The integration of science, management and learning in a collaborative framework forms the foundation for on-the-ground conservation delivery by wildlife refuges. Wildlife and habitat management efforts must be effective and supported by the best available data in order to learn from successes and failures and continually improve the Refuge System’s delivery of conservation benefits. In this way, Refuge System wildlife and habitat management efforts will have impacts well beyond the boundaries of wildlife refuges and integrate with broader landscape scale habitat conservation frameworks.
Wildlife and habitat management decisions must always be made within a scientific context. Science-based management decisions use better information, improve efficiency, reduce the uncertainty of outcomes, and increase the ability to solve complex problems and adapt to changes in habitats, populations and ecosystems. The integration of refuge-based information sources from a robust inventory and monitoring program and directed research will provide the data necessary to implement intensive and proactive adaptive management and science-based decision making at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. A proven track record of wildlife and habitat management decisions that are professionally approached, transparent and sound will promote more effective partnerships.
Scientific approaches and information underpin this iterative decision-making process. Adaptive management requires formulating an explicit objective, generating information to optimize management decision making, reducing uncertainty in management decisions by monitoring (which provides new information describing how well objectives are achieved), and feeding back new data to improve the ability of science to inform future actions. In achieving effective wildlife and habitat management that springs from a commitment to the scientific process, the Refuge System will provide tangible conservation benefits for the nation’s lands, water, species and habitats, and continue to be recognized as a valued and authoritative conservation entity.
Recommendation: Ensure that resources are sufficient to make investing in the application of science-based wildlife and habitat management a priority and promote a science-based approach consistently throughout the Refuge System.
Without staffing and expertise, the Refuge System will be unable to keep pace with advances in technology and science, including scientific expertise in a diversity of fields of study in order to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Recommendation: Proactively and consistently implement adaptive management.
This requires establishing clear goals and objectives for management in the context of best available science and local and landscape level conservation priorities. Refuge managers must explicitly plan and document management actions and identify and understand threats at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Monitoring responses and assessing outcomes in relation to clearly defined and measurable goals and objectives is necessary. The work of adaptive management is not complete without communicating outcomes to appropriate, often multiple, audiences and using the information to inform decisions.
Faced with the escalating pace of environmental change, the Service and its partners must develop the capability to provide on-the-ground delivery of facilitated adaptation for climate change and other threats. The Refuge System can contribute valuable data for models, as well as offer a unique and significant network of habitats essential to landscape-scale mitigation of environmental threats.
Mechanisms for data management and communication of scientific information must be improved. Standardization, scalability, flexibility, and interoperability are vital to the design of all spatial and non-spatial information systems. Information technology resources and staff capacity at all levels need to be further developed to maximize the long-term integrity and availability of scientific techniques and information.
Recommendation: Ensure that scientific information collected by the Refuge System is applicable, and organized, stored, processed, accessible and distributed in a timely and reliable manner to support decision-making by resource managers and partners.
To build its scientific capacity, the Refuge System must assure accountability at the wildlife refuge, regional and national levels for the systematic implementation of science protocols and for a culture of scientific excellence.
Recommendation: Develop Service standards for credibility, efficiency and consistent application of science in planning and management.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 3- Robust Inventory and Monitoring
8 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I think that in order for the Service to “build its scientific capacity,” and “assure accountability at the wildlife refuge, regional and national levels for the systematic implementation of science protocols and for a culture of scientific excellence” it is imperitive that the Service become accountable to the Animal Welfare Act and establish Intitutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) in each region. IACUC approval of a project is necessary for publication in most scientific journals now, and for the Service to become a more science-based organization, we need to be able to publish the wonderful research our people are doing. Plus, an IACUC ensures consistent care in research, humane animal care, and promotes the public image of the Service; not to mention it’s legally required for all studies, including field studies on free-ranging wildlife, that involve capture or handling or involve some risk of animal harm or altering animal behavior.
Chapter three is the strongest chapter overall. It is clean, brief, has a manageable number of goals, and most of the goals are well written.
The issue of scientific wildlife management leads to sound Service objectives as in Endangered Species Plans, North American Waterfowl Management Plans, Shorebird Management Plans, landscape plans, ecosystem plans, etc. Refuge Managers need to be informed of overall Service needs and be able to offer input as to individual unit capability, currently and in the future. Without this refuges lack the means for fitting into a truly scientific approach to population and land use management.
Viewed in the opposite direction, broad scale Service initiatives, such as planting trees to reduce the carbon footprint may not be best for grassland dependent critters – songbirds and butterflies. Augmenting the extensive forested areas may not be as important an interspersion of grasslands.
Agencies run by the interests of hunters and welfare cattle ranchers do not have any scientific integrity.
As written this section implies that wildlife and habitat management is mostly gathering information. What about interpreting the information – not just statistical analysis, but understanding what it means in terms of the operations of implementing a project? If all that is needed to implement science based management is statistically valid experimental design and analysis, then why does the agency need anybody other then one set of technicians to collect the data (by a standardized protocol, of course) and enter it into the magic black box we call a computer, and another set to do what the computer tells them to do?
Many definitions of wildlife management, forest management, and other natural resource management disciplines include the phrase “the art and science of …” Agency policy interprets “art” as “sound professional judgment.” A significant portion of sound wildlife and habitat management comes from sound professional judgment. A few existing measures of individual professional judgment include The Wildlife Society’s certified biologist or the Society of American Foresters’ certified forester. An existing measure of program professionalism is the certified forest, by several different certifying entities. I’m sure there are many other measures of professional judgment. The Refuge System (and FWS as a whole) needs to recognize the value of and actively document and improve the sound professional judgment of its staff.
What is overlooked in maintaining biological integrity on Refuges is allowing some States to manage sport hunting. Sport hunters are typically required to take male animals and sport hunters want the largest trophies. States are rewarded to sell as many licenses as possible by the USFWS allocation of Pitman- Roberts funds. States receive 3 dollars for every 1-dollar in licenses that are sold. States like Alaska rely almost entirely on license, and P&R funds for budget. States that are unfunded by general funds will press the harvest envelope on big game species, to achieve budget.
High harvest by sport hunting will target the largest phenotypic animals first, and continue to cull the strongest individuals. High harvest then erodes the sex ratios many times below minimum biological thresholds. Alaska has had several caribou and moose populations experience serious declines. Wildlife Refuge lands are subject to high use also by sport hunting under State regulations. In many instances the genetic integrity wildlife populations has had significant degradation.
I suggest two things that the USFWS should do in this document:
1) Review all current and future wildlife populations on the National Wildlife Refuge Lands for population health. Using scientific principles of wildlife management, populations should have healthy male: female sex ratios, and the populations should continue to express the natural phenotypic makeup. If State regulations are not in compliance with the Congressional statutory mandates in the units enabling legislation, or in violation of the USFWS policy to that effect, then the Refuge manager shall initiate a process to reduce or eliminate State over harvest regulations. This is not optional, this is mandated in Statute, to maintain healthy populations using recognized scientific principles.
2) The USFWS should take an objective look at the current P&R fund allocation system. The State of Alaska is only one of several States that do not, or insignificantly does not fund wildlife management. The Service should devise a system that allocates the P&R funds equitably to the States, but does not promote maximum license sales. A baseline average of P&R funds, for the last 3 years to each State could be used as a starting point. Land mass and other factors used also, but diverging away from the current system that is detrimental to wildlife populations over use, and biological integrity.
The recommendation on adapative management – page 25 – should be reworked to state that our NWRS management goals, objectives and strategies that are developed in our Refuge CCPs and Step Down Mgmt Plans – should be continuously evaluated in an adaptive management program. As results and feedback from research, monitoring and evaluation inform us, our Refuge CCPs and particularly our objectives and strategies should be updated – and documented in an amendment or update to the CCP or other planning document.
I believe the first recommendation “Ensure resources are suffiecient….” will be and has historically been the most important component of accomplishing habitat management. The USFWS has historically been a leader in implementing bold habitat management techniques, however during this new era of technology the our agency seems to place more emphasis on the information rather than the implementation. It is not good enough to purchase land and keep it in protected status, management of habitat and wildlife is key. We must provide adequate financial resources to get that done, but we also must make it a priority from the top down.