Mitigation‐driven translocations: are we moving wildlife in the right direction?

Abstract

Despite rapid growth in the field of reintroduction biology, results from scientific research are often not applied to translocations initiated when human land‐use change conflicts with the continued persistence of a species' population at a particular site. Such mitigation‐driven translocations outnumber and receive more funding than science‐based conservation translocations, yet the conservation benefit of the former is unclear. Because mitigation releases are economically motivated, outcomes may be less successful than those of releases designed to serve the biological needs of species. Translocation as a regulatory tool may be ill‐suited for biologically mitigating environmental damage caused by development. Evidence suggests that many mitigation‐driven translocations fail, although the application of scientific principles and best practices would probably improve the success rate. Lack of transparency and failure to document outcomes also hinder efforts to understand the scope of the problem. If mitigation‐driven translocations are to continue as part of the growing billion‐dollar ecological consulting industry, it is imperative that the scale and effects of these releases be reported and evaluated.

Mitigation-driven translocation effects on temperature, condition, growth, and mortality of Mojave desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ) in the face of solar energy development

“…Where development encroaches on sensitive wildlife habitat, translocation of sensitive species to areas outside a project's footprint has been increasingly used to reduce impacts (i.e., mitigation-driven translocations), but there has remained a paucity of scientific assessments to determine effectiveness and inform future mitigation efforts worldwide (Germano et al, 2015;Northrup and Wittemyer, 2013). For example, rigorous post-release documentation following mitigation-driven translocations has been lacking for numerous threatened or endangered invertebrate, small mammal, amphibian, and reptiles species in the United States, Europe, Australia, and South America (Germano et al, 2015).…”

“…For example, rigorous post-release documentation following mitigation-driven translocations has been lacking for numerous threatened or endangered invertebrate, small mammal, amphibian, and reptiles species in the United States, Europe, Australia, and South America (Germano et al, 2015). The few notable exceptions that have implemented scientifically-based mitigation translocation programs have yielded important insights to reduce future impacts for those species (Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015), and this provides an important example for solar development given its rapid pace.…”

“…For example, rigorous post-release documentation following mitigation-driven translocations has been lacking for numerous threatened or endangered invertebrate, small mammal, amphibian, and reptiles species in the United States, Europe, Australia, and South America (Germano et al, 2015). The few notable exceptions that have implemented scientifically-based mitigation translocation programs have yielded important insights to reduce future impacts for those species (Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015), and this provides an important example for solar development given its rapid pace. The federally protected Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is an important representative organism that can be used to evaluate effects of solar development due to its wide distribution and potential for substantial displacement across targeted areas (Averill-Murray et al, 2012;Cameron et al, 2012;Lovich and Ennen, 2011).…”

Happily ever after? Fates of translocated nuisance woodchucks in the Chicago metropolitan area

“…Landowners and professionals translocate many animals each year to mitigate conflict with humans (Germano et al 2015). In Illinois, for instance, licensed nuisance wildlife operators translocated more than 4600 animals in 2013 (Bluett 2014).…”

“…However, despite common usage of translocation for a variety of species (e.g., Linnell et al 1997;Sullivan et al 2004;Gammons et al 2009;Whisson et al 2012), little is known about fates of translocated individuals and the efficacy of translocation as a management tool (Germano et al 2015). Unlike translocation used for conservation purposes, few species-specific guidelines exist for nuisance translocation, and rarely are habitat requirements of the species considered (Craven et al 1998;Germano et al 2015;Massei et al 2010). Individuals are typically released using a Bhard-release method^, with no food or shelter provisioning.…”