate 

recommendations and 

available genetic data 

from international zoos 

1,2,3 E 3 AZA NO 6 2 2 2 
80 

Literature Cited 

Akerman, E. 1998. Finally an effective fence. U.S. News & World Report 125(15):27-28. 

Anderson, G.L., M. Bray, D. Griffin, P.K. McDowell, W. Swanson, and M.E. Tewes. 1997. 

Using remote sensing and GIS to map vegetation and determine ocelot habitat. Pages 

451-459 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Biennial Workshop on Videography and Color 

Photography in Resource Assessment. American Society for Photogrammetry and 

Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 537 pp. 

Anonymous. 1986. Regional news. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin (August – 

September) 11(8-9):9. 

Artois, M. and M. Remond. 1994. Viral diseases as a threat to free-living wildcats (Felis 

silvestris) in Continental Europe. Veterinary Record 134:651-652. 

Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. North American fauna, vol.25. 

Washington, D.C., Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Biol. Survey. 222 pp. 

Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and corridors for cougars. Conservation 

Biology 7:94-108. 

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 59:228-237. 

Beier, P., K Penrod, C. Luke, W. Spencer, and C. Cabañero. 2006. South Coast missing 

linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United 

States. In K.R. Crooks and M.A. Sanjayan, editors, Connectivity and conservation, 

Cambridge University Press In press. 

Beissinger, S.R., and M.I. Westphal. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population 

viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:821-

841. 

Bies, L. 2007. Bordering on Disaster. The Wildlife Professional Spring 2007. 

Bragin, N. 1994. North American regional studbook for ocelot (Felis pardalis). The Phoenix 

Zoo, Pheonix, AZ. 100 pp. 

Bragin, N. 2003. AZA North American regional studbook for ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). 

The Denver Zoo, Denver, Co. 132 pp. 

Bragin, N., K. Kaemmerer, and B. Wiese. 2001. Ocelot population management plan 

Leopardus (Felis) pardalis. American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Silver Spring, 

MD. 19 pp. 

Brisbal, F.J. 1986. Food habits of some Neotropical carnivores in Venezuela. Mammalia 

50:329-339. 

Brody, A.J., and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:5-10. 

Brown, D.E. 1990. The ocelot, p. 421-433. In: W.J. Chandler (ed.) Audubon Wildlife Report 

1989/1990. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Brown, J.H. 2004. Challenges in population estimation and conservation of the black bear in 

west-central Florida. M.S. thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 

Burt, W.H. 1961. A fauna from an Indian site near Redington, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 

42:115-116. 

Cabrera, A. 1961. Los felidos vivientes de la república Argentina. Revista del Museo Argentina 

de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia,” Ciencias Zoológicas 6:161-247. 

Cahalane, V.H. 1947. Mammals of North America. The Macmillan Company, N.Y. 680 pp. 
81 

Cain, A.T. 1999. Bobcat use of highway crossing structures and habitat use near a highway 

expansion in southern Texas. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, 

Kingsville, TX. 110 pp. 

Casariego-Madorell, M.A. 1998. Estimacion del tamaño poblacional del ocelote (Leopardus 

pardalis) en una selva baja caducifolia de la costa de Jalisco, Mexico. Bachelor’s Thesis 

ENEP-UNAM Iztacala, Mexico. 

Caso, A. 1994. Home range and habitat use of three neotropical carnivores in northeast Mexico. 

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, 78 pp. 

Caso, A., S. Carvajal-Villarreal, P. Downey, and A. Moreno. 2005. Técnica de captura y 

manejo del margay (Leopardus wiedii) en la Reserva de la Biosfera El Cielo in SánchezRamos, G. P. Reyes-Castillo y R. Dirzo (Editores). Historia natural de la reserva de la 

Biosfera "El Cielo", Tamaulipas. México. Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, 

Instituto de Ecología A. C., UNAM. Toppan printing inc. (55) 538-542. 

Cat Specialist Group. 1996. Leopardus pardalis ssp. albescens. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN 

Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 6 June 2006. 

Cat Specialist Group. 2008. Leopardus pardalis. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 7 June 2010. 

Ceballos, G. and A. Garcia. 1995. Conserving neotropical biodiversity: the role of dry 

forests in western Mexico. Conservation Biology 9:1349-1356. 

Cisin, C. 1967. Especially ocelots. Harry G. Cisin. New York, New York, USA. 

Cockrum, L.E. 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona - the taxonomy and distribution. Univ. 

Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 276 pp. 

Connell, J.H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghosts of competition 

past. Oikos 35:131-138. 

Conservation International. 2004. Northern Region of the Mesoamerica Biodiversity 

Hotspot: Belize, Guatemala, Mexico. Ecosystem Profile, Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund. 

Cooke, J.L.F. 1999. Responses among captive ocelots (Felis pardalis) to introduced scent 

stations. M.S. thesis. Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX. 51 pp. 

Crawshaw, P.G., Jr., and H.B. Quigley. 1989. Notes on ocelot movement and activity in the 

Pantanal Region, Brazil. Biotropica 21:377-379. 

Creel, S., G. Spong, and N. Creel. 2001. Interspecific competition and the population biology of 

extinction-prone carnivores. Pages 35-60 in J.L Gittleman, S.M. Funk, D. Macdonald, 

and R.K. Wayne, editors. Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

Deem, S.L., and W. Karesh. 2005. Jaguar health program manual. Wildlife Conservation 

Society Jaguar Conservation Program. 

http://savethejaguar.com/media/file/FieldHealthManualRevisedJune2005.pdf. 

Accessed 15 May 2006. 

Denis, A. 1964. Cats of the world. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom, 144 pp. 

Dillon, A. 2005. Ocelot home range and density in Belize, Central America: camera trapping 

and radio telemetry. M.S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, VA. 

Eaton, R. 1977. Breeding biology and propagation of the ocelot (Leopardus [Felis] pardalis). 

Zool. Garten Jena 47:9-23. 
82 

Eaton, R. 1984. Survey of smaller felid breeding. Zoologische Garten 54:101-120. 

Eizirik, E., S.L. Bonatto, W.E. Johnson, P.G. Crawshaw Jr., J.V. Vie, D.M. Brousset, S.J. 

O’Brien, and F.M. Salzano. 1998. Phylogeographic patterns and evolution of the 

mitochondrial DNA control region in two neotropical cats (Mammalia, Felidae). Journal 

of Molecular Evolution 47:613-624. 

Emmons, L.H. 1987. Comparative feeding ecology of felids in a neotropical forest. Behavioral 

Ecology and Sociobiology 20:271-283. 

Emmons, L.H. 1988. A field study of ocelots (Felis pardalis) in Peru. Review of Ecology 

(Terre Vie) 43:133-157. 

Eubanks, T., and J.R. Stoll. 1999. Avitourism in Texas. www.fermatainc.com. 

Fagan, R. M., and K. S. Wiley. 1978. Felid paedomorphosis, with special reference to 

Leopardus. Carnivore 1:72-81. 

Fernandez, E.C. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) ecology in the Chamela-Cuixmala 

Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

WY. 

Fischer, C.V. 1998. Habitat use by free-ranging felids in an agroecosystem. M.S. thesis, Texas 

A&M University, Kingsville, TX. 

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevinger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. 

Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, 

and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: Science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Fulbright, T.E., and F.C. Bryant. 2002. The last great habitat. Special Publication Number 1. 

Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, TX. 

Fulbright, T.E., and F.C. Bryant. 2003. The Wild Horse Desert: climate and ecology. Pages 35-

58 in C.A. Forgason, F.C. Brant, and P.C. Genho, editors. Ranch Management: 

Integrating Cattle, Wildlife, and Range. King Ranch, Kingsville, TX. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B,. Jorgensen, A., and A. Brautigam. 1987. Latin American wildlife trade 

laws, 2d edition (rev.). World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C. 

Genho, P., J. Hunt, and M. Rhyne. 2003. Managing for the long term while surviving the short 

term. Pages 81-107 in C.A. Forgason, F.C. Bryant, and P.C. Genho, editors. Ranch 

management: integrating cattle, wildlife, and range. King Ranch, Kingsville, TX. 

Goldman, E.A. 1943. The races of ocelot and margay in middle America. Journal of 

Mammalogy 24:373-385. 

Grassman, L.I., M.E. Tewes, and A. Haines. 2006. Ocelot and jaguarundi survey on perimeter 

lands of Choke Canyon Reservoir. Final report (Cooperative agreement no. 201814J852) 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX. 

Grigione, M.M., A. Caso, R. List and C. Gonzalez-Lopez. 2001. Status and conservation of 

endangered cats along the U.S.-Mexico border. Endangered Species Update 18:129-132. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. II. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 

Haines, A.M., M.E. Tewes, L.L. Laack, W.E. Grant and J. Young. 2005a. Evaluating recovery 

strategies for an ocelot population in southern Texas. Biological Conservation 126:512-

522. 

Haines, A.M., M.E. Tewes, and L.L. Laack. 2005b. Survival and sources of mortality in 

ocelots. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:255-263.
83 

Haines, A.M., M.E. Tewes, L.L. Laack, J.S. Horne, and J.H. Young. 2006. A habitat-based 

population viability analysis for ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the United States. 

Biological Conservation 132:424-436. 

Harveson, P.M., M.E. Tewes, G.L. Anderson, L.L. Laack. 2004. Habitat use by 

ocelots in south Texas: implications for restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:948-

954. 

Heilbrun, R.D., N.J. Silvy, M.E. Tewes, and M.J. Peterson. 2003. Using automatically triggered 

cameras to individually identify bobcats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:748-755. 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Horne, J.S. 1998. Habitat partitioning of sympatric ocelot and bobcat in southern Texas. 

Thesis, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2002a. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for US Border Patrol Activities within the Border Areas of the Tucson and Yuma Sectors, 

AZ Washington D.C. 354 pp. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2002b. Final Biological Assessment for Impacts to 

Endangered and Threatened Species Relative to Operation Rio Grande in Starr, Hidalgo, 

and Cameron Counties, Texas. Washington D.C. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 

2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Released on 17 November 2007. 

Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Jackson, V.L., L.L. Laack, and E.G. Zimmerman. 2005. Landscape metrics associated with 

habitat use by ocelots in south Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:733-738. 

Jahrsdorfer, S.E. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1988. Tamaulipan brushland of the lower Rio Grande 

Valley of south Texas: description, human impacts, and management options. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Stillwater, 

OK. 63 pp. 

Janecka, J.E. 2006. Conservation genetics and ecology of ocelot and the implications on ocelot 

recovery in Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX. 

Jedrzejewska, B., and W. Jedrzejewski. 1998. Predation in vertebrate communities: the 

Bialowieza primeval forest as a case study. Ecological Studies, Vol. 135. Springer, 

Berlin, Germany. 450 pp. 

Johnson, W.E., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Franklin. 1996. Sympatry in canids: a review and 

assessment. Pages 189-218 in J.L. Gittleman, editor. Carnivore behavior, ecology, and 

evolution. Volume 2. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 

Kaemmerer, K. 1999. Update on the ocelot research program. Pages 76-82 in D. Wildt, J. 

Mellen and J Brown, editors. Felid Taxon Advisory Group action plan 1999 Report. 

American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Walt Disney World, Animal Kingdom, Lake 

Buena Vista, FL. 

Kaemmerer, K., C. Bennett, S. Steele, and S. Weller. 1996. Working cooperatively to save the 

Texas ocelot: research and conservation efforts of the Texas Ocelot Research and 

Conservation Consortium. Pages 603-611 in Proceedings of the Western Regional 

American Zoo and Aquarium Association Conference. Wheeling, WV. 

Kaemmerer, K., N. Bragin, A. Roberts, J. Aynes, R. Evans, D. Goff, A. Kuntze, K. Lovett, L. 

Smith, V. Walkosak, A. Atkins, B. Swanson, R. Wiese. 2004. 2004 AZA Annual 

Conservation & Science Report for Ocelot SSP (covering the period 2002-2003). 

http://members.aza.org/Departments/CPR/index.cfm?page=reports&report=SSP. 
84 

Karanth, K.U. 1995. Estimating tiger populations from camera-trap data using mark-recapture 

models. Biological Conservation 71:333-338. 

Karanth, K.U., and J.D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic 

captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852-2862. 

Karesh, W.B. and R.A. Cook. 1995. Applications of veterinary medicine to in situ 

conservation efforts. Oryx 29:244-252. 

Konecny, M.J. 1989. Movement patterns and food habits of four sympatric carnivore species in 

Belize, Central America. Pages 243-264 in K.H. Redford and J.F. Eisenberg, editors. 

Advances in neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL. 

Kovach, A.I., M.K. Litvaitis, and J.A. Litvaitis. 2003. Evaluation of fecal mtDNA analysis as a 

method to determine the geographic distribution of a rare lagomorph. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 31:1061-1065. 

Kurten, B. 1965. The Pleistocene Felidae of Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 

9:215-273. 

Laack, L.L. 1991. Ecology of the ocelot (Felis pardalis) in south Texas. M.S. thesis, Texas 

A&I University, Kingsville, TX. 113 pp. 

Laack, L.L., M.E. Tewes, A.H. Haines, J.H. Rappole. 2005. Reproductive ecology of 

ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) in southern Texas. Acta Theriologica 50:505-514.

Larkin, J.L., D.S. Maehr, T.S. Hoctor, K. Whitney, and M.A. Orlando. 2004. Landscape 

linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Animal 

Conservation 7:23-34. 

Lesica, P. and F.W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for 

conservation? Conservation Biology 9(4):753-760. 

Logan, K.A., and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Lomolino, M.V., and R. Channell. 1995. Splendid isolation: Patterns of geographic range 

collapse in endangered mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 76:335-347. 

Lonard, R.I., J.H. Everitt, and F.W. Judd. 1991. Woody plants of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 

Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45:133−147. 

Lonard, R.I., and F.W. Judd. 1985. Effects of a severe freeze on native woody plants in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 30:397-403. 

Lopez Gonzalez, C.A., M.G. Hidalgo-Mihart, and L. Cantu. 2002. Management and 

conservation of the carnivore community of a tropical dry forest in western Mexico. 

Unpublished report to Earthwatch Institute. 

Lopez Gonzalez, C.A., D.E. Brown, and J.P. Gallo-Reynoso. 2003. The ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis in north-western Mexico: ecology, distribution and conservation status. Oryx 

37:358-364. 

Lorey, D.E. 1999. The U.S. Mexican border in the twentieth century. Scholarly Resources Inc. 

Wilmington, DE. 195 pp. 

Lowery, G.H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State 

University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 565 pp. 

Ludlow, M.E., and M.E. Sunquist. 1987. Ecology and behavior of ocelots in Venezuela. 

National Geographic Research and Exploration 3:447-461. 

Ludwig, D. 1999. Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction? Ecology 80:298-310. 

Maehr, D.S. 1997. Comparative ecology of bobcat, black bear, and Florida panther in south 

Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 40:1-176. 
85 

Maehr, D.S, E.D. Land, D.B. Shindle, O.L. Bass, and T.S. Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther 

dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. 

Maffei, L., A.J. Noss, E. Cuellar, and D.I. Rumiz. 2005. Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population 

densities, activity, and ranging behavior in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from 

camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:1-6. 

Mann, C.C., and M.L. Plummer. 1995. Noah’s choice: the future of endangered species. 

Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 

Martinez-Meyer, E. 1997. Estudio ecologico del ocelote (Leopardus pardalis) en la zona de 

Chamela, Jalisco, Mexico. M.Sc. Thesis Facultad de Ciencias UNAM, Mexico, D.F. 

76 p. 

May, R.M. 1988. Conservation and disease. Conservation Biology 2:28-29. 

McMahan, L.R. 1986. The international cat trade. In: Miller, S.D. and D.D. Everett, editors, 

Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. Texas A&I University and 

The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. 

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in 

Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87. 

Mellen, J. 1989. Reproductive behavior of small captive cats (Felis spp.). Dissertation, 

University of California, Davis, California, USA. 

Mercer, S.H., L.P. Jones, J.H. Rappole, D. Twedt, L.L. Laack, and T.M. Craig. 1988. 

Hepatozoon sp. in wild carnivores in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24:574-576. 

Mills, L.S., and F.W. Allendorf. 1996. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and 

management. Conservation Biology 10:1059-1518. 

Mondolfi, E. 1986. Notes on the biology and status of the small wild cats in Venezuela. Pages 

125-146 in S.D. Miller and D.D. Everett, editors. Cats of the world: biology, 

conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Moorehead, W.K. 1968. The Hopewell mound group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural 

History, Anthropological Series, publication 211, VI(5):1-186. 

Mora, M.A., Laack, L.L., Lee, M.C., Sericano, J., Presley, R., Gardinali, P.R., Gamble, L.R., 

Robertson, S., and D. Frank. 2000. Environmental contaminants in blood, hair, and 

tissues of ocelots from the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, 1986-1997. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment 64:447-492. 

Morais, R.N., N. Moreira, W. Moraes, R.G. Mucciolo, O. Lacerda, M.L.F. Gomes, W.F. 

Swanson, L.H. Graham, J.L. Brown. 1996. Testicular and ovarian function in South 

American small felids assessed by fecal steroids. Proceedings of the American 

Association of Zoo Veterinarians 1996:351-356. 

Moreira, N., E.L. Monteiro-Felho, W. Moraes, W. F. Swanson, L.H. Graham, O.L. Pasquali, 

M.L.F.Gomes, R.N. Morais, D.E. Wildt and J.L. Brown. 2001. Reproductive steroid 

hormones and ovarian activity in felids of the Leopardus genus. Zoo Biology 20:103-

116. 

Moritz, C. 1994. Defining “evolutionary significant units” for conservation. Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution 9:373-375. 

Munson, L. and W.B. Karesh. 2002. Disease monitoring for the conservation of terrestrial 

animals. Pages 95-103 in A.A. Aguirre, R.S. Ostfeld, G.M. Tabor, C. House, and 

M.C. Pearl. Conservation Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain. 

Murdock, S.H., S. White, M.N. Hoque, B. Pecotte, X. You, and J. Balkan. 2002. The Texas 

challenge in the twenty-first century: implications of population change for the future of 
86 

Texas. The Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and Education, 

Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University System. Departmental 

Technical Report 2002-1. 466 pp. 

Murray, J.L., and G.L. Gardner. 1997. Leopardus pardalis. Mammalian Species 548:1-10. 

Navarro, D., J.J. Rappole, and M.E. Tewes. 1993. Distribution of the endangered ocelot (Felis 

pardalis) in Texas and northeastern Mexico. Pages 157-169 in R.A. Medellin and G. 

Ceballos, editors. Avances en el estudio de los mamiferos de Mexico. Publicaciones 

Especiales Volume 1. Asociacion Mexicana de Mastozoologia, A.D., Mexico, D.F. 

Navarro-Lopez, D. 1985. Status and distribution of the ocelot in South Texas. Unpublished 

M.S. thesis, Texas A&I University, Kingsville, TX. 92 pp. 

Newman, A., M. Bush, D.E. Wildt, D. Van Dam, M. Frankehuis, L. Simmons, L. Phillips and 

S.J. O’Brien. 1985. Biochemical genetic variation in eight endangered feline species. 

Journal of Mammalogy 66:256-267. 

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring 

biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. 1996. Wild cats, status survey and conservation action plan. 

IUCN/SSC cat Specialist Group. 382 pp. 

Orlando, M.A. 2003. The ecology and behavior of an isolated black bear population in west 

central Florida. M.S. thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 

Pence, D.B., M.E. Tewes, D.B. Shindle, and D.M. Dunn. 1995. Notoedric mange in an ocelot 

(Felis pardalis) from southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31:558-561. 

Pence, D.B., M.E. Tewes, and L.L. Laack. 2003. Helminths of the ocelot from southern Texas. 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:683-689. 

Pocock, R.I. 1941. The races of the ocelot and margay. Pub. Field Museum Nat. Hist., Zool. 

Ser. 27:319-369. 

Potts, R.J. 2003. Keeping landowners on the land: policy, incentives, and legislative issues. 

Pages 75-79 in C.A. Forgason, F.C. Bryant, and P.C. Genho, editors. Ranch 

management: integrating cattle, wildlife, and range. King Ranch, Kingsville, TX. 

Quillen, P. 1981. Hand-rearing the little spotted cat or oncilla. International Zoo Yearbook 

21:240-242. 

Ray, C.E., S.J. Olsen, and H.J. Gut. 1963. Three mammals new to the Pleistocene fauna of 

Florida, and a reconsideration of five earlier records. Journal of Mammalogy 44:373-

395. 

Redford, K.H., and J.F. Eisenberg. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics: the southern cone. 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 430 pp. 

Roelke-Parker, M.E., Munson L., C. Packer, R.A. Kock, S. Cleaveland, M. Carpenter, S.J. 

O’Brien, A. Pospichil, R. Hoffman-Lehmann, H. Lutz, G.L.M. Mwamengele, M.N. 

Mgasa, G.A. Machange, B.A. Summers, and M.J.G. Appel. 1996. A canine distemper 

virus epidemic in Seregeti lions (Panthera leo). Nature 379:441-445. 

Ryder, O.A. 1986. Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 1:9-10. 

Ryne, M.Z. 1998. Optimization of wildlife and recreation earnings for private landowners. 

M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas 36 pp. 

Rypkema, K. 2000. Utilizing conspecific urine to influence habitat use and activity in ocelots 

(Leopardus pardalis). M.S. thesis. Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX. 50 pp. 

Sealander, J.A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. River Road Press, Conway, AR. 313 pp. 
87 

Seidensticker, J., M.E. Sunquist, and C. McDougal. 1990. Leopards living at the edge of Royal 

Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Pages 415-423 in J.C. Daniel and J.S. Serrao, editors. 

Conservation in developing countries: problems and prospects. Oxford University Press, 

Bombay, India. 

Shindle, D.B., and M.E. Tewes. 1998. Woody species composition of habitats used by ocelots 

(Leopardus pardalis) in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province. The Southwestern Naturalist 

43:273-279. 

Shinn, K.J. 2002. Ocelot distribution in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX. 85 

pp. 

Smallwood, K.S., and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for 

terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. 

Snyder, N.F.R., S.R. Derrickson, S.R. Beissinger, J.W. Wiley, T.B. Smith, W.D. Toone, and B. 

Miller. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. 

Conservation Biology 10:338-348. 

Starnes, L, Deputy Regional Director, USFWS, Region 2. Biological opinion on the effects of 

the ADC predator control program’s use of leg-hold traps, snares, and M-44 devices on 

the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi. September 11, 1997 letter to Gary Nunley, State 

Director, USDA APHIS, San Antonio, Texas. 

Sunquist, M.E., F. Sunquist, and D.E. Daneke. 1989. Ecological separation in a Venezuelan 

llanos carnivore community. Pages 197-232 in K.H. Redford and J.F. Eisenberg, editors. 

Advances in neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL. 

Sunquist, M., and F. Sunquist. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, IL. 

Swanson, W.F. 2001. Reproductive biotechnology and conservation of the forgotten felids – the 

small cats. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Assisted Reproductive 

Technology for the Conservation & Genetic Management of Wildlife. Omaha, NE. 100-

120. 

Swanson, W.F. 2002. The role of science and reproductive biotechnology in establishing and 

managing the Brazilian ocelot population in U.S. and Brazilian zoos. Proceedings of the 

American Zoo and Aquarium Association 2002:75-78. 

Swanson, W.F. 2003. Forging an international conservation partnership for the Brazilian ocelot. 

Communique (American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Silver Spring, MD), 

January:33-34. 

Swanson, W.F., J.G. Howard, T.L. Roth, J.L. Brown, T. Alvarado, M. Burton, D. Starnes, and 

D.E. Wildt. 1996. Responsiveness of ovaries to exogenous gonadotrophins and 

laparoscopic artificial insemination with frozen-thawed spermatozoa in ocelots (Felis 

pardalis). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 106:87-94. 

Swanson, W.F., W.E. Johnson, R.C. Cambre, S.B. Citino, K.B. Quigley, D.M. Brousset, R.N. 

Morais, N. Moreira, S.J. O’Brien, and D.E. Wildt. 2003. Reproductive status of endemic 

felid species in Latin American zoos and implications for ex situ conservation. Zoo 

Biology 22:421-441. 

Tewes, M.E. 1986. Ecological and behavioral correlates of ocelot spatial patterns. Unpublished 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 128 pp. 

Tewes, M.E., and D.D. Everett. 1986. Status and distribution of the endangered ocelot and 

jaguarundi in Texas. Pages 147-158 in S.D. Miller and D.D. Everett, editors. Cats of the 
88 

world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, D.C. 

Tewes, M.E., and S.D. Miller. 1987. Future research for the endangered ocelot population of 

the United States. Pages 164-166 in R.R. Odom, K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier, 

editors. Proceedings of the Third Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Athens, GA. 

Tewes, M.E., and D.J. Schmidly. 1987. The neotropical felids: jaguar, ocelot, margay, and 

jaguarundi. Pp 695-712 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. 

Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Natural 

Resources, Ontario, Canada. 1150 pp. 

Tewes, M.E., L.L. Laack, and A. Caso. 1995. Corridor management for ocelots in the southern 

United States and northern Mexico. Proceedings of the International Wildlife 

Management Congress 1:444-446. 

Tewes, M.E., and D.R. Blanton. 1998. Potential impacts of international bridges on ocelots and 

jaguarundis along the Rio Grande wildlife corridor. Pages 135-139 in G.L. Evink, P. 

Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of 

Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. 

Tewes, M.E., E. Redeker, and N. Cook. 1999. Utility of airborne multispectral video imagery to 

identify cover types used by ocelots. Pages 254-260 in 17th Biennial Workshop on Color 

Photography and Videography in Resource Assessment, American Society for 

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and Department of Environmental and Resource 

Sciences, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nevada, May 5-7. 298 pp. 

Tewes, M.E., and R.W. Hughes. 2001. Ocelot management and conservation along 

transportation corridors in southern Texas. Pages 559-564 in Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Keystone, CO. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2007. Endangered and threatened mammals in Texas and 

the United States. 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/animals/mammals/ Accessed 

19 June 2007. 

Theil, R.P. 1985. The relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in 

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113:404-407. 

Thornthwaite, C.W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. 

Geographical Review 38: 55−94. 

Tremblay, T.A., W.A. White, and J.A. Raney. 2005. Native woodland loss during the mid 

1900s in Cameron County, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 50:479-519. 

Trolle, M, and M. Kery. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capturerecapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607-614. 

Tuovila, V.R. 1999. Bobcat movements and survival near U.S. highway 281 in southern Texas. 

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Texas. 67 pp. 

U.S. Congress. 1988. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended through the 100th

Congress. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 45 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1972. List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife. 37 

FR:2589, March 28, 1972. 
89 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1974. Endangered foreign wildlife. 39 FR 1171, January 4, 

1974. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Endangered Status for the U.S. Population of the Ocelot. 

47 FR:31670, July 21, 1982. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Land Protection Plan for Lower Rio Grande Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties, Texas. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 19 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listed cats of Texas and Arizona recovery plan (with 

emphasis on the ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 131 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed 

endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. 59 FR 35674-35679, July 13, 1994. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Announcement of draft safe harbor policy. 62 

FR:32178-32183. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final 

rule to extend endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. 62 FR 39147-39157, 

July 22, 1997. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997c. Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National 

Wildlife Refuges comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 122 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge proposed 

refuge expansion plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 61 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife. Code of Federal 

Regulations, Title 50, Section 17.11. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Policy regarding 

the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species 

Act. Federal Register 61(26):4722-4725, February 7, 1996. 

Vargas, C.J., and A.H. Huerta. 2001. Dustribucion altitudinal de la mastofauna de la Reserva de 

la Biosfera “El Cielo”, Tamaulipas, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 82:83-109. 

Villa-Meza, A., E.M. Meyer, and C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

food habits in a tropical deciduous forest of Jalisco, Mexico. American Midland 

Naturalist 148:146-154. 

Walker, C.W. 1997. Patterns of genetic variation in ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) populations for 

south Texas and northern Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityKingsville, TX. 

Waser, P.M. 1980. Small nocturnal carnivores: ecological studies in the Serengeti. African 

Journal of Ecology 18:167-185. 

Weller, S.H., and C.L. Bennett. 2001. Twenty-four hour activity budgets and patterns of 

behavior in captive ocelots (Leopardus pardalis). Applied Animal Behavior Science 

71(1):67-79. 

Werdelin, L. 1985. Small Pleistocene felines of North America. Journal of Vertebrate 

Paleontology 5:194-210. 

Widholzer, F.L., M. Bergmann, and C. Zotz. 1981. Breeding the little spotted cat. 

International Zoo News 28:17-23. 

Wiese, R.J., and M. Hutchins. 1994. Species survival plans: strategies for wildlife conservation. 

American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Wheeling, WV. 64 pp. 
90 

Wilkins, R.N., R.D. Brown, R.J. Conner, J. Engle, C. Gilliland, A. Hays, R.D. Slack, and D.W. 

Steinbach. 2000. Fragmented lands: changing land ownership in Texas. The Agriculture 

Program, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

Young, J.H., and M.E. Tewes. 1994. Evaluation of techniques for initial restoration of ocelot 

habitat. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 48:336-342. 

Zuercher, G.L., P.S. Gipson, and G.C. Stewart. 2003. Identification of carnivore feces by local 

peoples and molecular analyses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:961-970. 

 
91 

Appendix I – Figures Cited in Text 

Figure 1. Distribution of the ocelot in the western hemisphere (Adapted from Sunquist and 

Sunquist 2002). 

Figure 2. The ocelot is a medium-sized, long-tailed spotted cat. 

Figure 3. Distribution of ocelot subspecies occurring in northern Mexico and the southwestern 

U.S. 

Figure 4. Distribution of the ocelot in Texas. 

Figure 5. South Texas urban areas relative to USFWS refuges. 

Figure 6. Human population growth in south Texas by county from 1990 to 2000. 
92 

Figure 1 
93 

Figure 2 

Photo above from: http://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/feline/ocelot.htm 
94 

Figure 3 
95 

Figure 4 
96 

Figure 5 
97 

Figure 6 
98 

Appendix II – Status of Other Neotropical Felids in the United States

The first recovery plan (USFWS 1990) provided information on the history, distribution and 

status of jaguarundi (Herpailurus yaguarondi), margay (Leopardus weidii), and jaguar (Panthera 

onca) in the United States. The USFWS has decided not to address these species in this plan and 

focus this plan on the ocelot. 
99 

Appendix III – Status of the Ocelot Outside of the United States 

The ocelot is found in every mainland country south of the U.S. except Chile (CITES 2005). 

The island countries of Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico are not 

known to have ocelots (CITES 2005), but the island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, located off 

the Venezuelan coast, supports an ocelot population on Trinidad (Mondolfi 1986). Within the 22 

countries supporting the species, 11 ocelot subspecies are described (Pocock 1941, Cabrera 

1961, Hall 1981, Eizirik et al. 1998). These 11 described subspecies include: L. p. aequatorialis

Mearns 1902 (Ecuador), L. p. ablescens Pucheran, 1855 (Arkansas, U.S.), L .p. maripensis J.A. 

Allen 1904 (Venezuela), L. p. mearnsi J.A. Allen 1904 (Costa Rica), L. p. mitis F. Cuvier 1920 

(Brazil), L. p. nelsoni Goldman 1925 (Mexico), L. p. pardalis Linnaeus 1758 (Mexico), L. p. 

pseudopardalis Boitard 1842 (Colombia, Venezuela), L. p. pusaea Thomas 1914 (Ecuador), L. p. 

sonoriensis Goldman 1925 (Mexico), and L. p. steinbachii Pocock 1941 (Bolivia) (Pocock 1941, 

Goldman 1943, Cabrera 1961, Eizirik et al. 1998). Five of these occur in North America: 

albescens, mearnsi, nelsoni, pardalis, and sonoriensis (Hall 1981). Subspecies reflect 

geographic races that exhibit differences in size and pelage, with smaller, paler subspecies found 

farther from the equator and larger, darker races inhabiting areas closer to the equator (USFWS 

1990). 

Throughout its range, from southern Texas and southern Arizona to northern Argentina and 

Uruguay, the ocelot is rare and often imperiled. Following the U.S.’s listing of the ocelot as 

federally-endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1973, international trade of the ocelot 

was banned by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and 

Fauna (CITES) in 1975. The ocelot was listed by CITES in response to dwindling ocelot 

populations caused by commercial export (McMahan 1986). Originally, the ocelot was 

categorized as L. pardalis under Appendix II in CITES, with two subspecies (L. p. mearnsi and 

L. p. mitis, the Brazilian ocelot) listed on Appendix I (CITES 2005). Appendix II species may 

not be threatened with extinction but need controls on trade to avoid over-utilization (CITES 

2005). Appendix II species may be commercially exported as live animals, with required 

permits, and may be used in products if the exporting country deems that this use is not 

detrimental to the survival of a species (McMahan 1986). As of 1990, all ocelot subspecies have 

been listed under Appendix I as a threatened species (CITES 2005). 

The World Conservation Union, IUCN Red List, includes the ocelot as a species of “Least 

Concern” over its entire range (Nowell 2002). Species of Least Concern have estimated 

population sizes of at least 50,000 (Nowell 2002). Prior to 2002, the ocelot was listed as 

vulnerable (IUCN 1994). However, the Red List categorizes the Texas subspecies, L. pardalis 

albescens, as endangered due to meeting conditions for criteria D, a population with less than 

250 adults (Baillie et al. 2004). The 1996 IUCN Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for 

Wildlife Cats ranked the ocelot as: Global 5a; Regional 4. Species holding a G5 rank are 

considered secure over their entire range (Master 1991). Regional rankings of 4 confer a status 

of apparent security in a region (100 to 1000 known extant populations), but the species may be 

rare in parts of its range (Master 1991). 

Ocelot population data often are unavailable and vary with changing landscapes and human 

activities. As of 2002, the ocelot’s global effective population size is estimated as 235,000 
100 

(Nowell 2002). Effective population size is the portion involved in breeding and, in this case, is 

obtained using half of the estimated total population (Nowell 2002). Currently, the ocelot is 

federally-protected through most of its range. Hunting is allowed in Peru, whereas Ecuador, El 

Salvador, and Guyana offer no legal protection (Fuller et al. 1987). To create a strategy for the 

ocelot’s long-term survival across the Americas, an assessment of ocelot status in each country is 

needed. Such information may assist international conservation planning and clarify how ocelot 

research outside the U.S. can be prioritized. 

Threats to the ocelot survival are primarily human-caused. Early declines were from overharvesting when hunting occurred throughout its range. From the late 1800s, international trade 

focused on the larger cats, such as tiger, cheetah, snow leopard, and jaguar. As large cats 

became scarce, fur traders shifted to smaller, more abundant species, such as the ocelot. As a 

result, ocelot pelts were heavily exploited in the 1960s and early 1970s; some ocelots also were 

imported for the pet trade. During this time, the ocelot was the most sought after spotted cat in 

the fur industry, mainly for use as furskins, garments, and rugs (McMahan 1986). Up to 200,000 

ocelot skins may have been harvested annually for global trade (Geitling 1972 as cited in Payan 

and Trujillo 2006). Ocelot imports peaked in the U.S. in 1970, with 140,000 skins documented 

by U.S. Customs (McMahan 1986). With the advent of CITES, ocelot imports dropped to 

24,600 skins annually from 1976 and 1983 (Broad 1987). However, international trade in other 

smaller felids, such as Geoffroy’s cat (F. geoffroyii), bobcat, jungle cat (F. chaus), little spotted 

cat (F. tigrina), lynx (L. canadensis), and wildcat (F. silvertris) rose, peaking in 1980 with 

685,000 total pelts (McMahan 1986). Most international ocelot trade ceased during the late 

1980s (Ocelot Fact Sheet Website 2005). 

Habitat alteration, particularly from deforestation, agriculture, and cattle ranching, has reduced 

and fragmented ocelot habitat (Ceballos and Garcia 1995, Lopez Gonzales et al. 2003). 

Moreover, continued subsistence hunting and poaching of the ocelot are causes of decline or 

impediments to population recovery (Lopez Gonzales et al. 2003, de Villa Meza et al. 2002, 

Ceballos & Garcia 1995). Although the ocelot is still widespread in Central and South America, 

densities are low and populations are often patchy (Dobson and Yu 1993). Ocelot habitats 

include coastal mangroves, marshes, grasslands, thornscrub, dry semideciduous forests, riverine 

forests, subtropical forests, and tropical forests. 

OCELOT STATUS SOUTH OF THE UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

The ocelot is listed as “Endangered” in Mexico by the Mexican Ministry of Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Ecology (SEMARNAP). Most ocelot habitat occurs on private property 

and protected areas of Mexico (Caso 1994). 

Among 31 states and 1 Federal district in Mexico, 10 states are known to have had ocelot 

populations within the past 15 years. These states (Campeche, Chiapas, Durango, Jalisco, 

Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, and Veracruz) include the Sierra Madre 

Occidental range in western Mexico, and the Sierra Madre Oriental in eastern Mexico. Although 

these states comprise portions of the historic range of the ocelot, its status in Chihuahua, 
101 

Coahuila, Colima, Guerrero, Michoacan, Niyarit, Nuevo Leon, and San Luis Potosi is poorly 

known (USFWS 1990, http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e052005.htm). 

Data for ocelot populations in Mexico are patchy. For instance, anecdotes from 1905 reported 

the ocelot in coastal dunes in Nayarit (de Villa Meza et al. 2002, citing Allen 1906); however, no 

recent studies have been conducted here. Ocelots in Colima, Guerrero, and Oaxaca are last 

known from museum specimens (Goldman 1943), although the lack of credible ocelot sightings 

in these states does not rule out the ocelot’s presence there today. An ocelot skin from the northcentral State of Durango in 1994 (Servin et al. 2003) marked the first physical proof of the ocelot 

for this state, although unsubstantiated reports of ocelots derive from the lower tropical 

deciduous forests of Durango (Webb and Baker 1962). A single ocelot skin from 1940 (Jimenez 

and Zuniga-Ramos 1992) and another from 1946 (Jimenez Guzman et al. 1999) was documented 

in Neuvo Leon. Recent surveys for jaguarundi in Nuevo Leon did not reveal ocelots (A. Caso, 

pers. comm. 2006). 

Within the 10 states where ocelots recently have been found, ocelots appear to use a variety of 

habitats including subtropical and tropical thornscrub, neotropical dry forest, tropical rain forest, 

tropical riparian and coastal forest, grasslands, and swamps. Most surveys of ocelots have been 

limited to noting presence or absence in biosphere reserves. In addition to the loss of habitat 

from development, impacts along the U.S. border include highways, international bridges, night 

lighting with effects on nocturnal prey and ocelot movement (Grigione and Mrykalo 2004), 

increased noise and pollution, and increased exposure to diseases (Grigione et al. 2009). 

Campeche: The State of Campeche contains the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. It became the 

largest tropical protected area in Mexico (2792.2 mi2 or 7231.9 km2) in 1989 (Escamilla et al. 

2000), and supports the ocelot 

(http://www.nature.org/wherewework/fieldguide/projectprofiles/cbr.html, 

http://parksinperil.org/files/page_2_calakmul_biosphere_reserve.pdf, 

http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofile.php?l=eng&country=mex&park=ckbr&page=sum). 

Inaccessibility, low soil fertility, and lack of surface water have kept this region relatively 

unoccupied by humans. However, the region is occupied by indigenous people, and is 

experiencing 9.3% annual population growth (Escamilla et al. 2000). Logging, subsistence 

agriculture, hunting, and other non-timber forest uses (such as chicle tapping and apiculture) 

(Escamilla et al. 2000) in southwestern Campeche are causing declines in tropical moist forest, 

croplands, and wetlands, and increases in grasslands (Cuaron 2000). Hunting combined with 

habitat loss are the main threats to the ocelot and other wildlife in this region. 

Chiapas: Chiapas contains the largest portion of tropical rain forest remaining in Mexico and 

the highest mammal species richness in the country (Medellin 1994). Reserva Integral de la 

Biosfera Montes Azules holds the most diverse ecosystem in Mexico with many endemic and 

migrant species (Medellin 1994). Much of Chiapas and neighboring Oaxaca has been 

highlighted as an area in Mexico worthy of the highest priority for conservation due to the 

concentration of endangered species, endemic species, and species richness (Ceballos et al. 

1998). Chiapas contains protected areas such as the tropical rain forests of Lacandona and the 

dry forests of La Sepultura (Ceballos et al. 1998), but tropical forest is being converted to 

subsistence agriculture and cattle pasture (Cuaron 2000). 
102 

Cuaron (2000) found the ocelot in tropical moist forest, cloud forest, wetland, and tropical 

secondary vegetation in Parque Nacional Palenque (4,447 ac or 1,801 ha) and Montes Azules 

(287,800 ac or 116,559 ha). Habitat availability for the ocelot declined 18% from 1974 to 2000 

in Chiapas, with 24% declines projected by 2034 (Cuaron 2000). Cuaron (2000) determined that 

ocelots would use fallow croplands and agricultural areas, particularly if they were associated 

with natural vegetation. No population data for the ocelot in Chiapas were available. 

Durango: The ocelot was not found in Durango by Baker and Greer (1962), but residents 

assured them that it “occurred in the vicinity in the Tropical Deciduous habitat” (Webb and 

Baker 1962). In 1994, an ocelot skin was obtained from hunters who captured it along a river in 

deciduous tropical forest along the western slope of the Western Sierra Madre, providing the first 

official record of the species in Durango (Servin et al. 2003). No other ocelot data were 

available.

Jalisco: Threats to tropical dry forest in Jalisco include burning and clearing for agriculture and 

grazing, selective logging, and resort development (particularly along the coast), which causes 

isolation of remnant native vegetation. Construction of resort hotels, real-estate developments, 

polo fields, and marinas has destroyed wetlands in this region of poor soils and little surface 

water (Lott 1995). Jalisco includes Pacific coastal beaches, mangroves, and marshes merging 

into the Sierra Madre Occidental. “Jalisco dry forests,” paralleling the Pacific coast of Mexico 

(Valero et al. 2001), maintain high species richness and endemism (Ceballos and Garcia 1995). 

The Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve (13,600 ha or 33,580ac) comprises the only protected 

area in the Jalisco dry forest ecoregion, which includes the adjacent States of Nayarit and Colima 

(Ceballos et al. 1998). The Reserve protects less than 10% of the ecoregion (Valero et al. 2001). 

Fernandez (2002) monitored 15 radio-collared ocelots between 2000 and 2001 and estimated that 

the Reserve could support 33 to 53 adult ocelots (0.3 ocelots/km2

). A viable ocelot population 

may exist in the reserve (Ceballos and Garcia 1995). 

Indirect threats to the ocelot in Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve may include competition 

from subsistence hunters for prey (considered a delicacy) (de Villa Meza et al. 2002). The spinytailed iguana (Ctenosaura pectinata) was the most important prey of ocelots in this area, 

followed by the spiny pocket mouse (Liomys pictus) (de Villa Meza et al. 2002). Fewer iguanas 

may reduce ocelot kitten survival by forcing females to spend more time foraging for smaller 

prey (de Villa Meza et al. 2002). 

Queretaro: The ocelot was documented in the 3000 km2

 (1155 mi2) Reserva de la Biosfera 

Sierra Gorda (Lopez Gonzales, pers. comm. 2006), but population data are not known. The 

Reserve, located in central Mexico, covers 14 different habitat types, from semi-desert scrub to 

tropical cloud forests. Tropical deciduous gallery forests dominate the region, with some areas 

of coniferous and tropical oak forests. The diversity of flora and fauna is a result of the 

topographic extremes and the interplay of Nearctic and Neotropic regions 

(http://www.woodrising.com/icwb/sgdescription.pdf) 
103 

Sinaloa: Threats to native landscapes including coastal plain, mangrove, marsh, semi-arid 

brushland, and montane woodland (Armstrong et al. 1972) in Sinaloa include wetland pollution, 

intensive agriculture, and shrimp farming along the coast 

(http://www.ducks.org/conservation/icp/Part2/WestCoastMexico.html). Inland areas with 

steeper terrain are well-preserved (Lopez Gonzales, pers. comm. 2005). The ocelot was 

apparently common in southern Sinaloa until the 1950s (Burt 1938, Leopold 1959). The ocelot 

(F.p. nelsoni Goldman 1925) may occur in forested areas throughout Sinaloa but population 

estimates are unavailable (http://www.ducks.org/conservation/icp/Part2/WestCoastMexico.html, 

http://www.tourbymexico.com/sinaloa/escuina/escuina.htm, http://www.vallartaadventures.com/jeep-safari/ecology.html). 

Sonora: Sonora supports 0.15 ocelots per mi2

 (0.057/km2) and an estimated state-wide 

population of 2025 ± 675 (Lopez-Gonzales et al. 2003). These numbers were estimated from 

interviews, tracks, artifacts, and a predictive model. Thirty three ocelots have been documented 

in Sonora since 1998, the most of any northern Mexican state (Lopez-Gonzales et al. 2003). The 

core habitat necessary to support ocelot populations in the region was calculated to be 12,175.7 

mi2

 (31,535 km2), with 1.9% of this area minimally protected (defined by the IUCN as class VI 

protection - managed for sustainable resource use, but with no protection from road construction, 

poaching, or habitat alteration) (Lopez-Gonzales et al. 2003). As the second largest state in 

Mexico and with one of the lowest human population densities, Sonora offers a large area of 

contiguous habitat (Lopez-Gonzales et al. 2003), including thornscrub and other semi-arid 

vegetation (Caso 1994). 

Tabasco: Cuaron (2000) predicted an increase in grasslands and decrease in tropical moist 

forests, croplands, and wetlands in the panhandle of Tabasco. The expected decrease in 

vegetative cover and accompanying fragmentation of remaining forest may have a negative 

effect on the local abundance and metapopulation dynamics of the ocelot in the panhandle 

region. Ocelots are known to occur in this area, based on local accounts, but numbers of 

individuals are unknown (http://www.birdlist.org/nam/mexico/tabasco/tabasco.htm, 

http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofile.php?l=eng&country=mex&park=ltpa&page=bio, 

http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofiles/pdf/pcbr_eng.pdf). 

Tamaulipas: Ocelot habitat ranges from desert scrub (Tamaulipas mesquital or matorral), 

coastal gulf grasslands, and lowland tropical moist forest (Wagner et al. undated, World Wildlife 

Fund Global Ecoregions Website 2001). Caso (unpublished) photographed 2 ocelots in northern 

Tamaulipas (located approximately 109 mi [175 km] south of Texas). A total of 36 ocelots from 

Los Ebanos Ranch in eastern Tamaulipas (located approximately 168 mi [270 km] south of 

Texas; Caso 1994) and 10 ocelots in central Tamaulipas (A. Caso unpublished data). The ocelot 

was historical reported at Nuevo Leon; however, recent surveys didn’t find any evidence of 

ocelots in the state (A. Caso unpublished data). Probably, the most important area with ocelot 

habitat in northeast Mexico is located at Sierra of Tamaulipas where Caso captured 10 ocelots in 

1996. 

Veracruz: Veracruz is the type locality for the ocelot described, as Felis pardalis, by Linneas in 

1758 (Hall 1981). Recent ocelot population data for Veracruz is not published, however, 2 

ocelots were captured 30 miles south of Tampico, at La Mesa Ranch, Veracruz in 1994 (A. Caso, 
104 

pers. comm. 2006) and the ocelot has been reported at the Los Tuxtlas biological station in 

southern Veracruz 

(http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofile.php?l=eng&country=mex&park=ltbr&page=bio). Los 

Tuxtlas is a 700 ha biosphere reserve within a patchwork of reserve areas consisting of 

neotropical moist forest and pine-oak forest on volcanic soils, totaling 599 mi2 or 155,122 ha.

CENTRAL AMERICA

The 7 countries here support an estimated 24,000 species of vascular plants (5000 endemics), 

521 mammals (210 endemics), 1193 birds (251 endemics), hundreds of indigenous human tribes, 

and 25% of all classified unique life zones on Earth (CI 2004a). Less than half of the region 

retains its original forest cover, and an estimated 45 ha of forest are lost every hour (4000 

km2/yr) (CI 2004). Nearly half of the people live in rural areas. Population growth and poverty 

place increased pressure on natural resources. The penalties for illegal resource extraction are 

often negligible compared to the profits. Poverty, ineffective law enforcement, and the lack of 

incentives that support conservation, are root causes of poaching, logging, and human 

encroachment that may threaten the ocelot (CI 2001). 

Central American governments have taken some steps to protect biodiversity. All nations are 

signatories of the Convention of Biological Diversity, a United Nations 1992 initiative which 

promotes the conservation of biodiversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels and the 

sustainable use of its components, and supporters of Agenda 21, a 1992 United Nations global 

partnership fostering sustainable development and human empowerment. In addition, they all 

participate in the Central American Protected Areas System and the Mesoamerican Biological 

Corridor, a plan to maintain connectivity between protected areas (CI 2001). Currently, 

protected areas cover approximately 18% of Central America, ranging from less than 3% in El 

Salvador to 45% in Belize (CI 2001). 

BELIZE

The ocelot is listed as CITES I endangered in Belize which has the highest density of felines in 

Central America including all five CITES I species (jaguar, puma, ocelot, margay, and 

jaguarundi) (Carrillo and Vaughan 1994). Approximately 47% of Belize is under some form of 

protected status, forming large, contiguous blocks of forest that abut Mexico and Guatemala 

(Wildlife Conservation Society 2005). Belize has a relatively small human population, and less 

deforestation and illegal wildlife hunting than elsewhere in the region (Wildlife Conservation 

Society 2005). Ecoregions include subtropical and tropical forest, tropical and subtropical 

coniferous forest, and coastal mangroves in a country that covers 1,081 mi2

 (2,800 km2). 

Hurricanes and timber harvest provide irregular disturbances (Konecny 1989). Land clearing for 

ranching, agriculture, and shrimp farming have fragmented ocelot habitat (Wildlife Conservation 

Society 2005). 

Two radio-collared ocelots used second growth forest, but preferred late successional forest 

(Konecny 1989). Home ranges, habitat associations, and diet were related to prey density, 

conspecifics, and competitors (Konecny 1989). The low number of ocelots trapped in this two 

year study was attributed to illegal hunting (Konecny 1989). 
105 

In northwest Belize, ocelots have used fallow fields as well as tropical forests (Miller, pers. 

comm. 2006). During a 60-day jaguar study in 2004, 18 ocelots were photographed, yielding a 

relative abundance of 30 ocelots/100 trap nights (Miller, pers. comm. 2006). 

Dillon (2005) estimated ocelot density in western Belize at 0.490-0.536 ocelots/mi2 (0.189-

0.207/km2

) in tropical rain forest and 0.060-0.098 ocelots/mi2 0.023-0.038/km2) in adjacent pine 

forest. Home ranges of 8,148 ac (3,300 ha) and 5,210 ac (2,110 ha) were estimated for males 

and females, respectively, with more overlap between and within sexes than in other ocelot 

studies (Dillon 2005). Daily distance traveled were 1.6 mi (2.6 km) for males and 1.1 mi (1.8 

km) for females (Dillon 2005). Ocelots were active mainly at night, with peaks at sunset and 

midnight (Dillon 2005).

COSTA RICA 

The ocelot is classified as endangered (Carrillo et al. 2000), 24% (4,747 mi2

 or 12,295 km2) in 

Costa Rica and this country contains the most privately-owned protected areas in Central 

America (CI 2001). Since the 1990s, tourism has been Costa Rica’s primary source of income, 

but some of the tourism industry has developed at a pace that disregards local ecosystems (CI 

2001). Banana and coffee plantations are used by ocelots if located near large natural forests 

(Daily et al. 2003). Subsistence hunting, mining, forest extraction, and human encroachment 

impact primary forests (Carrillo et al. 2000). A proposed “Trans-Talamanca” highway threatens 

natural areas in Costa Rica by crossing Amistad International Park and other protected areas and 

indigenous territories (CI 2001). In addition, management plans for protected areas in Costa 

Rica are “nonexistent, outdated, or inefficient,” complicating conservation efforts (CI 2001). 

The ocelot inhabits tropical rainforests in three protected areas: La Selva Biological Station 

(Wilson 1989, Medellin 1994), Corcovado National Park (161 mi2

 or 418km2), and Golfo Dulce 

Forest Reserve (242 mi2

 or 627km2) (Carrillo et al. 2000). Typically, conservation laws are 

better enforced in national parks than in forest reserves (Carrillo et al. 2000). The latter two 

areas are located on the Oso Peninsula in the Pacific Ocean. Based on transects in 1990, 1992, 

and 1994, Carrillo et al. (2000) reported 0.19 ocelot tracks/mi (0.12 ocelot tracks/km) in 

Corcovado National Park and 0.21 tracks/mi (0.08 tracks/km) in Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve. 

Although humans do not hunt ocelots on the Oso Peninsula, they do hunt ocelot prey (Carrillo et 

al. 2000). The increase in human population, changes in hunting methods, and the sedentary 

habits of people intensively using a limited area are other factors responsible for increased 

effects of subsistence and commerce hunting on native wildlife (Carrillo et al. 2000). 

Ocelots used tropical forest and adjacent coffee and banana plantations at Las Cruces Biological 

Field Station (Daily et al. 2003). The ocelot was categorized as a ‘moderately sensitive’ species, 

using a wide range of forest habitats (Daily et al. 2003). Mature coffee plantations near forest 

remnants may enhance the conservation value of fragmented forests (Daily et al. 2003). 

The ocelot has been documented intermittently at La Selva Biological Station since 1968 

(Wilson 1989, www.ots.ac.cr/en/laselva/). La Selva consists of 3,736 ac (1,513 ha) and is 

contiguous with Braulio Carrillo National Park. Together they cover 120,988 ac (49,000 ha). 

This area is near the center of the ocelot’s range in the Western Hemisphere (Wilson 1989). At 
106 

La Selva, the most recent sighting of an ocelot by a biologist occurred in 1998 

(http://www.ots.ac.cr/en/library/liana/fall98/sightings.htm). 

EL SALVADOR 

 

The ocelot is unprotected in El Salvador, one of three countries that allows it to be hunted 

(Ocelot Fact Sheet Website 2005). The ocelot has not been studied in El Salvador. It is the 

smallest country in the Americas, but it supports approximately 7 million people with a density 

of 838 humans/mi2 (324/km2) (Woodward 2005). Natural vegetation is dominated by deciduous 

tropical forest, with areas of temperate grasslands and sparse forests of oak and pine. As a result 

of its high population density and farming, only 6% of El Salvador remains forested (Woodward 

2005), with 2% considered primary forest (Scialabba and Williamson 2004). Subjected to one of 

the highest annual rates of deforestation in the world, shrinking areas of forest have led to the 

extirpation of several carnivorous species. Less than 1% of the country is protected (Woodward 

2005). 

El Salvador’s primary export is coffee, 25% of which is “shade-grown” under a canopy of both 

cultivated and native trees that often grow adjacent to native forests (Scialabba and Williamson 

2004). Shaded coffee polycultures are floristically and structurally complex, have relatively high 

species diversity, and are used by ocelots (Scialabba and Williamson 2004). In 1998, a World 

Bank Global Environment Facility project was initiated to link the protected areas of El 

Imposible and Los Volcanes by supporting biodiversity conservation within the coffee 

plantations forming the corridor (Scialabba and Williamson 2004). 

GUATEMALA 

 

The ocelot is protected in Guatemala and occurs in the northeast Peten section of the country 

(Lickey et al. 2005). Guatemala is dominated by tropical moist forest (~70%), with 26.3% 

protected (CI 2004). Today, the Peten and its surrounding forests represent the largest remaining 

expanse of tropical forest in Central America (Lickey et al. 2005) and include: El Mirador 

National Park, Biotope Dos Laguna, Rio Azul National Park; Biotop El Zotz, Tikal National 

Park, and the Reserva de la Biosfera Maya (Novack 2003). Human encroachment into parks and 

protected areas (i.e., Laguna del Tigre National Park and Sierra del Lacandon National Park), in 

addition to proposed highway projects (Mirador Rio Azul National Park) and proposed dam 

construction (Sierra del Lacandon National Park), threaten ocelot habitat (Soto Shoender, pers. 

comm. 2006). In addition to logging, road building, illegal poaching, land conversion for 

agriculture and rangelands, Guatemala also has a high incidence of forest fires. Periodic drought 

and creation of rangelands have resulted in fires covering large areas (CI 2004). 

In Mirador Rio Azul National Park, 5.7 ocelots/100 trap nights were documented (Soto 

Shoender, pers. comm. 2006). Novack (2003) photographed 9 ocelots at 32 locations, producing 

1.1 ocelot captures/100 trap nights (Novack 2003). He also had 1.3 ocelots/100 trap nights in 

Rio Azul/Dos Lagunas National Park (Novack 2003). Eight years earlier, 1.05 ocelots/100 trap 

nights were photographed in Tikal National Park (Kaewanishi 1995). To the south, 1.4 ocelot 

captures/100 nights and 0.83 track detections/km were recorded in the 14,000 ha (54 mi2

) Lachua 
107 

Lagoon National Park, an area surrounded by human communities (Soto Shoender, pers. comm. 

2006). 

Land cover patterns may remain stable through 2034 (Cuaron 2000). Previously, change in land 

area altered by agriculture from 1980 to 1999 involved 76.7 million ha (CI 2004). Little is 

known of the ocelot’s status in Guatemala, but given the stability and the existence of available 

habitat, threats to the ocelot in this region appear to be minimal. 

HONDURAS 

Although Goldman (1943) and CITES (2005) list the ocelot in Honduras, it has not been 

formally documented there. Hunting of ocelots is not permitted (Ocelot Fact Sheet Website 

2005). 

Tropical forests cover almost 50% of Honduras, although these are dwindling due to 

deforestation from logging, agriculture, and ranching. In 2005, the human population was nearly 

7 million, with an average population density of 161 people/mi2

 (62 /km2; Encarta 2005). 

National parks, reserves, and refuges account for 20.8% of the country, with the Río Plátano

Biosphere Reserve covering about 2,027 mi2 (5,250 km2) in north-eastern Honduras. This 

reserve extends from the mangroves (Miskito Coast), through lowland pine savanna, and into the 

mountains (Herrera-MacBryde 1993). This area, combined with the Nicaragua’s adjacent 

Bosawas Reserve, was the largest tract of lowland primary tropical rain forest combined with 

intact pine forests in Central America (Herrera-MacBryde 1993). Enforcement of international 

agreements to conserve biodiversity is hampered by inaccessibility (Encarta 2005). 

Deforestation by migratory farmers and loggers in the Rio Plátano Biosphere Reserve is 

estimated to be 210 mi2

/yr (645 km2/yr) mainly in lowland hardwoods (Herrera-MacBryde 

1993). 

NICARAGUA

The ocelot occurred in Nicaragua more than 60 years ago (Goldman 1943), but no scientific 

documentation has occurred since then. Protected areas in Nicaragua include 5 parks, reserves, 

or refuges, and cover 2,783.6 mi2

 (7,209.6 km2) (CI 2001). Nicaragua’s largest forest reserve is 

the Bosawas, (located just south of Honduras’ Rio Plátano Biosphere Reserve), which 

encompasses several indigenous groups and several distinct ecoregions, such as coastal 

grassbeds, mangrove lagoons, and tropical forest. Nicaragua also has 68 other protected areas, 

totaling 8,451 mi2

 (21,888 km2), many of which border the Atlantic Ocean and may serve as 

corridors between larger, protected areas (CI 2001). Many reserves are vulnerable to 

deforestation and subsistence hunting because they contain rural indigenous communities (CI 

2001). From 1990-1995, Nicaragua had annual deforestation rates of 2.3-2.5% (CI 2001). Much 

of this habitat alteration was driven by the demand for increased pastures and plantations (CI 

2001). 

Ocelots inhabit Nicaragua and many show up at street markets as part of the illegal pet trade 

selling for $10-$150 (Hendrix 2000). Female ocelots are killed to obtain their kittens to supply 

the pet demand (Oldfield 1988). Enforcement of environmental laws is weak, but the Ministry 
108 

of Environment and Natural Resources is beginning to study the pet trade trends and aims to 

change Nicaragua’s role as a major source for the illegal wildlife trade (Hendrix 2000). 

PANAMA 

Much of the wildlife research in Panama has taken place on Barro Colorado Island (BCI), a 

3,750 ac (1,500 ha) island preserve that was formed by the creation of the Panama Canal. The 

island has never been inhabited by humans and has been completely protected since 1940 (Glanz 

1990). Jaguar and puma rarely exist on the island, leaving the ocelot as one of the top predators 

here (Asquith et al. 1997). The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) is located on 

BCI where 11 radio-collared ocelots are part of an eco-physiological study of the species. In 

2003, a male ocelot was captured that weighed 18.4 kg, the largest recorded in the wild (STRI 

2004). A pilot study, presented in 2002, found that ocelots captured in wooden live traps were 

calmer and less likely to injure themselves than ocelots captured in metal live traps. 

Asquith et al. (1997) found that fewer seeds were consumed by small mammals on larger islands 

and the mainland sites compared to smaller islands. This was attributed to more species and 

abundance of predatory mammals in larger areas that prey on seed predators. Ocelots are present 

on BCI and the mainland, but not on islands smaller than BCI (Asquith et al. 1997). 

Panama has protected 1,563 mi2

 (4,049 km2) in the SICAP (Central American System on 

Protected Areas) (CI 2001). Deforestation may be the biggest threat to the ocelot in Panama, 

occurring at 2.3-2.5%/yr from 1990-1995 and in preserved lands despite environmental 

protection laws (CI 2001). Designated parks are too understaffed to provide needed 

enforcement, with 149 guards assigned to 14 national parks (22,813 ac/guard or 9,125 ha/guard) 

(CI 2001). Recently approved large-scale mining projects, land conversion and subsequent 

erosion due to cattle grazing, illegal hunting, conflicting claims of land ownership, and 

population growth are challenges to biodiversity conservation in the region (CI 2001). 

An agreement supported by Panama’s National Environmental Authority (ANAM) and the 

Wildlife Conservation Society (Franco 2003) will initiate the first long-term study of native cats 

in Central America and will cover the 2,201 mi2

 (57,000 km2) Darien Park which borders 

Colombia and the 200,000 ha Friendship Park of Panama and Costa Rica (Franco 2003). Goals 

of this agreement are to promote better management of biological corridors, and to reduce 

deforestation (particularly of remaining primary forest) and shooting of cats (especially jaguars) 

by ranchers (Franco 2003). 

SOUTH AMERICA

ARGENTINA 

The ocelot inhabits the northern half of Argentina, including the central Gran Chaco area and 

vicinity (Redford and Eisenberg 1989), the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest (Di Bitetti et al. in 

press) and the Tropical Andes Forest (Lucherini et al. 2004). The primary threat to the ocelot in 

Argentina is habitat loss (Di Bitetti et al. 2006). Areas in both the Atlantic Tropical Forest and 
109 

the Tropical Andes Forest contain at least five other cat species (Lucherini et al. 2004). In terms 

of habitat selectivity, the ocelot is considered the most specialized (Lucherini et al. 2004). 

Yanosky (1994) documented the ocelot on the El Bagual Ecological Reserve in northeastern 

Argentina. Di Bitetti et al. (2006) used cameras in two study areas in the Atlantic Forest within 

the northeastern panhandle, bordering Paraguay to the west and Brazil to the east. One study 

area encompassed mature forest in most of Urugua-i Provincial Park, Urugua-i Private Reserve, 

and a mixed pine plantation owned by a timber company. The second study site was situated 

within southern Iguazu National Park, established in 1934, that has an intact native species 

assemblage and is strictly protected. A population density of 0.33 ocelots/mi2 (0.129/km2) was 

estimated for the Urugua-i site of 59.8 mi2 (155 km2), and the Iguazu site of 107 mi2 (278 km2) 

contained an estimated 0.49 ocelots/mi2

 (0.19/km2) (Di Bitetti et al. 2006). In 1995, Crawshaw 

used radio telemetry to estimate an ocelot population density of 0.36/mi2 (0.14/km2) in a northern 

portion of Iguazu National Park. 

BOLIVIA 

The ocelot occurs in Bolivia and is a resident of the newly created Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco 

National Park (13,282 mi2 or 34,400 km2) (Taber et al. 1997). As the largest, protected dry 

forest in the world (Wildlife Conservation Society 2004), this park protects 22% of the Bolivian 

Chaco and 4.7% of the Gran Chaco ecoregion of south-central South America (Taber et al. 

1997). The main threats concern human encroachment and the conversion of forest and riparian 

areas into soybean monoculture (Taber et al. 1997). Another threat is the development of the 

Santa Cruz-Sao Paulo gas pipeline, one of South America’s most extensive construction projects 

(Taber et al. 1997). The pipeline is expected to cross the remote northern one-third of the park, 

an area that was previously inaccessible (Taber et al. 1997). 

Population densities of ocelots were assessed using camera trapping models at five Bolivian dry 

forest sites occurring within the Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco National Park in the northern end of the 

Gran Chaco region (Maffei et al. 2005). Results ranged from zero ocelots at a site consisting of 

chaco woodland on sand dunes in alluvial plains to 1.55 ocelots/mi2

 (0.6 ocelots/km2) for the 

largest study area, characterized by transitional and mature chaco forest on sandstone (Maffei et 

al. 2005). The total ocelot population in Kaa-Iya National Park likely exceeds 10,000 adults 

(range 9300-11,300), based on an average ocelot density of 0.77 individuals/mi2

 (0.30 

individuals/km2) (Maffei et al. 2005). 

BRAZIL 

Because of its large size, Brazil likely has the most ocelots (L. p. mitis) of any country, but 

nation-wide population estimates were not found. Brazil contains several ecoregions, including 

the Amazonian rainforest, the Pantanal (the world’s largest continuously flooded region), the 

Cerrado (the world’s most biologically diverse savanna/dry forest occupying 20% of the country; 

TNC 2005 website: http://nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/brazil/work/art5082.html); and 

the fragmented Atlantic coastal forest, of which only 8% remains (WWW website: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0176_full.html. 9/23/2005, Leite 
110 

et al. 1999, Cullen et al. 2005). Commercial export of all wildlife was outlawed in 1967, but 

enforcement of these laws occurred later (McMahan 1986). 

In 1984, Emmons failed to document Brazilian ocelots in a study conducted at seven tropical 

forest sites. She speculated that the species was still recovering from former hunting pressures 

(Emmons 1984). 

Home ranges of 3 ocelots on a 1,825 ac (730 ha) private ranch in the Pantanal ranged from 190 

to 393 ac (76 to 157 ha) (Crawshaw and Quigley 1989). Habitat use was in proportion to 

availability and home ranges of the two adults did not overlap (Crawshaw and Quigley 1989). 

Using cameras and modeling, Trolle and Kery (2003) estimated 9-14 ocelots in a 4,428 ac (1771 

ha) of Pantanal consisting of open and closed canopy forest in a research and conservation 

reserve area. In this reserve, ocelot density was estimated to be 1.3-2.1 ocelots/mi2

 (0.51-

0.79/km2

. Viana et al. (2005) estimated that the ocelot was 3 times more abundant than other 

felid species in the Parque Estadual do Rio Doce (139 mi2

 or 360 km2) rainforest in the State of 

Minas Gerais. 

Project Wild Cats of Brazil was initiated in 2004 to examine the status and management needs of 

15 cat species in Brazil (Oliveira 2005). It uses cameras, radio telemetry, and scat analysis to 

provide data on species community composition within habitats, abundance, home range 

movements, genetic status, and the viability of captive zoo-bred cats for re-introduction (Oliveira 

2005- http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/project-o-month/02_webarchive/grafics/july2005.pdf). 

Sympatric ocelots and jaguars may be reducing little spotted cat (Felis tigrina) numbers 

(Oliveira 2005-Website). 

Two ongoing ocelot studies include conservation genetics and surveys of large mammals in the 

Brazilian Atlantic Forest in the Pontal do Paranapanema region. The first study seeks to locate 

crucial areas and corridors for jaguar, puma, ocelot, lowland tapir, and white-lipped and collared 

peccaries (website: http://www.columbia.edu/~ag2027). The latter study will attempt to 

determine ocelot demographic status and develop a management plan for the region (website: 

http://www.rufford.org/rsg/Projects/AnaelAymoreJacob.html). 

The Brazilian Ocelot Consortium (BOC) was initiated in 2002 as a conservation partnership 

under the auspices of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association’s (AZA) Ocelot Species 

Survival Plan (SSP), Felid Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) and Brazil Conservation Action 

Partnership (CAP), in cooperation with Brazil’s Permanent Committee for Conservation of 

Brazilian Felids, the Associaçao Mata Ciliar (AMC, a Brazilian NGO) and the Brazilian Institute 

for the Environment and Natural Renewable Resources (IBAMA). The primary goal of the BOC 

was to identify issues affecting the survival of the Brazilian ocelot (L. p. mitis) and develop a 

comprehensive management strategy that addresses both in situ and ex situ conservation. It 

targets the ocelot as the ambassador for conserving all endangered Brazilian cats. Six priority 

projects were identified for funding to improve the genetic management of captive populations in 

both the U.S. and Brazil, and enhance in situ conservation and education in Brazil: 1) 

publication of Brazilian felid studbooks and husbandry manual; 2) training of Brazilian zoo staff 

and scientists; 3) captive propagation of Brazilian ocelots; 4) maintenance of a biological 
111 

resource bank for Brazilian felids; 5) habitat restoration; and 6) environmental education 

(Swanson 2003; 2003a). 

The BOC conservation strategy depends on monetary and in-kind support from Consortium 

participants, with financial and logistical oversight provided by a bi-national Consortium steering 

committee. To provide funding (a minimum of $90,000-$100,000) for all BOC projects, ten 

AZA institutions were recruited as full participants in the BOC, with additional support donated 

from other AZA institutions as partial participants. During each calendar year, funding from 

each full participant is divided proportionally among the funded projects. As one component of 

the BOC, each full participant will be allowed to import a breeding pair of ocelots from Brazil to 

assist the Ocelot SSP in establishing a founder population of this subspecies in U.S. zoos. 

Offspring from these founder pairs will be distributed preferentially to partial participants in the 

BOC and other AZA institutions. The ultimate goal is to manage the Ocelot SSP population and 

the Brazilian zoo population as a global metapopulation while maintaining strong linkages to in 

situ conservation efforts (Swanson 2003; 2003a). 

From 2002-2006 the BOC supported forest restoration efforts in and around the Serra do Japi 

Biosphere Reserve in the State of Sao Paulo. In 2006 a camera trap survey in the Reserve was 

initiated to assess the resident carnivore community (ocelot, margay, tigrina, jaguarundi, and 

puma). Four ocelots were photographed over a short period of time, and based on ocelot 

densities in other regions of Brazil, it is estimated that as many as 225 ocelots may exist in the 

Reserve (BOC 2006). 

COLOMBIA 

The ocelot has been protected in Colombia since 1973 (CITES 2005: 

http://www.oaklandzoo.org/atoz/azocelot.html) where it inhabits mountainous areas (Guggisberg 

1975). Colombia is the world’s leading grower of coca plants and approximately 2,317 mi2

(6,000 km2) of forest have been cleared as of 2001 to supply the growing demand for cocaine 

(Castro-UNESCO 2001). The five-year Colombia Plan, created in 2001, is funded primarily by 

the U.S. to eradicate coca plantations using aerial spraying of the herbicide glyphosphate 

(Roundup) (Castro-UNESCO 2001, Colombian Embassy 2003). As of 2001, Roundup has been 

sprayed on >1,158 mi2 (3,000 km2) of coca plantations and adjacent farms and plantations 

(Castro-UNESCO 2001). Concerns of irreversible damage to plants and animals and water 

contamination from glyphosphate are being investigated (Castro-UNESCO 2001), although 

Mansanto claims that Roundup is not harmful to terrestrial organisms 

(http://www.mansanto.com/). Ecological impacts of glyphosphate have not been tested in large 

tropical ecosystems (Knight 2000). Habitat destruction from defoliation could negatively affect 

the ocelot and its prey. 

 

ECUADOR 

Ecuador offers no protection to the ocelot (Tewes et al. 2005). Leopardus pardalis aequatorialis

was documented on the eastern side of the Andes in 1925 (Lonnberg 1925). In the tropical 

province of Pastaza, the largest of 22 provinces in Ecuador, Emmons (1984) looked for ocelots 
112 

but did not find any. She attributed the absence of ocelots to hunting for at least 2 decades prior 

to the study (Emmons 1984). 

The ocelot occurs in Pululahua National Monument in Pichincha province and in the Catacachi 

Cayapas Ecological Reserve of Imbabura province, both located on the forested western slopes 

of the Andes (http://www.ecuaworld.com/discover/reservas.htm, http://www.embaecuadormalaysia.com/tourism%20national%20parks.htm). Llanganates National Park, located in the 

highlands between the Andes and the Amazon lowlands, also supports the ocelot 

(http://www.lunaruntun.com/english/llanganates_national_park.htm 

http://link.lanic.utexas.edu/hemispheres/units/geography/ecuador_conservation.pdf). 

FRENCH GUIANA 

No studies of the ocelot in French Guiana or any references in the literature were located.

GUYANA 

Guyana offers no protection to the ocelot (Tewes et al. 2005), and its status there is unknown. 

PARAGUAY 

Paraguay was the main export source for feline skins, including ocelot, in 1979 and 1980 

(McMahan 1986). The Gran Chaco region, a vast plain shared by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and 

Paraguay, is one of South America’s largest ecoregions (Taber et al. 1997). Gran Chaco 

translates into “Great Hunting” (Redford and Eisenberg 1989) or “Hunting Land” and covers an 

area of 386,102 mi2

 (1,000,000 km2) and contains high mammalian diversity (Taber et al. 1997). 

The Gran Chaco has been subjected to unsustainable land-uses including agriculture and hunting 

(Taber et al. 1997). The three National Parks in this region cover 4,247 mi2 (11,000 km2) and 

protect 3.1% of the Gran Chaco (Taber et al. 1997). 

Four ocelots were encountered during a 1994-1996 study of the hunting impact on larger wildlife 

species in the 60,000 ha Mbaracayu Nature Reserve of Paraguay but no ocelots were reported 

killed by hunters between 1980 and 1996 (Hill et al. 1997). The Mbaracayu Nature Reserve is in 

the Atlantic rainforest of eastern Paraguay and contains 90% of all recorded species in the 

country (Hill et al. 1997). Although ocelots are not hunted by local tribes, poaching by nonnative hunters occurs (Hill et al. 1997). 

PERU 

The ocelot was protected in 1973, making Peru one of the first countries to set a national 

standard for the species’ conservation in South America (website: 

http://www.oaklandzoo.org/atoz/azocelot.html). Conflicting claims to land, poorly managed 

logging, road construction, and hunting in reserves may threaten the ocelot. Loggers have been 

supplied with guns or employ local hunters to kill large or unusual game (Naughton-Treves 

2002). As in formerly inaccessible forests elsewhere, logging leads to settlement, slash and burn 

agriculture, and ranching. 
113 

Emmons (1984) did not record ocelots at Cocha Cashu Biological Station in Manu National 

Park, or Tambopata Reserve in northeastern Peru. She attributed these findings to recent 

overhunting of ocelots in the region. A later study at Cocha Cashu estimated 4 resident 

ocelots/5km2 (2.07 ocelots/mi2) (Emmons 1988). Home ranges of two adult females were 1.6 

and 2.5 km2 and home ranges of two adult males were 5.9 and 8.1 km2 (Emmons 1988). 

Ocelot activity decreased as the moon waxed in southeastern Peruvian lowland tropical 

rainforest, at Cocha Cashu Biological Station (Emmons et al. 1989). Ocelots avoided exposure 

to moonlight by taking alternate, darker routes or clustering their activity before moonrise or 

after moonset (Emmons et al. 1989). 

Ocelot density at Cocha Cashu Biological Station was estimated at 2.07 ocelots/mi2 (0.8/km2) 

(Janson and Emmons 1990). The high density of ocelots was attributed to prey partitioning, the 

absence of human hunting, high primary productivity, and high regional biodiversity (Janson and 

Emmons 1990). 

A study investigating rural development and typical hunting practices found ocelots were not 

killed in flooded forests. However, 0.01 to 0.13 ocelots/mi2 (0.004 to 0.05/km2) were killed in 

upland forest (Bodmer and Lozano 2001). Tourist markets in Iquitos offer illegal wild cat 

products, including pelts, teeth, and skulls, that are purchased primarily by U.S. military 

personnel (Bodmer and Lozano 2001). Meat from hunted carnivores was consumed locally in 

rural Peru (Bodmer and Lozano 2001). 

Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) estimated an ocelot density of 2.07 ocelots/mi2 (0.8/km2) in the 

Tambopata-Candamo Reserve of southeastern Peru. Hunting of ocelots is permitted if livestock 

is threatened (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Local respondents to questionnaires blamed the 

ocelot for 32% of poultry and pig losses, followed by hawks (28%) and jaguar (5%) (NaughtonTreves et al. 2003). Ocelots used fallow fields more than expected, followed by forests, with a 

lower use of agricultural fields than either fallow fields or forests (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). 

Use of fallow fields could be attributed to the greater amount of understory and the high 

abundance and diversity of small mammals. Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) classified the ocelot 

as “anthropogenic” fauna, capable of exploiting secondary vegetation if hunting is restricted. 

 

SURINAME 

No studies of the ocelot in Suriname or any references in the literature were found. 

TRINIDAD 

The ocelot occurs on this island (CITES 2005) but no additional information was available for 

this area. 
114 

URUGUAY

The ocelot was documented for the first time in Uruguay in 1988, extending its known range 

southward by 217 mi (350 km) (Ximénez 1988). Its population status is unknown. 

VENEZUELA 

The ocelot occurs throughout Venezuela in tropical dry forest, tropical humid forest, evergreen 

forest, and tropical dry thorn forest (Bisbal 1989). Tropical dry forest is the most extensive 

vegetation type in Venezuela (Bisbal 1989). 

 

In addition to being a member of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

of Wild Fauna and Flora, Venezuela has its own laws protecting the ocelot. It was listed in the 

Official Venezuelan List of Game Animals under Total Protection in 1970, but the law is rarely 

enforced (Mondolfi 1986). 

The ocelot occurs at lower altitudes from sea level to 3,280 ft (1000 m) (Mondolfi 1986). In 

gallery forest along a river adjacent to the Masaguaral cattle ranch, at least 23 ocelots occurred in 

an area also inhabited by jaguar, puma, and margay (Mondolfi 1986). The Masaguaral private 

ranch covers 20,000 ac (8,000 ha) and has been protected from hunters for 50 years. The ocelot 

occurs in over half of the 25 Venezuelan national parks, in two faunal reserves, and in one faunal 

refuge where the ocelot receives some protection. In forestry reserves, however, the ocelot is not 

protected and hunting occurs (Mondolfi 1986). Illegal shooting (done primarily at night with 

headlamps), baited traps, hunting with dogs, and habitat loss are the primary threats to the ocelot 

in Venezuela (Mondolfi 1986). 

In the llanos region, located in central Venezuela, predator activity was dictated by the schedules 

and locations of preferred prey, and ocelots were recorded in open areas only at night (Sunquist 

et al. 1989). In seasonally flooded savannas, broken riparian forests, tropical deciduous forests, 

and sandhills of the Masaguaral ranch where the study was conducted, five ocelots were 

captured, radio-collared, and monitored. Sunquist et al. (1989) estimated an ocelot density of 

2.59/mi2

 (1.0/km2). Ludlow (1986) estimated ocelot density at 1.04/mi2 (0.4/km2) at the 

Masaguaral ranch. Ludlow and Sunquist (1987) estimated the ocelot density to be 0.98/mi2

(0.38/km2

). 

Farrell et al. (2000) found evidence of prey partitioning among the jaguar, puma, ocelot, and 

crab-eating fox at the Hato Pinero cattle ranch in the western Venezuelan llanos. Reptiles made 

up 43% of ocelot scat biomass, with small mammals, medium mammals, birds, and crabs also 

taken (Farrell et al. 2000). By consuming prey from all categories except large mammals and 

fish, the ocelot displayed a broader niche breadth than jaguar or puma (Farrell et al. 2000). 

 

CONCLUSION 

As a widespread species with low population densities, the ocelot will require international 

cooperation to ensure its long-term survival. The ocelot seems tolerant of human settlement, but 
115 

is susceptible to over-hunting. It requires areas with relatively dense cover. The ocelot may 

adapt to changing habitats if there is adequate cover and limited fragmentation. 

 

Some ocelot populations have rebounded since the decline of the fur trade. However, poverty, 

rural development, subsistence hunting, poaching, logging, and extraction of forest products 

present current challenges to the ocelot. Wildlife conservation in impoverished regions will be 

more successful if it does not create short-term losses to local livelihoods, such as a reduction in 

harvests of wild species upon which a community’s economic status depends (Bodmer and 

Lozano 2001). Land uses compatible with earning a sustainable livelihood and maintaining 

areas for ocelots, such as shade-grown coffee plantations or harvesting nuts or other resources 

from intact forests, benefit both people and wildlife. Balancing economic incentives with ocelot 

habitat protection will likely foster more effective local survival and global conservation for the 

ocelot. 

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1986. Regional news. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin (August – 

September) 11(8-9):9. 

Armstrong, D.M., J.K. Jones, Jr., and E.C. Birney. 1972. Mammals from the Mexican State of 

Sinaloa: Carnivora and Artiodactyla. Journal of Mammalogy 53:48-61. 

Asquith, N.M., S.J. Wright, M.J. Clauss. 1997. Does mammal community composition 

 control recruitment in neotropical forests? evidence from Panama. Ecology 

 78:941-946. 

Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (Editors) 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of 

 Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 

Cambridge, UK. Xxiv + 191 pp. 

Baker, R.H. and J.K. Greer. 1962. Mammals of the Mexican State of Durango. 

 Publication of the Museum Michigan State University, Biological Series 2:29- 

154. 

Bisbal, F.J. 1989. Distribution and habitat association of the carnivores in Venezuela. In: 

Redford, K.H. and J.F. Eisenberg, editors, Advances in neotropical mammalogy. 

Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, FL. 

Broad, S. 1987. The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats (Felidae) and otters 

(Lutrinae). Unpublished report, WCMC, Cambridge. 

Brown, D.E. 1987. El tigre. Rocky Mountain Sportsman 2(1):48-51, 78-79. 

Brown, D.E., and C.A. Lopez Gonzalez. 1999. Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi Geoffroy 

1803) not in Arizona or Sonora. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 

32:155-157. 

Brown, D.E., and C.A. Lopez Gonzalez. 2001. Borderland jaguars: tigres de le frontera. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 177 pp. 

BOC (Brazilian Ocelot Consortium). 2006. 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Brazilian Ocelot 

Consortium. Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Gardens, Cincinnati, OH. 32pp. 

Bodmer, R.E., and E.P. Lozano. 2001. Rural development and sustainable wildlife use in 

Peru. Conservation Biology 15:1163-1170. 

Burt, W.H. 1938. Faunal relationships and geographic distribution of mammals in Sonora, 

Mexico. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 39:1- 
116 

77. 

Cabrera, A. 1961. Los felidos vivientes de la república Argentina. Revista del Museo Argentina 

de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia,” Ciencias Zoológicas 6:161-247. 

Carrillo, E., and C. Vaughan, Editors. 1994. La vida Silvestre de Mesoamerica: 

Diagnostico y estrategia para su conservacion. Editorial Universidad Nacional, 

Heredia, Costa Rica. 

Carrillo, E., G. Wong, and A.D. Cuaron. 2000. Monitoring mammal populations in Costa Rican 

protected areas under different hunting restrictions. Conservation Biology 14:1580-1591. 

Carvajal-Villareal, S. 2005. Ámbito hogareño y patrón de actividad del margay Leopardus 

wiedii (Schinz, 1821) en la Reserva de la Biosfera "El Cielo" Tamaulipas, Mexico. M. S. 

Thesis. Instituto Tecnologico de Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas. 64 pp. 

Caso, A. 1994. Home range and habitat use of three neotropical carnivores in northeast 

Mexico. Thesis, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 

Caso, A., S. Carvajal-Villarreal, P. Downey, and A. Moreno. 2005. Técnica de captura y 

manejo del margay (Leopardus wiedii) en la Reserva de la Biosfera El Cielo in SánchezRamos, G. P. Reyes-Castillo y R. Dirzo (Editores). Historia natural de la reserva de la 

Biosfera "El Cielo", Tamaulipas, México. Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, 

Instituto de Ecología A. C., UNAM. Toppan printing inc. (55) 538-542. 

Castro, N.F.P. 2001. Toxic rain kills more than the coca. The UNESCO Courier. May 2001. 

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_05/uk/planet.htm. 

Ceballos, G., and A. Garcia. 1995. Conserving neotropical biodiversity: the role of dry 

forests in western Mexico. Conservation Biology 9:1349-1356. 

Ceballos, G., P. Rodriguez, and R.A. Medellin. 1998. Assessing conservation priorities in 

megadiverse Mexico: mammalian diversity, endemicity, and endangerment. 

 Ecological Applications 8:8-17. 

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora). 2005. http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml. 

Conservation International. 2001. The southern region of the Mesoamerica biodiversity 

hotspot: Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama. Ecosystem Profile, Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund. 

Conservation International. 2004. Northern Region of the Mesoamerica Biodiversity 

Hotspot: Belize, Guatemala, Mexico. Ecosystem Profile, Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund. 

Conservation International. 2004a. Mesoamerica Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 

(CEPF) Fact Sheet. Updated February 2004. 

(http://www.cepf.net/ImageCache/cepf/content/pdfs/cepf_2emesoamerica_2efactsheet_2e

pdf/v1/cepf.mesoamerica.factsheet.pdf). 

Crawshaw, Jr., P.G., and H.B. Quigley. 1989. Notes on ocelot movement and activity in 

the Pantanal Region, Brazil. Biotropica 21:377-379. 

Crawshaw, Jr., P.G. 1995. Comparative ecology of ocelot (Felis pardalis) and jaguar (Panthera 

onca) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and Argentina. PhD thesis. University of

Florida.

Cuaron, A.D. 2000. Effects of land-cover changes on mammals in a neotropical region: a 

modeling approach. Conservation Biology 14:1676-1692. 
117 

Cullen, L., Jr., K. Alger, and D.M. Rambaldi. 2005. Land reform and biodiversity conservation 

in Brazil in the 1990s: conflict and the articulation of mutual interests. Conservation 

Biology 19:747-755. 

Daily, G.C., G. Ceballos, J. Pacheco, G. Suzan, and A. Sanchez-Azofeifa. 2003. Countryside 

biogeography of neotropical mammals: conservation opportunities in agricultural 

landscapes of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 17:1814-1826. 

Davis, W.B. 1974. The mammals of Texas. Bulletin 41. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

Austin, TX. 252 pp. 

de Villa Meza, A., E.M. Meyer, and C.A. Lopez Gonzalez. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

food habits in a tropical deciduous forest of Jalisco, Mexico. American Midland 

Naturalist 148:146-154. 

Di Bitetti, M.S., A. Paviolo, and C. De Angelo. 2006. Density, habitat use and activity patterns 

of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. Journal of 

Zoology 270:153-163. 

Dillon, A. 2005. Ocelot home range and density in Belize, Central America: camera-trapping 

and radio telemetry. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, VA. 

Dobson, F.S., and J. Yu. 1993. Rarity in neotropical forest mammals revisited. Conservation 

Biology 7:586-591. 

Eizirik, E., S.L. Bonatto, W.E. Johnson, P.G. Crawshaw Jr., J.V. Vie, D.M. Brousset, S.J. 

O’Brien, and F.M. Salzano. 1998. Phylogeographic patterns and evolution of the 

mitochondrial DNA control region in two neotropical cats (Mammalia, Felidae). Journal 

of Molecular Evolution 47:613-624. 

Embassy of Colombia. 2003. Plan Colombia: the roadmap for peace. 

http://www.colombiaemb.org/opencms/opensmc/plancolombia/. 

Emmons, L.H. 1984. Geographic Variation in densities and diversities of non-flying mammals 

in Amazonia. Biotropica 16:210-222. 

Emmons, L.H. 1988. A field study of ocelots (Felis pardalis) in Peru. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 

43:133-157. 

Emmons, L.H., P. Sherman, D. Bolster, A. Goldizen, and J. Terborch. 1989. Ocelot behavior in 

moonlight. In Redford, K.H. and J. F. Eisenberg, editors, Advances in Neotropical 

Mammalogy, The Sandhill Crane Press, Inc. Gainesville, FL. pp 233-242. 

Encarta. 2005. Honduras. http://encarta.msn.com. 

Escamilla, A., M. Sanvicente, M. Sosa, and C. Galindo-Leal. 2000. Habitat mosaic, wildlife 

avalability, and hunting in the tropical forest of Calakmul, Mexico. Conservation 

Biology 14:1592-1601. 

Farrell, L.E., J.Roman, and M.E. Sunquist. 2000. Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores 

identified by molecular analysis of scats. Molecular Ecology 9:1583-1590. 

Fernandez, E.C. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) ecology in the Chamela-Cuixmala 

Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

WY. 

Franco, P. 2003. If the jaguar vanishes. Tierramerica. 

http://www.tierramerica.net/2003/0630/iacentos2.shtml. 10/17/05. 

Fuller, K.S., B. Swift, A. Jorgensen, and A. Brautigam. 1987. Latin American wildlife trade 

laws, 2d edition (rev.). World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C. 
118 

Glanz, W.E. 1990. Neotropical mammal densities: how unusual is the community on Barro 

Colorado Island, Panama? In: Gentry, A.H., editor, Four neotropical forests. Yale 

University Press, New Haven, CT. 

Goldman, E.A. 1943. The Races of the Ocelot and Margay in Middle America. Journal of 

Mammalogy 24:372-385. 

Grigione, M.M., and R. Mrykalo. 2004. Effects of artificial night lighting on endangered 

ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) and nocturnal prey along the United States-Mexico border: 

a literature review and hypotheses of potential impacts. Urban Ecosystems 7:65-77. 

Grigione, M.M., K. Menke, C. López-González, R. List, A. Banda, J. Carrera, R. Carrera, A.J. 

Giordano, J. Morrison, M. Sternberg, R. Thomas, and B. Van Pelt. 2009. Identifying 

potential conservation areas for felids in the USA and Mexico: integrating reliable 

knowledge across an international border. Oryx 43:78-86. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. 1975. Wildcats of the world. Taplinger Publishing Company, New York, 

NY. 382pp. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2 vols., John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1,181 pp. 

Hendrix, S. 2000. Where the wild things are. International Wildlife September/October 2000. 

National Wildlife Federation. 

Herrera-MacBryde, Olga. 1993. North-east Honduras and Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve. 

Smithsonian Institution, SI/MAB Program Webpage 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/cpd/ma/ma15.htm. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. II. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 

Hill, K., J. Padwe, C. Bejyvagi, A. Bepurangi, F. Jakugi, R. Tykuarangi, and T. Tykuarangi. 

1997. Impact of hunting on large vertebrates in the Mbaracayu Reserve, Paraguay. 

Conservation Biology 11:1339-1353. 

IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

IUCN. 2005. http://www.iucn.org/. 

Janson, C.H., and L.H. Emmons. 1990. Ecological structure of the nonflying mammal 

community at Cocha Cashu Biological Station, Manu National Park, Peru. In: 

Gentry, A. H., editor, Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New 

Haven, CT. 

Jimenez, A., and M.A. Zuniga-Ramos. 1992. Nuevos registros de mamiferos para Nuevo Leon, 

Mexico. Publicaciones Biologicas, Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas 6:189-191. 

Jimenez Guzman, A., M.A. Zuniga-Ramos, and J.A. Nino-Ramirez. 1999. Mamiferos de Nuevo 

Leon. Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Mexico, Primera Edicion. P. 80-81. 

Kawanishi, K. 1995. Camera monitoring of human impacts on rain forest wildlife in Tikal 

National Park, Guatemala. M.S. thesis, Frostburg State University, MD. 62 pp. 

Konecny, M.J. 1989. Movement patterns and food habits of four sympatric carnivore species in 

Belize, Central America. In: Redford, K.H. and J.F. Eisenberg, editors, Advances in 

Neotropical Mammalogy. The Sandhill Crane Press, Inc. Gainesville, FL, US. 

Knight, D. 2000. Plan Colombia: fumigation threatens Amazon, warn indigenous leaders, 

scientists. Inter Press Service, Tuesday, November 21, 2000. 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/112100-01htm. 

Lange, K.I. 1960. The jaguar in Arizona. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 

63:96-101. 

Leite, M.R.P., R.L.P. Boulhosa, F. Galvao, and L. Cullen, Jr. 1999. Conservation of jaguars in 

the protected areas of Atlantic Coastal Forest, Brazil. In: Medellin, R.A., C. 
119 

Chetkiewicz, A. Rabinowitz, K.H. Redford, J.G. Robinson, E. Sanderson, and A. Taber. 

Jaguars in the new millenium. Universidad National Autonoma De Mexico/Wildlife 

Conservation Society. Mexico City, Mexico. 

Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico, the Game Birds and Mammals. University of 

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA. 

Lickey, A.L.A., M. Kennedy, S. Patton, and E.C. Ramsay. 2005. Serologic survey of domestic 

felids in the Peten region of Guatemala. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 36:121-

123. 

Little, E.L. 1938. A record of the jaguarundi in Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 19:500-501. 

Lonnberg, E. 1925. Notes on some animals from Ecuador. Journal of Mammalogy 271-275. 

Lopez Gonzales, C.A., D.E. Brown, and J.P. Gallo-Reynoso. 2003. The ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis in north-western Mexico: ecology, distribution and conservation status. Oryx 

37:1-7.

Lott, E.J. 1995. Pacific lowlands, Jalisco: Chamela Biological Station and Cumbres de 

Cuixmala Reserve, Mexico. http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/cpd/ma/ma7.htm. 

Lucherini, M., L. Soler, and E.L. Vidal. 2004. A preliminary revision of knowledge status of 

felids in Argentina. Mastozoologia Neotropical/Journal of Neotropical Mammalogy 

11:7-17. 

Ludlow, M.E., and M.E. Sunquist. 1987. Ecology and behavior of ocelots in 

 Venezuela. National Geographic Research and Exploration 3:447-461. 

Maffei, L., A.J. Noss, E. Cuellar, and D.I. Rumiz. 2005. Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population 

densities, activity, and ranging behaviour in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from 

camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:1-6. 

Master, L.L. 1991. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation 

Biology 5:559-563. 

McMahan, L.R. 1986. The international cat trade. In: Miller, S.D. and D.D. Everett, editors, 

Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. Texas A&I University and 

The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. 

Medellin, R.A. 1994. Mammal diversity and conservation in the Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, 

Mexico. Conservation Biology 8:780-799. 

Mondolfi, E. 1986. Notes on the biology and status of the small wild cats in Venuzuela. In: 

Miller, S.D. and D.D. Everett, editors, Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and 

management. Texas A&I University and The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, 

DC. 

Naughton-Treves, L. 2002. Wild animals in the garden: conserving wildlife in Amazonian 

agroecosystems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92:488-506. 

Naughton-Treves, L., J.L. Mena, A. Treves, N. Alvarez, and V.C. Radeloff. 2003. Wildlife 

survival beyond park boundaries: the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture and hunting 

on mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17:1106-1117. 

Novack, A.J. 2003. The use of remote-triggered camera systems to monitor jaguar and puma in 

the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainsville, 

FL. 

Nowak, R.M. 1975. Retreat of the jaguar. National Parks and Conservation Magazine 

49(12):10-13. 

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world, vol. 2. Johns Hopkins University Press, 

London. 
120 

Nowell, K. 2002. Revision of the felidae red list of threatened species (IUCN/SSC Red List 

Felidae Authority). CAT News, Autumn, 2002. 

Ocelot Fact Sheet Website. 2005. 

http://www.felidtag.org/pages/Educational%5CFactSheets%5Cocelot.htm. 

Oldfield, M.L. 1988. Threatened mammals affected by human exploitation of the femaleoffspring bond. Conservation Biology 2:260-274. 

Oliviera, T.G. 2005. Wild cats of Brazil project. Cat project of the month, IUCN/SSC Cat 

Specialist Group’s website: 

 http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/project-o-month/02_webarchive/grafics/july2005.pdf. 

Payan, E., and L.A. Trujillo. 2006. The Tigrilladas in Colombia. CAT News 44 Spring 2006. 

Pocock, R.I. 1941. The races of the ocelot and margay. Pub. Field Museum Nat. Hist., Zool. 

Ser. 27:319-369. 

Redford, K.E., and J.F. Eisenberg. 1989. Mammals of the neotropics – the southern cone, Vol. 

2-Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 

Scialabba, N.E., and D. Williamson. 2004. The scope of organic agriculture, sustainable forest 

management and ecoforestry in protected area management. Environment and Natural 

Resources Working Paper No. 18, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome. 

Servin, J., E. Chacon, N. Alonso-Perez, and C. Huxley. 2003. New records of mammals from 

Durango, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 48:136-139. 

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. 2004. Big cats thrive in STRI open laboratory. 

Smithsonian Spotlight on Science 2:3. http://www2.si.edu/research/spotlight/2_1.htm 

Sunquist, M.E., F. Sunquist, and D.E. Daneke. 1989. Ecological separation in a Venezuelan 

llanos carnivore community. Pages 197-232 in K.H. Redford and J.F. Eisenberg, editors. 

Advances in neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL. 

Sunquist, M., and F. Sunquist. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, IL. 

Swank, W.G., and J.G. Teer. 1989. Status of the jaguar. Oryx 23:14–21. 

Swanson, W.F. 2003. Research in nondomestic species: experiences in reproductive 

physiology research for conservation of endangered felids. ILAR Journal 44:307-316. 

Swanson, W.F. 2003a. Forging an international conservation partnership for the Brazilian 

ocelot. Communique (American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Silver Spring, MD), 

January: 33-34. 

Taber, A., G. Navarro, and M.A. Arribas. 1997. A new park in the Bolivian Gran Chaco – an 

advance in tropical dry forest conservation and community-based management. Oryx 

31:189-198. 

Tewes, M., C. Lopez, and P. Crawshaw. Ocelot fact sheet. 

http://www.felidtag.org/pages/Educational%5CFactSheets%5Coeclot.htm. September, 

2005. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. Website: 

http://nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/brazil/work/art5082.html 

Trolle, M., and M. Kery. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture-

 recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607-614. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listed cats of Texas and Arizona recovery plan (with 

emphasis on the ocelot). Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 
121 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed 

endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. 59 FR:35674-35679, July 13, 1994. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final 

rule to extend endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. 62 FR:39147-39157, 

July 22, 1997. 

Valero, A., J. Schipper, and T. Allnut. 2001. Jalisco dry forests. 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0217_full.html. 

9/12/2005. 

Viana, L.R., L.M. Scoss, and G. Fonseca. 2005. Preliminary results of a camera trapping study 

of felids in the Parque Estadual do Rio Doce, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Abstract in Brasilia 

Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 22, 2005. 

Wagner, M., F.C. Ramirez, and S.P.G. Garcia. (Undated) Managing for wildlife diversity in the 

Tamaulipas region. http:..cnrit.tamu.edu/cgrm/whatzhot/saltillo/wagner.html. 9/23/2005. 

Webb, G., and R.H. Baker. 1962. Terrestrial vertebrates of the Pueblo Nuevo area of 

 southwestern Durango, Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 68:325-333. 

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2004. Jaguar conservation program: jaguar surveys in Kaa-Iya. 

http://www.wildlifeconservationsocietyinternationalconservation. 

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2005. Jaguar conservation program: Exploring human jaguar 

conflict in Belize. http://savethejaguar.com/media/file/JCP_Brechin_Buff.pdf. 

Wilson, D.E. 1989. Mammals of La Selva, Costa Rica. In: Gentry, A.H., editor, Four 

neotropical forests. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 

Woodward, R.L. 2005. El Salvador. http://encarta.msn.com. 

World Wildlife Fund. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions-Veracruz moist forests (NT0176). 

 Http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0176_full.html. 

9/23/2005 

Ximénez, A. 1988. Notes on neotropical felids IX: Felis (Leopardus) pardalis mitis. Comm. 

Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo 12:1-7 (in Spanish). 

Yanosky, A.A., and C. Mercolli. 1994. Notes on the Ecology of Felis geoffroyi in Northeastern 

Argentina. American Midland Naturalist 132:202-204. 

Personal Communications 

Caso, A. 2006. Biology Graduate Student, CKWRI/TAMUK. Emails dated Jan. 2006. 

Lopez-Gonzalez, C. 2005. Prof. of Biology, Universidad Queretaro, Mexico. Ocelot 

technical recovery team meeting, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 28-29, 2005. 

Lopez-Gonzalez, C. 2006. Emails dated Jan., 2006. 

Miller, C.M. 2006. Associate Conservation Zoologist, Wildlife Conservation Society, Gallon 

Jug Estate, Belize; Belize Biodiversity Information System; Jaguar Conservation 

Program. Emails dated Jan., 2006. 

Soto Shoender, J.R. 2006. Graduate Student, Department of Wildlife, Ecology, and 

Conservation, University of Florida. Emails dated Jan. 2006. 
122 

Appendix IV – Ocelot Population Viability Analysis 

Preliminary Population Viability Assessment for the 

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

In South Texas and Northern Tamaulipas 

Report prepared by: 

Philip S. Miller 

IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

In collaboration with 

Members of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bi–National Ocelot Recovery Team 
123 

Preliminary Population Viability Assessment for the 

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

In South Texas and Northern Tamaulipas 

Philip Miller, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bi–National Ocelot Recovery Team Members 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................115 

Baseline Input Parameters for Stochastic Population Viability Simulations .............117 

Results of Baseline Simulations.................................................................................122 

Demographic Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................124 

Risk Analysis I: Population Size, Road Mortality, and Extinction Risk ...................128 

Risk Analysis II: Translocation and Metapopulation Viability .................................133 

Future Directions for Additional Analysis .................................................................136 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................136

References ..................................................................................................................138 

Appendix IV-I: Simulation Modeling and Population Viability Analysis ................139 
124 

Preliminary Population Viability Assessment for the 

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

In South Texas and Northern Tamaulipas 

Philip Miller, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bi–National Ocelot Recovery Team Members 

Introduction 

In 1990, the USFWS published The Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With 

Emphasis on the Ocelot) through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. While 

considerable progress was made over the last decade in conducting ocelot research, there are a 

number of recovery actions that have received little attention following the publication of this 

important document. In addition the geographic, economic, and political landscapes in south 

Texas and northern Tamaulipas have changed considerably since 1990, thereby necessitating a 

review and probably revision of the Plan’s information and recommended actions. In response 

to this need, an Ocelot Recovery Team was formed in May 2003 for the purpose of revising the 

outdated plan. The team is composed of both a Technical and an Implementation subgroup with 

representation from the United States and Mexico. 

The 1990 recovery plan recommended some major demography-related activities for ocelot 

recovery, namely “determining the precise population sizes and habitat sizes required for 

viability and the necessary spatial arrangement of habitat, and determining the impact of disease 

and other factors on the population; increasing ocelot numbers in Texas, in part by protecting at 

least 20,000 hectares of prime ocelot habitat in Texas (either in a single block or continuous 

blocks connected by corridors).” Population viability analysis (PVA) has been identified by the 

Recovery Team as a valuable tool for determining the likely fate of the ocelot populations 

currently distributed throughout south Texas and northern Tamaulipas, and to assist in the 

process of identifying the most promising recovery actions. 

A PVA can be an extremely useful tool for investigating current and future risk of wildlife 

population decline or extinction. In addition, the need for and consequences of alternative 

management strategies can be modeled to suggest which practices may be the most effective in 

managing populations of the ocelot in its wild habitat in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas. 

VORTEX, a simulation software package written for population viability analysis, was used here as 

a mechanism to study the interaction of a number of ocelot life history and population 

parameters treated stochastically, to explore which demographic parameters may be the most 

sensitive to alternative management practices, and to test the effects of selected management 

scenarios. 

The VORTEX package is a Monte Carlo simulation of the effects of deterministic forces as well as 

demographic, environmental, and genetic stochastic events on wild populations. VORTEX models 

population dynamics as discrete sequential events (e.g., births, deaths, sex ratios among 

offspring, catastrophes, etc.) that occur according to defined probabilities. The probabilities of 
125 

events are modeled as constants or random variables that follow specified distributions. The 

package simulates a population by stepping through the series of events that describe the typical 

life cycles of sexually reproducing, diploid organisms. 

PVA methodologies such as the VORTEX system are not intended to give absolute and precise 

“answers,” since they are projecting the interactions of many randomly-fluctuating parameters 

used as model input and because of considerable measurement uncertainty we observe in typical 

wildlife population demography datasets. Because of these limitations, many researchers have 

cautioned against the sole use of PVA results to promote specific management actions for 

threatened populations (e.g., Ludwig 1999; Beissinger and McCullough 2002; Reed et al. 2002; 

Ellner et al. 2002; Lotts et al. 2004). Instead, the true value of an analysis of this type lies in the 

assembly and critical analysis of the available information on the species and its ecology, and in 

the ability to compare the quantitative metrics of population performance that emerge from a 

suite of simulations, with each simulation representing a specific scenario and its inherent 

assumptions about the available data and a proposed method of population and/or landscape 

management. Interpretation of the output depends upon our knowledge of the biology of the 

ocelot in this portion of its habitat, the environmental conditions affecting the species, and 

possible future changes in these conditions. For a more detailed explanation of VORTEX and its 

use in population viability analysis, refer to Appendix I below, Lacy (2000) and Miller and Lacy 

(2003). 

Specifically, we were interested in using this preliminary analysis to address the following 

questions: 

• What is our best estimate of stochastic population dynamics of the ocelot within its current 

range in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas? 

• What are the primary factors that drive population growth dynamics of ocelots in south Texas 

and northern Tamaulipas? 

• How vulnerable are small, fragmented populations of ocelots in south Texas and northern 

Tamaulipas to local extinction in the absence of demographic interaction with other 

populations? 

• What are the benefits to the ocelot of increasing range and connectivity in the landscape? 

• How successful might translocation be as a conservation management strategy for smaller 

populations of ocelots in south Texas? 

• How many individuals could be removed from a given source population such as northern 

Tamaulipas for translocation into smaller populations in south Texas at risk of extinction 

without negatively impacting the persistence of the source? 

The VORTEX system for conducting population viability analysis is a flexible and accessible tool 

that can be adapted to a wide variety of species types and life histories as the situation warrants. 

The program has been used around the world in both teaching and research applications and is a 

trusted method for assisting in the definition of practical wildlife management methodologies. 
126 

Baseline Input Parameters for Stochastic Population Viability Simulations 

The relatively scarce data on the population biology and ecology of the ocelot in the northern 

extreme of its global range comes primarily from Tewes and Schmidly (1987), Laack (1991), 

Caso (1994), and López Gonzalez et al. (2003). Moreover, the recent analyses of A. Haines 

(Texas A&I, Kingsville) proved valuable in the development of appropriate model input 

parameters. Discussion of baseline model input focused on our understanding of the ocelot 

population within the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Cameron County, Texas. 

Where data were absent, we utilized similar information from captive populations and from 

studies focused on other geographic areas. 

Breeding System: Ocelots will often form stable breeding groups that remain intact over more 

than one year. Therefore, we used the “long-term polygyny” option within VORTEX to model this 

breeding system. Under this option, a set of adult females are therefore randomly selected each 

year to breed with a given male. Pairs that are produced in a given year are then retained in 

future years until one of the mates dies. 

Age of First Reproduction: VORTEX considers the age of first reproduction as the age at which 

the first kittens are born, not simply the onset of sexual maturity. All available information 

indicates wild female ocelots produce their first offspring no earlier than about 30 months of age. 

We therefore set this parameter at three years. In order to test the sensitivity of our models to 

uncertainty in this parameter, we ran additional models with this variable set to either two years 

or four years of age. Because males must typically wait for the opportunity to fill vacancies 

within a given territory, their age of first reproduction is typically older. We set this parameter to 

four years in all models. 

Age of Reproductive Senescence: In its simplest form, VORTEX assumes that animals can 

reproduce (at the normal rate) throughout their adult life. There are no real data available on 

senescence in ocelots. Captive animals have lived up to 15-17 years, but it is quite likely that 

this cannot be achieved under much more competitive conditions in the wild. We therefore 

estimated that ocelots could live up to 11 years in the wild. In reality, achieving this age is 

unlikely given mortality rates (see below). In order to test the sensitivity of our models to 

uncertainty in this parameter, we ran additional models with this variable set to either 9 or 13 

years of age. 

Offspring Production: Based on our knowledge of ocelot life history, we have defined 

reproduction in these models as the production of kittens observed in the field. Indirect evidence 

suggests that ocelots often breed every other year, but there are no direct data of this type in 

south Texas/northern Tamaulipas. Our best “guesstimate” of the average percentage of adult 

females that successfully breed per year was therefore set at 50%. There are some data (Laack et 

al, in press) to suggest that this value is an underestimate, although data to the contrary are sparse 

and difficult to interpret conclusively. In order to test the sensitivity of our models to uncertainty 

in this parameter, we ran additional models with this variable set to a higher value of 75%. 

Annual environmental variation in female reproductive success is modeled in VORTEX by 

specifying a standard deviation (SD) for the proportion of adult females that successfully 
127 

produce kittens within a given year. While no data are available for this parameter, we propose 

that annual variance is relatively low. We therefore set the standard deviation in the percentage 

of adult females breeding at 5%. 

 

Many studies have cited an average ocelot litter size of about 1.4 – 1.5 kittens per successful 

female. We developed the following distribution of possible litter sizes for a given successful 

female: 

Number of kittens % 

1 66.0 

2 33.0 

3 1.0 

This distribution yields an average litter size of 1.35 kittens. Litters of three individuals are 

thought to be possible but quite rare. In order to test the sensitivity of our models to uncertainty 

in this parameter, we ran additional models with a reversed distribution of litters of size 1 and 2, 

thereby giving a new average litter size of 1.68. The overall population-level sex ratio among 

newborns is assumed to be 50%. 

Density-Dependent Reproduction: VORTEX can model density dependence with an equation that 

specifies the proportion of adult females that reproduce as a function of the total population size. 

In addition to including a more typical reduction in breeding in high-density populations, the 

user can also model an Allee effect: a decrease in the proportion of females that bread at low 

population density due, for example, to difficulty in finding mates that are widely dispersed 

across the landscape. 

At this time, there are no data to support density dependence in reproduction in ocelot 

populations occupying this portion of their range. Consequently, this option was not included in 

the models presented here. It is possible that population decreases could actually stimulate 

higher levels of reproductive success through a decline in intraspecific competition; the detailed 

mode of action of this relationship, however, was not determined for this analysis. 

Male Breeding Pool: In many species, some adult males may be socially restricted from 

breeding despite being physiologically capable. This can be modeled in VORTEX by specifying a 

portion of the total pool of adult males that may be considered “available” for breeding each 

year. Within any given year, we assume that all adult male ocelots are equally capable of siring 

offspring; this is not to say, however, that all adult males actually meet with the same level of 

success during a given breeding season. 

Mortality: Age-sex-specific mortality rates for this PVA are based on new analyses by Aaron 

Haines. When developing a mortality schedule for ocelots in south Texas, it is vitally important 

to separate out the impact of road-kill mortality from background mortality. Vehicle impacts are 

a major source of mortality in this geographic area, especially among subadult individuals that 

are attempting to disperse to new territories. From the available field and Haines’ analysis, we 

have developed the following schedules, with and without the effect of vehicle-impact mortality: 
128 

Age Class 

% Mortality (SD) 

(Road mortality excluded) 

 % Mortality (SD) 

(Road mortality included) 

 Females Males Females Males 

0 – 1 30.0 (6.0) 30.0 (6.0) 33.0 (7.0) 33.0 (7.0) 

1 – 2 15.0 (3.0) 15.0 (3.0) 15.0 (3.0) 15.0 (3.0) 

2 – 3 16.0 (4.0) 30.0 (6.0) 30.0 (7.0) 37.0 (8.0) 

3 – 4 8.0 (2.0) 13.0 (3.0) 13.0 (3.0) 13.0 (3.0) 

4+ 8.0 (2.0) 8.0 (2.0) 13.0 (3.0) 13.0 (3.0) 

Note the high levels of mortality among 2-3 year-olds, especially among males. In addition, 

Haines’ analysis indicates the significant effect that vehicle impacts have on the mortality of 

dispersing females in this same age class. Under these conditions, the probability of a female 

reaching reproductive age is about 50% in the absence of road mortality, but this drops to 40% 

when road mortality is included. Similarly, the probability of a female reaching the maximum 

age drops from about 24% in the absence of road mortality to about 12% in the presence of road 

mortality. 

Catastrophes: Catastrophes are singular environmental events that are outside the bounds of 

normal environmental variation affecting reproduction and/or survival. Natural catastrophes can 

be tornadoes, floods, droughts, disease, or similar events. These events are modeled in VORTEX 

by assigning an annual probability of occurrence and a pair of severity factors describing their 

impact on mortality (across all age-sex classes) and the proportion of females successfully 

breeding in a given year. These factors range from 0.0 (maximum or absolute effect) to 1.0 (no 

effect), and are imposed during the single year of the catastrophe, after which time the 

demographic rates rebound to their baseline values. 

We suspected that a drought event could severely affect the reproductive capability of adult 

females. Therefore, we included a drought catastrophe in many of our models. Calculations by 

Haines at the workshop suggested that such a severe event would occur approximately once 

every 9-10 years, so we assumed that the annual probability of such an event occurring was 11%. 

We also assumed that such a drought would reduce the population-level measure of reproductive 

success (percentage of adult females breeding each year) by 50%. In other words, if 

approximately 50% of adult females bred successfully in a year without drought, only about 25% 

would be expected to do so during a serious drought. In order to test the sensitivity of our 

models to uncertainty in this parameter, we ran additional models with the drought event 

removed from the analysis. 

Inbreeding Depression: VORTEX includes the ability to model the detrimental effects of 

inbreeding, most directly through reduced survival of offspring through their first year. While 

specific data on inbreeding depression in either captive or wild ocelot populations were not 

available for this analysis, the preponderance of evidence for the deleterious impacts of 

inbreeding in mammal populations suggests that it can be a real factor in small populations of 

ocelots. We therefore elected to include this process in our models, with a genetic load of 3.14 

lethal equivalents and approximately 50% of this load expressed as lethal genes. In order to test 

the sensitivity of our models to uncertainty in this parameter, we ran additional models with 

inbreeding depression removed from the analysis. 
129 

Initial Population Size: Estimates at the time this model was run put the total ocelot population 

size within the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (LANWR) in Cameron County at 

approximately 30 individuals, while the population occupying the lands in Willacy and Kenedy 

Counties is considered to be slightly larger (i.e., around 40 individuals). The closest population 

in Mexico, approximately 130 km to the south in Tamaulipas, is thought to be about 200 

animals. These values were used for specific models designed to evaluate the risk of extinction 

of existing populations. 

 

Because of the uncertainty in these estimates, and because of a greater interest in the more 

general results that can be obtained from a systematic analysis of population size and its 

influence on persistence in the face of random demographic fluctuations in ocelot populations, 

we decided to also focus on a set of population size classes throughout the analysis. The size 

classes studied were: 

N0 = 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, 100, 150, 200 

VORTEX distributes the specified initial population among age-sex classes according to a stable 

age distribution that is characteristic of the mortality and reproductive schedules described 

previously. 

Carrying Capacity: The carrying capacity, or K, for a given habitat patch defines an upper limit 

for the population size, above which additional mortality is imposed randomly across all age 

classes in order to return the population to the value set for K. 

All observations suggest that, through the action of habitat alteration and destruction by local 

human activities, ocelot populations in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas are at or very near 

their ecological carrying capacity within existing habitat. Therefore, we initialized all our 

models with K equal to the appropriate initial population size. 

Metapopulation Analysis: An important issue for management of ocelot in the northern extent of 

their range is the feasibility of “linking” the three populations mentioned above by artificial 

dispersal, i.e., translocation. Natural dispersal has not been observed in this part of their range 

and does not appear to be a realistic expectation at this time. To evaluate artificial dispersal as a 

conservation tool, we developed a set of simulations that involved the removal of four 2-year-old 

animals (equal sex ratio) – those that have the highest probability of mortality through natural 

dispersal and associated vehicle impacts – from the Tamaulipas population every other year and 

distributing them into the two United States populations. During this process, we assume a 50% 

loss of individuals during transport, so that only one ocelot is being added to each of the 

LANWR and Willacy-Kenedy populations during the process. Moreover, we assume that this 

process can not last forever, so we continue the process at 2-year intervals for either 30 or 60 

years. In addition to assessing the efficacy of this procedure for potential “rescue” of the much 

smaller United States populations, we also want to evaluate the impact that such a rate of 

removal might have on the source Mexican population. 
130 

Iterations and Years of Projection: All population projections (scenarios) were simulated 500 

times. Each projection extends to 100 years, with demographic information obtained at annual 

intervals. All simulations were conducted using VORTEX version 9.45 (June 2004). 

Table 1 below summarizes the baseline input dataset upon which all subsequent VORTEX models 

are based. 

Table 1. Demographic input parameters for the baseline VORTEX

models for populations of ocelot in south Texas and northern 

Tamaulipas. See accompanying text for more information. 

Model Input Parameter Baseline value 

Breeding System Long-term polygynous 

Age of first reproduction (♀ / ♂) 3 / 4 

Maximum age of reproduction 11 

Inbreeding depression? Yes 

Lethal equivalents 3.14 

Annual % adult females reproducing 

(SD) 

50 

Density dependent reproduction? No 

Maximum litter size 3 

Mean litter size† 1.35 

Overall offspring sex ratio 0.5 

Adult males in breeding pool 100% 

% annual mortality, ♀ / ♂ (SD) 

0 – 1 33.0 / 33.0 (7.0)‡

1 – 2 15.0 / 15.0 (3.0) 

2 – 3 30.0 / 37.0 (8.0) 

3 – 4 13.0 / 13.0 

(3.0) 

4 – + 13.0 / 13.0 

(3.0) 

Catastrophe? Drought 

Annual frequency of occurrence 11% 

Severity: Reproduction 0.5 

Severity: Survival 1.0 

Initial population size / K 

Laguna Atascosa (LANWR) 30 / 30 

Willacy – Kenedy Counties 40 / 40 

Tamaulipas, Mexico 200 / 200 

†

 Exact probability distribution of individual clutch size specified in input file. 

‡

 Includes road mortality; see text for specification of natural mortality levels. 
131 

Results of Baseline Simulation 

Results reported for each modeling scenario include: 

 

rs (SD) – The mean rate of stochastic population growth or decline (standard deviation) 

demonstrated by the simulated populations, averaged across years and iterations, for all 

simulated populations that are not extinct. This population growth rate is calculated each 

year of the simulation, prior to any truncation of the population size due to the population 

exceeding the carrying capacity. 

P(E)100 – Probability of population extinction after 100 years, determined by the proportion 

of 500 iterations within that given scenario that have gone extinct within the given time 

frame. “Extinction” is defined in the VORTEX model as the absence of either sex. 

N100 (SD) – Mean (standard deviation) population size at the end of the simulation, averaged 

across all simulated populations, including those that are extinct. 

GD100 – The gene diversity or expected heterozygosity of the extant populations, expressed 

as a percent of the initial gene diversity of the population. Fitness of individuals usually 

declines proportionately with gene diversity. 

T(E) – The average time to population extinction, in years. 

The set of demographic, genetic, and ecological input data that represents our best understanding 

of the life history of ocelots in south Texas is hereafter referred to as our baseline model. This 

model simulates the predicted trajectory of a small population inhabiting Laguna Atascosa NWR 

when all sources of mortality – both natural and anthropogenic – are included. The results of this 

analysis are presented in Figure 1 below. The average population growth rate is -0.082, and the 

extinction probability over 100 years is 100%. 

It is clear from this Figure that, under our best estimates of ocelot population biological 

parameters, the population currently occupying Laguna Atascosa NWR is expected to decline 

rapidly toward extinction within the next 50 years. The high rate of decline seen in the model is 

no doubt due at least in part to pessimistic estimates of certain key demographic parameters, such 

as the age of first reproduction or the percentage of adult female breeding success. In other 

words, we may be assuming that females begin breeding at an age that is older than the real 

situation in the wild, and we may be underestimating the rate of breeding success among adult 

females. However, this decline also surely results from a more accurate portrayal of other 

tangible consequences of ocelot biology and local anthropogenic activity, including: 

• habitat loss around LANWR that leads to a very small suitable area and an associated small 

ocelot population subjected to stochastic demographic fluctuations; 

• “frustrated dispersal,” with a significant proportion of dispersing individuals killed while 

attempting to move across compromised habitat in search of new territories; and 

• increased mortality through vehicle impacts. 

The working group developing this model concludes that, while perhaps more severe in absolute 

magnitude compared to the actual situation in the wild, our simulation model of ocelot 
132 

population dynamics within LANWR is a fairly accurate simulation of the likely fate of this 

population in the absence of intensive management. 

Demographic Sensitivity Analysis 

During the development of the baseline input dataset, it quickly became apparent that a number 

of demographic characteristics of ocelot populations in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas 

were being estimated with varying levels of uncertainty. This type of measurement uncertainty, 

which is distinctly different from the annual variability in demographic rates due to extrinsic 

environmental stochasticity and other factors, impairs our ability to generate precise predictions 

of population dynamics with any degree of confidence. Nevertheless, an analysis of the 

Figure 1. Plot of 500 individual iterations of the baseline VORTEX model of predicted 

ocelot population dynamics in Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. The 

average rate of population growth across these iterations is -0.082, indicating a considerable 

rate of decline with extinction occurring within 40 years. Note the level of variance in the 

model as defined by both demographic and environmental sources of stochasticity included
133 

sensitivity of our models to this measurement uncertainty can be an invaluable aid in identifying 

priorities for detailed research and/or management projects targeting specific elements of the 

species’ population biology and ecology. 

To conduct this demographic sensitivity analysis, we identify a selected set of parameters from 

Table 1 whose estimate we see as considerably uncertain. We then develop biologically 

plausible minimum and maximum values for these parameters (see Table 2). 

Table 2. Uncertain input parameters and their stated ranges for use in 

demographic sensitivity analysis of simulated ocelot populations in south Texas 

and northern Tamaulipas. Values in bold are those used in the baseline model. 

See accompanying text for more information. 

Estimate

Model Parameter Minimum Midpoint Maximum 

Age of First Reproduction 2 3 4 

Maximum Age 9 11 13 

Inbreeding Depression No Yes 

% Adult Females Reproducing 50 75 

Average Litter Size 1.35 1.68 

Road Mortality No Yes 

Drought No Yes 

For each of these parameters listed above we construct multiple simulations, with a given 

parameter set at its prescribed minimum and/or maximum value, with all other parameters 

remaining at their baseline value. With the 7 parameters identified above, and recognizing that 

the aggregate set of baseline values constitute our single baseline model, the table above allows 

us to construct a total of 10 additional, alternative models whose performance (defined, for 

example, in terms of average population growth rate) can be compared to that of our starting 

baseline model. For the entire suite of sensitivity analysis models, we will consider a population 

very similar to that occupying Laguna Atascosa NWR, i.e., initial population size and ecological 

carrying capacity equal to 30 individuals. 

The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown graphically in Figure 2 and in tabular form in 

Table 3. 
134 

Table 3. South Texas / northern Tamaulipas ocelot 

PVA. Output from demographic sensitivity analysis 

models. See text for additional information on model 

construction and parameterization. 

Model conditions rs (SD) 

Baseline -0.082 (0.201) 

Age of First Reproduction 

2 -0.048 (0.188) 

4 -0.099 (0.205) 

Maximum Breeding Age 

9 -0.113 (0.209) 

13 -0.065 (0.191) 

Inbreeding Depression 

No -0.070 (0.204) 

% Adult Females Breeding 

75 -0.036 (0.186) 

Litter Size 

1.68 -0.056 (0.198) 

Road Mortality 

No -0.032 (0.168) 

Drought 

No -0.075 (0.195) 

Test Parameter

AFR

Longevity

Inbreeding

% FF

Kits

Road Mortality

Drought

Stochastic Population Growth Rate

-0.12

-0.08

-0.04

Figure 2. Demographic sensitivity 

analysis of a simulated LANWR 

ocelot population. Stochastic 

population growth rate for a set of 

models in which the specific 

parameter is varied across a range 

of biologically plausible values. 

The baseline model growth rate of 

-0.082 is given by the central data 

point for each parameter. The 

general model of ocelot population 

dynamics is most sensitive to 

uncertainty in those parameters 

giving the widest range in 

simulated population growth rates. 

See text for additional details. 
135 

It is clear from the analysis that our model of ocelot population dynamics is most sensitive to 

uncertainty in adult female reproductive success (defined here as the percentage of adult females 

that successfully produce a litter) and to additional mortality of ocelots through vehicle impacts. 

Uncertainty in reproductive lifespan also leads to significant model response, but not to the level 

of that seen among the aforementioned variables. While in exclusion of inbreeding depression 

does not significantly alter the results of our baseline model, we are reluctant to discount its 

potential impact in small or isolated populations of ocelots in the periphery of the species’ range. 

There is an abundance of evidence suggesting that small populations of mammals can suffer 

markedly from the impacts of inbreeding depression; there are simply too many other factors 

conspiring to drive this population into rapid decline for us to be able to discern the precise 

action of this genetic factor in our particular model. 

Once the generalized sensitivity analysis was successfully completed, we set out to develop a set 

of models with the goal of more precisely identifying the relative contributions of adult and 

juvenile mortality to the overall growth dynamics of our simulated ocelot population. This was 

done in order to provide a better understanding of species population dynamics, to define a broad 

set of minimal conditions necessary to increase the chances of population persistence, and to 

gain additional insight into the magnitude of any detrimental impact of proposed major mortality 

factors. This type of analysis can provide a simple benchmark to which wild population 

management and associated field monitoring efforts can then be directed. 

A total of 50 individual models were constructed that provided all possible combinations of 2 

levels of reproductive success, 5 levels of juvenile mortality, and 5 levels of adult mortality. 

This was done in order to more effectively address the relationship between reproductive success 

and age-specific mortality required for population growth. 

27%

39%

Annual Adult Mortality Rate (%)

5 10 15 20

Stochastic Population Growth Rate

-0.14

-0.12

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

Annual Adult Mortality Rate (%)

5 10 15 20

% Breeding: 50 % Breeding: 75

27%

39%

Figure 3. South Texas / northern Tamaulipas ocelot population mortality analysis. Plots give average 

stochastic population growth rate (rs) as a function of annual mortality rate of adults with individual lines 

corresponding to different levels of juvenile mortality. Two panels correspond to variable levels of adult 

female reproductive success (see text for additional details on the determination of success). Initial 

population size for all simulations is set at 30 individuals. 
136 

The results of this mortality analysis are shown in Figure 3 above. It is clear that, under the 

conditions modeled here, only a very small number of combinations of juvenile and adult 

mortality can result in a population that is expected to grow over time (i.e., r > 0.0). Inspection 

of these graphs lead to the following additional conclusions: 

• Nearly all simulated populations have negative growth rates, with many showing high 

rates of decline. Based on our understanding of the growth dynamics exhibited in the 

baseline model described earlier in this section, this poor level of population performance 

most likely reflects the high mortality present in small, isolated ocelot populations 

subjected to abnormal levels of vehicle impacts. 

• Higher levels of reproductive success result in considerably higher levels of stochastic 

population growth under the same suite of mortality values. Nevertheless, the relatively 

high levels of vehicle-impact mortality present in the subadult (dispersing) stages 

included here reduce overall growth rates so that population growth is possible only 

under the most optimistic mortality schedule. 

• A given percentage change in ocelot adult mortality results in a proportionally much 

larger change in mean population growth rate compared to a change in juvenile mortality 

of the same magnitude. In other words, the results of our simulation models are 

considerably more sensitive to adult mortality. 

While it is very instructive to investigate the sensitivity of our model to uncertainty in 

demographic input, it is also important to recognize that detecting mortality rates to the level of 

precision discussed here is rather impractical at best. For example, statistical power analyses 

conducted on typical types of field demographic and survey data (e.g., Forcada 2000) suggest 

that either large sample sizes (say, in the hundreds of individuals) or long periods of observation 

(10 – 15 years) are necessary to detect meaningful changes in population numbers in the short 

term with reasonable levels of precision. Similarly, very large and detailed field studies would 

be required to successfully differentiate between, for example, juvenile mortality rates of 27% 

and 30%. Consequently, the analysis presented here should typically be used at a more 

“strategic” level. When faced with the need for population management in the face of 

measurement uncertainty and limited institutional resources, research and/or management 

prioritization can be accomplished through a comparative study of sensitivity analysis data. 

Having said this, it is also important to note that those parameters to which a demographic model 

is most sensitive may not be the same parameters that are most directly affected by human 

activities and are therefore putting the population at risk. Successful conservation requires 

careful additional study to identify the specific risks the populations face and to develop 

appropriate remedial actions. In the case of the ocelot in south Texas, however, we may in fact 

have a more direct relationship between the primary demographic drivers influencing population 

growth dynamics and the anthropogenic factors leading to population endangerment. The next 

section will explore these relationships in greater detail. 

Risk Analysis I: Population Size, Road Mortality, and Extinction Risk 

With our demographic sensitivity analysis complete, our next task was to investigate the 

relationship between the size of an ocelot population and its vulnerability to extinction in the 

presence of significant anthropogenic disturbance. To do this, we ran simulations for each initial 
137 

population size discussed in the Input Parameters section across each of three alternative values 

of female reproductive success, deemed to be one of the most sensitive parameters in our model. 

This yields a total of 24 different model scenarios. To investigate the impact of road mortality, 

we then repeated this set of models but removed the additional mortality brought about through 

vehicle impacts – thereby producing a grand total of 48 models for analysis. 

Essentially, our goal in this analysis is to identify, for a given scenario of assumed ocelot 

demography, the minimum population size necessary to reduce the risk of extinction below a 

defined threshold. Unfortunately for us biologists, the identification of this extinction threshold 

is based more on political and social factors than on anything else. The agreement upon a 

threshold must be done within a more participatory framework that includes a diversity of 

perspectives among those involved in the management and utilization of the taxon under study. 

Table 4 and Figure 4 present the aggregate results of this analysis. Examination of these results 

lead us to the following conclusions: 

• Road mortality has a considerable impact on the estimated viability of our simulated 

ocelot populations. When this additional mortality source is included, even the largest 

populations experience rapid population decline and very high extinction probabilities 

over the 100-year time span of the simulations. Average time to extinction varies from 

25 – 50 years. When this additional mortality source is removed, overall population 

growth rates rebound markedly. 

• In the absence of road mortality, small ocelot populations still have a considerable risk of 

extinction. This results from the detrimental impact of stochastic variability in 

demographic rates, leading to a general level of population instability and a subsequent 

reduction in growth potential. 

• Under conditions of low reproductive success – i.e., when only 50% of adult females 

successfully produce a litter in any given year – ocelot populations have a significantly 

lower growth potential. In fact, inspection of these data indicate that when road mortality 

is present, the risk of population extinction in 100 years drops below 50% only under the 

most favorable conditions modeled here: a relatively large population of 150 – 200 

individuals with the highest level of female reproductive success (70%). Even here, 

however, the average growth rate is about -0.025 and the final population size is reduced 

from the initial value by approximately 80%. 

Table 4. South Texas/northern Tamaulipas ocelot PVA. Results of population 

size risk analysis models in the presence (top half) and absence (bottom half) 

of road mortality and under alternative conditions of underlying female 

reproductive success. See page 7 for definitions of column headings. 

% ♀♀ N0 rs (Obs) 

(SD) 

P(E)

100

N100 (SD) GD100 T(E) 

Road Mortality 

50 30 -0.082 

(0.199) 1.000 – – 25 

 40 -0.085 

(0.199) 

1.000 – – 29 
138 

 50 -0.084 

(0.192) 

1.000 – – 32 

 60 -0.082 

(0.182) 

1.000 – – 34 

 75 -0.080 

(0.175) 

1.000 – – 38 

 100 -0.078 

(0.168) 

1.000 – – 43 

 150 -0.078 

(0.160) 

1.000 – – 48 

 200 -0.077 

(0.156) 

1.000 – – 52 

60 30 -0.062 

(0.195) 

1.000 – – 31 

 40 -0.061 

(0.187) 

1.000 – – 37 

 50 -0.059 

(0.179) 

1.000 – – 41 

 60 -0.057 

(0.173) 0.992 6 (2) 0.436 47 

 75 -0.057 

(0.167) 0.994 9 (6) 0.596 51 

 100 -0.056 

(0.163) 0.964 7 (5) 0.446 57 

 150 -0.053 

(0.152) 0.938 12 (15) 0.543 69 

 200 -0.050 

(0.146) 

0.868 13 (11) 0.653 78 

70 30 -0.047 

(0.194) 0.998 2 (–) 0.000 39 

 40 -0.042 

(0.180) 0.990 8 (2) 0.354 48 

 50 -0.039 

(0.170) 0.952 10 (7) 0.544 58 

 60 -0.038 

(0.165) 0.944 13 (9) 0.573 65 

 75 -0.034 

(0.157) 0.830 14 (11) 0.590 73 

 100 -0.033 

(0.150) 0.726 18 (16) 0.608 83 

 150 -0.026 

(0.131) 0.408 31 (28) 0.729 80 

 200 -0.023 

(0.123) 0.284 44 (39) 0.780 82 

No Road 

Mortality 
139 

50 30 -0.033 

(0.169) 0.958 8 (4) 0.379 50 

 40 -0.030 

(0.159) 

0.902 11 (9) 0.476 61 

 50 -0.026 

(0.148) 

0.780 15 (11) 0.547 79 

 60 -0.023 

(0.139) 

0.650 17 (13) 0.609 73 

 75 -0.019 

(0.127) 

0.414 21 (17) 0.645 76 

 100 -0.014 

(0.114) 

0.262 35 (25) 0.731 81 

 150 -0.007 

(0.096) 

0.070 64 (40) 0.830 87 

 200 -0.003 

(0.087) 

0.018 102 (53) 0.879 92 

60 30 -0.011 

(0.160) 

0.756 11 (7) 0.465 64 

 40 -0.002 

(0.143) 

0.472 20 (11) 0.566 74 

 50 0.003 (0.128) 0.264 28 (14) 0.648 77 

 60 0.007 (0.117) 0.140 35 (17) 0.693 79 

 75 0.014 (0.105) 0.044 52 (21) 0.762 83 

 100 0.019 (0.095) 0.008 77 (23) 0.827 81 

 150 0.025 (0.087) 0.000 130 (24) 0.888 – 

 200 0.028 (0.083) 0.000 180 (25) 0.917 – 

70 30 0.013 (0.150) 0.404 18 (8) 0.497 71 

 40 0.023 (0.131) 0.156 28 (11) 0.599 77 

 50 0.032 (0.115) 0.030 40 (11) 0.684 89 

 60 0.036 (0.109) 0.008 50 (12) 0.731 84 

 75 0.041 (0.102) 0.004 70 (11) 0.795 74 

 100 0.045 (0.095) 0.000 93 (11) 0.838 – 

 150 0.050 (0.090) 0.000 144 (10) 0.892 – 

 200 0.052 (0.087) 0.000 194 (12) 0.918 – 
140 

Taken together, these data reinforce the results obtained in our earlier demographic sensitivity 

analysis: uncertainty in our understanding of intrinsic ocelot breeding rates, and in our 

understanding of the quantitative impact of road-kill mortality, impairs our ability to make more 

precise predictions of the fate of ocelot populations subject to human activities. Nevertheless, 

models like these are invaluable in pointing out the relative importance of these factors in 

determining the persistence of these populations as humans encroach on their habitat with greater 

frequency and severity. 

30 40 50 60 75 100 150 200

P(E)100

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Initial Population Size

30 40 50 60 75 100 150 200

P(E)100

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

50%

60%

70%

Road Mortality

No Road Mortality

Figure 4. South Texas / northern Tamaulipas ocelot PVA. 100-year 

extinction probabilities for simulated populations of different initial sizes 

in the presence (top panel) and absence (bottom panel) of road mortality 

and under alternative conditions of adult female reproductive success 

(indicated by bar shading; see legend in bottom panel). See text for 

additional model information. 
141 

Risk Analysis II: Translocation and Metapopulation Viability 

A representative population trajectory for each of the metapopulation components is presented in 

Figure 5, while the full results of the metapopulation analysis are presented in Table 5. 

Examination of these data lead us to the following conclusions: 

• Even when translocation is used as a conservation strategy, the smaller South Texas 

populations are at a very high risk of population extinction when road mortality is 

included in the models. Bi-annual translocations from Tamaulipas are not sufficient to 

counteract the loss of individuals from vehicle impacts and the population decline 

resulting from stochastic fluctuations in demographic rates that is characteristic of small 

populations. When road mortality is removed from the analysis, and we assume a 

medium level of female reproductive success, all population growth rates are positive and 

extinction risks are greatly reduced. 

Metapopulation 

Tamaulipas 

LANWR 

Willacy 

Figure 5. South Texas / northern Tamaulipas ocelot PVA. Representative translocation / metapopulation 

projection for 100 years, with translocation from Tamaulipas to the two U.S. populations occurring every 

other year for 30 years. Road mortality is included in this particular model, with a medium level of adult 

female reproductive success (60% of adult females are assumed to produce a litter each year). See 

accompanying text for additional model details.
142 

Table 5. South Texas / northern Tamaulipas ocelot PVA. Results of metapopulation risk 

analysis models in the presence (top half) and absence (bottom half) of road mortality and under 

alternative conditions of underlying female reproductive success. See page 122 for definitions of 

column headings. 

Years % ♀♀ Population rs (Obs) 

(SD) 

P(E)

100

N100 (SD) GD100 T(E) 

30 50 LANWR -0.048 

(0.194) 1.000 – – 42 

 Wilacy -0.023 

(0.154) 

0.910 9 (8) 0.487 71 

 Tamaulipas -0.022 

(0.109) 

0.288 64 (51) 0.796 75 

 Metapop -0.023 

(0.099) 

0.270 64 (51) 0.798 81 

60 LANWR -0.032 

(0.195) 

0.994 4 (3) 0.268 56 

 Wilacy -0.011 

(0.143) 

0.566 13 (8) 0.628 86 

 Tamaulipas -0.054 

(0.137) 

0.824 24 (26) 0.698 60 

 Metapop -0.034 

(0.114) 

0.458 18 (19) 0.669 88 

30 60 LANWR -0.033 

(0.188) 

0.996 10 (8) 0.612 50 

 Wilacy -0.004 

(0.145) 

0.568 16 (11) 0.578 79 

 Tamaulipas 0.018 (0.082) 0.004 177 (33) 0.909 97 

 Metapop 0.016 (0.075) 0.004 184 (35) 0.915 97 

60 LANWR -0.022 

(0.188) 0.958 7 (4) 0.481 73 

 Wilacy 0.012 (0.131) 0.152 20 (11) 0.683 90 

 Tamaulipas 0.003 (0.096) 0.112 149 (60) 0.875 66 

 Metapop 0.007 (0.080) 0.014 152 (74) 0.883 94 

30 70 LANWR -0.022 

(0.183) 0.978 6 (4) 0.340 58 

 Wilacy 0.019 (0.135) 0.224 23 (11) 0.614 80 

 Tamaulipas 0.046 (0.083) 0.000 194 (10) 0.919 – 

 Metapop 0.042 (0.076) 0.000 212 (18) 0.928 – 

60 LANWR -0.009 

(0.177) 0.816 10 (6) 0.528 77 

 Wilacy 0.034 (0.125) 0.048 28 (10) 0.712 92 

 Tamaulipas 0.039 (0.085) 0.000 194 (11) 0.919 – 

 Metapop 0.037 (0.075) 0.000 222 (17) 0.933 – 

30 50 LANWR -0.011 

(0.163) 0.874 10 (7) 0.473 69 
143 

 Wilacy -0.014 

(0.151) 

0.772 12 (8) 0.559 74 

 Tamaulipas -0.024 

(0.116) 

0.320 63 (52) 0.795 69 

 Metapop -0.019 

(0.099) 

0.212 60 (53) 0.781 85 

60 LANWR 0.001 (0.153) 0.546 11 (7) 0.598 86 

 Wilacy 0.000 (0.139) 0.388 15 (10) 0.665 89 

 Tamaulipas -0.052 

(0.140) 

0.824 40 (42) 0.750 60 

 Metapop -0.019 

(0.101) 

0.178 27 (27) 0.746 93 

30 60 LANWR 0.008 (0.157) 0.636 13 (8) 0.496 77 

 Wilacy 0.010 (0.140) 0.342 21 (11) 0.601 80 

 Tamaulipas 0.018 (0.090) 0.008 175 (36) 0.908 61 

 Metapop 0.020 (0.079) 0.000 192 (43) 0.918 – 

60 LANWR 0.026 (0.147) 0.272 17 (8) 0.636 89 

 Wilacy 0.027 (0.127) 0.076 26 (10) 0.706 90 

 Tamaulipas 0.005 (0.102) 0.130 155 (57) 0.881 71 

 Metapop 0.016 (0.079) 0.002 172 (76) 0.905 93 

30 70 LANWR 0.029 (0.150) 0.288 19 (8) 0.540 80 

 Wilacy 0.034 (0.131) 0.102 28 (10) 0.642 83 

 Tamaulipas 0.046 (0.090) 0.000 194 (12) 0.918 – 

 Metapop 0.046 (0.079) 0.000 232 (21) 0.935 – 

60 LANWR 0.048 (0.141) 0.088 21 (8) 0.656 91 

 Wilacy 0.049 (0.125) 0.014 31 (10) 0.723 94 

 Tamaulipas 0.038 (0.092) 0.002 192 (16) 0.916 64 

 Metapop 0.043 (0.078) 0.000 241 (24) 0.940 – 

• Longer periods of translocation can improve the viability of the south Texas ocelot 

populations, but at the expense of the Tamaulipas population: longer translocation 

programs actually increase the risk of extinction in the source population. The 

Tamaulipas population, despite the absence of appreciable mortality from vehicle 

impacts, is not large enough to demographically withstand the removal of four females 

bi-annually. This conclusion, however, is dependent on the assumption that the source 

population in Tamaulipas is just 200 individuals, distributed relatively close to the border 

with the United States. This assumption may be unrealistic; the source population may in 

fact be considerably larger – perhaps up to 1,000 individuals – if we base our population 

size estimate across the entire state. In this case, the removal of a relatively small number 

of ocelots will have a much smaller demographic impact. Care must be given in 

determining the total source population size before setting quantitative targets for 

translocation to smaller population in south Texas. 

All in all, a carefully-designed translocation strategy appears to have considerable promise as a 

means of improving the viability of small remnant populations of ocelots on south Texas. Such a 
144 

strategy, however, cannot be so aggressive as to compromise the demographic and genetic health 

of the source population in Tamaulipas. Vigilant monitoring of a program like this would be 

necessary, combined with improved transport protocols designed to minimize transit mortality, 

in order for long-term program success to be a realistic goal. 

Future Directions for Additional Analysis 

Impacts of habitat loss

Our models do not currently include a simulation of gradual erosion – or, for that matter, 

recovery – of ocelot habitat in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas. This is certainly a real 

possibility as the burgeoning human population expands into more and more urban areas. We 

need to better understand the nature of this expansion, and its specific impacts on both quantity 

and quality of ocelot habitat. 

Impacts of disease

Preliminary discussions during baseline model development included the possibility of disease 

epidemics impacting ocelot populations in this area. While recognizing the potential risks, we 

were unable to parameterize a disease model with any real confidence at this time. Further 

discussions would be necessary to understand this process in greater detail. 

Density-dependent survival

There was concern among workshop participants that we were not accurately modeling density 

dependent mortality in ocelot populations. It is quite likely that as population size decreases, 

rates of fecundity and survival may actually increase as competition for space, food and mates is 

reduced. This needs to be studied in more detail so that more accurate models can be developed. 

Conclusions 

We may conclude our preliminary analysis of south Texas/northern Tamaulipas ocelot 

population viability by returning to the original set of questions that provided the foundation for 

our study. 

• What is our best estimate of stochastic population dynamics of this species in its current 

range? 

Based on our current understanding of the demographics of ocelot populations occupying 

south Texas and northern Tamaulipas, these populations, particularly those in south Texas, 

appear to be at a considerable risk of extinction through the action of intrinsic, stochastic 

fluctuations in demographic rates that are the hallmark of very small, isolated populations of 

wildlife. Moreover, this risk is directly tied to the activities of humans in the area, namely 

the construction and use of roads throughout ocelot habitat. 

• What are the primary factors that drive population growth dynamics of ocelots in south 

Texas and northern Tamaulipas? 

Our preliminary set of PVA models discussed here show that ocelot growth dynamics is 

largely driven by adult female reproductive success, defined here as the proportion of adult 

females successfully producing a litter in a given year. Moreover, the additional levels of 
145 

mortality brought about by vehicle collisions is a primary factor in determining the future 

growth dynamics of any given population subjected to such activity. 

• How vulnerable are small, fragmented populations of ocelots in south Texas and northern 

Tamaulipas to local extinction in the absence of demographic interaction with other 

populations? 

Small populations of ocelots, for example, those numbering less than 100 individuals, have 

an elevated risk of extinction compared to their larger counterparts. When additional 

anthropogenic mortality is included in our analyses, even larger populations do not appear to 

be able to tolerate this kind of additional demographic stress. 

• What are the benefits to the ocelot of increasing range and connectivity in the landscape? 

Because of the risk of extinction through isolation discussed above, range increase through 

habitat improvements may result in greater levels of ocelot population increase and, as a 

result, a reduced risk of extinction. This, of course, also depends on the success of mitigating 

human-mediated processes such as road mortality. As an alternative conservation measure, 

connecting small ocelot populations through the use of landscape corridors may provide an 

additional buffer against extinction risk. However, this strategy will meet with the greatest 

level of success when 1) individual subpopulations are increased in size in a way that 

approaches some level of viability in the absence of connectivity, 2) dispersal rates, whether 

natural or artificial, are sufficiently high to maintain a functioning metapopulation, and 3) 

anthropogenic sources of mortality are reduced to acceptable levels. 

• How successful might translocation be as a conservation management strategy for smaller 

populations of ocelots in south Texas? 

Our models indicate that, based on our best understanding of the demographics of ocelots in 

this portion of their range, the input of a relatively small number of individuals can have a 

significant positive impact on the viability of endangered recipient populations. Preliminary 

analyses indicate that just one to two females injected into a population on a bi-annual basis 

may be enough to compensate for the destabilizing effect of stochastic demography operating 

on small populations. 

• How many animals could be removed from a given source population such as northern 

Tamaulipas for augmentation of smaller populations in south Texas at risk of extinction 

without negatively impacting the persistence of the source? 

It appears that careful consideration must be given to the extent of removal of ocelots from 

the source population in Tamaulipas. Removing four subadult females every other year, 

comprising approximately 4% of the total female population, may put the population at some 

risk if translocations last longer than 40 to 50 years. A smaller number of individuals could 

no doubt be removed more easily, but the assumed transit mortality would lead to a greatly 

reduced demographic benefit to the recipient populations. These conclusions are strongly 

dependent on our assumptions of overall ocelot population size in the source regions of 

Tamaulipas; risks to this population may be reduced substantially if our estimates of total 

population size are increased. 
146 

References 

Beissinger, S.R., and D.R. McCullough, eds. 2002. Population Viability Analysis. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Caso, A. 1994. Home range and habitat use of three neotropical carnivores in northeast Mexico. 

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, 78 pp. 

Ellner, S. P., J. Fieberg, D. Ludwig, and C. Wilcox. 2002. Precision of population viability 

analysis. Conservation Biology 16:258–261. 

Forcada, J. 2000. Can population surveys show if the Mediterranean monk seal colony at Cap 

Blanc is declining in abundance? Journal of Applied Ecology 37:171-181. 

Laack, L.L. 1991. Ecology of the ocelot (Felis pardalis) in south Texas. Unpublished M.S. 

thesis, Texas A&I University, Kingsville, Texas, 113 pp. 

Laack, L.L., M.E. Tewes, A.H. Haines, and J.H. Rappole. In press. Reproductive ecology of 

ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) in southern Texas. In Current Research of the CaesarKleberg Wildlife Institute 2004 – 2005 (Fedynich, A.M., ed.). Kingsville, TX: Texas 

A&M University – Kingsville. 

Lacy, R.C. 2000. Structure of the VORTEX simulation model for population viability analysis. 

Ecological Bulletins 48:191-203. 

López Gonzalez, C. A., D. E. Brown, and J. P. Gallo-Reynoso. 2003. The ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis in north-western Mexico: ecology, distribution and conservation status. Oryx

37:358-364. 

Lotts, K.C., T.A. Waite, and J.A. Vucetich. 2004. Reliability of absolute and relative 

predictions of population persistence based on time series. Conservation Biology

18:1224-1232. 

Ludwig, D. 1999. Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction? Ecology 80:298–310. 

Miller, P.S., and R.C. Lacy. 2003. VORTEX: A Stochastic Simulation of the Extinction Process. 

Version 9 User’s Manual. Apple Valley, MN: Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

(SSC/IUCN). 

Reed, J.M., L.S. Mills, J.B. Dunning Jr., E.S. Menges, K.S. McKelvey, R. Frye, S.R. Beissinger, 

M. Anstett, and P.S. Miller. 2002. Emerging issues in population viability analysis. 

Conservation Biology 16:7–19. 

Tewes, M.E., and D.J. Schmidly. 1987. The neotropical felids: jaguar, ocelot, margay, and 

jaguarundi. Pp 695-712 in Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North 

America (M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds.). Ontario: Ministry 

of Natural Resources. 

USFWS. 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (with Emphasis on the Ocelot). 

Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 131 pp. 
147 

Appendix IV-I 

Simulation Modeling and Population Viability Analysis 

A model is any simplified representation of a real system. We use models in all aspects of our 

lives, in order to: (1) extract the important trends from complex processes, (2) permit comparison 

among systems, (3) facilitate analysis of causes of processes acting on the system, and (4) make 

predictions about the future. A complete description of a natural system, if it were possible, 

would often decrease our understanding relative to that provided by a good model, because there 

is "noise" in the system that is extraneous to the processes we wish to understand. For example, 

the typical representation of the growth of a wildlife population by an annual percent growth rate 

is a simplified mathematical model of the much more complex changes in population size. 

Representing population growth as an annual percent change assumes constant exponential 

growth, ignoring the irregular fluctuations as individuals are born or immigrate, and die or 

emigrate. For many purposes, such a simplified model of population growth is very useful, 

because it captures the essential information we might need regarding the average change in 

population size, and it allows us to make predictions about the future size of the population. A 

detailed description of the exact changes in numbers of individuals, while a true description of 

the population, would often be of much less value because the essential pattern would be 

obscured, and it would be difficult or impossible to make predictions about the future population 

size. 

In considerations of the vulnerability of a population to extinction, as is so often required for 

conservation planning and management, the simple model of population growth as a constant 

annual rate of change is inadequate for our needs. The fluctuations in population size that are 

omitted from the standard ecological models of population change can cause population 

extinction, and therefore are often the primary focus of concern. In order to understand and 

predict the vulnerability of a wildlife population to extinction, we need to use a model which 

incorporates the processes which cause fluctuations in the population, as well as those which 

control the long-term trends in population size (Shaffer 1981). Many processes can cause 

fluctuations in population size: variation in the environment (such as weather, food supplies, and 

predation), genetic changes in the population (such as genetic drift, inbreeding, and response to 

natural selection), catastrophic effects (such as disease epidemics, floods, and droughts), 

decimation of the population or its habitats by humans, the chance results of the probabilistic 

events in the lives of individuals (sex determination, location of mates, breeding success, 

survival), and interactions among these factors (Gilpin and Soulé 1986). 

Models of population dynamics which incorporate causes of fluctuations in population size in 

order to predict probabilities of extinction, and to help identify the processes which contribute to 

a population's vulnerability, are used in "Population Viability Analysis" (PVA) (Lacy 1993/4). 

For the purpose of predicting vulnerability to extinction, any and all population processes that 

impact population dynamics can be important. Much analysis of conservation issues is 

conducted by largely intuitive assessments by biologists with experience with the system. 

Assessments by experts can be quite valuable, and are often contrasted with "models" used to 

evaluate population vulnerability to extinction. Such a contrast is not valid, however, as any

synthesis of facts and understanding of processes constitutes a model, even if it is a mental 
148 

model within the mind of the expert and perhaps only vaguely specified to others (or even to the 

expert himself or herself). 

A number of properties of the problem of assessing vulnerability of a population to extinction 

make it difficult to rely on mental or intuitive models. Numerous processes impact population 

dynamics, and many of the factors interact in complex ways. For example, increased 

fragmentation of habitat can make it more difficult to locate mates, can lead to greater mortality 

as individuals disperse greater distances across unsuitable habitat, and can lead to increased 

inbreeding which in turn can further reduce ability to attract mates and to survive. In addition, 

many of the processes impacting population dynamics are intrinsically probabilistic, with a 

random component. Sex determination, disease, predation, mate acquisition -- indeed, almost all 

events in the life of an individual -- are stochastic events, occurring with certain probabilities 

rather than with absolute certainty at any given time. The consequences of factors influencing 

population dynamics are often delayed for years or even generations. With a long-lived species, 

a population might persist for 20 to 40 years beyond the emergence of factors that ultimately 

cause extinction. Humans can synthesize mentally only a few factors at a time, most people have 

difficulty assessing probabilities intuitively, and it is difficult to consider delayed effects. 

Moreover, the data needed for models of population dynamics are often very uncertain. Optimal 

decision-making when data are uncertain is difficult, as it involves correct assessment of 

probabilities that the true values fall within certain ranges, adding yet another probabilistic or 

chance component to the evaluation of the situation. 

The difficulty of incorporating multiple, interacting, probabilistic processes into a model that can 

utilize uncertain data has prevented (to date) development of analytical models (mathematical 

equations developed from theory) which encompass more than a small subset of the processes 

known to affect wildlife population dynamics. It is possible that the mental models of some 

biologists are sufficiently complex to predict accurately population vulnerabilities to extinction 

under a range of conditions, but it is not possible to assess objectively the precision of such 

intuitive assessments, and it is difficult to transfer that knowledge to others who need also to 

evaluate the situation. Computer simulation models have increasingly been used to assist in 

PVA. Although rarely as elegant as models framed in analytical equations, computer simulation 

models can be well suited for the complex task of evaluating risks of extinction. Simulation 

models can include as many factors that influence population dynamics as the modeler and the 

user of the model want to assess. Interactions between processes can be modeled, if the nature of 

those interactions can be specified. Probabilistic events can be easily simulated by computer 

programs, providing output that gives both the mean expected result and the range or distribution 

of possible outcomes. In theory, simulation programs can be used to build models of population 

dynamics that include all the knowledge of the system which is available to experts. In practice, 

the models will be simpler, because some factors are judged unlikely to be important, and 

because the persons who developed the model did not have access to the full array of expert 

knowledge. 

Although computer simulation models can be complex and confusing, they are precisely defined 

and all the assumptions and algorithms can be examined. Therefore, the models are objective, 

testable, and open to challenge and improvement. PVA models allow use of all available data on 

the biology of the taxon, facilitate testing of the effects of unknown or uncertain data, and 
149 

expedite the comparison of the likely results of various possible management options. 

PVA models also have weaknesses and limitations. A model of the population dynamics does 

not define the goals for conservation planning. Goals, in terms of population growth, probability 

of persistence, number of extant populations, genetic diversity, or other measures of population 

performance must be defined by the management authorities before the results of population 

modeling can be used. Because the models incorporate many factors, the number of possibilities 

to test can seem endless, and it can be difficult to determine which of the factors that were 

analyzed are most important to the population dynamics. PVA models are necessarily 

incomplete. We can model only those factors which we understand and for which we can 

specify the parameters. Therefore, it is important to realize that the models probably 

underestimate the threats facing the population. Finally, the models are used to predict the longterm effects of the processes presently acting on the population. Many aspects of the situation 

could change radically within the time span that is modeled. Therefore, it is important to 

reassess the data and model results periodically, with changes made to the conservation programs 

as needed. 

The VORTEX Population Viability Analysis Model

For the analyses presented here, the VORTEX computer software (Lacy 1993) for population 

viability analysis was used. VORTEX models demographic stochasticity (the randomness of 

reproduction and deaths among individuals in a population), environmental variation in the 

annual birth and death rates, the impacts of sporadic catastrophes, and the effects of inbreeding 

in small populations. VORTEX also allows analysis of the effects of losses or gains in habitat, 

harvest or supplementation of populations, and movement of individuals among local 

populations. 

Density dependence in mortality is modeled by specifying a carrying capacity of the habitat. 

When the population size exceeds the carrying capacity, additional morality is imposed across all 

age classes to bring the population back down to the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity 

can be specified to change linearly over time, to model losses or gains in the amount or quality of 

habitat. Density dependence in reproduction is modeled by specifying the proportion of adult 

females breeding each year as a function of the population size. 

VORTEX models loss of genetic variation in populations, by simulating the transmission of alleles 

from parents to offspring at a hypothetical genetic locus. Each animal at the start of the 

simulation is assigned two unique alleles at the locus. During the simulation, VORTEX monitors 

how many of the original alleles remain within the population, and the average heterozygosity 

and gene diversity (or “expected heterozygosity”) relative to the starting levels. VORTEX also 

monitors the inbreeding coefficients of each animal, and can reduce the juvenile survival of 

inbred animals to model the effects of inbreeding depression. 
150 

VORTEX is an individual-based model. That is, VORTEX creates a representation of each animal in 

its memory and follows the fate of the animal through each year of its lifetime. VORTEX keeps 

track of the sex, age, and parentage of each animal. Demographic events (birth, sex 

determination, mating, dispersal, and death) are modeled by determining for each animal in each 

year of the simulation whether any of the events occur. (See figure below.) Events occur 

according to the specified age and sex-specific probabilities. Demographic stochasticity is 

therefore a consequence of the uncertainty regarding whether each demographic event occurs for 

any given animal. 

VORTEX requires a lot of population-specific data. For example, the user must specify the amount 

of annual variation in each demographic rate caused by fluctuations in the environment. In 

addition, the frequency of each type of catastrophe (drought, flood, epidemic disease) and the 

effects of the catastrophes on survival and reproduction must be specified. Rates of migration 

(dispersal) between each pair of local populations must be specified. Because VORTEX requires 

specification of many biological parameters, it is not necessarily a good model for the 

examination of population dynamics that would result from some generalized life history. It is 

most usefully applied to the analysis of a specific population in a specific environment. 

Further information on VORTEX is available in Lacy (2000) and Miller and Lacy (2003). 

Dealing with Uncertainty

It is important to recognize that uncertainty regarding the biological parameters of a population 

and its consequent fate occurs at several levels and for independent reasons. Uncertainty can 

occur because the parameters have never been measured on the population. Uncertainty can 

occur because limited field data have yielded estimates with potentially large sampling error. 

Uncertainty can occur because independent studies have generated discordant estimates. 

Uncertainty can occur because environmental conditions or population status have been 

changing over time, and field surveys were conducted during periods which may not be 

representative of long-term averages. Uncertainty can occur because the environment will 

change in the future, so that measurements made in the past may not accurately predict future 

conditions. 

Sensitivity testing is necessary to determine the extent to which uncertainty in input parameters 

Breed 

Age 1 Year 

Death 

Census 

Immigrate Supplement 

N 

Emigrate Harvest Carrying 

Capacity 

Truncation 

VORTEX Simulation Model Timeline 

Events listed above the timeline increase N, while 

events listed below the timeline decrease N.
151 

results in uncertainty regarding the future fate of the pronghorn population. If alternative 

plausible parameter values result in divergent predictions for the population, then it is important 

to try to resolve the uncertainty with better data. Sensitivity of population dynamics to certain 

parameters also indicates that those parameters describe factors that could be critical 

determinants of population viability. Such factors are therefore good candidates for efficient 

management actions designed to ensure the persistence of the population. 

The above kinds of uncertainty should be distinguished from several more sources of uncertainty 

about the future of the population. Even if long-term average demographic rates are known with 

precision, variation over time caused by fluctuating environmental conditions will cause 

uncertainty in the fate of the population at any given time in the future. Such environmental 

variation should be incorporated into the model used to assess population dynamics, and will 

generate a range of possible outcomes (perhaps represented as a mean and standard deviation) 

from the model. In addition, most biological processes are inherently stochastic, having a 

random component. The stochastic or probabilistic nature of survival, sex determination, 

transmission of genes, acquisition of mates, reproduction, and other processes preclude exact 

determination of the future state of a population. Such demographic stochasticity should also be 

incorporated into a population model, because such variability both increases our uncertainty 

about the future and can also change the expected or mean outcome relative to that which would 

result if there were no such variation. Finally, there is “uncertainty” which represents the 

alternative actions or interventions which might be pursued as a management strategy. The 

likely effectiveness of such management options can be explored by testing alternative scenarios 

in the model of population dynamics, in much the same way that sensitivity testing is used to 

explore the effects of uncertain biological parameters. 

Demographic Stochasticity 

VORTEX models demographic stochasticity by determining the occurrence of probabilistic events 

such as reproduction, litter size, sex determination, and death with a pseudo-random number 

generator. For each life event, if the random value sampled from a specified distribution falls 

above the user-specified probability, the event is deemed to have occurred, thereby simulating a 

binomial process. Demographic stochasticity is therefore a consequence of the uncertainty 

regarding whether each demographic event occurs for any given animal. 

The source code used to generate random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 was 

obtained from Maier (1991), based on the algorithm of Kirkpatrick and Stoll (1981). Random 

deviates from binomial distributions, with mean p and standard deviation s, are obtained by first 

determining the integral number of binomial trials, N, that would produce the value of s closest 

to the specified value, according to: 

N binomial trials are then simulated by sampling from the uniform 0-1 distribution to obtain the 

desired result, the frequency or proportion of successes. If the value of N determined for a 

desired binomial distribution is larger than 25, a normal approximation is used in place of the 

binomial distribution. This normal approximation must be truncated at 0 and at 1 to allow use in 

defining probabilities, although, with such large values of N, s is small relative to p and the 

2

)1(

s

pp N − =
152 

truncation would be invoked only rarely. To avoid introducing bias with this truncation, the 

normal approximation to the binomial (when used) is truncated symmetrically around the mean. 

The algorithm for generating random numbers from a unit normal distribution follows Latour 

(1986). 

Environmental Variation 

VORTEX can model annual fluctuations in birth and death rates and in carrying capacity as might 

result from environmental variation. To model environmental variation, each demographic 

parameter is assigned a distribution with a mean and standard deviation that is specified by the 

user. Annual fluctuations in probabilities of reproduction and mortality are modeled as binomial 

distributions. Environmental variation in carrying capacity is modeled as a normal distribution. 

Environmental variation in demographic rates can be correlated among populations. 

Catastrophes 

Catastrophes are modeled in VORTEX as random events that occur with specified probabilities. A 

catastrophe will occur if a randomly generated number between zero and one is less than the 

probability of occurrence. Following a catastrophic event, the chances of survival and successful 

breeding for that simulated year are multiplied by severity factors. For example, forest fires 

might occur once in 50 years, on average, killing 25% of animals, and reducing breeding by 

survivors 50% for the year. Such a catastrophe would be modeled as a random event with 0.02 

probability of occurrence each year, and severity factors of 0.75 for survival and 0.50 for 

reproduction. Catastrophes can be local (impacting populations independently), or regional 

(affecting sets of populations simultaneously). 

Genetic Processes 

VORTEX models loss of genetic variation in populations, by simulating the transmission of alleles 

from parents to offspring at a hypothetical neutral (non-selected) genetic locus. Each animal at 

the start of the simulation is assigned two unique alleles at the locus. Each offspring created 

during the simulation is randomly assigned one of the alleles from each parent. VORTEX monitors 

how many of the original alleles remain within the population, and the average heterozygosity 

and gene diversity (or “expected heterozygosity”) relative to the starting levels. VORTEX also 

monitors the inbreeding coefficients of each animal, and can reduce the juvenile survival of 

inbred animals to model the effects of inbreeding depression. 

Inbreeding depression is modeled as a loss of viability of inbred animals during their first year. 

The severity of inbreeding depression is commonly measured by the number of “lethal 

equivalents” in a population (Morton et al. 1956). The number of lethal equivalents per diploid 

genome estimates the average number of lethal alleles per individual in the population if all 

deleterious effects of inbreeding were due entirely to recessive lethal alleles. A population in 

which inbreeding depression is one lethal equivalent per diploid genome may have one recessive 

lethal allele per individual, it may have two recessive alleles per individual, each of which confer 

a 50% decrease in survival, or it may have some other combination of recessive deleterious 

alleles which equate in effect with one lethal allele per individual. 
153 

VORTEX partitions the total effect of inbreeding (the total lethal equivalents) into an effect due to 

recessive lethal alleles and an effect due to loci at which there is heterozygote advantage 

(superior fitness of heterozygotes relative to all homozygote genotypes). To model the effects of 

lethal alleles, each founder starts with a unique recessive lethal allele (and a dominant non-lethal 

allele) at up to five modeled loci. By virtue of the deaths of individuals that are homozygous for 

lethal alleles, such alleles can be removed slowly by natural selection during the generations of a 

simulation. This diminishes the probability that inbred individuals in subsequent generations 

will be homozygous for a lethal allele. 

Heterozygote advantage is modeled by specifying that juvenile survival is related to inbreeding 

according to the logarithmic model: in which S is survival, F is the inbreeding coefficient, A is 

the logarithm of survival in the absence of inbreeding, and B is the portion of the lethal 

equivalents per haploid genome that is due to heterozygote advantage rather than to recessive 

lethal alleles. Unlike the situation with fully recessive deleterious alleles, natural selection does 

not remove deleterious alleles at loci in which the heterozygote has higher fitness than both 

homozygotes, because all alleles are deleterious when homozygous and beneficial when present 

in heterozygous combination with other alleles. Thus, under heterozygote advantage, the impact 

of inbreeding on survival does not diminish during repeated generations of inbreeding. 

Unfortunately, for relatively few species are data available to allow estimation of the effects of 

inbreeding, and the magnitude of these effects apparently varies considerably among species 

(Falconer 1981; Ralls et al. 1988; Lacy et al. 1992) and even among populations of the same 

species (Lacy et al. 1996). Even without detailed pedigree data from which to estimate the 

number of lethal equivalents in a population and the underlying nature of the genetic load 

(recessive alleles or heterozygote advantage), PVAs must make assumptions about the effects of 

inbreeding on the population being studied. If genetic effects are ignored, the PVA will 

overestimate the viability of small populations. In some cases, it might be considered 

appropriate to assume that an inadequately studied species would respond to inbreeding in 

accord with the median (3.14 lethal equivalents per diploid) reported in the survey by Ralls et al. 

(1988). In other cases, there might be reason to make more optimistic assumptions (perhaps the 

lower quartile, 0.90 lethal equivalents), or more pessimistic assumptions (perhaps the upper 

quartile, 5.62 lethal equivalents). In the few species in which inbreeding depression has been 

studied carefully, about half of the effects of inbreeding are due recessive lethal alleles and about 

half of the effects are due to heterozygote advantage or other genetic mechanisms that are not 

diminished by natural selection during generations of inbreeding, although the proportion of the 

total inbreeding effect can vary substantially among populations (Lacy and Ballou 1998). 

A full explanation of the genetic mechanisms of inbreeding depression is beyond the scope of 

this manual, and interested readers are encouraged to refer to the references cited above. 

VORTEX can model monogamous or polygamous mating systems. In a monogamous system, a 

relative scarcity of breeding males may limit reproduction by females. In polygamous or 

monogamous models, the user can specify the proportion of the adult males in the breeding pool. 

)ln( −= BFAS
154 

Males are randomly reassigned to the breeding pool each year of the simulation, and all males in 

the breeding pool have an equal chance of siring offspring. 

Deterministic Processes 

VORTEX can incorporate several deterministic processes, in addition to mean age-specific birth 

and death rates. Density dependence in mortality is modeled by specifying a carrying capacity of 

the habitat. When the population size exceeds the carrying capacity, additional morality is 

imposed across all age classes to bring the population back down to the carrying capacity. Each 

animal in the population has an equal probability of being removed by this truncation. The 

carrying capacity can be specified to change over time, to model losses or gains in the amount or 

quality of habitat. 

Density dependence in reproduction is modeled by specifying the proportion of adult females 

breeding each year as a function of the population size. The default functional relationship 

between breeding and density allows entry of Allee effects (reduction in breeding at low density) 

and/or reduced breeding at high densities. 

Populations can be supplemented or harvested for any number of years in each simulation. 

Harvest may be culling or removal of animals for translocation to another (unmodeled) 

population. The numbers of additions and removals are specified according to the age and sex of 

animals. 

Migration Among Populations 

VORTEX can model up to 50 populations, with possibly distinct population parameters. Each 

pairwise migration rate is specified as the probability of an individual moving from one 

population to another. Migration among populations can be restricted to one sex and/or a limited 

age cohort. Emigration from a population can be restricted to occur only when the number of 

animals in the population exceeds a specified proportion of the carrying capacity. Dispersal 

mortality can be specified as a probability of death for any migrating animal, which is in addition 

to age-sex specific mortality. Because of between-population migration and managed 

supplementation, populations can be recolonized. VORTEX tracks the dynamics of local 

extinctions and recolonizations through the simulation. 

Output 

VORTEX outputs: (1) probability of extinction at specified intervals (e.g., every 10 years during a 

100 year simulation), (2) median time to extinction, if the population went extinct in at least 50% 

of the simulations, (3) mean time to extinction of those simulated populations that became 

extinct, and (4) mean size of, and genetic variation within, extant populations. 

Standard deviations across simulations and standard errors of the mean are reported for 

population size and the measures of genetic variation. Under the assumption that extinction of 

independently replicated populations is a binomial process, the standard error of the probability 

n

pp p )1( )(SE − =
155 

of extinction is reported by VORTEX as: in which the frequency of extinction was p over n

simulated populations. Demographic and genetic statistics are calculated and reported for each 

subpopulation and for the metapopulation. 

Sequence of Program Flow 

(1) The seed for the random number generator is initialized with the number of seconds elapsed 

since the beginning of the 20th century. 

(2) The user is prompted for an output file name, duration of the simulation, number of 

iterations, the size below which a population is considered extinct, and a large number of 

population parameters. 

(3) The maximum allowable population size (necessary for preventing memory overflow) is 

calculated as: in which K is the maximum carrying capacity (carrying capacity can be 

specified to change during a simulation, so the maximum carrying capacity can be greater 

than the initial carrying capacity), s is the annual environmental variation in the carrying 

capacity expressed as a standard deviation, and L is the specified maximum litter size. 

(4) Memory is allocated for data arrays. If insufficient memory is available for data arrays then 

Nmax is adjusted downward to the size that can be accommodated within the available 

memory and a warning message is given. In this case it is possible that the analysis may 

have to be terminated because the simulated population exceeds Nmax. Because Nmax is often 

several-fold greater than the likely maximum population size in a simulation, a warning that 

it has been adjusted downward because of limiting memory often will not hamper the 

analyses. 

(5) The deterministic growth rate of the population is calculated from mean birth and death 

rates that have been entered. Algorithms follow cohort life-table analyses (Ricklefs 1979). 

Generation time and the expected stable age distribution are also calculated. Life-table 

calculations assume constant birth and death rates, no limitation by carrying capacity, no 

limitation of mates, no loss of fitness due to inbreeding depression, and that the population 

is at the stable age distribution. The effects of catastrophes are incorporated into the life 

table analysis by using birth and death rates that are weighted averages of the values in years 

with and without catastrophes, weighted by the probability of a catastrophe occurring or not 

occurring. 

(6) Iterative simulation of the population proceeds via steps 7 through 26 below. 

(7) The starting population is assigned an age and sex structure. The user can specify the exact 

age-sex structure of the starting population, or can specify an initial population size and 

request that the population be distributed according to the stable age distribution calculated 

from the life table. Individuals in the starting population are assumed to be unrelated. Thus, 

inbreeding can occur only in second and later generations. 

max ( )(13 ++= LsKK )
156 

(8) Two unique alleles at a hypothetical neutral genetic locus are assigned to each individual in 

the starting population and to each individual supplemented to the population during the 

simulation. VORTEX therefore uses an infinite alleles model of genetic variation. The 

subsequent fate of genetic variation is tracked by reporting the number of extant neutral 

alleles each year, the expected heterozygosity or gene diversity, and the observed 

heterozygosity. The expected heterozygosity, derived from the Hardy-Weinberg 

equilibrium, is given byin which pi is the frequency of allele i in the population. The 

observed heterozygosity is simply the proportion of the individuals in the simulated 

population that are heterozygous. Because of the starting assumption of two unique alleles 

per founder, the initial population has an observed heterozygosity of 1.0 at the hypothetical 

locus and only inbred animals can become homozygous. Proportional loss of 

heterozygosity through random genetic drift is independent of the initial heterozygosity and 

allele frequencies of a population (Crow and Kimura 1970), so the expected heterozygosity 

remaining in a simulated population is a useful metric of genetic decay for comparison 

across scenarios and populations. The mean observed heterozygosity reported by VORTEX is 

the mean inbreeding coefficient of the population. 

(9) For each of the10 alleles at five non-neutral loci that are used to model inbreeding 

depression, each founder is assigned a unique lethal allele with probability equal to 0.1 x the 

mean number of lethal alleles per individual. 

(10) Years are iterated via steps 11 through 25 below. 

(11) The probabilities of females producing each possible size litter are adjusted to account for 

density dependence of reproduction (if any). 

(12) Birth rate, survival rates, and carrying capacity for the year are adjusted to model 

environmental variation. Environmental variation is assumed to follow binomial 

distributions for birth and death rates and a normal distribution for carrying capacity, with 

mean rates and standard deviations specified by the user. At the outset of each year a 

random number is drawn from the specified binomial distribution to determine the percent 

of females producing litters. The distribution of litter sizes among those females that do 

breed is maintained constant. Another random number is drawn from a specified binomial 

distribution to model the environmental variation in mortality rates. If environmental 

variations in reproduction and mortality are chosen to be correlated, the random number 

used to specify mortality rates for the year is chosen to be the same percentile of its 

binomial distribution as was the number used to specify reproductive rate. Otherwise, a new 

random number is drawn to specify the deviation of age- and sex-specific mortality rates 

from their means. Environmental variation across years in mortality rates is always forced 

to be correlated among age and sex classes. 

The carrying capacity (K) for the year is determined by first increasing or decreasing the 

carrying capacity at year 1 by an amount specified by the user to account for changes over 

−= ∑( ) 2 He 1 pi
157 

time. Environmental variation in K is then imposed by drawing a random number from a 

normal distribution with the specified values for mean and standard deviation. 

(13) Birth rates and survival rates for the year are adjusted to model any catastrophes determined 

to have occurred in that year. 

(14) Breeding males are selected for the year. A male of breeding age is placed into the pool of 

potential breeders for that year if a random number drawn for that male is less than the 

proportion of adult males specified to be breeding. Breeding males are selected 

independently each year; there is no long-term tenure of breeding males and no long-term 

pair bonds. 

(15) For each female of breeding age, a mate is drawn at random from the pool of breeding 

males for that year. If the user specifies that the breeding system is monogamous, then each 

male can only be paired with a single female each year. Males are paired only with those 

females which have already been selected for breeding that year. Thus, males will not be 

the limiting sex unless there are insufficient males to pair with the successfully breeding 

females. 

If the breeding system is polygynous, then a male may be selected as the mate for several 

females. The degree of polygyny is determined by the proportion of males in the pool of 

potential breeders each year. 

The size of the litter produced by that pair is determined by comparing the probabilities of 

each potential litter size (including litter size of 0, no breeding) to a randomly drawn 

number. The offspring are produced and assigned a sex by comparison of a random number 

to the specified birth sex ratio. Offspring are assigned, at random, one allele at the 

hypothetical genetic locus from each parent. 

(16) The genetic kinship of each new offspring to each other living animal in the population is 

determined. The kinship between new animal A, and another existing animal, B, is 

in which fij is the kinship between animals i and j, M is the mother of A, and P is the father 

of A. The inbreeding coefficient of each animal is equal to the kinship between its parents, 

F = fMP, and the kinship of an animal to itself is fA (15.0 += F ). (See Ballou 1983 for a 

detailed description of this method for calculating inbreeding coefficients.) 

(17) The survival of each animal is determined by comparing a random number to the survival 

probability for that animal. In the absence of inbreeding depression, the survival probability 

is given by the age and sex-specific survival rate for that year. If a newborn individual is 

homozygous for a lethal allele, it is killed. Otherwise, the survival probability for 

individuals in their first year is multiplied by in which b is the number of lethal equivalents 

fAB = 5.0 ( + ff PBMB )

b( [ ])FLethals e −− Pr1
158 

per haploid genome, and Pr[Lethals] is the proportion of this inbreeding effect due to lethal 

alleles. 

(18) The age of each animal is incremented by 1. 

(19) If more than one population is being modeled, migration among populations occurs 

stochastically with specified probabilities. 

(20) If population harvest is to occur that year, the number of harvested individuals of each age 

and sex class are chosen at random from those available and removed. If the number to be 

removed does not exist for an age-sex class, VORTEX continues but reports that harvest was 

incomplete. 

(21) Dead animals are removed from the computer memory to make space for future generations. 

(22) If population supplementation is to occur in a particular year, new individuals of the 

specified age-class are created. Each immigrant is assumed to be genetically unrelated to all 

other individuals in the population, and it carries the number of lethal alleles that was 

specified for the starting population. 

(23) The population growth rate is calculated as the ratio of the population size in the current 

year to the previous year. 

(24) If the population size (N) exceeds the carrying capacity (K) for that year, additional 

mortality is imposed across all age and sex classes. The probability of each animal dying 

during this carrying capacity truncation is set to (N - K)/N, so that the expected population 

size after the additional mortality is K. 

(25) Summary statistics on population size and genetic variation are tallied and reported. 

(26) Final population size and genetic variation are determined for the simulation. 

(27) Summary statistics on population size, genetic variation, probability of extinction, and mean 

population growth rate are calculated across iterations and output. 

Literature Cited 

Ballou, J.D. 1983. Calculating inbreeding coefficients from pedigrees. Pages 509-520 in: 

Schonewald-Cox, C.M, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas (eds.). 

Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wild Animal and Plant 

Populations. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings. 

Crow, J.F. and Kimura, M. 1970. Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. New York: 

Harper and Row. 

Falconer, D.S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. New York: Longman. 

Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species 
159 

extinction. Pages 19 – 34 in: Soulé, M.E. (ed.). Conservation Biology: The Science of 

Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 

Kirkpatrick, S, and Stoll, E. 1981. A very fast shift-register sequence random number generator. 

Journal of Computational Physics 40:517. 

Lacy, R.C. 1992. The effects of inbreeding on isolated populations: Are minimum viable 

population sizes predictable? Pages 277-296 in: P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain (eds.). 

Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation 

and Management. New York: Chapman and Hall. 

Lacy, R.C. 1993/1994. What is Population (and Habitat) Viability Analysis? Primate 

Conservation 14/15:27-33. 

Lacy, R.C. 1993. Impacts of inbreeding in natural and captive populations of vertebrates: 

implications for conservation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 36:480-496. 

Lacy, R.C. 2000. Structure of the VORTEX simulation model for population viability analysis. 

Ecological Bulletins 48:191-203. 

Lacey, R.C., G. Alaks, and A. Walsh. 1996. Hierachical analysis of inbreeding depression in 

Peromyscus polionotus. Evolution 50:2187-2200. 

Lacy, R.C. and J.D. Ballou. 1998. Effectiveness of selection in reducing the genetic load in 

populations of Peromyscus polionotus during generations of inbreeding. Evolution

52:900-909. 

Latour, A. 1986. Polar normal distribution. Byte (August 1986):131-2. 

Maier, W.L. 1991. A fast pseudo random number generator. Dr. Dobb's Journal (May 

1991):152-7. 

Miller, P.S., and R.C. Lacy. 2003. VORTEX: A Stochastic Simulation of the Extinction Process. 

Version 9 User’s Manual. Apple Valley, MN: Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

(SSC/IUCN). 

Morton, N.E., Crow, J.F., and Muller, H.J. 1956. An estimate of the mutational damage in man 

from data on consanguineous marriages. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, USA 42:855-863. 

Ralls, K., J.D. Ballou, and A. Templeton. 1988. Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of 

inbreeding in mammals. Conservation Biology 2:185-193. 

Ricklefs, R.E. 1979. Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: Chiron. 

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 1:131-

134. 
160 

Appendix V – Programs and Resources to Assist Landowners and Partners in 

Implementing the Ocelot Recovery Plan. 

GENERAL INFORMATION FOR OCELOTS 

Websites 

US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS): 

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/SpeciesProfile?spcode=A084.

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/laguna.html. 

 

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/lrgv.html. 

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/santaana.html. 

Nature Serve: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/Natureserve?searchName=Leopardus+pardalis 

Bordercats Working Group: 

This organization provides information on wild cat species that occur along the U.S. – Mexico 

border: http://www.cas.usf.edu/~grigione/BWG/Index.html. 

Dallas Zoo Conservation Education and Science Department: 

This organization has developed an interactive bilingual web-based program, “The Ocelot 

Experience,” at http://www.dallaszooed.com. The program targets 4th through 6th graders using 

Spanish and English to help students learn more about the ocelot and how to protect it. 

STATE PROGRAMS 

Arizona

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD): http://www.gf.state.az.us/.

Heritage Grants Program 

AZGFD’s IIAPM (Identification, Inventory, Acquisition, Protection and Management of 

Sensitive Habitats) sub-program provides funds through a competitive process for projects that 

preserve and enhance Arizona's natural biological diversity. The funding focus is directed 

toward species and habitat objectives that will give the greatest return for the Heritage funds 

invested. Contact the Heritage Grants Coordinator (602/789-3530) or visit the website at: 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/heritage_apply.shtml. 
161 

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) 

This program provides funds for on-the-ground activities that enhance habitats or provide other 

conservation benefits for "at risk" species on private lands. The LIP is a grant program 

establishing a partnership among Federal/state governments and private landowners. At the 

Federal level, administrative oversight will be provided by the USFWS. The USFWS will award 

grants to states for programs that enhance, protect, and/or restore habitats that benefit federallylisted species, proposed or candidate species, or other species at risk on private lands. The 

state’s role in the implementation of LIP is to provide technical and financial assistance to 

private landowners for projects that meet the aforementioned criteria. The private landowner 

role is to provide the habitat necessary to accomplish the objectives of LIP. Additionally, the 

USFWS requires a 25% non-Federal match, cash or in-kind contribution, to be eligible for these 

funds. In Arizona, contact: Landowner Relations Program Manager, 2221 W. Greenway Rd., 

Phoenix, AZ 85023-4312, AZGFD’s Regional Habitat Program in Tucson (520/628-5376), or 

visit the website at: http://www.gf.state.az.us/outdoor_recreation/landowner_lip.shtml. 

Nationally, see the LIP website at: http://federalasst.fws.gov/lip/lip.html. 

State Wildlife Grants Program via Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Program (CWCP) 

This nationwide program is designed to provide financial assistance in response to proposals to 

research, monitor, or implement conservation measures for threatened or endangered species. 

For Arizona, information is available at the website: http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/cwcs.shtml. 

 

Stewardship Program

This program provides technical management assistance, including use of heavy equipment, 

materials, and labor, or reimbursement of materials and labor, to enhance wildlife habitat and 

populations. Projects can occur on private or public lands. Contact AZGFD’s Regional Habitat 

Programs in Tucson (520/628-5376). 

Arizona Department of Water Resources

The Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission

All applicants will be required to demonstrate the direct benefit(s) to rivers, streams, and/or 

riparian habits in their proposals. Complete information regarding the grant cycle, including 

workshop times, is posted on the Arizona Water Protection Fund website: 

http://www.awpf.state.az.us. 

Texas

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/; or see: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml (then click on grants 

along the top margin of the page headings). 

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/lip/. This program encourages creative and 

effective projects for conserving rare species and provides financial incentives. As most rare 

species inhabit privately owned and managed lands in Texas, see the website to determine which 

species are found locally (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/). Funds can be 
162 

used for projects that enhance, restore, or protect habitat. For information, contact: Cecily 

Warren, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 

(512/389-4799). On the web visit: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/lip/ or: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/grants/wildlife/. 

Private Lands and Habitat Management Program 

This program provides advice and information specifically tailored to each property and wildlife 

assemblage therein. The goals are to enhance habitat quality and property values, and conserve 

wildlife. Devising a management plan specific to each property involves a meeting with a 

biologist and then the formulation of recommendations that will incorporate the landowner’s 

goals, management of wildlife as a renewable natural resource, and increased ecological 

diversity. For more information, visit the website at: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/description/. 

State Wildlife Grants Program via Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Program (CWCP) 

This nationwide program, funded by the USFWS, is designed to provide financial assistance in 

response to proposals to research, monitor, or implement conservation measures for threatened or 

endangered species. For Texas, a copy of the program may be reviewed at: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/grants/wildlife/cwcs/. 

Transportation Programs 

National Scenic Byways Grants Program

This program provides funds for areas located along a National Scenic Byway, All-American 

Road, or State Scenic Byway. Corridor management plans, and natural resource protection 

through acquiring scenic easements are among the eligible projects. See the website at: 

http://www.bywaysonline.org/grants/. 

Transportation Enhancement Program

This program funds a wide range of projects, including those that reduce vehicular collisions 

with wildlife and maintain habitat connectivity. Funding covers the construction of wildlife 

underpasses, bridges, or fences. Projects must be financially supported by Federal, state, Tribal, 

or local governments to receive the reimbursements issued by this program. For Texas, more 

information is available at the website at: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/des/step/introduction.htm. 

In Arizona, see the website at: 

http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/EEG/enhancement_scenic_roads/enhancement/index.asp. 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 

Conservation Banks

Conservation Banks are lands that are permanently protected and managed as mitigation for the 

loss elsewhere of listed species and their habitats. Driven by free market demands, Conservation 

Banks enable landowners with suitable, conserved lands to make money selling mitigation 
163 

credits to other landowners who need to mitigate their land development impacts on listed 

species. For more information, see: www.fws.gov/endangered/landowner/index.html. 

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

These grants, authorized by section 6 of the Endangered Species Act, enable states to work with 

private landowners, conservation groups, and other agencies with conservation efforts and 

acquire and protect habitat for threatened and endangered species. For information, see: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/section6/index.html. 

 

Endangered Species Act “Traditional” Section 6 Conservation Grants

These are funds provided to AZGFD and TPWD to implement recovery actions, survey and 

monitor sensitive species, perform candidate assessments, and other related actions. The funds 

may be used on private, state, or Federal lands. In Arizona, contact the USFWS Traditional 

Section 6 Coordinator (602/242-0210). Contact the AZGFD Non-game Branch in Phoenix for 

information concerning section 6 projects (602/789-3555). In Texas, see the website at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/index.html. 

Endangered Species Act “Non-traditional” Section 6 Funds

Recent initiatives have provided additional Federal funding ($70.5 million in September 2005) to 

AZGFD and TPWD for habitat conservation planning and land acquisitions. For information on 

these grants, contact: AZGFD Habitat Branch (602/789-3602), TPWD (512/912-7018). In 

Washington, DC, Michael Gale (202/219-8104) or Don Morgan (703/358-2061) may be 

contacted. Information is also available through the USFWS website, at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/section6/index.html. 

Texas has its own information on the web at: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/grants/wildlife/section_6/. 

Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants 

These grants fund the development of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) through 

support of baseline surveys and inventories, document preparation, outreach, and similar 

planning activities. 

HCP Land Acquisition Grants 

These funds may be used to acquire land associated with approved HCPs. Grants do not 

fund the mitigation required by an HCP permittee, but rather support conservation actions 

by the state, local governments, or other entities that complement mitigation. 

Recovery Land Acquisitions Grants 

These funds may be used for acquisition of habitat to secure long-term protection for a 

listed species. Land acquisition projects that address high priority recovery plan actions 

are most competitive. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

This program, based on the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the 

Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and 

improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of 
164 

information produced by the projects. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the 

state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through 

Federal Aid for up to 75% of project expenses. The state must provide at least 25% of the 

project costs from a non-Federal source. 

Website: http://federalaid.fws.gov/grants/grantinf.html. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

This program provides technical and financial assistance to landowners who want to improve 

fish and wildlife habitat on their property. The program is open to private individuals, Tribes, 

counties, and state governments. Contact the Partners Program Coordinator in Arlington, TX 

(281/277-1100) or Phoenix, AZ (602/670-6150). Information on funding restoration projects on 

private land is available at the website: http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/Partners/. Also see the 

websites: http://www.fws.gov/arlingtontexas/pfw.htm in Texas and in Arizona: 

http://www:fws.gov/arizonaes/ and http://www.fws.gov/partners/pdfs/AZ-needs.pdf. 

Private Stewardship Grant Program

This program provides funds and other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in local, 

private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally-listed, proposed, or candidate 

species, or other at risk species. Contact the USFWS, Arlington, Texas (817/277-1100). More 

information about the program is available on the USFWS website, at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/private_stewardship/index.html. 

State Wildlife Grants

The State Wildlife Grants Program provides Federal funding to every state and territory to 

support cost effective conservation aimed at keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. This 

program continues the long history of cooperation between the Federal government and the 

states for managing and conserving wildlife. A two-thirds or greater non-Federal match is 

required. State Wildlife Grants are administered by AZGFD and TPWD. See information about 

the program at www.teaming.com. 

Tribal Landowner Incentive Program

This is a grants program for actions and activities that protect and restore habitats that benefit 

federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species on Tribal lands. The 

program is available to federally-recognized Tribes. Tribal landowner incentive program funds 

can be used for environmental review, habitat evaluation, permit review, and other compliance 

so long as those activities are directly related to the Tribal landowner incentive program project. 

A minimum of 25% non-Federal matching funds is required. Contact the USFWS, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico (505/248-6810) for additional information. Also see the grant application kit at: 

http://grants.fws.gov. 

Tribal Wildlife Grants Program

This program is designed to develop and implement programs for the benefit of wildlife and their 

habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. Participation is limited to federallyrecognized Indian Tribal governments. There is no matching requirement; however, the USFWS 

will consider matching funds as an indication of Tribal commitment to the program and will 

encourage partnerships. Matching and cost sharing requirements are discussed in 43 CFR Part 
165 

12, Section 12.64. Application procedures are spelled out in the "Tribal Wildlife Grant 

Application Kit" available electronically at http://grants.fws.gov/tribal.html. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The EPA’s website of "Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection" contains a 

searchable database of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, and cost-sharing) available to 

fund a variety of watershed protection projects. Searches can be limited to those for which 

"conservation districts" are eligible. See http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Conservation Innovation Grants

As a part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Innovation 

Grants provide 50% of the cost to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative 

conservation approaches and technologies. National website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cig/. Contact Gus Jordan (202/690-2621). 

Conservation Reserve Program

This is a voluntary program that offers annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to 

establish long-term resource conservation. The program provides up to 50% of participant costs 

to establish target management practices on private lands, and could be used to help establish 

riparian buffers and cienegas on private lands. In Arizona, contact NRCS, Tucson (520/670-

6602). In Texas, visit the website at: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/farmbill/crp/. For national programs, see the 

website at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm. 

Grassland Reserve Program

This program serves to restore, enhance, and protect grasslands through conservation easements, 

while maintaining existing grazing practices. National website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP/. In Arizona, contact Jeff Schmidt (602/280-8818); 

website: http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/grp/grp2005.html. In Texas, contact Chuck 

Kowaleski (254/742-9874); website: http://www.tx.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP/index.html. 

Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D)

This program was established to accelerate conservation and community development in rural 

areas. Up to 25% of the cost is provided for the protection of fish and wildlife habitats. The 

program also funds (up to 25%) the protection of farmland in certain areas. See the website at: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/rcd/. 

Wetlands Reserve Program

This program can be used as cost-share (NRCS pays up to 75%) for restoration of privatelyowned wetlands or former wetlands on rangelands or farmlands. In Arizona, contact NRCS, 

Tucson (520/670-6602). In Texas, visit NRCS on the web at: 

http://www.tx.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp.html. 
166 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

This program provides technical assistance and cost-share (up to 75%) to help establish and 

improve fish and wildlife habitat, primarily on private lands. In Arizona, contact NRCS, Tucson 

(520/670-6602, ext. 226). In Texas, visit the website at: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/whip/. 

U.S. Forest Service Programs 

Bring Back the Natives

This initiative is a national effort by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service in 

cooperation with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to restore health of entire riverine 

and aquatic systems and their native species. In turn, national, state, and local partners make 

their own matching contributions to accomplish improved habitat and water quality. Three 

programs are available through the Forest Service: 1) Rise to the Future is a program to enhance 

fisheries and aquatic resources, 2) Every Species Counts conserves sensitive flora and fauna, and 

helps recover endangered species, and 3) Get Wild targets protection and improvement of 

riparian and wetland habitats and associated species. Forest Service funds must be matched with 

labor and materials. Contact the Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District, 5990 S. 

Highway 92, Hereford, Arizona, 85615 (520/378-0311). Bring Back the Natives funds can also 

be obtained through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (see below). 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

 

Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grants to Fund Habitat Restoration Projects

The National Association of Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the 

Wildlife Habitat Council, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Community-Based Restoration Program within National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s Fisheries Program, and other sponsors of this grant. The program provides 

modest financial assistance on a competitive basis to support community-based wetland, 

riparian, and coastal habitat restoration projects that build diverse partnerships and foster local 

natural resource stewardship through education, outreach, and training activities. Projects must 

involve diverse partnerships of, ideally, five organizations that contribute funding, land, 

technical assistance, workforce support, and/or other in-kind services. For further information, 

see the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation website at: http://nfwf.org/programs/5starrfp.htm. 

PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS 

Many private grants and foundations could provide funding and other resources for recovery 

action implementation, both national and international. An annual directory, entitled 

“Environmental Grantmaking Foundations” contains information about 800 foundations. It is 

available from the Resources for Global Sustainability, Inc., P.O. Box 3665, Cary, NC 27519-

3665 (800/724-1857, rgs@environmentalgrants.com). A website (Red Lodge Clearinghouse 

Funding Search – http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/resources/search.asp) also provides an 

abundance of information on funding opportunities. Several examples of private grant and 

foundation programs are listed below: 
167 

Environmental Defense (ED)

The Landowner Conservation Assistance Program (LCAP) works with private landowners in 

locations that may be used by the ocelot to provide additional habitat or enhance existing habitat. 

Given that the removal of over 95% of native thornscrub habitat from the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley and northeastern Mexico is the primary cause for ocelot decline, incentives for restoring 

and protecting habitat within the ocelot’s potential range are provided through the LCAP 

program. Contact Environmental Defense at kchapman@ed.org or by phone (956/466-4655) in 

Brownsville, Texas. For general information about Environmental Defense and its focus on the 

ocelot, visit the website at: 

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5110&campaign=. 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a collaborative effort among Environmental 

Defense, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Farm Services Agency to create 

and implement actions that provide shared costs to landowners for establishing Tamaulipan 

thornscrub on their land. Contact Environmental Defense at kchapman@ed.org or by phone 

(956/466-4655). 

In 2003, the Ocelot Nation Program was formed to assist the ocelot spanning the U.S./Mexican 

border. Environmental Defense (ED) has teamed up with both The Nature Conservancy and 

Pronatura Noreste, a Mexican conservation group, to try to create a 130-mile long, cross-border 

corridor to let the Texas cats breed with their Mexican counterparts. Working with the USFWS, 

ED has begun restoration projects with Texas ranchers in Willacy and Cameron Counties. 

Because young cats are capable of swimming the Rio Grande or the Brownsville ship channel in 

search of a home range and breeding partners, ED is also working with Mexican landowners to 

establish protection for the ocelot. U.S. landowners can consider a suite of tools developed by 

Environmental Defense. In addition to establishing Safe Harbor Agreements, which guarantee 

that habitat improvements won't result in added government regulation, ED also helps 

landowners develop new forms of income like nature tourism. 

In Mexico, the situation is more complicated. Pronatura has instituted the country's first 

conservation easements, but faces difficulties in defining boundaries. Together, incentives are 

being explored for landowners to help ocelots, particularly along the Gulf Coast, where 

important potential ocelot habitat is becoming increasingly impacted by human land use patterns. 

Friends of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge 

This is a non-profit, local group that sponsors the annual Ocelot Festival and the “adopt an 

ocelot” program. The Friends group raises money and then enhances these funds by 

partnering with other groups and matching funds for the purchase and restoration of 

potential ocelot habitat. Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 450, Rio 

Hondo, TX 78583; telephone: 956/748-3607. 
168 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants

Grants from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation fund projects in two forms: one is 

through matching grants to projects that conserve and restore wildlife and plants, generally 

involving government, educational institutions, or non-profit organizations 

(http://www.nfwf.org/programs.cfm); the other is through the Special Grant Programs which are 

a collection of at least 42 different funds (http://www.nfwf.org/grant_apply.cfm). Of these, the 

following 12 funds could support ocelot projects: Acres for America, Bring Back the Natives, 

Budweiser Conservation Scholarship Program, Coastal Counties Restoration Initiative, Five-Star 

Restoration Matching Grants Program, Hurricane Wildlife Relief Fund, National Wildlife 

Refuge Friends Group Grant Program, Native Plant Conservation Initiative, Conservation on 

Private Lands, Nature of Learning, Pulling Together Initiative, State Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Support Program. All of these programs have specific information and contacts 

available on the web page given above. 

Feline Conservation Federation

The Feline Conservation Federation has previously worked with the Dallas Zoo to fund wild 

felid surveys in Mexico. See the website: http://www.thefcf.com/. 

National Wildlife Federation

The National Wildlife Federation has funded ocelot conservation work in the past (see: 

http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/grants/grantrecipients2002.cfm). Grants from the National Wildlife 

Federation periodically are available based on current funding. See the website: 

http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/grants/ for updates and requirements. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

The Nature Conservancy is known for its partnerships in conservation efforts and its purchasing 

of property to preserve habitat. At present, TNC is supporting international and national 

conservation efforts that will enhance ocelot habitat (see: 

http://www.nature.org/pressroom/press/press326.html) and is partnering with Pronatura Noreste 

of Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the USFWS to manage for ocelots along the Mexico-US 

border. See the website at: http://www.nature.org/initiatives/programs/ to obtain information 

about supported programs. For private property conservation and easement purchase by TNC, 

see the website at: 

http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/privatelands/. Other forms of 

conservation projects that may be supported are Debt-for-Nature Swaps (usually international), 

Conservation Trust Funds, Payments for Ecosystem Services, and Resource Extraction Fees, and 

Public Finance Campaigns. For more information, see: 

http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/conservationfunding/. 
169 

Toyota TAPESTRY Grants for Teachers

Fifty teachers will be awarded as much as $10,000 and another 20 will receive grants up to 

$2,500 for innovative science projects in 1 of 3 categories, including environmental science. 

Projects should demonstrate creativity, model a novel way of presenting science and be 

implemented in the school district over a one-year period. For general information, tips on 

applying, or examples of winning projects, visit http://www.nsta.org/programs/tapestry. To 

download the application or request entry materials, go to 

http://www.nsta.org/programs/tapestry/howtoapply.asp. For more information, e-mail 

tapestry@nsta.org. 

FINAL NOTE: 

Voluntary measures can be taken by landowners that generally enhance the likelihood of 

obtaining financial assistance from the sources given above. For endangered species, such as the 

ocelot, these measures include participation in USFWS programs, such as Habitat Conservation 

Plans (HCPs) and Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs). On the web, please see: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowner/index.html for landowner information. 

Habitat Conservation Plans are crafted when a landowner has a proposed project that may affect 

a threatened or endangered species currently existing on non-Federal lands. Together with the 

USFWS, the landowner develops an HCP that includes an assessment of likely impacts to the 

species from the proposed project, the steps that will be taken to minimize and mitigate those 

impacts, and the funding available to implement the steps. If the HCP meets specific criteria, the 

USFWS issues an incidental take permit that allows the landowner to incidentally take listed 

species in the course of proceeding with development or other activities. Programmatic HCPs, 

that cover an entire county or region, may also be devised or may already exist in an area and 

willing landowners may be included under a Certificate of Inclusion. Habitat Conservation Plans 

allow for economic development in conjunction with endangered species conservation. For 

more information, on the web refer to: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/index.html. 

 

Safe Harbor Agreements are designed to help participating landowners conserve threatened and 

endangered species voluntarily. This agreement is made in exchange for legal assurances from 

the USFWS that new restrictions stemming from the Endangered Species Act will not be placed 

on the use of their land as a result of their voluntarily providing a net conservation benefit that 

may attract a threatened or endangered species in the future. Please see: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/Safe%20Harbor/SafeHarbor.pdf and 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/sha/. 
170 

Appendix VI – Comments on the Draft Ocelot Recovery Plan and Responses to Comments 

(To be prepared after public review of the draft plan)