Monitoring postrelease establishment and movement of animals is important in evaluating conservation translocations. We translocated 39 wild pine martens Martes martes (19 females, 20 males) from Scotland to Wales. We released them into forested areas with no conspecifics in 2015, followed by a second release in 2016, alongside the previously released animals. We used radio‐tracking to describe postrelease movement and habitat selection. Six martens (15%) were not re‐encountered during the tracking period, of which four undertook long‐distance dispersal. For the remaining individuals, we characterized two phases of movement, “exploration” followed by “settlement,” that differed between releases. In the first release, martens remained in exploration phase for a mean of 14.5 days (SE = 3.9 days) and settled at a mean distance of 8.7 km (SE = 1.8 km) from release sites, whereas martens released in year two, alongside resident conspecifics, traveled away from release sites at a faster rate, settling sooner, at a mean of 6.6 days (SE = 1.8 days), but further, at a mean distance of 14.0 km (SE = 1.7 km) from release sites. Animals released in year one did not exhibit habitat preferences overall but within forests they favored recently felled areas, whereas animals released in year two showed strong selection for forested habitat but did not discriminate between forest types. The presence of conspecifics appeared influential for settlement and site fidelity of translocated martens and was associated with more rapid but more distant dispersal of the later cohort. Releases of animals in close proximity appeared to promote site fidelity and rapid establishment of ranges in the recipient environment.

Reversing global declines in predator populations is a major conservation objective, though people frequently come into conflict over carnivore conservation. As part of a national recovery programme for the pine marten Martes martes, a protected mesocarnivore in the UK, we used Q‐methodology to understand the perspectives of residents living in an area in which a pine marten translocation project was planned. In contrast to binary ‘for or against’ characterizations of debates surrounding such projects, we identified four perspectives with distinct priorities and concerns. A single perspective, ‘Concerned Manager’, opposed the translocation and marten recovery more generally, was apprehensive about impacts and favoured traditional predator management practices. Support was characterized by three perspectives: ‘Environmental Protectionist’, ‘Natural Resource Steward’ and ‘Cautious Pragmatist’. Two explicitly supported the translocation but differed in their priorities: Environmental Protectionist framed marten restoration as an ethical imperative, whereas Natural Resource Steward emphasized ecological and economic benefits. Cautious Pragmatist supported marten recovery, but expressed ambivalence about the translocation. We identified areas of divergence between the four perspectives, particularly surrounding risks posed by martens and need for predator control. We identified two areas of consensus among the four perspectives: support for a biodiverse environment and translocations as a means of achieving this (though this was contingent on the species), and agreement there would be economic and ecological benefits if martens controlled non‐native grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis. We highlight that perspectives on this project were influenced by wider issues of wildlife management and conservation, particularly the impact and management of increasing populations of another mesocarnivore, the badger Meles meles. Negative experiences and perceptions of badgers were germane to the Concerned Manager perspective, and their fear that protected status would preclude marten population control. ‘Rewilding’ emerged as a divisive background issue, against which some participants evaluated the translocation. In facilitating understanding of perspectives and establishing the contexts through which they were formed, we found that Q‐methodology enabled us, as a team comprising conservation practitioners and researchers, to engage meaningfully with affected residents. We recommend the tool as a useful step in assessing social feasibility of conservation translocations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

No abstract