The blurry lines between wildlife ‘capture’ and ‘rescue’

Subject: Environment

Section: Env legislation

Context:

In India, the increasing frequency of human-wildlife encounters highlights the need for effective management strategies beyond reactive capture and relocation, which often result in unsustainable outcomes or harm to the animals.

“Rescue” vs “Capture”:

The distinction between genuine “wildlife rescue” and mere “capture” is complex.
True rescues may involve skilled teams and specialized techniques to handle scenarios like leopards in wells or elephants in irrigation tanks.
- However, not all wildlife encounters in human spaces require intervention, such as when leopards prey on livestock or elephants damage crops.
Effective conflict management should aim to resolve these situations without resorting to capturing or relocating the animals, focusing instead on preventive measures and coexistence.

Advice on ‘capture’ that is ignored:

Guidelines from the central government in India discourage capturing leopards and elephants merely based on sightings and recommend preventative measures, with capture as a last resort.
However, these guidelines are often overlooked in practice. A case in south India involved an elephant being captured under the guise of a rescue from a coffee plantation, only to be released 200 km away in unfamiliar territory, which led to its death after further misguided rescue attempts.
Similarly, a leopard in Uttar Pradesh died shortly after being ‘rescued’ from an agricultural field. These incidents highlight the problematic practice of mislabeling captures as rescues.
Similarly, high interaction rates with snakes result in frequent, poorly executed removals from their habitats, often followed by relocation to unfamiliar areas and even exploitation for social media.
- Evidence suggests that relocated snakes have low survival rates and that relocating them does not resolve human-snake conflict but may increase it by creating vacancies that other snakes then fill.

The Karnataka example:

In Karnataka, a realistic and ethical approach to human-wildlife conflicts involves assessing the situation carefully, minimizing stressors for the animals, and exhausting proactive measures before intervening.
The Karnataka Forest Department is testing strategies such as early warning systems, regular monitoring, fencing, improved lighting, public education, and better waste management to prevent conflicts.
These initiatives aim to prepare communities for potential wildlife interactions and promote coexistence.