Introduction The study of reptile populations has predominantly focused on natural or semi-natural habitats, and there is little infor- mation about the ecology of reptiles living in suburban environments. Cohabitation of humans with wildlife in sub- urban areas frequently results in conflict that ranges from nuisance animals in human dwellings (e.g. brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula): Miller et al. 1999) to attacks on humans by wildlife (e.g. attacks by Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen): Jones and Thomas 1999). Translocation of wildlife into more ‘suitable’ areas has been widely used to mitigate these issues (Jones and Nealson 2003; Clemann et al. 2004). Snakes found on private proper- ties are usually unwelcome to their human cotenants, and capture and translocation of these animals remains a common management practice (e.g. Fearn et al. 2001; Shine and Koenig 2001; Clemann et al. 2004). However, the success of translocation is questionable (Galligan and Dunson 1979; Reinert 1991; Dodd and Seigel 1991; Reinert and Rupert 1999; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000; but see Burke 1991): only 19% of monitored reptile translocations have proven successful, and none of these successful cases involved snakes (Dodd and Seigel 1991). Attempts to translocate snakes into novel environments are often unsuccessful. For example, long-distance trans- location (over several kilometres) of rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.) from reserves in the United States disrupts the snakes’ normal activity patterns, resulting in relentless movements, and it may take over 12 months for an individual to settle into ‘normal’ patterns of behaviour (Sealy 1997; Nowak 1998; Reinert and Rupert 1999). The greater frequency and dis- tance of movements made by translocated individuals exposes them to greater risk of mortality (especially by humans), and translocated snakes may suffer 3–5 times greater mortality than residents (Reinert and Rupert 1999; Plummer and Mills 2000). In Victoria, hundreds of venomous snakes (Elapidae) are translocated from residential and suburban locations into ‘safer’ areas annually in order to mitigate the perceived danger they pose to humans and pets (Clemann et al. 2004). However, the lasting benefit to humans and the fate of translocated snakes are unknown. Previous research con- cerning the effects of translocation on snakes has been limited to crotalid and colubrid snakes, for both wildlife–human conflict and conservation purposes. Given their contrasting ecologies (Shine 1991; Greer 1997), it is possible that elapids may respond differently to trans- location. Terrestrial colubrid and crotalid snakes are often ambush predators, whereas most large elapids are searching foragers (Shine 1991). The home-range size of snakes will also impose limits on the minimum area of habitat that is suitable as a release site for translocated individuals. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis Wildlife Research, 2005, 32, 165–171 10.1071/WR04020 1035-3712/05/020165 © CSIRO 2005 H. Butler A , B. Malone A and N. Clemann B,C A Department of Zoology, Latrobe University, Bundoora, Vic. 3086, Australia. B Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, PO Box 137, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia. C Corresponding author. Email: nick.clemann@dse.vic.gov.au Abstract. In many suburban parts of Australia the removal of snakes from private property by licenced snake catchers is employed to mitigate perceived risks to humans and their pets. The number of snakes translocated around greater Melbourne, Victoria, each year can be very high (at least many hundreds). However, the effects of translocation on the behaviour and welfare of individual snakes, and the impact on existing snake populations at release sites are unknown. We used radio-telemetry of ‘resident’ and translocated snakes to investigate the consequences of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban parkland near Melbourne. Fourteen snakes (two female and four male residents, and four female and four male translocated snakes) implanted with radio-transmitters were tracked between spring 2002 and autumn 2003. Translocated snakes exhibited home ranges ~6 times larger than those of residents, although each group maintained core ranges of similar size. Translocated snakes travelled longer distances and were often located in residential areas adjacent to the park, whereas resident snakes were never located outside of the park. The effects of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban landscape www.publish.csiro.au/journals/wr CSIRO PUBLISHING