Determining if harvesting is having a significant impact

Current options are: 1. Small or insignificant - utilisation is localised and/or affects only a small proportion of the wild population 2. Significant - utilisation is widespread, affects the majority of wild populations and/or is causing rapid decline of the wild population 3. Managed - There is some utilisation, but it is sustainably managed 4. In potentia - This species is not exploited currently, but has a close relative (in the same family or genus) with a similar life form or other relevant traits. This close relative is currently exploited, and this species may therefore may potentially be exploited in the future 5. None - this species and its close relatives are not exploited, collected, traded or utilized 6. Unknown

Tony has made the point that this is ambiguous and undefined - what is significant vs insignificant? At what point does it become 'well managed'? He would like hard numbers (note: ranges or approximations) to back this up so that it is not just an opinion.

In principle I agree with him but in order to make it work we'd have to record both how much is harvested from the wild per year and the reproductive rate per year. It would also be hard because we'd have to have really broad ranges/approximations as these numbers will vary wildly from species to species. In which case, if say we have approximately 0-500 harvested, and we have a growth rate of approximately 0-100 additional individuals a year, I would not feel comfortable saying either "significant" or "managed" or "small or insignificant" there. Tony what ranges do you think would work? And what does everyone else think?

SANBIBiodiversityforLife / nssl

Determining if harvesting is having a significant impact #2