USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70198027

Wildlife management is science based: Myth or reality?

Daniel J. Decker·John F. Organ·Ann Forstchen·Michael V. Schiavone·Angela K. Fuller
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

The Wildlife ProfessionalArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel J. Decker, John F. Organ, Ann Forstchen, Michael V. Schiavone, Angela K. Fuller. 2018. Wildlife management is science based: Myth or reality?. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70198027

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2022

A RADical approach to conservation in Alaska: Rapid climate change requires a new perspective

In Alaska, conservation areas are managed to promote the persistence of wild species, habitats, cultural resources, visitor experiences, and ecosystem services. Many conservation areas are managed by federal or state agencies, and have specific boundaries, missions, and legislative mandates. Many are also the domains of Indigenous and local people who derive livelihoods and cultural identity from these lands. These areas vary considerably as to whether they are managed solely for conservation versus other additional values. Myriad threats challenge the sustainability of these values, and conservation areas often exist to mitigate such threats. But regardless of jurisdiction, legal contexts, or historical impacts, all these places face challenges, unprecedented during human habitation, from one globally pervasive threat: anthropogenic climate change. Yes, ecosystems, including people who depend on them, have adapted to constant change in Alaska over most of the Holocene if not before (at least the last 18kyr). And this experience has conferred upon its constituents learned adaptive capacity, capabilities, and knowledges among the most flexible on the planet. We discuss the implications of the Resist, Accept, Direct adaptation framework in the context of conservation management in Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2019

Restoring a forest icon: Could returning the American chestnut remodel our wildlife landscape?

Mother Nature was not making it easy. It was February 18, 2009, and winds were gusting, sleet was falling, and temperatures were hovering around 40° F. Our crew of 9 which consisted of personnel from the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, the Cherokee National Forest, and The University of Tennessee’s Tree Improvement Program, was attempting to establish the first test planting of American chestnuts ( Castanea dentata ) bred for resistance to an exotic fungal pathogen, the chestnut blight ( Cryphonectria parasitica ). With each hole dug and seedlings tamped into the ground, our hope was that we were one step closer to restoring an important wildlife food to eastern hardwood forests.

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,↗