Resolving urban Canada goose problems in Puget Sound, Washington: A coalition-based approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recent decades have seen dramatic increases in resident populations of urban western Canada geese throughout the United States, including locations in the Puget Sound in western Washington. By 1987, populations of urban Canada geese grew to problematic levels in the greater Seattle area, and caused such extensive damage that the Seattle Metropolitan Area Waterfowl Management Committee (Seattle Metropolitan WMC) was formed. The Seattle Metropolitan WMC was comprised of 15 representatives from cities and jurisdictions in the greater area, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, and the University of Washington. The Seattle Metropolitan WMC worked with state and federal wildlife agencies, advocate groups, and the public to identify their concerns, determine the extent of the problem, and formulate management options. Non-lethal management options, including relocation, were implemented in 1989. Egg-oiling was initiated in 1993. Relocation efforts were phased out after 1995, and the first substantial lethal removal was begun in 2000. Other management actions taken by the Seattle Metropolitan WMC included harassment, exclusion, repellents, habitat modifications, and public education. In 1998, escalating urban Canada goose problems in another area of Puget Sound precipitated the formation of a second committee, south of Seattle, involving Thurston County and the cities of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater. Using a slightly different approach than the Seattle Metropolitan WMC, management officials opted to hold a public meeting to solicit input and participation from individuals, groups, and agencies. Attendees were encouraged to serve on a steering committee which, when formed, included city and county officials, park managers, state and federal wildlife biologists, hunters, advocate groups, and citizens. Over the next 18 months, the committee identified problem areas, considered public concerns, reviewed management options, and utilized volunteers to count geese. From these efforts, a Resident Canada Goose Management Plan was developed. The plan, which was implemented in 2000, identified population and program objectives utilizing a full range of management options. The Seattle and Thurston County programs each were successful in reducing urban Canada goose problems. In Thurston County, a fully integrated approach including population reduction through lethal control was implemented in the first year. An immediate reduction in goose problems was evident, and the plan objectives were achieved within 4 years. In the Seattle area, goose damage problems were not substantially reduced until after the implementation of lethal removal in 2000. By 2003, the fourth season involving lethal removal, the number of urban geese and their associated damage had been reduced by approximately 60%. In both locations, the need for lethal removal declined during successive years of the program. Animal rights groups were vocal and took action to prevent lethal removal, but public demands for removal grew during the late 1990s as goose problems worsened. Although controversial at first, public and media support grew as facts came to light and Canada goose conflicts were reduced.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».