Vulpes velox - (Say, 1823)
Swift Fox
Other English Common Names: swift fox
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Vulpes velox (Say, 1823) (TSN 180607)
French Common Names: renard véloce
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104178
Element Code: AMAJA03030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Vulpes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Mercure, A., et al. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.
Concept Reference Code: A93MER01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Vulpes velox
Taxonomic Comments: Vulpes macrotis is here treated as a species separate from V. velox.

Vulpes macrotis (kit fox) was regarded as conspecific with V. velox (swift fox) by Dragoo et al. (1990) (conclusion based mainly on protein-electrophoretic study) and some previous authors. Jones et al. (1992) and Wozencraft (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) concurred in treating velox and macrotis as conspecific. Dragoo et al. (1990) included macrotis as a subspecies of V. velox; other nominal subspecies were regarded as unworthy of recognition.

Mercure et al. (1993) examined mtDNA variability in 10 areas throughout most of the range of the kit and swift foxes; they concluded that kit and swift foxes hybridize over a limited geographic area and should be recognized as separate species; they suggested that the San Joaquin Valley population, though not very distinctive, be recognized as a subspecies because, relative to variation within kit foxes, it appeared as the most distinct single phylogeographic unit and is an isolated population; mtDNA data did not support any of the other 10 subspecific designations of kit and swift fox (Hall 1981). The mammal lists by Baker et al. (2003) and Wozencraft (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) followed Mercure et al. (1993) in recognizing V. macrotis and V. velox as distinct species.

See Dragoo and Wayne (2003) for a review of the systematics of these foxes.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 15Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: The swift fox has disappeared from about 60% of its former range. It is still widespread in the central United States and relatively common in some areas, but declining/scarce in other areas. Some reintroduction efforts have been successful, and increases have been noted in states such as Montana. Threats include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competiton with red fox and coyote, vehicle collisions, and others; more information on population trends and threats is needed.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (01Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Colorado (S3), Kansas (S3), Minnesota (SX), Montana (S3), Nebraska (S2), New Mexico (S2), North Dakota (S1), Oklahoma (S1), South Dakota (S1), Texas (S1), Wyoming (S2)
Canada Alberta (S1S2), Manitoba (SX), Saskatchewan (S3)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS:LE
Comments on USESA: Populations in Canada listed by USFWS as Endangered on June 2, 1970 (Federal Register 35:8491-8498) under "Vulpes velox hebes," a subspecies regarded in recent studies as unworthy of recognition. U.S. populations deleted from Candidate list on January 8, 2001 (USFWS 2001).
Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (27Nov2009)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This species was extirpated from Canada in the 1930s. Following reintroduction programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan initiated in 1983, they have re-established populations in these areas and in northern Montana. Population numbers and distribution have increased since that time, with the current estimate in Canada having doubled to 647 since the last COSEWIC assessment in 2000. Connectivity between populations has also improved during this time, particularly through northern Montana. Since 2001, population numbers and distribution have remained stable and habitat for this species within Canada appears to be saturated. Most improvement in overall population status can be attributed to populations in Montana, which are still demonstrating increasing trends in numbers and distribution. Deteriorating habitat in Canada and the threat of disease (as seen in other canids) could threaten the continued recovery of this species.

Status history: Last seen in Saskatchewan in 1928. Designated Extirpated in April 1978. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1998 after successful re-introductions. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2009.

Last seen in Saskatchewan in 1928. Designated Extirpated in April 1978. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1998 after successful re-introductions. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2009.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historical range included the central plains of North America, from southern Alberta and Saskatchewan south to northern Texas: included all or portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and the souther regions of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (Hall and Kelson 1959, Egoscue 1979, Banfield 1974). Present range is now much restricted; the species is nearly continuously distributed from Wyoming south throughout eastern Colorado, western Kansas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, eastern New Mexico, and part of the extreme northern panhandle of Texas, with scattered, disjunct populations in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska; apparently extirpated in North Dakota (USFWS 2001). The species was extirpated in Canada (1978 COSEWIC report), but reintroduction has resulted in reestablishment of a wild population, though viability of this population is in question. Present zone of contact between V. velox and V. macrotis is approximately in the area of the Pecos River (Dragoo et al. 1990).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a fairly large number of extant occurrences (subpopulations), but the precise number is unknown.

Population Size: 2500 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but likely is at least several thousand. See Allen et al. (1995) for a good review of state by state status.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Reasons for decline include loss of habitat to agriculture and mineral extraction, habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation due to control of colonial rodents, predation and interspecific competiton (with coyote and red fox), and collisions with automobiles (e.g., when feeding on carrion). This species is easily shot, trapped, and poisoned, hence susceptible to mortality from predator and rodent control (Uresk and Sharps 1986). Overall trapping pressure has been reduced over the past few decades; no longer a limiting factor (USFWS 2001). Interspecific competition may be an especially important limiting factor but more research is needed. In Texas, vehicle collisions (42 percent of deaths) and coyote predation (33 percent) were the primary causes of death (Kamler et al. 2003).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of <25%
Short-term Trend Comments: There is evidence that some reoccupation of former range is occurring in Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming (J. Carlson, pers. comm., USFWS, Federal Register, 16 June 1995). In general, population trend is poorly known in most areas.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Declines occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The species made a limited comeback in portions of the historical range in the mid-1950s. It now occupies about 40% of the historical range (USFWS 2001).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Swift foxes are more specialized than other North American canids (Kamler et al. 2003).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better information on current range-wide distribution and abundance is needed.

Protection Needs: Large areas not subject to rodent/rabbit/insect/predator control should be protected.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Historical range included the central plains of North America, from southern Alberta and Saskatchewan south to northern Texas: included all or portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and the souther regions of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (Hall and Kelson 1959, Egoscue 1979, Banfield 1974). Present range is now much restricted; the species is nearly continuously distributed from Wyoming south throughout eastern Colorado, western Kansas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, eastern New Mexico, and part of the extreme northern panhandle of Texas, with scattered, disjunct populations in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska; apparently extirpated in North Dakota (USFWS 2001). The species was extirpated in Canada (1978 COSEWIC report), but reintroduction has resulted in reestablishment of a wild population, though viability of this population is in question. Present zone of contact between V. velox and V. macrotis is approximately in the area of the Pecos River (Dragoo et al. 1990).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CO, KS, MNextirpated, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX, WY
Canada AB, MBextirpated, SK

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Arapahoe (08005), Baca (08009), Bent (08011), Cheyenne (08017), Crowley (08025), El Paso (08041), Elbert (08039), Huerfano (08055), Kiowa (08061), Kit Carson (08063), Larimer (08069), Las Animas (08071), Lincoln (08073), Logan (08075), Morgan (08087), Otero (08089), Prowers (08099), Pueblo (08101), Washington (08121), Weld (08123)
KS Finney (20055), Ford (20057), Gray (20069), Greeley (20071), Hamilton (20075), Hodgeman (20083), Kearny (20093), Logan (20109), Morton (20129), Scott (20171), Sherman (20181), Wallace (20199), Wichita (20203)
MT Blaine (30005), Glacier (30035), Hill (30041), Phillips (30071), Pondera (30073), Prairie (30079), Valley (30105)
ND Bowman (38011)*, Mercer (38057)*, Oliver (38065)*, Slope (38087)*
NE Banner (31007), Box Butte (31013), Cheyenne (31033), Dawes (31045), Deuel (31049), Garden (31069), Hitchcock (31087), Keith (31101), Kimball (31105), Lincoln (31111), McPherson (31117)*, Morrill (31123), Perkins (31135), Red Willow (31145), Scotts Bluff (31157), Sheridan (31161), Sioux (31165)
NM Chaves (35005)*, Curry (35009)*, De Baca (35011), Harding (35021), Lea (35025)*, Quay (35037)*, Roosevelt (35041)*, Union (35059)
OK Beaver (40007), Cimarron (40025), Harper (40059), Texas (40139)
SD Bennett (46007), Butte (46019), Corson (46031)*, Custer (46033), Fall River (46047), Haakon (46055), Harding (46063), Hughes (46065), Hyde (46069), Jackson (46071), Lyman (46085), Meade (46093), Pennington (46103), Perkins (46105), Shannon (46113), Spink (46115)*, Stanley (46117), Sully (46119)
TX Carson (48065), Castro (48069)*, Crane (48103)*, Crockett (48105)*, Dallam (48111), Deaf Smith (48117), Floyd (48153)*, Glasscock (48173), Hale (48189), Hansford (48195)*, Hockley (48219)*, Howard (48227)*, Hutchinson (48233)*, Lipscomb (48295)*, Lubbock (48303)*, Martin (48317), Menard (48327)*, Midland (48329), Moore (48341)*, Ochiltree (48357)*, Parmer (48369)*, Pecos (48371)*, Potter (48375)*, Randall (48381), Sherman (48421), Swisher (48437)*
WY Albany (56001), Campbell (56005), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011)*, Goshen (56015), Johnson (56019), Laramie (56021), Natrona (56025), Niobrara (56027), Platte (56031), Washakie (56043), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Two Medicine (10030201)+, Upper Milk (10050002)+, Wild Horse Lake (10050003)+, Middle Milk (10050004)+, Lodge (10050007)+, Battle (10050008)+, Cottonwood (10050010)+, Whitewater (10050011)+, Lower Milk (10050012)+, Frenchman (10050013)+, Rock (10050015)+, Porcupine (10050016)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Crazy Woman (10090205)+, Lower Powder (10090209)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Antelope (10120101)+, Upper Cheyenne (10120103)+, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+, Hat (10120108)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Lower Cheyenne (10120112)+, Cherry (10120113)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105)+, Knife (10130201)+*, Cedar (10130205)+*, South Fork Grand (10130302)+, Grand (10130303)+*, South Fork Moreau (10130304)+, Upper Moreau (10130305)+, Lower Moreau (10130306)+, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Bad (10140102)+, Medicine Knoll (10140103)+*, Medicine (10140104)+, Crow (10140105)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Middle White (10140202)+, Little White (10140203)+, Niobrara Headwaters (10150002)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+*, Snake (10160008)+*, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Horse (10180012)+, Pumpkin (10180013)+, Lower North Platte (10180014)+, Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek (10190003)+, Cache La Poudre (10190007)+, Lone Tree-Owl (10190008)+, Crow (10190009)+, Bijou (10190011)+, Middle South Platte-Sterling (10190012)+, Beaver (10190013)+, Pawnee (10190014)+, Upper Lodgepole (10190015)+, Lower Lodgepole (10190016)+, Sidney Draw (10190017)+, Lower South Platte (10190018)+, South Loup (10210004)+*, Arikaree (10250001)+, South Fork Republican (10250003)+, Upper Republican (10250004)+, Stinking Water (10250006)+, Upper Sappa (10250010)+, Smoky Hill Headwaters (10260001)+, North Fork Smoky Hill (10260002)+, Ladder (10260004)+, Hackberry (10260005)+
11 Upper Arkansas (11020002)+, Fountain (11020003)+, Chico (11020004)+, Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith (11020005)+, Huerfano (11020006)+, Apishapa (11020007)+, Horse (11020008)+, Upper Arkansas-John Martin (11020009)+, Purgatoire (11020010)+, Big Sandy (11020011)+, Rush (11020012)+, Two Butte (11020013)+, Middle Arkansas-Lake Mckinney (11030001)+, Whitewoman (11030002)+, Arkansas-Dodge City (11030003)+, Buckner (11030006)+, Cimarron headwaters (11040001)+, Upper Cimarron (11040002)+, North Fork Cimarron (11040003)+, Sand Arroyo (11040004)+, Bear (11040005)+, Upper Cimarron-Liberal (11040006)+, Crooked (11040007)+, Upper Cimarron-Bluff (11040008)+, Lower Cimarron-Eagle Chief (11050001)+, Ute (11080007)+, Rita Blanca (11090103)+, Carrizo (11090104)+, Lake Meredith (11090105)+, Upper Beaver (11100101)+, Middle Beaver (11100102)+, Coldwater (11100103)+, Palo Duro (11100104)+, Lower Beaver (11100201)+, Lower Wolf (11100203)+, Tierra Blanca (11120101)+, Palo Duro (11120102)+, Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red (11120103)+, Tule (11120104)+*, Upper North Fork Red (11120301)+, North Pease (11130103)+*
12 Yellow House Draw (12050001)+*, Blackwater Draw (12050002)+*, North Fork Double Mountain Fork (12050003)+*, Double Moutain Fork Brazos (12050004)+*, Running Water Draw (12050005)+, White (12050006)+, Mustang Draw (12080004)+, Sulphur Springs Draw (12080006)+, Beals (12080007)+*, San Saba (12090109)+*
13 Taiban (13060004)+*, Arroyo Del Macho (13060005)+, Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo (13060007)+*, Lower Pecos (13070008)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small member of the dog family.
General Description: A small fox with a black-tipped tail; winter pelage is dark buffy gray above, orange-tan on the sides, legs, and lower surface of the tail, and buff to white on the chest and belly; in summer, the coat is shorter, harsher, and more reddish; head-body length is 38-53 cm, tail length is 23-35 cm; mass is 1.8-3.0 kg, with males averaging larger than females; ear length of adults is 56-78 mm (Nowak 1991, Clark and Stromberg 1987).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from the kit fox in smaller ears, broader snout, and shorter tail (see Nowak 1991).
Reproduction Comments: Breeds in late winter. Gestation lasts probably 7-8 weeks. In Oklahoma, most litters are born in March or early April. Litter size usually is 3-6, mean 4-5 (Egoscue 1979, Olson and Lindzey 2002). Produces one litter per year. Pups first emerge from den at about 1 month (by 1 June in Wyoming). Young are tended by both sexes, disperse in late summer-early fall. Pair-bond may be life-long.

In southeastern Wyoming, 19 of 24 (79%) swift fox pairs were observed with young over 3 years (Olson and Lindzey 2002).

Ecology Comments: Mortality factors are poorly known. Coyotes, and formerly wolves, are suspected predators (Egoscue 1979).

Olson and Lindzey (2002) estimated annual survival rates of swift foxes (Vulpes velox) in a transition zone between shortgrass prairie and sagebrush steppe plant communities in southeastern Wyoming during 1996-2000. Annual adult survival ranged from 40% to 69%, with predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) the primary cause of deaths. Two foxes died of canine distemper virus. Adult survival was similar and litter size slightly larger than observed elsewhere in the species range, suggesting that viable swift fox populations can be supported by sagebrush steppe and shortgrass prairie transition habitat.

Density of a locally abundant population in Wyoming was reported as one pair per 5-8 sq km (Clark and Stromberg 1987).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Home range size ranges from a few hundred to a few thousand hectares (see Harrison 2003). Individuals may range over several square kilometers during a single night; may shift the location of their home range from one year to the next (Harrison 2003). Dispersal distance averages around 11 km, with an observed maximum of only 64 km (see Mercure et al. 1993).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes open prairie and arid plains, including areas intermixed with winter wheat fields. In Texas, swift foxes selected only shortgrass prairies and had lower-than-expected use or completely avoided non-native grasslands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, irrigated agricultural fields, and dryland agricultural fields (Kamler et al. 2003). Viable populations exist in shortgrass prairie-sagebrush steppe transition habitat in southeastern Wyoming (Olson and Lindzey 2002).

Dens are in burrows. A fox may dig a burrow or use a burrow made by another mammal (e.g., marmot, prairie dog, badger), usually in sandy soil on high ground (e.g., hill top, Pruss 1999) in open prairies, along fencerows, occasionally in plowed field. An individual may use several different dens throughout the year.

Young are born in an underground den about 1 meter below the ground surface (Banfield 1974). The den usually has multiple entrances and may be 3-6 meters long. Slight disturbance may cause a female to move her young to a different den.

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes mammals (jackrabbits, cottontails, ground squirrels, mice), birds, invertebrates, and vegetable matter (grasses and berries). Mammals (often especially SYLVILAGUS) and insects comprise the bulk of the diet, but feeding is opportunistic. Caches excess food under snow in winter (Banfield 1974).
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Primarily nocturnal, may rest in sun outside burrow during day.
Length: 80 centimeters
Weight: 2700 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Legally harvested in Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, and Texas.
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: See Kahn et al. (1996).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Breeding Den, Non-breeding Den
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding. Established breeding is presumed when a breeding den is occupied repeatedly over two or more consecutive years, or where there is the occurrence of a cluster of at least 3 breeding dens that were recorded within a period no greater than 3 years. Identification may be confused with juvenile Coyotes, Red or Gray Foxes and, therefore, identification must be made by experienced carnivore biologists. Isolated detections, especially those not associated with a breeding den site, and those locating in marginal or sink habitats are not likely to contribute significantly to the persistence of the population.
Separation Barriers: Major water barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Justification: Dispersal distance averages around 11 km, with an observed maximum of 64 km (O'Farrell 1987). More recent studies indicate that juvenile dispersal of up to 32 km is not uncommon, and some juveniles may disperse 80 km or more from their natal area (Gill 2004). Home ranges in New Mexico varied from 1,304 to 2,298 hectares, with a mean of 1,842 hectares (Harrison 2003). Home ranges on the Cimarron National Grassland varied from 1,280 to 3,430 hectares (Chynoweth et al. 1998). Annual home range size in Texas averaged 11.7 sq km (1,170 ha), the same as in Wyoming but larger than the 7.6 sq km (760 ha) average in Colorado (see Kamler et al. 2003).

Separation distances are arbitrary but attempt to balance the high mobility of these mammals against the need for occurrences of reasonable size for conservation purposes. Occurrence delineation requires attention to seasonal changes in location and habitat use (if any); different parts of the annual home range are of course included in the same occurrence regardless of how far apart they are.

Unsuitable habitat includes densely wooded areas.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based conservatively on a home range of 700 hectares.
Date: 22Sep2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 07Oct2003
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 18Mar2005
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, A. W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 164-179 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers Association.

  • Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pp. 164-179 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150 pp.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Allen, S. H., J. W. Hoagland, and E. D. Stukel, editors. 1995. Report of the Swift Fox Conservation Team. Unpublished report.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

  • Ashton, D.E. and E.M. Dowd. 1991. Fragile Legacy: Endangered, Threatened and Rare Animals of South Dakota. Report No. 91-04. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks. Wildlife Division, 523 E. Capitol, Pierre, SD.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P., R. THURSTON, and D. KEINATH. 2003. PREDICTIVE RANGE MAPS FOR 15 SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION OF THE USDA FOREST SERVICE. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region by the Wyoming National Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • BLAIR, KATHLEEN B. 1995. SWIFT FOX SURVEY AT PANTEX SITE, CARSON COUNTY, TEXAS. REPORT SUBMITTED TO DOE PANTEX (CONTRACT NO. DE-AC04-94AL98863).

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Reprinted, 1981.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Beauvais, G. P. 1999. The status of rare vertebrates in the Bighorn landscape. Unpublished report prepared by WYNDD for the Wyoming Field Office of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Beauvais, G. P. and W. Fertig. 2000. Status report for rare vertebrates and plants in Laramie County, Wyoming. Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and Laramie County Wyoming.

  • Beauvais, G.P. 2006. Addendum to Swift fox (Vulpes velox): a technical conservation assessment. Reports prepared for the USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Region (R2) by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • Brechtel, S.H., Carbyn, L.N., Hjertaas, D., & C. Mamo. 1992. The Swift Fox Reintroduction Feasibility Study 1989 to 1992. Recovery Team's Report and Recommendations. Draft #2, September 1992. 92pp. & appendices.

  • C.O.S.E.W.I.C. 1978 COSEWIC Status Reports and Evaluations. Volume 1. Official Classification of the Swift Fox as Extirpated in Canada. Ottawa. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  • CARBYN, L.N. AND E. KLAUSZ. 1995. LIVE-TRAPPING SWIFT FOXES IN SOUTHEASTERN WYOMING, AND SURVIVAL UPON RELEASE IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA. REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CANADIAN SWIFT FOX RECOVERY TEAM. ENVIRONMENT CANADA, CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE.

  • CDOW 2007. Species profile. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/

  • COSEWIC 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the swift fox Vulpes velox in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. v + 44 pp.

  • CREEL, GORDON C., AND W.A. THORNTON. 1971. A NOTE ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND SPECIFIC STATUS OF THE FOX GENUS VULPES IN WEST TEXAS. SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 15:402-404.

  • CYPHER, BRIAN L. 1997. EFFECTS OF RADIO COLLARS ON SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 61(4):1412-1423.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. 188 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1983. Hinterland Who's who: Swift Fox. Environment Canada. Canada. 4p.

  • Carbyn, I. 1998. Update COSEWIC status report on Swift Fox (VULPES VELOX). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 48 pp.

  • Carbyn, L.N. 1998. Update COSEWIC status report on the swift fox Vulpes velox in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-44 pp.

  • Carbyn, L.N., H.J. Armburster, and C. Mamo. 1994. The swift fox reintroduction program in Canada from 1983 to 1992. IN Restoration of endangered species. M.L. Bowles and C.J. Whelan, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Pages 247-271.

  • Chynoweth, J., K. Kaczmarek, and D. Walstrom. 1998. Swift Fox survey, Cimarron National Grassland, Morton County, Kansas. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng/tes_projects/cimsfsurvey98.html. Accessed 2001-06-29.

  • Clark, T. W. and M. R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Public Education Series No. 10, Lawrence, Kansas. xii + 314 pp.

  • Clark, T. W., and M. R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ. Education Series No. 10. xii + 314 pp.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Biological Conservation Datasystem. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1999. Canadian Species at Risk: April 1999. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 17 pp.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009b. COSEWIC Assessment Results, November 2009. Online. Available: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/.

  • DRAGOO, JERRY W., JERRY R. CHOATE, TERRY L. YATES, AND THOMAS P. O'FARRELL. 1990. EVOLUTIONARY AND TAXONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NORTH AMERICAN ARID-LAND FOXES. J. MAMM. 71(3):318-332.

  • Dark-Smiley, D.N. and D.A. Keinath. 2003. Species assessment for Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Dragoo, J. W., and R. K. Wayne. 2003. Systematics and population genetics of swift and kit foxes. Pages 207-222 in M. A. Sovada and L. Carbyn, editors. The swift fox: ecology and conservation of swift foxes in a changing world. Canadian High Plains Research Center, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Dragoo, J. W., et al. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among North American arid-land foxes. J. Mammalogy 71:318-332.

  • EGOSCUE, HAROLD J. 1962. ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE KIT FOX IN TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH. ECOLOGY 43(3):481-497.

  • Egoscue, H. J. 1979. VULPES VELOX. Mammalian Species. 122:1-5.

  • Egoscue, H.J. 1979. VULPES VELOX. Mammalian Species, 122:1-5

  • FAUNA WEST WILDLIFE CONSULTANTS. 1991. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE AND PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE SWIFT AND KIT FOXES. REPORT PREPARED BY FAUNA WEST WILDLIFE CONSULTANTS, BOULDER, MT FOR THE MONTANA DEPT. OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, BOZEMAN, MT.

  • Fargey, P., J. Tuckwell, J. Carlson, B. Bristol, S. Davis, R. Sissons, A. Piwowar, E.
    Wiltse, S. Forrest and K. Murphy. Frenchman River-Bitter Creek Conservation Site Plan. 2004. In Smith Fargey, K. (ed.), Shared Prairie - Shared Vision: The Northern Mixed Grass Transboundary Conservation Initiative. Conservation Site Planning Workshop Proceedings and Digital Atlas. Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. (criteria 3)

  • FaunaWest Consultants. 1991. A Bibliography of Literature Pertaining to Swift Fox.

  • FaunaWest Consultants. 1991. An Ecological and Taxonomic Review of the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) with Special Reference to Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 59pp.

  • Federal Register January 8, 2001, 66(5). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions. pp. 1295-1300.

  • Federal Register, 16 June 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the Swift Fox as Endangered. pp. 31663-31666.

  • Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report RM-215. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 38 p.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado.

  • Foresman, K. R. 2001. The Wild Mammals of Montana. American Society of Mammalogists, Lawrence, Kansas. Special Publication No. 12. 278 pp.

  • Franklin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary changes in small populations. In Conservation Biology. An Evolutionary-Ecological Approach, eds. M.E. Soulé and B.A. Wilcox, pp. 135- 149. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.


  • GEFFEN, E., A. MERCURE, D.J. GIRMAN, D.W. MACDONALD, AND R.K. WAYNE. 1992. PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF THE FOX-LIKE CANIDS: MITOCHONDRIAL DNA RESTRICTION FRAGMENT, SITE AND CYTOCHROME b SEQUENCE ANALYSIS. J. ZOOL. LOND. 228:27-39.

  • Giddings, B. and C. J. Knowles. 1995. The current status of swift fox in Montana. Pp. 101-105 in: Allen, S. H., J. W. Hoagland, and E. D. Stukel, (eds.), Report of the Swift Fox Conservation Team. 170 pp.

  • Gier, H. T. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the coyote (Canis latrans). Pages 247-262 in M. W. Fox, ed. The Wild Canids; their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Van Nostrand and Reinhold Co., New York. xvi + 508 pp.

  • Gill, B. 2004. Swift like a fox. Colorado Outdoors 53(5):2-5.

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • HOLLANDER, R.R., C. JONES, R.W. MANNING, AND J.K. JONES. 1987. DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES ON SOME MAMMALS FROM THE EDWARDS PLATEAU AND ADJACENT AREAS OF SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 110:1-10.

  • HUBBARD, J.P. 1994. THE STATUS OF THE SWIFT FOX IN NEW MEXICO. REPORT TO THE USFWS, ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Harrison, R. L. 2000. Swift Fox investigations in New Mexico, 1999. IN C. G. Schmitt, editor. Swift Fox Conservation Team Annual Report, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

  • Harrison, R. L. 2003. Swift fox demography, movements, denning, and diet in New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 48:261-273.

  • Hazard, E. B. 1982. The mammals of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 280 pp.

  • Hines, T. D., and R. M. Case. 1991. Diet, home range, movements and activity periods of swift fox in Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 23:131-138.

  • Hoffmann, R. S., P. L. Wright and F. E. Newby. 1969. Distribution of some mammals in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. Journal of Mammalogy 50(3):579-604.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • JONES, KNOX J., CLYDE JONES, ROBERT R. HOLLANDER, AND RICHARD W. MANNING. 1987. THE SWIFT FOX IN TEXAS. REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., D. M. Armstrong, R. S. Hoffmann, and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the Northern Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • KASPER, STEPHEN. 1992. MAMMALS FROM THE LATE PLEISTOCENE CARROL CREEK LOCAL FAUNA, DONLEY COUNTY, TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 37(1):54-64.

  • KILGORE, D.L. 1967. AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE SWIFT FOX (VULPES VELOX) IN THE OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE. AM. MIDL. NAT. 81(2):512-533.

  • Kahn, R., L. Fox, P. Horner, and B. Geddings. 1996. Draft conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the swift fox in the United States. 54 pp.

  • Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard, E. B. Fish, P. R. Lemons, K. Motte, and C. C. Perchellet. 2003. Habitat use, home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented landscape: conservation implications. Journal of Mammalogy 84:989-995.

  • Keinath, D.A. 2005. Supplementary mammal inventory of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Unpublished report prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Data Base for USDI National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Program Bozeman, Montana.

  • Kilgore, D. 1967. An ecological study of the swift fox in the Oklahoma Panhandle. M. S. thesis. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 69 pp.

  • Knowles, C. J., P. R. Knowles, B. Giddings, and A. R. Dood. 1995. Status of the Swift fox in Montana. [document submitted for publication]. FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants, Boulder, MT, and MT Dept. of FWP, Helena, MT. 16 pp.

  • LEHMAN, N., A. EISENHAWER, K. HANSEN, L.D. MECH, R.O. PETERSON, P.J.P. GOGAN, AND R.K. WAYNE. 1991. INTROGRESSION OF COYOTE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA INTO SYMPATRIC NORTH AMERICAN GRAY WOLF POPULATIONS. EVOLUTION 45(1):104-119.

  • LOMOLINO, M.V. AND M.J. SHAUGHNESSY. 1995. DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY OF THE SWIFT FOX (VULPES VELOX). ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, SECTION 6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. FEDERAL AID PROJECT E-35-1. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. Univ. of Kansas, Publ. Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • Loy, R.R. 1981. An ecological investigation of the swift fox, VULPES VELOX, on the Pawnee National Grassland, Colorado. Unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. Northern Colorado, Greeley. 64pp.

  • MERCURE, ALAN, KATHERINE RALLS, KLAUS P. KOEPFLI, AND ROBERT K. WAYNE. 1993. GENETIC SUBDIVISIONS AMONG SMALL CANIDS: MITOCHONDRIAL DNA DIFFERENTIATION OF SWIFT, KIT, AND ARCTIC FOXES. EVOLUTION 47(5):1313-1328.

  • MILLER, P. H. 1964 R

  • MOEHRENSCHLAGER, A. AND L. CARBYN. 1995. ASSESSING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ARID LAND FOXES, VULPES VELOX AND VULPES MACROTIS THROUGH CANADIAN AND MEXICAN RESEARCH COLLABORATION. PROGRESS REPORT TO THE CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE, EDMONTON, ALBERTA.

  • MOTE, KEVIN. 1998. CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE TEXAS PANHANDLE SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE. SECTION 6 FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ECOLOGICAL FIELD OFFICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS. JANUARY 1998. 23 PP.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 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, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • McGee, M., D.A. Keinath, and G.P. Beauvais. 2002. Survey for rare vertebrates in the Pinedale Field Office of the USDI Bureau of Land Management (Wyoming). Unpublished report prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management - Wyoming State Office by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • McGrew, J.C. 1979. VULPES MACROTIS. Mammalian Species, 123: 1-6.

  • Mercure, A., et al. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.

  • Mills, S. and M. Neighbours. 1995. Intensive data gathering project (fine-filter analysis) for occurrences of rare, threatened, endangered and sensitive species in sections M331H and M331I, north central highlands and northern parks and ranges, in Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

  • Moehrenschlager, A. and C. Moehrenschlager. 2001. Census of Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada and Northern Montana: 2000-2001. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 24. Edmonton, AB. 21 pp. (criteria 2, 3 and 7)

  • NDIS 2007. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) website http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/

  • Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.

  • O'Farrell, T. P. 1987. Kit fox. Pages 423-431 in M. Novak et al., editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario.

  • O'Farrell, T. P. 1987. Kit fox. pp. 422-431, In Wild Furbearer Management and conservation in North America (M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds.). Ontario Trappers Association, Toronto, 1150 pp.

  • O'Neal, G. T., J. T. Flinders, and W. P. Clary. 1986. Behavioral ecology of the Nevada kit fox (Vulpes macrotis nevadensis) on a managed desert rangeland. Current Mammalogy 1:443-481.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Obrecht, J. 1996. Swift fox petition prompts work. Wyoming Wildlife 60 (8): 39. [August 1996].

  • Olson, T. L., and F. G. Lindzey. 2002. Swift fox survival and production in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Mammalogy 83:199-206.

  • PACKARD, R.L. AND J.H. BOYERS. 1970. DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES ON SOME FOXES FROM WESTERN TEXAS AND EASTERN NEW MEXICO. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 14:450-451.

  • PERKINS, J.R. 1990. EVALUATION OF ANNUAL FUR HARVEST. TPWD FEDERAL AID PERFORMANCE REPORT. JOB NO. 2. PROJ. NO. W-125-R-1.

  • Packard, Robert L., and H. W. Garner. 1964. Records of some mammals from the Texas High Plains. The Texas Journal of Science 16:387-390.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Pruss, S. D. 1999. Selection of natal dens by the swift fox (VULPES VELOX) on the Canadian prairies. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:646-652.

  • RALLS, K. AND L.L. EBERHARDT. 1997. ASSESSMENT OF ABUNDANCE OF SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES BY SPOTLIGHT SURVEYS. J. MAMMAL. 78(1):65-73.

  • ROHWER, SIEVERT A. AND DELBERT L. KILGORE. 1973. INTERBREEDING IN THE ARID-LAND FOXES, VULPES VELOX AND VULPES MACROTIS. SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY 22:157-165.

  • Reed, D.H.B., and H. Edwin. 2000. Experimental tests of minimum viable population size. Animal Conservation 3: 7-14.

  • Resmer, K. 1999. "Vulpes velox" (on line), Animal Diversity Web.

  • Runge, W. and J. Mulhern. 1985. The status of wild furbearers in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. February. Mimeo. 43pp.

  • Ryke, N., D. Winters, L. McMartin and S. Vest. 1994. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. May 25, 1994.

  • SCHWARTZ,C. AND E.SCHWARTZ. 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI, REV. ED.

  • SCOTT-BROWN, J.M., S. HERRERO, AND J. REYNOLDS. 1987. KIT FOX. CHAPTER 33 IN M. NOVAK, J.A. BAKER, M.E. OBBARD, AND B. MALLOCH (EDS.) WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ONTARIO, CANADA.

  • SCOTT-BROWN, J.M., S. HERRERO, AND J. REYNOLDS. 1987. SWIFT FOX. CHAPTER 34 IN M. NOVAK, J.A. BAKER, M.E. OBBARD, AND B. MALLOCH (EDS.) WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ONTARIO, CANADA.

  • STROMBERG, MARK R., AND MARK S. BOYCE. 1986. SYSTEMATICS AND CONSERVATION OF THE SWIFT FOX, VULPES VELOX, IN NORTH AMERICA. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 35:97-110.

  • Schmidly, D. J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

  • Scott-Brown, J.M., Herrero, S., and J. Reynolds. 1987. Swift Fox. pp. 432-441 in Novak, M., Baker, J.A., Obbard, M.E., and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150pp.

  • Sheldon, J. W. 1991. Wild dogs: the natural history of the nondomestic Canidae. Academic Press. 248 pp.

  • Stangl, F.B., Jr., W.W. Dalquest, and S. Kuhn. 1993. Mammals from the Beach Mountains of Culberson County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45(1):87-96.

  • Swepston, Danny. 1981. Final Report. Job No. 15: Kit fox survey. Grant No. W-103-R-11 Nongame Wildlife Investigations. Submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 31 August 1981.

  • THOMPSON, B., D. MILLER, T. DOUMITT, AND T. JACOBSON. 1992. ECOLOGICALLY-BASED MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FOR SUSTAINABLE HARVEST AND USE OF NEW MEXICO FURBEARER RESOURCES. NEW MEXICO FEDERAL AID PROJECT W-129-R, JOB 1. SUBMITTED BY WILDLIFE DIVISION, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, SANTA FE, TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, LAS CRUCES.

  • THORNTON, W.A., AND GORDON C. CREEL. 1975. THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF KIT FOXES. TX J. SCIENCE 26(1-2):127-137?.

  • THORNTON, W.A., GORDON C. CREEL, AND R.E. TRIMBLE. 1971. HYBRIDIZATION IN THE FOX GENUS VULPES IN WEST TEXAS. SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 15(4):473-484.

  • Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection (TCWC), Texas A & M University. 1964. Catalog #02284 TCWC collected by H. K. Smith of 12 December 1964 in Newton County.

  • Theobald, D.M., N. Peterson, and G. Wilcox. 2005. Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection v4 database. Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 30 June 2005. www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/comap

  • Titus, G. 1995. The race is not to the swift. Wyoming Wildlife 59(2): 12-17.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS. 2001. Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. Federal Register 66:1295-1300.

  • Uresk, D. W. and J. C. Sharps. 1986. Denning habitat and diet of the swift fox in western South Dakota. Great Basin Naturalist 46:249-253.

  • Uresk, D. W., and J. C. Sharps. 1986. Denning habitat and diet of the swift fox in western South Dakota. Great Basin Naturalist 46:249-253.

  • WARRICK, GREGORY D. AND B.L. CYPHER. 1998. FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 62(2):707-717.

  • Whiting, M.J., J. R. Dixon, and R. C. Murray. 1993. Spatial distribution of a population of Texas horned lizards (PHRYNOSOMA CORNUTUM: PHRYNOSOMATIDAE) relative to habitat and prey. Southwestern Naturalist 38:150-154.

  • 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. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan, a plan for inventories and management of nongame birds and mammals in Wyoming. Prepared by B. Oakleaf, A.O. Cerovski, and B. Luce, Nongame Program Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 183 pp.

  • ZUMBAUGH, D.M., AND J.R. CHOATE. 1985. HISTORICAL BIOGEO- GRAPHY OF FOXES IN KANSAS. TRANS.KANS.ACAD.SCI.88:1-13.

  • ZUMBAUGH, D.M., AND J.R. CHOATE. 1985. WINTER FOOD HABITS OF THE SWIFT FOX ON THE CENTRAL HIGH PLAINS. PRAIRIE NAT. 17: 41-47.

  • ZUMBAUGH, D.M., J.R. CHOATE, AND L.B. FOX. 1985. WINTER FOOD HABITS OF THE SWIFT FOX ON THE CENTRAL HIGH PLAINS. PRAIRIE NAT. 17(1):41-47.

  • Zoellick, B. W., N. S. Smith, and R. S. Henry. 1989. Habitat use and movements of desert kit foxes in western Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:955-961.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.