Connect with us

Montana

New Research Suggests Montana FWP Wolf Count High

Published

on

New Research Suggests Montana FWP Wolf Count High


Robert Crabtree, chief scientist at the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center based in Bozeman, has released a research paper questioning the modeling techniques used by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The paper has not been peer reviewed, something FWP brings into question. Photo by Holly Pippel

by Laura Lundquist

As the comment period on Montana’s new wolf management plan nears
its end, new research adds to questions about Montana’s wolf population
estimates. But the timing of the research paper—released before peer-review—raises
its own questions.

Last week, the Bozeman-based Yellowstone Ecological Research
Center, an independent organization, pre-released a research paper that
documented statistical problems with the population model developed and used by
Fish, Wildlife and Parks to estimate wolf populations. The paper was preprinted
by CABI, an international research organization based out of Britain. 

Advertisement

Robert Crabtree, YERC’s chief scientist,
joined with statisticians from the University of Albert, Canada, to run
simulations to assess the iPOM, or integrated Patch Occupancy Model, that FWP
has used to estimate wolf populations since 2021 under the Gianforte
administration. Their results indicated that iPOM has a bias that produces high
population estimates, which could lure wildlife managers into thinking a
species is doing better than it might be in reality.

Because field monitoring requires a good deal of time and effort,
it costs more than computer modeling. So wildlife agencies dealing with elusive
species find modeling an attractive option. However, models require users to
make a number of assumptions and choose particular conditions. If those choices
and assumptions don’t reflect reality, then, as computer scientists say, “garbage
in equals garbage out.”

According to Crabtree and his colleagues, that’s the problem with
iPOM, and the result is that FWP’s estimates of the wolf populations are
significantly greater than what actually exists.

“We demonstrated iPOM has an inherent severe overestimation bias,
which inflates [the number of packs] and abundance by a factor of 2.5 times [150%
higher] by this one effect alone,” Crabtree wrote in the journal article.

The 2022 FWP commission approved an increase in the state killing quota to 456 wolves. This year, it was reduced to 313.  Photo by Gary Kramer/USFWS

The 2022 FWP commission approved an increase in the state killing quota to 456 wolves. This year, it was reduced to 313. Photo by Gary Kramer/USFWS

After wolves were delisted in Montana in 2011, biologists
directly monitored them for five years with field observations and radio
collars to make minimum counts for five years to be sure the delisting wasn’t
premature. They calculated wolf abundance by figuring out the number of packs
that actually existed and multiplying that by the pack size.

Advertisement

Then, from 2016 to 2020, FWP switched to a six-variable Patch
Occupancy Model developed by FWP and Sarah Sells of the U.S. Geological Survey
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. Sells said at a public meeting
Wednesday night that FWP used POM prior to 2016 and was using it alongside
minimum counts.

In 2021, Sells and FWP changed the Patch Occupancy Model to iPOM
and eliminated one variable: the amount of territory overlap, according to the
2020 Annual Wolf Report. When the wolf numbers from previous years were plugged
into iPOM, each year’s population estimate increased. For example, in 2014, the
POM population estimate of approximately 920 wolves jumped to about 1,125 using
iPOM.

For his analysis, Crabtree told Mountain Journal he
contacted Sells this past spring to get the modeling code and the data she
used.

“I took painstaking effort to document everything, keep it
completely above-board, consulted and talked to Sarah Sells many times since
last spring. Everything is repeatable, and it’s up to the state now. We did
their work for them,” Crabtree said. “I substantiated the major bias, and I was
shocked to see what an overestimation bias there was.”

Crabtree’s paper said one problem with the iPOM is it uses three sub-models to
calculate the variables, and using multiple models can compound error. One
model calculates the total area occupied by wolves within a region while the
other calculates Territory Size of a pack. Dividing the Occupied Area by
Territory Size produces the estimated number of packs. A third sub-model
determines wolf abundance by multiplying the number of packs by the pack size,
just as before.

Crabtree’s article said rather than demographic models, the first
two sub-models are spatial models, which are used to model distribution, not
abundance. The Occupied Area sub-model assumes “closure,” meaning it assumes
the wolf population in a grid square doesn’t change; no wolves are born, die,
or leave or enter a grid square. However, the squares are large, about 232
square miles each. Such an assumption tends to overestimate the number of
wolves, as other researchers found in Wisconsin.

Advertisement

“Based on biological knowledge of seasonal variation in wolf pack
cohesion and dispersal combined with their normal high mobility and
wide-ranging behavior, we concluded that many of [the model] assumptions were
likely violated, especially the critical assumption of closure—no changes in
occupancy due to movements or demography,” Crabtree wrote.

“We demonstrated iPOM has an inherent severe overestimation bias, which inflates [the number of packs] and abundance by a factor of 2.5 times [150% higher] by this one effect alone.” – Robert Crabtree, Yellowstone Ecological Research Center

The Crabtree article said the model could be improved if the grid
size was reduced. But Wisconsin researcher Glenn Stauffer published in a 2021 Journal
of Wildlife Management
study that even cell sizes as small as 39 square
miles caused populations to be overestimated. Stauffer also warned of problems
using spatial models to estimate abundance, concluding that “estimates rely on
somewhat subjective pack assignments, and likely deviate from true abundance to
an unknown and possibly variable degree.”

Montana State University biologist Scott Creel published a white
paper—not peer-reviewed—comparing iPOM’s territory size to what he’s documented
and found iPOM underestimated pack territory, which would lead to an
overestimation of the number of packs.

Crabtree’s paper also suggested that FWP should consider
replacing iPOM with an alternative, such as a hierarchical model using accurate
data, because “they provide a clear understanding of the relationship between
data and the ecological processes of wildlife populations.” Another option is
looking at genetic samples combined with capture-recapture methods.

Advertisement

In science, it’s not unusual for scientists to challenge each
other on new ideas, and battling articles can appear in various journals as
they seek to eliminate unsupported hypotheses. But for researchers, the
important thing about being published in a scientific journal is passing peer
review. Sells and other FWP biologists published the iPOM method in the journal
Ecological Applications in August 2022. Crabtree’s work hasn’t been
peer-reviewed yet.

When asked why he preprinted the article, Crabtree said it’s a
quicker way to get through the peer-review process because he’s able to submit
successive drafts to the CABI site and it’s a stronger paper after he
incorporates all the comments from other scientists. The study was funded by
the Jodar Family Foundation and the Rangeland Foundation.

According to several journals, including Springer Nature and the science and medical site PLOS, a preprint
is a full draft of a research paper that is shared publicly before it has been
peer reviewed. An increasing number of researchers are doing preprints,
especially since the pandemic, because they allow for early feedback, increased
visibility and ensure a researcher gets credit for a particular discovery. But scientists
know that, being public, it could also lead to a bad reputation if there are
too many preprints with no peer-reviewed follow up.

Crabtree told the Mountain Journal he intends to publish
in a scientific journal—probably to Ecological Applications—after he
gets feedback and suggestions from other researchers.

Advertisement

“We believe that peer review will address the severe misinterpretations in the Crabtree et al. analysis prior to being published.” – Rebuttal statement from Montana FWP and Sarah Sells, USGS

Along the lines of feedback, Crabtree said Sells contacted him the
week of December 3 after she saw the preprint and said he misunderstood how
iPOM works. When asked for comment, FWP and Sells instead released a joint two-page response to
Crabtree’s paper on December 13.

They said the Crabtree article made the mistake of assuming that
iPOM used an entire grid square—232 square miles—where wolves were observed.
They said they assume that any wolves they observe occupy each square for only
about 20 percent of the time so that’s factored in to effectively decrease the
grid size. They use Crabtree’s assumption to show that his occupied area would
3.38 times the size of their iPOM calculations.

“We believe that peer review will address the severe
misinterpretations in the Crabtree et al. analysis prior to being published,
and if it is published in the peer-reviewed literature we will respond in
detail in that forum. However, as the article has already been posted online
ahead of the wolf plan comment deadline and distributed to the press, we
briefly address their key arguments,” the biologists wrote in their rebuttal. “We look forward to a scientific discussion of iPOM with Crabtree
et al. conducted 
under the scrutiny of scientific peer review … Until that occurs,
however, the 
methods and conclusions of Crabtree et al. must be considered
preliminary and weakly supported at best.”

In response to FWP’s rebuttal, Crabtree said he ran the iPOM
model with the data he received from Sells, so they should have come out with
the same results.

“What they describe in their response are not methods described
in their publication. Is there another method they are using? Why wasn’t this
communicated to us earlier when we asked about clarification of the POM
method used in iPOM? I even let [Sells] know that the overestimation
problem was about spatial resolution. Why didn’t she respond?” Crabtree
said. 

Advertisement

By trying to reproduce FWP’s iPOM results, Crabtree was doing
something that has led many scientists to voice concern about the “replication
crisis.” Increasingly, research written up in peer-reviewed articles is not
reproducible. Researchers have discovered over the past decade that lots of published
findings in fields like psychology, sociology, medicine and economics don’t hold up when other researchers try to
replicate them. But quality science, in addition to being peer-reviewed, must
be reproducible by other scientists.

Whether the disagreement on results is due to error on Crabtree’s
end or that of Sells’ remains to be seen.

During public comments to the FWP commission on December 14,
attention was brought to Crabtree’s paper several times. Some say that enough
questions have been raised about the iPOM that managers shouldn’t base wildlife
decisions on the estimates until the model has been more thoroughly reviewed.
Especially when there have been suggestions that FWP may use iPOM for grizzly
bear management.

A year ago, WildEarth Guardians and Project Coyote filed a complaint against FWP, the FWP
commission and the state of Montana, asking a Lewis and Clark County judge to stop the wolf season after the 2022
FWP commission approved an increase in the state  killing quota to 456 wolves. This year, it was
reduced to 313. Part of the lawsuit takes FWP to task for changing the method
used to estimate wolf populations without going through a public process.
Another charge challenged the 2004 wolf management plan as being out-of-date,
which led to FWP writing a new plan, the draft of which is currently accepting
public comment.

Lizzy Pennock, WildEarth Guardians carnivore coexistence attorney, said
WildEarth Guardians has submitted comments challenging the use of iPOM in FWP’s
new wolf plan.

Advertisement

“We gave them [MSU biologist Scott] Creel’s statement in the
scoping period, and they didn’t consider it in the draft EIS. They just
regurgitated the same things: here’s why iPOM’s great. They didn’t engage in a
meaningful analysis of ‘here are some potential risks of iPOM and how we’re
going to manage for it,’” Pennock said.

Public comment on the draft wolf plan closes on December 19.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Man who carried out armed robbery with no pants on at Montana gas station jailed

Published

on

Man who carried out armed robbery with no pants on at Montana gas station jailed


A man who carried out an armed robbery at a Montana gas station while wearing no pants has now been jailed.

The bizarre robbery unfolded on October 16 2023 when Samuel James Collins barged into a Town Pump gas station in Townsend, near Great Falls, wearing a hooded blanket coat, but no pants or shoes, and fired a round from a pistol, prosecutors said.

Collins, 34, then demanded money from two employees who handed over roughly $330 in cash, before he fled the scene in a pickup truck.

The entire incident was captured on surveillance footage, showing the armed robber’s unusual choice of attire.

Advertisement

Just 20 minutes after fleeing the scene, the 34-year-old was tracked down by Meagher County Sheriff’s Office deputies and taken into custody.

Officers found a loaded 9mm pistol, $329 in cash and a shell casing inside his truck.

A bullet and shell casing recovered from the gas station were found to match the pistol, prosecutors said.

Collins pleaded guilty in July to possessing and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, according to the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana.

On Wednesday, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Judge hears arguments over effort to block Montana rule barring sex designation changes • Daily Montanan

Published

on

Judge hears arguments over effort to block Montana rule barring sex designation changes • Daily Montanan


A district court judge in Helena heard arguments Thursday afternoon from attorneys seeking a preliminary injunction on behalf of two transgender Montanans who argue that a rule from the state public health department preventing them from changing their government documents to denote their gender instead of their birth sex is unconstitutional.

ACLU of Montana attorney Alex Rate told Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan that the Department of Public Health and Human Services’ rule finalized in February essentially prohibits transgender Montanans from changing the sex designations on their birth certificates.

He argued that the state Motor Vehicle Division is not allowing the plaintiffs, Jessica Kalarchik and Jane Doe, to change their sex designations on their driver’s licenses because they are unable to change those designations on their birth certificates in the first place.

Rate used the words of Missoula County District Court Judge Jason Marks when he struck down a bill to prohibit youth from receiving gender-affirming care in September 2023.

Advertisement

“The purported purpose given for these policies is disingenuous. It seems more likely that the policy’s purpose is to ban an outcome deemed undesirable by the State of Montana. This conduct is replete with animus towards transgender persons,” Rate said, citing Marks’s order.

The state, represented by the Attorney General’s Office, argued that sex and gender are not interchangeable, and that court precedent recognizes sex as a binary of male and female.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction barring DPHHS from enforcing its rule and the MVD from not changing sex designations on driver’s licenses, which has not been introduced as a written policy but one which the plaintiffs’ attorneys say is being enforced on the ground.

They are also seeking to certify a class of transgender Montanans in what they hope will become a class-action lawsuit protecting the rules from being enforced for all current and future transgender Montanans who want to change their birth certificates and IDs or driver’s licenses.

Marks said issuing a preliminary injunction would restore the status quo in place in 2017, when Montanans were allowed to change their sex designations without issue. He said that even though a 2021 law that was similar to the DPHHS rule finalized this year was struck down as unconstitutional, the department was in 2023 found to be in contempt of court for “openly and repeatedly” defying the injunction.

Advertisement

And in February, the department moved ahead with the rule change after the Legislature passed a bill, Senate Bill 458, aiming to state in Montana law that there “are exactly two sexes, male and female.” DPHHS said the only changes to sex designations allowed would be to correct errors on birth certificates. A district court judge this past summer found Senate Bill 458 to be unconstitutional as well, though the state is appealing that decision.

Rate told Menahan that backstory is key to proving that the State of Montana is targeting transgender people with the rule and discriminating against them in violation of the state Constitution, its equal protection clause, and the right to privacy it affords Montanans. He argued the state offered no compelling interest for the rule.

“The state says that this isn’t speech at all, but rather a record. But that is a statement of your sex, and the state is forcing our clients to present their view of their sex,” Rate said. “The state cannot arbitrarily decide what is an individual’s sex and force them to speak that into the world. That is the definition of compelled speech.”

Assistant Attorney General Alwyn Lansing (right) tells Judge Mike Menahan why he should not issue an injunction blocking a DPHHS rule concerning birth certificate changes. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan)

Assistant Attorney General Alwyn Lansing argued on behalf of the state, telling Menahan that the plaintiffs were trying to get the court to make transgender people a protected class.

“To adopt plaintiffs’ argument would be to create a new protected class, which is gender identity, that is in direct conflict with Montana Supreme Court precedent. The Legislature is the only one who could do that,” she said. “…The right to privacy does not include a right to replace an objective fact of biological sex on a government document with subjective gender identity.”

Advertisement

She also contended that since not all transgender Montanans are seeking to update their personal documents, siding with the plaintiffs would prescribe “personal values of some onto the laws which govern all.”

Rate said the state could not rely on Senate Bill 458 because it is enjoined, and the expert testimony the plaintiffs submitted from two medical experts in the transgender field showed there is a strong relationship between sex and gender identity, and that disallowing that expression was harmful and discriminatory to transgender Montanans.

Arguing as to why a class should be certified in the case, ACLU attorney Malita Picasso said state data showed at least 280 Montanans had sought to amend their birth certificates during the past seven years, at least 85 since 2022. She said certifying a class of transgender Montanans who currently or in the future may want to change their sex designations would ensure that any court decision would apply to all transgender Montanans, not just the current plaintiffs in the case.

She also said that certifying a class for the case would prevent confusion should separate cases be filed in other Montana district courts and judges come to differing conclusions. Assistant Attorney General Thane Johnson told the court that whatever Menahan decides regarding the injunction would apply to the entire state of Montana, and he believed the plaintiffs did not meet all the necessary prongs to turn the case into a class-action suit.

Picasso responded that the state’s record showed it would try to fight the changes even if an injunction was granted, however. She said that if Menahan issues an injunction and the two plaintiffs do get their documents changed, the state could then claim the case and injunction were moot because the plaintiffs had gotten the relief they had sought, then apply the same rules to other transgender Montanans.

Advertisement

“If the defendants would like to enter a stipulated agreement in which they, you know, say that they won’t enforce it as to others, then I think that maybe we could reconsider,” Picasso said. “But at this stage, it seems pretty clear that were the injunction to be issued only as to the named plaintiffs, that the defendants would be arguing for that to be limited to just them.”

Menahan did not issue any orders from the bench Thursday and did not state when he might do so following the two-hour hearing.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

What Montana HC Travis DeCuire Said After Grizzlies Fell At Tennessee | Rocky Top Insider

Published

on

What Montana HC Travis DeCuire Said After Grizzlies Fell At Tennessee | Rocky Top Insider


Photo via Montana Athletics

Tennessee basketball handed Montana its second loss of the young season on Wednesday night, using a big second half to coast past the Grizzlies 92-57.

Following the game, Montana coach Travis DeCuire met with the media and discussed the strong play of his sophomore guard Money Williams, what makes Igor Milicic Jr. tough to defend and more. Here’s everything DeCuire said.

More From RTI: Three Quick Takeaways As Tennessee Coasts Past Montana To Remain Unbeaten

Opening statement 

“Rough night for the Griz. We had a little more fun in the first half than we did in the second half, obviously. I think Coach Barnes’ halftime speech was a little better than mine, in terms of getting this team ready to go in the second half. But I thought we did a good job defensively in the first half taking away some of the rhythm, some of the shots that they were trying to get. Obviously, some some fouls. Got some of their better players out for some stretches, which allowed us to make some runs as well. Second half, they ramped up their defensive intensity and I think we lost ours. To give up 63% in a half, regardless of who we were playing, is not like us. I don’t know the last time we’ve done that. But Chaz Lanier obviously going early in the in the second half and I thought that was a difference in terms of getting that team going.”

Advertisement

On what Montana guard Money Williams did to have such a strong game

“Money is good at making plays, whether it’s in a ball screen or in space. I think he generates offense for us in a lot of ways. Tonight he scored the ball, he made shots. But there are times when he is creating shots for others as well. We just did not have a great shooting night. So he felt he needed to score more for us to stay in the game, which was true.” 

On what adjustments Montana made on defense after Tennessee started 6-for-6 from the field 

“Our biggest thing was beat screens. Coach Barnes still plays a style of basketball that I believe in. A lot of people call it a old school, where you set a lot of screens away from the ball for shooters. From watching them in film, we saw that they really set screens very well. So for us, our goal is to beat the screens, to get through them and not require a bunch of help. And I thought we did a good job at the first half. As fatigue set in, fouls set in, I think we just did not execute that as well in the second.”

On what makes Tennessee’s Igor Milicic so difficult to guard

Advertisement

“Well, he wasn’t difficult to scout. We we knew he made over 100 threes in his previous school, but he hadn’t been shooting threes, or at least not very many. And so they hadn’t really been catering to that. Obviously they made some adjustments. They watched us defensively saw how aggressive we are on the ball screens. So they were looking for that early in the half. And then he got open for some drop-offs and lots out of ball screen coverage. But that wasn’t necessarily him making a play. That was that was (Zakai) Zeigler making a play.” 

On Montana’s defense forcing nine first half turnovers

“We wanted to be physical. We wanted to apply pressure on everyone other than Zeigler. We thought containing him was the most important thing. Not a lot of assists coming from other people. So we thought that if we could apply a little pressure on the post and the wings and force them to try to create, that maybe we could either force some turn some turnovers or low-percentage shots, which that did happen early. But eventually they got out of that.”

On Money Williams being able to attack the Tennessee defense

“We got we got a little taste of that last year. He only played 12 games last year, but his best games were Houston, Nevada. So when the lights are bright, it’s typically when he can’t show enough. Unfortunately his season ended early with an injury, so we weren’t able to see that level of consistency. But we knew he was capable of that.” 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending