Source: The Conversation – Canada
When major infrastructure projects are built in rural areas, wildlife is often dislocated and moved out of the way. This is called mitigation translocation, and it is a globally recognized method for moving animals. However, not everyone applies it the same way, or even at all.
In Canada, provinces like Ontario and Alberta only use relocation for federally listed at-risk species. In British Columbia, all 32 native amphibians and reptiles — federally listed as at-risk or not — must be relocated. But it wasn’t always this way.
Before the 2010 Winter Olympics, a section of B.C.’s Sea-to-Sky Highway was realigned to accommodate increased traffic flow between Vancouver and Whistler. However, the new highway would bisect the wetland habitat of the northern red-legged frog, a species listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.
Public pressure to protect the species prompted the provincial government to find a solution. That solution was to translocate all frogs from the affected wetland to a habitat outside the project footprint. Since then, mitigation translocation has become standard practice for amphibians and reptiles.
I am a Lab Manager and Research Technician at the University of British Columbia’s Martin Conservation Decisions Lab. In our study conducted from 2019 to 2022 in B.C., we found 227 projects that relocated individual animals, mostly for developments like pipelines.
Altogether, approximately 5.1 million individual animals were relocated, most of them amphibians — specifically, the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas). Translocation’s intent is to minimize the impacts of development, and at first glance, it seems like an appropriate solution.
At least that’s what I thought when I carried out my first translocation. Move a few amphibians from danger and call it a day. But our lab’s research shows that not only are we moving millions of animals, but we have no idea what happens to them next.
What is mitigation translocation?
The northern red-legged frog is among the amphibian species translocated in B.C. due to infrastructure development. (Walter Siegmund), CC BY-SA During mitigation translocation, also called “salvaging,” biologists will survey construction sites, collect all animals that may otherwise experience direct harm and relocate them to nearby habitats.
Perhaps the most important finding from our study is not just the sheer number of animals moved, but how little we know about what happens afterwards. The B.C. government issues permits as part of the translocation process.
Within the permit process, it’s up to a biologist hired by the project to determine how many animals they believe they will move and an appropriate release site for them. However, the only reporting requirements include providing the number of animals relocated and their life stage.
There is no legal requirement to provide co-ordinates for the release site chosen or monitor whether the relocated animals survived, reproduced or maintained a healthy population over time. Without proper monitoring programs in place, it is difficult to determine what happens to the animals after they are moved.
Not only are we moving millions of amphibians and reptiles, but we have no idea if the efforts to save them from direct harm just cause harm later.
Mitigation is not conservation The boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) is a species native to western North America. (USFWS Mountain-Prairie) Decades of global scale research suggest the reality of mitigation translocation is: it doesn’t work.
Especially not for amphibians and reptiles. For these animals, the quality of the release site is one of the most important factors we need to consider for translocation. They have specific habitat requirements they rely on for breeding, overwintering and migration routes — all of which can be difficult to identify and replicate when a habitat is lost to infrastructure development.
Animals moved may experience stress, become more vulnerable to predators and disease, face competition with resident populations or experience difficulty finding food. Some even attempt to return to their original capture location. Others may not survive or reproduce after release without any clear answers about why.
Without monitoring or research in B.C. to draw from, we cannot even speculate on the outcome of our translocations. Nor can we truly know if we’re causing indirect harm. Actions moving forward Mitigation translocation plays an important role in some situations: when the development is small and a habitat can be maintained, the animals are just temporarily disturbed.
When habitat loss is unavoidable, moving animals should not be the main option we resort to. Translocation is not a substitute for protecting habitats. Instead, governments must require industrial and infrastructure developments to avoid key habitat in the first place.
When that isn’t feasible, there must be monitoring that data experts can rely on to better guide translocation and produce more positive outcomes. Forcing animals out of the way cannot be the standard practice.
Protecting habitats and increasing monitoring will ensure that the strategies we use are genuinely helping animals survive in an increasingly developed landscape.
Megan Winand has received funding from MITACS, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and Together for Wildlife.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/23/animals-are-often-moved-to-make-way-for-infrastructure-but-we-dont-know-what-happens-to-them-next/