Research ArticleAPPLIED ECOLOGY

Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  07 Mar 2018:
Vol. 4, no. 3, eaao0167
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao0167
  • Fig. 1 Percent of management systems across Canadian provinces/territories and U.S. states (N = 667 plans) in which indicator criteria for hallmarks of scientific management (measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review) were present.
  • Fig. 2 Effect of management system characteristics on number of criteria present.

    Number of criteria out of 9, with both independent review hallmark criteria excluded as part of the response (see fig. S2). Coefficients shown are odds ratios from a multilevel model, with thick and thin bars representing 50 and 95% confidence intervals, respectively, and plotted on a log scale.

  • Table 1 Hallmarks and their indicator criteria.

    Assessed across 667 management systems (species-jurisdictions) produced by 62 wildlife agencies across Canada and the United States.

    HallmarksIndicator criteria
    Measurable
    objectives
    Provide measurable objectives
    EvidenceReport quantitative information about populations
    Report uncertainty in population parameter
    estimates
    Estimate realized hunting rates
    TransparencyExplain technique for setting hunting quotas
    Explain how population parameters are estimated
    Explain how realized hunting rates are estimated
    Provide publicly available management information
    Respond to public inquiry
    Independent reviewSubject management plans to any review
    Subject management plans to external review

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/3/eaao0167/DC1

    Supplementary Text

    fig. S1. Number of criteria (out of possible 11) present in wildlife management plans across Canadian provinces/territories and U.S. states (N = 667).

    fig. S2. Effect of management characteristics on number of criteria present.

    fig. S3. Effect of management characteristics on number of criteria present.

    table S1. Inter-observer agreement.

    database S1. Assessment data (assessments of all available management documents, for example, online resources, wildlife management plans, or other available documents).

    metadata S1. Metadata about all management documents scored in this analysis (that is, those referenced in database S1; including URLs, where possible).

    References (2944)

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Supplementary Text
    • fig. S1. Number of criteria (out of possible 11) present in wildlife management plans across Canadian provinces/territories and U.S. states (N = 667).
    • fig. S2. Effect of management characteristics on number of criteria present.
    • fig. S3. Effect of management characteristics on number of criteria present.
    • table S1. Inter-observer agreement.
    • References (29–44)

    Download PDF

    Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

    • database S1 (Microsoft Excel format). Assessment data (assessments of all available management documents, for example, online resources, wildlife management plans, or other available documents).
    • metadata S1 (Microsoft Excel format). Metadata about all management documents scored in this analysis (that is, those referenced in database S1;
      including URLs, where possible).

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Navigate This Article