Harvest Regulations and Implementation Uncertainty in Small Game Harvest Management

Pål F Moa,Lasse F Eriksen,Erlend B Nilsen

doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00118

Pål F Moa, Lasse F Eriksen + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00118

Copy DOI

Abstract

A main challenge in harvest management is to set policies that maximize the probability that the management goals are met. While the management cycle includes multiple sources of uncertainty, only some of these have receive 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 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.

Highlights

An important part of sustainable harvest management is that managers should be able to regulate harvest in agreement with general models, guided by first principles or harvest models developed for a specific system (Sutherland, 2001)
Following Williams et al (2002), four main sources of uncertainty can be recognized in a management cycle: Uncertainty related to environmental variation; uncertainty related to different monitoring uncertainty; implementation uncertainty related to how management decisions are met by the practitioners; and uncertainty related to how a certain system functions and responds to management actions
Despite the lack of terrestrial studies focusing on implementation of harvest regulations, we know from the fishery literature that such uncertainty might be even more influential than the other types (Deroba and Bence, 2008), it seems to a large extent to be glossed over in the wildlife harvest management (Bischof et al, 2012)

Summary

Introduction

An important part of sustainable harvest management is that managers should be able to regulate harvest in agreement with general models, guided by first principles or harvest models developed for a specific system (Sutherland, 2001). As a very important background for forming harvest policy, a series of studies in the 1990s identified three main principles that after have been highly influential (Lande et al, 1997): Constant harvest (constant quota), where a fixed number of animals are removed each year; proportional harvest, where a constant proportion of the standing population is harvested each year; and threshold harvest, where only the proportion of Uncertaint Implementation of Harvest Regulations the population higher than a predefined threshold is removed through annual harvest (Lande et al, 1995, 1997). In small game management implementation uncertainty may severely limit our ability to predict the outcome and sustainability of different harvest regulations (Andersen, 2015; Stevens et al, 2017)

Objectives

Conclusion