Search

Natural resource and wildlife managers must balance the disparate priorities of a diversity of stakeholders. To manage these priorities, a firm understanding of topics salient to the public is needed. The media often report on issues of importance to the public; therefore, these reports may be a useful measure of public interest. However, efficient methods for distinguishing diverse topics related to a wildlife management issue reported in the media and changes in the salience of those topics have been lacking. We used latent Dirichlet allocation, a Bayesian mixture model, to quantitatively assess the salience of topics surrounding the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which was reintroduced to Idaho (U.S.A.) in 1995. We analyzed articles published from 1960 to 2015 in an Idaho newspaper. We identified 6 distinct topics associated with gray wolves: policy, hunting, biological status, implementation of management, recovery, and human‐wolf conflict. The salience of topics pre‐ and postreintroduction of wolves (1995) and pre‐ and postdelisting of wolves from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (2009) differed significantly, underscoring that these events were turning points in how issues were being publicly discussed and framed. Articles written by the local reporters were more likely to report on topics regarding conflict between humans and wolves, whereas articles sourced from a national outlet reported more on topics pertaining to wolf policy and biological status. In the context of managing a contentious, far‐ranging, and long‐lived wildlife species, our methods can help guide the location and timing of a suite of management strategies (e.g., media relation plans and stakeholder engagement) that promote human‐wildlife coexistence across different landscapes. Article impact statement: News media coverage of gray wolves shifts following key management events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal classification of species requires scientific and values‐based components, and how those components interact depends on how people frame the decision. Is classification a negotiation of trade‐offs, a decision on how to allocate conservation efforts, or simply a comparison of the biological status of a species to a legal standard? The answers to problem‐framing questions such as these influence decision making in species classifications. In our experience, however, decision makers, staff biologists, and stakeholders often have differing perspectives of the decision problem and assume different framings. In addition to differences between individuals, in some cases it appears individuals themselves are unclear about the decision process, which contributes to regulatory paralysis, litigation, and a loss of trust by agency staff and the public. We present 5 framings: putting species in the right bin, doing right by the species over time, saving the most species on a limited budget, weighing extinction risk against other objectives, and strategic classification to advance conservation. These framings are inspired by elements observed in current classification practices. Putting species in the right bin entails comparing a scientific status assessment with policy thresholds and accounting for potential misclassification costs. Doing right by the species adds a time dimension to the classification decision, and saving the most species on a limited budget classifies a suite of species simultaneously. Weighing extinction risk against other objectives would weigh ecological or socioeconomic concerns in classification decisions, and strategic classification to advance conservation would make negotiation a component of classification. We view these framings as a means to generate thought, discussion, and movement toward selection and application of explicit classification framings. Being explicit about the decision framing could lead decision makers toward more efficient and defensible decisions, reduce internal confusion and external conflict, and support better collaboration between scientists and policy makers. Article impact statement: Explicit decision framing in legal classification of species can reduce conflict and yield more efficient and defensible conservation decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long-lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts' judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts' judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts' assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers' assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts' decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy-neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists' interpretations of the phrase 'significant portion of its range' in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predicting a species' distribution can be helpful for evaluating management actions such as critical habitat designations under the U.S. Endangered Species Act or habitat acquisition and rehabilitation. Whooping Cranes ( Grus americana) are one of the rarest birds in the world, and conservation and management of habitat is required to ensure their survival. We developed a species distribution model (SDM) that could be used to inform habitat management actions for Whooping Cranes within the state of Nebraska (U.S.A.). We collated 407 opportunistic Whooping Crane group records reported from 1988 to 2012. Most records of Whooping Cranes were contributed by the public; therefore, developing an SDM that accounted for sampling bias was essential because observations at some migration stopover locations may be under represented. An auxiliary data set, required to explore the influence of sampling bias, was derived with expert elicitation. Using our SDM, we compared an intensively managed area in the Central Platte River Valley with the Niobrara National Scenic River in northern Nebraska. Our results suggest, during the peak of migration, Whooping Crane abundance was 262.2 (90% CI 40.2−3144.2) times higher per unit area in the Central Platte River Valley relative to the Niobrara National Scenic River. Although we compared only 2 areas, our model could be used to evaluate any region within the state of Nebraska. Furthermore, our expert-informed modeling approach could be applied to opportunistic presence-only data when sampling bias is a concern and expert knowledge is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cataloging biodiversity is critical to conservation efforts because accurate taxonomy is often a precondition for protection under laws designed for species conservation, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Traditional nomenclatural codes governing the taxonomic process have recently come under scrutiny because taxon names are more closely linked to hierarchical ranks than to the taxa themselves. A new approach to naming biological groups, called phylogenetic nomenclature (PN), explicitly names taxa by defining their names in terms of ancestry and descent. PN has the potential to increase nomenclatural stability and decrease confusion induced by the rank-based codes. But proponents of PN have struggled with whether species and infraspecific taxa should be governed by the same rules as other taxa or should have special rules. Some proponents advocate the wholesale abandonment of rank labels (including species); this could have consequences for the implementation of taxon-based conservation legislation. I examined the principles of PN as embodied in the PhyloCode (an alternative to traditional rank-based nomenclature that names biological groups based on the results of phylogenetic analyses and does not associate taxa with ranks) and assessed how this novel approach to naming taxa might affect the implementation of species-based legislation by providing a case study of the ESA. The latest version of the PhyloCode relies on the traditional rank-based codes to name species and infraspecific taxa; thus, little will change regarding the main targets of the ESA because they will retain rank labels. For this reason, and because knowledge of evolutionary relationships is of greater importance than nomenclatural procedures for initial protection of endangered taxa under the ESA, I conclude that PN under the PhyloCode will have little impact on implementation of the ESA. Impactos de la Nomenclatura Filogenética sobre la Eficiencia del Acta Estadunidense para las Especies en Peligro [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with writing recovery plans that include 'objective, measurable criteria' that define when a species is no longer at risk of extinction, but neither the act itself nor agency guidelines provide an explicit definition of objective, measurable criteria. Past reviews of recovery plans, including one published in 2012, show that many criteria lack quantitative metrics with clear biological rationale and are not meeting the measureable and objective mandate. I reviewed how objective, measureable criteria have been defined implicitly and explicitly in peer-reviewed literature, the ESA, other U.S. statutes, and legal decisions. Based on a synthesis of these sources, I propose the following 6 standards be used as minimum requirements for objective, measurable criteria: contain a quantitative threshold with calculable units, stipulate a timeframe over which they must be met, explicitly define the spatial extent or population to which they apply, specify a sampling procedure that includes sample size, specify a statistical significance level, and include justification by providing scientific evidence that the criteria define a species whose extinction risk has been reduced to the desired level. To meet these 6 standards, I suggest that recovery plans be explicitly guided by and organized around a population viability modeling framework even if data or agency resources are too limited to complete a viability model. When data and resources are available, recovery criteria can be developed from the population viability model results, but when data and resources are insufficient for model implementation, extinction risk thresholds can be used as criteria. A recovery-planning approach centered on viability modeling will also yield appropriately focused data-acquisition and monitoring plans and will facilitate a seamless transition from recovery planning to delisting. Un Marco de Referencia para Desarrollar Criterios de Recuperación Objetivos y Medibles para Especies Amenazadas y en Peligro [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lack of guidance for interpreting the definitions of endangered and threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has resulted in case-by-case decision making leaving the process vulnerable to being considered arbitrary or capricious. Adopting quantitative decision rules would remedy this but requires the agency to specify the relative urgency concerning extinction events over time, cutoff risk values corresponding to different levels of protection, and the importance given to different types of listing errors. We tested the performance of 3 sets of decision rules that use alternative functions for weighting the relative urgency of future extinction events: a threshold rule set, which uses a decision rule of x% probability of extinction over y years; a concave rule set, where the relative importance of future extinction events declines exponentially over time; and a shoulder rule set that uses a sigmoid shape function, where relative importance declines slowly at first and then more rapidly. We obtained decision cutoffs by interviewing several biologists and then emulated the listing process with simulations that covered a range of extinction risks typical of ESA listing decisions. We evaluated performance of the decision rules under different data quantities and qualities on the basis of the relative importance of misclassification errors. Although there was little difference between the performance of alternative decision rules for correct listings, the distribution of misclassifications differed depending on the function used. Misclassifications for the threshold and concave listing criteria resulted in more overprotection errors, particularly as uncertainty increased, whereas errors for the shoulder listing criteria were more symmetrical. We developed and tested the framework for quantitative decision rules for listing species under the U.S. ESA. If policy values can be agreed on, use of this framework would improve the implementation of the ESA by increasing transparency and consistency. Evaluando Reglas de Decisión para Categorizar el Riesgo de Extinción de Especies con el Fin de Desarrollar de Criterios Cuantitativos de Alistamiento en el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los EE. UU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Translocation is used to reestablish wild populations of animals, but translocation projects often do not meet their objectives because postrelease mortality of animals is high. One reason for translocation failure is that the behavioral or ecological requirements of released animals are unmet. Maintaining founder-group social relationships during release can affect reestablishment of social species. Solitary territorial species with stable neighbors (restricted dispersal and lifetime occupation of a home range) of the same species may also benefit from the maintenance of these social relationships during translocation. We translocated Stephens' kangaroo rats (Dipodomys stephensi ), a solitary species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, with and without neighboring kangaroo rats. We compared the settlement (establishment of a stable home range) decisions and fitness of kangaroo rats between the 2 treatments. Kangaroo rats translocated with neighbors traveled shorter distances before establishing territories, had higher survival rates, and had significantly higher reproductive success than kangaroo rats translocated without neighbors. Number of offspring was 24-fold higher for kangaroo rats translocated with neighbors than those translocated without neighbors. Differences in behavior following release may partially explain differences in survival between the 2 groups. Immediately following release, animals translocated with neighbors fought less and spent significantly more time foraging and digging burrows than animals translocated without neighbors. Our results indicate that even for solitary species, maintaining relationships among members of a translocated group of animals can influence translocation success. This study is the first empirical demonstration of the fitness consequences of disrupting social relationships among territorial neighbors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence of inbreeding depression is commonly detected from the fitness traits of animals, yet its effects on population growth rates of endangered species are rarely assessed. We examined whether inbreeding depression was affecting Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae ), a subspecies listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Our objectives were to characterize genetic variation in this subspecies; test whether inbreeding depression affects bighorn sheep vital rates (adult survival and female fecundity); evaluate whether inbreeding depression may limit subspecies recovery; and examine the potential for genetic management to increase population growth rates. Genetic variation in 4 populations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was among the lowest reported for any wild bighorn sheep population, and our results suggest that inbreeding depression has reduced adult female fecundity. Despite this population sizes and growth rates predicted from matrix-based projection models demonstrated that inbreeding depression would not substantially inhibit the recovery of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep populations in the next approximately 8 bighorn sheep generations (48 years). Furthermore, simulations of genetic rescue within the subspecies did not suggest that such activities would appreciably increase population sizes or growth rates during the period we modeled (10 bighorn sheep generations, 60 years). Only simulations that augmented the Mono Basin population with genetic variation from other subspecies, which is not currently a management option, predicted significant increases in population size. Although we recommend that recovery activities should minimize future losses of genetic variation, genetic effects within these endangered populations-either negative (inbreeding depression) or positive (within subspecies genetic rescue)-appear unlikely to dramatically compromise or stimulate short-term conservation efforts. The distinction between detecting the effects of inbreeding depression on a component vital rate (e.g., fecundity) and the effects of inbreeding depression on population growth underscores the importance of quantifying inbreeding costs relative to population dynamics to effectively manage endangered populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ethical, legal, and social significance of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is widely appreciated. Much of the significance of the act arises from the legal definitions that the act provides for the terms and The meanings of these terms are important because they give legal meaning to the concept of a recovered species. Unfortunately, the meanings of these terms are often misapprehended and rarely subjected to formal analysis. We analyzed the legal meaning of and illustrate key points with details from “recovery” efforts for the gray wolf (Canis lupus ). We focused on interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range,” which is part of the legal definition of endangered species. We argue that recovery and endangerment entail a fundamentally normative dimension (i.e., specifying conditions of endangerment) and a fundamentally scientific dimension (i.e., determining whether a species meets the conditions of endangerment). Specifying conditions for endangerment is largely normative because it judges risks of extinction to be either acceptable or unacceptable. Like many other laws that specify what is unacceptable, the ESA largely specifies the conditions that constitute unacceptable extinction risk. The ESA specifies unacceptable risks of extinction by defining endangered species in terms of the portion of a species' range over which a species is “in danger of extinction.” Our analysis indicated that (1) legal recovery entails much more than the scientific notion of population viability, (2) most efforts to recover endangered species are grossly inadequate, and (3) many unlisted species meet the legal definition of an endangered or threatened species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the petition to list a plant taxon under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the U.S. It says that the decision for listing the rare species that reproduce sexually and vegetatively are complicated because the estimate of the size of the population of genet are based on stem counts. Moreover, the two objections regarding the overestimation of clonal plant population size, such as the effect of a high ramet to genet ratio on population estimates are also presented.

The authors discuss the role of scientists in risk assessment and recovery planning. They mention that they disagree with Wilhere as to the appropriate role of scientific societies and individual scientist in addressing the values and science interactions.They also cite example of scientific review of recovery planning the criticizes Wilhere was the role that statutes like the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The article focuses on the impact of climate change on species management and wildlife conservation initiatives in the U.S. Topics discussed include the role of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a tool for fine-filter conservation, the response of biodiversity to climate change, and the trend toward higher-level conservation planning. The author's experience as a conservationist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is described.