The partnership between park wild life management policy and landscape wild life management policy. How shall we then manage?

William L. Halvorson; Chris Eastin

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70176675

The partnership between park wild life management policy and landscape wild life management policy. How shall we then manage?

William L. Halvorson·Chris Eastin

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Resources management practices are changing in North America, not only based on greater understanding of the resources that are being managed, but also on some critical sociological relationship changes between human beings and between humans and nature. The entire way that humans look at the natural world and our own society is changing dramatically as we come to the end of the twentieth century. Managers are changing from making belief-based decisions to making informed knowledge-based decisions through better science programs. Society appears to increasingly be making a shift to a community mind-set, a mind-set of connectedness and interdependence, and away from strict individualism. Managers appear to be ready to embrace the concept of unity and wholeness; to understand that humans and nature are inextricably tied to each other’s wellbeing

Explore related subjects

George Wright Society Forum Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

William L. Halvorson, Chris Eastin. 1999. The partnership between park wild life management policy and landscape wild life management policy. How shall we then manage?. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70176675

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2014

USGS geologic Mapping and karst research in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, USA

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) was created in 1964 to protect 134 miles of the Current River and its major tributary, the Jacks Fork, that are located in south-central Missouri (fig. 1). The park includes numerous large karst springs including Big Spring, by flow volume this is the largest spring in the National Park system. The National Park Service (NPS) administers a narrow, nearly continuous corridor of land adjacent to the two rivers. Base flow for the rivers is chiefly supplied by groundwater that has traveled through the karst landscape from as far as 38 miles away from the spring (Imes and Frederick, 2002). The watershed is vulnerable to pollution, but the area remains largely rural with few industries. The springs and rivers provide habitat for numerous aquatic species as well as recreational resources for floaters, fishermen, and campers. The ONSR is a major cave park with hundreds of known caves and diverse in-cave resources.

Missouri↗

USGS2014

Collaborative socioeconomic tool development to address management and planning needs

Public lands and resources managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and other land management agencies provide a wide range of social and economic benefits to both nearby local communities and society as a whole, ranging from job creation, to access to unique recreational opportunities, to subsistence and tribal uses of the land. Over the years, there has been an increased need to identify and analyze the socioeconomic effects of the public’s use of NPS lands and resources, and the wide range of NPS land management decisions. This need stems from laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), increased litigation and appeals on NPS management decisions, as well as an overall need to demonstrate how parks benefit communities and the American public. To address these needs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NPS have an ongoing partnership to collaboratively develop socioeconomic tools to support planning needs and resource management. This article discusses two such tools. The first, Assessing Socioeconomic Planning Needs (ASPN), was developed to help NPS planners and managers identify key social and economic issues that can arise as a result of land management actions. The second tool, the Visitor Spending Effects (VSE) model, provides a specific example of a type of analysis that may be recommended by ASPN. The remainder of this article discusses the development, main features, and plans for future versions and applications of both ASPN and the VSE.

George Wright Society Forum↗

USGS2001

Ecological studies of bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Development and implementation

Bison (Bison bison) of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) are perhaps best known to the scientific community from the classic study of Meagher (1973) that reviewed their ecological status and management from the time of establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 through the last National Park Service (NPS) removals of bison within the park in 1966. Since cessation of herd reductions in the park, bison numbers within Yellowstone increased (Dobson and Meagher 1996), as did range use (Meagher 1989b), including increased frequency and magnitude of movements beyond the park boundaries in winter (Meagher 1989a; Pac and Frey 1991; Cheville et al. 1998).

Wyoming↗