Causes and consequences of lags in basic and applied research into feral wildlife ecology: the case for feral horses

The biomass of feral wildlife is eclipsing that of native wildlife in many parts of the world. Consequently, feral species are playing an increasingly important role in ecological community dynamics. Artificially selected life-history traits of wild but once domesticated species can elicit population dynamics that differ substantially from that of native species. Yet, we continue to lag in our understanding of the ecology and evolution of feral species with direct consequences to resource management and biodiversity conservation. In part, this is because basic and applied research into the ecology of feral wildlife is fraught with social and political challenges unique to science. Feral populations of companion animals or livestock, especially, can evoke strong emotional reactions among advocacy groups, particularly around issues of animal welfare and management policy. Managers tasked with controlling feral populations are often bound by social license, including legislative restrictions, incomparable to that of other wildlife, and harassment or litigation of researchers and managers is not uncommon. Further, research and management of feral species is often delegated to agricultural instead of wildlife government agencies with clear differences in mandate, staff education, and training. Using examples primarily from feral horses in North America, we show how scientists conducting research independent of the management process can find themselves placed between managers, advocates, and opponents of feral species, implicitly tasked with satisfying multiple and often contradictory interests of stakeholders, sometimes with direct and litigious interference. These barriers are exacerbated by inter-disciplinary tendencies to dismiss the importance of basic and applied ecological research into feral species, despite its relevance to sound decision-making. Feral species therefore possess politically and biologically facilitated asymmetries that favor persistence, growth, and expansion relative to native wildlife, while the timely study of these characteristics in nature continues to suffer from ideological opposition.