Capturing wild animals for study can stress them to death. Is it worth it?

[Cattledog]

By Jason Bittel
March 13 at 7:00 AM
A gray wolf is dead in Oregon, and people may be to blame.

The animal had been trapped by federal biologists in October and fitted with a radio-tracking collar that reported on its movements. It was a member of the first pack since the 1940s to establish territory on an Indian reservation in central Oregon. Just over a month later, the signal went still.

The wolf was neither shot nor poisoned, according to a necropsy. No one can say for sure how or why it died, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist John Stephenson. But the animal was visibly lean and had a wound on one of its front paws. And given that a baited leg-hold trap was used to catch the wolf, it’s possible that the capture contributed to the wolf’s demise, officials said.

The Oregon wolf was not the first animal to die after being captured for study. Three pronghorns perished this month as the result of a relocation effort in Arizona. A vaquita, one of the few remaining members of its porpoise species, died in 2017 as scientists attempted to capture it for a captive-breeding program. A wild cat dubbed Macho B — one of the last jaguars known to cross the U.S.-Mexico border — was euthanized after its health declined following a capture in 2009.

Scientists are capturing and tagging more wild animals than ever, using technologies that allow them to keep tabs on everything from honeybees to great white sharks, and they say casualties are extremely rare. But each high-profile death raises questions about the toll these operations inflict — especially when they are carried out in the name of conservation or the animals’ well-being.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/03/13/capturing-wild-animals-study-can-stress-them-death-is-it-worth-it/?fbclid=IwAR0CaQb58ikMB4H3Amii6RldrjCNBl-Zv3iB4cA0p6BTRlSahaSaYtd7Y2o&noredirect=on&utm_term=.88d50b99cb55

[SWBTATTReg]

1. I would think that other means of studying the animals would be available, and capture should

not be done, unless as an absolutely live or die situation, which means in most cases, you don't interfere. These animals have lived for millions and millions of years already w/o the help of humans. One death is too much, especially in already stressed populations.

Now if there were a serious outbreak of disease, then catching an already sick animal whose chances are already 'iffy', would probably benefit, in that we would be able to obtain blood samples, etc. to perhaps diagnosis the illness and perhaps treat. If there was a population of such animals in the path of a development, then the development should be delayed or canceled (but little chance this will happen nowadays), then moving the affected population elsewhere would be of benefit, but do we really totally understand an environment that the animals are living in 100%? I think not. Less is best.

The wolves in Yellowstone Park make a good point...riverside streams had been eaten to the nub by elk and other such creatures, and stream quality was suffering, as well as water runoff being destructive in watersheds. When wolves were reintroduced into the wild, they put a natural counterbalance back into place that checked the deforestation of riverside environments (weren't being consumed to the nub by elk, etc.). This was on a PBS show some time ago, and very informative.

[Doreen]

2. Hmm, kind of like the captured and caged children

on the border. when any creature ( human or otherwise ) is seperated from their natural habitat or families they run the risk of getting sick and/or dying.