The problem is time. They want to do a study quickly, so they can gain data quickly with telemetry studies. In my opinion, that data is nearly worthless as information on what it takes to keep an animal in existence or for re-introduction purposes. There is real information to be gained and its all about predator avoidance behavior. Not reproductive or other. Its what an animal does when captured by a predator and escapes. In most cases, they abort that part of their range/routine. Some on the first event, others second event, others third. Etc, this also is about time between events. Contact an animal three times in three days and its outa here. Once a year, not so much, etc. also the severity of change is individualistic. Some more then others. There are no rules or trends that say an animal must respond the same way, each time and all individuals. A dumb example, if you take a thousand people, and have them walk down a dark hallway, one at a time, and at a certain point, have a fake bear jump out at them. 80% will scream. of that 80% 25% will pee their pants, of that percentage, 2% will both pee and crap their pants. Of the remaining 20% that did not scream 14% ran the other way. 5% grabbed the guy in the bear suit and beat the only crap out of him. The last percentage died of a heart attack. And all those percentage do vary by the makeup of the bear, and how well the man inside imitated the bear sound. This example is why biology attempts to dismiss behavior, And such terms as social as this without question complicates the whole nine yards. Back to the studies. in most cases, they are not funded by beneficial support, they are in many cases by law, funded by the companies that are going to destroy the habitat. Which means the funding is just to record what use to be there. Not how to preserve animals already there and are suffering. I would venture to say, none of these studies are about the possibility of using the information for re-introduction. end p 1

[ Show Entire Thread ]