Scenario Planning for Wildlife Management: A Case Study of the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming

Neff, Mark W.

doi:10.1080/10871200701442783

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceived impacts of elk on plant communities vary depending on the management objectives for elk populations and the status of land holdings (e.g. private, public; Burcham et al 1999;Haggerty and Travis 2006;Neff 2007). Elk populations that occupy federal lands in Wyoming and Colorado where 'natural regulation' has been used in the past have decimated stands of native tree species (Coughenour and Singer 1996;Johnson and Monello 2001).…”

Section: Adaptabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regeneration of trees has not been possible in some areas because populations of elk have increased and human alteration and urban sprawl into landscapes occupied by elk have either limited the availability of habitat or congregated elk on less suitable ranges (Burcham et al 1999;Lubow et al 2002;Haggerty and Travis 2006). Reintroduced populations of elk are often relegated to habitat deemed available, or to protected lands surrounded by fences, or within property boundaries that elk populations are expected to occupy (Walter and Leslie 2002;Larkin et al 2004;Neff 2007). Although habitats occupied and forages consumed by elk vary by ecoregion, detrimental effects to plant communities often occur in areas where elk is supplied artificial feed, confined by fencing, have no natural predators, or are limited in their ability to roam and search for suitable forage (Clarke et al 1994;Smith 2001;Peek et al 2002;Hines et al 2007).…”

Section: Adaptabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where hunting occurs, human disturbance might be perceived by elk in some settings as a predation threat similar to that posed by wolves (Kilpatrick et al 2009;Plumb et al 2009), demonstrating a vulnerability of elk that may enable hazing to be an effective tool for stimulating dispersal. Managers routinely haze bison (Kilpatrick et al 2009;Plumb et al 2009) and elk away from sensitive areas (Neff 2007;Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2009). Hazing, herding (defined as an active pursuit of elk to a distant destination) and hunting occurred during a study in Montana, and although data were not reported, researchers found hunting was the only effective method in dispersing elk off refugia on private land (Burcham et al 1999).…”

Section: Hazingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abundant populations of elk (Cervus elaphus) are cherished game in many regions of the world and also cause considerable human–wildlife conflicts through depredation on agriculture and speciality crops, lack of regeneration to native ecosystems, collisions with vehicles and transmission of disease between free-ranging and farmed hoofstock. Management of elk varies, depending on current and historical agency objectives, configuration of the landscapes elk occupy, public perception, population density and behaviour of elk. Selection of the method to manage elk often requires knowledge of timing of impacts, duration relief from elk damage is desired, cost-effectiveness of management activities, tolerance of impacts, public perception of management strategies and motivation or habituation of elk to determine the likelihood of success for a proposed management action. We reviewed methods that are available to control abundant populations of elk that include lethal (e.g. hunting, sharpshooting) and non-lethal (e.g. fertility control, frightening) options. We promote an integrated approach that incorporates the timely use of a variety of cost-effective methods to reduce impacts to tolerable levels. Lethal options that include regulated hunting, sharpshooting and aerial gunning vary by likelihood of success, duration needed for population reduction, cost to implement reduction and public perceptions. Several non-lethal options are available to affect population dynamics directly (e.g. fertility control, translocation), protect resources from damage (e.g. fences, repellents) or influence space use of elk on a regular basis (e.g. harassment, frightening, herding dogs, humans). Public perception should be considered by agencies that are looking for feasible methods to control populations of elk. Disturbance to residents or visitors of public property may influence methods of management employed. Future research should explore the duration of harassment needed to avert elk from sensitive areas and costs to implement such programs. Several methods in our review were implemented on deer and additional research on elk and other cervids in conflict with human interests would provide a much needed component to our understanding of management methods available for ungulate species.

show abstract

Section: Adaptabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adaptabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hazingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some resilience thinkers promote the use of scenario planning as a way of exploring the interplay of system drivers in a nonpredictive way, and this approach has the added benefit of creating opportunities for communities to deliberate on shared goals. [104][105][106][107][108] Coming from a different but compatible tradition, the Danish Board of Technology; the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes; and the Loka Institute, among others have been utilizing consensus conferences to create deliberative spaces where citizens can explore both technical and nontechnical components of decisions in order to advise decision makers. 57,109,110 Each of these formats is designed to confront trans-scientific issues without dismissing either the technical or the value-based considerations inherent therein, and each creates mutual learning opportunities for experts and nonexperts.…”

Section: Potential Paths Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

A productive role for science in assisted colonization policy

Neff

Carroll

2016

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assisted colonization—the intentional movement of species as a climate adaptation strategy—has emerged as a divisive controversy in the conservation biology literature. We review selected scientific literature to understand the nature of the controversy, alongside relevant scholarship on the science‐policy interface to highlight ways in which scientists and their work might most effectively and appropriately inform decisions on this management strategy. The scientific literature thus far is problematic in two ways that threaten to undermine the utility of science to actual decision‐making processes: As a collection, it contains abundant and seemingly incommensurable insights about assisted colonization. This is at least in part a product of nature, which is sufficiently diverse to provide examples and case studies that appear to justify any number of policy preferences regarding ecosystem management. This first shortcoming exacerbates the second: Scientific authors thus far have not adequately addressed the value‐based considerations implicit in their own work, nor acknowledged public's legitimate standing in these inherently value‐based decisions. In combination, these attributes of the literature ensure that additional knowledge on assisted colonization will exacerbate public controversy—rather than dispel it—when public attention increases. We propose that if scientists appropriately disentangle value considerations from technical ones, invite public debates over values, and treat proposals individually rather than debating the approach writ‐large, they stand to have the greatest influence over technical aspects of decision processes. Scientists would serve themselves well to acknowledge the limits of science and embrace public dialogue about specific management proposals. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:852–868. doi: 10.1002/wcc.420 This article is categorized under: Climate, Ecology, and Conservation > Extinction Risk Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

show abstract

“…The strategies employed to address conflicts frequently fail to consider the uncertainties and complexity associated with such conflicts (Carter & Linnell, 2016). Although the application of scenario planning in the human‐wildlife context is still in its infancy, developing it can assist protected area managers in making decisions in the midst of rapid change and uncertainty (Beach & Clark, 2015; Neff, 2007; Prato & Fagre, 2020). Developing scenario planning based on community‐preferred conservation policies provides an opportunity to strengthen community resilience in the face of uncertainties, such as those associated with HWC (Marshall & Marshall, 2007; Neff, 2007; Peterson et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eliciting community‐preferred policy alternatives for achieving workable coexistence in a human‐dominated landscape: Insights from Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Ferdin,

Lee,

Dhungana

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human‐wildlife conflict is a global issue that poses a major threat to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Wildlife adapted to human‐modified landscapes in developing countries can threaten the safety and livelihood of local communities. In such landscapes, where people and wildlife compete for resources, community involvement is promoted to achieve workable coexistence. We used a choice experiment methodology approach to identify community‐preferred policy alternatives in Chitwan National Park in south‐central Nepal. The results indicated that conflicts between the local community and wildlife are on the rise, crop damage being the highest form of damage and most perceived compensation and fencing as conflict‐mitigation tools. The choice experiment showed that residents have a positive preference for enhancing livelihood diversification skills, cultivating buffer crops, promoting alternative livelihoods, and strengthening rapid response teams. We identified concerned mitigators who are younger age group, encountered and concurred that HWC is increasing, and agreed that fencing and compensation are conflict‐mitigation tools. We designed scenario planning using community‐preferred policy alternatives to assist the park management. This is the first‐choice experiment study to design an evaluation framework under community resilience perspectives to achieve workable coexistence. Our study has potential implications for promoting coexistence in a human‐dominated landscape.

show abstract

Scenario Planning for Wildlife Management: A Case Study of the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review

Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review

A productive role for science in assisted colonization policy

Eliciting community‐preferred policy alternatives for achieving workable coexistence in a human‐dominated landscape: Insights from Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About