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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2016

Where the wild things are: A research agenda for studying wildlife-wilderness relationship

We explore the connection between US designated wilderness areas and wildlife with the goal of establishing a research agenda for better understanding this complex relationship. Our research agenda has two components. The first, “wildlife for wilderness,” considers the impact of wildlife on wilderness character. Whereas studies show that wildlife is important in both the perception and actual enhancement of wilderness character, the context and particulars of this relationship have not been evaluated. For instance, is knowing that a rare, native species is present in a wilderness area enough to increase perceptions of naturalness (an important wilderness quality)? Or does the public need to observe the species or its sign (e.g., tracks) for this benefit? The second part of our research agenda, “wilderness for wildlife,” considers the types of research needed to understand the impact of wilderness areas on wildlife and biodiversity conservation. Several studies show the effect of one area being designated wilderness on one wildlife species. Yet, there has been no research that examines how the networks of wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) are used by a species or a community of species. Furthermore, we found no studies that focused on how the NWPS affects ecological or trophic interactions among species. We hope that by providing a research agenda, we can spur multiple lines of research on the topic of wildlife and wilderness.

Journal of Forestry↗
USGS2012

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge: Lake Lowell water based recreation data summary

Introduction: Established in 1909, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is one of the oldest refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge has two units, Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands. The Lake Lowell Unit is 10,636 acres and includes the almost 9,000-acre Lake Lowell and surrounding lands. The Refuge offers the six priority wildlife-dependent activities (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife interpretation, wildlife photography and environmental education) as defined in The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as well as other non-wildlife-dependent activities. The purpose of this study is to describe use characteristics of recreational boaters on Lake Lowell. This study does not address use in other parts of the Refuge or other recreational activities. The sampling and data collection consisted of observations of boat activity made from fixed vantage points on the west and east pools of Lake Lowell to develop vessels-at-one-time (VAOT) estimates for three areas: the West Pool, the Headquarters section of the East Pool, and the East section of the East Pool. A complete description of the sampling locations and a map are provided below Traffic counters were also used to collect data on the number of vehicles entering the parking lots. Data were collected between April 15 and September 30, 2011.

Idaho↗
USGS2019

Confronting uncertainty: Contributions of the wildlife profession to the broader scientific community

Most wildlife professionals are engaged in 1 or both of 2 basic endeavors: science and management. These endeavors are a focus of many other disciplines, leading to widespread sharing of general methodologies. Wildlife professionals have appropriately borrowed and assimilated many methods developed primarily in other disciplines but have also led the development of one class of quantitative methods, those that confront and incorporate uncertainty. Uncertainty arises in counts of focal entities, for which wildlife professionals have developed effective methods to deal with the common problems of nondetection and misclassification. These methods have been borrowed by disciplines as varied as paleobiology, medicine, human epidemiology, industrial quality control, military target acquisition, remote sensing, and human census. Uncertainty also arises in the modeling of those counts, specifically the observation and ecological processes that generated them. Wildlife professionals recognized the fundamental importance of model selection and rapidly assimilated methods for selecting the most appropriate model for a given data set. These methods for dealing with uncertainty inherent to counting and modeling are critical to the conduct of science and management. Wildlife professionals have developed additional methods for incorporating uncertainty in the accumulation of knowledge and the development of optimal decisions in an environment of learning. In some cases, professionals in other disciplines are using methods developed and popularized in the wildlife profession, but there is much potential for greater use. In this essay, I describe these areas of wildlife leadership, document their assimilation by other disciplines, and emphasize the potential for more interdisciplinary use of these methods.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2001

Statistics for wildlifers: how much and what kind?

Quantitative methods are playing increasingly important roles in wildlife ecology and, ultimately, management. This change poses a challenge for wildlife practitioners and students who are not well-educated in mathematics and statistics. Here we give our opinions on what wildlife biologists should know about statistics, while recognizing that not everyone is inclined mathematically. For those who are, we recommend that they take mathematics coursework at least through calculus and linear algebra. They should take statistics courses that are focused conceptually , stressing the Why rather than the How of doing statistics. For less mathematically oriented wildlifers, introductory classes in statistical techniques will furnish some useful background in basic methods but may provide little appreciation of when the methods are appropriate. These wildlifers will have to rely much more on advice from statisticians. Far more important than knowing how to analyze data is an understanding of how to obtain and recognize good data. Regardless of the statistical education they receive, all wildlife biologists should appreciate the importance of controls, replication, and randomization in studies they conduct. Understanding these concepts requires little mathematical sophistication, but is critical to advancing the science of wildlife ecology.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2026

How wildlife respond to tropical cyclones: Short-term tactics and long-term impacts

From butterflies to lizards and from sharks to seabirds, wildlife exhibit tactics to survive the impacts of tropical cyclones, also known as hurricanes, cyclones, or typhoons depending on where they occur. Some species seek refuge during the storm by moving, some remain in place and ride it out, and others move longer distances, avoiding the main impacts of the storm altogether. Tropical cyclones can have direct impacts on wildlife (e.g. mortality) but can also have indirect effects by altering resources and habitat, with downstream impacts on abundance and recruitment. Using examples from across taxa and ecosystems, we explore the pathways by which tropical cyclones can influence wildlife populations and communities. We describe tactics demonstrated by wildlife that enable them to survive the immediate impacts of the storm, as well as the longer-term impacts after the storm. We give examples of tropical cyclones as a selective pressure and as a facilitator for the introduction of invasive species. We also describe how tropical cyclones may provide a net benefit to some native species. The ecological and evolutionary impacts of tropical cyclones on wildlife can be complex, as they are often intertwined with concurrent pressures from land-use change, human development, and climate change. As the frequency of intense tropical cyclones is predicted to increase globally, identifying the mechanisms by which wildlife cope with such disturbances can aid in understanding and mitigating the impacts of climate change on wildlife.

Biological Reviews↗
USGS2016

Future frequencies of extreme weather events in the National Wildlife Refuges of the conterminous U.S.

Climate change is a major challenge for managers of protected areas world-wide, and managers need information about future climate conditions within protected areas. Prior studies of climate change effects in protected areas have largely focused on average climatic conditions. However, extreme weather may have stronger effects on wildlife populations and habitats than changes in averages. Our goal was to quantify future changes in the frequency of extreme heat, drought, and false springs, during the avian breeding season, in 415 National Wildlife Refuges in the conterminous United States. We analyzed spatially detailed data on extreme weather frequencies during the historical period (1950–2005) and under different scenarios of future climate change by mid- and late-21st century. We found that all wildlife refuges will likely experience substantial changes in the frequencies of extreme weather, but the types of projected changes differed among refuges. Extreme heat is projected to increase dramatically in all wildlife refuges, whereas changes in droughts and false springs are projected to increase or decrease on a regional basis. Half of all wildlife refuges are projected to see increases in frequency (> 20% higher than the current rate) in at least two types of weather extremes by mid-century. Wildlife refuges in the Southwest and Pacific Southwest are projected to exhibit the fastest rates of change, and may deserve extra attention. Climate change adaptation strategies in protected areas, such as the U.S. wildlife refuges, may need to seriously consider future changes in extreme weather, including the considerable spatial variation of these changes.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2023

Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict

Climate change and human–wildlife conflict are both pressing challenges for biodiversity conservation and human well-being in the Anthropocene. Climate change is a critical yet underappreciated amplifier of human–wildlife conflict, as it exacerbates resource scarcity, alters human and animal behaviours and distributions, and increases human–wildlife encounters. We synthesize evidence of climate-driven conflicts occurring among ten taxonomic orders, on six continents and in all five oceans. Such conflicts disrupt both subsistence livelihoods and industrial economies and may accelerate the rate at which human–wildlife conflict drives wildlife declines. We introduce a framework describing distinct environmental, ecological and sociopolitical pathways through which climate variability and change percolate via complex social–ecological systems to influence patterns and outcomes of human–wildlife interactions. Identifying these pathways allows for developing mitigation strategies and proactive policies to limit the impacts of human–wildlife conflict on biodiversity conservation and human well-being in a changing climate.

Nature Climate Change↗
USGS2020

The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation

We introduced a multilevel model of value shift to describe the changing social context of wildlife conservation. Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. Such shifts create emergent effects (e.g., new interest groups) and challenges to wildlife management organizations (e.g., increased conflict) and dramatically alter the sociopolitical context of conservation decisions. Although this model is likely applicable to many modernized countries, we tested it with data from a 2017–2018 nationwide survey (mail and email panel) of 43,949 residents in the United States. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling and correlational analysis to examine relationships. Modernization variables had strong state-level effects on domination and mutualism. Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values. Values affected attitudes toward wildlife management challenges; for example, states with higher proportions of mutualists were less supportive of lethal control of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and had lower percentages of active hunters, who represent the traditional clientele of state wildlife agencies in the United States. We contend that agencies will need to embrace new strategies to engage and represent a growing segment of the public with mutualism values. Our model merits testing for application in other countries.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2026

Landscape connectivity and wildlife access to water across an international border: Barriers and opportunities for facilitating transboundary movement

Rapid global acceleration in the construction of physical barriers along international borders has greatly influenced biodiversity and animal movement. Physical barriers can fragment landscapes, hinder access to essential resources, impact long-distance migrations, and inhibit dispersal and gene flow. The effects of physical barriers on animal movement and landscape connectivity can be exacerbated in dryland environments where access to water is a limiting factor. In recent decades, the construction of border barrier infrastructure has accelerated along the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. Here, we used a landscape connectivity model to investigate the effects of barriers on wildlife access to the river in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We used a modified omnidirectional connectivity model to compare access to the river for three large, terrestrial mammal species across three border barrier scenarios: (1) a landscape without border barriers; (2) a landscape with the existing barrier system; and (3) a potential future landscape with a continuous barrier system. The existing barrier system includes many discrete sections of barrier within tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge or on lands associated with the region's flood control system. Our results indicate that the existing border barriers can impede connectivity and wildlife access to the river in some areas, while some existing gaps between border barrier sections can serve as conduits for wildlife movement and river access. Our future scenario results show how a potential continuous border barrier system could further impede wildlife access to the river. We discuss management and landscape conservation options for enhancing wildlife access to water and riverine habitats. Collectively, our results illustrate the potential effects of border barriers on wildlife movement and access to water, providing information that can be used to better anticipate and lessen the ecological impacts of transboundary barriers.

Tamaulipas, Texas↗
USGS2018

International meeting on sarcoptic mange in wildlife, June 2018, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Sarcoptic mange is a globally distributed disease caused by the burrowing mite Sarcoptes scabiei , which also causes scabies in humans. A wide and increasing number of wild mammal species are reported to be susceptible to mange; however, the impacts of the disease in wildlife populations, mechanisms involved in its eco-epidemiological dynamics, and risks to public and ecosystem health are still unclear. Major gaps exist concerning S. scabiei host specificity and the mechanisms involved in the different presentations of the disease, which change between individuals and species. Immunological responses to the mite may have a relevant role explaining these different susceptibilities, as these affect the clinical signs, and consequently, the severity of the disease. Recently, some studies have suggested sarcoptic mange as an emerging threat for wildlife, based on several outbreaks with increased severity, geographical expansions, and novel wild hosts affected. Disease ecology experts convened for the “International Meeting on Sarcoptic Mange in Wildlife” on 4–5 June 2018, hosted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. The meeting had a structure of (i) pre-workshop review; (ii) presentation and discussions; and (iii) identification of priority research questions to understand sarcoptic mange in wildlife. The workgroup concluded that research priorities should be on determining the variation in modes of transmission for S. scabiei in wildlife, factors associated with the variation of disease severity among species, and long-terms effects of the mange in wildlife populations. In this note we summarize the main discussions and research gaps identified by the experts.

Parasites & Vectors↗
USGS2020

Possibility for reverse zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to free-ranging wildlife: A case study of bats

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the substantial public health, economic, and societal consequences of virus spillover from a wildlife reservoir. Widespread human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also presents a new set of challenges when considering viral spillover from people to naïve wildlife and other animal populations. The establishment of new wildlife reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2 would further complicate public health control measures and could lead to wildlife health and conservation impacts. Given the likely bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 and related beta-coronaviruses (β-CoVs), free-ranging bats are a key group of concern for spillover from humans back to wildlife. Here, we review the diversity and natural host range of β-CoVs in bats and examine the risk of humans inadvertently infecting free-ranging bats with SARS-CoV-2. Our review of the global distribution and host range of β-CoV evolutionary lineages suggests that 40+ species of temperate-zone North American bats could be immunologically naïve and susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2. We highlight an urgent need to proactively connect the wellbeing of human and wildlife health during the current pandemic and to implement new tools to continue wildlife research while avoiding potentially severe health and conservation impacts of SARS-CoV-2 "spilling back" into free-ranging bat populations.

PLoS Pathogens↗
USGS2023

Wildlife health surveillance: Gaps, needs and opportunities

Disease emergence represent a global threat for public health, economy, and biological conservation and most of the emerging diseases have zoonotic origin from wildlife. To prevent their spread and to support the implementation of control measures, disease surveillance and reporting systems are needed, and due to globalisation, these activities should be carried at world level. To define the main gaps affecting the performances of wildlife health surveillance and reporting systems at word level, we analysed the Wildlife Disease Surveillance Survey submitted to all Members of World Organisation for Animal Health which inquire on structure and limits of surveillance and reporting systems. The response from 103 Members, covering all world areas, showed that 54.4% of them have a wildlife disease surveillance programme and 66% implemented a strategy to manage their spread. The lack of dedicated budget affected the possibility of outbreak investigations, sampling collection and diagnostic testing. Although most Members maintain records relating to wildlife mortality or morbidity events in centralised databases, data analyses and disease risk assessment are reported as main needs. Our evaluation of surveillance capacity showed an overall low level associated to great variability between Members not restricted to specific geographical area. A better recognition of the value of wildlife disease surveillance resulting in allocation of adequate resources by governments would make wildlife disease surveillance systems more functional. Moreover, the future comprehension of the influence of socio-economic, cultural and biodiversity aspects will be essential to increase better disease surveillance under One Health approach.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2014

Why bother about wildlife disease?

In most developed countries, the maintenance of the numbers of wildlife 1 is vested in the natural resource agencies of those countries. During earlier times, game species were the primary focus of natural resource agencies 2,3 however, current wildlife conservation continues to transition towards a more holistic focus on biodiversity 4 and environmental health 5,6 . Nevertheless, that transition lags behind in addressing wildlife disease in “…the struggle for existence between different forms of life…”. 7 Thus, the primary objective of this presentation is to provide a pragmatic assessment of wildlife disease that is irrespective of one’s orientation towards wildlife conservation. A secondary objective is to highlight the changing role of disease over time as a wildlife conservation factor. That transition is relevant to the insights provided for current and future efforts focused on sustaining global biodiversity and desired levels of wildlife populations in nature.

Circular↗
USGS2021

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2020 Year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program (CRU program) is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 38 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for calendar year 2020.

Circular↗
USGS2022

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program — 2021 year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 41 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 39 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for 2021.

Circular↗
USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey results: 2010/2011

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. The survey was conducted on 53 refuges across the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. A total of 14,832 visitors agreed to participate in the survey between July 2010 and November 2011. In all, 10,233 visitors completed the survey for a 71% response rate. This report provides a summary of visitor and trip characteristics; visitor opinions about refuges and their offerings; and visitor opinions about alternative transportation and climate change, two Refuge System topics of interest. The Refuge System, established in 1903 and managed by the Service, is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. These combined results are based on surveying at 53 participating refuges during 2010/2011 and contain the following information: * Synopsis: Brief summary of the survey results. * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Survey Results: Key findings from the survey, including: - Visitor and trip characteristics - Visitors opinions about refuges - Visitor opinions about alternative transportation - Visitor opinions about climate change * Conclusion * References Individual results for each of the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643.

Data Series↗
USGS2013

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2012--Individual refuge results

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 560 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts nearly 45 million visitors annually, including 34.8 million people who observe and photograph wildlife, 9.6 million who hunt and fish, and nearly 675,000 teachers and students who use refuges as outdoor classrooms. Understanding visitor perceptions of refuges and characterizing their experiences on refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The purpose of the survey was to better understand visitor experiences and trip characteristics, to gauge visitors’ levels of satisfaction with existing recreational opportunities, and to garner feedback to inform the design of programs and facilities. The survey results will inform performance, planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs), visitor services, and transportation planning processes. This Data Series consists of 25 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: • Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. • Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results.• Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. • Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. • Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: o Visitor and trip characteristics o Visitor spending in the local communities o Visitors opinions about the refuge o Visitor opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System topics • Conclusion • References Cited • Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with frequency results for the refuge. • Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for the refuge.Individual-refuge results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.

Data Series↗