February 2006 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 33

Swift Fox

(Vulpes velox)

General information

The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is one of the smallest members of the canid family in North America. 

Closely related to the kit fox, swift foxes were once 

abundant in the Great Plains Region of the United 

States and Canada. Due to predator control activities directed at other species and conversion of native prairie to agricultural lands following European 

settlement in the late 1800s and early 1900s, swift fox 

populations declined rapidly. Swift foxes were recently a candidate for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act in the United States, but were removed 

from that list in 2001 based on viable populations still 

occurring in approximately 40 percent of those areas 

formerly occupied. In Canada, the swift fox was extirpated in the 1930s, but a successful repatriation program changed their status from extirpated to endangered in 1998, reflecting the continually improving 

and expanding population.

Swift foxes have buffy-gray backs, orange-tan sides, 

whitish throats, chests, and bellies, black-tipped, 

bushy tails, and black patches on either side of their 

noses. In the winter, their fur becomes thick and soft. 

Adult swift foxes weigh less than six pounds and body 

length seldom exceeds 34 inches. Swift foxes are monogamous and pair for life. They are primarily nocturnal and use dens year-round, unlike other members of 

the canid family.

This leaflet is intended to provide an introduction to 

the habitat requirements of the swift fox and to assist 

landowners and land managers in developing management strategies that will benefit the swift fox as part 

of an overall grassland management plan. The success of any management plan depends on targeting 

the needs of the species involved while considering 

the needs of the people managing the land. This leaflet provides management recommendations that can 

be carried out to maintain existing swift fox range and 

to create additional habitat. Land managers are encouraged to collaborate with wildlife professionals to 

identify and attain management objectives.

Range

The swift fox is native to the short- and mixedgrass prairies of the Great Plains Region. Until the 

late 1800s to early 1900s, swift foxes were common 

or abundant in North and South Dakota, Montana, 

Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, 

New Mexico, Texas, and southern portions of Alberta 

and Saskatchewan. In the 1850s, fox numbers began 

to decline and by the 1930s only sporadic observations were reported. This decline is largely attributed 

to inadvertent poisoning from strychnine-laced baits 

for gray wolves; intense trapping; and modification, 

degradation, loss, and fragmentation of native grasslands. Approximately 45 percent of swift fox habitat 

throughout the historic range has been lost as a result 

of prairie conversion to cropland. Even where natural 

prairies remain, they are often fragmented and isolated, reducing habitat and prey while increasing predation and competition. The prairie ecosystem itself has 

changed due to fire suppression and domestic livestock grazing, making it difficult for populations of 

swift fox to persist.

Currently, swift foxes occur in low abundance in 

Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota; are abundant in Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming; and are locally common in parts of Texas, New Mexico, and 

Oklahoma. Approximately 40 percent of the swift 

fox’s historical range in the United States is currently 

occupied by swift fox.

Axel Moehrenschlager, Wildlife Preservation Trust Canada

Swift fox (Vulpes velox)
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

2

Habitat requirements

General

Swift foxes typically prefer short- or mixed-grass prairie with flat to gently rolling terrain and low-growing 

sparse vegetation that allows for good mobility and 

visibility. Habitats within the short-grass and mixedgrass prairie ecosystems are able to provide the essentials for swift fox survival. These essentials include a diverse prey base, topography that allows long 

viewing distances to detect predators, and firm, friable 

soils suitable for dens. Swift foxes tend to avoid areas 

of dense shrubs and tall vegetation, which, because of 

their small size, limit their vision and movements.

Food

Swift foxes are opportunistic foragers, meaning they 

can successfully adapt their diet to the availability of 

food items. They feed on a variety of mammals, birds, 

arthropods, plants, and carrion. Mammals, particularly rodents, dominate their diet which also includes 

jackrabbits, cottontails, insects, small birds, lizards, 

amphibians, and fish. Insects and birds become an important food source in late summer and early fall.

Cover

Swift foxes spend most of the daylight hours in or 

near dens. They use dens year round for protection 

from extreme climate conditions (summer and winter), as escape cover from predators, and as a shelter 

for rearing young.

Dens are usually located in short-grass and mixedgrass prairie, but have been found in cultivated dryland wheat fields or other human-made habitats. They 

are built on sloping plains, hilltops, or other welldrained sites. Swift foxes prefer sites with loamy 

soils, where dens are easily dug. Claylike soils are difficult to dig and are avoided by swift foxes. Swift foxes will excavate their own dens or enlarge burrows of 

ground squirrels, prairie dogs, badgers, or other animals. Dens can be located by looking for mounds of 

earth in front of each entrance. Entrances are circular 

or keyhole in shape, approximately 7 to 9 inches in diameter, and there may be more than one entrance to a 

given den. Pup-rearing dens have numerous entrances, whereas, dens used to escape from predators frequently have only one opening.

Each family group often has a number of clustered 

den sites. The maximum span between dens is approximately 550 yards. A larger den is used during 

pup-rearing season than at other times of the year. 

Other, smaller dens are used primarily for escape 

cover from predators or shelter from the weather. 

Access to dens is important for evading predators; as 

the number of available dens increases within a family’s area of activity, it is likely that their survival rates 

also increase. Swift foxes are primarily nocturnal; although, they may occasionally be seen during the daytime. In the winter, foxes may sun in the warm midday period, whereas, during the summer months, late 

morning and early evening are the only daylight hours 

spent above ground. They usually emerge from their 

dens shortly after sunset for hunting.

Swift foxes begin their breeding season in late 

December or early January in the southern portion 

of their range, and as late as March in the northern 

portion of their range. Gestation is approximately 51 

days, and litter sizes range from one to seven pups, 

born in early spring. Pups live in the pup-rearing den 

until late May/early June, after which they frequent 

temporary dens in the immediate vicinity, but return 

to the pup-rearing den every 4 to 5 days. Young foxes typically disperse in autumn, when they are 4 to 6 

months old.

Water

The swift fox’s native habitat is generally semi-arid 

where freestanding water is often rare. Therefore, the 

swift fox can remain in water balance with food alone 

and can probably survive without freestanding water. 

However, water may be necessary for the survival of 

particular mammals and birds on which the swift fox 

preys.

Current and historic ranges of the swift fox in North 

America (from Cotterill 1997)
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

3

Minimum habitat area

The average adult swift fox frequents a core area of 

approximately 0.85 square miles. During breeding season or when food resources are scarce, swift foxes 

travel outside this core area to what is known as the 

home range. Home range for swift foxes is estimated 

at 2.9 to 13.2 square miles. If conditions are favorable, 

swift fox families’ home ranges can overlap. However, 

recent data provide evidence that swift foxes are territorial, as there is a near total exclusion of an individual’s core area from other same-sex individuals.

Limiting factors

Major limiting factors for swift fox populations include the availability and quality of the habitat requirements described above. Conversion of native 

grassland prairies is one of the most important factors for contraction of swift fox range. Further conversion of grassland to cropland threatens the survival of swift foxes. While the swift fox population has 

declined in human-altered habitats, those of predators 

and competitors (coyotes, red foxes, gray foxes) have 

thrived.

Predation by and interspecific competition with coyotes and expansion of red fox populations are the two 

most serious limiting factors to swift fox recolonization of suitable habitat identified within the species’ 

historic range. More swift foxes are killed by coyotes 

than by any other means. Coyotes will often kill, but 

not consume, swift foxes, due to interspecific competition between the species. The swift fox’s other predators include golden eagles, American badgers, red 

foxes, bobcats, large hawks, and great horned owls. 

While interspecific relations between swift fox and 

red fox populations are not well understood, cropland 

dominated landscapes are often occupied by red fox, 

which may exclude swift fox populations.

Other, more minor limiting factors include inadvertent loss to trapping and road kill. Trappers who are 

attempting to catch other species sometimes catch 

swift foxes inadvertently. Using target-specific trapping methods can reduce this. In some areas, swift 

foxes den along roadsides, making them vulnerable 

to road kill. While difficult to control, road kill can be 

limited by posting signs and reducing speeds along rural roads in areas where swift foxes are present.

Table 1 is an example inventory chart for recording 

limiting factors. For planning purposes, fill in this table to determine the potential of a given area to support swift fox populations. Rate the habitat components and limiting factors for the designated planning 

Axel Moehrenschlager, Wildlife Preservation Trust Canada

Swift fox pups disperse from their parents when they 

are 4 to 6 months old. 

Habitat component Availability/quality

High Medium Low Absent

Flat or gently rolling terrain with 

low-growing, sparse vegetation

Food

Escape cover

Minimum habitat area

Limiting factor Quantity/degree of interference

Absent Low Medium High

Predator populations

Competitor populations

Table 1 Inventory of limiting factors
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

4

area based on the above descriptions. Habitat components that are absent from the area, or are available in 

low quantity or quality, are probably limiting swift fox 

populations. High prevalence of limiting factors may 

likewise indicate an unhealthy ecosystem or lead to a 

habitat imbalance in the future. Management actions 

should be targeted to address factors determined to 

be limiting swift fox populations.

Habitat management recommendations

Historically, short- and mixed-grass prairies consisted of a complex pattern of distinct patches of grasses 

and forbs, created by disturbances. Factors shaping 

shortgrass prairie landscapes included fire, grazing by 

native herbivores, and climate. The decrease in grassland habitat, due to destruction and/or lack of management, and the decline of swift fox populations are 

directly related. Ideally, land management should replicate the timing, intensity, and distribution of natural disturbances that shaped the shortgrass prairie. 

Detailed below are several ways land managers can 

establish additional prairie habitat and improve the 

quality of existing habitats.

Prairie restoration

Degraded lands or land used for other purposes can 

be converted to prairie to increase habitat for swift 

fox and other grassland species. The Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) has revegetated millions of 

acres of cropland to grass cover. However, in many 

areas of the shortgrass prairie ecosystem, CRP fields 

have been planted to tallgrass prairie species. While 

tallgrass species are native, they exist only to a limited extent in shortgrass soils and climates, and are unsuitable for swift fox habitat. Seeding mixtures should 

be selected based on the soil type and climate of the 

region. Native short and mixed grasses usually associated with swift fox habitat include blue grama 

(Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), needleleaf sedge (Carex duriscula), and western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii).

When attempting to restore grasslands, site preparation is critical. Selected sites should be wide open and 

higher in elevation than the surrounding land. Prior to 

seeding, the designated area should be cleared of undesirable vegetation to reduce competition when new 

seeds are planted. This can be performed manually or 

by applying a nonpersistent herbicide. It may be necessary to repeat this step several times if regrowth occurs, but seeding should be delayed at least 2 weeks 

following an herbicide treatment. Seeding can be 

done in the spring or fall with a specialized seed drill. 

Prairies may take several years before becoming fully established, but they offer a significant contribution to wildlife. For more information on native warmseason grasses, refer to Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet Number 25: Native Warm-Season 

Grasses and Wildlife.

Managed grazing

Today, livestock grazing is a major source of disturbance in the shortgrass prairie. However, domestic 

livestock grazing does not necessarily mimic the intense grazing and trampling by migratory herds of bison, under which the dominant sod-forming perennial grassland plant species of the shortgrass prairie 

evolved. Absence of once-abundant prairie dogs on 

the shortgrass prairie has also limited the type of disturbance generated by their colonies. Managing for 

swift fox and other shortgrass prairie wildlife species requires a mosaic of habitats produced by varying grazing regimes and other disturbances across 

the landscape. Much of today’s grazing tends to be 

spread evenly in intensity, producing a comparatively uniform landscape. In addition to improving forage 

for livestock, adopting rotational and other managed 

grazing patterns can help maintain prairie habitat for 

swift foxes. Season-long grazing and overstocking can 

diminish habitat quality. Thus, a rotational or deferred 

grazing system is recommended. These systems are 

managed by dividing pastures up into several paddocks and then grazing them rotationally or deferring 

grazing in some areas for a period of time. Because 

large grassland patches are more attractive to swift 

fox and other short, grassland-dependent species, 

pastures and other grassland parcels should be managed as large units (minimum 125 acres). To achieve 

the patch mosaic required to attract swift foxes, some 

grazing allotments need to be grazed more intensely 

than others. Maintaining a variety of grazing regimes, 

including some heavy grazing and some idle pastures, 

Predation by coyotes is the number one cause of on a rotational schedule, will provide the mosaic of 

death of swift foxes.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

5

structural states across the landscape beneficial to 

swift fox and other shortgrass prairie wildlife.

Prescribed burning

Burning is also an effective tool in grassland management. In the shortgrass prairie, fire historically played 

a smaller role than in the more lush tallgrass prairie systems found to the east. When applied properly, fire can control invasive and woody vegetation and 

cacti, maintain various stages of plant growth, and 

promote biodiversity and prairie health. Shortgrass 

prairie grasses recover slowly from burning, requiring 2 to 3 years with normal precipitation for recovery. Managed burns should be conducted rotationally at intervals of 5 to 8 years, allowing approximately 

65 to 75 percent of grassland, in blocks at least a half 

mile wide, to remain undisturbed annually. Firebreaks 

should be used to contain fires on prescribed areas. 

Burning during the growing season, when vegetation 

is physiologically active, results in significant declines 

in buffalograss, grama grasses, and forbs. Therefore, 

dormant-season burning may be the preferable method for restoring fire in shortgrass prairie ecosystems 

where fire has been excluded for a prolonged time period. Prescribed burning is a technical process that 

should be conducted under the direction of wildlife 

management professionals and in compliance with all 

state and local regulations.

Patch burning

Patch burning, also known as rotational grazing without fences or fire-grazing interaction, is a management practice that combines rotational grazing with 

prescribed burning. Large-scale uniform burns and 

poorly managed grazing systems can be detrimental to livestock production and wildlife habitat. Patch 

burning provides an alternative to traditional fire and 

grazing programs and a practical way to restore swift 

fox habitat. Patch burning allows grazing and fire to 

interact to cause a shifting vegetation pattern across 

the landscape.

Patch burning is accomplished by applying spatially discrete fires to approximately a third of a management unit and allowing grazers free access to both 

burned and unburned patches. Livestock will focus 

grazing on higher-quality forage on recently burned 

patches until new patches are burned. When grazing shifts to newly burned patches, patches previously burned have abundant forbs and begin to return 

to grass dominance. When patches return to grass 

dominance they are burned again, restarting the cycle. Landscapes with these distinct patches resemble 

the mosaic characteristic of historical grasslands and 

provide a diverse choice of habitats for wildlife that 

cannot be created by continuous grazing or rotational grazing within years. The appropriate frequency of 

fire in a patch burn landscape varies by climate.

Mowing

Although not as effective as burning, mowing and haying can be used to achieve similar results in prairie 

management. Mowing is useful in controlling weeds 

and promoting growth of desirable vegetation. As 

with burns, it is most advantageous to mow on a rotational schedule at 3- to 5-year intervals.

Disking

Light disking can be performed to maintain sections of non-native grasslands at an early successional stage. Strips should be rotationally disked to a 

depth of 2 to 4 inches at an interval of 3 to 5 years. No 

more than a third of a field should be disked annually. Disking can also be performed to create firebreaks 

around prescribed burn areas.

Reducing predation and competition

Interspecific competition with and predation by coyotes is one of the most important limiting factors to 

swift fox populations. Reducing coyote populations 

NRCS

A rancher practices rotational grazing by moving livestock from one paddock to another.

When applied properly, prescribed burns can maintain 

vegetation preferred by the swift fox.

NRCS
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

6

may be an important element of efforts to enhance 

swift fox populations in some areas. However, coyote control may actually be detrimental to swift fox 

habitat under certain circumstances, as red fox may 

move into areas vacated by coyotes. Coyote control 

for swift fox should only be done in conjunction with 

swift fox habitat restoration and enhancement. Where 

undertaken, coyote control measures must be conducted in a manner that does not inadvertently harm 

swift foxes.

Program Land eligibility Type of assistance Contact

Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP)

Highly erodible land, 

wetland, and certain other 

lands with cropping history, 

streamside areas in pasture 

land

50% cost-share for establishing permanent 

cover and conservation practices, and annual rental payments for land enrolled in 

10- to 15-year contracts. Additional financial incentives for some practices

NRCS or FSA 

state or local 

office

Conservation of 

Private Grazing 

Land (CPGL)

Private grazing lands Technical assistance on managing grazing 

lands for natural resource protection as 

well as economic and community benefits

NRCS state or 

local office

Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP)

Cropland, range, grazing 

land, and other agricultural 

land

Up to 75% cost-share for conservation 

practices in accordance with 1- to 10-year 

contracts. Incentive payments for certain 

management practices

NRCS state or 

local office

Grassland Reserve Program 

(GRP)

Restored, improved or natural grassland, rangeland, 

pastureland, and prairie

Easement payments to landowners who 

restore and protect grasslands

NRCS state or 

local office

Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program (PFW)

Most degraded fish and/or 

wildlife habitat

Up to 100% financial and technical assistance to restore wildlife habitat under a 

minimum 10-year cooperative agreement

Local office of 

the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife 

Service

Waterways for 

Wildlife

Private lands Technical and program development assistance to coalesce habitat efforts of corporations and private landowners to meet 

common watershed level goals

Wildlife Habitat Council

Wetlands Reserve Program 

(WRP)

Previously degraded wetland and adjacent upland 

buffer, with limited amount 

of natural wetland and existing or restorable riparian 

areas

75% cost-share for wetland restoration 

under 10-year contracts and 30-year easements, and 100% cost-share on restoration 

under permanent easements. Payments for 

purchase of 30-year or permanent conservation easements

NRCS state or 

local office

Wildlife at Work Corporate lands Technical assistance on developing habitat 

projects into programs that allow companies to involve employees and the community

Wildlife Habitat Council

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program (WHIP)

High-priority fish and wildlife habitatsUp to 75% cost-share for conservation practices under 5- to 10-year contracts, and up 

to 100% cost-share on 15-year contracts

NRCS state or 

local office

Table 2 Technical and finanacial assistance to develop fish and wildlife habitat on private lands

Available assistance

Technical and financial assistance is available to landowners through a variety of government agencies 

and other organizations. Landowners and managers 

should enlist the expertise of state and local natural 

resource professionals to help assess habitat quality and management practices for sustaining swift fox 

populations and enhancing habitat quality. Table 2 

lists programs and organizations that can provide assistance with improving habitat conditions for swift 

fox and other wildlife in rangeland settings.
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

7

References

Cotterill, S.E. 1997. Status of the swift fox (Vulpes 

velox) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 

7, Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife 

Management Division, Edmonton, Alberta, 

Canada.

Cutter, W.L. 1958. Denning of the swift fox in northern 

Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 39: 70-774.

Floyd, B.L. 1983. The little known swift fox. Wyoming 

Wildlife 47 (February 1983): 26-27.

Fuhlendorf, S.D. and D.M. Engle. 2004. Application 

of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting 

mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 41: 604-614.

Hillman, C.N. and J.C. Sharps. 1978. Return of swift 

fox to northern Great Plains. Proceedings of the 

South Dakota Academy of Science 57: 154-162.

Kamler, J.F., W.B. Ballard, E.B. Fish, P.R. Lemons, K. 

Mote, and C.C. Perchelleta. 2003. Habitat use, 

home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a 

fragmented landscape: conservation implications. 

Journal of Mammalogy 84: 989-995.

Kilgore, D.L., Jr. 1969. An ecological study of the swift 

fox (Vulpes velox) in the Oklahoma panhandle. 

American Midland Naturalist 81: 512-534.

Sovada, M.A. and L. Carbyn, editors. 2003. Ecology 

and conservation of swift foxes in a changing 

world. Canadian Plains Research Center, 

University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, 

Canada.

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Swift 

fox (Vulpes velox): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.

us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/swiftfox.pdf.
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

8

Primary author: Raissa Marks, Wildlife Habitat Council. Drafts reviewed by: Rob Pauline, Wildlife Habitat 

Council; Charlie Rewa, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Matt Peak, Kansas Department of Wildlife 

and Parks; Julianne Whitaker Hoagland, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; Marsha Sovada, 

U.S. Geological Survey; and Lu Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Wildlife Habitat Council

8737 Colesville Road, Suite 800

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

(301) 588-8994

The mission of the Wildlife Habitat Council 

is to increase the amount of quality wildlife 

habitat on corporate, private, and public land. 

WHC engages corporations, public agencies, 

and private, non-profit organizations on a 

voluntary basis as one team for the recovery, 

development, and preservation of wildlife 

habitat worldwide.

www.wildlifehc.org

© 1988 WHC

WILDLIFE HABITAT COUNCILSM

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

Mailing address:

P.O. Box 2890

Washington, DC 20013

Street address:

14th and Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20250

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

provides leadership in a partnership effort to 

help people conserve, maintain, and improve 

our natural resources and environment.