INTRODUCTION Author(s): Jay F. Kirkpatrick Source: Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 44(4s):S1-S2. Published By: American Association of Zoo Veterinarians DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260-44.4S.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1638/1042-7260-44.4S.1
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44(4S): S1–S2, 2013 Copyright 2013 by American Association of Zoo Veterinarians
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FERTILITY CONTROL FOR WILDLIFE
29–31 August 2012 Snow King Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA
INTRODUCTION This 2012 conference marks the 25th anniversary of the inception of this important series on the scientific, political, and social aspects of contraceptive management of wildlife populations. In the quarter century since this conference series was initiated, much has been accomplished in this scientific endeavor. There has been a dramatic expansion of the number of scientists, countries, agencies and nongovernmental organizations taking up the challenge of finding humane, effective, publicly acceptable, safe, and cost-effective approaches to managing various wildlife populations, where lethal controls are no longer useful or appropriate. The science has also expanded from a focus on a few species perceived as ‘‘pests,’’ to a wide spectrum of wildlife, including iconic native wildlife as well as captive species in zoological gardens and parks. Finally, three different wildlife contraceptives have been approved and registered by the U.S. government. Despite that progress, much remains to be accomplished. The original paradigm at that first conference in 1987 was reflected by the question, ‘‘Can we manage wildlife populations by means of fertility control?’’ That question has been answered: Yes, we can. We have done it. We have accomplished success at the population level with free-ranging horses and bison, urban deer, and even African elephants, just to name a few. But that question, in 2012, has now changed to, ‘‘How can we do this easier and cheaper?’’ That change in paradigm tells us we are succeeding to a large degree. This progress, in turn, has led to a search for longer acting forms of contraception, which is starting to provide some exciting answers. But the accompanying increase in the variety of species now under actual or prospective contraceptive management scenarios has also led to concern over what is acceptable and what is not, for any one species. Behavioral changes might be acceptable for some species, but not in a highly social wildlife species; reversibility might be advantageous—even a requirement—for one species and totally unacceptable for another. Hand delivery of the contraceptive might work well in some species, but remote delivery might be an absolute requirement in others. Thus, we now recognize that ‘‘one size will not fit all.’’ These are some of the scientific and technical challenges we face. But the greatest challenges lie not in the emerging science itself, but in the social, political, economic, and cultural barriers to applying this technology to wildlife in a practical manner. In 1993, at the third conference in this series in Denver, Bruce Gill and Michael Miller, then of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, delivered a paper entitled, ‘‘Thunder in the distance: The emerging policy debate over wildlife contraception.’’ They accurately predicted that wildlife fertility control ‘‘promises to be anything but tranquil.’’ Most of us engaged in the science of wildlife fertility control ignored that warning given to us almost two decades ago, and we did so at our own peril, and that of wildlife as well. They even put an exclamation point on the issue, quoting no less than Abraham Lincoln: ‘‘No policy that does not rest upon philosophical public opinion can be maintained.’’ As with many contemporary issues, science usually outpaces social acceptability, public understanding, the snail-like pace of cultural change, agency inertia, and political courage. Those who are engaged in this endeavor and those who support the concept must be diligent in addressing these largely S1
S2
JOURNAL OF ZOO AND WILDLIFE MEDICINE
nonscientific dimensions, or the science of wildlife fertility control will not reach its full potential. To be blunter, particularly those in the sciences have been ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the nonscientific issues and, for the most part, we have failed. That must change if all the hard work and all the valuable resources that have been invested in this endeavor are to succeed. This remarkable conference journey has taken us from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Melbourne, Australia, to Denver, Colorado, to Great Keppel Island on the Great Barrier Reef, to Kruger National Park in South Africa, to the historic city of York in the United Kingdom, and now under the afternoon shadow of what the French trappers of 1820 referred to as ‘‘Les Trois Tetons,’’ here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Now, let us see what the last five years since York have brought forth.
Jay F. Kirkpatrick On behalf of the Scientific Organizing Committee
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44(4S): S1–S2, 2013 Copyright 2013 by American Association of Zoo Veterinarians
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FERTILITY CONTROL FOR WILDLIFE
29–31 August 2012 Snow King Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA
INTRODUCTION This 2012 conference marks the 25th anniversary of the inception of this important series on the scientific, political, and social aspects of contraceptive management of wildlife populations. In the quarter century since this conference series was initiated, much has been accomplished in this scientific endeavor. There has been a dramatic expansion of the number of scientists, countries, agencies and nongovernmental organizations taking up the challenge of finding humane, effective, publicly acceptable, safe, and cost-effective approaches to managing various wildlife populations, where lethal controls are no longer useful or appropriate. The science has also expanded from a focus on a few species perceived as ‘‘pests,’’ to a wide spectrum of wildlife, including iconic native wildlife as well as captive species in zoological gardens and parks. Finally, three different wildlife contraceptives have been approved and registered by the U.S. government. Despite that progress, much remains to be accomplished. The original paradigm at that first conference in 1987 was reflected by the question, ‘‘Can we manage wildlife populations by means of fertility control?’’ That question has been answered: Yes, we can. We have done it. We have accomplished success at the population level with free-ranging horses and bison, urban deer, and even African elephants, just to name a few. But that question, in 2012, has now changed to, ‘‘How can we do this easier and cheaper?’’ That change in paradigm tells us we are succeeding to a large degree. This progress, in turn, has led to a search for longer acting forms of contraception, which is starting to provide some exciting answers. But the accompanying increase in the variety of species now under actual or prospective contraceptive management scenarios has also led to concern over what is acceptable and what is not, for any one species. Behavioral changes might be acceptable for some species, but not in a highly social wildlife species; reversibility might be advantageous—even a requirement—for one species and totally unacceptable for another. Hand delivery of the contraceptive might work well in some species, but remote delivery might be an absolute requirement in others. Thus, we now recognize that ‘‘one size will not fit all.’’ These are some of the scientific and technical challenges we face. But the greatest challenges lie not in the emerging science itself, but in the social, political, economic, and cultural barriers to applying this technology to wildlife in a practical manner. In 1993, at the third conference in this series in Denver, Bruce Gill and Michael Miller, then of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, delivered a paper entitled, ‘‘Thunder in the distance: The emerging policy debate over wildlife contraception.’’ They accurately predicted that wildlife fertility control ‘‘promises to be anything but tranquil.’’ Most of us engaged in the science of wildlife fertility control ignored that warning given to us almost two decades ago, and we did so at our own peril, and that of wildlife as well. They even put an exclamation point on the issue, quoting no less than Abraham Lincoln: ‘‘No policy that does not rest upon philosophical public opinion can be maintained.’’ As with many contemporary issues, science usually outpaces social acceptability, public understanding, the snail-like pace of cultural change, agency inertia, and political courage. Those who are engaged in this endeavor and those who support the concept must be diligent in addressing these largely S1
S2
JOURNAL OF ZOO AND WILDLIFE MEDICINE
nonscientific dimensions, or the science of wildlife fertility control will not reach its full potential. To be blunter, particularly those in the sciences have been ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the nonscientific issues and, for the most part, we have failed. That must change if all the hard work and all the valuable resources that have been invested in this endeavor are to succeed. This remarkable conference journey has taken us from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Melbourne, Australia, to Denver, Colorado, to Great Keppel Island on the Great Barrier Reef, to Kruger National Park in South Africa, to the historic city of York in the United Kingdom, and now under the afternoon shadow of what the French trappers of 1820 referred to as ‘‘Les Trois Tetons,’’ here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Now, let us see what the last five years since York have brought forth.
Jay F. Kirkpatrick On behalf of the Scientific Organizing Committee
