1 / 21

Harvest Management in an Integrated Framework

Harvest Management in an Integrated Framework. Michael C. Runge USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Outline. Harvest Management Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management Multiple Objectives. Harvest Management. Oh no, Not Yield Curves Again!. Additional mortality due to hunting.

Download Presentation

Harvest Management in an Integrated Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Harvest Management in an Integrated Framework Michael C. Runge USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

  2. Outline • Harvest Management • Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management • Multiple Objectives

  3. Harvest Management Oh no, Not Yield Curves Again!

  4. Additional mortality due to hunting Natural mortality K Neq Carrying Capacity & Harvest Recruitment Recruitment or Mortality Continental Population Size

  5. 12 1.4 “K” 1.2 10 1 8 Neq* 0.8 Annual Harvest Equilibrium N 6 0.6 4 0.4 2 0.2 0 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Harvest rate Harvest rate Sustainable Harvest 5

  6. Yield Curve h = rmax/2 rmaxK/4 Sustainable Annual Harvest h = rmax h = 0 0 N* = K/2 K 0 Equilibrium Population Size (N)

  7. Harvest Management • At least implicitly, since 1995, the dynamics captured by yield curves have been at the heart of our harvest assessments • The focus on K makes it clear that harvest dynamics really cannot be understood without the context of habitat management

  8. Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management

  9. Coherent Models • If we had a common modeling framework for harvest and habitat management: • We could understand how habitat management is affecting continental demographics, including harvest potential • We could understand how harvest management affects the continental population size, and hence, the use of available habitat • Continental carrying capacity (K) is a useful metric that links harvest and habitat management • Yield curves are, in fact, an extremely valuable way to look at habitat management

  10. 1000 L3 800 L2 L1 600 R1, SIS 400 R1 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Pintail Harvest Potential Pre-1975 (53.6) Annual Harvest (thousands) Post-1975 (55.6) Latitude-adjusted BPOP (millions)

  11. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yield Curves for Habitat Management Increase productivity on existing parcels Increase capacity on the landscape Sustained Annual Harvest Current Equilibrium BPOP

  12. Integrated Modeling • Benefits • Track changes in habitat (positive or negative) and account for their effects on harvest potential • Evaluate effects of habitat management on continental demography • Understand how waterfowl objectives are affected jointly by harvest and habitat management • Challenges • Understanding how JV actions affect continental K • Do we have the institutional structure in place to build integrated models?

  13. Multiple Objectives

  14. Current AHM Objective Function • This is a composite of several objectives, with an implicit method of weighting: • Maximize annual harvest of MCM • Maintain sustainable harvest of MCM • Discourage population size < NAWMP goal • Don’t allow closure above 5.5M MCM

  15. Multiple Harvest Objectives • But the current AHM objective function leaves out many other possible objectives • Sustainable harvest of other species • Avoid partial seasons or closure for other spp. • Encourage hunter participation • Provide widespread hunting opportunity • Motivate habitat conservation • Maintain historical distributions during winter • And many others… • Turning Point question

  16. What are your top TWO objectives for waterfowl harvest management? • maximize harvest • keep harvest sustainable for all species • avoid closed or partial seasons • maximize the frequency of long seasons • have relatively stable regulations • have relatively simple regulations • keep populations near the NAWMP goals • motivate hunter participation • motivate habitat conservation • other

  17. Multiple Waterfowl Objectives • And the larger endeavor adds even more objectives: • Achieve NAWMP population objectives • What fundamental goals drive these? • Minimize costs of habitat conservation • Engage partners • Maintain and motivate a traditional hunting culture • Generate broad public support for wetland habitat conservation • Etc.

  18. Trade-offs • Harvest management is embedded in a broader context with a complex set of objectives • There are trade-offs among these objectives • They cannot all be achieved perfectly • How do we evaluate and balance the trade-offs in setting harvest regulations? • Do we currently have a framework for this sort of deliberation?

  19. NA goal Worse Coherent Objectives Desired Harvest Policy Desired Habitat Sustainable Annual Harvest Current Condition 19 Equilibrium BPOP

  20. Summary

  21. Summary • Harvest Management • Yield curves are a valuable tool • Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management • Continental K is a valuable common metric • Coherent models would allow us to understand how harvest potential is changing due to NAWMP activities and other factors • Multiple Objectives • Harvest management, let alone integrated management, is a complex multiple-objective problem • We need a framework to understand and balance the trade-offs among objectives • Coherent monitoring could arise out of such an integrated framework

More Related