Content uploaded by Todd Fuller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Todd Fuller on Jun 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for
USDA National Wildlife Research Center -
Staff Publications
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year
From the Field: Implementing recovery
of the red wolf— integrating research
scientists and managers
Michael K. Stoskopf
Karen Beck
Bud B. Fazio
Todd K. Fuller
Eric M. Gese
Brian T. Kelly
Frederick F. Knowlton
Dennis L. Murray
William Waddell
Lisette Waits
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm usdanwrc/507
1145
From
the
Field:
Implementing recovery
of
the red
wolf—
integrating research
scientists
and
managers
Michael
K.
Stoskopf,
Karen Beck,
Bud
B. Fazio, Todd
K.
Fuller,
Eric M.
Gese,
Brian
T.
Kelly, Frederick F. Knowlton, Dennis
L.
Murray,
William Waddell,
and
Lisette Waits
Abstract
The
United States Fish
and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed guidelines
for the com-
position
and
role
of
endangered species recovery implementation teams,
but few
teams
have been established
and
their success
has not
been evaluated. Using
the
recovery
pro-
gram
of the red
wolf (Canis rufus)
as a
model,
we
describe
the
genesis, function,
and suc-
cess
of the
Red Wolf Recovery Implementation Team (RWRIT)
in
helping guide
the
estab-
lishment
of a
viable
red
wolf population
in
eastern North Carolina.
In
operation since
1999,
the
RWRIT meets bi-annually
to
review USFWS progress
and
provide recommen-
dations aimed
at
maximizing success
of
species recovery.
The
team
is
comprised
of 8
research scientists from disciplines including population genetics, canid ecology, popula-
tion ecology, veterinary medicine,
and
captive management. Representation from each
of
these disciplines
is
deemed necessary
for
proper evaluation
of
recovery progress
and
assessment
of
future needs. Meeting attendance
by the
USFWS field management team
ensures both proper reporting
of
past progress
and
future implementation
of
management
recommendations. Over time, RWRIT members have assumed specific assignments
for
data analyses, further contributing
to the
recovery effort. Through
the
combined efforts
of
the USFWS field team
and the
RWRIT,
the
threat
of
introgression
of
coyote (Canis latrans)
genes into
the red
wolf population
has
been substantially curtailed within
the
recovery
area,
and red
wolf numbers
and
range have increased.
The
RWRIT serves
as an
example
of
a
recovery implementation team that
is
successfully incorporating
the
principles
of
adaptive management
and
whose template could
be
adapted
to
other endangered species.
Key words adaptive management, Canis
rufus,
endangered species, implementation, recovery,
red
wolf
Recovery of any endangered species is influ- ceed, it is equally critical that professionals tasked
enced by a range of political, economic, social, as with the responsibility for managing endangered
well as biological issues (Tear et al. 1993, Scott et al. species be able to move forward with timely deci-
1995,
Lundquist et al. 2002). Reconciling disparate sions based on practical management needs and
concerns and perspectives into a cohesive program scientific knowledge (Westrum 1994). The United
requires planning and decision-making processes States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) red wolf
that consider conflicting interests of various stake- (Canis rufus) recovery program is an example of a
holders. However, for a recovery program to sue- program faced with complex issues, where man-
Wildlite Soiietv Bulletin 2005, J3l3i-1145 II32 Peer edited
1146 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(3):1145-1152
agement successes have
been strengthened and
accelerated by integrating
active adaptive manage-
ment with careful and
timely scientific inquiry.
This paper describes how
this integration is being
achieved via a designated
"recovery implementa-
tion team."
The red wolf is an
endangered species that
once roamed an extensive
range including the south-
eastern United States, and
possibly the entire wood-
lands of eastern North
America (Wilson et al.
2000,
Nowak 2002,
Grewal et al. 2004).
Although listed as endan-
gered in 1967 (USFWS,
1967),
population decline
and apparent hybridiza-
tion with coyotes (Canis
latrans) were recognized
in the early 1960s
(McCarley 1962,McCarley
and Carley 1979). The remaining red wolves were
removed from the wild in the mid- to late 1970s
with the goals of establishing a captive breeding
program and eventually restoring captive-bred ani-
mals to portions of their historical range (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1989). In 1987 the
first red wolves were released in easternmost North
Carolina (Figure 1) with the plan to establish a
viable population (Parker 1987). The reintroduc-
tion efforts faced a myriad of social, political, and
biological issues as the Red Wolf Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1989) was implemented (Henry and
Lucash 2000, Phillips et al. 2003).
Although the reintroduction area was initially
considered uninhabited by coyotes, by the mid-
1990s it was apparent coyotes had infiltrated the
area and hybridization with red wolves was recur-
ring (Phillips et al. 2003). Due primarily to the
renewed hybrid threat and termination of the rein-
troduction of red wolves into Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (Henry 1998), the USFWS
decided it needed to re-evaluate its red wolf recov-
ery effort in light of what had been learned over
Figure 1. Changes in management zone boundaries within the Red Wolf Recovery Area of
eastern North Carolina, as made in accordance with Red Wolf Adaptive Management Plans.
The boundaries of the original management Zones 1, 2, and 3 (dashed lines) were first estab-
lished in April 2000. In March 2002, as red wolf recovery proceeded, boundaries in the south-
ern parts of the zones were moved west (solid lines); part of Zone 2 became Zone 1, while part
of Zone 3 became Zone 2 (arrows). In August 2003 some management aspects of canids
(i.e.,
sterilization vs. euthanasia) captured in the eastern half of Zone 3 (thin dotted line) began to
follow guidelines applied to Zone 2.
the previous decade. A key step in this review
process involved a Population and Habitat Viability
Assessment (PHVA) organized by the USFWS in
1999 and facilitated by the Conservation Breeding
Specialists Group of the World Conservation Union,
Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) (Kelly et
al.
1999). The diverse assemblage of attendees, rep-
resenting a variety of expertise and interests,
agreed that introgression of coyote genes into the
red wolf population was the principal threat to
recovery success (Kelly et al. 1999). The group also
recognized this issue required urgent attention
before hybridization became so pervasive as to vir-
tually ensure the genetic swamping of the only
extant free-ranging population of red wolves.
However, 2 views of how to address the hybrid
threat emerged from the PHVA; one believed
research was integral to addressing the problem,
and the other expressed concern that research
efforts would distract from the primary goal of
maintaining the only free-ranging population of red
wolves in the world. A consensus agreement was
reached on this debate and resulted in an overarch-
From the Field • Stoskopf et al. 1147
ing workshop statement, including:
"...our primary recovery focus must be protect-
ing and promoting the growth of a self-sustain-
ing, non-hybridizing population of red wolves
in the wild and sustaining an active captive
component. Actions to be taken will use an
adaptive management approach that will not
compromise the ability to achieve this goal."
(USFWS 1999:52)
This level of agreement among the diverse par-
ticipants of the PHVA set the stage for designing an
adaptive management plan (cf. Lancia et al. 1996)
that would reduce the threat of wolf-coyote
hybridization. This plan (Kelly 2000) diverged from
conventional endangered species management
because it involved an incremental process tailored
to modify field protocols according to past success
in eliminating the threat of hybridization.
Specifically, it required the release area to be segre-
gated into several defined management zones, each
managed to provide an integrated optimization of
risk reduction •within the resource limitations avail-
able to the project (Figure 1). As nonwolf canids
were removed from given zones and replaced with
red wolves, management options could be adapted
by modifying zone boundaries or adjusting specific
management protocols.
Adoption of this plan, requiring frequent re-eval-
uation of data and attendant management adjust-
ments, spawned close interactions between
USFWS field biologists and scientists with back-
grounds relevant to the work being undertaken. A
Red Wolf Recovery Implementation Team (RWRIT)
was formed to advise USFWS as they implemented
the adaptive management plan; this team was cre-
ated pursuant to Section 4(f)(2) of the amended
Endangered Species Act (ESA), which authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to procure the servic-
es of appropriate public and private agencies, insti-
tutions, and other qualified persons to help imple-
ment endangered species recovery plans. Other
USFWS-designated species-specific implementa-
tion teams, as opposed to planning teams, have
been formed (e.g., black-footed ferret [Mustela
nigripes], northern right whale [Eubalaena
glacialis], Okaloosa darter [Etheostoma
okaloosae], and southern sea otter [Enhydra
lutris]; USFWS files), but they are rare and no for-
mal description of one's workings or success has
yet been documented.
Recovery implementation team
composition
Selection of the RWRIT scientists and their lead-
ership was important to the success of implement-
ing and evaluating the adaptive management plan.
The PHVA helped the USFWS identify individuals
with the combined expertise and personality con-
sidered important in a functional RWRIT. The PHVA
also provided insight to the breadth of expertise
needed over the long term. This expertise included
such diverse fields as systematics, genetics, popula-
tion modeling, health management, and canid biol-
ogy, behavior, ecology, and management. Social sci-
entists were not required in this case because those
issues were, and continue to be, successfully dealt
with by the USFWS field management team in con-
junction with non-governmental organizations
(Henry and Lucash 2000). Direct experience with
the red wolf was not a requisite criterion for
RWRIT membership. In fact, due to the long and
controversial scientific history of the red
wolf,
some team members were sought for their naivete
of red wolves to minimize preconceived notions
regarding the problems the adaptive management
plan addressed. Thus, a mixture of experienced and
young research scientists •with strong records of sci-
entific productivity and interpersonal skills was
selected. Each member of the RWRIT had to be
willing to use a data-driven approach to decision-
making while remaining open to challenges of
interpretation. Each member also had to be willing
to accept group decisions as well as devote consid-
erable personal time toward solving issues associat-
ed with the red wolf program.
The RWRIT needed to be large enough to pro-
vide the scientific diversity needed to assess the
broad range of critical issues, but small enough to
support close working relationships among mem-
bers and result in productive meetings (Clark and
Westrum 1989). A basic philosophy was that if the
RWRIT needed expertise from individuals or disci-
plines outside the RWRIT to address specific issues,
guest scientists would be invited to participate in
the appropriate meetings. Initially, a goal of 8 mem-
bers and 4 alternates was considered. Interactions
of the group and reliability of participation in early
meetings were used to identify the core members
of the RWRIT. Since then, the size and composition
of the RWRIT (8 members, no alternates) has
worked well, sustaining effective decision-making
with absences at meetings being rare. The leader of
1148 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(3):1145-1152
the RWRIT needed to moderate meetings efficient-
ly while allowing for creative interactions among
RWRIT members. To ensure this, a senior scientist
at a local university was selected due to his demon-
strated scientific and leadership skills.
Experienced and stable field team
The USFWS field team involved in the day-to-day
operation and management of the red wolf recov-
ery program was key to the success of the RWRIT.
The field team attended all RWRIT meetings as non-
voting members and provided the necessary data
and expertise for the meetings to progress effec-
tively. This distinction between the teams initially
caused some anxiety, but this subsided once roles
had been fully elucidated. The field team is remark-
ably stable and has worked cohesively on the red
wolf project for many years (Phillips et al. 2003).
Scientists of the RWRIT recognize the field team as
the most experienced red wolf biologists and
essential for successful functioning of the RWRIT
itself.
In turn, the field team's willingness to listen
to and implement recommendations made by the
RWRIT has been a critical factor in the success of
the program. Open communications between the
2 teams keeps RWRIT scientists aware of the imple-
mentation of recommendations and fosters respect
for the dedication of the field team.
Getting started
The first meeting of the RWRIT was important in
establishing the tenor of group interactions and
future functioning. Subsequent meetings would
focus on examining data related to specific ques-
tions within an established agenda, but the first
meeting focused on developing operating proce-
dures for decisions as well as the types of data and
data formats the team preferred for review and
evaluation. This was a step that helped acquaint
members of the team and recognize proper work-
ing protocols. It also ensured that all members of
the team had a common understanding of the Red
Wolf Adaptive Management Plan (RWAMP).
The charge of the RWRIT was established a pri-
ori by the Team Leader of the Red Wolf Recovery
Program (i.e.,"Red Wolf Program Leader"). This task
was defined specifically as reviewing progress on
the RWAMP and recommending changes to the
plan based on data provided by the USFWS. As the
team gained experience, this charge evolved to
include recommendations for data relevant to
answering specific questions important to the field
team in the day-to-day management of the wild red
wolf population. The 2 charges were closely relat-
ed, frequently blended, seldom distinct, fundamen-
tal to the Adaptive Management Paradigm (Walters
1986),
and are the responsibilities that drive efforts
of RWRIT members. From the beginning, per the
ESA, RWRIT recommendations were strictly adviso-
ry, with decisions for implementation being at the
discretion of the USFWS.
Ground rules established in the first meeting
have rarely been adjusted. Some established the
mechanics of operations. For example, it was
decided a minimum of 6 RWRIT members would
be required as a quorum for a functional meeting.
Failure to achieve quorum would trigger an evalua-
tion by the RWRIT Leader and the Red Wolf
Program Leader to assess whether the RWRIT
remained an appropriate mechanism. To date this
has not been necessary due to continued strong
and enthusiastic attendance.
Other rules provided guidance for RWRIT inter-
actions. To reduce stifling potentially meritorious
but perhaps unconventional ideas, the team adopt-
ed a basic rule indicating that speakers must pres-
ent alternative solutions when challenging or
negating a proposed idea or approach. Ideas would
be withdrawn from consideration only after careful
efforts to refine them failed to produce workable
solutions. To the fullest extent possible, data would
be used to support all positions.
Other procedural mechanisms established in the
first meeting have had a beneficial effect on RWRIT
operations. For example, tentative dates, times, and
location of future meetings are established jointly
early in the agenda of each meeting. In addition,
the agenda of the next meeting is established near
the completion of the current session, which prob-
ably produces a more dynamic agenda than a call
just before the meeting. Opportunities to add agen-
da items at any time remain, but the draft of the
agenda appears in the final minutes; serving as a
reminder for participants as they prepare for the
coming meeting.
An important activity reserved for the end of
each meeting is an exercise in prioritizing "action
items",
which are further classified as either "tasks"
(expected to be accomplished within the time
frame of the meeting or between meetings);
"proj-
ects"
(longer duration activities); or "manuscripts"
(the drafting of information for publication).
From the Field • Stoskopf et al. 1149
Individual RWRIT members are recognized as
responsible for addressing each item. With many
issues to consider and an active agenda, many more
action items are identified than can typically be
accomplished with the resources available. The
action items established throughout the meeting
and recognized as "projects" are assembled in a
descriptive list and as a final exercise, each member
of the RWRIT assigns a priority level to each item
and the mean rating is computed. This rating is
offered to the Red Wolf Program Leader as a rec-
ommendation for activities to pursue or fund. At
the first meeting, a pattern was established where
RWRIT members worked to identify key manage-
ment questions and to focus scientific inquiry in
areas of need with constant reference to the adap-
tive management plan. Assets are identified and
resource limitations discussed so recommendations
have a reasonable likelihood of implementation.
Short proposals outlining the objective of projects
and the team member(s) involved in the work are
distributed to the RWRIT via the team's webpage.
The webpage also includes team member contact
information, minutes of meetings (see below), data
sets,
reports, press releases, publications, project
descriptions, manuscripts in progress, and upcom-
ing meeting agendas and related materials such as
reports and summaries.
Since 2000 the RWRIT has met bi-annually, which
is sufficient to respond in a timely manner to ques-
tions from the field and to strengthen collegial
bonds among members. This schedule also allows
sufficient time for the field team to implement rec-
ommendations and to document their progress and
for RWRIT members to work independently on
action items. Other factors affecting meeting
schedules include a need to make recommenda-
tions ahead of budget deadlines and to accommo-
date schedules of the individual RWRIT members
and the field team. The current pattern of meetings
includes 1 meeting in March prior to the denning
season and a second in October prior to intensive
trapping efforts.
cies associated with updating new attendees. The
ability to invite experts in areas not represented on
the RWRIT provides a mechanism to maintain flex-
ibility and adaptability. Periodic review of expertise
needed for specific tasks and projects of the RWRIT
keeps the issue of change before the team. In addi-
tion, there exists ample opportunity to discuss can-
didly both the pros and cons of the teams' efforts,
either formally at the end of each meeting or infor-
mally during meals or after hours. The RWRIT
Leader needs to recognize dissenting views and
address contentious issues promptly and effective-
ly. The fact that for most meetings the entire RWRIT
was communally housed in rented accommoda-
tions further ensured the establishment of favor-
able personal relationships benefiting RWRIT inter-
actions and discussion.
Complete minutes of RWRIT deliberations pro-
vide documentation of the team's discussions and
recommendations. An iterative process of editing
minutes is used by the RWRIT, ensuring important
information developed at each meeting is recorded
accurately and in language deemed appropriate by
the participants. Notes are converted into a draft
each evening and individualized, and printed
copies are distributed to attendees the following
morning for editing. All drafts are synthesized into
the penultimate draft for further comment, which is
followed by a final draft distributed electronically
shortly after completion of the meeting. The
RWRIT members have a week to return any cor-
rections, after which the final minutes are complet-
ed and distributed electronically. The deliberations
of the RWRIT are considered privileged communi-
cation, and all meeting participants are asked to
limit discussions of information received at the
meetings to individuals within their respective
research groups. This policy allows RWRIT mem-
bers access to sensitive and preliminary data and
provides more freedom of discussion without con-
cerns about inappropriate disclosure. Distribution
of the minutes beyond the RWRIT is at the discre-
tion of the Red Wolf Program Leader.
Staying flexible
Any group with dynamic tasks needs a mecha-
nism for adjusting the nature of the group as it
matures and as tasks change (Clark and Reading
1994).
The concept of alternate members soon was
abandoned because of the strong attendance by
RWRIT members and because it reduced inefficien-
How well does it work?
The test of any system is how well it functions to
meet the goals and objectives of the program it
serves. In the 4 years since the first formal meeting
of the RWRIT, key challenges to implementing the
plan developed at the PHVA have been identified
and strategies have been devised to provide practi-
1150 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005,33(3):1145-1152
cal solutions and evaluate success of recovery
efforts. Perhaps more importantly, all RWRIT mem-
bers and the entire red wolf field team have
become close colleagues who look forward to each
meeting. We enjoy the frank and open exchange of
ideas,
the ability to quickly address both practical
and theoretical problems and make changes in
management practices, and the successes in the
field that result from the collaboration. The details
of these changes and successes are the basis of sev-
eral scientific papers, some already published or in
press and others currently in preparation, but a
brief summary is warranted.
Prior to 1998 all canids captured in the red wolf
recovery area were assumed to be wolves unless
they were so small as to be considered coyotes, if
they were black, or if they looked part dog. If there
was some indication that a single female wolf was
consorting with a coyote or dog, pups she pro-
duced were removed (A. Beyer, USFWS, personal
communication). Thus, the basic challenge of rap-
idly and confidently identifying animals as red
wolves versus hybrids or coyotes, especially young
animals, was identified early as a key concern of the
PHVA and the field team. The RWRIT served as cat-
alyst for developing an enhanced and improved
genomic testing protocol by expanding the ability
to assess alleles at 19 loci (Miller et al. 2003). A pri-
ority placed on obtaining genomic assessments of
the entire group of founders in the captive breed-
ing program, as well for coyotes in the vicinity of
the wolf release zones, greatly improved the confi-
dence in the genomic data now available. Genetic
analyses were integrated with pedigree and mor-
phometric data to develop decision trees for all
captured animals (Table 1). Extension of the DNA
analysis capabilities to fecal samples increased the
potential for assessing presence of red wolves, as
well as undesired non-red wolves, in the field sam-
ples without the need of capturing and handling
animals (Adams et al. 2003). Additional research
efforts were directed at using this technology for
assessing red wolf population size (J. R. Adams and
L.
P.
Waits,
University of Idaho, unpublished data).
To evaluate progress of the adaptive manage-
ment plan, RWRIT scientists wanted detailed and
current descriptions of animal locations, their geno-
types,
and canid inventory efforts in relation to geo-
graphic areas. A coordinated Geographic
Information System (GIS) database system is now
used at all RWRIT meetings to examine recovery
progress. This is steadily approaching the goal of a
real-time data view as data entry and validation
challenges are addressed and data summaries are
refined. These tools help identify areas where data
are insufficient to define the status of canids and
help develop strategies to eliminate so-called "areas
of ignorance" by concentrating efforts in areas
needing more attention. In addition, they have lead
to improved ground telemetry efforts and more
efficient use of resources and personnel.
Modeling effects of coyote genomic intrusion,
using more refined data sets and newer models
than available at the PHVA, provided RWRIT scien-
Table 1. Decision path for genetic results of red wolves (RW) captured in the experimental population area in northeastern North
Carolina, applied in fall of 2003 (explanation of genetic result classifications given in Miller et al. 2003). Decision parameters list-
ed in the following priority: Genetic testing; Pedigree; Morphology; Mate.
Capture location8
Decision parameterZone 1
Release
Consider pedigree (go to
Release
Consider morphology (gc
Euthanize
Consider mate (go to 4)
Release
Euthanize
Consider pedigree (go to
2)
>to 3)
5)
Zone 2
Release
Release
Sterilize
Release
Sterilize 1 mate
1.
Genetic test: 100% RW (pedigree 100% RW)
1.
Genetic test: 100% RW but cannot exclude 75% RW hypothesis
2.
Pedigree is 100% to 87.5% RW
2.
Pedigree is 87% to 75% RW or unknown
3. Morphologically "hybrid-like"
3. Morphologically "RW-like"
4.
Mate is >75% RW
4.
Mate is <75% RW or uncertain
1.
Genetic Test: 75% RW or 75% RW but cannot exclude 50% RW
hypothesis
5. Pedigree is <75% RW
5. Pedigree is >75% RW or unknownEuthanize Sterilize
Consider morphology (go to 3)
a See Figure 1.
From
the
Field
•
Stoskopf
et al. 1151
tists
new
insights into impacts
of
genomic intrusion
(e.g., Miller
et al.
2003). This allowed
for key
insights
to
establishing acceptable risks defined
in
the decision trees. This also assisted
in the
making
of informed recommendations
for
modifying
approaches
to the
various management zones
for
red wolf recovery. Recently,
the
RWRIT initiated
an
effort
to
conduct detailed analyses
of
home range,
spatial interactions, habitat
use, and
demographic
attributes
of all
radiomonitored
red
wolves since
1986,
with
the
objective
of
developing
a
population
viability model
to
help guide future management
and recovery actions.
Den
management techniques
via implementation
of
early genomic sampling
and
use
of
cross-fostering
of
wild-caught
and
captive
bred pups into wild litters have been developed
(cf. Kitchen
and
Knowlton,
in
press). Methodology
also
has
been enhanced
to
conduct surgical proce-
dures
to
support
the use of
hormonally intact
but
sterile hybrids
and
coyotes
to
serve
as
sterile
buffers (i.e., temporary territory placeholders that
discourage establishment
of
new, intact nonwolves)
in peripheral management zones (Figure
1).
The
net
result
of
such activities
has led to an
increase
in the
area occupied
by red
wolves, total
number
of red
wolves,
and
number
of red
wolf
social units,
as
well
as a
major decrease
in the
total
area where
the
status
of
canids,
in
general,
is
unknown
(B. B.
Fazio, USFWS, unpublished data).
Such changes
in
these metrics were identified
in
the RWAMP
as
key indicators
of
the successful man-
agement
of
wolf-coyote hybridization. Importantly,
coyotes
or
hybrids have essentially been eliminated
from fully half
of the red
wolf recovery area.
To
date,
genetic intrusion into
the red
wolf population
has been largely controlled, albeit through aggres-
sive intervention.
The effective functioning
of the
RWRIT
has
ensured that issues identified
at the
PHVA
as
described
in the
RWAMP have been,
or are
being,
successfully addressed
by
USFWS.
And as
should
be
expected,
the
original
red
wolf adaptive manage-
ment plan
is now
revised
to
include
5
years
of
evolving adaptive management (Fazio
et al.
2004).
The approach taken
by the
RWRIT represents
a
good example
of
successful application
of the
Adaptive Resource Management paradigm
and is
likewise consistent with,
and
respectful
of, con-
cerns raised
by the
participants
at the
PHVA that
the primary goal
of
conserving
the
only free-rang-
ing population
of red
wolves
not be
overshadowed
by
the
desire
to
conduct research. Indeed,
the
USFWS recently highlighted
the
efforts
of the Red
Wolf Recovery Program
in a
videotape
on how the
use
of
sound science
is key to
meeting
its
mission.
We believe
the
recent tangible success
in red
wolf recovery
is a
direct result
of
conducting
the
PHVA, crafting
a
RWAMP, establishing
the
RWRIT,
and
the
cooperation
and
close interaction between
the RWRIT
and the
USFWS field team directly
tasked with
red
wolf recovery. Endangered species
recovery should involve
a
strong linkage between
scientific investigation under
the
rubric
of
adaptive
management
and the
appropriate blend
of
social,
political,
and
economic issues (Clark
et al.
1994).
In
light
of the
mixed past success
in
recovering
endangered species
in the
United States (Crouse
et
al.
2002, Gerber
and
Hatch 2002), we believe, based
on
the
success
of the
RWRIT, that recovery imple-
mentation teams
can
serve
as an
effective vehicle
for helping guide recovery programs
and
actions.
Acknowledgments.
The
authors thank
the
USFWS
and the
Morris Animal Foundation
for
finan-
cial support
of
activities reported
in
this manu-
script
and the red
wolf field team
for its
excellent
efforts
and
cooperation with
the
RWRIT.
literature cited
ADAMS,
J.R..B.T.
KELLY,
AND
L
P.
WAITS.
2003.
Using faecal
DNA
sampling
and GIS to
monitor hybridization between
red
wolves iCanis rufus)
and
coyotes (Canis latrans).
Molecular Ecology 12:2175-2186.
CLARK,
T.W,
AND
R. P.
READING.
1994. A professional perspective:
improving problem solving, communication
and
effective-
ness.
Pages 351-370
in T. W.
Clark,
R. P.
Reading,
and A. L
Clark, editors. Endangered species recovery: finding
the les-
sons
and
improving
the
process. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.,
USA.
CLARK,
T.W..R. P.
READING, AND
A. L
CLARK.
1994. Synthesis. Pages
417-431
in T. W.
Clark,
R. P.
Reading,
and A. L.
Clark, editors.
Endangered species recovery: finding
the
lessons
and
improving
the
process. Island Press, Washington,
D.C., USA.
CLARK,
T. W,
AND
R.
WESTRUM.
1989. High-performance teams in
wildlife conservation—a species reintroduction
and
recov-
ery example. Environmental Management 13:663-670.
CROUSE,
D. T., L. A.
MEHRHOFF,
M. J.
PARKIN,
D. R.
ELAM, AND
L Y.
CHEN.
2002.
Endangered species recovery
and the
SCB study:
a
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife Service perspective. Ecological
Applications 12:719-723.
FAZIO,
B. B., C.
LUCASH, AND
A.
BEYER.
2004. Red wolf recovery pro-
gram adaptive work plan. United States Fish
and
Wildlife
Service Report. Manteo, North Carolina,
USA.
GERBER,
L R.,
AND
L
T.
HATCH.
2002.
Are we
recovering?
An
eval-
uation
of
recovery criteria under
the US
Endangered Species
Act. Ecological Applications 12:668-673-
GREWAL,
P.
J.WILSON,
T. K.
KIING,
K.
SHAMI,
M T.
THEBERGE,
J. B.
THEBF.RGE,ANDB.N.
WHITE.
2004.
A
genetic assessment
of the
eastern wolf (Canis lycaori)
in
Algonquin Provincial Park.
Journal
of
Mammalogy 85:625-632.
1152 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(3):1145-1152
HENRY,
V.
G. 1998. Notice
of
termination
of
the red wolf reintro-
duction project in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Federal Register 63:54151-54153.
HENRY,
V.G.,
AND
CF.LUCASH.
2000. Red wolf introduction lessons
regarding species restoration. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Red Wolf Management Series Technical Report No.
12,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
KELLY,
B.T. 2000. Red wolf recovery program adaptive work plan
- FY00-FY02. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Report,
Manteo, North Carolina, USA.
KELLY,
B. T., P. S.
MILLER,
AND
U. S.
SEAL,
editors. 1999. Population
and habitat viability assessment workshop
for
the red wolf
(Cants rufus). Conservation Breeding Specialist Group
(SSC/IUCN), Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA.
KITCHEN,
A. M.,
AND
F. F.
KNOWLTON.
2005.
Cross-fostering
in coy-
otes:
evaluation
of a
potential conservation and research tool
for canids. Biological Conservation 00:000-000.
Lancia, R. A., C. E. Braun, M. W. Collopy, R. D. Dueser, J. G. Kie, C. J.
Martinka,
J. D.
Nichols,
T. D.
Nudds, W.
R.
Porath, and N.
G.
Tilghman. 1996. ARM! For the future: adaptive management
in
the
wildlife profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin
24:
436-442.
LUNDQUIST,
C.
J., J. M.
DlEHL,
E.
HARVEY,
AND
L
W.
BOTSFORD.
2002.
Factors affecting implementation
of
recovery plans.
Ecological Applications 12:713-718.
MCCARLEY,
H. 1962. The
taxonomic status
of
wild Cants
(Canidae)
in
the South Central United States. Southwestern
Naturalist 7:227-235.
MCCARLEY,
H.,
AND
C.
J.
CARLEY.
1979. Recent changes
in
distribu-
tion
and
status
of
wild
red
wolves (Canis rufus). United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Report
No.
4, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
MILLER,
C. R, J. R.
ADAMS, AND
L P.
WAITS.
2003.
Pedigree-based
assignment tests
for
reversing coyote (Canis latrans) intro-
gression into
the
wild
red
wolf (Canis rufus) population.
Molecular Ecology 12:3287-3301
NOWAK,
R.
M. 2002. The original status
of
wolves
in
Eastern
North America. Southeastern Naturalist
1:95-130.
PARKER,
W. T.
1987. A
plan
for
reestablishing
the red
wolf
on
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina.
United States Fish
and
Wildlife Service,
Red
Wolf
Management Series Technical Report No. 1, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA.
PHILLIPS,
M.K.,
V.G.HENRY,
AND B.
T.KELLY.
2003.
Restoration of the
red
wolf.
Pages 272-288
in
L. D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors.
Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University
of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
SCOTT
J. M., T. H.
TEAR,
AND
L S.
MILLS.
1995. Socioeconomics and
the recovery
of
endangered species: biological assessment
in
the political world. Conservation Biology 9:214-216.
TEART.H.J.
M.SCOTT,
P.
H.HAYWARD,
AND
B.GRIFFITH.
1993. Status
and prospects
for
success
of the
ESA:
a
look
at
recovery
plans.
Science 262:976-977.
UNITED
STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE.
1967. 32 FR 4001.
UNITED
STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE.
1989. Red Wolf Recovery
Plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA.
KELLY
B. T.,P. S.
MILLER,
AND
U. S.
SEAL.
1999. Population and
Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) for the Red Wolf (Canis
rufus).
United States Fish
and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.
WALTERS,
C. 1986.
Adaptive management
of
renewable
resources. MacMillan Publishing, New York, New York, USA.
WESTRUM,
R. 1994. An
organizational perspective: designing
recovery teams from the inside out. Pages 327-350
OTT.W.
Clark,
R. P.
Reading,
and A. L.
Clark, editors. Endangered
species recovery: finding
the
lessons
and
improving
the
process. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
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.
WADDELL,
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
of a
common evolution-
ary history independent
of
the gray
wolf.
Canadian Journal
of Zoology 78:2156-2166.
Address
for
Michael
K.
Stoskopf and Karen Beck: Environmen-
tal Medicine Consortium, College
of
Veterinary Medicine,
North Carolina State University, 4700 Hillsborough Street,
Raleigh,
NC
27606,
USA;
e-mail
for
Stoskopf:
Michael_Stoskopf@ncsu.edu. Address
for
Bud
B.
Fazio:
Red
Wolf Recovery Program, Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge, P.O. Box 1969, Manteo, NC 27954, USA. Address for
Todd
K.
Fuller: Department
of
Natural Resources Conservation,
University
of
Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA
01003-9285, USA.
Address
for
Eric
M.
Gese and Frederick
F.
Knowlton: United
States Department
of
Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National
Wildlife Research Center, Utah State University, Logan,
UT
84322-5295, USA. Address
for
Brian T. Kelly: Environmental
Medicine Consortium, North Carolina State University, 4700
Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA, and Red Wolf
Recovery Program, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge,
P.O. Box 1969, Manteo, NC 27954, USA; present address: Eco-
logical Services, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 4000
Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, WY
82001,
USA. Address for Den-
nis L. Murray: Department
of
Biology, Trent University, 1600 W.
Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada. Address
for William Waddell: Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, 5400
North Pearl Street, Tacoma,
WA
98407, USA. Address
for
Lisette Waits: Department
of
Fish and Wildlife Resources, Uni-
versity
of
Idaho, Moscow,
ID
83844-1136, USA.
The collaborators
on
this paper have
a
variety
of
academic
degrees, work experiences, and publications
in
a wide selection
of fields and disciplines and have studied species from
A to Z.
They include (seated, from left
to
right) Karen
Beck
(ecological
epidemiologist), Buddy Fazio (fiscal conservationist), Todd
Fuller (quasi-experimental theoriologist), Eric Gese (investiga-
tive carnivologist),
and
Brian Kelly (politico-ecologist),
and
(standing,
left
to
right) Fred
Knowlton
(historical
cani-
dilist),
Dennis Murray (taxon-free numero-ecologist),
Michael Stoskopf (conservation metabonomist), Will
Waddell (ex-situ zoologist),
and
Lisette Waits (pan-
molecular faecologist).
