Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management

Sustainable elk harvests in Alberta with increasing predator populations

Large predators often are believed to cause declines in hunter harvests of ungulates due to direct competition for prey with hunters. In Alberta, predators of elk (Cervus elaphus), including grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), cougar (Puma concolor), and wolf (Canis lupus), have increased in recent years. We used trend analysis replicated by Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) to examine regional trends in elk harvest and hunter success. Over a 26-yr period, average harvest of elk increased by 5.46% per year for unrestricted bull and by 6.64% per year for limited-quota seasons. Also, over the same time frame, average hunter success increased by 0.2% per year for unrestricted bull and by 0.3% per year for limited-quota seasons, but no trend was detected in hunter effort (P>0.05). Our results show that increasing large-predator populations do not necessarily reduce hunter harvest of elk, and we only found evidence for this in Alberta's mountain WMUs where predation on elk calves has reduced recruitment. Furthermore, data indicate that Alberta's elk harvest management has been sustainable, i.e., hunting has continued while populations of elk have increased throughout most of the province. Wildlife agencies can justify commitments to long-term population monitoring because data allow adaptive management and can inform stakeholders on the status of populations.

Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to wildlife management

Mawdsley et al. (2018) respond disapprovingly to our 2018 review of 667 wildlife management systems across Canada and the United States, which found that many of these systems lacked the scientific hallmarks of clear objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. Although we strongly agree with several of Mawdsley et al.'s points about the role of science in management, their response suggests confusion about three elements of our approach that we clarify herein: (i) the selection of hallmarks, (ii) the role of science in wildlife management, and (iii) our engagement with wildlife agencies. We contend that both critics and defenders of the current approach to wildlife management in Canada and the United States similarly desire rigorous management that achieves social and ecological benefits. Our original study-which used a clear approach to define hallmarks of science-based management, employed a reasonable set of indicator criteria to test for them, and was based on data available to the general public on whose behalf management is conducted-found evidence that the current approach falls short. However, it also provided a framework for addressing shortcomings moving forward. We suggest that advancing discussion on the operational role of science in management, including clarifying what "science-based management" actually means, could curtail practitioners and critics of the status quo talking over each other's heads and encourage all parties to work constructively to improve the governance of wildlife at a continental scale.