USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Daniel J. Decker

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel J. Decker.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2020

Human dimensions considerations in wildlife disease management

In 1943, Aldo Leopold observed that the real problem of wildlife management is not how to handle wildlife, but how to manage humans. As with any other aspect of wildlife management, social sciences can improve understanding the human dimensions of wildlife disease management (WDM). Human activities have accelerated the emergence of wildlife diseases, and human concerns about the ecological, social, and economic impacts of wildlife diseases and their management have led to diseases becoming headline-worthy public issues. This chapter provides guidance to help front-line professionals understand and address the public’s perspectives and behaviors relevant to WDM. This chapter focuses on practical needs of wildlife disease managers who have to consider and interact with specific stakeholders and the broader public. The chapter does not dive deeply into social science; instead it briefly reviews some concepts that are most relevant to WDM. The chapter also suggests where to look for assistance and additional resources for further reading. Following brief introductory comments, the chapter is organized around a simple model of the general process for WDM. It addresses three key areas where social science can assist in WDM—audience research to understand stakeholders; engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management; and using risk communication about wildlife diseases and disease management to inspire risk-wise behavior.

Techniques and Methods↗
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↗
USGS2019

Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: Challenges and opportunities

The last 25 years have witnessed growing recognition that natural resource management decisions depend as much on understanding humans and their social interactions as on understanding the interactions between non-human organisms and their environment. Decision science provides a framework for integrating ecological and social factors into a decision, but challenges to integration remain. The decision-analytic framework elicits values and preferences to help articulate objectives, and then evaluates the outcomes of alternative management actions to achieve these objectives. Integrating social science into these steps can be hindered by failing to include social scientists as more than stakeholder-process facilitators, assuming that specific decision-analytic skills are commonplace for social scientists, misperceptions of social data as inherently qualitative, timescale mismatches for iterating through decision analysis and collecting relevant social data, difficulties in predicting human behavior, and failures of institutions to recognize the importance of this integration. We engage these challenges, and suggest solutions to them, helping move forward the integration of social and biological/ecological knowledge and considerations in decision-making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2018

Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management

Artelle et al . (2018) conclude that “hallmarks of science” are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of “hallmarks of science,” confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

Science Advances↗
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

Structured decision making as a framework for large-scale wildlife harvest management decisions

Fish and wildlife harvest management at large spatial scales often involves making complex decisions with multiple objectives and difficult tradeoffs, population demographics that vary spatially, competing stakeholder values, and uncertainties that might affect management decisions. Structured decision making (SDM) provides a formal decision analytic framework for evaluating difficult decisions by breaking decisions into component parts and separating the values of stakeholders from the scientific evaluation of management actions and uncertainty. The result is a rigorous, transparent, and values-driven process. This decision-aiding process provides the decision maker with a more complete understanding of the problem and the effects of potential management actions on stakeholder values, as well as how key uncertainties can affect the decision. We use a case study to illustrate how SDM can be used as a decision-aiding tool for management decision making at large scales. We evaluated alternative white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) buck-harvest regulations in New York designed to reduce harvest of yearling bucks, taking into consideration the values of the state wildlife agency responsible for managing deer, as well as deer hunters. We incorporated tradeoffs about social, ecological, and economic management concerns throughout the state. Based on the outcomes of predictive models, expert elicitation, and hunter surveys, the SDM process identified management alternatives that optimized competing objectives. The SDM process provided biologists and managers insight about aspects of the buck-harvest decision that helped them adopt a management strategy most compatible with diverse hunter values and management concerns.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2016

Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century

Wildlife conservation is losing ground in the U.S. for many reasons. The net effect is declines in species and habitat. To address this trend, the wildlife conservation institution (i.e., all customs, practices, organizations and agencies, policies, and laws with respect to wildlife) must adapt to contemporary social–ecological conditions. Adaptation could be supported by clear guidelines reflecting contemporary expectations for wildlife governance. We combine elements of public trust thinking and good governance to produce a broad set of wildlife governance principles. These principles represent guidance for ecologically and socially responsible wildlife conservation. They address persistent, systemic problems and, if adopted, will bring the institution into line with modern expectations for governance of public natural resources. Implementation will require changes in values, objectives, and processes of the wildlife conservation institution. These changes may be difficult, but promise improved wildlife conservation outcomes and increased support for conservation. We introduce challenges and opportunities associated with the principles, and encourage dialogue about them among scientists, practitioners, and other leaders in U.S. wildlife conservation. The principles alone will not change the course of conservation for the better, but may be necessary for such change to occur.

Conservation Letters↗