Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the United States, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits take of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) unless authorized by permit, and stipulates that all permitted take must be sustainable. Golden eagles are unintentionally killed in conjunction with many lawful activities (e.g., electrocution on power poles, collision with wind turbines). Managers who issue permits for incidental take of golden eagles must determine allowable take levels and manage permitted take accordingly. To aid managers in making these decisions in the western United States, we used an integrated population model to obtain estimates of golden eagle vital rates and population size, and then used those estimates in a prescribed take level (PTL) model to estimate the allowable take level. Estimated mean annual survival rates for golden eagles ranged from 0.70 (95% credible interval = 0.66–0.74) for first-year birds to 0.90 (0.88–0.91) for adults. Models suggested a high proportion of adult female golden eagles attempted to breed and breeding pairs fledged a mean of 0.53 (0.39–0.72) young annually. Population size in the coterminous western United States has averaged ~31,800 individuals for several decades, with λ = 1.0 (0.96–1.05). The PTL model estimated a median allowable take limit of ~2227 (708–4182) individuals annually given a management objective of maintaining a stable population. We estimate that take averaged 2572 out of 4373 (59%) deaths annually, based on a representative sample of transmitter-tagged golden eagles. For the subset of golden eagles that were recovered and a cause of death determined, anthropogenic mortality accounted for an average of 74% of deaths after their first year; leading forms of take over all age classes were shooting (~670 per year), collisions (~611), electrocutions (~506), and poisoning (~427). Although observed take overlapped the credible interval of our allowable take estimate and the population overall has been stable, our findings indicate that additional take, unless mitigated for, may not be sustainable. Our analysis demonstrates the utility of the joint application of integrated population and prescribed take level models to management of incidental take of a protected species.

Effectively managing take of wildlife resulting from human activities poses a major challenge for applied conservation. Demographic data essential to decisions regarding take are often expensive to collect and are either not available or based on limited studies for many species. Therefore, modeling approaches that efficiently integrate available information are important to improving the scientific basis for sustainable take thresholds. We used the prescribed take level (PTL) framework to estimate allowable take for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the conterminous United States. We developed an integrated population model (IPM) that incorporates multiple sources of information and then use the model output as the scientific basis for components of the PTL framework. Our IPM is structured to identify key parameters needed for the PTL and to quantify uncertainties in those parameters at the scale at which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service manages take. Our IPM indicated that mean survival of birds >1 year old was high and precise (0.91, 95% CI = 0.90–0.92), whereas mean survival of first-year eagles was lower and more variable (0.69, 95% CI = 0.62–0.78). We assumed that density dependence influenced recruitment by affecting the probability of breeding, which was highly imprecise and estimated to have declined from approximately 0.988 (95% CI = 0.985–0.993) to 0.66 (95% CI = 0.34–0.99) between 1994 and 2018. We sampled values from the posterior distributions of the IPM for use in the PTL and estimated that allowable take (e.g., permitted take for energy development, incidental collisions with human made structures, or removal of nests for development) ranged from approximately 12,000 to 20,000 individual eagles depending on risk tolerance and form of density dependence at the scale of the conterminous United States excluding the Southwest. Model-based thresholds for allowable take can be inaccurate if the assumptions of the underlying framework are not met, if the influence of permitted take is under-estimated, or if undetected population declines occur from other sources. Continued monitoring and use of the IPM and PTL frameworks to identify key uncertainties in bald eagle population dynamics and management of allowable take can mitigate this potential bias, especially where improved information could reduce the risk of permitting non-sustainable take.

Black vultures (Coragyps atratus) have been increasing in density and expanding their range in the eastern United States since at least the 1960s. In many areas, their densities have increased to the level where they are causing damage to property and livestock and the number of requests for allowable take permits has increased throughout these areas. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requires updated information to help inform the number of take permits that could reduce conflicts while meeting obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We expanded analyses used to estimate allowable take in Virginia to cover the range of black vultures in the eastern United States. We used the prescribed take level approach, which integrates demographic rates, population size estimates, and management objectives into an estimate of allowable take. We provide estimates of allowable take at 4 different scales: individual states, Bird Conservation Regions, USFWS administrative regions, and flyways. Our updated population time series provides evidence of rapidly increasing black vulture populations in many regions of the eastern United States, with an overall population estimate of approximately 4.26 million in 2015 in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. Estimated allowable take ranged from a few hundred individuals per year in states at the northern end of the species range to approximately 287,000/year over the entire eastern United States. The USFWS has no legal mandate regarding the spatial scale at which take should be managed and we found little biological evidence of subpopulation structure for black vultures in the eastern United States. We suggest that allowable take for the species be implemented at a scale that meets stakeholder objectives (e.g., reducing conflict, and ensuring that black vultures are not extirpated from local areas) and is efficient for administrative and monitoring purposes.

Hairy (Dryobates villosus) and downy (Dryobates pubescens) woodpeckers occur in high densities in residential areas of the eastern United States. In many areas of their range, they cause damage to wooden structures through foraging, excavation of nesting cavities, and drumming behaviors, causing requests for allowable take permits. Both species hold year-round territories, which could make them vulnerable to local extirpation with excess take. To meet the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty act, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requested scientifically informed evaluation of take to minimize population effects as part of its approach to reduce human–wildlife conflict. We used a prescribed take approach, which uses data from population, demographic, and management parameter estimates to determine the allowable take from Louisiana to Minnesota and all states east. Furthermore, we used 2 different methods of estimating growth rates to control for demographic uncertainties. The resulting estimates provide take at the state and USFWS regional scales to improve stakeholder choices when setting allowable take. Current authorized take (2016–2018) is below the take that could be sustained by current populations, and current rates of take are not likely to cause population-level effects. These results were largely consistent across methodologies for calculating the rate of growth for both species. Take still needs to be managed to prevent local extirpation of these resident species. Allowable take estimates should be periodically updated to reflect changing management and population needs for both species.

Legal removal of migratory birds from the wild occurs for several reasons, including subsistence, sport harvest, damage control, and the pet trade. We argue that harvest theory provides the basis for assessing the impact of authorized take, advance a simplified rendering of harvest theory known as potential biological removal as a useful starting point for assessing take, and demonstrate this approach with a case study of depredation control of black vultures (Coragyps atratus) in Virginia, USA. Based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey and other sources, we estimated that the black vulture population in Virginia was 91,190 (95% credible interval = 44,520–212,100) in 2006. Using a simple population model and available estimates of life-history parameters, we estimated the intrinsic rate of growth (rmax) to be in the range 7–14%, with 10.6% a plausible point estimate. For a take program to seek an equilibrium population size on the conservative side of the yield curve, the rate of take needs to be less than that which achieves a maximum sustained yield (0.5 × rmax). Based on the point estimate for rmax and using the lower 60% credible interval for population size to account for uncertainty, these conditions would be met if the take of black vultures in Virginia in 2006 was <3,533 birds. Based on regular monitoring data, allowable harvest should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in population size. To initiate discussion about how this assessment framework could be related to the laws and regulations that govern authorization of such take, we suggest that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires only that take of native migratory birds be sustainable in the long-term, that is, sustained harvest rate should be

Journal Article

Share this book

Add to My Shelf