In 1973, biologists were assigned to implement 

 the Red Wolf Recovery Plan. Removal of depre- 

 dating animals was continued, but red wolves 

 captured were treated for various infirmities and 

 released (often radio -tracked) or transferred 

 to captive breeding centers. An effort was ini- 

 tiated to maintain a buffer zone between red 

 wolves and coyotes. This was determined to be 

 impossible because of the difficulty of main- 

 taining such an extensive buffer zone and hybrids 

 were already present (Carley 1975). 



Carley (1975) asserts that red wolves can be 

 preserved only by relocation. Exclusion of coy- 

 otes and hybrids from the remaining range is an 

 insurmountable problem (Carley 1975). 



Relocation experiments were initiated in late 

 1976 on Bulls Island, South Carolina. Although 

 there have been numerous problems with the pro- 

 gram, a pair was successfully relocated in January 

 1978. This island was chosen for a number of 

 technical reasons, but with no intent to start a 

 viable population (Department of the Interior 

 1972, 1977a, 1977b; R. M. Nowak personal 

 communication). The experiment was successfully 

 completed in November 1978, when the pair was 

 recaptured and returned to the captive breeding 

 program. 



In 1977, there were 29 recognized pure adults 

 and 13 young in a breeding pool in Point Defi- 

 ance Zoo in Tacoma, Washington (R. M. Nowak 

 personal communication). 



The Recovery Team (RWRT 1973) provided a 

 step-down plan for restoring the red wolf to non- 

 endangered status. The four major objectives are 

 "(1) to restore surviving red wolf subspecies in 

 their present ranges to desirable population levels; 

 (2) to maintain an adequate captive red wolf gene 

 pool; (3) to reestablish surviving red wolf subspe- 

 cies in additional locations within their historic 

 range; and (4) to determine the location and 

 abundance of each surviving red wolf subspecies 

 population." Specific goals include stopping of 

 unauthorized killing by man, developing a posi- 

 tive public attitude, preventing genetic contami- 

 nation, developing landowner tolerance, improv- 

 ing and protecting red wolf habitat, controlling 

 debilitating pathogens and parasites, and control- 

 ling detrimental effects of environmental contam- 

 inants (RWRT 1973). 



A new Recovery Team was formulated in 

 1978. 



AUTHORITIES 



George R. Abraham (Recovery Team) 



State Supervisor 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 



271-273 Agriculture Center 



Louisiana State University 



Baton Rouge, LA 70803 



Curtis Carley 



Wildlife Biologist 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 



Albuquerque, NM 87103 



Russell Clapper 



Refuge Manager 



Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge 



AnahuacTX 77514 



George G arris 



Refuge Manager 



Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge 



Awendaw, SC 29429 



Joe L. Herring (Recovery Team) 



Chief, Division of Game 



Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission 



Baton Rouge, LA 70804 



Howard McCarley 

 Austin Universtiy 

 Department of Biology 

 Sherman, TX 75090 



Ronald M. Nowak 

 Office of Endangered Species 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Washington, D.C. 20240 



Mary Anne Neville (Recovery Team) 

 Protected Species Coordinator 

 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

 270 Washington Street 

 Atlanta, GA 30339 



Dave Peterson (Recovery Team Leader) 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 900 San Marco Boulevard 

 Jacksonville, FL 32207 



PREPARER'S COMMENTS 



Investigators (McCarley 1962, Lawrence and 

 Bossert 1967, Paradiso 1968, Pimlott and Joslin 

 1968, Nowak 1970, Paradiso and Nowak 1971) 

 have raised questions concerning the taxonomic 

 status of the red wolf. Paradiso and Nowak 

 (1971) and Gipson et al. (1974), using a multi- 



