Talk:Species reintroduction

IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group

• IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group

http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/

Re-introduction NEWS; Re-introduction Guidelines; IUCN Guidelines for the Placement of Confiscated Animals; Re-introduction Practitioners Directory 1998; Taxon & Species Specific Re-introduction Guidelines; RSG RESOURCE CD v. 1.0 January 2003;

• DOWNLOADS: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group

http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/downloads.html

• The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

http://www.iucn.org/

I have just added above important information about IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group in the external links section and included relevent info in the text too. Everybody is invited to study above links in detail and expand this article on Reintroduction. Thanks

Atulsnischal 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Reintroduction is a worldwide phenomenon. It is therefore pointless to divide this article into "efforts by the UK" and "efforts by everyone else". I'm placing the Globalize tag on this article, and invite editors to focus on efforts worldwide rather than by country. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your effort has proven fruitless. UK remains on top. Also with odd contradictions ('waiting for scottish bear project'/scottish bear project cancelled') Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

putting british wildlife right

There is an imbalance in British wildlife today, I am for the reintroduction of the European lynx as do many people that study our wildlife and are aware of the natural imbalance. Also if the European lynx was reintroduced, we probably wouldn’t even see them as they are amongst some of the best predators on earth (wild cats) and they are native remember they are meant to be here. Also the lynx is a majestic creature, who wouldn’t want such a beautiful cat in the UK. On the other hand I am not for the reintroduction of wolves as this would just not work, even though they are native we have very little space for them and would most probably come into contact with humans too much due to the way they hunt (chasing lager prey for miles upon miles). I also think it is unrealistic to reintroduce the brown bear as this is another animal which can easily live in an urban habitat and plus in America/ Canada where they have problem bears they have animal control units which are armed 24/7 and we don’t. It is also not unusual to hear bear attacks on humans and leads to the bear being disposed of which would just end up in a huge waste of money, recourse sand time. To conclude 200 maybe 100 years ago there wouldn’t even be an issue with reintroducing bears and wolves but know there are too many people, too many roads and too many unnatural habitats for either to sustainably live. On the complete flip side the European lynx would be the perfect animal to even out the food chain and to add structure to our wildlife. There is no argument about reintroducing the lynx where we NEED them the most such as Scotland with the red deer population spiraling out of control. A lynx is more natural than a rifle which at the moment is used to sort out the natural unbalance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.210.41 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Semantics

'Reintroduce' means 'introduce again'. So one can only reintroduce a species that has first been introduced.

Rabbits were introduced to australia by the british empire. If the rabbits were to succumb to a new strain of Myxomatosis, I could then reintroduce them - and become as popular with the aussies as Gaddafi was with the yanks!

However, as no one has introduced wolves to the british isles (they were native, then they were wiped out), they can't be reintroduced.Glevum (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the term is used in a conservation setting to mean exactly what this article is saying. The IUCN has a (Re-introduction Specialist Group[1] wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone,[2] various animals to the English countryside,[3] fishers to Olympic National Park,[4] etc. This is English, it doesn't always make complete semantic sense. We could, of course, invent our own term, but that would be contrary to standard usage. Don Lammers (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just have to accept that reintroduce, like many words in english, has more than one meaning. In my mind, the originator of the term in this context made a mistake, then again english is no doubt richer due to numerous previous mistakes over the centuries! :)Glevum (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Red Deer

I have changed this to "Red Deer" because there is no wiki link for Caucasian red deer, but there is for red deer which is more widely searched and known. Crastatter86 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Charmaine Rastatter/crastatter86

Possibly changing the title for this page

Reintroduction can mean many things depending on context. I feel that maybe changing the Title of this page from Reintroduction to "reintroduction of a species" would be a better heading for this article. Crastatter86 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)crastatter86

Agreed. 5.148.139.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 26 January 2016

European bison to England

Very few references for the list of UK introductions, but this one is surely false? "European bison to England – (successful)" 5.148.139.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 26 January 2016

UK section very dubious...?

In line with the previous section, it really (really) looks like someone has been messing with the UK section (living in cloud cuckooland!). The following are very unlikely:

• European bison to England – (successful)
• Eurasian lynx to the Scottish Highlands – (successful)

—GRM (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Plants

This article focuses on animals, even the first sentence implies that reintroduction only applies to animal species. I think that incorporating efforts to reintroduce plant species is important as well. I've included a few citations on plant reintroductions:

Drayton, B. & Primack, R.B. (2012) Success Rates for Reintroductions of Eight Perennial Plant Species after 15 Years. Restoration Ecology, 20, 299–303.

Guerrant, E.O. & Kaye, T.N. (2007) Reintroduction of rare and endangered plants: Common factors, questions and approaches. Australian Journal of Botany, 55, 362–370.

Maschinski, J. & Duquesnel, J. (2007) Successful reintroductions of the endangered long-lived Sargent’s cherry palm, Pseudophoenix sargentii, in the Florida Keys. Biological Conservation, 134, 122–129.

Seddon, P.J., Soorae, P.S. & Launay, F. (2005) Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Animal Conservation, 8, 51–58.

Principles of Reintroduction

I removed this section because it didn't seem to be adding anything. It seemed mostly a discussion of the differences between translocation and reintroduction as well as the difference between in situ and ex situ conservation. None of which is a principle of reintroduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arernst (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheetah Reintroduction in Saudi Arabia.

1. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2297351/saudi-arabia?fbclid=IwAR0YCqNJtTk0Qktrpv9gpPMd8nXAduamuyqQCB5mNjpuY38-wq0zoyTy_n0_aem_th_AUpbsfGMfvl5ZZVjP3EEPLQ3w5GER4JILERfs-JYVNBriBQVKWdBa05hRVhS6QalpCY&mibextid=S66gvF

2. https://www.saudigazette.com.sa/article/632156?fbclid=IwAR2Sfb3wCFOwVzhiExjF7Q34I6U9AETuMhiI9PYIn_yEearSeHv9NfewN3c_aem_th_AUppqgthZEFNtkwJq_cBHkDMbrAm_MBBGbG7nyVIyJ_vGaeIvRqT1QUkVYUJGSvWFBo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ Ovie11 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Significance of the Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG)?

I was confused by the section titled "Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG)" section, but I'm totally new to editing Wikipedia, and I'd like to get input from experienced editors or people who know more about species reintroduction.

My main question is this: Is the RSG significant enough to merit its own section? The rest of the article gives an overview of species reintroduction and lists specific examples of reintroduction efforts. This seems to be the only place where one institution is discussed in detail.

Part of this is a question about the topic. Is the RSG a dominant institution in species reintroduction, or is it one of several groups worldwide? (If no one knows, I can do some more research.)

The other part of the question is about editing standards. How significant does something have to be to merit its own section in an article?

To be clear, I'm not itching to abolish the work people put into this section. But as a reader, I did find it confusing, and I was surprised there were no citations. As a new editor, adding sources and context would be a fun and doable task, but before I refine the section, I want to be sure it's worth keeping.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Dentilliation (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)