Taking people into account can improve outcomes for wildlife
To aid imperiled wildlife populations, managers often turn to translocations—moving animals from an area where populations are more abundant to another, where they are in trouble.
While some efforts—like translocating peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) in the U.S. and Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) in the Arabian Peninsula—have been successful, others, like the reintroduction of red wolves (Canis rufus) in the southern U.S. have struggled.
Why do some translocation efforts succeed and others fail? In some cases, it may have less to do with wildlife and more to do with humans. Translocations can be controversial. They can affect the people who live and work around these animal populations. And people often play a big role in why populations decline to begin with.
In a study published recently in Nature Communications, researchers examined 305 translocation projects around the world. They found that most didn’t include human dimensions in their work, but those that did saw better outcomes.
We caught up with lead author Mitchell Serota, a PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss the findings.
Q&A: Dealing with the human side of reintroducing wildlife - The Wildlife Society
To aid imperiled wildlife populations, managers often turn to translocations—moving animals from an area where populations are more abundant to another, where they are in trouble.
While some efforts—like translocating peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) in the U.S. and Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) in the Arabian Peninsula—have been successful, others, like the reintroduction of red wolves (Canis rufus) in the southern U.S. have struggled.
Why do some translocation efforts succeed and others fail? In some cases, it may have less to do with wildlife and more to do with humans. Translocations can be controversial. They can affect the people who live and work around these animal populations. And people often play a big role in why populations decline to begin with.
In a study published recently in Nature Communications, researchers examined 305 translocation projects around the world. They found that most didn’t include human dimensions in their work, but those that did saw better outcomes.
We caught up with lead author Mitchell Serota, a PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss the findings.
Q&A: Dealing with the human side of reintroducing wildlife - The Wildlife Society
