An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia
ABSTRACT We used an integrated Bayesian state‐space population model to assess whether management objectives were met before (1995–2003), during (2004–2010), and after (2011–2013) antlerless permits to harvest mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were increased in response to stakeholder concerns in cent...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2017-09-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.781 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850116957103194112 |
|---|---|
| author | Ian W. Hatter Patrick Dielman Gerald W. Kuzyk |
| author_facet | Ian W. Hatter Patrick Dielman Gerald W. Kuzyk |
| author_sort | Ian W. Hatter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT We used an integrated Bayesian state‐space population model to assess whether management objectives were met before (1995–2003), during (2004–2010), and after (2011–2013) antlerless permits to harvest mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were increased in response to stakeholder concerns in central British Columbia, Canada. Data inputs included 19 years of harvest data, 7 years of autumn age–sex composition data, 17 years of spring age–sex composition data, and 15 years of a population index. Management objectives were to maintain a spring population of 7,000–9,000 deer and a posthunt adult sex ratio of 20–30 males:100 females. An 8.5‐fold increase in antlerless permits raised the antlerless harvest rates from 1.0% (1995–2003) to 4.8% (2004–2010). Antlerless harvest rates decreased to 2.8% following a 53% decrease in permits from 2011 to 2013. Population projections from 2014 to 2018 fell within the bounds of the management objectives, but 95% credibility intervals revealed great uncertainty in population size and composition. We recommend a structured, adaptive approach to mule deer management that includes annual adjustment of harvests, monitoring, and modeling, with an open‐ended stakeholder engagement process to ensure objectives remain relevant, measurable, and achievable. © 2017 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-760957d9201446e48a5cd330cfaa868e |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2017-09-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-760957d9201446e48a5cd330cfaa868e2025-08-20T02:36:12ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402017-09-0141350851510.1002/wsb.781An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British ColumbiaIan W. Hatter0Patrick Dielman1Gerald W. Kuzyk2Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsP.O. Box 9391VictoriaBCV8W 9M8CanadaMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsSuite 400‐640 Borland StreetWilliams LakeBCV2G 4T1CanadaMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations205 Industrial Road GCranbrookBCV1C 7G5CanadaABSTRACT We used an integrated Bayesian state‐space population model to assess whether management objectives were met before (1995–2003), during (2004–2010), and after (2011–2013) antlerless permits to harvest mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were increased in response to stakeholder concerns in central British Columbia, Canada. Data inputs included 19 years of harvest data, 7 years of autumn age–sex composition data, 17 years of spring age–sex composition data, and 15 years of a population index. Management objectives were to maintain a spring population of 7,000–9,000 deer and a posthunt adult sex ratio of 20–30 males:100 females. An 8.5‐fold increase in antlerless permits raised the antlerless harvest rates from 1.0% (1995–2003) to 4.8% (2004–2010). Antlerless harvest rates decreased to 2.8% following a 53% decrease in permits from 2011 to 2013. Population projections from 2014 to 2018 fell within the bounds of the management objectives, but 95% credibility intervals revealed great uncertainty in population size and composition. We recommend a structured, adaptive approach to mule deer management that includes annual adjustment of harvests, monitoring, and modeling, with an open‐ended stakeholder engagement process to ensure objectives remain relevant, measurable, and achievable. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.781BayesianBritish Columbiadecision‐makingharvestintegrated population modelmanagement objectives |
| spellingShingle | Ian W. Hatter Patrick Dielman Gerald W. Kuzyk An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia Wildlife Society Bulletin Bayesian British Columbia decision‐making harvest integrated population model management objectives |
| title | An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia |
| title_full | An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia |
| title_fullStr | An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia |
| title_full_unstemmed | An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia |
| title_short | An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia |
| title_sort | integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central british columbia |
| topic | Bayesian British Columbia decision‐making harvest integrated population model management objectives |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.781 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ianwhatter anintegratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia AT patrickdielman anintegratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia AT geraldwkuzyk anintegratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia AT ianwhatter integratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia AT patrickdielman integratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia AT geraldwkuzyk integratedmodelingapproachforassessingmanagementobjectivesformuledeerincentralbritishcolumbia |