ABSTRACT
Clearly there are a number of issues that must be considered not only by managers but also by stakeholders before making any changes. One approach is to agree with
stakeholders at the outset of the monitoring program that if a particular threshold or trigger point is reached, then alternative management actions are to be implemented. Block et al. (2001) differentiated between trigger points that initiate a change to enact recovery, and thresholds that indicate success in a recovery action. In the case of Figure 13.1, a trigger point may be recording <5 snakes/10 ha for 2 or more consecutive years. If such a trigger point is reached, it could be agreed with stakeholders beforehand that a series of steps would be taken by the responsible agency to restore habitat for the species. Or in the case of endangered species, the decision may be made to capture individuals and initiate a captive breeding program. But in our hypothetical case after 5 years, sharptail snake detections meet the trigger point at year 5, so at that point the public management agency biologists may begin meeting with private landowners to explore the following options to restore habitat for the species:
Provide landowner assistance on habitat restoration.• Provide incentives to landowners to alter grazing and other land use practices.• Explore purchase of a conservation easement that allows public biologists • to manage land. Explore purchase of key properties and begin habitat restoration.•
Any one of the above options may be acceptable to one landowner but not to another. As these or other options are implemented, then continued monitoring can allow detection of the point at which a threshold of recovery-say, >10 snakes/10 ha for >2 years-is surpassed and maintained. Monitoring a control area to understand changes in abundance on public conservation land will provide a point of comparison to help ensure that the patterns seen on private lands using the above approaches are more likely caused by management actions than other extraneous effects. For instance, if the abundance on both the public and private lands declined over time despite changes in management practices on the private lands, then declines are more likely due to factors unassociated with management such as changes in climate or disease.
