(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - WOLF, RED
OTHER COMMON NAMES - WOLF, RED; WOLF, RED, TEXAS; WOLF, RED, FLORIDA; WOLF, RED, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY; WOLF and BLACK
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Mammals
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - MAMMALIA,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - CARNIVORA,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - CANIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - CANIS,
SPECIES AND SSP - RUFUS,
SCIENTIFIC NAME - CANIS RUFUS
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Red Wolf
Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Mammal
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Mammalia
ORDER: Carnivora FAMILY: Canidae
The red wolf is one of three living species of wild Canis extant
in North America (01). In general, red wolves are intermediate in
size between the larger gray wolf (C. lupus), and the smaller coyote
(C. latrans). Typically, an adult female will weigh 40 to 60 pounds,
while an adult male will weigh 60 to 80 pounds. The red wolf is
generally more lanky than the gray wolf, with long, slender legs that
some say are an adaptation to long-distance running and pursuing prey
in river bottom swamps and wet coastal prairies (02).
Coloration is apt to be a misleading characteristic for this
species. The reddish color referenced in its common and scientific
name actually was only typical in certain populations in Texas. There
evidently was considerable color variation across its range that also
included black, brown, gray and yellow. A key to the genera and
specific descriptive material can be found in Hall (12) and
subspecific material can be found in Nowak (01).
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
Despite early taxonomic squabbling over the status of this
species, it is now considered a true species (01,11,12). Its exact
place in the evolutionary ladder of the family Canidae will probably
always remain uncertain. There is some evidence, however, that
supports the thesis that the red wolf actually represents the
surviving line of primitive wolves that once ranged over North America
a million years ago (01). Various climatic and competitive changes
gradually forced the species southward and eastward into the area
where they were first described by Bartram (03) in 1791.
The taxonomic history is summarized as follows:
1791, Lupus niger Bartram, Travels, p.199.
1851, Canis lupus var. rufus Audubon and Bachman, Quadrupeds of North
America, 2:240.
1899, Canis priscolatrans Cope, J. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia,
Ser.2, 9:227.
1905, Canis rufus Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 25:174.
1912, Canis floridanus Miller, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 25:95.
1937, Canis rufus gregoryi Goldman, J. Mammal. 18:44.
1942, Canis niger Harper, J. Mammal. 23:339. (includes C. n. niger,
C. n. gregoryi, and C. n. rufus) (12, 14).
1965, Canis rufus Hall, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ.,
No.43. p.13. (includes C. r. floridanus, C. r. gregoryi, and
C. r. rufus) (01,11,12).
The type specimen (C. r. gregoryi) is housed at the U.S. National
Museum No. 136731, x-catalog No. 5338 (adult male skin and skull).
Data on early specimens (mostly skulls) showing collection location
and number can be found in (01).
At the present time (1986), this species is thought to be
extirpated in the wild. The 75 red wolves being held in captivity
represent the remnants of C. r. gregoryi. The species was
historically represented by three subspecies floridanus, gregoryi, and
rufus (01,11,12,14). Floridanus, the eastern subspecies, was
exterminated by the early 1900's, whereas rufus, the western
subspecies, apparently became extinct during the 1960's.
Edward A. Goldman (04), senior biologist of the Bureau of
Biological Survey, examined a large number of wolf specimens in the
early 1940's and found that the Texas red wolf intergraded in
characteristics with the canids across the southeastern United States
to Florida. While the reddish color, prevalent in parts of Texas, was
not particularly common farther east, there was a continuity of key
cranial and dental features. Goldman thus referred all of the wolves
of the southeast to one species, C. rufus (04). At the time of
Goldman's study the red wolf had already been exterminated east of
Mississippi (05).
A picture of the species is shown in Nowak (01) and a drawing can
be found in Hall (12).
Common names used to refer to the red wolf include Texas red
wolf, Florida red wolf, Mississippi Valley red wolf, and black wolf.
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
Alabama; Federal Endangered
Alabama; State Listed
Arkansas; Federal Endangered
Florida; Federal Endangered
Florida; Officially Listed
Florida; Unofficially Listed
Georgia; Federal Endangered
Georgia; State Recognized
Kentucky; Federal Endangered
Kentucky; State Recognized
Louisiana; Federally Endangered
Louisiana; State Recognized
Mississippi; Federal Endangered
Mississippi; State Recognized
North Carolina; Federal Endangered
North Carolina; State Recognized
South Carolina; Federal Endangered
South Carolina; State Recognized
Tennessee; Federal Endangered
Tennessee; State Recognized
Virginia; Federal Endangered
Virginia; State Recognized
West Virginia; Federal Endangered
E: Federal Endangered
Pest
Commercial
Ceremonial/Cultural
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The red wolf (Canis rufus) has been designated an Endangered
species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (50 CFR 17.11;
P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1540), as amended. The
species has this status wherever. According to the Recovery Plan,
this species historically occurred throughout the southeastern United
States west to central Texas. Although officially listed as
Endangered, the red wolf is thought to have disappeared in the wild.
As of October, 1986 there were approximately 75 animals in seven
captive breeding projects and zoos in the U.S. No Critical Habitat is
listed for this species, however there are special rules that apply to
a reintroduced "nonessential experimental" population (50 CFR
17.84(c). Reintroduction of "experimental" populations (50 CFR 17
subpart H) into the species' historic range is considered the only
practical approach that could lead to recovery.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering the
establishment of a non-essential experimental population of red wolves
in North Carolina. This designation reduces the applicability of
Section 7 [other than Sec 7(a)(1)] by allowing Federal agencies to
"confer" (i.e., treat the species as if it were proposed for listing)
on all may affect actions. However, the species' occurrence on
National Park or National Wildlife Refuge systems will necessitate
treatment as a threatened species for the purposes of Section 7.
This species is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild
animal (alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
Status - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
REGION 2:
STATE: Oklahoma and Texas
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: OK, Department of Wildlife Conservation;
TX, Parks and Wildlife Department.
STATE STATUTE: OK, 29 Oklahoma Statute 1981, Sec 2-109,
Sec 5-4012;
TX, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Sec.
43.021-43.030, 67.001-67.005, 68.001-68.021,
Texas Administrative Code, Sec.
57.131-57.136.
REGION 3:
STATE: Indiana, Missouri and Ohio
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: IN, Department of Natural Resources;
MO, Department of Conservation;
OH, Department of Natural Resources.
STATE STATUTE: IN, Indiana Code, Nongame and Endangered Species
Act, Public Law 128, Indiana Statutes
Annotated 14-2-8.5-1, and 310 Indiana
Administrative Code 3-3-6;
MO, Revised Statute 252.240, Wildlife Code;
Regulations - 3CSR10-4.111;
OH, Revised Code 1531.25, and Ohio Administrative
Code 1501:31-23-01.
STATE: Illinois
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Department of Conservation
STATE STATUTE: IL, Revised Statute 1983, Chap. 8, Section
331-340, P.A. 77-2186, and 17 Illinois
Administrative Code 1010.30.
REGION 4:
STATE: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: GA, Department of Natural Resources;
KY, Dept. Fish and Wildlife Resources;
LA, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries;
NC, Wildlife Resources Commission;
MS, Department of Wildlife Conservation;
SC, Wildlife and Marine Resources;
TN, Wildlife Resources Agency.
STATE STATUTE: GA, Game and Fish Law of Geogia, Title 27,
Chapter 3, Page 130;
KY, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Codes 150-183,
Kentucky Administrative Regulations 3:061;
LA, Louisiana Statutes Annotated 56:1901 to
Status - 3 (DRAFT) - Status
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
56:1907 (1974);
NC, Gen. Statute 113-134, -132, 143-239, NC
Admin. Code, NC Resour. and Conserv. Dept.,
Wildlife Resour. and Water Safety, T15;
Subch. 101-Endangered and Threatened Species;
MS, Public Notice #2408 of Mississippi Code of
1972, Section 49-5-101 to 119;
SC, Regulations 123-150 to 123-160, Code of Laws
of South Carolina 50-15-10 to 50-15-90;
TN, Wildlife Proclamation No. 75-15, 76-4, and
amendments.
STATE: Arkansas
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: AR, Game and Fish Commission;
STATE STATUTE: AR, Amendment No.35 of Arkansas Constitution,
1945;
STATE: Alabama
DESIGNATED STATUS: Game Animal
ADMINSITRATIVE AGENCY: Division of Game and Fish
STATE STATUTE: Alabama State Hunting Season Regulations 1982-83,
Pages 6 and 9. No open season.
STATE: Florida
DESIGNATED STATUS: Class II Personal Pet
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
STATE STATUTE: Rule 39-6.02 FAC.
UNOFFICIAL LIST: Recently Extinct, "Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida", Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. 1978. University Presses of
Florida.
REGION 5:
STATE: West Virginia
DESIGNATED STATUS: None
STATE: Pennsylvania and Virginia
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: PA, Game Commission;
VA, Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries.
STATE STATUTE: PA, PA Code, Subsec. 147.1, 147.21, PA
Consolidated Statutes Annotated, Subsec.
1311.418b, 1311.723a;
VA, State Code 29.230 to 29.237.
REGION 6:
STATE: Kansas
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Fish and Game Commission
Status - 4 (DRAFT) - Status
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
STATE STATUTE: Kansas Statutes Annotated 1975, Kansas Nongame
and Endangered Species Conservation Act, Suppl.
32-501, 32-510, 32-502(a), and 32-504.
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
The red wolf (Canis rufus) is listed as endangered in the IUCN
Red Data Book, as of 1978; and is also listed by the Convention on
Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western
Hemisphere, 1970.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
Culturally, the red wolf has an extremely high value since it
represents a species that has deep roots in American folklore and also
represents an era that has long vanished from the southeastern states.
Because the red wolf is extinct in the wild, it has no current
commercial value to man. Historically it was taken for bounty on both
the County and State level and was considered a pest due to occasional
predation on domestic livestock.
67/03/11:32 FR 04001/ - Listing action, final rule
79/05/21:44 FR 29566/29577 - Notice of review
85/07/22:50 FR 29901/29909 - Five year review
86/07/24:51 FR 26564/26569 - Proposed introduced population regs.
86/11/19:51 FR 41790/41796 - Final rule; introduced population
Status - 5 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
INLAND AQUATIC
COASTAL
LAND USE -
Cropland and Pasture
Beaches
Mixed Forest Land
Bays and Estuaries
Lakes
Reservoirs
Streams and Canals
Forested Wetland
Nonforested Wetland
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Palustrine SS3
Palustrine FO1
Estuarine, intertidal FL4
Estuarine, intertidal FL3
Estuarine, intertidal EM1
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
Although the last remnant population of this species was
situated in coastal prairie marshes of Louisiana and Texas, many agree
that this environment probably does not typify preferred red wolf
habitat. Some information exists that the species usually was found
in highest numbers in the once extensive bottomland river forests and
swamps of the Southeast. Heavy vegetative cover does seem to be a
needed component of their overall habitat requirements. Radio
telemetry studies of red wolves in their final range in Louisiana and
Texas indicated that the heavy cover provided along bayous and in
fallow fields constituted the primary resting and denning areas for
the animals (06).
More precise information regarding habitat associations will be
one of the objectives of a long term reintroduction of red wolves.
Since this species is apparently no longer present in the wild no
habitat associations have been checked in the keyword fields.
Habitat Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
CARNIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Deciduous Shrubs-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Arthropods
General Fish
General Amphibia
General Reptilia
General Aves
General Carrion
General Mammalia
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
The red wolf is not as much a predator on big game animals as the
gray wolf. Accounts generally refer to smaller animals being
the mainstay of the red wolf's diet (02). The 1978 one-year release
of a pair of red wolves onto Bulls Island, SC, confirmed this through
an analysis of red wolf scats collected during the project (10).
Marsh rabbits, small rodents, squirrels, muskrats and nutria are
preferred food items. Rabbits and hares lead the list. Ground birds
(e.g., turkey and grouse), reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, and
plant material are also consumed. An occasional deer or domestic
animal will be taken if the right opportunity presents itself.
Livestock predation could be expected where chickens, sheep, goats,
and unattended calves are premitted to run free.
Much more definitive information would be forthcoming from a
long-term reintroduction project.
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
The red wolf is a territorial species. Its home range varies
dramatically depending primarily on prey base availability. The Bulls
Island experimental introduction indicated that a mated pair of adults
could survive on a 4,000 acre island. Under more normal
circumstances, however, it is thought that a pair of wolves would
require about 20,000 acres of range (02).
PERIODICITY:
Typically nocturnal in their hunting, red wolves tend to sleep
and loaf during daylight hours (06).
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Non-migratory.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Dens are typically established in hollow tree trunks, stream
banks, old dens of other animals, and in coastal areas, on sand knolls
(02). The primary habitat requirement for the red wolf in its final
range was heavy vegetative cover. Radio telemetry studies and field
observations made during the red wolf recovery effort indicated that
the heavy cover provided along bayous and in fallow fields constituted
the primary resting and denning areas of the species. During active
periods, the animals ranged out from these areas into rice fields and
pastures (07).
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
As reported by Nowak (02), earlier accounts state that the red
wolf is known to establish dens in hollow tree trunks, stream banks,
former dens of other animals and in sand knolls in coastal areas.
Other studies (08) report dens occurring in drain pipes, culverts, and
the banks of irrigation ditches. A den located in a brush pile
created during construction of a golf course was used to rear a litter
of hybrid pups. Due to poor drainage, a high water table, and
commonly heavy showers along the coast, some of the dens were flooded.
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
Under such conditions, most pups are born in grass "nests" located in
areas of heavy cover. A diverse terrain would provide additional den
sites and better protect the young (07).
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
Male red wolves normally become sexually viable at about 2 1/2
years of age whereas females usually do not mature until their second
or third year (09). Reports of "strong" pair bonding in gray wolves
are numerous but the relationship between mated red wolves is not
known. Translocated red wolves, thought to be naturally mated pairs
due to the circumstances of their capture, have stayed together. The
breeding period for red wolves is thought to be during January to
mid-February. As in the coyote, gray wolf, and dog, the gestation
period for red wolves is 60-63 days. Pups are born in April or May.
Thus far, litter sizes in captivity have ranged from two to eight pups
with an average of 4.6 per litter (07). Studies of gray wolves under
natural conditions indicate disparate sex ratios that favor males
(09).
PARENTAL CARE:
A high degree of parental care of wolf pups is common. Red
wolves in captivity have excavated their own dens, or simply had pups
in shallow depressions, the latter case being common even when manmade
dens were provided. When keepers became concerned about the welfare
of captive-born pups during heavy rains and moved them to dens
provided, the female often returned the pups to their shallow, exposed
nest. No captive-born pups are known to have died as a result of
exposure to weather (07). Adults feed young via regurgitating food at
the den site. Gray wolf young disperse from the family unit at 9 to
28 months. Age at dispersal may be negatively related to food
availability (09).
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
A wolf family unit is a hierarchial, closed group which maintains
a territory. Early ecological studies of gray wolves indicated that
their populations did not increase as rapidly as was theoretically
possible, and that they reached a saturation point apparently not set
by food. Usually, only one pair breeds in a pack, although wolves are
not strictly monogamous and several females may come into estrus
within the group. Mech (09), however, has never found evidence that
more than one female in a pack bore a litter of pups. Studies
conducted in Rocky Mt. National Park in Canada, and in Minnesota,
indicate a disparate sex ratio that strongly favors males (09). It is
now thought that wolf populations are regulated by a combination of
intrinsic social factors and the availability of food. In northern
areas, wolf population fluctuations have been correlated with the
amount of seasonal snowfall (13). Although little is known of red
wolf population dynamics, the above gray wolf data is generally
considered to be applicable. In captivity, red wolves live to about
14 years (07). It could be expected to be substantially less in the
wild.
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
Again, little factual data is available to describe prey
relationships to red wolf populations. By inference, however, it is
reasonable to assume that they would respond to predator-prey
relationships as do gray wolves. In the Southeast, however, cyclic
phenomenon are not as prevalent as they are in more northern
latitudes. Disease in some prey species, such as raccoons (Procyon
lotor) and marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris) could create altered
feeding behavior in red wolves that are reintroduced into wild
situations.
The precarious situation of the red wolf today is partially
attributed to persecution by humans through hunting, competition with
humans for habitat and hybridization with the coyote (Canis latrans).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
It is generally agreed that red wolves, in their last known
habitat on the Gulf Coast, probably did not hunt in "packs" and,
therefore, fed on smaller prey (07,10). This presumed lack of a
"pack" hunting structure and an abundance of smaller prey in the
species' former habitats (including currently suitable habitats with
potential for reintroduction) may preclude the possibility of red
wolves killing cattle. Red wolves feeding on carrion may have led
some observers to conclude that livestock predation was a serious
problem. However, the red wolf seems to be opportunistic. In Texas,
ranchers disagreed as to the seriousness of the red wolf as a predator
on livestock, a disagreement that never existed with the gray wolf
(07).
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Stocking captive-reared wild-strain animals
Beneficial Disease Control Measures
Beneficial Restricting Poaching
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Noncommercial Harvest
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Native Vertebrates
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Feral Animals
Adverse Harassment/Vandalism/Indiscriminate Killing
Existing Harassment/Vandalism/Indiscriminate Killing
Adverse Low Gene Pool
Existing Low Gene Pool
Adverse Hybridization
Existing Hybridization
Adverse Strip mining
Existing Strip mining
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Reservoirs
Existing Reservoirs
Adverse Predator control
Existing Predator control
Adverse
Existing
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
Settlers arriving in the Southeast during precolonial and
colonial times encountered wolves and other large predators in
evidently large numbers. Despite man's persecution of these
predators over several hundred years, the red wolf still was common in
some isolated areas of the Southeast until the early part of the
twentieth century. During the first half of this century, however,
wolves were extirpated from practically all of their former range.
During colonial days, wolves were feared as predators. Actual
depredations on livestock by wolves were inconsequential when compared
to losses of livestock from flooding and disease. While the settler
was helpless against the other forces of nature, the wolf and the
cougar offered him a chance to strike back (02). This he did by steel
trap, snare, baited pits, poison, and gun. Bounties were paid at the
County as well as State level.
The rapid decline of the red wolf in the 1900's is thought to
have been caused by increases in human population, changes in land
use, and predator control activities. Both clearing forests and the
drainage of large expanses of wetlands for agriculture destroyed prime
wolf habitat. Flooding as a result of dam construction is also known
to have inundated important red wolf habitat. During the 1950-1970
period, coyote expansion increased potentials for inbreeding with
solitary red wolves.
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
Future threats would also apply to reintroduced populations, and
these would include disease, potential inbreeding with other canids
and resultant genetic problems, and human persecution.
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Red Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
The Recovery Plan for the red wolf recommends the following:
1) Develop reestablishment proposals after selecting sites that offer
a high probability for successful reintroduction.
2) Conduct surveys of sites to ascertain prey base, public relation
considerations, hybridization factors, and impacts of reintroductions
on existing ecosystems. The threat of hybridization may have to be
reduced by the control/removal of feral dogs and/or coyotes. Disease
control measures (e.g., vaccinations) may be warranted.
3) Reintroduce and monitor red wolves and the ecosystem.
4) Maintain captive breeding facilities and maintain integrity of
broodstock. Help assure proper implementation of a breeding program
through the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums
(AAZPA).
Reintroducing species into parts of its historic range is often
an important part of recovery. The experimental population
designation (50 CFR 17 subpart H) offers the opportunity to
reintroduce more species by increasing management flexibility and
involving the States, other agencies and organizations.
Currently, a reintroduction of a nonessential experimental
population of red wolves is contemplated for the spring of 1987 on
lands of the Alligator River NWR in Dare and Tyrrell Counties, North
Carolina. This will involve the acclimation of four mated pairs of
red wolves for six months (November, 1986 - May, 1987), and the
release of three pairs. If initial releases are successful, two
additional pairs will be acclimated and released the following year.
The wolves will be closely monitored utilizing the latest telemetry
equipment.
The nonessential experimental population regulations will serve
as guidelines for management of the reintroduced population. These
regulations allow for some management activities not currently
specified in the species' Recovery Plan. These activities involve the
take (live capture), by authorized personnel, of reintroduced red
wolves which would result in either the release of the animal back
into the wild (e.g., for replacement of a radio collar) or the return
of the animal to captivity. Incidental take (killing/injuring) in the
process of otherwise lawful hunting, trapping or other recreational
activities, or in defense of human life would not be penalized. All
other forms of take are controlled by North Carolina State laws and
the Endangered Species Act and should be enforced.
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - References
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Nowak, R.M. 1979. North American quaternary Canis. Monograph of
the Museum of Natural History, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence. 154 pp.
02 Nowak, R.M. 1972. The mysterious wolf of the South. Natural
History Mag. 1972(Jan.):50-53.
03 Bartam, W. 1791. Travels. Phildelphia, PA. 522 pp.
04 Goldman, E.A. 1944. Classification of Wolves, Part II. Pages
389-636. IN: The wolves of North America. Young, S.P. and E.A.
Goldman. Amer. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C.
05 Nowak, R.M. 1970. Report on the red wolf. Defenders of Wildlife
News, January-February-March, 1970.
06 Carley, C.J. and J.L. Mechler. 1983. An experimental
reestablishment of red wolves (Canis rufus) on the Tennessee Valley
Authoritie's Land Between the Lakes (LBL). W.T. Parker, ed. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 72 pp.
07 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Red Wolf Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. 28 pp.
08 Riley, G.A. and R.T. McBride. 1972. A survey of the red wolf
(Canis rufus). USDI Spec. Sci. Rept. Wildl. No. 162. 15 pp.
09 Packard, J.M. and L.D. Mech. 1980. Population regulation in
wolves in Biosocial mechanisms of population regulation. Yale
University Press.
10 Carley, C.J. 1981. Red wolf experimental translocation
summarized. Wild Canid Survival and Research Center Bull. Part I,
Winter 1981:4-5,7; and Part II, Spring 1981:8-9. WCSRC, Eureka,
MO.
11 Paradiso, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1971. A report on the taxonomic
status and distribution of the red wolf. USDI/FWS. Spec. Sci.
Rept. No. 145. Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
12 Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America, Vol. II, second
edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 1177 pp.
13 Mech, L.D. 1986. Personal communication. USFWS, North Cental
Forest Exp. Station, St. Paul, MN 55108.
14 Young, S.P. and E.A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America.
Am. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C. 636 pp.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Nowak, R.M. 1979. North American quaternary Canis. Monograph of
the Museum of Natural History, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence. 154 pp.
02 Audubon, J.J. and J. Bachman. 1851. The quadrupeds of North
America, Vol. 2. New York. 334 pp.
03 Howell, A.H. 1921. A biological survey of Alabama. North
American Fauna, No. 45. Bureau of Biological Survey. 88 pp.
04 St. Amant, L.S. 1959. Louisiana wildlife inventory and managment
plan. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 329 pp.
05 Alexander, H.E. 1983. The red wolf saga. Arkansas Game and Fish
Magazine 1983(Fall):3-6.
06 Clark, M.K., D.S. Lee, and J.B. Funderburg, Jr. 1985. The mammal
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species WOLF, RED
Species Id ESIS054012
Date 14 MAR 96
fauna of Carolina bays, pocosins, and associated communities in
North Carolina: An overview. N.C. Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh. 38 pp.
07 Kellog, R. 1939. An annotated list of the mammals of Tennessee.
Proc. U.S. National Mus. Vol. 86, No. 3051.
08 Paradiso, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1971. A report on the taxonomic
status and distribution of the red wolf. USDI/FWS. Spec. Sci.
Rept. No. 145. Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
09 Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America, Vol. II, second
edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 1177 pp.
10 Young, S.P. and E.A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America.
Am. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C. 636 pp.
References - 2