Troubling issues at the frontier of animal tracking for conservation and management

1. What they did

Electronic tagging and tracking, including biotelemetry and biologging, has revealed much about the hidden movements, habitats and deaths of wild animals. As the technology and public awareness of it have grown, a number of troubling and unexpected problems have appeared. In this short commentary, six researchers from fish ecology, wildlife biology and sociology gather examples of these problems from freshwater, marine and terrestrial settings, and suggest how manufacturers, funders, researchers, managers and animal-care committees could deal with them before they do harm. They do not cover the effects of catching animals and fitting them with tags, which are discussed elsewhere.

2. What they found

Tracking data used to find and harm animals

• In Minnesota, some anglers petitioned for access to movement data from tagged northern pike to help them catch fish, arguing that publicly funded data should be public. The attempt failed.
• In Western Australia, white sharks tagged for conservation research were also used as a beach warning system. The agency that issued the research permits had access to the data, and it was then used to locate and kill tagged sharks in a culling program.
• The authors expect similar cases where conflict with wildlife affects livelihoods, such as predators attacking livestock.

The public using tracking equipment

• Photographers used telemetry to find animals tagged by researchers and managers in Banff National Park, Canada, and Parks Canada banned public use of very high frequency (VHF) radio receivers there. Frequent exposure to people can habituate animals, which changes their natural behaviour, affects research findings, adds to human-wildlife conflict, and can end with an animal being put down.
• In India, people tried, without success, to hack the Global Positioning System (GPS) collar data of endangered Bengal tigers, a case of “cyber poaching”.
• Nonresearchers can buy and deploy their own tags, which is poorly regulated. A single tagged animal, like the Judas goat used for predator control, could be used to find and harm untagged animals.

Sabotage of studies

• Duplicate tag codes could stop researchers telling real detections apart, and with some acoustic systems so many tags could be released that receivers stop working.
• Corrupted tracking data could undermine dynamic marine protected areas, exposing animals to ship strikes or exploitation at a critical time.
• Media reports suggest hunters may target tagged Yellowstone wolves to interfere with research, and some wolf-persecution websites share strategies for working out tag codes.

How people see tagging

• A minority of aboriginal fishers in the Fraser River watershed see tagging salmon as “playing with food”, though support for telemetry among them is generally surprisingly high.
• In Pangnirtung, an Inuit community’s concern that tags and receivers would scare away culturally important wildlife led to research being paused for a time. It later resumed and helped manage the community fishery, but such concerns remain common across the Arctic.
• Other worries include acoustic tags helping marine mammals find tagged prey, noise disturbing marine animals, and (in Australia) tags warning marine mammals about sharks, so that sharks might turn to other prey, including people.
• Divers in the Bahamas try to remove satellite tags from sharks; national park visitors in the United States have said tagged animals spoil the “wilderness” experience; and wildlife photographers often object to any visible tag.

3. What they concluded

• Researchers have little guidance on how to respond to these criticisms. At worst, fear of criticism means important science goes undone or uses weaker tools or designs.
• More research is needed on the human dimensions of animal tracking: public views on research needs, animal welfare and data stewardship. Social science, including case studies with interviews and participant observation, could help find common ground.
• Their suggestions: plan the research agenda together with partners; include stakeholders in capture, tagging and tracking; share information on the technology through workshops; keep partners updated in ways that reach different groups; write a data-sharing policy setting out who can see which data and how they can be used; keep data secure; ask the telemetry industry to help prevent sabotage and exploitation; ask regulators for clear rules limiting public use of telemetry for purposes at odds with management agencies’ missions; listen to stakeholder concerns; bring industry, regulators and researchers together; work with human dimensions researchers; and learn from and share successes and mistakes.
• Without more forward thinking, electronic tagging could lead to the exploitation and disturbance of the very animals researchers want to protect. The authors place the onus on researchers to lead.

6. Other technologies, skills or innovations

• Technologies discussed: VHF radio telemetry and receivers, GPS collars, acoustic telemetry (including coded acoustic tags and receiver stations), and satellite tags.
• The authors point to tag codes, coding schemes and receiver-station locations as information that needs careful curation and security, and suggest sharing data in forms that do not make abuse easier.

7. Implications for conservation (from the paper)

• Open data and outreach bring risks: researchers and funders need to accept responsibility for what happens when tracking data become public.
• Tracking data can put the tagged animals themselves at risk, through hunting, culling, harassment or disturbance, and through corrupted data used to set protected areas.
• How local and indigenous communities see tagging can decide whether research goes ahead, so engaging them early matters for the future of tracking science.