United States of America

Catch-and-Release_Largemouth seabass_United States

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:01:27 +0000

Catch-and-Release_Largemouth seabass_United States Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 01/26/2022 - 18:01

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 01/26/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Effects of catch-and-release angling on a largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) population in a north temperate lake, 2001–2005

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

No formal international protection in place

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Unknown/Not Recorded

Population Trend

Increasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Localized threats may exist, but on a range-wide scale no major threats are known.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Micropterus salmoides

Common Name(s)

Largemouth seabass

Type of Use

Non-Extractive

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Recreational

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

Time period over which this has been recorded

2001–2005

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Geographic Location

North America

Country

United States of America

Sub region/state

Wisconsin

Name

Little Rock Lake South

Site Description

Little Rock Lake South (45°59′44.69”N, 89°42′12.76”W) is an 8 ha, oligotrophic, seepage lake in Vilas County, Wisconsin that has no lakeshore residential development (Sass et al., 2006). Little Rock Lake South was isolated from Little Rock Lake North (10 ha).

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Our results in- dicate that a catch-and-release policy (and/or increasing rates of vo- luntary release; Allen et al., 2008; Gaeta et al., 2013; Isermann et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2015) will likely result in increased abundances of LMB, but decreases in the size-structure of the populations and sub- sequent trophy fish potential

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

Our results suggest that catch-and-release fishing had minimal negative effects on the sustainability of an LMB population if greater abundances are desired. However, density-dependent compensatory responses in size-structure and growth may be expected over time.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

Sass, G., Gaeta, J., Allen, M., Suski, C., & Shaw, S. (2018). Effects of catch-and-release angling on a largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) population in a north temperate lake, 2001–2005. Fisheries Research, 204, 95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2018.02.012

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Individual Site

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

catch-and-release

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Country reference

United States of America

Harvesting_Peyote_United States

Emma_Hemmerle — Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:53:59 +0000

Harvesting_Peyote_United States Emma_Hemmerle Fri, 01/21/2022 - 15:53

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Fri, 01/21/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Entire value chain

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

LIMITATIONS TO NATURAL PRODUCTION OF LOPHOPHORA WILLIAMSII (CACTACEAE) III. EFFECTS OF REPEATED HARVESTING AT TWO-YEAR INTERVALS FOR SIX YEARS IN A SOUTH TEXAS (U.S.A.) POPULATION

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Agriculture

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Illegal collecting and land use change affect several sub-populations. Commercial harvesting by religious groups in the U.S has drastically decimated sub-populations and the plant has become less available through time because often the whole plant rather than the edible part is removed. In addition harvesting is excessive (Terry et al. 2011). Land use change for agriculture is a significant threat, as the land is completely ploughed, thus eliminating all vegetation including L. williamsii and its seed bank.
The plant is used to make ointments which are produce at a large scale and are widely available in Mexico, studies on the composition and pharmacology of such ointments are under-way (M. Terry pers. comm. 2013).

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Lophophora williamsii

Common Name(s)

Peyote

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

Does this use involve take/extraction of

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

Harvesting was performed using the best known technique: removing only the crown from the top of the plant

How is the primary use carried out?

Gathering/Cutting/Collecting Terrestrial Plants and Fungi or Their Products From the Wild

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Cultural/spiritual

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Medicine/Pharmaceutical (human/veterinary)

Cultural or religious practices

Time period over which this has been recorded

2008 to 2014

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

persons who harvest peyote for legally protected religious use by members of the Native American Church;

Geographic Location

North America

Country

United States of America

Sub region/state

Texas

Name

Tamaulipan thornscrub

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

The harvested crowns of peyote are collected and sold by licensed distributors to the Native American Church (NAC) for religious use as protected by U.S. law.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

At the end of the 6th year of the study, average volume of living crown tissue per plant was significantly and substantially lower in the plants harvested every two years than in the once-harvested plants and the unharvested controls. The average volume of once-harvested plants was 27% lower than that of the controls, although this latter difference was not statistically significant. The modal number of crowns per plant varied with treatment and over time; in the plants harvested every two years it underwent a progression from 1 to 2 to 3 to 1 in response to successive harvests. The results of this study indicate that a six-year recovery period, following the harvesting of peyote in natural habitats, is probably not long enough to ensure long-term sustainability.
It is now abundantly clear that the current rate of harvesting of peyote from wild populations is not sustainable; six years is not long enough to wait after a population of peyote is harvested before going back and re-harvesting the population, if the goal is a sustainable regimen of harvesting.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

Terry, M., Trout, K., Williams, B., Herrera, T., & Fowler, N. (2014). LIMITATIONS TO NATURAL PRODUCTION OF <em>LOPHOPHORA WILLIAMSII</em> (CACTACEAE) III. EFFECTS OF REPEATED HARVESTING AT TWO-YEAR INTERVALS FOR SIX YEARS IN A SOUTH TEXAS (U.S.A.) POPULATION. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 8(2), 541–550. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549404

During the fifth and sixth years of this ongoing experimental study of a peyote population, we saw few changes in the behavior of never-harvested (control) plants. Once-harvested plants continued to recover from harvesting, but plants harvested every two years continued to experience lowered survival rates, and showed a reduced capacity to produce new crowns;

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Individual Site

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Vulnerable (VU)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Gathering terrestrial plants;

Other

Gathering terrestrial plants;

Sustainability not determined

Yes, considered unsustainable

Country reference

United States of America

Harvest_Brown Algae_United States of America

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:24:12 +0000

Harvest_Brown Algae_United States of America Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 01/19/2022 - 10:24

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 01/19/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Sustainable seaweed cutting? The rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) industry of Maine and the Maritime Provinces

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

No formal international protection in place

National Level

Formal national protection in place

ranked as a "high-priority” species for protection in the United States

Within the Cobscook Bay Rockweed Management Area,84 there is an annual limit (17%) on take (based on the available rockweed biomass);

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Formal sub-national protection in place

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Ascophyllum nodosum

Common Name(s)

Norwegian Kelp

Knotted Kelp

Egg wrack

Bladderwrack

Rockweed

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Non-Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

Rockweed clumps over 130 cm that are cut are typically reduced up to 55% of length (height) and 78% of biomass: i.e. a part of the stem is left when harvesting;

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Food for animals (including aquaculture)

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Increasing

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Additional Details (if available)

The dearth of impact assessment, combined with the tendency of state and provincial governments to allow rockweed harvests unless and until negative impact information is available, has produced a situation in which rockweed harvests are intensifying even though critical scientific information is lacking

Geographic Location

North America

Country

United States of America

Sub region/state

Maine

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

National / local government

National / local private sector

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Yes, it is having a negative effect (e.g., prey depletion, stress, disrupted breeding, movement, sleeping, feeding patterns)

Yes, negative (e.g., it destroys/ degrades it due to over-use)

Additional Details (if available)

Indirect impacts of rockweed harvesting on com- mon eider (Somateria mollissima) ducklings stem from duckling feeding behavior. For about three weeks, ducklings are unable to dive for mussels and must forage in the floating rockweed canopy (for small prey such as amphipods8). During this time, ducklings are vulnerable to predation by bald ea- gles and great black backed gulls;
Impacts of simulated rockweed cutting were investigated in Maine and resulted in overall species richness declined and did not recover during the two-year study.
Rockweed cutting also significantly affected abundance of common intertidal species: green crabs (Carcinus meanas), common periwinkles (L. littorea), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), limpets (Tectura testudinalis), a colonial hydroid (Dynamena pumila), blue mussel spat (M. edulis recruits), and barnacles (Semibalanus balanoides).

Additional Details (if available)

Rockweed harvesting can also result in a loss of habitat complexity, since the most complex part of the clump in the canopy is removed.

Details of assessment carried out

Until sustainable levels of cutting and appropriate regulations are identified, commercial-scale rockweed cutting presents a risk to coastal ecosystems and the human communities that depend on those ecosystems.
In addition to problems defining a ecologically sustainable level of rockweed harvest and the challenge of understanding cumulative impacts on a
landscape scale, there are three further difficulties in assessing an ecologically sustainable level of harvest: a complex web of interactions in a diverse rockweed community harvest impact assessments; the rockweed community (vertebrates, invertebrates, algae) varies in space and time, creating site- and time- specific impacts, and high-power statistical tests of impact will require large sample sizes or long- term studies, or both.The challenges described above result in a lack of adequate measures of the full impact of rock- weed harvesting. The current metric for“sustainable”harvests— MSY—is inappropriately narrow.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

Seeley, R. H., & Schlesinger, W. H. (2012). Sustainable seaweed cutting? The rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) industry of Maine and the Maritime Provinces. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06443.x

Fegley noted that full recovery of Ascophyllum had not occurred even two years after cutting: cut rockweed was significantly shorter.

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Unknown/not recorded

No assessment recorded

Sustainability not determined

Country reference

United States of America

Harvesting_River otter_United States

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:07:28 +0000

Harvesting_River otter_United States Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/03/2022 - 10:07

Wed, 01/01/2020 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 12/29/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Assessing population status of river otter in the United States

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Lontra canadensis

Common Name(s)

River otter

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Recreational

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Food for People

Speciment collecting, including hunting/fishing trophies

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

As per the North American Model of wildlife conservation, river otters are held in the public trust by the ‘‘government’’ and are managed by state and federal agencies as well as by native tribes (Mahoney and Geist 2019). Agency-enforced regulations include restrictions on harvest, harvest season length, harvest methods, and bag limits.

Geographic Location

North America

Country

United States of America

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Unknown/not recorded

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Details of assessment carried out

We surveyed state wildlife agency experts to assess the current population and regulatory status of river otters in their jurisdictions. River otters were legally harvested in 40 states as of 2016. Twenty-two states reported increasing populations while 25 reported stable populations, and 2 states (Arizona and Washington) reported an uncertain population trend. We estimated that river otter range in the continental United States expanded by 10.2% during from 1998 to 2016.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Other Socio-Economic Impacts

information about the state of populations --> For many furbearers, including river otter, harvest-based data are the only information
available with sufficient sample sizes large enough for robust analyses

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Absent

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Absent

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

Roberts NM, Lovallo MJ, Crimmins SM. 2020. River otter status, management, and distribution in the United States: evidence of large-scale population increase and range expansion. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 11(1):279–286; e1944-687X. https://doi.org/10.3996/102018-JFWM-093

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

National Level

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)