What Happens to Woodchucks?

What happens to woodchucks (aka “groundhogs”) that are trapped and released far away? Here in MA trapping is legal, and then killing is legal, but releasing elsewhere is not. The unofficial reason I’ve heard is that releasing elsewhere is “a cruel thing to do” but I fail to see how that’s more cruel than killing them. I’ve never heard a thought given to the idea that you’re now inflicting their presence on someone else.

So anyhow - has anyone studied exactly what happens to a relocated woodchuck? Do they try to “get home”? Do they get in territorial disputes with residing woodchucks? Do they just starve? Or do they just merrily go on their way, perhaps digging a new burrow (or whatever)?

Perhaps without an existing hole to hide in they get eaten by predators quickly.

Most areas are at just about their carrying capacity for woodchucks, so transporting one either causes it to starve/ be easy prey, or displaces all the other woodchucks in the area in a ripple effect as they adjust to another competitor.

Unless they are guaranteed to find a new home (burrow) once released, and enough food not to starve, and not get into territorial problems, and not pine for their own home … then releasing them in a foreign place means a slow death, whereas killing is a quick death. Hence one is cruel, the other not to.

It also means that you don’t catch them for sport arguing that you will release them later: if you catch them, you have to kill them, so if you don’t want that, then don’t catch them in the first place.

So far the responses seem pretty speculative.

There’s a lot of residual prejudice against groudhogs from farmers. The reason I’ve heard is the fear cattle will step into a groudhog hole and break a leg, but I don’t know if that is a real problem or what.

Here in Virginia it’s illegal to relocate them, but the reason given is that they’re “vermin,” not that it would be cruel.

Groundhogs are good diggers and eat grass, and according to Wikipedia, “Groundhogs hydrate through eating leafy plants rather than from a natural water source;” so it seems possible that they could set up shop in new territory successfully. Grass is widespread, dirt is everywhere, they don’t need water, and they might be able to dig a new home. I’m speculating here myself, of course.

It seems likely there are times of the year when they should not be moved – if they are caring for pups, certainly, and perhaps also in the lead-up time before hibernation, when the energy cost of digging a new tunnel complex might burn too much of their stored fat.

There is much more to relocation than just finding food and water, though. Some animals are very territorial by nature and will fight and expel any other adults in their area regardless of actual food available.

And even groundhogs don’t live alone, they need mates. Some animals mate for live, others for each season - in both cases the spouse left behind and the relocated spouse would not mate again, but pine for the other and slowly die. Some animals have harems of females and hierarchical groups, and a stranger simply can’t enter the group.

Also, I don’t know if one animal can dig their own burrow or if it’s a group affair, but most small animals survive in groups, not alone. If you need several escape tunnels, two storage chambers and one bedroom, digging that alone will take a long time compared to a group or using the old burrow from last year (which in a new area will be already occupied).

Which (absent the pining, of which it seems there’s little evidence in Marmota monax) is of course exactly what happens to many young groundhogs.

There is also the problem with catching one in a trap, releasing it, then catching one in a trap, releasing it, then catc

Generally, younglings in species that expel them move to the immediatly adjacent territories, not somewhere that’s hundreds of miles away and may look very different.

Wiki says the couples stay together till the youngs are born. Then the father leaves and the mother suckles until the youngs are grown enough to look for their own burrow.

I used to trap them and release them elsewhere in NY. I heard about the MA law recently from someone who wanted to hire a guy to do it. Makes no sense to me. There seems to be plenty for them to eat. Rabbits, deer, possums, and plenty of other critters were all over the place. These guys would dig under the fence and get in my garden, so I wanted them gone. They could easily have ended up in the spring traps the guy up the street had set. Release them out in the woods just didn’t sound that bad.

But they still must compete with established woodchucks - which in any fully populated area means the rate of success will not be great.

In my neighborhood, Precious the Akita is what usually happens. It’s horrible.

Isn’t that generally how things work? Relocating a chuck is the same as another one being born there, or another competing animal moving in.

Darwin had something to say about that - the reproductive rate is always higher than the number which survive to maturity, which means there is always competition.
I don’t have any good figures at my fingertips, but I presume, like most rodents, the majority of woodchucks do not survive to adulthood due to foxes, hawks, Oldsmobiles, and direct competition with established woodchucks for grazing areas.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned - this from a good friend who is a federally licensed wildlife rehabilitator. Relocating wild animals in general, at least here in Michigan, may expose both the existing population, as well as the relocated animals, to pathogens and parasites they don’t have any immunity for, or can cause the spread of such.

According to this, it’s illegal to relocate woodchucks in MA. That’s contrary to the OP, unless they changed the law since last summer.

Looks like MA has the same laws regarding moving any wildlife as MI does. I’m betting most, if not all states, have similar laws.

From the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, alist of reasons why relocating wildlife is harmful, ineffective and illegal.

I doubt many people who trap and release woodchucks are driving hundreds of miles or more (or shipping them by FedEx) to drop them off in areas where they could conceivably expose their brethren to new pathogens.

I also don’t see any citations to the effect that most areas are at their “carrying capacity” for groundhogs, that they pine for the fjords, likely will be attacked by territorial groundhogs etc.

The main (and logical) objection to trap and release is that you’re inflicting your vermin on others.

Read my second link.
Most wild animals (including woodchucks) have a fairly small territory.
You don’t have to move an animal hundreds of miles to spread disease, depending on the type of animal, just a few miles away will be enough.

Then it won’t spread very far.

How is this contrary to what the OP (me) said?

Trap - OK
Kill - OK
Relocate - Not OK.

(Just curious - maybe my writing’s not so clear)