- Advertisement -
PESHAWAR, Oct 26 (APP):A first-ever scientific assessment of Indian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) by IUCN classified the Indian wolf as vulnerable, estimating around 2877 to 3310 individuals across India and Pakistan.
“In the scientific study, conservationists and IUCN Red List warns that without immediate and coordinated action the Indian wolf in Pakistan faces an accelerating slide towards local extinction,” shares Dr. Ghulam Sarwar an environmental scientist who contributed to biodiversity conservation in Pakistan and GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries.
For the first time, the species has been evaluated independently from other wolf subspecies due to its genetic distinctiveness and adaptation to India’s semi-arid habitats.
Notably, only 12.4% of its range lies within protected areas, underscoring the need for enhanced protection outside sanctuaries and national parks, Sarwar told APP.
“Across Pakistan’s dry plains, scrublands and mountain fringes, a lean, tawny hunter once threaded the margins between wild and human worlds, the Indian grey wolf.
Today that same animal exists mostly as fragments, isolated packs here, a few lone survivors there, a remnant of an ancient distinct lineage whose numbers and habitats are shrinking fast,” reads the study finding.
The Indian wolf is designated as a protected species in all provinces, including Balochistan, Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as well as federally under the Pakistan Wildlife Act, Dr. Sarwar added.
But a desperate scientific alarm comes from national and international assessments that our own estimate of population size remains uncertain, the trend is clear: fragmented populations, low abundance and ongoing declines place the species at elevated conservation concern at a national scale.
Canid specialists and IUCN have completed the first-ever assess the Indian wolf’s status regionally and placed Canis lupus pallipes in the recent version of IUCN Red List (October 10, 2025) as Vulnerable.
This scientific assessment estimated number of wolves in Pakistan are alarmingly low, and the population range was found to be 269–290 mature individuals (mean 280 mature individuals) with 42 breeding pairs.
According to study, the scientific knowledge about this wolf remains surprisingly sparse.
Recent genomic work, one of the few modern studies focused on Pakistan’s populations, shows that wolves in Sindh and southern Punjab belong to an evolutionarily distinct lineage that carries high conservation value; those populations are small, genetically fragile and spatially isolated.
These studies argues explicitly that Pakistan’s wolf populations deserve urgent attention because they represent unique evolutionary heritage.
Whereas on the ground, distribution is patchy and discontinued.
In Punjab there are records from the Salt Range and parts of southern Punjab scattered sightings and small subpopulations persist in pockets of scrub and marginal rangeland.
Sindh, once a more continuous range for wolves, still holds a few remnant groups, often confined to degraded shrub lands where wild prey has diminished.
Balochistan retains wolves in remote desert and semi-arid zones.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and northern fringes, wolves appear intermittently and often in conflict with pastoral communities, while the high mountains farther north tend to be dominated by other canid lineages.
Overall, the national picture is represented by fragmented distribution, many historic ranges are now gaps on the map.
Threats are multiple and interacting that include retaliatory killings after livestock depredation as single most direct driver of mortality.
Wolves that take a goat or a calf are often trapped, poisoned or shot, study mentioned.
Habitat loss and degradation from expanding agriculture, infrastructure and groundwater decline that reduce both refuge and prey.
Disease spillover from domestic dogs, illegal poisoning that kills non-target carnivores, and reduced wild prey populations (gazelles, hares, small ungulates) further stress already small packs.
Researchers also point to the insidious risk of genetic dilution by hybridization where feral or free-roaming dogs interbreed with wolves in fragmented landscapes.
Human–wolf conflict is not only ecological; it is socio-economic and cultural.
Studies from northern valleys to the plains document communities that regard wolves as threats to livelihood and safety, fueling intolerance.
Interviews in several valleys show that perceptions of wolves as “dangerous” predators, whether accurate or inflated, translate into rapid lethal responses after a single depredation event.
Compounding the problem is weak compensation or livestock insurance, making killing easier than prevention.
Conservationists therefore stress that technical fixes alone will fail unless local attitudes and economic incentives change.
Beyond their immediate fate, wolves perform an outsized ecological role.
As mid-sized carnivores and occasional scavengers in arid and semi-arid systems, they help regulate herbivore and smaller carnivore numbers, remove sick or weak animals and thereby influence vegetation dynamics and disease cycles.
Where wolves persist, ecological cascades can reduce overgrazing and support a more heterogeneous habitat mosaic — outcomes that also benefit small-bodied fauna and plant diversity.
Losing wolves is therefore not just a loss of a species but a weakening of ecosystem function across large tracts of rangelands.
Conservation policy and practice regarding this species with declining population are patchy.
Yet national-level coordination, long-term monitoring, and a science-based recovery plan are lacking.
Experts suggested for a three-pronged strategy: (1) secure and expand core habitat and prey base; (2) reduce and manage conflict through community engagement, improved livestock husbandry and fair compensation; and (3) monitor genetics and demography to prevent inbreeding or hybridization.
Practical interventions that have shown promise elsewhere — guard dogs trained to protect herds, predator-proof corrals, village-led rapid-response teams, community stewardship contracts tied to tourism or conservation payments — must be adapted to Pakistan’s rural realities.
Conservationists also emphasize the need for regular, transparent reporting of incidents, and investment in independent population surveys (camera trapping, genetic sampling from scats) so policy is grounded in reliable data rather than anecdotes.
The genomic work done in recent years provides a template: combine field ecology with genetic monitoring to identify priority populations and corridors.
The clock is ticking. Pakistan still hosts remnant populations of a canid that is evolutionarily significant across the subcontinent; these wolves are survivors of landscapes now altered beyond recognition.
If national authorities, scientists and rural communities can craft pragmatic, locally owned conservation measures — blending protection with livelihoods and scientific monitoring — Pakistan could retain pockets of this species for future generations.
The alternative is a quieter, less visible kind of loss — the disappearance of a wild hunter that once knitted together plains and prey, people and pasture, the study concludes.