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.

Gender differences in the perceptions of wildlife management objectives and priorities in Australasia

It is now well established that men and women often differ significantly in their attitudes and responses to workplace situations, challenges and policies. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of gender on perceptions and priorities held by Australasian wildlife managers. Data were collected via a questionnaire distributed during December 2002 – February 2003 to members of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS) and registrants of the 2002 AWMS annual conference. The results show that there are now significantly more female AWMS members than there were in the early 1990s, a possible indication of a change in the wider wildlife management profession in Australasia. Consistent with previous research, male respondents held different views from female respondents about wildlife and wildlife management. In particular, male respondents were significantly more likely to express the ‘management/consumptive use of wildlife’ perspective than female respondents. Interestingly, this gap was observed only in the 18–30-year age category. The paper examines what these differences might mean for the future of wildlife management in Australasia.

Toward incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision-making

This paper presents a comparison of values of wildlife held by stakeholder groups and public samples in Victoria, Australia, with a sample of wildlife managers' beliefs about these groups. It also examines the managers' views of the importance of utilizing human dimensions information in their decision-making. In-depth interviews were conducted with wildlife/environmental managers in a sample of state and local government agencies and members of wildlife management stakeholder groups. Questionnaires were used to explore values of wildlife held by stakeholder group members and the Victorian public. There are several instances of interviewed managers misunderstanding the values held by stakeholder groups and subsets of the Victorian public. Such discrepancies can be reduced by incorporating systematically obtained human dimensions information into management decisions. Interviewed wildlife managers appear to appreciate the importance of human dimensions information; however, there was some uncertainty about how it could be applied.

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.

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.

The Adequacy of Wildlife Management on an Endangered Species: A Design Template for Ecosystems Management in Alabama

The Alabama beach mouse (ABM) was listed an an endangered species in 1985. The ABM has been cited as being minimally managed since its listing. The Sierra Club points out the lack of Primary Consituent Elements (PCE) that are required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While traditional habitat status is mired in legal and bureaucratic delays, effective management remains less than optimal. Ecosystem management presents with it, new observable and technological tools that may present a panacea in the ABM's paradox. This Capstone looks at the possible implementation of an ecosystems management alternative in aiding the persistence of a small isolated and endangered species.

The Catoosa Wildlife Management Area, Cumberland and Morgan Counties.

Caption title.

Wildlife management in Texas.

Includes bibliographical footnotes.

Wildlife management teacher's manual /

On cover: Teaching wildlife conservation.

History of wildlife management in the Intermountain Region /

"26.31.400.01/80"--P. [4] of cover.

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.