Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “The 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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and its effects on wildlife health 2025–29

Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an ecologically and economically important animal disease that can also directly affect humans (a “zoonotic” disease). HPAI was once limited almost exclusively to domestic poultry but has rapidly adapted to diverse animal hosts. Viruses causing HPAI now appear to be maintained and dispersed by wild birds largely independent of poultry, though HPAI continues to cause considerable economic losses and supply chain disruptions in the domestic poultry trade. Coincident with the adaptation of HPAI viruses to wild birds, particularly waterfowl and gulls, increasingly diverse wild bird hosts are becoming exposed to HPAI, often resulting in disease and death. More sporadically, HPAI has caused mass mortality events, particularly among seabirds. Furthermore, viral spillover to wild and domestic mammals has become more common. Spillover to wild mammals has resulted in mortality among diverse terrestrial and marine taxa, including episodic losses of such scale as to represent potential conservation challenges. Since approximately March 2024, HPAI has also affected dairy cows, which represents a new threat to the agricultural economy. Lastly, HPAI has increasingly affected humans through domestic animal exposures, exemplifying the considerable implications of this disease beyond animal health. Rapid changes in the ecology of HPAI are currently outpacing research efforts. For example, it is not entirely clear which newly established hosts may become reservoirs for HPAI viruses (in other words, capable of maintaining HPAI viruses within a broad population indefinitely) and how this may influence viral evolution and dissemination. As a result, there are considerable information gaps regarding HPAI in wildlife that, if filled, would improve the ability of scientists, managers, agricultural industry representatives, and healthcare professionals to understand and to anticipate the effects of HPAI on wild animal, domestic animal, environmental, and human health (“One Health”). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency providing scientific research on avian influenza viruses (AIVs), including HPAI viruses, that affect wildlife for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has management authority. States have jurisdiction over wildlife on Federal lands within their borders (43 CFR § 24.3), so the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA) coordinates with State natural resource management agencies. The EMA focuses its research on HPAI through priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team ( app. 1 ). Priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team are based on Administration priorities, Congressional direction, and discussions with State, Federal, and Tribal natural resource management agencies that identify specific scientific gaps that need to be filled to inform sound wildlife management decisions. Notable non-DOI Federal partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead for the HPAI regulatory response in poultry and livestock, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lead agency for the HPAI response pertaining to human health. The USGS offers unique expertise and capacity pertaining to research on diseases affecting free-ranging wildlife populations. This expertise has been critical to interjurisdictional surveillance and capacity-building efforts, including programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the CDC. The USGS also provides resources, guidance, and tools to inform surveillance and interventions conducted by natural resource management agencies. More specifically, the USGS EMA provides objective and rigorous scientific data for inferring (1) the utility of new methods to detect and characterize AIVs, including those maintained in wildlife and the environment; (2) effects of HPAI on wildlife; (3) spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife host and AIV dispersal; (4) the presence and persistence of AIVs in the environment; (5) how HPAI in wildlife influences consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife; (6) how new tools and scientific methods may promote sound management decisions for HPAI-affected wildlife, particularly species of conservation concern; and (7) the combined effects of HPAI and other stressors on ecosystem health and resiliency. This science strategy builds upon research outlined in a previous USGS science strategy for HPAI (2016–20) by Harris and others (2016) . This strategy also details research priorities identified by the Administration (for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 ) and others based on USGS Avian Influenza Science Team discussions with natural resource management agencies to address HPAI and wildlife health over the next 5 years (2025–29). This strategy presents 7 goals and 26 objectives that focus USGS and partner efforts on priorities that will fill data gaps regarding the effects of HPAI on wildlife managed by or co-managed with the U.S. Department of the Interior such that agencies and partners might anticipate or limit adverse effects on public resources. This strategy also identifies research priorities intended to address HPAI in wildlife and wildlife habitat that are anticipated to support interjurisdictional One Health efforts.

Circular↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal Year 2005

Introduction This report describes the activities that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year (FY) 2005. Most of these USGS activities were collaborations with Tribes, Tribal organizations, or professional societies. Others were conducted cooperatively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or other Federal entities. The USGS is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The USGS does not have regulatory or land management responsibilities. As described in this report, there are many USGS activities that are directly relevant to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and to Native lands. A USGS website, dedicated to making USGS more accessible to American Indians, Alaska Natives, their governments, and institutions, is available at www.usgs.gov/indian. This website includes information on how to contact USGS American Indian/Alaska Native Liaisons, training opportunities, and links to other information resources. This report and previous editions are also available through the website. The USGS realizes that Native knowledge and cultural traditions of living in harmony with nature result in unique Native perspectives that enrich USGS studies. USGS seeks to increase the sensitivity and openness of its scientists to the breadth of Native knowledge, expanding the information on which their research is based. USGS scientific studies include data collection, mapping, natural resource modeling, and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although some are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded cooperatively, with USGS funds matched or supplemented by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. These projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Some USGS activities described in this report are conducted as collateral tasks that result from USGS employees identifying and responding to perceived needs. These endeavors are usually prompted by employee interests and frequently involve educational activities. The education is often a reciprocal learning and teaching experience for USGS employees and for Native participants. Through these activities, USGS employees help to fulfill a mission of the USGS - to demonstrate scientific relevance - while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees also take initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives by participating in several organizations that promote awareness of science career opportunities among Native peoples and help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. The studies briefly described in this report span subsistence issues, wildlife health, water quality, mineral resources, monitoring and modeling to gather information and predict what may happen in the future. Although each project description relates to Native Americans in some way, the projects vary widely, including who conducted the work, the goals and products, the duration of the study, and whether it was local or covered a broad area. Each major organizational unit of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central,

Circular↗
USGS2018

Development of the Wildlife Adaptation Menu for Resource Managers

The Climate Change Response Framework is an example of a collaborative, cross-boundary approach to create a set of tools, partnerships, and actions to support climate-informed conservation and land management. Historically, this effort has focused on the needs of forest managers and forestry professionals. In recent years, however, there has been increasing demand for science and tools to address climate change adaptation in wildlife management and conservation. Not only do wildlife and resource managers need the best available science, it must also be presented in a usable format with feasible options within the purview of an individual manager. The research team is first completing a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies to summarize what wildlife-related management actions currently exist in climate change adaptation. They will then develop and test a “menu” of climate change adaptation actions that are suitable for wildlife management in terrestrial ecosystems. This Wildlife Adaptation Menu will be modeled off existing adaptation menus for Forestry and Urban Forestry, and it will be designed to be used in conjunction with the Adaptation Workbook . In addition to a menu of adaption strategies and approaches, the scientists will also identify site-level tactics and develop case studies demonstrating the use and implementation of the menu. To ensure that information and tools meet the needs of managers, the team is involving and integrating input from wildlife managers at every step of the process. Managers will be involved in scoping the project, testing the menu, and implementing the menu.

Final Report↗
USGS2020

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2019 year in review postcard

Acting Chief’s Message Dear friends, I invite you to take a look at U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1463, “Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review,” now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1463 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program concerning fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, awards, accolades, and professional services. You will also see examples of unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by our cooperators. Throughout the year, keep up with our research projects at https://www1.usgs.gov/coopunits/Headquarters/ . Regards, John D. Thompson

General Information Product↗
USGS2005

Attitudinal survey component of the study Quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment : Report of methods and frequencies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 Year in Review, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1438, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1438 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the "Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2018 Year in Review," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1452, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1452 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program was involved in a number of notable events during 2017, many concerning our personnel. Dr. Barry Grand left his position as Leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to become the Cooperative Units Program Supervisor for the South, replacing Dr. Kevin Whalen who took over as Supervisor for the West. We welcomed Dr. Sarah Converse who left the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to become Leader of the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Dr. Amanda Rosenberger joined the Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit as Assistant Leader, transferring from the Missouri Cooperative Unit. Dr. Scott Carleton left his position as Assistant Unit Leader in New Mexico to become Chief of the Region 2 Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We said farewell to many colleagues who retired. Their departure is bittersweet as we wish them health, happiness, and wellness in retirement. We will miss their companionship and the extraordinary contributions they have made to the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program and conservation. The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program has a record high number of vacant scientist positions due to a combination of retirements and base funding short-falls. These issues are affecting our ability to meet cooperator needs. Yet, we remain highly productive. For example, this year we released a report ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1427 ) containing abstracts of nearly 600 of our research projects, covering thematic areas ranging from advanced technologies to wildlife diseases. We provided highly competent, trained scientists and natural resource managers for our cooperators’ workforce. We delivered technical training and guidance to professional practitioners. We provided critical information to cooperators for decisions on species status assessments and management of species of greatest conservation need. This year we had an active presence at major national meetings, including the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference where we co-sponsored a workshop on continuing education as a means to bridge the gap between science and management. During the coming year, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and our cooperators, we intend to reduce the number of vacancies in the program. It will take time and active support of our cooperators to get back to full strength, but I am committed to this goal and encouraged by the resolve of our partners. We look forward to an even more productive year in 2018!

Circular↗
USGS2012

Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion: Chapter 23 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

The Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) is located in eastern Oregon (58.7 percent), northern Nevada (20.6 percent), southwestern Idaho (14.8 percent), and northeastern California (5.9 percent), encompassing the northern extent of the hydrographic Great Basin (Grayson, 1993). The ecoregion, which covers approximately 110,039 km² (42,486 mi²) of land, is bordered on the west by the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills and the Sierra Nevada Ecoregions, on the north by the Blue Mountains and the Snake River Basin Ecoregions, and on the south by the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion (fig. 1). Much like the other Basin and Range ecoregions in the western United States (for example, Central Basin and Range, Mojave Basin and Range, and Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregions), the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion is characterized by basin-and-range topography. The ecoregion contains several wide basins bordered by scattered low mountains. Big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ), the predominant vegetation, is intermixed with grasslands. Despite regional aridity, natural springs and spring-fed wetlands are scattered around the landscape, sustaining much of the region’s wildlife (Oregon Department of State Lands, 2000).

California;Idaho;Nevada;Oregon↗
USGS2012

A history of herpetologists and herpetology in the U.S. Department of the Interior

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has a long and distinguished history of employing herpetologists to conduct basic and applied research to better manage amphibian and reptile populations on public lands and even outside the boundaries of the United States. This history extends back over 125 years with roots in the U.S. Biological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and later, the National Biological Service. In more recent times, the DOI employed more professional herpetologists than any single organization in the world, especially in the U.S. Geological Survey. In 1938, Henry Fitch was the first Interior scientist hired who conducted substantial herpetological research. William and Lucille Stickel of the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted herpetological research throughout the period from the 1940s-1980s but most DOI herpetologists were hired from 1975-80 with another hiring spike from 2000-2005. The former spike was congruent with early versions of the Endangered Species Act while the latter reflected growing recognition of global amphibian decline and the creation of the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative in DOI. Collectively, these herpetologists produced hundreds of books, scientific publications and other scholarly publications, many of which are classics in the literature. In addition, many have served as officers and on the boards of numerous scientific societies particularly those specializing in amphibian and reptile research. The DOI shows a continuing commitment to funding herpetological research by hiring young scientists to replace the aging ranks of herpetologists who started their careers in the 1970s. This commitment is critical given the global decline of both amphibians and reptiles, including those found on public lands in the United States.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology↗
USGS2015

Determining climate change management priorities: A case study from Wisconsin

A burgeoning dialogue exists regarding how to allocate resources to maximize the likelihood of long-term biodiversity conservation within the context of climate change. To make effective decisions in natural resource management, an iterative, collaborative, and learning-based decision process may be more successful than a strictly consultative approach. One important, early step in a decision process is to identify priority species or systems. Although this promotes the conservation of select species or systems, it may inadvertently alter the future of non-target species and systems. We describe a process to screen terrestrial wildlife for potential sensitivity to climate change and then use the results to engage natural resource professionals in a process of identifying priorities for monitoring, research, and adaptation strategy implementation. We demonstrate this approach using a case study from Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, experts identified 23 out of 353 species with sufficient empirical research and management understanding to inform targeted action. Habitat management and management of hydrological conditions were the common strategies for targeted action. Although there may be an interest in adaptation strategy implementation for many species and systems, experts considered existing information inadequate to inform targeted action. According to experts, 40% of the vertebrate species in Wisconsin will require near-term intervention for climate adaptation. These results will inform state-wide conservation planning as well as regional efforts.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2019

Recreational impacts to wildlife: Managing visitors and resources to protect wildlife

Publication Abstract: Visitor use management is essential for maximizing benefits for visitors while achieving and maintaining desired resource conditions and visitor experiences on federally managed lands and waters. Visitor capacity, a component of visitor use management, is defined as the maximum amounts and types of visitor use that an area can accommodate while achieving and maintaining the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences that are consistent with the purposes for which the area was established. This visitor capacity guidebook, in combination with the “Visitor Use Management Framework” (the framework), provides managers with processes to collaboratively develop long-term strategies to manage the amounts and types of visitor use to protect resources, improve access, connect visitors to key experiences, and achieve desired conditions. The purpose of this guidebook is to provide cohesive guidance on identifying and implementing visitor capacity on federally managed lands and waters. Similar to the framework, the sliding scale of analysis is discussed throughout this guidebook to ensure the investment of time, money, and other resources for a project is commensurate with the complexity of the project and the consequences of the decision. Overall, this guidebook is meant to expand on the framework and guide a professional and consistent approach to identifying and implementing visitor capacity. Paper Abstract: Most protected natural areas, including parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, are managed under a dual mandate to preserve predominantly natural settings and processes while also accommodating recreational visitation. Visitor activities can have deleterious impacts to protected area vegetation, soil, water, wildlife, and cultural resources. The term impact denotes undesirable visitor-related effects to natural resources and/or wildlife. This paper reviews the management of recreation impacts to wildlife, including discussions of influential factors, impact indicators, and the range of management responses. This information is provided to assist recreation and land managers in avoiding or minimizing visitor impact to wildlife, particularly related to decision-making within the new Visitor Use Management (VUM) framework. Such decision-making requires a thorough understanding of the different types of wildlife impact and the use-related, environmental, and managerial factors that influence them.

Report↗
USGS2023

Social and biological perspectives to investigate and address illegal shooting of raptors

Humans have shot raptors for centuries. However, in many countries these actions have been illegal since the mid-twentieth century. Despite this history, there is not a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of this activity, its frequency, and why it occurs. We used literature review and principles drawn from ecology, sociology, and criminology to understand this problem. First, we review literature on raptor shooting globally to explore documented motivations for shooting and we describe the history of raptor shooting in the United States of America (USA). Then, to illustrate the contemporary frequency and geographic breadth of the shooting of raptors, we systematically compile records from scientific and media reports from across the USA. Finally, we outline a transdisciplinary framework to meet the challenge of understanding and managing illegal shooting of raptors. Our framework encompasses six best practices: (1) understand the biology of the problem, (2) build professional networks and partnerships, (3) leverage engagement and public support, (4) apply insights from study of human-wildlife interactions, (5) draw lessons from criminology, and (6) use implementation science to evaluate outcomes. We illustrate application of these best practices with a case study from an Illegal Shooting Working Group recently formed in Boise, Idaho, USA. There is growing recognition that illegal shooting of raptors is a pressing conservation challenge. Solving this challenge can be facilitated by inclusion of information from multiple fields of study; the approach we outline provides one potential mechanism to address this issue.

Global Ecology and Conservation↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review postcard

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 Year in Review postcard This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program—2016 Year in Review, Circular 1424. This Circular provides information relating to fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, background on the CRU program, accolades, and professional services. Snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators are included. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with our research projects at www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2013

Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. state wildlife action plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large-scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide-ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide-ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state-specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community-wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2000

The Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and wildlife education: Historic development, future challenges

In 1932, J. N. 'Ding' Darling proposed a 3-year tripartite arrangement between the Iowa Fish and Game Commission, Iowa State University, and himself to establish the first Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. Three years later, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Program was broadened to include 9 land-grant colleges representing recognized ecoregions in the United States. In 1960, the Units were given statutory recognition by Public Law 86-686 that also included provision for establishing Cooperative Fishery Units. The Cooperative Research Unit idea has evolved to 39 Units in 2000. Today, the main cooperators of the Unit program are the land-grant university, the state fish and game or conservation agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The Cooperative Units mission, as stated in Public Law 86-686, remains: 'To facilitate cooperation between the Federal Government, colleges and universities, and private organizations for cooperative unit programs of research and education relating to fish and wildlife and for other purposes.' Graduate research and education continue to be the program's primary missions. In any given year >600 graduate and post-graduate students are involved. Post-graduate employment of Unit-afffiliated students is >90%. Perhaps the primary benefit to the education process is the Units' formal connection to the state cooperator and to their federal agency that might not otherwise be available to university faculty and students. Units are conduits to state and federal funding for research projects conducted by university faculty and students. The CRU program is well positioned to educate a multitalented, ethnically diverse cadre of graduate students who will be prepared not only for their first professional job but also for their career by having been instilled with a desire for life-long professional accomplishment.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗