Captive breeding and reintroduction programs are one of the most commonly used tools in the conservation toolbox. There have been many case studies about the effectiveness of such programs. While some have shown a measure of success, there is still debate over whether or not some species do well in such programs. There’s a general opinion in the scientific community that “long-lived, large-bodied species” with “complex social systems” are not the best candidates for captive breeding. On the other hand, the research suggests that fishes, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates appear to be much better – and more cost-effective – candidates.

This could be good news given growing concerns over the “global scale of amphibian declines.” These concerns that have led to initiatives like the IUCN Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force. They found in 2008 that 42% of amphibian species were in decline and 32% were threatened with extinction. This warrants a strong response, leading the researchers of this paper to explore how the declines might be slowed and/or reversed. The authors conducted a thorough review of the current literature on captive breeding and reintroduction programs, as well as literature that evaluates emerging threats to amphibians worldwide.

At first glance, the results are encouraging. There has been a 57% increase in captive breeding and reintroduction programs since 2007 compared to the previous four decades. This includes a 20% increase in programs that address critically endangered species. According to the study, “although the reintroduction of animals is frequently promoted as the primary reason for captive breeding,” programs that are reintroduction-focused have actually fallen. Since 2007, the proportion has gone down from 41% to 16%. In recent years, “captive assurance” programs, which guarantee a certain number of captive species are kept for breeding before reintroduction, has been more popular. Conservation policy is changing, in some cases quite rapidly. The authors here note that conservation isn’t neutral, but instead is influenced by “shifting agendas and philosophies that in some respects have come full circle.”

This study presents a mixed bag for conservation advocates. While efforts to help amphibians are admirable and show some encouraging signs, captive breeding cannot be our only approach. The authors note that, as environmental threats continue to emerge, breeding and reintroduction policies will need to take these threats into account. Many conservationists who support captive breeding and reintroduction programs think of them as “arks” (some of them even using the word ark in their name). But this study is blunt in response: considering “the emergence of complex threats, such as disease and climate change,” it may be that “the arks have sailed once again.” The way forward for conservation is complicated and wild animal advocates need to constantly evaluate and reassess different tools and policies.