Geology topics
Publications and source records attributed to John F. Organ.
In the January/February issue of The Wildlife Professional , a group of wildlife leaders discussed what they considered "myths" in wildlife management and invited other wildlife professionals to contribute their favorites. Here, five wildlife professionals take up that theme with their discussions of the scientific basis of wildlife management.
An increased societal focus on wildlife as food and recent policy deliberations regarding legal markets for wild-harvested meat are encouraging wildlife managers and researchers to examine the amount, use, and distribution of meat yielded through recreational hunting. We used responses to questions on the Michigan Deer Harvest Study to estimate the maximum yield of edible venison and assess hunters’ sharing behaviors. We estimated 11,402–14,473 metric tons of edible venison were procured during the 2013 hunting season. Of hunters who harvested a deer, 85% shared their venison. Hunters who shared did so with an average of 5.6 people (SD = 4.5). Sharing occurred most frequently within tight social networks: members of hunters’ households (69%), relatives (52%), and friends, neighbors, or coworkers (50%). In the absence of legal markets, venison is distributed widely by hunters and greatly amplifies the number of people benefiting from hunting. Nonetheless, we also identified the potential breadth of exposure to disease or contaminants from wild-harvested meat.
In light of the trajectory of wildlife governance in the United States, the future of sustainable use of wildlife is a topic of substantial interest in the wildlife conservation community. We examine sustainable-use principles with respect to “good governance” considerations and public trust administration principles to assess how sustainable use might fare in the 21st century. We conclude that sustainable-use principles are compatible with recently articulated wildlife governance principles and could serve to mitigate broad values and norm shifts in American society that affect social acceptability of particular uses. Wildlife governance principles emphasize inclusive discourse among diverse wildlife interests, which could minimize isolated exchanges among cliques of like-minded people pursuing their ambitions without seeking opportunity for sharing or understanding diverse views. Aligning governance practices with wildlife governance principles can help avoid such isolation. In summary, sustainable use of wildlife is likely to endure as long as society 1) believes the long-term sustainability of wildlife is not jeopardized, and 2) accepts practices associated with such use as legitimate. These are 2 criteria needing constant attention.
Anthropogenic disturbances have altered species’ distributions potentially impacting interspecific interactions. Interference competition is when one species denies a competing species access to a resource. One mechanism of interference competition is aggression, which can result in altered space-use of a subordinate species due to the threat of harm, otherwise known as a ‘landscape of fear’. Alternatively, subordinates might outcompete dominant species in resource-poor environments via a superior ability to extract resources. Our goal was to evaluate spatial predictions of the ‘landscape of fear’ hypothesis for a carnivore guild in Newfoundland, Canada, where coyotes recently immigrated. Native Newfoundland carnivores include red foxes, Canada lynx, and black bears. We predicted foxes and lynx would avoid coyotes because of their larger size and similar dietary niches. We used scat-detecting dogs and genetic techniques to locate and identify predator scats. We then built resource selection functions and tested for avoidance by incorporating predicted values of selection for the alternative species into the best supported models of each species. We found multiple negative relationships, but notably did not find avoidance by foxes of areas selected by coyotes. While we did find that lynx avoided coyotes, we also found a reciprocal relationship. The observed patterns suggest spatial partitioning and not coyote avoidance, although avoidance could still be occurring at different spatial or temporal scales. Furthermore, Newfoundland’s harsh climate and poor soils may swing the pendulum of interspecific interactions from interference competition to exploitative competition, where subordinates outcompete dominant competitors through a superior ability to extract resources.
Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 Year in Review postcard This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program—2016 Year in Review, Circular 1424. This Circular provides information relating to fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, background on the CRU program, accolades, and professional services. Snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators are included. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with our research projects at www.coopunits.org .
Enacted in 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act – more commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act – is one of the oldest and most reliable sources of funding for wildlife conservation in the United States. The result of organized support form sportsmen, fish and wildlife agencies, firearms manufacturers, conservation organizations, and even garden clubs, the PR Act created an excise tax on so-called “long guns” and ammunition used by hunters, thereby establishing the first sustainable source of revenue dedicated to conservation and land management efforts throughout the country. Later, legislators amended the PR Act to include an excise tax on pistols, revolvers, bows, arrows, and other archery equipment.
Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act is authored by Lowell E. Baier, an attorney, political scientist, and historian whose conservation portfolio includes the J. N. “Ding” Darling Conservation Award from the National Wildlife Federation (2016), Citizen Conservationist Award from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (2013), Conservationist of the Year Award from Outdoor Life magazine (2010), and Conservationist of the Year Award from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (2008). In the book, Baier stresses the need to reform the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) because of unintended provisions that incentivize and reward environmental litigants for filing suit against federal regulatory and land management agencies, consequentially hindering pro-active, cooperative, conservation efforts. The book is the culmination of several years of legal research, case history analyses, and personal interviews with several key individuals from congress, conservation management agencies, and non-government organizations. Review info: Inside the equal access to justice act: Environmental litigation and the crippling battle over America's lands, endangered species, and critical habitats. By Lowell E. Baier, 2016. ISBN: 978-1442257443, 678 pp.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation represents the key principles that in combination resulted in a distinct form of wildlife conservation in the United States and Canada. How and to what extent captive cervid facilities comport with or conflict with these principles has implications for wildlife conservation. Greatest threats appear to be toward principles of public ownership of wildlife, allocation of wildlife by law, and in policy decisions based on science. Captive cervid facilities have potential to contribute to erosion of the underlying principles of the Model and could undermine public support for conservation initiatives.
Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.
Wildlife conservation is losing ground in the U.S. for many reasons. The net effect is declines in species and habitat. To address this trend, the wildlife conservation institution (i.e., all customs, practices, organizations and agencies, policies, and laws with respect to wildlife) must adapt to contemporary social–ecological conditions. Adaptation could be supported by clear guidelines reflecting contemporary expectations for wildlife governance. We combine elements of public trust thinking and good governance to produce a broad set of wildlife governance principles. These principles represent guidance for ecologically and socially responsible wildlife conservation. They address persistent, systemic problems and, if adopted, will bring the institution into line with modern expectations for governance of public natural resources. Implementation will require changes in values, objectives, and processes of the wildlife conservation institution. These changes may be difficult, but promise improved wildlife conservation outcomes and increased support for conservation. We introduce challenges and opportunities associated with the principles, and encourage dialogue about them among scientists, practitioners, and other leaders in U.S. wildlife conservation. The principles alone will not change the course of conservation for the better, but may be necessary for such change to occur.