502 E. H. Walker et al.
53.2%of known deaths for cheetahs translocated into fenced reserves in South Africa. Competing predators were respon- sible for 44.4%(4 cheetahs) of the deaths with known causes for cheetahs released into reserves in our study, suggesting that predator naivety is not more of a concern for re- habilitated cheetahs than for their wild counterparts. Unfortunately, reserves are often isolated and individuals are not able to contribute to the free-ranging gene pool unless intensive metapopulation management is employed to create gene flow between these isolated populations (Marnewick et al., 2009; Boast et al., 2018). Our findings will be applicable to future reintroduction efforts into re- serves within the cheetah’s historical range after problems that caused extirpation have been addressed (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Released coalitions tended to have a higher estimated survivorship than single individuals, which may be attribut- able to increased chances of obtaining core territories. For male cheetahs these are smaller sections of overall home ranges that reliably provide food, shelter and water for its holder (Caro, 1994; Melzheimer et al., 2018). Moreover, liv- ing in coalitions may improve hunting success and facilitate defence against other cheetah coalitions (Caro, 1994; Durant et al., 2004). Our small sample did not allow us to test for differences in survival between sexes, but males tended to live longer than females. Longevity of females is particularly important as they need aminimum of 2 years post-release to successfully raise offspring (Laurenson, 1993). Males on the other hand may contribute their genes relatively quickly and may therefore be of higher conservation benefit in the short-term. Paying close attention to females during the post-release monitoring period is critical for maximizing the success of the release of females. Although releases are time-intensive and costly, perma-
nent captivity is also expensive (c. USD 5,000 annually per animal). Therefore releasing a captive-raised individual pre- sents financial benefits in addition to the biological benefit of returning an individual to the wild gene pool. Thus, we argue that the benefits of releasing captive-raised in- dividuals probably outweigh concerns regarding its cost (Weise et al., 2014; Boast et al., 2018) and, with appropriate planning, such releases could provide genetic benefits to wild populations. Our study challenges recent critique that using captive-raised large carnivores for release presents little value for conservation (Hunter & Rabinowitz, 2009; Weise et al., 2015). By carefully selecting release candidates, artificially
forming coalitions where possible, balancing habituation levels during captivity, and providing strategic support during post-release monitoring, we have demonstrated that captive-reared cheetahs orphaned at age of 6 months or older can transition fully back into the wild. Moreover, cheetahs orphaned at a younger age can successfully be re- leased if bonded to qualifying individuals before release; this
strategy may prove a valuable tool for the development of procedures to release captive-bred individuals successfully. The effectiveness and necessity of post-release monitoring and management is further highlighted by the absence of elevated mortality during the first 3 months post-release (Weise et al., 2015). Our monitoring team always consisted of at least one person with extensive experience working directly with cheetahs. This experience enabled the team to adapt dynamically and respond to the developments of each release, thus improving the survival probability of re- leased cheetahs. Having a veterinarian on standby allowed the team to treat potentially life-threatening injuries, pro- viding the individual with an additional chance to reach in- dependence. Further investigation into the causes of deaths of rehabilitated cheetahs is warranted, to facilitate experi- mentation with potential mitigation measures. Improved understanding of the specific risks associated with a given release site and the development of post-release manage- ment actions to mitigate those risks would improve survival of released individuals. Although previous dismissal of releasing captive-raised
large carnivores is understandable considering past failed release attempts, we argue this conclusion is premature, as most studies have approached the release of captive- reared cheetahs with the same pre- and post-release treat- ment as for wild conspecifics (Jule et al., 2008;Hunter& Rabinowitz, 2009;Weise et al., 2015;Boast et al., 2018). Such an approach ignores the fact that captive-reared chee- tahs lack much of the learning and experience provided by theirmother during
dependency.Although a lot of survival skills are probably instinctual, they do require trial and error until being fully acquired; by appropriately account- ing for this challenge during pre- and post-release manage- ment we have shown that orphaned cheetahs are capable of transitioning back into the wild. We recommend that any future release efforts of captive-raised large carnivores be based on design strategies that fully consider the experiential knowledge gaps such individuals possess. Despite the small sample, our study indicates that cheetahs rehabilitated, re- leased andmonitored according to our protocol have chances of survival similar to those of wild cheetahs and therefore this technique is a valuable tool for cheetah conservation.
Acknowledgements We thank Namibia’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism for supporting this research, all Cheetah Conservation Fund supporters that made this study financially fea- sible, all Cheetah Conservation Fund staff and volunteers who con- tributed to this research, Lorraine Boast for her comments on the text, and all the partners and release sites (the Greater Waterberg Landscape, Erindi Private Game Reserve, and NamibRand Nature Reserve), who worked with us to make this research possible.
Author contributions Study design: EHW, LM, AS-K; fieldwork: EHW, LM, SV; writing, data analysis, revision: all authors.
Conflicts of interest None. Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 495–504 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000235
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164