Returned Back To the Wild?
Animals bred in captivity usually live their lives without ever experiencing the wild.
Some people have argued that captive bred animals should be released into the wild.
Others have argued that captive bred animals cannot be released into the wild because they
will not be able to survive. I think that captive animals can be released back into the wild,
but the animals must be eased into the wild in a controlled environment so the animals
have time to revert to their natural instincts.
It has been a question to many animal conservationists whether or not captive bred
animals should be released back into the wild. In Australia, there is an ongoing plan of
returning a few animals back to Australia. The goal is to reintroduce Tasmanian devils,
Leadbeater’s possums, and Helmeted honeyeaters in a “controlled release”. The Zoos
Victoria wants to create a halfway house for endangered animals in a new conservation
strategy by providing a controlled environment where the survival of the animals can be
monitored with relatively low risk. Recently the Tasmanian government has said they
want to release the captive animals back to Australia. A dilemma of whether or not the
captive bred animals can survive without humans' help in the wild is present. Captive bred
animals have a difficult time resorting to their natural instincts when they have never had
to use them, but the halfway house idea is a good starting place where the animals are in a
controlled wild area with minimal human intervention (Milman 2013).
Some have argued that captive bred animals should be released into the wild. A
controlled environment is a good idea for newly released captive bred animals because it
allows them to experience the wild without completely putting them in the actual wild.
Releasing captive bred animals into the wild is an extremely risky decision because the
animals has never had to fend for themselves in the wild and always had humans to
provide for them. Captive bred animals are usually used to reinforcement programs for
food and are generally less likely to survive than wild conspecifics. These reinforcement
programs usually consist of being fed by humans in exchange for their good behavior in
captivity. The good behavior is when the animals decides not to follow their natural
instincts on what to eat and how to act. However the halfway house idea is a good start to
how to go about releasing captive bred animals back into the wild. The idea allows the
captive animals to start providing their own food and protection from their predators in an
enclosed wild area, all the while humans can monitor how well they are surviving and
provide assistance when needed. The question of whether or not captive bred animals
should be released needs to be researched and more data need to be collected to make the
correct decision.
Further support of releasing captive bred animals can be seen shown by Mitchell’s
(2011) research. Mitchell (2011) states that more captive bred burrowing owls survived
being released into the wild with a soft-release rather than a hard release. The soft release
consisted of releasing the owls in pairs, and providing above ground enclosures for shelter
at first. This approach yielded better survival rates rather than a hard-release where the
owls are given nothing.
Some have argued that captive bred animals should not be released into the wild
because they are not capable of surviving by themselves without humans’ support as well
as the wild animals can. There have been several studies of how well captive bred animals
have faired after being released into the wild, and generally the result is that survival is
lower for captive bred animals released into the wild than the same animals that is wild
born. Champagon (2012) studied the survival of captive bred Mallards being released into
the wild and found a change in Mallard physiology and behaviors. The study included three
groups: control captive bred Mallards, captive bred Mallards that were released into the
wild, and wild Mallards. After a year of being released the gizzard weights were lower in
the control Mallard group and the released Mallards showed more preference than the wild
Mallards to eat anthropogenic foods. This resulted in a lower survival for the released
Mallards when food provisioning was not available during harsh winter conditions. The
released Mallards were not able to change their lifestyles to survive as well as the wild
Mallards (Champagon 2012).
With the research that has already been completed on the survival of released
captive bred animals, the data indicate that it is not a good idea to release them straight
into the wild. The captive bred animals are too accustomed to human assistance and are
unable to provide their own food or protection from predators. Most of the released
animals preferred to eat food that was produced by humans or humans’ food byproducts,
which leads to a significant decrease in their ability to survive because they are dependent
on humans. However the halfway house idea could produce some better results because
the animals are being placed in an environment that could allow the animals to become
independent of humans.
Work Cited
Champagon, J., M. Guillemain, J. Elmberg, G. Massez, F. Cavallo and M. Gauthier-Clerc. 2012.
Low survival after release into the wild: assessing “the burden of captivity” on
Mallard physiology and behaviour. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58: 255267.
Milman, O. 2013. Tasmanian devils to be released back on to main land. Online:
Http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/tasmanian-devilsrelease-onto-mainland. Accessed September 2013.
Mitchell, A.M., T.I. Wellicome, D. Brodie, and K.M. Cheng. 2011. Captive-reared burrowing
owls show higher site-affinity, survival, and reproductive performance when
reintroduced using a soft-release. Biological Conservation 144: 1382-1391.