Structured decision making as a framework for large‐scale wildlife harvest management decisions

Robinson, Kelly; Fuller, Angela K.; Hurst, Jeremy E.; Swift, Bryan L.; Kirsch, Arthur; Farquhar, James; Decker, Daniel J.; Siemer, William F.

doi:10.1002/ecs2.1613

Cited by 43 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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. Economic analysis can be one important tool to assist in making these decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

German¹,

Stephenson²

2018

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the consequences of different predator management strategies and the subsequent effects on time and cost to recovery for federally endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Based on data collected during 1995-2009, we used stage based demographic modeling to estimate vital rates in three isolated herds, accounting for sampling error and variance. Using those vital rates we predicted the time and associated cost for the population to meet delisting goals. We found recovery time increased from 17.3 to 28.6 years using a density independent model and from 25.9 to 38.6 years using a density dependent model for different mountain lion management strategies. Commensurate cost increases of over 10 million dollars (unadjusted cost) result in either case. Our study suggests that appropriate levels of predator management will result in shorter recovery times and reduced cost of recovery through ensuring the availability of translocation stock. To be most effective, mountain lion management strategies should be population-specific because of underlying differences in predation rates for different herds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

German¹,

Stephenson²

2018

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This case study represents the first use of SDM to develop wild turkey harvest management plans. Structured decision making is very useful for natural resources management (Gregory et al , Conroy and Peterson ), but there are still very few examples of the use of SDM for wildlife management (Robinson et al , Sells et al ). In our case study, SDM provided a framework to describe the values of stakeholders and predict the consequences of proposed harvest regulations on each of these values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing wild turkey population declines using structured decision making

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a case study from New York, USA, of the use of structured decision making (SDM) to identify fall turkey harvest regulations that best meet stakeholder objectives, in light of recent apparent declines in abundance of wild turkeys in the northeastern United States. We used the SDM framework to incorporate the multiple objectives associated with turkey hunting, stakeholder desires, and region‐specific ecological and environmental factors that could influence fall harvest. We identified a set of 4 fall harvest regulations, composed of different season lengths and bag limits, and evaluated their relative achievement of the objectives. We used a stochastic turkey population model, statistical modeling, and expert elicitation to evaluate the consequences of each harvest regulation on each of the objectives. We conducted a statewide mail survey of fall turkey hunters in New York to gather the necessary information to evaluate tradeoffs among multiple objectives associated with hunter satisfaction. The optimal fall harvest regulation was a 2‐week season and allowed for the harvest of 1 bird/hunter. This regulation was the most conservative of those evaluated, reflecting the concerns about recent declines in turkey abundance among agency wildlife biologists and the hunting public. Depending on the region of the state, the 2‐week, 1‐bird regulation was predicted to result in 7–32% more turkeys on the landscape after 5 years. The SDM process provided a transparent framework for setting fall turkey harvest regulations and reduced potential stakeholder conflict by explicitly taking the multiple objectives of different stakeholder groups into account. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…We want to emphasize that stakeholder engagement is an essential element that should not be seen as independent of the decision‐making process, but rather embraced as important for informing the process about pertinent values (i.e., objectives), stakeholder preferences for alternative management actions, or factors to consider when making predictions about the effect of management on stakeholder values (e.g., recreation, opportunity to see and shoot harvestable species, hunter crowding). Many agencies survey their stakeholders, but fewer design stakeholder surveys in a way that can be used directly in decision‐making processes (but see Robinson et al 2016, 2017). As we outlined, the ‘core work’ of the wildlife manager and decision maker is to integrate the ecological, social, economic, and political elements of a decision to produce outcomes that society values.…”

Section: Individual Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important that decision making in wildlife management consider every element of the social–ecological system that the wildlife management institution attempts to manage because strong linkages exist among all of the elements that we describe. Coupled social–ecological systems thinking allows decisions emanating from the wildlife management institution to be comprehensively framed (e.g., see Robinson et al 2016, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ratcheting up Rigor in Wildlife Management Decision Making

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The wildlife management institution has been transforming to ensure relevance and positive conservation outcomes into the future. Continuous improvement of decision making is one aspect of this transformation. Managers and policy makers with responsibility for wildlife decisions have an exceedingly challenging job because the set of objectives they wish to achieve is so complex, multifaceted, and often contentious. Many wildlife management agencies desire decision‐making processes that are transparent, replicable, engage partners, and communicate effectively with the public. Using a decision science approach offers a framework to allow agencies to achieve these objectives so the decision‐making process is consistent with their desires. One can point to many excellent examples of formal decision science applications by state and federal agencies in the United States, but many obstacles hinder systematic approaches to decision making. We describe our observations—based on first‐hand experiences—with decision making in wildlife management, present reasons why making decisions is difficult, identify challenges faced by wildlife managers at various levels of governance, and address measures wildlife managers can employ to help overcome these challenges. We acknowledge that no panacea, simple recipe, or one‐size‐fits‐all prescription exists for wildlife management decision making. Nevertheless, we hope that by a) describing how a systematic decision science framework can help agencies achieve their objectives, while simultaneously benefiting stakeholders, managers, and conservation outcomes, and b) providing specific suggestions for overcoming challenges associated with decision making, we will help agencies in the midst of their challenges to improve decision‐making processes consistent with their objectives. © 2020 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Structured decision making as a framework for large‐scale wildlife harvest management decisions

Cited by 43 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Addressing wild turkey population declines using structured decision making

Ratcheting up Rigor in Wildlife Management Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About