book.bib

@article {Garrott2013BLM,
	author = {Garrott, Robert A. and Oli, Madan K.},
	title = {A Critical Crossroad for BLM{\textquoteright}s Wild Horse Program},
	volume = {341},
	number = {6148},
	pages = {847--848},
	year = {2013},
	doi = {10.1126/science.1240280},
	publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science},
	issn = {0036-8075},
	URL = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6148/847},
	eprint = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6148/847.full.pdf},
	journal = {Science}
}

@BOOK{NAP2013BLM,
  author    = "National Research Council",
  title     = "Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward",
  isbn      = "978-0-309-26494-5",
  doi       = "10.17226/13511",
  abstract  = "Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward reviews the science that underpins the Bureau of Land Management's oversight of free-ranging horses and burros on federal public lands in the western United States, concluding that constructive changes could be implemented. The Wild Horse and Burro Program has not used scientifically rigorous methods to estimate the population sizes of horses and burros, to model the effects of management actions on the animals, or to assess the availability and use of forage on rangelands.\nEvidence suggests that horse populations are growing by 15 to 20 percent each year, a level that is unsustainable for maintaining healthy horse populations as well as healthy ecosystems. Promising fertility-control methods are available to help limit this population growth, however. In addition, science-based methods exist for improving population estimates, predicting the effects of management practices in order to maintain genetically diverse, healthy populations, and estimating the productivity of rangelands. Greater transparency in how science-based methods are used to inform management decisions may help increase public confidence in the Wild Horse and Burro Program.",
  url       = "https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13511/using-science-to-improve-the-blm-wild-horse-and-burro-program",
  year      = 2013,
  publisher = "The National Academies Press",
  address   = "Washington, DC"
}
@article{linkie2006assessing,
  title={Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape},
  author={Linkie, Matthew and Chapron, Guillaume and Martyr, Deborah J and Holden, Jeremy and LEADER-WILLIAMS, NIGEL},
  journal={Journal of Applied Ecology},
  volume={43},
  number={3},
  pages={576--586},
  year={2006},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
@article{beissinger1998use,
  title={On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management},
  author={Beissinger, Steven R and Westphal, M Ian},
  journal={The Journal of wildlife management},
  pages={821--841},
  year={1998},
  publisher={JSTOR}
}
@article{chauvenet2010optimal,
  title={Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?},
  author={Chauvenet, Ali{\'e}nor LM and Baxter, Peter WJ and McDonald-Madden, Eve and Possingham, Hugh P},
  journal={Ecological Applications},
  volume={20},
  number={3},
  pages={789--797},
  year={2010},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
@article{doak1994modeling,
  title={Modeling population viability for the desert tortoise in the western Mojave Desert},
  author={Doak, Daniel and Kareiva, Peter and Klepetka, Brad},
  journal={Ecological applications},
  volume={4},
  number={3},
  pages={446--460},
  year={1994},
  publisher={Eco Soc America}
}
@article{crouse1987stage,
  title={A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation},
  author={Crouse, Deborah T and Crowder, Larry B and Caswell, Hal},
  journal={Ecology},
  volume={68},
  number={5},
  pages={1412--1423},
  year={1987},
  publisher={Eco Soc America}
}

@article{box1976science,
  title={Science and statistics},
  author={Box, George EP},
  journal={Journal of the American Statistical Association},
  volume={71},
  number={356},
  pages={791--799},
  year={1976},
  publisher={Taylor \& Francis}
}

@article{havera1988distribution,
  title={Distribution and abundance of winter populations of bald eagles in Illinois},
  author={Havera, Stephen P and Kruse, Glen W},
  year={1988},
  publisher={Champaign, Ill.: Illinois Natural History Survey}
}

@article{romesburg1981wildlife,
  title={Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowledge},
  author={Romesburg, H Charles},
  journal={The Journal of Wildlife Management},
  pages={293--313},
  year={1981},
  publisher={JSTOR}
}

@book{rosen2010lawless,
  title={Lawless universe: science and the hunt for reality},
  author={Rosen, Joe},
  year={2010},
  publisher={JHU Press}
}

@article{spencer1970muskox,
  title={The muskox of Nunivak island, Alaska},
  author={Spencer, David L and Lensink, Calvin J},
  journal={The Journal of Wildlife Management},
  pages={1--15},
  year={1970},
  publisher={JSTOR}
}

@book{turchin2003complex,
  title={Complex population dynamics: a theoretical/empirical synthesis},
  author={Turchin, Peter},
  volume={35},
  year={2003},
  publisher={Princeton University Press}
}

@article{linnell2010sustainably,
  title={Sustainably harvesting a large carnivore? Development of Eurasian lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy},
  author={Linnell, John DC and Broseth, Henrik and Odden, John and Nilsen, Erlend Birkeland},
  journal={Environmental management},
  volume={45},
  number={5},
  pages={1142--1154},
  year={2010},
  publisher={Springer}
}

@book{baron2010beast,
  title={The beast in the garden: A modern parable of man and nature},
  author={Baron, David},
  year={2010},
  publisher={WW Norton \& Company}
}

@article{bischof2012implementation,
  title={Implementation uncertainty when using recreational hunting to manage carnivores},
  author={Bischof, Richard and Nilsen, Erlend B and Br{\o}seth, Henrik and M{\"a}nnil, Peep and Ozoli{\c{n}}{\v{s}}, Ja{\=a}nis and Linnell, John DC},
  journal={Journal of Applied Ecology},
  volume={49},
  number={4},
  pages={824--832},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}

@book{berger2009better,
  title={The Better to eat you with: fear in the animal world},
  author={Berger, Joel},
  year={2009},
  publisher={University of Chicago Press}
}

@article{runge2009assessing,
  title={Assessing allowable take of migratory birds},
  author={Runge, Michael C and Sauer, John R and Avery, Michael L and Blackwell, Bradley F and Koneff, Mark D},
  journal={The Journal of Wildlife Management},
  volume={73},
  number={4},
  pages={556--565},
  year={2009},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
    @article{bartmannetal1992,
     jstor_articletype = {research-article},
     title = {Compensatory Mortality in a Colorado Mule Deer Population},
     author = {Bartmann, Richard M. and White, Gary C. and Carpenter, Len H.},
     journal = {Wildlife Monographs},
     jstor_issuetitle = {Compensatory Mortality in a Colorado Mule Deer Population},
     volume = {121},
     number = {},
     jstor_formatteddate = {Jan., 1992},
     pages = {pp. 3-39},
     url = {http://0-www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/3830602},
     ISSN = {00840173},
     abstract = {A thorough test of the hypothesis of compensatory mortality is a fundamental requirement for a better understanding of the population dynamics of wildlife species. This knowledge is vital, whether populations are managed for recreational hunting or other purposes. Our research on a pinyon pine (Pinus edulis)-Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) winter range in Piceance Basin, northwest Colorado, from 1981 to 1988 tested for compensatory mortality in the fawn portion of a mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) population. Three experimental manipulations were used employing radio-collared deer. In a field study, removing 16-22% of the population from the treatment unit each winter for 2 years had no measurable effect on fawn survival rates as compared to rates on the control unit (P = 0.566). We attributed this mostly to not removing enough deer to immediately affect fawn survival under existing range conditions. In a controlled study, deer removed from the treatment unit were used to stock 3 large pastures at densities of 44, 89, and <tex-math>$133\ \text{deer}/{\rm km}^{2}$</tex-math> to simulate hunting removals of 67, 33, and 0%, respectively. Fawn survival rates varied inversely with density (P < 0.001). Starvation was the leading cause of fawn mortality in all pastures indicating a nutritional limitation at all densities. We believe the density-dependent survival response in the pastures demonstrated that a strong compensatory mortality process operated in this mule deer population. In another field study, 49-77% of fawns were killed by predators during 4 winters. We then reduced the coyote (Canis latrans) population for 3 winters while we continued to monitor fawn mortality. Predation rates decreased (P = 0.004) and starvation rates increased (P = 0.042) between pre- and posttreatment periods, but no change in fawn survival was detected (P = 0.842). These results support those from the pastures even though the primary mortality causes differed. Mean fawn weights varied among years, study areas, and trap sites (P < 0.001). Male fawns averaged 2.4 and 3.0 kg heavier than females (P < 0.001) on the 2 field-study areas. Larger fawns had higher survival (P < 0.001), but size was not a significant predictor of whether or not a fawn starved (P = 0.237). In both field-study areas, female fawns had higher survival than males (P < 0.001) when weight was a covariate, but not when weight was excluded (P = 0.697). Adult females had higher survival rates than fawns (P < 0.001) even though adult rates were calculated over 5.5 more months. Vegetation biomass differed among pastures (P < 0.001), but differences were unrelated to fawn survival rates. Biomass estimates indicated adequate forage was available in all pastures. Tame deer in the low density pasture took more bites per 15-minute trial (P < 0.001), had shorter mean times between consecutive bites of Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis) and true mountainmahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) (P ≤ 0.002), and traveled less distance during afternoon trials (P = 0.015) than tame deer in the high density pasture. These differences were assumed to reflect lower forage quality in the high density pasture. For the Piceance Basin mule deer population, mortality rather than reproduction seemed the major process driving the density-dependent mechanism because the former fluctuated over a much broader range. High survival of adult females, even during severe winters, tended to temper population fluctuations that can occur in harsher environments and allowed density-dependent processes in the fawn segment to continue operating. With density-dependent population regulation, the common management strategy of decreasing harvest when fawn survival is low and increasing harvest when survival is high is counterproductive.},
     language = {English},
     year = {1992},
     publisher = {Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society},
     copyright = {Copyright © 1992 Wiley},
    }

    @article{unsworthetal1999,
     jstor_articletype = {research-article},
     title = {Mule Deer Survival in Colorado, Idaho, and Montana},
     author = {Unsworth, James W. and Pac, David F. and White, Gary C. and Bartmann, Richard M.},
     journal = {The Journal of Wildlife Management},
     jstor_issuetitle = {},
     volume = {63},
     number = {1},
     jstor_formatteddate = {Jan., 1999},
     pages = {pp. 315-326},
     url = {http://0-www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/3802515},
     ISSN = {0022541X},
     abstract = {We examined survival rates of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) fawns (1 Jan-31 May) and adult (≥1 yr old) females (1 Jun-31 May) from Colorado, Idaho, and Montana to assess the influence of survival on population dynamics over a broad geographic area. Survival rates were estimated from 1,875 radiocollared fawns and 1,536 radiocollared adult female-years. We found significant year-to-year differences in overwinter survival rates of fawns among states (P < 0.001), while annual survival rates of adult females showed less variation across years (P < 0.256). Sampling distributions of survival rates by age class were modeled with the beta-binomial distribution (BBD) and not found different among states (ad F: P = 0.118; fawns: P = 0.856). The mean overwinter survival rate for fawns was 0.444 (SE = 0.033), with SD = 0.217 (SE = 0.019). The mean annual survival rate for adult females was 0.853 (SE = 0.011), with SD = 0.034 (SE = 0.014). All 3 states exhibited differences in body size of fawns at the start of winter across years, and body size was a predictor of overwinter survival (P < 0.001). Fawn sex ratios in December at time of capture were not different from 50:50 (P = 0.729). However, a sex differential in overwinter survival of fawns was observed (P = 0.002), but beta-binomial models of survival distributions were not different between sexes (P = 0.458). Frequencies of 3 categories of proximal causes of fawn mortality (predation, winter malnutrition, other) differed among states (χ 2 4 = 41.24, P < 0.001). A deterministic model with a mean winter survival rate of 0.444 for fawns and an annual rate of 0.853 for adult females predicted December fawn: doe ratios would have to be at least 66: 100 to maintain population levels. Similarity of mule deer population dynamics across the 3 states suggests similar processes regulate these populations; hence, results from specific study areas are generally more applicable than commonly thought.},
     language = {English},
     year = {1999},
     publisher = {Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society},
     copyright = {Copyright © 1999 Wiley},
    }