Eurasian beaver feeding on vegetation on the River Otter, England.
(Credit: R.E. Auster).

By Roger E. Auster, Alan Puttock, Gareth Bradbury, and Richard Brazier

Read the full paper here.

Humans often give names to individual animals. This may be to show affection for the animal, to identify individuals, or tell their stories. In conservation, there can be opportunities from naming animals but there can also be risks. Here, we outline several of these opportunities and risks in the context of animal reintroductions to demonstrate that naming is more than a simple action, and thereby one that must be thought through carefully.

Reintroduction is where a species is released in an area where they used to be present, but no longer occur. We have experience from Eurasian beaver reintroduction in England and have observed several occasions where individuals have been given names. We draw on this experience with examples and supporting literature, to provide an overview of the cases for and against giving names to individuals.

Reasons for naming individuals include a recognition that it provides a low-cost tool that can engage publics in a project or help people to relate to reintroduced species which may until now be unfamiliar. Naming could also encourage a sense of project ownership among local people or provide an educational mechanism to communicate information about the species and how to coexist.

There is a risk however that naming could result in misrepresentation of the natural characteristics of a species, influencing perceptions the species in the longer term. Naming could risk setting a troubling precedent by establishing a sense that humans have dominion over the animal, or increase focus on the individual and distract from a key reintroduction goal of establishing self-sustaining populations. It could also lead to emotional investment in individuals that may influence project outcomes if that individual then comes to harm (naturally or otherwise).

Hence, we argue that naming individuals is more than a simple gesture. We refrain from saying it is something that ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be done, but hope to stimulate thought and encourage careful consideration of whether it is an action that will be beneficial in each project context. When it does take place, we encourage careful and informative message framing that minimises risks and is prepared for future scenarios, and approaches to naming that enable the opportunities to be realised and contribute towards renewed coexistence with the reintroduced species.