Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina

Abstract The Argentinian Ministry of Environment has approved the translocation of 45 guanacos from Southern Patagonia to the Pampas region, a distance of 1500 km, as the initial phase toward future translocations into a National Park located in the Chaco region, another 1600 km further North. This...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ulises Balza, Ricardo Baldi, Lucía Rodríguez‐Planes, Ricardo Ojeda, Adrián Schiavini
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-11-01
Series:Conservation Science and Practice
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13031
_version_ 1827767644547186688
author Ulises Balza
Ricardo Baldi
Lucía Rodríguez‐Planes
Ricardo Ojeda
Adrián Schiavini
author_facet Ulises Balza
Ricardo Baldi
Lucía Rodríguez‐Planes
Ricardo Ojeda
Adrián Schiavini
author_sort Ulises Balza
collection DOAJ
description Abstract The Argentinian Ministry of Environment has approved the translocation of 45 guanacos from Southern Patagonia to the Pampas region, a distance of 1500 km, as the initial phase toward future translocations into a National Park located in the Chaco region, another 1600 km further North. This decision raises concerns about the technical and ethical aspects of the translocation. Firstly, there is a lack of proper evaluation and scientific evidence to support the need, opportunity, and feasibility of this translocation. The guanaco population is currently over one million and is increasing, and genetic differences exist among local populations. The translocation could produce anthropogenic‐driven admixed populations, leading to genetic swamping and disrupting evolutionary processes. Second, there are ethical conflicts around managing wild species populations that prioritize private objectives and disregard local, publicly funded science. Rewilding projects require a deep understanding of interacting ecosystem processes, and of the socio‐economic context. This management decision violates guiding principles for rewilding and should have followed proper scientific evaluation and transparent local consultation.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T12:00:58Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a21d4f691e564bb3af156c770f6f7237
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2578-4854
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T12:00:58Z
publishDate 2023-11-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Conservation Science and Practice
spelling doaj.art-a21d4f691e564bb3af156c770f6f72372023-11-08T06:13:27ZengWileyConservation Science and Practice2578-48542023-11-01511n/an/a10.1111/csp2.13031Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in ArgentinaUlises Balza0Ricardo Baldi1Lucía Rodríguez‐Planes2Ricardo Ojeda3Adrián Schiavini4Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC‐CONICET) Ushuaia ArgentinaInstituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales (IPEEC ‐ CONICET) Puerto Madryn ArgentinaDirección Regional Patagonia Austral Administración de Parques Nacionales Ushuaia ArgentinaLaboratorio de filogeografía, taxonomía integrativa y ecología (LFTIE) IADIZA, CCT‐CONICET Mendoza. Ruiz Leal s/n, Parque General San Martín Mendoza ArgentinaCentro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC‐CONICET) Ushuaia ArgentinaAbstract The Argentinian Ministry of Environment has approved the translocation of 45 guanacos from Southern Patagonia to the Pampas region, a distance of 1500 km, as the initial phase toward future translocations into a National Park located in the Chaco region, another 1600 km further North. This decision raises concerns about the technical and ethical aspects of the translocation. Firstly, there is a lack of proper evaluation and scientific evidence to support the need, opportunity, and feasibility of this translocation. The guanaco population is currently over one million and is increasing, and genetic differences exist among local populations. The translocation could produce anthropogenic‐driven admixed populations, leading to genetic swamping and disrupting evolutionary processes. Second, there are ethical conflicts around managing wild species populations that prioritize private objectives and disregard local, publicly funded science. Rewilding projects require a deep understanding of interacting ecosystem processes, and of the socio‐economic context. This management decision violates guiding principles for rewilding and should have followed proper scientific evaluation and transparent local consultation.https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13031camelidsethical concernsgenetic structurepublic fundingreintroduction
spellingShingle Ulises Balza
Ricardo Baldi
Lucía Rodríguez‐Planes
Ricardo Ojeda
Adrián Schiavini
Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
Conservation Science and Practice
camelids
ethical concerns
genetic structure
public funding
reintroduction
title Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
title_full Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
title_fullStr Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
title_full_unstemmed Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
title_short Scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in Argentina
title_sort scientific evidence does not support the translocation of guanacos in argentina
topic camelids
ethical concerns
genetic structure
public funding
reintroduction
url https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13031
work_keys_str_mv AT ulisesbalza scientificevidencedoesnotsupportthetranslocationofguanacosinargentina
AT ricardobaldi scientificevidencedoesnotsupportthetranslocationofguanacosinargentina
AT luciarodriguezplanes scientificevidencedoesnotsupportthetranslocationofguanacosinargentina
AT ricardoojeda scientificevidencedoesnotsupportthetranslocationofguanacosinargentina
AT adrianschiavini scientificevidencedoesnotsupportthetranslocationofguanacosinargentina