Are pioneering coyotes, foxes and jackals alien species? Canid colonists in the changing conservation landscape of the Anthropocene HAN SOMSE N and ARIE TRO UWB O R S T
Abstract The pervasive influence of human agency on bio- diversity in the Anthropocene gives rise to several new chal- lenges for national and international wildlife law, including questions regarding what is natural and what is alien. Ultimately, a new vision and new rules are called for but in the meantime wildlife lawyers and other conservation professionals must work with conventional legal frame- works. Striking instances where vexing issues arise are the recent range expansions of certain canids. Coyotes Canis latrans and crab-eating foxes Cerdocyon thous in the Americas and golden jackals Canis aureus in Europe are progressively colonizing areas and countries where they did not previously occur. A key question is whether to con- sider this as acceptable extensions of natural range or whether the pioneering carnivores should be viewed as alien species, potentially triggering legal obligations of pre- vention, control and eradication. In addressing this question we draw on guidance provided under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international legal frame- works, in which governments are forced to grapple with the application of long-standing concepts to new phenom- ena in an era of profound global change. Our analysis suggests that coyotes in Costa Rica, crab-eating foxes in Panama, and golden jackals in the Netherlands are not to be considered alien species, whether invasive or not. Thus, even if action to address adverse impacts by these canids on native biodiversity may sometimes be desirable, these spe- cies are not subject to legal requirements to combat invasive alien species.
Keywords Anthropocene, carnivores, coyote, crab-eating fox, golden jackal, international law, invasive alien species, range expansion
America and far into Central America (Flores, 2016; Hody& Kays, 2018). Having followed the Pan-American Highway
T
ARIE TROUWBORST (Corresponding author) and HAN SOMSEN Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg University, Montesquieu Building, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 221, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail
a.trouwborst@
tilburguniversity.edu
Received 22 June 2018. Revision requested 26 July 2018. Accepted 12 September 2018. First published online 11 April 2019.
he coyote Canis latrans dramatically expanded its range during the 20th century, reaching all regions of North
and its adjacent cattle farms, and crossed the Panama Canal in 2010, this adaptable species is now on the margins of South America (Méndez-Carvajal &Moreno, 2014; Hody &Kays, 2018). In Panama the coyote now coincides with the crab-eating fox Cerdocyon thous, a South American species undergoing a northward range expansion, producing a his- torical continental carnivore swap (Hody, 2016). In Europe, the golden jackal Canis aureus is displaying a similarly un- precedented range expansion (Arnold et al., 2012; Rutkowski et al., 2015; Trouwborst et al., 2015). The case of these three canids, which are progressively colonizing regions and countries where they probably did not historically occur, is different from the recent expansions of wolf Canis lupus range in North America and Europe, as the latter represent recolonizations. Moreover, the suspected drivers of the range expansions of the three smaller canids are anthropo- genic, with the species benefiting from deforestation and other land-use changes, and the decimation of larger preda- tors such as the wolf (Arnold et al., 2012; Flores, 2016; Hody & Kays, 2018). The expansion of the range of these canids contrasts with the growing number of species that are nega- tively impacted by human activities. With respect to the coyote’s advance R. Kays asked: ‘Is
this something we should view as a natural expansion, that’s a good thing, or that we should view as an invasive species, that’s a bad thing?’ He also noted ‘In some ways that’s a philosophical question, because in the end, there’s nothing we can do about it’ (Klein, 2018). To a significant degree, however, this is a legal question. Yet, as the Anthropocene proceeds and the global biodiversity crisis unfolds, the discipline of wildlife law is becoming more like refugee law, with conceptual footholds harder to find. Here we examine the question raised above by considering currently applicable law, using the standard legal research methods currently available. In addition, we note that this type of question is likely to increasingly challenge conven- tional legal frameworks. The central insight regarding the Anthropocene is that
human agency has infused and colonized nature. Through human agency, as Serres (1995,p. 86) put it, ‘the Earth is moved’ to a place where it was never destined to be and from which there is no returning. In this sense, coyotes, golden jackals and crab-eating foxes have been moved to new places, and other species to the brink of extinction, or across it. We can review these phenomena against the standards of current wildlife law, but must also accept that
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 392–394 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318001229
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
