to debate whether the red wolf is really a distinct species; many believe it is a gray wolf–coyote hybrid.) By 1987 the breeding program was successful enough that FWS put red wolves back into the wild, creating what’s called a nonessential, experimental population. More than 40 red wolves were released in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge on the Albemarle Peninsula of North Carolina. The wolves are reproducing, and biologists have bolstered the population by placing captive-born pups into dens, where they are adopted by wild wolves. FWS’s red wolf recovery plan calls for at least 220 wild wolves in three places. The ENDANGERED SPECIES agency began to establish a second population in 1991, by releasing wolves in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, but removed the animals 7 years later after too many pups died and adult wolves wandered onto private lands. The population in North Carolina peaked at about 130 in 2001 and has been generally falling since then. Hunting and vehicle colBy Erik Stokstad the eastern United States, but they suffered lisions account for 58% of wolf deaths. the same persecution as the larger gray Coyotes remain a long-term problem. he fate of the world’s only population wolf. Hunters and trappers reduced red Moving south, they arrived in North Carof red wolves is at stake. In a controwolf populations drastically and by the late olina not long after FWS reintroduced versial move, the U.S. Fish and Wild1960s biologists had given up on preserving the red wolves. Coyotes are such prolific life Service (FWS) has begun a rapid the carnivore in the wild. Fourteen wolves breeders that killing them is not a feasible assessment of its efforts to save the in southeast Texas and southwest Louisimethod of population control. To keep them species in the wild. Biologists consider ana became the basis of a captive breeding from diluting the red wolf stock, biologists the nearly 3-decade-old program to reintroprogram, which now includes about 190 use so-called sterile placeholders: They trap duce red wolves (Canis rufus) to a peninsula wolves in more than 40 facilities across the coyotes living near red wolves and give in North Carolina a success. It “has served country. (Meanwhile, taxonomists continue them vasectomies or tubal ligations. Reas a model for restoration efforts turned to the wild, these coyfor large carnivores for years,” otes continue to defend their says Michael Chamberlain, a territories against fertile coyWild predators and private property wildlife biologist at the Univerotes, yet can’t hybridize with Red wolf recovery area includes land held by owners opposed sity of Georgia, Athens. red wolves. “The program has to reintroduction But the predator now faces gone well,” says Brian Arbogast, two serious threats: growing opa biologist at the University of Recovery area position from hunters and local North Carolina, Wilmington. Federal land land Federal landowners, and randy coyotes Gunshot deaths are a growAlligator State land land that mate with the wolves, creing concern, however, with an State River National ating problematic hybrids. The average of seven red wolves Wildlife worst case, says Ron Sutherland, killed each year in shootings. Refuge a conservation biologist with Many landowners consider Wildlands Network in Durham, coyotes and wolves a threat North Carolina, is that federal to pets, children, and game officials will decide the program animals such as deer. The isn’t viable and pull the remaintwo predators can be easy to ing 100 or so wolves out of the confuse, especially when the wild. “All options are on the wolves are young and the same table,” says Tom MacKenzie, an size as adult coyotes. When a 0 10 20 FWS spokesman. red wolf is killed, the loss not Kilometers Red wolves, which catch deer only shrinks the population, and smaller prey, once roamed but it also increases the risk of

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on September 26, 2014

Red wolves reproduce in the wild only in North Carolina. The population is increased with pups born in captivity. A major threat to the population is hybridization with coyotes.

Red wolves in the crosshairs

U.S. agency ponders future of innovative reintroduction as animal deaths and controversy mount

1548

sciencemag.org SCIENCE

26 SEP TEMBER 2014 • VOL 345 ISSUE 6204

Published by AAAS

PHOTO: RYAN NORDSVEN/USFWS/FLICKR

T

PHOTO: EUROPEAN MOBILE LABORATORY CONSORTIUM

hybridization. That’s because the surviving partner of a wolf pair will seek a new mate—which could be a coyote. (Killing sterilized coyotes compounds the problem, because it opens a coyote territory to fertile newcomers.) The number of red wolf deaths continues to rise. Sometimes, there is evidence of foul play, such as the removal of a radio collar. Concerned, the agency has stopped reporting the location of wolf packs. The politics of hunting intensified in July 2013, when the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) allowed nighttime coyote hunting, including in the red wolf recovery area (see map, p. 1548). Environmentalists sued, and, this past May, a judge blocked nighttime hunting, pending a trial next year. The judge also prohibited most daytime coyote hunting, citing the danger to red wolves. Less than 3 weeks later, NCWRC Director Gordon Myers asked FWS to launch an “immediate” review of the recovery program. Myers also prohibited the agency from sterilizing and releasing any more coyotes “due to potential for impacts to private landowners and native wildlife.” (Others note that this policy may backfire by leading to more coyotes.) The change will be “absolutely catastrophic” to wolf recovery, Chamberlain predicts. The review is being conducted by the nonprofit Wildlife Management Institute’s field office in Kentucky. It will examine the science, management, and “human dimension” of the recovery program. Environmentalists are suspicious of the outcome: The review was announced the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day holiday, a classic gambit to avoid media coverage. And it initially only included a 2-week public comment period (since extended 2 weeks until 26 September). “They’re trying to get it done in a hurry before anyone has a chance to react,” Sutherland says. FWS expects the review to be complete by 10 October. That is surprisingly quick, many observers say. “The question for me is how you can do a 60-day assessment of a 27-year program?” says Kim Wheeler, who directs the nonprofit Red Wolf Coalition in Columbia, North Carolina. FWS says it intends to decide the future of the program in early 2015. “We absolutely don’t have preconceived conclusions,” says Leopoldo Miranda, the FWS assistant regional director in Atlanta. If the agency decides the red wolf recovery plan has been a failure, Sierra Weaver, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, predicts that “there will be a lot of legal groups lining up to take action.” ■

INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Testing new Ebola tests Identifying infections more quickly and easily could help slow the epidemic By Gretchen Vogel

A

s Ebola continues to rage in three West African countries—and projections for the epidemic’s growth look increasingly dire—health officials are hoping they will soon have an additional tool to fight the disease: an easy-to-use, fast, and inexpensive diagnostic test for the responsible virus. Several teams are working on prototype kits—small disposable devices resembling home pregnancy tests—that use just a few drops of blood from a fingertip jab and can be carried easily to remote villages or on door-to-

same as those of other more common diseases such as malaria and cholera. Current diagnostic tests take several hours at least, and sometimes days. Clinics—and the teams that trace patients’ contacts at risk of infection—rely on a molecular test that detects Ebola virus genes in blood using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The test is reliable and accurate, but it requires a blood sample taken by needle and secure transport to a laboratory with a steady supply of electricity, PCR machines, and lab workers equipped to handle highly infectious samples and to run the machines. That complex process causes some ma-

Members of the European Mobile Laboratory Project use PCR tests in Guéckédou, Guinea.

door screening campaigns. At least two of the potential diagnostics will undergo their first field trials in Guinea and Sierra Leone this fall. Rapid detection of infections would be a huge help in applying the tried-and-true methods that have contained every other Ebola outbreak so far: Identify and isolate infected people quickly enough that they don’t pass the virus along to new victims. Ebola isn’t easy to spot early in an infection as its symptoms, such as high fever, muscle and abdominal pains, and vomiting, are the

SCIENCE sciencemag.org

jor problems. Suspected patients are often crowded together in makeshift wards, waiting for test results, which means uninfected people may inadvertently become exposed to Ebola. If a suspected case happens very far from the nearest diagnostic facility, it can be days before samples reach the lab and results return. One of the new tests comes from a company called Senova in Weimar, Germany, which sent 2000 sample kits to Guéckédou, Guinea, earlier this month, where they are being run in parallel to the standard PCR 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 • VOL 345 ISSUE 6204

Published by AAAS

1549