Bear Island WMA

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provides area maps of regions of the state that identify agency-owned and managed Wildlife Management Areas. This is a map of the Bear Island WMA.

The Catoosa Wildlife Management Area, Cumberland and Morgan Counties.

Caption title.

Bland Wildlife Management Area

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provides area maps of regions of the state that identify agency-owned and managed Wildlife Management Areas. This is a map of the Bland Wildlife Management Area.

Donnelley Wildlife Management Area

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provides area maps of regions of the state that identify agency-owned and managed Wildlife Management Areas. This is a map of the Donnelley Wildlife Management Area.

Oak Lea Wildlife Management Area

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provides area maps of regions of the state that identify agency-owned and managed Wildlife Management Areas. This is a map of the Oak Lea Wildlife Management Area.

Tuomey Wildlife Management Area

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provides area maps of regions of the state that identify agency-owned and managed Wildlife Management Areas. This is a map of the Tuomey Wildlife Management Area.

PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION: AN IMPORTANT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY

Suburban wildlife management issues are generating heated debate between citizen organizations, elected public officials, and state wildlife management agencies. Decisions are being made by town and county officials which directly impact or supersede state authority for managing resident wildlife. As an example, I will focus this discussion on the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), management controversy at Durand Eastman Park, in the greater Rochester metropolitan area, New York.

Tab. 1: Geographical, temperature and chemical features of sites on Bear Island and Spitsbergen

In arctic populations of Macrothrix hirsuticornis life cycles are mainly governed by temperature. This was found by using laboratory cultures in combination with the analysis of population samples from waters in Svalbard. In arctic waters ex-ephippio-++ usually produce gamogenetic F1-++ together with a high percentage of oo, which have to fertilize the resting eggs. Temperatures around 14°C, which are very rare in waters of Svalbard, will induce parthenogenetic oo in the F1 and even the F2-generation, a mode of reproduction normally found in Macrothrix-populations of Central Europe. This was found in laboratory cultures of M. hirsuticornis from Bear Island, and there was evidence, that a similar cycle occurs in warm wells in Spitsbergen. The arctic distribution of M. hirsuticornis mainly depends on temperature, which regulates the speed of individual development. But this can only be understood together with the length of time, during which suitable life conditions are given. Physiological adaptations to life in waters in high latitudes could not be found, in spite of the extreme northern occurrence of M. hirsuticornis.

Wildlife management in Australasia : perceptions of objectives and priorities

The aim of this study was to examine the values and attitudes held by Australasian wildlife managers as they relate to wildlife management issues, and to gain some insight into possible future directions and priorities for Australasian wildlife management. During December 2002 – February 2003, 138 questionnaires were completed by members of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS) and registrants of the 2002 AWMS annual conference. Threatened species management, threatened communities/habitats, and management of introduced species were the issues rated as needing the highest priority for the Australasian Wildlife Management Society. Issues such as animal rights, genetically modified organisms and timber harvesting on public lands were the lowest-rating issues. Respondents expressed a strong belief in managing and controlling wildlife to achieve wildlife management objectives, a strong belief that wildlife should be protected and that wildlife managers should minimise the pain and suffering of individual animals, and a belief that resources should be directed towards conserving wildlife populations rather than protecting individual animals from non-threatened populations. While respondents held a strong belief that it is important to consult the community when developing wildlife management policies and programs, there was little support for a comanagerial approach where the community has a significant role to play in decision-making processes.