Subject:
U.S. Inspector General Macho B Inquiry:
Criminal Misconduct in the
Trapping of Last Known Jaguar in
|
The Center for Biological Diversity has forwarded an Inspector
General report investigating the capture and death of Macho B, the
last known living jaguar in the
We
found that the Arizona Game and Fish
was aware
of Macho B’s presence in the vicinity of its mountain lion and black
bear study in late December 2008 and January 2009, yet it
did
not consult with Fish and Wildlife Services,
as
required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973. The ESA directs
any nonfederal entity
receiving federal
funding
to contact the appropriate local FWS office for a biological opinion
when an endangered species stands the possibility of being
accidentally captured. We also found that a FWS field supervisor
incorrectly gave approval to AZGFD for a cosmetic
necropsy of Macho B, verses a complete necropsy,
because he did not know the difference
between the two procedures. Thus, some organs were
inaccessible, leaving doubt as to the cause of death.
Finally, evidence, which was developed as part of the ongoing
criminal investigation by FWS Office of Law Enforcement and the
United States Department of Justice, indicates that Macho B’s first
capture by AZGFD employees
was intentional.
Specific details pertaining to this investigation are with the U.S.
Attorney’s office in
Read the report yourself after the jump.
Investigative Report
Macho B
Report Date: January 19, 2010
RESULTS IN BRIEF
At
the request of Congressmen Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Nick Rahall
II (D-WV), we initiated an investigation into the capture and death
of a federally-listed endangered jaguar named Macho B, conceded by
many to be the last known living jaguar in
We
found that the AZGFD
was aware
of Macho B’s presence in the vicinity of its mountain lion and black
bear study in late December 2008 and January 2009, yet it did not
consult with FWS, as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973. The ESA directs any nonfederal entity receiving federal
funding to contact the appropriate local FWS office for a biological
opinion when an endangered species stands the possibility of being
accidentally captured. We also found that a FWS field supervisor
incorrectly gave approval to AZGFD for a cosmetic necropsy of Macho
B, verses a complete necropsy, because he did not know the
difference between the two procedures. Thus, some organs were
inaccessible, leaving doubt as to the cause of death.
Finally, evidence, which was developed as part of the ongoing
criminal investigation by FWS Office of Law Enforcement and the
United States Department of Justice, indicates that Macho B’s first
capture by AZGFD employees was intentional. Specific details
pertaining to this investigation are with the U.S. Attorney’s office
in
BACKGROUND
On
February 18, 2009, in
In
response to media coverage and public debate, the AZGFD and the
Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that they would
investigate the circumstances surrounding the capture, recapture,
and euthanizing of Macho B. Media outlets reported that when Macho B
was first captured, he was left
snared in below-freezing
temperatures for several hours. FWS Law
Enforcement officials announced that they, too, would conduct an
investigation into the events surrounding Macho B’s death. On April
29, 2009, both AZGFD and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office
discontinued their investigation in lieu of the FWS Law Enforcement
investigation.
Jaguar Protection
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 and a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the AZGFD and the New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish (NMDGF), the jaguar is entitled to certain
protections . The MOU, which is recognized by FWS, states that the
agencies agree to be state representatives of a Jaguar Conservation
Team (JagCT), to act in accordance with the ESA, and to uphold
protocol for the “Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the
Jaguar in
Section 6 of the ESA provides a mechanism for nonfederal entities,
including state and local governments, to cooperate with the federal
government in the conservation of an endangered and threatened
species for scientific purposes, such as the jaguar. Section 6
offers funding to states and territories for species and habitat
conservation efforts on nonfederal land.
To receive funding,
the state or territory must have or enter into a cooperative
agreement with FWS. The state or territory
must follow all policies
and agreements set forth in Section 6.
In
the event that an endangered species stands the possibility of being
incidentally captured, Section 7 of the ESA directs nonfederal
entities to contact the appropriate local FWS office for a
biological opinion and initiate the Section 10 “incidental take
permit process.”
The FWS then conducts
its own biological assessment, and the applying entity can either be
issued a Section 10(a) (1) (A) permit, which authorizes the direct
take of an endangered species, or a Section 10(a) (1) (B) permit,
which authorizes the incidental take of an endangered species
provided that the action involved is incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
On
May 12, 2009, the OIG received a letter from Congressmen Raul M.
Grijalva (D-AZ) and Nick Rahall II (D-WV) requesting a separate
investigation into the capture and death of Macho B . Specifically,
the congressmen requested that the OIG examine the following:
1.
Whether the initial capture was legally and unintentionally
undertaken or whether there was intent or evidence to suggest intent
to capture and collar a jaguar, and if a federal or state agency
employee or contractor was involved.
1.
Whether the initial capture was legally and unintentionally
undertaken or whether there was intent or evidence to suggest intent
to capture and collar a jaguar, and if a federal or state agency
employee or contractor was involved.
FWS Office of Law Enforcement launched a criminal investigation on
April 1, 2009, after being informed of questions surrounding the
AZGFD’s permits and the validity of the alleged incidental capture
of Macho B. The OIG was briefed by the lead agents in the criminal
investigation on May 27, 2009, and given access to all documents and
interviews conducted by FWS agents .
We
reviewed more than 90 documents and notes from 38 interviews
conducted by FWS agents. The FWS agents also reviewed hundreds of
e-mails and related documents sent and received before and after the
capture and recapture of Macho B from individuals with AZGFD, FWS,
and the JagCT, which included officials from AZGFD, the NMDGF, and
private citizens.
Our review of the FWS agents’ documentation showed evidence linking
an
AZGFD subcontractor
and possibly an AZGFD
employee to criminal
wrongdoing
in the capture of Macho B. There was no evidence to suggest criminal
involvement by any FWS or other Department of the Interior
employees.
2.
Whether a valid Section 10 permit existed for the mountain lion and
bear study.
AZGFD entered into an ongoing contract with
The ESA directs what steps are necessary should an endangered
species stand to be affected by the actions of any federal, state or
local agency to ensure that such actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed endangered species.
The ESA requires an agency to obtain a separate Section 10
incidental take permit and to obtain a Section 7 biological opinion
and to seek consultation with the FWS.
The FWS investigation determined that the subcontractor was setting
up equipment to photograph wildlife in the
We
interviewed FWS Region 2 Section 10 Coordinator Marty Tuegel, who
works in the
3.
The legality of the Section 6 agreement between FWS and the Arizona
Game and Fish Department with regard to endangered jaguars.
We interviewed a FWS Biologist from the
4.
What protocol was in place should trapping instead snare an
endangered jaguar?
The JagCT MOU, JagCT Handling Protocol, JagCT Capture
Guidelines, and the Section 10 permit spelled out what protocol to
follow should an endangered species be incidentally or intentionally
snared. The Biologist/permit coordinator said that if AZGFD intended
to take a jaguar, it is required, under capture protocol, to
assemble a risk assessment team, which would include a FWS
representative. The risk assessment team would convene prior to any
capture attempt and discuss capture participants, equipment, and
logistics. If the AZGFD, an employee, or a subcontractor knew a
jaguar was within its mountain lion and black bear study area, a
biological opinion would be required.
He told us that no such
risk assessment team was assembled and no biological opinion was
obtained by the AZGFD.
We
interviewed another FWS biologist from the
Although the biologist said he knew of these projects, he also
stated that neither he nor anyone else within the FWS Tucson office
was involved in a decision-making capacity for these projects or
with any of the ongoing AZGFD wildlife studies in the
The biologist from the
The biologist said that after the Macho B incident, he received
AZGFD’s Section 10 permit, read it for the first time, and
discovered that the permit listed several people who were authorized
to participate in the study, but the subcontractor was not among
them. He said it was beyond his expertise to know whether the
subcontractor or any other person not listed on the permit could
conduct noninvasive activities, such as looking for jaguar tracks or
checking cameras.
7.
The factors leading to the animal’s recapture, the two-day recapture
itself, and whether this was a proper decision under the
circumstances.
When AZGFD researchers initially found Macho B ensnared in a
mountain lion and black bear foot-hold trap on February 18, 2009,
he had
been caught in the trap for an unknown amount of time.
AZGFD researchers collected samples and data from Macho B
and noticed he had sustained a broken canine tooth while ensnared.
Macho B was collared with a GPS tracking device and released. Within
days, the GPS collar indicated Macho B was not moving. AZGFD
researchers considered fears over Macho B’s health, especially
regarding his broken canine tooth, and the possible malfunction of
the GPS collar. On February 25, 2009, the GPS tracking device
indicated Macho B
had not moved in 24
hours. The AZGFD decided to search for him on
February 26, 2009. The following day, the AZGFD had assembled its
team, which included a veterinarian, and headed out to search for
the animal. Between these days, the GPS tracking device continued to
show little movement.
The AZGFD obtained a visual of Macho B on March 1, 2009. The team
observed Macho B
moving lethargically
and veterinarian Ole Alcumbrac and an AZGFD employee had a failed
attempt to dart Macho B. The team surmised that he may have been
suffering from some type of injury. The AZGFD recaptured Macho B on
March 2, 2009, because of apparent health issues. The AZGFD took him
to the Phoenix Zoo for evaluation, where veterinarians determined
from blood samples that Macho B was suffering from renal failure and
a broken upper
left canine tooth that
exposed the tooth to its root. Zoo veterinarians
determined that Macho B’s mouth injury was not more than one week
old. Zoo veterinarians concluded that Macho B’s condition was
irreversible and recommended that he be euthanized. Macho B was
euthanized at 5:13 p.m. on March 2, 2009.
Despite issues surrounding Section 6, the Section 10(a)(1)(A) and
10(a)(1)(B) permits, the Section 7 biological opinion, and the MOU,
medical evaluations of Macho B conducted by veterinarians indicated
that the renal failure, which was most likely a pre-existing
condition, and the broken canine led to Macho B’s overall decline.
Researchers relied on Macho B’s appearance of ill health through
observations of his lethargic movements and the broken canine tooth
in their decision to recapture him.
The Phoenix Zoo’s necropsy summary report, dated March 2, 2009, and
tissue samples from Macho B were sent to Dr. Gregory Bradley, a
doctor of veterinary medicine of the
Dr. Bradley issued a report, dated March 6, 2009, which said, in
part, “The histologic sections of the
kidneys do not indicate
significant renal disease.” With the exception of
Dr. Bradley, all of the other animal experts agreed with Dr. Rice of
the Phoenix Zoo that Macho B had died of renal failure.
8.
The propriety or impropriety of decisions made regarding the
animal’s health status and euthanization:
We interviewed FWS Southwest Regional Director
Benjamin Tuggle regarding Macho B’s capture, recapture, and
euthanizing. Tuggle said he was told of the initial capture shortly
after it occurred by Steve Spangle, FWS field supervisor for Arizona
Ecological Services. Tuggle said Spangle told him the animal had
been fixed with a GPS collar. Tuggle said he had no objection to
this because it was a great opportunity to obtain valuable
scientific data. Tuggle said that within two or three days, he
received a call from Terry Johnson, who said the GPS detected Macho
B’s lack of movement and expressed some concern over the animal’s
well being or a possible equipment failure. Tuggle said he was told
Macho B had been located and airlifted to the Phoenix Zoo and that
AZGFD officials were concerned the animal might be in renal failure.
Tuggle said he told Johnson that he wanted confirmation. He was
later informed that a zoo veterinarian had determined the jaguar was
in renal failure and that three options were being considered for
Macho B: to be euthanized, to be kept in captivity in heavy
sedation, or to be released in his natural habitat, where he would
die naturally. Tuggle said he did not want to release the animal
back into the wild to die.
The decision to euthanize Macho B was made by Spangle. We
interviewed Spangle who said he made his decision independent of
Tuggle but only after consulting with two veterinarians at the
Phoenix Zoo (Rice and Alcumbrac). Both veterinarians told Spangle
that Macho B’s blood tests showed the animal was suffering from
kidney dysfunction, which was irreversible and fatal. Spangle said
Rice and Alcumbrac also told him
the animal was 20
percent underweight. Spangle said that because
Macho B was an older cat — about 16 to 20 years old — and had never
been in captivity, it would have been inhumane to keep him sedated,
in captivity, or to release him to die in the wild. Tuggle said that
he was on a flight from
9.
Why a more thorough necropsy was not performed, instead of one
designed to preserve the hide of the animal; who made that
determination; and upon which criteria this decision was made:
After Spangle made the decision to euthanize Macho B,
he said that he spoke with Tuggle about the animal’s necropsy.
Spangle said that during discussions about what to do with Macho B’s
hide, the AZGFD wanted to preserve it for scientific and educational
purposes. The AZGFD’s intention was for a full necropsy to be
performed on Macho B. Spangle said that at the time
he had
never heard the term “necropsy.” When Phoenix Zoo
officials asked him about the extent of the necropsy, he conveyed
the AZGFD’s request to preserve the hide. Spangle said he approved a
“full cosmetic necropsy” with the false understanding that it was
the same as full necropsy, but would also include adequate measures
to preserve the animal’s hide. Spangle said, “And in my naïveté, I
didn’t have any clue that that would compromise the soft tissues.”
Spangle explained, “I just thought they would carefully remove the —
I imagine if you’re doing a necropsy, you’re digging in there and
going for it and throwing the animal away. And to conserve the skin,
they would do a more careful job, midlines cut probably and
skin[ning] it carefully.
I didn’t know until
later that it prevented them from testing the brain and spinal
tissue ….”
Tuggle said he had a conversation with Spangle, “and I told him I
wanted a full autopsy.” He added, “And then there was some tacit
conversation about what to do with the skull and the pelt. And I
think that my answer was that ‘We’ll deal with that when it comes
time.’” Spangle said he did not remember Tuggle telling him he
wanted a full necropsy. Spangle said he and Tuggle also had a
conversation about the disposition of Macho B’s remains. He said he
remembered Tuggle saying he would have to think about it and that he
would call Larry Voyles of the AZGFD. Tuggle said that he was more
concerned with confirming through a full necropsy that Macho B had
renal failure. Tuggle said that he remembers having a conversation
with Voyles about the irregularities with the capture of Macho B and
that Voyles’ wanted an independent investigation. Tuggle said that
this was occurring around the time he was in transit from
Our investigation found that there is no protocol about the
completeness of an animal’s necropsy. The extent of any given
necropsy is left to the discretion of the FWS field supervisor for
Arizona Ecological Services and the FWS regional director of the
southwest region, in this case Spangle and Tuggle, respectively.
10. The status of the jaguar capture protocol at the time of
capture, how the protocol was developed, who on the Jaguar
Conservation Team was involved, and how the state agency and/or
contractors implemented any such protocol in this case:
In March 1997, AZGFD, the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish, and FWS entered into a jaguar conservation agreement
with local, federal, state and private entities, and individuals
with vested preservation interests. These various entities
recognized AZGFD and NMGFD, in an MOU, as lead agencies in their
conservation efforts. The MOU also established FWS as an oversight
authority to ensure that the ESA was upheld. Jack Childs of the
Borderland Jaguar Detection Project developed the jaguar capture
team and jaguar handling protocol for the JagCT.
The subcontractor for the AZGFD, who was associated with JagCT,
Borderland Jaguar Detection Project, decided where the mountain lion
and black bear snares would be set. The FWS agents’ investigation
revealed that the subcontractor and an AZGFD employee consulted with
veterinarians and the Jaguar Health Program Manual on jaguar
immobilization.
As
part of the 1997 conservation agreement and MOU, the group
established a series of tasks, most centered on initiatives to study
the jaguar’s habitat. The JagCT was established in April 1998 to
help enact these tasks. The team, made up of individuals from AZGFD,
the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, FWS, and private
individuals with expertise in the preservation of jaguars,
established the Jaguar Capture Protocol in July 1998 (updated in
March 2007) and Jaguar Capture Guidelines (revised in May 2007).
Both documents established a set of standard policies and procedures
in the event a jaguar is captured incidentally or intentionally.
AZGFD, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, FWS, state
agencies, and contractors implemented this protocol by agreeing to
the MOU, the most current draft of which was dated March 2007.
According to the March 2007 MOU, it was due to be updated February
20, 2009, just two days before Macho B’s initial capture.
SUBJECT
Biologist,
DISPOSITION
This report is being provided to Sam D. Hamilton, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for actions deemed appropriate |