4.6 Article

Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259604

关键词

-

资金

  1. DAAD: German Academic Exchange Service [91803225]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [PGSD3 -545968 -2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When facing the risk of species extinction, it is common for people to take precautions to avoid the uncertainties. However, the design and effectiveness of these precautions require scientific considerations. This study investigates the case of Wisconsin gray wolves, using different thresholds as societal judgments about precautions. The findings reveal an underestimation of wolf deaths by the state government and recommend better scientific analysis when setting wolf-hunt quotas. The study emphasizes the need for accurate estimations and reproducibility when advocating for high quotas.
When humanity confronts the risk of extinction of species, many people invoke precautions, especially in the face of uncertainty. Although precautionary approaches are value judgments, the optimal design and effect of precautions or lack thereof are scientific questions. We investigated Wisconsin gray wolves Canis lupus facing a second wolf-hunt in November 2021 and use three legal thresholds as the societal value judgments about precautions: (1) the 1999 population goal, 350 wolves, (2) the threshold for statutory listing under the state threatened and endangered species act, 250 wolves; and (3) state extirpation <2 wolves. This allows us to explore the quantitative relationship between precaution and uncertainty. Working from estimates of the size wolf population in April 2021 and reproduction to November, we constructed a simple linear model with uninformative priors for the period April 2021-April 2022 including an uncertain wolf-hunt in November 2021. Our first result is that the state government under-counted wolf deaths in the year preceding both wolf-hunts. We recommend better scientific analysis be used when setting wolf-hunt quotas. We find official recommendations for a quota for the November 2021 wolf-hunt risk undesirable outcomes. Even a quota of zero has a 13% chance of crossing threshold 1. Therefore, a zero death toll would be precautionary. Proponents for high quotas bear the burden of proof that their estimates are accurate, precise, and reproducible. We discuss why our approach is transferable to non-wolves. We show how scientists have the tools and concepts for quantifying and explaining the probabilities of crossing thresholds set by laws or other social norms. We recommend that scientists grapple with data gaps by explaining what the uncertainty means for policy and the public including the consequences of being wrong.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据