Wang 1

Gordon WangAC2Mrs. Halden/Mrs. Lind17 January 2011

Wildlife Relocation: A Risky Move

Many words have been used to describe wildlife relocation. These include, but are not

limited to: ineffective, inhumane, cruel, hasty, disease-spreading, biologically unsound,

ecologically destructive, havoc wreaking, out of control, and etc. In 1997, the Humane

Society of the United States called relocation "one of the least understood and most

problematic wildlife 'control' practices we know of. Not only might the trapping and

movement of the animal cause it harm or even bring it death, but the activity might

adversely affect other wild animals as well” (Wildlife Relocation: Not a Solution). Many

times, an attempt at wildlife relocation has brought with it negative side effects and

unforeseen consequences. For example, toads brought in from Hawaii with the intent of

eliminating a pest beetle became pests themselves (Wildlife Relocation). Camels

exported to the southwestern US -- expected to thrive in the arid desert environment, and

to provide use as packing animals -- died off without reproducing. Even some of the most

thoroughly thought out wildlife relocations have failed. Compared to all the unsuccessful

wildlife relocations, there have been relatively few success stories besides the

reintroduction of the gray wolf to Wyoming (Wolf-Reintroduction Program). Now there

has been a simply absurd proposal to transport African mammals to America (Wildlife

Relocation). How would letting lions and elephants to roam our backyards work at all?

Nature placed animals on certain continents, and in certain areas for a reason. Whenever

an animal is transported from its original habitat not by the cause of nature’s doing, it

Wang 2

disrupts the natural order, and balance of things. Relocating wildlife should not happen

regardless of circumstances. Relocated animals might carry infectious diseases or

bacteria to uninfected animals and humans, have to adapt to new environments, while

avoiding predators and death, or become invasive pests that compete with local animal

populations.

The earliest known attempts at wildlife relocation were mostly harmless. When

relocating wildlife became more common, environmental issues emerged. Two common

scenarios: either the newly-introduced wildlife were unsuited to the new environment and

failed to reproduce, or the introduced species multiplied rapidly, thrived in their new

environment and brewed trouble in the native ecosystem. The first notable attempt at

wildlife relocation occurred in North America in the 1800’s (Wildlife Relocation).

American settlers traveling westward sought to import camels for the use of hauling

possessions across the desert. The settlers were sure that the camels would thrive in the

west’s arid climate. They didn’t, and all the camels died off by the turn of the century. In

the mid-1800’s, after the establishment of a British colony in Australia, rabbits were

introduced. The rabbits -- unchecked by predators -- proliferated causing the destruction

of large areas of land, and making fields useless for farming. Some native species were

pushed to the point of extinction. In the 1930’s, Australia repeated the same mistake by

importing poisonous cane toads from Hawaii to fight the destruction of sugar cane crops

by the native cane beetle. Again, the population spiraled out of control, and later on the

toads were blamed for the sharp dip in native wildlife populations. Towards the end of

the 20th century, conservationists in the U.S. began several wildlife relocation efforts to

Wang 3

preserve and restore what was left of the ecosystems in the western and mid-western U.S

that had been damaged by human activity. The conservationists tried to reintroduce

formerly native animals back to their original habitats. Although protesting ranchers and

residents stopped several of these efforts, one proved successful: the reintroduction of the

endangered gray wolf in Wyoming (Wolf Reintroduction Program). In the 1990’s,

conservationists released some gray wolves near Yellowstone National Park despite

opposition. The wolves henceforth successfully reproduced in the wild, and the

population has risen. In 2005, a controversial wildlife relocation proposal by ecologists at

Cornell University in New York was published in the August issue of the journal Nature

(Donlan, Josh, et al.). The plan proposed large endangered African mammals to be

transported into the American Midwest to boost biodiversity levels. The mixed responses

generated from the scientific community and the public have sparked a major debate over

the advantages and drawbacks of wildlife relocation.

One major problem, relocation raises, involves the potential of spreading disease to

native animals and even humans. In one case, flea-infected rats unintentionally

translocated in the 1340’s from Asia via the boats of sailors to Europe caused the Black

Death, a form of bubonic plague (Perlin, David, and Ann Cohen). Many variants of the

plague struck until the 18th Century, causing millions of deaths and the elimination of

over half of Europe’s population. More recently, grey squirrels infected with squirrel pox

transported from North America to the UK have led to the endangerment and decline of

the red squirrel population (‘Friend’). Zebras affected with African horse sickness that

were shipped from Africa to Spain caused this disease to become rampant in Spanish

Wang 4

horses. As a result, Spanish horse breeders lost an estimated $20 million. Yet another

example is Whirling disease, which is a protozoa disease that occurs in trout. It has

become enzootic-or constantly present in the population, in the U.S, after being

introduced from Germany. All species of trout are affected by this disease. Rainbow trout

that have been transferred from the U.S. have also caused this disease to infect trout

elsewhere in the UK, for example. Relocating animals with good intentions may instead

help spread disease. Just as humans can spread disease among populations by traveling,

animals can do likewise in their relocated habitats.

Another problem with animal relocation is the need of the relocated animal to

familiarize itself with its new environment. This can be harrowing and very stressful.

According to FWC, “they may experience elevated heart rates and breathing rates, high

blood pressure, acute changes in blood chemistry and depressed appetites.” Besides

having to deal with stress, the relocated animal has a whole lot of other things to do. It

has to find new food sources to feed itself in an entirely new environment (Noonan).

They have to find new shelter in a new environment. This is especially crucial during the

cold winter months. In winter, relocated animals have little time to find shelter. Relocated

animals have to find shelter and food sources while avoiding predators. If the predator is

unfamiliar to them, it is even more difficult. Also, the relocated animals have to complete

these tasks before weather, food, and water conditions take their toll and cause death.

Relocation may inadvertently result in the death of the animal’s young from starvation,

because of the separation from its mother. The relocated animals may fail to adapt to their

Wang 5

new environment, or reproduce, and in the end die off. Wildlife relocation may spell

death instead of life for many animals.

Successful relocation raises another potential problem. These animals may thrive in

their new environment, and endanger the lives of native species by becoming invasive

pests that compete for food. Many animals introduced to new areas have thrived, while

greatly diminishing the populations of native animals. One example is the brown tree

snake with origins in the South Pacific and Australia. Since its introduction in the 1940’s

on the island of Guam, 10 of 13 native bird species, 6 of 12 native lizard species, and 2 or

3 bat species on the island are now extinct. (Thomas) The Pacific Islands had hundreds of

snail species that were endemic to those islands. “Endemic” means they are found

nowhere else in the world. When the giant African land snail was introduced to many of

the islands as a food source, the snails escaped and rapidly fed on the local snails.

Populations of the native snails plummeted, so a second foreign snail species - the rosy

wolf snail - was introduced to eliminate the giant African land snail. No one expected that

they would eat the local endemic species far more often than they would eat the African

snails. Seventy-one percent of Hawaii’s endemic snail species are extinct and, on Tahiti,

many species of the endemic snail Partula are extinct. The impact of invasive relocated

wildlife is much greater. Not only do they threaten many species with extinction, “they

interfere with the species that make up ecosystems and change the way they function.

They have negative impacts on the resources we rely on to live, such as food, clean

water, and shelter” (Dovey). They can impact on species humans rely on for money like

crops and farm animals. They “dilute the genetic composition of native species through

Wang 6

hybridization” (Swearingen). Invasive species is the greatest threat to biodiversity second

only to habitat destruction. “Introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity

than pollution, harvest and disease combined”. The IUCN states that “the impacts of alien

invasive species are immense, insidious, and usually irreversible.” Invasive species are a

direct result of wildlife relocation. Wildlife relocation may have been causing an

estimated $137 billion loss per year to just the US economy (Simberloff). Do you really

still support wildlife relocation?

Proponents of Wildlife Relocation argue that endangered animals should be relocated to

areas where they can be better protected as a way of preventing extinction (Wildlife

Relocation). Proponents say relocation could help boost biodiversity levels, and help

reverse a number of environmental problems including habitat loss, pollution, and

extinction. Relocating endangered wildlife, advocates claim, can create a healthier planet.

Some point to Cornell University’s plan to relocate African predators to North America

as a positive. However, these supporters fail to understand that relocation of “endangered

species is fraught with risk because humans cannot be sure of how animals will react

once they are released into a new ecosystem” (Wildlife Relocation). In fact, many past

attempts at translocating wildlife have resulted in harm to both animals and their

surroundings. You can never know if relocation will actually succeed, whether animals

will multiply, turn out to be invasive pests, fail to adapt and reproduce, die out, become

predators that drive the native animals to extinction, or destroy native plants and the

ecosystem. If they are invasive species, according to IUCN, they are the second greatest

threat to biodiversity, when they are supposed to maintain and boost levels of

Wang 7

biodiversity. If they fail to adapt, then they make already endangered animals even more

endangered, with the result that the biodiversity decreases. These are two extremes that

most introduced species will fall into. The middle ground is almost nonexistent. Neither

extreme maintains or increases biodiversity. By supporting wildlife relocation,

conservationists may achieve the exact opposite of what they want.

Wildlife should not be relocated regardless of the arguments by conservationists.

Wildlife relocation poses too many risks: the inadvertent spread of infectious diseases,

failed adaptations, reduction of native species and environments, to name a few. The idea

of wildlife relocation has major flaws that threaten the Earth’s already fragile ecosystem.

If we continue to use wildlife relocation to try to solve our problems, to try to save

endangered animals, to try to maintain biodiversity levels, we will travel further from,

instead of closer to, in achieving the preservation of our planet.

Wang 8

Works Cited

Donlan, Josh, et al. “Re-wildling North America.” Nature 18 Aug. 2005: 913-914. PDF

file.

Dovey, Liz. “Invasive alien species: the biggest threat to Pacific biodiversity.”

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Pacific Regional

Environment Programme, Dec. 2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.sprep.org/

topic/ Invasive_p.htm>.

Friend, Milton, et al. Disease Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human

Connection. N.p.: US Department of the Interior/ USGS, 2006. USGS National

Wildlife Health Center. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://nwhc.er.usgs.gov/

publications/ disease_emergence/>.

“Invasive Species.” IUCN. International Union for Conservation of Nature, 11 Jan. 2010.

Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.iucn.org/ about/ union/ secretariat/ offices/

iucnmed/ iucn_med_programme/ species/ invasive_species/>.

Noonan, Bob. “Relocating Problem Wild Animals.” Internet Center for Wildlife Damage

Management. University of Nebraska-Lincoln/ Cornell University/ Clemson

University/ Utah University, 2005. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. <http://icwdm.org/ wildlife/

euthanasia/ relocation.asp>.

Wang 9

Perlin, David, and Ann Cohen. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dangerous Diseases and

Epidemics. N.p.: Alpha , 2002. Print.

“Relocating Wildlife.” MyFWC. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,

2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://myfwc.com/ wildlifehabitats/

SpeciesInfo_Relocation.htm>.

Simberloff, Daniel. “Introduced Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be

Done.” Action Bioscience. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Jan. 2011.

Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/ biodiversity/

simberloff.html#primer>.

Swearingen, Jil M. “Factsheet: What the heck is an invasive plant?” National Park

Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 11 May 2007. Web. 17 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.nps.gov/ plants/ alien/ pubs/ whatis.pdf>.

Thomas, Ellen. “Biodiversity Lecture 2: Invasive/ exotic species.” Earth and

Environmental Services 199. Weseleyan University, 24 Apr. 2002. Web. 17 Dec.

2010. <http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ ees123/ invasive_species.htm>.

“Wildlife Relocation.” Issues and Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 4 Aug.

2006. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.2facts.com/ article/ i1100430>.

Wang 10

“Wildlife Relocation: Not a Solution.” Audubon Society of Portland. Audubon Society of

Portland, 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://audubonportland.org/

backyardwildlife/ brochures/ relocation>.

“Wolf-Reintroduction Program.” Issues & Controversies On File. Facts On File News

Services, 23 Sept. 2002. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.2facts.com/ article/

i0102020>.

Wang 11

Works Consulted

Dolan, Cori, and Bill Mannan. “Invasive Wildlife.” College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences. University of Arizona, Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.

<http://cals.arizona.edu/ pubs/ natresources/ az1481e>.

Hoddle, Mark S. “Frequently Asked Questions About Invasive Species.” Center of

Invasive Species Research. University of California, Riverside, 12 Aug. 2009.

Web. 17 Jan. 2011. <http://cisr.ucr.edu/ invasive_species_faqs.html>.

“Impact of Alien Invasive Species.” WWF. World Wide Fund For Nature, n.d. Web. 17

Dec. 2010. <http://wwf.panda.org/ about_our_earth/ species/ problems/

invasive_species/>.

Leighton, FA. Health Risk Assessment of the Translocation of Wild Animals. OIE, 21

Apr. 2002. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.oie.int/ boutique/ extrait/

faleighton.pdf>.

Powell, Devin. “Should Species be Relocated to Prevent Extinction?” Live Science.

American Institute of Physics, 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.livescience.com/ environment/ 090824-assisted-migration.html>.