European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 69–80 | Cite as

Predicaments of endangered huemul deer, Hippocamelus bisulcus, in Argentina: a review

  • W. T. FlueckEmail author
  • J. M. Smith-Flueck


A total of 350–600 huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) remain as fragmented groups along 1,850 km of Argentine Andes. Their conservation depends on accurate knowledge of the species' requirements and the factors preventing their recovery. The Regional Delegation for Patagonian National Parks (RDP) erroneously alleged that huemul status is satisfactory, and current in situ efforts are sufficient to guarantee recovery. Therefore, conservation centers are regarded unnecessary and the associated risks too high, especially because previous attempts with manipulations have failed. No data support these claims, instead many subpopulations have disappeared recently even in national parks (NP) which hold <0.01 huemul/km2. Causes preventing recovery or recolonization are unknown. Current pressures on huemul subpopulations include increased economic activities and alien species. Normal ranges for many biological parameters or population performance of huemul are unknown. Focus is on habitat studies using presence as surrogate for what should be studied on survival and reproduction. Factors important to small-sized populations or preventing recovery remain unstudied. RDPs insistence on indirect methodology prevents implementation of other potentially more promising research approaches. The lack of consensus regarding the necessity and feasibility of a conservation center prevented its establishment and related census flights in unprotected sites. RDP currently forecloses aerial census and capturing and thus prospects for a huemul conservation center, and the proposition of establishing such a center was neither discussed nor incorporated into the national recovery plan. Helicopter captures have been used successfully on deer in huemul habitat. Captures and translocation of huemul occurred since 1830; several zoos kept them successfully up to 10 years, and natural tameness facilitated husbandry. Recently, Chile successfully caught and transported huemul by helicopter to stock a private center. Unknowns can be addressed easily on semicaptive deer; other questions can be studied through reintroductions, employing adaptive management. RDP places faith in NP providing viable subpopulations. However, it remains doubtful whether some 220 huemul living in >22,000 km2 of parks can guarantee species survival. For Argentine cervids, absence of studies and management plans due to lack of funds is typical. Considering the actual situation and future perspectives, it appears doubtful that recovery will be achieved based on strategies similar to those employed in the past.


Conservation biology Deer conservation Captive program Adaptive management Extinction 



We thank colleagues from the following institutions whose insights have shaped our views: Center of Reproduction of Endangered Species in San Diego, Wildlife Pharmaceuticals, Turner Endangered Species Foundation, and the Eyes of the Wild Foundation. We thank the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Lincoln Park Zoo, the World Nature Association, but especially G. Langes, the Club Mil Rosas and Bodega Norton for supporting research on huemul. Bodega Norton also covered costs of the Argentine national recovery plan workshop, permitting that all stakeholder could unite. L.H. Carpenter kindly provided information on capture success. N.I. Díaz, G. Bubenik, U. Kierdorf, J. Marshall, A. Povilitis, S. Ranney, Dan Wharton, and several anonymous reviewers provided many challenging suggestions. We like to dedicate this work to the late Victor Arrechea, formerly superintendent of the Nahuel Huapi National Park, for his foresight to organize the National Recovery workshop for huemul.


  1. Administración de Parques Nacionales, Argentina (1992) Primera Reunión binacional Argentino‐Chilena sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul, Bariloche, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  2. Administración de Parques Nacionales, Argentina (2004) La Naturaleza sigue sorprendiendonos. Rev South Winds 64:17Google Scholar
  3. Bates JW, Bates JW, Guymon JG (1985) Comparison of drive nets and darting for capture of desert bighorn sheep. Wildl Soc Bull 13:73–76Google Scholar
  4. Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18:1482–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger J (1990) Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conserv Biol 4:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma PD, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Clark JA et al (2001) How good are endangered species recovery plans? Bioscience 51:643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun P (2002) El secreto mejor guardado. Aventura (Argent) 4:21Google Scholar
  8. Bubenik AB (1982) Physiology. In: Ward Thomas J, Toweill DE (eds) Elk of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, pp 125–179Google Scholar
  9. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63:215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Channell R, Lomolino MV (2000) Dynamics biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook WE, Williams ES, Dubay SA (2004) Disappearance of bovine fetuses in Northwestern Wyoming. Wildl Soc Bull 32:254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craig JL (1994) Meta-populations: is management as flexible as nature? In: Olney PS, Mace GM, Feistner AC (eds) Creative conservation. Interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 50–66Google Scholar
  13. Dellafiore C, Maceira N (1998) Problemas de conservación de los ciervos autóctonos de la Argentina. J Neotrop Mamm (Arg) 5:137–145Google Scholar
  14. Díaz NI (2002) Experiencias Históricas en la Conservación del Género Hippocamelus. In: Cosse M, Paz Barreto D, Gonzalez S (eds) Actas del Taller: Hacia un Plan Nacional de Conservación y Recuperación del Huemul en Argentina. IUCN Deer Specialist Group, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  15. Díaz NI, Smith-Flueck JM (2000) The Patagonian huemul. A mysterious deer on the brink of extinction. Literature of Latin America, Buenos Aires, p 149Google Scholar
  16. Flueck WT (2003) Consideraciones acerca de la calidad nutritiva de hábitat, hábitat óptimo, y evaluación de hábitat para huemul. In: Acosta G (ed) 4ta reunión Chileno-Argentina sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul. CONAF and CODEFF, Chile, pp 30–34Google Scholar
  17. Flueck WT, Jones A (2005) Potential existence of a sylvatic cycle of Taenia ovis krabbei in Patagonia, Argentina. Vet Parasitol 127 (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Flueck WT, Smith‐Flueck JM (2005) Hoof growth in neonatal Patagonian huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus), a tentative tool for aging. J Neotrop Mammal 12 (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Flueck WT, Smith-Flueck JM, Naumann CM (2003) The current distribution of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Southern Latin America. Eur J Wildl Res 49:112–119Google Scholar
  20. Flueck WT, Smith-Flueck JM, Bonino NA (2005) Adult mortality among red deer in the northwestern Patagonia: a preliminary analysis. Ecol Austral 15:23–30Google Scholar
  21. Frädrich H (1978) Bemerkungen über Nord-Andenhirsche (Hippocamelus antisensis) im Berliner Zoo. Bongo (Berl) 2:81–88Google Scholar
  22. Franke FR (1949) Mein Inselparadies. Verlag A, Francke AG, Bern, Switzerland, p 181Google Scholar
  23. Gill JA, Norris K, Sutherland WJ (2001) Why behavioral responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biol Conserv 97:265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IUCN (1987) The IUCN policy statement on captive breeding. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  25. IUCN (2001a) IUCN policy statement on research involving species at risk of extinction. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  26. IUCN (2001b) IUCN/SSC guidelines for re-introductions. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  27. IUCN (2002) IUCN technical guidelines on the management of ex-situ populations for conservation. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Jessup DA, Clark RK, Weaver RA, Kock MD (1988) The safety and cost-effectiveness of net-gun capture of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). J Zoo Anim Med 19:208–213Google Scholar
  29. Jessup DA, Jones K, Clark W, Hunter D (1996) Wildlife restraint handbook. State of California Department of Fish and Game. Wildl Invest Lab, p 238Google Scholar
  30. Johnson DH (2002) The importance of replication in wildlife research. J Wildl Manage 66:919–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kock MD, Jessup DA, Clark RK, Franti CE et al (1987) Capture methods in five subspecies of free-ranging Bighorn sheep: an evaluation of drop-net, drive-net, chemical immobilization and the net-gun. J Wildl Dis 23:634–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Krausman PR, Harris LK, Blasch CL, Koenen KK et al (2004) Effects of military operations on behavior and hearing of endangered Sonoran pronghorns. Wildl Monogr 157:1–41Google Scholar
  33. Kreeger TJ (1999) Handbook of wildlife chemical immobilization, 3rd edn. Wildlife Pharmaceuticals, Fort Collins, p 342Google Scholar
  34. Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin C (2003) Note 214-03 of the Delegación Regional Patagonia. Administración de Parques Nacionales, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin CE, Chehebar C (2001) The national parks of Argentinian Patagonia—management policies for conservation, public use, rural settlements, and indigenous communities. J R Soc NZ 31:845–864Google Scholar
  37. Moyano A (2004) El heliesqui amplía la frontera de las sensaciones. Neo Magazíne (Arg) 3:14–19Google Scholar
  38. O'Grady JJ, Reed DH, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) What are the best correlates of predicted extinction risk? Conserv Biol 118:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ortega IM, Guineo O, Garay G (2003) Estatus y comportamiento del huemul del parque nacional Torres del Paine. In: Acosta G (ed) 4ta reunión Chileno-Argentina sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul, CONAF and CODEFF, Chile, p 69Google Scholar
  40. Osko TJ, Hiltz MN, Hudson RJ, Wasel SM (2004) Moose habitat preferences in response to changing availability. J Wildl Manage 68:576–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parera A (2002) Cara a cara con el huemul. Vida Silv (Arg) 80:12–15Google Scholar
  42. Pimm SL, Bass OL (2002) Rangewide risks to large populations: the Cape Sable sparrow as a case history. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 406–424Google Scholar
  43. Povilitis A (2002) Current status of the huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in central Chile. Gayana (Chile) 66:59–68Google Scholar
  44. Ramilo E (2001) Cría en cautiverio del huemul, consideraciones generales. Delegación Regional Patagonia. Administración de Parques Nacionales, Argentina, p 2Google Scholar
  45. Ramilo E (2002) Programa conservación del huemul de la administración de parques Nacionales. In: Cosse M, Paz Barreto D, Gonzalez S (eds) Actas del Taller: Hacia un Plan Nacional de Conservación y Recuperación del Huemul en Argentina. IUCN Deer Specialist Group, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramilo E (2003) Programa conservación del huemul. In: Acosta G (ed) 4ta reunión Chileno-Argentina sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul. CONAF and CODEFF, Chile, pp 19–21Google Scholar
  47. Rau JA (2003) Crecimiento poblacional de huemules del sur nativos y reintroducidos en la zona austral de Chile. In: Acosta G (ed) 4ta reunión Chileno-Argentina sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul. CONAF and CODEFF, Chile, pp 43–45Google Scholar
  48. Reed DH, O'Grady JJ, Brook BW, Ballou JD et al (2003) Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biol Conserv 113:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Riney T (1967) Ungulate introductions as a special source of research opportunities. IUCN Publ New Ser 9:241–254Google Scholar
  50. Rottmann JS (2003) Experiencias con huemules en cautividad. In: Acosta G (ed) 4ta reunión Chileno-Argentina sobre estrategias de conservación del huemul. CONAF and CODEFF, Chile, pp 40–42Google Scholar
  51. Rusch V (2002) Estado de situación de las areas protegidas de la porción Argentina de la ecoregión valdiviana. Fundacion Vida Silvestre, Argentina, p 98Google Scholar
  52. Sabatini MC, Iglesia RM (2001) A global context for the evolution and current status of protected areas in Argentina. Nat Areas J 21:274–281Google Scholar
  53. Saenz D, Conner RN, Rudolph DC, Engstrom RT (2001) Is a “hands-off” approach appropriate for red-cockaded woodpecker conservation in twenty-first-century landscapes? Wildl Soc Bull 29:956–966Google Scholar
  54. Saucedo C (2002) Investigación sobre la ecología del huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) como contribución a su conservación en el Sur de Chile. Rev Vida Silv (Arg) 80.
  55. Serret A (1993) Estado de conservación del huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) en el parque Nacional Perito Moreno, provincia de Santa Cruz. Bol Técn 15, Fundacion Vida Silvestre, Argentina, p 17Google Scholar
  56. Serret A (2001) El Huemul: Fantasma de la Patagonia. Zagier & Urruty, UshuaiaGoogle Scholar
  57. Serret A, Borghiani F, Ostrosky C, Moreno D (1994) Relevamiento de poblaciones de huemules en el Parque Nacional Los Glaciares. Bol Técn 24, Fundacion Vida Silvestre, Argentina, p 21Google Scholar
  58. Simberloff D, Relva MA, Nuñez, M (2003) Introduced species and management of a Nothofagus/Austrocedrus forest. Environ Manage 31:263–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Simonetti JA (1995) Wildlife conservation outside parks is a disease-mediated task. Conserv Biol 9:454–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smart JC, Ward AI, White PC (2004) Monitoring woodland deer populations in the UK: an imprecise science. Mamm Rev 34:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith-Flueck JM (2003) The ecology of huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Andean Patagonia of Argentina and considerations about its conservation. Doctoral thesis, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Argentina, p 361Google Scholar
  62. Smith-Flueck JM, Flueck WT (2001a) Problemas de conservación para una concentración inusual de huemules (Hippocamelus bisulcus) en la zona del lago La Plata, provincia de Chubut. J Neotrop Mamm 8:72–83Google Scholar
  63. Smith-Flueck JM, Flueck WT (2001b) Natural mortality patterns in a population of southern Argentina huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus), an endangered Andean cervid. Eur J Wildl Res 47:178–188Google Scholar
  64. Smith-Flueck JM, Flueck WT (2001c) Una visión conceptual sobre la conservación del huemul en Argentina. In: Cosse M, Paz Barreto D, Gonzalez S (eds) Actas del Taller: Hacia un Plan Nacional de Conservación y Recuperación del Huemul en Argentina. IUCN Deer Specialist Group, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith-Flueck JM, Díaz NI, Flueck WT (2004) Cría de huemules en cautiverio: las perspectivas actuales considerando las experiencias históricas. In: Iriarte A, Tala C, González B, Zapata B et al (eds) Cría en cautividad de fauna Chilena. SAG, Santiago, pp 459–470Google Scholar
  66. Soulé ME, Estes JA, Berger J, Martinez del Rio C (2003) Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conserv Biol 17:1238–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stephens RM, Alldredge AW, Phillips GE (2003) Aggressive interactions of Rocky Mountain elk, Cervus elaphus nelsoni, during the calving season toward Mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, in Central Colorado. Can Field Nat 117:316–317Google Scholar
  68. Sutherland WJ (2000) The conservation handbook: research, management and policy. Blackwell, Berlin, p 278Google Scholar
  69. Sutinen, J, Boehlert G, Botsford L et al (2004) Improving the use of the “Best Scientific Information Available” standard in fisheries management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 118Google Scholar
  70. Sympson P (2003) Red deer in Argentina. Deer 12:358Google Scholar
  71. Thompson CJ, Thompson BJ, Burgman MA (2003) Risks from competitively inferior immigrant populations: implications of mass effects for species conservation. Conserv Biol 17:901–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wemmer C (1998) Deer: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN SSC Deer Specialist Group, GlandGoogle Scholar
  74. Wharton D (1995) Zoo breeding efforts: an ark of survival? Forum Appl Res Public Policy 10(1):92–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICETBarilocheArgentina
  2. 2.DeerLabBarilocheArgentina

Personalised recommendations