Frederic H. Wagner

Freeing Agency Research from Policy Pressures: A Need and an Approach

The 29% of the area of the United States that is in public land contains a rich store of biotic and abiotic resources available to its owners, the American people. Deciding whether, how, and by whom these resources are to be used is the foremost challenge facing those who set public policy for natural resources. A number of land management agencies are vested with the responsibility of carrying out the prescriptions of public policy, and have, or had until recently, research arms charged with providing scientific information to enlighten policymaking and management. Ecologists understand very well that deciding whether and how public resources are to be used—that is, the process of setting public policy—is highly contentious because of the differing values attached to these resources by different subsets of American society. Those values commonly conflict, and resolution is not often mutually satisfactory. It is also not news to ecologists that the structure and function of biological resources, as well as the responses to their use and management, are among the most complex issues addressed by the field of ecology. Policy setting is most likely to be rational and socially optimal if this complexity is thoroughly elucidated by accurate and objective research. This is not to say that policies are set only on the basis of science. As Sabatier (1978) states, “No policy decision can be based solely on technical information. Normative elements invariably enter. ”B ut if not enlightened by quality research, policy is based on guess, hearsay, and traditional knowledge, and ultimately is determined by power politics. Thus, the research carried out to enlighten the policymaking process not only copes with the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by the complexity of its subject matter, but is commonly conducted in the contentious climate of policy disputes within which the agencies function. As a result, agency researchers often struggle to produce the accurate and objective research that is needed to fully enlighten the policy process and management. These efforts are often successful, as shown by a long history of distinguished research on many natural resources issues. Hence, I find extremely

Comment: Ungulate Herbivory of Willows on Yellowstone's Northern Winter Range: Response to Singer et al. (1994)

In a recent JRM article, Singer et al. (1994) report results of a willow (Salix spp.) study on the northern (ungulate winter) range of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and immediate vicinity. The authors measured production, forage quality, moisture stress, and tannin content of growth shoots, all in relation to ungulate browsing, browsing-induced architectural variation, and altitude. In our view, the evidence presented does not support a number of the major inferences drawn, and in fact points to what in our judgement are more probable ones.

Values, Problems, and Methodologies in Managing Overabundant Wildlife Populations: An Overview

The function of wildlife management is to satisfy social values, positive and negative, assigned to wild animal resources. The term “overabundant” applies to wildlife populations whose actions are considered by someone in society to have negative value. Societal values assigned to wildlife change over time. As a result, the public changes its judgement of what is “overabundance” and tolerates negative effects because society changes its valuation to a predominance of the positive. Wild animals worldwide consume cultivated and stored crops, range forage useful for livestock, and fish in aquaculture facilities; they also prey on domestic animals. They damage urban and suburban property, and are involved in bird-aircraft collisions. They prey on positively valued wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and when unchecked or as exotics, significantly alter the compositions of “natural” ecosystems. Some wildlife attack humans, and serve as reservoir hosts and/or vectors of diseases communicable to humans and domestic animals. Negatively judged wildlife-human interactions can be generalized into a limited set of ecological or behavioral circumstances. In some cases there may be population increase of the problem species. In others, problems arise simply when humans and wildlife come into contact, or when animals change their behavior to take advantage of opportunities provided by humans. Predisposing circumstances include altered predation levels by both humans and wild animals, provision or improvement of habitat, and provision of food. Animals may alter movement and aggregation behavior, habituate to human presence in the case of urban problems, or revert to wild behavior in the case of feral domestic species. Modes of managing animal damage include a variety of ecological approaches that apply the same population-ecology principles as those to enhance positively valued wildlife. These include direct population reduction by lethal means, and trapping and removal; and by reproductive inhibition through the use of chemosterilants. Animal numbers also may be reduced by modifying habitat to the animals’ disfavor, and by changing agricultural practices to reduce the availability of cultivated crops as a food source. Negative effects by wildlife may also be reduced with chemical repellents, physical barriers against access to agricultural crops and domestic animals, and mechanical frightening devices. The presence of humans and guard animals also deter losses. Integrated pest management, a well-developed control strategy in economic entomology, has received less consideration in vertebrate damage control, but may have potential for future use.

What is "natural"?: Yellowstone elk population? A case study

Ecology analyzes the structure and function of ecosystems at all points along the continuum of human disturbance, from so-called pristine forests to urban backyards. Undisturbed systems provide reference points at one end of the spectrum, and nature reserves and parks are highly valued because they can provide unique examples of such ecosystems. Unfortunately the concept of “natural” or pristine is not that easy to define. Indeed, although ecologists have considered pre-Columbian, western-hemisphere ecosystems to have been largely unaltered by human action, and have termed their state “natural” or “pristine,” evidence from archaeology challenges this view. U.S. and Canadian national parks are charged with preserving the “natural,” and thus need to be able to understand and manage for the “natural.” A pivotal “natural” question in Yellowstone National Park management is the size of the northern-range, wintering elk population at Park establishment in 1872, argued both to have been small and large. Integrating and quantifying several sources of evidence provides a consistent picture of a low population (ca. 5,000–6,000), largely migrating out of the northern range in winter, with little vegetation impact. If we accept this conclusion about what is natural for the Yellowstone ecosystem, then it dramatically alters how we view management alternatives for the Park, which currently supports a northern wintering herd of up to ˜ 25,000 elk.