Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn: Reply to Stauffer et al

TL;DR

This paper discusses issues with modeling wolf population changes in Wisconsin, highlighting problems with data and methods used by state scientists.

Contribution

The paper critiques the use of unreviewed and unshared data in estimating wolf abundance after legal wolf-killing.

Findings

An error in the code was corrected but did not affect the original conclusions.

The Wisconsin wolf abundance estimate lacks peer review and uses questionable methods.

Undisclosed data continue to affect the credibility of state-funded research.

Abstract

Stauffer et al. (2024) present an alternative approach to modeling a one-year change in the wolf population of the state of Wisconsin, USA. They found an error in the code in Treves & Louchouarn 2022, which we corrected. It did not change that paper’s conclusions. However, Stauffer et al. accept the state of Wisconsin’s estimate for wolf abundance in 2022, which is based on undescribed methods, unshared data, lacks peer review, and depends on a method we have criticized for imprecision, inaccuracy, insensitivity to changing conditions, and irreproducibility. An occupancy model constructed and validated for a period several years after legal wolf-killing is a dubious basis for estimating wolf abundance one year after unprecedented, legal wolf-killing. Finally, undisclosed data continue to mar the work of state-funded scientists.