Captive Breeding and Reintroduction
 Once the limiting factors have been
addressed it might be time for intensive
management
– last resort
– expensive
– difficult to make succeed
• Beck et al. 1994-- 11% successful
• Griffith et al. 1989-- 19% successful
– requires large, long-term effort in captivity and
the wild
Typical Questions About Captive
Propagation
 Is it necessary?
 Is it successful and worth it?
 How do you do it?
– Technical questions about breeding, rearing,
and release
Intensive Management Programs
are Complex
Example from Mariana
Crow program on Guam
•landowner coordination
•monitoring
•pull eggs
•rear nestlings
•translocate
•hack to the wild
•control predators
Why Captive Breed?
 Produce stock for reintroduction (Wilson and
Stanley Price 1994)
 Preserve genetic variability
 Produce stock for research
 Produce animals for public education
 Provide insurance against extinction
– alala pva
Criteria to Meet Prior to
Reintroduction (Kleiman et al. 1994)
 Biological and Other Resources
– Do we know how to rear and reintroduce the
species?
– Do we know enough about the biology of the
species to determine if we have been
successful?
– Is funding for the long term available
• includes monitoring success of reintroduction
Example of Meeting Criteria for
Tamarins (Kleiman et al. 1994)
Condition of species
1. Need to augment wild pop.
2. Available stock
3. No jeopardy to wild pop.
Environmental conditions
1. Causes of decline removed
2. Sufficient protected habitat
3. Unsaturated habitat
Biopolitical conditions
1. No negative impacts for locals
2. Community support exists
3. GOs/NGOs supportive/involved
4. Conformity with laws/regulations
Biological or other resources
1. Reintroduction technology known
2. Knowledge of species' biology
3. Sufficient resources exist for program
Recommend reintroduction/translocation?
Golden
Golden
-headed
Yes
Yes
?
No
Yes
?
?
Yes?
Yes
No
No
Yes?
No
5
Yes
Yes
?
2
Yes
?
4
5
Yes
Yes
3
1.4
No
No
Assessment of Reintroduction
Projects (Beck et al. 1994)
% of Projects
Character
Pre-release training
Acclimatization
Medical Screening
Genetic Screening
Post-release training
Provisioning
Local Employment
Professional Training
Community Education
Release Years
Monitoring
All
35
76
46
37
12
63
53
56
70
6.5
96
Mammals
36
82
60
35
12
69
50
52
59
3.03
97
Birds
48
83
47
34
19
84
64
64
76
6.09
98
Reptiles
7
56
31
46
0
13
54
54
77
7.5
87
 Reviewed projects from 1900 to 1993
– N=145 projects, 13 million animals of 126 species
– acclimate = hard vs. soft release
What Made Project Successful?
Character
Pre-release training
Acclimatization
Medical Screening
Genetic Screening
Post-release training
Provisioning
Local Employment
Professional Training
Community Education
Release Years
Monitoring
% of projects
Successful
50
75
17
25
8
42
75
58
100
11.8
42
% of projects
Other
32
68
49
35
11
63
47
51
62
4.7
63
 Successful if N=500 w/o human intervention or PVA looks good
 16 (11%) successful
 Training, local involvement, education, and duration are
consistently important
Criteria for Success from Griffith
et al. (1989)
 Type of species (game more successful than
threatened)
 Habitat quality (better success into good habitat)
 Location of release (better in core of historic range)
 Source of stock (Wild caught better than handreared)
 Food habits (herbivore better than carnivore or
omnivore)
 Duration of study (longer and more animals
released increased success)
Size and Persistence of Release
Matters (Ginsberg 1994)
 PVA model results
(Kit Foxes)
N=50
 N=Starting pop size
 SP=successive
N=100
N=500 releases of 20 indiv/yr
for 10 years
 Huge increase in
viability with little
Successive Releases
increase in per year
N=50SP; N=100SP
release effort.
Major Drawbacks to Success
(Snyder et al. 1996)
 Need to maintain a self sustaining captive
population
 Need to successfully reintroduce
 May get domestication and disease in captivity
 Need considerable funds and facilities
 Diverts attention from long-term solution in
the field (easy to do quick fix)
 Need consistent administration (Clark et al.
1994)
The Biology of Captive
Propagation and Reintroduction
 Captive Breeding
– zoo biology and husbandry
 Manipulating Wild Pairs
– pull clutch
 Captive Rearing
– considerations of diet, disease, training
 Reintroduction
– translocation, fostering, hacking (soft release),
hard release
A General Captive Propagation
Program
 Aplomado falcons (Cade et al. 1991)
• bring birds in from captivity
– acclimate so they breed in captivity
– increase productivity by food supplementation and clutch
manipulation
– hand rear young, experiment with parent rearing
• manipulate wild pairs
– clutch manipulation
• hack out captive-reared birds
– meet recovery goal for species
– 30-50 young released for 10-15 years
– require 15 pairs (35 individuals)
How to Incubate Eggs?
 An example of figuring out one aspect of captive
propagation
 Use of surrogate species
 Need controlled experiments
Effects of Manipulating Wild
Pairs
 Bald Eagles (Wood and Collopy 1993)
– 78% renested within 1 month
– subsequent reproduction within the year may be reduced
• this was modeled with RAMAS age model and was estimated
not to affect viability of “donor” population
 Corvids (Marzluff et al. 1994)
– 69% renested
– reduced clutch size on renesting and slightly lower
number of fledglings
– occupancy and productivity at manipulated sites was
same as controls next year
Hand-rearing May Produce
Undersized Young for Release
 Growth is usually faster
in nature and may
produce light-weight
young (magpies)
 Growth in captivity may
be compensatory (crows)
 If dominance is related to
size, then survival or
breeding may be reduced
– Whitmore and Marzluff
1998
Practice Makes More Perfect
 Mortality of pups is
reduced with
increasing number of
litters produced for a
species
– 3 outliers were
removed from
analysis??)
– Ginsberg 1994
Ferret Predatory Behavior Is
Influenced by Rearing
Vargas 1994
– % of ferrets that killed PDs at 16.5
weeks
– Group I
• cage-raised, no exposure to live
prey
– Group II
• Cage-raised, exposed to live
hamsters--went for back of
neck, not throat
– Group III
• Cage-raised, exposed to live
Prairie Dogs
– Group IV
• Outdoor raised, exposed to PDs
Survival of Released Foxes is
Affected by Method of Release
 Kit Foxes (in Ginsberg
1994)
Wild Caught,
Hard-release
 Wild caught
translocated (hard
release) did best in
All Soft Releases
short term
All Hard  Hard versus Soft
Releases
Release were
similar after 2
Captive Reared, Hard-release
years
Sometimes Younger is Better!
(Valutis 1997)
 Post-release survival
Assume missing
birds were alive
Assume missing
birds were dead
of American Crows
was better if we
released them young
– less dispersal
– gradual integration into
wild flocks may be
better
– wild birds may be
more receptive to new
birds during breeding
season
Recent Thoughts About
Reintroduction
 Red and Mexican Wolves
– Politics and Biology
– Guard Donkeys?
 Grizzlies
 Lynx
 Whooping Cranes
– Western and Eastern Efforts
Red Wolves
 1970’s few wolves left in Texas and
Louisiana
 All that could be found (N = 17) were
captured by late 1970’s and brought in for
captive breeding (Point Defiance Zoo
initially then 20+ zoos)
 Bred wolves in captivity successfully (300
+ were produced at 30+ facilities)
 Began reintroduction in 1987
Red Wolf Reintroduction Areas
Red Wolf Reintroduction Stats
 First releases at Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge (1992: 30 animals roam free)
 1988-90 marooned species on 3 islands
– 10 on Bulls Island (2 survived through 1990)
• Ended 2005
– 9 on Horn Island (5 survived through 1990)
• None currently
– 4 on St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (all surviving)
• Minimal efforts now, but captives at visitor facility
– Goal was to produce wild-reared young wolves for reintroduction
 2006: 100 in wild (20 packs, 1.7 mil. Acres in
NC), 184 in captivity
Reintroduction Strategies
 Pre-release training
– minimum human contact
– varied feeding regime (boom bust)
– weaned from dog food to all meat
– exposed to live prey
 10(j) status
– hunting and trapping of game allowed in release
area to get sportsmen behind the program
– can kill if threatening humans, but not livestock or
pets
Reintroduction Success
 ARNWR---1987-90--released 29 captive born
wolves (19 adults, 10 pups) were released on 13
occasions
– 6 pups born in the wild
– mid Oct. 1990--->19 free-ranging
– 17 animals recaptured on 29 occasions
• 1 animal had to be returned to zoo
– 15 died
• 5 vehicle; 2 killed by other wolves; 2 infections; 1 choked on a
coon kidney; 1 drowned in leghold; 4 drowned crossing river
– This is now the center of the reintroduction
efforts and an increasing wild population is
distributed in 20 packs across 5 NC counties
Why No Losses to Human Hatred?
 Pre-release public education campaign
– briefed enviros, congress, governor, local officials and
local landowners
– briefed navy and airforce which train next to refuge
– focused on hunters and trappers at public meetings prior to
release
 10(j) status
 Post-release press
– 22 mags, 24 newspapers, 5 national news
broadcasts, 4 documentaries
 New landowner agreements
Humans Benefited From Release
 Post-release press increased tourism
 Portrayed the region as unaffected by
increase in human population where natural
resources are still thriving
– helped attract recreation
Other Spinoffs
 Additional land for conservation
– Conservation Fund bought 47,000 ha next to
ARNWR
– 33 private citizens donated 10,000 ha to the
project
 Civic groups got involved
– Rotary Club gave conservation internships
Not So Good in Smokies
 1990 reintroductions began in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park
– 500,000 acre park (NC and Tenn)
– 1.5 mill acres of national forest adjoining with
inholdings
– 37 wolves released
• many strayed from park and were recaptured
– like beef--$7,900 paid for 24 cows killed
– liked people (taking handouts from tourists)
– 6 killed by cars, poison, shooting
– 33 pups born
• 4 survived through 1998
Lack of Food Important
 Movements out of park were apparently in
response to lack of big game
 Parvovirus also got some pups
 4 remaining animals (2 adults and 2 pups)
were removed
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction
Sites
 5 release areas in Apache




National Forest
Soft releases of family groups
Various degree of switch to
natural prey
Vehicles are mortality source
as is shooting
Ranch dogs and livestock
have been injured or killed
– Defenders paid full market value
Mexican Wolves
 Captive propagation for release
 First releases March 29-30 1998 (New Mexico
and Arizona) on NWR and USFS lands
– Recent info from Arizona Game and Fish
 Public not happy
–
–
–
–
New Mexico cattle growers have sued
Mortalities from autos and shooting
5 of first 11 released were shot
2005 Recovery Planning on hold, reintroductions
continue
Perseverance is the Key
 Babbitt was committed
– “release … is to send a message that this is
public land…..Americans support this
effort…I’ve got my instructions from the
American people”
 As of 2013
– 83 wolves with 5 breeding pairs in AZ and NM
– ~300 in captivity (including wolf haven)
Flexible Releases
 Lightweight pens
– take into backcountry
– electrify soft mesh
– soft releases will continue to be used
• little room for error
Reducing Wolf Encounters with
Lifestock (M. Jimenez (PhD work)
 Trials with Montana’s Ninemile Pack
– Cracker shells
• very short term deterrence
– Country Music
• music played at night by a crippled cow--kept wolves away
– Flags
• flags on fences keep wolves out
– Guard Donkeys
• burros with cattle--increase aggressiveness of the prey
– worked with coyotes
End of 2012: >1674 wolves in 321 packs
with 103 breeding pairs
Grizzly Tales
 Yellowstone Griz (Kaiser 1999)
– USFWS delisted, court vacated, appeal partially
supported, as of 2011 reinstated as “threatened”
pending evaluation of impact of white-barked pine
decline
 Conflict over assessing the rate of population
growth
– Pease and Mattson 1999--1% per year increase
– NPS 5% per year increase
 1800---100,000 bears; 1975--<1000; 2004---580;
range-wide in 2013 there are 1400-1700 bears
Grizzly Reintroduction?
 USFWS proposes reintroduction into
Northern Rockies
– would use 10(j) status
 Good support in Montana, not so in Idaho
– “Bringing back bears is nothing but a polite
form of genocide” L. Barrett, Idaho State Rep.
– “I’m less scared of grizzlies than I am of the
Endangered Species Act” D. Burtenshaw,
Idaho State Senate
Threatened Lynx?
 Listed as
threatened in
2004
 As of 2006,
recovery outline
completed
– Interim, no
authority,
guidelines
Lynx Reintroduction Stats
 Reintroduction occurring in Colorado
– winter 1999--11 Lynx brought to San Juans from
Canada
– hard release
– plan for 110 to be released over next 2 years
– cost = $1.4 million (for first 3 years)
 Initial Poor Success was questioned
– 2 of first 5 died of starvation
 Later reintroductions went well
• 2010 deemed a success after >200 animals released
Whooping Cranes
 Early efforts in western US
–
–
–
–
–
1975--early 1990s whoopers cross fostered under Sandhill Cranes
Migrated and survived ok, but no breeding
1992--cross fostered whooper bred with a female sandhill
1993--cross fostered group down to 8 from high of 30 in 1980
Guide-bird program initiated
• incubate and hatch in captivity
• house chicks with cross fostered whoopers held in cages on breeding
grounds
• bond with whoopers to learn migration route
• imprint on whoopers to learn sexual preference
– 2005 efforts in west essentially halted
Changing Focus to Eastern US
 Use of ultralights and direct reintroduction to re-
establish the eastern flyway population of
Whooping Cranes
 Population is growing
– 5 young in 2002
– 64 in 2006
 2005 saw first breeding
 2006 first migration on
own by cranes initially
led by ultralight
References
 Phillips, M. K. 1990a. The red wolf: recovery of an




endangered species. Endangered Species Update 8:79-81.
Phillips, M. K. 1990b. Measures of the value and success
of a reintroduction project: red wolf reintroduction in
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Endangered
Species Update 8:24-26.
Kaiser, J. 1999. Study sounds alarm on Yellowstone
Grizzlies. Science 284:568.
Davis, T. 1997. Agencies dunk endangered songbird. High
Country News Sept. 15, 1997
Drewien, R. C. 1993. Guide bird program holds promise
for whoopers. Habitat.
More References
 Borenstein, S. 1999. The bald eagle to be taken off
endangered list. Seattle Times. June 17, 1999.
 Weller, R. 1999. Lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Seattle
Times February 4, 1999.
 London, J. 1996. Red Wolf Country. Penguin Books, New
York.
 Miller, E. 1997. Salmon says no bears, no way. High
Country News. October 27, 1997
References
 Vargas, A. 1994. Ontogeny of the endangered black-footed ferret




(Mustela nigripes) and effects of rearing conditions on predatory
behavior and post-release survival. PhD. Diss. U. Wyoming
Ginsberg, JR. 1994. Captive breeding, reintroduction and the
conservation of canids. PP. 365-383. In. Olney et al. (eds.). Creative
Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.
Valutis, LL. 1997. Reintroduction of captive-reared birds. MSc. BSU.
Boise, ID.
Wild, MA. Et al. 1994. Comparing growth rates of dam- and handraised Bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and elk neonates. J W M 58:340347.
Whitmore, KD and JM Marzluff. 1998. Hand-rearing corvids for
reintroduction: importance of feeding regime, nestling growth, and
dominance. JWM 62:1460-1479.
More References
 Wilson, AC and MR Stanley Price. 1994. Reintroduction as a reason





for captive breeding. PP 243-264. In. Olney et al. (eds.). Creative
Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.
Kleiman, DG et al. 1994. Criteria for reintroductions. PP 287-303. In.
Olney et al. (eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.
Beck, B.B., et al. 1994. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. PP
265-286. In. Olney et al. (eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapman and
Hall, London.
Griffith, B. Et al. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool:
status and strategy. Science 245:477-480.
Cade, TJ et al. 1991. Efforts to restore the northern aplomado falcon
by captive breeding and reintroduction. Dodo 27:71-81.
Williams, GR. 1977. Marooning--a technique for saving threatened
species from extinction. International Zoo Yearbook 17:102-106.
Yet More References
 Jones, CG. Et al. 1991. A summary of the conservation management of




the mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus 1973-1991. Dodo 27:81-99.
Rachlow, JL. And J. Berger. 1997. Conservation implications of
patterns of horn regeneration in dehorned white rhinos. Conservation
Biology 11:84-91.
Berger, J. 1996. Animal behaviour and plundered mammals: Is the
study of mating systems a scientific luxury or a conservation
necessity? Oikos 77:207-216.
Wood, PB. And MW Collopy. 1993. Effects of egg removal on bald
eagle productivity in northern Florida. JWM 57:1-9.
Marzluff, JM et al. 1994.Captive propagation and reintroduction of
social birds. Annual Report. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute,
Meridian, ID.
References
 Haig, SM and JC Avise. 1996. Avian conservation genetics. PP160-189 In. JC






Avise and JL Hamrick (ed.) Conservation genetics. Chapman & Hall. New York.
Lynch, M. 1996. A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. PP
471-501 In. JC Avise and JL Hamrick (ed.) Conservation genetics. Chapman &
Hall. New York.
Britten, HB. Meta-analyses of the association between multilocus heterozygosity
and fitness. Evolution 50:2158-2164.
Fleischer, RC. 1998. Genetics and avian conservation. PP 29-47 In. JM Marzluff
and R Sallabanks (eds.) Avian Conservation. Island Press. Covelo, CA.
Mitton, JB. 1994. Molecular approaches to population biology. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 25:45-69
Lynch, M. R. Burger, D. Butcher, and W. Gabriel. 1993. The mutational
meltdown in asexual populations. J. Heredity 84:339-344.
Westemeier, R. L., Brawn, J. D., Simpson, S. A., Esker, T. L., Jansen, R. W.,
Walk, J. W., Kershner, E. L., Bouzat, J. L., and K. N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the
long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282:1695-1698.
More References
 Ardern, S. L. and D. M. Lambert. 1997. Is the black robin in genetic





peril? Molecular Ecology 6:21-28
Caro, T. M. and M. K. Laurenson. 1994. Ecological and genetic factors in
conservation: a cautionary tale. Science 263:485-486.
Jimenez, J. A., K. A. Hughes, G. Alaks, L. Graham, and R. C. Lacy.
1994. An experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat.
Science 266:271-273.
O’Brien, S.J., Roelke, M. E., Marker, L., Newman, A., Winkler, C. A.,
Meltzer, D., Colly, L., Evermann, J. F., Bush, M., and D. E. Wildt. 1985.
Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the Cheetah. Science 227:14281434.
Roy, M. S., E. Geffen, D. Smith, and R. K. Wayne. 1996. Molecular
genetics of pre-1940 red wolves. Conservation Biology 10:1413-1424.
Vrijenhoek, R. C., M. E. Douglas, and G. K. Meffe. 1985. Conservation
genetics of endangered fish populations in Arizona. Science 229:400-402.
Still More Refs
 Hale, ML, Lurz, PWW, Shirley, MDF, Rushton, S., Fuller, RM, and K. Wolff. 2001.






Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations.
Science 293:2246-2248.
Caro, T. 2000. Controversy over behavior and genetics in Cheetah conservation. In. LM
Gosling and WJ Sutherland, eds. Behavior and Conservation.
Keller, LF and DM Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 17:230-241.
Lande, R. 1999. Extinction risks from anthropogenic, ecological, and genetic factors. Pp
1-22. In Genetics and the Extinction of Species (Landweber, LF and AP Dobson, eds.).
Princeton University Press
Nicholl, M.A.C. Jones, C.G., and K. Norris. 2003. Declining survival rates in a
reintroduced population of the Mauritius kestrel: evidence for non-linear density
dependence and environmental stochasticity. J. Anim. Ecol. 72:917-926.
Nichols, R. A., Bruford, M. W., and J. J. Groombridge. 2001. Sustaining genetic
variation in a small population: evidence from the Mauritius kestrel. Molecular Ecology
10:593-602.
Mandel, J. T., Donlan,C. J., and J. Armstrong. 2010. A derivative approach to
endangered species conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8:44-49.