(Note: this is
from the 1990 version the action plan
Click
here for the 2004 version of the
Canid Action Plan)
(from Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, and
Dogs,
the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group's 1990 Action Plan)
There are 34 species in the canid deck of cards. In the preceding chapters we have cut the deck by species, by region, and by topic. Each hand thus dealt has given us a different perspective, and we have drawn conclusions as we came to them. We do not plan to introduce any new information at this late stage in the Action Plan but, at risk of being repetitious, we will present here a synthesis of salient conclusions that are scattered elsewhere in the text. Our aim is to make these conclusions as accessible as is possible. In so doing, we run the risk that hurried readers will jump to the conclusion that there is no need to read any other chapter. Anxious that this incorrect conclusion should not cause our efforts to be squandered, we would point out that this chapter is not a summary of the booklet, but rather a drawing together of selected threads that might otherwise have remained untied.
In seeking generalizations about the conservation of the Canidae, one is abruptly confronted with the aphorism concerning comparisons of chalk and cheese. We are dealing with some species about which much is known (e.g. the arctic fox), others that have rarely been seen in the wild (e.g. the small-eared zorro). Some species appear destined to an existence as imperiled fugitives (e.g. wild dogs), others are thin on the ground but widespread (e.g. side-striped jackal), while others seem almost ineradicable (e.g. red fox). Some may be essentially gregarious (e.g. dholes); some essentially solitary (e.g. maned wolf). The list of potential contrasts is almost limitless. Against this background, our attempts at generalizations clearly merit scepticism! However, while we would not argue that the scientific management of populous species is any less challenging than the conservation of imperiled ones, we do see a greater cost in bungling the latter. For that pragmatic reason we confine our final recommendations to the most threatened canids.
Fortunately, remarkably few canids are in dire straits (Table 1). Only nine species pose critical problems to conservation, and only three of these are endangered. In satisfying contrast to the plight of many carnivores (cats--Joslin and Jackson in prep; mustelids and viverrids--Schreiber et al. 1989), nearly half of the world's canids (15) are, by any objective criterion, not in immediate need of additional protection. A further 10 species may be in tolerable circumstances, although this judgement carries the proviso that more information is required. Of the remainder, three are in danger of extinction and six are vulnerable or rare.
Both the IUCN Red Data Book classifications and the listing of a species in CITES (Table 1) can be viewed as short-hand summaries about the status, abundance, and distribution of a species (Table 2). But, like shorthand, these classifications provide only cryptic statements about the causes and speed of extinction or population decline. Scanning Table I will give a clear picture of the global status of the world's canids; to understand the ecological and economic rationale behind these classifications, however, we urge the reader to refer to earlier chapters and to re-ad the species conservation summaries below.
The decision to change a classification cannot be taken lightly. "Crying wolf" too often will inevitably lead to a backlash when the wolf actually appears. Classifying a Rare species as Vulnerable, or a Vulnerable species as Endangered, only devalues efforts at collecting accurate and detailed information. Leaving a species listed in CITES when trade no longer threatens that species serves only to burden unnecessarily beleaguered customs officers.
That being said, the stakes are too high to gamble with a species future; better to be safe, than sorry. Diamond (1988) notes that in countries where ecological surveys are common, and "armies of amateur naturalists" tromp out into the woods annually to collect data on species distribution and abundance, there is little doubt as to the status of a particular species. However, in many countries, particularly those in the tropics, our knowledge of plants and wildlife is sparse. Even for animals which appear to be common, data on population density, or trends in population numbers are unknown.
This dichotomy means that in those countries where our data are good, Red Books are fairly accurate; in other areas, the Red Books represent a summary of usually imperfect information. The IUCN categories provide a solution to this problem; until adequate information is available to state with certainty the status of a particular species, we must assume the worst. If after attempts at observation, sightings of the species are few, a status of Vulnerable or Endangered may be warranted; if nothing is known about a species, that species must be classified as "Insufficiently Known" until data are collected to prove otherwise.
This caution has led us to suggest reclassification of a third (11 of 34) of the canid species. Our first recommendation is that the African wild dog be classified as Endangered. Data collected for this report, and a more detailed species specific study (see Chapter 4) show clearly that the wild dog is declining throughout its range; extinction is probable unless efforts to reverse this decline are continued and expanded.
|
English name |
Scientific name |
IUCN status |
CITES status |
Recommended Changes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species in Danger of Extinction | ||||
| African wild dog | Lycaon pictus | Vulnerable | Not Listed | List as Endangered |
| Simien jackal | Canis simensis | Endangered | Not Listed | No change |
| Red wolf | Canis rufus | Endangered | Appendix I | No change |
| Vulnerable and Rare Species | ||||
| Bush dog | Speothos venaticus | Vulnerable | Appendix I | Move to Appendix II, review trade |
| Dhole | Cuon alpinus | Vulnerable | Appendix II | No change, review trade |
| Grey wolf | Canis lupus | Vulnerable | Appendix II & I | No change, monitor trade |
| Grey zorro | Dusicyon griseus | Not Listed | Appendix II | List as Vulnerable, introduce quotas |
| Island grey fox | Urocyon littoralis | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Rare |
| Maned wolf | Chrysocyon brachyurus | Vulnerable | Appendix II | Remove from CITES |
| Bengal fox | Vulpes bengalensis | Insufficiently known | Not listed | No change |
| Species Requiring Further Information | ||||
| Blanford's fox | Vulpes cana | Not Listed | Appendix II | List as Insufficiently known; review trade |
| Corsac fox | Vulpes corsac | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Fennec | Fennicus zerda | Not Listed | Appendix II | List as Insufficiently known; review trade |
| Hoary zorro | Dusicyon vetulus | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Pale fox | Vulpes pallida | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Rüppell's fox | Vulpes ruppelli | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Sechuran zorro | Dusicyon sechurae | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Small-eared zorro | Dusicyon microtis | Not Listed | Not Listed | List as Insufficiently known |
| Swift or kit fox | Vulpes velox | Under review | Not Listed | No change |
| Species Requiring No Immediate Protection | ||||
| Arctic fox | Alopex lagopus | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Azara's zorro | Dusicyon gymnocercus | Not Listed | Appendix II | No change |
| Bat-eared fox | Otocyon megalotis | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Black-backed jackal | Canis mesomelas | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Cape fox | Vulpes cana | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Coyote | Canis latrans | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Crab-eating zorro | Cerdocyon thous | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Culpeo zorro | Dusicyon culpaeus | Not Listed | Appendix II | No change |
| Dingo | Canis familiaris dingo | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Golden jackal | Canis aureus | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Grey fox | Urocyon cinereoargenteus | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Raccoon dog | Nyctereutes procyonoides | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Red fox | Vulpes vulpes | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Side-striped jackal | Canis adustus | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
| Tibetan fox | Vulpes ferrilata | Not Listed | Not Listed | No change |
Our second recommendation is that the grey zorro be listed as Vulnerable. We suggest this change for a combination of reasons. Data collected on the population densities of this species are much disputed (Chapter 5). Trade in the grey zorro is uncontrolled and extensive (Chapter 9). If we accept the argument made by several correspondents that the species is being over-harvested, present levels of trade could decimate even a large population of the species in very short order. Given that the Argentine government has classified the species as endangered, and that in Chile there is poor enforcement of laws protecting the grey zorro, the species should be reclassified as Vulnerable until evidence is presented to the contrary.
Recent changes in taxonomy have confirmed the specific status of the island grey fox (Chapter 2). As an island endemic, the species must be listed as Rare. Given the protection afforded the species by its occurrence in a reserve and in an area of Navy operations that excludes the general public, there is little immediate threat of extinction.
Of 11 proposed changes in IUCN status categories, by far the greatest number of changes are for eight species about which we know very little. These animals are from two groups zorros from South America (hoary, Sechuran, small-eared) and foxes from north Africa and the Middle and Near East (Blanford's, Rüppell's, fennec, pale, and Corsac foxes). By reclassifying these animals, we hope to encourage further research into their distribution and abundance.
When international trade endangers a plant or animal, listing that species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a method, however imperfect, of monitoring the extent and patterns of trade in that species (see Chapter 9). Of course, CITES listing concerns trade and trade only; that a species is not listed in a CITES appendix does not mean that the species is not endangered from some other force of extinction such as habitat loss.
As species should be placed in the CITES Appendices only when trade endangers their survival, so species should be removed from CITES only when data collected suggests that trade is not a threat to the species. Only one species, the maned wolf, fulfills this criterion. Seven years of data on trade in this species shows no trade other than the exchange of live specimens, many of which are captive bred (Chapter 9). No commercial use of the pelts of this animal could be found (Chapter 5). In addition to de-listing the maned wolf, we recommend a change is status for two further species. The bush dog, like the maned wolf, is a vulnerable species; yet little trade in products derived from this species was recorded in the seven year period 1980 to 1986. We are certain that an Appendix I listing is unnecessary; for the moment, the species should be moved to Appendix 11, reserving the possibility to de-list it completely in several years if no further awe develops.
Our final recommendation concerning the classification of canids under CITES is that trade restrictions, in the form of export quotas, be placed on the grey zorro. Uncertainty about its status in both Argentina and Chile (Chapter 5) and high levels of trade are a potent combination, which could lead to rapid decline and the eventual extinction of the species.
Trade should be reviewed for an additional three species now listed in Appendix II: Blanford's fox; the fennec; and the dhole. All three of these species have been traded in the past 8 years, but the source of skins and the levels of trade remain ambiguous.
At the risk of repetition, we urge each reader to review those sections of this report that address the status of species in which they, or their governments, might have an active interest. In Chapters 4 through 8, we provide detailed information on the biology, distribution, and conservation status of each of the 34 canid species. In Chapters 9 through 12, problems of general interest to anyone interested in the management, trade, or conservation of canids are discussed.
In the following section, we summarize the status of each of the world's canids and present action priorities for each species where we think immediate conservation work is necessary. Unlike previous chapters, where we have grouped species geographically, species in this section are grouped according to their conservation status. Categories are listed in order of risk of extinction. Our categories am derived from those of the IUCN Red Data Books (e.g. Thomback 1976) with the slight modification that we have put Vulnerable and Rare species in a single category. In addition to discussing the status of each species as we see it, we have included the present status afforded each species by IUCN and CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna).
Table 2. Summary of CITES, IUCN, and the CSG's classification definitions
|
CITES Classification |
|
| Appendix I | All species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade authorized only in exceptional circumstances. |
| Appendix II | (a) All species which may become threatened with
extinction unless strict regulation is enforced;
(b) other species which must be subject to regulation so that trade in endangered or potentially endangered species can be brought under control. |
| Appendix III: | All species which any Party to CITES identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the cooperation of other Parties in the control of trade. |
|
IUCN Classification |
|
| Extinct | Species not definitely located in the wild during the past 50 years. |
| Endangered | Taxa in danger of Extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors of its decline continue operating. |
| Vulnerable | Taxa believed likely to become Endangered in the near future if the causal factors of its decline continue to operate. |
| Rare | Taxa with small world populations that are not at present Endangered or Vulnerable |
| Indeterminate | Taxa known to be Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare but information is lacking as to which of these categories is appropriate. |
| Insufficiently Known | Taxa that are suspected but not definitely known to belong to any of the above categories due to lack of data. |
| Threatened | A general term which may be used to describe a species in one of the above categories. |
|
|
|
| Endangered | Those species most threatened with extinction and whose populations are declining throughout their range. |
| Vulnerable and Rare | Those whose populations are either small or threatened. This may include species which are under direct threat due to factors such as loss of habitat or the introduction of diseases, other pathogens, or competitors. A species may also be included in this section simply because it is an endemic and, hence, by its very nature, rare. |
| Insufficiently Known | Those species about which insufficient information is available to make recommendations. |
| Requiring No Immediate Protection | That a species requires no immediate protection does not mean that populations are necessarily safe ad infinitum. Rather, it indicates that either populations are safe or measures have been taken to ensure the long term survival of several large populations of the species. We have been consciously conservative, placing species in the category "Insufficiently Known" whenever a lack of data is clearly apparent (Diamond 1988). |
The aim of ranking species categorically is to give a general indication of conservation priorities. The acid test for ranking priorities in the action plan is the potential for extinction. However, as our crystal ball is at best clouded, we urge the reader to consider priorities by category rather than by individual species. Within each category, species are listed in alphabetical order by scientific name. Note that this summary does not include details on patterns of abundance and distribution, information which is found in the species accounts. Our categories [are shown in the table above and used to distinguish the conservation status of the species in the following discussion].
Red wolf (Canis
rufus)
IUCN Status: Endangered.
CITES Status: Appendix 1.
The red wolf is believed to have become extinct in the wild. A captive breeding population, established at the Point Defiance Zoological Gardens in Tacoma, Washington, U.S.A. provided animals for a reintroduction programme in the 477 km2 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina. Eight individuals were introduced in 1988.
Support should-be continued for efforts to re-establish the red wolf in the wild. Despite near extinction, public perception of the red wolf is still poor. Further reintroduction in parks in the southeastern United States should be coordinated with an intensive education programme.
Simien jackal
[= Ethiopian wolf] (Canis simensis)
IUCN Status: Endangered.
CITES Status: Not listed.
As an endemic found only in the highlands of Ethiopia, with a total population of well under 1,000 individuals, the Simien jackal is inherently prone to extinction. The problems intrinsic to small population size are magnified by the way in which remaining individuals are distributed: the great majority (500-600) of the remaining Simien jackals are in Bale Mountains National Park. Hence, a single catastrophic event such as disease epidemic or a severe change in climate could wipe out the species. Cross-breeding with domestic dogs threatens the long-term survival of the species; fragmentation of the population may also increase the risk of extinction through hybridization with domestic dogs. Current research and conservation programmes are overdue. Recommendations resulting from this research may well improve the status of the species. However, until such a time as the population levels have stabilized, new populations have been established, and protected areas secured, the status of the species should remain Endangered.
The population in Bale Mountains National Park appears to be stable or growing and will have a good chance of survival with proper management of the area. The remnant populations to the north and west of the Rift Valley (Simien and Shoa) may not be viable. The programme to save this species should include:
African
wild dog (Lycaon pictus)
IUCN Status: Vulnerable.
CITES Status: Not Listed.
Despite its current Red Data Book classification of "Vulnerable," a recent survey of the status of the wild dog (Frame and Fanshawe in prep.) provides strong evidence that this species is probably the most endangered large carnivore in Africa. Of 32 countries for which we have data, the species is extinct, or nearly so, in 19. In six countries, the species is extremely rare, but populations are more or less stable. In one country, the Sudan, there is the possibility that a viable population remains; however because of war and drought, the present status of the wild dog is unknown. Only six countries support populations that may be viable into the next century: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Even in these countries, a sanguine attitude could easily lead to extinction. In Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, populations have declined by at least 30% in the last decade. Little is known about absolute population numbers in Botswana and Ethiopia.
Research projects have been proposed, or are now active, in four of the six countries in which potentially viable populations of wild dog still exist: Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Details of the objectives of these projects are listed below. In addition to the research being carried out, we recommend the following:
Recommendations:
Our recommendations reflect a strong bias towards local education and a better understanding of the ecological basis of the wild dog's nomadism. Because wild dogs are nomadic, a conservation strategy which relies on populations that reside only in protected areas is unlikely to succeed. Many extremely large parks and reserves (Kruger, Hwange, Serengeti) do not appear to provide sufficient area to support a viable population of wild dogs. Further recommendations on this species will be made by Frame and Fanshawe (in prep.) in their final report.
IUCN Status: Vulnerable.
CITES Status: Appendix II.
The status of the maned wolf appears to have improved slightly in the last decade. Two threats-further agricultural expansion and conflict with humans-appear to be the most immediate causes for concern. The first can only be addressed by encouraging local governments to support farming practices that are compatible with wildlife use. The second threat, persecution by people, can best be dealt with through education. Programmes being conducted in Argentina and Brazil appear to be addressing the question of education and should be encouraged and supported. No change in the status category is recommended.
IUCN Status: Locally Vulnerable.
CITES Status: Populations in Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan
in Appendix I, all others Appendix II.
Except in Canada, Alaska, and the Soviet Union, wolf populations are either in steep decline or are already reduced to remnants. Protection outside these areas is poor, competition with farmers over livestock (both real and perceived), and a poor public image make conservation of this species difficult In all areas where decline is precipitous (see Chapter 6), education, research, management, and protection legally, where currently absent; in reality where unenforced laws exist) are required. Among the areas we discuss in the Population and Status section, the top priorities for action are:
At its meeting in September 1989, the Wolf Specialist Group identified the following particularly urgent priorities:
IUCN Status: Vulnerable.
CITES Status: Appendix II.
The dhole, like the African wild dog, is a species that is unlikely to survive outside protected areas except in extremely remote areas. Furthermore, large areas are required to support viable populations. The occurrence of the dhole in several large parks in India (particularly Periyar, the Mudumalai, Bandipur and Nagarhole complex, and Kanha) is encouraging. Tiger reserves established in southern India should provide protection to other populations of dhole.
The recent unexplained declines in Chitawan National Park, and earlier unexplained declines in the Soviet Union, however, are worrying. Whatever their cause (disease, decline in prey abundance), they remind us that even genetically viable populations are rarely "safe."
Perhaps the healthiest populations of the dhole are in Burma. Political instability complicates assessment of these populations at the moment. Further information is also required on populations in the Soviet Union and China. No change in status category is recommended.
Information is urgently required on the status, abundance, and distribution of the dhole in southeast Asia. In particular, information on the status of the dhole in Burma is needed before further recommendations can be made.
The use of poisons against wolves (Canis lupus) in the Soviet Union may also threaten remnant dhole populations; we agree with Ovsyanikov and Bibikov (1987) that this and other indiscriminant methods of predator control should be banned.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Appendix II.
The species appears to be common in parts of its range. Estimates of abundance in Chile are, however, controversial. The extremely heavy use of this species for pelts ( Iriate and Jaksic 1986; Mares and Ojeda 1984), combined with relative uncertainty about its population status, suggest that a sanguine attitude is inappropriate. Better population estimates are needed for Argentina and Chile. Stricter enforcement of existing laws is required in Chile. Analysis of data collected by CITES as a result of the recent reclassification (Appendix II) will require the situation to be re-evaluated in the next few years. Given that the Argentine government has classified the species as endangered, and that in Chile there is poor enforcement of laws protecting the grey zorro, the species should be reclassified as Vulnerable by the IUCN unless sufficient data can be presented to contradict information we have collected.
Better estimates of population densities and absolute population numbers in both Chile and Argentina are urgently required. Although trade in this species has declined somewhat in recent years, levels of harvesting are still very high. Confusion and disagreements concerning previous surveys suggest that surveys should be made by parties without an economic interest in the species.
IUCN Status: Vulnerable.
CITES Status: Appendix I.
No change in the IUCN status category is recommended. Given the lack of information on the species, we consider these conservative classifications as warranted until evidence to the contrary can be documented.
'Me bush dog is a priority species for census data for distribution and abundance. 'Me literature concerning the bush dog in the wild is limited to occasional sightings in one area or another. Nothing is known about the ecology or the behaviour of the species in the wild. Captive breeding programmes should be encouraged, although earlier efforts have been mostly unsuccessful.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
As an endemic whose population is known to be small, but not subject to any immediate threat, the island grey fox must be considered "Rare." As all six island populations are believed to be distinct subspecies, the island grey fox represents an unusual example of evolution of a carnivore on oceanic islands.
We support the U.S. Navy's proposed elimination of feral cat populations on two islands: San Clemente and San Nicholas. Where domestic dogs are present, we recommend the imposition of quarantine to prevent inadvertent transmission of diseases. Should populations decline in the future, captive breeding should be considered.
IUCN Status: Insufficiently Known.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Further information is needed on the Bengal fox in pans of its range other than India. The status of this species appears to be changing rapidly. A recent reappraisal of the species' status in India shows that populations outside protected areas appear to have disappeared or been decimated by sport hunting, apparently with no use of the pelts after the animals are killed. As these data from India are the only recent surveys available the status of this species should be carefully monitored.
The Bengal fox, despite having once been extremely common, is not known to exist in any protected area. The establishment of reserves for the Indian great bustard may also result in inclusion of the Bengal fox in protected areas. Bustard sanctuaries have been, or will be established in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Mabarashta, Ragasdm, and Gujarat. Surveys of these bustard reserves should be made to assess fox occurrence and population densities.
The greatest threat to the species is wanton killing of foxes for sport As the pelts do not provide a saleable product, and the fox is not known to be a crop pest, an education campaign aimed at curbing sport killing appears to be the best way to provide protection for the species in many parts of India, both inside and outside of reserves.
In other areas (Pakistan, Nepal), surveys are needed to determine the status and distribution of the Bengal fox. These surveys could be coordinated with surveys for the Corsac fox.
IUCN Status: Insufficiently Known.
CITES Status: Not listed.
As there remains insufficient information on this species, we can make no firm recommendations as to conservation status. However, given that little information exists, and that the rain forests in which the small-eared zorro is found have come under increasing pressure in the last decade, a classification of Vulnerable might well be appropriate.
IUCN Status: Insufficiently Known.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The Sechuran zorro remains one of the least known of the South American canids. At the very least, the species should be classified as "Insufficiently Known." Unlike the small-eared zorro, however, the Sechuran zorro lives in a region in which a census and/or a research project could be conducted.
Small-eared zorro and Sechuran zorro -- What little information we have on these species suggests that ecologically they could not be more different from one another. Yet from the point of view of conservation, our recommendations are similar for both species. Captive breeding programmes, or at least captive populations, should be established if possible until some estimate of existing wild population numbers can be made. Further legal protection should be encouraged throughout the range of both species. Given the near total lack of data on the biology of the species, we would strongly recommend research into the ecology and behaviour of these species, including the collection of data on abundance, diet, and social behaviour.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Given the lack of information on this species, we recommend that it be included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as Insufficiently Known.
The overlap in distribution of the hoary zorro and maned wolf in Minas Gerais, Brazil, suggest that a research project (and efforts to secure protected habitat) can be coordinated with work on the maned wolf. A captive breeding programme, or at least a captive population should be established if possible. Legal protection should be encouraged.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Appendix 11.
Little is known about this species. We recommend that its status category be changed, and that the fennec fox be included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as "Insufficiently Known." We make this recommendation despite that, given its habitat requirements, it is unlikely that the fennec fox will be in any danger of extinction in the near future.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Appendix II.
As a result of a recent study in Israel, we have a basic understanding of the ecology and behaviour of the Blanford's fox. Information on the abundance and distribution of the species outside of Israel is incomplete. A specimen recently trapped in
Oman may belong to a distinct population deserving recognition as a subspecies. A photograph in Gasperetti et al. (1985) identified as a red fox (Plate 1, p. 405) may well be a specimen of Blanford's fox. These two sightings and known populations in Israel suggest that the distribution of Blanford's fox is much larger than originally believed (see below). This cannot be determined until further specimens are trapped. Until new records have been made it must be assumed that Blanford's fox inhabits appropriate habitat throughout the Middle East.
Turkmen folklore has it that these foxes appear only every twenty years. 'Ibis could imply cycles of abundance of foxes or their prey, or climatic swings from which the animals benefit There is no indication that the fox is declining in numbers, hence no change in its status category is needed. Israel constitutes a small part of the range of this species. More information on distribution and abundance elsewhere in the Middle East are needed.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
So little is known about the corsac fox that reclassification to "Insufficiently Known" is required. Nothing is known about the biology of the species, its local or regional abundance, and details of distribution.
Surveys to determine the abundance and distribution of this species are needed. We urge the authorities responsible for wildlife conservation in those countries in which this species is found to conduct such surveys to provide baseline information.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The pale fox is perhaps the least known canid of Africa and the Middle East. There is no present threat to the species through trapping, however, the total lack of information concerning this species suggests that a change in its status category to "Insufficiently Known" would be prudent
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
As with the fennec fox and pale fox, next to nothing is known about the status and distribution, and little about the biology, of the Rüppell's fox. What little we know suggests that as areas of the Middle East are developed, problems may arise. 'Me diet of the Rüppell's fox is very similar to that of the larger red fox (Vulpes vulpes). As the red fox coexists well with humans, competition may, in the future, force the Rüppell's fox out of some of the ecologically richest areas in its range. Although there is no direct threat to the species through trapping, we recommend a change in its status category to "Insufficiently known" until further information on status and distribution are collected.
IUCN Status: Northern subspecies Endangered, status is under review.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The "lumping" of V. velox and V. macrotis species is probably the most controversial aspect of this review (see O'Farrell 1987; Scott-Brown et al. 1985, 1987). Taxonomic considerations aside, members of this group of species appear to be widely distributed and populations appear to be uniformly healthy with the exception of the San Joaquin kit fox. The presence of the species can be used as an indicator of a healthy prairie ecosystems.
Data on annual harvests suggest that the foxes may be locally abundant, but increased monitoring and censusing is needed to establish the size and extent of most populations. A small part of the range of the San Joaquin kit fox is protected by its inclusion in the U.S. Naval Petroleum Reserves (O'Farrell 1987). No change is recommended.
Populations of the kit fox appear abundant. However, due to relatively large efforts at harvesting, the following research needs should be met:
IUCN Status: Not Listed.
CITES Status: Not Listed.
There appears to be tittle threat to this species at the moment. Substantial habitat encroachment, disease, and harvesting for fur have not been reported in any country.
IUCN Status: Not listed. CITES Status: Appendix II.
The status of this species appears to differ from country to country. In Argentina, healthy populations appear to exist, despite intensive trapping for fur. In Chile, the species appears to be threatened, both from habitat loss and suspected illegal hunting with pelts trans-shipped to Argentina. Sufficient legislation is in place to protect the species but the laws must be enforced. No change in status category is recommended at this time, but special attention should be paid to the population decline in Chile. If populations in Chile become endangered, perhaps the only option would be to ban all trade in the species until the Chilean populations recover. See Chapter 9 for a discussion of use for pelts.
Studies of the culpeo are a high priority within Chile (Cattan pers. comm.). We agree that further research is needed.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Appendix II.
There appears to be a healthy population of Azara's zorro in Argentina which could easily support the legal trade reported for 1984. However, little is known about the abundance and distribution of this species outside of Argentina, or about the trade in the species which is not reported. Recent inclusion of the species in Appendix II of CITES should clarify the situation. Methods of identification which can distinguish pelts of the Azara's zorro from those of the grey zorro need to be developed. That this species has been afforded protection in various countries suggests that it is both a valuable resource and one that may be in danger of over-exploitation. No immediate changes in status category is required.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
With the exception of local threats to particular subspecies (see below), there appears to be no immediate threat to the survival of the arctic fox. Given its widespread abundance, further conservation measures are not a high priority. Nonetheless, other authors and correspondents have made several recommendations:
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The coyote has greatly expanded its range in this century. Although this is good in terms of the viability of the species, the expansion has brought the species into closer contact with humans, and in particular their domestic dogs and livestock. Little can be done to stop the interbreeding of coyotes and domestic and feral Canis familiaris. Although many researchers believe the extent of such interbreeding is minimal, some work is needed to assess the level of the mingling of the gene pools. The often unrestrained (and perhaps unjustified) killing of coyotes for livestock protection appears to have abated. However, where coyotes and sheep do come into contact, policies should be developed to allow the two to coexist (see Chapter I 1). Efforts should be made to improve animal husbandry to achieve this goal.
IUCN Status: Not listed. CITES Status: Not listed.
Given the widespread distribution of the species, and relative abundance in several areas, no changes in conservation status are recommended. However, an assessment of the population in China is needed. If local extirpation is imminent in China (i.e. populations small and declining throughout their range), an attempt should be made to secure sufficient protection for those individuals remaining. Knowledge of the population size in the Soviet Union would be valuable given the large number of exports from wild caught pelts.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The grey fox, able to five in urban and rural environments, is not immediately threatened. However, despite the extensive use of the species in the fur trade, little is known about population densities in any area, or about those factors which regulate population size. See Fritzell (1987) for extensive list of proposed management research.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The red fox currently has the widest distribution of any canid and is common throughout its range except for some areas of the southern United States. No change in status category is needed.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Of the three jackal species in Africa which are still common, the side-striped jackal is the rarest. Its nocturnal habits make assessment of the population status difficult However, there is no indication that the species is disappearing from its present range and, hence, no changes in the status category of the species is recommended.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
In the Serengeti, two study populations fluctuated due to outbreaks of rabies, which can occur several times a year. Approximately 25% of the study population was affected in each bout (Maas, pers comm.). In several areas (Zimbabwe, Tanzania) population numbers are believed to undergo rapid and wide fluctuations. Whether this is due to changes in the foxes' preferred prey, harvester termites, or due to disease epidemics is unknown; however, disease is suspected to be the cause. Bat-eared foxes appear to be particularly abundant in short grass habitat associated with cattle ranching. No change in the status category recommended.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Despite its narrow distribution (found only in South Africa, Namibia, and southern Botswana), the species is abundant where it occurs. Locally, the Cape fox is heavily hunted to control its purported predation on lambs. Although there is no evidence that this threatens local sub-populations, the level of offtake in some areas (15% a year) could lead to conservation problems. No change in status category is suggested. Information on abundance and distribution for the Cape fox and all other carnivores occurring in southern Africa is being assembled by the African Carnivore Survey (C. and T. Stuart) and is expected to be available in August/September 1989.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The black-backed jackal is a common species found at relatively high densities in many parts of Africa. Its ability to adapt to new conditions (including urban areas) suggests that the species may well be able to coexist with humans despite increasing urbanization and agricultural expansion in many parts of Africa. No conservation measures are recommended.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
The golden jackal is locally abundant and widespread. Its range includes much of north Africa, the Middle and Near East. Little is known about subspecific differences and absolute population numbers are not available for many localities. Nonetheless, given the golden jackal's ability to coexist with humans, its wide distribution, and its local abundance, we considered the species extremely safe from extinction. No conservation measures are needed.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Throughout their range, dingoes are under grave threat of becoming "genetically extinct" because of hybridization with the more common domestic dog. The populations least affected by hybridization are those of northern Australia and Thailand (Corbett 1988a). However, increasing European influence in Thailand may result in a range expansion of the domestic dog, at present found only in major cities (Bangkok, Haadyai, Chiangmai).
No immediate action is required. However, information should be collected on the extent of genetic introgression in both the Thai and the Australian dingo populations.
IUCN Status: Not listed.
CITES Status: Not listed.
Information on the Tibetan fox is only slightly better than that available for the Corsac fox. Nonetheless, recent reports confirm that it is both widespread and abundant. There are no known threats to its survival. Although an increased understanding of the biology of the Tibetan fox would be welcome, we do not believe the species presents a conservation problem at this time.
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations:
In many areas, there is a critical need for surveys, education, protection, and reintroduction (especially Yellowstone National Park). Where prey species have been extensively depleted (e.g. Italy), reintroduction of prey as well as predator should be effected. Not all these activities are required in each region; for details see Chapter 6. Priority should be given to these activities in the following areas: Mexico, southwestern U.S.A., central and southern Europe. northwestern U.S.A., Norway/Sweden, the Middle East, India, southwest Asia, Michigan/Wisconsin U.S.A.
Justification:
In much of its range, the grey wolf is threatened with extinction. Causes of extinction, or potential extinction, include loss of habitat to agriculture, hunting, interbreeding with domestic dogs, and active persecution by man caused by depredation of domestic and game animals.
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations:
Justification:
Recommendations
Justification
Recommendations:
Justification:. The fox is endemic to a small archipelago. Total population size is known to be small, however none of the sub-populations appears to be subject to any immediate threat
Establishing conservation priorities for this region is, at best, difficult So little is known about each species that assessing the need for, and value of, various conservation measures requires a leap of faith we are unwilling to make. However, there are several actions of a general nature which need to be taken:
Return to Table of Contents or CSG Home Page
© 1990 International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.