Rural System's

Modern Wild Faunal Resource System Management

[ Web site Home | The Course's Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]

Managing the Animals

If you manage the animals, then are they no longer wild? If no longer wild, then why persist in calling this thing that you do wildlife management? When first confronted with this argument, I was at a loss. I do not remember my reply. My failure (and the question) still bother me. I should have argued that I manage the resource, not the animals. I would have lost ground for what people know about wildlife is from TV and that is usually depicting hands-on work with animals. I may have colleagues that haze elk into another area, use salt to attract herds to an area, use repellents to discourage animals from eating certain things of value, and even kill a marauding livestock killer. These are the exceptions but they are evidence that we actually manage animals. We tend animals in experimental situations. More evidence.

In India at a famous refuge south of Delhi I asked the refuge manager what was his measure of success in management. I expected a discussion of objectives, a tirade about political uncertainty and lack of guidance, and comments about budgetary inadequacy. His answer was "the closeness to which we can approach the animals." I remain perplexed. He sought to protect the animals from all disturbance. The "no fear" slogan was to writ large on the land. He provides spaces or habitats for the animals, trails for the visitors, guides, and control of peoples' behavior to prevent disturbance. The criterion of success was in "flushing distance", the less the better...for the animals and the visitors to the refuge. Harmony was the quest. He was a thoughtful person. The meaning of "wildlife management" probably meant little to him. He had a permanent job on a large national area, a budget, large staff, and did what his predecessor did.

I remain perplexed by his answer for many reasons. I realize cultural and religious differences between his answer and my expectation. I want to find out the difference in flushing distance between animals on his area and similar nearby areas. I wonder about the effects of the experiences of migratory birds while off his area. I want a plot of the change in distances observed over the years. I am curious about which animals he observes and which ones do not respond. I remain perplexed by him but by similar observations on areas around the world. I want to know what effect the manager had.

If I apply fertilizer to a farm crop and I can see no measurable change in plant growth, I will probably not apply the same fertilizer or some amount next year. I understand cause and effect and when fertilizer is expensive, I do not want to spend money for things that give me no substantial return. Why should a different standard be applied to the manager. If I (as a tax-paying society) spend money and ask a manager to provide

A bull elk in Olympic National Park. It had been wallowing in mud. More than observations are needed.

goods and services, some sort of benefits, from the wildlife resource, then I should expect to be able to see or sense a significant difference in the resource being managed and that similar resource elsewhere. I am sure the animals on the Indian refuge were more calm, less flighty, more likely to walk away than to fly or run. There was less entropy. They were more free than when off the refuge. They experienced "sanctuary." Maybe that is all that is needed. But one form of wildlife management holds that the wildlife manager is more than a warehouse guard, one who locks up a place and tends it. Some do. Their work is important. There are few such jobs. The activities can usually be performed with little education or special skill and knowledge. There are so many different places and special situations that generalizing about needs is dangerous, doomed to be wrong from a hundred qualifiers. The alternative is that of the decision maker, hiring staff and directing their activities on such areas so that cost effectiveness is achieved.

In Virginia there are about 400 species of wild birds. The manager might assume that these are the topics of his or her work. They must know about 400 things! They must master knowledge about these things because actions will be taken and usually a benefit is expected (some will occur if the birds increase; other (such as birds eating crops) if they decrease. Knowing everything about one or two things is difficult. That some people do so is why the "specialist" is notable. Four-hundred is too many! In Virginia there are about 1000 large animals - mammals, birds, snakes, toads, frogs, fish, salamanders. We've not counted the crustaceans and are afraid to face the insects...even the butterflies and moths. Virginia is a small state. Many animals are migratory. The manager of birds or the large animals of a state has a big problem. Compared to African and South American fauna, there are few animals in the US. "All of the animals" is a problem usually taken by an agency. There are usually many staff but no state can deal adequately (even by minimum standards) with 1000 creatures. Perhaps wildlife management is excessively large in concept and intended action. Perhaps it starts in a failing posture.

Someday these conflicting concepts must be resolved. It is time to start pondering and discussing the options.

There are only four things that a manager can do with a population number or density:

1. start it (introduce, restore, etc.)
2. increase it (positive rate)
3. stabilize it (approximately zero date of change)
4. decrease it (negative rate)

That, however, may not be what they should be doing. They might be managing the satisfaction or benefits associated with the population or the change.

Charlatans (or ignorant people) will change the desired number or the estimate; some will change the specified area (thus the density estimate)

Clarifying the taxonomy of the species or the bounds of the life-group or meta-population may be a good trick to use to clarify or refute certain claims.

Populations are a function of faunal space (with suggested expansion)

Populations may be migrants so macro-management may be required.

For much faunal system work, increases of populations (e.g., game and endangered species) have been needed. Preventing losses is a logical first step and wildlife law enforcement has been an important part of this.

Managing mortality is the related realm of work - working on hunting, predation, accidents, direct removal, shooting, pathology. The key emphasis must be in the youngest age class! This is where mortality is (or can be made to be greatest as for damage management) in almost all species. Survival is merely the other side of the mortality coin. Influencing cumulative mortality along migration paths is critical work for migrant species.

See a moose harvest example.)

See Working with the Objective.

Managing birth rates is another realm of work. Specifying the meaning of "a birth" is step one (egg hatch, first suckle, flight from the nest, etc.). Nutrition is a logical means to change natality; reducing pesticide effects or energy loss due to recreationists (etc.) disturbing animals are others. Reducing nest loss may be counted but it may be best-covered under mortality work.

Managing competition (e.g., feral horses grazing and water use; excessive grazing; starling nesting) and predation will change energy budgets and thus the key rates of natality and mortality.

Satisfactions and benefits are related to populations and so most managers see their work being with changing the population, P, that is seeing it change in desired fashion, usually increasing for game species, over time, T. Some prefer to see populations so clearly as as a function of resources that they ignore the animal and try to create opportunity space, the conditions for animals and those into which pouulations can expand (or be limited) and they work to increase these resources. The equation is none other than

P_t+1 = P_t + (aT^R - 1)

where a is 1.0 for simple relationships but it can be changed to account for differences in phenology, grouping of animals (pack efficiencies), crowding, and human perceptions of the real population.

This formulation can be made more axplicit for throughful analysis or use in a simulation.

Where P_t+1 = the population projected for the next year

and P_t = the population in this current year

and a = the proportion of the current population that is productive ( a proportion usually less than all females)

r = refined productivity (young per female)

(1.0 - b) = a modifier for r, influenced by food and energy suppliees or home range units

E = effort, a proportion of the adults harvested

G = yield = E(P_t)

b = as above, rate increases as the population increases

Y = young mortality (influenced by food, disturbance, disease, predation, etc. all of which can be influenced by the manager)

It seems that (and I welcome comment and assistance as I struggle for a full but limited model with parts that can be influenced by managers)

where (x is the product sign )

P_t+1 = P_t + (aP_t x r(1 + b)) - E P_t - P_tMb - aP_t x r x Y(1 - b)

It may be useful to study ratios of M/y, r/M, r/Y, r/E, and G/r.

Go to the top.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Send an email message - Questions, revisions?
Last revision August 16, 2004.