The effects of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban landscape

Abstract

In many suburban parts of Australia the removal of snakes from private property by licenced snake catchers is employed to mitigate perceived risks to humans and their pets. The number of snakes translocated around greater Melbourne, Victoria, each year can be very high (at least many hundreds). However, the effects of translocation on the behaviour and welfare of individual snakes, and the impact on existing snake populations at release sites are unknown. We used radio-telemetry of ‘resident’ and translocated snakes to investigate the consequences of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban parkland near Melbourne. Fourteen snakes (two female and four male residents, and four female and four male translocated snakes) implanted with radio-transmitters were tracked between spring 2002 and autumn 2003. Translocated snakes exhibited home ranges ~6 times larger than those of residents, although each group maintained core ranges of similar size. Translocated snakes travelled longer distances and were often located in residential areas adjacent to the park, whereas resident snakes were never located outside of the park.

No place like home: an experimental comparison of reintroduction strategies using snakes

“…Wide‐ranging movement is a common response to translocation, presumably as individuals search for familiar sites or attempt to home (Reinert & Rupert 1999; Bright & Morris 2004; Sullivan et al . 2004; Butler, Malone & Clemann 2005; Tuberville et al . 2005).…”

The response of herpetofauna to urbanization: Inferring patterns of persistence from wildlife databases

“…For example, the tree goanna (Varanus varius) has the largest home range of the reptiles recorded in greater Melbourne (107.5-387 ha - Guarino 2002) and is restricted in its post 1990 distribution mainly to large conservation reserves in the ranges east of Melbourne. Aside from habitat loss and mortality from road traffic, larger species of elapid snakes have also probably been adversely affected by direct human intervention through the deliberate killing or relocation of 'nuisance' individuals in urban areas (Clemann et al 2004;White & Burgin 2004;Butler et al 2005).…”

Problem-Elephant Translocation: Translocating the Problem and the Elephant?

“…Increased mortality of translocated individuals has been observed in raccoons [62], cougars [13], wolves [11], elephants [35] and snakes [21]. Similar survivability to resident populations has been reported in muskoxen [63].…”

“…On the three instances translocated elephants returned home, their use-areas between release and return were greater than their post-return home ranges. Wider ranging upon translocation has been documented in many species [3] including cougars [13], black bears [57], snakes [21] and crocodiles [22]. In addition to attempted homing, animals released in occupied habitats may show increased ranging due to competition with residents and exploration.…”

“…Mostly applied to ‘nuisance’ or ‘dangerous’ animals it is taxonomically biased towards mammals. Species so translocated include squirrels [8], raccoons [9], deer, bear, rodents [10], wolves [11], foxes, wild cats [12], cougars [13], leopards [14], tigers [15], elephants [16], [17], geese [18], eagles [19], Gila monsters [20], snakes [21] and crocodilians [22].…”