Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Wildlife Professional”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2013

The challenge of wolf recovery: an ongoing dilemma for state managers

“Dave, would you do another legal declaration on the wolf for us?” The weary voice on the phone belonged to Mike Jimenez, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Management and Science Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). He was calling from Wyoming to ask me to prepare a document to address a legal challenge to the FWS’s August 2012 delisting of the wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming, a highly controversial move. Mike’s tone reflected the reality that — as so many wildlife biologists know and live each day — wildlife management is mainly people management. This contention could not be truer for managing any wildlife species than for managing the wolf. Dubbed “the beast of waste and desolation” by Teddy Roosevelt (The Wilderness Hunter 1893/1900), wolves had been universally hated as prolific predators of valuable livestock and game. Around the turn of the 20th century, members of the U.S. Biological Survey and various state agents, ranchers, cowboys, and other frontiersmen poisoned and persecuted wolves, extirpating them from most of the contiguous United States (Young and Goldman 1944). By 1967, Minnesota and nearby Isle Royale National Park in Michigan held the only remaining wolves in the Lower 48 states, prompting the FWS to place the wolf on the Endangered Species List (established by the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966). The wolf then became the list’s poster species, and the timing was ideal: Silent Spring (Carson 1962) had just seeded and fertilized the environmental movement, which blossomed on Earth Day (April 22, 1970) into the environmental revolution. “Save the wolf!” became one of the movement’s rallying cries. And save the wolf we did.

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2013

Tumors in sea turtles: The insidious menace of fibropapillomatosis

Early in July 2013, a colleague in New Caledonia reported the stranding of a green sea turtle on the far northwest of the island. The animal had washed up dead on a rocky beach with multiple large tumors on its neck and hind flippers. To all appearances, the turtle had fibropapillomatosis (FP), a tumor disease affecting marine turtles globally. This was the first known case of FP on the island—an alarming find, and another example of the creeping expansion of this disease in green turtles around the world.

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2014

Genetic tools for wildlife management

Granted interim status in November, 2013, The Wildlife Society’s (TWS) Molecular Ecology Working Group aims to promote scientific advancement by applying molecular techniques to wildlife ecology, management, and conservation. The working group—composed of sci - entists from diverse backgrounds—met for the first time in Pittsburgh at the TWS Annual Conference held in October. Our overarching goal is to enhance awareness of molecular ecology and genetic applica - tions to wildlife biology and act as an informational and networking resource. During the group’s interim status, which runs for three years, we intend to focus on a broad scope of molecular ecology that is applicable to wildlife including genetic and ge - nomic methods, conservation genetics, non-invasive genetic population monitoring, landscape genetics, evolutionary genetics, and molecular forensics

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2015

Anatomy of an eradication effort: Removing Hawaii's illegally introduced axis deer

In February 2011, a rancher in the rural southern part of Hawaii Island reported a large mammal on her land. Her call mobilized several agencies led by the Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), a partnership to prevent, detect, and control the establishment and spread of invasive species, to sit up and take notice. Agency biologists installed camera traps to identify the animal, and a few months later verified the diagnostic field marks of a chervid with spots. The animal in questions was a chital , or axis deer ( Axis axis )--a species native to tropical and subtropical India. Although the deer are abundant on the islands of Molokai, Lānai, and Maui, officials knew they weren't capable of swimming across the notoriously treacherous ʻAlenuihāhā channel, and subsequently suspected human intervention. Soon after the rancher's report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched an investigation, which revealed that in December 2009, a helicopter pilot and rancher from Maui had covertly transported four deer in exchange for about a dozen European mouflon sheep ( Ovis gmelini musimon ) (Tummons 2011a, b)--a species also valued for trophies and meat. Because neither species was established in the wild on either of the islands, in June 2012, state lawmakers responded by specifically banning "the international possession or interisland transportation or release of wild or feral deer" (Honolulu Star-Advertiser 2012). The two individuals were prosecuted under the Lacey Act for transporting wildlife between islands with the intent to guide hunting for out-of-state residents (Stephens Media 2012), while the individual who provided the mouflon was sentenced to community service. Further, the helicopter pilot agreed to provide 500 hours of flight time to locate and eradicate the Hawaii Island deer population in restitution.

Hawai'i↗
USGS2015

A hidden view of wildlife conservation: How camera traps aid science, research and management

Florida panthers are among the world’s most endangered — and elusive — animals. For approximately four decades, scientists have been researching this small population of panthers that inhabit the dense forests and swamps of south Florida. Because of their wide habitat range along with an absence of clear visual features, these animals are difficult to detect and identify. In 2013, however, researchers released a study that used camera trap images collected between 2005 and 2007 to generate the first statistically reliable density estimates for the remaining population of this subspecies. Camera traps — remotely activated cameras with infrared sensors — first gained measurable popularity in wildlife conservation in the early 1990s. Today, they’re used for a variety of activities, from species-specific research to broad-scale inventory or monitoring programs that, in some cases, attempt to detect biodiversity across vast landscapes. As this modern tool continues to evolve, it’s worth examining its uses and benefits for wildlife management and conservation.

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2017

The growth of sport shooting participation: What does this trend mean for conservation revenue?

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.

The Wildlife Professional↗
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,↗
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↗
USGS2026

Decision-centered systems for the future of wildlife conservation

The future of wildlife conservation will be determined by how well we decide, not simply by how much we know. Advances in quantitative ecology, sensor networks, and artificial intelligence have enhanced the field's ability to estimate population states and predict ecological dynamics. Yet, these technological and analytical advancements have not translated into proportional improvements in wildlife conservation decision making. The prevailing science-centered paradigm, which prioritizes research production as the primary route to better management, was appropriate when limited ecological understanding was the primary constraint on decision making. Today, wildlife conservation challenges are more often restricted by inadequate decision-making processes rather than by insufficient information. This paper defines a decision-centered system as an institutional and organizational arrangement in which the generation, integration, and application of scientific knowledge are explicitly structured around the decisions required for wildlife conservation. Decision systems evaluate success not only through scientific rigor, but through the quality of decision-making processes and outcomes they support. Artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to deepen this mismatch by rapidly expanding analytical capacity while leaving the underlying challenges of decision making unresolved. As AI data synthesis, modeling, and estimation become increasingly automated, the comparative advantage of conservation professionals is likely to shift toward tasks requiring human judgment (e.g., eliciting stakeholder values, weighting competing management objectives). The conceptual basis for this shift already exists in structured decision making, adaptive management, and similar frameworks. The remaining barriers to implementation are both institutional and organizational. The rules, norms, and incentive structures governing what counts as good conservation work, including what gets funded, published, and rewarded, will benefit from shifting alongside the agencies, universities, and professional societies that train and employ wildlife professionals. Conditions for this transition include redesigning incentives, training, and governance so that organizations are prepared not only to generate knowledge, but to consistently translate it into effective action.

The Wildlife Society Bulletin↗