Please Don’t Take My Red Wolf!

1. Please Don’t Take My Red Wolf! Jacob Kurth, Oliver Wahlquist, Nick Forshee

2. Historical Distribution • South-eastern United States (Nowak 1979) • Central Pennsylvania (Nowak 1995) • North-eastern USA and eastern Canada (Nowak 2002).

3. Population Reduction • Deep seeded fear of wolves in European Settlers(Young 1944) • Bounties and indiscriminate killings • Land development /Habitat reduction during WWI (USFWS 1990) • 1930’s wolves reduced to two viable populations(Nowak 1972) • Southeast Texas/ southwest Louisiana • Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri

4. Extinction? • The last naturally occurring population was found in south-west Louisiana and south-east Texas (Carley 1975; Shaw 1975). • Recovery plan set in 1973 • 14 of 17 genetically “true” red wolves removed for captive breeding (USFWS 1990)

5. New Population Established • USFWS Introduced a wild population of red wolves into North Carolina and maintained a captive breeding program • Maintain 80-85% of the genetic diversity of the original founder stock for a period of 150 plus years (USFWS 1990) • Equal to preserving 90% of heterozygosity • Estimated that the population can sustain only one hybrid litter out of every 59 litters (1.7%) to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for the next 100 years (Kelly et al. 1999).

6. Primary Theories • (1) a distinct North American species most closely aligned with gray wolves of Old World origin • (2) a species derived independently from a coyote-like ancestor in the New World and possibly conspecific with the Great Lakes wolf; • (3) a hybrid population of coyotes and gray wolves (VonHoldt et. al 2011)

7. Genetic Hardships • Some genetic studies suggest red wolves may not be a distinct species(Roy et al., 1994a; 1994b) • Some studies do suggest the idea of a Mexican wolf subspecies (Lawrence & Bossert, 1967; 1975). • Genetic data supports idea of a gray wolf subspecies (Wayne and Jenks 1991). • Some scientists believe the red wolf and the Algonquin wolf (Canislupus lycaon) should be classified (Wilson et. al 2000, 2003).

8. (VonHoldt et.al 2011)

9. Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Conserve ecosystems and provide a conservation program for endangered and threatened species • Species is defined to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants and any distinct populations segment of any species of vertebrates or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”

10. The Red wolf is in fact a valid taxon, or at the very least a subspecies of the gray wolf. Red wolves possess wolf-derived nuclear DNA that produces wolf-like rather than a hybrid-like organism (Phillips and Henry 1992). • Other scientists named Red wolf as a subspecies of the Gray Wolf also (Audubon and Bachman 1851).

11. Hybridization Hybridization between coyotes and gray wolves at the United States/Canada border did not produce red wolves (Wayne and Jenks 1991) Evidence supports that the Red Wolf has continuously occupied the east since the Pleistocene and that it is the only species of wild Canis that was present in most of the region(Nowak 2002) .

12. Coyote Trouble • Red wolf was described as a small eastern wolf long before the eastward expansion of coyotes occurred (Brewster and Fritts 1995, Wilson et al. 2000). • Hybridization occurred as coyotes moved eastward (Wayne and Jenks 1991). • Wolf-coyote hybridization has been amplified bythe destruction of forested habitat and the increase expansion of coyotes in the last 90 years (Wilson et al. 2000).

13. Red Wolf Contribution • Maintaining healthy and balanced ecosystems • Enhances biodiversity • Cultural and economic benefits • Public involvement • Captive breeding

14. Biodiversity • ESA: endangered and threatened species are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific value to the Nation and its people. • Higher species richness increases biomass accumulation and resource use within trophic levels (Duffy 2009).

15. Ecological Role • Limited knowledge due to the severe habitat reduction at the time scientific investigations began. • Habitat generalists/ Top predators • Red wolf diet today consists of white-tailed deer and other smaller mammals. (Roth 2008)

17. Ecological Role • Wolves help control prey populations which left unchecked can impact indigenous plants and reduce the quality of habitat for native species. • Maintaining such fundamental ecological processes is the foundation for balanced and healthy ecosystems.

18. Economic Benefits of Red Wolves • Wolf restoration can benefit local economies through ecotourism. • In 2006 150,000 visitors came to Yellowstone specifically to see wolves (Duffield 2006).

19. Economic Benefits of Red Wolves • Reducing crop damage caused by prey species.

20. Public Difficulties • ~ 60% of the current red wolf population can be found on private lands within the recovery area. • All wild red wolves are classified as experimental nonessential under the ESA. • allows landowners to kill red wolves while depredation is occurring • Red wolves rarely prey on domestic animals, preferring to stay well away from animals associated with humans

21. Public Support • There are mechanisms for landowners to be monetarily compensated if they choose to become involved with red wolf recovery. • Cooperating withprivate landowners is an integral component of the Red Wolf Recovery • Program.

22. Captive Breeding • Over 100 red wolves roam their native habitats in North Carolina • Approximately 200 wolves comprise the captive breeding program outlined in the Species Survival Plan (IUCN 2011)

23. Current status • North Carolina holds the only free-ranging population • comprised of 60% private land and 40% public land. • This area contains three national wildlife refuges which provide important protection for the wolves. • Population is increasing (IUCN 2011)

24. Status Continued… • USFWS currently recognizes the red wolf as the species Canisrufus.(USFWS 1990) • Species status is supported by recent mtDNAsequencing found unique in red wolves that has not been observed in coyotes, gray wolves, or dogs (Adams 2002; Adams et al. 2003a)

25. Ethics • Moralistic, aesthetic, naturalistic values • Is it realistic to simply watch a species die out? • Biocentrism, Ecocentrism • Put the needs of red wolves at or above our own • Coyotes and grey wolves in Minnesota region • Wolves are now at a high abundance and hold coyotes out territorially and have become more genetically distinct over time • Is it too soon to pass judgment on red wolf-coyote hybridization?

26. Future Actions • Disease Prevention • Increase number of recovery facilities • Establish areas of historic range for more population re-introductions • Collaborate with USDA, landowners, and other stakeholders to promote better wolf management actions • Until scientific consensus is made, we should continue to protect this species (USFWS 1990)

27. Literature Cited • Adams, J.R. 2002. Using molecular approaches to evaluate hybridizationbetween to closely related species Canisrufusand Canislatrans. Master’s degree thesis. University of Idaho. 64 pp. • Adams, J.R., B.T. Kelly, and L.P. Waits. 2003a. Using faecal DNA sampling And GIS to monitor hybridization between red wolves (Canisrufus) and (Canis latrans). Molecular Ecology 12(8) 2175-2186. • Allendorf, F.W., Leary, R.F., Spruell, P, and Wenburg, J.K. 2001.The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. TREE, 16, 613-622. • Bohling, J.H., and L.P. Waits. 2011. Assessing the prevalence of hybridization between sympatric Canis species surrounding the red wolf (Canisrufus) recovery area in North Carolina. Molecular Ecology 20: 2142-2156. • Carley, C.J. 1975. Activities and findings of the red wolf recovery program from late 1973 to July 1, 1975. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. • Duffy, J.E. 2009. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 437–444. • Duffield, J., C. Neher, and D. Patterson. 2006.Wolves and People in Yellowstone: Impacts on the Regional Economy. Missoula, Mont.: University of Montana. • IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. • Kelly, B. T., P.S. Miller, and U.S. Seal (eds.). 1999. Population and habitat viability assessment workshop for the red wolf (Canisrufus). Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG, SSC/IUCN). 88 pp. • Lawrence, B. & Bossert, W.H. 1975. Relationships of North American Canis shown by multiple character analysis of selected populations. In: The wild canids, Ed. M.W.Fox, pp.73-86. Van NostrandReinhold, New York. • Nowak RM. (1979). North American QuartenaryCanis. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Monograph, no. 6. • Nowak RM. (1995). Another look at wolf taxonomy In: Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World: Proceedings of the Second North American Symposium of Wolves (eds. Carbyn LN, Fritts SH, Seip DR), pp. 375–398. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

28. Literature Cited continue. • Nowak RM. (2002). The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern Nat., 1, 95–130. • Phillips, M.K., and V.G. Henry. 1992. Comments on red wolf taxonomy. Society of Conservation Biology 6: 596-599 • Roth JD, Murray DL, Steury TD (2008) Spatial dynamics of canids: modeling the impacts of coyotes on red wolf recovery. Ecological Modelling, 214, 391-403. • Roy, M.S., Geffen, E., Smith, D., Ostrander, E.A. & Wayne, R.K. 1994a. Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflikecanids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 11: 553-570. • Roy, M.S., Girman, D.G., Taylor, A.C. & Wayne, R.K. 1994b. The use of museum specimens to reconstruct the genetic variability and relationships of extinct populations. Experientia, 50: 551-557. • Shaw, J.H. 1975. Ecology, behavior, and systematics of the red wolf (Canisrufus). Ph.D Dissertation, Yale University. • Sokal, R.R., and T.J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept:A critical evaluation.Teh American Naturalist.104: 127-153. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Red Wolf Recovery/Species Survival Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 110 pp. • VonHoldt, B.M., J.P. Pollinger, D.A. Earl, J.C. Knowles, A.R. Boyko, H. Parker, E. Geffen, M. Pilot, W. Jedrzejewski, B. Jedrzejewski, V. Sidorovich, C. Greco, E. Randi, M. Musiani, R. Kays, C.D. Bustamante, E.A. Ostrander, and J. Novembre, R.K. Wayne.2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. Genome Research 8:1294-1305. • Wayne RK, Jenks SM. (1991). Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canisrufus. Nature, 351, 565–568. • Wilson, P.J., S. Grewal, I.D. Lawford, J.N.M. Heal, A.G. Granacki, D. Pennock, J.B. Theberge. M.T. Theberge, D.R. Voigt, W. Waddel, R.E. Chambers, P.C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff, and B.N. White. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadain Journal of Zoology 78: 2156-2166 • Young, S., E. Goldman. 1944. The Wolves of North America. Washington D.C.: The American Wildlife Institute.