Michael T. Mengak 

Professor, Wildlife Specialist

Warnell School of Forestry & 

 Natural Resources

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Many people enjoy wildlife. It enriches 

their lives in many ways. Nationwide, 

Americans spend over $144 billion 

annually on fishing, hunting, and wildlifewatching activities. However, wildlife is not 

always welcome in or near homes, 

buildings, or other property and can cause 

significant damage or health and safety 

issues (Figure 1). In one study, 42% of 

urban residents reported experiencing a 

wildlife problem during the previous year 

and more than half of them said their 

attempts to resolve the problem were 

unsuccessful. 

Many people who experience a wildlife 

conflict prefer to resolve the issue without 

harming the offending animal. Of the many 

options available (i.e., habitat modification, 

exclusion, repellents) for addressing 

nuisance wildlife problems, translocation—

capturing and moving—of the offending 

animal is often perceived to be effective. 

However, trapping and translocating wild 

animals is rarely legal nor is it considered 

a viable solution by wildlife professionals 

for resolving most nuisance wildlife 

problems. Reasons to avoid translocating 

nuisance wildlife include legal restrictions, 

disease concerns, liability issues 

associated with injuries or damage caused 

by a translocated animal, stress to the 

animal, homing behavior, and risk of death 

to the animal. 

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

July 2018 Wildlife Translocation

Figure 1. Squirrels can damage homes and other 

structures. This squirrel has been captured in a live trap 

near the damaged site.

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Relocation vs. Translocation 2

Conservation Purposes 2

Public Perceptions 3

Reasons Against Translocation 4

Conclusion 7

Glossary & Key Words 8

Resources 9 

Appendix 12 
Translocation is appropriate in some situations such as reestablishing endangered species, enhancing genetic 

diversity, and stocking species in formerly occupied 

habitats. The main focus of this publication, however, is to 

address nuisance wildlife issues that may be commonly 

encountered by homeowners and nuisance wildlife control 

professionals.

Relocation Versus Translocation 

Relocation is defined as moving an individual animal (or 

family group) from one location within its home range to 

another location within the same home range. An example 

of relocation is moving a skunk trapped in a home’s 

window well to the home’s backyard. 

Relocation, along with other appropriate activities (i.e., 

barriers, habitat modification, scare devices, repellents) to 

prevent re-entry of the offending animal to an area, may be 

appropriate under certain conditions. 

Translocation is defined as capturing and moving a freeranging animal (or group of animals) from one location to a 

new location significantly distant from their original home 

range or established territory. An example of translocation 

is driving a trapped squirrel 10 miles from its capture site 

and releasing it on private property with permission from 

the landowner. 

With the exception of large carnivores (bears, mountain 

lions), translocation is rarely recommended as a method 

for solving human-wildlife conflicts because long-distance 

movement can result in negative consequences for the 

animal(s). 

Translocation for Conservation Purposes

Captive breeding and the release of captive bred animals 

is an important conservation tool for restoring threatened 

and endangered wildlife populations. Additionally, freeroaming wildlife are sometimes captured and translocated 

Page 2 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife Translocation

with the goal of re-establishing populations in formerly 

occupied areas. Both are legitimate uses of translocation. 

Declining or endangered species, such as the California 

condor (Gymnogyps californianus), black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes) (Figure 2), gray wolf (Canis lupus), red 

wolf (C. rufus), Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana 

smalli), Allegheny woodrat (N. magister), and bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have benefitted from 

translocation efforts. Translocation also has been used to 

re-establish more common wildlife species, such as wild 

turkey (Melagris galapavo), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), river otter 

(Lutra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis) (Figure 3), 

elk (Cervus elaphus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and 

bison (Bison bison) into formerly occupied areas . 

Figure 2. The endangered black-footed ferret is one species whose recovery 

has been helped by captive breeding and translocation.
The translocation of animals for conservation purposes 

requires planning, a detailed analysis of the habitat, and 

consideration of the long-term prospects for survival of the 

released animals. The ecological, economic, and societal 

consequences of the release also are taken into account. 

This typically does not happen when a homeowner, 

rehabilitator, or nuisance wildlife control operator 

translocates a nuisance animal; the problem animal is 

simply caught and released in a place where people hope it 

will live peacefully and without conflict. This is rarely the 

case. 

Public Perceptions of Translocation

Wildlife professionals recognize that wildlife populations 

are impacted when people and development expand into 

and occupy previously wild landscapes. Habitat loss can 

force animals to leave an area or die, and the animals that 

remain may cause nuisance or safety concerns. Other 

animals have simply adapted to urban and suburban 

environments.

Over the last few decades, attacks by urban coyotes (Canis 

latrans) involving people and domestic dogs and cats have 

increased; conflicts between gardeners and suburban deer 

are more numerous; and costs associated with property 

damage by squirrels, chipmunks, snakes, bats, raccoons 

(Procyon lotor), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and 

other species continue to rise. Yet people may be unsure of 

ways to effectively deal with these wildlife nuisance 

problems.

Surveys show that relatively few species are responsible 

for the majority of nuisance wildlife complaints. Between 

1992 and 2002 in Illinois, 88% of nuisance wildlife 

complaints involved raccoons, tree squirrels, opossums 

(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) 

(Figure 4), and woodchucks. In a survey conducted in 2017 

in Georgia, county cooperative extension service agents 

reported that eight species—deer, feral swine, armadillos, 

moles, squirrels, birds in general, voles and snakes—

accounted for 63% of the calls they received in 2016. In 

Virginia, nuisance wildlife calls involving bear, deer, 

raccoons, and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) were the most 

commonly received complaints by the agency’s Wildlife 

Helpline during 2017.

In addition to increases in urban and suburban wildlife 

conflicts, people’s attitudes and perceptions toward wild 

animals and wildlife damage management have also 

changed. Urban and suburban residents often lack the 

same wildlife experiences that previous generations have 

had with animals and are more likely to oppose wildlife 

hunting, trapping, or other forms of lethal control. Livetrapping and translocation, along with other non-lethal 

management methods, such as fertility control, repellents, 

and behavior modification, are often preferred by the 

general public for reducing human-wildlife conflicts in 

urban and suburban areas. 

Numerous public opinion surveys report that people 

believe translocation is an effective and humane method 

for addressing nuisance wildlife conflicts. However, 

research repeatedly shows that it is not. Similarly, it does 

not effectively control wildlife populations and rarely 

benefits the animal. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 3

Figure 3. Beavers being translocated to a new habitat in Oregon in an effort 

to restore populations.
Reasons Against Translocation

There are many reasons against the use of translocation 

to resolve wildlife conflicts. These include legal and policy 

issues as well as concerns related to the spread of 

disease, liability, stress to the animal, homing behavior, 

and survival rates of translocated animals. 

Legal and Policy Issues

Wildlife translocation is illegal in most States and generally 

discouraged by Federal and State wildlife agencies. 

Professional wildlife groups and most private conservation 

organizations strongly recommend against translocation as 

a method to address nuisance wildlife problems. 

For example, Georgia law prohibits the transport of wildlife 

from one location in the State to another unless the animal 

is in possession of the trapper and the trapper has the 

appropriate licenses or permits. Although this prohibits 

most Georgia citizens from trapping, transporting, and 

releasing wild animals, translocation is still legal under 

some circumstances. To avoid spreading disease, Georgia 

wildlife officials also suggest euthanizing species that 

commonly serve as rabies vectors (i.e., raccoons, skunks, 

foxes, coyotes, and bats) rather than translocating them. 

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to capture a wild animal and 

release it anywhere but on the property owned by the 

original complainant. Rules and regulations governing 

nuisance wildlife control operators in Rhode Island, 

prohibit the translocation of any nuisance mammal 

captured alive (Rule 6.13, 2012).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Wildlife 

Services (WS) program (WS Directive 2.501) and other 

wildlife professionals state that the translocation of wild 

mammals is not a biologically sound practice. Several 

national and international veterinary associations including 

the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National 

Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, and the 

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, oppose the 

translocation of wildlife because of disease risks.

Numerous private organizations, such as The Fund for 

Animals and the Audubon Society of Portland, also oppose 

or discourage translocation of nuisance wildlife. 

Disease Concerns

Scientists, wildlife managers, and public health 

professionals concerned about the spread of disease 

among wildlife and people do not recommend the use of 

translocation. When animals are moved, the worms, ticks, 

fleas, viruses, bacteria, and other parasites that commonly 

live on or in association with them are also moved. This 

can lead to diseases appearing in previously unexposed 

wildlife populations far removed from the native range of 

the disease. In 1977, the raccoon strain of rabies virus 

was first introduced into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern 

states from translocated raccoons from Florida. The 

concern is valid even when moving animals short 

distances. 

While not all translocations result in disease outbreaks, 

moving animals may result in diseases being introduced 

into naïve populations. Or, translocated animals may be 

exposed to unfamiliar diseases at their release sites 

resulting in illness or death.

Examples of diseases moved as a result of animal 

translocations include rabies, plague, chronic wasting 

Page 4 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife Translocation

Figure 4. Striped skunks are one of the species most commonly involved in 

wildlife nuisance complaints.
disease, pneumonia, tuberculosis, brucellosis, and whirling 

disease in fish. Diseases encountered at release sites 

include tick paralysis, botulism, tularemia, avian pox, 

bovine tuberculosis, and trypanosomiasis. 

An additional concern is human exposure to disease. For 

instance, a homeowner or other individual who moves a 

rabid animal puts themselves and others at risk. 

Liability Concerns

Those who move wild animals may be liable for damages 

associated with that animal or diseases they spread. 

Consider if a state wildlife agency moved or sanctioned the 

translocation of a disease vector or dangerous animal, 

such as a bear or mountain lion. If the animal injured or 

killed someone near the release site, the state agency 

could be liable. Such an event occurred in Arizona when 

the state fish and wildlife department translocated a 

nuisance black bear (Ursus americana). The bear later 

attacked and mauled a young girl near the release site. 

The state settled the liability claim out of court for $4.5 

million. 

Federal, state, and local governments may elect to 

translocate nuisance wildlife, such as black bears, to 

reduce human-wildlife conflicts. However, such actions 

have an associated liability risk if the animal subsequently 

causes physical harm or property damage.

Stress to the Animal

Translocation, unlike dispersal, is not due to natural or 

deliberate behavior. Being captured, translocated, and 

released can be stressful to a wild animal. This stress may 

cause many biological, physiological, and behavioral 

changes. Acute stress can result in major changes to 

hormone levels and blood chemistry. The animal may 

forego feeding and/or use limited fat reserves, leading to 

poor physical condition. This further reduces the animal’s 

chances of survival.

Research with farm animals shows that transportation in a 

motor vehicle can be stressful for animals. Research with 

wild animals shows that even indirect contact with people 

can be stressful. For instance, the noise and vibration from 

machinery, such as snowmobiles, are known to cause 

elevated levels of stress hormones in wild elk and wolves.

Few research studies have followed the survival of 

translocated animals. However, of those (see Appendix), 

most conclude that translocation results in high mortality 

rates due to predation and stress. 

Animals maintain social relationships with members of 

their own species. When an animal is removed through 

translocation, trapping or hunting, these relationships are 

disrupted. At the original capture site, remaining animals 

may fight to establish dominance in the absence of the 

translocated animal. Similarly, at the translocation site the 

new animal must fight with residents to establish its place 

in the local hierarchy. The degree to which this occurs 

depends upon the species, habitat, and density of the 

species’ existing population at the release site. A 

translocated animal has no knowledge of nesting or 

roosting sites, food, water, predators, or local hazards. All 

of these situations place stress on the translocated animal. 

Translocation for conservation or management purposes 

usually involves several individual animals from the same 

social group. They may know each other as part of a group 

capture event. They are likely introduced into an area 

where the species’ population is low or absent. When using 

translocation for conservation purposes, wildlife 

professionals consider the time of year; the animal’s social 

status, sex, age, and behavioral traits; and the overall 

suitability of the release site. On the other hand, 

translocation of small animals by landowners for resolving 

human-wildlife conflicts often lacks these characteristics 

and considerations. 

Homing

“Homing” refers to an animal’s ability to return to the 

location where it was originally captured following 

translocation (Table 1). 

Homing behavior has been studied extensively in red 

squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and eastern 

chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Upon release in a new 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5
environment, these small rodents begin by making a 

straight-line excursion in a random direction. They travel 

about the same distance they might travel when foraging 

within their home range. Upon realizing that they are not in 

their normal home range, most individuals make an abrupt 

U-turn and return to the release point, then move in 

another random direction. 

Wildlife behaviorists believe the animals are searching for 

familiar environmental cues in order to orient themselves 

within their surroundings. When the animals do not find 

familiar cues, they continue to wander until they encounter 

an unoccupied home range or find resources such as food, 

shelter, and water. While wandering, they are subject to 

increased risk of predation and stress.

Young mammals disperse naturally as they reach sexual 

maturity and this natural dispersal distance may offer 

insight into the homing distance an animal might travel. 

Some research suggests that dispersal distance is related 

to the normal home range size of the species and its body 

size. 

In a review of 25 publications on the topic of maximum 

distance moved after translocation, a positive relationship 

was found between the distance the animal moved and its 

Page 6 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife Translocation

Species Longest Recorded 

Homing Distance 

American crocodile 157 miles (253 km)

California vole 0.1 miles (161 meters)

Coyote 30 miles (48 km)

Eastern cottontail 3 miles (4.8 km)

Indiana bat 199 miles (320 km)

Red fox 35 miles (56 km)

White-tailed deer 348 miles (560 km)

Table 1. Table shows the maximum recorded distance an animal traveled to 

return to their initial capture site (homing distance) by species following 

translocation.

home range size. For example, if an animal had a perfectly 

square home range of 10 acres, the linear dimension of 

the home range would be 660 feet. The formula for 

maximum distance moved after translocation is 40 times 

the liner dimension of the home range (40 X 660 feet) or 

26,400 feet, which is 5 miles (8 km). This simple formula 

can be used to determine the minimum translocation 

distance needed to avoid an animal returning to its capture 

site. Human activity and physiographic barriers (i.e., rivers, 

mountains, canyons) can also affect the movements of 

translocated wildlife.

Fate of Translocated Animals

Numerous studies investigating the fate of translocated 

animals report low survival rates for moved animals or the 

eventual return of translocated animals to the area where 

they were captured (See Appendix). 

While research generally shows that the success of wildlife 

translocations can be improved when an animal has time 

to acclimate to the release site prior to release (known as a 

“soft release”), this option is rarely available in wildlife 

nuisance situations. Even with a soft release, a 

translocated animal’s survival is not guaranteed.

Figure 5. Black bears often are translocated when they become a nuisance 

in campgrounds or near houses, or cause considerable damage to farms and 

crops.
Conclusion

Urban and suburban wildlife, such as raccoons, squirrels, 

coyotes, bears (Figure 5), deer, and Canada geese, are 

becoming more abundant. Subsequently, both professional 

and public attitudes towards managing wildlife and wildlife 

nuisance problems are evolving.

People have complex attitudes toward wildlife. Their views 

are shaped by many experiences, including where they 

spent their childhood; where they currently reside; 

attitudes of their parents, friends, and the media; and 

more. Generally, non-lethal methods for wildlife damage 

management are considered more humane by the public. 

As such, translocation of problem wildlife is often 

perceived as humane, safe, and effective, but the vast 

majority of wildlife professionals do not agree. An 

exception may be the case of translocation for large 

carnivores whereby management options are limited to 

either translocation or euthanasia.

Rarely should translocation be recommended as a method 

for addressing wildlife conflicts. Reasons to avoid or not 

allow wildlife translocation include stress to the animal, 

risk of injury to the handler, legal restrictions, risk of 

moving a disease, an increased risk of death to the animal, 

the animal potentially returning to the capture site, moving 

the conflict issue elsewhere, liability from injury caused by 

a translocated animal, and more. 

Wildlife professionals can help educate the public about 

alternative wildlife control strategies, such as habitat 

modification, exclusion, scare devices, repellents, and 

humane euthanasia for addressing nuisance wildlife 

issues. 

The wildlife profession, including nuisance wildlife control 

practitioners, must be sensitive to changing public 

attitudes. Additional outreach efforts are needed to explain 

why translocation is generally not an acceptable solution to 

human-wildlife issues and that euthanasia may be the 

most practical alternative when nonlethal options are not 

feasible. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 

7
Page 8

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by Tomahawk Live Trap Company

Figure 2. Photo by George Andrejko, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Figure 3. Photo by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Figure 4. Photo by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Figure 5. Photos by Sharon Baruch-Mordo

Scott Craven, Thomas Barnes, and Gary Kania proposed the idea of a professional position on translocation of problem wildlife in an article 

published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in 1998. Such a formal position has yet to be written. Numerous professional societies have 

position statements recommending against translocation of nuisance wildlife.

Glossary

Hard release: A release method that simply turns a 

captured animal loose at a release site. The animal is not 

allowed to acclimate to the new environment and no 

additional resources, such as food, are provided.

Homing: An animal’s ability to return to the location where 

it was originally captured following translocation. 

Reintroduction: Releasing captive bred animals into a wild 

population, especially with reference to threatened or 

endangered species. Also used by state fish and game 

agencies to describe management activities that restore a 

native species to its formerly occupied habitat or range. 

Relocation: To move an animal or family group from one 

location within its home range to another location within 

the same home range for the purpose of resolving a 

human-wildlife conflict. For example, a squirrel caught in 

an attic would be relocated to the backyard of the same 

home. 

Soft release: A release method that involves an animal 

being maintained in an enclosed area or pen at the release 

site for a period of acclimation before release. After the 

animal is released, it may be given additional assistance, 

such as food provisions at or near the release site. 

Translocation: The intentional capture and release of 

animals to the wild to establish, reestablish, or augment a 

population. Often synonymous with restock, augment, 

supplement, or reintroduction, especially from captive 

breeding efforts, but does not apply to nuisance wildlife or 

wildlife damage management situations. 

Key Words

Homing, Nuisance wildlife, Relocation, Translocation

Disclaimer

Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and 

others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control 

methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock, 

other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware 

of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those 

risks. 

Some methods mentioned in this document may not be 

legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and 

follow all pesticide label recommendations and local 

requirements. Check with personnel from your state 

wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods 

are acceptable and allowed. 

Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names 

does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission 

constitute criticism. 

Citation

Mengak, M.T. 2018. Wildlife Translocation. Wildlife 

Damage Management Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS 

National Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

15p.

WDM Technical Series—Wildlife Translocation
Page 9

Resources

Adams, L.W., J. Hadidian, and V. Flyger. 2004. Movement and mortality of translocated urban-suburban grey squirrels. Animal 

Welfare 13:45-50.

Belden, R.C. and J.W. McCown. 1996. Florida panther reintroduction feasibility study. Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., 

Bur. Wildl. Res. Final Rep. 70pp.

Bowman, J., J.A.G. Jaeger, and L. Fahrig. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology. 

83(7): 2049-2055.

Boyer, D.A. and R.D. Brown. 1988. A survey of translocation of mammals in the U.S. 1985. Pages 1-11 in L. Nielsen & R.D. 

Brown, eds. Translocation of Wild Animals. Wisconsin Humane Society, Inc, Milwaukee, WI and The Caesar Kleburg Wildlife 

Research Institute.

Cherkiss, M.S., F.J. Mazzotti, L. Hord, and M. Aldecoa. 2014. Remarkable movements of an American crocodile (Crocodylus 

acutus) in Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 13(4): N52-N56.

Chipman, R., D. Slate, C. Rupprecht, and M. Mendoza. 2008. Downside risk of wildlife translocation. Pages 223-232 in B. 

Dodet, A.R.Fooks, T. Muller, and N. Tordo (editors) Towards the elimination of rabies in Eurasia. Joint OIE/WHO/EU 

International Conference, Paris, France. Developments in Biologicals, Vol. 131. S. Karger AG, Basel.

Comly-Gericke, L.M. and M.R. Vaughan. 1997. Survival and reproduction of translocated Virginia black bears. Int. Conf. Bear 

Res. and Manage. 9(2):113-117.

Conover, M.R. 1997. Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States: practices, perceptions, costs, and 

values. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2):306-311.

Craven, S., T. Barnes, and G. Kania. 1998. Toward a professional position on the translocation of problem wildlife. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 26:171-177. 

Dickman, A. J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving humanwildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13:458-466.

Diehl, S.R. 1988. The translocation of urban white-tailed deer. Pages 239-249 in L. Nielsen & R.D. Brown, eds. Translocation 

of Wild Animals. Wisconsin Humane Society, Inc, Milwaukee, WI and The Caesar Kleburg Wildlife Research Institute.

Frampton, J.E. and L.G. Webb. 1973. Preliminary report on the movement and fate of raccoons released in unfamiliar 

territory. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the SE Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 27:170-183.

Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, and L.D. Mech. 1984. Movements of translocated wolves in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48(3):709-721.

Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, and L.D. Mech. 1985. Can relocated wolves survive? Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(4):459-463.

Gammons, D.J., M.T. Mengak, and L.M. Conner. 2009. Translocation of nine-banded armadillos. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3

(1):64-71.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page 10

Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1993. Animal translocations and potential disease transmission. Journal 

of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24(3): 231-236.

Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management (http://icwdm.org)

Jones, M.L., N.E. Mathews, and W.F. Porter. 1997. Influence of social organization on dispersal and survival of translocated

female white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2): 272-278.

Lehrer, E.W., R.L Schooley, J.N. Nevis, R.J. Kilgour, P.J. Wolff, and S.B. Magle. 2016. Happily ever after? Fates of translocated 

nuisance woodchucks in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosystems 19: 1389-1403.

Linnell, J.D., R. Aanes, J.E. Swenson, J. Odden, M.E. Smith. 1997. Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing 

problem animals: a review. Biodiversity & Conservation 6:1245-1257.

Massei, G., R.J. Quy, J. Gurney, and D.P. Cowen. 2010. Can translocation be used to mitigate human-wildlife conflict? Wildlife 

Research 37:428-439.

McKinstry, M.C. and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Survival, fates, and success of transplanted beaver, Castor canadensis, in 

Wyoming. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(1):60-68.

Miller, B., K. Ralls, R.P. Reading, J.M. Scott, and J. Estes. 1999. Biological and technical considerations of carnivore 

translocation: a review. Animal Conservation 2:59-68.

National Wildlife Control Training Program (http://wildlifecontroltraining.com)

Penn State Extension. 1996. Rabies. Extension.psu.edu, Code UH083. Accessed 14 January 2016.

Pullins, C.K., T.L. Guerrant, S.F. Beckerman, and B.E. Washburn. 2018. Mitigation translocation of red-tailed hawks to reduce 

raptor-aircraft collisions. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82(1):123-129.

Reinert, H.K. and R.R. Rupert, Jr. 1999. Impacts of translocation on behavior and survival of Timber Rattlesnakes, Crotalus 

horrridus. Journal of Herpetology 33(1):45-61. 

Reiter, D.K., M.W. Brunson, and R.H. Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 27(3):746-758.

Rogers, L.L. 1988. Homing tendencies of large mammals: a review. Pages 76-92 in L. Nielsen and R. D. Brown (editors). 

Translocation of Wild Animals. Wisconsin Humane Society, Inc. and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute.

Rosatte, R.C. and C.D. Macinnes. 1989. Relocation of city raccoons. Proc. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Conference, 

pages 87-92.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report - RMRS-GTR-30WWW. 485 pages. 

Ruth, T.K., K.A. Logan, L.L. Sweanor, M.G. Hornocker, and L.J. Temple. 1996. Orientation, movements, and survival of 

translocated cougars in New Mexico. Proceedings of the 5th Mountain Lion Workshop. Page 92 (Abstract). 

Shivik, J.A., D. Ruid, R.C. Willging, and K.E. Mock. 2011. Are the same bears repeatedly translocated from corn crops in 

Wisconsin. Ursus 22(2): 114-119.

WDM Technical Series—Wildlife Translocation
Stephens, L.R., M.T. Mengak, and D.I. Hall. 2007. Evaluation of resident Canada goose relocation in Georgia. Proc. 12th 

Wildlife Damage Management Conference. 12:543-553.

Sullivan, B.K., E.M. Nowak and M.A. Kwiatkowski. 2014. Problems with mitigation translocation of herpetofauna. 

Conservation Biology 29(1):12-18.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. Program Directive 2.501 

Translocation of Wildlife (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/directives/2.501_translocation_of_wildlife.pdf)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11
Page 12

Appendix 

Fate of Translocated Animals by Species

 

Species 

 

Fate of Translocated Animals 

 

American beaver Researchers in Wyoming translocated beavers with the intent of establishing new populations. Mortality 

was 30% and dispersal from the release site was 51% within 6 months of release. Survival rates were 

49% and 43% for 180 and 360 days post-release, respectively. Animals less than 2 years old had 

100% mortality and dispersal loss within 6 months of release. Predators caused a high number of the 

deaths. 

(McKinstry and Anderson, 2002)

Black bear Black bears often are translocated when they become a nuisance at campgrounds or near houses, or if 

they cause considerable property or crop damage. Black bears rarely remain close to their release 

sites. The longest post-release movement recorded for a black bear was 248 miles (400 km). The 

longest homing distance was 142 miles (229 km). Reportedly, adult males return home most 

frequently, followed by adult females. Translocated juvenile black bear have low survival rates and 

homing abilities. One study suggests that bears translocated more than once show more rapid homing 

behavior. Between 1987 and 1997, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries translocated 

221 nuisance black bears. During 1990-1992, 43 were radio-collared and 19 died. 

A study in northern Wisconsin captured 520 nuisance (crop-raiding) black bears in 2006 and 2007. Of 

the 520 bears, only 4% were recaptured suggesting that capture deterred further problems. Of the 21 

bears that were recaptured, most (71%) returned to within 10km of the original capture site

(Linnell et al., 1997; Comly-Gericke and Vaughan, 1997; Shivik, et al., 2011)

Canada geese From 1993-2002 in Georgia , nearly 5,600 geese were caught, banded, and translocated to another 

watershed more than 100 miles (160 km) away. The average return rate of banded birds to the original 

capture site was 2.4%. 

(Stephens et al., 2007)

Grizzly bear Grizzly bears are translocated from areas where they are abundant, especially in western national 

parks, campgrounds, and near farms or ranches. At least two reviews concluded that grizzly bear 

translocations were not successful, mainly due to high homing rates. Over 50% of adult grizzly bears 

translocated between 45 to 62 miles (75 to 100 km) returned to their capture sites. In Yellowstone 

National Park and Montana, 40% and 66%, respectively, of grizzly bears studied were involved in a 

second conflict event within 2 years of their translocation. In Alaska, 60% of 34 monitored bears 

returned to their capture locations. Researchers did not report the time to return, but the average 

translocation distance was 125 miles (200 km) and the maximum distance from which a bear returned 

was 160 miles (258 km). Like black bears, adult grizzly bears returned to capture locations more often 

than juveniles. 

(Linnell et al., 1997)
Page 13

Appendix, continued

Gray squirrel In Kentucky, nuisance wildlife control officers translocate more than 1,700 gray squirrels annually. 

Researchers found that over 70% of the release sites used consisted of poor or marginal habitat and 

suggested that such misguided translocation efforts doomed the released animals to certain death. 

In another study conducted by the Human Society of the United States, 38 adult male gray squirrels 

were captured over 3 years in urban-suburban backyards, fitted with radio transmitters, and 

translocated to a rural forest. Ninety-seven percent of the squirrels died or disappeared from the 

release site within 88 days. Predation was suspected as a major cause of observed mortality. 

(Adams et al., 2004)

Nine-banded 

armadillo

In a Georgia study, 12 armadillos were fitted with radio transmitters and released at least 0.9 miles 

(1.4 km) from their capture locations. Ninety-two percent of the translocated animals dispersed from 

their release site. Most disappeared and some returned to the original capture location. Of the six 

whose fate was known, two died within 50 days, two returned home, and two moved a great distance 

never to be located again. 

(Gammons et al., 2009)

Raccoon A 1973 South Carolina study translocated 10 raccoons nearly 250 miles with the goal of establishing a 

population. The raccoon population at the release site was known to be low. Researchers concluded 

that translocating raccoons into areas with low populations can be successful. In all but one case, 

released animals remained within 0.6 miles of the release site for up to 50 days. However, few areas in 

the U.S. have low raccoon numbers and the translocation of raccoons is often illegal due to disease 

concerns. 

In a 1989 study in Ontario, Canada, 24 urban raccoons were fitted with radio collars and translocated 

15 to 28 miles (25 to 45 km) north of Toronto. While none returned to their original capture site, 

mortality was near 50% during the first 3 months following release. The authors suggest that homing 

behaviors are poor in raccoons and that mortality may have been as high as 75% based on their 

evaluation of the condition of re-captured individuals.

A 1988 study in North Carolina suggested that it may cost $50 per animal to relocate a raccoon and 

survival may not exceed 16%.

(Frampton and Webb, 1973; Rosatte and Macinnes, 1989; Boyer and Brown, 1988)
Page 14

Appendix, continued

Raptors Translocation of raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls) is considered more socially acceptable than lethal 

control, and the technique has been used widely at U.S. airports. For example, from 2008 through 

2010, USDA Wildlife Services biologists translocated more than 600 red-tailed hawks (Buteo 

jamaicensis) from 19 airports. 

A 2018 study of radio-collared red-tailed hawks translocated from Chicago O’Hare International Airport 

showed older birds (> than 1 year) were 2.4 times more likely to return than younger birds. Odds of 

returning to the capture site went up 4 times when translocations occurred during the breeding season. 

The odds of a hawk returning again increased to almost 12 times for each subsequent translocation 

event involving the same bird. The cost of one translocation event to the release sites that were 81, 

121, 181, and 204 km from the airport was $213, $284, $362, and $426, respectively. Researchers 

suggest that management programs using release sites 80 km from an airport minimize translocation 

events to include only younger birds during the non-breeding season and undertake only one 

translocation event for each individual hawk. Such changes would increase the program’s efficacy and 

greatly reduce implementation costs.

(Pullins et al., 2018)

Reptiles The impact of translocation on timber rattlesnakes was assessed experimentally by moving 11 

individuals distances between 8 km and 172 km away from their native populations and releasing 

them into a study area with a resident rattlesnake population. All translocated snakes, as well as 18 

resident snakes, were equipped with radio transmitters and monitored. Fifty-five percent of the 

translocated snakes died compared to 11% of the resident snakes. The authors do not recommend the 

translocation of adult snakes for conservation purposes. 

Another review paper examining the effectiveness of translocating Gila Monsters, western diamondbacked rattlesnakes, and Sonoran desert tortoises for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts concluded the 

efforts were unsuccessful due to increased movement, mortality and homing by translocated animals. 

(Reinert and Rupert, 1999; Sullivan et al., 2014)

White-tailed deer In one study in New York, researchers translocated 12 female white-tailed deer from a single social 

group and another 5 randomly-caught females. Individuals in each group dispersed an average of 14 

miles (23.5 km) from the release site. Translocated deer had significantly lower survival than resident 

deer at the release site. Resident deer showed no measurable response to the new individuals.

At the end of the 5-year study in Wisconsin involving 47 translocated white-tailed deer, the fate of 30 of 

the deer was unknown. Of the 17 deer whose fate was known, mortality exceeded 82%— 8 were killed 

by hunters, 5 were killed by cars, 1 was euthanized due to an injury, and 3 were alive. 

(Jones, et al., 1997; Diehl, 1988) 
Page 15

Appendix, continued

Wild cats In New Mexico, 14 mountain lions were translocated to address nuisance or damage issues. Mountain 

lions were translocated an average of 296 miles (477 km) from the capture locations. Nine of the 14 

lions (64%) died during the two-year study. Annual survival rates were 55% for females and 44% for 

males. Translocation was most successful for lions between 12 and 27 months old. 

Mountain lions have been translocated from Texas to Florida to augment the genetic diversity of the 

endangered Florida panther population. Four Texas lions translocated to Florida moved an average of 

19 miles (32 km) from their release sites. One killed exotic livestock on a game ranch and was 

translocated an additional 19 miles away. It returned to the ranch within 5 days.

In one study, 83 Canadian lynx were translocated from the Yukon, Canada, to New York. Most of the 

individuals traveled widely following their release. One individual was shot 447 miles (720 km) from its 

release site. Of 32 known mortalities, most were linked to large-scale post-release movements. 

(Ruth et al., 1996; Belden and McCown, 1996; Ruggiero et al., 1999)

Wolf In Minnesota, 104 wolves were captured near farms that experienced livestock depredations. The 

wolves were translocated 31 to 195 miles (50 to 314 km) away. The authors note the translocations 

were unsuccessful at reducing livestock-wolf conflicts and that extensive movements of translocated 

wolves should be expected. They recommend restricting translocation efforts to 6-9 month old wolves. 

(Fritts et al., 1984; Fritts et al., 1985)

Woodchuck A study in Chicago marked 27 nuisance woodchucks and moved them to exurban release sites to 

mimic "typical" nuisance control activities. The translocated animals moved farther than resident 

woodchucks and most left the release site.

(Lehrer et al., 2016)