Polar Bear

Recommendations

Info

III. Management Goals and Criteria Discretionary human‐caused removal rate (proportion of population size) h Work hard Work to hard make to make sure sure removals do do not not become become a threat Removals are a threat Removals are are not not a threat to a threat the sub-population to the sub‐population 1 0 Population Status (taking into account N, K, r, and quality of information) Figure 8. Three-level framework for management of polar bear take. In the green zone, the maximum number of annual removals is proportional to the population size, with the proportion (the rate) sensitive to any changes in the intrinsic rate of growth of the population. In the yellow zone, additional efforts are warranted, including consideration of increased monitoring effort, reduction of defense-of-life or other removals, and reduction in subsistence harvest. In the red zone, emergency measures to reduce or minimize all human-caused removals are recommended. In all three zones, the colored region represents the range of removal rates that meet the conservation guidelines of this Plan; the local choice of where to fall within those bounds can take into account the specific context of the subpopulation. is a central tradition for Alaska Native people, as well as other native Arctic peoples. The ESA and MMPA both recognize the importance of subsistence harvest for Alaska Native people. In fact, both laws allow certain subsistence harvest by Alaska Native people even when a species is “threatened” or “depleted.” In this Plan, we recognize continued subsistence harvest as a fundamental goal associated with polar bear conservation and recovery. We also provide conditions for harvest to ensure: under the ESA, that harvest does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery; and under the MMPA, that harvest does not affect our ability to achieve the conservation goals of the Act. opportunity needs to be curtailed. In the yellow zone, we seek a balance of the two sets of goals, with continuation of some degree of harvest opportunity while watching the conservation status carefully. The concepts underlying this framework for management of human-caused removals are founded in harvest theory (Wade 1998, Runge et al. 2009) and a careful consideration of polar bear population dynamics. Appendix C provides the scientific basis for managing harvest opportunity in a manner compatible with the conservation and recovery of a species that is expected to decline in the near- and mid-term. The guidelines for harvest management described in Section IV.b of this Plan outline a three-level framework for implementation at the subpopulation level (Fig. 8). The central idea of this framework is that harvest opportunity can be maintained if its management is sensitive to any changes in population size, intrinsic growth rate, or carrying capacity. The three zones arise out of an effort to balance the Fundamental Goals of this Plan. In the green zone, the opportunity for subsistence harvest (Fundamental Goal 4) dominates the management of take, because the conservation goals (Fundamental Goals 1–3) are not facing near-term risk. In the red zone, the conservation goals (Fundamental Goals 1–3) dominate the management of take because threats to the species have become severe, and thus, harvest 38 Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan
III. Management Goals and Criteria F. Uncertainty, Assumptions, and the Need for Adaptive Feedback and Management The links between the tiers of criteria in this framework are based on our current understanding of polar bear demography and threats, which is incomplete. Thus, in deriving demographic criteria, assumptions and uncertainty about the demographic processes (such as regarding Allee effects), the means and variances of the survival and reproductive rates, the mechanism and magnitude of densitydependence, and the role of density-independent drivers of change give rise to uncertainty about the demographic criteria. Likewise, the derivation of threats-based criteria is affected by various types of uncertainty, such as: uncertainty regarding the nature, mechanism, and magnitude of the various threats; uncertainty about the behavioral responses of polar bears to changing conditions in the marine ecosystem, such as prey base, denning conditions, and other effects of climate change; uncertainty in the trajectory of sea ice as driven by climate change; and uncertainty in climate forecasts themselves. We recognize there are other gaps in knowledge that add to scientific uncertainty. Even if there is strong policy certainty about the fundamental criteria, the demographic and threats-based criteria might be less certain, because of the scientific uncertainty inherent in their derivation. We also acknowledge policy uncertainty in the establishment of the fundamental criteria themselves. The standards established in this Plan, however, meet the statutory requirements of the MMPA and ESA and will result in conservation and recovery, even in the face of the uncertainties described above. To achieve the statutory requirements in the face of uncertainty, we needed to err on the side of conservation and recovery of polar bears, possibly at the cost of other fundamental goals. If and when uncertainties are resolved, it is more likely than not that the conservation and recovery criteria can become less demanding, allowing even better achievement of the other goals. For these reasons, this Plan should be viewed as dynamic, not static, and the criteria should be revised over time as new data are acquired and critical scientific and policy uncertainties are reduced or resolved. The fundamental criteria could be revised if policy insights arise. Depending on the nature of any changes that may be made in the fundamental criteria, the demographic criteria may change. Further, even if the fundamental criteria do not change, the demographic criteria may be fine-tuned as new scientific information increases our understanding of polar bear population dynamics. The threats-based criteria will likely be subject to revision as new data help us understand the nature of the current and emerging threats and the responses of polar bear populations to them. Any changes to the demographic and threats-based criteria will remain founded in the fundamental criteria. It is the intent of this Plan to use an adaptive management approach to revise and update the fundamental goals, conservation criteria, and recovery criteria, as well as various assumptions underlying our analyses, as new scientific and policy information becomes available that demonstrates such revisions are appropriate. By using such an adaptive feedback approach, we will be able to identify triggers for such revisions to conservation and recovery criteria and, therefore, maintain transparency and support for any modifications. USFWS Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan 39
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pola
Page 3 and 4: Polar Bear Conservation Management
Page 5 and 6: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Today, polar bear
Page 9 and 10: and connectivity in each recovery u
Page 11 and 12: I. Background I. BACKGROUND Polar b
Page 13 and 14: I. Background the extent and charac
Page 15 and 16: II. Conservation Strategy II. CONSE
Page 17 and 18: III. Management Goals and Criteria
Page 21 and 22: B. Conservation Criteria under the
Page 39: III. Management Goals and Criteria
Page 43 and 44: IV. Conservation Management Strateg
Page 55 and 56: V. Literature Cited V. LITERATURE C
Page 57 and 58: V. Literature Cited National Marine
Page 59 and 60: V. Literature Cited Wade, P.R. 1998
Page 61 and 62: VI. Glossary Population. A group of
Page 63 and 64: Appendix A—Background APPENDIX A
Page 65 and 66: Appendix A—Background bears are f
Page 67 and 68: Appendix A—Background Sea ice is
Page 69 and 70: Appendix A—Background et al. 2015
Page 71 and 72: Appendix A—Background of the Conv
Page 73 and 74: Appendix A—Background Polar Bears
Page 75 and 76: Appendix A—Background (e.g. giard
Page 77 and 78: Appendix A—Background overall. Th
Page 79 and 80: Appendix A—Background mitigate im
Page 81 and 82: Appendix A—Background of subsiste
Page 83 and 84: Appendix A—Background Blank, J.J.
Page 85 and 86: Appendix A—Background Environment
Page 87 and 88: Appendix A—Background Lunn, N.J.,
Page 89 and 90: Appendix A—Background Rode, K.D.,
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix A—Background Voorhees, H
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix B—Specific Conservation
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix C—Population Dynamics an
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
show all

Polar Bear

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?