IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0301487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn E Stauffer
  • Erik R Olson
  • Jerrold L Belant
  • Jennifer L Stenglein
  • Jennifer L Price Tack
  • Timothy R van Deelen
  • David M MacFarland
  • Nathan M Roberts

Abstract

Management of wolves is controversial in many jurisdictions where wolves live, which underscores the importance of rigor, transparency, and reproducibility when evaluating outcomes of management actions. Treves and Louchouarn 2022 (hereafter TL) predicted outcomes for various fall 2021 hunting scenarios following Wisconsin’s judicially mandated hunting and trapping season in spring 2021, and concluded that even a zero harvest scenario could result in the wolf population declining below the population goal of 350 wolves specified in the 1999 Wisconsin wolf management plan. TL further concluded that with a fall harvest of > 16 wolves there was a “better than average possibility” that the wolf population size would decline below that 350-wolf threshold. We show that these conclusions are incorrect and that they resulted from mathematical errors and selected parameterizations that were consistently biased in the direction that maximized mortality and minimized reproduction (i.e., positively biased adult mortality, negatively biased pup survival, further halving pup survival to November, negatively biased number of breeding packs, and counting harvested wolves twice among the dead). These errors systematically exaggerated declines in predicted population size and resulted in erroneous conclusions that were not based on the best available or unbiased science. Corrected mathematical calculations and more rigorous parameterization resulted in predicted outcomes for the zero harvest scenario that more closely coincided with the empirical population estimates in 2022 following a judicially prevented fall hunt in 2021. Only in scenarios with simulated harvest of 300 or more wolves did probability of crossing the 350-wolf population threshold exceed zero. TL suggested that proponents of some policy positions bear a greater burden of proof than proponents of other positions to show that “their estimates are accurate, precise, and reproducible”. In their analysis, TL failed to meet this standard that they demanded of others.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn E Stauffer & Erik R Olson & Jerrold L Belant & Jennifer L Stenglein & Jennifer L Price Tack & Timothy R van Deelen & David M MacFarland & Nathan M Roberts, 2024. "Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301487
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301487
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301487&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0301487?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.