Harvest Regulations and Implementation Uncertainty in Small Game Harvest Management

Abstract

A main challenge in harvest management is to set policies that maximize the probability that management goals are met. While the management cycle includes multiple sources of uncertainty, only some of these has received considerable attention. Currently, there is a large gap in our knowledge about implemention of harvest regulations, and to which extent indirect control methods such as harvest regulations are actually able to regulate harvest in accordance with intended management objectives. In this perspective article, we first summarize and discuss hunting regulations currently used in management of grouse species (Tetraonidae) in Europe and North America. Management models suggested for grouse are most often based on proportional harvest or threshold harvest principles. These models are all built on theoretical principles for sustainable harvesting, and provide in the end an estimate on a total allowable catch. However, implementation uncertainty is rarely examined in empirical or theoretical harvest studies, and few general findings have been reported. Nevertheless, circumstantial evidence suggest that many of the most popular regulations are acting depensatory so that harvest bag sizes is more limited in years (or areas) where game density is high, contrary to general recommendations. A better understanding of the implementation uncertainty related to harvest regulations is crucial in order to establish sustainable management systems. We suggest that scenario tools like Management System Evaluation (MSE) should be more frequently used to examine robustness of currently applied harvest regulations to such implementation uncertainty until more empirical evidence is available.

Learning from long time series of harvest and population data: Swedish lessons for European goose management

“…As a case in point, several studies have indicated that using harvest data as a proxy of population trends may be fraught with weaknesses (Ranta et al 2008, Kahlert et al 2015. Indeed, many scientists call for caution when using harvest data in management, especially when hunters' effort is not carefully monitored (Moa et al 2017, Eriksen et al 2018. Conversely, several critical comparisons of the relationship between harvest data and population change have reported strong correlations (Cattadori et al 2003, Jarnemo andLiberg 2005).…”

Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems

“…This is particularly common, for example, when quotas are specified with spatial or temporal specifications, or in terms of amounts per person. This means that decision makers need to estimate the relationship between the quota and the levels of harvest they intend to be taken (Moa, Eriksen, & Nilsen, 2017). Despite these critical assumptions, there are relatively few studies on imperfect harvest implementation in terrestrial wildlife systems ).…”

“…Harvest rules implemented for small game birds (grouse species) in Europe and North America are reviewed in (Moa et al, 2017). They note that proportional and threshold-proportional principles are common, however in practice bag sizes are often relatively more limited at large population sizes, against recommendations (Moa et al, 2017).…”

Are we adequately assessing the demographic impacts of harvesting for wild‐sourced conservation translocations?

“…Adaptive management is designed to aid decision‐making in complex systems while providing an opportunity to increase knowledge of those systems (Williams, 2011). Adaptive management of commercially harvested game populations is common (Moa, Eriksen, & Nilsen, 2017; Ramsey et al, 2010), but do we apply the same level of rigor to conservation restoration? Under adaptive management, clear goals and quantifiable indicators of success are identified and predictive models are used to inform management actions (Lacy, 2019; Williams, 2011).…”