Wildlife fertility control: a mini-review of technologies, efficacy, and welfare impacts

Jens Jacob; Giovanna Massei

doi:10.1590/1984-3143-AR2026-0114

Thematic Section: XI International Symposium on Animal Biology of Reproduction (ISABR 2026)

Wildlife fertility control: a mini-review of technologies, efficacy, and welfare impacts

Jens Jacob; Giovanna Massei

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2026-0114 Anim Reprod, vol.23, n4, e20260114, 2026

PDF

Downloads: 3

Abstract

This review examines the growing challenge of managing overabundant wildlife populations in the context of increasing human–wildlife conflicts. Traditionally, population control has relied on lethal methods such as culling, but these approaches are increasingly restricted due to concerns over environmental harm, non-target effects, human safety, and shifting societal values favouring more humane solutions. Fertility control has emerged as a promising non-lethal alternative, aiming to regulate populations by reducing reproductive success rather than increasing mortality. Its effectiveness depends on species-specific life-history traits: it can rapidly reduce populations of short-lived, highly fecund species, while effects in long-lived animals are delayed. Various fertility control methods are available, including endocrine suppression, immunocontraceptive vaccines, synthetic hormones and non-endocrine approaches such as zona pellucida vaccines. A major limitation to field applications of fertility control is the development of efficient delivery systems, particularly for small or free-ranging species where oral delivery must overcome challenges of palatability, stability, and species-specificity. Animal welfare considerations depend on species, contraceptives and contexts and involve trade-offs between reduced mortality and potential impacts on behaviour, physiology, and reproduction. Nevertheless, fertility control may offer welfare advantages over lethal methods and can reduce the transmission of infectious agents by maintaining social stability. Despite its potential, widespread implementation is constrained by economic and regulatory barriers. Overall, fertility control represents a valuable tool within integrated wildlife management strategies, though continued technological innovation and regulatory adaptation are essential for widespread application in the future.

Keywords

contraception, human-wildlife-conflict, population management, vertebrate management

References

Abrahms B, Carter NH, Clark-Wolf TJ, Gaynor KM, Johansson E, McInturff A, Nisi AC, Rafiq K, West L. Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict. Nat Clim Chang. 2023;13(3):224-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01608-5.

Barfield JP, Nieschlag E, Cooper TG. Fertility control in wildlife: humans as a model. Contraception. 2006;73(1):6-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2005.06.070. PMid:16371289.

Bertschinger H, Asa C, Calle P, Long J, Bauman K, DeMatteo K, Jöchle W, Trigg T, Human A. Control of reproduction and sex related behaviour in exotic wild carnivores with the GnRH analogue deslorelin: preliminary observations. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:275-83. PMid:11787162.

Bomford M. A role for fertility control in wildlife management. Bureau of Rural Resources Bulletin. 1990;7:1-50.

Charlton G, Falzon G, Shepley A, Fleming P, Ballard G, Meek P, Fisher P. The Sentinel Bait Station: an automated, intelligent design pest animal baiting system. Wildl Res. 2024;51(1):WR22183.

Chen R, Little R, Mihaylova L, Delahay R, Cox R. Wildlife surveillance using deep learning methods. Ecol Evol. 2019;9(17):9453-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5410. PMid:31534668.

Choisy M, Rohani P. Harvesting can increase severity of wildlife disease epidemics. Proc Biol Sci. 2006;273(1597):2025-34. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3554. PMid:16846909.

Croft S, Franzetti B, Gill R, Massei G. Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238429. PMid:32946480.

Davis SA, Pech RP, Singleton GR. Simulation of fertility control in an eruptive house mouse (Mus domesticus) population in south-eastern Australia. ACIAR Monograph Series. 2003;96:320-4.

Dolbeer RA. Population dynamics: the foundation of wildlife damage management for the 21st century. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 1998;18:2-11. https://doi.org/10.5070/V418110312.

Eckerström Liedholm S, Hecht L, Elliott V. Improving wild animal welfare through contraception. Bioscience. 2024;74(10):695-700. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae071. PMid:39444510.

Fagerstone K, Coffey MA, Curtis PD, Dolbeer RA, Killian GJ, Miller LA, Wilmot LM. Wildlife fertility control: technical review. The Wildlife Society. 2002;2:1-33.

Gierus L, Birand A, Bunting MD, Godahewa GI, Piltz SG, Oh KP, Piaggio AJ, Threadgill DW, Godwin J, Edwards O, Cassey P, Ross JV, Prowse TAA, Thomas PQ. Leveraging a natural murine meiotic drive to suppress invasive populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119(46):e2213308119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213308119. PMid:36346842.

Gionfriddo JP, Denicola AJ, Miller LA, Fagerstone KA. Health effects of GnRH immunocontraception of wild white‐tailed deer in New Jersey. Wildl Soc Bull. 2011;35(3):149-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.17.

Hampton J, Hyndman T, Barnes A, Collins T. Is wildlife fertility control always humane? Animals (Basel). 2015;5(4):1047-71. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5040398. PMid:26506395.

Herbert C, Trigg T, Renfree M, Shaw G, Eckery D, Cooper D. Long-term effects of deslorelin implants on reproduction in the female tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii). Reproduction. 2005;129(3):361-9. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00432. PMid:15749962.

Hinds LA, Oh KP, Massei G. Emerging technologies: fertility control for rodent management. In: Jacob J, Singleton GR, editors. Rodent pests: ecology and management. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2026. p. 184-207. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781800626508.0009.

Jacob J, Matulessy J. Sudarmaji. The effects of imposed sterility of spatial activity of female ricefield rats. J Wildl Manage. 2004;68(4):1138-44. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[1138:EOISOM]2.0.CO;2.

Jacob J, Singleton GR. Rodent pests: ecology and management. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2026. 467 p. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781800626508.0000.

Jacoblinnert K, Jacob J, Zhang Z, Hinds LA. The status of fertility control for rodents‐recent achievements and future directions. Integr Zool. 2022;17(6):964-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12588. PMid:34549512.

Ji W, Clout MN, Sarre SD. Responses of male brushtail possums to sterile females: implications for biological control. J Appl Ecol. 2000;37(6):926-34. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00546.x.

Kirkpatrick JF, Lyda RO, Frank KM. Contraceptive vaccines for wildlife: a review. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2011;66(1):40-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2011.01003.x. PMid:21501279.

Ma D, Abrahms B, Allgeier J, Newbold T, Weeks BC, Carter NH. Global expansion of human-wildlife overlap in the 21st century. Sci Adv. 2024;10(34):eadp7706. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp7706. PMid:39167651.

Massei G. Fertility control for wildlife: A European perspective. Animals (Basel). 2023;13(3):428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030428. PMid:36766317.

Massei G, Coats J, Quy R, Storer K, Cowan DP. The boar-operated-system: a novel method to deliver baits to wild pigs. J Wildl Manage. 2010;74(2):333-6. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-489.

Massei G, Cowan DP, Coats J, Bellamy F, Quy R, Pietravalle S, Brash M, Miller LA. Long-term effects of immunocontraception on wild boar fertility, physiology and behaviour. Wildl Res. 2012;39(5):378-85. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR11196.

Mayer LP, Pearsall NA, Christian PJ, Devine PJ, Payne CM, McCuskey MK, Marion SL, Sipes IG, Hoyer PB. Long-term effects of ovarian follicular depletion in rats by 4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide. Reprod Toxicol. 2002;16(6):775-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6238(02)00048-5. PMid:12401505.

Miller LA, Johns BE, Killian GJ. Long-term effects of PZP immunization on reproduction in white-tailed deer. Vaccine. 1999;18(5-6):568-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(99)00165-6. PMid:10519948.

Nave CD, Coulson G, Poiani A, Shaw G, Renfree MB. Fertility control in the eastern grey kangaroo using levonorgestrel implants. J Wildl Manage. 2002;66(2):470-7. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803180.

Nielsen CK, Porter WF, Underwood HB. An adaptive management approach to controlling suburban deer. Wildl Soc Bull. 1997;25(2):470-7.

Patton M, Jochle W, Penfold L. Review of contraception in ungulate species. Zoo Biol. 2007;26(4):311-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20154. PMid:19360583.

Pepin KM, Davis AJ, Cunningham FL, VerCauteren KC, Eckery DC. Potential effects of incorporating fertility control into typical culling regimes in wild pig populations. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183441. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183441. PMid:28837610.

Pinkham R, Koon K-K, To J, Chan J, Vial F, Gomm M, Eckery DC, Massei G. Long-term effect of a GnRH-based immunocontraceptive on feral cattle in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272604. PMid:35976896.

Rhyan JC, Miller LA, Fagerstone KA. The use of contraception as a disease management tool in wildlife. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2013;44(4, Suppl):S135-7. https://doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260-44.4S.S135. PMid:24437094.

Riordan P, Delahay RJ, Cheeseman C, Johnson PJ, Macdonald DW. Culling-induced changes in badger (Meles meles) behaviour, social organisation and the epidemiology of bovine tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028904. PMid:22194946.

Runge J-N, Lindholm AK. The t haplotype, a selfish genetic element, manipulates migration propensity in free-living wild house mice Mus musculus domesticus. bioRxiv. 2018:271247.

Sharma S, Hinds LA. Formulation and delivery of vaccines: ongoing challenges for animal management. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012;4(4):258-66. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.103231. PMid:23248557.

Speakman JR. The physiological costs of reproduction in small mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1490):375-98. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2145. PMid:17686735.

Trigg T, Wright P, Armour A, Williamson P, Junaidi A, Martin G, Doyle A, Walsh J. Use of a GnRH analogue implant to produce reversible long-term suppression of reproductive function in male and female domestic dogs. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:255-61. PMid:11787159.

Submitted date:
06/15/2026

Accepted date:
09/10/2026

Wildlife fertility control: a mini-review of technologies, efficacy, and welfare impacts

Jens Jacob; Giovanna Massei

Abstract

Keywords

References

Links

Share

Anim Reprod