Effects of translocation on survival of nuisance bears

Fertility Control for Wildlife: A European Perspective

Trends of human population growth and landscape development in Europe show that wildlife impacts are escalating. Lethal methods, traditionally employed to mitigate these impacts, are often ineffective, environmentally hazardous and face increasing public opposition. Fertility control is advocated as a humane tool to mitigate these impacts. This review describes mammalian and avian wildlife contraceptives' effect on reproduction of individuals and populations, delivery methods, potential costs and feasibility of using fertility control in European contexts. These contexts include small, isolated wildlife populations and situations in which lethal control is either illegal or socially unacceptable, such as urban settings, national parks and areas where rewilding occurs. The review highlights knowledge gaps, such as impact of fertility control on recruitment, social and spatial behaviour and on target and non-target species, provides a decision framework to assist decisions about the potential use of wildlife fertility control, and suggests eight reasons for Europe to invest in this area. Although developing and registering contraceptives in Europe will have substantial costs, these are relatively small when compared to wildlife's economic and environmental impact. Developing safe and effective contraceptives will be essential if European countries want to meet public demand for methods to promote human-wildlife coexistence.

Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa

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.