Sustainable harvest of buffalo using bio-economic

Determining a sustainable harvest in a variable environment

1. % of MSY (quota system)

Strictly speaking, this is a ‘fixed quota’ system because the number harvested doesn’t vary unless there are no longer enough animals to harvest. Sinclair et al. (2006; in Chapter Wildlife Harvesting, pp. 335-354) suggest a harvest rate of 25% below MSY may produce a sustainable harvest in a variable, resource-limiting environment.

 Investigate the optimal harvest level using the MSY. Using increments of 10% for the MSY, record the population at 2001, total off-take and profit (total \$\$) for each scenario in the table below. (5 marks)
 % of MSY 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% N at 2001 713 647 575 498 413 319 208 55 0 0 Total off-take 378 756 1134 1512 1890 2268 2646 3007 2958 1658 Total \$\$ 175809 351393 526690 701608 875988 1049523 1221427 1379818 1350121 745616

1. % of N (adaptive harvest system)

Another approach to calculating harvest yields is the adaptive approach in which a set proportion of the previous year’s population is harvested each year.

 Using increments of 2% of the population for the harvest rate record the population at 2001, total off-take and profit (total \$\$\$) for each scenario in the table below.                                           (5 Marks)
 % of N 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% N at 2001 671 572 480 396 320 252 192 140 97 63 Total off-take 886 1607 2170 2580 2845 2974 2982 2887 2712 2487 Total \$\$ 412192 747173 1007241 1195270 1314943 1371127 1370367 1321448 1235743 1126871

Costs of Harvesting

The below-provided information is regarding the selection of one method from the studied two methods based on the information and the question regarding the two methods –   a fixed (% of MSY) system and a variable (% of N) system, information that has been gathered after researching and obtaining the required knowledge on the topic that is the method that will be best suitable to the Aboriginal group, are as follows: The two methods which have been explained in this project consist of (A). Fixed (% of MSY) system and (B). variable (% of N) system. After realizing the pros and cons of the method a better decision can be provided for the group, and their summary of the advised method has been explained below. % of N would be a better option in comparison to the % of MSY, and it would be the first recommendation to the group with the percentile of 10%.  The method of the % MSY is based on fixed figures and data, such a thing would be a better choice for those places which are having constant environmental conditions but for those places that are constantly changing % of N has to be a better option for the desired result. % of N also allows us to set the percentile based on the growing population of the buffalo. And due to this flexibility can be achieved but on the other hand, it will not be possible with the % of MYF method and could lead to overharvesting when the population is low.

The two options that can be provided for the community that is a fixed (% of MSY) system and a variable (% of N) system and at the specific rate of harvest that can be recommended for each system are as follows: % of N has been chosen with the 10 % the reason behind taking the 10 per cent is that it will allow the harvesting and birth rate in control so that there won’t be a scenario in which the population is low over high. Buffalo harvesting can be done by this method. For the full justification of the answer, a discussion of the implications of the strategies that have been recommended and the likely effects of variable rainfall on these outputs have been provided below: a variable harvesting system that is % of N with the % taken as the 10c can provide the desired result. This method of harvesting is suitable as it has been already explained above due to the flexibility it offers, and it will result in constant availability and scenarios in which abnormal growth will not be found. The explanation for the case of what can happen in the scenario when market prices change is explained below when the population is low then it will directly affect the profits and they will be low too for the case in which the population is high there will be high profits it is directly proportional to each other. The below-provided graph shows the population trajectories under the 2 different harvest regimes along with the recommended harvest rates while considering the rainfall data from 1960 until 2001 it is to check the level of similarity and differences for future trajectories likely to be has been explained by taking % of N is equal to 10:

The above-provided graph shows the rate of population from 1960 to 2001 based on the variable method taking the % of N to 10. And this is the graph obtained by it. The graph is clearly showing and justifies the reason why it is good to consider the variable method over the other fixed method of % of MYF. From the above information that has been researched and obtained for the project work, it can be concluded that the methods which suit best depend on the environment and both the methods are suitable based on the factors present in the surrounding as for this scene when the environment is constant on changing variable method is more suitable for it with the 10 % of N.

The references have been provided below that have helped in getting the desired result in this research work and this is as follows:

1. Altman, J., 2018. The Indigenous hybrid economy: A realistic sustainable option for remote communities?.
2. Russell, S., Power, M. and Ens, E., 2020. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in feral water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in the South East Ammmmm land indigenous protected area, Australia. Parasitology Research119(7), pp.2149-2157.