The Swift Fox is predominately found on short-grass and mixed-grass prairies in gently rolling or level terrain (Kilgore 1969, Hillman and Sharps 1978, Hines 1980, Gese and Thompson 2014). In Kansas, Swift Foxes have been found to den and forage in fallow cropland fields such as wheat (Jackson and Choate 2000, Sovada et al. 2003). Survival rates (and reproductive rates although sample sizes were small; Sovada et al. 2003) between foxes in grassland and cropland sites were not significantly different suggesting that Swift Foxes may be able to adapt to such habitat in some cases (Sovada et al. 1998). Notably, the distribution and density of dens are considered important components of Swift Fox habitat requirements (Herrero et al. 1991), particularly in terms of evading coyote predation or Red Fox competition (Tannerfeldt et al. 2003). By 2009, Swift Foxes were deemed to occupy 52% of highest quality habitats that were still available (Sovada et al. 2009). Approximately 39% of the species’ historical range contained highly suitable grassland habitat and another 10% included suboptimal grassland that could nevertheless support some Swift Foxes. Land use on at least 25% of the historic range supported dryland farming, which was thought to be potentially suitable for Swift Fox occupation if fallow fields are not consistently ploughed (Sovada et al. 2009). The maximum elevation for Swift Fox populations would be approximately 1,000 m near the foothills of the Rocky Mountains of extant populations in Canada and the United States.

The Swift Fox is native to shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains in North America (Egoscue 1979). On the northern limit of its range, the Swift Fox was present in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The southern species boundary was New Mexico and Texas in the United States. A fossil record exists for eastern Missouri. Historical records also exist for areas in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Some historical range descriptions include Swift foxes in Minnesota and Iowa; however, there are no verified records of occurrence in either state (Sovada and Scheick 1999). Iowa has one fossil record and several unconfirmed accounts. One Swift Fox has also been documented in Minnesota recently (Sovada et al. 2009).

Legislation
Not listed on CITES Appendices. The Swift Fox was down-listed from 'extirpated' to 'endangered' in Canada as a result of the Swift Fox reintroduction programme; in 2012 the species was further downlisted to ‘Threatened’ under Canada’s Species At Risk Act. In the United States, the Swift Fox was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In 2001 the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined listing to be unwarranted.

Presence in protected areas
In Canada, Swift Foxes are found mainly on unprotected lands, but approximately one-sixth of the population falls within the boundaries of Grasslands National Park. In the United States, there are 24 National Park Service Units (Parks, Monuments, Historic Sites) located in the historic range of Swift Foxes; however, there are no records of Swift Foxes in any of these units except for Badlands National Park in South Dakota (Sovada et al. 2009). Swift Fox occurrences have been documented on other United States federal government properties including National Grasslands, Bureau of Land Management lands, the Pinon Canyon Manoeuver site, and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Wildlife Refuge; these are not national parks, but would offer protection from harvest.

Action Plans
In Canada, the National Swift Fox Recovery Team revised the national recovery strategy in 2008 (Pruss et al. 2008) to be implemented through provincial action plans. A subsequent addendum recommended areas that should be considered as critical habitat and activities to protect such habitat. The long-term goal is: By 2026, restore a self-sustaining swift fox population of 1,000 or more mature, reproducing foxes that does not experience greater than a 30% population reduction in any 10-year period.

In the United States, the Swift Fox Conservation Team operates under a Swift Fox Conservation Strategy Plan (http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/2011SwiftFoxConservationAssessmentStrategy.pdf). The team continues to monitor populations, assess critical habitat conditions, review the potential for reintroductions, and provide research support for ongoing projects.

Presence in captivity
As of March 2016, 51 Swift Foxes were located in accredited zoo institutions. In North America, a total of 22 males and 24 females were present in 18 institutions (Abilene Zoological Gardens, Bramble Park Zoo, Brandywine Zoo, Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, Dakota Zoo, Endangered Wolf Center, Great Plains Zoo, Houston Zoo, Lake Superior Zoo, Lee Richardson Zoo, Lee G. Simmons Conservation Park and Wildlife Safari, Hutchinson Zoo, Oklahoma City Zoo, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo, Pueblo Zoo, Riverside Discovery Center, Sunset Zoo, and The Living Desert). In Europe, three males were present at Spain’s Oasys Zoo and one male and female were present at the Rotterdam Zoo in the Netherlands.

Gaps in knowledge
Future studies should assess to what degree Swift Foxes can utilize differing types of habitats, including habitats considered atypical, such as those dominated by cropland. Information is needed to identify why Swift Foxes are unable to move into areas of apparently suitable habitat. Identification of barriers, both physical and ecological (e.g., competitive exclusion with other canids), to dispersal would improve the ability to manage and ultimately conserve this species. Future investigations should focus on parameters that might affect the range-wide, long-term viability of the populations. 

In Canada, unexpected genetic structure was determined within the reintroduced population which differentiates eastern from western regions. Despite high genetic diversity, assessments should be made to determine whether translocations or corridors should be facilitated to yield increased exchange, or whether it would be preferable to differentiate the clusters to prevent rapid expansion of potential diseases (Cullingham and Moehrenschlager 2013). A genetic assessment across the range of the Swift Fox in the United States identified three spatial clusters based on microsatellite analyses and five spatial clusters based on mitochondrial haplotypes. While genetic diversity within such clusters was high, cropland agriculture appeared to be limiting gene flow. Conservation measures should be implemented to yield connectivity which can allow for increased dispersal and gene exchange across such barriers (Schwalm et al. 2014).

The primary stochastic factor influencing small canid populations around the world is disease (Woodroffe et al. 1997, Laurenson et al. 1998, Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1999), and such risks are enhanced when animals are transferred between populations (Woodford and Rossiter 1994). Although the Canadian population was partly established through translocation, Swift Fox exposure to canid diseases has not been thoroughly assessed in Canada; this is also true of many regions in the United States. The prevalence of disease exposure in different age classes and regions should be assessed in both countries and the likelihood of disease transfer between Swift Foxes and sympatric Coyotes, Red Foxes, and domestic dogs should be evaluated further. This could also include further investigations into the exposure to, and potential of transferring, Yersina pestis among populations of Swift Foxes (Salkeld et al. 2007) or other species.