G. Scott Boomer
USFWS
Harvest Management Working Group Meeting
Buda, TX
29 November 2012

 DMBM
 Mark Koneff, Bob Blohm, Paul Padding, Jim Kelley,
Dave Sharp, Jim Dubovsky, Bob Trost, Bob Raftovich,
Khristi Wilkins, Todd Sanders, and Ken Richkus
 USGS
 Fred Johnson


Mike Runge
Andy Royle
 Flyway Technical Sections




Joe Fuller
Steve Cordts
Spencer Vaa
Don Kraege
2

 Brief History
 Annual Performance
 Status and Parameter Estimates


Policy
Harvest Results
 Revisiting Regulatory Alternatives?


Process
Methods
3

Past Harvest Regulations (e.g., Mississippi Flyway)
1969 thru 1987
Bonus Season: not to exceed 16
Bonus Bags
Special Seasons
SL: 20 - 40
Bag: 2 - 4
2 bonus scaup in regular season
Points System
Bonus Bags
Special Seasons
SL: 40 - 50
Bag: 4 - 10
SL : 30
Bag: 3 - 4
SL: 50 - 60
95-96 Bag: 5
97-98 Bag: 6
99-04 Bag: 3
05-07 Bag: 2
2008 R (Hybrid)
2009 M 60 & 2
2010 M 60 & 2
2011 M 60 & 2
2012 L: 60 & 4
4

A
Observed
Posterior Mean
B
Harvest Rate
1980 1990
Year
C
2000
Observed
Posterior Mean
2010 1980 1990
Year
D
2000
Harvest Rate
Population
2010
1980 1990
Year
2000 2010 1980 1990
Year
2000 2010
5

Year Mean
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0.101
0.106
0.122
0.124
0.125
2.50% Median 97.50%
0.023
0.030
0.040
0.044
0.046
0.089
0.097
0.113
0.114
0.116
0.240
0.233
0.256
0.252
0.250
6

Year Mean
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
8.338
8.443
8.172
8.274
8.402
2.50% Median 97.50%
5.786
5.868
5.784
5.904
5.948
7.982
8.126
7.812
7.938
8.050
12.220
12.360
12.110
12.050
12.210
7

Year Mean
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0.537
0.552
0.556
0.580
0.591
2.50% Median 97.50%
0.464
0.479
0.484
0.510
0.519
0.536
0.551
0.555
0.579
0.590
0.620
0.634
0.634
0.657
0.671
8

Year Mean
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0.364
0.380
0.423
0.418
0.420
2.50% Median 97.50%
0.100
0.126
0.164
0.181
0.188
0.350
0.369
0.414
0.408
0.415
0.702
0.687
0.737
0.701
0.685
9

Predicted
Observed
2008 2009 2010
Year
2011 2012
10

BPOP
≤ 3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
≥ 5.4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
R R R R R
R
R
R H
R
R
M
R
M
M
R
M
M
R
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
11

Atlantic Mississippi
Central Pacific
150000
100000
50000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
150000
100000
50000
12

Atlantic Mississippi
Central Pacific
150000
100000
50000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Target (M)
Predicted (M)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Target (R)
150000
100000
50000
13

 Annual updates of population parameter estimates track changes in scaup status, suggesting modest increases in harvest potential
 Model predictions are consistent with observed population increases
 Scaup harvest policies have become more liberal as scaup status has improved
 Observed harvest levels were similar to Flyway specific harvest predictions (at least under the moderate alternatives), and on average, have remained under allowable harvest thresholds
14

 Given that the Flyways have not voiced concern over current packages (although the Pacific Flyway may be an exception…), how do we begin this conversation?
 Are there triggers that we should consider for pursuing changes to scaup regulatory packages?
 Important to recognize that regulatory alternatives ultimately have to be specified (i.e., they represent policy decisions - that may be informed with technical information).
15

 1) Update technical information in 2007 scoping document
 Update all Flyway harvest models with recent information
 M: 3 years; R: 1 year; L: pending
 Reset thresholds for regulatory change based on updated simulation
 Re-calculate allowable harvest


Define appropriate allocation?
Work with individual Flyways to specify alternatives
(e.g. 20082009 criteria…)
16

 2) Reconsider how we account for partial controllability of harvest:


Specify the regulatory package (R, M, L) as the decision variable in the optimization (rather than harvest)
 We then have to specify a distribution of harvest expected under each regulatory alternative (R, M, L) based on past experience
 Consider closure rules?
From a technical perspective, this may be a more efficient and practical method to updating packages.
 3) Others?
17

 Change in decision variable?
 Change in model set?
 Monitoring Needs?
 BPOP
 Banding needs recommendations
 What are the implications of SEIS preferred alternative?
 What is the relationships of scaup AHM to future changes in mallard AHM decision frameworks?

18

19