Mitigation-driven translocations: are we moving wildlife in the right direction?

Despite rapid growth in the field of reintroduction biology, many lessons learned from scientific research are not being applied to translocations initiated when human land-use conflicts with persistence of a species. Mitigation-driven translocations outnumber and receive better funding than science-based conservation translocations worldwide, yet their conservation benefit is unclear. As mitigation releases are economically motivated, outcomes may diverge greatly from releases designed to serve the biological needs of species. Translocation as a regulatory tool may be ill-fitted to biologically mitigate environmental damage wrought by development. Evidence suggests that many mitigation-driven translocations fail, though application of scientific principles and best-practices could likely increase success. Furthermore, lack of transparency and documentation of outcomes hinder efforts to understand the scope of the problem. If mitigation-driven translocations continue unabated as a part of the growing billion-dollar ecological consulting industry, it is imperative that the scale and effects of these releases are reported and evaluated.