Geology topics

Michael V. Schiavone

Publications and source records attributed to Michael V. Schiavone.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Ratcheting up rigor in wildlife management decision making

The wildlife management institution has been transforming to ensure relevance and positive conservation outcomes into the future. Continuous improvement of decision making is one aspect of this transformation, but many obstacles hinder systematic approaches to decision making. One can point to examples of formal decision science applications by state and federal agencies in the United States, but generally decision making is not as methodical as the biological, ecological, or social sciences that inform wildlife policy and management decisions. We describe our observations — based on first-hand experiences — with decision making in wildlife management, present reasons why making decisions is difficult, identify challenges faced by wildlife managers at various levels of governance, and address measures wildlife managers can employ to overcome these challenges. We acknowledge that no panacea, simple recipe or one-size-fits-all prescription exists for wildlife management decision making. Nevertheless, we hope the combination of (a) describing how a systematic framework for decision making can benefit stakeholders, managers and conservation outcomes and (b) providing specific suggestions for such a framework will encourage agencies to continue taking steps to improve decision making processes.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2018

Wildlife management is science based: Myth or reality?

In the January/February issue of The Wildlife Professional , a group of wildlife leaders discussed what they considered "myths" in wildlife management and invited other wildlife professionals to contribute their favorites. Here, five wildlife professionals take up that theme with their discussions of the scientific basis of wildlife management.

The Wildlife Professional↗

USGS2017

Wildlife governance in the 21st century—Will sustainable use endure?

In light of the trajectory of wildlife governance in the United States, the future of sustainable use of wildlife is a topic of substantial interest in the wildlife conservation community. We examine sustainable-use principles with respect to “good governance” considerations and public trust administration principles to assess how sustainable use might fare in the 21st century. We conclude that sustainable-use principles are compatible with recently articulated wildlife governance principles and could serve to mitigate broad values and norm shifts in American society that affect social acceptability of particular uses. Wildlife governance principles emphasize inclusive discourse among diverse wildlife interests, which could minimize isolated exchanges among cliques of like-minded people pursuing their ambitions without seeking opportunity for sharing or understanding diverse views. Aligning governance practices with wildlife governance principles can help avoid such isolation. In summary, sustainable use of wildlife is likely to endure as long as society 1) believes the long-term sustainability of wildlife is not jeopardized, and 2) accepts practices associated with such use as legitimate. These are 2 criteria needing constant attention.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2017

Addressing wild turkey population declines using structured decision making

We present a case study from New York, USA, of the use of structured decision making (SDM) to identify fall turkey harvest regulations that best meet stakeholder objectives, in light of recent apparent declines in abundance of wild turkeys in the northeastern United States. We used the SDM framework to incorporate the multiple objectives associated with turkey hunting, stakeholder desires, and region-specific ecological and environmental factors that could influence fall harvest. We identified a set of 4 fall harvest regulations, composed of different season lengths and bag limits, and evaluated their relative achievement of the objectives. We used a stochastic turkey population model, statistical modeling, and expert elicitation to evaluate the consequences of each harvest regulation on each of the objectives. We conducted a statewide mail survey of fall turkey hunters in New York to gather the necessary information to evaluate tradeoffs among multiple objectives associated with hunter satisfaction. The optimal fall harvest regulation was a 2-week season and allowed for the harvest of 1 bird/hunter. This regulation was the most conservative of those evaluated, reflecting the concerns about recent declines in turkey abundance among agency wildlife biologists and the hunting public. Depending on the region of the state, the 2-week, 1-bird regulation was predicted to result in 7–32% more turkeys on the landscape after 5 years. The SDM process provided a transparent framework for setting fall turkey harvest regulations and reduced potential stakeholder conflict by explicitly taking the multiple objectives of different stakeholder groups into account.

New York↗

USGS2016

Retention of riveted aluminum leg bands by wild turkeys

In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands <1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females ( n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are double-banded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is <0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2011

Variation in spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallapavo ) influence the number and proportion of adult males in the population and turkey population models have treated harvest as additive to other sources of mortality. Therefore, hunting regulations and their effect on spring harvest rates have direct implications for hunter satisfaction. We used tag recovery models to estimate survival rates, investigate spatial, temporal, and demographic variability in harvest rates, and assess how harvest rates may be related to management strategies and landscape characteristics. We banded 3,266 male wild turkeys throughout New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during 2006–2009. We found little evidence that harvest rates varied by year or management zone. The proportion of the landscape that was forested within 6.5 km of the capture location was negatively related to harvest rates; however, even though the proportion forested ranged from 0.008 to 0.96 across our study area, this corresponded to differences in harvest rates of only 2–5%. Annual survival was approximately twice as high for juveniles as adults . In turn, spring harvest rates for adult turkeys were greater for adults than juveniles . We estimated the population of male turkeys in New York and Pennsylvania ranged from 104,000 to 132,000 in all years and ranged from 63,000 to 75,000 in Ohio. Because of greater harvest rates for adult males, the proportion of adult males in the population was less than in the harvest and ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 among all states and years. The high harvest rates observed for adults may be offset by greater recruitment of juveniles into the adult age class the following year such that these states can sustain high harvest rates yet still maintain a relative high proportion of adult males in the harvest and population.

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania↗