A unit of Lasting Forests Sustained forests; sustained profits evolving since March 30, 1999

A guide for evaluating the wording and structure of objectives is available.

Consider this analysis of an objective:

The wildlife manager is familiar with the directives: "Here it is; manage this wildlife area to the best of your ability."

This directive, which may become the only objective immediately available, cover a variety of tasks and has many connotations. There is no common definition for management: some doubts exist about the boundaries of the area itself. Does management mean changing habitat, preventing change in habitat and buildings, changing people's behavior on refuges, working with animals only; protecting (only) habitat and wildlife, or expanding area uses and service? Is it any of these or some combination of them? How will success be measured? How can a program be evaluated? The difficulty of writing precise, useful objectives is real. One example of an analysis of past weaknesses in statement may be helpful.

The wildlife management staff objective of the Kofa Game Range are singled out for analysis. The objective was written in 1968 and since then there have been improvements in writing objectives.

The Kofa Game Range objective (February, 1968) read: "Objectives of the Kofa Game Range in order of priority, are:

Desert Bighorn Sheep - to maintain an optimum population of bighorn sheep through protection, and enhancement and management of the habitat.

Consider an analysis, and an example of how present and future statements might be treated:

1. "Bighorn Sheep" - How was the priority established (recall that "priority" means sequence or merely rank-order, not relative value)? What were the criteria? What is the weight, i.e. how much farther out front is Bighorn Sheep management than No. 2 "Other Wildlife?" How much difference exists between No. 4 "Nature Enjoyment" and No. 5 "Preservation of Unique Habitat?" If this is not known, then all must be weighted equally. At least a sequence could be developed as follows:

No. 1, No. 2 = No. 3, No. 4 = No.5.

2. "Maintain" - There are only three things a population can do: increase, stabilize, or decrease. Maintain can mean: decrease, but not below a certain level, or stabilize for a few years then increase, increase rapidly -- almost anything except become extinct. I suspect that the managers of the Kofa would like to say "increase to measured carrying capacity and stabilize at predicted annual carrying capacity." "Stability" would be measured by a least-squares approach, comparing the population and carrying capacity. The staff may not have been able to do that then, but capability and capacities should not get in the way of stating objectives. Objectives show what limitations must be overcome, what new ideas must be developed, and what new techniques must be sought.

3. "Optimum" - Optimum is a concept of maximizing (or minimizing) within constraints, a desirable word for an objectives statement. It could be put: "the maximum population of trophy sheep consistent with range carrying capacity and parasite danger." This makes the objectives tight, spells out some aspects of the sex and age structure desired, and provides three major constraints.

• age-sex structure (7-1/2 and older rams), a tall age pyramid;
• range condition and trend; and
• lungworm threats;

4. "Through" - Objectives need not and should not have methods included within them. The objective is not to exercise law enforcement; this is the means to the end. Ends and means are easily confused.

5. "Protection" - Protection is difficult to measure as stated. What is needed or should be immediately obvious is a relevant performance indicator or unit of effectiveness. What may be superior to "protection" is "a reduction in known losses to poachers and predators", a measurable idea. Is not this essentially what is meant by sheep protection?

6. "Enhancement" - This is a vacant, meaningless word. How is habitat enhanced? Habitat is protected or manipulated (and protection is a form of manipulation). Enhancement is a concept of value, human values. Arizona Highways magazine enhances my value of the desert; it changes my outlook on the desert, though neither Arizona Highways nor I have had any profound, direct influence on the desert.

7. "Management" - Also a sloppy word, management is unmeasurable; it has no relevant performance indicator. If it must be in the objective, then it should be "manipulation of the total habitat needs of the sheep."

Thus, an alternate and improved objective would read:

Desert Bighorn Sheep - to maximize annually the population of trophy bighorns within 5% of measured carrying capacity and below parasite danger.

One other point, objectives do not have to be agreed upon at all levels or by everyone at a particular level. Objectives are value judgements and total agreement will usually sub-optimize. Majority opinion may sub-optimize but it can also maximize if the highest objective perceived by the group is adopted. Concerning perception, some people, when asked if they have an answer to "who am I?", lack the philosophical capability or sophistication and can only react: "That's a stupid question: Here I am!" objectives need not be argued with or comprehended by everyone. They must be explained as best possible, then once explained, translated into action.

Possible objectives for a wildlife law enforcement agency

The agency accomplishment is the total accomplishments by individual agents (officers. wardens, etc.) as reflected in surveys and agency statistics.

1. X₁ = weighted (a) politeness scale based on a questionnaire given to hunters having contact with an agent. Scale ranges from O to 100.

2. X₂ = weighted (b) law simplicity based on a questionnaire given to 100 hunters. The complexity scale, C, is from O to 100 and thus X₂ = 100

3. X₃ = weighted (c) arrest-to-violation ratio. Based on anonymous questionnaire results, citizens are asked if they have violated game laws (V) and have been arrested or warned (A). X₃ = (A/V + 100) A/V will approach 1.0.

4. X₄ = weighted (d) public attitude toward cooperation.

   X ₄ = r/R x 100 where r is the people who would report a violation and R the people asked (a simple proportion), r/R, will approach 1.0.

5. X₅ = weighted (e) admitted violators. Number (V) of all asked (R) if they have committed a violation X₅ = (1.0 - V/R) x 100

6. X₆ = weighted (f) admitted violators of a major game law such as deer spotlighting.

   Thus X₆ = (1.0-VD/R) x 100.

7. X₇ = weighted (g) hunter satisfaction index where X₇ = (1.0 - (S/RI)) x 100 and S is the number of hunters saying agents significantly impaired their hunt by their inspection and RI are respondents having been inspected.

8. X₈ = weighted (h) safety index where

   X₈ = (1.0 - ((accidents_t - accidents_t 1 )/accidents_t 1 ) x 100

9. X₈ = weighted (i) change in proportion of license sales to people in hunting age classes. If X₉ is equal to or greater than 100, then X₈ = 100, otherwise it is the actual value where

   X₉ = (1-0 - (sales_t - sales_t 1)/sales_t_1)) x 100

   Thus the agency performance is

   Q* = W_jX_j/S W_j

   The maximum score or agency performances is 100.

An agency's leaders (with commissioners, etc.) assigned the following weights on a scale of 1 to 100.

a = 50
b = 60
c = 100
d = 80
e = 90
f = 85
g = 70
h = 60
i = 80
Total = 675

The results from surveys, etc., are shown with each weight:

(50 (86) + 60 (59) + 100 (12) + 80 (61) + 90 (31) + 85 (96) + 70 (91) + 60 (98) + 80 (100))/675

(4300 + 3540 + 1200 + 4880 + 2790 + 8160 + 6370 + 5880 + 8000) / 675 = 45120/675 =67.8

The agency's score in greatest gains can be 67. The lower products (e.g., 1200) suggest where changes can be made, often for the least effort.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.