Using the recent case of an Andean jaguar translocated hundreds of kilometers to a distinct savanna ecosystem in Colombia, we critique the prevalent “Reactive Removal” model often framed misleadingly as “rescue.” We contrast this approach, which disregards local adaptation, creates ecosystem mismatches, and blocks natural range recovery, with a needed “Proactive Coexistence” framework. Real conservation success requires implementing standardized, science-based decision protocols and noninvasive monitoring to foster community tolerance, thereby securing shared landscapes rather than exiling apex predators due to institutional incapacity. The recovery and maintenance of large carnivore populations in the Anthropocene depends entirely on our capacity to share landscapes and coexist. Conservation science has spent decades developing frameworks for human-carnivore coexistence, emphasizing tolerance, mitigation, livestock management and productive improvement, habitat conservation and connectivity, and even compensation as the best ways to share and manage such landscapes. Yet, on the front lines of conservation in the Neotropics, a dangerous disconnect persists between scientific recommendation and administrative action. This disconnect was starkly illustrated in October 2025 in Cundinamarca, Colombia. For the first time in decades, a male jaguar (Panthera onca) was reported in the Andean foothills surrounding Bogotá (Semana 2025). This should have been reported as a conservation milestone, evidencing range recovery and corridor functionality for the species. Instead of protection, the environmental authority, Corporación Autónoma Regional de Cundinamarca (CAR), opted for capture, removal, and translocation of the individual (CAR 2025). The jaguar was translocated to the Vichada department in the Eastern Llanos. While this region hosts an established jaguar population, it represents a savanna ecosystem very distinct from the Andean capture site, located hundreds of kilometers away. Prioritizing generic habitat availability over ecological continuity, this decision disregarded potential local adaptations and genetic substructures. Instead of managing the jaguar within the area it had naturally recolonized, the translocation treated individuals as interchangeable, removing a vital pioneer for range recovery. Although the authority, and therefore the media based on multiple press releases, framed this move as a ‘rescue’, it was, in practice, an eviction. This scenario illustrates what we term the ‘rescue trap’. When large predators emerge in human-dominated areas, fear and novelty drive and promote public pressure and call for authorities' action. In response, institutions often lack the technical capacity or political will to enforce coexistence. Consequently, without scientific support, the environmental authority chose the path of least resistance and highest public approval: the removal of a ‘lucky’ individual (even though multiple reports could mean multiple individuals). By labeling these removals as ‘rescues’, authorities manipulate public perception, framing the animal as ‘lost’ or ‘displaced’ simply for occurring in a fragmented landscape within its natural historical range (de la Torre et al. 2018), and the authority as its savior. This narrative is damaging for many reasons, but especially because it normalizes intolerance by reinforcing the idea that large predators do not belong in shared landscapes and that their presence is an anomaly requiring human intervention. Furthermore, it obscures ecological failure by hiding the fact that moving an animal without evaluating its potential unique genetic structure (risking the loss of local adaptations) or ecological suitability (translocating an Andean individual to a distinct savanna ecosystem without even implementing soft-release protocols) is often a death sentence for the individual and a disruption to the receiving population (IUCN/SSC 2013; Sherman et al. 2025). While this occurred in Colombia, it is symptomatic of a broader vulnerability evident across the Neotropics. Similar reactive patterns, where conflict or presence is managed through removal rather than coexistence, have been observed from Mexico to Brazil. Such patterns reveal a systemic gap across many biodiversity hotspots: the lack of coherent, standardized policies for managing large carnivores beyond protected areas' boundaries. Without robust protocols, agencies meant to guard biodiversity inadvertently become its adversaries. Functioning less like conservationists and more like ‘border control’ agents, these authorities enforce a false dichotomy and artificial distance between nature and human society. If the administrative response to every jaguar, puma, or Andean bear that attempts to recolonize its historical range is translocation, we are effectively placing a hard cap and threat to population recovery and species conservation. What, then, does the front line require from conservation science? To tackle this issue, conservation practitioners need more than just general coexistence theories or reactive uninformed actions. We need the scientific community to provide specific operational tools that bind administrative action, and we need decision makers, managers and practitioners who hear, value, and consider scientific advice as a critical part of their conservation work. Specifically, authorities require standardized decision trees grounded in scientifically validated conflict response matrices. These protocols should prioritize in situ monitoring and coexistence strategies as the default course of action, restricting removal or translocation solely as the last resort or to cases involving confirmed injury or imminent threat to human safety (CAR and ProCAT 2017; Gómez-Junco et al. 2017). Crucially, science must explicitly define the ecological boundaries of translocation, making these constraints central to decision-making (IUCN/SSC 2013; Sherman et al. 2025). Transferring an Andean jaguar to the Llanos savannas should be categorized as ecological negligence rather than merely poor practice. Parallel to this, we need social science tools to foster strong counter-narratives, allowing practitioners to actively dismantle the rhetoric of ‘rescue’. We need authorities to be empowered and armed with scripts and tools to communicate why leaving a predator in place is the true conservation success. Wildlife management is not a practice to be performed by public perceptions or emotions; it must be applied with technical criteria seeking the persistence of biodiversity for the long term. We conclude with a fundamental reality: Colombia is jaguar territory (Machado-Aguilera et al. 2024). Cundinamarca, like many peri-urban regions in the Neotropics, must evolve to integrate its recovering native predators, rather than exiling them due to institutional incapacity. We call for a redefinition of administrative success. It should no longer be measured by the swift removal of nature from human spaces, but by the capacity of our governance systems to sustain the recovery of species' historical ranges and to ensure coexistence in shared biodiverse landscapes. All authors conceived the ideas, J.F.G.-M. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
González‐Maya et al. (Mon,) studied this question.