The Experts below are selected from a list of 74553 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Daniel J Decker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artelle et al 2018 miss the science underlying north american Wildlife Management
Science Advances, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan R Mawdsley, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, John F Organ, Ann B Forstchen, Ronald J Regan, Mark S Boyce, John E Mcdonald, Chris Dwyer, Shane P MahoneyAbstract: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.
-
importance of urban Wildlife Management in the united states and canada
Mammal Study, 2017Co-Authors: Erin C Mccance, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Anne M Colturi, Richard K Baydack, Paul D Curtis, Thomas H EasonAbstract:Abstract. Urban Wildlife Management is growing in importance in the U.S. and Canada. This paper describes the archetypical history of Wildlife population exploitation, recovery, impact Management, and the anthropogenic root-causes for Management of many species in urban environments. Although urban and traditional Wildlife Management situations differ in many ways, in both contexts, some species are welcome to co-exist with humans, while other species are considered intolerable. Management approaches and techniques tailored to urban situations are still in early days of development. Urban Wildlife Management issues tend to be “wicked problems” (problems where disparate human values lead to different interpretations of desirable outcomes and acceptable means of achieving them). People sharing the same space with each other and with Wildlife inevitably perceive different impacts from Wildlife. Experience has amply demonstrated the difficulty of finding a Management response that is accepted across all segme...
-
the essence of Wildlife Management
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2016Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, George F Mattfeld, Gary L ParsonsAbstract:Effectiveness of Wildlife professionals in the twenty-first century will depend on their skill at integrating biological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. This will need to be done well because stakeholder interests in Wildlife and their expectations for par- ticipation in Wildlife Management are changing. As practitioners adapt to these changes, a new approach to Wildlife Management is emerging. Traditional, near-exclusive reliance on biological science and expert decision-making is being replaced by multidisciplinary integration and stakeholder participation as 2 key precepts of Wildlife Management. Managers increasingly are making complementary use of biological and social science while seeking more extensive input and involvement from stakeholders. As part of this transformation, a core concept is needed that emphasizes the essential anthropocentric focus of Wildlife Management. We believe the essence of Wildlife Management can be distilled to managing Wildlife-related impacts, which are significant effects of events or interactions involving humans and Wildlife, Wildlife Management interventions, or stake- holders. We further believe that impacts can be managed adaptively, and we propose the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM), which builds on the strengths of con- ventional adaptive Management.
-
human dimensions of Wildlife Management
2012Co-Authors: Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, William F SiemerAbstract:Preface Acknowledgments List of Contributors Part I: Overview of Fundamental Concepts 1. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 2. Governance of Wildlife Resources 3. Stakeholders as Beneficiaries of Wildlife Management Part II: Social Science Considerations 4. Social Psychological Considerations in Wildlife Management 5. Sociological Considerations in Wildlife Management 6. Economic Considerations in Wildlife Management Part III: The Management Process 7. Wildlife Management as a Process within a System 8. Decision Making in Wildlife Management Part IV: Human Dimensions Methods and Skills 9. Planning a Human Dimensions Inquiry 10. Methods of Human Dimensions Inquiry 11. Stakeholder Engagement in Wildlife Management 12. Communication for Effective Wildlife Management Part V: Human Dimensions Applications 13. Human Dimensions of Abundant Wildlife Management 14. Human Dimensions of Scarce Wildlife Management 15. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Use Management Part VI: Professional Considerations for the Future 16. Environmental Ethics for Wildlife Management 17. Continuing Your Education in Human Dimensions 18. Adaptive Value of Human Dimensions for Wildlife Management Appendix: Scientific Names Glossary Bibliography Index
-
governance of state Wildlife Management reform and revive or resist and retrench
Society & Natural Resources, 2008Co-Authors: Cynthia A Jacobson, Daniel J DeckerAbstract:Governance of state Wildlife Management has been under scrutiny with respect to its ability to change to reflect the values, norms, and cultural beliefs of contemporary society. This article reviews the existing model of governance for state Wildlife Management; outlines concerns about this model in light of a changing social context; discusses alternative approaches; and offers considerations for how governance could be reformed to meet societal needs.
William F Siemer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
importance of urban Wildlife Management in the united states and canada
Mammal Study, 2017Co-Authors: Erin C Mccance, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Anne M Colturi, Richard K Baydack, Paul D Curtis, Thomas H EasonAbstract:Abstract. Urban Wildlife Management is growing in importance in the U.S. and Canada. This paper describes the archetypical history of Wildlife population exploitation, recovery, impact Management, and the anthropogenic root-causes for Management of many species in urban environments. Although urban and traditional Wildlife Management situations differ in many ways, in both contexts, some species are welcome to co-exist with humans, while other species are considered intolerable. Management approaches and techniques tailored to urban situations are still in early days of development. Urban Wildlife Management issues tend to be “wicked problems” (problems where disparate human values lead to different interpretations of desirable outcomes and acceptable means of achieving them). People sharing the same space with each other and with Wildlife inevitably perceive different impacts from Wildlife. Experience has amply demonstrated the difficulty of finding a Management response that is accepted across all segme...
-
the essence of Wildlife Management
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2016Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, George F Mattfeld, Gary L ParsonsAbstract:Effectiveness of Wildlife professionals in the twenty-first century will depend on their skill at integrating biological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. This will need to be done well because stakeholder interests in Wildlife and their expectations for par- ticipation in Wildlife Management are changing. As practitioners adapt to these changes, a new approach to Wildlife Management is emerging. Traditional, near-exclusive reliance on biological science and expert decision-making is being replaced by multidisciplinary integration and stakeholder participation as 2 key precepts of Wildlife Management. Managers increasingly are making complementary use of biological and social science while seeking more extensive input and involvement from stakeholders. As part of this transformation, a core concept is needed that emphasizes the essential anthropocentric focus of Wildlife Management. We believe the essence of Wildlife Management can be distilled to managing Wildlife-related impacts, which are significant effects of events or interactions involving humans and Wildlife, Wildlife Management interventions, or stake- holders. We further believe that impacts can be managed adaptively, and we propose the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM), which builds on the strengths of con- ventional adaptive Management.
-
human dimensions of Wildlife Management
2012Co-Authors: Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, William F SiemerAbstract:Preface Acknowledgments List of Contributors Part I: Overview of Fundamental Concepts 1. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 2. Governance of Wildlife Resources 3. Stakeholders as Beneficiaries of Wildlife Management Part II: Social Science Considerations 4. Social Psychological Considerations in Wildlife Management 5. Sociological Considerations in Wildlife Management 6. Economic Considerations in Wildlife Management Part III: The Management Process 7. Wildlife Management as a Process within a System 8. Decision Making in Wildlife Management Part IV: Human Dimensions Methods and Skills 9. Planning a Human Dimensions Inquiry 10. Methods of Human Dimensions Inquiry 11. Stakeholder Engagement in Wildlife Management 12. Communication for Effective Wildlife Management Part V: Human Dimensions Applications 13. Human Dimensions of Abundant Wildlife Management 14. Human Dimensions of Scarce Wildlife Management 15. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Use Management Part VI: Professional Considerations for the Future 16. Environmental Ethics for Wildlife Management 17. Continuing Your Education in Human Dimensions 18. Adaptive Value of Human Dimensions for Wildlife Management Appendix: Scientific Names Glossary Bibliography Index
-
integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive Management of Wildlife related impacts
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2006Co-Authors: Jody W Enck, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, William F SiemerAbstract:Adaptive Wildlife Management seeks to improve the integration of science and Management by focusing decision-making on hypothesis-testing and structuring Management actions as field experiments. Since the early 1990s, adaptive resource Management (ARM) has advocated enhancing scientific rigor in evaluating Management actions chosen to achieve “enabling objectives” typically directed at Wildlife habitat or population characteristics. More recently, the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM) has emphasized a need to articulate “fundamental objectives” in terms of Wildlife-related impacts to be managed. Adaptive impact Management seeks to clarify why Management is undertaken in a particular situation. Understanding the “why” question is viewed in AIM as a prerequisite for establishing enabling objectives, whether related to changes in Wildlife habitats and populations or to human beliefs and behaviors. This article describes practical aspects of AIM by exploring relationships between AIM and ARM within a comprehensive model of decision-making for Wildlife Management. Adaptive impact Management clarifies and differentiates fundamental objectives (i.e., Wildlife-related impacts to be modified) and enabling objectives (i.e., conditions that affect levels of impacts), whereas ARM reduces uncertainty about how to achieve enabling objectives and seeks an optimal Management alternative through hypothesis-testing. The 2 concepts make different contributions to development of Management hypotheses about alternative actions and policies and should be nested for optimal application to comprehensive Wildlife Management. Considered in the context of the entire Management process, AIM and ARM are complementary ideas contributing to adaptive Wildlife Management.
-
adaptive impact Management an integrative approach to Wildlife Management
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2003Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, Louis T BerchielliAbstract:Wildlife professionals need better ways to integrate ecological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. A focus on impacts, guided by a structured decision process, will orient Wildlife Management toward rigorous, integrative decision making. Impacts are important socially defined effects of events and interactions related to Wildlife that merit Management. To manage impacts we propose adaptive impact Management (AIM). This approach has seven primary components: situational analysis, objective setting, development of system model(s), identification and selection of Management alternatives, actual Management interventions, monitoring, and refinement of models and eventually interventions. Adaptive impact Management builds upon strengths of systems thinking and conventional adaptive Management, yet differs in that fundamental objectives of Management are impacts on society, rather than conditions of a Wildlife population or habitat. Emphasis is placed on stakeholder involvement in Management and shared...
Shawn J Riley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artelle et al 2018 miss the science underlying north american Wildlife Management
Science Advances, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan R Mawdsley, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, John F Organ, Ann B Forstchen, Ronald J Regan, Mark S Boyce, John E Mcdonald, Chris Dwyer, Shane P MahoneyAbstract: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.
-
the essence of Wildlife Management
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2016Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, George F Mattfeld, Gary L ParsonsAbstract:Effectiveness of Wildlife professionals in the twenty-first century will depend on their skill at integrating biological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. This will need to be done well because stakeholder interests in Wildlife and their expectations for par- ticipation in Wildlife Management are changing. As practitioners adapt to these changes, a new approach to Wildlife Management is emerging. Traditional, near-exclusive reliance on biological science and expert decision-making is being replaced by multidisciplinary integration and stakeholder participation as 2 key precepts of Wildlife Management. Managers increasingly are making complementary use of biological and social science while seeking more extensive input and involvement from stakeholders. As part of this transformation, a core concept is needed that emphasizes the essential anthropocentric focus of Wildlife Management. We believe the essence of Wildlife Management can be distilled to managing Wildlife-related impacts, which are significant effects of events or interactions involving humans and Wildlife, Wildlife Management interventions, or stake- holders. We further believe that impacts can be managed adaptively, and we propose the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM), which builds on the strengths of con- ventional adaptive Management.
-
human dimensions of Wildlife Management
2012Co-Authors: Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, William F SiemerAbstract:Preface Acknowledgments List of Contributors Part I: Overview of Fundamental Concepts 1. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 2. Governance of Wildlife Resources 3. Stakeholders as Beneficiaries of Wildlife Management Part II: Social Science Considerations 4. Social Psychological Considerations in Wildlife Management 5. Sociological Considerations in Wildlife Management 6. Economic Considerations in Wildlife Management Part III: The Management Process 7. Wildlife Management as a Process within a System 8. Decision Making in Wildlife Management Part IV: Human Dimensions Methods and Skills 9. Planning a Human Dimensions Inquiry 10. Methods of Human Dimensions Inquiry 11. Stakeholder Engagement in Wildlife Management 12. Communication for Effective Wildlife Management Part V: Human Dimensions Applications 13. Human Dimensions of Abundant Wildlife Management 14. Human Dimensions of Scarce Wildlife Management 15. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Use Management Part VI: Professional Considerations for the Future 16. Environmental Ethics for Wildlife Management 17. Continuing Your Education in Human Dimensions 18. Adaptive Value of Human Dimensions for Wildlife Management Appendix: Scientific Names Glossary Bibliography Index
-
integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive Management of Wildlife related impacts
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2006Co-Authors: Jody W Enck, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, William F SiemerAbstract:Adaptive Wildlife Management seeks to improve the integration of science and Management by focusing decision-making on hypothesis-testing and structuring Management actions as field experiments. Since the early 1990s, adaptive resource Management (ARM) has advocated enhancing scientific rigor in evaluating Management actions chosen to achieve “enabling objectives” typically directed at Wildlife habitat or population characteristics. More recently, the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM) has emphasized a need to articulate “fundamental objectives” in terms of Wildlife-related impacts to be managed. Adaptive impact Management seeks to clarify why Management is undertaken in a particular situation. Understanding the “why” question is viewed in AIM as a prerequisite for establishing enabling objectives, whether related to changes in Wildlife habitats and populations or to human beliefs and behaviors. This article describes practical aspects of AIM by exploring relationships between AIM and ARM within a comprehensive model of decision-making for Wildlife Management. Adaptive impact Management clarifies and differentiates fundamental objectives (i.e., Wildlife-related impacts to be modified) and enabling objectives (i.e., conditions that affect levels of impacts), whereas ARM reduces uncertainty about how to achieve enabling objectives and seeks an optimal Management alternative through hypothesis-testing. The 2 concepts make different contributions to development of Management hypotheses about alternative actions and policies and should be nested for optimal application to comprehensive Wildlife Management. Considered in the context of the entire Management process, AIM and ARM are complementary ideas contributing to adaptive Wildlife Management.
-
adaptive impact Management an integrative approach to Wildlife Management
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2003Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, Louis T BerchielliAbstract:Wildlife professionals need better ways to integrate ecological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. A focus on impacts, guided by a structured decision process, will orient Wildlife Management toward rigorous, integrative decision making. Impacts are important socially defined effects of events and interactions related to Wildlife that merit Management. To manage impacts we propose adaptive impact Management (AIM). This approach has seven primary components: situational analysis, objective setting, development of system model(s), identification and selection of Management alternatives, actual Management interventions, monitoring, and refinement of models and eventually interventions. Adaptive impact Management builds upon strengths of systems thinking and conventional adaptive Management, yet differs in that fundamental objectives of Management are impacts on society, rather than conditions of a Wildlife population or habitat. Emphasis is placed on stakeholder involvement in Management and shared...
John F Organ - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artelle et al 2018 miss the science underlying north american Wildlife Management
Science Advances, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan R Mawdsley, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, John F Organ, Ann B Forstchen, Ronald J Regan, Mark S Boyce, John E Mcdonald, Chris Dwyer, Shane P MahoneyAbstract: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.
-
the essence of Wildlife Management
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2016Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, George F Mattfeld, Gary L ParsonsAbstract:Effectiveness of Wildlife professionals in the twenty-first century will depend on their skill at integrating biological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. This will need to be done well because stakeholder interests in Wildlife and their expectations for par- ticipation in Wildlife Management are changing. As practitioners adapt to these changes, a new approach to Wildlife Management is emerging. Traditional, near-exclusive reliance on biological science and expert decision-making is being replaced by multidisciplinary integration and stakeholder participation as 2 key precepts of Wildlife Management. Managers increasingly are making complementary use of biological and social science while seeking more extensive input and involvement from stakeholders. As part of this transformation, a core concept is needed that emphasizes the essential anthropocentric focus of Wildlife Management. We believe the essence of Wildlife Management can be distilled to managing Wildlife-related impacts, which are significant effects of events or interactions involving humans and Wildlife, Wildlife Management interventions, or stake- holders. We further believe that impacts can be managed adaptively, and we propose the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM), which builds on the strengths of con- ventional adaptive Management.
-
integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive Management of Wildlife related impacts
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2006Co-Authors: Jody W Enck, Daniel J Decker, Shawn J Riley, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, William F SiemerAbstract:Adaptive Wildlife Management seeks to improve the integration of science and Management by focusing decision-making on hypothesis-testing and structuring Management actions as field experiments. Since the early 1990s, adaptive resource Management (ARM) has advocated enhancing scientific rigor in evaluating Management actions chosen to achieve “enabling objectives” typically directed at Wildlife habitat or population characteristics. More recently, the concept of adaptive impact Management (AIM) has emphasized a need to articulate “fundamental objectives” in terms of Wildlife-related impacts to be managed. Adaptive impact Management seeks to clarify why Management is undertaken in a particular situation. Understanding the “why” question is viewed in AIM as a prerequisite for establishing enabling objectives, whether related to changes in Wildlife habitats and populations or to human beliefs and behaviors. This article describes practical aspects of AIM by exploring relationships between AIM and ARM within a comprehensive model of decision-making for Wildlife Management. Adaptive impact Management clarifies and differentiates fundamental objectives (i.e., Wildlife-related impacts to be modified) and enabling objectives (i.e., conditions that affect levels of impacts), whereas ARM reduces uncertainty about how to achieve enabling objectives and seeks an optimal Management alternative through hypothesis-testing. The 2 concepts make different contributions to development of Management hypotheses about alternative actions and policies and should be nested for optimal application to comprehensive Wildlife Management. Considered in the context of the entire Management process, AIM and ARM are complementary ideas contributing to adaptive Wildlife Management.
-
adaptive impact Management an integrative approach to Wildlife Management
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2003Co-Authors: Shawn J Riley, Daniel J Decker, William F Siemer, Len H Carpenter, John F Organ, Louis T BerchielliAbstract:Wildlife professionals need better ways to integrate ecological and human dimensions of Wildlife Management. A focus on impacts, guided by a structured decision process, will orient Wildlife Management toward rigorous, integrative decision making. Impacts are important socially defined effects of events and interactions related to Wildlife that merit Management. To manage impacts we propose adaptive impact Management (AIM). This approach has seven primary components: situational analysis, objective setting, development of system model(s), identification and selection of Management alternatives, actual Management interventions, monitoring, and refinement of models and eventually interventions. Adaptive impact Management builds upon strengths of systems thinking and conventional adaptive Management, yet differs in that fundamental objectives of Management are impacts on society, rather than conditions of a Wildlife population or habitat. Emphasis is placed on stakeholder involvement in Management and shared...
Michael J. Manfredo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessing public acceptance of Wildlife Management trade offs a case study of elk and vegetation Management in rocky mountain national park colorado
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2010Co-Authors: Peter J Fix, Michael J. Manfredo, Tara L Teel, Susan S BostonAbstract:Balancing Wildlife Management trade-offs is likely to result in differential impacts and varying levels of support among stakeholders. Science should guide discourse regarding these trade-offs, and science can, in turn, quantify the discourse to inform Management. This study developed a unique visual-based instrument to explain complex trade-offs to the public and quantify preferences for elk and vegetation Management in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), Colorado, USA. Results (n = 1,324) showed a preference for future conditions that are expected to result from elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) reductions and active vegetation protection on the elk's winter range, but revealed less agreement on appropriate actions to achieve these conditions. Management actions that actively restore Wildlife habitat were evaluated favorably, and hazing techniques were consistently evaluated as unacceptable. Respondents were divided on the acceptability of elk reduction measures and various other actions to keep elk from br...
-
Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions
Society & Natural Resources, 2006Co-Authors: Doug Whittaker, Jerry J. Vaske, Michael J. ManfredoAbstract:This article tests theory suggesting cognitions at the same level of specificity have stronger associations than those at different levels. Using data from a survey of Anchorage, AK, residents (n = 971, response rate = 59%), we explored relationships between general Wildlife value orientations and (1) the general acceptability of hunting urban Wildlife populations, and (2) specific Wildlife Management actions (e.g., the acceptability of destroying a bear or moose after specific conflict situations). Consistent with previous research, patterns of basic Wildlife beliefs aligned along two distinct value orientations (protection–use and Wildlife appreciation) that differentially predicted Management action acceptability. As hypothesized, general Wildlife value orientations had more influence on the acceptability of hunting to reduce Wildlife populations than destroying an animal involved in specific conflict situations. Findings suggested ways to improve measurement, ways to develop broader models that includ...
-
Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of Wildlife Management actions
Society & Natural Resources, 1998Co-Authors: Harry C. Zinn, Michael J. Manfredo, Jerry J. Vaske, Karin WittmannAbstract:Because Wildlife in the United States is publicly owned, Management actions and policies depend on public acceptance. This article uses a normative approach to describe and evaluate what the public believes are acceptable Management actions toward three different Wildlife species involved in human‐Wildlife interactions. The results illustrate the extent to which normative beliefs about Wildlife Management actions are influenced by situational specifics and Wildlife value orientations. Across different species and situations, individuals with protectionist Wildlife values were less willing than those with pro‐use Wildlife values to accept destroying an animal. The results point to circumstances that are likely to generate intense conflict over particular Management policies and allow more confident generalization about how publics will respond to different Management actions. Additional research is needed to identify the situational specifics and human values that best explain and predict normative beliefs...
