Should managed populations be monitored every year?

We often need to estimate the size of wild populations to determine the appropriate management action, for example, to set a harvest quota. Monitoring is usually planned under the assumption that it must be carried out at fixed intervals in time, typically annually, before the harvest quota is set. However, monitoring can be very expensive, and we should weigh the cost of monitoring against the improvement that it makes in decision making. A less costly alternative to monitoring annually is to predict the population size using a population model and information from previous surveys. In this paper, the problem of monitoring frequency is posed within a decision-theory framework. We discover that a monitoring regime that varies according to the state of the system call outperform fixed-interval monitoring This idea is illustrated using data for a red kangaroo (Macropits rufus) population in South Australia. Whether or not one should monitor in a given year is dependent on the estimated population density in the previous year, the uncertainty in that population estimate, and past rainfall. We discover that monitoring is-important when a model-based prediction of population density is very uncertain. This may occur if monitoring has not taken place for several years, or if rainfall has been above average. Monitoring is also important when prior information suggests that the population is near a critical threshold in population abundance. However, monitoring is less important when the optimal management action would not be altered by new information.