Ape reintroductions and translocations to natural habitats: addressing misconceptions through methodology

development and technical advisory resources

Julie Sherman1, Kay H. Farmer1, Elizabeth A. Williamson1,2, Steve Unwin1,3, Sonya M. Kahlenberg4, Anne Russon5,6, Susan M. Cheyne6,7,8, Tatyana Humle6,9, Natalie Mylniczenko10, Elizabeth J. Macfie6,11 and Serge Wich6,12

1. Wildlife Impact; 2. Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, UK; 3. Chester Zoo, UK; 4. Gorilla Rehabilitationand Conservation Education Center (GRACE); 5. Psychology Dept., Glendon College of York University, Canada; 6. Wildlife Impact’s Ape Reintroduction Committee (ARC); 7. Borneo Nature Foundation; 8. IUCN SSC PSG Section on Small Apes; 9. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK; 10. GRACE advisor, Disney's Animals, Science and Environment; 11. IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group Section on Great Apes; 12. Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

• IUCN guidelines for great ape reintroduction (Beck et al. 2007), gibbons (Campbell et al. 2015) and conservation translocation (IUCN/SSC 2013)

• Issues and misconceptions

• Gorilla reintroduction methodology

• Tools for making objective decisions

Translocation “human-mediated movement of living organisms from one area, with release in another” (IUCN/SSC 2013)

Reintroduction of rehabilitated orphaned apes into natural habitats

Wild to wild translocation “deliberate capture and movement…from one natural habitat to another” (Campbell et al. 2015).

Defining Reintroduction and Translocation Success

• Establish self-sustaining, viable population • Improvement in species conservation status• Persistence of necessary traits or other benefits beyond

individual welfare• Restoration of lost ecosystem function

(IUCN SSC 2013).

IUCN Guidelines

IUCN Guidelines

Precautionary principle:

• Do not endanger resident wild great ape populations via communicable disease, hybridization, excessive social disruption or exacerbated competition for habitat resources

• Do not endanger other interacting native taxa, or the ecological integrity of the area

• Conservation of the taxon and resident wild conspecifics must take precedence over the welfare of individual captive apes.

IUCN Guidelines

• Written plan and protocols

• Multidisciplinary team

• Suitable potential release sites

IUCN Guidelines

• Assess feasibility and risks of release

• Assess relative cost-effectiveness and likely impact of release

• Support health, welfare and security of individual apes

• Assess individual behavioralcompetence

Photo © GRACE

IUCN Guidelines

• Health-risk analysis and management plan

• Health and security of staff

• Plans for transport, release, and intervention or rescue

• Monitoring during and after release

Photo © GRACE

Conservation of wild apes. Individual welfare benefits alone are not considered valid rationale for a conservation release.

IUCN Guidelines

Release objectives:

MISCONCEPTIONSSuitable habitat selection

#1: Phenology data and conspecific surveys are sufficient for selection of suitable habitat

REALITY: Habitat selection is complex. Minimum data needs: climate; food, water and nesting resources; forest structure; habitat use by and abundance of wild conspecifics and other key species; threats; human activities and the political and socioeconomic landscape

MISCONCEPTIONSSuitable habitat selection

#2: Community support is not critical

REALITY: Lack of community support can imperil reintroduction or translocation projects

Photo © GRACE

MISCONCEPTIONSRisks to animals, people and ecosystems

#3: Areas with an existing target species population are a good place to release

REALITY: Wildlife populations fill suitable habitats to carrying capacity unless conditions prevent their success (Moehrenschlager et al. 2013). Potential conspecific social impacts can also limit suitable habitats.

MISCONCEPTIONSRisks to animals, people and ecosystems

#4: Less human contact means less risk for disease transference

REALITY: All apes that had contact with humans not wearing gloves and masks have been exposed to some risk of pathogen transfer, and should undergo disease testing.

Table 1. Examples of confirmed or suspected pathogen transmissions from humans to non-human apes in non-experimental situations (captive and wild settings)

Pathogen type

Example Ape species Citation Level of certainty

Virus Human respiratory syncytial virus

Chimpanzee Köndgen et al. 2008 Confirmed

Human metapneumovirus Chimpanzee Köndgen et al. 2008 Confirmed

Bacteria Streptococcus pneumoniae

Chimpanzee Unwin et al. 2013 Suspected

Mycobacteria tuberculosis complex

Orangutan Unpubl. data Confirmed

Parasite Dientamoeba fragilis Gorilla Lankester et al. 2010 Confirmed

Enterobius Chimpanzee Murata et al. 2002 Confirmed

Scabies mite Gorilla Kalema-Zikusoka et al. 2002 Suspected Confirming pathogen transfer is technically challenging, but we believe enough confirmed and suspected cases of transfer of human pathogens exist to warrant the precautionary principle and to always engage in effective biosecurity and to promote broad pathogen surveillance wherever possible.

MISCONCEPTIONSRisks to animals, people and ecosystems

#5: Any individual with good forest skills, physical health, appropriate behavior and good potential for social integration, is a good candidate for release

REALITY: Numerous factors determine appropriate release candidates, including• sex and social grouping issues in wild conspecifics • behavioral health and socialization• age• temperament• cognition and learning issues • human bonding • human-focused behaviors.

MISCONCEPTIONSRisks to animals, people and ecosystems

#6: Translocating apes from remnant forests to intact natural habitat reduces conflict and contributes to conservation

REALITY: Scientists have seen numerous cases where translocations result in clearing of the forests where the apes lived.

There are also welfare and safety risks to both the apes being translocated, and apes resident in the areas they are translocated into.

MISCONCEPTIONSRisks to animals, people and ecosystems

#7: Long-term monitoring is useful but not critical

REALITY: Lack of monitoring presents a significant problem for understanding impacts to individual released animals, to inform future candidate suitability, and for understanding local species, the release site ecosystem and potential conservation outcomes (Guy et al. 2014).

HOW WE CAN DO BETTER

Example of reintroduction planning and assessment:release methodology for orphaned Grauer’s gorillas at

Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center (GRACE)in Democratic Republic of Congo.

Photo © GRACE

Pre-release YES/NO NOTES

1. Population viability analysis or modeling?

If feasible and affordable

a. Possible catastrophic events – climate change, poaching, disease

b. Projection of population increase/decrease with/without reinforcement

c. # females needed to increase population viability for long term

e. Does birth sex ratio have effect

2. Candidate selection - Health screening and body condition

a. What has been screened for to date

b. What candidates may have been exposed to

c. Evidence of disease (e.g. gut bacteria that could become a risk under stress)

d. What candidates have been susceptible to or succumbed to in past

8. Site selection

i. Socio-ecological knowledge of wild conspecifics

1. Causes of population decline at reinforcement site

2. Likelihood of social integration with wild conspecifics

3. Social dynamics of wild group(s)

4. Behavior, health or other issues in wild population that could affect reintroduction success

a. Aggression (over access to female?)

b. Other

ii. Evidence of specific diseases in extant population

1. Fecal samples

2. Other evidence

iii. Botanical studies

1. Vegetation types used by gorillas

2. Release forest/gorilla ranging area - Plant species composition

iv. Threats assessment, and threat management plans Threats - estimate

quality/degree of threat

2. Encroachment, poaching and agriculture by local human populations

WI Checklist for gorilla reintroduction methodology

WI Ape population reinforcement risk assessment diagram

Alternative conservation strategies and cost effectiveness

Release is not always the appropriate or best conservation tool.

• Identify all situation-appropriate conservation actions• Assess potential for success and relative cost-

effectiveness

Ape Reintroduction Committee (ARC):Susan Cheyne, PhDTatyana Humle, PhDLiz Macfie, DVMAnne Russon, PhD Steve Unwin, BSc, BVSc, MRCVS, Dip. ECZMLiz Williamson, PhDSerge Wich, PhD

Contact: julie@wildlifeimpact.org

Thanks to:• Arcus Foundation for support of ARC and WI. • GRACE and Disney's Animals, Science and Environment for participation in

methodology development.• Marc Ancrenaz, Linda Brent, Simon Husson, Signe Preuschoft, James Robins and

Fransiska Sulistyo for review and contributions to release misconceptions analysis.

Thank you!