Downside risk of wildlife translocation.

Abstract

Translocation has been used successfully by wildlife professionals to enhance or reintroduce populations of rare or extirpated wildlife, provide hunting or wildlife viewing opportunities, farm wild game, and reduce local human-wildlife conflicts. However, accidental and intentional translocations may have multiple unintended negative consequences, including increased stress and mortality of relocated animals, negative impacts on resident animals at release sites, increased conflicts with human interests, and the spread of diseases. Many wildlife professionals now question the practice of translocation, particularly in light of the need to contain or eliminate high profile, economically important wildlife diseases and because using this technique may jeopardize international wildlife disease management initiatives to control rabies in raccoons, coyotes, and foxes in North America. Incidents have been documented where specific rabies variants (Texas gray fox, canine variant in coyotes, and raccoon) have been moved well beyond their current range as a result of translocation, including the emergence of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States. Here, we review and discuss the substantial challenges of curtailing translocation in the USA, focusing on movement of animals by the public, nuisance wildlife control operators, and wildlife rehabilitators.