Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Extinct in the wild

Extinct in the wild () designates a that survives exclusively in , , or as naturalized populations outside its historical , with no known reproducing individuals persisting in within their native . This category reflects a precarious intermediary phase between severe and total , emphasizing dependence on human-managed populations for continued existence. Classification requires evidence from rigorous, exhaustive field surveys demonstrating the absence of wild individuals despite targeted searches in suitable habitats, coupled with confirmed persistence only under artificial conditions. The status underscores opportunities for recovery through reintroduction programs, as demonstrated by species like ( caballus przewalskii), which advanced from EW to endangered following successful releases into Mongolian steppes. Other notable cases include the (Corvus hawaiiensis), restricted to aviaries after degradation and predation eradicated wild flocks, highlighting the role of pressures in driving such declines. While the category prompts intensified , its application demands scrutiny of assessment methodologies to distinguish genuine wild extirpations from detection failures amid incomplete data.

Definition and Classification

IUCN Criteria for Extinct in the Wild

The classifies a as Extinct in the Wild (EW) when it is known only to survive in , , or as a naturalized well outside its past . This category indicates the complete absence of self-sustaining populations in the wild, with all known individuals dependent on human intervention for persistence. A may be presumed EW if exhaustive surveys fail to detect any individuals in their known, expected, or past habitats, conducted at appropriate times aligned with the , behavior, and seasonal patterns. Such surveys must cover the entire likely over a timeframe sufficient to account for detection probabilities and , ensuring no remains about the absence of wild populations. The criteria emphasize from field investigations rather than mere absence of recent records, distinguishing EW from data-deficient cases. These standards, outlined in version 3.1 of the Categories and Criteria adopted in 2001, require documentation of survey efforts, including methodology, coverage, and timing, to support the classification. Unlike the quantitative thresholds applied to threatened categories (, , ), relies on qualitative assessments of persistence in the wild, focusing on the taxon's ecological dependence on . Reclassification to lower risk is possible upon successful reintroduction and establishment of viable wild populations, reflecting the category's role in tracking recovery potential.

Distinctions from Extinct and Endangered Categories

The "Extinct in the Wild" (EW) category, as defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), applies to taxa with no known individuals surviving in their natural habitats but with extant populations maintained in captivity, cultivation, or as introduced populations outside their native range, following exhaustive surveys that yield no evidence of wild persistence. In contrast, the "Extinct" (EX) category denotes taxa for which there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died, implying total global extinction with no surviving specimens anywhere, verified through comprehensive searches confirming absence even in captivity or ex situ collections. This distinction underscores EW as a transitional state where genetic material and potential for reintroduction persist, whereas EX represents irreversible loss, as seen in cases like the dodo (Raphus cucullatus), declared EX in 1662 with no captive remnants. EW further diverges from the "Endangered" () category, which identifies taxa still extant in but facing a very high risk of due to factors such as observed or projected declines of at least 50% within 10 years or three generations, restricted geographic range with continuing decline, or small sizes (fewer than 2,500 mature individuals) coupled with decline rates exceeding 20% over five years or two generations. EN status requires evidence of ongoing wild presence and viability, albeit precarious, whereas EW confirms complete absence from natural ecosystems despite potential captive viability, emphasizing the loss of self-sustaining wild populations as the critical threshold. For instance, the (Equus ferus przewalskii) transitioned from EW in —after decades without wild survivors—to lower threat levels following reintroductions, illustrating EW's focus on dependency over mere risk metrics applied in EN assessments. These categories enable targeted : EX prompts historical analysis, EW prioritizes reintroduction feasibility, and EN demands protection to avert progression to EW or EX.

Historical Context

Early Documented Cases

The (Elaphurus davidianus), native to the wetlands of , represents one of the earliest well-documented cases of a species becoming extinct in the wild while persisting in captivity. Historically confined to marshy habitats along the Yangtze River, the deer's wild populations had dwindled due to habitat loss and overhunting by the early 20th century, with the final wild individuals disappearing around 1900 amid flooding and subsequent human predation during famine. A small captive herd maintained in the Chinese emperor's hunting park in survived until 1900, when it was destroyed during the Boxer Rebellion, though earlier exports to European zoos in the provided the foundation for subsequent breeding programs. The (Bison bonasus), or wisent, provides another early example, with its wild population vanishing by 1927 following centuries of , , and disease introduction in its native forests of . Last confirmed wild individuals were killed in and the around 1921, leaving only about 50-60 animals in zoos across , which formed the basis for genetic recovery efforts. Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), the last surviving wild horse species, was declared extinct in the wild by the mid-20th century, with the final confirmed sighting in Mongolia's in 1969. Discovered by Western science in the late , its decline accelerated due to conversion for , overgrazing by domestic , and direct capture for zoos, reducing wild numbers to near zero by the 1960s while a captive population of around 800 individuals was maintained globally. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) formally classified it as extinct in the wild during its initial Red List assessments in 1964, predating the category's widespread adoption. These cases, primarily from the early 1900s to 1960s, highlight patterns of anthropogenic pressures like habitat alteration and leading to wild extirpation, with survival hinging on pre-existing captive stocks whose genetic viability was later scrutinized for risks. Reintroduction attempts for these species in subsequent decades, such as to in the 1980s, demonstrated potential for recovery but underscored the challenges of restoring self-sustaining wild populations from managed lineages. ![Observation_des_chevaux_de_Przewalski_(Equus_ferus_przewalskii)][float-right]

Formal Recognition and Evolution of the Category

![Przewalski's horse, classified as Extinct in the Wild in the 1964 IUCN Red List assessment][float-right]
The "Extinct in the Wild" (EW) category was formally recognized in the inaugural of , published in 1964, which inventoried global conservation statuses based primarily on expert assessments. (Equus ferus przewalskii), surviving only in captivity after the last wild individuals were captured in the late , exemplifies early application of this , highlighting species dependent on ex situ populations without verified wild persistence. Initial categorizations relied on qualitative judgments rather than standardized quantitative thresholds, allowing for EW designations when field evidence indicated absence from historic ranges despite searches, though lacking uniform criteria across taxa.
The category evolved significantly with the adoption of objective, quantitative Categories and Criteria in 1994 (version 2.3), shifting from subjective evaluations to measurable extinction risk parameters applicable globally. Under these criteria, EW status requires evidence that exhaustive surveys in known or expected habitats, conducted at appropriate times and throughout the historic range, have failed to detect any individuals, presuming survival solely in cultivation, captivity, or as non-naturalized populations. This formalization addressed inconsistencies in prior lists, where threat assessments varied by specialist groups, and enabled more rigorous tracking of species like the (Corvus hawaiiensis), downlisted from EW in 2021 after reintroductions. Subsequent refinements occurred with version 3.1 in 2001, incorporating clarifications for criteria application without altering core definitions, emphasizing verifiable absence over mere rarity to distinguish from endangered statuses. These updates improved consistency and reduced bias in assessments, though critiques persist regarding under-detection of extinctions in inconspicuous taxa due to survey limitations. The category's evolution reflects a progression toward evidence-based , facilitating reclassification upon successful wild re-establishment, as seen in fewer than 100 EW species globally as of recent assessments.

Causal Factors

Dominant Anthropogenic Drivers

Habitat destruction and degradation, primarily through agricultural expansion, urbanization, and infrastructure development, represent the leading anthropogenic driver of species extinctions in the wild, affecting over 85% of all described species on the IUCN Red List as a primary threat. Empirical assessments indicate that 71.3% of globally threatened species face habitat loss as their dominant pressure, often resulting in fragmented populations unable to sustain reproduction or dispersal in the wild. For instance, conversion of forests and wetlands for farming has driven species like the Hawaiian crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) to extinction in the wild by 2002, eliminating viable natural habitats despite captive populations. Overexploitation via hunting, poaching, and unregulated harvesting ranks as a major secondary driver, particularly for vertebrates, contributing to the depletion of wild populations in approximately 30% of globally threatened bird species such as parrots and pigeons. Data from IUCN assessments show that direct resource use, including bushmeat trade and trophy hunting, has pushed large mammals toward wild extinction, with historical patterns revealing a 98% decline in the mean mass of hunted mammals over 1.5 million years due to selective pressure on larger individuals. Cases like the northern white rhinoceros illustrate this, where poaching for horns reduced wild numbers to zero by 2018, leaving only captives. Introduction of invasive alien species, often facilitated by human trade and transport, exacerbates these pressures and is implicated in 25.5% of threatened species' elevated extinction risk, with predation and competition driving 90% of known island extinctions. IUCN analyses confirm invasives as the second most common extinction driver since 1500 AD across taxa, disproportionately affecting isolated ecosystems where endemic species lack defenses, as seen in the Micronesian kingfisher's wild decline due to introduced predators. Pollution and climate change play supporting roles, with the former contaminating habitats and the latter altering ranges, but both lag behind direct land-use changes in historical causation; climate-driven shifts have contributed to an increasing share of extinctions since 1970, yet habitat alteration remains causally primary for most extinct-in-the-wild cases. These drivers often interact synergistically, amplifying outcomes beyond individual effects, as evidenced by peer-reviewed syntheses emphasizing cumulative human modification over singular factors.

Role of Natural and Stochastic Processes

While anthropogenic factors often reduce wild populations to critically low levels, natural and processes can independently or synergistically drive the final loss of free-living individuals, classifying as extinct in the wild (). processes encompass random variations that amplify extinction risk in small populations, including demographic stochasticity (unpredictable fluctuations in individual survival and reproduction), environmental stochasticity (correlated impacts from variable abiotic or biotic conditions), and genetic stochasticity (random changes via drift or ). These mechanisms become dominant when effective population sizes fall below 50-100 individuals, where the probability of can rise sharply due to variance in growth rates exceeding mean trends. Demographic stochasticity arises from binomial sampling of births, deaths, and sex ratios in finite populations, generating positive variance in growth rates that skews trajectories toward decline; for example, models show that populations under 20 pairs face over 10% annual risk from imbalances alone, compounded by overlapping generations or Allee effects where mating success plummets at low densities. Environmental stochasticity introduces temporally autocorrelated shocks, such as droughts or epizootics, which synchronize mortality across individuals and erode resilience; quantitative assessments indicate that even moderate annual environmental variance ( ~0.2-0.5 in vital rates) halves persistence times in populations smaller than 500. Genetic stochasticity, through and drift-induced loss of adaptive alleles, further elevates vulnerability, with empirical data from fragmented vertebrates showing 20-50% reductions in components like juvenile survival in inbred lines. Natural processes, distinct from stochasticity yet often interacting with it, include endemic predation, competition, or habitat perturbations from events like volcanic eruptions or wildfires, which can extirpate remnant populations without human mediation. For instance, IUCN criteria recognize that severely fragmented taxa may lose subpopulations to such deterministic natural events when isolation prevents recolonization, as seen in island endemics where single-catastrophe survival rates drop below 10% for groups under 100. In EW cases, these processes rarely act in isolation—small, closed wild groups post-human perturbation exhibit heightened susceptibility, with reintroduction failures often tracing to unmitigated stochastic overrides despite captive safeguards. Empirical models underscore that ignoring these dynamics overestimates recovery odds, as stochastic extinction dominates below minimum viable population thresholds derived from long-term demographic data.

Prominent Examples

Mammals and Birds

The (Equus ferus przewalskii), the sole surviving subspecies of wild horse, exemplifies a mammalian case that transitioned from extinct in the wild status. The last confirmed wild individuals were captured in in 1969, after which the species persisted solely in zoos and reserves, classified as extinct in the wild by IUCN until reintroduction programs in the and established self-sustaining herds totaling over 2,000 individuals across captivity and the wild by 2025, prompting a status upgrade to Endangered in 2011 based on population viability models and genetic diversity assessments. Reintroductions faced challenges from hybridization with domestic horses and predation, but empirical monitoring of growth rates exceeding 1.1 annually in key sites like confirmed recovery. Mammals remain underrepresented in the current IUCN extinct in the wild category compared to birds, with factors like and poaching dominating causal chains, though few active cases persist due to sporadic reintroduction successes. Birds constitute the majority of vertebrate species classified as extinct in the wild, often due to insular endemism amplifying vulnerability to invasive predators and habitat loss. The Hawaiian crow or ʻalalā (Corvus hawaiiensis), endemic to Hawaiʻi Island, was declared extinct in the wild in 2002 after the last confirmed pair perished, with no verified sightings since; predation by introduced mammals (rats, cats, mongooses) accounted for over 90% of nest failures in pre-extirpation studies, compounded by avian malaria transmitted by mosquitoes and deforestation for agriculture. Captive flocks exceed 120 individuals across U.S. facilities, supporting genetic management to preserve 95% heterozygosity, though reintroduction trials on Maui since 2020 have yielded low survival rates below 20% from disease and predation. The Socorro dove (Zenaida graysoni), restricted to Socorro Island off Mexico, vanished from the wild by 1972, driven by overhunting for sport and food, alongside competition and predation from introduced rats, cats, and sheep that degraded native forests covering 80% of the island. Zoo populations, numbering 150-200 birds as of recent inventories, derive from founders captured in the 1920s-1950s, with inbreeding coefficients approaching 0.2 necessitating targeted pairings; no viable reintroduction habitat exists without invasive species eradication, estimated to require decades of effort. The or siheye (Todiramphus cinnamominus), a Micronesian endemic, became extinct in the wild around 1988 following the (Boiga irregularis) invasion, which caused a 90%+ collapse of Guam's native forest birds through direct predation, as quantified by pre- and post-invasion surveys showing zero detections after 1987. Captive assurance colonies hold about 150 individuals, with genomic sequencing revealing low diversity but sufficient for short-term viability; suppression of snake densities to below 1 per via toxicants has enabled limited reintroductions on predator-free islands, though full recovery demands island-wide control infeasible under current logistics. These cases underscore how predator introductions can cascade to extirpation on islands lacking co-evolved defenses, with captive programs preserving raw genetic material but facing epigenetic and behavioral hurdles in restoration.

Other Taxa and Regional Cases

The Kihansi spray toad (Nectophrynoides asperginis), an amphibian endemic to a 4-hectare spray zone near the Kihansi River in Tanzania, was declared extinct in the wild by the IUCN in 2009 following habitat disruption from a hydropower dam constructed in 1996, which reduced perennial spray by over 90 percent, combined with chytrid fungal disease (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) detected in 2003 that wiped out the remaining population of approximately 10,000–20,000 individuals. The species survives solely in captivity at zoos including the Bronx Zoo, where breeding programs have produced over 1,000 individuals, though reintroduction attempts in 2012 failed due to unsuitable microclimate conditions post-dam mitigation efforts like misting systems. Among molluscs, multiple species of tree snails in the genus Partula, native to the of , exemplify EW status driven by biological invasions; the rosy wolf snail (), introduced in 1974 as a biocontrol agent against the giant African snail (Achatina fulica), decimated populations through predation, leading to over 60 Partula species becoming extinct or EW by the 1990s. For instance, Partula tohiveana was listed as EW until 2024, when captive-bred releases on Island resulted in wild breeding confirmed via genetic analysis of juveniles, prompting a downlisting to ; similar reintroduction successes have occurred for nine other Partula taxa since 2015, supported by predator-proof exclosures and habitat restoration, though ongoing threats from persist. In plants, the genus —seven species of large-flowered shrubs and small trees historically distributed across Andean montane forests from to northern —has all taxa classified as , with wild populations last reliably documented in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries, attributed to for and , compounded by potential of native seed-dispersing animals like bats or birds that fail to recognize the ornamental-like fruits. Similarly, alatamaha, a once confined to a 10-kilometer stretch along Georgia's in the United States, became after its last wild sighting in 1803, likely due to fungal () exacerbated by habitat clearing for cotton plantations, with all extant specimens descending from seeds collected by John and in 1765. Freshwater fish provide further cases, with 11 species globally assessed as EW as of 2025, primarily from altered riverine habitats; the butterfly splitfin (Ameca splendens), endemic to Mexico's Basin, vanished from the wild by the early 2000s due to groundwater overextraction for agriculture and introduction of ( spp.), surviving only through aquarium trade and programs that have maintained from pre-decline stocks. Regionally, Pacific islands illustrate concentrated EW patterns from invasive predators and habitat isolation; in the , Partula declines reflect broader archipelago-wide losses, where over 70 percent of native diversity has been eradicated since European contact, underscoring the vulnerability of oceanic islands to non-native generalist predators. In , the Kihansi case highlights infrastructure-driven extinctions in narrow-range endemics, paralleling threats in Southeast Asian and Latin American hotspots where dams fragment riparian zones critical for aquatic and semi-aquatic taxa. Andean regions, home to , demonstrate how cultivation inadvertently sustains EW plants while eroding wild through selection for horticultural traits.

Conservation Approaches

Captive Breeding and Population Management


Captive breeding programs represent the primary conservation strategy for species classified as extinct in the wild (EW) by the IUCN, aiming to sustain viable populations in ex situ facilities such as zoos and breeding centers while mitigating genetic erosion. These initiatives prioritize the species' long-term survival over commercial interests, involving coordinated international efforts to manage breeding pairs, monitor health, and apply veterinary interventions tailored to reproductive challenges. Population management protocols include maintaining studbooks for pedigree tracking and using molecular tools to assess heterozygosity levels, thereby minimizing inbreeding coefficients often exceeding 0.2 in small founder groups.
Successful examples demonstrate the potential efficacy of these programs. The (Equus ferus przewalskii), last observed in in 1969 and classified as , was preserved through from an initial pool of approximately 12 individuals across European zoos; by 1990, the captive population exceeded 800, facilitating reintroductions to starting in 1992, where over 400 now roam semi-wild herds. Similarly, the (Oryx leucoryx), extinct in by 1972, benefited from a breeding program initiated in the 1960s with nine founders, yielding over 5,000 captives by the 1990s and enabling releases in that established self-sustaining populations, leading to a IUCN downlisting to vulnerable in 2011. Challenges persist, including limited breeding capacity relative to the number of EW taxa—currently around 70 animal species—and risks such as reduced fitness in captive-reared individuals due to relaxed pressures. Guidelines from the IUCN recommend initiating ex situ measures when wild declines signal imminent , integrating them with restoration plans, though empirical data indicate reintroduction success rates below 50% without addressing underlying threats like or . Ongoing management thus emphasizes demographic modeling to forecast viability, with targets for effective sizes (N_e) of at least 50 to avert short-term risks.

Reintroduction Methodologies

Reintroduction methodologies for species extinct in the wild (EW) emphasize systematic planning to establish self-sustaining populations in restored habitats, guided by the IUCN's 2013 Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. These guidelines mandate prior removal of threats, such as habitat degradation or , and selection of source populations from programs with high to minimize . Habitat suitability assessments involve ecological surveys to confirm food availability, predator absence, and climate compatibility, often requiring multi-year restoration efforts before releases. Release techniques prioritize soft releases to enhance survival rates, where individuals are held in acclimation enclosures or towers for weeks to months, allowing to wild conditions while receiving supplemental food. For the (Gymnogyps californianus), declared EW in 1987 after the last wild individual died, reintroductions began in 1992 using towers in , with fledglings raised in isolation from humans to foster natural behaviors; by 2023, over 300 condors were free-flying across release sites, supported by ongoing mitigation. Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), EW until the 1990s, employed similar acclimation pens in starting in 1992, followed by semi-free ranging in fenced steppes before full release, resulting in over 2,000 individuals by 2020, though challenges like hybridization with domestic horses persist. Post-release monitoring integrates radio , GPS collars, and genetic sampling to track dispersal, , and health, with interventions for or . Success metrics include population growth exceeding 10% annually and evidence of natural recruitment, as seen in the condor's nesting rates post-2000. Veterinary protocols address captive-origin risks, such as low immunity, through vaccinations and ; however, failures occur if threats re-emerge, underscoring the need for long-term funding, estimated at $1-5 million per project over decades. Community involvement and policy enforcement, like restrictions, are critical to prevent reversal to EW status.

Assessment Metrics and Frameworks

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provides the primary global framework for assessing "Extinct in the Wild" () status through its Red List Categories and Criteria, version 3.1, which defines as a known only to survive in , , or as a naturalized population well outside its past range. To classify a as , assessors must demonstrate that no wild individuals persist, typically through exhaustive surveys of known and expected habitats conducted at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, and annual) across the full likely range, failing to detect any specimens. These surveys must span a timeframe sufficient to confirm absence, such as the last three generations of the or at least 10 years, whichever is longer, with evidence including field records, genetic sampling, and camera traps where applicable. Key metrics in IUCN assessments emphasize verifiable absence rather than quantitative population thresholds used for threatened categories; these include survey effort (e.g., person-hours or kilometers covered), detection probability models adjusted for species-specific traits like rarity or cryptic behavior, and habitat suitability indices to rule out undetected subpopulations. Expert judgment integrates time since last confirmed wild sighting, historical rates, and ongoing threat persistence (e.g., habitat loss metrics from data), but declarations require peer-reviewed documentation to minimize false extinctions. For instance, the (Corvus hawaiiensis) was assessed as EW in 2002 after surveys confirmed no wild birds since 2002 releases failed, supported by annual monitoring data showing zero detections. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) employs the Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework to evaluate EW-equivalent risks under the Endangered Species Act, focusing on current condition (e.g., abundance, reproduction in captivity), future scenarios via population viability models, and threat projections like demographic stochasticity or inbreeding depression in ex situ populations. This iterative process uses stochastic models (e.g., incorporating vital rates from captive data) to estimate quasi-extinction probabilities if reintroductions fail, differing from IUCN by emphasizing predictive analytics over retrospective surveys. NatureServe's conservation status ranks provide a complementary subnational framework, assigning GX (presumed extinct) or GH (possibly extinct) for taxa equivalent to EW when wild occurrences are unconfirmed despite targeted searches, calibrated against IUCN but incorporating regional data layers for habitat fragmentation metrics. These frameworks converge on empirical verification of wild extirpation but face scrutiny for undercounting cryptic due to imperfect detection metrics; studies indicate experts weigh detectability and data gaps heavily, with declarations often delayed until genetic surveys (e.g., eDNA) corroborate absence. Cross-validation between systems, such as aligning IUCN EW listings with USFWS plans, enhances robustness, though regional biases in survey can skew assessments toward well-studied taxa.

Challenges, Criticisms, and Debates

Biological and Genetic Limitations

Species extinct in the wild (EW) are maintained exclusively in , where small populations frequently create genetic bottlenecks that drastically reduce allelic diversity and heterozygosity levels. For instance, analyses of endangered taxa show that such bottlenecks correlate with lowered evolutionary potential and heightened vulnerability due to diminished . This persists even in managed programs, as effective sizes remain constrained by limited breeding pairs and space, exacerbating the fixation of deleterious alleles. Inbreeding depression emerges as a primary genetic limitation, with empirical studies linking low to reduced mean , impaired immune responses, and elevated juvenile mortality in captive lineages. In reintroduction scenarios, these effects compound, as inbred individuals exhibit poorer long-term growth and survival compared to outbred counterparts, as demonstrated in models of bottlenecked populations like the . For EW species, where wild recruits are absent, pedigree tracking reveals ongoing losses in , hindering recovery without interventions like artificial . Biologically, prolonged captivity selects for traits maladaptive in natural habitats, including altered —such as reduced body size or stress —and behavioral deficits like diminished anti-predator responses or efficiency. Genetic assays of captive-bred cohorts indicate that these shifts occur rapidly, often within generations, undermining reintroduction success by favoring domestication-like adaptations over wild-type . In EW plants and animals, small ex situ holdings amplify these issues, with over 80% of assessed populations numbering fewer than 100 mature individuals, limiting the raw material for restoring viable wild genomes. Such constraints underscore the causal primacy of founder effects and drift in perpetuating unfitness, independent of external threats.

Economic Costs and Resource Allocation

Conservation programs for extinct in the wild impose significant economic burdens, primarily through , , and reintroduction initiatives. The (Gymnogyps californianus) recovery effort, which addressed its extinct-in-the-wild status from 1987 to 2003, has cost over $35 million as of 2023, marking it as one of the most expensive operations globally. Annual operational expenses for such programs often exceed $1 million, covering specialized facilities, veterinary interventions, and personnel, as evidenced by the Ventana Wildlife Society's $1.1 million budget for condor care and release activities. The Hawaiian crow ('Alalā, Corvus hawaiiensis), declared extinct in the wild in 2002, exemplifies similar fiscal demands, with federal plans allocating over $14 million starting in 2009 for breeding, rearing, and habitat preparation on and the Big Island. These expenditures include constructing aviaries and conducting predator control, with multi-year action plans estimating additional millions for ongoing recovery phases through 2017. Broader analyses indicate that for taxa, including those EW, averages hundreds of thousands of dollars annually per species in regions like , scaling to over $1 million for large-scale efforts. Resource allocation debates highlight opportunity costs, as funds committed to EW recovery—often yielding slow population growth and persistent threats like disease—could alternatively bolster in-situ prevention for thousands of vulnerable species. Economists note that trade-offs arise when high per-individual costs (e.g., thousands of dollars per condor released) compete with broader habitat protection yielding higher biodiversity returns. Critics, including those evaluating de-extinction parallels, contend that reallocating such resources to living threatened taxa might avert more extinctions, given global conservation funding constraints estimated at $21.5 billion annually yet insufficient for all needs. This tension underscores causal priorities: preventing wild extirpation via land-use interventions typically proves more cost-effective than post-EW restoration, which faces compounded biological and logistical hurdles.

Ethical Considerations and Alternative Priorities

Conservation efforts for species extinct in the wild (EW) raise ethical questions about , as prolonged captivity in ex situ programs often involves unnatural living conditions, from small population sizes (typically under 1,000 individuals), and behavioral impairments that reduce fitness for release. Reintroduction attempts further risk individual suffering through handling stress, exposure to predators, , or novel diseases, with post-release mortality rates potentially exceeding 40-50% in the first year for some taxa. These concerns prompt debates on whether maintaining captive populations indefinitely prioritizes species persistence over the well-being of living animals, especially when is low and natural behaviors are suppressed. Critics argue that resources devoted to species impose high opportunity costs, diverting funds from preventing extinctions among thousands of wild populations facing imminent threats like habitat loss. For example, as of 2023, only 12 of approximately 82 species have successfully transitioned to lower threat categories via reintroduction, despite decades of ex situ investment, while 41 extant taxa have never attempted reestablishment due to logistical barriers. Annual global conservation spending, estimated at $76 billion, disproportionately favors charismatic or high-profile cases, leaving preventive actions underfunded; analogous analyses of efforts indicate that equivalent expenditures could avert multiple extinctions in extant . Such allocations reflect biases toward rather than evidence-based , potentially exacerbating overall decline. Alternative priorities advocate shifting focus to upstream interventions, such as preservation and threat mitigation for vulnerable wild populations, which yield higher returns in averting extinctions compared to the uncertain outcomes of EW reintroductions. frameworks emphasize with greater ecological roles, higher recovery potential, or broader benefits over EW cases where underlying drivers like habitat degradation persist unchanged. Some ethicists contend that allowing certain EW extinctions may be preferable when conservation measures inadvertently harm other taxa or ecosystems, as evidenced by U.S. Endangered Species Act implementations that have correlated with elevated extinction risks elsewhere through resource trade-offs. This approach aligns with causal assessments of human-induced decline, urging investments in scalable protections like protected areas over resource-intensive captive management with historically low success.

Recent Developments

Technological and Policy Innovations

Cloning technologies have advanced recovery efforts for species previously classified as extinct in the wild by restoring genetic diversity in captive populations. In December 2021, the first cloned , named , was born using from cells preserved in 1988, introducing genetic material absent from the current population descended from only seven founders. This initiative, conducted by Revive & Restore in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Smithsonian's National Zoo, and others, produced viable offspring from cloned individuals in November 2024, demonstrating reproductive success and potential for enhancing reintroduction programs. Similarly, cloning efforts for aim to mitigate from a bottleneck of 12-14 founders, with ongoing projects to clone preserved genetic samples for bolstering captive herds prior to further reintroductions. GPS and satellite tracking innovations facilitate precise monitoring of reintroduced individuals, improving survival rates and management. For Przewalski's horses released in Kazakhstan's Altyn Dala in 2024, solar-powered GPS transmitters braided into tail hair enable real-time data on movement and health without invasive collars, supporting in vast, remote areas. These tools, combined with sampling and AI-driven predictive modeling, allow for early detection of threats like disease or predation during reintroduction phases. On the policy front, the IUCN Species Survival Commission established the Extinct in the Wild Action Partnership () to coordinate global recovery strategies for the 79 species currently listed as , focusing on threat elimination, captive management, and phased reintroductions with measurable success criteria. In October 2025, at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, members adopted a framework on that endorses gene editing and other biotechnologies for conservation, rejecting a proposed moratorium and enabling applications like genetic rescue for taxa while requiring rigorous risk assessments. This policy shift reflects growing consensus on integrating emerging technologies with traditional approaches, provided ecological and welfare standards are met.

Case Studies of Transitions from EW Status

The Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), declared Extinct in the Wild by the IUCN in 1969 after the last wild individuals were lost due to habitat loss and hunting, represents a successful recovery through captive breeding and reintroduction. Captive populations, derived from 14 founders captured before extinction in the wild, expanded via international zoo programs, reaching over 1,800 individuals by the early 1990s. Reintroduction efforts began in Mongolia in the 1990s, with releases into Hustai National Park, Takhin Tal Nature Reserve, and Khomin Tal, establishing self-sustaining herds; by 2024, nearly 1,000 roamed three Mongolian sites, supplemented by releases in Kazakhstan's Golden Steppe. The IUCN downlisted it from EW to Critically Endangered in 2008 and to Endangered in 2011, reflecting viable wild populations exceeding 2,000 individuals across reintroduction sites. Genetic management, including pedigree analysis to mitigate inbreeding, and habitat protection have been key, though challenges like hybridization with domestic horses persist. The (Oryx leucoryx) transitioned from status, achieved by the early 1970s due to unregulated hunting with motorized vehicles post-World War II, to Vulnerable by 2011—the first species to revert from on the . The last confirmed wild individual was shot in 1972 in , but a small captive herd from 's royal collection formed the basis of recovery, augmented by breeding at the starting in 1962. Reintroductions commenced in in with 10 animals, leading to the establishment of protected reserves; by 1986, sufficient wild breeding prompted downlisting to Endangered. Subsequent programs in , UAE, and expanded populations to over 1,000 wild individuals by 2011, supported by anti-poaching measures and habitat restoration in arid ecosystems. Current estimates exceed 1,200 mature wild oryx, demonstrating the efficacy of coordinated international , though illegal hunting remains a threat. These cases illustrate that transitions from EW status require robust captive management to build , strategic site selection for reintroduction with suitable and minimal human conflict, and ongoing monitoring; however, not all efforts succeed, as seen in ongoing challenges for species like the (Cyanopsitta spixii), reintroduced in in 2022 but facing setbacks from disease. Success hinges on addressing root causes of initial decline, such as and changes, through policy enforcement and community involvement.

References

  1. [1]
    IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
    A taxon is Extinct in the Wild (EW) when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside ...Advanced · About · Frequently Asked Questions · 3.1
  2. [2]
    What does it mean for a species to be at risk of extinction?
    Feb 20, 2023 · An Extinct in the Wild (EW) species fits the criteria for 'Extinct' – exhaustive surveys have found no individuals in its expected habitats ...
  3. [3]
    Animals That Are Extinct In The Wild 2024 List
    Jan 9, 2024 · Przewalski's horse, a wild horse species native to the Central Asian steppes, was classified Extinct in the Wild by the IUCN in 1996. The ...What is an animal that is... · Reintroduction Attempts · Kihansi Spray Toad
  4. [4]
    Extinct in the Wild | The Zoological Society of London
    Extinct in the Wild is a category on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, with a current confirmed total of 84 species desperately in need of our help, ...
  5. [5]
    IUCN Red List criteria fail to recognise most threatened and extinct ...
    A species needs >50 % probability of becoming extinct in the wild in the next ten years or three generations to qualify as Critically Endangered under Criterion ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  6. [6]
    [PDF] IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria
    Feb 9, 2000 · A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, ...
  7. [7]
    IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria
    The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction.
  8. [8]
    Summary Statistics - IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
    However, Extinct in the Wild (EW) species can move into the threatened categories following successful reintroduction. Therefore, EW species should be included ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria
    Extinct in the Wild is defined as existing only in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range.
  10. [10]
    Red List Criteria Summary Sheet
    This quick-reference sheet presents all of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria in one page. This document is available in English, French and Spanish.
  11. [11]
    Pere David's Deer: Back from the Brink - Sporting Classics Daily
    May 31, 2024 · Then in 1900 the handful of deer that had survived the devastating flood were finished off and eaten by starving Chinese countrymen during the ...
  12. [12]
    A Last Chance for Animals and Plants Extinct in the Wild
    Sep 20, 2023 · A prime example is the European bison (Bison bonasus), which disappeared in the wild in 1927 and was reintroduced starting in 1952. Today, the ...
  13. [13]
    Przewalski's Horses Released into the Steppe in Kazakhstan
    Jun 4, 2025 · The species was declared extinct in the wild in 1969 and survived only due to breeding programs under human care in zoos.<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    Przewalski's horses return to Central Kazakhstan
    Sep 10, 2025 · Wild horses were declared extinct in the wild in 1969. Only through targeted breeding based on the remaining individuals in European Zoos could ...
  15. [15]
    Seventy five years of experience | IUCN
    Przewalski's horses were classified as Extinct in the wild during the initial IUCN Red List Assessment in 1964. They have since been reintroduced in Mongolia, ...
  16. [16]
    IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
    Established in 1964, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world's most comprehensive ...Citing The IUCN Red List · Searching The IUCN Red List · How the Red List is Used
  17. [17]
    Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN's System for Classifying ...
    Dec 3, 2008 · The new IUCN Categories and Criteria were first applied to birds (Collar et al. 1994) and then used for the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA
    Feb 9, 2000 · A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, ...
  19. [19]
    Frequently Asked Questions - IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
    The IUCN Red List records 'last seen' dates for species assessed as Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), and for Critically Endangered species flagged as ...
  20. [20]
    Comparison between versions 2.3 (1994) and 3.1 ... - IUCN Red List
    This document summarizes the differences between the two versions of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
  21. [21]
    Impact of habitat loss on species | WWF - Panda.org
    Habitat loss is probably the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today. It is identified as a main threat to 85% of all species described ...
  22. [22]
    The greatest threats to species - Conservation Biology - Wiley
    Mar 26, 2022 · The growing human population is responsible for a massive decline in species, biodiversity, and ecosystems across the globe.INTRODUCTION · METHODS · RESULTS · DISCUSSION
  23. [23]
    Five drivers of the nature crisis - UNEP
    Sep 5, 2023 · The global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, with agriculture alone being the identified threat of more than 85 per cent ...
  24. [24]
    Overexploitation - National Wildlife Federation
    Close to 30 percent of globally threatened birds are affected by overexploitation, particularly parrots, pigeons, and pheasants.
  25. [25]
  26. [26]
    From Poaching, Trafficking, To Demand. Wildlife Crime Explained
    Often, it is the local people and communities most in need that are exploited by crime groups to undertake poaching and illegal harvest of wild species.
  27. [27]
    [PDF] The IUCN Red List and invasive alien species: an analysis of ...
    However, IAS are associated with the extinction (Extinct, or Extinct in the Wild) of more species than any other threat category, being a driver in 56.7% of all ...<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    Invasive alien species and climate change - resource - IUCN
    The majority of known global extinctions (90%) with invasive alien species as one of the major causes have been reported from islands.
  29. [29]
    Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions - PMC - NIH
    Our results show that alien species are the second most common threat associated with species that have gone completely extinct from these taxa since AD 1500.
  30. [30]
    Climate change extinctions | Science
    Dec 5, 2024 · In line with predictions, climate change has contributed to an increasing proportion of observed global extinctions since 1970. Besides limiting ...
  31. [31]
    Anthropogenic impacts on threatened species erode functional ... - NIH
    Mar 28, 2023 · Human impacts, such as habitat loss, climate change, pollution, poaching, and unsustainable trade, impose major threats to the persistence of ...
  32. [32]
    Extinct-in-the-wild species' last stand - Science
    Jul 31, 2020 · Most extinct-in-the-wild species exist in small, closed populations, vulnerable to stochastic demographic processes and genetic threats ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Risks of Population Extinction from Demographic and Environmental ...
    Because independent individual events tend to average out in large populations, demographic stochasticity is most important in small populations. Second, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Survival of small populations under demographic stochasticity
    We find a strongly enhanced extinction risk if stochasticity in sex ratio and fluctuating population size act simultaneously as compared to the case where each ...
  35. [35]
    Demographic Stochasticity, Allee Effects, and Extinction
    Demographic stochasticity has a substantial influence on the growth of small populations and consequently on their extinction risk. Mating system is one of ...
  36. [36]
    Impacts of demographic and environmental stochasticity on ...
    Demographic stochasticity usually has a greater impact on small-scale populations, while environmental stochasticity can produce similar extinction probability ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity
    Demographic stochasticity and social mating system in the process of extinction of small populations: The case of passerines introduced to New Zealand. Am. Nat.
  38. [38]
    Disease and the dynamics of extinction - PMC - PubMed Central
    Invading infectious diseases can, in theory, lead to the extinction of host populations, particularly if reservoir species are present or if disease ...
  39. [39]
    Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors ...
    Inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity were associated with elevated extinction risk in wild butterfly populations (16), and extinction rates were markedly ...Most Species Are Not Driven... · Abstract · Discussion<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    [PDF] IUCN Species Survival Commission Guidelines on the Use of Ex situ ...
    Aug 29, 2014 · Small populations that are vulnerable to primary threats and stochastic processes may require some form of intensive management of individuals ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Demographic stochasticity - University of Colorado Boulder
    Demographic stochasticity is particularly important for small populations because it increases the probability of extinction. I. Probabilistic births and deaths.
  42. [42]
    An Update on Status and Conservation of the Przewalski's Horse ...
    Przewalski's horse was extinct in the wild in 1960s, and has been successfully saved from extinction by captive breeding [20,21,22]. Breeding centers for ...
  43. [43]
    How Many Przewalski Horses Are Left in the World in 2025?
    Sep 22, 2025 · The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) currently lists the Przewalski horse as Endangered. While the population has grown ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Przewalski's Horse (Equus ferus ssp. przewalskii) - IUCN Red List
    The growth rate analysis of the Hustai population is indicative of a population that is steadily and consistently growing. The convergence of growth rates in.
  45. [45]
    'Alala | San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance
    Conservation Status: IUCN Red List - Extinct in the wildThreats to survival: Habitat loss and fragmentation; predation by introduced mammals; ...
  46. [46]
    ʻAlalā (Hawaiian Crow) - American Bird Conservancy
    Scientific Name: Corvus hawaiiensis ; Population: 120+ in captivity; five released on Maui ; IUCN Status: Extinct in the Wild ; Trend: Unknown ; Habitat: Forests on ...
  47. [47]
    Species Profile for Hawaiian crow(Corvus hawaiiensis) - ECOS
    The Hawaiian Crow or Alala is a medium-sized crow, 18 to 20 inches in length. The sexes are similar in color and size.
  48. [48]
    Zenaida graysoni (Socorro dove, Grayson's dove, Solitary dove)
    Conservation Status. Extinct in the Wild. Last record: 1972 (Kittelberger et al., 2024). IUCN RedList status: Extinct in the Wild. Formerly endemic to Socorro ...
  49. [49]
    Socorro Doves, a Species Extinct in the Wild, Hatch at the Texas ...
    Aug 8, 2018 · Socorro doves were historically found only on Socorro Island of the west coast of Mexico, but were sadly wiped out due to a variety of threats, ...
  50. [50]
    List of animals that are extinct in the wild - Wikipedia
    Birds · Hawaiian crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) · Spix's macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii) · Alagoas curassow (Mitu mitu) · Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus cinnamominus) · Socorro ...
  51. [51]
    How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation ...
    Sep 9, 2020 · Third, we considered only birds and mammals, yet an additional 70 species in other taxa are listed as extinct in the wild on the Red List (IUCN, ...
  52. [52]
    Extinction crisis continues apace - IUCN
    Nov 3, 2009 · The main threats are pollution, introduced fish species and overharvesting. There are now 3,120 freshwater fishes on the IUCN Red List, up 510 ...
  53. [53]
    Kihansi spray toad goes extinct in the wild - Mongabay
    Nov 4, 2009 · This year's IUCN Red List has updated its assessment of the Kihansi spray toad, moving the species from Critically Endangered to Extinct in the Wild.
  54. [54]
    Partula snail conservation - ZSL
    Together we have reintroduced 11 previously extinct in the wild species. Pioneering the world's first predator-proof snail reserves on the Society islands.
  55. [55]
    Zoo conservation collaboration dedicated to 'extinct in the wild' snail ...
    Sep 26, 2024 · Conservationists discovered the first adult Partula tohiveana snail born in the wild since the species was declared Extinct in the Wild.
  56. [56]
    The world's most endangered plants - Gardens Illustrated
    Feb 26, 2025 · Some of the world's most endangered plants include Angels’s trumpets, Gumwood, Golden fuchsia, and Pygmy Rwandan waterlily.
  57. [57]
    Franklinia alatamaha (Franklin tree)
    IUCN RedList status: Extinct in the Wild. "Franklinia alatamaha is Extinct in the Wild. It has not been seen in the wild since 1803 despite numerous attempts ...
  58. [58]
    IUCN Red List and aquarium fish - INJAF
    ... The attractive livebearer Ameca splendens also features on the IUCN Red List and is thought to be extinct in the wild. A ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Captive breeding - IUCN Portal
    Sep 4, 1987 · Captive programmes involving species at risk should be conducted primarily for the benefit of the species and without commercial transactions.
  60. [60]
    Captive Breeding - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Captive breeding programs, also known as conservation breeding programs, enable zoos to exhibit many species of animals without capturing new individuals from ...Ii. Captive Breeding · Evolution · Endangered Mammals
  61. [61]
    Captivity saved these animals from extinction - CNN
    Sep 17, 2020 · Captive-bred Przewalski's horses have since been released in Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan. These horses live in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
  62. [62]
    What are some examples of animal species that have been saved ...
    Jun 4, 2023 · One shining example: the Arabian oryx. It became extinct in the wild about 1972. But by that time, Operation Oryx had already captured a number ...
  63. [63]
    Captive Breeding - IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group
    There is already limited captive breeding capacity and more species in need of conservation breeding programs than there are programs established.
  64. [64]
    IUCN Guidelines for Determining When and How Ex Situ ...
    Jul 26, 2016 · A variety of ex situ activities, from captive breeding and release programs to headstarting efforts and targeted research, can stave off ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Conserving Extinct in the Wild Species through Ex Situ Breeding
    Apr 16, 2010 · The chapter examines situations in which the extinction, or the near extinction, of a species in the wild is imminent and a captive breeding ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations
    These guidelines cover reintroductions and conservation translocations, including moving plants and animals, and aim to promote responsible translocation for ...
  67. [67]
    California Condor Recovery Program | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    Reintroduction and Monitoring. The Recovery Program began releasing captive reared condors back into the wild in 1992. The first releases were conducted in ...
  68. [68]
    Przewalski's Horse Species - Revive & Restore
    Once listed as extinct in the wild, careful captive breeding programs and reintroductions to their native habitat in the arid steppe of Mongolia and China have ...Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  69. [69]
    California Condor Recovery Program | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    California Range and Habitat​​ Today condors are being reintroduced into the mountains of southern California north of the Los Angeles basin, in the Big Sur ...What We Do · Condor HPAI Information · Initiatives · Get Involved
  70. [70]
    Understanding the drivers of expert opinion when classifying ...
    Experts consider data availability, time since last sighting, detectability, habitat availability, and population decline when declaring a species extinct.<|control11|><|separator|>
  71. [71]
    [PDF] Species Status Assessment Framework
    The Species Status Assessment (SSA) Framework is an analytical approach developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to deliver foundational ...
  72. [72]
    Species Status Assessment | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    Aug 1, 2016 · The Species Status Assessment framework is an analytical approach developed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service to deliver foundational science for informing all ...
  73. [73]
    NatureServe Global Conservation Status Ranks
    Possible ranks are GXC or GHC. This is equivalent to "Extinct in the Wild (EW) in IUCN's Red List terminology (IUCN 2001). Infraspecific Taxon Global ...Missing: frameworks | Show results with:frameworks
  74. [74]
    Genetics against extinction: New conservation strategies consider ...
    Jun 5, 2023 · Habitat loss, environmental change, and loss of genetic diversity have long been known as major factors driving species into extinction…
  75. [75]
    Genetic diversity and IUCN Red List status - Conservation Biology
    Feb 8, 2023 · Low genetic diversity is associated with reduced population mean fitness and inbreeding—both can contribute to population declines.Introduction · Data And Analyses · Low Versus Declining Genetic...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] Inbreeding reduces long-term growth of Alpine ibex populations
    Sep 2, 2019 · Our results show that inbreeding can have long-term demographic consequences even when environmental variation is large and deleterious alleles ...
  77. [77]
    Analysing the pedigree to identify undesirable losses of genetic ...
    Sep 17, 2024 · This study highlights the importance of keeping long-term pedigree information to monitor changes in the genetic diversity of captive populations.
  78. [78]
    Offspring survival changes over generations of captive breeding
    May 24, 2021 · Genetic changes as a result of captive breeding have been demonstrated to occur in as little as a single generation in steelhead trout, so ...
  79. [79]
    Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success - ScienceDirect
    Captive breeding provides species with a benign and stable environment but has the side effect to induce significant evolutionary changes.
  80. [80]
    Extinct in the wild: The precarious state of Earth's most threatened ...
    Feb 24, 2023 · Extending our analysis beyond the introduction in 1994 of the EW category ... (IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, 2010), pp. 182–186 ...
  81. [81]
    Genetic effects of long-term captive breeding on the endangered ...
    Oct 8, 2021 · Long-term captive populations often accumulate genetic changes that are detrimental to their survival in the wild.
  82. [82]
    Do Breeding Programs For Endangered Species Help? - Earth.Org
    Aug 16, 2023 · Since 1987, the California condor reintroduction effort in the US has cost over $35 million, making it the most costly captive operation ever.
  83. [83]
    Donate to Condor Recovery - VENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY
    The VWS Condor Program operates on a $1.1M budget to fulfill these actions, which are critical to the recovery effort.
  84. [84]
    $$14M effort announced to save rare Hawaiian bird
    Federal wildlife officials say they plan to spend more than $14 million to prevent the extinction of the Hawaiian crow, ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Modeling genetic benefits and financial costs of integrating ...
    Aug 25, 2022 · Average annual captive breeding costs are A$200,000 per species in Australia and reach A$1.2 million annually for the largest program, which ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  86. [86]
    The Economics of Endangered Species - Resources Magazine
    Oct 25, 2010 · Economics can help inform policymakers about the benefits and costs of species protection. Using nonmarket valuation techniques, economists have ...
  87. [87]
    How much does it cost to save a species from extinction ... - Journals
    Jul 10, 2019 · Governments, private sectors and civil society invested approximately US$21.5bn between 2001 and 2008 into global conservation efforts [1].Introduction · Material and methods · Results · Discussion
  88. [88]
    Reviving Extinct Species: Is It Worth the Cost? | Live Science
    Feb 27, 2017 · The money required to bring back and conserve extinct species would better go to saving living ones, a new paper argues.
  89. [89]
    Raptor reintroductions: Cost‐effective alternatives to captive breeding
    Jul 31, 2021 · As quantified here, avoiding the costs of captive breeding can provide important economic savings to reintroduction programmes and economic ...
  90. [90]
    Ethical Considerations for Wildlife Reintroductions and Rewilding
    Apr 3, 2020 · However, a society dependent on wildlife as a food resource raises ethical questions related to “harvest” through hunting, with obvious risks of ...
  91. [91]
    Ethical Considerations for Wildlife Reintroductions and Rewilding
    Apr 2, 2020 · This paper describes wildlife recovery in Europe and North America and elaborates on ethical considerations raised by the use of wildlife for different ...
  92. [92]
    Bringing extinct species back from the dead could hurt—not help ...
    Feb 27, 2017 · New analysis shows that the money used to care for resurrected animals could be better spent saving living ones woolly mammoths and ice age fauna.
  93. [93]
    Limited and biased global conservation funding means most ... - PNAS
    An analysis of species-based conservation projects over a 25-y period reveals larger and deeper taxonomic biases in funding than previously described.
  94. [94]
    Prioritisation to prevent extinction - PMC
    Prioritisation is about choice, and in the context of species extinction, it is about choosing what investments to make to prevent extinctions.
  95. [95]
    When Extinction is More Ethical Than Conservation
    This paper examines how the Endangered Species Act's measures to protect endangered species have resulted in increased rates of extinction.Missing: considerations wild
  96. [96]
    Ethics in biodiversity conservation: The meaning and importance of ...
    Ethical reasoning influences economic, political, and other societal decisions that ultimately cause biodiversity loss by triggering its main drivers: land-use ...
  97. [97]
    Black-footed Ferret Project - Revive & Restore
    A cloned black-footed ferret was born. This ferret, named Elizabeth Ann, marked the first time a US endangered species has been successfully cloned.Missing: IUCN | Show results with:IUCN
  98. [98]
    Advancements for Black-footed Ferret Conservation Continue with ...
    Nov 1, 2024 · This marks the first time a cloned U.S. endangered species has produced offspring, showcasing a critical step forward in using cloning to ...Missing: IUCN | Show results with:IUCN
  99. [99]
    Przewalski's Horse Project - Revive & Restore
    The Przewalski's Horse Project aims to restore genetic diversity of the endangered species through cloning, as all horses are descendants of 12 individuals.<|control11|><|separator|>
  100. [100]
    Przewalski's Horse Tracking and Reintroduction - National Zoo
    Through cutting-edge GPS satellite tracking and reintroduction programs, scientists are committed to saving the last truly wild horse species.Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  101. [101]
    Emerging Technologies in Wildlife Conservation - Husson University
    Aug 5, 2025 · Discover how drones, AI, and biotech are transforming wildlife conservation with smarter, faster tools to protect endangered species.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  102. [102]
    In Our Hands - Extinct in the wild
    Over a million species are threatened, with 79 currently extinct in the wild. The goal is to rescue and restore them to the wild, with 63 possibly extinct.
  103. [103]
    IUCN Rejects Moratorium, Adopts Balanced Synthetic Biology ...
    Oct 16, 2025 · ... IUCN Policy on Synthetic Biology, while narrowly defeating Motion 133, which called for a blanket moratorium on genetically modified wild ...
  104. [104]
    Should scientists be allowed to edit animals' genes? Yes, say some ...
    Oct 17, 2025 · In a vote Tuesday, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) approved further exploration of the use of genetic engineering ...
  105. [105]
    Mongolia dragged its wild horses back from extinction - The Guardian
    Jan 11, 2024 · Hunted to extinction in the wild in the 1960s, today there are nearly 1,000 Przewalski's horses at three sites in Mongolia, with more in China ...Missing: recovery | Show results with:recovery<|separator|>
  106. [106]
    TIL The Arabian Oryx became extinct in the wild by the early 1970s ...
    Mar 26, 2023 · In 2011, it was the first animal to revert to vulnerable status on the IUCN Red List after previously being listed as extinct.
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Amazing Species: Arabian Oryx - IUCN Red List
    Although long hunted for its meat and skin, the Arabian Oryx was only decimated in the wild after the Second World War, due to the increased availability of ...
  108. [108]
    Arabian oryx reintroduction - Wikipedia
    In 1986, as a result of the reintroduction efforts, the IUCN re-listed the Arabian oryx from extinct in the wild to endangered. By 2009, the Arabian oryx was ...
  109. [109]
    Arabian Oryx Conservation Story - Future Zoologist Academy
    From Extinct in the Wild to Vulnerable. As of 2011, Arabian oryxes are the first species to be downgraded from extinct in the wild to vulnerable (IUCN) ...
  110. [110]
    TypeError: Failed to fetch - National Geographic
    Today, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the species as vulnerable. There are only 1,220 wild oryx throughout the Arabian ...
  111. [111]
    For 'extinct' Spix's macaw, successful comeback is overshadowed by ...
    Jul 15, 2024 · In 2022, a reintroduction program finally released the first batch of 20 Spix's macaws, bred from captive birds, back into the wild, achieving ...
  112. [112]
    A grain of hope in the desert | IUCN
    Jun 16, 2011 · The regal Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx), which was hunted to near extinction, is now facing a more secure future according to the latest update of the IUCN Red ...