Reintroductions are challenging, and success rates are low despite extensive planning and considerable investment of resources. Improving predictive models for reintroduction planning is critical for achieving successful outcomes. The IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations recommend that habitat suitability assessments account for abiotic and biotic factors specific to the species to be reintroduced and, where needed, include habitat quality variables. However, habitat assessments are often based on remotely-sensed or existing geographical data that do not always reliably represent habitat quality variables. We tested the contribution of ground-based habitat quality metrics to habitat suitability models using a case study of the swift fox Vulpes velox, a mesocarnivore species for which a reintroduction is planned. Field surveys for habitat quality included collection of data on the main threat to the swift fox (the coyote Canis latrans), and for swift fox prey species. Our findings demonstrated that the inclusion of habitat quality variables derived from field surveys yielded better fitted models and a 16% increase in estimates of suitable habitat. Models including field survey data and models based only on interpolated geographical and remotely-sensed data had little overlap (38%), demonstrating the significant impact that different models can have in determining appropriate locations for a reintroduction. We advocate that ground-based habitat metrics be included in habitat suitability assessments for reintroductions of mesocarnivores.

Dispersal is fundamental to the persistence of wild populations. Historically, swift foxes Vulpes velox of the northern Great Plains of North America have been thought to be poor dispersers. Short-grass prairie is optimal habitat for swift foxes but can be fragmented in the northern Great Plains. We wanted to assess whether wild-born, juvenile swift foxes from two proximate but distinct reintroduced populations had potential to move from one population to the other. We found five animals exhibiting long bouts of dispersal, much further than averages previously reported. One female fox traversed the long distance between the two populations and survived for at least three breeding seasons in the wild. We believe our findings are significant for conservation because they show that swift foxes are not poor dispersers and that patches of short-grass prairie previously thought to be too isolated (> 25 km) for natural movement may be recolonized or be suitable for reintroductions of swift foxes.

The Canadian Swift Fox Reintroduction Programme lasted from 1972 to 1997. From 1983 to 1997, a total of 841 captive-raised swift foxes and 91 translocated swift foxes were released in the Canadian Prairies. In South Central Saskatchewan, 406 captiveraised animals and 14 translocated animals were released from 1990 to 1997. This area was used to develop new release methods (in particular, portable protective shelters (PPS)) and saw the co-operation of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) (Cochrane Ecological Institute (CEI)) with two levels of government (Heritage Canada (Grasslands National Park) and the Government of Saskatchewan). A 1996–97 survey of swift foxes in South Central Saskatchewan estimated the population to be 87 animals. No attempt has been made to establish if this population level is sustainable.