Balme, Guy

Breitenmoser, Christine

Breitenmoser, Urs

Burton, Cole

Frank, Laurence

Henschel, Philipp

Hunter, Luke T.B.

Loveridge, Andrew

White, Paula

RERO DOC Digital Library

ForumNo science, no success and still no need forcaptive-origin lion reintroduction: a reply toAbell & YouldonL U K E T . B . H U N T E R , P A U L A WH I T E , P H I L I P P H E N S C H E L , L A U R E N C E F R A N KC O L E B U R T O N , A N D R E W LO V E R I D G E , G U Y B A L M E , C H R I S T I N E B R E I T E N M O S E R andU R S B R E I T E N M O S E RAbell & Youldon (2013) claim that restoration of lionsusing captive-origin animals can contribute to in situlion conservation, suggesting it is comparable to establishedmethods using wild-caught founders. Their argumenthinges on an attempt to discredit using wild lions to restorepopulations but they ignore the empirical record of long-standing success from this approach. Concomitantly, theyproduce no data or even a credible justiﬁcation to supporttheir subjective, impractical faith in captive animals asfounders.Contrary to Abell & Youldon’s implication we do notclaim that ‘lion restoration programmes using captive-origin lions are or will be failures’. We have little doubt that,if enough captive-origin lions were released, some maysurvive. However, Abell & Youldon do not provide ameaningful rationale to consider this a legitimate alterna-tive. It is spurious to claim that both captive-origin andwild-born approaches can ‘play a part’ when the former haswasted millions of dollars and years of eﬀort, elevated therisk to lions and people, and has not established asingle, free-ranging lion. We do not dispute that theapproach may eventually do so but given the considerabledrawbacks, and the evidence-based advantages of using wildlions, it is illogical and unscientiﬁc to pursue it. Ourargument, simply put, remains that for every objectivecriterion by which reintroductions are planned andevaluated, wild lions are better candidates for increasingthe likelihood of success.We agree with the statement that ‘measures need to betaken to ensure the causes of the original decline or loss donot reoccur’. As we noted, identifying and preparing therelease site, including mitigating the causes of decline, is anessential ﬁrst step for reintroducing any large carnivore.This applies whether the founders are wild-caught orcaptive-origin. Abell & Youldon’s attempt to discredit wildlion translocations by citing two cases where founders diedof anthropogenic causes is a diversion. Do they believecaptives would somehow be better equipped to avoid thesame threats? In fact, carnivores reintroduced from captivityare more likely than wild founders to die of bothanthropogenic and natural causes, or are frequentlyrecaptured to avoid death (Jule et al, 2008). Similarly, weare surprised at their suggestion that nothing can be learnedabout translocations from the extensive literature andexperience covering species other than ‘large, social felids’(i.e. lions). This claim indicates a dismissal of science andlessons learned from the ﬁeld in the attempt to justify animpractical approach.Abell & Youldon’s lengthy discussion on disease andinbreeding issues shows little understanding of in situexperience. Again, they ignore a wealth of resultsaccumulated from 2 decades of wild-wild translocationpractice that has not produced disease transmission,mortality, epidemics or any other evidence of the risksthey avow. Similarly, they apparently misunderstand ourrecommendations for managing disease and inbreeding riskwhen planning translocations, protocols that have success-fully fostered population re-establishment (Slotow &Hunter 2009). Finally, they oﬀer nothing to demonstratethat using captive founders, especially those of mongrel,opportunistic provenance promoted by private owners suchas ALERT, is a preferable alternative (see Greenwood et al.,2012, for further evidence of the risks of exotic disease forcaptive carnivores).Abell & Youldon conclude that ‘rigorous assessment andapplication of a range of eﬀective conservation strategies’will help save the African lion. We agree but regrettablythey have produced nothing to show that their approachLUKE T.B. HUNTER (Corresponding author), PHILIPP HENSCHEL, LAURENCEFRANK and GUY BALME Panthera, 8 West 40th Street, 18th Floor, New York,NY 10018, USA. E-mail lhunter@panthera.orgPAULA WHITE Center for Tropical Research, University of California, LosAngeles, USACOLE BURTON Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, University of Alberta,Edmonton, CanadaANDREW LOVERIDGEWildlife Conservation Research Unit, Zoology Department,Oxford University, UKCHRISTINE BREITENMOSER and URS BREITENMOSER IUCN/SSC Cat SpecialistGroup, c/o KORA, Muri, Switzerland© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 47(1), 27–28 doi:10.1017/S003060531200155Xhttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200155XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 09:45:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available atqualiﬁes as eﬀective. Simply bundling it with demonstrablypractical solutions such as wild-wild translocations does notlend it credence. As with any approach we would expect tosee a credible science-based rationale and peer-reviewedresults that address the signiﬁcant disadvantages wecatalogued. Abell & Youldon’s response does not bring usany closer to those criteria. Opportunities for lionreintroductions are limited and make a minor contributionto the species’ conservation needs (Hunter et al., 2007). Thequasi-conservation rationale of the encounter industrymisleads the public and policy makers into believing thatreintroduction is a panacea to the extremely complexchallenges of conserving wild lions. Although payingtourists may enjoy cuddling lion cubs this approach doesnothing to address the real issues driving the lion’s decline,and diverts valuable human and ﬁnancial resources thatshould be devoted to ecosystem-wide protection where wildlions still persist.ReferencesABELL, J. & YOULDON, D. (2013) Attending to the ‘biological, technical,ﬁnancial and sociological factors’ of lion conservation: a response toHunter et al.. Oryx, 47, 25–26.GREENWOOD, A.D., TSANGARAS, K., HO, S.Y.W., SZENTIKS, C.A.,NIKOLIN, V.M., MA, G. et al. (2012) A potentially fatal mix of herpesin zoos. Current Biology, 18, 1727–1731.HUNTER, L.T.B, PRETORIUS, K., CARLISLE, L., RICKELTON, M.,WALKER, C., SLOTOW, R. & SKINNER, J.D. (2007) Restoring lionsPanthera leo to Northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: short-termbiological and technical success but equivocal long-termconservation. Oryx, 41, 196–204.JULE, K.R., LEAVER, L.A. & LEA, S.E.G. (2008) The eﬀects of captiveexperience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: a review andanalysis. Biological Conservation, 141, 355–363.SLOTOW, R. & HUNTER, L.T.B. (2009) Reintroduction decisions takenat the incorrect social scale devalue their conservation contribution:the African lion in South Africa. In Reintroduction of Top-OrderPredators (eds M. Hayward & M. Somers), pp. 43–71.Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.28 L. T. B. Hunter et al.© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 47(1), 27–28https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200155XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 09:45:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

No science, no success and still no need for captive-origin lion reintroduction: a reply to Abell & Youldon

http://doc.rero.ch/record/296002/files/S003060531200155X.pdf

No science, no success and still no need for captive-origin lion reintroduction: a reply to Abell & Youldon

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library