Geology topics
John F. Organ
Publications and source records attributed to John F. Organ.
Attitudes of the Wildlife Society members toward uses of wildlife
Large-scale sociological, geographic, and demographic changes affect the way people interact with and value wildlife. Beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders towards wildlife and uses of wildlife are also shifting along with these geographical and demographic changes. Changes in societal or professional attitudes toward uses of wildlife has potential to create alignment issues between wildlife professionals and society. To inform deliberations within The Wildlife Society (TWS) and the larger population of conservation professionals, we assessed and compared the change over time between 1998 and 2020 in value orientations, beliefs, and attitudes toward uses of wildlife and wildlife management practices of members of TWS as a proxy for practicing wildlife professionals. We administered a Qualtrics web-based survey ( n = 3,247), January–March 2020. Respondents closely approximated TWS membership demographically, who identified as male (59.7%) and female (37.7%), and geographically within 50 U.S. states at the time of the survey. Results indicated wildlife conservation professionals express as broad of a spectrum of beliefs, albeit shifting, about consumptive uses of wildlife in hunting and trapping much as they did 2 decades ago. Change in attitudes and beliefs was modest but mutualistic or protectionist beliefs and attitudes increased, especially among younger professionals, toward the ethical acceptability of harvested animals involving fair chase and sportsmanship (72% in 1998; 93.2% in 2020), and in expressed acceptance of regulated hunting and trapping. Our work provides insights into potential focus areas of training and education, such as Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and Trapping Matters.
Do unpublished data help to redraw distributions? The case of the spectacled bear in Peru
Data availability remains a principal factor limiting the use of species distribution models (SDMs) as tools for wildlife conservation and management of rare species. Although data collected in systematic and rigorous fashion are preferable, available data for most species of conservation interest are usually low in both quality and number. Here we show that combining records published in peer-reviewed journals and gray literature sources (e.g., theses, government, and NGO reports) with unpublished records obtained by personal communications from relevant stakeholders affect the predicted distribution of spectacled bears ( Tremarctos ornatus ) in Peru. We built SDMs using generalized linear models, random forest, and Maxent, first using a dataset that only included published records, and second with a dataset using both published and unpublished records. All models were replicated ten times with random subsets with controlled sample size. Models that combined published and unpublished spectacled bear records had a better performance, irrespective of with SDM method used, increasing the connectivity of the species’ range, and increasing the overall predicted distribution area than models that only included published records. This was because unpublished records added key new localities, reducing spatial sampling biases. Our study shows that the inclusion of commonly disregarded data such as opportunistic records, reports from natural park rangers, student theses, and data-deficient small studies can make an important contribution to the overall ecological knowledge of rare and difficult-to-study species such as the spectacled bear.
Bear diets and human-bear conflicts: Insights from isotopic ecology
Bears, Ursidae, are considered omnivores, except for giant pandas Ailuropoda melanoleuca and polar bears Ursus maritimus. However, omnivory includes a wide range of dietary variation and trophic positions, making bear dietary ecology unclear. We inferred bear trophic positions from δ 15 N (‰) values and examined their correlation with diets reported in the literature, including frequency of human–bear conflicts (livestock predation and crop damage incidents). Overall, 15N signatures were consistent with diet estimates. Bear species with higher 15 N signatures differed more from each other, including cases of large regional intraspecific variance, than bear species with lower 15 N signatures. Bear trophic position and frequency of reports of human–bear conflicts were uncorrelated, suggesting that livestock predation by bears is an opportunistic behaviour rather than a response to food availability dynamics.
The precarious position of wildlife conservation funding in the United States
The Pittman-Robertson Act was established in 1937 to fund state-based wildlife conservation through an existing excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. Because these items were purchased mostly by hunters at the time, they were the user group primarily funding wildlife conservation. Subsequent amendments to Pittman-Robertson expanded the taxable items to include pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment, effectively broadening the pool of conservation funding contributors to include non-hunters. The continuing trends of declining hunting participation, increasing handgun sales for non-hunting purposes, and increasing sport shooting and target archery independent of hunting, mean that non-hunters are contributing a disproportionately greater amount to Pittman-Robertson funding than hunters, and therefore contributing more to wildlife conservation. The evolving sources of revenue to Pittman-Robertson pose several threats to this historically important source of conservation funding. Addressing them may require new funding coalitions and outreach describing the conservation benefits and outcomes of Pittman-Robertson funding.
Why let the dogs out? Exploring variables associated with dog confinement and general characteristics of the free-ranging owned-dog population in a peri-urban area
Free-ranging dogs (FRDs), are a problem in several countries, with impacts on humans, domestic animals, and wildlife, although increasing evidence suggests that most FRDs are owned. Therefore, understanding dog ownership on a fine scale is critical. The main objectives of this study were to explore dog management in rural localities from central Chile focusing on modeling owner-related variables associated with dog confinement and characterize confined and FRDs populations. Interviews (170) were carried out in Paine municipality, reporting a human:dog ratio of 1.5:1, and dogs in most households (85.9%, 146/170). Thirty-seven percent (54/146) of those households did not confine their dog(s) to some degree, and 41% (196/472) of surveyed dogs were FRD. Based on multivariable logistic regression models, non-confinement was decreased by (i) negative opinion of owners toward roaming behavior of their dogs, (ii) negative opinion toward FRDs, among others. Dog confinement increased along with owners' concerns about the impacts of their dogs on others. Owned-FRDs tended to have poorer general care than confined dogs. Our findings represent a contribution to the understanding of the human dimensions behind FRDs and provide critical quantitative elements to consider when planning effective control strategies.
Managing state lands for wildlife
State-owned lands are a vital component of state fish and wildlife management programs because they contain valuable habitats for a diversity of wild species and often provide important public access. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA 2017) reported state agencies manage or administer approximately 188 million hectares of land, including 10 million hectares under fee title ownership with the remainder of those lands leased or licensed in conservation agreements, grazing allotments, or rights-of-ways. State agencies commonly strive to enhance wildlife habitats within their purview, but have also improved areas not directly owned by them. In total, an estimated 22,953,364 additional hectares have been improved by state fish and wildlife agencies through private landowner agreements (AFWA 2017). States also own 192,000 individual water rights and have developed at least 53,000 formal partnership agreements to conserve wildlife. Today, there are a plethora of state land categories including wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, state forests, parks and trails, state trust lands, research and natural areas, and public fishing areas. Acquisition and/or leasing of properties to provide access for fishing and hunting are often vitally important in meeting local constituents’ desires for consumptive uses of their natural resources. However, state agencies also provide areas for forest conservation, boating, camping, hiking, rock hounding, skiing, wildlife viewing, and other nonconsumptive recreational pursuits. Lastly, states often acquire properties primarily for wildlife habitat management/conservation or to preserve areas of cultural and historic value to their citizens.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review postcard
This postcard provides details about the "Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2018 Year in Review," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1452, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1452 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .
Wild canid distribution and co-existence in a natural–urban matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts
Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and activity patterns. We used automatically triggered wildlife cameras to assess the local distribution and co-existence of Canis latrans (Coyote) , Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox), and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox) across the Pioneer Valley, MA, in relation to different levels of human development. We placed cameras at 79 locations in forested, altered, and urban land-use areas from September to November 2012 and accumulated 1670 trap nights. We determined site characteristics and detection rates for 12 other wildlife species for each camera location to develop a generalized linear model for the local distribution of each focal canid species across the study area. We also compared diel activity patterns among Coyotes, Red Foxes, and Gray Foxes, and calculated coefficients of overlap between each pair. The local distribution of Coyotes was positively associated with the detection rates of their prey and not associated with detection rates of sympatric carnivoran species. Red Foxes and Gray Foxes had negative relationships with the detection rate of Coyotes, and none of the 3 canid species showed a positive correlation with increased levels of urbanization. There was a high degree of temporal overlap in diel activity patterns and limited spatial overlap of our focal species, which suggests that any competition avoidance across our study area occurred at the spatial level. Coyotes fill the role of top predator in the Pioneer Valley, and likely have a negative impact on the local distributions of smaller canids, while their own local distributions seem to be driven by prey availability.
International Organizations and Programs for Wildlife Conservation
Historically, private non-governmental entities in the developed world took interest in wildlife in developing nations. Nineteenth and early twentieth century explorers of Africa, Asia, and South America reported fascinating encounters with magnificent species that were previously cryptic or unknown (Robinson et al. 2017). Organizations such as the Royal Geographical Society in the United Kingdom, a sponsor of Charles Darwin’s expedition, the Boone and Crockett Club in North America, and numerous museums in the United States and Europe, sponsored chronicled expeditions to remote places under the goal of discovery and collection. Concurrent with the quest for discovery of wild places and species new to science was the drive to find and secure timber, mineral, energy, and other resources to fuel the growing demands of development brought on by the Industrial Revolution (Lucas 2009, Stearns 2013). This led to exploitation, and overexploitation, which led to growing concerns over the loss of species, including species not yet known to western science. During the latter half of the twentieth century, in response to these concerns, private non-governmental organizations formed to promote conservation through science, advocacy, and technical assistance. These organizations vary from working independently, to forming collaborations across the public and private sphere. Our objective in this chapter is to outline some of the major conventions, major organizations, and programs that promote engagement in wildlife conservation and management at the international level.
Our precious wildlife resources: Further thoughts on the North American model
No abstract available.
Spatiotemporal heterogeneity in prey abundance and vulnerability shapes the foraging tactics of an omnivore
Prey abundance and prey vulnerability vary across space and time, but we know little about how they mediate predator–prey interactions and predator foraging tactics. To evaluate the interplay between prey abundance, prey vulnerability and predator space use, we examined patterns of black bear ( Ursus americanus ) predation of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) neonates in Newfoundland, Canada using data from 317 collared individuals (9 bears, 34 adult female caribou, 274 caribou calves). During the caribou calving season, we predicted that landscape features would influence calf vulnerability to bear predation, and that bears would actively hunt calves by selecting areas associated with increased calf vulnerability. Further, we hypothesized that bears would dynamically adjust their foraging tactics in response to spatiotemporal changes in calf abundance and vulnerability (collectively, calf availability). Accordingly, we expected bears to actively hunt calves when they were most abundant and vulnerable, but switch to foraging on other resources as calf availability declined. As predicted, landscape heterogeneity influenced risk of mortality, and bears displayed the strongest selection for areas where they were most likely to kill calves, which suggested they were actively hunting caribou. Initially, the per‐capita rate at which bears killed calves followed a type‐I functional response, but as the calving season progressed and calf vulnerability declined, kill rates dissociated from calf abundance. In support of our hypothesis, bears adjusted their foraging tactics when they were less efficient at catching calves, highlighting the influence that predation phenology may have on predator space use. Contrary to our expectations, however, bears appeared to continue to hunt caribou as calf availability declined, but switched from a tactic of selecting areas of increased calf vulnerability to a tactic that maximized encounter rates with calves. Our results reveal that generalist predators can dynamically adjust their foraging tactics over short time‐scales in response to changing prey abundance and vulnerability. Further, they demonstrate the utility of integrating temporal dynamics of prey availability into investigations of predator–prey interactions, and move towards a mechanistic understanding of the dynamic foraging tactics of a large omnivore.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program was involved in a number of notable events during 2017, many concerning our personnel. Dr. Barry Grand left his position as Leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to become the Cooperative Units Program Supervisor for the South, replacing Dr. Kevin Whalen who took over as Supervisor for the West. We welcomed Dr. Sarah Converse who left the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to become Leader of the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Dr. Amanda Rosenberger joined the Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit as Assistant Leader, transferring from the Missouri Cooperative Unit. Dr. Scott Carleton left his position as Assistant Unit Leader in New Mexico to become Chief of the Region 2 Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We said farewell to many colleagues who retired. Their departure is bittersweet as we wish them health, happiness, and wellness in retirement. We will miss their companionship and the extraordinary contributions they have made to the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program and conservation. The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program has a record high number of vacant scientist positions due to a combination of retirements and base funding short-falls. These issues are affecting our ability to meet cooperator needs. Yet, we remain highly productive. For example, this year we released a report ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1427 ) containing abstracts of nearly 600 of our research projects, covering thematic areas ranging from advanced technologies to wildlife diseases. We provided highly competent, trained scientists and natural resource managers for our cooperators’ workforce. We delivered technical training and guidance to professional practitioners. We provided critical information to cooperators for decisions on species status assessments and management of species of greatest conservation need. This year we had an active presence at major national meetings, including the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference where we co-sponsored a workshop on continuing education as a means to bridge the gap between science and management. During the coming year, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and our cooperators, we intend to reduce the number of vacancies in the program. It will take time and active support of our cooperators to get back to full strength, but I am committed to this goal and encouraged by the resolve of our partners. We look forward to an even more productive year in 2018!
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review postcard
This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 Year in Review, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1438, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1438 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .
Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management
Artelle et al . (2018) conclude that “hallmarks of science” are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of “hallmarks of science,” confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.