Potential biological removal and other currently used management rules for marine mammal populations: A comparison

Marine Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 584-589

  Lonergan, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cetacean; Conservation management; Conservation target; Pinniped; Population management target

Indexed keywords

CETACEAN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION STATUS; MINIMUM VIABLE POPULATION; PINNIPED; RED LIST;

CETACEA; MAMMALIA; PHOCA GROENLANDICA; PINNIPEDIA;

EID: 79953024646     PISSN: 0308597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.020     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Sanderson EW. How many animals do we want to save? The many ways of setting population target levels for conservation. BioScience 2006, 56(11):911-922.
2. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 2001. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria.
3. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. TREE 2006, 21(2):71-76.
4. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Brussels: European Commission, 1992. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/.
5. Note to the Habitats Committee: Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status - Preparing the 2001-2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (DocHab-04-03/03 rev.3). Brussels: European Commission, 2005. Available from: http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Legislation/DocHab-04-03-03rev3.pdf.
6. Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2007. Available from: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/article17.
7. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 As Amended. US National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/mmpa.pdf.
8. Wade PR. Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 1998, 1(1):37.
9. Barlow J, Swartz SL, Eagle TC, Wade PR. U.S. marine mammal stock assessments: guidelines for preparation, background, and a summary of the 1995 assessments. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-OPR-6, 1995. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/guidelines1995.pdf.
10. Revised Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). US National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2008sehm-hi.pdf.
11. Berggren P, Wade PR, Carlström J, Read AJ. Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises in the Baltic region. Biological Conservation 2002, 103:313-322.
12. Butler JRA, Middlemas SJ, McKelvey SA, et al. The Moray Firth Seal Management Plan: an adaptive framework for balancing the conservation of seals, salmon, fisheries and wildlife tourism in the UK. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Systems 2008, 18(6):1025-1038.
13. Butterworth DS, Best PB. The origins of the choice of 54% of carrying capacity as the protection level for baleen whale stocks, and the implications thereof for management procedures. Report of the International Whaling Commision 1994, 44:491-497.
14. International Whaling Commission Report of the Scientific Committee. Annex N: The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for Baleen Whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 1999, 1:251-258.
15. Punt AE, Donovan GP. Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Commission. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2007, 64:603-612.
16. HELCOM Recommendation 27-28/2 Conservation of Seals in the Baltic area 2006, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Helsinki, Available from: 〈http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec27-28_2〉.
17. Hammill MO, Stenson GB. Application of the precautionary approach and conservation reference points to management of Atlantic seals. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2007, 64:702-706.
18. Anon Overview of the Atlantic Seal Hunt 2006-2010 2008, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Available from: 〈http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sealphoque/reports-rapports/mgtplan-plangest0610/mgtplanplangest0610-eng.htm〉.
19. Leaper R, Lavigne DM, Corkeron P, Johnston DW. Towards a precautionary approach to managing Canada's commercial harp seal hunt. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2010, 67:316-320.
20. Hammill MO, Stenson GB. Comment on "Towards a precautionary approach to managing Canada's commercial harp seal hunt" by Leaper et al. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2010, 67:321-322.
21. Beissinger ST, McCullough DR. Population viability analysis 2002, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
22. Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations: 2008. Swindon: Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Special Committee on Seals. Available from: http://www.smru.st-and.ac.uk/documents/SCOS_2008_v1.pdf.
23. Taylor BL, Martinez M, Gerrodette T, Barlow J, Hrovat YN. Lessons from monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science 2007, 23:157-175.
24. Robards MD, Burns JJ, Meek CL, Watson A. Limitations of an optimum sustainable population or potential biological removal approach for conserving marine mammals: Pacific walrus case study. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 91(1):57-66.
25. Cooke J, Leaper R, Papastavrou V. Science should not be abandoned in a bid to resolve whaling disputes. Biology Letters 2009, 5(5):614-616.
26. Iliff M. The Hogarth initiative on the future of the International Whaling Commission. Marine Policy 2010, 34(3):360-366. 〈doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.004〉.
27. Winship AJ. Estimating the impact of bycatch and calculating bycatch limits to achieve conservation objectives as applied to harbour porpoise in the North Sea. PhD thesis; University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, 2009, unpublished.
28. Wilhere GF. The how-much-is-enough myth. Conservation Biology 2008, 22(3):514-517.
29. Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, et al. Finite conservation funds mean triage is unavoidable. TREE 2009, 24(4):183-184.