Rehabilitation and release of orphaned Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe: Implications for management and conservation.

Rehabilitation of injured or immature individuals has become an increasingly used conservation and management tool. However, scientific evaluation of rehabilitations is rare, raising concern about post-release welfare as well as the cost-effectiveness of spending scarce financial resources. Over the past 20 years, events of juvenile Eurasian lynx presumably orphaned have been observed in many European lynx populations. To guide the management of orphaned lynx, we documented survival, rehabilitation and fate after the release and evaluated the potential relevance of lynx orphan rehabilitation for population management and conservation implications. Data on 320 orphaned lynx was collected from 1975 to 2022 from 13 countries and nine populations. The majority of orphaned lynx (55%) were taken to rehabilitation centres or other enclosures. A total of 66 orphans were released back to nature. The portion of rehabilitated lynx who survived at least one year after release was 0.66. Release location was the best predictor for their survival. Of the 66 released lynx, ten have reproduced at least once (8 females and 2 males). Conservation implications of rehabilitation programmes include managing genetic diversity in small, isolated populations and reintroducing species to historical habitats. The lynx is a perfect model species as most reintroduced populations in Central Europe show significantly lower observed heterozygosity than most of the autochthonous populations, indicating that reintroduction bottlenecks, isolation and post-release management have long-term consequences on the genetic composition of populations. The release of translocated orphans could be a valuable contribution to Eurasian lynx conservation in Europe. It is recommended to release orphans at the distribution edge or in the frame of reintroduction projects instead of a release in the core area of a population where it is not necessary from a demographic and genetic point of view. Rehabilitation programmes can have conservation implications that extend far beyond individual welfare benefits.

Ungulate management in European national parks: Why a more integrated European policy is needed.

1. Primary objectives of national parks usually include both, the protection of natural processes and species conservation. When these objectives conflict, as occurs because of the cascading effects of large mammals (i.e., ungulates and large carnivores) on lower trophic levels, park managers have to decide upon the appropriate management while considering various local circumstances. 2. To analyse if ungulate management strategies are in accordance with the objectives defined for protected areas, we assessed the current status of ungulate management across European national parks using the naturalness concept and identified the variables that influence the management. 3. We collected data on ungulate management from 209 European national parks in 29 countries by means of a large-scale questionnaire survey. Ungulate management in the parks was compared by creating two naturalness scores. The first score reflects ungulate and large carnivore species compositions, and the second evaluates human intervention on ungulate populations. We then tested whether the two naturalness score categories are influenced by the management objectives, park size, years since establishment, percentage of government-owned land, and human impact on the environment (human influence index) using two generalized additive mixed models. 4. In 67.9% of the national parks, wildlife is regulated by culling (40.2%) or hunting (10.5%) or both (17.2%). Artificial feeding occurred in 81.3% of the national parks and only 28.5% of the national parks had a non-intervention zone covering at least 75% of the area. Furthermore, ungulate management differed greatly among the different countries, likely because of differences in hunting traditions and cultural and political backgrounds. Ungulate management was also influenced by park size, human impact on the landscape, and national park objectives, but after removing these variables from the full model the reduced models only showed a small change in the deviance explained. In areas with higher anthropogenic pressure, wildlife diversity tended to be lower and a higher number of domesticated species tended to be present. Human intervention (culling and artificial feeding) was lower in smaller national parks and when park objectives followed those set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 5. Our study shows that many European national parks do not fulfil the aims of protected area management as set by IUCN guidelines. In contrast to the USA and Canada, Europe currently has no common ungulate management policy within national parks. This lack of a common policy together with differences in species composition, hunting traditions, and cultural or political context has led to differences in ungulate management among European countries. To fulfil the aims and objectives of national parks and to develop ungulate management strategies further, we highlight the importance of creating a more integrated European ungulate management policy to meet the aims of national parks.