+1 (403) 932-5632
CEI Developed Portable Protective Shelter (PPS) Release Methodology
•Introduced PPS to Canadian program in 1993 to 1997
These Portable protective shelters, PPS, were developed at the CEI. They are designed to be placed over an abandoned badger hole in the release sites. When the foxes are released, they are placed, in their transport kennels (see illustration) adjacent to the PPS. Food and water is also placed beside the PPS.
One of the keys to post release survival is to have a protected and familiar place that the foxes can use at will. The PPS provides that protected familiar place to reintroduced swift foxes in unfamiliar environment. Release sites (in the Blackfeet and Blood (Kainai) programmes) are selected on the basis of;
· Jurisdictional release site approval,
· a pre-release survey of habitat suitability (predator pressure, prey availability, availability of escape terrain)
· incorporates Aboriginal traditional knowledge.
The goal of successful reintroduction is to encourage the reintroduced swift foxes to stay in the release site area. The use of PPS does encourage the reintroduced swift fox to stay in the release sites.
Post release monitoring over the length of the Blackfeet swift fox reintroduction programme, during the reintroduction (1998 – 2002) and after (2002 – 2005) established high survival (75% for reintroduced adults) and good breeding success..
The swift fox population grew at a rate f 16% in 2003/04 and 14% in 2004/05…Based on the population growth rate, the number of foxes counted, and the fortunate discovery of a (breeding pair) of swift fox in Augusta, Montana, I consider this reintroduction a success. The Blackfeet tribe has....attained their goal of restoring a culturally important species to Tribal Lands and have even initiated a comeback for swift fox along the Rocky Mountain Front” (Ausband, D. M.Sc. Thesis University of Montana,2005 ).
Portable Protective Shelter (PPS) Release Methodology
The foxes remain in their kennels until they have recovered from the stress of transport. Then the kennel doors are opened and the foxes emerge from their transport kennels in their own time. Transport kennels and any uneaten food is removed after 7 hours. Some foxes enter the PPS immediately, some do not, but over the period following release ( five days) all reintroduced swift fox will use the PPS. PPS are removed from the reintroduction site after 10 days.
1991
The national Swift Fox Recovery Team approved the decision that captive-breeding of swift fox for reintroduction was to be “phased-out “by 1997, the annual reintroduction of captive-bred animals would be replaced by annual releases of swift fox trapped in the USA. Justification for this decision was that wild US swift fox were cheaper and ‘better than” home grown Canadian swift fox.
This decision would also save the government $9,000 per year which is what they had been contributing up to 1991, but this funding ceased in 1991, although the foxes remained the ‘property” of the federal government. The total cost of maintaining the captive colony of 25 productive pairs of swift fox was $ 69,000 per year.
This 1991 decision was not based upon knowledge of survival, breeding success, or numbers of swift fox in Canada in 1991...
as that information was not available (no swift fox census was undertaken in Canada until the winter of 1996-1997).
The federal government intended to stop its involvement in all captive breeding programmes (whooping crane, peregrine falcon, swift fox) by 1997 and so the national Swift Fox Recovery Team decision harmonized with a policy decision already made by the Federal government. (supporting documentation of these statements can be obtained from the federal & provincial governments or the CEI)
An agreement, (1993 – 2000) was made between CWS and US government (State of Wyoming) for the trapping and translocation, for annual release in Canada up to and including 2000, of 150 wild swift fox.
This was very odd because at that time: 1993, the US Federal Government had posted this finding in the US federal Government’s Federal Register:
“The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 60 – day finding for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes velox) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of all available scientific and commercial information, the Service finds that listing this species is warranted...”
US Federal Register June 1, 1994 (59 FR 28328)
“The environment is our only life support system. As we approach the twenty-first century, however, there are indications that we a severing this lifeline.” State of the Environment Reporting Branch, CWS
there 20 years to play with.
The Fight For The Swift Fox
1980/81
saw the transferal in the Fall, 1980, of CEI swift fox to the University of Calgary’s “soft release” enclosures in southern Alberta with the intention that, the following spring, 1981, the doors would be opened and the animals exit in their own time.
Unfortunately,
Canadian Wildlife Service, CWS, and University of Calgary who were arranging the reintroduction, had failed to obtain requisite permits (Alberta Wildlife Act) from Government of Alberta, so the release was stopped and no release permitted until 1983 (Reynolds 1983).
Meanwhile, a decision was made to maintain the swift fox in the soft release enclosures until the inter-governmental problem was solved. Solving the problem took 2 years.
During that time the foxes had to be maintained, an effort expensive in manpower as the enclosures on the release site were isolated. To reduce the time spent, it was decided that the foxes would be fed carcasses, or portions of carcasses, on a weekly basis rather than small amounts of meat on a daily basis.
This feeding protocol (using large amounts of meat) attracted ravens and hawks. The birds flew into the enclosures to take meat. The feeding protocol also attracted coyotes who picked up and ate meat dropped by the birds. A “spin” was put on this, associating the use of soft release methodology with predator attraction, not, as was more probably the case, with the feeding protocol employed.
The swift foxes ignored the permit question and dug out of enclosures and known recruitment was equal to known loss.
The first “official” swift fox reintroduction in Canada took place in 1983. The management of swift fox reintroduction was entirely in federal and provincial government hands, the CEI had no input once the swift foxes left CEI property
1989 In April, the National Swift Fox Recovery Team was formed under RENEW (Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife). Neither the Smeetons, nor any representative from the Charity they founded, were invited to join the swift Fox recovery team.
The Swift Fox Recovery Team set out to develop options and a management strategy. Their options were:
Option 1: Phasing out programme, immediate disposal of captive colony. rejected in part, by the Team, because of “loss of favorable publicity for Agencies ( Carbyn et Al.Swift fox interim Management plan, 1991, unpublished report)
Option 2: Recovery/feasibility Plan. Continue current attempt at reintroduction over the next 3 years. Assume recovery may not be feasible, Evaluate programme.
Option 3: Recovery Plan. Same as Option 2, but assumes Recovery is feasible.
1971 - 1997 Canadian Swift Fox Reintroduction Program Saskatchewan and Alberta , Canada
In 1972, Miles & Beryl Smeeton, Alberta ranchers, decided to take action.
The Smeetons founded The Cochrane Ecological Institute, CEI, as they were devoted to restoring the prairie by breeding and reintroducing the swift fox back onto its native habitat in Canada.
~ Miles Smeeton
“Whether it is feasible to reintroduce an animal (swift fox) that has become extinct through the spread of civilization is questionable, but that is what we hoped to discover. Very little is known about swift foxes, and they have a poor record of breeding in captivity: nevertheless, we intended to breed them and one day release them in their natural environment. Had we understood all the problems and work involved…we might have thought twice about the project..”