Assignment: Kaibab Plateau

Policy analysis: Reintroduction of predators

Task 4:

Graph 1: Deer population when hunting on plateau is stopped in 1925

Graph 2: Causes Strip for Deers

 Graph 3: Causes strip for predators

It shows that since predator hunting stopped in 1925, post 1925, the deer population falls slightly
faster and to a slightly lower value owing to a greater number of predators now
Unlike the base case, post 1925, the predator population increases again, and this time to a greater
value given there’s no harvesting

Graph 4 : ReintroB, Deer population when Hunting stopped from 1930 (ReintoA: Red, ReintroB : Blue)
 Graph 5: Causes Strip for Deer

Graph 6: Causes Strip for Predators

Policy Analysis: Harvesting Deer
Task 5: Modified model
Fraction Deer Harvest
Desired Deer
Constant Deer Harvest Population

<DHR>

Area

DHR1 DHR2 DHR3

Time to Correct
Deer Harvesting Rate Deer density
Deer population

<Deer>
Deer kills per
predator
DHR
Deer
Deer net Deer Predator fractional
increase predation increase Deer harvest year
Deer rate
fractional
increase

Food per Predator net

deer ratio increase
Food consumed
per Deer
Food per Predators
deer normal

Food
Food Predator
Food harvest
regeneration consumption
rate rate
Fraction
Food harvested per
reneration year
Food max time

<Time>

Fig 1: Modified model for deer harvesting policies

Task 6: Deer Harvest Policy 1

Constant Deer Harvest

Deer Harvest Year

DHR1

DHR

Deer Harvesting Rate

Deer
Fig 2: Deer Harvest Policy 1, word and arrow diagram
 Graph 7: Deer population on setting Constant deer harvest =2000 (Blue line)

Graph 8 : Causes Strip for deer

Simulating for different values of Constant Deer Harvest(Blue line)

Graph 9 : 3000 Graph 10 : 4000

 Graph 11 : 5000 Graph 12 : 6000

We see that fixing constant number for harvest at 2000, there’s a sharp increase in the deer
population followed by a sharp fall to a negative value. Simulating for other values show that the
population either grows indefinitely or falls to negative values. This policy doesn’t seem feasible in
the long run.

Task 7: Deer Harvest Policy 2

Fraction Deer Harvest

Deer Harvest year

DHR2
+
+
DHR

Deer Harvesting Rate

-
Deer
Fig 3: Deer Harvest Policy 2, word and arrow diagram (Negative feedback loop)
 Graph 13: Deer population for deer harvest fraction =0.1(Blue line)

Graph 14: Causes strip for deer

Simulating for different values of deer harvest fraction (Blue line)

 Graph 15: 0.2 Graph 16: 0.3

Graph 17: 0.4 Graph 18: 0.5

We see that on setting the harvest fraction to 0.1, the population reaches a peak and then falls to very low values.
Simulating for other fraction values, we see the population settles at very low values, tending to 0. In the long run, the deer
population would become 0, which is infeasible

Task 8: Deer Harvest Policy 3

Desired Deer
Deer Harvest Year population

-
Time to correct
DHR3 - Deer population

+
DHR

Deer Harvesting Rate

-
Deer

Fig 3: Deer Harvest Policy 3, word and arrow diagram (Negative feedback loop)
Graph 19: Deer population when desired population = 30000

Graph 20: Causes strip for deer

 Graph 21: when desired deer population is 35000

Graph 22 : 20000 Graph 23 : 40000

 Graph 24: Deer population when desired population is set to 30,000 but harvest year is set to 1926

If we set the desired population of deers at 30,000 and Deer Harvest year as 1920, the deer
population stabilises at a value slightly above 30,000 from 1926 approx. However, on changing the
harvest year to 1926, we see, the population reaches a peak and drops sharply in 1926, stabilises at
about 38,000 for some time and falls further to about 8000 post 1945. This shows, any target
number cannot be isolated targeted. We also need to factor in the other causal variables affecting
this population in order to reach the desired value.

Task 9:
Recommend Policy 3
Of all the policies, we see that in order to maintain a healthy deer population, Policy 3 works best by
setting the desired deer population number to 30,000. The population stabilises at a value of about
36,000(Close to our target value), unlike the other two policies where the population reaches a peak
and then falls sharply to negative or near-zero values.
Neither policy 1 nor 2 looks sustainable for the eco system

However, Policy 3 is extremely tough to implement

1. Counting the exact number of deer at a time is painstaking as well as expensive. However,
changing 30,000 to 35,000 leads to absolutely different situation, hence accuracy is
important.
2. With desired population 20,000, we saw similar nature of the population growth. Hence to
cut down cost, this number can also be brought down, depending on the food availability
and predator harvest time.
3. The policy must be implemented by 1920. Delays will lead to different results.
4. Could employ a team of officials for monitoring the count of population. The group must be
divided into areas, so as to make the process efficient.
5. The harvest has to be strictly maintained by offcials from the department of forest and
wildlife.