Reply to comments by Olson et al . 2017 and Stien 2017
2017; Royal Society; Volume: 284; Issue: 1867 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1098/rspb.2017.1743
ISSN1471-2954
AutoresGuillaume Chapron, Adrian Treves,
Tópico(s)Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
ResumoOpen AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Chapron Guillaume and Treves Adrian 2017Reply to comments by Olson et al. 2017 and Stien 2017Proc. R. Soc. B.2842017174320171743http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1743SectionSupplemental MaterialOpen AccessInvited replyReply to comments by Olson et al. 2017 and Stien 2017 Guillaume Chapron Guillaume Chapron http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-1070 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Adrian Treves Adrian Treves Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, 30A Science Hall, 550 North Park Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Guillaume Chapron Guillaume Chapron http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-1070 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Adrian Treves Adrian Treves Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, 30A Science Hall, 550 North Park Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:22 November 2017https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1743The management of large carnivores remains a contentious issue in many countries. Among the most contentious management options is 'tolerance hunting', or the killing of predators to increase tolerance among groups of people who do not accept the presence of these animals [1,2]. In [3,4], we used Bayesian state space models to evaluate the hypothesis that liberalizing culling of wolves changed wolf population dynamics from 1995 to 2012, and concluded it slowed growth, which we inferred was owing to increased poaching. Olson et al. [5] and Stien [6] re-visit our paper and we address their criticisms below.First, we disagree with Olson et al.'s [5] and Stien's [6] assertions that our paper ignores the literature or reports it in a biased manner. We simply disagree about the interpretation of the literature as we explain below. While they can have a different interpretation of those papers, it does not mean that ours is incorrect and Stien's [6, p. 1] phrasing 'biased reporting of previously published results' almost suggests intent from us to mislead the reader. Both Olson et al. [5] and Stien [6] raised the issue of density dependence analysed by Stenglein et al. [7]. In that paper, the information on density dependence relevant to our paper is in figures 3, S2.4, S2.5 and S2.6 (we cannot find reported numerical estimates on how recruitment changed during the relevant period for our study in [7]). Stenglein et al. [7, p. 5] wrote that 'The evidence for a negative slope of the line for t > 18 was 69.0% (proportion of posterior that was 18 period (1998–2001 approximately) whereas the years with culling seem to show a stable recruitment regardless of the models used [7]. Because Stenglein et al. [7] clearly concluded that they found no density dependence on survival, we observed then and still interpret Stenglein et al. [7] to show no density dependence for the period relevant to our study. An additional sentence in our discussion in [3] explaining what we just explained above might have been welcome but seemed a digression. We also chose not to mention that Stenglein et al. [7, p. 5] appear to trust their model because '48.4% of the time, the estimated population sizes in Wisconsin from 1981 to 2011 were within the 95% posterior intervals of μt' implying that more than half the time their estimates failed this relatively undemanding test. Stenglein et al. [7] also did not, in our opinion, properly handle uncertainty by using the midpoint between minimum and maximum population size as their population count (while we allowed fluctuations between minimum and maximum in [3]). Both Olson et al. [5] and Stien [6] further insist that the decline in growth rate is owing to negative density dependence. Olson et al. [5] present a compilation of studies, but which also includes some unrelated to negative density dependence (see our electronic supplementary material). Neither of those papers present, in our opinion, empirical evidence to support a mechanism for density dependence in the population and period under discussion. Stien [6] argues that the quadratic relationship he found for area against population size is evidence of negative density dependence. However, as we wrote previously [8], one must first demonstrate a mechanism to assert negative density dependence. Indeed, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reported that the Wisconsin wolf population grew from minima of 746 to 866 by April 2016 [9] after all wolf-killing including tolerance hunting was barred in December 2014, or a 1-year growth of 16%, which is larger than the annual median growth during our study period. This accelerating growth at the relevant population size demonstrates that there is still no evidence consistent with negative density dependence in the Wisconsin wolf population during the period of interest for our study.Olson et al. [5] also argue that their previous study [10] demonstrated that illegal killing decreases with increasing availability of lethal management. However, this study [10] was, in our opinion and that of an anonymous reviewer, not quantitatively rigorous. One reviewer of our paper [3] indeed agreed and wrote that our 'paper is also important because the results are at least somewhat contradictory to a recent paper Olson et al. [10]. That recent paper had some important shortcoming for which this paper seems to "fix"'. We admit we might have explained the below shortcomings in our original paper [3] but did not wish to appear confrontational. Olson et al. [10] assumed that observed poaching correlated tightly to unobserved poaching (even for radio-collared wolves). Embracing this assumption leads to the faulty conclusion that observed poaching is an unbiased sample of all poaching and can be used as the response variable for a correlation with temporal changes in policy. Treves et al. [11] did not find support for that assumption. In a separate study in Scandinavia, Liberg et al. [12] found that two thirds of poaching was not observed. For Wisconsin wolves, Treves et al. [11] estimated that same observation error to be half of all poached wolves. Olson et al. [10] also used the number of recovered radio-collared wolves inferred to have died from poaching as their response variable, without considering errors in inferring poaching as a cause of death. Systematic errors in attributing poaching to Wisconsin wolf carcasses ranged from 6–37% depending on which subsample one examined, as reported by veterinary pathologists contributing to Treves et al. [13]. Both Olson et al. [10] and Treves et al. [11,13] agree that a high proportion of radio-collared wolves disappeared without trace (unknown fate), which must be addressed in some way in any analysis of poaching [11]. Most importantly, Olson et al. [10] ignored exposure time of radio-collared wolves. We do not understand why they did not use a survival (time to event) model with the proportion of the year with culling as an explanatory variable. However, even using a time to event model would require a proper treatment of unknown fates. Finally, Olson et al. [10] did not seem to consider that marked animals (radio-collared wolves) may not suffer the same mortality pattern as the unmarked population. This has been shown specifically in two recent studies of wolves, which have undermined the assumption of identical mortality patterns [14,15].Olson et al. [5] and Stien [6] raise other points which we address in detail in our electronic supplementary material. Briefly, Stien [6] claims that there is a strong link between probability of reproduction and proportion of the year with legal culling. However, we believe other models in Stien [6] supplementary code do not support this conclusion, which, if they would, would still not warrant a change of our conclusions (see electronic supplementary material). We explain Olson et al. [5]'s assertion—that our hypothesis is not parsimonious—is built on a misunderstanding of the cause-and-effect relationships between cognition and behaviour. Moreover, Olson et al. [5]'s hypothesis of density dependence is not supported by evidence (see above), so its simplicity does not give it strength. We also argue that there is no support for the frustration hypothesis proposed by Olson et al. [5] because previous research demonstrates that tolerance for wolves declined, and inclination to poach rose, in the years following culling authority. Here and elsewhere, the reasoning in Olson et al. [5] leaves the impression of cherry-picking the literature while accusing us inaccurately of ignoring or misrepresenting it. Olson et al. [5] insinuate that we chose to start our analysis in 1995 because it somehow supported our hypothesis. Our choice is justified by two of Olson et al.'s [5] co-authors writing how monitoring substantially improved after 1995 [16]. The papers they cite [7,17,18] that begin analyses earlier do not seem to account for that change in census methods, which may affect their results. Finally, Olson et al. [5] criticize us for calling our study 'quasi experimental' and write that it is instead a 'worst case design' despite having published on the exact same study system [10]. We do not follow the logic by which a system can suddenly become the worst when other different authors write about it. Overall, the pattern emerging from analyses in Olson et al. [5,10] is one of a stream of unrigorous assertions which together portray a picture of the Wisconsin wolf population that is inaccurate. When management policies are built on such weak assertions, these policies cannot have a scientific basis, as has been shown for wolf hunting in the United States [19]. In addition, Olson et al. [5] seem, in our opinion, inclined to divert from a collegial discussion and adopt the language and style of advocacy. While there may be many reasons to pledge allegiance to management agencies, we believe that scholarly debates are not compatible with ad-hominem attacks and misleading soundbites.We appreciate the scrutiny that our analysis and our writing have sparked. Science progresses through invalidation of hypotheses and presentation of new evidence, therefore we welcome scrutiny of our work and collegial discussions. However, we also feel obligated to point out that statements supporting the tolerance hunting hypothesis, either from scientists or governments, seem to be taken for granted and evade scrutiny. A recent illustration is a paper about wolves in Norway bluntly claiming that 'it is not an unreasonable expectation that allowing legal harvest might prevent some of the illegal killing' [20, p. 135]. In our opinion, the careful wording of nuances in the above sentence only signals a value-based statement intended to influence policy regardless of evidence. While our model has faced substantial and legitimate scrutiny, scientists have remained silent about flaws or lack of evidence supporting the tolerance hunting hypothesis. In other words, killing predators appears immune to evidence-based scrutiny, while not killing predators must be justified by the highest level of evidence. One possible reason is that killing predators may simply be viewed as not worthy of justification unless one is driven by emotions [21], an attitude revealing contempt for changing public attitudes about the value of wildlife [22] and a refusal to serve the broad public interest [23]. Another possible reason may be that killing predators is a goal by itself regardless of its effectiveness in reducing poaching because it provides political services [24]. As a consequence, tolerance hunting is today a widespread management intervention for large carnivores [2] (see our electronic supplementary material for updated context), perhaps because it has the potential to justify large scale killing and is extremely difficult to evaluate scientifically. We believe that double standards in evaluating evidence are hazardous. The double standard that we observe runs contrary to the precautionary principle and the level of scrutiny should not be lower or plainly absent for writings supporting tolerance hunting than for results invalidating it. We conclude by hoping that the debate our paper triggered will encourage further research on this controversial topic.Data accessibilityThis article has no additional data.Competing interestsWe declare we have no competing interests.FundingThis work benefited from support from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)-NSF award DBI-1052875, the US and Swedish Fulbright Commissions, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.FootnotesThe accompanying comments can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0273 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0267.Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3931933.© 2017 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.References1Epstein Y. 2017Killing wolves to save them? Legal responses to 'tolerance hunting' in the European Union and United States. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 26, 19–29. (doi:10.1111/reel.12188) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar2Treves A. 2009Hunting for large carnivore conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 1350–1356. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01729.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar3Chapron G, Treves A. 2016Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152939. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2939) Link, ISI, Google Scholar4Chapron G, Treves A. 2016Correction to 'blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore'. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20162577. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2577) Link, ISI, Google Scholar5Olson ER,Crimmins SM, Beyer DE, MacNulty DR, Patterson BR, Rudolph BA, Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR. 2017Flawed analysis and unconvincing interpretation: a comment on Chapron and Treves. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170273. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0273) Link, ISI, Google Scholar6Stien A. 2017Blood may buy goodwill: no evidence for a positive relationship between legal culling and poaching in Wisconsin. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170267. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0267) Link, ISI, Google Scholar7Stenglein JL, Zhu J, Clayton MK, Van Deelen TR. 2015Are the numbers adding up? Exploiting discrepancies among complementary population models. Ecol. Evol. 5, 368–376. (doi:10.1002/ece3.1365) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar8Chapron G, Treves A. 2017Reply to comment by Pepin et al. 2017. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20162571. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2571) Link, ISI, Google Scholar9USFWS2016Gray wolf numbers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (excluding Isle Royale). See https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/pdf/MN-WI-MI-table.pdf. Google Scholar10Olson ER, Stenglein JL, Shelley V, Rissman AR, Browne-Nuñez C, Voyles Z, Wydeven AP, Van Deelen T.2015Pendulum swings in wolf management led to conflict, illegal kills, and a legislated wolf hunt. Conserv. Lett. 8, 351–360. (doi:10.1111/conl.12141) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar11Treves A, Artelle KA, Darimont CT, Parsons DR. 2017Mismeasured mortality: correcting estimates of wolf poaching in the United States. J. Mammal. 98, 1256–1264. (doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyx052) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar12Liberg O, Chapron G, Wabakken P, Pedersen HC, Thompson Hobbs N, Sand H. 2012Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 91–98. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1275) Google Scholar13Treves A, Langenberg JA, López-Bao JV, Rabenhorst MF. 2017Gray wolf mortality patterns in Wisconsin from 1979 to 2012. J. Mammal. 98, 17–32. (doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyw145) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar14Borg BL, Arthur SM, Bromen NA, Cassidy KA, McIntyre R, Smith DW, Prugh LR. 2016Implications of harvest on the boundaries of protected areas for large carnivore viewing opportunities. PLoS ONE 11, e0153808. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153808) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar15Schmidt JH, Johnson DS, Lindberg MS, Adams LG. 2015Estimating demographic parameters using a combination of known-fate and open N-mixture models. Ecology 96, 2583–2589. (doi:10.1890/15-0385.1) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar16Wydeven AP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Schultz RN, Thiel RP, Jurewicz RL, Kohn BE, Van Deelen TR. 2009History, population growth, and management of wolves in Wisconsin. In Recovery of gray wolves in the great lakes region of the United States(eds AP Wydeven, TR Van Deelen, EJ Heske), pp. 87–105. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar17Stenglein JL, Van Deelen TR. 2016Demographic and component Allee effects in southern Lake Superior gray wolves. PLoS ONE 11, e0150535. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150535) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar18Van Deelen TR. 2009Growth characteristics of a recovering wolf population in the Great Lakes region. In Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: an endangered species success story (eds Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR, Heske EJ), pp. 139–153. New York, NY: Berlin, Germany: Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar19Creel Set al.. 2015Questionable policy for large carnivore hunting. Science 350, 1473–1475. (doi:10.1126/science.aac4768) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar20Linnell JDC, Trouwborst A, Fleurke FM. 2017When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal constraints on wildlife management within Europe's Bern convention. Nat. Conserv. 21, 129–157. (doi:10.3897/natureconservation.21.12836) Crossref, Google Scholar21Nelson MP, Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Chapron G. 2016Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conserv. Lett. 9, 302–306. (doi:10.1111/conl.12232) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar22van Eeden LM, Dickman CR, Ritchie EG, Newsome TM. 2017Shifting public values and what they mean for increasing democracy in wildlife management decisions. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2759–2763. (doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1378-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar23Treves A, Chapron G, López-Bao JV, Shoemaker C, Goeckner AR, Bruskotter JT. 2017Predators and the public trust. Biol. Rev. 92, 248–270. (doi:10.1111/brv.12227) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar24Chapron G, López-Bao JV. 2014Conserving carnivores: politics in play. Science 343, 1199–1200. (doi:10.1126/science.343.6176.1199-b) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited byLouchouarn N, Santiago-Ávila F, Parsons D and Treves A (2021) Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves, Royal Society Open Science, 8:3, Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021. Liberg O, Suutarinen J, Åkesson M, Andrén H, Wabakken P, Wikenros C and Sand H (2020) Poaching-related disappearance rate of wolves in Sweden was positively related to population size and negatively to legal culling, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108456, 243, (108456), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Santiago-Ávila F, Chappell R and Treves A (2020) Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-020-70837-x, 10:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Treves A, Artelle K and Paquet P (2018) Differentiating between regulation and hunting as conservation interventions, Conservation Biology, 10.1111/cobi.13211, 33:2, (472-475), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019. Treves A, Santiago-Ávila F and Lynn W (2019) Just preservation, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.018, 229, (134-141), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2019. Treves A, Santiago-Ávila F and Putrevu K (2021) Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management, PeerJ, 10.7717/peerj.11666, 9, (e11666) Treves A, Paquet P, Artelle K, Cornman A, Krofel M and Darimont C (2021) Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management, Frontiers in Conservation Science, 10.3389/fcosc.2021.631998, 2 This Issue29 November 2017Volume 284Issue 1867 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1743PubMed:29167362Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received03/08/2017Manuscript accepted20/10/2017Published online22/11/2017Published in print29/11/2017 License:© 2017 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsecology Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad
Referência(s)