Map_thumbnail_large_font

Translate page into:

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Scope:Global
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_onStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae

Scientific Name: Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Species Authority: (Schreber, 1775)
Common Name(s):
English Grey Fox, Tree Fox, Gray Fox
Spanish Gato Cervan, Gato de Monte, Zorra Gris, Zorro Plateado
Synonym(s):
Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber, 1775

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2016
Date Assessed: 2016-03-01
Assessor(s): Roemer, G., Cypher, B. & List, R.
Reviewer(s): Hoffmann, M. & Sillero-Zubiri, C.
Contributor(s): Fuller, T. & Ramirez-Chaves, H.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Hoffmann, M. & Thresher, S.
Justification:
The Grey Fox is widespread in forest, woodland, brushland, shrubland, and rocky habitats in temperate, semi-arid and tropical regions of North America, and in northernmost montane regions of South America. Grey Fox are also increasingly common in urban environments. Available evidence suggests that Grey Fox numbers are probably stable across their range, and not subject to any range-wide threats causing marked declines in the overall population size despite being trapped for their pelts in many parts of their range. Available evidence suggests they are frequently incidentally captured when other more highly sought furbearers (e.g., Bobcat) are targeted.
Previously published Red List assessments:
  • 2008 – Least Concern (LC)
  • 2004 – Least Concern (LC)
  • 1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:The Grey Fox ranges widely from the southern edge of central and eastern Canada, and Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado in the United States south to northern Venezuela and Colombia; and from the Pacific coast of the United States to the Atlantic and Caribbean oceans. The species is not found in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, or in the Caribbean watersheds of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and western Panama (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, Fuller and Cypher 2004). They have expanded their range in recent decades into habitats and areas either formerly unoccupied or from which they were extirpated.
Countries occurrence:
Native:
Belize; Canada; Colombia; Costa Rica; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; Nicaragua; Panama; United States; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Additional data:
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:The species is generally common, but appears to be restricted to locally dense habitats where it is not excluded by sympatric Coyotes (Canis latrans) and Bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Farias 2000b).
Current Population Trend:Stable
Additional data:
Population severely fragmented:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:In eastern North America, the Grey Fox is most closely associated with deciduous/southern pine forests interspersed with some old fields and scrubby woodlands (Hall 1981). In western North America, it is commonly found in mixed agricultural/woodland/chaparral/riparian landscapes and shrub habitats. The species occupies forested areas and thick brush habitats in Central America and forested montane habitats in South America (Eisenberg 1989). Grey Foxes occur in semi-arid areas of the south-western USA and northern Mexico where cover is sufficient. They appear to do well both within and on the margins of some urban areas (Harrison 1997, Castellanos et al. 2008).
Systems:Terrestrial
Generation Length (years):3

Use and Trade [top]

Use and Trade: Because of its relatively lower fur quality compared with other species, commercial use of the Grey Fox is somewhat limited. However, 90,604 skins were recorded taken in the United States during the 1991 and 1992 season (Linscombe 1994). In Mexico, Grey Foxes are frequently sold illegally as pets (Fuller and Cypher 2004).

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): There are no major range-wide threats to the species, but extreme habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation may be problematic in regions where human habitation is increasing rapidly and habitat is converted for agricultural, industrial, and urban uses. However, they are overall relatively adaptable and have become increasingly common even in urban environments. Grey foxes have been involved in some large die-offs due to canine distemper virus in parts of their range, and may also be affected by canine parvovirus and rabies.

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Legislation
Not listed in the CITES Appendices. The Grey Fox is legally protected as a harvested species in Canada and the United States (Fritzell 1987). 

Presence in protected areas
Grey Foxes occur in numerous protected areas throughout their range, such as Big Bend NP, San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge, Rocky Mountain NP and Everglades and Dry Tortugas NP, and Adirondack NP (Fuller and Cypher 2004).

Presence in captivity
A number of foxes are held in captivity, although there may be more in the hands of private collections/individuals who do not report to ISIS. Grey Foxes appear to fare well in captivity and commonly are on display at zoos and wildlife farms.

Gaps in knowledge
Because of the relatively high abundance and low economic value of Grey Foxes, surprisingly little research has been conducted on this species. Basic ecological and demographic information is needed for each of the major habitats occupied by Grey Foxes, and there remains limited information available on the impacts of disease (such as canine distemper and canine parvovirus) in most parts of the range, although ongoing work in north-western Mexico will provide new and important information (R. List pers. comm. 2015). Also, additional research on the response of Grey Foxes to human-altered landscapes (e.g., urban environments) is needed. In general, extremely little is known about the status and ecology of Grey Foxes outside of the USA and Canada. The effects of Grey Foxes on populations of smaller vertebrates, especially in urban and suburban settings without larger predators, may be important.

Classifications [top]

1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
1. Forest -> 1.5. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
1. Forest -> 1.6. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
1. Forest -> 1.9. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.8. Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation
suitability: Suitable  major importance:Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
suitability: Marginal  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
suitability: Marginal  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.5. Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas
suitability: Marginal  
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
  Action Recovery plan:No
  Systematic monitoring scheme:No
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Conservation sites identified:No
  Occur in at least one PA:Yes
  Area based regional management plan:No
  Invasive species control or prevention:Not Applicable
In-Place Species Management
  Harvest management plan:No
  Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly:No
  Subject to ex-situ conservation:Yes
In-Place Education
  Subject to recent education and awareness programmes:No
  Included in international legislation:No
  Subject to any international management/trade controls:No
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Housing & urban areas
♦ timing: Ongoing ♦ scope: Minority (<50%) ♦ severity: Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score: Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2. Commercial & industrial areas
♦ timing: Ongoing ♦ scope: Minority (<50%) ♦ severity: Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score: Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.4. Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing ♦ scope: Minority (<50%) ♦ severity: Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score: Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.4. Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing ♦ scope: Minority (<50%) ♦ severity: Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score: Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats

Bibliography [top]

Castellanos Morales, G., García Peña, N. and R. List. 2008. Uso de recursos del cacomixtle Bassariscus astutus y la Zorra Gris Urocyon cinereoargenteus en una reserva urbana de la ciudad de México. In: C. Lorenzo, E. Espinoza, J. Ortega and G.C. Ceballos (eds), Avances en el estudio de los mamíferos II. , pp. 377-390. Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología, A.C., México.

Eisenberg, J.F. 1989. Panamá, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Farias, V. 2000b. Gray fox distribution in southern California: detecting the effects of intraguild predation. M.Sc. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.

Fritzell, E.K. 1987. Gray fox and island gray fox. In: M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and D. Malloch (eds), Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America, pp. 408-420. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers Association, Ontario, Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Fritzell, E.K. and Haroldson, K.J. 1982. Urocyon cinereoargenteus. Mammalian Species 189: 1-8.

Fuller, T.K. and Cypher, B.L. 2004. Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Schreber, 1775). In: C. Sillero-Zubiri, M. Hoffmann and D.W. Macdonald (eds), Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, pp. 92-97. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.

Harrison, R.L. 1997. A comparison of gray fox ecology between residential and undeveloped rural landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 112-122.

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 30 June 2016).

Linscombe, G. 1994. U.S. fur harvest (1970-92) and fur value (1974-1992) statistics by state and region. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.


Citation: Roemer, G., Cypher, B. & List, R. 2016. Urocyon cinereoargenteus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22780A46178068. . Downloaded on 29 July 2016.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided