There are several documented, and many word-of mouth accounts of chemically immobilized and otherwise restrained endangered species like the Asian elephant and African wild dog being severely injured, killed or dying soon after capture and/or release. In some instances there was an association with the animals being injected with un-tested and un-approved modified live virus vaccines. In other instances the injured or killed animal was a pregnant or nursing mother.
Putting radio collars on wolves and other wildlife can put animals at risk. The major problems are higher mortalities and morbidity associated with capture stress and the physical and behavioral problems caused by the neck collars. (The National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior The Natural Resource Program Center, Biological Resource Management Division and The Soundscapes Program Center. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and its Use in national parks. A Report to the US National Parks Service by L. David Mech and Shannon M. Barber 2002, http://npshistory.com/publications/wildlife/radio-tracking-2002.pdf)
The ethics and animal welfare implications of such devices are considerable. ( See Unlocking the “Virtual cage” of Wildlife surveillance. By Henry Linger and Tom Lininger https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=delpf). Ticks can lodge under these collars and transmit various diseases, cause extreme discomfort and secondary skin infection with possible flesh-fly maggot infestation.
The future of the world’s first intercontinental cheetah-introduction program is under question after it emerged that three relocated animals, and three of their cubs, had died in the space of eight months. The cheetah has long been extinct in India. Last September, India launched with great fanfare the ambitious program to introduce the South African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus jubatus) into Kuno National Park. Radio tracking collars may have caused infections that killed two wild cheetahs in India’s Kuno National Park, according to wildlife experts and veterinarians. Conservationist Yadvendradev Jhala, who helped oversee the cheetah relocation project, says high humidity may have caused skin irritation beneath the collars, and the cheetahs opened wounds when they scratched. Full Story: BBC (7/19/23)
The non-ionizing radiation associated with collars and implants for radio tracking involves very high frequency (VHF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), and global positioning system (GPS) technologies, including via satellites where platform terminal transmitters (PTTs) are used, as well as geo-locating capabilities using satellites, radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, and passive integrated responder (PIT) tags, among others. This can be harmful to a variety of species as documented in the review by Manville Albert M., Levitt B. Blake, Lai Henry C. (2024) Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol 11, 2024. URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 DOI=10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709
The American Cancer Society’s posting (Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation, May 31, 2016 ( https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure.html).and noting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified RF exposure as a possible carcinogen, emphasizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. National Toxicology Program have not yet formally classified RF radiation as to its cancer-causing potential.
Experienced veterinary supervision is called for especially when research biologists are loose in the field using drugs and vaccines on their animal subjects and applying various methods of capture and restraint which may cause serious injury, capture myopathy and even death.
Wildlife continue to be harassed, stressed, and subjected to these in-field risks so that tissue and blood samples can be taken (though DNA evidence can be obtained from feces and rubbing/marking areas), radio collars and even cameras fitted, and microchips implanted. The generation of more scientific data from such field research may help advance careers and engender more funding, and give some substance to wildlife management schemes. But when the animals in question are put at risk, and there are no in-place regulations and effective law enforcement to protect and restore their existing habitats, and to extend same in order to help minimize accelerating loss of genetic biodiversity, then these wildlife researchers should cease and desist.
Such activities alone have nothing to do with wildlife conservation and at best give the false impression that something is being done, the foreign presence alone being a deterrent to poaching etc etc. Yet in reality from a bioethical perspective, the risks to the animals far exceed the immediate and foreseeable benefits. So I appeal to all appropriate institutions, governmental and non-governmental, for-profit and not-for profit, to encourage alternative, non-invasive wildlife research, and to cease funding and permitting any form of wildlife capture except for urgent veterinary and conservation-translocation reasons.