Implementing the 2012 North American Waterfowl Management Plan revision: Populations, habitat, and people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) has established a model for wildlife conservation planning over the last 3 decades. Management at a continental scale, leveraged funding, regional partnerships, and a strong science basis have been notable features. Periodic updates to the NAWMP occurred since implementation in 1986; however, a fundamental revision was accomplished in 2012 after extensive stakeholder engagement. An explicit fundamental goal for waterfowl conservation supporters was added in 2012, complementing existing goals for sustainable populations and sufficient habitat found in previous updates. We present a synopsis of progress toward implementation of the 2012 NAWMP and challenge the waterfowl management community to continue with meaningful steps toward achieving NAWMP goals. Adding goals and objectives for supporters increases potential relevance of NAWMP; however, it also presents a level of complexity that was not entirely anticipated. Additionally, the 2012 NAWMP recognized that traditional support from waterfowl hunters alone will not be sufficient to support waterfowl conservation in the future. Simultaneous consideration of multiple objectives, although implicit before, now is a specific focus for habitat and harvest management affecting hunters and other users of the waterfowl resource. The waterfowl management community is faced with revisiting objectives and management actions related to harvest regulations, landscape priorities, habitat conservation, and public engagement to garner broader support. These persistent management challenges are tangible and relevant candidates for greater integration. Ultimately, the structures and processes supporting waterfowl management also will need to be reconsidered. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".