394 H. Somsen and A. Trouwborst
the CMS have also adopted treaty interpretations welcoming rather than deterring species driven upwards or polewards by climate change (e.g. CMS COP Resolution 12.21, 2017). In summary, current international wildlife law clearly
suggests that the coyote in Costa Rica, crab-eating fox in Panama, and golden jackal in the Netherlands are not to be considered as alien species, whether invasive or not. Thus, they are also not subject to any legal requirements to combat invasive alien species. It may be that measures to prevent damage inflicted by
canids on native species in newly colonized territories (e.g. coyotes eating Dice’s cottontails) are appropriate in certain situations, and this could conceivably include lethal control. Again, an evident role is reserved in this regard for inter- national or national wildlife law, under which colonizing ca- nids may be designated as, for example, protected, game or pest species. However, to regard the pioneering coyote, golden jackal and crab-eating fox as alien species to be dis- couraged or eradicated would be at odds with current inter- national wildlife law. Although our analysis is limited to clarifying the legal sta-
tus of colonizing versus introduced species, we draw attention to the existence of various related issues. For in- stance, further complications arise where range expansions into non-historical areas result from amixture of natural ex- pansion and anthropogenic introductions. An illustration is the red fox in lowland areas of North America, where the species’ establishment largely seems to have been a natural expansion, but was also influenced by introductions of foxes from Europe (Statham et al., 2012). Likewise, coyotes and golden jackals can hybridize with wolves and domestic dogs, raising vexing questions regarding the legal status of hybrid offspring (Trouwborst, 2014). These issues, along with de-extinction (Somsen, 2016) and assisted colonization (Trouwborst, 2015), are novel conundrums that wildlife law must come to grips with in the Anthropocene.
Acknowledgements AT was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, as part of the project Ius Carnivoris (No. 452-13-014). Helpful comments by two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.
Author contributions Study design, legal analysis and writing the article: HS and AT.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research complied with the Oryx Code of Conduct.
References
ARNOLD, J., HUMER, A., HELTAI, M., MURARIU, D., SPASSOV,N. & HACKLÄNDER,K. (2012) Current status and distribution of golden jackals Canis aureus in Europe. Mammal Review, 42, 1–11.
FLORES,D.(2016) Coyote America: A Natural and Supernatural History. Basic Books, New York, USA.
GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES DATABASE (2018) Species profile: Vulpes vulpes.
Http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=66 [accessed 30 November 2018].
HODY, J.W. (2016) Canid collision. MSc thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
HODY,J.W.&KAYS,R. (2018)Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. ZooKeys, 759, 81–97.
KAUHALA,K.&SAEKI,M. (2016) Nyctereutes
procyonoides.In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T14925A85658776.
Https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14925/85658776 [accessed 30 November 2018].
KAYS,R. (2018) Canis
latrans.In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T3745A103893556.
Https://www.iucnredlist.org/ species/3745/103893556 [accessed 30 November 2018].
KLEIN,J.(2018) Coyotes conquered North America. Now they’re heading south. The New York Times, 24 May 2018. Http://www.
nytimes.com/2018/05/24/science/
coyotes-americas-spread.html [accessed 30 November 2018].
MÉNDEZ-CARVAJAL,P.&MORENO,R.(2014) Mammalia, Carnivora, Canidae, Canis latrans (Say, 1823): actual distribution in Panama. Check List (Luis Felipe Toledo), 10, 376–379.
MORA, J.M., RUEDAS,L.&SMITH, A.T. (2016) Sylvilagus
dicei.In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T21209A45180947.
Https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21209/45180947 [accessed 30 November 2018].
RUTKOWSKI, R., KROFEL, M., GIANNATOS, G., ĆIROVIĆ, D.,MÄNNIL, P., VOLOKH, A.M. et al. (2015) A European concern? Genetic structure and expansion of golden jackals (Canis aureus) in Europe and the Caucasus. PLOS ONE, 10,e0141236.
SERRES,M.(1995) The Natural Contract. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
SOMSEN,H.(2016) Towards a law of the mammoth? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7, 109–119.
STATHAM, M.J., SACKS, B.N.,AUBRY, K.B., PERRINE, J.D.&WISELY,S. M. (2012) The origin of recently established red fox populations in the United States: translocations or natural range expansions? Journal of Mammalogy, 93, 52–65.
TROUWBORST,A. (2014) Exploring the legal status of wolf-dog hybrids and other dubious animals. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 23, 111–124.
TROUWBORST,A. (2015) The Habitats Directive and climate change. In The Habitats Directive in its EU Environmental Law Context (eds C. Born, A. Cliquet, H. Schoukens, D. Misonne & G. Van Hoorick), pp. 303–324. Routledge, London, UK.
TROUWBORST, A., KROFEL,M.&LINNELL, J.D.C. (2015) Legal implications of range expansions in a terrestrial carnivore: the case of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24, 2593–2610.
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
