Ontologia

Loup roux

Canis rufusAudubon & Bachman, 1851

CRLR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Canidae
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Graphe en cours d’indexation

Calcul du tissu écologique de Canis rufus.

Le graphe apparaîtra automatiquement dès que le calcul est terminé (rafraîchissement toutes les 5s).

Liste rouge IUCN

CR · En danger critiquecritères C2a(i,ii); DDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2018 · v3.1
Altitude
m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
Free-ranging Red Wolves exist only in a reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, USA. The Red Wolf had been reintroduced to this area in 1987 and within 15 years it had grown to occupy federal, state, and private lands to the west of mainland Dare County. Chronic concerns over Red Wolves hybridizing with Coyotes and Red Wolf/Coyote hybrids and increasing conflict with landowners, prompted the USFWS to consider restricting the Red Wolf restoration effort to federal lands in mainland Dare County in an area that can support no more than 20-30 individuals.

Menaces identifiées(3 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 5_1_3
    Persecution/control
    Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 8_2
    Problematic native species/diseases
    Very Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
Hybridization with Coyotes or Red Wolf x Coyote hybrids is the primary threat to the species' persistence in the wild (Kelly et al. 1999). While hybridization with Coyotes was a factor in the Red Wolf's initial demise in the wild, it was not detected as a problem in north-eastern North Carolina until approximately 1992 (Phillips et al. 1995). Indeed, north-eastern North Carolina was determined to be ideal for Red Wolf reintroductions because of a purported absence of Coyotes (Parker 1986). However, during the 1990s, the Coyote population apparently became well established in the area (P. Sumner pers. comm.; USFWS, unpubl.). From the start of the reintroduction project in 1987 through to about 2005, the Red Wolf population grew to more than 150 animals. Intensive management was useful at minimizing the extent of hybridization with Coyotes and Coyote/Red Wolf hybrids (Gese and Terletzky 2015, Gese et al. 2015). However, by about 2012, the reintroduction project had become notably characterized by significant conflict with landowners (primarily over Coyote management and general frustration with the USFWS’s implementation of the Red Wolf recovery programme) which led to a substantial increase in the illegal killing of Red Wolves.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
  • 14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
  • 1_4Forest - Temperate
  • 3_4Shrubland - Temperate
  • 5_4Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
The species is not included on the CITES Appendices. The Red Wolf is listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (United States Public Law No. 93-205; United States Code Title 16 Section 1531 et seq.). The reintroduced animals and their progeny in north-eastern North Carolina are considered members of an experimental non-essential population. This designation was promulgated under Section 10(j) of the ESA and permits the USFWS to manage the population and promote recovery in a manner that is respectful of the needs and concerns of local citizens (Parker and Phillips 1991). Hunting of Red Wolves is prohibited by the ESA. To date, federal protection of the Red Wolf has been adequate to successfully reintroduce and promote recovery of the species in North Carolina.

A very active recovery programme for the Red Wolf has been in existence since the mid-1970s (USFWS 1990; Phillips et al. 2003), with some measures from as early as the mid-1960s (USFWS, unpubl.). By 1976, a captive breeding programme was established using 17 animals captured in Texas and Louisiana (Carley 1975; USFWS 1990). Of these, 14 became the founders of the current captive breeding programme. In 1977, the first pups were born in the captive programme, and by 1985, the captive population had grown to 65 individuals in six zoological facilities (Parker 1986). As of 2017 there were approximately 175 Red Wolves in captivity at 43 facilities throughout the United States and Canada (USFWS, unpubl.). The purpose of the captive population is to safeguard the genetic integrity of the species and to provide animals for reintroduction. 

With the species reasonably secure in captivity, the USFWS began reintroducing Red Wolves at the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in north-eastern North Carolina in 1987. As of September 2002, 102 animals have been released with a minimum of 281 descendants produced in the wild since 1987. By 2005, the population had grown to include more than 150 wolves distributed across nearly 6,000 km² of private land (~ 70%) and public land (~30%). The public land included three national wildlife refuges (Alligator River NWR, Pocosin Lakes NWR, and Mattamuskeet NWR) which provided important protection to the wolves. Notably, the USFWS also estimated that over a dozen hybrid canids were also present in north-eastern North Carolina. 

However, by about 2012 the reintroduction project had become mired in significant conflict with landowners (primarily over Coyote management and general frustration with the USFWS’s implementation of the Red Wolf recovery programme) that led to a substantial increase in illegal killing of wolves. In response to these characterizations, starting in 2016 the USWFS began taking steps to significantly change the direction of the Red Wolf recovery programme. By 2016 and 2017, changes being cemented into action included: 1) improving the foundation of the captive breeding programme to ensure that the species did not go extinct; 2) restricting free-ranging Red Wolves to about 800 km² of federal lands in mainland Dare County, North Carolina, an area that can support no more than 20 or 30 such animals; 3) returning all Red Wolves found elsewhere in north-eastern North Carolina to captivity to assist with #1 or providing such animals with little or no federal protection; and 4) assessing potential sites throughout the south-eastern United States for future reintroduction projects. Absent successful reintroductions that result in the restoration of several hundred red wolves (at one or a few sites), recovery of the species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act will not be possible.

During 1991, a second reintroduction project was initiated at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee (Lucash et al. 1999). Thirty-seven Red Wolves were released from 1992 to 1998. Of these, 26 either died or were recaptured after straying onto private lands outside the Park (Henry 1998). Moreover, only five of the 32 pups known to have been born in the wild survived, but were removed from the wild during their first year (USFWS, unpubl.). Biologists suspect that disease, predation, malnutrition, and parasites contributed to the high rate of pup mortality (USFWS, unpubl.). Primarily because of the poor survival of wild-born offspring, the USFWS terminated the Tennessee restoration effort in 1998 (Henry 1998).
Actions de conservation (2)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_2Species recovery
Stress écologiques (3)Expert
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_3_1Hybridisation
Priorités de recherche (2)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (25)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 19 March 2020).
  2. IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).
  3. Gese, E. M., Knowlton, F.F., Adams, J.R., Beck, K., Fuller, T.K., Murray, D.L., Steury, T.D. et al. 2015. 2015. Managing hybridization of a recovering endangered species: The red wolf <i>Canis rufus</i> as a case study. . <i>Current Zoology </i> 61.
  4. Gese, E. M. and Terletzky, P.A. 2015. Using the “placeholder” concept to reduce genetic introgression of an endangered carnivore. <i>Biological Conservation </i> 192: 11–19.
  5. Chambers, S.M., Fain, S.R., Fazio, B. and Amaral, M. 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. <i>North American Fauna</i> 77: 1-67.
  6. Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), <i>Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition</i>, pp. 532-628. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
  7. Phillips, M. K., Henry, V. G. and Kelly, B. T. 2003. Restoration of the red wolf. In: L. D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds), <i>Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation</i>, pp. 272-288. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  8. Nowak, R. M. 2002. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. <i>Southeastern Naturalist</i> 1: 95-130.
  9. Kelly, B. P. 2000. Red wolf recovery adaptive work plan FY00–FY02. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
  10. Hahn, D. 2000. Predicting wolf habitat in eastern North Carolina using landscape-scale habitat variables. M.Sc. Dissertation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University.
  11. Kelly, B. T., Miller, P. S. and Seal, U. S. (eds). 1999. <i>Population and habitat viability assessment workshop for the red wolf (</i>Canis rufus<i>)</i>. SSC/IUCN Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA.
  12. Lucash, C. F., Crawford, B. A. and Clark, J. D. 1999. Species repatriation: red wolf. In: J. D. Piene (ed.), <i>Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve cooperative</i>, pp. 225-246. Lewis Publishers. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
  13. Henry, V. G. 1998. Notice of termination of the red wolf reintroduction project in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. <i>Federal Register</i> 63: 54151-54153.
  14. Phillips, M. K., Smith, R., Henry, V. G. and Lucas, C. 1995. Red wolf reintroduction program. In: L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip (eds), <i>Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World</i>, pp. 157-168. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
  15. Nowak, R. M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. In: L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip (eds), Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world: proceedings of the second North American symposium on wolves, pp. 375-397. Edmonton, Canada.
  16. Parker, W. T. and Phillips, M. K. 1991. Application of the experimental population designation to recovery of endangered red wolves. <i>Wildlife Society Bulletin</i> 19: 73-79.
  17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Red wolf recovery and species survival plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  18. Parker, W. T. 1986. A technical proposal to re-establish the red wolf on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, NC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  19. Christensen, N., Burchell, R., Liggett, A. and Simms, E. 1981. The structure and development of pocosin vegetation. In: C. J. Richardson (ed.), <i>Pocosin wetlands</i>, pp. 43-62. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
  20. Nowak, R. M. 1979. North American Quaternary <i>Canis</i>. <i>Monograph of the Museum Natural History, University of Kansas</i> 6: 1-154.
  21. Shaw, J. H. 1975. Ecology, behavior, and systematics of the red wolf (<i>Canis rufus</i>). Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University.
  22. Carley, C. J. 1975. Activities and findings of the red wolf recovery program from late 1973 to July 1, 1975. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
  23. Paradiso, J. L. and Nowak, R. M. 1972. <i>Canis rufus</i>. <i>Mammalian Species</i> 22: 1-4.
  24. Riley, G. A. and McBride, R. T. 1972. A survey of the red wolf (<i>Canis rufus</i>). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.
  25. Paradiso, J. L. and Nowak, R. M. 1971. A report on the taxonomic status and distribution of the red wolf. Special Science Report--Wildlife. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Phillips, M.
evaluator
Boitani, L., Sillero-Zubiri, C. & Hoffmann, M.
facilitators
Hoffmann, M.
1 erratum publié après l'évaluation.

Phillips, M. 2018. Canis rufus (errata version published in 2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T3747A163509841. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Répartition mondiale (heatmap GBIF)Construction en cours

0 obs · 0 cellules
Construction par partitions temporelles GBIF0%

Source : GBIF — observations agrégées par hexagones 0.2° × 0.2° (~22km). Filtre qualité : précision coordonnée < 10 km. Coloration quantile (q50/70/90/99). Fond carte : OpenFreeMap · © OpenStreetMap.

Distribution mondiale

Calcul de la distribution GBIF· ~10–60 s

Phénologie

Calcul du calendrier d'apparition· ~5–30 s

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Canis lupus floridanusMiller, 1912
  • Canis lupus gregoryiGoldman, 1937
  • Canis lupus rufusAudubon & Bachman, 1851

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).