Distinguishing values from science in decision making: Setting harvest quotas for mountain lions in Montana

Abstract

The relative roles of science and human values can be difficult to distinguish when informal processes are used to make complex and contentious decisions in wildlife management. Structured Decision Making (SDM) offers a formal process for making such decisions, where scientific results and concepts can be disentangled from the values of differing stakeholders. We used SDM to formally integrate science and human values for a citizen working group of ungulate hunting advocates, lion hunting advocates, and outfitters convened to address the contentious allocation of harvest quotas for mountain lions (Puma concolor) in west-central Montana, USA, during 2014. A science team consisting of mountain lion biologists and population ecologists convened to support the working group. The science team used integrated population models that incorporated 4 estimates of mountain lion density to estimate population trajectories for 5 alternative harvest quotas developed by the working group. Results of the modeling predicted that effects of each harvest quota were consistent across the 4 density estimates; harvest quotas affected predicted population trajectories for 5 years after implementation but differences were not strong. Based on these results, the focus of the working group changed to differences in values among stakeholders that were the true impediment to allocating harvest quotas. By distinguishing roles of science and human values in this process, the working group was able to collaboratively recommend a compromise solution. This solution differed little from the status quo that had been the focus of debate, but the SDM process produced understanding and buy-in among stakeholders involved, reducing disagreements, misunderstanding, and unproductive arguments founded on informal application of scientific data and concepts. Whereas investments involved in conducting SDM may be unnecessary for many decisions in wildlife management, the investment may be beneficial for complex, contentious, and multiobjective decisions that integrate science and human values. Ó

Integrated Carnivore‐Ungulate Management: A Case Study in West‐Central Montana

“…In the case of carnivore management to benefit ungulate populations, ungulate hunting advocates, carnivore hunting advocates, and anti-carnivore-hunting advocates are likely to have conflicting values that will challenge wildlife decision makers. In west-central Montana, decision-making regarding setting harvest quotas to achieve moderate mountain lion population reductions was highly controversial because of these conflicting values (Mitchell et al 2018). The mountain lion harvest quotas prescribed to achieve a 30% reduction in mountain lion populations created controversy, with prescribed female harvest quotas being reduced following 2 years of treatment because of these controversies (Mitchell et al 2018).…”

“…The management goal was an increase in mountain lion harvest intended to reduce the population by 30% to achieve short-term increases in elk calf survival and population growth rate, while also allowing for long-term mountain lion population conservation and hunting opportunity. Harvest management within the treatment area was adjusted in the third year of treatment based on lack of social tolerance for continued harvest of female mountain lions (Mitchell et al 2018), resulting in a treatment that included a 2-year increase in female quotas (2012-2013), followed by increased male quotas (starting in 2014).…”

“…Therefore, to temporarily reduce populations by 30%, the original management objective was to achieve a 35% harvest rate on adult female mountain lions for 3 years and maintain male harvest opportunity and rates at levels similar to the historical average. Harvest quotas to achieve the targeted 35% rate were designed based on available mountain lion population abundance estimates (Robinson et al 2015) and social tolerance (Mitchell et al 2018) and were achieved via liberalized quotas and public hunting seasons. Following the treatment, the management objective was to reduce female harvest rates and manage for stable populations.…”

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mountain Lion Management for the Recovery of Endangered Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

“…Mountain lions are not endangered and more aggressive predator control for a limited time is not expected to have any significant longterm effects on mountain lion populations in the eastern Sierra Nevada (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). However, both human values and scientific analysis have and deserve to be part of the discussion (Mitchell et al 2018), as the two sections of California law clearly demonstrate. While it is tempting to say that policy needs to be shaped solely by objective science, a Structured Decision Making (SDM; Robinson et al 2016) framework could better allow managers to appropriately weigh the values of different stakeholders to reach a consensus decision.…”

Ratcheting up Rigor in Wildlife Management Decision Making

“…Structured decision making is a formal approach to decision making in natural resource management and it includes a wide range of methods to solve problems and make decisions (Gregory and Keeney 2002, Runge 2011, Gregory et al 2012). For a nonexhaustive list of examples of use of structured decision making in conservation and management, please see Johnson et al (1997, 2011), Nichols et al (2007), Williams et al (2009), Converse et al (2011, 2013), Tyre et al (2011), Moore et al (2012), McGowan et al (2015), Robinson et al (2016, 2017), Sells et al (2016), O'Donnell et al (2017), Robinson et al (2017), and Mitchell et al (2018). In addition, the U.S.…”