Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlifer”

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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2017

Semi-quantitative assessment of disease risks at the human, livestock, wildlife interface for the Republic of Korea using a nationwide survey of experts: A model for other countries

Wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens have increased in importance; however, management of a large number of diseases and diversity of hosts is prohibitively expensive. Thus, the determination of priority wildlife pathogens and risk factors for disease emergence is warranted. We used an online questionnaire survey to assess release and exposure risks, and consequences of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens in the Republic of Korea (ROK). We also surveyed opinions on pathways for disease exposure, and risk factors for disease emergence and spread. For the assessment of risk, we employed a two-tiered, statistical K -means clustering algorithm to group diseases into three levels (high, medium and low) of perceived risk based on release and exposure risks, societal consequences and the level of uncertainty of the experts’ opinions. To examine the experts’ perceived risk of routes of introduction of pathogens and disease amplification and spread, we used a Bayesian, multivariate normal order-statistics model. Six diseases or pathogens, including four livestock and two wildlife diseases, were identified as having high risk with low uncertainty. Similarly, 13 diseases were characterized as having high risk with medium uncertainty with three of these attributed to livestock, six associated with human disease, and the remainder having the potential to affect human, livestock and wildlife (i.e., One Health). Lastly, four diseases were described as high risk with high certainty, and were associated solely with fish diseases. Experts identified migration of wildlife, international human movement and illegal importation of wildlife as the three routes posing the greatest risk of pathogen introduction into ROK. Proximity of humans, livestock and wildlife was the most significant risk factor for promoting the spread of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens, followed by high density of livestock populations, habitat loss and environmental degradation, and climate change. This study provides useful information to decision makers responsible for allocating resources to address disease risks. This approach provided a rapid, cost-effective method of risk assessment of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens for which the published literature is sparse.

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases↗
USGS2019

Proposed attributes of national wildlife health programmes

Wildlife health is important for conservation, healthy ecosystems, sustainable development, and biosecurity. It presents unique challenges for national programme governance and delivery because wildlife health crosses not only jurisdictional responsibilities and authorities but also inherently spans multiple sectors of expertise. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) encourages its Members to have wildlife disease monitoring and notification systems. Where national wildlife health surveillance programmes do exist, they vary in scope and size. Evidence-based guidance is lacking on the critical functions and roles needed to meet the OIE’s recommendations and other expectations of a national programme. A literature review and consultation with national wildlife health programme leaders identified five key attributes of national programmes including: (1) being knowledge and science based; (2) fostering cross-nation equivalence and harmonisation; (3) developing partnerships and national coordination; (4) providing leadership and administration of national efforts and (5) capacity development. Proposed core purposes include: (1) establishing and communication of the national wildlife health status; (2) leading national planning; (3) centralising information and expertise; (4) developing national networks leading to harmonisation and collaborations; (5) developing wildlife health workforces and (6) centralising administration and management of national programmes. A national wildlife health programme should aim to identify, effectively communicate, and manage the risk to or from a country’s wildlife populations. It should generate the appropriate knowledge required to improve the effectiveness of wildlife policies and systems, including identifyinhttp://www.oie.int/en/publications-and-documentation/scientific-and-technical-review-free-access/peer-reviewed-papers-for-the-plurithematic-review-2018/g and assessing emerging priorities, thus increasing warning for preparedness and preventive actions.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
USGS2004

Importance of salmon to wildlife: Implications for integrated management

Salmon ( Oncorhynchuss pp.) are an important resource for terrestrial wildlife. However, the salmon requirements of wildlife populations and the role wildlife play in nutrient transport across ecosystems are largely ignored in salmon and habitat management. Any activity that reduces the availability of or access to salmon by wildlife may adversely affect wildlife populations and, potentially, ecosystem-level processes. Thus, when the conservation of specific wildlife populations or healthy ecosystems is the management objective, allocation of salmon to wildlife should be considered. We provide an example of how such allocations could be calculated for a hypothetical bear population. Ultimately, salmon allocation for wildlife calls for integrated management of natural resources across agencies, across species, and across ecosystems. We summarize the current state of knowledge relative to the interaction between Pacific salmon and the terrestrial ecosystem , with special emphasis on the import of salmon to terrestrial wildlife and the import of wildlife to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

Ursus↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey—Energy and wildlife research annual report for 2017

Introduction Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems provide valuable services to humans and are a source of clean water, energy, raw materials, and productive soils. The Nation’s food supply is more secure because of wildlife. For example, native pollinators enhance agricultural crops, and insect-eating bats provide pest control services worth billions of dollars to farmers annually. Fish and wildlife are also vital to a vibrant outdoor recreation and tourism industry. Recreational activities, such as hunting, shooting, boating, and angling, generated \$1.1 billion in excise taxes paid to State wildlife agencies in 2017. National parks, wildlife refuges, and monuments accounted for $35 billion in economic output and 318,000 jobs nationwide in 2016. Additional economic benefits are generated from the use and enjoyment of wildlife in State-owned lands and waters. Although the United States is rich in natural resources, human activity continues to place new pressures on fish and wildlife and the habitats they rely on. The United States became the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas products in 2012, surpassing Russia’s natural gas production levels in 2009 and Saudi Arabia’s petroleum production in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the demand for liquid fuel, natural gas, and renewable energy will show strong growth in the next 20 years. Wind energy has demonstrated consistent growth since 2007 with now more than 53,000 wind turbines contributing to power grids in 41 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Solar energy has seen rapid growth since 2013 and made up nearly one-third of the total electricity generation additions in 2016. Yet as our Nation works to advance energy security and sustain wildlife, some conflicts have surfaced. Impacts of an expanding energy infrastructure include fragmentation and loss of habitat as well as mortality of birds, bats, fish, and other animals from interactions with energy generation facilities. Because energy development can often occur in wildlife habitats, ecological science can help guide project siting and operational decisions to areas that present the lowest risk to wildlife and energy developers. To address these challenges and make the most of new opportunities, the U.S. Geological Survey is producing innovative science to develop workable solutions that can help sustain wildlife and the habitat they rely upon, while allowing informed development.

Circular↗
USGS2006

Educating veterinarians for careers in free-ranging wildlife medicine and ecosystem health

In the last 10 years, the field of zoological medicine has seen an expansive broadening into the arenas of free-ranging wildlife, conservation medicine, and ecosystem health. During the spring/summer of 2005, we prepared and disseminated a survey designed to identify training and educational needs for individuals entering the wildlife medicine and ecosystem health fields. Our data revealed that few wildlife veterinarians believe that the training they received in veterinary school adequately prepared them to acquire and succeed in their field. Wildlife veterinarians and their employers ranked mentorship with an experienced wildlife veterinarian, training in leadership and communication, courses and externships in wildlife health, and additional formal training beyond the veterinary degree as important in preparation for success. Employers, wildlife veterinarians, and job seekers alike reported that understanding and maintaining ecosystem health is a key component of the wildlife veterinarian's job description, as it is critical to protecting animal health, including human health. Today's wildlife veterinarians are a new type of transdisciplinary professional; they practice medicine in their communities and hold titles in every level of government and academia. It is time that we integrate ecosystem health into our curricula to nurture and enhance an expansive way of looking at veterinary medicine and to ensure that veterinary graduates are prepared to excel in this new and complex world, in which the health of wildlife, domestic animals, and people are interdependent.

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education↗
USGS2018

Effect of climate change on disease spread in wildlife

A growing body of evidence indicates that climate change alone, or acting synergistically with current anthropogenic threats, is affecting the health of wild populations of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Measurable by-products of climate change include elevated atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, higher average global temperatures; variations in global precipitation patterns, rising and warming oceans, altered hydrographs of rivers, and increased mid-continental drying during summer. These consequences affect the terrestrial environment through shifts in phenology, vegetation cover, and fire regimes. Warmer ocean temperatures, increased acidification, rise in sea levels, and reduction in sea ice cover are also leading to widespread ecological changes in marine systems. Wildlife populations face a variety of climate-related pressures, such as changes in animal distribution or density, limitation of food resources, and alteration to critical habitats. The increased potential for emergence and resurgence of diseases that are responsive to environmental conditions also has implications for wildlife populations. Shifts in temperature or other climatic factors may directly affect the incidence of disease in wildlife by altering host-pathogen interactions, promoting vector populations or allowing new ranges for vectors, or reducing development times for parasites. A number of examples from both field and laboratory studies have demonstrated a clear link between warming environments and disease spread. Many climate-related environmental changes also influence wildlife health indirectly. For example, increasing temperatures, in combination with shifts in rainfall and humidity, may aggravate current trends for water resource limitation and habitat degradation or destruction and lead to increased crowding of animal populations, thereby promoting transmission opportunities of pathogens within populations or across species. Although it may be difficult to disentangle the influences of other anthropogenic changes from the direct effects of warming, some ecosystems provide especially useful models for studying climate-related disease spread in wildlife. For example, the effects of climate change on parasite dynamics may be easily observed in the Arctic, where environmental changes are occurring rapidly, anthropogenic influences are relatively limited, and biodiversity is generally low. Marine ecosystems are also undergoing rapid rates of change and may be vulnerable to a variety of natural and anthropogenic perturbations. Although many factors affect the health of organisms in ocean environments, temperature has been clearly linked to an increase in disease prevalence among sessile organisms such as corals. In this chapter, we discuss observed and predicted changes to wildlife health resulting from climate change. Our review will not include all aspects of wildlife health, but will instead focus on established or suspected links between climate drivers and disease spread and discuss examples from the current literature. Here, we define disease spread to include: 1) change in geographical or altitudinal distribution of pathogens, parasites, and vectors and the diseases they cause; 2) change in prevalence or severity of disease; and 3) emergence of novel diseases. Additionally, because wildlife species serve as reservoirs for zoonotic diseases that affect both animals and humans, we include select examples of the effect of climate change on the capacity of wildlife to harbor and spread these disease agents.

Book chapter↗
USGS2004

Global climate change and wildlife in North America

It is widely accepted by the scientific community that the earth, which has always experienced climate variation, is now undergoing a period of rapid climate change that is enhanced by anthropogenic atmospheric carbon enrichment during the past 100 years. These climatic changes are accelerating and projections for the next 100 years indicate extensive warming in most (but not all) areas, changing patterns of precipitation, and a significant acceleration of sea level rise. Other likely components of ongoing climate change include changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus daytime temperatures, declining snowpack, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events. The many components of climate change, and especially the unprecedented rapid rate of change, are just as important as increasing temperatures. Wildlife species are closely adapted to their environments and readily respond to climate variation. However, as discussed in this technical review, the climate change now underway has extensive potential to affect wildlife throughout North America, either directly or indirectly through responses to changing habitat conditions. When considered in combination with other factors (e.g., pollution, ozone depletion, urbanization, etc.), the potential effect is even greater. The effects of climate change on populations and range distributions of wildlife are expected to be species specific and highly variable, with some effects considered negative and others considered positive. In North America the ranges of habitats and wildlife are predicted to generally move northward as temperatures increase. Variations in this overall pattern will be dependent upon specific local conditions, changing precipitation patterns, and the response of different species to different components of climate change. It follows that the structure of plant–animal communities will also change. Ignoring climate change is likely to increasingly result in failure to reach wildlife management objectives. Wildlife managers need to become knowledgeable about climate change, ways to cope with it, and ways to take advantage of it. Management options currently available include protecting coastal wetlands to allow for sea level rise, reducing the risks to wildlife from potential catastrophic events, adjusting yield and harvest models, accounting for known climatic variations, and taking climate change into consideration when selecting the location and other characteristics of conservation areas. Wildlife managers also need to expect the unexpected and reduce nonclimate stressors on ecosystems. Overall, wildlife managers can minimize negative impacts to wildlife and take advantage of positive aspects by planning ahead and employing adaptive management.

Technical Review↗
USGS2022

Antibiotic resistance in free-ranging wildlife

In this chapter, we provide an overview of antimicrobial resistant (AMR) bacteria in wildlife through the presentation of general trends of occurrence among both captive and free-ranging wild animal populations, discussion of importance to human health and wildlife conservation, and identification of priority areas for future research and monitoring efforts. Once most commonly identified in humans and domestic animals, AMR bacteria have now been reported to be widespread among free-ranging and captive wildlife and the broader environment. Antimicrobial resistance has been identified in wildlife inhabiting nearly every country, region, and habitat type from which samples have been obtained, although occurrence may be more common in animals that occupy anthropogenically impacted environments. Though AMR bacteria identified in free-ranging wildlife have generally not been associated with direct health impacts to the host, specific bacteria and types of resistance found in wildlife may be clinically relevant to humans. Furthermore, AMR bacteria harbored by captive or free-ranging animals may complicate veterinary treatment of captive, rare, or vulnerable wildlife provided care. Future investigations may obtain important information on the acquisition and dissemination of AMR bacteria by wildlife through the comparison of resistance harbored by bacteria from wildlife and the environments they occupy. The identification of specific environmental pathways through which resistance may be acquired would help to guide the development of intervention strategies to interrupt further spread of antimicrobial resistance to, from, and among wildlife. Implications of such strategies may also extend more broadly to promote domestic animal, human, and environmental health.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation in State Wildlife Action Plans and Other Management Plans

The Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation into State Wildlife Actions Plans and other Management Plans aims to help state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate climate change adaptation for fish and wildlife and their habitats into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) and other natural resource management plans. This update to the original 2009 Voluntary Guidance reflects the advancements in climate science and in our understanding and implementation of climate adaptation developed over the past 13 years. The document provides principles and tools that can be used to plan for and implement climate change adaptation, voluntary guidance for incorporating climate change into the existing required elements of SWAPs, and case studies to demonstrate adaptation strategies deployed by states in their management efforts. Climate change continues to be a significant issue for wildlife and natural systems and for the people who rely on the ecosystem services they provide. There is now a well-established and growing scientific literature on the impacts of climate change on wildlife and their habitats, including climate-driven range shifts, population changes, and even species extinctions. At the same time, efforts to address climate change impacts can be made in cooperation with efforts to address other threats, including habitat loss/fragmentation from development, introduction of invasive species, water pollution, and wildlife diseases, many of which may be exacerbated by climate change. Since climate change is a complex and often politically charged issue, it is understood that the decision to revise SWAPs, or other plans, to address climate change rests solely with each state fish and wildlife agency. All states are required to update their SWAPs by 2025 to qualify for federal funding. Although consideration of climate change is not a requirement for this revision of SWAPs, assessing the impacts of climate change and identifying species and habitats vulnerable to those impacts can help states meet the required eight elements for the revision and prepare for funding opportunities that can support climate adaptation efforts. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, if passed by the Senate, would provide billions of dollars to states to implement SWAPs, including addressing climate change impacts on fish and wildlife. The Voluntary Guidance Document introduces and explains seven overarching principles for incorporating climate adaptation into SWAPs. These principles (found in Chapter 2) are: 1. Fully integrate climate change into SWAPs 2. Adopt forward-looking goals 3. Explicitly link actions to climate vulnerabilities 4. Manage for change, not just persistence 5. Consider broader landscapes and longer timeframes 6. Address uncertainty by considering future scenarios and use of adaptive management 7. Engage diverse partners with climate experience and expertise

Report↗
USGS2022

A menu of climate change adaptation actions for terrestrial wildlife management

The real-world application of climate change adaptation practices in terrestrial wildlife conservation has been slowed by a lack of practical guidance for wildlife managers. Although there is a rapidly growing body of literature on the topic of climate change adaptation and wildlife management, the literature is weighted towards a narrow range of adaptation actions and administrative or policy recommendations that are typically beyond the decision space and influence of wildlife professionals. We developed a menu of tiered adaptation actions for terrestrial wildlife management to translate broad concepts into actionable approaches to help managers respond to climate change risks and meet desired management goals. The menu includes actions related to managing wildlife populations as well as managing wildlife habitat. We designed this resource to be used with the Adaptation Workbook, a structured decision-support tool for climate adaptation. We describe real-world examples in which managers have used the Wildlife Adaptation Menu to integrate climate adaptation considerations into wildlife management and conservation projects. Our examples illustrate how a comprehensive and structured menu of adaptation approaches can help managers brainstorm specific actions and more easily and clearly communicate the intent of their climate adaptation efforts.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2017

Wildlife governance in the 21st century—Will sustainable use endure?

In light of the trajectory of wildlife governance in the United States, the future of sustainable use of wildlife is a topic of substantial interest in the wildlife conservation community. We examine sustainable-use principles with respect to “good governance” considerations and public trust administration principles to assess how sustainable use might fare in the 21st century. We conclude that sustainable-use principles are compatible with recently articulated wildlife governance principles and could serve to mitigate broad values and norm shifts in American society that affect social acceptability of particular uses. Wildlife governance principles emphasize inclusive discourse among diverse wildlife interests, which could minimize isolated exchanges among cliques of like-minded people pursuing their ambitions without seeking opportunity for sharing or understanding diverse views. Aligning governance practices with wildlife governance principles can help avoid such isolation. In summary, sustainable use of wildlife is likely to endure as long as society 1) believes the long-term sustainability of wildlife is not jeopardized, and 2) accepts practices associated with such use as legitimate. These are 2 criteria needing constant attention.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS1988

Air pollution and wildlife toxicology: An overlooked problem

Since the 1880s, there have been repeated reports worldwide of toxic effects to wildlife from air pollution . Incidents in North America were recorded as early as the 1920s and as recently as last year. The effects have ranged from death and injury to increased incidence of infectious diseases, and they are the result of exposure to both gaseous and particulate emissions. Compared with other threats to wildlife , for instance, pesticides, the toxicological relationship between air pollution and effects in wildlife is not well understood. Our limited understanding is based primarily on reports of symptoms observed in the field and on information extrapolated from studies in livestock and laboratory animals. Few controlled wildlife studies, such as those that have evaluated pesticide effects, have been conducted. Current air quality standards cannot be assumed to protect wildlife from the effects of air pollution . This article reviews the current state of knowledge of air pollution and wildlife toxicology and the continuing threat air pollution presents to wildlife . The available information on reported effects of gaseous and particulate pollutants (i.e., sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, oxidants, arsenic, cadmium, fluoride, lead and selenium) on terrestrial wildlife , along with similar toxicological data for domestic animals, is summarized. Information on the toxic effects, tolerance levels, pathways of contamination, and risks to wildlife from air pollution is given, and gaps in knowledge are pointed out. Areas where research is needed are identified. Copyright © 1988 SETAC

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗
USGS2016

Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century

Wildlife conservation is losing ground in the U.S. for many reasons. The net effect is declines in species and habitat. To address this trend, the wildlife conservation institution (i.e., all customs, practices, organizations and agencies, policies, and laws with respect to wildlife) must adapt to contemporary social–ecological conditions. Adaptation could be supported by clear guidelines reflecting contemporary expectations for wildlife governance. We combine elements of public trust thinking and good governance to produce a broad set of wildlife governance principles. These principles represent guidance for ecologically and socially responsible wildlife conservation. They address persistent, systemic problems and, if adopted, will bring the institution into line with modern expectations for governance of public natural resources. Implementation will require changes in values, objectives, and processes of the wildlife conservation institution. These changes may be difficult, but promise improved wildlife conservation outcomes and increased support for conservation. We introduce challenges and opportunities associated with the principles, and encourage dialogue about them among scientists, practitioners, and other leaders in U.S. wildlife conservation. The principles alone will not change the course of conservation for the better, but may be necessary for such change to occur.

Conservation Letters↗
USGS2017

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

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
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↗
USGS2022

WHISPers—Providing situational awareness of wildlife disease threats to the Nation—A fact sheet for the biosurveillance community

Solutions for emerging infectious disease and bioterror threats can be improved by incorporating integrated biodefense strategies, including improved surveillance for animal and zoonotic diseases, strong national leadership, and effective management tools. Active biosurveillance for disease events is key to early detection, warning, and overall situational awareness and enables better communication, coordination, decision making, and data-driven responses. The national biosurveillance infrastructure has well-established channels for human and domestic animal health data through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Agriculture, and State, county, and local authorities. Wildlife disease information, however, has been more challenging to acquire and access, in part, due to the comparatively small infrastructure and resources dedicated to wildlife health and also because regulatory authority for wildlife and wildlife health is split among Federal, State, Tribal, and indigenous natural resource authorities. To address these issues, the Wildlife Health Information Sharing Partnership-event reporting system (WHISPers; https://whispers.usgs.gov ) was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center to promote collaboration and sharing of wildlife health information and to provide situational awareness and timely information about wildlife disease threats. WHISPers is a free science gateway and data portal that provides interactive query, display, reporting, and export capabilities for wildlife health event summary information.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2020

Human dimensions considerations in wildlife disease management

In 1943, Aldo Leopold observed that the real problem of wildlife management is not how to handle wildlife, but how to manage humans. As with any other aspect of wildlife management, social sciences can improve understanding the human dimensions of wildlife disease management (WDM). Human activities have accelerated the emergence of wildlife diseases, and human concerns about the ecological, social, and economic impacts of wildlife diseases and their management have led to diseases becoming headline-worthy public issues. This chapter provides guidance to help front-line professionals understand and address the public’s perspectives and behaviors relevant to WDM. This chapter focuses on practical needs of wildlife disease managers who have to consider and interact with specific stakeholders and the broader public. The chapter does not dive deeply into social science; instead it briefly reviews some concepts that are most relevant to WDM. The chapter also suggests where to look for assistance and additional resources for further reading. Following brief introductory comments, the chapter is organized around a simple model of the general process for WDM. It addresses three key areas where social science can assist in WDM—audience research to understand stakeholders; engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management; and using risk communication about wildlife diseases and disease management to inspire risk-wise behavior.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2020

Managing state lands for wildlife

State-owned lands are a vital component of state fish and wildlife management programs because they contain valuable habitats for a diversity of wild species and often provide important public access. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA 2017) reported state agencies manage or administer approximately 188 million hectares of land, including 10 million hectares under fee title ownership with the remainder of those lands leased or licensed in conservation agreements, grazing allotments, or rights-of-ways. State agencies commonly strive to enhance wildlife habitats within their purview, but have also improved areas not directly owned by them. In total, an estimated 22,953,364 additional hectares have been improved by state fish and wildlife agencies through private landowner agreements (AFWA 2017). States also own 192,000 individual water rights and have developed at least 53,000 formal partnership agreements to conserve wildlife. Today, there are a plethora of state land categories including wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, state forests, parks and trails, state trust lands, research and natural areas, and public fishing areas. Acquisition and/or leasing of properties to provide access for fishing and hunting are often vitally important in meeting local constituents’ desires for consumptive uses of their natural resources. However, state agencies also provide areas for forest conservation, boating, camping, hiking, rock hounding, skiing, wildlife viewing, and other nonconsumptive recreational pursuits. Lastly, states often acquire properties primarily for wildlife habitat management/conservation or to preserve areas of cultural and historic value to their citizens.

Book chapter↗