A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. — Aldo Leopold
Today Wildlife and Lands Management is reprehensible, and government manages’ all lands and wildlife, not as a priority, but subordinate to Special Interests, Corrupted Programs such as the governments Grazing Permit Programs for ranchers (that are destroying our lands for cancerous beef products, for example) is and remains over the years, wrong.
Many of us think these conflicts can be resolved by not just dissolution of these counter-productive programs and interests, but can be replaced with a dynamic approach, using knowledge as well as Wildlife and Lands Management a Priority toward Health, Responsible Science data Collection, as well as taking non-indigenous species “off” of all Federal and Public Lands entirely.
Let’s look at the reality of an overly amount of budgetary approval to non-qualified-non-scientific cultures that exist today. Pompas and even ignorance remain profound, quite obvious to many of us.
The unqualified, as long as they appear (only) to be an organized venture, whether non-profit or profitable (rancher’s et al unqualified to approach many situations they are funded by government for, and the DOI/BLM/Forestry funded Stewardship Programs are and remain bogus and corrupt, entirely). . . We see daily the unacceptability of “incompetence” that now manages, along side and with Private Contractors, placed upon our Public Lands to do jobs they are unqualified to do accordingly.
An insurmountable amount of evidence exists for this exact problem, yet no one in the department of Justice nor the Administrator’s in these agencies, seemingly, even look at them. Qualification obviously ignored, set aside for Special Interest only criteria, and this breaks Laws exponentially. Federal Fraud Laws violated daily by these government agencies, and yet?
Real-Time Natural Management Paradigm
What is outlined below are Base Goals, Methodology, as well as logical Parameters’, which distinguish the mediocre and fake from the Reality of a “true and doable” lands and wildlife management paradigm. Adjustments required per region, but the very essential basis of a no-nonsense development, no birth controls, no chemicals used upon vegetation, no water pollution characteristics, no ethics nor morals violated, no conflicts with Nature at all – as it allows Nature to correspond with indigenous species within a development toward Health and Abundance, inclusive of our Food Chain Supplements’ from our very own Natural Resources.
This is what an overall honest, and a-priority situation looks like, when Special Interests are not involved, or corrupted pay-offs, or inadequately experienced people involved, et al . . .
Overall Capacity Short Term Goals
- Evaluate the adequacy of existing protected areas to assure sustained productivity within a healthy lands and wildlife habitat;
- Determine the size of population moderation, to assure diversity of production and (true) conservation of Our Natural Resources.
Long Term Goals:
- Determine effects of Ecological Habitats upon target terrestrial and wildlife dynamics, coincide existent availability of diversity of wildlife within all of the sanctuary or reserve;
- Determine Zones of Influence of Sanctuary or Reserve;
- Estimate potential Ecological Diversity with no conflict within a diverse Moderation of Population Dynamic Naturally, and within the parameters of the Natural Resource environment;
- Determine weather, water source and depth, habitat category, wildlife adaptation – survival, indigenous species availability, invasive species management and removal;
- Develop models to predict establishment or re-establishment of indigenous species, criteria and process, as well as active criteria/data available for thorough minimum hands-on management paradigm;
- Summarize the known biology and ecology of target species i.e. cohabitation capacity of indigenous species i.e. Keystone Predators, et al.;
- Determine susceptibility of all species, to hunting and over-flow of hunting from different, or surrounding, lands management paradigms, to recognize hunting et al., is not nor ever has been a collaborative nor conservation aspect, within any type of reality of wildlife and lands management principles or paradigms;
- Mitigate and investigate, through research and data gathering Natural Aspects of diversity within all target species within the sanctuary process and management;
- Develop the susceptibility of all species dynamics of moderation of population upon potential Endangered Species, as well as Potential Endangered Species;
- Develop methodologies for measurement of species cohabitation with lands management dynamics, of all indigenous species, their survival tactics, their family/band structures’ which provide survival skills, habitat skills, placement in the order of habitat, ecological rehabilitation of each Ecological Zone, and combination of which effects the entire Sanctuary Habitat or Environmental cohabitation or stress factors.
Anything, any situation, that does not uphold the base-ingredients, the summation of all parts above, for quality Wildlife and Lands Management — thereby, potentially inadequate to Resolve any types of co-habitation within a Natural form of management paradigm. This is what myself and others speak of, when we speak of proper wildlife and lands management paradigms, and anything conflicting the items below, questionable — most often. This is for educational purposes, but can interact precisely within all research and data gathering situations and reports.
Be aware, when government employees, or non-profit people talk, and what they should be stating as facts, and non-inclusive of anything above, then question, then question more, and ask them the base parameter’s above, and as to why they are not inclusive within their facts of actual action and/or operation capacities. Variations do exist, but not to the point of being apparently not-inclusive with base principle’s of management and sound data gathering and research. The above is from Years of Experience, not to be ignored . . .
Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Downing Street, Cambridge CB3 3QZ, U.K. BioRISC (Biosecurity Research Initiative at St Catharine’s),St Catharine’s College,
Cambridge CB2 1RL, U.K. School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
Hurlbert, A.H., Jetz, W. 2007. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104: 13384 – 13389.
Lang, D.T., CRAN Team 2018b. XML: Tools for Parsing and Generating XML Within R and S-Plus. R package version 3.98-1.16. CRAN.R-project.org/package=XML
Martin, L.J., Blossey, B., Ellis, E. 2012. Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(4): 195 — 201.
McQuatters-Gollop, A. et al. 2019. From Science to Evidence – How Biodiversity Indicators Can Be Used for Effective Marine Conservation Policy and Management. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6(3): 1–16.
Meyer, C. , Jetz, W. , Guralnick, R. P., Fritz, S. A., Kreft, H. 2016. Range geometry and socioeconomics dominate species level biases in occurrence information. Global Eco Biogeography. 25: 1181-1193.
Murray, H.J., Green, E.J., Williams, D.R., Burfield, I.J., de Brooke, M.L. 2015. Is research effort associated with the conservation status of European bird species? Endangered Species Research 27(3): 193– 206.
Nuñez, M.A., Barlow, J., Cadotte, M., Lucas, K., Newton, E., Pettorelli, N. and Stephens, P.A. 2019. Assessing the uneven global distribution of readership, submissions and publications in applied ecology: Obvious problems without obvious solutions. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: 4-9.
Pebesma, E.J., R.S. Bivand, 2005. Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5 (2), https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/.
Prum, R.O., Berv, J.S., Dornburg, A., Field, D.J., Townsend, J.P., Lemmon, E.M., Lemmon, A.R. 2015. A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature, 526: 569 – 573.
Pyron, R.A., Wiens, J.J. 2011. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 61(2): 543 – 583. R Core Team. 2018.
Segovia, A. L., Romano, D., & Armsworth, P. R. (2020). Who studies where? Boosting tropical conservation research where it is most needed. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, fee.
Reddy, S., Dávalos, L.M. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa: Sampling bias and conservation in Africa. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1719 – 1727.
Rocchini, D. et al. 2011. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: The need for maps of ignorance. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 35(2): 211– 226.
Rosenberg, K. V. et al. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science.
Smith, R.K., Sutherland, W.J. 2014. Amphibian conservation: global evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter.
Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M., Knight, T.M. 2004. The need for evidence- based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19: 305-308.
Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2019. Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The conservation evidence database. Biological Conservation, 238: 108199.
Williams, D.R., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Dicks, L.V., Child, M.F., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., Sutherland, W.J. 2012. Bird Conservation: global evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter.
Wilson, K.A., Auerbach, N.A., Sam, K., Magini, A.G., Moss, A.S.L., Langhans, S.D., Budiharta, S., Terzano, D., Meijaard, E. 2016. Conservation research is not happening where it is most needed. PLOS Biology 14: e1002413