Developing An Organizational Relocation Policy.

Whether it is called relocation, translocation, assisted migration, or even assisted colonization, numerous programs have proposed to move animals (and plants) from one place to another. Climate change is now a prominent driver of such plans. As organizational oversight policy was being reviewed, this study examined the recent history of such relocations to see if lessons could be derived which are applicable to the development of new proposals. Reviewing published reports of 400+ relocations, plus earlier reviews of specific groups, several relevant concerns emerged. Many animal (and plant) species that were the focus of the plans are threatened or endangered at the state, national, or international level, or are at risk of being so listed. To alleviate the threats to these species, it was often suggested that remaining individuals be moved from places where they still survive to another site where they may flourish. Yet fewer than 50% of the results show that the individuals maintained themselves at the new sites. We found insufficient understanding of the many variables involved in relocation. Even releases of common game species showed numerous failures to establish. Another frequent omission was the failure to create sound plans to manage and monitor the relocated animals. Reports of relocation success were often related to the reasons underlying the relocation: to rescue a doomed population, to re-establish an extirpated population, to extend the range, to create a harvestable population, or to supplement an existing population. Special concerns may relate to the possible effect to the source population, for example, which life stage (adult, juvenile, egg) is being relocated. We examined aspects of translocation with respect to the efficacy of these practices for many species at risk, and how that efficacy may contribute to the development of policy guidance for the agency