Geology topics

William F. Siemer

Publications and source records attributed to William F. Siemer.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Perception and trust influence acceptance for black bears more than bear density or conflicts

Introduction: To sustain black bear (Ursus americanus) populations, wildlife managers should understand the coupled socio-ecological systems that influence acceptance capacity for bears. Method: In a study area encompassing a portion of New York State, we spatially matched datasets from three sources: human-bear conflict reports between 2006 and 2018, estimates of local bear density in 2017–2018, and responses to a 2018 property owner survey (n=1,772). We used structural equation modeling to test hypothesized relationships between local human-bear conflict, local bear density, and psychological variables. Results: The final model explained 57% of the variance in acceptance. The effect of bear population density on acceptance capacity for bears was relatively small and was mediated by a third variable: perception of proximity to the effects of human-bear interactions. The variables that exerted a direct effect on acceptance were perception of bear-related benefits, perception of bear-related risks, perceived proximity to effects of human-bear interactions, and being a hunter. Perception of bear-related benefits had a greater effect on acceptance than perception of bear-related risks. Perceived proximity to effects of human-bear interactions was affected by local bear density, but also was affected by social trust. Increased social trust had nearly the same effect on perceived proximity as decreased bear density. Social trust had the greatest indirect effect on acceptance of any variable in the model. Discussion: Findings suggest wildlife agencies could maintain public acceptance for bears through an integrated approach that combines actions to address bear-related perceptions and social trust along with active management of bear populations.

New York↗

USGS2022

Choosing an optimal duck season: Integrating hunter values and duck abundance

State wildlife agencies have long struggled to identify optimal hunting season dates for migratory game bird species that meet the diverse and often competing interests of stakeholders. Many approaches have been used to ensure the regulated community participates in the decision-making process, including public hearings, hunter season-date preference surveys, and hunter task forces or committees. Although hearings, surveys, and task force approaches include portions of the regulated community (typically the most avid) they may not necessarily reflect the opinions and values of all stakeholders. Additionally, these approaches rely heavily on limited anecdotal observations that may be unduly influenced by hunter avidity (e.g., days spent afield), hunter density, species preferences, and property access. To address the challenges caused by engaging only portions of the stakeholder community, we used a structured decision-making framework that included a 2017 duck hunter survey to elucidate values of a representative sample of the regulated community in each waterfowl hunting zone in the state of New York, USA. Rather than asking duck hunters about their specific duck hunting season date preferences, we asked them to rank 6 objectives describing what they value in their hunting experience (e.g., maximizing the opportunity to see mallards [ Anas platyrhynchos ] and black ducks [ Anas rubripes ], maximizing the number of weekend days). Four of the 6 objectives described duck species availability (i.e., abundance or immigration) and the remaining 2 described considerations that affect an individual hunter's opportunity or limitation to going duck hunting (i.e., holidays or conflicting hunting seasons). We used spatiotemporal abundance models derived from eBird citizen science data to estimate abundance and immigration rates of ducks in each waterfowl zone. We evaluated up to 9 unique season date alternatives developed by duck hunter task forces to determine which season date alternative best satisfied the competing objectives of duck hunters in each zone. The approach we developed allowed for selection of optimal duck hunting season dates and successfully involved avid duck hunters in the regulation development stages, while ensuring that the values of a representative sample of all stakeholders were directly considered through a clear and transparent decision-making process.

New York↗

USGS2021

Engaging hunters in selecting duck season dates using decision science: Problem framing, objective setting, devising management alternatives

Waterfowl hunters have an important economic impact on local, state, and national economies, and are important stakeholders in decisions regarding waterfowl harvest season dates. Individual states are responsible for annually setting duck season dates that conform to the migratory game bird season frameworks as set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The federal framework specifies season length and bag limits (i.e., number of birds allowed to be harvested in a day), and states have the authority to select specific season dates within the federal guidelines. The state agency decision is largely centered on social objectives related to hunter satisfaction because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporates biological objectives when establishing the federal framework to ensure sustainable waterfowl populations. This chapter describes the problem formulation, objectives, and alternatives steps of a decision analysis process used in New York. The authors demonstrate a process that allows for engagement by waterfowl hunters and incorporation of multiple stakeholder objectives, which can be used to evaluate tradeoffs to help guide decision making regarding selection of duck season dates. Engaging duck hunters through a task force and hunter survey provided opportunity for the regulated community to help shape season dates that quantitatively considered duck hunter satisfaction.

Book chapter↗

USGS2019

Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: Challenges and opportunities

The last 25 years have witnessed growing recognition that natural resource management decisions depend as much on understanding humans and their social interactions as on understanding the interactions between non-human organisms and their environment. Decision science provides a framework for integrating ecological and social factors into a decision, but challenges to integration remain. The decision-analytic framework elicits values and preferences to help articulate objectives, and then evaluates the outcomes of alternative management actions to achieve these objectives. Integrating social science into these steps can be hindered by failing to include social scientists as more than stakeholder-process facilitators, assuming that specific decision-analytic skills are commonplace for social scientists, misperceptions of social data as inherently qualitative, timescale mismatches for iterating through decision analysis and collecting relevant social data, difficulties in predicting human behavior, and failures of institutions to recognize the importance of this integration. We engage these challenges, and suggest solutions to them, helping move forward the integration of social and biological/ecological knowledge and considerations in decision-making.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2017

Wildlife governance in the 21st century—Will sustainable use endure?

In light of the trajectory of wildlife governance in the United States, the future of sustainable use of wildlife is a topic of substantial interest in the wildlife conservation community. We examine sustainable-use principles with respect to “good governance” considerations and public trust administration principles to assess how sustainable use might fare in the 21st century. We conclude that sustainable-use principles are compatible with recently articulated wildlife governance principles and could serve to mitigate broad values and norm shifts in American society that affect social acceptability of particular uses. Wildlife governance principles emphasize inclusive discourse among diverse wildlife interests, which could minimize isolated exchanges among cliques of like-minded people pursuing their ambitions without seeking opportunity for sharing or understanding diverse views. Aligning governance practices with wildlife governance principles can help avoid such isolation. In summary, sustainable use of wildlife is likely to endure as long as society 1) believes the long-term sustainability of wildlife is not jeopardized, and 2) accepts practices associated with such use as legitimate. These are 2 criteria needing constant attention.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2017

Addressing wild turkey population declines using structured decision making

We present a case study from New York, USA, of the use of structured decision making (SDM) to identify fall turkey harvest regulations that best meet stakeholder objectives, in light of recent apparent declines in abundance of wild turkeys in the northeastern United States. We used the SDM framework to incorporate the multiple objectives associated with turkey hunting, stakeholder desires, and region-specific ecological and environmental factors that could influence fall harvest. We identified a set of 4 fall harvest regulations, composed of different season lengths and bag limits, and evaluated their relative achievement of the objectives. We used a stochastic turkey population model, statistical modeling, and expert elicitation to evaluate the consequences of each harvest regulation on each of the objectives. We conducted a statewide mail survey of fall turkey hunters in New York to gather the necessary information to evaluate tradeoffs among multiple objectives associated with hunter satisfaction. The optimal fall harvest regulation was a 2-week season and allowed for the harvest of 1 bird/hunter. This regulation was the most conservative of those evaluated, reflecting the concerns about recent declines in turkey abundance among agency wildlife biologists and the hunting public. Depending on the region of the state, the 2-week, 1-bird regulation was predicted to result in 7–32% more turkeys on the landscape after 5 years. The SDM process provided a transparent framework for setting fall turkey harvest regulations and reduced potential stakeholder conflict by explicitly taking the multiple objectives of different stakeholder groups into account.

New York↗

USGS2016

Structured decision making as a framework for large-scale wildlife harvest management decisions

Fish and wildlife harvest management at large spatial scales often involves making complex decisions with multiple objectives and difficult tradeoffs, population demographics that vary spatially, competing stakeholder values, and uncertainties that might affect management decisions. Structured decision making (SDM) provides a formal decision analytic framework for evaluating difficult decisions by breaking decisions into component parts and separating the values of stakeholders from the scientific evaluation of management actions and uncertainty. The result is a rigorous, transparent, and values-driven process. This decision-aiding process provides the decision maker with a more complete understanding of the problem and the effects of potential management actions on stakeholder values, as well as how key uncertainties can affect the decision. We use a case study to illustrate how SDM can be used as a decision-aiding tool for management decision making at large scales. We evaluated alternative white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) buck-harvest regulations in New York designed to reduce harvest of yearling bucks, taking into consideration the values of the state wildlife agency responsible for managing deer, as well as deer hunters. We incorporated tradeoffs about social, ecological, and economic management concerns throughout the state. Based on the outcomes of predictive models, expert elicitation, and hunter surveys, the SDM process identified management alternatives that optimized competing objectives. The SDM process provided biologists and managers insight about aspects of the buck-harvest decision that helped them adopt a management strategy most compatible with diverse hunter values and management concerns.

Ecosphere↗