Many people globally see wildlife relocation as a positive and a negative, each

outweighing the other. Relocation has saved multiple species from threatening environments and extinction, but it has also killed species because of an unsafe new habitat or dangerous transport. As an animal, you would not know how to get away from a wildfire or natural disaster. You would know where all food and water is in your habitat. Where would an animal go for safety if a natural disaster occurred? Would you wish to stay in their harmful habitat or be rescued by humans? What is Wildlife relocation, and what are the advantages and disadvantages?

In 2010 an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, releasing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. Hundreds of sea turtle eggs were in danger and about to hatch and enter the oil-contaminated water. Supposing you were the baby turtles, would you know the sea is unsafe? Furthermore, should someone come to save you if you are harmed by it? Scientists and volunteers had decided to move the turtle nests when they saw the oil leak, "...scientists and volunteers are moving up to 700 sea turtle nests from the oil-threatened Gulf to Florida's Atlantic coast, a move that might be the only way to save the baby turtles." (National Geographic). By rescuing, rehabilitating and relocating animals in harm's way, the animals were moved to a safer location for their survival.

There are plenty of examples of wildlife relocation that have not been so successful. In the 1930s, lions were introduced to the Aberdares mountain reserve. The lions had killed hundreds of the Bongo, making the Bongo an endangered species. The Bongo had not realised this new animal in its habitat was a threat, thus convincing itself the animal is safe to stay
1
around. Trying to save the Bongo, "The Kenya Wildlife Service has culled about 200 lions from the Aberdare take to protect the rare Bongo Species..." (All Africa), which is a way to try to save the endangered species from extinction. In this instance, it was an unpredictable outcome.

I think wildlife relocation can be unsafe and unnecessary. Yes, relocation has saved species from habitat danger (Austrailia wildlife from floods and fires) and some species from extinction (Bongo). However, when rhinos were moved to southern Kenya, around 60% of them died due to "...salt poisoning as the rhinos tried to adapt to saltier water in their new home..." (The Guardian). The new habitats for the rhinos were unsafe because these animals were suited for their original habitat instead of new habitats. When moved to new habitats, they have to adapt, which is threatening to them because they will not know where is safe and where is unsafe. The only reason relocation is an option today is because of the harm humans have caused to wildlife and their environment. When a human does not fit in an environment, they change the environment so it suits them. For animals, they cannot do that and instead are moved to new locations which might not suit them. That is why I agree that relocation should be stopped, and instead, we should look into protecting the animal's environment.

In conclusion, wildlife relocation cannot be determined in a day. Relocation is one of the many ways to save endangered animals or animals in harmful environments. Other solutions can be found, but currently, this is a standard solution being used. It takes time and analysis, but from the points shown for pros and cons, it would be tough to decide if relocation should continue or not. Overall, relocation should be appropriately used and done with the correct guidance, efficiency and considering the risk of survival.