To cite this article: Marc Bekoff (1999) Jinxed Lynx?, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2:3, , DOI: /s jaws0203_6

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 08 June 2015, At: 08:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Jinxed Lynx? Marc Bekoff Published online: 04 Jun To cite this article: Marc Bekoff (1999) Jinxed Lynx?, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2:3, , DOI: /s jaws0203_6 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

2 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANlMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 2(3), Copyright Q 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Jinxed Lynx? Marc Bekoff Department of Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology University of Colorado, Boulder In Colorado, Canadian lynx were recently reintroduced to areas where they once roamed. This highly controversial project brings to light some concerns about translocation and, specifically, reintroduction efforts. Critics believe the project is hurried and ill planned. Colorado represents the southernmost portion of the lynx's historical range. As part of this project, lynx will be taken from Canada and, according to a wildlife manager (public meeting, October 1,1998) in the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), "dumped outl'into arather different ecosystem in Colorado. The expectation is that there will be at least a 50% mortality rate, with some lynx dying from starvation. John Seidel, DOW, viewed the reintroduction as "an experiment of sorts" (Boulder Camera, January 10, 1999, p. 10A). In the same article, Dale Reed, DOW, (who no longer works on the project) agreed that the plans of Colorado are a gamble because of the possibility that there will not be enough food for translocated animals. Should such experiments be conducted with such poor odds of success? The reintroduction of the lynx is justified by some people because the animals "will be killed anyway by trappers." This reasoning simply buys into a system that supports animal exploitation. Just because animals might be killed in one way does notjustify killing them in other ways. Conservationists and others would be well advised to think of better reasons to undertake reintroduction projects. Furthermore, additional lynx will likely be trapped in Canada to meet the demand for pelts. Thus, in addition to thepossibledeathof translocated lynx, others will die toreplace them. On January 5, 1999, a local news program (KCNC Channel 4) showed lynx, who were going to be translocated to Colorado, struggling violently with trappers. Some trapping was done by inexperienced trappers and lynx escaped from traps, Requests for reprints should be sent to Marc Bekoff, Department of Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO bekoffm@ spot.colorado.edu

4 240 BEKOFF leading to numerous practical and ethical concerns. All lynx suffered as a result of both trapping and transport, even before they were released. The importance of blending rigorous science with public support in reintroduction programs cannot be emphasized enough. It is necessary to know if lynx show enough behavioral flexibility to allow them to adapt to ecosystems differing in climate, vegetation, and food resources. It is also essential that suitable habitat be protected indefinitely. Lynx are difficult to reintroduce, even in the best of conditions. A well-planned effort in New York State was unsuccessful, and Swiss biologists have been working for years on a similar project. It is unethical and disingenuous to perform reintroduction experiments when it is believed at the start that half the animals will die. It is also unethical to undertake reintroduction programs simply to prevent species from being listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). When the ESA is invoked, federal control trumps local control over land use, and some people understandably want to keep the federal government out of local concerns. Reintroducing animals to keep their numbers up is one way to keep the federal government out. In Colorado, Seidel(1998) noted, "If we don't begin work on this reintroduction, the federal government will take the lead within the next several years" (p. 1). Indeed, action by the federal government could occur as soon as June Along the same lines, in an article in the Montana newspaper Bozeman Daily Chronicle (September 12,1998) concerning the reintroduction of lynx into Idaho, it was noted that "Idaho officials acknowledge granting permission to relocate lynx is partly an effort to block possible Endangered Species Act restrictions in the state" (p. 5). I wish these programs and all animals well, but rushing into reintroduction efforts because of political and other pressures is ill advised. Moving slowly and carefully is essential. Let us hope the lynx are not jinxed from the start. IS MORE BETTER? Reintroduction programs also raise other questions. For example, it is not clear that species preservation and conservation always have to be valued, why "more is better," why biodiversity should be conserved, or if we can improve Nature. With rare exceptions, carnivore reintroduction programs are unlikely to do very much for preservation, conservation, or biodiversity, given the high mortality of reintroduced animals even in well-planned efforts (e.g., the fate of recently reintroduced Mexican wolves). In 1995, Benjamin Beck, then chair of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association Reintroduction Advisory Group, lamented that "we must acknowledge frankly at this point that there isn't overwhelming evidence that reintroduction is successful" (p. 61). Two reintroduction experts, Richard Reading of the Denver Zoo and Tim Clark of Yale University (1996), surveyed available data and noted that only 11% of 145 reintroduction programs

5 COMMENTARY 241 have contributed to the establishment of self-sustaining wild populations. They stressed in a recent review of carnivore reintroduction projects that "It is clearly desirable to improve approaches to reintroduction" (p. 296). Given that even many experts are extremely skeptical of attaining the goals of reintroduction efforts, it is important to reassess what we are doing and why. Just because we can do something does not mean we ought to do it. Indeed, there are numerous factors beyond the control of scientists and others who so dearly want them to succeed. Recently, three biologists (Ludwig, Hilborn, & Walters, 1993) argued that personal attitudes, human shortsightedness, and greed would, with few exceptions, be insurmountable stumbling blocks in attempts to manage animal populations. CAN WE ACHIEVE MORE BY DOING LESS? I am not a killjoy who is against all reintroduction efforts. I deeply appreciate the good intentions and efforts of all involved, but sometimes good intentions are not enough. There is also no room for failure. I ponder these questions because the issues are not as clear as many people want them to be. Nature is complex, but many people want simple, quick solutions when tinkering with her. There are none. Successful proactive planning takes time. Making a compassionate choice often requires patience and restraint. When trying to conserve species or restore ecosystems, we must be concerned with all animals, both human and nonhuman, that are involved. Many lives are at stake. Should individuals be moved and perhaps suffer and die because of what we want? Should individuals be sacrificed for the good of their species? Should individuals who have lived without certain predators or competitors be confronted with them? Should populations and ecosystems that have developed and sustained themselves in the absence of predators be altered? Just what are our obligations, if any, to Nature? In some cases, we may never regain what we lost. It may be infeasible to recreate what once existed because times have changed and we cannot recreate what once was. In the end, we may be simply faking Nature. EDITOR'S NOTE Portions of this article appeared as an op-ed opinion piece (Bekoff, 1999). This brief essay details an unresolved dilemma that Jones's (1999fthis issue) method could readily address. Since the program has started, five lynx have starved to death and one famished female had to be recaptured and held in captivity. On the admission of one DOW official, John Seidel, the program was indeed rushed (see

6 242 BEKOFF denver.com/opinion/8.cfm). Furthermore, no public opinion survey was conducted prior to the release of the lynx. REFERENCES Beck, B. B. (1996). Reintroduction of captive-bred animals. In G. M. Burghardt, J. T. Bielitzki, R. Boyce, & D. 0. Schaeffer (Eds.), The well-being of animals in zoo and aquarium sponsored research (pp ). Greenbelt, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare. Bekoff, M. (1999, January 24). Jinxed lynx. Boulder Camera, Section E, p. 3. Endangered Species Act, 16 U. S. C (1973). Jones, C. B. (1 999). A method to determine when active translocation of nonhuman primates is justified. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science, 260(17), 36. Reading, R. P. &Clark, T. W. (1996). Carnivore reintroductions: An interdisciplinary examination. In J. L. Gittleman (Ed.), Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution (pp ). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Seidel, J. (1998, October). Clawmark, p. 1.