RED WOLF RECOVERY PLAN

(Original Approved: July 12, 1982)

Prepared by:

Warren T. Parker

Red Wolf Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Asheville, North Carolina

Roland Smith

Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium

Tacoma, Washington

Tom Foose

Captive Breeding Specialist Group

Species Survival Comission/IUCN

St. Paul, Minnesota

U. S. Seal

Captive Breeding

Species Survival

St. Paul,

Chairman

Specialist Group

Commi ssion/IUCN

Minnesota

for

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlanta, Georgia

October 1990

Approved:

October 26, 1990

Date:
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be

required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are published

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the

assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and

others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made

available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the

parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities.

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the .views nor the

official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies

involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by

the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery

plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings,

changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Red Wolf Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 110 pp.

Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Phone: 301/492-6403 or

1 -800/582-3421

The fee for a plan varies depending on the number of pages in the

plan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

PART I:

INTRODUCTION

Historic Overview

The Recovery Program

Reintroduction Efforts .

Recovery Potential

PART II:

A STRATEGY FOR CONSERVATION BASED ON VIABLE

POPULATIONS

3

3

9

• . • 12

• . . 18

• . . 21

PART III:

R~D WOLF SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN •

PART IV:

RECOVERY STRATEGY

Goal

Narrative

Literature Cited

PART V:

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PART VI:

LIST OF REVIEWERS

1

• . 4-

28

79

79

80

91

95

103
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE RED WOLF RECOVERY PLAN

Current Status: This species is listed as endangered. Although

thought to be extinct in the wild by 1980, recent recovery efforts

have placed small numbers of red wolves at four locations within the

species’ historic range. One is a major reintroduction site in

northeastern North Carolina, and the other three are island

propagation projects. At the present time there are 135 red wolves

in existence--115 in various captive facilities and 20 in the wild.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Large areas of habitat of

at least 170,000 acres in size are required by this species,

preferably dedicated units of National Wildlife Refuge lands and

National Park Service properties. The absence of coyotes is

preferable, but low to moderate populations of these competitors

should not exclude an area from consideration. Human attitudes

regarding wolves are probably the most significant single factor

involved in recovery planning for these animals.

Recovery Objective: The establishment of 220 red wolves in wild

situations and the maintenance of 330 in captivity would provide for

genetic stability and maintain the species. For the foreseeable

future it is not considered feasible to either delist or downlist

this species.

Recovery Criteria: Establish and maintain at least three

reintroduction projects within the historic range of the red wolf.

This must be paralleled by the cooperation and assistance of at least

30 captive—breeding facilities in the United States. Human attitudes

regarding red wolves must be addressed through education processes.

Actions Needed

:

1. Maintain and evaluate existing wild populations.

2. Establish new populations in the wild.

3. Expand captive-breeding capabilities.

4. Expand cryopreservation capabil ities.

Costs ($000’s):

Year Need 1 Need 2 Need 3 Need 4 Total

1990 195.0 50.0 188.0 12.0 445.0

1991 225.0 230.0 208.0 10.5 673.5

1992 368.5 300.0 260.0 20.0 948.5

1993 400.0 250.0 200.0 20.0 870.0

1994 500.0 150.0 200.0 10.0 860.0

1995 500.0 100.0 100.0 10.0 710.0

Date of Recovery: A reassessment of the red wolf recovery program

should be made in 1995, and more realistic projections should be

formulated then.
PREFACE

The red wolf (Canis rufus) was one of the first endangered species to

attract recovery attention by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) after the passage of the Endangered Species Act on

December 28, 1973. An interim recovery team was appointed on

August 4, 1974, and in January 1975, it received official sanction by

the Service.

By mid-1975 it became apparent that the only way the red wolf could

be saved from extinction was to capture as many wild animals as

possible and place them in a secured captive-breeding program.

In July 1982, a Red Wolf Recovery Plan was approved by the Director

of the Service. This plan was revised, updated, and approved on

September 18, 1984. The original recovery team was disbanded, and a

new team was appointed by the Southeast Regional Director of the

Service in 1986.

A major step toward recovery for the species has been the apparently

successful reintroduction of wolves at the Alligator River National

Wildlife Refuge in 1987. Some of these captive-born-and-raised

animals are adjusting to a wild environment and have reproduced in

the wild. Considerable public interest in the plight of the red wolf

and reintroduction attempts has developed.

In May 1988, Service officials met with genetic and demographic

specialists in Apple Valley, Minnesota, to develop population goals

for the red wolf. Because captive breeding has played such a

decisive role in the survival of the species, it was determined that

a completely revised Red Wolf Recovery Plan should be integrated into

a Species Survival Plan (SSP). A Species Survival Plan is the

zoological community’s plan for addressing biological and

organizational questions regarding long-term propagation of an

endangered species. Species survival planning is done under the

auspices of the American Association of Zoological Parks and

Aquariums (AAZPA).

This combined plan is therefore intended to serve as a guide that

delineates and schedules actions believed necessary to restore the

red wolf as a component of certain ecosystems within the Southeastern

United States. It is a multifaceted plan, incorporating

captive-breeding objectives as well as reintroduction and

propagation-in-the-wild strategies.

Red wolf reintroductions into the wild will entail coordinated and

cooperative efforts from many local, State, and Federal entities and

national environmental organizations, as well as the cooperation of

private and corporate landowners in many areas of the Southeast.

Complete species recovery permitting delisting will probably never be

achieved for the red wolf. It is realistic, however, to restore

carefully managed disjunct populations within portions of its
2

historic range and to secure the genetic integrity of the species.

Addressing 1988 recovery amendments to the Endangered Species Act

becomes difficult in light of specific obstacles that will surely

frustrate red wolf recovery objectives. Defining those monetary and

time requirements that would be represented as achieving delisting

depends to a great extent on the success of a current experimental

release of red wolves into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in

western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. If this study

demonstrates that red wolves successfully compete with resident

coyotes, then objectives as set forth in this plan can likely be

achieved. If, however, it becomes evident that the two wild canids

exhibit social interactions and interbreeding, then the fate of the

red wolf will likely rest with island sanctuaries where the genetic

integrity of Canis rufus can be maintained only through long-term

management.
3

PART I

INTRODUCTION

The primary long-range goal of the Red Wolf Recovery Program has

always been to reintroduce this extinct-in-the-wild species into

portions of its historic range. The red wolf has been characterized

by several writers as the “Flying Dutchman” of the wildlife world--a

species without a safe haven since the early 1970s. This plan is

prepared in an effort to bring forward the latest information

available on the historical status of the species, the various

factors that led to its ultimate demise in the wild, and the planning

being made to recover this unique animal in portions of its historic

range.

Historic Overview

The Genus Canis in North America

Taxonomists generally agree that there are three living species of

wild Canis in North America--the coyote (~. latrans), the gray wolf

(~. ]jwjjj), and the red wolf. The gray wolf is circumpolar in

distribution and is represented by over 30 subspecies worldwide.

This robust animal once occurred throughout North America,

represented by 24 subspecies whose range extended from Southern

Mexico northward to Greenland and Ellesmere Island (Hall and Kelson

1959). The coyote was originally found throughout most of the

western half of North America, and in the last 40 years its range has

been expanding eastward. The red wolf appears to be a species that,

for a variety of factors, was adapted to the Southeastern United

States.

Taxonomic Status of the Red Wolf

The canids of the Southeast have been assigned various scientific and

common names, primarily by people who had not closely studied the

animals. Bartram (1791) first described the red wolf in Florida, but

writings dating back over 300 years mention wolves throughout the

Southeastern United States, from central Texas to Florida and north

to the Ohio River Valley. Audubon and Bachman, in their classic work

(1851), were the first to suggest that in the southern states there

existed a wolf that was structurally different from other wolves they

had seen. They described the “Black American Wolf” as occurring only

in Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, southern

Indiana, southern Missouri, Louisiana, and northern Texas. They also

discussed the “Red Texan Wolf,” which they thought ranged from

northern Arkansas through Texas and into Mexico, but believed all the

wolves they described were only varieties of one species.

Unfortunately, the red wolf was exterminated from most of its range

by the early part of this century (Nowak 1972). Few specimens were
4

preserved, and there were no definitive descriptions of the animal’s

appearance or life history. Because of this, we know little of the

animal under natural conditions. During the late 1800s and early

1900s significant revisions were initiated in the taxonomy of this

unique wolf. Bangs (1898) determined that the Florida wolf should be

elevated to full species level (Canis i~r), while Bailey (1905)

elevated Audubon and Bachman’s “Red Texan Wolf to a full species as

Canis rufus. Bailey assigned this new species to a range in southern

and central Texas. Vernon Bailey was the chief field naturalist of

the U.S. Biological Survey (predecessor of the Service) and was the

first knowledgeable biologist to examine the wild canids of Texas.

He found the small red wolf of the south-central part of the State to

differ so greatly from the larger gray wolf of the plains just to the

west that the two deserved to be treated as completely different

species. Miller (1912) designated the Florida wolf as Canis

floridanus, which generally became accepted for all wolves in the

forested areas of the Southeastern United States, while C. rufus

continued to be recognized in central and southern Texas (Nowak

1979).

Years later, Edward A. Goldman (Goldman 1944), senior biologist with

the U.S. Biological Survey, examined a larger number of canid

specimens and found that the Texas red wolf intergraded in

characteristics with the canids across the Southeastern United States

to Florida, including a continuity of key cranial and dental

features. Goldman thus consigned all of the wolves of the Southeast

to one species, ~. rijfij~,. By the time of the publication of this

revisionary work in 1944, the red wolf had already been extirpated

east of the Mississippi River. Goldman listed C. r. rufus for the

small Texas subspecies, C. r. floridanus for the eastern subspecies,

and C. r. gregorvi in the lower Mississippi Valley. Goldman’s

nomenclature persists to the present time (see Plate 1).

Later investigators have generally supported Goldman’s

classification. An exception to this is Lawrence and Bossert (1967),

at Harvard University, who performed a multiple character analysis of

North American Canis. This study involved carefully measuring a

series of skulls and subjecting the resulting figures to numerical

analysis by computer. The skulls included those of 20 gray wolves,

20 coyotes, 20 domestic dogs (~. familiaris), and a small number of

red wolves collected before 1920. The results of their study

suggested that the red wolf was close enough to the gray wolf to be

considered only a subspecies of the latter (Lawrence and Bossert

1967).

Paradiso (1968) and Nowak (1979) suggested that Lawrence and

Bossert’s sample size had been too small and did not truly represent

the great geographic and individual variation of the canids.

Paradiso and Nowak (1971) sampled a large number of skulls of

C. rufj~, C. lupus, and C. latrans and concluded that the red wolf

was a distinct species.
5

2’ ate 1.. Map showing localities of C. rufus from archeological sites

(triangles), and fossil C. rufus (black dots). The solid lines show the

distribution of subspecies; C. rufusruffus (R), C. r~~s~~orvi (G),

and C. rufus floridanus (F). ~ecause of scale of map, it is not poss—

ble to plot all localities ~n crowded areas. (From NOWAK: 1979).
6

Later, Nowak (1979), in examining the systematic problems in the

genus Canis in North America, conducted multivariate analyses on

approximately 5,000 canid skulls. His conclusions, as well as those

of Kurten and Anderson (1980), agree in the probable derivation of

the red wolf from a coyote/wolf ancestor and a later separation of

the gray wolf, which entered (or reentered) North America at a later

date. Nowak (1979) expressed his conclusion as follows:

“In nearly all measurements and other features in which

~. r~jfrj differs from ~.. ]jjpjj.~., the former approaches

~. ktLjn.j. Indeed, available specimens of the red wolf

almost bridge the morphological gap between the proximal

extremes of the other two species. Hybrid origin for

~. rufus thus seems to be one possibility, but there are

other solutions to the problem. The most reasonable

explanation is that ~. rufus represents a primitive line of

wolves that has undergone less change than £~. ].upij.j, and

has retained more characters found in the ancestral stock

from which both wolves and coyotes arose.”

In later assessing these conclusions, Nowak (1989) reaffirms his

position:

“That last particular statement reflects one of the

positions in my dissertation about which I feel most

confident. The original characters of ~. rufus can be

traced back long before hybridization would have begun,

even into the Pleistocene. ~. rufus did not have a hybrid

origin, but it does retain ancestral features, and thus it

is morphologically shifted away from ~,. lijrnj.~ in the

direction of C. latrans.

”

It is significant to note that Nowak (1989) continued his line of

thought by commenting that his above-referenced conclusion:

“...does not necessarily mean that C. rufus is a distinct

species. One could argue that, while ~,. rufus is

primitive, C. luous never became completely isolated from

it genetically, and that the two were blending to some

extent where their ranges met in North America.

Unfortunately, there are very few specimens from

appropriate times and places. My own samples showed so

little overlap that I considered it best to treat the two

as distinct species.”

In a comparative gross morphological study of the cerebellum in six

species of Canis, Atkins and Dillon (1971) confirmed the distinct

speciation of ~. ru.fu.~. and concluded that, while the red wolf is most

closely related to ~. ]J~pjJ.~, in its cerebellar features, it appeared

to be more primitive in several aspects than any of the other species

of ~ considered. A related study of canids from Missouri by

Elder and Hayden (1977) demonstrated, by multivariate analysis of
7

skulls collected, a complete separation of coyote, dog, gray wolf,

and red wolf. This investigation also revealed that during the 1940s

and 1950s there was an infusion of red wolf genes into the coyote

population as the red wolf was being exterminated in Missouri. This

information reinforces conclusions reached later by Nowak (1979) and

other researchers.

In a December 7, 1981, letter from Donald C. Morizot (1981), a

researcher at the University of Texas System Cancer Center, to

Service biologist Curtis J. Carley, Morizot set forth some of the

findings of his biochemical-genetic study of the evolution of canid

species. He stressed the fact that few biochemical-genetic

differences among living ~njs species have been discovered.

Morizot’s study (unpublished data)”, however, did detect “substantial

genetic variation at three enzyme loci” in red blood cell samples in

comparisons of dogs, coyotes, red wolves, and gray wolves. Samples

of red wolf blood cells examined resulted in an allele not seen in

any other Canis. He concluded that the red wolf is genetically more

similar to the coyote than the gray wolf but possesses an allele

unknown in coyotes. Additional data derived from skull measurements

of red wolves and coyotes in early collections convinced him of the

integrity of the red wolf as a separate form which should be

recognized as a small wolf which evolved in North America.

After Lawrence and Bossert (1967) published their contention that the

red wolf should be treated as a subspecies of the gray wolf, other

investigators have supported their findings, including Mech (1970).

It is interesting to note that the literature is not consistent in

the ancestral relationship of C. rufus in the genus Canis, even among

those investigators who support speciation. While Lawrence and

Bossert (1967) and Atkins and Dillon (1971) differ on the question of

speciation, both consider the red wolf to be closely allied to

C. lupus. Conversely, both Nowak (1979) and Morizot (1981) support

speciation but consider the red wolf to be more closely related to

C. latrans

.

At the time of this writing, efforts are underway to critically

assess biochemical variations within the wild canids of the United

States utilizing the latest techniques in analyzing blood chemistry

and DNA. It will probably be several years before definitive

information is available to either support or reject the issue of

speciation based on these tests. It should be noted, however, that

all factors, including morphological and others, will have to be

weighed in making any determination of speciation. No one single

test can be relied on in addressing this important concern. In the

interim the words of Clutton-Brock (1989) serve to guide red wolf

recovery efforts:

“I very much hope that you will be successful in your

efforts to conserve the red wolf, which (whether it is

called a race of Canis luous or a distinct species of wolf)

is clearly a distinctive wild canid that is in severe
8

danger of extinction and whose demise would mean a severe

loss of biological diversity within the dwindling groups of

large carnivores.”

The Service recognized the red wolf as a species in listing it as an

endangered species in 1967 (32 FR 4001). Subsequent Federal Register

notices regarding the red wolf include 1979 (44 FR 29571), 1980

(45 FR 33768-33781), and 1986 (51 FR 41790-41796).

Human Conflicts

When the first American settlers arrived in what are now the Southern

Atlantic States, they typically brought with them a deeply rooted

European fear and hatred for wolves. Many of these Old World

attitudes were founded on an animal that may have been more

aggressive than its North American counterpart. Whether more

aggressive or not, these Old World fears centered on the wolf as

being not only a menace to farm and flock, but also in league with

the Devil. Greek and Roman literature relate that men became wolves.

In the fifteenth century a council of theologians determined that

werewolves did exist (Young 1944).

With these ingrained fears, it,is little wonder that New World wolves

were pursued with a vengeance, and indeed, by 1920 C. r. floridanus

was extirpated in the Southern Atlantic States. The species, by this

time, had also vanished from southeastern Kansas and central Oklahoma

and from much of its former range in Texas. By the late 1930s it is

thought that only two viable concentrations of red wolves existed.

One was located in the Ozark/Ouachita Mountain region of Arkansas,

eastern Oklahoma, and southern Missouri, and the other was in the

still extensive river bottom forests and coastal regions of southern

Louisiana and southeast Texas (Nowak 1972).

Demise of the Species

Man played the major role in the extinction of the eastern subspecies

of red wolf, ~. r. floridanus. Fear and a gross misunderstanding of

the animal led to early bounties and indiscriminate killing.

Secondary impacts by man included extensive land-clearing and

drainage projects during the early 1900s. The advent of World War I,

with resultant logging and mineral exploration and road development,

opened up last vestiges of once remote habitat and probably was the

final blow that eliminated C. r. floridanus. These developments

probably had similar impacts on other large predators, including the

Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1981).

These conditions paralleled the decline of deer herds and other

forest wildlife prey which could have affected red wolf populations.

It is probably no coincidence that deer herds in the Southeast

reached an all-time low around 1920 (Barick 1951)--a date that

approximates the extinction of C. r. floridanus. With deer numbers
9

at all-time lows, wolves were probably forced into closer contact

with man and agricultural lands which typically harbored small prey

species such as rabbits. Free-ranging livestock undoubtedly

attracted some wolves with resulting wolf-related losses. All of

these factors contributed to intensified predator control efforts.

Beginning around 1920, enough forest habitat had been cut over in

eastern Texas and Oklahoma to intensify an eastward surge by

C. latrans. This adaptable species responded for reasons that go

beyond changes in land use. It appears that for thousands of years

C. latrans and C. rufus existed along a north-south line that roughly

bisected Texas and Oklahoma. As predator control efforts became more

efficient, the larger and more easily caught red wolf (Pimlott and

Joslin 1968) was totally removed from extensive areas, while in other

areas its social structure was destroyed. Into these vacated

habitats moved C. latrans (Paradiso and Nowak 1971). Over the years

the situation became more and more threatening for the red wolf, and

the possibility that the species was in danger of extinction was

finally noted by McCarley (1962).

Paradiso and Nowak (1971), in reviewing the circumstances that led to

the decline of C. r. rufus and C. r. gregoryi, pointed out that red

wolf museum specimens collected west of the Mississippi River after

the 1930s were much smaller than those collected prior to the 1930s.

These they describe as a “different kind of canid.” This situation

was especially prevalent in northeast Texas, southern Louisiana, and

portions of Arkansas where significant morphological diversity of

representative canids indicated hybridization between red wolves and

coyotes. This did not appear to be true in Oklahoma and Missouri

where C. latrans simply replaced C. rufus as a result of effective

control efforts.

By 1972, the range of the red wolf was eroded to a small coastal unit

that included parts of Liberty, Chambers, Jefferson, Brazoria,

Galveston, and Harris Counties in southeastern Texas, and Cameron and

Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana (Riley and McBride

1972). Here the red wolf continued to be menaced by man and an

ever-expanding coyote population that threatened to overwhelm the

species unless dramatic actions were taken.

The Recovery Proaram

In anticipation of the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the

Service established a formal recovery program for the red wolf in the

fall of 1973. Responsibility for the program was assigned to the

Texas office of the Service’s Division of Animal Damage Control in

San Antonio, Texas, with Curtis J. Carley the program project leader.

A Red Wolf Recovery Program office was established in Beaumont,

Texas, near the center of the remaining range of the species. With

the field program for the red wolf already underway, the Endangered

Species Act was passed on December 28, 1973.
10

The recovery program was established on the basis of information

indicating that a pure population of red wolves still existed in

southeast Texas and adjacent areas of Louisiana. However, field work

soon demonstrated that a “hybrid coyote-wolf swarm” had formed, first

in central Texas and then spreading eastward (Carley 1975). This

extensive hybridization apparently occurred only in the east-central

Texas portion of the species’ historic range (Paradiso and Nowak

1971). Among the canids of the area, wolves appeared to be in the

minority. As a consequence of this finding, the recovery program was

redirected from an objective of local preservation to one of planned

extirpation of the species in the wild. However, the decision to

remove the last red wolves from the wild could only be justified

through the development of a long-range objective to eventually

return the species to areas of its historic range.

The early Red Wolf Recovery Program was multifaceted. Since

approximately 98 percent of the final range of the species was in

private ownership, the first priority of the program was to respond

immediately to any and all canid damage complaints. This action gave

the program access to canid populations on private lands, reduced

human persecution of the species, and gained landowner cooperation.

While responding to damage complaints, the program had to

simultaneously develop methods for determining “pure” wolves and

wolf-like hybrids, establish a captive-breeding/certification

program, monitor and evaluate alleged red wolves already in the

Nation’s zoos, develop and disperse public information, and evaluate

sites and procedures for reestablishment of the species in the wild.

After proposals from several zoo facilities were solicited, a

captive-breeding/certification program was established on

November 26, 1973, through a cooperative agreement between the

Service and the Metropolitan Park Board of Tacoma, Washington. The

program was to be administered by the Board’s Point Defiance

Zoological Park. Coordination of the effort was administered by the

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Beaumont, Texas, Field Office.

Pending development of procedures for appointing endangered species

recovery teams under the new Endangered Species Act of 1973, the

Southwest Regional Office of the Service established an Interim Red

Wolf Recovery Team on August 4, 1974. Since a biological staff

already was working with the species, the purpose of the team was to

advise and administratively assist the program in accomplishing its

objectives. Team members were selected, not so much for their

biological knowledge, but for their knowledge of State and Federal

agency processes, procedures, and resources. Russel W. Clapper,

manager of the Service’s Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, was

selected as the team leader. Serving with Clapper were George R.

Abraham (Service), Joe Herring (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries), and Floyd Potter (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department).

A number of consultants were officially designated to advise the

recovery team, and arrangements were made for the team to confer with

anyone who might have special knowledge that would be helpful in
11

developing recommendations. The Interim Red Wolf Recovery Team held

its first working meeting in October 1974. Subsequently, the interim

team was officially appointed in January 1975.

Due to the urgency of implementing recovery actions for the species,

contracted studies were limited to those that would contribute

directly to the objective of recovery. Proposed research projects

were carefully evaluated for their potential for providing immediate

information that would significantly aid the program in meeting its

objectives. Only four projects were approved as having immediate

benefit to the species. These projects related to sonographic

analysis of canine vocalizations as an aid in locating and censusing

canids in the wild (McCarley and Carley 1978), electrophoretic and

chromosomal analysis of canids to aid in identification of red wolves

and wolf-like hybrids, development of techniques for x-raying skulls

of live canids to compare them with skulls of known wolves from

museum collections, and an evaluation of internal and external

parasites found in canine populations within the red wolf range.

Simultaneously, the demise of the species through hybridization with

the coyote was being documented. Due to the confusion of

characteristics displayed by the hybrid-infested population, no one

character could be used to identify true wolves. Therefore, a number

of indicators were used to determine whether an animal was a wolf.

Those indicators included skull x-rays, knowledge of other canids

examined from the same area, and the following minimum morphological

standards:

Male Femal e

Skull length 8.6 in. (215 mm) 8.4 in. (210 mm)

Zygomatic breadth 4.4 in. (110 mm) 4.4 in. (110 mm)

Weight 50 lb. (22.5 kg) 42 lb. (19 kg)

Total length 53 in. (1,346 mm) 51 in. (1,295 mm)

Hind foot length 9.0 in. (229 mm) 8.75 in. (222 mm)

Ear length 4.75 in. (120.6 mm) 4.50 in. (114.3 mm)

Shoulder height 27 in. (685.8 mm) 26.5 in. (673.1 mm)

Brain/Skull ratio 23 23.5

Canids determined to be possible wolves were placed in the

breeding/certification program or, if all facilities were full,

released with radio collars on public lands or where private

landowners gave permission. Since releasing captured coyotes and/or

hybrids would tend to alienate private landowners and would increase

the work load of the recovery effort due to unavoidable recaptures of

animals, all canids determined to not be wolves were euthanized and

their skeletal remains and data cards preserved as documentation of

the canine population that was examined through the program. When

the field program was concluded, all acquired specimens and data were

transferred to the U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., for

preservation and future reference.
12

From the fall of 1973 to July 1980, over 400 wild canids were

examined through the recovery program. Of that number, only 43 wild

canids were admitted to the breeding/certification program as

probable red wolves (Carley 1975; McCarley and Carley 1978; Carley,

personal communication). Due to the complexities of hybridization,

final proof of the genetic integrity of the animals was determined

only through the captive-breeding process itself. Offspring born to

the program were maintained for 1 year and examined quarterly for the

purpose of confirming the initial identification of their parents.

As a result, a number of early litters were determined to consist of

hybrids, and they and one or both of their parents were removed from

the program. In some cases the parents of hybrid litters had to be

bred with other wolves to produce a second litter that would

determine which of the parents of the original litter was the hybrid.

Although more of the original 43 wild canids in the program may have

been true red wolves, short life spans, limited breeding facilities,

and unavoidable medical problems (such as an outbreak of parvovirus)

resulted in only 15 of the animals’ becoming the founding stock of

the red wolves existing today. The remains of all canids in the

breeding/certification program, including those produced in

captivity, continue to be preserved at the University of Puget Sound,

Tacoma, Washington.

In the fall of 1984 the red wolf captive-breeding program was

accepted by the AAZPA for development of an SSP. This ensured the

integrity of red wolf captive-breeding efforts and greatly enhanced

the Service’s responsibility to properly undertake a selective

breeding program for the species. The main thrust of this effort is

to ensure the genetic integrity of the red wolf under captive

conditions.

The red wolf breeding program evolved into one of the most successful

captive-restoration efforts in the United States. Under the

direction of Roland Smith, the Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium

continues to provide leadership in a national effort to maximize red

wolf captive-breeding and cryopreservation banking techniques.

In 1978, Russel W. Clapper resigned as team leader of the Red Wolf

Recovery Team. The administrative responsibility for the recovery

team was then transferred from the Southwest Regional Office to the

Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, and David W. Peterson

(Service) was appointed new team leader. Abraham and Herring

remained on the recovery team; however, with the center of recovery

actions moving to the Southeast, the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department withdrew from formal participation on the team. Mary Anne

Young was appointed as a new team member representing the concerns of

environmental organizations.

Reintroduction Efforts

With the species at least safeguarded in captivity, program emphasis

shifted to a strategy of reintroduction. Due to a history of failure
13

in previous attempts to reintroduce gray wolves in various areas

(Allen 1979, Weise et al. 1975, and Henshaw et al. 1979), initial

thoughts centered on locating an area where an experimental

reintroduction could be employed to test management and public

information techniques. Bulls Island, a 5,000-acre (2,000-ha)

component of the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge in South

Carolina, was selected for such an experiment. A great deal of

effort was expended in coordinating the project with local and State

officials and securing necessary grass-roots support. A

50- x 50-foot (15- x 15-in) chain-link acclimation pen was constructed

on the island, and on November 3, 1976, a pair of originally

wild-caught adult red wolves was flown from Tacoma, Washington, to

Charleston, South Carolina, carried by truck and boat to the refuge

island, and placed in the pen. On December 13, 1976, they were

released. The two animals wandered extensively, leaving Bulls Island

and going to nearby Dewees and Capers Islands. After 9 days of

freedom, the female left Capers Island and was recaptured on the

mainland. The male was recaptured within hours on Bulls Island.

A second reintroduction experiment on Bulls Island began with the

arrival of another pair of wild-caught adults in Charleston on

July 5, 1977. This pair was kept in the acclimation pen for 6 months

and fed island prey species, then released on January 5, 1978. The

pair remained on Bulls Island and adjacent Capers Island for over

8 months. The decision to recapture them was consistent with the

original objective of the experiment. It was concluded that both

releases were successes and yielded valuable information for future

reintroduction attempts.

For the next 2 years, the Red Wolf Recovery Team evaluated various

sites for a possible mainland reintroduction project. Sites

considered during that time included Everglades National Park and Big

Cypress Swamp, Florida, and Ossabaw Island, Georgia. At a Red Wolf

Recovery Team meeting in June 1978 at Savannah, Georgia, a Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) representative invited the team to examine

their Land Between The Lakes (LBL) area in west Kentucky and

Tennessee for the purpose of evaluating it as a reintroduction site.

A field review of the LBL site was made by the team in July 1979, and

a formal recommendation to initiate a red wolf reintroduction effort

there was made to the Regional Director of the Service by the team

leader. A series of meetings to brief the Kentucky and Tennessee

State wildlife management agencies were held, and the Director of the

Service, by letter of August 1, 1980, to TVA’s Chairman of the Board

of Directors, requested that TVA formally consider a red wolf

reintroduction proposal at LBL.

In early 1980, Warren T. Parker, a wildlife biologist with the

Service, was assigned the responsibility of overviewing the,LBL

reintroduction effort and locating other potential reintroduction

sites. Over the next 3 years, a great deal of coordination and

interagency work was accomplished. In July 1982, a Red Wolf Recovery
14

Plan was approved by the Service. Also, a formal proposal to

reintroduce red wolves at LBL was published in October 1983 (Carley

and Mechler 1983).

On September 25, 1983, the TVA Board approved the project, and on

October 21, 1983, a formal news briefing was held at LBL. During the

next 3 weeks, a great deal of media attention focused on the proposed

wolf project at LBL. During the last week. of November and the first

2 weeks of December 1983, three public meetings to review and discuss

the proposal were held in Kentucky (Kentucky Lake State Park, Bowling

Green, and Lexington), and four similar meetings were held in

Tennessee (Paris, Dover, Clarksville, and Nashville).

Public sentiment was generally mixed in both States, and organized

opposition from environmental, livestock, and hunting interests

evolved into a major factor that politically doomed the proposal.

Another major contributing factor was the reaction of hunters who

feared that the presence of red wolves on LBL would result in

injunctions and court actions by protectionist groups to stop hunting

in the area. This view was reinforced by letters from Defenders of

Wildlife and the Humane Society of the United States that voiced

objections to the LBL reintroduction, based primarily on concerns

that reintroduced red wolves would not have complete protection under

the Endangered Species Act.

Based on these and other relevant points of contention, the Tennessee

Wildlife Resources Agency unanimously rejected the LBL red wolf

proposal at a public meeting on January 6, 1984. Shortly thereafter,

the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources adopted a

similar statement of opposition. The Service therefore withdrew the

proposal.

In retrospect, the LBL proposal was technically carefully conceived.

It now appears, however, that not enough time was allocated to

working with local officials and the public. More time should have

been directed to those interests that later surfaced in organized

opposition to the reintroduction of any predator. The spread of the

coyote into the LBL area during the early 1980s also complicated the

process and raised serious biological questions about potential

interbreeding. Also, administrative and decision-making processes

involved in dealing with four cooperating agencies (TVA, the Service,

and the wildlife agencies of Kentucky and Tennessee) made quick

resolution of any problem more difficult. A great deal was learned

from the LBL project, and these hard-taught lessons were soon to be

applied in eastern North Carolina.

Reintroduction at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. North

Carolina

In March 1984, the Prudential Insurance Company donated to the

Service nearly 120,000 acres (48,000 ha) of freshwater nonriverine

swamp, pocosin, and brackish marsh habitat in Dare and Tyrrell
15

Counties, North Carolina. These lands were later to become the

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Plate 2). Field studies

conducted by the North Carolina Biological Survey (NCBS) (Potter

1982), and later work jointly done by NCBS and Service personnel,

indicated that the refuge harbored a moderate to good small mammal

population. In addition, intensive surveys indicated an absence of

coyotes and feral dogs. There was no livestock in the ~county,and

the mainland portion of the county was sparsely populated.

A decision was therefore made to attempt to reestablish red wolves on

the new refuge, after which a great deal of time was devoted to

developing a favorable public climate for such a project. A major

effort to more fully involve national environmental organizations

included a briefing in Washington, D.C. A detailed reintroduction

proposal was developed (Parker 1987a), and the North Carolina

Congressional delegation was thoroughly briefed, as was the North

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Commissioner of

Agriculture, and the Governor’s staff. In concert with these

contacts, the Dare County Commissioners were briefed. Numerous

personal contacts were made with local citizens, especially prominent

hunters and trappers. The new refuge manager, John Taylor, provided

great assistance in working with the citizens of Dare County.

Dare County residents are deeply rooted in outdoor pursuits, many

earning part or all of their income from commercial fishing and

shellfishing. Recreational hunting, fishing, and trapping are the

norm for many residents. As might be expected, some viewed with

great suspicion the Federal Government’s acquiring essentially the

major portion of their county and introducing a large predator on it.

But a series of four public meetings in February 1986 clearly

demonstrated that as long as traditional usages of the new refuge

were not significantly altered, the local public would support a red

wolf reintroduction effort. Based on this information, the Regional

Director of the Southeast Region of the Service, in consultation with

the Director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,

determined that the project was feasible. Field survey work was

completed, pens were constructed, and a special regulation

designating red wolves reintroduced at Alligator River National

Wildlife Refuge as experimental and nonessential was promulgated and

published in the Federal Register on November 19, 1986 (Parker et al

.

1986). In culmination of these efforts, four pairs of adult red

wolves were shipped from Tacoma, Washington, to the refuge on

November 12, 1986.

In 1987, a new Red Wolf Recovery Team was appointed, consisting of

Roland Smith, assistant director of the Point Defiance Zoo, Tacoma,

Washington; Bill Malloy, administrative director of the Wild Canid

Survival and Research Center, Eureka, Missouri; Michael Pelton,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; Don Wood, Florida Game

and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; Curtis Carley,

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Warren Parker, team leader,
Mbemi~,t~e Sound

16

ALLIGATOR RIVER

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGL

PLATE 2
17

Service, Asheville, North Carolina. L. David Mech, Service,

St. Paul, Minnesota, was designated as team technical advisor, and

Mary Anne Young, Service, Atlanta, Georgia, was designated as

Regional Office team advisor. Malloy and Carley resigned soon after

their appointment; Victor Nettles, School of Veterinary Medicine,

University of Georgia, replaced Malloy; and U. S. Seal, Veterans

Administration Hospital, St. Paul, Minnesota, replaced Carley. The

first team meeting was held at the refuge on December 2 and 3, 1987.

A primary facet in developing the Alligator River Refuge project was

the use of a special tracking collar that had the capability of

injecting an immobilizing drug upon radio command (Mech et al. 1984).

The delivery of these collars was expected in May 1987. Because of

unexpected delays in development of the 3-M Corporation capture

collar, wolves were not released until September 1987, a major

deviation from the proposed spring 1987 release. Since then seven

more releases involving 12 different wolves have been conducted.

Most animals have adjusted well to life in the wild. This adjustment

was clearly demonstrated by the production of two litters in the wild

during April 1988 and two litters in 1990. As of July 1990, there

were nine free-ranging adult wolves in the refuge and an as yet

undetermined number of pups born during the spring. In summary, the

first 3 years of work in northeastern North Carolina indicate that it

will be possible to restore a red wolf population to the Alligator

River National Wildlife Refuge.

Island Propagation Strate~v

A strategy to propagate wild red wolf offspring was initiated on

November 19, 1987, when a pair of adult wolves was shipped from the

captive-breeding project in Washington to Cape Romain National

Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina. These animals were placed in an

acclimation pen on Bulls Island and were allowed to breed. On

April 22, 1988, four pups were born, two of which survived. On

July 8 these young animals and their parents were released from the

pen. Although the female parent was killed by an alligator

(Alligator mississipDiensis), the male and two pups adjusted well to

life in the wild; in December 1988 the family unit was recaptured,

and the two pups were taken to Alligator River Refuge and released.

These pups adjusted to their new environment and offer great promise

for the concept of island propagation. A replacement female red wolf

was brought to Bulls Island in January 1989, and the adults were bred

in the acclimation pen. Five pups were whelped, and the family unit

was released on August 8, 1989. The replacement female was soon

killed by an alligator, as was a pup. Hurricane Hugo hit the Bulls

Island area in September 1989 and devastated the island’s pristine

overstory of live oaks and loblolly pine. The adult male and four

pups survived the storm, but the male was later found dead, his death

probably resulting from injuries sustained during the storm. Bulls

Island continues to play an important role in red wolf recovery

efforts. As of July 1990 a pair of juvenile animals are free on the

island.
18

On January 10, 1989, a pair of captive adult red wolves was taken to

Horn Island, Mississippi, for propagation purposes. This 3,500-acre

(1,400-ha) island is a component of the National Park Service’s Gulf

Islands National Seashore. These adults bred in their acclimation

pen and had seven pups. They were released.from the pen on August 1,

1989, and adjusted extremely well to life in the wild. A third

island project was recently initiated on St. Vincent National

Wildlife Refuge in Florida. Two adults and their two pups were

recently released onto this 12,000-acre (4800-ha) island refuge. The

objective of these island projects is to gradually infuse wild red

wolves into a project that, at the present time, has to depend on

captive stock (Parker 1987b).

Recovery Potential

Probably the biggest factor weighing against the red wolf recovery

effort is the notion that the species cannot survive in any

association with coyotes. This conclusion is based on poorly

understood factors that surrounded the hybrid swarm that threatened

what was left of red wolf range in the 1970s (Nowak 1979). However,

when red wolf numbers in Louisiana and Texas reached extreme lows, it

became difficult, and in some cases impossible, for a lone red wolf

to locate a mate. Under these unusual circumstances, interbreeding

with coyotes took place, and, indeed, the red wolf as a species came

dangerously close to losing its identity. Speciation, however, is a

powerful force in nature. Red wolves and coyotes existed for

thousands of years in central Texas and Oklahoma in narrow zones of

sympatry. Man’s intervention ultimately created a set of

circumstances that simultaneously devastated red wolf habitat and

populations. This alteration of a naturally occurring system

permitted the more adaptable coyote to fill vacant, altered habitats.

When man’s attention finally turned to the plight of the red wolf,

there was only a relict population to examine. We can now surmise

that this population had been tempered by a host of biological, as

well as environmental, factors.

In examining canid literature, it becomes obvious that there is a

hierarchy among the various species. Sargeant ~ jL. (1987)

demonstrated spatial relationships between coyotes and red foxes in

North Dakota, wherein a red fox population gradually declined as a

coyote population increased. Other investigators have drawn the same

conclusions regarding coyote/gray wolf range overlaps (Carbyn 1982,

Mech 1970). Berg and Chesness (1978) and Fuller and Keith (1981)

concluded that coyotes avoid wolf territories.

Since there are few large areas left within the historic range of the

red wolf that are suitable for reintroduction purposes, it is

important that these areas be critically examined as soon as

practical. This is frustrated, however, by the fact that at least

80 percent of this historic range is now occupied by coyotes.

Therefore, it is imperative that carefully designed projects be

developed and executed that would measure impacts of any red wolves
19

introduced into areas with resident populations of coyotes. As of

the date of this plan, a study is underway in the Great Smoky

Mountains National Park in western North Carolina and eastern

Tennessee to address this issue. If red wolves, like gray wolves,

can compete with coyotes on good range, and thus develop a sympatric

or allopatric relationship with resident coyotes, then long-term

management objectives for the species would become more attainable.

In the interim, special red wolf propagation projects on small

controlled island components of the national wildlife refuge system

and national park system lands are of special interest. Young wild

wolves born on these islands will be utilized in possible

reintroduction efforts and in various captive-breeding projects. Yet

even with these small island projects and three or more major

mainland projects, the genetic vigor of the species needs to be

heavily augmented with various captive-breeding projects. This

reality is best expressed in numbers of red wolves that can be placed

and managed in the wild. This figure would likely never exceed

200 to 250 animals. To maintain genetic variation and retard genetic

drift within the species, it is likely that 300 to 350 red wolves

will have to be continually maintained in captivity.

An important adjunct to reintroductions into the wild and captive

breeding is the cryopreservation of red wolf semen and embryos.

Significant advances have been made in recent years in the field of

genetic banking, and these advances offer great promise in the

maintenance of endangered species (Dresser 1988, Wildt et al. 1987).

Where mainland reintroduction attempts or island propagation

strategies are found to be feasible, careful coordination with State

agricultural and wildlife agencies is a must. The degree of direct

State cooperation will depend on many factors, including political

and budgetary constraints. In addition, the concerns of local

property owners and residents must be addressed prior to approval of

any wolf reintroduction project. NEPA documentation and special

experimental” regulations must also address public concerns.

Without local citizen support, it is doubtful that successful wolf

reintroductions can be accomplished.

The concerns of organized special interest groups, such as State and

local Farm Bureau offices, local and national environmental

organizations, hunting interests, livestock associations, etc., must

also be recognized. The 1982 Amendments to the Endangered Species

Act regarding experimental and nonessential designation of otherwise

endangered animals, provides the Service with a powerful tool to

allay public and institutional fears and concerns yet still provide

protection for reintroduced animals.

Effective reintroduction strategies must always consider potentials

for wolf/livestock interactions. While the special regulation

referenced above will provide the legal mechanism for possible take

of depredating red wolves, private livestock owners must also have
20

some means available for monetary compensation for animals killed by

wolves. Techniques are available for designating predator kills or

injuries (wolves, coyotes, bobcats), and cooperating private

organizations can be enlisted to provide the financial resources

needed for these projects. Red wolf reintroduction efforts should

realistically avoid areas where a substantial livestock industry

exists. Red wolves historically preyed on livestock, but practically

all of these early incidents involved free-ranging stock. It is

thought that present-day animal husbandry techniques of fencing and

herd management will virtually preclude depredation problems. If

such problems develop, the Service would act in concert with

appropriate Federal and State agencies, especially Department of

Agriculture, Animal Damage Control experts, to capture offending

animals.

In conclusion, the Red Wolf Recovery Team is of the opinion that red

wolf reintroductions are feasible in many areas of the Southeastern

United States if carefully developed protocols and strategies are

pursued within a framework of logic and realism.
21

PART II

A STRATEGY FOR CONSERVATION BASED ON VIABLE POPULATIONS

Introduction

Conservation strategies for endangered species must be based on

viable populations. While it is necessary, it is not sufficient

merely to protect endangered species in situ. They must also be

managed.

Populations of many species maintained under the pressures of habitat

degradation and unsustainable exploitation will be small; i.e., a few

tens to a few hundreds (in some cases, even a few thousands)

depending on the species. As such, these populations are endangered

by a number of environmental, demographic, and genetic problems that

are stochastic in nature and that can cause extinction.

Environmentally, small populations can be devastated by catastrophic

events (disasters and epidemics), as exemplified by the case of the

black-footed ferret, or devastated by even less drastic fluctuations

in the environment. Demographically, small populations can be

disrupted by random fluctuations in survivorship and fertility.

Genetically, small populations lose diversity needed for fitness and

adaptability.

Minimum Viable PoDulations (MVPs

)

The smaller the population is and the longer the period of time it

remains so, the greater these risks will be and the more likely

extinction is to occur. As a consequence, conservation strategies

for species which are reduced in number, and which most probably will

remain that way for a long time, must be based on maintaining certain

minimum viable populations; i.e., populations large enough to permit

long-term persistence despite genetic, demographic, and environmental

problems.

There is no single magic number that constitutes an MVP for all

species or for any one species all the time. Rather, an MVP depends

on both the genetic and demographic objectives for the program and

the biological characteristics of the taxon or population of concern.

A further complication is that current genetic, demographic, and

environmental factors must be considered separately in determining

MVPs, although there certainly are interactions between the genetic

and demographic factors. Moreover, the scientific models for

assessing risks in relation to population size are still in the early

stages of development. Nevertheless, by considering both the genetic

and demographic objectives of the program and the biological

characteristics pertaining to the population, scientific analyses can

result in ranges of population sizes that will provide calculated

protection against stochastic problems.
22

Genetic and Demographic Objectives of Importance for MVP

1. The probability of survival (e.g., 50 percent or 95 percent)

desired for the population;

2. The kind of genetic variation to be preserved (e.g., allelic

diversity or average heterozygosity);

3. The Percentaae of the genetic diversity to be preserved

(e.g., 90 percent, 95 percent, etc.); and

4. The period of time over which demographic security and genetic

diversity are to be sustained (e.g., 50 years, 200 years).

In terms of demographic and environmental problems, for example, the

objective may be 95 percent probability of survival for 200 years.

Models are emerging to predict persistence times for populations of

various sizes under threat. In terms of genetic problems, the

objective may be to preserve 95 percent of average heterozygosity for

200 years. Again, models are available. However, it is essential to

realize that such terms as viability, recovery, self-sustainment, and

persistence can be defined only when quantitative genetic and

demographic objectives have been established, including the period of

time for which the program (and population) is expected to continue.

Biological Characteristics of Imoortance for MVP

Generation time: As populations decline in number, genetic diversity

is lost generation by generation, not year by year. Hence, species

with longer generation times will have fewer opportunities to lose

genetic diversity within the given period of time selected for the

program. As a consequence, to achieve the same genetic objectives,

MVPs can be smaller for species with longer generation times.

Generation time is qualitatively the average age at which animals

produce their first offspring. Quantitatively, it is a function of

the age-specific survivorships and fertilities of the population

which will vary naturally and which can be modified by management;

e.g., to extend generation time.

The number gf founders. A founder is a constituent animal of a

source population that establishes a derivative population.

Technically, to constitute a full founder, an animal should also be

unrelated to any other representative of the source population and

non-inbred.

The more founders, the better. The more representative the sample of

the source gene pool is, the smaller the MVP that is required for

genetic stability. There is also a demographic founder effect--the

larger the number of founders, the less likely extinction is due to

demographic stochasticity. However, for larger vertebrates there is

a point of diminishing return (Figure 1), at least in genetic terms.

Hence a common objective is to obtain at least 20 to 30 effective
23

PRESERVATION OF 90% OF ORIGINAL

GENETIC DIVERSITY FOR 200 YEARS

50

40

GENERATION

TIME

20

10

0

o

Figure 1

founders to establish a population. If this objective can’t be

achieved, one must do the best with what is available.

Effective Population Size. Another very important consideration is

the effective size of the population, designated Ne~ Ne is a measure

of the way the members of the population are reproducing to transmit

genes to the next generation. N is usually much less than N. For

example, in the grizzly bear, NeZN ratios of about .25 have been

estimated (Harris and Allendorf 1989). As a consequence, if the

genetic models prescribe an Ne of 500 to achieve some set of genetic

objectives, the MVP might have to be 2,000.

Growth Rate. The higher the growth rate, the faster a population can

recover from small size, thereby “outgrowing” much of the demographic

risk and limiting the amount of genetic diversity lost during the

so-called “bottleneck.” It is important to distinguish MVPs from

bottleneck sizes.

Population Viability Analysis (PVA

)

The process of deriving MVPs by considering various factors;.

i.e., sets of objectives and characteristics, is known as Population

Viability (sometimes Vulnerability) Analysis. Deriving applicable

results in PVA requires interactive efforts of population biology

D

A—No rounder effect

1—20 founders

C—8 founders

0—6 lounders

100 200 300 400 500 600

EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE
24

specialists with managers and researchers. PVA has already been

applied to some degree to about 30 species.

Considering genetics, PVA in general indicates it will be necessary

to maintain populations in hundreds or thousands to preserve a high

percentage of the gene pool for several centuries.

MVPs, to contend with demographic and environmental stochasticity,

may need be even higher than predicted to preserve genetic diversity,

especially if a high probability of survival for an appreciable

period of time is desired. For example, a 95 percent probability of

survival may entail actually maintaining a much larger population

whose persistence time is 20 times greater than required for

50 percent (i.e., average) probability of survival; 90 percent

10 times greater. From another perspective, it can be expected that

50 percent of an actual population will become extirpated before

70 percent of the average persistence time elapses.

Larger vertebrates almost certainly need population sizes of several

hundred or perhaps thousands to be viable. In view of the stochastic

problems, more is always better.

Metapopulations and Minimum Araas

MVPs, of course, imply minimum critical areas of natural habitat that

will be relatively vast for large carnivores like the red wolf.

Consequently, it will be impossible to maintain single, contiguous

populations of the hundreds or thousands required for viability.

However, it is possible for a number of smaller populations to be

viable if they are managed as a single larger population (a so-called

metapopulation) whose collective size is equivalent to the MYP.

Actually, distributing animals over multiple “subpopulations” will

increase the effective size of the total number maintained in terms

of the capacity to withstand stochastic problems. Any one

subpopulation may become extinct, or nearly so, due to these causes.

But through recolonization or reinforcement from other

subpopulations, the metapopulation will survive. Metapopulations

occur in nature with much local extinction and recolonization of

constituent subpopul ations occurring.

Unfortunately, as wild populations become fragmented, natural

migration for recolonization may become impossible. Hence,

metapopulation management will entail interchanging animals to

preclude or mitigate genetic and demographic problems. Migrants must

reproduce in the new area, so in cases of managed migration, it will

be important to monitor the genetic and demographic performance of

the migrants.

MVPs strictly imply benign neglect. It is possible to reduce the MVP

required for some set of objectives or, considered from an

alternative perspective, extend the persistence time for a given size
25

population through management intervention to correct genetic and

demographic problems as they are detected. In essence, many of these

measures will increase Ne.

Management intervention for the red wolf after the first wild

populations are established will include actions to improve juvenile

survival (e.g., translocation of otherwise doomed dispersing young

animals to available habitat to which they could not migrate

naturally), introducing more breeding-age females to an area

depauperate in this sex because of random biases toward males in a

local area, accelerating turnover in dominant males that might be

monopolizing breeding of multiple females and thereby causing

distortion of sex ratios and family sizes with consequent depression

of N , relocation of animals to prevent reproduction by close

relatives, etc.

Such interventions are manifestations of the fact that as natural

sanctuaries and their resident populations become smaller, they are

in effect transformed into megazoos that require much the same kind

of intensive genetic and demographic management as species in

captivity.

Captive Propagation

Another way to enhance viability is to reinforce wild populations

with captive propagation. The advantages of captive propagation

include protection from unsustainable exploitation (e.g., poaching),

moderation of environmental vicissitudes for at least part of the

population, more genetic management and hence enhanced preservation

of the gene pool, accelerated expansion of the population to move

toward the desired MVP and to provide animals more rapidly for

introduction into new areas, and increased total numbers of animals

maintained.

It must be emphasized that the purpose of captive propagation is to

reinforce, not replace, wild populations. Zoos must serve as

reservoirs of genetic and demographic material that can periodically

be infused into natural habitats to reestablish species that have

been extirpated or to revitalize populations that have been

debilitated by genetic and demographic factors.

The survival of a growing number of endangered species will depend in

large part on assistance from captive propagation. Indeed, what

appears optimal and inevitable are conservation strategies

incorporating both captive and wild populations interactively managed

for mutual support and survival. The captive population can serve as

a vital reservoir of genetic and demographic material, whereas the

wild population, if large enough, can continue to subject the species

to natural selection. This general strategy has been adopted by the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
26

Resources (IUCN) which now recommends that captive propagation be

invoked any time a taxon’s wild population declines below 1,000 (IUCN

1988).

Zoos in many regions of the world are organizing scientificallymanaged and highly-coordinated programs for captive propagation to

reinforce natural populations. In North America, these efforts are

being developed under the auspices of the AAZPA, the Captive Breeding

Specialist Group (CBSG) of the IUCN, and are known as SSPs.

Captive propagation for species conservation purposes requires

obtaining as many founders as possible; rapidly expanding the

population (normally to several hundred animals); and managing the

population closely, both genetically and demographically. Captive

programs can also involve research to facilitate management in the

wild as well as in captivity and for interactions between the two.

An example of a conservation/recovery strategy incorporating both

captive and wild populations is the black-footed ferret. The species

now evidently survives only in captivity. Because the decision to

establish a captive population was delayed, the situation became so

critical that moving all the animals into captivity seemed the only

option, circumstances that also apply to the California condor.

Another option may have been available if action to establish a

captive population had occurred earlier. Consideration of the

survivorship pattern, which exhibited high juvenile mortality for

ferrets, suggested that young animals destined to die in the wild

might be removed with little or no impact.

In general, AAZPA and CBSG have become involved in these kinds of

strategies and programs worldwide. It should be emphasized that the

kind of conservation strategy that has been delineated would apply

regardless of how taxonomic problems of defining what constitutes

separate entities to be preserved (i.e., evolutionary significant

units [ESUs])are resolved. The goal has to be to develop viable

populations of each of the ESUs or phylogeographic units.

Summary

A conservation strategy or recovery plan based on viable populations

for a taxon like the red wolf should:

1. Expand the population in numbers and in range (multiple

populations of 50 to 100 each), all managed as a metapopulation.

2. Maintain a vigorous program of captive propagation to reinforce

the wild populations.

3. Intervene in wild populations to ameliorate genetic, demographic,

and environmental problems.
27

4. Conduct an extensive and continuing population viability analysis

as situations change, knowledge increases, and science advances.
28

PART III

RED WOLF SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN

The North American red wolf population numbered 131 animals in

19 facilities on July 1, 1990, with a sex ratio of 57 males to

74 females. Not included are two litters of pups born in the wild at

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. As of the date of this

recovery/species survival plan, the number and sex of these two

litters is unknown. Included are a pair of juvenile animals in the

wild on Bulls Island, a component of the Cape Romain National

Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina, five juveniles in the wild on Horn

Island, part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Mississippi,

and two adults and their two pups just released into the wild on

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida.

There are presently 19 zoos and captive facilities in the United

States cooperating with the red wolf breeding program. These include

the Alexandria Zoo (Louisiana), Audubon Park Zoo (Louisiana), Baton

Rouge Zoo (Louisiana), Beardsley Zoo (Connecticut), Birmingham Zoo

(Alabama), Burnet Park Zoo (New York), Fossil Rim Wildlife Center

(Texas), Fresno Zoo (California), Knoxville Zoo (Tennessee), Land

Between The Lakes (TVA, Kentucky), Los Angeles Zoo (California),

Lowry Park Zoo (Florida), The National Zoo (Washington, D.C.),

Oglebay Park Zoo (West Virginia), Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium

(Washington), Ross Park Zoo (New York), Tallahassee Junior Museum

(Florida), The Texas Zoo (Texas), and the Wild Canid Survival and

Research Center (Missouri).

Based on the information available, it is possible to identify

several demographic trends for the red wolf population (useful

demographic concepts and terms are explained on page 29).

1. The sex ratio is biased, currently showing 14 percent more

females than males (Table 1). This reflects a greater production

of females in the last 5 years and, on average, lower

age-specific mortality for females for census years 1984-1989

(Tables 2 and 3).

2. The age distribution shows a healthy breeding group of prime

adults that could rapidly expand the captive population to

carrying capacity, while meeting the demands for the

reintroduction program (Table 1 and Figure 2).

3. Age-specific survival and fertility rates are provided by the

life table (Tables 2 and 3, Figure 3). The age-specific

fertility rate for males i,s zero for those in the 0-2 age

classes, increases steadily through the 8-11 age classes, then

drops off to zero in the 14-15 plus age classes. Female

age-specific fertility is slightly different, being low but

greater than zero in the 0-2 age classes, increasing steadily
29

DEMOGRAPHY GLOSSARY

Age Age class in years.

Px Age—specific survival.

Probability that an animal of a given age will survive to

the next age class.

Lx Age—specific survivorship.

Probability of a newborn surviving to a given age class.

Mx Age—specific fertility.

Average number of offspring (of the same sex as the parent)

produced by an animal in the given age class. Can also be

interpreted as average percentage of animals that will

reproduce.

r Instantaneous rate of change.

If r < 0 Population is declining

r = 0 Population is stationary

(Does not change in number)

r > 0 Population is increasing

lambda Percent of population change per year.

If lambda ( 1 Population is declining

lambda = 1 Population is stationary

(Does not change in number)

lambda > 1 Population is increasing

R

0 Net reproductive rate, the rate of change per generation.

If R0 < 1 Population is declining

= 1 Population is stationary

(Does not change in number)

R0 ) 1 Population is increasing

G Generation Time

Average length of Lime between the birth of a parent and

the birth of its offspring. Equivalently, the average age

at which an animal produces its offspring)
30

RED WOLF

AGE STRUCTURE OF SSP POPULATION

9 JULY 1989

AGE CLASS

IN YEARS

MALES

16

8

0-1

1-2

2-3

3-4

4-5

5-6

6-7

7-8

8-9

9 - 10

10 - 11

11 - 12

12 - 13

13 - 14

FEMALES

21

8

8

8

4

5

4

2

5

2

2

I

1

0

1

0

4

4

5

2

1

3

2

1

1

0

TOTALS 51 68

Table I
31

RED WOLF

LIFE TABLE

(CAPTIVE POPULATION 01 APRIL 1966 - 01 JULY 1989)

MALES FEMALES

Age Px Lx Mx

0 0.492 1.000 0.000

1 0.702 0.492 0.000

2 0.928 0.345 0.074

3 0.902 0.32 1 0.776

4 0.827 0.289 0.703

5 0.942 0.239 0.429

6 0.860 0.225 0.929

7 0.730 0.194 0.978

8 0.859 0.141 0.611

9 0.910 0.121 1.538

10 0.890 0.111 1.900

11 0.875 0.098 0.959

12 0.505 0.086 0.331

13 1.000 0.043 1.500

14 0.500 0.043 1.203

15 1.000 0.022 1.250

16 1.000 0.022 0.000

17 1.000 0.022 0.000

18 1.000 0.022 0.000

19 0.000 0.022 0.000

20 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.0755

lambda =

1.078

Ro=

1.729

7.253

Age Px Lx Mx

0 0.485 1.000 0.010

1 0.774 0.485 0.046

2 1.000 0.375 0.443

3 0.843 0.375 0.520

4 0.932 0.316 0.313

5 0.800 0.295 0.540

6 0.859 0.236 1.087

7 0.782 0.203 0.933

8 0.778 0.158 1.175

9 0.823 0.123 1.622

10 0.581 0.101 1.104

11 0.351 0.059 0.000

12 1.000 0.021 0.000

13 1.000 0.021 0.000

14 1.000 0.021 0.000

15 1.000 0.021 0.000

16 1.000 0.021 0.000

17 1.000 0.021 0.000

18 1.000 0.021 0.000

19 0.000 0.021 0.000

20 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.0793

lambda =

1.083

Ro=

1.596

5.893

Table 2
32

RED WOLF

LIFE TABLE

(CAPTIVE POPULATION 01 JULY 1984 - 01 JULY 1989)

MALES FEMALES

Px Lx Mx

0.603 1.000

0.803 0.603

1.000 0.484

1.000 0.484

0.900 0.484

1.000 0.436

0.768 0.436

0.674 0.335

0.772 0.226

1.000 0.174

1.000 0.174

0.733 0.174

0.533 0.128

1.000 0.068

0.667 0.068

1.000 0.045

0.500 0.045

1.000 0.023

1.000 0.023

0.000 0.023

0.000 0.000

0.000 r=

0.000 0.1237

0.075

1.166 lambda=

0.418 1.132

0.117

1.407 Ro=

0.806 2.140

0.000

0.757 G

0.000 6.150

0.415

0.000

0.888

1.203

1.250

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Age Px Lx Mx

0 0.636 1.000 0.000

1 0.895 0.636 0.000 0.092 1

2 1.000 0.569 0.239

3 0.856 0.569 0.550 lambda =

4 0.913 0.487 0.269 1.097

5 0.859 0.445 0.511

6 0.870 0.382 0.729 Ro =

7 0.755 0.332 0.625 1.644

8 0.878 0.251 1.105

9 1.000 0.220 0.331 G=

10 0.700 0.220 0.000 5.397

11 1.000 0.154 0.000

12 1.000 0.154 0.000

13 1.000 0.154 0.000

14 1.000 0.154 0.000

15 1.000 0.154 0.000

16 1.000 0.154 0.000

17 1.000 0.154 0.000

18 1.000 0.154 0.000

19 0.000 0.154 0.000

20 0.000 0.000 0.000

Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Table 3
)

RED WOLF

AGE STRUCTURE

01 JULY 1989

u-I

CD

I I

25 20 15 10 5 00

YEAR(S)

5

I I I

10 15 20

) )

14

MALES Iii

12

Iii

ho

~1

U’

——54

——32

I FEMALES

I

U

I

U

25

Figure 2
34

MALE POPULATION

2

Iw

UWZ

U)

oz

(U)

0

U)

1

0 5 10 15

AGE CLASS

FEMALE POPULATION

20

0

Iow-UU.

wz

U)

Wa.

0

U)

0 5 10 15 20

AGE CLASS

Figure 3
35

through the 6-11 age classes, then dropping to zero. Actual ages

at first reproduction by individual animals are provided by

Table 4.

4. While over the history of the population the average growth rate

has been about 8 percent per year (i.e., lambda = 1.08), it is

expected that the potential for increase could be expanded to

20 percent per year (lambda = 1.2; see Tables 2 and 3).

Nevertheless, for some of the later calculations and projections,

an intermediate figure of 10 percent (lambda = 1.1) has been

used.

5. Generation time is different for males and females and has

declined slightly in recent years (Tables 2 and 3). The average

of both males and females is about 6.5 years. If there is an

attempt to increase the rate of growth, the generation time will

decline further. For purposes of the carrying capacity

calculations, a generation time of 6 years has been used.

Genetically, there have been 14 potential founders (i.e., animals

from the wild that have been moved into captivity) in the population

(Tables 5, 6, and 7; a full explanation of genetic concepts and terms

is provided on page 41). Of those, all have, produced offspring.

However, the effective number of founders is lower, as indicated by

the Founder Genome Equivalents and the Number of Founder Genomes

Surviving, which provide somewhat different measures of how the

genetic diversity represented by the potential founders has been lost

over the history of the captive population (Table 7).

There are three ways that the effective number of founders can be

reduced below the actual number of animals moved into captivity from

the wild:

1. The first and most obvious way is that some of the animals taken

from the wild don’t reproduce.

2. The second way is that some of the genes or alleles from each

founder may be lost when its lineage passes through a

bottleneck--a generation in which there are only one or a few

offspring--so that not all of the founder’s alleles are

transmitted into the next generation. The most extreme example

is when a founder has only one F~ offspring. Then only one-half

of the founder’s genes will survive in the pedigree from that

point onward. The number of Founder Genomes Surviving indicates

how much loss has occurred due to bottlenecks. This number

represents the maximum number of full founders from the wild

(i.e., with no loss of their genomes) that would be required to

contain as much genetic diversity as still exists in the captive

population. As indicated in Table 7, the number of Founder

Genomes Surviving Is about 10.4.
36

RED WOLF

ACTUAL AGE AT FIRST REPRODUCTION

(HISTORICAL POPULATION)

MALES FEMALES

STUDBOOK AGE/MONTH STUDBOOK AGE/MONTH

291 22 132 11

327 22 152 12

164 33 54 24

53 34 79 24

140 34 195 24

146 34 196 24

213 34 216 24

227 34 244 24

247 34 279 24

280 34 40 25

293 34 303 35

268 37 112 36

242 45 269 36

137 46 301 36

26 47 302 36

33 47 65 38

39 47 245 48

42 47 277 48

144 47 36 49

52 58 194 60

18 59 23 61

28 59 29 61

24 60 32 61

219 70 30 62

8 71 205 72

17 71 233 72

179 71 12 73

211 72 35 73

184 82 215 73

6 83 14 74

34 83 142 84

212 83 15 85

11 107 16 85

3 108 7 86

2 120 13 86

Table 4
37

RED WOLF

SSP POPULATION

GENE DROP ANALYSIS

9 JULY, 1989

0= WILD; -1=UNK

ID Sex Sire Dam Status

1 6

2 8

3 11

4 12

5 13

6 14

7 16

8 17

9 24

10 26

11 30

12 33

13 34

14 42

15 52

16 53

17 54

18 79

19 111

20 112

21 132

22 135

23 137

24 142

25 143

26 146

27 152

28 155

29 164

30 165

31 179

32 180

33 184

34 194

35 195

36 196

37 205

38 208

39 211

40 212

41 213

42 215

43 216

44 219

45 221

46 222

47 224

48 225

49 227

50 233

M 0

M 0

M 0

F 0

F 0

F 0

F 0

M 0

M 0

M 0

F 0

M 0

M 0

M 0

M 6

M 6

F 6

F 8

F 33

F 33

F 6

M 24

M 17

F 11

F 11

M 42

F 53

F 53

M 6

M 6

M 24

M 24

M 34

F 8

F 8

F 26

F 11

M 52

M 24

M 24

M 24

F 24

F 24

M 53

F 53

F .53

M 11

M 11

M 164

F 146

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

12

12

16

14

14

12

30

132

54

54

79

14

14

13

13

152

152

132

13

13

54

54

132

112

112

112

112

112

79

79

79

54

54

196

152

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

A

A

A

D

A

A

D

A

A

D

D

A

D

A

A

A

D

D

A

D

A

A

D

A

D

A

D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Table 5
38

RED WOLF

SSP POPULATION

GENE DROP ANALYSIS

9 JULY, 1989

O=WILD; -izUNK

ID Sex Sire Dam Status

51 242 M 52 195 A

52 243 F 52 195 A

53 244 F 52 195 D

54 245 F 52 195 A

55 247 M 11 54 A

56 248 F 11 54 A

57 251 F 146 216 A

58 252 F 146 216 A

59 253 F 146 216 A

60 255 M 137 112 A

61 268 M 53 79 A

62 269 F 53 79 A

63 270 F 53 79 A

64 272 M 11 54 A

65 277 F 34 132 A

66 278 F 34 132 A

67 279 F 34 132 D

68 280 M 213 244 A

69 282 M 213 244 A

70 289 F 213 244 A

71 291 M 213 244 A

72 292 M 213 244 A

73 293 M 213 244 A

74 294 M 24 196 A

75 297 F 24 196 A

76 299 M 227 194 A

77 300 F 227 194 A

78 301 F 227 194 A

79 302 F 227 194 A

80 303 F 227 194 A

81 304 F 227 194 A

82 305 F 227 194 A

83 312 M 242 279 A

84 313 F 242 279 A

85 315 F 242 279 A

86 316 F 242 279 A

87 319 M 52 142 A

88 321 F 179 245 A

89 322 F 179 245 A

90 323 F 179 245 A

91 324 F 179 245 A

92 325 F 179 245 A

93 327 M 179 245 A

94 328 M 179 245 A

95 331 M 242 279 A

96 332 M 242 279 A

97 351 F 184 205 A

98 347 F 2S0 269 A

99 350 M 280 269 A

100 349 M 280 269 A

Table 5 (CoAL)
39

RED WOLF

SSP POPULATION

GENE DROP ANALYSIS

9 JULY, 1989

0=WILD; •l=UNX

ID Sex Sire Dam Status

101 348 F 280 269 A

102 336 M 213 245 A

103 338 F 213 245 A

104 335 M 213 245 A

105 344 F 211 196 A

106 337 F 213 245 A

107 339 F 213 245 A

108 346 M 291 289 A

109 342 F 268 215 A

110 341 M 268 215 A

111 352 M 219 303 A

112 353 M 219 303 A

113 354 M 219 303 A

114 356 M 293 301 A

115 357 M 293 301 A

116 358 M 293 301 A

117 359 M 293 301 A

118 360 F 293 301 A

119 361 F 293 301 A

120 362 M 268 277 A

121 363 F 268 277 A

122 364 F 268 277 A

123 368 M 291 233 A

124 369 M 291 233 A

125 371 F 291 233 A

126 372 M 280 245 A

127 373 M 280 245 A

128 374 M 280 245 A

129 375 F 280 245 A

130 376 F 280 245 A

131 377 F 280 245 A

132 378 F 280 245 A

133 379 F 242 289 A

134 380 F 242 289 A

135 381 F 242 289 A

136 382 F 242 289 A

137 383 F 242 289 A

138 386 M 212 195 A

139 387 M 212 195 A

140 388 F 212 195 A

141 389 F 212 195 A

142 390 F 212 195 A

143 391 F 212 195 A

144 392 M 227 205 A

145 393 F 227 205 A

146 394 F 227 205 A

147 395 F 227 205 A

119 Living Descendants 147 In total pedigree

Table 5 (ConL)
40

RED WOLF

SSP POPULATION

FOUNDER ALLELE REPRESENTATION

10 JULY, 1989

FOUNDER

6M

8M

liM

12F

1 3F

14F

1 6F

17M

24M

26M

30F

33M

34M

42M

RETENTION

0.978

0.866

0.996

0.942

0.899

0.93 1

0.500

0.235

0.997

0.470

0.500

0.744

0.899

0.466

% REPRESENTATION

18.913

13.713

4.620

16.546

12.156

6.946

3.453

0.198

11.846

2.368

0.420

4.722

2.956

1.142

TARGET

9.385

8.310

9.553

9.035

8.627

8.934

4.798

2.260

9.562

4.5 10

4.798

7.135

8.627

4.467

DIFFERENCE

-9.528

-5.402

4.933

-7.512

-3.529

1.988

1.345

2.062

-2.284

2.142

4.378

2.412

5.67 1

3.325

Table 6

GENETIC SUMMARY

LIVING DESCENDANT POPULATION POTENTIAL

Number offounders:

Paiity (%):

Mean retention:

Founder Genomes Surviving:

Founder Genomes Equivalents:

Founder Equivalents:

Fraction ofwild heterozygosity retained:

Fraction ofwild heterozygosity lost:

Mean inbreeding coefficient realized:

14

7.143

0.744

10.421

7.5 13

8.148

0.906

0.094

0.04 1

14

7.143

0.744

10.421

10.42 1

12.619

0.952

0.048

Table 7
41

GENETICS GLOSSARY

GENOME

The complete set ofgenes (alleles) carried by an individual.

RETENTION

Fraction offounder’s original set of genes (genomes) still present in the population.

EXSISTING REPRESENTATION

The existing percentage representation offounders in the population.

TARGET REPRESENTATION

The desired target percentage representatipn offounders. These target figures are

proportional to the fraction ofeach founder genome that survived. Achieving these target

representation values will maximize presetvation of genetic diversity.

DIFFERENCE

(Existing Representation) - (Target Representation)

A minus sign ( - ) designates a founder that is over - represented.

POTENTIAL FOUNDER

An animal from a source population (e.g., the wild) that establish a derived population

(e.g., a captive or newwild population).

FOUNDER

An animal form a source (e.g., wild) population that actually produced offspring and

have descendants in the living derived (e.g., captive ) population.

The minus sign ( - ) designates the unknown mate ofthe founder with that number.

MEAN RETENTION

Average fraction ofeach founder genome surviving in the population.

MEAN HETEROZYGOSiTY

Average fraction oforiginal heterozygosity remaining in the population.

BOTTLENECK

A generation in the lineage from a founder when only one or a few offspring are produced so

that not all ofthe founder’s alleles are transmitted onto the next generation.

FOUNDER GENOME SURVIVING

The sum ofthe allelic retention; i.e., the number offounder genomes still in the

population. This metric measure loss of original diversity due to bottlenecks in the pedigree

ofthe population.

FOUNDER GENOME EQUIVALENTS

The number of newly wild caught animals required to obtain the genetic diversity in the

present captive population. This metric reflects loss due to both bottlenecks and disparities

in the founder representation.
42

3. The third way is for the representation of the founders in the

living population to be very disparate. Even though some

fraction of the genome (original alleles) of a founder may be

surviving, the actual number of copies of each founder’s alleles

currently present in the population is also very important. If

some founder alleles are very common in the population, but

others are very rare, the effective number of founders will be

reduced because there is a high risk that the less common alleles

will soon be lost. Founders have not contributed equally to the

red wolf population (Table 6 and Figure 4). Representation of

founders can be redressed to a substantial extent by regulating

reproduction of their descendants.

Founder Genome Equivalents adds these reductions to the loss due

to bottlenecks (i.e., Founder Genomes Surviving) to estimate the

actual effective numbers of founders in the living population.

If management acts to rectify the disparities in founder

distribution (i.e., so the founder representation in the

population moves from the existing to the target distribution),

the effective number of founders can be increased from the

Founder Genome Equivalents level to the Number of Founder Genomes

Surviving.

As a consequence of factors 2 and 3, the number of effective founders

for the red wolf population is currently about 8 but could be

increased to about 12.6 through better management to reduce

disparities in founder lineage representation. It is estimated that

about 91 percent of the original heterozygosity in the wild

population is still present in the captive population under existing

management. This level could be increased to 95 percent if

management is improved.

Employing the data provided by the previous genetic and demographic

analysis and using a software program developed by Dr. Jonathan

Ballou, a PVA has been performed relative to genetic considerations

to estimate MVPs necessary for various objectives (Tables 8a-g).

Even with conservative case scenarios relative to parameters

(effective founder number of 8, an NJN ratio of 0.3, a generation

time of 6 years, and an annual growth rate Llambda] of 10 percent),

it has been calculated that a captive population of 320 animals and a

reintroduced wild population of 220 red wolves would be able to

maintain 80 to 85 percent of the original genetic diversity from the

captured wild stock that probably occurred in the wild gene pool of

red wolves. Retention of 80 to 85 percent of original heterozygosity

is equivalent to preserving at least 90 percent of the heterozygosity

that still exists (i.e., 90 percent of the 92 to 95 percent of the

original that still exists).

The current population of red wolves is reproducing reliably but

cannot be considered a self-sustaining population because of the low

total numbers. Animals can be moved to reproductive situations

almost as quickly as new captive habitats are provided. However,
43

RED WOLF

FOUNDER REPRESENTATION

20

15

z

0

Iz

w

U)10

Lu

a. uJ

5

0

6 8 11 12 13 14 16 17 24 26 30 33 34 42

FOUNDERS

Figure 4
44

RED

CALCULATIONS FOR

WOLF

CARRYING CAPACITY

Capacity 2.11

Effective Size and Carrying Capacity Necessary forMaintaining the

Specified Amount of Genetic Diversity for the Specified Amount of Time

Number of Years per Generation: 6.0 # Generation during 200 Years: 33

Yearly Growth Rate (lambda): 1.100 Exponential GrowthRate (r): 0.095

Effective Number of Founders: 10 Growth rate per Generation: 1.772

Estimated Ne/N Ratio: 0.40 Exponential Growth/Generation: 0.572

Desired % Hetero. Retain: 80.0

Length ofTime Period (Years): 200

Effective Size Required to Maintain 80.0% ofthe

Original Founder’s Heterozygosity for 200 Years:

Actual Carrying Capacity Required (Based on Ne/N Ratio):

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

Table Ba

124

310
45

RED

CALCULATIONS FOR

Capacity 2.11

Ne/N

Ratio

WOLF

CARRYING CAPACITY

Actual Carrying Capacity Required to Maintain 80.0% of the Original

Heterozygosity for Different Founder #s Under Various Ne/N Ratios

No. EFFECTIVE FOUNDERS

7 8 9 10 11

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Table

Parameters

Lambda:

Gen. Length:

Time Period:

1.100

6.0

200

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

Table 8b

Capacity 2.11

Actual Carrying Capacity Required to Maintain 80.0% of the Original

Heterozygosity for Various Time Periods Under Various Ne/N Ratios

LENGTH OF PROGRAM (YEARS)

50 100 150 175 200

Table

Parameters

Lambda:

Gen. Length:

No. Fndrs:

1.100

6.0

10

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Feb 89 —

Ne/N

Ratio

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

70 170 297 353 413

53 128 223 265 310

42 102 178 212 248

35 85 148 177 207

30 73 127 151 177

Table 8c
46

RED

CALCULATIONS FOR

WOLF

CARRYING CAPACITY

Capacity 2.11

Actual Carrying Capacity Required to Maintain 80.0% of the Original

Heterozygosity for Various Time Periods Given Various Founder Numbers

LENGTH OF PROGRAM (YEARS)

50 100 150

No.

Effective

Founders

7

8

9

10

11

175 200

Table

Parameters

Lambda:

Gen. Length:

Ne/N Ratio:

1.100

6.0

0.40

j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

Table 8d

Capacity 2.11

Actual Carrying Capacity Required to Maintain Various Levels of

Heterozygosity for 200 Years with Various Numbers ofFounders

PERCENT

HETEROZYGOSITY RETAINED

70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0

Table

Parameters

Lambda:

Gen. Length

Ne/N Ratio:

1.1W

6.0

0.40

= Not possible with these parameters

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

75 213 393 475 560

63 165 295 355 415

58 143 250 300 348

53 128 223 265 310

50 120 205 245 285

— 07/10/89

No.

Effective

Founders

7

8

9

10

11

178 273 560 ****

163 235 415 1783  

153 213 348 930 ** **

145 200 310 683  

140 190 285 563 ** **

TablcSe
47

RED

CALCULATIONS FOR

WOLF

CARRYING CAPACITY

Capacity 2.11

Actual Carrying Capacity Required to Maintain Various Levels of

Heterozygosity for Various Ne/N Ratios for 200 Years

PERCENT

HETEROZYGOSiTY TO RETAIN

70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0

Ne/N

Ratio

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Table

Parameters

Lambda:

Gen. Length:

No. Fndrs:

1.100

6.0

10

= Not possible with these parameters

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

Table 8f

Capacity 2.11

Actual Carrying Capacity Requiredto Maintain Various Levels of

Heterozygosity for Various Time Periods Given 10 Effective Founders

LENGTH OF PROGRAM (YEARS)

50 100 150 175 200

Lambda:

Gen. I~ength:

Ne/N Ratio:

= Not possible with these parameters

— 07/10/89 j. ballou-NZP Mar’ 89 —

193 267 413 910  

145 200 310 683 ** **

116 160 248 546 ~~**

97 133 207 455  

83 114 177 390 ** **

Percent

Heter.

Retained

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

30 65 105 125 145

38 85 145 173 200

53 128 223 265 310

95 263 480 580 683

  ** **   ** ** ****

Table

Parameters

1.100

6.0

0.40

Table 8g
48

many more captive spaces must be provided if the species is expected

to retain the current level of genetic diversity.

It is interesting to note that gray wolves in captivity number

321 animals (160 male and 161 female) in 49 facilities throughout

North America, and the coyote numbers 59 animals (26 male and

33 female) in 30 facilities. Perhaps some of these spaces could

accomodate red wolves as they become available for various reasons.

The Goal of the SSP PoDulation

The propagation goal of the Service’s Red Wolf Recovery Team and the

Red Wolf SSP Propagation Group for the red wolf is to maintain 80 to

85 percent of the genetic diversity found in the original founder

stock for a period of 150 plus years. This goal is equivalent to

preserving 90 percent of the heterozygosity present in the existing

captive population.

As derived pursuant to the above, a captive population of 330 wolves

and a reintroduced wild population of 220 wolves are needed to

achieve this goal. It is assumed that a captive population of 330

will have an effective population (Ne) of 125, and a wild population

will have an Ne of 75. It is also assumed that various factors

affecting MVP determination do not deteriorate further; e.g., more

bottleneck loss of founder genes, decline in N~N ratios, or growth

rate.

An important objective in this regard is to adjust the representation

of founder lineages from the existing to the target distribution,

requiring that, during this period of adjustment, representatives of

under-represented founder lineages be reproduced more than

representatives of over-represented founders. A summary measure to

identify which animals represent under-represented versus

over-represented founders is provided by the Founder Importance

Coefficient of each animal (Figure 5 and Supplement).

Once founder distribution is adjusted, it will then be important to

maximize effective population size (Ne) by regulating family sizes.

can also be increased immediately by maximizing recruitment of

animals as breeders.

Because the captive population is approximately one-third of what is

needed, and because the wild population is currently less than

2 percent of estimated need, there must be maximum expansion of the

population over the next several years.

Red wolves are monestrous and typically persist as monogamous pairs.

The mean litter size for the species is five. These parameters will

determine the number of pairs breeding per year, which equals the

number of enclosures where breeding occurs in that year after a

target production level has been established in any given year. To

achieve the above goals, it is calculated that 84 births are needed
49

RED WOLF

DISTRIBUTION OF FOUNDER IMPORTANCE COEFFICIENTS (FIC)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

z

0

F

4

-J

a.

0

a.

z

(3

z

w

0

LU

U.

U, — U, C’~j fl (~ ~fl ~ U, U, U, (0 Ifl N U, (0 U, ~ U,

0—C’J ~ N . (0 .

.0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FOUNDER IMPORTANCE COEFFICIENT (FIC) VALUES

Figure 5
50

Figure 5 Supplement

RED WOLF

FOUNDER IMPORTANCE COEFFI CI ENT (Fl C)

The Founder Importance Coefficient (FIC) can be used to initially identify individuals as

being descended from over versus under-represented founders. Individuals who are descendants

from over-represented founders will have low Founder Importance Coefficients; those that are

descendants from under—represented founders will have high Founder Importance Coefficients.

The Founder Importance Coefficient is the weighted— average of an individual’s founder

contributions with the

overall population founder contributions acting as the weights. The weighted average is

standardized so that it ranges between 0 and 1. If the most over—represented founder is

still alive, it will have a Founder Coefficient of 0; the most under—represented founder (if

alive) will have a Founder Coefficient of 1.0.

The FTC is the weighted average of all the founder contributions to that individual with the

weights being the overall founder contribution of each founder to the SSP population:

FICi=ZiiI (OFC3 * FC~3)

~. ~.

where: OFC1 is the Overall Founder Contribution of Founder j to the SSP

population.

FC~~ is the representation of founder j to individual i.

NF is the total number of founders.

The values are then standardized as follows:

(MAX - FTC)

Std FTC

(MAX — ?41N)

where: FIC is as described above.

MAX is the Maximum FTC and is the OFC for the most over—represented

founder.

MIN is the Minimum FTC and is the OFO for the most under-represented

founder.

POPULATION FOUNDER COEFFICIENT (PFC)

The Population Founder Contribution (PEG) is the Founder Importance Coefficient of a

hypothetical individual whose founder contributions are equal to the actual contributions

of each founder in the population. Therefore, individuals with Founder Importance

Coefficients higher than the PFC are descendants of under—represented founders and those with

lower Founder Importance Coefficients ~re descendants of over-represented founders.

In the case of the red wolf an individual with founder contributions equal to the Population

Founder Contribution (PFC) will have a Founder Importance Coefficient of .35. Individuals

in the population with Founder Importance Coefficients > .35 are carrying genes that may help

the population reach the Target Founder Contribution goal, those with Founder Importance

Coefficients ( .35 may not significantly contribute toward achieving this goal.
51

per year for the next 5 years. Given a mean litter size of five,

this means that 17 litters must be produced per year (Table 9).

Captive habitat should be increased by increasing the number of

widely separated captive facilities and by upgrading existing

facilities. There are two reasons for this. First and foremost,

this will help minimize stochastic problems experienced by small

populations due to demographic, environmental, and genetic

uncertainty. Second, each participating SSP institution will

increase public awareness of the red wolf recovery program by local

and regional residents by virtue of pup births and accompanying local

media stories and by education/outreach programs. A minimum of 20 to

25 new facilities, as well as the expansion of existing facilities,

is necessary to accommodate 250 additional animals in the

captive-population program. Also, a substantial number of additional

Federal or State wildlife management units will have to be recruited

to manage the 220 free-ranging wolves needed to maintain genetic

diversity over the long term.

Clearly, the goals of this program are dependent upon the

availability of suitable wild and captive habitats and the continued

cooperation and active support from local, State, and Federal

agencies, zoos, and the residents surrounding potential and existing

reintroduction sites.

SDecific Oblectives

Using the rationale outlined above, specific objectives have been

developed to serve as guidelines in establishing institution-byinstitution and animal-by-animal recommendations. These objectives

are:

1. Develop a captive population of at least 330 animals and a wild

population of at least 220 animals in order to preserve 80 to

85 percent of the average heterozygosity of the original wild

population (equivalent to 90 percent of the existing

heterozygosity in the captive population) for the next 150 plus

years.

2. Maintain a stable, self-sustaining population of red wolves in

captivity and in the wild.

3. Continue the evaluation of the taxonomic status of the red wolf

with a review of current literature. Determine, through

mitochondrial DNA analysis and other biochemical techniques, the

status of Canis rufus in the family Canidae.

4. As the captive population increases, design and implement

complete reproductive physiology studies.

5. Adjust founder lineage representation from the existing to the

target distribution.
52

RED

BIRTH

WOLF

LIMITS

9 JULY 1989

Number of births required to maintain a stationary population at a given carrying capacity.

CARRYING CAPACITY

MALES FEMALES TOTAL

25 25 50

50 SO

75 75

100 100

125

150

175

200

125

150

1 75

200

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

BIRTHS REQUIRED

MALES

6

12

FEMALES

7

14

18

24

31

37

29

36

44

43

49

51

58

TOTAL

13

26

40

53

67

81

94

107

Table 9
53

6. Increase the number of effective founders from 8 to 10.5.

7. Improve N/N from the existing 0.1-0.3 to 0.4.

8. Expand the carrying capacity of the Graham breeding facility to

at least double its present capacity.

9~ Recruit at least 25 new facilities with captive habitats to

accommodate 140 additional red wolves.

10. Require each captive holding/propagation facility to house a

minimum of 2.2 red wolves and their offspring until they can be

placed in other facilities.

11. Provide at least 12 animals every other year for reintroduction

purposes for the next 5 years.

12. Develop a model by which the Service can predict the approximate

number of red wolves needed for each reintroduction site.

13. Evaluate completely all nonreproductive animals to ascertain

cause of reproductive inactivity.

14. Monitor a release program for potential interactions of red

wolves with other species, especially ~jn1slatrans

.

15. Develop a sperm- and embryo-banking strategy and initiate an

active program with a qualified facility.

Following is an animal-by-animal distribution list of living red

wolves as of August 1990.
54

Page S 1

ID 3L1 (Cauia rufu gregorji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sthk Sire Dan

U Seji S

1 F WILD WILD

2 K WILD WILD

3 K WILD WILD

4 F WILD WILD

5 F WILD WILD

8 K WILD WILD

7 F WILD WILD

K WILD WILD

H WILD WILD

K WILD WILD

H WILD WILD

F WILD WILD

F WILD WILD

F

F

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Date of

Birth

01.04.66

01.04.67

01.04.60

01.04.88

01.04.69

01.04.70

01.04.70

01.04.71

01.04.71

01.04.71

01. 04. 71

01. 04. 71

01.04.71

WILD WILD 01.04.71

WILD WILD 01.04.71

F WILD

K WILD

WILD

WILD

01.04.71

01.04. 72

Date of lnbr.

Death ~oeff.

18.02.75

12.07.81

11.07.80

15.12.78

26.01.79

23.06.82

23.04.79

26.04.85

08.04.75

31.03.78

11.11.88

17.03.83

01.05.81

03.09.81

28.07.82

25.11.78

22.12.80

18 K WILD WILD 01.04.72 07.08.82

First location

Location now

TACOKA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TAGOKA

TA~0KA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOWA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

WCSRC

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DI. WIG

- arrived Breeder S Last Kng Sire Dan

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA IA

USA

since Bousenane ISIS Grp Age Age Ap

9C6 0001 SSP 0 0 107W

76103 0019 SSP 0 0 171 K

2010 0003 0 0 147 U

74098 0008 0 0 104 W

77022 0030 0 0 118 K

14001 0004 0 0 147 K

1099 0002 0 0 109 K

74095 0006 0 0 169 K

74102 0007 0 0 48 M

76044 0010 0 0 84 K

75114 0015 0 0 211 K

74002 0005

13.02.69

13.02.69

12 .07 .81

31.08.76

20.02.71

20.02.71

19.10.74

19.10.74

02.05.77

02. 05. 77

06.02.74

06. 02. 74

03. 11. 70

03. 11. 70

31.07 .74

31.07.74

12.10.74

12.10.74

21.01.76

21.01.76

30.09.75

20.10.81

06. 02.74

06.02.74

28.02.75

28.02. 75

31. 08 .76

31 .08.7~

03. ioie

03. 10 . 76

06. 10. 76

06. 10.76

02.02 .75

02.02.75

26. 02. 75

75016

76102

76123

0012

0018

0020

?4124

75012

75015

0022

0009

0013

SSP

SSP

SSp

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSp

5SF

SSP

0 0 144K

0 0 121K

0 0 125K

0 0 136K

0 0 92M

0 0 105K

0 0 124W

DR. LOIC USA WA 26.02.75
55

Page U 2

t~ 311 (Cmiii rufus gregoryi)

listorical list of captive population

?rinted on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk Sire

U Sez U

19 K WILD

20 ~ WILD

2! KWILD

22 F WILD

23 F WILD

24 K WILD

25 K WILD

26 K WILD

K WILD

K WILD

F WILD

F WILD

F WILD

F WILD

K

K

F

F

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

Dma

U

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

Date of

Birth

01. 04 .72

01.04.72

01.04.72

01.04.72

01.04.72

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04. 73

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04.73

01.04.74

01. 04. 74

01. 04. 74

Date of

Death

03.04.81

15.12.76

15.12.77

01.04.77

28.06.77

17.06.89

21.08.80

22.01.85

09.09.77

12.08.79

08.11.79

05.11.80

06.04.81

15.11.78

09.07.81

12. 03. 87

02.07.84

01.04.74 04.03.79

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location no,

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

DR. WIG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

TACOMA

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA WA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

— arrived Breeder $

- since Housenane

75081

76132

77072

76045

76131

76056

77007

21. 02 .76

21.02.76

03.10.76

03. 10 .76

18. 11. 77

18.11.77

21.01. 76

21. 01.78

03.10.76

03.10.76

20 .04 .76

20.04.76

21.01.77

21.01.77

17. 03. 77

16.06.80

27.04.77

27.04.77

18. 11. 77

09.01.79

04. 11. 75

04. 11. 75

01.02.77

01.02.77

17.03.77

17.03. 77

28.03.78

28.03.78

04.02.77

04.02.77

03. 10. 79

03.10.79

19.03.78

19. 03. 78

27.04.77

77045

77051

77073

75118

77019

77044

78031

77021

79046

78028

77052

Lait

ISIS

0014

0021

0037

0011

0023

0017

0027

0032

0035

0038

0016

0028

0031

0039

Kig

Grp

sSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

sSP

SSP

sSP

SSP

sSP

SSP

SSP

ssP

SSP

SSP

0029 SSP

0127 SSP

0033 SSP

0036 SSP

Sire

Age

0

0

0

0

Dan

Age

0

0

0

0

Death

Age

108 K

56 K

68 K

60 K

0 0 63K

0 0 195K

O 0 89K

0 0 142K

0 0 53K

0 0 76K

0 0 79K

0 0 91K

0 0 96K

O 0 67K

0 0 87K

0 0 155K

0 0 123K

0 0 59K

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

DR. LONG USA NA 27.04.77
56

EU (Cmiii ~ gregorri) Page U 3

listorical list of captive population

Prhted Os: 13.Feb.1991

Dan

U

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

WILD

40

40

40

40

23

23

23

12

12

12

12

Date of

Birth

01.04.74

01.04.75

01.04 .75

01.04.75

01.04.75

01.04.76

03.05.77

03.05.77

03.05.77

03.05.77

04.05.77

04.05.77

04.05.77

13.05.77

13.05.77

13.05 .77

13.05.77

Date of Inbr. First location

Death

12.06.80

21.07.78

18.07.79

15.07.78

21.07.78

05.02.81

14.05.77

01.08.78

03.05.78

03.05.78

05.05.77

12.02.83

12. 05. 77

17.05.77

19.01.79

22.12.89

09.05.85

54 F 6 12 13.05.77 22.11.89

Coeff. Location nov

DR. LONG

DR. WIG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. WIG

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOKA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

AUDUBON

TACOMA

WCSRC

- arrived Breeder $

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

- since

29.06.75

29.06.75

07.01.78

07.01.78

27.04.77

27.04.77

03.10.76

03.10.76

06.01.17

06.01.77

08.04.78

06.04.78

03.05 .77

03.05.77

03.05.77

03.05.77

03.05 .77

03.05.77

03.05.77

03.05.77

04.05.77

04.05. 77

04.05.77 WGI

04.05.77

04 .05.77

04.05.77

13.05.77

13.05.77

13.05.77 WG3

13. 05.77

13.05.77 164

13.05.77

13.05.77 WG5

30.10.80

13.05.77 162

Dousenane

76058

77002

77050

76133

77001

78041

77061

77062

Last Kig Sire Dan

ISIS

0245

0026

0034

0024

0025

0040

0239

0240

0241

0238

0041

0043

0042

0044

0047

0048

0049

0046

Grp

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SSP

SsP

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

55,

Age

0

0

0

0

0

0

59

59

59

59

71

71

71

63

83

83

83

83

Death

Age Age

0 74K

0 40K

O 52K

0 39K

0 40K

0 58K

25 lID

25 15~’

25 12K

25 12K

61 ID

61 69K

61 8D

73 4D

73 20K

73 151K

73 96K

73 150K

Sthk

U

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Sire

SeiS

F WILD

K WILD

K WILD

F WILD

F WILD

K WILD

U 18

K 18

F 18

U ia

K 8

F 8

U 8

K 6

K 6

K 6

K 6

USA NA 20.10.81
57

ID I) Page 14

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feh.1991

Sire Dan Date of

Sex $ S Birth

12 13.05.77

14 16.05.77

14 16.05.77

14 16.05.77

14 16.05.77

U 6

N 2

K 2

F 2

1 2

F 2 14 16.05.77

2 14 16.05.77

3 7 23.05.77

3 7 23.05.77

7 23.05.77

WILD 01.04.78

32 20.04.78

32 20.04.78

40 25.04.78

40 25.04.78

40 25.04.78

28 40 25.04.78

18 36 28.04.78

Date of

Death

15.05.77

21.07.78

21.07.78

21.07 .78

21.07.78

21.07.78

21.07.78

01.05.79

14.02.78

21.07.78

24.07.85

10.01.79

15.05.78

15.01.79

25.05.78

25.05.78

25.05.78

01. 10.80

Iubr.

Coeff.

First location

Location now

. . . . .

. . . .

3

WILD

WILD

WILD

K 28

U 28

U 28

U

K

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

DI. LONG

DR. LONG

DI. LONG

DR. LONG

DI. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag

Housenane ISIS Grp

0045 SSP

1610 0054 5SF

1611 0055 6SF

166 0050 SSP

0051 SSP

0052 SSP

0053 5SF

0057 SSP

0058 5SF

- since

13.05.77

13.05.77

16. 05.77

16.05. 77

16.05.77

16.05.77

16.05. 77

16.05.77

16.05.77 167

16.05.77

16.05.77 1GB

16. 05.77

16.05.77 WG9

16. 05.77

23.05.77 WG13

23.05.77

23.05.77 1614

23.05.77

23.05.77 1612

23.05.77

23.03.80 80019

23.03.80

20.04.78 78074

20 .04. 78

20.04.78

20.04.78

25.04.78 78075

25 .04. 78

25.04.78

25.04. 78

25.04 .78

25.04. 78

25.04.78

25.04.78

28.04.78 78077

28.04.78

0056

0246

0242

0243

0073

0070

0071

0072

0089

Sire

Age

83

120

Dan

Age

73

74

Death

Age

2D

14 K

14 K

14 K

Stbk

I

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

F

K

K

F

F

F

F

120 74

120 74

120 74 14K

120 74 14K

120 74 14K

108 86 23K

108 86 9K

SSP 108 86 14 K

5SF 0 0 88K

SSP 0 61 9K

5SF 0 61 25D

6SF 59 37 9K

SSP 59 37 1K

SSP 59 37 1K

SSP 59 37 1K

5SF 71 49 29K
58

Page $5

ID WOLF (Cmii. nfua peozji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk

U

73

74

75

Sire Dam Date of

Sex $ S Birth

F 18 36 28.04.78

U 18 36 28.04.78

U 17 29 05.05.78

76 U 17 29 05.05.78

77 U 17 29 05.05.78

78 U 17 29 05.05.78

79 F 8 16 05.05.78

80 U 8 16 05.05.78

81 U 8 16 05.05.78

82 U 8 16 05.05.78

83 U 8 16 05.05.78

84 K 33 15 10.05.78

85 K 33 15 10.05.78

86 K 33 15 10.05.78

87 F 33 15 10.05.78

88 F 33 15 10.05.78

89 F 33 15 10.05.78

90 F 33 15 10.05.78

Date of

Death

23.04.80

01.05.78

20.05.78

23.05.78

06.06.78

14.06.78

21.04.90

06.05.78

06.05.78

06.05.78

08.05.78

01.05.84

09 .08 .79

09. 08. 79

27.02.79

28.02.79

09 .08 .79

01.05.84

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOKA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DR. LONG

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dam

— since Rousenaze ISIS Grp Age Age

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

28.04.78 78078

28.04.78

28.04.78

28 .04 .78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78 WG17

02.12.88

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05.05.78

05. 05 .78

10.05.78 1618

20.10.80

10.05.78 1619

10.05.78

10.05.78 WG2O

10.05.78

10.05.78 WG21

10.05.78

10.05.78 WG22

10.05.78

10.05.78 WG23

10.05.78

10.05.78 WG24

0088

0090

0059

0060

0051

0062

0095

0091

0092

0093

0094

0081

0082

0083

0084

0085

0086

0087

SSP

SSP

SSP

SsP

SSP

55I~

SSP

ssP

55,

SSP

SSP

SsP

55,

SSP

SSP

55,

SSP

SSP

Death

Age

71 49 24K

71 49 3D

71 81 15D

71 61 18D

71 61 1K

71 61 1K

83 85 144K

83 85

83 85

83 85

83 85

47 85

47 85

47 85

47 85

47 85

47 85

47 85

ID

ID

iD

3D

72 K

15 K

15 K

10 K

10 K

15 K

72 II

DR. LONG USA NA 20.10.80
59

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus gregorji) PageS 6

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk Sire Dan Date of

U Sex $ $ Birth

91 U 24 30 16.05.78

92 U 24 30 16.05.78

93 U 24 30 16.05.78

94 F 6 12 16.05.78

95 U 6 12 16.05.78

96 U 6 12 16.05.76

97 U 6 12 16.05.78

98 U 6 12 16.05.78

99 U 6 12 16.05.78

100 K 3 7 18.05.78

101 F 3 7 18.05.78

102 U 3 7 18.05.78

103 U 3 7 18.05.78

104 U 3 7 18.05.78

105 U 3 7 18.05.78

106 U 3 7 18.05.78

107 U 2 13 25.05.78

108 U 2 13 25.05.78

. — —— —.

. — — — —.

Date of

Death

22.05.78

22.05.78

22.05.78

05.04.82

19.05.78

19.05.78

21.05.78

22.05.78

24.06.78

07.11.78

28.02.79

18 .06. 78

18. 06. 78

18. 06. 78

18.06.78

18.06. 78

14.07.78

14.07.70

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

— arrived Breeder $

- since Housenane

16.05. 78

16.05.78

16.05.78

16.05. 78

16.05. 78

16. 05.78

16.05.78 WG25

16.05.78

16.05.78

16.05.78

16 .05. 78

16.05.78

16.05.78

16.05.78

16.05.78

16.05. 78

16.05.78

16.05.78

18.05.78 1616

18.05.78

18.05.78 WG15

18.05.78

18 .05. 78

18.05.78

18.05.78

18.05.78

18.05.78

18.05.78

18.05.78

18 .05.78

18.05.78

18. 05. 78

25.05.78

25.05. 78

25.05.78

25.05.18

Last KagSire Dan

ISIS Grp Age Age

0063

0064

0065

0101

0096

0097

0098

0099

0100

0080

0079

0074

0075

0076

0077

0078

0066

0067

SSP

Sc,

55,

SSP

SsP

Sc,

SSP

CS,

SSP

CS,

SC,

SS,

55,

55,

SC,

SS,

sSP

CC,

60 62

60 62

60 62

96 86

96 86

96 86

96 86

96 86

96 86

120 98

120 98

120 98

120

120

120

120

132

132

Death

Age

6D

6D

6D

47 K

3D

3D

SD

6D

1K

OK

9K

1K

98 1K

98 1K

98 1K

98 1K

86 2K

86 2K
60

Page $ 7

ID WOLF (Cmli rufum greemrji)

Ilatorical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sire Dan Date of

Sex $ $ Birth

U 2 13 25.05.78

U 2 13 25.05.78

F 33 14 28.04.79

F 33 14 28.04.79

U 33 14 28.04.79

U 33 14 28.04.79

U 33 14 28.04.79

U 33 14 28.04.79

K 39 54 01.05.19

K 39 54 01.05.79

K 39 54 01.05.79

F 39 54 01.05.79

K 17 29 02.05.79

F 17 29 02.05.79

F 17 29 02.05.79

U 17 29 02.05.79

U 8 15 08.05.79

U 8 15 08.05.79

Date of Inbr. First location

Death

14.07 .78

14.07.78

05.02.87

28. 04.79

28.04.79

03.05.79

03.05.79

04.05.79

15. 11.81

16.08. 79

08.08.79

07 .09.79

08 .05.79

25.01.85

05.05.79

10.05.79

10.05. 79

Coeff. Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

VIC. TX

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

- arrived Breeder $ Last Kng Sire Dan

- since Bommenme ISIS Gyp Age Age Age

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA IA

25.05.78

25.05.78

25.05.78

25.05.78

28.04.79 1630

28.04.79

28.04.79 1631

22.03.83

28.04.79

28.04.79

28.04 .79

28.04.79

28.04.79

28.04. 79

28.04.79

28.04.79

01.05.79

01.05.79

01.05.791632

01.05.79

01.05.791633

01.05.79

01.05.791634

01.05.79

02.05.79 1035

02.05.79

02. 05. 79

02.05.79

02.05.79 1638

02.05.79

02.05.79

02.05 .79

08.05.79

08.05. 79

08. 05. 79

08.05.79

0088 CSP 132

0069 SSP 132

0114 5SF 59

0115 SCP 59

0110 SSP 59

0111 SSP 59

0112 SSP 59

0113 SSP 59

0116 5SF 47

0117 5SF 47

0118 5SF 47

0119 SSP 47

0121 5SF 83

0120 5SF 83

0122 5SF 83

0244 5SF 83

0102 5SF 95

0103 SSP

Death

86 2K

86 2K

97

97

97

97

97

97

24

24

24

24

73

73

73

73

97

95 97

93 K

OD

OD

SD

SD

3D

30 K

4K

3M

4K

6D

69 K

3D

2D

2D

Stbk

U

108

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124.

125

126
61

Page U 8

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus greg.rji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Fe~.1991

Sire D Date of

U $ Birth

6 12 11.05.79

6 12 11.05.79

6 12 11.05.79

6 12

6 12

6 12

24 30

24 30

24 30

24 30

17 ~132

17 132

11 54

54

54

54

54

11.05.79

11.05.79

11.05. 79

11.05. 79

11.05.79

11.05.79

11.05.79

20.04.80

20.O4AO

27.04.80

11 27.04.80

11 27.04.80

11 27.04.80

11 27.04.80

42 79 03.05.80

Date of Inbr.

Death Coeff.

27.09.79

04.11.80

20.01.83

16.05.79

03.08.79

10.07.79

30.07.79

07.01.90

14.05.79

09.09.84

07.04.89

04.12.83

15.06.88

19.06.81

13.02.91

04.02.85

First location

Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

VIC. TI

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CABOLIBA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

FOSSIL RIM

TACOMA

LOS ANGELIC

TACOMA

TACOMA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

- arrived Breeder $

Rousensue

1026

1627

1628

since

11.05.79

11.05 .79

11.05 .79

11.05.79

11.05 .79

11.05.79

11.05.79

11.05.79

11.05 .79

11.05. 79

11.05. 79

09.01.11

11. 05. 79

11.05.79

11.05 .79

11.05.79

11. 05.79

29.11.88

11. 05. 79

11.05.79

20.04.80

22.03.83

20 .04.80

20 .04.80

27.04.80

27 .04.80

27.04. 80

12.11.86

27.04.80

27.04.80

27.04.80

07.02.89

27.04.80

12.02.89

03.05.80

03.05.80

1629

1637

1639

1638

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1662

Stbk

U Sex

127 K

128 K

129 K

ha Sire

Gyp Age

CSP 107

CCP 107

CCP 107

SSP 107

SSP 107

CSP 107

Dam

Ago

97

97

97

97

97

97

130

131

132

133

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

F

F

F

K

K

K

U

K

F

K

K

K

F

F

K

Death

Age

SM

18 K

44 K

7D

3M

2K

3M

128 K

3D

11 53K

11 108K

35 431

Last

ISIS

0106

0107

0108

0104

0105

0109

0124

0125

0126

0123

0129

0128

0152

0153

0154

0155

0156

0163

SC,

CS,

SSP

SSP

sS,

CC,

CS,

CS,

SC,

CS,

CS,

CS,

71 73

71 73

71 73

71 73

95

95

107

107

107

107

107

47

35

35

35

35

24

98 K

14 K

130K

57 K

V
62

ID WOLF (Cmii. rufus gregoqi) Page $ 9

Hiutorical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Ieb.1991

Stbk Sire Dam Date of

$ Sex $ $ Birth

145 K 42 79 03.05.80

146 K 42 79 03.05.80

147 K 42 79 03.05.80

148 K 42 79 03.05.80

149 F 42 79 03.05.80

150 K 53 14 05.05.80

151 K 53 14 05.05.80

152 F 53 14 05.05.80

153 F 53 14 05.05.80

154 F 53 14 05.05.00

155 V 53 14 05.05.80

156 F 53 14 05.05.80

157 F 53 14 05.05.80

158 K 24 35 05.05.80

159 K 24 35 05.05.80

160 K 24 35 05.05.80

161 F 24 35 05.05.80

Date of Inbr. First location

Death Coeff. Location now

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dam

— since Housenmie ISIS Grp Age Age

0164

0165

0166

0167

0168

0150

0151

0144

0145

0146

Death

Age . . ——— .

. . ———— .

08. 02.83

19.04.88

04.08.81

05.05.80

05.05.80

07.05.80

10.05.80

26. 01. 84

28.02.82

26.07.80

16. 05 .80

26.06. 80

04.08.81

26 .01. 84

08.05.80

28.10.80

162 F 24 35 05.05.80 29.04.81

TACOMA USA 03.05.80 WG63

TACOMA USA NA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA 03.05.80 WG64

TACOMA USA IA 22.01.87

TACOMA USA 03.05.80 1665

TACOMA USA NA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 03.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1649

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 WG5O

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1651

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1652

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1658

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1659

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1660

TACOKA USA NA 05.05.80

TACOMA USA 05.05.80 1661

TACOMA USA NA 05.05.80

55,

SSP

Ss,

sS,

sS,

SS,

SS,

SS,

Ss,

ssp

0147 5SF

0148 SSP

0149 SSP

0157 SSP

0158 5SF

0162 SSP

0159 SSP

0160 5SF

47

47

47

47

47

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

83

83

83

24 33K

24 96K

24 15K

24 2D

24 2D

109 2D

109 SD

109 45L

109

109

109

109

109

73

73

22 K

3M

11 D

2K

15 K

45 K

73 3D

83 73 6K

83 73 12K
63

Page $10

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus gregoryi)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sire Dan Date of

$ U Birth

24 35 05.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

8 13 10.05.80

6 13 10.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

8 15 12.05.80

24 152 23.04.81

24 152 23.04.81

24 152 23.04.81

Date of

Death

08.05.80

02.10. 86

14. 06. 80

18.06.80

03.08.81

13.05.80

05.08.80

10.06.80

03.08.81

04.08.81

04. 08.81

03.08.81

03.08.81

25.07.80

25.04.81

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

BATON ROUGE

TACOMA

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dan

— since Ronuename ISIS Grp Age Age

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

05.06.80

05.05.80

10.05.80 1647

10.05.80

10.05.80 WG48

10 .05.80

10.05.80

10 .05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80 WG46

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

10.05.80

12.05.80 1643

12 .05 .80

12.05.80 1644

12.05.80

12.05.80 WG45

12.05.80

12.05.80 WG4O

12.05.80

12.05.80 1641

12.05.80

12.05.80 1642

12.05.80

23.04.81

23.04.81

23.04.81 WG74

01.02.90

23.04.81 WG75

0161

0137

0138

0142

0143

0136

0139

0140

0141

0133

0134

0135

0130

0131

0132

0188

0189

0190

SSP

SSP

55,

55,

ssP

Ss,

SS,

55,

SSP

sS,

55,

55,

55,

SsP

sS,

Ss,

55,

55,

83

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

107

107

107

107

107

107

95

95

95

73

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

12

12

12

Stbk

U Sex

163!

164K

165 K

166 K

167 K

168 F

—169 F

170 F

171 F

172 K

173 K

174 K

175 F

176 F

177 F

178 H

179 K

180 K

Death

Age

3D

77 K

1K

1K

15 K

3D

25 D

1K

15 K

15 K

15 K

15 K

15 K

2K

2D

FOSSIL RIM USA IA 07.02.89
64

Page $11

ID Eu (Cmli rufus gr,aorjl)

Historical list of captive population

Plated on: 13.Feb.1991

Sire Dam

$ $

24 152

24 152

24 152

34132

34132

34132

8 13

8 13

8 13

Stbk Date of

$ Sex Blrth~

181 F 23.04.81

182 F 23.04.81

183 F 23.04.81

184 K 01.05.81

185 F 01.05.81

186 F 01.05.81

187 K 01.05.81

188 K 01.05.81

189 K 01.05.81

190 F 0 13 01.05.81

191 F 0 13 01.05.81

192 F 8 13 01.05.81

193 F 8 13 01.05.81

194 F 8 13 01.05.81

195 F 8 13 01.05.81

196 V 26 54 01.05.81

197 F 26 54 01.05.81

198 K 11 15 10.05.81

Date of

Death

15.02.82

23.04. 81

28.06. 81

29.05.88

23. 01.82

01.05.81

01.05.81

01. 05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05. 81

28. 12. 07

25.05.88

25.08. 81

26. 05.81

Inhr. First location

Coeff. Location now

- arrived Breeder $

- since lousume

Last Nag Sire Dam

ISIS Grp Age Age

Death

Age

— — —

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

23.04.81 1576

23.04.81

23.04.01

23.04.81

23.04.81

23.04.81

01.05.81 — 12.11.86

01.05.81 1667

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05. 81

01.05.81

01.05.81

01.05.811669

12.11. 86

01.05.81 1670

01.05.81

01.05.81 1672

12.11.86

01.05.81 1673

01.05.81

18.05.81

18.05.81

0191

0192

0193

0169

0170

0171

0174

0175

0176

0177

0178

0179

0180

0181

0182

0186

0187

0172

5SF

55,

SS,

95 12

95 12

95 12

10 K

OD

2K

SSP 83 24 85K

SSP 83 24 9K

SSP 83 24 OD

SSP 119 121 0 ~•

SSF 119 121 0 ~

SSP 119 121 OD

SSP 119 121 0 D

SSP 119

SS~ 119

SSP 119

55,

55,

SSP

SSP

55,

119

119

47

47

120

121

121

121

121

121

48

48

122

OD

OD

OD

80 K

85 K

4K
65

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus gregoryi) Page U 12

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sire Dam Date of

Sex $ $ Birth

F 11 15 18.05.81

K 6 65 25.05.81

F 6 65 25.05.81

F 6 65 25.05.81

K 11 54 23.04.82

K 11 54 23.04.82

F 11 54 23.04.82

F 11 54 23.04.82

F 11 54 23.04.82

K 52 132 29.04.82

K 52 132 29.04.82

F 52 132 29.04.82

K 24 112 29.04.82

K 24 112 29.04.82

K 24 112 29.04.82

F 24 112 29.04.82

F 24 112 29.04.82

Date of

Death

06.09.81

23.06.81

25.05.81

02.07.84

01. 11.82

25.04.82

04.08.87

01. 11. 82

30.07.89

12.07.82

29 .01. 83

27.12.88

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

- arrived Breeder $

- since Housename

1668

. ————. . .

. ~ . .

.250

.250

.250

27.09.88

07.07.82

216 F 24 112 29.04.82 21.08.88

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

ICCRC

N. CAROLINA

WCSRC

TACOMA

WCSRC

WCSRC

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

ALEX

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

18.05.81

18.05.81

25.05.81

25.05.81

25.05.81

25.05.81

25.05.81 1671

25.05.81

23.04.82 WG8O

23.04. 82

23. 04. 82

23.04.82

23.04.82 WG77

12. 11. 86

23.04.82 1678

23.07.87

23.04.82 1679

23.04.82

29.04.82 WG83

11.01.89

29.04.82

29.04.82

29.04.82 WG82

29. 04. 82

29.04.82 WG84

12. 11. 86

29.04.82 WG85

29.04.82

29.04.82 1686

22.01.88

29.04.82

29.04.82

29.04.82 WG87

22.02.89

29.04.82 WG88

USA NA 15.12.83

Last

ISIS

0173

0183

0184

0185

0208

0209

0205

0206

0207

0195

0196

0194

0197

0198

0199

0200

0201

0202

Nag

Grp

SS,

55,

sS,

55,

sSP

5SF

SB,

55,

5SF

55,

55,

5SF

ss,

ssP

55,

55,

55,

5SF

Sire

Age

120

132

132

132

131

131

131

131

131

58

58

58

107

107

107

107

107

107

Dam

Age

122

38

38

38

59

59

59

59

59

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

Death

Age

4K

28 D

OD

37 K

6K

2D

63 K

6K

87 K

2K

9K

80 K

77 K

2K

76 K

Stbk

U

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215
66

Page $13

ID UDLF (Cmiii rufus gregsrji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk Sire Dan Date of

S Sex S $ Birth

217 F 24 112 29.04.82

218 F 24 112 29.04.82

219 N 53 79 19.04.83

220 F 53 79 19.04.83

221 F 53 79 19.04.83

222 F 53 79 19.04.83

223 U 53 79 19.04.83

224 K 11 54 23.04.83

225 K 11 54 23.04.83

226 U 11 54 23.04.83

227 K 164 196 23.04.83

228 K 164 196 23.04.83

229 F 164 196 23.04.83

230 F 146 152 08.05.83

231 F 146 152 08.05.83

232 1 146 152 08.05.83

233 F 146 152 08.05.83

234 K 140 35 10.05.83

Date of Inbr.

Death Coeff.

20. 08. 82

03.09 .85

30.08.83

24.04.83

28.04.83

03.09.89

01.05.83

02. 05.83

15. 10. 88

18. 12. 87

.063

.063

.063

10.03.84

11. 01.91

28.11.84

First location

Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

AUDUBON

SNOWS

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

TACOKA

AUDUBON

TACOMA

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

WCSRC

TACOMA

WCSRC

TACOMA

UCSRC

WCSRC

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

VIC. TI

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

VIC. TI

TACOMA

TACOMA

- arrived Breeder $

- since Housenane

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

29. 04 .82

29.04.82

29.04.82

29.04.82

19 .04.83

28.01.91

19.04.83

19.04.83

19.04.83

20.11.84

19.04.83

07.12.88

19.04.83

19.04.83

23.04.83

05.12.89

23 .04.83

16. 01.91

23.04. 83

23. 04.83

23.04.83

12.11.86

23.04.83

23.04.83

23.04.83

23.04.83

08.05.83

10.02.87

08.08.83

12. 11. 86

08.05 .83

08.05.83

08.05.83

08.01.91

10.05.83

10.05.83

1689

1690

LFIO6

LF1O7

LF1O8

LF1O9

LF1O5

WG92

WG93

WG91

WG94

WG95

WG96

WG97

1698

1699

Last Mng

ISIS Grp

0203 SSP

0204 5SF

0234 SSP

0235 SSP

0236 SSP

0237 SSP

0233 SSP

0211 SSP

0212 SSP

0210 5SF

0213 5SF

0214 SSP

0215 SSP

0216 5SF

0217 5SF

0218 5SF

Sire Dan

Age Age

109 36

107 36

69 59

69 59

69 59

69 59

69 59

143 71

143 71

143 71

33 24

33 24

33 24

34 36

34 36

34 38

0219 55? 34 36

0220 SSP 34 109

Death

Age

4K

40 K

4K

SD -~

SD

76 K

8D

9D

65 K

55 K

10 K

92 K

19 K
67

Page $14

ID WOLF (Camis rufus grsgorji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sthk

U

235 K

236 K

237 K

238F

239 F

240 F

— 241 F

242 K

243 V

244 F

245 F

246 F

247 K

248 F

249

250

251

252

Sire Dan Date of

Sex $ $ Birth

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

140 35 10.05.83

52 195 13.05.83

52 195 13.05.83

52 195 13.05.83

195 13.05.83

195 13.05.83

54 19.04.84

54 19.04.84

54 19.04.84

54 11.04.84

216 21.04.84

52

52

11

11

K 11

F 11

F 146

V 146

Date of Inbr. First location

Death Coeff. Location now

23.05.83

23.05.83

10.06.83

24. 07 .84

16.05.83

31.05 .83

23.06.83

04. 11.89

14.07.86

27.09.89

14.05. 83

28.04. 84

28.04.84

216 21.04.84 09.05.90

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

S. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TALLAHASSI

TACOMA

G.B. FL

TACOMA

KISSISSIPPI

TACOMA

TACOMA

WCSRC

TACOMA

WCSIC

KNOXVILLE

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

ALEX

TACOMA

ALEX

FOSSIL ilK

— arrived Breeder U

- since Housenane

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

10.05.83

10 .05.83

10 .05. 83

10.05.83

10 .05. 83

10 .05. 83

10.05.83 IGlOO

10.05.83

10.05.83

10.05.83

10.05.83

10 .05.83

10. 05.83

10.05.83

13.05.83

19.11.87

13.05.83

15.01.91

13.05.83

25.04.84

13.05.83

10 .01.89

13 .05 .83

13.05. 83

19.04.84

21.07 .89

19 .04. 84

17.01.91

19.04.84

19 .04. 84

19.04.84

19.04.84

21.04.84

15 .01.91

21.04 .84

07.02.89

16104

16101

WG1O2

WG1O3

Last Nag Sire Dan Death

ISIS Grp Age Age Age

0221

0222

0223

0224

0225

0226

0227

0232

0228

0229

0230

0231

0247

0248

0249

0250

0251

0252

11110

11111

GLI12

GL113

SSP

SSP

55,

Ss,

SSP

SSP

SSP

55,

55,

55,

sS,

55,

SSP

SSP

SB,

55,

55,

55,

34 109 13D

34 109 13D

34 109 1K

34 109 14K

34 109 6D

34 109

34 109

70 24

70 24

70 24

70 24

70 24

155 83

155 83

155 83

155 83

46 24

46 24

21 D

1K

78 K

38K

76 K

ID

SD

ID

73 K
68

ID WOLF (Cuuii rufus gregoqi) Page 115

Hiatorical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Dau Date of

$ Birth

216 21.04.84

216 21.04.84

112 23.04.84

112 23.04.84

112 23.04.84

112 23.04.84

112 23.04.84

23.04.84

18.05.84

18.05.84

Date of Inbr. First location

Death Coeff. Location no,

- arrived Breeder $

— since Housemame

GL1l4

GLilS

UHhiB

UIli?

21.04.84

13. 12 .90

21.04.84

21.04.84

23.04.64

08.11.85

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

23.04.84

18.05.84

18.05.84

18.05.64

18.05.84

18.05.84

18.05.84

18.05.84

18.05.84

18.05. 84

18.05.84

18. 05.84

18.05. 84

23.04.85

23.04.85

23.04.85

15 .01.91

22.04.86

20.01.89

23.04.85

23.04.85

Last

ISIS

0253

0254

0255

0256

0257

0258

0259

0260

0261

0262

0263

0264

0265

0266

0267

0268

0269

0270

Nag

Grp

SSP

SSP

SB,

sSP

Ss,

SS,

SSP

55,

55,

5,,

SSP

Ss,

SSP

SSP

SsP

sSP

55,

sSP

Sire

Age

46

46

46

46

Dam

Age

24

24

60

60

Death

Age . . . .— . . . .—

137 112

144 65

144 65

144 65 18.05.84

144 65 18.05.04

144 65 18.05.84

144 65 18.05.84

53 79 23.04.85

53 79 23.04.85

~0 ‘70 2W@4.86

53 79 23.04.85

08.01.89

99.99.99

26.06.84

26. 06 .84

26. 06. 84

26.06. 84

24.07.85

24. 07 .85

24.07.85

24.07.85

24.07.85

24.07.85

23.04.85

ALEX

TACOMA

ALEX

ALEX

VIC. TX

TACOMA

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

TACOMA

TACOMA

AUDUBON

AUDUBON

USA

USA NA

USA

USAIA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

15118

15119

16120

16121

16122

16123

LF288

LV260

LF2TO

46 60

46 60

46 60

46 60

47 74

47 74

47 74

47 74

47 74

47 74

93 84

93 84

93 84

93 84

57 K

9

2K

2K

2K

2K

14 K

14 K

14 K

14 K

14 K

14 K

OD

Stbk

$

253

254

255

256

257

Sire

Sail

F 146

F 146

K 137

K 137

137

137

137

K

258 F

259 F

260F

261 K

262 K

263 K

264

265

266

267

268

270

F

F

F

K

K

V

F
69

Page U 16

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus grugsrji)

Historical list of captive populatiom

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk

U

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

Sex

F

K

K

F

F

F

F

F

F

Sire Dam Date of

$ $ Birth

53 79 23.04.85

11 54 03.05.85

11 54 03.05.85

11 54 03.05.85

11 54 03.05.85

11 54 03.05.85

34 132 06.05.85

34 132 06.05.85

34 132 06.05.85

244 07.05.85

244 07.05.85

244 07.05.85

244 07.05.85

54 21.04.86

54 21.04.86

54 21.04.86

K 213

K 213

K 213

F 213

284 K 11

285 F 11

286 F 11

287 F 11

288 F 11

54 21.04.86

54 21.04.86

Date of Imbr.

bath Coeff.

23.04.85

08.05.85

08.05.85

08.05.85

08.05.85

29.07.86

14.07.86

12.09.05

15.08.86

29.04.86

07.05.86

15.08.86

27.10.86

First location

Location now

AUUIBON

AUDUBON

ICSRC

TACOMA

ICSIC

WCSRC

ICSRC

WCSRC

ICSRC

NCSRC

WCSRC

NCSRC

TACOMA

NATIONAL ZOO

TACOMA

VIC. TX

TACOMA

S. CAROLINA

G.B. FL

N. CAROLINA

G.B. FL

G.B. FL

G.B. FL

OGLEBAY

G.B. FL

G.B. FL

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSUC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

- arrived Breeder U

- since Housename

23.04.85

23.04. 85

03.05.85 11272

13. 12.90

03.05.85

03.05. 85

03.05 .85

03.05 .85

03.05.85

03.05.85

03.05.85

03.05.85

06.05.85 16277

19.09.90

06.05.85 WG278

17.01.91

06.05.85 WG279

19.11.87

07.05.85 T1280

05.01. 90

07.05.85 TZ281

07.05.85

07.05.85 TZ282

28.12.88

07.05.85

07.05.85

21.04.86 11284

21.04.86

21.04.86

21.04.86

21.04. 86

21.04. 86

21.04.86

21.04.86

21. 04. 86

21.04.86

11287

11288

Last

ISIS

0271

0272

0273

0274

0275

0276

0277

0278

0279

Nag Sire

Grp Age

SSP 93

SSP 167

SSP 167

5SF 167

SSP 167

5SF 167

SSP 131

5SF 131

5SF 131

0280

0281

0282

0283

0284

0285

0286

0287 SSP 179

0288 5SF 179

SSF 34

SSP 34

SSP 34

6SF 34

SSP 179

SSP 179

SSP 179

Dam

Age

84

96

96

96

96

96

72

72

72

24

24

24

24

107

107

107

107

107

Death

Age

GD

SD

SD

SD

SD

39K

14 K

4K

4K

8D

16 D

4K

6K
70

ID Eu (~u ~ grqmryl) Page $17

Historical list of captive population

Primted on: 13.Feb.1991

Sire Dam Date of

Sex $ $ Birth

F 28.04.86

F 28.04.86

K 20.04.86

K 28.04.86

K 28.04.86

K 29.04.86

K 29.04.86

F 29.04.86

F 29.04.86

F 29.04.86

K 227 06.05.86

F 227 06.05.86

F 227 06.05.86

V 06.05.86

V 06.05.86

F 06.05.86

F 194 06.05.86

Date of

Death

19 .08.89

11. 12. 86

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

213 244 G.B. FL

S. CAROLINA

213 244 G.B. FL

TACOMA

213 244 . . G.B. VL

LOS ANGELES

213 244 . . G.B. FL

LOS ANGELES

293 213 244 . . G.B. FL

VIC. TX

294 24 196 . . TACOMA

TACOMA

295 24 196 02.10.86 TACOMA

TACOMA

296 24 198 23.12.86 TACOMA

TACOMA

297 24 196 . . TACOMA

FRESIO ZOO

298 24 196 06.07.86 TACOMA

TACOMA

299 194 . TACOMA

KNOXVILLE

300 194 . . TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

301 194 TACOMA

TACOMA

302 227 194 . . TACOMA

FOSSIL RIM

303 227 194 TACOMA

SNOKIES

304 227 194 TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

305 227 . TACOMA

WCSRC

306 F 227 194 06.05.86 14.07.86 .063 TACOMA

.063

.063

.063

.063

.063

.063

.063

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

- arrived Breeder $

- since Housenane

TZ289

TZ290

TZ291

TZ292

TZ293

16294

16295

16296

16297

WG298

16299

16300

16301

16302

15303

16304

16305

16306

28.04.86

22.11.88

28.04.86

25.09. 86

28.04.86

20.12.90

28.04.86

12.02.89

28.04.86

30.11.88

29.04.86

05.12.89

29 .04.86

29.04.86

29.04.86

29.04. 86

29.04.86

07.01.91

29.04.86

29.04.86

06.05.86

17.01.91

06. 05. 86

22.01.88

06.05.86

19.12.89

06.05.86

06.12.90

06.05.86

28.01.91

06.05.86

09.10.90

06.05.86

06. 12. 88

06.05.86

Stbk

U

289

290

291

292

Death

Age

40 K

7K

Dan

Age

36

36

36

36

36

60

Last

ISIS

0289

0290

0291

0292

0293

0294

0295

0296

0297

0298

0299

0300

0301

0302

0303

0304

0305

Sire

Age

46

46

46

46

46

155

155

155

155

155

34

34

34

34

34

34

Nag

Grp

SB,

SSP

sS,

55,

ss,

55,

5SF

Ss,

55,

55,

SS,

55,

5SF

SSP

55,

55,

sSP

0306 SSP

5K

8K

2K

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

3460

34 60 2K

TACOMA USA NA 08.05.86
Page $18

ED WOLF (Camis rufus gregoryi)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk

U

307

308

Sire Dam

Sex $ $

N 247 54

U 54

54

194

247

309 U 247

310 K 227

311 K 242

312 K 242

313 F 242

14 F 242

315 V 242

316 F 242

317 K 52

318 K

319

320

321

322

323

324

K

F

F

F

F

F

52

52

179

179

179

Date of

Birth

18.04.87

18.04.87

18.04.87

25.04.87

279 26.04.87

279 26.04.87

279 26.04.87

279 26.04.87

279 26.04.87

279 26.04.87

142 26.04.87

142 26.04.87

142 26.04.87

245 12.05.87

245 12.05.87

Date of

Death

28.04.87

27.04.87

27.04.87

28.04.87

21.08.87

Inbr. First location

Coeff.

.250

.250

.250

.063

.063

.063

.063

08.02.88 .063

.063

.063

11.08.87 .125

11.08.87 .125

13. 08. 87

245 12.05.87

179 245 12.05.87

179 245 12.05.87

.125

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

Location now

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

WCSRC

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

WCSRC

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

BATON ROUGE

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOKA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOKA

TACOMA

TACOMA

LBL

TACOMA

- arrived Breeder $

Last Nag Sire

- since Housenase ISIS Grp Age

0307 SSP 34

0308 SSP 34

0309 5SF 34

USA 18.04.87

USA NA 18.04.87

USA 18.04.87

USA NA 18.04.87

USA 18.04.87

USA NA 18.04.87

USA 25.04.87

USA NA 25.04.87

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 26.04.87

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 25.01.91

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 22.01.88

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 26.04.87

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 06.12.88

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 22.01.88

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 26.04.87

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 26.04.87

USA 26.04.87

USA NA 22.01.88

USA 12.05.87

USA NA 12.05.87

USA 12.05.87

USA NA 12.05.87

USA 12.05.87

USA NA 13.12.90

USA 12.05.87

USA NA 28.01.91

USA 12.05.87

0310

0311

0312

16311

WG312

16313

WG314

WG315

16316

WG317

WG318

WG319

WG320

WG321

WG322

WG323

16324

5SF

5SF

SSP

0313 SSP

0314 SSP

0315 SB,

0316 5SF

0317 8SF

0318 SSP

0319 5SF

0320 SSP

0321 SSP

0322 SB,

0323 5SF

0324 SSP

Death

Age

10 D

OD

9D

3D

4K

9K

4K

4K

3K

Dam

Age

119

119

119

72

24

24

24

24

24

24

84

84

84

48

48

46

45

45

45

45

45

45

117

117

117

71

71

71 48

71 48

71 48

BIARDSLET ZO USA NA 28.01.91
72

Page $19

ED Eu (Cmiii rufus grsgorjl)

listorical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sthk Sire

$ Sex $

32SF 179

326 F 179

K 179

K 179

K 242

F 242

K 242

K 242

K 213

K 213

K 213

K 213

Dam Date of

$ Birth

245 12.05.87

245 12.05.87

245 12.05.87

245 12.05.87

279 21.04.88

279 21.04.88

279 21.04.88

279 21.04.88

245 05.05.88

245 05.05.88

245 05.05.88

245 05.05.88

F 213 245 05.05.88

F 213 245 os.os.ao

F 213 245 05.05.88

K 268 215 18.05.88

K 268 215 18.05.88

Date of Inbr. First location

Death Coeff. Location now

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dan

- since louseune Grp Age Age

SSP 71 48

SSP 71 48

ISIS

0325

0326

0327

0328

0329

0330

55,

SS,

s5,

s5,

0331 5SF

0332 SSP

0333 SSP

0334 SSP

0335 SSP

0336 5SF

0337 SSP

0336 55P

0339 5SF

0340 SSP

71

71

59

59

59

59

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

37

48

48

36

36

36

36

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

73

0341 5SF 37 73

0342 5SF 37 73

12 .05.87

12.05.87

12 .05. 07

12.05.8?

12.05.87

12 .07 .90

12.05.87

22.01.86

21.04.86

21.04.86

21.04.86

21.04.88

21.04.88

18.01.89

21.04.18

18.01.89

05.05.86

05.05.86

05.05.86

05.05.86

05.05.86

19.09.90

05.05.86

23.08.90

05.05.86

05.05.86

05.05.86

12. 12.90

05.05.86

08.12.86

18.05.86

18. 05.86

18. 05.86

15.01.91

18.05.86

15325

15326

15327

15328

ffS329

ff6330

ff6331

ff5332

ff6333

ff6334

ff6335

ff6336

ff5337

ff6338

ff6339

L1340

LV341

L1342

Death

Age

. . ————————. .~. .~. ——.

.031

18.08.87

20 .09.90

25.04.88

14.06.88

22.11.89

10.05.88

.031

.031

.031

.063

.063

.063

.063

25.05.88

27. 11. 90

26.07.88

342 F 268 215 18.05.88

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

DURAIT IS.

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

NATIONAL ZOO

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

ALEX

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

BUllET

BURKE!

BURKE!

SKOKIES

BURKE?

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

3K

40 K

4D

2K

19

SD

20 D

31 K

2K

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

LOWRY P1 ZOO USA NA 05.12.90
73

Page $ 20

ID WOLF (Camis rufus greg.ryi)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feh.1991

Sex

F

F

K

346K

347 F

348 F

349K

350 K

Sire Dam

$ $

268 215

211 196

291 289

291 289

280 269

280 269

280 269

280 269

F 184

K 219

K 219

K 219

K 293

K 293

K 293

Date of

Birth

18. 05.86

05.05.86

10.05.86

10.05.86

03.05.86

03.05.86

03.05.86

03.05.86

205 28.04.86

303 15.04.89

351

352

353 303 15.04.89

354 303 15.04.89

355 301 29.04.89

356 301 29.04.89

357 301 29.04.89

358 K 293 301 29.04.89

359 K 293 301 29.04.89

360 F 293 301 29.04.89

Date of

Death

29.07.88

03.07.88

10.10.89

.047

.047

.047

27.01.91

29.04.89

.055

• . .055

.055

.055

.055

Inbr.

Coeff.

First location

Location now

BURR?

BURR?

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

.250 TACOMA

TACOMA

.250 TACOMA

TACOMA

AUDUBON

TACOMA

AUDUBON

ROGER WILLIA

AUDUBON

LBL

AUDUBON

FRESNO ZOO

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

TALLAHASSE

N. CAROLINA

TALLABASSE

ROSS PAil

TALLABASSE

TALLAHASSE

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

AUDUBON

VIC. TX

TACOMA

VIC. TX

KISSISSIPPI

.047

.063

.063

.063

.063

.055

VIC. TX

- arrived Breeder $

Housenane

LV343

FVS344

16345

- since

USA 18.05.88

USA NA 18.05.88

USA 05.05.88

USA NA 05.05.88

USA 10.05.88

USA NA 10.05.88

USA 10.05.88

USA NA 10.05.88

USA 03.05.88

USA NA 20.01.89

USA 03.05.88

USA NA 07.01.91

USA 03.05.88

USA NA 30.01.91

USA 03.05.88

USA NA 18.09.89

USA 28.04.88

USA NA 28.04.88

USA 15.04.89

USA NA 06.12.90

USA 15.04.89

USA NA 05.09.90

USA 15.04.89

USA NA 15.04.89

USA 29.04.89

USA NA 29.04.89

USA 29.04.89

USA NA 19.12.89

USA 29.04.89

USA NA 19.12.89

USA 29.04.89

USA NA 16.01.91

USA 29.04.89

03.01.90

29.04.89

19.12.89

LOWRY P1 ZOO USA NA

VIC. TX USA

TACOMA USA NA

16346

LF347

LF348

LF349

LF350

FWS351

352

353

354

UH355

UH356

UH357

UB358

UR359

UH360

Last Kng Sire Dam

ISIS

0343

0344

0345

0346

0347

0348

0349

0350

0351

0352

0353

0354

0355

0356

0357

0358

Grp

Ss,

SS,

SSP

55,

55,

sS,

55,

Ss,

55,

55,

55,

SS,

sS,

55,

55,

55,

Age

37

72

22

22

34

34

34

34

Age

73

84

24

24

36

36

36

36

82 72

70 35

70 35

70 35

34 36

34 36

34 36

34 36

0359 SSP 34 36

0360 SSP 34 36

Stbk

S

343

344

345

Death

Age

2K

2K

17 K

33 K

OD
74

Page $21

ID WOLF (Cmiis rufus gregoryi)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk

U

361

362

363

Sex

F

K

F

Sire

$

293

268

268

Dam

$

301

277

277

Date of

Birth

29.04.89

02.05.89

02.05.89

364 F 268 27? 02.05.89

365 F 268 277 02.05.89

366 F 327 304 03.05.89

361 K 291 233 03.05.89

368

389

370

371

372

313

374

375

K

K

F

F

K

K

K

K

291

291

291

291

280

280

280

280

233

233

233

233.

245

245

245

245

03.05.89

03.05.89

03.05. 89

03.05.89

06.05.89

06.05.89

06.05. 89

06.05.89

Date of

Death

22.11.90

04.08.89

03.05.89

03.05.89

06. 05.89

08.05.89

Inbr. First location

Coeff. Location now

.055

.063

.063

.063

.083

.063

.039

.039

.039

.039

.039

.125

• . .125

• . .125

.125

376 F 280 245 06.05.89

377 F 280 245 06.05.89

378 F 280 245 06.05.89

.125

.125

.125

VIC. TX USA

lOWRY P1 ZOO USA IA

BURKE?

BURKE?

BURNE?

OGLEBAY

BURKE?

BURKE?

BURR?

BUllET

ROSS PARK

ROSS PARK

FOSSIL RIK

FOSSIL RIM

FOSSIL RIM

TACOMA

FOSSIL RIK

BIRMINGHAM

FOSSIL 11K

FOSSIL 11K

FOSSIL ilK

?A~0KA

KISSlSSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI

KISSISSIPPI

N. CAROLINA

KISSISSIPPI

K. CAROLINA

KISSISSIPPI

S. CAROLINA

KISS ISSIPPI

KISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI

KISSISSIPPI

KISSISSIPPI

SKOKIES

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dam

- since Housename ISIS Grp Age

UH361 34

LV362 46

LV363 46

29.04.89

03.01 .90

USA 02.05.89

USA NA 02.05.89

USA 02.05.89

USA NA 12.12.90

USA 02.05.89

USA NA 02.05.89

USA 02.05.89

USA NA 02.05.89

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 03.05.89

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 03.05.89

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 11.12.90

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 11.12.90

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 03.05.89

USA 03.05.89

USA NA 13.12.89

USA 08.05.89

USA NA 06.05.89

USA 06.05.89

USA NA 09.11.90

USA 06.05.89

USA NA 05.01.90

USA 06.05.89

USA IA 15.01.90

USA 06.05.89

USA NA 06.05.89

USA 06.05.89

USA NA 06.05.89

USA 06.05.89

USA NA 15.01.91

LV364

LV365

11366

YE367

YE368

YE369

YE370

YK371

U5P5372

U5P5373

U5P5374

U5P5375

U5P5376

U5P5377

USPS378

0361

0362

0363

0364

0365

0366

0367

0368

0369

0370

0371

0372

0373

0374

0375

0376

0377

0378

SSP

55,

55,

SSP

55,

SSP

SSP

55,

Sep

Ssp

SSP

55,

sSP

55,

55,

55,

ss,

Sep

Age

36

48

48

Death

Age

19 K

3K

iD

OD

3D

SD

48 48

46 48

22 36

34 72

34 72

34 72

34 72

34 72

46 72

46 72

46 72

46 72

46 72

48 72

46 72
75

Page U 22

ID WOLF (Canis rufus gregorji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sthk

$ Sex

37SF

360!

381!

382F

383 F

Sire Dam

$ $

242 289

242 289

242 289

242 289

242 289

384 K 212 195

385 K 212 195

~ K 212 195

387 K 212 195

388 F 212 195

389 F 212 195

F

F

K

F

F

F

390

391

392

393

394

395

Date of Date of Inbr. First location

Birth

14.05.89

14 .05.89

14.05.89

14.05.89

14.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

212 195 21.05.89

212 195 21.05.69

227 205 21.04.89

227 205 27.04.89

227 205 27.04.89

227 205 27.04.89

Death Coeff.

.125

.125

31.08.89 .125

.125

.125

23.05.89

24.05.89

05. 12. 89

24. 01. 90

11. 01.90

.094

.094

.094

.094

Location now

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLIHA

N. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

S. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

ROGER WILLIA

TACOMA

BORNE?

TACOMA

ROSS PARK

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

BIRMINGHAM

TA~

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

1. CAROLINA

I. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

- arrived Breeder $ Last Nag Sire Dam

USA

USA MA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

396 K 327 304 09.04.90 11.04.90 .063 ROSS PARK USA

since

14.05.89

14.05.89

14 .05.89

17.04.90

14.05.89

14.05.89

14 .05.89

17 .04 .90

14. 05.89

16.01 .90

21. 05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.69

21.05. 69

07 .01. 91

21.05.89

04.12.90

21.05.89

05.09.90

21.05.89

21.05.89

21.05.89

04. 12 .90

21.05.69

21. 05. 89

27.04.89

27.04.89

27.04.89

27.04 .89

27 .04.89

27.04.89

27.04.89

27.04.89

09.04.90

Hausenarne

ffS379

ff6380

ffS38l

1VS382

ffS383

16384

19385

16388

16387

16388

16389

16390

16391

ffS392

ff5393

ffS394

ffS395

3396

ISIS

0379

0380

0381

0382

0383

0384

0385

0386

0387

0388

0389

0390

0391

0392

0393

0394

0395

0396

Grp

SSP

sS,

SSP

55,

55?

55,

SB,

55,

55,

CS,

5SF

SS,

55,

55,

SSP

SS,

SSP

5SF

Age

70

70

70

70

70

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

70

70

70

10

33

Age

37

37

37

37

37

97

97

97

97

97

97

97

97

84

84

84

64

47

Death

Age

4K

2D

3D

6K

91

OK

2D

BOSS PARK USA IA @9.04.90
76

Page $23

ID WOLF (Canis rufus gr.gor~i)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Inbr. First location

Coeff.

.063

.063

.083

.063

.063

.063

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.063

.063

.031

.031

.031

Location now

ROSS PAR!

~RAN?IS.

ROSS PARK

DURAIT IS.

ROSS PARK

DURAIT IS.

ROSS PAR!

DUll? IS.

ROSS PARK

ROSS PARK

ROSS PARK

ROSS PARK

VIC. TX

VIC. ?X

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

BEARDSLEY ZO

VIC. TX

ALEX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

VIC. TX

FOSSIL RIM

VIC. TX

FOSSIL RIM

ST. VINCENT

ST. VINCENT

ST. VINCENT

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA ilA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA IA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

- arrived Breeder $ Last ha

ISIS Grp

0397 SSP

0398 SSP

0399 SSP

0400 55,

0401 SSP

0402 SSP

0403 SSP

0404 SSP

0405 55?

0406 SSP

0407 SSP

0408 55?

0409 5SF

0410 SSP

0411 55?

0412 SSP

0413 SSP

0414 55?

- since Houseuam

N1397

11398

11399

11400

11401

11402

UH403

UH404

UH4OS

UH406

UH407

UH408

UH409

410

411

16412

16413

10414

09 .04. 90

12 .07 .90

09.04.90

12. 07 .90

09.04.90

12. 07 .90

09.04.90

12.07.90

09 .04.90

09.04.90

09.04.90

09 .04. 90

10.04.90

10 .04 .90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10.04 .90

13.12.90

10.04.90

19.12.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

08.01. 91

10.04.90

08.01.91

23.04. 90

23.04.90

23.04 .90

06.12.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29 .04.90

29.04.90

29 .04 .90

29.04.90

Stbk

$ Sex

397 K

398 F

399 F

400 F

401 0

402 U

403 K

404 K

405 K

406 K

407 F

408 F

409 F

410 K

411 K

412 K

413 K

414 K

Sire

$

327

327

327

327

327

327

293

293

293

293

293

293

293

219

219

335

335

335

Dam

$

304

304

304

304

304

304

248

248

248

248

248

248

248

303

303

277

217

277

Date of

Birth

09.04.90

09.04.90

09.04.90

09.04. 90

09.04.90

09.04.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10.04.90

10 .04.90

10.04.90

23.04.90

23.04.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

Date of

Death

12.10.90

15. 10. 90

12.10.90

07.08.90

03.05.90

03.05.90

11.04.90

12.04.90

19.04.90

30.04.90

30.04.90

30.04.90

Sire

Age

33

33

33

33

33

33

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

82

82

22

22

22

Dan

Age

47

47

47

47

47

47

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

48

48

60

60

80

Death

Age

6K

6K

6K

4K

24 D

24 D

LD

2D

9D

ID

iD

1D
77

Page $24

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus greesiji)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Sex

K

Sire

$

335

Dan

$

277

Date of

Birth

29.04.90

K 335 277 29.04.90

F 335 277 29.04.90

F 335 277 29.04.90

F 335 277 29 .04.90

F 335 277 29.04.90

K 282 278 01.05.90

F 282 278 01.05.90

F 282 278 01.05.90

F 282 278 01.05.90

F 282 278 01.05.90

K 328 313 02.05.90

K

K

K

F

K

K

328

328

328

328

212

212

313

313

313

313

297

297

02.05.90

02.05.90

02.05.90

02.05.90

04 .05.90

04.05.90

Date of

Death

30.04.90

30.04.90

30.04.90

30.04.90

01.05.90

03.05.90

15.01.91

Inbr.

Coeff.

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

First location

Location now

TACOMA

TACOMA

.031 TACOMA

TACOMA

.031 TACOMA

TACOMA

.031 TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

TACOMA

OGLEBAY

TACOMA

OGLEBAY

OGLEBAY

GOLDA!

OGLIBAY

OGLIBAY

GOLDA!

OGLEBAY

OGLEBA!

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLINA

N. CAROLiNA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

TACOMA

N. CAROLINA

I. CAROLINA

• . .125 TACOMA

TACOMA

• . .125 TACOMA

TACOMA

.031

.031

.031

.094

20.10.90 .094

.094

.094

.094

28.01.91

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

USA NA

USA

aSA NA

— arrived Breeder U

— since Honsenane

16415

16416

WG417

16418

WG419

16420

WJ421

WJ422

WJ423

29 .04 .90

29. 04. 90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29.04 .90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29 .04.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

29.04.90

01.05.90

13.12.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05.90

01.05 .90

02.05.90

02.05.90

02.05 .90

02.05.90

02.05.90

23.08.90

02.05.90

20.11.90

02.05.90

02.05.90

04. 05. 90

04. 05. 90

04.05.90

04.05.90

NJ 424

WJ425

ff5426

ff5427

ff5428

FW5429

FWS43O

WG431

16432

Stbk

$

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

Death

Age

ID

iD

iD

ID

00

2D

8K

6K

9K

Last

ISIS

0415

0416

0417

0418

0419

0420

0421

0422

0423

0424

0425

0426

0427

0428

0429

0430

0431

0432

Kng

Grp

55,

55,

SSP

55,

55,

SSP

55,

SSP

SSP

55,

SsP

55,

SSP

SB,

55?

SSP

55,

sSp

Sire Dan

Age Age

22 60

22 60

22 60

22 60

22 60

22 60

58 60

58 60

58 60

58 60

58 60

34 38

34 36

34 36

34 36

34 36

94 48

94 48
78

Page $ 25

ID WOLF (Cmiii rufus gregi,ni)

Historical list of captive population

Printed on: 13.Feb.1991

Stbk Sire

$ Sex U

433 F 212

434 F 212

435 K 294

436 K 294

437 F 294

438F 294

F 294

F 341

F 341

K 319

439

440

441

442

443

444

Dan

$

297

297

301

301

301

301

301

243

243

300

Date of

Birth

04.05.90

04.05 .90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10.05.90

17.05.90

17.05.90

07 .05.90

Date of

Death

05.05.90

28.01.91

18 .05.90

Inbr.

Coeff.

.125

.125

.070

.070

.070

• . .070

.070

.047

• . .047

.055

F 319 300 07.05.90

F 319 300 07.05.90

First location

Location now

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

TACOMA USA

TACOMA USA NA

BKARDSLEY ZO USA

FOSSIL RIM USA NA

BKARDSLEY ZO USA

FOSSIL RIM USA NA

N. CAROLINA USA

N. CAROLINA USA NA

.055 N. CAROLINA USA

N. CAROLINA USA NA

.055 N. CAROLINA USA

N. CAROLINA USA

- arrived Breeder $

- since Honsenane

16433

16434

16435

10436

16437

16438

16439

DP440

DP441

FW5442

VWS443

ffS444

04.05.90

04.05.90

04.05.90

04.05. 90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10 .05 .90

10.05.90

10.05.90

10 .05. 90

10.05.90

10. 05.90

17.05.90

22. 01.91

17 .05.90

22.01.91

07.05.90

07 .05 .90

07.05.90

07.05.90

07.05.90

07.05.90

Death

Ag.

ID

SI

Sire Dam

Age Age

9448

94 48

46 48

46 48

48 48

46 48

46 48

Last

ISIS

0433

0434

0435

0436

0437

0438

0439

0440

0441

0442

0443

0444

Nag

Grp

SS,

55,

55,

SS,

5SF

SSP

55,

55,

SSP

SS,

55,

55,

22 84

22 84

34 48

34 48

34 48

Males - 183 Fenales - 214 Unknown -47
79

PART IV

RECOVERY STRATEGY

A. Goal

Achieve a series of disjunct populations of red wolves, through

reintroduction, that are numerically large enough to have the

potential for allowing natural evolutionary processes to work

within the species.

Objective No. 1:

Objective No. 2:

Objective No. 3:

To preserve 80 to 90 percent genetic diversity

of the species for 150 years.

To remove those threats that have the potential

to bring about extinction of the species.

Achieving this objective will require a wild

population of approximately 220 animals and a

captive population of approximately

330 animals.

To maintain the red wolf in perpetuity through

cryogenic preservation of sperm and embryo

banking.
80

B. Narrative

1. Coordinate and manage the red wolf recovery Drogram. A

full-time program coordinator is essential to maintain

recovery direction and assure continuity of various

objectives. The coordinator also provides leadership,

establishes annual objectives and goals, develops budgetary

needs, and serves as the spokesperson for the program.

2. Maintain a Red Wolf Recovery Team. A systematic biological

review process is essential in a highly complex recovery

effort. Periodic recovery team meetings are necessary to

review progress and address special biological needs. The

current team is composed of individuals with special skills

and expertise applicable to the various objectives of this

recovery plan.

3. Reestablish three or more wild vo~ulations totaling

aDDroximatelv 220 red wolves within the species’ historic

range. To preserve the genetic integrity of the species, it

has been determined that at least three disjunct populations

of red wolves will be needed. These discrete populations

will have to maintain approximately 220 animals.

3.1 Identify reintroduction sites. Potential sites must be

carefully assessed. At the present time it appears that

such sites must be in Federal ownership and contain at

least 170,000 acres of contiguous habitat within the

historic range of the red wolf.

3.1.1 Throuah cursory field and literature

examinations, develop a list of potential

reintroduction sites and prioritize the list

.

This “wish list” should include all properties

that meet the above criterion. Initially,

national wildlife refuge system lands are to be

preferred, followed by national park system

properties. It is thought that Department of

the Interior properties would offer greater

opportunities for successfully carrying out a

reintroduction project. This is predicated on

basic land management objectives and mandates of

the two agencies. A series of highly visible,

successfully executed red wolf reintroductions

on Department of the Interior lands would

provide invaluable experience to project

personnel and would build substantial program

credibility. After several successful projects,

other Federal lands might become available to

the program. In addition, the potential of

lease agreements on private lands will likely

become a viable strategy in the future. In this
81

context, utilizing private lands to connect

otherwise disjunct and isolated populations

could offer significant opportunities for

achieving program goals. Combining Federal,

State, and private properties intoa wolf

management zone could be made feasible by

providing inducements such as tax incentives to

participating property owners.

3.1.2 In priority order, examine potential

reintroduction sites for essential biological

Darameters (orev abundance, habitat types

.

disease and parasites, etc). and socioeconomic

factors (agricultural practices, land ownership

patterns, proximity of towns and communities

.

etc.). In most instances basic biological

studies of an area will have already been

accomplished and data will be available,

especially on Department of the Interior lands.

Where not available, however,a biological base

will have to be established. This may require

conducting cursory field collecting exercises,

habitat assessments, etc. Socioeconomic factors

should be closely examined and potential

problems witha major predator reintroduction

realistically addressed early on. Only then can a strategy be developed to offset these

problems.

3.1.3 Measure potential public response toa wolf

reintroduction through selected contacts with

knowledaeable field personnel at State. Federal

,

and national environmental organization level

.

Of great importance is the identification of

certain key individuals ina potential project

area. Time must be spent in explaining the

rationale for sucha project and in cultivating

their support fora wolf reintroduction. The

help of these individuals and organizations will

later prove to be of immense value if the site

is selected.

3.1.4 Estimate resident canid composition and density

.

Develop basic data base on resident canids.

Surveys of trapping results, discussions with

professional biologists and local hunters and

trappers, and track examinations on selected

dirt roads and trails will givea general idea

of feral dog and coyote incidence. More

definitive studies would involve systematic

siren surveys and analyses of field-recorded

vocalizations.
82

3.1.5 Develop and implement an experimental red

wolf/coyote interaction study.A red

wolf/coyote investigation has recently been

initiated in the Great Smoky Mountains National

Park. This study will examine home-range

movement patterns of resident coyote

populations. After 12 to 18 months of study,a

carefully selected red wolf pair and their pups

will be released into the study area after

appropriate acclimation. Movements and

interactions of wolves and coyotes will be

monitored fora period of time. Released red

wolves and subsequent offspring will be

designated as experimental and nonessential and a special regulation so prepared. If possible, a second coyote/red wolf interaction

investigation ina coastal plain habitat should

be initiated. Results of these investigations

should provide significant information for

long-range planning purposes.

3.1.6 DeveloDa priority list of potentially feasible

reintroduction sites. Aftera careful

examination of available sites that meet

definable criteria, certain sites will surface

to the top of the list. The final selection

will likely be based on certain key determinants

such as geography, isolation, political

considerations, etc.

3.1.7 Beginning with the most feasible site

,

coordinatea potential reintroduction Dro.iect

with appropriate Federal, State, and county

officials and selected residents and landowners

.

Utilizing experience gained from the execution

of Task 3.1.3, assess where to initiate this

most important task. In some cases this will be

at the local level, and in others it will be at

the State or Federal political level. Up to 1 year of careful coordination may be required

beforea proposal is ready to enter into the

public meeting phase.

3.1.8 Oevelo~a detailed reintroduction technical

ProDosal and necessary NEPA documents.A

well-defined and readily understood technical

document is of the utmost importance. This

document must detail all aspects ofa wolf

reintroduction, including historic perspectives,

facts about the red wolf, reintroduction goals,

etc.A key section of great importance to local

residents would relate to the effects ofa wolf
83

reintroduction. An environmental assessment

should be drafted that assesses the proposal’s

impact on the local environment and economy.

3.1.9 Conduct public meetings~ develon responsible

media relationshiD. Great effort must be

exercised in permitting the local public to

express their concerns about the project. These

forums provide the Service with the opportunity

to present factual information about the red

wolf and about the various components of the

proposal. Much care must be directed at

inviting appropriate State and county officials

to these meetings. Enough meetings should be

scheduled to fully allow public input. In

dealing with the media, be factual and avoid

speculation about the proposal.

3.1.10 Develon an experimental regulation tailored to

the soecific needs of the reintroduction site

.

Much attention should be given to the

development of an experimental regulation as set

forth under Section 10(j) of the Endangered

Species Act. In addition to forming a legal

basis for reintroduction of an otherwise

endangered species, this regulation can also

address local concerns and ideas brought forward

at the public meetings. In essence, the

regulation can be tailored to local situations

and expressed needs so long as these needs do

not undermine the objectives of the project.

The draft regulation should also be developed in

concert with local and national conservation

organizations.

3.1.11 Construct necessary acclimation oens and

Durchase required equipment. As soon as funding

is secured, public response is measured, and the

proposal is acceptable to key State and Federal

officials, work can proceed with the required

pen construction and the purchase of the great

variety of equipment required by a major

mainland reintroduction project. The technical

proposal developed under Task 3.1.8 will provide

equipment needs.

3.2 Introduce red wolves. Animals should be shipped to the

project site, placed in acclimation pens for

approximately 6 months, and released.

3.2.1 Acclimate red wolves. During acclimation,

an~ma’ls~ ~ou1d be fed native prey species and
84

kept from human disturbance as much as possible;

their homing instincts will be reoriented to the

project site. To maximize productivity, it is

wise to allow the adults to breed and have pups

while in captive acclimation.. Prior to release,

adults and young should receive health checks

and shots. New tracking collars should be

fitted to adults and transmitters surgically

implanted in pups.

3.2.2 Release red wolves. Timing of a wolf release

should be carefully considered. The spring and

summer part of the year is possibly best since

an abundance of young, inexperienced prey

species are generally available. Local

conditions and project objectives will dictate

the optimum time for release.

3.2.3 Monitor released wolves. Only the latest and

most proven telemetry equipment should be

utilized in a reintroduction project. Heavy

emphasis must be given to tracking released

animals during early stages of the project.

Human/wolf interactions must be avoided, and

only through a carefully conceived tracking

program can this be minimized. As wolves settle

into a routine, tracking schedules can be scaled

back. Aircraft tracking has proven to be the

most efficient method of monitoring red wolves.

3.2.4 Monitor orev species. Pre- and post-release

prey surveys can be conducted if circumstances

warrant. Such surveys, however, must be

carefully designed if direct predator/prey

relationships are to be demonstrated. The

sensitivity of such surveys is critical and may

prove to be beyond the capability of the

project. Standard field techniques may suffice.

Such techniques include wolf scat analyses and

observational information, hunter kill records

of key prey species, etc.

3.2.5 Assess success of reintroduction. Success can

be measured in a variety of ways. The planner

should spend time in defining this important

point. It can be demonstrated in terms of

biological parameters, but of possible equal

importance is the concept of success as

determined by public response and cooperation

with a wolf reintroduction. Biological success

may be easier to define, but in the long-term

analysis, the human factor is of vital
85

importance. Project personnel should strive to

keep local residents aware of project status and

solicit input from the public on important

issues. Documentation of a successful (or

unsuccessful) wolf reintroduction is of vital

importance in planning future efforts.

4. Develop at least three red wolf propagation vro.iects on

suitable islands alona the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and

in suitable mainland enclosures. An integral component of

the strategy to prevent genetic drift and infuse wildness

into the red wolf program is to establish small island and

mainland enclosure projects. These projects are envisioned

strictly as propag3tion efforts and are adjuncts to mainland

reintroductions. They will provide wild pups for either

infusion into the captive-breeding program or for direct

release into mainland projects. These projects also can

serve to build public relations in select areas. Small

fenced enclosures as small as 1 to 5 acres (.4 to 2 ha) can

also serve as intermediate holding facilities for animals

scheduled for release or for emergency holding purposes.

4.1 Identify potential propagation sites. Few islands along

the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast offer the rigid

requirements for a project of this nature. Ownership,

acreage, prey base, and logistical support capability

are all key criteria. It is thought that an island of

at least 3,500 acres is needed to sustain an adult pair

of red wolves and their offspring for a short period of

time. Mainland enclosures will vary significantly,

depending on circumstances relating to the size of the

compound or enclosure.

4.1.1 Through cursory field and literature

examinations. develop a list of potential

propagation sites. Initially, attention should

be limited to those islands within the species

historic range that are within the national

wildlife refuge or national park systems. These

islands must exhibit those general

characteristics mentioned above in 4.1.

Mainland propagation sites, on the other hand,

may include existing enclosures such as surplus

compounds on military facilities or abandoned

U.S. Forest Service study enclosures. These

will vary from site to site, but to fulfill

project needs, such enclosures should be no less

than 640 acres.

4.1.2 In priority order, examine potential propagation

sites for essential biolooical narameters (~rev

auni~.nc~. ~I~bit~t tvt~. disuse and parasites

.
86

etc.) and socioeconomic factors (agricultural

practices, land use, proximity of towns and

communities. etc.). In most instances, basic

biological studies of an -island situation will

already be accomplished and data will be

available, especially on Department of the

Interior properties. Where an updating is

required or basic information is not available,

cursory field collecting exercises, habitat

assessments, etc., will be required.

Socioeconomic factors must be carefully

considered. Public use of an island isa major

consideration. It has been found that moderate

public use, including hunting, should not

automatically preclude an island from

consideration. Mainland enclosures should only

be considered if they are remote and/or

well-secured sites. Prey availability isa

major factor in such situations. If current

biological data is not available, cursory

surveys of these sites will be required.

4.1.3 Measure potential public response toa wolf

propagation pro.iect throuah selected contacts

,

including knowledgeable nersonnel at the State

and Federal level. Of great importance is the

identification of certain key individuals who

reside neara potential propagation site.

Discussions with these individuals will usually

yield invaluable clues regarding likely public

reaction toa project. The help of these people

will later prove to be of immense value if the

site is selected fora project.

4.1.4 Estimate the resident canid pooulation if an

island Drolect is under consideration. The

presence of feral dogs and coyotes on an island

will usually be readily evident from discussions

with professional biologists, rangers, etc. If

questions persist, examine tracks on dirt roads

and beach areas. More definitive investigations

would involve siren surveys.

4.1.5 Examine the compatibility of the propagation

site ecosystem to the population of red wolves

.

The capability ofa site to support red wolves

and determining what impacts these predatory

animals would have on resident fauna, especially

species that are protected by State or Federal

law, need evaluation. Include species of

concern as well as species being considered for

protection.
87

4.1.6 Develooa priority list of potentially feasible

propagation sites. Aftera careful examination

of available sites utilizing the definable

criteria described above, certain sites will

surface to the top of the list. The final

selection will probably be resolved on the basis

of ownership, security, geography, and political

considerations.

4.1.7 Beginning with the most feasible propagation

site, initiate formal coordination efforts with

appropriate Federal, State, and county

officials, as well as key residents. nro~ertv

owners. etc. Utilizing experience gained from

the execution of Task 4.1.3, where to initiate

this most important task should be assessed. In

some cases this will be at the local level, and

in others it will be at the State or Federal

political level. Up to1 year of careful

planning may be necessary before the project is

ready to enter into the public meeting stage.

4.1.8 Develona detailed propagation orooosal as well

as necessary NEPA documents anda Section7

evaluation.A well-defined, factual, and

readily understood technical proposal is of the

utmost importance. This document should detail

all aspects ofa red wolf propagation project,

including historical information, facts about

the red wolf, other projects and their status,

project objectives, etc.A key section of great

importance to any interested resident would

relate to the project’s ability to recapture any

animal that should happen to escape. An

environmental assessment and Section7

evaluation would have to be completed by

appropriate Service personnel.

4.1.9 Conduct public meetings if deemed necessary

;

develooa responsible media relationship

.

Service experience with red wolf projects

indicates the public meeting process is of vital

importance. Ifa propagation project is being

attempted on another agency’s property, however,

that agency will have to make the determination

to hosta public meeting or not. Ifa public

meeting is determined to be necessary, great

effort must be exercised in developinga

presentation that is fully factual. Provide

time for the public to express their concerns

and perceived fears. Generally,a project of

this nature will be poorly understood by the
88

public, even after extensive efforts are made to

explain the project in the media, etc. In

dealing with the media, present only factual

information, not speculation.

4.1.10 Construct necessary acclimation pens and secure

equipment needed for the project. As soon as

public response is measured and funding is

secured, the proposal should be formally

accepted by key State and Federal officials.

Work can proceed on construction of the

acclimation pen (or the upgrade of an existing

mainland enclosure), and the purchase of vital

equipment can be initiated. The technical

proposal developed under Task 4.1.8 will provide

equipment needs.

4.2 Pro~a~ate red wolves. Captive-reared red wolves should

be utilized in efforts to propagate wild offspring.

4.2.1 Acclimate red wolves. During the acclimation

process on island situations, animals should be

fed native prey species and be kept away from

human contact as much as possible; their homing

instincts will become reoriented to the project

site. Temporary tracking collars should be

fitted to each adult so the animals will be used

to wearing these devices when released. Timing

of the acclimation process should coincide with

the breeding period and whelping of pups. Pups

should be captured several weeks prior to

release, and small transmitters should be

surgically implanted into their abdominal

cavities.

4.2.2 Release red wolf family unit into island

situation. Due to techniques employed in the

acclimation process, animals should normally be

released by mid-July. This also coincides with

prey species’ being at high levels.

Supplemental feeding may be required in some

situations and will vary from project to

project.

4.2.3 Monitor released family units on island sites

.

Intensity of monitoring will vary from island to

island, depending on geographic features and

specific objectives of each project. In

situations where animals could reach the

mainland by swimming narrow water barriers,

tracking frequency should have to be at maximum

levels, especially during early phases of the
89

project. On most island sites, tracking can be

accomplished on foot, by vehicle, or from a

boat.

4.2.4 Monitor nrev species on island sites. Both

pre- and post-project prey surveys can be

conducted if circumstances warrant. Such

surveys, however, must be carefully designed if

direct predator/prey relationships are to be

demonstrated. The sensitivity of such surveys

is critical and may prove to be beyond the

capability of the project. Standard field

techniques may suffice. Such techniques include

wolf scat analysis and observational

information, hunter kill records of key prey

species, etc.

4.2.5 If a mainland captive project is initiated

.

monitor adults and capture offspring at 8 to

10 months of age. Mainland propagation projects

probably don’t lend themselves as well to the

rearing of wild pups as islands do. This

relates to the relatively small size of typical

enclosures. Some military compounds, however,

could be of sufficient size to allow natural

processes to function. These processes are, of

course, related to typical predator/prey

relationships. The degree of wildness that

could be expected from pups so acclimated is yet

to be determined. When such opportunities

arise, the program should address this potential

technique. Animals in enclosures could be

monitored utilizing the same techniques

mentioned in Task 4.2.4.

4.2.6 Caoture island-born offsoring at 7 to 8 months

of age. Since this propagation strategy

involves the use of offspring with implant

tracking transmitters, retrieval of these young

animals at 7 to 8 months of age is greatly

simplified. At this time, adults should also be

caught and placed back in pens for a new cycle

of breeding and pup rearing. Experiences to

date indicate that the island animals can be

recaptured by baiting them back into the

acclimation pen.

5. Additional land acquisition on Service properties

.

5.1 Secure. by fee acquisition or long-term lease

agreements, properties ad.iacent to or within the

proximity of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge

,
90

North Carolina. Such additions would significantly

enhance the effectiveness of this major project for the

benefit of the red wolf. When and if other national

wildlife refuge system lands serve as future red wolf

reintroduction sites, such land acquisitions and leases

should be encouraged.

6. Develoo caDtive-breedinci facilities caoable of providing

animals for reintroduction ourooses as well as safeguarding

the genetic integrity of the species

.

6.1 ExDand and maintain captive-breeding capability to

accommodate 330 red wolves. The Service contract with

the Point Defiance Zoo was expanded significantly in

fiscal year 1989. This increase in funding will permit

a twofold increase in the Point Defiance Zoo project

facility and also substantially expand the number of

participating public and private zoos in the United

States to hold red wolves.

6.2 Maintain the integrity of brood stock through continued

implementation of a breeding program with the AAZPA

.

The Service should cooperate with AAZPA to ensure that

the red wolf studbook is accurately maintained. Service

recovery planning should be integrated with AAZPA SSP

formulation. This will ensure that suitable numbers of

red wolves are available for reintroduction and

propagation projects. This cooperative effort should

also facilitate selection of red wolf recipients and

ensure that participating zoos and facilities adhere

strictly to established regulations and protocols.

6.3 Initiate red wolf genetic investigations. Contract with

a recognized authority to utilize state-of-the-art

biochemical techniques to address the issue of red wolf

speciation.

7. Develoo a strateav for the cryogenic preservation of red wolf

soerm and embryo banking

.

7.1 Develop orotocols for F1 generation sperm and embryo

banking utilizing cryogenic techniques. Significant

advances in long-term storage of embryos and sperm in

bovids have been accomplished in recent years. Little

work has been attempted with canids. To ensure the

preservation of critical red wolf genetic material,

specific protocols for the collection and long-term

storage of sperm and embryos should be developed.

7.2 Contract with an appropriate facility to maintain

genetic material. The Service should contract this

aspect of the recovery effort.
91

C. Literature Cited

Allen, 0. L. 1979. Wolves of Minong: their vital role in a

wild community. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 499 pp.

Atkins, D. L., and L. S. Dillon. 1971. Evolution of the

cerebellum in the genus Canis. Jour. Mamm., 52:96-107.

Audubon, J. J., and J. Bachman. 1851.

America. New York, NY. Volume 2.

The quadrupeds of North

334 pp.

Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. N. American

Fauna, No. 25, 222 pp.

Bangs, 0. 1898.

coast region

28:157-235.

The land mammals of peninsular Florida and the

of Georgia. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,

Barick, F. B. 1951. Deer restoration in the Southeastern United

States. Paper presented at Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish

Comm., Fifth Annual Meeting. 18 pp.

Bartram, W. 1791. Travels. Philadelphia, PA. Pp. i+i-xxxiv+

1-522.

Berg, W. E., and R. A. Chesness. 1978.

northern Minnesota. Pp. 229-247 in

biology, behavior, and management.

York, NY.

Ecology of coyotes in

M. Bekoff, ed., Coyotes:

Academic Press, New

Carbyn, L. N. 1982. Coyote population fluctuations and spatial

distribution in relation to wolf territories in Riding

Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada. Field-Nat.

96:176-183.

Carley, C. J. 1915. Activities and findings

Field Recovery Program from late 1973 to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report.

of the Red Wolf

July 1, 1975.

Pp. i-v+1-215.

Carley, C. J., and J. L. Mechler. 1983. An experimental

reestablishment of red wolves (C. rufus) on the Tennessee

Valley Authority’s Land Between The Lakes, W. I. Parker, ed.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. Pp. 1-72.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1989. Unpublished letter to W. T. Parker.

Dresser, B. L. 1988. Cryobiology, embryo transfer, and

artificial insemination in ex situ animal conservation

programs. Pp. 296-308 in E.O. Wilson, Ed. Biodiversity.

National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
92

Elder, W. H., and C. M. Hayden. 1977. Use of discriminant

function in taxonomic determination of canids from Missouri.

Jour. Main., 58:17-24.

Fuller, I. K., and 1. B. Keith. 1981. Non-overlapping ranges of

coyotes and wolves in northeastern Alberta. Jour. Mamm.,

62:403-405.

Goldman, E. A. 1944. Classification of wolves. Pp. 389-636 in

S. P. Young and E. A. Goldman, The Wolves of North America,

Amer. Wildl. Inst., Washington, DC. Pp. 389-636.

Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North

America. Ronald Press, New York, NY. 2:i-viii+547-

1083+1-79.

Harris, R. B., and F. W. Allendorf. 1989. Genetically effective

population size of large mammals: an assessment of

estimators. Conserv. Biol., 3(2):181-191.

Henshaw, R. E., R. Lockwood, R. Shidler, and R. 0. Stephenson.

1979. Experimental release of captive wolves. Pp. 319-345

in E. Klinghammer, ed. The behavior and ecology of wolves.

Garland STPM Press, New York, NY.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (IUCN). 1988. The IUCN policy statement on

captive breeding. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.

Kurten, B., and E. Anderson. 1980. Pleistocene Mammals of North

America. Columbia University Press. New York, NY.

Lawrence, B., and W. H. Bossert. 1967. Multiple character

analysis of Canis luDus, latrans, and familiaris, with a

discussion of the relationships of Canis niQer. Amer.

Zool 7:223-232.

McCarley, H. 1962. The taxonomic status of wild Canis (Canidae)

in the South-central United States. S.W. Nat. 7:227-235.

McCarley, H., and C. L. Carley. 1978. Recent changes in

distribution of wild red wolves (Canis rufus). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Report 4,

Albuquerque, NM. Pp. 1-38.

Mech, L. D. 1970. The Wolf: The ecology and behavior of an

endangered species. Nat. Hist. Press, Garden City, NY.

389 pp.

Mech, L. D., R. D. Chapman, W. W. Cochran, and U. S. Seal. 1984.

Radio-triggered anesthetic dart collar for recapturing large

mammals. Wild. Soc. Bull. 12:69-74.
93

Miller, G. S., Jr. 1912. The names of two North American

wolves. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 25:95.

Morizot, D. C. 1981. Unpublished letter to C. J. Carley.

Nowak, R. H. 1970. Report on the red wolf. Defenders of Wildl.

News, 45:82-94.

. 1972. The mysterious wolf of the South. Natural

History 81:51-53, 74-77.

. 1979. North American Quaternary Canis. Museum

Natural History. University of Kansas Monograph 6.

of

154 pp.

. 1989. Unpublished letter to W. T. Parker.

Paradiso, J. M. 1968. Canids recently collected in east Texas,

with conunents on the taxonomy of the red wolf. Amer. Midl.

Nat. 80:529-534.

Paradiso, J. H., and R. M. Nowak. 1971. A report on the

taxonomic status and distribution of the red wolf. USD1

Spec. Sci. Rept. Wildl. No. 145, Washington, DC. Pp. 1-36.

Parker, W. I. 1987a. A plan for reestablishing the red wolf on

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina.

Red Wolf Management Series: Technical Report No. 1.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. Pp. 1-21.

. 1987b. A strategy for establishing and utilizing red

wolf populations on islands. Red Wolf Management Series:

Technical Report No. 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Atlanta, GA. Pp. 1-6.

Parker, W. I., N. P. Jones, and

of experimental status for

wolves in North Carolina.

No. 223, 41790-41796.

Pimlott, D. H., and P. W. D. Joslin.

distribution of the red wolf.

Res. 33:373-389.

P. G. Poulos. 1986. Development

an introduced population of red

Federal Register, Vol. 51,

1968. The status and

Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.

Potter, E. 1982. A survey of the vertebrate fauna of mainland

Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological

Survey, Raleigh, NC. Pp. 1-94.

Riley, G. A., and R.

(Canis rufus)

.

Washington, DC.

T. McBride. 1972. A survey of the red wolf

USD1 Spec. Sci. Rept. Wildl. No. 16Z,

Pp. 1-15.
94

Sargeant, A. D., S. H. Allen, and J. 0. Hastings. 1987. Spatial

relations between sympatric coyotes and red foxes in North

Dakota. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 51:285-293.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Eastern Cougar Recovery

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 17 pp.

Weise, I. F., W. L. Robinson, R. A. Hook, and L. D. Mech. 1975.

An experimental translocation of the eastern timber wolf.

Audubon Conserv. Rept. No. 5, 28 pp.

Wildt, D. E., L. G. Phillips, L. G. Simmons, K. L. Goodrowe,

J. Howard, J. L. Brown, and M. Bush. 1987.

Seminal-endocrine characteristics of the tiger and the

potential for artificial breeding. Pp. 255-279 in Tigers of

the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and

Conservation of an Endangered Species. Noyes Publications,

Park Ridge, NJ.

Young, S. P. 1944. History, life habits, economic status, and

control. Part I in S. P. Young, and E. A. Goldman, The

wolves of North America, Amer. Wildl. Inst., Washington, DC.

Pp. 1-385.
95

~4I

PART +1±

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in column one of the following implementation schedule are

assigned as follows:

1. Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent

extinction or to prevent the species from declining

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

2. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a

significant decline in species population/habitat quality or

some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

3. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet the

recovery objective.

KeY to Acronyms Used in This JmDlementation Schedule

AAZPA - American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums

FS - U.S. Forest Service

FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWE - Fish and Wildlife Enhancement (Division of FWS)

NPS - National Park Service

PDZ - Point Defiance Zoo, Tacoma, Washington

INC - The Nature Conservancy
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

r 1

I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($000’S)I

I I I TASK F +

PRIOR- I I TASK I DURATION I FWS j. I FY I FY I FY I

I ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I COMMENTS

F + + + + + + + + +

I 1 I 1.0 I Coordinate and I Ongoing I 4 FWE I I 61 I 62 I 62 I

I I managethered I I I I I

I wolf recovery I I i I I I

I I I program. I I I I I I I

I I j I I I I

I 3 I 2.0 I Maintain a Red I Ongoing I 4 I FWE I I 6 I 4.5 I 4.5 I

I I WolfRecovery i i I I I I I I

I I I Team. i I I I I

I I I I I I I I

2 I 3.1.1 I List potential Ongoing I 4 I FWE I 2 I .5 I .5 I

I I I reintroduction I I I I I I I I

I I sites. I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.2 I In priority order, 4 years I 4 FWE I NPS, I 2 I 1 I 1 I

I lexaminepotentiall I IFS I I I I

I reintroduction I I I I I I I I

I sites. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

2 I 3.1.3 I Measure potential I 4 years I 4 I FWE I NPS, I 2 I 2 I 2 I

I I I public response i i I I FS I I I I

I I Itoawolf I I I I I I

I I I reintroduction. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.4 I Estimate resident I 4 years I 4 I FWE I NPS, I 2 1 1

I I canidcomposition I I I IFS I

I I anddensity. I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

L I. I I £ I ± I

) )
) )

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

I TASK RESPONSIBLE PARTY fCOST ESTIMATES ($O0O’S)I

F +

PRIOR-I I TASK IDURATIONI FWS I IFY jFY iFY

I ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other 1990 I 1991 1992 I COMMENTS

F + + + + + I + + + I I

I 2 I 3.1.5 Develop experi- I 3 years I 4 I FWE I NPS, 30 I 40 I 20 I Contract

I I I mental red wolf/ I I I I FS I I I I Investigation.

I I I coyote interactionj I I I I I I

I I I study. I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 2 13.1.6 I Develop priority I 4 years I 4 I FWE I 1-0- 1-0- 1-0-

I I I list of reintro- I I I I I I

I I Iductionsites. I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

12 I3.1.llCoordinate Ongoingl 4 IFWE I 3 12 Ii

I Ipotentialwolf I I I I I I I

I I reintroduction I I I I I I I

I I project. I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.8 I Develop a detailedj Ongoing I 4 I FWE I NPS, 2 j 2 2

I I I reintroduction I I I I FS I I I

I I I proposal. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.9 I Conduct public I Ongoing I 4 I FWE I NPS, -0- 2 I 2

I meetings. I I I IFS

I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.10 I Develop experi- I Ongoing I 4 I FWE I NPS, I 1 I .5 I .5

I I I mental regulation.I I I FS I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.1.11 I Construct acclima-I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 20 I 20 65

I I tionpens;pur- I I I IFS I I I

I I I chaseequipment. I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I 2 I 3.2.1 i Acclimate red I Ongoing I 4 I FWE NPS, I 30 I 40 I 50

I wolves. I I IFS I I I

.1. ± ± ± I ± A. I .1.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

r

I I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($000’S)I

I I I TASK F +

IPRIOR- I I TASK I DURATION EWS I I FY FY I FY I

I ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I COMMENTS

+ + + + + + + + + + •1

I 2 I 3.2.2 I Release red Ongoing I 4 I EWE I I -0- I -0- I -0- I

I I I wolves. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

2 13.2.3 I Monitor released I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 167 1230 1330 I

I I wolves. I I I IFS I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 3.2.4 I Monitor prey I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS, I -0- I 20 I 20 I

I I species. I I I IFS I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 2 13.2.5 I Assess reintro- I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 2 I -0- I -0- I

I I Iduction. I I I IFS I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.1 I Develop a list of I 1 year I 4 I FWE I I -0- I -0- I -0- I

I I I potential propaga-I I I I I I I I

I I Itlonsites. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.2 I In priority order,I 5 years I 4 I EWE I I 2 I .5 I .5 I

I I I examine potential I I I I I I I I

I I I propagation sites.I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.3 I Measure potential I 5 years I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 2 I .5 I .5 I

I I I public response I I I I ES I I I

I I I toapropagation I I I I I I I

I I I project. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.4 I Estimate resident I 5 years I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 1 .5 I .5 I

I I I canid population. I I I I ES I I, I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

L I I I .1 I I I I .i.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

r —

I I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY ICOST ESTIMATES ($O00’S)I

I I I I TASK F +

IPRIOR- I I TASK I DURATIONj EWS I I EY I EY I EY I

ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION g (Years) I Region Program I Other I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I COMMENTS

F + + + + + + + + + +

I 3 I 4.1.5 I Examine compati- I 5 years I 4 I EWE I NPS, I 4.6 I .5 I .5 I

I I I bility of propaga-~ I I I ES I I I I

I I Itionsite I I I I I I I I

I I Iecosystemtoa I I I I I I I I

I I I small red wolf I I I I I I I I

I I I population. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.6 I Develop priority I 2 years I 4 I EWE I I 1 I -0- I -0- I

I I I list of propaga- I I I I I I I I

I I Itionsites. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.7 I Coordinate poten- I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I I 1 I 1 I 1 I

I I Itialpropagationj I I I I I I I ~OI

I I I projects. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.8 Develop a detailedl Ongoing I 4 g EWE I I 2 I .5 I .5 I

I I I propagation I I I I I I I I

I I I proposal. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I 1

I 3 I 4.1.9 I Conduct public I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS, I -0- I 1 I 1 I

I I Imeetingsif I I I IFS I I I I

I I I necessary. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.1.10 I Construct acclima-I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS I 5 I 5 I 5 I

I I I tion pens; pur— I I I I I I I I

I I I chaseequipment. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.2.1 I Accli.mate red I Ongoing I 4 I EWE NPS I 10 I 15 I 15 I

I I I wolves. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

± -L I I I I I I A
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

r

I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($000’S)I

I I I TASK F +

IPRIOR I I TASK I DURATIONJ EWS I I EY I EY I EY I

I ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I COMMENTS I

F + + -- + + + + + + + +

I 3 I 4.2.2 I Release red I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS I -0- I -0- I -0- I

I I wolves. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 14.2.3 I Monitor released I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS I 5 123 125 I

I I wolves. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.2.4 I Monitor prey I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I See *11 15 I -0- I -0- I Non-Eederal I

I I Ispeciesonislandl I I I I I I funding. I

I I Isites. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.2.5 I If mainland I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I ES, I -0- I -0- I -0- I Mainland I

I I I project, monitor I I I I and I I I I propagation..... I

I I I adults and capturel I I I see *21 I I I projects ~ I

I I Ipupsat8to I I I I I I I I scheduled I

I I I 9 months of age. I I I I I I I I for lateryears.I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 4.2.6 I Capture island- I Ongoing I 4 I EWE I NPS I 2 I 2 I 3 I

I I IbOrnPUPSat8tOI I I I I I I I

I I I9monthsofage. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 15.1 lAdditional land Ongoing I 4 I EWE I INC 1-0- I-a- 1-0- I I

I I I acquisitions. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 1 I 6.1 I Expand captive- I 5 years I 4 I EWE I PDZ I 160 I 218 I 280 I EWS contract. I

I I I breeding I I I I I I I I

I I capability. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 2 I 6.2 I Implement breedingl 5 years I 4 I EWE I PDZ I 2 I -0- I -0- I I

I I I programwith I I I I I I I I

I I I AAZPA. I I I I I I I

L I A. ± ± ± A. A. ±

) )
)

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

~1

I I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($000’S)I

I I I TASK F + 4

IPRIOR- I I TASK I DURATION EWS 1. I EY I EY I EY I

I ITY # I TASK # I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I COMMENTS I

F + + + + + + + + + + 4

I 3 I 6.3 I Eund red wolf I 2 years I 4 I EWE I PDZ I 25 I 10 I -0- I

I I I genetic I I I I I I I I

I I investigation. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 7.1 I Develop protocols I 4 years I 4 I EWE I PDZ I 10 I 5 I S I EWS contract. I

I I I forspermand I I I I I I I I

I I I embryobanking. I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I 3 I 7.2 I Contract cryogenicl Ongoing I 4 I EWE I PDZ I 3 I 5 I 15 I EWS contract. I

I I I facility for I I I I I I I

I I I preservationof I I I I I I I

I I I genetic materials.I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I *1 - Other agencies’ responsibilities would be of a cooperative nature or projects would be funded under a I

I contract or grant program. In some cases contracts could be let to universities or private enterprises. I

I I I I I I I I I

I *2 - Military facilities. I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I .1 I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I A. A. ± ± I ± ± ± A. I .9
102

Implementation Schedule Cost Information

1. Cost information set forth in this schedule is for planning

purposes only. This aspect of the recovery plan will be refined

through agency budget processes as new studies and/or management

information dictates.

2. Initiation of some tasks is dependent on the completion and/or

results of others. Therefore, target dates for some activities

may require adjustments over time. Negotiations and planning for

major reintroduction projects with Federal land management

agencies may involve considerable time and effort.

Reintroduction schedules presented in this plan are therefore

subject to substantial variability.

RED WOLF RECOVERY PLAN FUNDING SUMMARY

FY 1

(Current Fundina~

Funds Needed (In Thousands)

FY2 FY3

$445.0
103

PART VI

LIST OF REVIEWERS

Mr. John E. Alcock

Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service

1720 Peachtree Street, NW.) Room 760

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Robert M. Baker

Regional Director

National Park Service

75 Spring Street, SW., Room 1094

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. James H. Lee

Regional Environmental Project Review Coordinator

U.S. Department of the Interior

75 Spring Street, SW., Room 1320

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Jack E. Ravan

Regional Administrator

Environmental Protection Agency

345 Courtland Street, NE.

Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Mr. Leon N. Larson

Regi onal Admini strator

Federal Highway Administration

1720 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 200

Atlanta, Georgia 30367

Maj. Gen. R. M. Bunker

Division Engineer

South Atlantic Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

77 Forsyth Street, SW., Room 313

Atlanta, Georgia 30335-6801

Lt. Col. James T. Scott

District Engineer

Char1estc~i District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 919

Charleston, South Carolina 29402-2919
104

Col. Bruce A. Malson

District Engineer

Jacksonville District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 4970

Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019

Col. Larry Bonine

District Engineer

Mobile District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001

Col. R. V. Locurcio

District Engineer

Savannah District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 889

Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889

Lt. Col. Thomas C. Suermann

District Engineer

Wilmington District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 1890

Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-1890

Maj. Gen. Thomas A. Sands

Division Engineer

Lower Mississippi Valley Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 80

Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0080

Col. O’Brene Richardson

District Engineer

Memphis District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

B-202 Clifford Davis Federal Building

Memphis, Tennessee 38103-1894

Col. Richard V. Gorski

District Engineer

New Orleans District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 60627

New Orleans, Louisiana 70160-0267
105

Col. Francis R. Skidmore

District Engineer

Vicksburg District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 60

Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0060

Col. A. V. Nida

District Engineer

Little Rock District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 867

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Col. David E. Peixotto

District Engineer

Louisville District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 59

600 Dr. Martin Luther King Place

Louisville, Kentucky 40201-0059

Col. Edward A. Starbird

District Engineer

Nashville District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 1070

Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070

Mr. John L. Mechler, Manager

Recreation Resources Department

Land Between The Lakes, TVA

Golden Pond, Kentucky 42231

Mr. Richard Hannan, Director

Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission

407 Broadway

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Mr. Charles D. Kelley, Director

Division of Game and Fish

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

64 N. Union Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Mr. Steve N. Wilson, Director

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

2 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
106

Col. Robert M. Brantly, Executive Director

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

620 5. Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600

Mr. Tom Gardner, Executive Director

Florida Department of Natural Resources

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Mr. A. Leon Kirkland, Director

Game and Fish Division

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Floyd Towers East

205 Butler Street, SW., Suite 1362

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Floyd Towers East

205 Butler Street, SW., Suite 1252

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Mr. Don R. McCormick, Commissioner

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

1 Game Farm Road

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ms. Virginia Van Sickle, Secretary

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

P.O. Box 15570

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895

Mr. Vernon Bevill, Executive Director

Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation

P.O. Box 451

Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0451

Mr. Charles R. Fullwood, Jr.

Executive Director

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Archdale Building

512 N. Salisbury Street

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Dr. James A. Timmerman, Jr.

Executive Director

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

P.O. Box 167

Columbia, South Carolina 29202
107

Mr. Gary Myers, Executive Director

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

P.O. Box 40747

Nashville, Tennessee 37204

Mr. Elbert T. Gill, Jr., Commissioner

Tennessee Department of Conservation

701 Broadway

Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5237

Mr. Ernest V. Todd

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

665 Opelika Road

Auburn, Alabama 36830

Mr. Albert E. Sullivan

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Office Building

700 West Capitol Avenue

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Mr. James W. Mitchell

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Building

401 SE First Avenue., Room 248

Gainesville, Florida 32601

Mr. B. Clayton Graham

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Building

335 E. Hancock Avenue

Athens, Georgia 30601

Mr. Randy W. Giessler

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

333 Waller Avenue

Lexington, Kentucky 40504

Mr. Horace J. Austin

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

3737 Government Street

Alexandria, Louisiana 71302
108

Mr. Louie P. Heard

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Building, Suite 1321

100 W. Capitol Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39269

Mr. Bobbye J. Jones

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Building

310 New Bern Avenue

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Mr. Billy R. Abercrombie

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

Federal Building

1835 Assembly Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Mr. Jerry S. Lee

State Conservationist

Soil Conservation Service

U.S. Court House, Room 675

801 Broadway

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

Ms. Veronica Thiebach

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

1531 P Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Michael Corcoran, Executive Director

North Carolina Wildlife Federation

Box 10626

Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Mr. Jerry McCollum, Executive Director

Georgia Wildlife Federation

1936 Iris Drive, Suite G

Conyers, Georgia 30207-5046

Mr. Manley Fuller, President

Florida Wildlife Federation

P.O. Box 6870

Tallahassee, Florida 32314
109

Mr. Ross Self, President

Alabama Wildlife Federation

46 Commerce Street

P.O. Box 2102

Montgomery, Alabama 36102

Mr. Terry Horton, Executive Director

Arkansas Wildlife Federation

7509 Cantrell Road, #226

Little Rock, Arkansas 72207

Mr. Bob Smith, President

League of Kentucky Sportsmen, Inc.

P.O. Box 406

Ft. Thomas, Kentucky 41075

Mr. Randy P. Lanctot, Executive Director

Louisiana Wildlife Federation

337 5. Acadian Throughway

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806

Mr. Mike Goff, Executive Director

Mississippi Wildlife Federation

520 North President Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Ms. Elizabeth H. Spence, Executive Director

South Carolina Wildlife Federation

P.O. Box 61159

Columbia, South Carolina 29260-1159

Mr. Anthony J. Campbell, Executive Director

Tennessee Conservation League

1720 West End Avenue, Suite 308

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

Mr. Robert 0. Wagner, Executive Director

American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums

Oglebay Park

Wheeling, West Virginia 26003

Mr. Dean Kleckner, President

American Farm Bureau Federation

600 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024

Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, President

Defenders of Wildlife

1244 19th Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036
110

Mr. Marcus C. Nelson

National Wildlife Refuge Association

4216 Downing Street

Annandale, Virginia 22003

Mr. Russel W. Clapper

P.O. Box 1453

Anahuac, Texas 77514

Mr. Chris Wille, Vice President

National Audubon Society

950 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Mr. Chuck Bassett, Vice President

The Nature Conservancy

Southeast Regional Office

P.O. Box 270

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Ms. Anne K. Ruggles, President

North American Wolf Society

1409 Brentwood

Austin, Texas 78723

Mr. James Price

The Sierra Club

P.O. Box 11248

Knoxville, Tennessee 37939-1248

Ms. Vicki O’Toole, Administrative Director

Wild Canid Survival and Research Center/Wolf Sanctuary

P.O. Box 760

Eureka, Missouri 63025

Mr. Laurence R. Jahn, President

Wildlife Management Institute

1101 14th Street, NW., Suite 725

Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Chester McConnell

Route 6, Box 212

Lawrenceburg, Tennessee 38464