Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa

Abstract

Translocations are commonly employed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict but rarely evaluated, resulting in conflicting reports of success, particularly for leopards (Panthera pardus). We evaluate the status of available leopard translocation data, the factors driving the intentional removal of leopards, and the potential causal factors associated with successful and failed translocation events. We obtained data on 60 leopard translocation events across five provinces in South Africa between 1994 and 2021. We considered a successful translocation outcome when (1) the animal was moved outside of its original home range, (2) the animal established a new home range away from the capture site, (3) no substantive livestock losses were linked to the translocated animal in the post-release monitoring period, and (4) the animal survived at least 6 months post-translocation. If mortality occurred due to factors that were equally likely to impact resident individuals and were unrelated to the translocation event (e.g., poaching), the event was not considered a failed effort. Most translocations were the result of human–carnivore conflict (HCC; 82%, n = 49), stressing the high prevalence of HCC and the importance of advocating preventative conflict mitigation efforts to conserve leopards. The leopards were moved distances from 2.5 to 196.3 km (63.3 ± 51.7km). Forty (67%) translocation events had unknown outcomes, indicating the limited data available on translocation outcomes. This also indicates the disparity in the objectives of translocations by various entities involved with translocations and suggests that monitoring be a prerequisite for future translocations. Twenty events offered reliable outcomes by means of post-event monitoring, with seven (12%) considered successful, with three (5%) as failures, and with four (7%) not moved beyond their original home ranges, while six (8%) ended in unrelated deaths. The failed events were attributed to inter/intra-specific competition, and one animal returned to its original home range after a translocation distance of 68 km. Translocation success was strongly explained by translocation distance. We found that damage-causing leopards were successfully translocated under specific conditions, and longer translocation distances increase success. Translocations are commonly employed but are still poorly monitored. We discuss basic standardized protocols to improve future leopard translocations (including pre- and post-monitoring) while advocating alternative non-lethal practices to reduce the prevalence of human–carnivore conflict.

Home range, habitat use and capture-release of translocated leopards in Gir landscape, Gujarat, India

“…The capture and translocation of large carnivores, such as leopards [ 34 , 40 , 41 ], black bears [ 42 ], and grey wolves [ 43 ], represent a widely employed strategy for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts. This approach serves dual purposes, ensuring the safety of the involved animals while also re-establishing a harmonious balance in the local ecosystem for the benefit of human communities [ 44 ].…”

The Recolonisation of the Piketberg Leopard Population: A Model for Human–Wildlife Coexistence in a Changing Landscape

“…The conservation implications are clear. Achieving balanced human-carnivore coexistence is paramount, necessitating the adoption of alternative non-lethal practices and mitigation actions [52,[63][64][65]. Intensive conservation efforts, including the establishment of wildlife corridors and minimising human-caused mortality are essential for promoting leopard dispersal and ensuring long-term population viability [21,44,66,67].…”