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
3 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.