Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70270596

Stakeholders' priorities for management of a restored elk (Cervus canadensis) population in northeast Minnesota

Abstract

Wildlife reintroduction projects are an important tool for restoring traditional wildlife heritage, increasing species diversity, providing subsistence and sport hunting and other recreational opportunities, and assisting ecosystem adaption to future climate change. In Minnesota, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and some conservationists advocate for the expansion of existing elk range to other parts of the state. For reintroduction projects to be successful, it is helpful if managers understand stakeholders' preferences for management objectives. We used best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess residents' preferences for management objective alternatives. The University of Minnesota, in collaboration with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, conducted a mail-back questionnaire of landowners ( n = 4500) and the general public ( n = 4000) in northeastern Minnesota to determine their attitudes toward elk reintroduction. Results suggest that the most preferred objectives were minimizing negative impacts on existing wildlife populations and reintroducing native species. In contrast, the least important objectives were related to providing elk viewing opportunities or maximizing economic opportunities through elk-related tourism. These findings help inform management objectives related to the reintroduction proposal, provide insight to minimize potential conflict and help develop future communication material related to elk reintroduction.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 46° to 47.333° latitude; -93.333° to -91.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kyle Smith, Adam Landon, Eric Waller, David C. Fulton, Michael W. Schrage, Nicholas McCann, James Forester. 2025-06-16. Stakeholders' priorities for management of a restored elk (Cervus canadensis) population in northeast Minnesota. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13200

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice