Harvest Management in an Integrated Framework Michael C. Runge USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Outline Harvest Management Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management Multiple Objectives

Harvest Management Oh no, Not Yield Curves Again!

Carrying Capacity & Harvest N eq Recruitment or Mortality Continental Population Size K Additional mortality due to hunting Natural mortality Recruitment

Harvest rate Equilibrium N Harvest rate Annual Harvest K N eq * 5 Sustainable Harvest

Sustainable Annual Harvest Equilibrium Population Size (N) 0 N* = K/2K 0 r max K/4 h = r max h = r max /2 h = 0 Yield Curve

Harvest Management At least implicitly, since 1995, the dynamics captured by yield curves have been at the heart of our harvest assessments The focus on K makes it clear that harvest dynamics really cannot be understood without the context of habitat management

Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management

Coherent Models If we had a common modeling framework for harvest and habitat management: We could understand how habitat management is affecting continental demographics, including harvest potential We could understand how harvest management affects the continental population size, and hence, the use of available habitat Continental carrying capacity (K) is a useful metric that links harvest and habitat management Yield curves are, in fact, an extremely valuable way to look at habitat management

Pintail Harvest Potential Latitude-adjusted BPOP (millions) Annual Harvest (thousands) R1 L1 L2 L3 R1, SIS Pre-1975 (53.6) Post-1975 (55.6)

Equilibrium BPOP Sustained Annual Harvest Current Increase productivity on existing parcels Increase capacity on the landscape Yield Curves for Habitat Management

Integrated Modeling Benefits Track changes in habitat (positive or negative) and account for their effects on harvest potential Evaluate effects of habitat management on continental demography Understand how waterfowl objectives are affected jointly by harvest and habitat management Challenges Understanding how JV actions affect continental K Do we have the institutional structure in place to build integrated models?

Multiple Objectives

Current AHM Objective Function This is a composite of several objectives, with an implicit method of weighting: Maximize annual harvest of MCM Maintain sustainable harvest of MCM Discourage population size < NAWMP goal Dont allow closure above 5.5M MCM

Multiple Harvest Objectives But the current AHM objective function leaves out many other possible objectives Sustainable harvest of other species Avoid partial seasons or closure for other spp. Encourage hunter participation Provide widespread hunting opportunity Motivate habitat conservation Maintain historical distributions during winter And many others… Turning Point question

What are your top TWO objectives for waterfowl harvest management? 1. maximize harvest 2. keep harvest sustainable for all species 3. avoid closed or partial seasons 4. maximize the frequency of long seasons 5. have relatively stable regulations 6. have relatively simple regulations 7. keep populations near the NAWMP goals 8. motivate hunter participation 9. motivate habitat conservation 10. other

Multiple Waterfowl Objectives And the larger endeavor adds even more objectives: Achieve NAWMP population objectives What fundamental goals drive these? Minimize costs of habitat conservation Engage partners Maintain and motivate a traditional hunting culture Generate broad public support for wetland habitat conservation Etc.

Trade-offs Harvest management is embedded in a broader context with a complex set of objectives There are trade-offs among these objectives They cannot all be achieved perfectly How do we evaluate and balance the trade- offs in setting harvest regulations? Do we currently have a framework for this sort of deliberation?

Equilibrium BPOP Sustainable Annual Harvest Desired Habitat NA goal 19 Desired Harvest Policy Coherent Objectives Current Condition Worse

Summary

Harvest Management Yield curves are a valuable tool Integrating Harvest & Habitat Management Continental K is a valuable common metric Coherent models would allow us to understand how harvest potential is changing due to NAWMP activities and other factors Multiple Objectives Harvest management, let alone integrated management, is a complex multiple-objective problem We need a framework to understand and balance the trade-offs among objectives Coherent monitoring could arise out of such an integrated framework