ArticleScience advances2018
Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management.
Article in Science advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn.PloS one · 2024Article
- Quantifying the checks and balances of collaborative governance systems for adaptive carnivore management.The Journal of applied ecology · 2022Article
- Review
- Article
- Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist.Environmental management · 2022Article
- Bridging research and practice in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Review
- Snapshot Wisconsin: networking community scientists and remote sensing to improve ecological monitoring and management.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021Article
- Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems.PloS one · 2021Article
- Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2020Article
- Population reduction by hunting helps control human-wildlife conflicts for a species that is a conservation success story.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Multi-targeted management of upland game birds at the agroecosystem interface in midwestern North America.PloS one · 2020Article
- Differentiating between regulation and hunting as conservation interventions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019Article
- Attenuating the nonresponse bias in hunting bag surveys: The multiphase sampling strategy.PloS one · 2019Article
- Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to wildlife management.Science advances · 2018Article
- ArtelleScience advances · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byArtelle2018
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resource management agencies commonly defend controversial policy by claiming adherence to science-based approaches. For example, proponents and practitioners of the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation," which guides hunting policy across much of the United States and Canada, assert that science plays a central role in shaping policy. However, what that means is rarely defined. We propose a framework that identifies four fundamental hallmarks of science relevant to natural resource management (measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review) and test for their presence in hunt management plans created by 62 U.S. state and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies across 667 management systems (species-jurisdictions). We found that most (60%) systems contained fewer than half of the indicator criteria assessed, with more criteria detected in systems that were peer-reviewed, that pertained to "big game," and in jurisdictions at increasing latitudes. These results raise doubt about the purported scientific basis of hunt management across the United States and Canada. Our framework provides guidance for adopting a science-based approach to safeguard not only wildlife but also agencies from potential social, legal, and political conflict.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.