ArticlePloS one2024
Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of wolves is controversial in many jurisdictions where wolves live, which underscores the importance of rigor, transparency, and reproducibility when evaluating outcomes of management actions. Treves and Louchouarn 2022 (hereafter TL) predicted outcomes for various fall 2021 hunting scenarios following Wisconsin's judicially mandated hunting and trapping season in spring 2021, and concluded that even a zero harvest scenario could result in the wolf population declining below the population goal of 350 wolves specified in the 1999 Wisconsin wolf management plan. TL further concluded that with a fall harvest of > 16 wolves there was a "better than average possibility" that the wolf population size would decline below that 350-wolf threshold. We show that these conclusions are incorrect and that they resulted from mathematical errors and selected parameterizations that were consistently biased in the direction that maximized mortality and minimized reproduction (i.e., positively biased adult mortality, negatively biased pup survival, further halving pup survival to November, negatively biased number of breeding packs, and counting harvested wolves twice among the dead). These errors systematically exaggerated declines in predicted population size and resulted in erroneous conclusions that were not based on the best available or unbiased science. Corrected mathematical calculations and more rigorous parameterization resulted in predicted outcomes for the zero harvest scenario that more closely coincided with the empirical population estimates in 2022 following a judicially prevented fall hunt in 2021. Only in scenarios with simulated harvest of 300 or more wolves did probability of crossing the 350-wolf population threshold exceed zero. TL suggested that proponents of some policy positions bear a greater burden of proof than proponents of other positions to show that "their estimates are accurate, precise, and reproducible". In their analysis, TL failed to meet this standard that they demanded of others.
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.