Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:57:05.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a legal obligation to reintroduce animal species into their former habitats?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

P. A. Rees
P. A. Rees
Affiliation:
School of Environment and Life Sciences, Allerton Building, University of Salford, Salford M6 6PU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Species reintroduction programmes are an important feature of global conservation efforts. There is evidence within the texts of some international and European laws of legal obligations to reintroduce species to their former habitats. However, these obligations are inconsistent between legal instruments, and it is not at all clear exactly what it is they are legislating to recreate. In particular, definitions of native species are either absent from the law or unclear, especially in an historical context. Attempts to reintroduce some predators have been met with legal challenges, and so it is essential that conservation authorities have a clear mission in their reintroduction activities and that this mission is reflected in their national law. Successful reintroductions will be achieved only with public support, and this is more likely where clear objectives have been established after public consultation. Conservation authorities undertaking reintroduction projects should use the legal system and the international commitments made by their governments to validate their efforts.

Keywords

beaverslawreintroductionwolves.
Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 216 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 2001

References

Anon. (1997) Fish and Game Commission Policy Paper: Grizzly Bear Recovery. 08 05 1997. Idaho Fish and Game Commission.Google Scholar
Anon. (1998a) Re-introduction of the European Beaver to Scotland: Results of a Public Consultation. Scottish Natural Heritage Research Survey and Monitoring Series No 121, Scott Porter Research and Marketing.Google Scholar
Anon. (1998b) Grizzly bear re-introduction debated. Oryx, 32, 27.Google Scholar
Anon. (1999) 1999 Zoo Review. Annual Report of the North of England Zoological Society 1999. North of England Zoological Society, Upton-by-Chester, Cheshire, UK.Google Scholar
Anon. (2000) Operational Plan 2000/2001. Scottish Natural Heritage. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Birnie, P.W. & Boyle, A.E. (1992) International Law and the Environment. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cade, T.J. (2000) Progress in translocation of diurnal raptors. In Raptors at Risk (eds Chancellor, R. D. & Meyburg, B. U.), pp. 343–372. WWGBP/Hancock House.Google Scholar
Déjeant-Pons, M. (1996) International legal aspects. Naturopa, 82, 11–12.Google Scholar
Doremus, H.D. (1997) Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: why better science isn't always better policy. Washington University Law Quartely, 75, 1029.Google Scholar
Doremus, H.D. (1999) Restoring endangered species: the importance of being wild. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 23, 1.Google Scholar
Doremus, H.D. (2000) Delisting endangered species: an aspirational goal, not a realistic expectation. Environmental Law Report, 30, 10434.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation, 96, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. (1970) Wildlife Crisis. Hamish Hamilton Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Gorman, M. & Kruuk, H. (1998) Re-introduction of the European Beaver in Scotland. The Mammal Society Statement. Mammal News, Autumn 1998, 115, 6.Google Scholar
IUCN (1987) The IUCN Position Statement on the Translocation of Living Organisms: Introductions, Reintroductions and Restocking. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland.Google Scholar
IUCN (1995) IUCN/SSC Guidelines For Re-Introductions. SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, http://iucn.org/themes/ ssc/pubs/policy/reinte.htm, accessed 11 11 2000.Google Scholar
Leaper, R., Massei, G., Gorman, M.L. & Aspinall, R. (1999) The feasibility of reintroducing wild boar (Sus scrofa) to Scotland. Mammal Review, 29, 239–259.Google Scholar
Lyster, S. (1985) International Wildlife Law. Grotius Publications, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. (1995) European Mammals. Evolution and Behaviour. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Maclntyre, B. (1997) Farmers' friend strikes fear into alpine walkers. The Times, 17 10 1998, 9.Google Scholar
Nechay, G. (1996) Editorial. Naturopa, 82, 3.Google Scholar
O'Toole, L., Fielding, A.H. & Haworth, P.F. (in press) Re-introduction of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos into the Republic of Ireland. Biological Conservation, in press.Google Scholar
Pigott, C.D. (1975) Natural History. In Peak District. National Park Guide No. 3. (ed. Monkhouse, P.), 2nd edn, pp. 13–20. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Servheen, C., Kasworm, W.F. & Their, T.J. (1995) Transplanting grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis as a management tool – results from the Cabinet Mountains, Montana, USA. Biological Conservation, 71, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D.W., Murphy, K.M. & Guernsey, D.S. (1999) Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report 1999. National Park Service. Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA.Google Scholar
Stanley Price, M.R., Falcon, A. & Soorae, P.S. (1996) Scientific aspects. Why and how? Naturopa, 82, 4–5.Google Scholar