Red wolf
Canis rufus
ITIS Species Code:   180600         NatureServ Element Code:   AMAJA01020
NatureServe Global Rank: 
NatureServe State (NC) Rank: 
Federal Status: 
NC State Status: 
Land Unit

US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Forest Service
US National Park Service
US Department of Defense
NC State Parks
NC University System
NC Wildlife Res. Com.
NC Forest Service
NC Div. of Coastal Mgmt.
Local Governments
Non-Governmental Org.
Other Public Lands
Private Lands

GAP Status 1-2
All Protected Lands




% of Dist. on
Prot. Lands

68.5 %
0.0 %
12.2 %
0.0 %
0.7 %
1.7 %
8.5 %
0.0 %
5.1 %
3.2 %
3.2 %
0.0 %
0.2 %

86.5 %
% of Dist. on
All Lands

19.7 %
0.0 %
3.5 %
0.0 %
0.2 %
0.5 %
2.4 %
0.0 %
1.5 %
< 0.1 %
0.9 %
0.1 %
71.2 %

24.9 %
Original range of the red wolf covered the entire southeastern United States (Allen 1979). But, by 1970, it had been extirpated from all but the coastal border of Texas and Louisiana. Populations in North Carolina have been reintroduced from breeding stock in zoos. Presently, the species has a foothold at both extremes of the state.

The wolf is known to be a habitat generalist, apparently equally suited to upland pine and hardwood forests as well as bottomland swamps and coastal prairies and marshes (Webster et al. 1985, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Brushy cover is a primary feature of the wolf's habitat (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Reintroduced populations at the coast are restricted to nature preserves composed predominantly of swampy bottomlands and tidal marshes. Those populations in the mountains are located in largely wooded counties. However, the closer proximity to humans for the mountain population has caused problems of interbreeding with feral dogs and with an increasing coyote population. Thus, questions have been raised as to whether the genetic makeup of these wild populations still resembles that of the ancestral red wolf (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).

Like the coyote, the red wolf also makes or finds concealed burrows for denning and young rearing (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).


Formerly inhabited upland and lowland forests, shrublands, and coastal prairies and marshes; areas with heavy vegetative cover. Not habitat-selective. Young are born in a den in a hollow log, in a burrow, or in similar secluded sites.

Occupied Landcover Map Units:
Code NameDescription NC Natural Heritage Program Equivalent
75 Tidal Swamp Forest Swamp tupelo dominated forest with or without black tupelo and/or cypress trees. Restricted to the tidal zones in the coastal plain. May have inclusions of coastal red cedar woodlands. Tidal cypress - gum swamp
121 Maritime Pinelands Loblolly forests and woodlands of the outer coastal plain. Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest
17 Maritime Forests and Hammocks Maritime forests and woodlands dominated by live or sand laurel oak. Estuarine Fringe forests dominated by loblolly pine. Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest, Maritime Deciduous Forest, Maritime Deciduous Forest
126 Interdune Wooded Depression Swamp Includes swamps dominated by sweetbay and swampbay or dogwood dominated forests. Maritime Shrub Swamp, Maritime Swamp Forest
380 Coastal Plain Fresh Water Emergent Emergent vegetation in fresh water seepage bogs, ponds and riverbeds of the coastal plain. Includes alliances dominated by sedges, eelgrass, as well as cane found in unforested cane-brakes. Small Depression Pond, Sandhill Seep, Floodplain Pool, Unforested Floodplain Canebrake, Riverscour Prairies, Vernal Pools
173 Coastal Plain Riverbank Shrubs Shrub dominated riverbanks, commonly dominated by willows and/or alders. Sand and Mud Bar
50 Coastal Plain Mixed Bottomland Forests Includes forests dominated by a variety of hardwood species, including sweetgum, cottonwood, red maple. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood (in part), Coastal Plain Levee Forest
49 Coastal Plain Oak Bottomland Forest Bottomland forests dominated by deciduous oak alliances. Oaks represented can include swamp chestnut, cherrybark, willow, and/or overcup oak. Inclusions of loblolly pine temporarily flooded forests occur in patches. Hydrology is temporarily to seasonally flooded. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (in part) blackwater subtype, brownwater subtype
158 Coastal Plain Nonriverine Wet Flat Forests Loblolly pine - Atlantic white-cedar - red maple - swamp tupelo saturated forests as well as forests dominated by loblolly, sweetgum, and red maple in non-riverine flats. Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest
41 Peatland Atlantic White-Cedar Forest Dense stands of Atlantic white cedar with saturated hydrology. Can include swamp tupelo, red maple, and pond pines with a moderate shrub and herb layer. Peatland Atlantic White-Cedar Forest
15 Seepage and Streamhead Swamps Includes extensive peat flats in the coastal plain, dominated by swamp tupelo, maples, and Atlantic white cedar alliances. In the sandhills includes streamhead pond pine and bay forests alliances. Saturated hydrology. Bay Forest, Small Depression Pocosin, Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Streamhead Pocosins
30 Cypress-Gum Floodplain Forests Swamps dominated by black or swamp tupelo with or without Taxodium. Seasonally to semi-permanently flooded hydrology. Cypress-Gum Swamps
78 Pond-Cypress - Gum Swamps, Savannas and Lakeshores Cypress dominated swamps and lakeshores. Can include bays dominated by pond cypress or shorelines of coastal plain lakes with a narrow band of cypress. Non-riverine Swamp Forest, Natural Lakeshores (in part)
385 Oak Bottomland Forest and Swamp Forest The swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, shumard oak and sweetgum alliance is one representative. Other alliances are dominated by water, willow, and overcup oaks. Swamp forests can be dominated by sweetgum, red maple, and black gum being dominant. Loblolly can occur in combination with sweetgum and red maple, or with tulip poplar. Includes saturated and semi- to permanently flooded forests in the mountains. Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest
63 Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forests Beech dominated forests with white oak and northern red oak as possible co-dominants. Dry-mesic to mesic forests on slopes and small stream bottoms in the coastal plain. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Basic Mesic Forests
138 Coastal Plain Dry to Dry-Mesic Oak Forests Oak dominated forests of the coastal plain. Includes white oak forests with water oak or northern red oak and hickories as co-dominants. Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, Basic Oak Hickory Forest, Dry Oak Hickory Forest
87 Pocosin Woodlands and Shrublands Includes pond pine woodland, low pocosin and high pocosin shrub dominated areas. Canebrakes and bay forests may be present. Pond Pine Woodlands, Peatland Canebrake, Small Depression Pocosin
67 Wet Longleaf or Slash Pine Savanna Wet flatwoods and pine savannas, typically dominated by longleaf pines, but slash or pond pines may be the dominant pines. Wet Pine Flatwoods
97 Mesic Longleaf Pine Longleaf pine woodlands without a major scrub oak component. Slash or loblolly pines may be present as well. Mesic Pine Flatwoods
42 Xeric Longleaf Pine Sandhills including a range of longleaf pine density from predominantly wiregrass, scrub oak dominated to true longleaf pine woodland. This does not include mesic or saturated flatwood types. Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill, Coastal Fringe Sandhill
46 Xeric Oak - Pine Forests Mixed forest dominated by yellow pines with white or northern red oaks co-dominating. Pine Oak Heath
232 Xeric Pine-Hardwood Woodlands and Forests Mixed forest dominated by yellow pines with drier oaks including southern red, post, and chestnut oaks. Dry Oak Hickory Forest
267 Riverbank Shrublands Riverside shrubs with temporarily flooded hydrologies. Found in the both the Mountains and Piedmont. Containing dominants such as smooth alder and a Carolina or black willows. Sand and Mud Bar
269 Floodplain Wet Shrublands Saturated shrublands of the Piedmont, includes buttonbush, swamp-loosestrife, decodon and alders. Piedmont/mountain Semipermanent Impoundment
230 Piedmont Mesic Forest American Beech - Red Oak - White Oak Forests. Mesic Mixed Hardwood
384 Piedmont/Mountain Mixed Bottomland Hardwood Forests Includes temporarily to seasonally forests dominated by hardwood species. Hardwoods include sweetgum, red maple, sycamore which co-occur in a mosaic of bottomland and levee positions. Includes alluvial hardwood forests in the mountains. Hemlock and white pine may occur as inclusions, but are generally mapped separately. Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
383 Piedmont Mixed Successional Forest Generally loblolly mixed with successional hardwoods. Sweetgum, tulip poplar and red maple are common co-dominants in these successional forests. No equivalent
228 Piedmont Dry-Mesic Oak and Hardwood Forests Primarily oak dominated forests, white oak is often dominant, with co-dominants including . Also represented by sweetgum and tulip poplar dominated forests. Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, Basic Oak Hickory Forest, Dry Oak Hickory Forest
222 Piedmont Dry-Mesic Pine Forests Loblolly dominated forests resulting from succession following clearing. This type occurs on all moisture regimes following disturbance with the exception of the extremely xeric sites. No equivalent
382 Dry Mesic Oak Pine Forests Mixed forests of the coastal plain and piedmont. Includes loblolly pine with white, southern red and/or post oak and loblolly with water oak. On basic sites of the piedmont, eastern red cedar may co-occur with post, black, and blackjack oaks. Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, Xeric Hard Pan Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, Dry Oak Hickory Forest
220 Piedmont Xeric Pine Forests Dry to xeric pine forests dominated by Virginia pine, shortleaf pine or Eastern Red Cedar. Pine Oak Heath
226 Piedmont Xeric Woodlands Generally post and blackjack oak dominated woodlands. White ash and pignut hickory can be found in combination with Eastern red cedar on glades. Xeric Hardpan Forest
20 Coniferous Regeneration Regenerating pine stands. Predominantly loblolly pine, but slash and longleaf stands occur as well. No equivalent
21 Coniferous Cultivated Plantation (natural / planted) Managed pine plantations, densely planted. Most planted stands are loblolly, but slash and longleaf occur as well. No equivalent
51 Deciduous Cultivated Plantation Planted deciduous trees. Includes sweetgum and sycamore plantations. No equivalent
36 Successional Deciduous Forests Regenerating deciduous trees with a shrub stature. Commonly dominated by sweetgum, tulip poplars and maples. No equivalent
180 Agricultural Crop Fields Farm fields used for row crops. No equivalent
205 Agricultural Pasture/Hay and Natural Herbaceous Farm fields used for pasture grass or hay production, as well as old fields dominated by native and exotic grasses. No equivalent
202 Residential Urban Includes vegetation interspersed in residential areas. Includes lawns, mixed species woodlots, and horticultural shrubs. Vegetation accounts for between 20 - 70% of the cover. No equivalent
View Entire Landcover Legend
Additional Spatial Constraints:
Exclude all area outside of known range.
Exclude the outerbanks.
Exclude areas of intensive human activity including moderately to highly developed landscapes.
Peterson, R.O. 1977. Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. National Park Service., Sci. Monog. Serv., No. 11, xx+210 pp.

Phillips, M. K., and W. T. Parker. 1988. Red wolf recovery:a progress report. Conservation Biology 3:139-141.

Parker, W. 1990. Investigating the potential for reintroducing red wolves into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 15(6):3.

Dowling, T. E., et al. 1992. Response to Wayne, Nowak, and Phillips and Henry:use of molecular characters in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 6:600-603.

Phillips, M. K., and V. G. Henry. 1992. Comments on red wolf taxonomy. Conservation Biology 6:596-599.

Jones, J. K., Jr., et al. 1992. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occas. Pap. Mus., Texas Tech Univ. (146):1-23.

Lowman, G. E. 1975. A survey of endangered, threatened, rare, status-undetermined, peripheral, unique mammals of thes.e. National Forests and Grasslands. USDA Forest Service Contract 38-2601. 121 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 October 1989. Remarkable survival of endangered species reported; hurricane's impact on habitat extensive. News Release.

Nowak, R. M. 1992. The red wolf is not a hybrid. Conservation Biology 6:593-595.

Wayne, R. K. 1992. On the use of morphologic and molecular genetic characters to investigate species status. Conservation Biology 6:590-592.

Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal Species of the World:a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp.

Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mt. McKinley. National Park Service, Fauna Ser. 5, 238 pp.

Whitaker, J.O. Jr. and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 583 pp.

Rees, M. D. 1989. Red wolf recovery effort intensifies. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 14(1-2):3.

Lowery, G. H., Jr. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 565 pp.

Mech, L.D. 1966. The wolves of Isle Royale. 210 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Determination of experimental population status for an introduced population of red wolves in North Carolina. Final Rule. Federal Register 51(223):41790-7.

Moore, D. E., III. 1990. The red wolf:extinction, captive propagation and reintroduction. Pages 136-139 in Mitchell et al., eds. Ecosystem management:rare species and significant habitats. New York State Museum Bull. 471.

Paradiso, J. L., and R. M. Nowak. 1971. A report on the taxonomic status and distribution of the red wolf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report Wildlife 145. 36 pp.

Peterson, R.O. 1977. Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. 210 pp.

Davis, W. B. 1978. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Bull. No. 41. 294 pp.

Klinghammer, E., ed. 1978. The Behavior and Ecology of Wolves. Garland STPM Press, New York. xvii+588.

Allen, Thomas B., 1979. Wild animals of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 406 pages, color photographs.

Allen, D. L. 1979. Wolves of Minong -- their vital role in a wild community. 385 pp.

Carley, C. J. 1979. Status summary:the red wolf (Canis rufus). U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Report No. 7. Albuquerque, NM. 36 pp.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Second edition. 2 Volumes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Schwartz, Charles W., and Elizabeth R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

Carbyn, L. 1983. Wolves in Canada and Alaska. Ottawa. 135 pp.

Horan, J. 1986. The red wolf is coming home. Defenders, May/June 1986, pp. 4-11.

Parker, W. T. 1984. Red wolf recovery plan (revision). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 41 pp.

Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell and W. C. Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. Z. Marsh (illustrator). 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

Banks, V. 1988. The red wolf gets a second chance to live by its wits. Smithsonian, March 1988, pp. 100-107.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program:report to Congress. 406 pp.

Matthews, J. R., and C. J. Moseley (editors). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians.

Parker, W. T., and M. K. Phillips. 1991. Application of the experimental population designation to recovery of endangered red wolves. Wildlife Society Bull. 19:73-79.

Rennie, J. 1991. Howls of dismay. Scientific American, October 1991, pp. 18 and 20.

Paradiso, J. L. and R. M. Novak, 1972. CANIS RUFUS. Mammalian Species No. 22:1-4.

Wayne, R. K., and S. M. Jenks. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf, CANIS RUFUS. Nature 351:565-568.

10 March 2005
This data was compiled and/or developed by the North Carolina GAP Analysis Project.

For more information please contact them at:
NC-GAP Analysis Project
Dept. of Zoology, NCSU
Campus Box 7617
Raleigh, NC 27695-7617
(919) 513-2853