Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range
Experiment Station
Fort Collins,
Colorado 80526
General Technical
Report RM-178
4*
An Analysis of the Wildlife
and Fish Situation
in the United States:
1989-2040
a:
vy,
A Technical Document Supporting the
1989 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment
Curtis H. Flather
Thomas W. Hoekstra
<T>' »
Preface
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan-
ning Act of 1974 (RPA), P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 475, as
amended, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to pre-
pare a Renewable Resources Assessment by December
31, 1975, with an update in 1979 and each 10th year
thereafter. This Assessment is to include "an analysis
of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and sup-
ply of the renewable resources of forest, range, and other
associated lands with consideration of the international
resource situation, and an emphasis of pertinent supply,
demand and price relationship trends" (Sec. 3. (a)).
The 1989 RPA Assessment is the third prepared in re-
sponse to the RPA legislation. It is composed of 12 docu-
ments, including this one. The summary Assessment
document presents an overview of analyses of the pres-
ent situation and the outlook for the land base, outdoor
recreation and wilderness, wildlife and fish, forest-range
grazing, minerals, timber, and water. Complete analyses
for each of these resources are contained in seven
supporting technical documents. There are also techni-
cal documents presenting information on interactions
among the various resources, the basic assumptions for
the Assessment, a description of Forest Service programs,
and the evolving use and management of the Nation's
forests, grasslands, croplands, and related resources.
The Forest Service has been carrying out resource ana-
lyses in the United States for over a century. Congres-
sional interest was first expressed in the Appropriations
Act of August 15, 1876, which provided $2,000 for the
employment of an expert to study and report on forest
conditions. Between that time and 1974, Forest Service
analysts prepared a number of assessments of the tim-
ber resource situation intermittently in response to
emerging issues and perceived needs for better resource
information. The 1974 RPA legislation established a
periodic reporting requirement and broadened the
resource coverage from timber to all renewable resources
from forest and rangelands.
USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report RM-178
September 1989
An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation
in the United States: 1989-2040
Curtis H. Flather, Research Wildlife Biologist
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station1
and
Thomas W. Hoekstra, Assistant Director 1
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
USDA, National Agricultural Librarv
NAL Bldg y
10301 Baltimore Blvd
Beitsville, MD 20705-2351
Headquarters is in Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State University.
Acknowledgments
Many individuals from the Forest Service, other fed-
eral agencies, state agencies, universities, and conser-
vation groups contributed to this document. Individuals
that assisted in compiling information for national forest
lands were: Robert Nelson, Jack Capp, Mike Dombeck,
Robert Randall, Kirk Horn, Alan Christensen, Glen
Hetzel, Dale Wills, William Zeedyk, Richard Wadleigh,
William Burbridge, Ronald Burraychak, Randall Long,
John Borrecco, Hugh Black, Philip Lee, Jerry Mcllwain,
Tom Darden, Gordon Sloane, Bruce Hronek, and Donald
Hagar. Assistance in compiling information on wildlife
and fish resources from the Bureau of Land Management
was provided by J. David Almand and Raymond Boyd.
Other federal cooperators included: Warren Fisher, John
Charbaneau, William Gill, Ronald Lambertson, John
Tautin, Terry Cacek, Bill Wilen — Fish and Wildlife
Service; Steve Koplin — National Marine Fisheries
Service; Steve Brady, Billy Teels — Soil "Conservation
Service.
The following were instrumental in compiling state
wildlife and fish statistics: AL — Charles Kelley, Jim
Davis, Barry Smith; AK — W. Lewis Pamplin, Bruce
Baker; AZ — Bud Bristow, Duane Shroufe, Roger Soren-
son; AR — Steve Wilson, Steve Cole, Scott Henderson;
CA — Jack C. Parnell, Terry Mansfield, Bill Griffin, Forest
Tucker, John Turner; CO — James Ruch, Cher Threlkeld,
Bob Hernbrode, Harlan Riffel; CT — Robert Jones, Paul
Herig, Peter Good; DE — William Wagner, II; FL — Smokie
Holcomb, Frank Montalbano, III, Frank Smith, Thomas
Vaughn; GA — Leon Kirkland, Joe Kurz, Mike Jennings;
HI — Libert Landgraf, Ron Walker; ID — Jerry Conley, Tom
Reinecker, Tom Parker; IL — Michael Witte, Mike Con-
lin, James Moak; IN — James Ridenour, John Olson; IA —
Allen Farris; KS— Bill Hanzlick, Kent Montei; KY— Peter
Pfeiffer, William Graves, Lauren Schaaf; LA — J. Burton
Angelle, Sr., Bennie Fontenot, Hugh Bateman; ME —
Frederick Hurley; MD — Donald MacLauchlan, Jim Bur-
tis, Mike Burch, Eral Hodil, Joe Schugars; MA — Richard
Cronin, Dick Burrell, Bob Madore; MI — Gordon Guyer,
Dan Tucker, Don Reynolds; MN — Larry Shannon, Roger
Holmes, Dick Hassinger, Tim Burmicker; MS — William
Quisenberry, III, Seth Mott, Jack Herring; MO — Larry
Gale, Ray Evans, Ken Babcock, George Dellinger,
Ollie Torgerson; MT — James Flynn, Arnold Olson;
NE — Eugene Mahoney, Ken Johnson; NV — William
Molini, George Tsukamoto; NH — Allen Crabtree, III,
Howard Nowell, Charles Thoits; NJ — Russell Cookin-
gham, Tony Petrongolo; NM — Harold Olson, Byron
Donaldson, Gerald Gates; NY — Kenneth Wich, George
Mattfeld; NC— Charles Fullwood, Hal Atkinson; ND—
Dale Henegar, C. R. Grondahl; OH — Joseph Sommer, Pat
Ruble, Gary Isbell; OK — Steven Alan Lewis, Byron
Moser, Kim Erickson; OR — John Donaldson, Frank New-
ton; PA— Ralph Abele, Peter Duncan, III, Dick Snyder,
William Shope; RI — Robert Bendick, Jr., Jim Meyers, Jim
Chadwick, Mike Lapisky; SC — James Timmerman, Jr.,
Jeff Fuller, Joe Logan, Brock Conrad, Darrell Shipes, John
Frampton, Billy McTeer; SD — James Salyer, David
Hamm, Chuck Backland; TN — Gary Myers, Ron Fox,
Hudson Nichols, Greg Wathen; TX — Charles Travis, Ted
Clark, Bob Kemp; UT— William Geer, Ed Rawley, Bob
Hasen; VT — Stephen Wright, Ben Day, Angelo Incerpi;
VA — Richard Cross, Jr. , Jack Raybourne, Jack Hoffman;
WA— William Wilkerson, Jack Wayland, Rich Lincoln,
Rich Poelker, Ken Dixon; WV — Ronald Potesta, Robert
Miles; WI — James Addis, Steven Miller, Edward Frank;
WY — William Morris, Doug Crowe.
The following individuals provided technical review
of an earlier draft: William Gusey, Shell Oil Company;
Michael Sale, Oak Ridge National Lab; Larry Harris,
University of Florida; Kurt Fausch, Colorado State
University; Donald Orth, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University; Tony Peterle, Ohio State Univer-
sity; James Teer, Welder Wildlife Foundation; James
Peek, University of Idaho; Milton Weller, Texas A&M
University; Frederic Wagner, Utah State University.
Special recognition is extended to Michael Knowles
for his compilation, organization, and summarization of
data that formed the basis of this document; Patricia
Flebbe for her assistance in summarizing the fisheries
information; and Glen Brink for his computer program-
ing and data base management skills. Appreciation is
also extended to David Chalk, Soil Conservation Serv-
ice, for his assistance in coordinating the acquisition of
state wildlife and fish agency data and Soil Conserva-
tion Service data on land use and land cover.
iii
HIGHLIGHTS
Wildlife and fish are an integral component of all
environments from pristine wilderness to the most inten-
sively managed urban settings. The values associated
with wildlife and fish have broadened from the utilitar-
ian views held by early subsistence and market hunters
to the recognition that animals contribute to the overall
public welfare in a multitude of ways. This is reflected,
in part, by increased nonconsumptive uses of wildlife
and fish, increased membership in wildlife and fish
organizations, increased public interest in policies and
programs affecting wildlife and fish, and in the passage
of laws intended to ensure protection and stewardship
of the resource.
A national assessment of wildlife and fish is one of
the reporting responsibilities of the USD A, Forest Serv-
ice related to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (RPA). The assessment is to
serve as the technical basis for developing a national
Forest Service Program guiding the management of
natural resources. This assessment reports on the cur-
rent status and recent historical trends of wildlife and
fish resources, resource inventory and use projections,
and implications and opportunities for resource manage-
ment programs.
CURRENT STATUS AND
RECENT HISTORICAL TRENDS
Four aspects of wildlife and fish resources that are
important in a characterization of resource status include
habitat, population, harvest, and number of users.
Recent Trends in Wildlife and Fish Habitat
To survive, fish and wildlife need habitat — the avail-
ability and appropriate mix of food, cover, and water.
Land use and land cover patterns provided a coarse
description of the amounts and quality of wildlife and
fish habitats.
• ForestJand has declined by 5% as a result of recent
cropland and urbanland conversion. Significant
declines in Southern pines, bottomland hardwoods,
aspen-birch, and elm-ash-cottonwood have been
observed. Mature and old-growth softwood stands
are becoming increasingly rare in the major timber
producing regions of the Pacific Northwest and
South. Demand for eastern hardwoods has not kept
pace with forest growth, resulting in greater acre-
age of older hardwood stands in the North.
• Over recent decades, rangeland has declined
slightly. The majority of non-federal rangelands are
in fair to poor condition. However, available evi-
dence indicates range condition is improving with
better management. Two important issues are the
loss and fragmentation of grassland habitats in the
East and degradation of riparian habitats in the arid
West.
• Every state contains some wetland habitat.
However, wetlands only account for 5% of the total
land area in the contiguous U.S. Wetland area has
declined significantly over the past several decades.
Between 1954 and 1974 forested wetlands declined
by nearly 11%; emergent wetlands declined by
14%; and estuarine wetlands declined by 6.5%.
• About 80% of the nation's /lowing waters have
problems with quantity, quality, fish habitat, or fish
community composition. Water quality is affected
by turbidity, high temperatures, nutrient surplus,
toxic substances, and dissolved oxygen availabil-
ity. Many of these quality-related problems are the
result of soil and vegetative manipulation associated
with agriculture, forestry, and other human
activities.
• Increases in cropland area over the last 10 years
have been accompanied by more intensive farming
practices, larger farm size, and a reduction in
shelterbelts, field borders, and odd habitat areas that
were previously inconvenient to farm.
Fencerow-to-fencerow farming has eliminated
much nesting, feeding, and winter cover for wild-
life and resulted in increased erosion which has de-
graded aquatic habitats.
Recent Trends in Wildlife and Fish Populations,
Harvests, and Use
The current status and recent historical trend in popu-
lations, harvests, and uses of wildlife and fish resources
are closely linked to habitat trends. Although trends vary
by species category, those species associated with
agricultural, mature and old-growth forest, native grass-
land, and wetland kinds of environments have had
declining or unstable populations in the last 20 years.
• Although nongame bird surveys indicate that the
majority of breeding bird populations have re-
mained stable since the mid-1960s, a significant
proportion (13%) of the breeding bird fauna has
declined over a 20-year period. The number of
breeding bird species that have shown recent popu-
lation declines are more numerous in the East than
the West. Breeding birds that have realized popu-
lation increases tend to be those adapted to more
intensive land uses particularly urban/suburban
environments.
• Migratory game bird populations, except geese,
have generally declined. Breeding duck populations
have declined from 44 million in the early 1970s
to about 30 million birds in the mid-1980s.
• Big game species across all regions have increased,
except Pacific Coast deer. Populations of the two
most commonly hunted big game species, white-
tailed deer and wild turkey, have more than
doubled.
• Small game population trends were divergent for
agriculture and forest species. Those small game
species associated with agricultural lands have
shown significant declines over the last 20 years,
iv
while most woodland populations have remained
stable or increased.
• Trends in /urbearer populations vary. Some com-
monly harvested species appear to have stable or
increasing populations while other species, such as
red fox and mink, have shown regional declines.
• While national and regional appraisals of how fish
populations are changing are limited, specific
regional studies indicate that the capacity of the
nation's waters to support warm and coldwater fish-
eries has declined. The loss owes to human-caused
degradation of aquatic habitats and introductions of
competing fish species.
• There are 330 animal species that are listed as being
threatened or endangered — a gain of 130 species
since the last national assessment of wildlife and
fish. In addition, there are approximately 1,000 can-
didate plant and animal species for which the Fish
and Wildlife Service has sufficient information to
initiate formal listing procedures.
Recent trends in the recreational use of wildlife and
fish are a function of wildlife and fish availability and
the public's relative preference for different kinds of
recreational activities.
• Nonconsumptive recreation has increased at a sub-
stantially greater rate than other forms of wildlife
and fish recreation. Most nonconsumptive wildlife
and fish recreation occurs at or near people's homes
or in association with other outdoor activities.
• The number of big game hunters has generally
increased during the last 20 years, although more
slowly now than before. The number of small game
and migratory game bird hunters has shown recent
declines and is likely a response to lower game
populations, reduced access, and crowded hunting
conditions. The number of trappers has recently
declined in apparent response to declining fur
prices, but may also be affected by public and legis-
lative pressure to restrict this activity.
• The numbers of both recreational and commercial
fishers have consistently increased during the last
20 years.
PROJECTED INVENTORIES AND
USES OF WILDLIFE AND FISH
Resource inventory and use projections are an integral
part of national resource assessments. The projections
are suggestive of what the future resource situation may
become based on recent experiences. A comparison of
future inventories against anticipated uses provides
insight into possible imbalances between the supply of
and demands for wildlife and fish resources.
• In the coming decades, rangeland area will increase
5%; the acreage of forestland will decline by about
4%; needed cropland will probably decline; and
wetland habitats will continue to be lost, but at a
slower rate.
• State wildlife and fish agencies are optimistic about
future big game populations and harvests with
the expectation of stable or upward trends for all
species.
• Small game population and harvest projections
associated with agricultural habitats indicate a con-
tinued decline. Northern bob white populations and
harvests are expected to decline; pheasant and rab-
bit populations and harvest are projected to increase
only in the short-term as a result of the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program.
• The future number of participants in wildlife and
fish recreation indicate that participation in cold-
water fishing and nonconsumptive activities are
expected to more than double by 2040. The number
of hunters, in general, is expected to decrease as par-
ticipation in big game and small game hunting
declines.
• More hunters are expected to participate under fee-
hunting situations in the future. As many as one in
five hunters may be participating in some form of
fee-hunting by 2040.
• A future of diminished habitat and lower popula-
tions of some species indicate that resource supplies
may not support future levels of recreational
demand. The potential gap of unmet demand is
greatest for coldwater fishing, followed by migratory
bird hunting, warmwater fishing, big game hunting,
and small game hunting. The demand for noncon-
sumptive recreation does not appear to have any
obvious future resource supply constraints.
• The substantial increases in demands for noncon-
sumptive uses and all forms of fishing imply in-
creased density of use which may degrade the qual-
ity of the recreational experience for many people.
THE IMPLICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT
The wildlife and fish inventory and use projections
imply certain economic, social, and environmental con-
sequences that could occur if resource use and invento-
ries are not balanced.
• As wildlife and fish habitat is lost or made unavail-
able to the recreating public, and as expanding
human populations result in more crowded condi-
tions, future recreationists may have to travel greater
distances to find suitable sites or may have to pay
access fees. Recreation fees for fishing and hunting
on private lands have increased rapidly in the past
decade which may favor participation by the more
affluent of society.
• Potential restrictions on commercial harvests and
projected declines in hunting could severely impact
local economies that are dependent upon commer-
cial or recreational use of wildlife and fish resources.
Because state wildlife and fish agencies derive oper-
ating funds primarily from licence fees and excise
taxes on equipment, they could also be negatively
impacted.
• Important social implications are associated with
fish and wildlife resources including cultural,
v
psychological, physiological, and societal aspects of
public welfare. Declining inventories and use res-
trictions infringe on the lifestyles of certain cultural
groups and reduces or eliminates a recreational out-
let for which few substitutes exist.
• The growing pressures on wildlife and fish resources
are likely to be especially significant for endangered
and threatened species, including those species not
yet formally listed. As species become rare, or ulti-
mately extinct, there is a reduction in biological
diversity, a diminishing of the nation's natural
heritage, and a forgoing of future options to meet
society's various needs.
Growing human populations will continue to
encroach on wildlife and fish habitat; and the demand
for timber, livestock, water, and agricultural crops will
conflict, in instances, with wildlife and fish resources.
Future natural resource management must balance these
multiple resource demands within the constraints
defined by the environment. Management opportunities
can be categorized into four areas: habitat, population,
user, and planning.
Opportunities for management of habitat include:
• Protection of key habitats (including wetlands,
native grasslands, old-growth forests, fish spawning
areas, and critical habitat for threatened and endan-
gered species) through public purchase, easement,
leasing agreement, or establishment of natural areas.
• Increasing the size and distribution of key habitat
tracts to preserve the natural diversity characteris-
tic of a given region.
• Restoration of degraded ecosystems through direct
manipulation of vegetation and water or controlling
disturbance factors.
Opportunities for direct management of wildlife and
fish populations include:
• Manipulation of populations through appropriate
harvest strategies to ensure that populations remain
within the productive capacities of their habitat.
• Reintroduction of species into areas where they have
been displaced from suitable habitat or where suit-
able habitat has been developed.
• Increasing fish hatchery production through
improved propagation practices, increasing the
capacity of extant facilities, and the building of new
facilities.
Opportunities for user management include:
• Increasing access to private lands by developing pro-
grams that would assist landowners in establishing
wildlife and fish-related businesses.
• Increasing land acquisition and management of
recreational use to increase the amount of habitat
available to recreationists and to better distribute
users across suitable sites.
• Increasing public education programs on the value
and objectives of wildlife and fish management.
• Implementing techniques to monitor public attitudes
and values associated with wildlife and fish re-
sources to better address the public's changing needs
and wants.
Opportunities for planning include:
• Increasing cooperation and coordination among the
many agencies that have responsibility for manage-
ment of habitat, wildlife and fish populations, and
hunting and fishing.
• Integrating wildlife and fish management objectives
more fully into the management of forest and range-
lands for multiple resources.
• Through research, improving the information base
(e.g., habitat inventories, population inventories,
habitat-population relationships, valuation of wild-
life and fish resources) needed to effectively manage
the wildlife and fish resource.
Managing fish and wildlife resources will be espe-
cially challenging in the future because of competing
demands for the nation's forest and range resource base.
As one of the largest land-managing agencies in the fed-
eral government, the Forest Service has the opportunity
to play an important role in directing the future wild-
life and fish resource situation. This opportunity not
only exists on vast acreages of national forests, but also
in cooperative assistance programs, and by conducting
and promoting research within and outside the agency.
The nature and extent to which the wildlife and fish
resource situation can be improved will be defined by
the next Forest Service program. What this assessment
has done is to provide planners with a factual and tech-
nical basis upon which to consider a number of Forest
Service program alternatives.
vi
Contents
Page
HIGHLIGHTS iv
INTRODUCTION 1
RENEWABLE RESOURCE PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE 1989 WILDLIFE AND FISH ASSESSMENT 2
CHAPTER 1: CURRENT STATUS AND RECENT HISTORICAL TRENDS
OF WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCES
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL STATISTICS 3
Wildlife and Fish Habitat 3
Overview of Land Use and Land Cover Trends 4
Forestland Habitats 4
Rangeland and Pasture Habitats 9
Wetland Habitats 11
Flowing Waters and Associated Impoundments 13
Agricultural Habitats 15
Summary 16
Wildlife and Fish Population, Use, and Harvest Trends 16
Nongame Wildlife 16
Migratory Game Birds 21
Big Game .' 28
Small Game 33
Furbearers 36
Fish 38
Threatened and Endangered Species 43
Summary 46
WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS 47
Wildlife and Fish Habitat on Public Lands 48
Forestland Habitats 48
Rangeland Habitats 49
Wetlands 50
Wildlife and Fish Populations on Public Lands 51
Big Game and Other Large Mammals 51
Threatened and Endangered Species 52
Recreational Use of Wildlife and Fish on Public Lands 54
Proportionate Use Patterns of Public Lands 54
Trends in the Number of Participants on Public Lands 54
Harvests of Wildlife and Fish on Public Lands 57
Big Game and Other Large Mammal Harvests 57
Fish Harvests 58
Summary 58
CHAPTER 2: PROJECTIONS OF WILDLIFE AND
FISH RESOURCE USE
PROJECTION OF WILDLIFE AND FISH RECREATION 60
Projection Approach 61
Results 62
Empirical Relationships 62
National Projections 63
Regional Projections 64
National Forest Projections 65
PROJECTION OF FEE-HUNTING ON PRIVATE LANDS 66
SUMMARY 67
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTIONS OF WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCE
INVENTORIES
PROJECTIONS OF HABITAT INVENTORIES 69
Overview of Land Use Changes 69
Effects of a Federal Program: The Food Security Act of 1985 .... 70
vii
Page
PROJECTION OF POPULATION INVENTORIES 72
State Agency Population Projections 72
Big Game 72
Small Game 73
National Forest System Population Projections 74
Fish and Wildlife Service Population Projections 75
Habitat-Based Abundance Projections for the South:
A Case Study 75
Projection Approach 75
Results / 76
PROJECTION OF HARVEST INVENTORIES 77
State Agency Harvest Projections 77
Big Game , 77
Small Game 78
National Forest System Harvest Projections 78
Fish and Wildlife Service Harvest Projections 79
SUMMARY 79
CHAPTER 4: COMPARISON OF RESOURCE INVENTORY AND USE
PROJECTIONS
INDICATORS OF WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCE SUPPLIES 81
SENSITIVITY OF RECREATIONAL USE TO CHANGES IN RE-
SOURCE SUPPLIES 82
Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation 82
Recreational Hunting 83
Recreational Fishing 84
IMPLICATIONS OF RESOURCE INVENTORY PROJECTIONS ON
RECREATIONAL USE 84
Declining Per Capita Resource Availability 85
State and Federal Agency Projections of Resource Inventories .... 85
SUMMARY 86
CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICA-
TIONS OF WILDLIFE AND FISH INVENTORY AND USE PROJECTIONS
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS 87
Cultural Values 87
Societal Values 87
Psychological Values 88
Physiological Values 88
Implications to Future Social Values 88
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS 88
Consumers or Price Effects 88
Commercial Products 88
Recreational Value of Wildlife and Fish 89
Future Trends in Recreational Values 89
Local Economy and Management Budget Effects 90
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 92
Implications for Wildlife and Fish Habitat 92
Implications for Wildlife and Fish Populations 93
Environmental Implications from other Resource Demands 94
SUMMARY 94
CHAPTER 6: MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
IMPROVING THE WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCE SITUATION
WILDLIFE AND, FISH MANAGEMENT ISSUES 96
Issues Perceived by the States 96
Summary Across Species Group 97
Big Game 98
Small Game 99
Waterfowl 99
Anadromous Fish 101
Resident Coldwater Fish 101
viii
Page
Resident Warmwater Fish 102
Nongame Wildlife 103
Threatened and Endangered Species 104
Issues Perceived on Public Lands 105
Forest Service 105
Bureau of Land Management 106
WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 106
Habitat Management Opportunities 107
Population Management Opportunities 108
User and People Management Opportunities 109
Planning Opportunities 110
Cooperative and Coordinated Planning 110
Research Needs 110
OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCES 111
SUMMARY 112
CHAPTER 7: IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST SERVICE WILDLIFE AND
FISH PROGRAMS
LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION OF RPA AND THE ASSESSMENT-
PROGRAM RELATIONSHIP 114
MAJOR FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMS 115
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 115
Changing Demands for Wildlife and Fish 115
Increased Importance of National Forest System Lands 115
Wildlife and Fish Coordination 116
Consolidation of Land Ownership Patterns 117
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY 117
FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH 117
SUMMARY 119
REFERENCES 120
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY 134
APPENDIX B: LATIN NAMES 137
APPENDIX C: TRENDS IN WILDLIFE AND FISH POPULATIONS, USE,
AND HARVEST ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS 142
ix
An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation in the
United States: 1989-2040
Curtis H. Flather and Thomas W. Hoekstra
INTRODUCTION
Wildlife and fish are important and integral compo-
nents of environments ranging from pristine wilderness
to the most intensively managed urban settings. They
are critical to the functioning and persistence of
ecosystems with numerous roles including pollination,
seed dispersal and germination, nutrient cycling, her-
bivory, and predation, all of which are important in
maintaining the ecological balance of plant and animal
communities. The perceived values attributed to wild-
life and fish have broadened from the utilitarian views
held by early subsistence and market hunters, to the
recognition that animals contribute to the overall pub-
lic welfare in a multitude of ways. The values attributed
to, and uses of, wildlife and fish resources are varied
owing to the diverse interaction between the number and
kinds of animals, and the desires of man.
Wildlife and fish resources possess regulatory and
mobility characteristics that collectively make their
management unique among other natural resources.
Regulatory authority for wildlife and fish resources has
its roots in Roman law and English common law. Wild-
life and fish are regarded as common resources, owned
by all citizens, yet held in trust by the states. The doc-
trine of state ownership designated that each state retain
the primary regulatory and management authority of
wildlife and fish. However, passage of the Lacey Act in
the early 1900's marked the beginning of an expanding
federal role in the regulation and management of wild-
life and fish resources. Federal agencies now have
stewardship responsibility for migratory birds, marine
animals, and for animals on federally owned lands. Pub-
lic ownership, management authority vested in state and
federal agencies, and a mobile resource that does not
recognize arbitrary land ownership boundaries, all inter-
act to make the management of wildlife and fish com-
plex and dependent upon coopp "ation among resource
managing agencies and the public.
This report is about wildlife and fish rpsources — their
habitats, populations, and uses. It is a report on how
these attributes of wildlife and fish resources have
changed in the last 20 years, what may happen in the
future if current actions continue, what opportunities we
have as a nation to direct that future, and finally how
changing these actions could alter the future. The moti-
vation for an evaluation of the nation's wildlife and fish
resources stems proximately from recent federal legis-
lation but ultimately from the public's desire and expec-
tation that the stewards of these public resources be
explicit and complete in their consideration of wildlife
and fish in planning for and managing all natural
resources. The public attitude concerning the manage-
ment of natural resources has been reflected in a num-
ber of recent federal laws. This report is a response to
one such law — the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA).
RENEWABLE RESOURCE
PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
The national assessment of wildlife and fish is one part
of the reporting responsibility of the USDA Forest Serv-
ice related to the RPA. Resource assessments are tech-
nical reports about the nation's natural resources and are
used as a basis upon which a second requirement of the
RPA is satisfied — the development of a national program
for the Forest Service. The Act was amended in 1976 by
the National Forest Management Act which further
directed the Forest Service to complete land manage-
ment plans for each national forest as a more detailed
part of the agency's planning responsibilities. The
national forests are currently developing the first series
of plans, while resource assessments and programs for
minerals, range, water, recreation and wilderness, and
wildlife and fish resources have been carried out in 1975,
1979, and 1984. Timber assessments have been com-
pleted since the late 1800's.
The Forest Service is not alone in its national plan-
ning requirements. Similar national planning mandates
were established for the Soil Conservation Service on all
non-federal lands with the passage of the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA). The Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
established a related requirement for inventories and
documentation to support land use planning and policy
development on lands administered by the Bureau of
Land Management.
The legislative requirements for national resource
planning generally follow a similar format. The
resources are to be described in terms of their current
and recent historical status and condition. In the case
of wildlife and fish, this requirement translates into a
characterization of the habitats, populations, users, and
use of the resource. In addition, a projection must be
made of resource attributes and an exploration of
alternative future opportunities that could change the
future resource situation. Finally, how the findings affect
Forest Service resource management programs must be
analyzed. The wildlife and fish assessment has been
organized to be consistent with this national planning
format.
1
ORGANIZATION OF THE 1989 WILDLIFE
AND FISH ASSESSMENT
The 1989 national assessment of wildlife and fish has
been structured as a planning document. The first chap-
ter presents the current status and recent historical trends
in wildlife and fish habitats, populations, nonconsump-
tive and consumptive users, and harvests. Each section
of chapter 1 presents available information at the
national, regional, and federal ownership levels. Infor-
mation reported at the state level has been specifically
excluded from this report since it is under the jurisdic-
tion of the individual states.
The next three chapters present projections of the
future resource situation. A major effort was made dur-
ing the last 10 years to develop methods for evaluating
future recreational uses of wildlife and fish (chapter 2)
and future wildlife and fish inventories (chapter 3). A
comparison of these projected levels of use and inven-
tories (chapter 4) establishes a basis for identifying
potential imbalances in resource supplies and demands.
The fifth chapter describes the social, economic, and
environmental implications of the recent trends and
future projections of wildlife and fish inventories and
their uses. These implications provide the societal justif-
ication for future management actions that could
improve the resource situation and ultimately enhance
public welfare.
Major management issues, and the opportunities that
exist to address them, are described in chapter 6. These
issues and opportunities are discussed as changes that
could be accomplished to improve the future wildlife
and fish resource situation. However, opportunities to
improve the resource situation can be expected to
encounter obstacles in implementation. These obstacles
include legal, political, institutional, economic, and bio-
physical limitations that, unless they are satisfactorily
resolved through program implementation or additional
research, will limit the full realization of resource
improvement expected from the proposed opportunities.
The last chapter broadly identifies the implications of
this assessment to the next Forest Service program.
These implications are discussed with reference to their
potential influence on national forest management,
management programs on state and private forests and
rangelands, and research programs carried out by the
Forest Service.
To clarify terminology, a glossary is provided in
appendix A, and Latin names of animal species men-
tioned in this report have been compiled in appendix B.
The content of this report, as well as previous RPA
national assessments of wildlife and fish, is a product
of the available information on habitats, populations,
and use characteristics. There are many opportunities
to improve the quality of data and analyses that could
be used to evaluate the status of the nation's wildlife and
fish resources. Nonetheless, this report represents the
state-of-the-art and is the most comprehensive national
effort ever undertaken to assemble historical data and
synthesize related analyses to address the requirements
implied by national planning legislation. Early in the
planning for the 1989 wildlife and fish assessment, it
was recognized that an improved technical report would
be possible through cooperative efforts with various fed-
eral and state agencies. Within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Soil Conservation Service made a com-
mitment to assist the Forest Service in collecting and
synthesizing information for this report. Similarly, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, and the National Marine Fisheries Service con-
tributed to the assessment format and provided data and
analyses for portions of this report. State wildlife and
fish agencies also reviewed the proposed approach for
data acquisition and analysis, provided data, and re-
viewed the document for technical adequacy. Although
the Forest Service has the mandated responsibility to
assess the nation's wildlife and fish resources, the col-
laboration that went into the completion of this report
makes this assessment a multi-agency effort — the
product of which is summarized in the pages that follow.
2
CHAPTER 1: CURRENT STATUS AND RECENT HISTORICAL TRENDS
OF WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCES
One objective of renewable natural resource assess-
ments is to evaluate the potential environmental, social,
and economic implications of resource production and
consumption trends (Hamilton and Thorton 1982). An
evaluation that attempts to identify and address future
resource management issues first must address an
appropriate historical perspective to provide a context
within which to interpret present trends. The last
national assessment of wildlife and fish (USDA Forest
Service 1981) provided recent historical trends through
the mid-1970's. Recent history for this assessment is de-
fined as 1965-1985. However, data through 1988 is
presented when available. The trends are discussed with
respect to the factors considered responsible for the
dynamics observed over this approximate 20-year
period.
For this assessment, four aspects of wildlife and fish
resources are defined, each important to a characteriza-
tion of resource status: habitats, population levels, num-
ber of users, and harvest levels. Owing to the diversity
of habitats and the large number of resident and com-
mon migrant species, this chapter addresses the four
resource aspects by major habitat or species categories.
The habitat categories include forestland, rangeland,
wetland, water, and agricultural habitats. The species
categories include nongame, migratory game birds, big
game, small game, furbearers, fish, and threatened and
endangered species.
The data available to support an assessment of wild-
life and fish come largely from existing information of
the Forest Service and cooperating state and federal
agencies. In general, the data were not collected specif-
ically for a national assessment of wildlife and fish. No
standard national or regional inventory that permits
a consistent summarization of wildlife and fish re-
sources exists (Hirsch et al. 1979, Hoekstra et al. 1983).
Consequently, the extent to which habitat, population,
user, and harvest trends can be discussed depends on
the information available from various sources.
The review of the current status and historical trends
in wildlife and fish resources is organized into two major
sections: National and Regional Statistics, and Wildlife
and Fish Resources on Public Lands. Within the first
section, a national level summary discusses the broad
emerging historical trends in wildlife and fishery re-
sources observed in the United States. More refined geo-
graphic detail is reviewed within four multi-state assess-
ment regions defined by the Forest Service for program
planning purposes and include the North, South, Rocky
Mountain, and Pacific Coast regions (fig. 1). Regions
defined by other criteria are also used when they are
established in wildlife and fishery usage. These include
waterfowl fly ways, Breeding Bird Survey regions, or
Bureau of Census regions. The second section of this
chapter examines the distributional characteristics of
wildlife and fish resources on public lands emphasiz-
ing lands administered by the National Forest System
and Bureau of Land Management.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL STATISTICS
Available information regarding the current status and
historical trends in wildlife and fish resources is biased
heavily towards those few species that are of commer-
cial importance or taken for sport. Information was also
available on some threatened and endangered species
and nongame birds because of public concern for pre-
serving these species or for their high nonconsumptive
recreational value. However, small mammals, amphib-
ians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates are largely unrepre-
sented in state or federal inventories. Therefore, the
trends reviewed here are admittedly incomplete regard-
ing the full compendium of species that play critical
roles in the natural environment. Nevertheless, the infor-
mation reviewed herein does provide insights into the
status of wildlife and fish resources in the United States.
Wildlife and Fish Habitat
Wildlife and fish habitat in its most basic sense can
be defined as the availability and appropriate mix of
food, cover, and water. Habitat represents a spatial
3
concept characterized by a particular combination of
physical and biotic factors within a defined geographic
area that interact to determine whether a particular spe-
cies can survive and reproduce (Partridge 1978). Except
for special cases (e.g. , critical habitat for some threatened
or endangered species), national inventories addressing
the amount of habitat specific to a single species or spe-
cies group do not exist.
Alternatively, habitat may be descriptively defined
based on landscape attributes. In many cases, vegetation
features can be used to define habitat types that can be
inventoried over large geographic areas. Similarly,
stream characteristics can form the basis of an inventory
of fish habitat. Based on this definition of habitat, the
inventory represents a description and estimate of land
area that supports a faunal community as opposed to an
estimate of the amount of suitable habitat for any given
species. This alternative definition forms the basis for
the following discussion of habitat trends.
Overview of Land Use and Land Cover Trends
Wildlife and fish are products of how the land is cov-
ered (i.e., vegetation present) and how the land is used
(e.g., grazed, cropped, urbanized). As indicated in figure
2, major land use categories have changed very little.
The most obvious pattern has been a reduction in land
supporting natural vegetation types concomitant with
increasing land modified by people. Acreage in both
forest and range categories has declined by about 5%
since about 1960. After declining slightly through the
mid-1970's, land area devoted to crop production
showed a 3% increase by the early 1980's.
Trends in urbanland have been difficult to estimate
precisely because of inconsistencies in definitions
(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1987). Frey's (1983)
summary of urbanland trends indicates that it has
increased from approximately 25 million acres in 1960
to 47 million acres in 1980 — an increase of 88% over that
20-year period. Urban expansion has both direct
(removal of habitat) and indirect (increased human-
related disturbance) impacts on wildlife and fish
habitats. Consequently, urbanland uses are discussed as
a disturbance factor rather than a specific category of
wildlife or fish habitat.
The three land uses in figure 2 constitute a broad clas-
sification within which to discuss terrestrial wildlife
habitats. Characteristics of the nation's aquatic environ-
ments address fish habitat, and wetlands are discussed
as important habitats transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.
Forestland Habitats
Forestland is defined as land at least 10% stocked by
forest trees of any size, or formerly having such cover,
and not currently developed for other uses (USDA Forest
Service 1981). Forested ecosystems are extensive and
diverse. Ninety percent of the resident or common
migrant vertebrate species in the United States use
forested ecosystems to meet at least part of their life req-
uisites. At least 90% of the total bird, amphibian, and
fish species and at least 80% of mammal and reptile spe-
cies utilize forest ecosystems (USDA Forest Service
1979).
Figure 1 .—Forest Service assessment regions.
4
Forestlands currently comprise nearly a third of the
total terrestrial land base; however, the extent of forest-
land has been diminishing (fig. 2). The losses have been
attributed to conversion to cropland and pastureland,
urban development, and highway and reservoir con-
struction. The distribution of forestland is split evenly
between the eastern and western assessment regions.
The Pacific Coast region contains the most forestland
acres; the Rocky Mountain region has the least.
The majority of the forestland acres recently lost
occurred in the eastern half of the country, particularly
in the South where forest has declined by 20 million
acres over the last decade (table 1). This was expected
because of the higher population and economic activity
in the East (USDA Forest Service 1982). Forestland acres
in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coast have remained
relatively stable since the early 1960's.
Although complex relationships exist between wild-
life and forested environments, it is possible to general-
ize the description of forest environments to obtain
reasonable interpretations for trends in wildlife habitats.
Cover type, successional stage, and spatial arrangement
affect the kinds, numbers, and distribution of animals
which inhabit forest environments. Unfortunately, forest
inventories have not been uniformly designed to evalu-
ate these particular attributes. Recent historical trends
must be synthesized by gleaning data from existing
inventory information compiled for other forest uses.
Specifically, information exists on trends in forest
ecosystem types and successional stages (as measured
by stand-size class) for commercial timberland only.
Commercial timberland is land capable of producing 20
cubic feet of wood per acre per year, and which is avail-
able for successive harvests of timber products (USDA
Forest Service 1982). Similar data on noncommercial
forestlands, including those in parks and wilderness, are
not available.
Changes in forest types strongly influence wildlife and
fish community composition. The forest types discussed
in this document are those defined by the Forest-Range
Environmental Study (FRES) (Garrison et al. 1977).
Because of variation in inventory techniques and stand-
ards, historical trends must be interpreted cautiously,
particularly in the western regions (USDA Forest Serv-
ice 1982).
Eastern commercial forests are currently represented
by 10 separate types including four softwood and six
hardwood forest types (table 2). The most common
eastern forest type is oak-hickory, which represents
about 24% of the national commercial timberland area.
Area trends in oak-hickory have fluctuated. From 1963
to 1977 the amount of land classified as oak-hickory
declined by approximately 7 million acres. The decline
was largely restricted to the North where forest clearing
for crop and dairy farms, and management actions that
converted oak-hickory stands to other forest types
explain the change. The lack of a market for low-quality
hardwoods has discouraged managing for oak-hickory
800
600
400
Acres (Millions)
200 -
H 1 1—
' 1 h
-*
*
iii i ii i i i i
— — Forestland
—I— Rangeland
Cropland
1958 62
66
70 74
Year
78
82
86
Source: Frey and Hexem (1985); USDA
Forest Service (1965, 1974, 1982);
Bones [in press]
Figure 2.— Recent trends in major land use categories in the United
States.
Table 1 .—Regional trends in forestland in the United States (1963-1985).
Region
1963
1970
1977
1987
Million acres (% of total)
178 (24) 186 (25) 178 (24) 182 (25)
220 (29) 212 (28) 207 (28) 188 (26)
143 (19) 138 (18) 138 (19) 138 (19)
216 (29) 217 (29) 214 (29) 220 (30)
North1
South2
Rocky Mountain3
Pacific Coast
includes ND, SD (east), NE, KS, KY.
2Does not include KY.
3Does not include ND, SD (east), NE, KS.
Source: Bones (in press), USDA Forest Service (1965, 1974,
1982).
forests (USDA Forest Service 1982). Since 1977, the area
of the oak-hickory type has increased, primarily in the
South. Although specific reasons were not cited, Bones
(in press) implied that natural succession and the har-
vesting of pine from oak-pine stands has led to a signifi-
cant expansion of oak-hickory forests over the last
decade.
Eastern hardwood types that have shown significant
proportional losses (at least 10% of the 1963 acreage)
include oak-gum-cypress, aspen-birch, and elm-ash-
cottonwood. In recent years, changing land-use patterns
have adversely affected the oak-gum-cypress type.
Forests on the alluvial soils of the Mississippi Valley
have been extensively cleared for agriculture (Bones in
press). Much of the remaining bottomland forests are
found as stringers along streams where the soil is too
wet for profitable cropping or grazing (Rudis and Bird-
sey 1986, USDA Forest Service 1982).
5
Table 2.— Recent trends in eastern commercial forestland by forest types.
White-
Longleaf-
Loblolly-
Maple-
jack-
slash
- i - - - A 1 *
shortieaf
Spruce-
Oak-
Oak-
Oak-gum
Elm-ash-
beech-
Aspen-
Region
Year
red pine
pine
pine
fir
pine
hickory
cypress
cottonwood
birch
birch
Thousand acres
North1
1963
10,680
3,818
19,623
2,266
58,896
1,678
18,301
32,812
23,715
1970
11,910
—
3,422
18,899
4,085
55,536
1,361
21,971
30,657
20,484
1977
1 1 ,455
3,423
17,552
4,170
49,956
623
19,074
35,821
19,243
31987
13,349
2,340
16,825
3,550
47,124
795
1 1 ,283
43,384
17,774
South2
1963
440
25,977
54,177
15
24,675
57,067
36,110
2,102
506
—
1970
257
18,314
49,409
13
30,942
56,324
29,268
2,756
482
1977
370
16,754
46,576
8
30,470
58,939
26,062
3,243
425
4 1987
514
15,491
46,248
18
27,775
70,559
27,332
3,007
876
Total East
1963
11,120
25,977
57,995
19,638
26,941
115,963
37,788
20,403
33,318
23,715
1970
12,167
18,314
52,831
18,912
35,027
1 1 1 ,860
30,629
24,727
31,139
20,484
1977
1 1 ,826
16,755
49,999
17,560
34,639
108,895
26,685
22,318
36,246
19,243
1987
13,863
15,481
48,588
16,843
31,325
117,683
28,127
14,290
44,219
17,777
includes ND, SD (east), NE, KS, and KY.
2 Does not include KY.
3Does not include KY, includes SD (east and west),
includes KY.
Source: Haynes (in press), USDA Forest Service (1965, 1974,
1982).
Aspen-birch, found in the North region, has been
declining as a consequence of uninterrupted succession.
Aspen-birch is a pioneer type on recently disturbed
sites; when logging, fire, or other natural causes do not
set succession back, this type is replaced by more
shade-tolerant species such as maple, beech, and
hemlock.
Following moderate acreage increases during the
1963-1977 period, elm-ash-cottonwood has declined by
8 million acres. The rapid spread of Dutch elm disease
partially explains this trend. In many cases, elm is being
replaced by more aggressive and fast-growing species
such as red maple which is becoming more prominent
particularly in the Northeast (Bones in press).
Some of the greatest proportional losses, for either
hardwood or softwood types, have occurred in southern
longleaf-slash and loblolly-shortleaf forests. Two signifi-
cant reasons for the decline in these types have been
cited (Bones in press, USDA Forest Service 1982). The
first was that a lack of regeneration following harvest
permitted encroachment by hardwoods resulting in con-
version to oak-pine or oak-hickory. Secondly, less farm-
land has been abandoned. Until the early 1950's, the
reversion of idle farmland accounted for the apparent
stability in softwood acreage. The decline in the two
southern pine types is particularly worrisome because
the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is an obligate
inhabitant of these softwood types. Lennartz et al. (1983)
estimated that the mature pine habitats required by this
species had declined by 13% in 25 years.
Commercial forests in the western United States are
dominated by softwoods (table 3). Because of changes
in inventory standards and definitions, meaningful
historical interpretations cannot be made (USDA Forest
Service 1982). An additional caveat is that reported
losses do not necessarily reflect conversion of forest to
non-forestlands. Designation of forestland as wilderness
removes that land from the commercial timberland base,
but this should not be interpreted as a loss of forestland
habitat.
Douglas fir and ponderosa pine are the most common
western forest types, comprising nearly 45% of the
West's commercial timberland. Fir-spruce, hemlock-
Sitka spruce, and lodgepole pine constitute an additional
39% of the western commercial forestland base. The
remaining softwood types, including larch, redwood,
and western white pine among others, account for less
than 4% of the commercial forestland base. In addition
to these softwood types, western hardwoods comprised
about 12% of the 1987 commercial timberland base.
Although of limited value to the timber industry,
western hardwoods are important for wildlife habitat and
watershed protection.
Forest succession is a process whereby vegetation
composition and structure change over time as the plant
community evolves from bare ground to the climax state.
Identifiable stages in this sequence are often called serai
or developmental stages (Odum 1971). Verner and Boss
(1980) suggested four serai stages for forest communi-
ties including grass/forb, shrub/seedling/sapling, pole/
medium tree, and large tree. As forest communities
progress through this sequence, the fauna changes, too.
Maintaining the diversity of wildlife species that are
potential inhabitants of any forest community requires
that all serai stages be represented. For this assessment,
stand-size classes for commercial timber were available
Table 3.— Recent trends in western commercial forestland by forest types.
Douglas Ponderosa Western Fir- Hemlock- Lodgepole Other Western
Region Year fir pine white pine spruce Sitka spruce Larch pine Redwood softwood hardwood
Thousand acres
Rocky1
1963
13,447
18,881
2,360
8,962
200
2,669
13,163
5,941
Mountain
1970
11,885
14,454
631
9,800
896
2,032
9,940
4,272
1977
12,220
14,673
320
10,124
1,246
1,749
9,816
507
4,555
2 1987
13,304
13,714
260
1 1 ,009
1,489
1,749
9,397
301
4,810
Pacific
1963
23,905
17,116
2,643
6,654
9,808
863
2,633
1,596
5,146
Coast
1970
18,902
13,509
198
8,029
9,922
711
3,294
803
8,545
1977
18,677
1 1 ,976
126
9,732
1 1 ,620
683
2,919
662
10,308
1987
19,023
10,927
14
15,843
9,495
852
2,178
1,102
492
1 1 ,028
Total West
1963
37,352
35,997
5,003
15,616
10,008
3,532
15,796
1,596
1 1 ,087
1970
30,787
27,963
829
17,829
10,818
2,743
13,234
803
12,817
1977
30,897
26,649
446
19,856
12,866
2,432
12,735
662
507
14,862
1987
32,327
24,641
274
26,852
10,984
2,601
1 1 ,575
1,102
793
15,838
1Does nor include ND, SD (east), NE, and KS.
2Does not include SD.
Source: Haynes (in press), USDA Forest Service (1965, 1974, 1982).
as indicators of forest serai stages. Stand-size is defined
by the predominant size of trees stocking a stand and
include seedling/sapling, poletimber, sawtimber, and
nonstocked stands.
In 1987, slightly more than half (242 million acres) of
the nation's commercial timberland was classified as
sawtimber. The number of acres classified as sawtimber
increased between 1963 and 1987 (table 4) — a trend due
primarily to ageing eastern forests. Since 1963, northern
sawtimber stands have increased by nearly 22 million
acres or 40%. Sawtimber stands have remained relatively
stable in the West over the same period.
Of the remaining size classes stocked with timber, the
greatest acreage occurs in the East. Over 80% of the
poletimber occurs in the eastern regions. Increases in
poletimber acreage have occurred primarily in the Pacific
Coast, with declines being observed in the Rocky Moun-
tains and South. About 20% of the commercial forestland
acreage exists in seedling/sapling stands — a proportion
that has been steadily declining since 1970. The majority
of seedling/sapling stands exists in the East; the North
and South are the only regions to lose substantial acres
of this size class — nearly 25% of the acres that existed
in 1977.
An important issue related to stand-size class is the
concern for old-growth forests and the obligate inhabi-
tants of this successional stage including such species
as the red-cockaded woodpecker in the South, the spot-
ted owl in the Pacific Northwest, and the Sitka black-
tailed deer in Alaska. Harris (1984) estimated that of the
118 vertebrates which inhabit western Oregon's conifer-
ous old-growth, 40 species cannot survive in any other
serai stage.
Stand-size class is not the best indicator of the amount
of forestland in mature successional stages. Age, although
a better indicator of mature or old-growth forests, is also
insufficient. Important structural characteristics such as
snags, dead and down woody material in various stages
of decay, multi-layered canopy, and patchy understory
(Franklin et al. 1981, Harris 1984) may be absent in inten-
sively managed mature forests.
The definition of "old-growth" is complex and varies
by region and by forest type. The result has been a lack
of consensus on a general definition (Mannan 1980, Spies
and Franklin 1988). Consequently, it is difficult to pre-
cisely quantify trends in old-growth forest area. All indi-
cations, however, are that old-growth is becoming rare
(Harris 1984) and is likely to be less extensive and more
fragmented in the future (Fosburgh 1985b). Thomas et
al. (1988) reported only 2% to 15% of the presettlement
virgin timber (excluding the Alaskan taiga) remains
nationwide. Similarly, Spies and Franklin (1988) have
estimated that only about 17% of the original old-growth
that existed in the early 1800 's remains in the Douglas-
fir region of western Oregon and Washington. In the last
century, old-growth forests have been almost completely
cut-over on private lands (Fosburgh 1985b). In the East,
sawtimber stands are predominantly young-growth and
are comprised of trees in the lower end of the sawtimber
size class. Conversely, the remaining sawtimber in the
West is primarily found in old-growth stands (USDA
Forest Service 1982).
A final characteristic of forested habitats, and one that
is inadequately addressed in current forest inventories, is
the size, shape, and distribution of forestlands, forest
types, and successional stages. There is an increasing re-
cognition that the pattern of forest environments across
landscapes needs to be considered in wildlife habitat
assessments (Noss 1987, Risser et al. 1984). Although some
wildlife species are benefited by increases in the spatial
7
Table 4. — Trends in stand-size class by assessment region.
Rocky3 Pacific
Class Year Total North1 South2 Mountain Coast
Thousand acres
Sawtimber
1963
208,945
52,974
68,828
38,639
48,504
1970
215,876
58,949
74,041
36,555
46,321
1977
215,435
59,098
71,246
38,545
46,545
1987
242,449
74,548
78,321
41,981
47,599
Poletimber
1963
164,794
64,808
71,580
19,063
9,343
1970
126,794
60,156
46,151
12,129
8,256
1977
135,610
55,543
58,316
11,708
10,042
1987
136,773
60,445
54,888
9,454
11,986
Seedling
1963
99,573
39,327
49,254
4,352
6,640
sapling
1970
131,368
49,223
67,578
5,229
9,337
1977
115,032
46,676
53,286
4,955
10,115
1987
92,436
31 ,547
44,883
5,323
10,683
Nonstocked
1963
35,533
14,680
1 1 ,407
3,569
5,877
1970
20,721
9,571
4,771
2,671
3,707
1977
16,408
4,823
5,198
2,556
3,831
1987
1 1 ,649
2,247
5,380
2,186
1,836
All
1963
508,845
171,789
201,069
65,623
70,364
1970
499,692
177,901
192,542
61,631
67,622
1977
482,485
166,141
188,045
57,765
70,543
1987
483,309
168,788
183,473
58,944
72,104
i Includes ND, SD (east), NE, KS, and KY.
2Does not include KY.
3Does not include ND, SD (east), NE and KS.
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965, 1974, 1982), Waddell, pers. comm., 1989.
heterogeneity of forestlands, other species appear to re-
quire large tracts of homogeneous forest. Providing
habitat for both kinds of species is necessary if the diver-
sity of species inhabiting forest environments is to be
maintained. There is a concern, both in the East (Bur-
gess and Sharpe 1981) and in the West (Harris 1984),
that increasing forest fragmentation will jeopardize the
existence of some species as functioning members of cer-
tain faunas. At the present time, the most vulnerable
forest environments are large tracts of mature and old-
growth forests.
Evaluating the impacts of changing forest type, tim-
ber size-class, and their interspersion and juxtaposition
on wildlife and fish is difficult since species respond
differently depending on their habitat requirements.
Quantitative analyses are being developed to permit re-
source planners to explicitly analyze species' responses
to forestland changes. An example is the life form sys-
tem developed for the Blue Mountains in Oregon and
Washington (Thomas 1979). Other systems have been
developed to specifically utilize Forest Service regional
inventories of commercial forestland (McClure et al.
1979, Sheffield 1981).
In a case study for this assessment, we modified the
models developed by McClure et al. (1979) and Sheffield
(1981) to assess the status and trends in commercial forest
habitats for gray squirrel, pileated woodpecker, pine war-
bler, prothonotary warbler, and red-eyed vireo in the five
coastal states from Virginia to Florida. Species were
chosen to reflect several forest types and successional
stages.
The results of the analysis using the most recent forest
survey data in those five states indicate that the rarest
habitat of the five species modeled is that required by the
prothonotary warbler, followed by the pileated wood-
pecker (table 5). The prothonotary warbler's habitat
includes stands with intermediate to dense canopy cover,
in both mesic and hydric sites, and in the intermediate
to mature stage of succession. Pileated woodpeckers need
dense mature stands on mesic sites.
The gray squirrel, red-eyed vireo, and pine warbler had
relatively large amounts of suitable habitat in the South-
east. The gray squirrel habitats are pole and sawtimber
stands with 40% to 75% canopy cover, 31% to 75%
stocked with hard and soft mast trees, and a well devel-
oped understory. Red-eyed vireos prefer hardwood stands
over 70 years old with more than 60% canopy closure.
The habitats of the pine warbler are described as pole and
sawtimber stands of pine forest types with a sparse
understory.
South Carolina was the only state suitable for an assess-
ment of trends because two forest inventories that
8
Table 5.— Analysis of status and trend of commercial forestland
habitat for five selected species in the Southeast (SE) and South
Carolina (SC).
Species % good habitat % fair habitat % no habitat
Gray Squirrel
SE
48.5
23.1
28.4
SC 1978
47.4
25.0
27.6
SC 1986
48.5
21 .8
29.7
Pileated Woodpecker
SE
7.3
18.5
74.2
SC 1978
7.1
17.7
75.2
SC 1986
6.7
16.3
76.9
Prothonotary Warbler
SE
1.9
2.1
96.0
SC 1978
10.1
6.7
83.2
SC 1986
2.1
2.4
95.5
Pine Warbler
SE
19.5
10.2
70.3
SC 1978
26.9
9.2
63.9
SC 1986
23.8
10.5
65.6
Red-eyed Vireo
SE
18.3
31.1
50.6
SC 1978
9.5
30.1
60.4
SC 1986
14.3
29.6
56.1
included appropriate variables (1978 and 1986) had been
conducted. The rare habitats declined there over the
trend period (table 5). The greatest decline occurred in
the habitat of the prothonotary warbler. Pileated wood-
pecker habitat declined slightly as did pine warbler
habitat. These trends are consistent with the noted losses
of sawtimber-sized stands, the reduction in bottomland
hardwoods (e.g., the oak-gum-cypress forest type), and
the declining acres in pine types. The development of
similar models for other species and regions will require
further research before future wildlife assessments can
have nationally complete information on wildlife habitat
of this nature.
Rangeland and Pasture Habitats
Rangelands include those acres where the potential
natural vegetation is mostly grass, grasslike plants, forbs,
and shrubs (Short 1986), plus cropland used for pasture.
Rangelands often have been evaluated in terms of their
capability to support livestock. However, people increas-
ingly recognize that rangeland ecosystems are also
important for their recreational and ecological value.
Growing public interest in range management verifies
interest in these multiple resource benefits (Joyce in
press).
Rangeland habitats support a wide diversity of wild-
life and fish species. Of the total mammalian and avian
species found in the United States, 84% and 74%,
respectively, are associated with rangeland ecosystems
during some part of the year (USDA Forest Service 1979).
Species associated with aquatic environments are the
Table 6.— Regional trends in nonforest pasture- and rangeland in the
conterminous United States (1964-1982).
Land use 1964 1969 1974 1978 1982
Million acres (% of total)
North1 55 (8) 50 (7) 45 (7) 40 (6) 38 (6)
South1 177 (25) 180 (26) 178 (26) 171 (26) 178 (27)
Rocky Mountain 404 (58) 403 (58) 398 (59) 394 (60) 388 (59)
Pacific Coast2 58 (8) 56 (8) 57 (8) 56 (8) 55 (8)
1 West Virginia is included in the South instead of the North.
2Does not include Alaska or Hawaii.
Source: Frey and Hexem (1985).
least represented vertebrate groups due to the arid or
semiarid climate of most rangeland environments. Only
38% of the nation's fishes and 58% of the amphibians
are represented in rangeland ecosystems.
Recent changes in rangeland and pasture acreages
have been minor. Since the mid-1960's total acres in
pasture and rangeland have declined by 5% (fig 2). Fac-
tors contributing to the noted losses include conversion
to cropland, withdrawal of land for recreational, wild-
life, and environmental purposes, and losses to urban
expansion (Frey and Hexem 1985). The distribution of
rangeland varies considerably by region. In 1982, the
Rocky Mountain region accounted for nearly 60% of the
total pasture and rangeland acres in the conterminous
United States while the North contributes only about 6%
to the total.
Regional rangeland area trends vary somewhat from
the national figures. The North has had the greatest rela-
tive decline since the mid-1960's, declining by 31%
(table 6). However, the North has the least amount of ran-
geland habitats which magnifies the proportional reduc-
tion noted. Rangeland area in the South has remained
stable in recent time, fluctuating between 170 and 180
million acres. Declines in the West have been relatively
minor — 4% in the Rocky Mountains and 5% in the
Pacific Coast.
Given the minor changes in pasture and rangeland
area, changes in the condition or characteristics of ran-
geland environments are, in general, more important in
evaluating wildlife and fish habitat suitability than con-
version to other land uses. Evaluating rangeland in terms
of wildlife habitat is complicated, as in all habitat types,
by the multiplicity of wildlife responses. Rangeland
characteristics that may be detrimental to some species
are beneficial to others. This difficulty has been com-
pounded because wildlife managers had not, until
recently, developed a consistent system to assess wild-
life habitats in rangelands (National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council 1982). The Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management have recently
completed a procedure for evaluating wildlife and fish
habitats in rangeland environments in ihe Great Basin
of southeastern Oregon (see Maser and Thomas 1983).
Development of similar procedures in other regions are
9
needed for application in national assessments. Despite
the absence of a national rangeland evaluation system,
a discussion of the important factors affecting wildlife
and fish response to range condition provides a qualita-
tive assessment of rangeland habitats. These factors
include interspecific competition, vegetation composi-
tion changes, effects from human management and
development, and spatial patterns of native range
ecosystems.
Interspecific competition occurs when two or more
species require the same resources that are in short sup-
ply. Much scientific literature concerns domestic live-
stock competition with large ungulate species. There
appears to be little doubt that, historically (1920-1940),
domestic animals outcompeted wild animals in the
West; although grazing pressure has declined signifi-
cantly since that time, competition still exists (Wagner
1978). Few people disagree that western rangelands are
of much reduced quality for grazing herbivores com-
pared to what was present when livestock were first
introduced (National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council 1982).
A more recent issue concerning interspecific compe-
tition involves wild horses and burros. Originally
brought to this country by Spanish conquistadors in the
early 1500's, herd sizes have grown steadily through
natural reproduction and as animals escaped or were
released from captivity (Sowell et al. 1983). Between
1974 and 1980, wild horse numbers grew from 42,700
to 55,400 (Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming
Horse and Burro Act 1980). As populations have
increased, concern has been raised over vegetation and
soil impacts as well as competition with native wildlife
(USDA Forest Service 1981). Although specific cases of
range degradation involve wild horses and burros, and
though many investigators suspect that competition
occurs, quantifying the extent and nature of the problem
requires further examination (Wagner 1983).
In addition to reducing the availability of forage for
wild animals, grazing also alters vegetation composition.
The National Association of Conservation Districts
(1979) found that brush species had replaced many of
the grass and other desirable forage species on 200 mil-
lion acres in the Southwest and that 77% of the nation's
private rangelands needed some form of conservation
treatment. Invasion by shrub species in arid grassland
communities, caused by grazing and fire control, can sig-
nificantly alter faunal composition. Examples of how
such vegetation changes negatively impact wildlife spe-
cies include bighorn sheep, pronghorn, sage grouse,
masked bobwhite quail, and northern aplomado falcon
(Buechner 1961, Gable and Dobrott 1988, Morgan 1971,
Schneegas 1967, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986b).
However, shrub invasion may have positive impacts on
other species, such as mule deer (Wagner 1978). By
favoring moderate topography near water, cattle may
damage riparian vegetation and stream habitat quality
(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, Thomas et al. 1979,
Wagner 1978). The need to consider riparian ecosystems
in future land management planning is emphasized
when one considers that 70% to 90% of riparian eco-
systems have been lost to human activities (Ohmart and
Anderson 1986).
Range management activities and human develop-
ment also impact rangeland wildlife species. Certain
techniques to improve range for livestock including her-
bicide applications to control shrubs, pinyon-juniper
removal, planting of exotic plant species, predator con-
trol, and livestock industry pressure to limit ungulate
populations all affect wildlife community composition
and the abundance of certain species (Joyce in press,
Wagner 1978). Similarly, as human populations have
increased, demands for agricultural commodities and
subdivision of rangeland environments have increased.
This development has tended to occur in valleys and
lower slopes which conflicts directly with critical winter
range for many wild ungulate species. Land use inten-
sification related to maximizing livestock production,
crop production, or human development will adversely
affect the diversity and abundance of animals associated
with rangelands unless consideration is given to wild-
life and fish habitat requirements in the planning for
range management activities.
As with forest habitats, the spatial pattern and partic-
ularly the fragmentation of native rangeland vegetation
cause concern because they affect wildlife communities.
In his study of Missouri's tall grass prairies, Samson (1980)
concluded that there was an urgent need to consider the
size and distribution of habitats with particular attention
given to species requiring large contiguous habitats.
Another study conducted in Illinois (Graber and Graber
1983) indicated that loss of grassland habitat was respon-
sible for the dramatic decline in prairie birds. The upland
sandpiper, bobolink, dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow,
savannah sparrow, and Henslow's sparrow all declined by
over 90% from the late 1950 's to the late 1970 's.
Native prairie vegetation is the most vulnerable range
ecosystem to fragmentation effects analogous to old-
growth forests. A few large and many small tracts of
native grassland vegetation remain or have been rees-
tablished. Efforts to reestablish native prairies during the
last 20 years have emphasized plant species (see Jordan
et al. 1987). As prairie habitats are restored, managers
must recognize the wild animal component when evalu-
ating grassland environments.
Unfortunately, quantitative information on the recent
trends in rangeland characteristics that are representa-
tive of broad regional areas currently do not exist. How-
ever, livestock numbers and range condition ratings pro-
vide surrogate measures that reflect, in part, the intensity
of livestock management.
Trends in livestock numbers vary by assessment
region and are reviewed in detail by Joyce (in press). In
the North, the number of cattle has shown a general
decline. Since 1975, the number of animals has de-
creased from 38 to approximately 30 million animals.
10
Trends have been similar in the South and Rocky Moun-
tains, with the number of cattle declining by 12 and 8
million animals after reaching peaks of 50 and 38 mil-
lion in the mid-1970's, respectively. The Pacific Coast
region has shown slight (500,000 animals) increases in
cattle numbers since the mid-1970's; however, the mag-
nitude of the change is minor relative to the magnitude
of the decline noted in other regions. The nationwide
decline in livestock numbers is attributed to changing
consumer preference away from red meat consumption
(Council on Environmental Quality 1985), and land use
shifts from cropland pasture to cropland use for crops
(Joyce in press).
Range condition has been defined as the departure of
a site's vegetation composition from that expected under
the climax plant community (Stoddart et al. 1975). Sites
with high similarity to the climax community are rated
as "excellent," while sites with low similarity are rated
as "poor." This rating was based on a plant's suscepti-
bility to grazing; a causal relationship between livestock
overgrazing and range in poor condition was assumed
(Joyce in press).
As reported by the USDA Soil Conservation Service
(1987), the majority (47%) of nonfederal rangelands was
classified in fair condition; 4% was in excellent condi-
tion; 31% was rated in good condition; and 17% was
in poor condition. The Soil Conservation Service also
reported that range condition trends on nonfederal ran-
gelands were static on 69% of the land, improving on
16%, and deteriorating on 15%. Although changes in
inventory methodology have taken place, the Soil Con-
servation Service's data indicate that from 1963 to 1982
nonfederal rangeland condition has improved.
Although livestock numbers have declined nation-
wide and in most assessment regions, and though range
condition on nonfederal rangelands appears to be
improving, evaluating the impact of these trends on
wildlife is difficult. Information concerning grazing
capacity and how much available forage is allocated to
livestock and other herbivores is required to assess more
accurately the status and condition of rangeland
ecosystems as wildlife habitat.
Wetland Habitats
Wetlands are transitional between terrestrial and aqua-
tic systems. Either the water table is at or near the sur-
face, or shallow water covers the land. Water saturation
is predominantly responsible for the edaphic properties
and the floral and faunal composition characteristic of
wetland systems. Specifically, a wetland must have at
least one of the following attributes:
"(1) At least periodically, the land supports predom-
inantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly
undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil
and is saturated with water or covered by shallow
water at some time during the growing season of each
year" (Cowardin et al. 1979).
The ecological, economic, and recreational values of this
habitat type cannot be overemphasized. Wetland systems
are critical to flood and erosion control, recharging
aquifers, and water purification. They are among the
most productive ecological systems (Weller 1986). This
inherent productivity supports a diverse wildlife and
fish community including many species of nongame
birds, furbearers, and waterfowl, plus threatened and
endangered species. Commercial fisheries, furbearer har-
vest, nonconsumptive recreation and study, waterfowl
hunting, and recreational fishing are examples of the
diverse commercial and recreational opportunities sup-
ported by this single habitat type.
The productive capacity of wetland soils is, ironically,
partially responsible for wetland destruction. Dynamic
processes at the land-water interface and the anaerobic
conditions of the substrate are responsible for large
accumulations of organic matter and associated nutrients
resulting in sites with very high productivity potential.
This aspect of wetlands attracts land uses that can con-
flict with maintaining the biological integrity of wetland
systems. Cattle grazing, timber harvesting, and tillage
have all contributed to the degradation and destruction
of wetland habitats when managed to the exclusion of
other uses. Clearly, the productivity of wetlands targets
this habitat type as an area of high resource conflict — a
particularly important characteristic given the increas-
ing rarity of wetlands.
Every state contains some wetland habitat; however,
wetlands across the nation only account for about 5%
of the land area within the lower 48 states, or approxi-
mately 99 million acres in the mid-1970's (Tiner 1984).
Palustrine (i.e., inland shallow water) wetlands with
woody vegetation comprise the majority of extant wet-
land habitats with 61% classified as forested or scrub-
shrub wetlands (fig. 3). Although estimates of original
wetland area are difficult to determine, Roe and Ayers
(1954) estimated that the conterminous United States
had 215 million wetland acres before settlement. If this
estimate is accurate, then wetland acres have declined
by 54%.
Frayer et al. (1983) completed a more recent study of
wetland trends between the mid-1950's and the mid-
1970's. Although some less productive wetland types
had modest gains, total wetland area declined substan-
tially (table 7).
Approximately 193,000 acres of unvegetated palus-
trine flats and 2.1 million acres of ponds were created
from 1954 to 1974. Pond acres (palustrine open water)
nearly doubled and were attributed to farm pond con-
struction between the Rocky Mountains and the western
border of the Atlantic coastal states. Most of these acres
were formerly upland sites; however, 25% of the con-
verted acres came from flooding forested and emergent
wetlands (Tiner 1984).
11
Acres (Millions)
60 |
Estuarine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine
wetlands open flat emergent forested scrub-
wa,er shrub
Wetland Type
Source: Tiner (1984)
Figure 3.— Distribution of wetland acres by wetland type.
Apart from these gains, all other wetland types de-
clined dramatically. Total wetland area declined from
108.1 million acres in 1954 to 99 million acres in 1974
for an average loss rate of 458,000 acres per year. Acres
lost varied by wetland type; forested wetlands declined
by nearly 11%; emergent wetlands declined by 14%;
scrub-shrub wetlands declined by 3.5%; and estuarine
wetlands declined by 6.5%. Draining and tillage was re-
sponsible for 87% of the lost wetland acres, while urban
development (8%) and other development (5%) were
relatively minor factors in the wetland decline.
Agricultural and urban impacts on wetland habitats
are most conspicuous in on-site development activities.
However, land-use practices, municipal uses, and
human alteration of water courses and ground water
hydrology have had less conspicuous but equally
detrimental off-site impacts (Cowan and Turner 1988,
Weller 1988). Increased water withdrawals have lowered
water tables and altered salinity concentrations on a
landscape scale which affects plant species composition
and contaminates public water supplies. Increased sedi-
ment loads from agricultural erosion have buried many
aquatic grass beds. Channelization and levee construc-
tion have significantly altered the natural marsh build-
ing processes in estuarine systems. Protection and resto-
ration of wetland habitats must recognize and address
the cumulative effects of both on-site and off-site impacts
stemming from human land management activities.
The distribution of wetland acres varies by geographic
region and is a function of climate, geology, soils, and
past land-use practices. Although only 5% of the land
area in the lower 48 states is classified as wetland, wet-
lands comprise a significantly greater proportion of the
land base in certain areas (fig. 4). Two important assess-
ment regions regarding wetland area are the South, and
the north-central portion of the North. In Alaska alone,
it has been estimated that about 55% of the state's area
is classified as wetland (Akins 1982, Saling n.d.).
Although comprising a much smaller component of
the land base in other assessment regions, wetlands
retain their value and importance to wildlife and fish-
ery habitat. Riparian habitats in the arid portions of the
Rocky Mountain region provide critical habitat for the
native fauna (Hubbard 1977). Disruption and elimina-
tion of stream flows are responsible for the loss of ripar-
ian habitat. Similarly, grazing has greatly reduced the
quality of regional riparian areas (Swift 1984).
Noted loss rates at the national level are magnified
when examined at the regional or state level. Recently
published statistics on the amount of wetland habitat lost
show that declines ranged from 99% for Iowa natural
marshes to 32% for Wisconsin wetlands (Tiner 1984).
Much of these losses can be attributed to destruction
that occurred by the turn of the century — destruction
motivated by legislation which encouraged drainage of
wetlands for agricultural development (e.g., the Swamp
Lands Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860). However, evidence
suggests the rate of wetland habitat destruction has
remained high in more recent times. As reviewed by
Tiner (1984), Illinois was losing approximately 2% of
its wetlands annually as of 1981; Kansas lost 40% of its
wetlands from 1955 to 1978; half the wetlands along
Ohio's Lake Erie coast have been destroyed; and Ken-
tucky wetlands have been reduced by 37% along the
Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys.
Table 7.— Area of wetland types for the conterminous United States in 1954 and 1974.
Palustrine
Estuarine Open Emergent Scrub-shrub Forest
Year wetland water Flat wetland wetland wetland
Thousand acres
1954 5,609 2,320 384 33,113 10,998 55,707
1974 5,242 4,393 577 28,442 10,611 49,713
Change -367 2,073 193 -4,671 -387 -5,994
Source: Frayer et al. (1983), Tiner (1984).
12
Proportional
Wetland Area
Less than 5%
5-15%
15-25%
Greater than 25%
Source: Tiner (1984)
Figure 4. — Distribution of wetland acres by state.
Based on these findings, Tiner (1984) identified nine
national wetland problem areas. These represent areas
under the greatest threat of continued degradation and
should receive primary consideration in future actions
to protect and manage this vanishing habitat type. The
problems areas include: (1) Estuarine wetlands of the
U.S. Coastal Zone, (2) Louisiana's coastal marshes, (3)
Chesapeake Bay's submergent aquatic beds, (4] South
Florida's palustrine wetlands, (5) the Prairie Pothole
Region's emergent wetlands, (6) Wetlands of the Ne-
braska Sandhills and Rainwater Basin, (7) Forested wet-
lands of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, (8) North
Carolina's pocosins, and (9) Western riparian wetlands.
The distribution of these nine problem areas by assess-
ment region shows that the South incurs the greatest
number of wetland-associated conflicts. The Rocky
Mountain region also suffers high wetland conflict due
to the loss of riparian and pothole wetlands.
These observed wetland declines negatively impact
wildlife and fish resources. Although the flooding of
upland sites may provide new habitats for ducks and
other shallow-marsh birds (National Academy of Sci-
ences, National Research Council 1982), these benefits
will be completely masked by the detrimental effects
associated with the drainage and development of extant
wetland. Because of their recreational and economic
importance, and because they depend on wetlands,
waterfowl are emphasized as a species category that is
particularly impacted by wetland loss. However, water-
fowl may be more appropriately regarded as indicators
of wetland fauna, for dwindling waterfowl populations
may be the first conspicuous indication of a damaged
or degenerating wetland. Both breeding habitat in the
North, a major portion of which is in Canada, and
wintering habitat in the South and Mexico are being lost.
The geographic dispersal of habitat used seasonally by
wetland species emphasizes the importance of interna-
tional cooperation in conserving wetlands. This concern
has recently been recognized in the approval of the North
American Waterfowl Plan by the United States and
Canada (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and Canadian
Wildlife Service 1986a). Efforts are also underway to
include Mexico in this cooperative management plan.
Flowing Waters and Associated Impoundments
Information on the nation's fisheries habitat have been
surveyed recently by the Fish and Wildlife Service as
part of the National Fisheries Survey. The information
reported here, except as cited, is a synthesis of that study
as reported by Judy et al. (1984). The survey is based
on a nationwide statistical sample of 1,303 stream
reaches. A more detailed analysis of recent trends in
water quantity and quality is reviewed by Guldin (in
press).
Two major objectives of the survey were to identify
the extent of the nation's stream fishery resources and
to identify those factors which adversely affect those
resources. Based on the survey, 69% of the streams con-
tained year-round fish habitat, 17% provided habitat
seasonally, primarily from March through June, and
14% provided no fish habitat. Although the nation's
fishery is extensive, study results also indicated that
80% of the nation's streams have problems with water
13
quantity, water quality, fish habitat, or fish communi-
ties. Water quantity was a problem in 68%, water qual-
ity in 56%, fish habitat in 49%, and problems with fish
communities in 32% of the streams sampled. In all cases
land-use intensification (i.e, agricultural or urban
development) was a prominent factor in the implied
deterioration of aquatic habitats.
If low flows resulting from natural conditions are dis-
regarded, then diversions for agricultural uses were the
most important contributor to water quantity problems
(table 8). Other sources of water quantity problems attrib-
uted to intensified land use include dam construction
for water storage, flood control, and power generation.
Considered as a group, dams were responsible for water
quantity problems in 9% of the streams sampled. In a
more recent analysis of the nation's water quantity situ-
ation, Guldin (in press) cites that between 1960 and 1985
total water surface withdrawals increased 55% while
human populations increased only 32% — a per capita
increase of 16%. Agricultural uses, primarily for irriga-
tion, accounted for the largest amount of withdrawals.
Water quality factors that accounted for over 90% of
the problems limiting fishery resources, in order of
importance, were turbidity, high temperature, nutrient
surplus, toxic substances, and dissolved oxygen (table
8). These problems frequently exist in various combi-
nations to compound the effect on fish communities. The
five most important sources of the water quality prob-
lems were nonpoint sources (38%), agricultural sources
(30%), natural sources (22%), point sources (12%), and
logging (8%).
Although water quality problems associated with acid
deposition were not directly assessed by Judy et al.
(1984), they can be inferred from pH factors. At a pH
less than 5.0, most clear lakes do not support game fish.
Low pH (too acidic) was a problem in only 2.6% of the
water bodies sampled. In a separate study, the USDC
National Technical Information Service (1987) found
three subregions where lake acidity problems were most
prominent. These subregions included the Adirondacks
and Michigan's Upper Peninsula where up to 2% of the
lake area had pH values less than 5.0. Twelve percent
of Florida's lakes were acidic, but many Florida lakes
are naturally acidic.
A recent report by the Environmental Protection
Agency supports the findings of Judy et al. (1984) regard-
ing the relative importance of nonpoint and point
sources of pollution. In a summary of state water qual-
ity reports that are required by the Clean Water Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (1987) found that
about 25% of the nation's stream miles, lake acreage,
and estuarine acreage were not fully supporting the uses
designated for those water bodies. Of the waters with
impaired use, nonpoint-source pollution was responsi-
ble in 76% of lake acres, 65% of stream miles, and 45%
of estuarine acres. Conversely, point-sources of pollu-
tion were responsible in 9% of lake acres, 27% of stream
miles, and 34% of estuarine acres.
The relative importance of nonpoint and point sources
of pollution appears to have shifted since the last assess-
ment (Guldin in press). Between 1974 and 1984, Smith
Table 8.— Sources of water quantity problems and water quality factors
adversely affecting the nation's fisheries.
Source/factor Stream miles Percentage
Source of water quantity problems
Natural low flows 477,791 50.1
Diversions (agricultural) 130,223 13.6
Dam(s) (water storage) 32,901 3.5
Dam(s) (flood control) 28,002 2.9
Dam(s) (power) 24,821 2.6
Other 18,851 2.0
Diversions (municipal) 10,694 1.1
Channelization 10,629 1.1
Flood/low flows 10,527 1.1
Irrigation 8,897 0.9
Logging 6,271 0.7
Ditches 5,335 0.6
Diversions (industrial) 3,292 0.3
Water quality factors
Turbidity ' 328,261 34.4
High water temperature 250,187 26.2
Nutrient surplus 119,519 12.5
Toxic substances 93,603 9.8
Dissolved oxygen problem 91,022 9.5
Nutrient, deficiency 40,603 4.3
Low water temperature 29,877 3.1
Other 26,685 2.8
pH too acidic 24,793 2.6
Low flow 24,364 2.6
Salinity 17,217 1.8
Sedimentation 14,378 1.5
Siltation 9,644 1.0
Gas supersaturation 5,500 0.6
Intermittent water 4,839 0.5
Herbicides and pesticides 4,356 0.5
pH too basic 3,998 0.4
Channelization 2,937 0.3
Source: Judy et al. (1984).
et al. (1987) found widespread decreases in fecal coli-
form bacteria and lead concentrations, and to a lesser
extent, phosphorous concentrations — all of which can
be traced to control of point-source pollution. They also
found evidence that nitrate, chloride, arsenic, and cad-
mium concentrations (pollution traceable to nonpoint
sources) showed widespread increases. So while some
aspects of water quality are improving, realizing further
improvement will require the more difficult task of con-
trolling nonpoint pollution.
The National Fishery Survey identified two specific
fish habitat components which, when lost, most
adversely affect fish communities. They are
juvenile/adult and egg/larva habitats, accounting for
40% and 28% of stream miles sampled, respectively.
Overhead cover was found to be inadequate in 14% of
the streams. These habitat problems were caused by sil-
tation (28% of the stream miles), bank erosion (18%),
natural causes (18%), channelization (12%), and migra-
tion blockage (5%).
Factors that directly impacted fish communities
included fish kills, contamination of fish flesh, over-
harvest, disease, and parasites. Fish kills were found to
be a problem in 15% of the nation's streams, while
14
contamination and overharvest (including poaching)
were a concern in 9% and 7% of the streams, respec-
tively. Natural causes (e.g., low flows that result in lethal
water temperatures), pesticides, and other toxic or nox-
ious substances were the three most prevalent causes of
fish community problems.
In most cases, the net result of problems with water
quantity or quality, or with specific fish habitat charac-
teristics is not a complete elimination of fish but an alter-
ation of species composition. Citing the over-reliance on
water quality measures to evaluate aquatic habitats, Karr
(1981) developed a fish community index of biological
integrity to improve on past habitat assessments. Appli-
cations in the Midwest (Karr 1981, Karr et al. 1986) have
quantified the negative impacts associated with urban
and agricultural development which result in lower spe-
cies diversity, a dominance of pollution-tolerant species
and habitat generalists, and a higher proportion of dis-
eased fish. Although the technique has been adapted to
other regions outside the Midwest, regional application
of the technique needs further refinement and testing
(Miller et al. 1988).
Agricultural Habitats
Agricultural land differs in a very basic sense from the
other habitat types discussed. Agriculture is typically
thought of as a disturbance to natural plant and animal
communities. However, agriculture is such an expan-
sive modification process that attributes associated spe-
cifically with agricultural land can be evaluated as either
beneficial or detrimental to wildlife and fish habitat.
Cropland acres, in recent history, have been relatively
stable. After reaching a low in 1969, cropland began
increasing in response to escalating world demand and
market trends (fig. 2). Cropland is not evenly distributed
across the nation. In 1981, the North accounted for about
36% of the total cropland area while the Pacific Coast
only accounted for 6% (table 9).
Trends in cropland by assessment region are consist-
ent with the national trend (table 9). Between the late
1940's and early 1970's, the acreage of land in crops
declined in all regions. Cropland acres during the next
10 years increased and exceeded the acres cropped in
1949 in all regions except the South.
In addition to agricultural land area changes, the
productivity of harvested lands has increased through
the uses of pesticides, fertilizers, improved seeds, and
advances in farm machinery and irrigation (The Conser-
vation Foundation 1984). Agricultural intensification
has caused changes in farm numbers, farm size, field
size, and land in permanent vegetative cover including
shelterbelts, hedgerows, and field borders. Changes in
these farm land characteristics are what impact those
wildlife and fish species associated with agricultural
habitats.
The number of farms is inversely related to the size
of farms. Since 1945, the number of farms has declined
by nearly 60%. Over the same period, farm size has
increased by over 120% with the largest gain occurring
in the South (Council on Environmental Quality 1985).
Farm production and management has become concen-
trated among fewer and larger farms. Attendant with
these noted changes in farm size has been a trend toward
larger field size and reduced crop diversity. Larger fields
and regional specialization in one or two crops have been
necessary to capture the efficiency of large farm equip-
ment (Burger 1978).
Collectively, these changes in farming technique and
practices have encouraged the elimination of wildlife
and fish habitat. The removal of hedgerows, field border
strips, wetlands, and woodlots to maximize crop produc-
tion has reduced the amount of vertical and horizontal
habitat diversity and with it the last remaining wildlife
habitat in agriculturally dominated landscapes (Burger
1978, Office of Technology Assessment 1985). Since
1950, the amount of farm land in woodlots has declined
by over 50% (fig. 5). Fencerow-to-fencerow farming has
eliminated much of the nesting, feeding, and winter
wildlife cover associated with agricultural land use
(Carlson 1985).
Many wildlife species are adapted to agriculturally
dominated landscapes. Upland game including north-
ern bobwhite, ring-necked pheasant, and cottontail
rabbit commonly utilize habitat associated with agricul-
tural land. Recent trends in these species' populations
and harvests indicate increasing agriculture-wildlife
Table 9. — Trends in cropland use for crops by assessment region.
Region 1949 1972 1981
Thousand acres (°/o of
total)
North1
133.4
(34)
117.4
(35)
141.4
(36)
South1
103.8
(27)
73.9
(22)
91.8
(24)
Rocky Mountain
128.6
(33)
122.2
(37)
131.6
(34)
Pacific Coast2
20.8
(5)
20.0
(6)
22.1
(6)
1 West Virginia is included in the South instead of the North.
2Does not include Alaska or Hawaii.
Source: Frey and Hexem (1985).
Acres (Millions)
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
1949 50 54 59 64 69 74 78 82 83
Year
Source: USDC. Bureau of Census (1884a)
Figure 5.— Historical uses of farmland area from 1950-1982.
15
conflicts. Brady (1985) found a statistically significant
correlation between increasing acres in row crops and
reduced harvests of pheasant, quail, and rabbit in
Illinois. Similar declines in other farm-associated wild-
life have been noted over their entire range (Berner 1984,
Farris and Cole 1981).
Not all agriculture-related wildlife and fish impacts
occur or remain on site. Soil erosion degrades stream
habitats and has resulted in the loss of native fish spe-
cies (Menzel 1983). Nonpoint chemical pollution from
cropland has also been implicated as a contributing fac-
tor in the decline of striped bass (Fosburgh 1985a). In
general, wildlife and fish managers are seeing an over-
all decline in all species associated with agricultural
lands (Carlson 1985).
The noted national and regional trends in agriculture
have recently had negative impacts on wildlife and fish
communities. Subsequent sections in this report con-
cerning populations and harvests will further document
the declining value of agricultural lands as wildlife
habitat. Although federal agencies have been promot-
ing conservation practices that would reduce wildlife
and fish habitat impacts (see Office of Technology
Assessment 1985), recent levels of implementation have
not been sufficient to reverse declining habitat quality.
Summary
Current and recent historical trends in wildlife and
fish habitats reflect, in part, national and regional poli-
cies concerning the use of forest, range, and agricultural
lands. National trends in these major land-use types
showed relatively minor changes in the last 20 years.
Because net land area dynamics were small, evaluating
land-use impacts on wildlife and fish habitat required
examining characteristics within each land-use category
that affect habitat quality.
Forest changes in the East showed major declines in
Southern pine types, bottomland hardwoods, aspen-
birch, and elm-ash-cottonwood. Changes in forest suc-
cessional stages (as measured by stand-size class) were
related to timber demands. Mature and old-growth soft-
wood stands are becoming increasingly rare in the major
timber producing regions of the Pacific Northwest and
South. Commercial demand for eastern hardwoods has
not kept pace with forest growth, allowing a greater acre-
age of older hardwood stands in the North.
Rangeland wildlife habitats are affected importantly
by the levels of grazing and management practices
directed toward increasing livestock production. Live-
stock numbers have been recently declining, probably
because of low prices and reduced human diet prefer-
ence for red meat. With the declining number of
livestock, the potential exists for increased quality of ran-
geland environments for wildlife and fish. Two issues
that remain important are the reduction in total area and
fragmentation of grassland habitats in the East, and
degradation of riparian habitats in the arid West.
Agricultural development is an important modifier of
natural environments. Although cropland area has
increased in the recent past, the most important changes
related to wildlife and fish habitat are more intensive
farming practices and larger farm size. This intensifica-
tion has eliminated or reduced the size and frequency
of shelterbelts, field borders, hedgerows, and odd habitat
areas that were previously inconvenient to crop. Simi-
larly, wetland habitats have declined and other aquatic
environments have witnessed degradation in quality as
agricultural land-use has intensified.
Finally, urban and suburban land uses have been
increasing in response to growing human populations.
Urban development not only removes land directly from
natural vegetation conditions, it increases human-related
disturbance on remaining fragments of habitat and the
wildlife and fish inhabiting them.
Land-use and land-cover patterns provide a coarse
description of wildlife and fish habitats that is appro-
priate for national and regional evaluations. The
amounts and characteristics of the various land types dis-
cussed above are the ultimate basis for the kinds and
quality of habitat available to wildlife and fish. The wild-
life and fish populations, number of users, and harvests
supported by these habitats are the subject of the next
section of this report.
Wildlife and Fish Population,
Use, and Harvest Trends
Recent trends in populations, number of users, and
harvests of wildlife and fish are derived from a data base
that was compiled in cooperation with state and federal
wildlife agencies. In some cases, these data were avail-
able for a long series of years for a particular species;
in other cases, data were available for only a few years
in a few states. Harvest and use data were more gener-
ally available than were estimates of populations, and
population data for game species was more complete
than for nongame wildlife. The wildlife and fish spe-
cies groups that have been used in this assessment are
a result of available information and it must be realized
that the estimates reviewed, in many cases, are the best
judgments of qualified professional wildlife and fisher-
ies biologists. Consequently, the actual magnitude of the
estimates is less important than the trend.
Nongame Wildlife
For the purposes of this report, nongame is defined
as those native vertebrate species that are not consump-
tively taken for sport, fur, food, or profit. As such, non-
game constitutes a majority of the approximately 3,000
vertebrate species that are resident or seasonal inhabi-
tants within the United States. Although threatened and
endangered species are included in nongame by this
definition, a more detailed discussion of threatened and
endangered species is covered in a later section of this
chapter.
Populations. — Very little information exists on the sta-
tus of nongame wildlife populations at a geographic
scale that would permit evaluation of national or
regional population patterns. Part of the reason for this
16
limited information base is the historical emphasis that
state and federal wildlife managing agencies have placed
on documenting game species populations for manage-
ment purposes (Cerulean and Fosburgh 1986). In addi-
tion, the magnitude of a complete national inventory of
nongame species would be prohibitively expensive and
impracticable. Many of the species are difficult to moni-
tor because of their secretive habits (Miller 1984).
One species group where sufficient population infor-
mation exists to support an analysis of nationwide abun-
dance patterns is birds. Systematic surveys conducted
during breeding, migration, and winter seasons provide
useful data sources. The Fish and Wildlife Service
administers the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) which is
based on randomly distributed roadside routes within
each one degree block of latitude and longitude (Rob-
bins et al. 1986). This survey is designed to assess the
population trends of breeding birds in the United States
and southern Canada. However, not all species are ade-
quately represented by the BBS. Erskine (1978) noted the
shortcomings of the BBS when the species are noctur-
nal, wide-ranging, or flocking.
The Conservation Foundation (1984) reported on the
trends in the BBS from 1968 through 1981 for 552 spe-
cies. Their summary indicated that 66 (12%) species had
increasing populations, 46 (8%) had decreasing popu-
lations, 298 (54%) had no statistically significant trend,
and 142 (26%) had a sample too small for analysis. More
recent trend analysis results from 1966-1987 (Droege,
pers. comm., 1988) revealed that 18% of the bird spe-
cies sampled had increasing populations, 13% were
decreasing, 39% had no significant trend, and 30% had
an insufficient sample size.
Although these BBS trend analyses provide evidence
that the majority of breeding bird populations have
remained stable since the mid-1960's, a significant
proportion of the breeding bird fauna has declined over
a 20-year period. Species that have shown significant
declining trends varied by region owing to differences
in species distribution, climate, and land use (table 10).
The regional boundaries in this case are those defined
by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Eastern Region
includes all states east of the Mississippi River; the
Central Region is comprised of states between the Rocky
Mountains and Mississippi River; and the Western
Region extends from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific
Coast. Progressing from East to West, one encounters
fewer species with significantly declining populations.
This suggests the East's greater human population and
associated human activity have contributed to eastern
birds' decline.
The factors explaining these trends are in most cases
unknown. As reported by Robbins et al. (1986), habitat
gain was the most common reason for 10 cases of popu-
lation growth. Increases in available habitat was
associated with species that were adapted to urban
environments and the use of human structures for nest
sites (e.g., barn swallow, cliff swallow, and house finch).
Other reasons cited for expanding breeding populations
included reductions in the use of organochlorine pesti-
cides and increases in food sources associated with
insect outbreaks. The red-eyed vireo, warbling vireo,
worm-eating warbler, blue-winged warbler, Tennessee
warbler, and American robin are examples of species that
have likely responded positively to reduced pesticide
usage and an outbreak of spruce budworm in the East.
More cases of decreasing populations of breeding birds
were attributed to specific environmental factors. Of the
23 reasons cited by Robbins et al. (1986), the most com-
mon was severe winter weather conditions during the
mid to late 1970's which increased the mortality of east-
ern phoebe, winter wren, Bewick's wren, and song,
field, and white-throated sparrows. Loss or degradation
of habitat was a factor cited in the decline of loggerhead
shrike, prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and lark
bunting. Interspecific competition involving starlings
was also an important factor contributing to the decline
of several cavity-nesting species including the eastern
bluebird and northern flicker. Although weather and
habitat factors are discussed independently, their influ-
ence on wildlife populations cannot be separated. While
harsh weather may have been the direct cause of popu-
lation declines, insufficient cover or food has likely
predisposed individuals to increased mortality during
extreme weather events.
Raptors are a particularly unique bird group that is not
well represented in the breeding bird survey. Their posi-
tions at the top of their food chains make them impor-
tant indicators of environmental change. The plight of
certain raptor populations during the 1960's and 1970's
provided a focal point for the environmental movement
and brought about regulations and intensive manage-
ment that has resulted in significant recovery of several
species.
Evans (1982) evaluated the status of 12 raptor species
that were characterized by either recent population
declines or had inconclusive evidence concerning pop-
ulation change. The 12 species included: bald eagle,
burrowing owl, crested caracara, Cooper's hawk, fer-
ruginous hawk, northern harrier, merlin, northern
aplomado falcon, osprey, peregrine falcon, prairie fal-
con, and sharp-shinned hawk. Half of these species
appear to be recovering from recently observed declines.
The bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, osprey, peregrine fal-
con, merlin, and sharp-shinned hawk have responded
favorably to U.S. restrictions in the use of organochlo-
rine pesticides. Continued use of pesticides in South and
Central America, however, has the potential to counter-
act the gains that have recently been observed.
Three raptor species have continued to decline over
their ranges, primarily owing to lost critical habitat ele-
ments. The crested caracara has suffered from the clear-
ing of chaparral brushlands (Porter and White 1977) and
the conversion of native prairies and pastureland to
urban and agricultural development (Paradiso 1986).
The elimination of burrowing rodents has dramatically
reduced the available habitat for burrowing owls. The
northern aplomado falcon has declined due to encroach-
ment by creosote and mesquite on the preferred grassy
plains and savanna habitats, and continued use of organ-
ochlorine pesticides in Mexico (USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 1986b).
17
Table 10.— Nongame breeding birds with significant declining trends from 1966-1987.
Eastern
Central
Western
Continental
Little Blue Heron
Northern Harrier
Turkey Vulture
Northern Harrier
Common Tern
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Northern Goshawk
American Avocet
Black Tern
Ring-billed Gull
American Avocet
Lesser Yellowlegs
Black Skimmer
Black Tern
Caspian Tern
Black Tern
Common Ground-Dove
Ladder-back. Woodpecker
Black Tern
Common Ground-Dove
Common Nighthawk
Northern Flicker
White-throated Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Chuck-will's-widow
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Ladder-back. Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Chimney Swift
Acadian Flycatcher
Northern Flicker
Sapsucker species
Red-headed Woodpecker
Vermilion Flycatcher
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Ladder-back. Woodpecker
Sapsucker species
Black-billed Magpie
Horned Lark
Northern Flicker
Northern Flicker
Verdin
Pinyon Jay
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Cactus Wren
Black-billed Magpie
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Bewick's Wren
Yellow-billed Magpie
Vermilion Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Veery
Black-capped Chickadee
Scissor-tail. Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Wood Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Gray Jay
Gray Jay
Northern Mockingbird
Veery
Blue Jay
Blue Jay
Brown Thrasher
Brown Thrasher
Pinyon Jay
Boreal Chickadee
Curve-billed Thrasher
California Thrasher
Black-billed Magpie
Bewick's Wren
Loggerhead Shrike
Sprague's Pipit
Boreal Chickadee
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
White-eyed Vireo
Loggerhead Shrike
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Veery
Bell's Vireo
Chipping Sparrow
Veery
Wood Thrush
Northern Parula
Clay-colored Sparrow
Wood Thrush
Gray Catbird
Yellow Warbler
Black-chinned Sparrow
Northern Mockingbird
Northern Mockingbird
Prairie Warbler
Song Sparrow
Brown Thrasher
Brown Thrasher
Prothonotary Warbler
White-crowned Sparrow
Curve-billed Thrasher
Loggerhead Shrike
Worm-eating Warbler
Bullock's Oriole
California Thrasher
European Starling
Ovenbird
House Finch
Sprague's Pipit
Golden-winged Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
White-winged Crossbill
Loggerhead Shrike
Prairie Warbler
Hooded Warbler
European Starling
Bay-breasted Warbler
Pyrrhuloxia
Bell s Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Painted Bunting
Golden-winged Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Cassin's Sparrow
Prairie Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Brewer's Sparrow
Bay-breasted Warbler
Northern Cardinal
Field Sparrow
Cerulean Warbler
Indigo Bunting
Lark Sparrow
1 J . 1 ill |_ I
Kentucky Warbler
Painted Bunting
Black-throated Sparrow
Yellow-breasted Chat
Dickcissel
Lark Bunting
Northern Cardinal
Rufous-sided Towhee
Grasshopper Sparrow
Pyrrhuloxia
Field Sparrow
Bobolink
Indigo Bunting
Vesper Sparrow
Western Meadowlark
Painted Bunting
Savannah Sparrow
Orchard Oriole
Rufous-sided Towhee
Grasshopper Sparrow
House Sparrow
Cassin's Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Clay-colored Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Field Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Black-chinned Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird
Lark Sparrow
Eastern Meadowlark
Lark Bunting
Western Meadowlark
Baird's Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird
Grasshopper Sparrow
Common Grackle
Henslow's Sparrow
Brown-headed Cowbird
Song Sparrow
American Goldfinch
White-throated Sparrow
House Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Slate-colored Junco
Eastern Meadowlark
Western Meadowlark
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle
Bi own-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Bullock's Oriole
White-winged Crossbill
American Goldfinch
House Sparrow
Source: Droege, pers. comm., 1988.
18
Because of inadequate information, the status of the
ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, and prairie falcon
is unclear. Although there is little population informa-
tion on these species, loss of habitat is generally sus-
pected. Alteration of the semi-arid western plains habitat
(ferruginous hawk), drainage of wetland habitat (north-
ern harrier), and agricultural development, water
impoundments, and pest control in the arid West (prairie
falcon) have all been implicated as prime factors for the
decline of these species in portions of their range (Evans
1982).
A primary objective of the various monitoring pro-
grams conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service is to
detect trends in bird populations early so that appropri-
ate management or regulations can be implemented
before population levels become critically low. In an
effort to consolidate the findings from various bird
monitoring efforts, and to isolate the causes for bird
population declines, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
developed criteria for the identification of birds with
declining or unstable populations nationwide over the
last 10-15 years (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a).
The identification of species was based on several
sources including the BBS, state endangered and threat-
ened species listings, National Audubon Society's Blue
List, Office of Endangered Species "Watchlist," and
expert opinion. Of the 237 nominated species, 28 spe-
cies were identified as exhibiting unstable or declining
populations (table 11). The distribution of these 28 spe-
cies across assessment regions is surprisingly even with
15 species occurring in the North, 14 in the South, 15
in the Rocky Mountain, and 10 in the Pacific Coast.
Taxonomically, most of the species are marsh or wad-
ing birds, followed in rank order by passerines, birds
of prey, shorebirds, and marine birds (fig. 6). On the
basis of habitat, species associated with wetlands
dominate the list (fig. 6). The next most critical habitat
is grassland types followed by open woodland or forest
species, and mixed habitats.
Factors contributing to the decline in these bird pop-
ulations have been difficult to determine, and therefore
conclusions are based on the collective impressions of
experts (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a). Without
question, the primary cause cited for population declines
is the loss or degradation of breeding, feeding, or win-
tering habitat (fig. 7). The pattern of habitat loss dis-
cussed earlier gave presage to the distribution of spe-
cies by habitat type. The destruction and development
of wetland habitats was the major concern for those spe-
cies listed. Increased loss of grasslands due to agricul-
tural development or natural succession from farm fields
to forestland is also of major concern. The harvesting
Table 1 1 .— Nongame migratory bird species with unstable or decreasing trends.
Assessment region where status is of concern Primary reason for listing
Apparent Small
Rocky Pacific population population Restricted
Species North South Mountain Coast decline size habitat
Common Loon
X
X
Reddish Egret
X
X
X
X
Least Bittern
X
X
X
X
X
X
American Bittern
X
X
X
Wood Stork
X
X
X
White-faced Ibis
X
X
X
X
Trumpeter Swan
X
X
X
X
Red-shouldered Hawk
X
X
X
Ferruginous Hawk
X
X
X
X
Northern Harrier
X
X
X
X
X
X
Black Rail
X
X
X
X
X
Piping Plover
X
X
X
X
X
Snowy Plover
X
X
X
X
X
Long-billed curlew
X
X
X
Upland Sandpiper
X
X
X
Gull-billed Tern
X
X
X
X
X
Roseate Tern
X
X
X
X
X
Least Tern
X
X
X
X
X
Black Tern
X
X
X
X
Common Barn-Owl
X
X
X
X
Spotted Owl
X
X
X
X
Loggerhead Shrike
X
X
Bell's Vireo
X
X
X
X
Golden-cheeked Warbler
X
X
Baird's Sparrow
X
X
Henslow's Sparrow
X
X
Seaside Sparrow
X
X
Bachman's Sparrow
X
X
X
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1982a).
19
of old-growth forests and loss of riparian woodlands are
of primary concern in forested environments.
One additional characteristic associated with habitat
loss is that over half (57%) of the species listed are
Neotropical migrants. Not only is there concern for the
loss of wetlands and deforestation in the tropics, but
other factors including unregulated hunting, pesticide
use, and pollution probably all interact to increase the
mortality of Neotropical migrants on their wintering
areas.
Restricted distribution, and therefore the vulnerabil-
ity of their habitat to future disturbance, was also cited
as a reason for the decline of several species classified
as having unstable or declining populations. These spe-
cies (reddish egret, golden-cheeked warbler, snowy
plover, and roseate tern) have, in many cases, always
been rare and therefore require special consideration in
the prevention of future declines.
Human disturbance, recreational developments, and
pesticide use are also considered factors responsible for
population declines. However, of greater importance to
the conservation of these species is the fact that in 31%
of the cases the cause of the decline was either unknown
or the species is not adequately monitored at this time.
This emphasizes the need for continued research on the
causes of population declines, and the development of
monitoring techniques appropriate for inconspicuous
species such as the American bittern, least bittern, and
black rail.
Nonconsumptive recreational use. — Nonconsumptive
uses of wildlife and fish resources has been defined as
those activities that do not result in the death or at-
tempted death of an individual animal (More 1979). This
definition is necessarily broad to accomodate noncon-
sumptive uses of both game and nongame. The findings
from the 1979 national assessment (USDA Forest Serv-
ice 1981) found qualitative evidence that nonconsump-
tive uses of wildlife and fish resources had increased
greatly during the 1970's (More 1979).
Since the last RPA wildlife and fish assessment, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has completed two surveys
(1980 and 1985) of participation in wildlife and fish
related recreation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and
TAXONOMIC
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1982a)
Figure 6.— Taxonomic and habitat characteristics of bird species
listed as having unstable or declining populations.
Habitat loss
47%
Restricted
Distribution
13%
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1982a)
Figure 7.— Reasons contributing to the decline in bird species listed
as having unstable or declining populations.
USDC Bureau of Census 1982; USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 1988b). These two surveys permit more quan-
titative estimates of participation and trends in noncon-
sumptive activities. For the purposes of clarifying the
kinds of nonconsumptive activities, four categories of
use were defined (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and
USDC Bureau of Census 1982):
Primary, nonresidential. — Trips of at least 1 mile from
place of residence for the primary purpose of observ-
ing, photographing, or feeding wildlife.
Primary, residential. — Activities around the residence
for which primary purpose is wildlife related.
Secondary, nonresidential. — Enjoyment from seeing
or hearing wildlife on a trip at least 1 mile from place
of residence that is taken for another purpose (camp-
ing, driving, boating).
Secondary, residential. — Enjoyment from seeing or
hearing wildlife while pursuing other activities
around the residence.
The results from these two surveys substantiate what
many have predicted to occur: wildlife-related, noncon-
sumptive recreational activities have become much more
important to U.S. citizens in recent decades (table 12).
The percentage of the U.S. population 16 years of age
and older that participated in some form of nonconsump-
tive recreation increased from 55% in 1980 to 74% in
1985. Although both primary and secondary activities
increased, secondary activities increased by a greater
amount. Similarly, residential activities increased to a
greater degree than nonresidential activities.
An important pattern that emerged from this compar-
ison concerned primary nonresidential activities. This
category may be thought of as a strong indicator of the
public's preference for nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation because it requires people to forgo other
activities for the sole purpose of viewing, photo-
graphing, or feeding wildlife away from their residences.
The number of persons participating in primary nonresi-
dential activities increased by only 1.8% from 1980
20
Table 12. — Participation in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation from 1980-1985 for people 16 years old and older.
Primary Secondary
Total noncon-
sumptive users Total Nonresidential Residential Total Nonresidential Residential
# in o/o of U.S. # in % of U.S. # in °/o of U.S. # in % of U.S. # in % of U.S. # in % of U.S. # in % of U.S.
Year thous. pop. thous. pop. thous. pop. thous. pop. thous. pop. thous. pop. thous. pop.
1980 93,249 54.9 83,173 48.9 28,822 17.0 79,670 46.9 88,272 51.9 69,407 40.8 80,475 47.4
1985 134,697 74.0 109,597 61.0 29,347 16.0 105,286 58.0 127,427 70.0 89,532 49.0 117,411 65.0
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census (1982).
Table 13. — Participation in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation by region from 1980-1985 for people 16 years old and older.
Primary Secondary
Total Nonresidential Residential Total Nonresidential Residential
1980 1985 1980 1985 1980 1985 1980 1985 1980 1985 1980 1985
Thousands
North1 43,291 52,947 14,867 14,585 41,543 51,098 44,958 59,757 34,747 42,483 41,632 54,992
South2 22,959 35,951 6,754 8,129 22,224 35,010 24,348 42,188 18,510 27,117 22,227 39,328
Rocky Mountain3 4,574 6,098 2,125 2,119 4,133 5,667 4,991 7,634 4,290 6,081 4,307 6,834
Pacific Coast 12,347 14,320 5,076 4,431 11,770 13,228 13,976 17,566 11,861 13,695 12,309 16,005
includes the states of ND, SD, KS, and NE and excludes MD, WV and DE.
2lncludes the states of MD, WV, and DE.
3Excludes the states of ND, SD, KS and NE.
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census (1982).
to 1985 — a rate of increase that was less than the general
population increase. Consequently, there was an actual
decline in the proportional participation from 17% of
the population in 1980 to 16% in 1985. Although
changes in survey methodology are a potential source
of error that may affect interpretation, these data sug-
gest that the recent increases in nonconsumptive activi-
ties stem primarily from people becoming more aware
of the associated wildlife benefits while at home or while
taking part in other activities rather than from the exclu-
sive pursuit of nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation.
The regional trends in nonconsumptive wildlife-
related recreation are generally consistent with the
national trends (table 13). The Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice uses human census regions to describe regional use
patterns. These regions can be aggregated to approxi-
mate the assessment region boundaries used here (see
fig. 1). The greatest gains in primary and secondary non-
consumptive recreation have been in the South, which
had the lowest proportional participation in 1980. The
absence of significant increases in primary nonresiden-
tial participants is observed in all regions, and the abso-
lute number of such participants actually declined in the
North and Pacific Coast regions from 1980 to 1985. Sig-
nificant gains in the number of participants in second-
ary nonconsumptive recreation were observed in all
regions.
Migratory Game Birds
Migratory game birds, as defined in this report,
include waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans) along with
webless migratory species such as the woodcock and
mourning dove. Information on the current status of and
trends in populations, harvest, and number of migratory
bird hunters comes primarily from Fish and Wildlife
Service annual reports.
Populations. — Waterfowl populations are one of the
most significant and familiar wildlife resource legacies.
Waterfowl habitats and populations reflect a long his-
tory of management concern in the United States. These
concerns have been heightened recently because popu-
lations and habitat continue to decline throughout North
America (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and Canadian
Wildlife Service 1986a).
Ducks. — Although the 20-year trend in breeding popu-
lations varies depending upon the species and the geo-
graphic region being considered, notable declines have
occurred in many species since the early 1970's. Breed-
ing populations for 10 species that collectively comprise
97% or more of the breeding population in the surveyed
areas (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1974) have
declined by more than 30% since the early 1970's. After
peaking around 44 million birds in 1972, populations
dropped to a record low of approximately 28 million
birds in 1985 (fig. 8). The two most abundant species
21
Winter flyway surveys of ducks permit examination
of recent trends on a regional basis. North American
waterfowl management has been organized by flyways
since 1948 and they generally represent the major path-
ways along which waterfowl migrate between breeding
and wintering habitats. Although primarily defined by
the migration routes of numerous breeding subpopula-
tions, there are many exceptions where species migrate
across flyway boundaries. Consequently, the main value
of flyway management has been as an administrative
tool, grouping those states together with similar water-
fowl problems (Bellrose 1976). The four flyways are
identified generally by the major north-south water-
courses and named accordingly: Atlantic, Mississippi,
Central, and Pacific (fig. 9).
The Atlantic flyway contains the smallest number of
ducks. Wintering populations have shown a steady
decline from about 2.9 million birds in 1966 to 1.5 mil-
lion in 1986 (fig. 10). The Mississippi flyway has had
the greatest number of wintering ducks, averaging about
8 million ducks annually in the late 1960's. Average
winter populations dropped 35% to around 5 million
by the mid-1980's. The trends in wintering ducks have
been similar in the remaining two flyways — after increas-
ing through the early 1970's, the number dropped by
over 30% and 40% in the Central and Pacific flyways,
respectively.
Populations of ducks found in winter flyway surveys
are the product of several factors. The process begins
with the number of breeding birds that flew north the
previous spring, the weather during breeding, suitabil-
ity of the breeding habitat, breeding success, and losses
from natural and hunting mortality as the birds migrate
to the wintering areas in the south. As was discussed
in the habitat section, one of the most critical factors
Figure 9.— The waterfowel administrative flyways.
Population (Thousands)
SO |
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88
Year
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian
Wildlife Service (1986b); and data on file with the USDI,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird
Management
Figure 8.— Trends in total duck, mallard, and pintail breeding popu-
lations from 1965-1988.
of ducks, the mallard and northern pintail, also have
shown significant historical declines (fig 8). The decline
has continued as the 1988 breeding populations were
20% and 54% below the 1955-1987 average, respec-
tively. Other species that have also declined over this
time period include the blue-winged teal, canvasback,
and scaup. In contrast, the following species have had
relatively stable or increasing populations: gad wall,
American wigeon, green-winged teal, northern shoveler,
and redhead.
22
Millions
Millions
1965
1970 1975 1980
Year
1985
10
Millions
Pacific
v Central
1 1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F=*=*
— i — l
Atlantic
_J 1 1 1
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Source: USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life (1966, 1967, 1968a, 1969, 1971, 1972); USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service
(1975, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, 1982b, 1987a); and data on file with the USDI,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management
Figure 10.— Recent historical trends in duck wintering populations
for the nation and by administrative flyway.
in the equation is the amount and quality of wetland
habitats (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987a).
A specific habitat-quality issue that warrants discus-
sion concerns the accumulation of toxic shot in wetland
systems. Lead poisoning caused by ingestion of spent
shotgun pellets inflicts significant mortality on some
duck populations. The issue has been fully evaluated by
the Fish and Wildlife Service; the agency has scheduled
complete conversion to nontoxic shot by 1991 which
should eliminate lead poisoning as a significant cause
of mortality in the future (USDI Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice 1987a).
Geese. — Because most geese nest outside the breed-
ing survey region, goose trends are based only on winter
surveys. Recent trends in wintering continental goose
populations have, in general, been more favorable than
for ducks with most species showing stable or increas-
ing populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Canadian Wildlife Service 1986a). This is due, in part,
to the remoteness of Arctic and subarctic breeding areas
which have been isolated from extensive development
1965
1970
1976 1980
Year
1985
2000
1500
1000
500
Thousands
\f Central
Atlantic
\( Pacific
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1
1966
1970
1980
1986
1975
Year
Source: USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life (1966, 1967, 1968a, 1969, 1971, 1972); USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service
(1975, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, 1982b, 1987a); and data on file with the USDI,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management
Figure 1 1 .—Recent historical trends in goose wintering populations
for the nation and by administrative flyway.
and habitat degradation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice 1987a). Goose populations have gone from an aver-
age of 3.0 million during 1966-1969 to an average of 5.2
million during 1982-1985 (fig. 11). Exceptions to this
trend include the Aleutian, cackling, and dusky subspe-
cies of Canada goose which have all declined due to
reduced habitat, hunting (recreational and subsistence),
and natural disturbance (Amaral 1985, Butler 1985,
Cline and Lenhart 1985).
Wintering geese, surveyed within the same fly ways
as ducks, climbed steadily in the Atlantic flyway from
a low of 650,000 in the mid-1960's to 1 million by 1986
(fig. 11). The Mississippi and Central flyways have typi-
cally had the greatest number of wintering geese. Popu-
lations have risen steadily in these two flyways with win-
tering populations approaching 2 million birds in the
mid-1980's. Wintering populations of Pacific flyway
geese have demonstrated variation in the recent past.
However, significant declines have occurred with cer-
tain subspecies. The Pacific flyway contains the only
threatened and endangered goose in the continental
United States, the Aleutian Canada goose with a 1984-
85 wintering population of about 3,800 birds. In
23
addition, decreasing numbers of the dusky and cackling
Canada geese and white-fronted geese occur in the
Pacific flyway (Raveling 1984).
As was the case for ducks, a primary influence on
goose numbers is the amount and quality of wetland
habitats. However, geese have prospered from some
practices that have been detrimental to ducks, especially
the expansion of cropland acreage (USDI Fish and Wild-
life Service 1987a). The introduction of Canada geese
into nesting habitats previously not used or under-
utilized by geese has also contributed to the observed
population increases in this species.
Swans. — Recent wintering population levels of swans
have varied from 72,000 to 148,000 birds. Eastern and
western subpopulations of the tundra swan have demon-
strated a slow but consistent upward trend. The trum-
peter swan population is one of North America's bright-
est waterfowl successes. From a population of
approximately 66 birds known in 1933, the species now
numbers approximately 10,000 birds. Trumpeter swans
are divided into three subpopulations, none of which
are now considered to be in danger of extinction (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Canadian Wildlife Serv-
ice 1986a).
Woodcock. — The American woodcock is censused
annually by volunteers throughout its breeding range.
Annual indices (number of singing males per route) of
the breeding population have been relatively stable
throughout the composite range of the species during
the last 20 years (fig. 12). The woodcock breeding index
was lower during the 1982-1984 period than at any other
time since the survey began. However, the indices have
since recovered and are approaching the long-term
mean.
When annual totals of the breeding populations are
examined together, important differences among sub-
regions are masked. Present evidence suggests two dis-
tinct breeding subpopulations of woodcock (Owen
1977). The Eastern region is comprised primarily of
Atlantic coastal states, the Central region includes those
states from the north-central lake region south to Loui-
siana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The Central region has
consistently reflected higher numbers of singing males
per route than has the Eastern region and has
experienced a general increase of nearly one singing
male per route from 1968 to 1987. Despite the observed
increases, recruitment as measured by the number of
young per adult female in the central region has declined
significantly (Kelly 1986) — a trend that has raised con-
cern for the long-term maintenance of population levels.
In contrast to the Central region, the Eastern region
has shown a gradual decline of nearly one singing male
per route during the last 20 years. Although the cause
for the decline has not been identified, evidence sug-
gests that land-use changes and forest succession prob-
ably have resulted in deterioration of preferred breed-
ing habitat (Coulter and Baird 1982, Dwyer et al. 1983).
Woodcocks prefer early successional stages of second-
growth hardwood forest associated with fields and forest
openings on mesic sites (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
1987a).
Population index
_i i i i i i—
_i i i_
Central Region
Continental
Eastern Region
1965 1970
1975 1980 1985
Year
Source: Bortner (1987)
Figure 12.— Woodcock breeding population indices (singing males
per route) by management region.
Mourning dove. — With populations estimated at about
500 million, the mourning dove is one of the most abun-
dant birds in North America (Dolton 1986, USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service 1987a). The Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice surveys breeding dove populations throughout three
management regions of the nation with the assistance
of volunteers. These regions are the Eastern, bounded
on the west by the Mississippi River except it includes
Louisiana; the Central composed of the states between
the Mississippi River and the western edge of states be-
tween New Mexico and Montana; and the Western,
which includes the remaining seven western states.
Nationally, breeding populations of mourning doves
have gradually declined over the period of 1966-87
(Dolton 1987). Indices of breeding dove populations
reached a low in 1984 at a level approximately 75% of
the breeding populations in 1966 (fig. 13). Regionally,
call-count indices of mourning dove populations have
been declining in the East and West during the same
period. The decline has been greatest in the Western
region, where the average number of doves heard per
route declined from 20.2 in 1966 to 9.2 in 1987 (Dolton
1987).
Although doves are tolerant of human activity (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service 1987a), changes associated
with agricultural practices, including the loss of shelter-
belts, may be having negative impacts on breeding popu-
lations (Dunks et al. 1982, Tomlinson et al. 1987).
Migratory game bird hunters. — Hunting activity
associated with migratory game birds is influenced by
hunting regulations that combine ducks and geese on
one licence, and the webless migratory game birds
(doves, woodcock, snipe, and other shorebirds) on
another.
Duck and goose hunters. — The number of active water-
fowl hunters in the nation climbed from 1.2 million in
1965, to a high of over 2 million in 1971, and has since
declined steadily to 1.3 million by 1986 (fig. 14). Water-
fowl hunters in each flyway have been consistent with
the national trend. The Mississippi flyway has had about
2.5 times more hunters as occur in any other flyway.
24
Population index
~ Central Region
— r— Continental
Eastern Region
~"B~ Western Region
1965
1970
1975 1980
Year
1985
Source: Dolton (1987)
Figure 13.— Mourning dove breeding population indices (average
number of birds heard per route) by management unit.
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Hunters (Thousands)
— *~ National
- I— Mississippi
Atlantic
-B- Central
-X- Pacific1
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
^Includes Alaska
Source: Data on file with the USDl. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management
Figure 14. — Number of waterfowl hunters by administrative flyway.
After reaching a peak of nearly 850,000 hunters by 1971,
the number dropped to around 550,000 hunters in 1986
for an average annual flyway loss of 20,000 hunters. The
Atlantic, Central, and Pacific flyways reflect similar hun-
ter trends. These flyways climbed from 200,000 to
300,000 hunters in 1965, to nearly 400,000 by 1971, and
then declined to levels characteristic of the mid-1960's.
The average annual rate of decline since the 1970's is
consistent across all flyways at about 2.4%.
The decline in waterfowl hunters represents a continu-
ation of a long-term trend (Trost et al. 1987); however,
the specific factors responsible for the decline have not
been identified. The decline does not appear to be the
result of stabilized season lengths and bag limits dur-
ing the period 1980 to 1985 (Trost et al. 1987). One
explanation for fewer waterfowl hunters may be the
accessibility of land. A recent survey by the National
Shooting Sports Foundation (1986) reported that land
accessibility and crowded hunting conditions con-
strained waterfowl hunting opportunities more fre-
quently than any other type of hunting. This may result
from wetland acreage loss, closure of acres to hunting,
or increased access restrictions to the general public from
hunter lease agreements.
The decline in active waterfowl hunters is also
reflected in the number of migratory bird hunting and
conservation stamps sold. These stamps are required of
hunters but they are also purchased by collectors and
more recently by nonhunting conservationists. From a
total of 1.6 million stamps sold in 1965, to a high of 2.4
million in 1971, the number of duck stamps sold
dropped to approximately 1.9 million in 1985. The num-
ber of stamps sold has declined less rapidly than the
number of hunters since 1971 indicating increasing
interest in waterfowl conservation by the non-hunting
public. Conservationist interest stems, in part, from the
fact that a portion of the money goes towards wetland
habitat acquisition and management.
Woodcock hunters. — Because there is no national sur-
vey of woodcock hunters (USDI Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice 1987a), information on woodcock hunter partic-
ipation is much less complete than for waterfowl. A
recently completed environmental assessment of wood-
cock harvests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1985) esti-
mated the number of woodcock hunters for the 34 states
that regulated seasons to be approximately 700,000 (split
evenly between the two woodcock management re-
gions). The number of woodcock hunters was believed
to be increasing from the 1960's through the early
1970's, but participation has declined since that time
(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1985).
More detailed trends of woodcock hunters was avail-
able for the South. However, since woodcock hunting
effort is often incidental to the hunting of other game,
interpretation of trends is difficult (Wood et al. 1985).
The Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen-
cies periodically surveys the number of woodcock hun-
ters. For the period 1980-1986, the total declined by
32% in the seven states from Maryland to Florida (table
14). In the southern part of the Central woodcock man-
agement region, the trend has been considerably differ-
ent. A 15% increase in hunters was estimated between
1980 and 1982, after which the number of hunters
dropped by 29% in the next 4 years.
Mourning dove hunters. — Although information on
the nationwide number of dove hunters is not available,
some information exists for portions of specific manage-
ment regions. Hunter trends since the mid-1960s in the
western management region were addressed by Tomlin-
son et al. (1987). The average number of dove hunters
declined from 418,000 to 376,000 between the periods
of 1966-1968 and 1981-1983. This trend could be
expected given the previously noted decline in dove
populations over the same period.
Trends for the most recent decade in the Eastern and
Central mourning dove management regions have been
estimated by the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. The majority of these states are in
25
Table 14.— Estimated number of woodcock and mourning dove hunters in the southern United States
by management region.
Woodcock
Mourning Dove
Eastern
Central
Eastern
Central
management
management
management
management
region
region
region
region
Year
(7 states)
(7 states)
(12 states)
(4 states)
1980
32,272
69,691
1,024,589
463,907
1981
31,641
79,169
1,092,152
457,706
1982
28,063
80,052
1,108,142
616,572
1984
25,977
77,176
1,077,213
620,471
1986
22,071
57,502
1,082,588
594,303
Source: Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1980-1982, 1984, 1986).
the Eastern region with the Central region being
represented by four states. The trend in number of hun-
ters pursuing mourning dove for the period 1980-1986
was stable in the East (table 14). The trend for four states
in the southeastern part of the Central region increased
during the period 1981-1984, then declined slightly by
1986. The estimated number of dove hunters in the Cen-
tral region is heavily weighted by the large number of
dove hunters from Texas where they are three to five times
more numerous than in any other state in the region.
Migratory game bird harvest. — Because of their
migratory habits, waterfowl and the webless migratory
birds have a harvest regulation history of national and
international interest. Laws and international treaties
have been rigorously enforced and have made the har-
vest of migratory game birds a positive management tool
in recent history. A recent cooperative study between
the United States and Canada to examine the effects of
harvest on waterfowl populations (Brace et al. 1987)
offers evidence for the continuing desire to base harvest
regulations on scientifically sound principles.
Duck harvest. — The 20-year trend of total duck har-
vest is one of general increase with harvests going from
an average of 10.9 million ducks during the 1965-1969
period, to an average of 11.8 million ducks during the
1981-1985 period (fig. 15). The short-term pattern, how-
ever, is downward — harvests have declined by 28%
since 1980.
Duck harvests by flyway show little deviation from the
noted national trends. Since the early 1970's, the Atlan-
tic and Mississippi flyways have shown generally sta-
ble duck harvests, Central flyway harvests have fluctu-
ated, and the Pacific flyway has shown a downward
harvest trend. The Atlantic flyway has consistently har-
vested the smallest number of ducks of the four flyways
with 1 million ducks harvested in 1965, increasing to
around 2 million by 1970 and remaining there. The Mis-
sissippi flyway has consistently harvested the largest
number of ducks, fluctuating between 5 and 6 million
since 1980. The Mississippi flyway, as with the Central
and Pacific flyways, realized a sharp decline in 1969.
Reduced production caused by drought on the breeding
grounds may have been responsible for the low 1969 har-
vest. The Central flyway harvests have remained
between 2 and 3 million ducks since 1970. Harvest in
the Pacific flyway, after peaking near 4.5 million ducks
in 1971, has declined by 40%.
Several factors affect the annual duck harvest includ-
ing population levels, numbers of hunters, weather, and
regulations. The relatively stable harvests since the early
1970's noted in the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways is
particularly surprising given the significant declines in
the number of active hunters and the breeding duck
Harvest (Millions)
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Harvest (Thousands)
6000
4000
3000 -
2000 -
1000
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1987a)
Figure 15.— National and flyway duck harvest trends.
26
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Harvest (Thousands)
Index
National
Pacific
700
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Harvest (Thousands)
Source: Data on file with the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of Migratory Bird Management
Figure 16.— National and flyway goose harvest trends.
populations. Thus, it appears that success rates have
been increasing since the early 1970's (USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service 1987a).
To learn more about the factors that affect harvest
rates, the United States and Canada undertook a 5-year
(1980-1985) cooperative study to evaluate stabilized sea-
son lengths and bag limits. The preliminary findings of
this study indicated that harvests are a direct function
of hunter numbers together with hunter success and
population abundance (Trost et al. 1987). Weather and
population age structure were not clearly established as
affecting harvest levels. The relationship between the
number of hunters and the number of waterfowl har-
vested was also found to be nonlinear such that the
harvest rate of small populations was higher than the
harvest rate of large populations. Finding the harvest rate
threshold for each species requires further research.
Goose harvest. — The number of geese taken by hun-
ters has increased since 1965 (fig. 16). Harvests have
gone from a low of 750,000 in 1966 to nearly 1.9 mil-
lion in 1985. Harvests during the last 10 years have been
consistently at or above 1.5 million. The Canada goose
Central Region
Eastern Region
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Source: Kelly (1966)
Figure 17.— Trends in woodcock seasonal hunting success by
management region.
is the most abundant species harvested, accounting for
60% of the harvest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
1987a). The influence of growing national goose popu-
lations explains, in part, the significant gain in harvests
over the last 20 years.
The harvest trend for geese has been upward in three
of the four flyway s. The Atlantic flyway goose harvest
has been increasing since 1965. Slightly more than
150,000 geese were harvested in 1965 and that number
grew to nearly 500,000 by the mid-1980's. The Missis-
sippi and Central flyway goose harvests have each
increased from about a quarter million birds in 1965 to
around a half million in 1971, where harvests have
remained at fairly stable levels. The Pacific flyway has
shown gradual declines in the goose harvest since the
mid-1970's. After peaking at 450,000 birds in the early
1970's, the Pacific goose harvest has stabilized near
300,000 birds.
Woodcock harvest. — American woodcock harvests are
monitored annually by the states and the Fish and Wild-
life Service through bag checks and voluntary submis-
sions of bird wings by woodcock hunters. Recent har-
vest calculations by the Fish and Wildlife Service (1987a)
estimate that 827,000 birds were taken by hunters in the
Eastern management region, while approximately 1.2
million birds were harvested in the Central region.
Trends in woodcock harvests are not estimated directly,
but are monitored through an index of success (birds per
season per hunter). During the period of 1965-1975, the
index ranged between 10 and 13. Since the mid 1970's,
however, success has declined significantly (Kelly
1986). Both the Eastern and Central management units
have experienced approximately a 50% decline in the
average number of birds bagged per season (fig. 17).
A second source of woodcock harvest information
comes from the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies annual Vital Statistics reports. The
trends are generally consistent with those described by
Kelly (1986). In the southern portion of the Eastern
management region, as represented by the seven states
27
from Maryland to Florida, woodcock harvests steadily
dropped by 43% during the period 1980-1986. In six
southern states in the Central management region, wood-
cock harvests increased from 1980 to 1982 and then
dropped a dramatic 70% by 1986.
Mourning dove harvest. — No national survey monitors
mourning dove harvests. Data derived from state agen-
cies yield a national harvest estimate of up to 51 mil-
lion birds (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987a). This
estimate far exceeds the harvest of any other game spe-
cies. Consistent with the population and hunter partic-
ipation declines noted in the Western region, Tomlin-
son et al. (1987) estimated that harvests have declined
from an average of 7.3 million in 1966-1968 to 5.7 mil-
lion in 1981-1983. Trends in the Eastern and Central
management regions have remained relatively stable in
recent years. The Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies has estimated the number of doves
harvested in the cooperating states and found that in the
southern portion of the Eastern management region har-
vests fluctuated between 24 and 25 million during
1980-1986. Harvest statistics from three states in the
Central management region showed an increase from 7.7
to 10.1 million birds during the 1980-1984 period, fol-
lowed by a slight drop in 1986.
Big Game
Big game is a general term that includes large mam-
mals taken for sport or subsistence. Some states regard
the wild turkey as big game, too. Besides being an impor-
tant outdoor recreational activity, big game hunting is
also important to many rural economies which benefit
from food, lodging, and other travel-related expendi-
tures. In 1985, big game hunters accounted for 60% of
all hunting-related expenditures (USDI Fish and Wild-
life Service 1986b).
People do not generally appreciate that many big game
populations are now more secure, more widely distrib-
uted, and more abundant than they were at the turn of
the century (Wildlife Management Institute Staff 1978).
It is important to recognize, however, that despite sig-
nificant gains in some selected populations, the diver-
sity of big game within certain regions of the country
has changed dramatically over time. Where deer now
dominate in the East, elk, bison, moose, wolves, and
mountain lions were once members of the regional fauna
(Matthiessen 1987).
Enactment of protective legislation and professional
management have undoubtedly contributed to the recov-
ery of many big game species. For example, the most
widely hunted big game species, white-tailed deer
(USDA Forest Service 1981), has a population 47 times
larger now than at the turn of the century (Downing
1987). However, past successes may not reflect future
resource status. Increased expenditures for management
will be required to maintain the quantity and quality of
big game habitats and populations (Bailey 1980, Flather
et al. 1989, Halls 1984, Miller and Holbrook 1983).
Populations. — As is the case with many wildlife spe-
cies, no standardized inventory assesses national or
regional trends in big game populations. Even the "Big
Game Inventory" formally conducted by the Fish and
Wildlife Service was simply a compilation from state
wildlife agencies. The information reported here also
represents a compilation of data that was obtained
largely from cooperating state wildlife agencies. The spe-
cies discussed as representative of big game population
status vary by assessment regions (see fig. 1) due to
regional differences in animal distributions and manage-
ment emphasis.
North. — The big game species in the Northern region
include white-tailed deer, black bear, and wild turkey.
White-tailed deer is by far the most abundant. Of the 20
states comprising the region, 19 reported trend informa-
tion since 1965. Eighty percent of the states reported
increased deer populations since 1965; the remaining
20% split evenly between stable or downward trends.
A more quantitative evaluation of deer trends was pos-
sible with the majority of the states. Eighteen states
provided deer population estimates from 1965 through
1980, and 11 states provided a complete time trace
through 1985. In both cases, significant increases in
white-tailed deer populations have been observed. From
1965 to 1980, deer populations increased by approxi-
mately 120,000 animals (4%) per year (fig. 18). The rea-
sons for these gains can be attributed to the adaptability
of the species and more favorable habitat associated with
land-use and land management shifts (Downing 1987).
Black bear trends have been more variable. Of the 11
states reporting trends since the mid-1960 's, five showed
increases, one state reported a decline, and the remain-
der had relatively stable populations. Of the states with
relatively stable populations, two have shown declin-
ing trends since the mid-1970's. However, states that
have witnessed both long and short-term declines con-
tribute less to the total regional population than states
with increasing trends. Consequently, the net increase
in black bear populations in nine states reporting quan-
titative trends has averaged 850 bears (3%) per year
(fig. 18). Though black bears have remained relatively
abundant, they are now restricted primarily to the more
remote and inaccessible portions of their former range
(Raybourne 1987) and are relatively less tolerant of
human activities in their habitat than are deer or wild
turkey.
The wild turkey has experienced the greatest gains of
the three big game species in the North. Of the 18 states
that have provided population trends, all have estimated
population increases over the period from 1965 to 1985.
Turkey populations across these reporting states have
increased by nearly 250% from 1965 to 1980 — an aver-
age increase of nearly 8% annually (fig. 18). Restock-
ing programs along with favorable landscape changes
have contributed to the significant increases in turkeys.
South. — The two most important big game species in
the Sou*h are the white-tailed deer and wild turkey
(USDA Forest Service 1981). These species have been
monitortd and managed more intensively than most spe-
cies in the region because of their importance to hunt-
ing. As of 1980, a compilation of state agency statistics
showed that the South supported 8.6 million deer and
28
North
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 18.— Recent trends in big game populations in the Northern and Southern regions.
1.4 million turkeys, levels 29 and 47 times the national
population estimates for these species in the early
1900's, respectively. The recovery of these populations
since the turn of the century has continued over the last
20 years. Deer populations have increased 96% (70,000
animals/ year), while turkeys have increased by 120%
(50,000 birds/year) (fig. 18). The population increases
of both deer and turkey appear to be consistent in the
majority of southern states. Twelve out of the 13
southern states reported significant increases in deer and
10 states reported gains in turkeys.
Rocky Mountain. — The West has a greater diversity
of big game animals than the East. Information provided
by the states was sufficient to discuss trends for deer
(mule and white-tailed combined), elk, and pronghorn.
Population trends for bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and
moose were available from federal land managing agen-
cies and therefore are discussed in the Wildlife and Fish
Resources on Public Lands section of this chapter.
Because big game habitats in the West are predominantly
found on public land, most big game species are more
numerous on and more heavily hunted on public lands
(Hoekstra et al. 1981).
Mule deer are by far the most abundant big game spe-
cies in the Rocky Mountain region. Because mule and
white-tailed deer are not always distinguished in state
statistics, the two species are combined here. The
decline in deer populations during the early 1970's (fig.
19) was due to the documented decline in mule deer that
apparently occurred throughout the West. Wallmo
(1978) speculated that loss of habitat associated with
human development was partially responsible for the
decline. However, this does not explain why the num-
ber of mule deer have since recovered. An alternative
explanation for the decline is that deer herds could not
support the liberal hunting regulations that were in place
during the 1970's — with more restrictive harvest regu-
lations populations increased (Wagner, pers. comm.,
1988). In 1985, 11 of the 12 Rocky Mountain states
reported populations of more than 3 million animals.
Elk were once the most widely distributed cervid in
North America (Boyd 1978). Restriction of elk range
resulted from both exploitation and land-use conversions
associated with human settlement (Thomas and Bryant
1987). Their current distribution is now essentially con-
fined to the West. Populations over the current range
have been recovering due to harvest regulation and
intensive transplanting programs. Populations in 11 out
of the 12 western states have increased approximately
85% for an average annual increase of 10,000 animals
since 1965 (fig. 19).
Pronghorn populations also have experienced signifi-
cant increases in the last 20 years. Once numbering 30-
40 million, populations in the 1920's had been reduced
to 13,000 animals (Yoakum 1978). Pronghorn popula-
tions have increased dramatically since that time. Eleven
states in the Rocky Mountain region estimated the 1985
pronghorn population to be between 550,000 to 600,000
29
Rocky
Mountain
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Population (Millions)
Population (Thousands)
0" ' ' 1 1 ' n'
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 t96n 1965 1970 1976 1980 1S86 1990
Year
Year
Pacific
Coast
3
2.6
2
1.6
1
0.6
Population (Millions)
Deer
200
160
100
Population (Thousands)
1960 1965 1970 1976 1980 1986
Year
Source: Data supplied from state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 19.— Recent trends in big game populations in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast
regions.
animals. Trends over the last 20 years show consistent
increases with an average annual gain of approximately
22,000 animals (fig. 19). Regulation of hunting has been
an important factor in the recovery of the species;
however, improvement in range conditions and rever-
sion of land to more suitable pronghorn habitat have also
encouraged recovery (Wagner 1985, Yoakum 1978).
Pacific Coast. — The trends of big game populations
in the Pacific Coast region are similar to those in the
Rocky Mountains. Deer (mule, black-tailed, and white-
tailed) are the most abundant big game species compris-
ing nearly 90% of the total big game population in the
region. Deer populations declined from 1965 through
1980 for an overall loss of about 15% (fig. 19). Declines
were most rapid from 1970 through 1975, after which
populations appeared to stabilize. Commonly cited rea-
sons for the decline include severe weather and deteri-
oration of winter and summer habitat due to fire sup-
pression, grazing, road development, and human
harassment (Connolly 1981).
Elk population trends have fluctuated recently. The
general trend, however has been upward since the
1960's (fig. 19). The reasons for the increase are more
intensive management through harvest regulations and
transplanting programs and the availability of habitat to
support expanding numbers (Thomas and Bryant 1987).
Black bear, pronghorn, and wild turkey comprise a
much smaller proportion of big game in the Pacific
Coast region (fig. 19). Bear population estimates are
incomplete and the trends depicted only represent infor-
mation from two states. Bear populations appear to have
increased from the 1960's through the early 1970's. Pron-
ghorn and wild turkey populations grew consistently,
nearly doubling and tripling their numbers from 1965
to 1980, respectively.
Big game hunters. — The number of big game hunters
is influenced by harvest regulations and socioeconomic
factors affecting recreational preferences. The number
of big game hunters increased from about 6.6 million
in 1965 to 12.6 million in 1985 (table 15)— a proportional
increase from 4.6% to 6.4% of the U.S. population 12
years old or older. The percent of the population par-
ticipating in big game hunting increased a constant 0.4%
through 1975. After declining slightly in 1980, pro-
portional participation increased to mid-1970 levels in
1985. Potential causes for the declining national rate of
participation include decreasing land accessibility,
crowded hunting areas, and less leisure time to partici-
pate (National Shooting Sports Foundation 1986).
Regionally, the number of big game hunters has
increased in the North, South, and Rocky Mountains
30
Table 15.— National and regional participation trends in big game hunting.1
Region
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Thousands
Total
6,566
7,774
1 1 ,037
1 1 ,047
12,576
(% population)
(4.6)
(5.0)
(6.4)
(6.0)
(6.4)
North
5,832
6,121
(7)
(7)
South
4,173
4,599
(8)
(8)
Rocky Mountain
1,412
1,694
(11)
(13)
Pacific Coast
969
935
(4)
(4)
^Regional totals do not sum to national total since hunters may hunt in more than one state.
NOTE: Total participants based on people 12 years old and older. Regional participants in 1980 and
1 985 are based on persons 1 6 years and older. For the purposes of trend analysis, the national figures
reported here for 19651985 have been adjusted to permit comparison across years, as explained in
appendix C of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b).
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau
of Census (1982).
(table 15). The number of big game hunters actually
declined in the Pacific Coast region.
Deer are by far the most commonly hunted big game
species — over 95% of all big game hunters sought deer
in 1980 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC
Bureau of Census 1982). Wild turkey was the second
most commonly sought species, with 12% of big game
hunters pursuing this bird. The number of elk, bear,
pronghorn, or moose hunters was relatively small, con-
stituting about 12.5% of all big game hunters. The abun-
dance of deer and their distribution near high popula-
tion centers in the East explains the large numbers of
deer hunters. Examining trends in species hunted from
1981-1985, the National Shooting Sports Foundation
(1986) found that deer and turkey were the only big game
species that were hunted more frequently over that 5-
year period.
Big game harvest. — One of the major tools available
to states for managing big game species is harvest regu-
lation. This is particularly true where natural predators
of big game are no longer present and some form of
removal helps balance animal numbers with habitat
resources. Much of the research recently developed to
aid big game management has focused on quantifying
the effects of exploitation on large mammal populations
(see Caughley 1977, Fowler and Smith 1981, Starfield
and Bleloch 1986). Because of this focus and the rela-
tive ease of estimation, big game harvest statistics have
tended to be more geographically and temporally com-
plete. The most basic factors influencing big game har-
vests are population levels and hunter effort. However,
factors such as weather, special regulations, and acces-
sibility will modify the expected hunter success rates.
Generally, the harvest levels reported here follow the
expectation based on animal populations and hunter
effort.
North. — Of the 20 states comprising the North, 15, 7,
and 10 states provided harvest trends from 1965 through
1985 for deer, bear, and turkey, respectively. All har-
vest levels have increased over the last 20 years (fig. 20),
as expected given the notable population increases of
these species. Wild turkey showed the greatest increase
in harvest levels — 380% over the last 20 years for an
average increase of 3,300 birds annually. Bear harvests,
in the seven reporting states, increased 140% or 210
animals per year. Although deer showed the smallest
proportional increase (94%), the observed annual
increase of nearly 22,000 animals harvested over the last
20 years emphasizes the dominating importance of this
species to big game hunters in the North.
South. — The dramatic increases in deer and turkey
populations in the South is tracked closely by harvest
trends (fig. 20). Deer harvests increased nearly 280%
while turkey harvests increased 143% from 1965 to
1985. These relative increases translate into average
annual gains of 62,000 and 6,800 animals bagged,
respectively. The increase in deer harvests were rela-
tively steady over the period, in contrast to turkey har-
vests which showed more rapid gains in the last 10-year
period (1975-1985). This may indicate that turkey popu-
lations reached sufficient levels in the mid-1970's to trig-
ger an influx of new users.
Rocky Mountain. — Big game harvest trend data were
available from all states in the Rocky Mountain region.
Elk and pronghorn harvests have increased by 58% and
104%, respectively, over the last two decades (fig. 21).
Elk harvest increases appear to be consistent across
reporting states. Conversely, pronghorn harvest trends
varied by state with eight states reporting increases, two
reporting declines, and two reporting relatively stable
harvests. States not reporting increases are characterized
by low pronghorn populations and contribute little to
the overall regional harvest trend.
Deer (mule and white-tailed) harvests have qualita-
tively mimicked the noted population trends. Although
deer populations declined consistently from 1965
31
North
1000
Harvest (Thousands)
Deer
800
600
400
200
0
1960 1965 1970 1976 I960 198S
Year
1990
Harvest (Thousands)
1960 1966 1970 1976 1980 1986 1990
Year
South
2000
Harvest (Thousands)
1600
1000
600
1960 1966 1970 1976 1960 1986 1990
Year
260
Harvest (Thousands)
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 20.— Recent trends in big game harvests in the Northern and Southern regions.
Rocky
Mountain
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Harvest (Thousands)
Deer
Harvest (Thousands)
1960 1965 1970 1975
Year
1980 1985 1990
960 1966 1970 1976
Year
1960 1986 1990
Pacific
Coast
300
260
200
160
100
60
Harvest (Thousands)
Harvest (Thousands)
Elk
960 1966 1970 1976 1980 1986
Year
1990
1990
Source-. Data supplied from state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 21 .—Recent trends in big game harvests in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions.
32
through the mid-1970's, harvests actually increased
between 1965 and 1970, before declining by 36% in
1975. By 1985, deer harvests increased to near 1970
levels. State trends tended to be consistent with the
regional trend. Exceptions occurred in states along the
eastern border of the region where whitetails are the
predominant deer species. In these states, consistent
increases in harvests have been observed.
Pacific Coast. — Changes in deer harvest over the last
20 years have been heavily influenced by the mule deer
decline that evidently occurred throughout the West.
Deer harvests declined by over 40% from 1965 to 1975,
increased to pre-crash levels in 1980, only to decline
again in 1985 (fig. 21).
Elk and pronghorn harvest trends have consistently
increased from 1965 through 1980 (fig. 21). Pronghorn
harvests more than doubled between 1965 and 1980. As
with deer, elk harvests have declined since 1980. The
magnitude of the decline (35%) was influenced heavily
by a record high harvest in 1980 in one of the reporting
states.
After dropping nearly 50% between 1965 and 1970,
bear harvests have fluctuated since 1970 (fig. 21). Not all
reporting states were consistent in this pattern; harvests
have doubled since 1970 in one state and declines have
been reported in two others.
Turkey harvests have experienced the greatest relative
increase of all big game species in the Pacific Coast
region. From a low of about 400 birds in 1965, harvests
have increased to nearly 9,000 in 1985 (fig. 21).
Small Game
Animals considered small game generally include resi-
dent game birds and mammals but exclude migratory
birds and furbearers. The word "upland" frequently
modifies the designation small game to indicate these
animals associate with forest, range, or agricultural habi-
ats rather than wetland or aquatic systems. States vary in
the species managed as small game. For the purposes of
this report, population and harvest trends of grouse,
squirrel, rabbit, quail, and pheasant are reviewed as rep-
esentative examples of the nation's small game resource.
Populations. — Most states do not monitor small game
populations, but rather use harvest data to evaluate
resource status. Consequently, few states contributed
small game information; therefore, trends must be inter-
preted with caution. Harvest statistics provided a more
regionally representative sample of states from which
trends in small game resources could be evaluated.
Populations of small game are relatively more respon-
sive to environmental factors such as weather and vege-
tation than big game. Vegetation, as a habitat compo-
nent, is probably the major factor that can be influenced
to change small game populations. Harvest of small
game populations generally does not withdraw sufficient
numbers of the population stock to effectively change
the population because most small game species have
a high reproductive potential.
Some national trends in small game populations are
apparent from an overview of regional summaries. Small
game populations associated with agricultural land uses
are declining. Pheasant, quail, prairie grouse, and
eastern cottontail populations all have shown a down-
ward trend over the 1965 to 1985 period. Small game
species associated with forested habitats, including
squirrel and grouse, remained stable or increased
slightly over the same 20-year period. A more detailed
account of recent population trends by assessment region
follows.
North. — Northern small game population trends are,
in general, consistent with national pattern by species
and habitat (fig. 22). Northern bobwhite reach the north-
ern extent of their range in this region. Consequently,
weather is an important factor influencing quail num-
bers. The trend in northern bobwhite numbers has been
slightly downward (10%) since 1965 with the greatest
decline occurring in the last 10 years. Rabbit and hare
populations have gradually declined by 20% since 1965
while pheasant numbers have declined by over 60% in
one mid-Atlantic state. The declines in quail, rabbit, and
pheasant populations are considered to be habitat
related. These species have dwindled with reduced
interspersion of early forest succession and agriculture,
with bigger farms but fewer fencerows and field borders,
and with more intensive farming including more herbi-
cide use and fall plowing (National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council 1982).
In contrast to the small game species associated with
agricultural and shrubland habitats, squirrel populations
have increased by over 30% in the forested Northeast,
yet have declined slightly in the more agricultural Mid-
west. These trends follow the changes in land-use
patterns — small farm woodlots are being removed in the
Midwest while maturing forests in the Northeast are
providing more suitable squirrel habitat.
South. — The South's populations of northern bob-
white and eastern cottontail have recently declined by
50% and 35%, respectively (fig. 22). States along the
northern boundary have had relatively stable quail popu-
lations; the decline has occurred mostly in the deep
South. In addition to more intensive agricultural prac-
tices and the decline of early succession vegetation, state
regulations restricting the use of prescribed burning have
resulted in less favorable habitat conditions (Landers
1987) for many small game species such as northern
bobwhite.
As in the North, trends for forest small game have been
more favorable than for species associated with agricul-
tural habitats. Squirrel populations in four states have
been increasing steadily over the last 20 years, for an
overall increase exceeding 75%.
Rocky Mountain. — Pheasant populations in the Great
Plains have declined in the traditionally high-population
central states and remained relatively stable in the more
northeastern states. In three states that have reported
population trends from 1965 to 1985, pheasant numbers
have dropped by over 50% (fig. 23).
Grouse populations have varied by species. Compo-
site population trends for prairie grouse species have
shown consistent declines over the recent historical
period, while forest grouse species have shown relatively
33
North
Population (Millions)
Rabbits
■+-
-+■
Population (Millions)
Pheasant
Bobwhlte
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
r. , /ft Jim > SOUth
Population (Millions)
60
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
NOTE. — Number of Northern states reporting population trends through 1985: Pheasants-1, Quail-2, Rabbits-2, Squirrels-2. Forest
Grouse-3. Number of Southern states reporting population trends through 1985: Quail-3, Rabbits-4, Squirrels-4
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 22.— Recent trends in small game populations in the Northern and Southern regions.
Rocky
Mountain
Population (Millions)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Population (Thousands)
Forest Grouse
1970 1976
Year
1960
1965
1970 1976
Year
1980
1986
2000
1600
1000
600
Population (Thousands)
Pacific
Coast
1960
1966
1970 1976
Year
1980
1986
NOTE.— Number of Rocky Mountain states reporting population trends through 1985: Pheasants-3, Prairie Grouse-3, Forest
Grouse-1 . Number of PAcific Coast states reporting population trends: Pheasants-1 , Quail-1 , Prairie Grouse- 1 , Forest Grouse- 1
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 23.— Recent trends in small game populations in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast
regions.
34
stable numbers. Populations of sharp-tailed grouse
(Miller and Graul 1980) and sage grouse (Autenrieth
1986) in the Rocky Mountain region have declined due
to agricultural practices which have reduced critical
cover and food plants.
Pacific Coast. — Small game population estimates were
available from one state. As observed in the other
regions, trends have been mixed. Forest and prairie
grouse populations show divergent trends. Forest grouse
species have increased slightly since 1975 while sage
grouse have declined by 40% since 1965. Quail
populations (bobwhite and western species) dropped by
25% and pheasants have declined by more than 50%
(fig. 23).
Small game hunters. — The number of small game
hunters has historically represented approximately 8%
of the U.S. population 12 years old and older (table 16).
Until recently, more hunters pursued small game than
any other category of game. As is true in the pursuit of
nearly any recreation activity, small game hunters have
a dedicated core of individuals. They hunt almost
regardless of population changes among their preferred
species. Consequently, declining small game popula-
tions associated with agricultural land has primarily
affected the "incidental" small game hunter.
Though the number of small game hunters increased
through 1975, the 1985 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service 1988b) indicated that small game
hunting has since declined (table 16). The proportion
of the U.S. population that hunted small game dropped
by over 2% since 1975. Regional trends in the number
of small game hunters have been declining in all assess-
ment regions since 1980 with the greatest losses occur-
ring in the North and South.
In the National Shooting Sports Foundation survey
(1986), small game hunters attributed declining partic-
ipation to several factors. Dwindling access to hunting
land and crowded hunting areas were judged to be
greater problems than in the past by 45% of the small
game hunters polled, and the South was more greatly
affected by these factors than other regions. Fifty-one
percent of the hunters further indicated that game popu-
lation declines were a greater problem than in the past.
Insufficient game was a greater problem in the North
(cited by 56% of the hunters), than in the South (43%),
or the West (52%).
Small game harvest. — The harvest of small game
generally represents between 10% and 30% of a species'
annual population according to state agency data. There
is a high degree of correlation between population size
and number of small game harvested. Except for the
Southern region, pheasant harvests generally have been
declining throughout the nation. Quail harvests gener-
ally have dropped with some short-term increases in all
but the Southern region. Rabbit harvests have declined
consistently in all regions. Harvests of forest small game
have been variable but a general increase is evident dur-
ing the last 20 years.
North. — Small game harvests in the North have de-
clined for species associated with agricultural lands (fig.
24). An initial increase in bobwhite harvests during the
early 1970's was followed by a consistent 15-year decline
of over 65%. Pheasant harvests peaked in the mid-
1970 's, after which a 50% decline has been observed.
Rabbits follow the same 20-year pattern noted for
pheasants — s.light increases in harvest through 1975 fol-
lowed by a 40% decline by 1985.
Forest small game have not demonstrated the same
pattern as agriculturally associated species (fig. 24).
Squirrel harvests have steadily increased by 10% since
the mid-1960's. Grouse harvests have been variable in
recent history. For the six states which reported grouse
harvests during 1965-75, no pattern was evident. Dur-
ing the 1975-1985 period, however, grouse harvests
have increased in five states, and declined in three states.
No particular geographic pattern to the states reporting
increased or decreased grouse harvests is evident.
Table 16.— National and regional participation trends in smaN game hunting.1
Region
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Thousands
Total
10,576
1 1 ,671
14,182
12,496
11,130
(% population)
(7.5)
(7.5)
(8.3)
(6.8)
(5.7)
North
5,707
5,071
(7)
(6)
South
4,766
4,140
(9)
(7)
Rocky Mountain
1,534
1,387
(12)
(10)
Pacific Coast
922
731
(4)
(4)
1 Regional totals do not sum to national totals since hunters may hunt in more than one state.
NOTE: Total participants based on people 12 years old and older. Regional participants in 1980 and
1985 are based on persons 16 years and older. For the purposes of trend analysis, the national figures
reported here for 1965-1985 have been adjusted to permit comparison across years, as explained in
appendix C of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b).
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI Bureau
of Census (1982).
35
Ol 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 1 I 0 1 11 11 I ' 11 1 I 11 1 ' I ' 1 11 I 1 ' 1 1 I '
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1965 1960 1965 1970 1975 19S0 1985
Year Year
NOTE. —Number of Northern states reporting harvest trends
through 1985: Pheasant-9, Quail-6, Rabbits-7, Forest
Grouse-9, Squirrels-7. Number of Southern states reporting
harvest trends through 1985: Pheasant-2, Quail-7,
Rabbits-7, Forest Grouse-3, Squirrels-6
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 24. — Recent trends in small game harvests in the Northern and Southern regions.
South. — Pheasant harvests in the Southern region are
heavily influenced by the estimates from the western and
northern fringe states since pheasants do not occupy most
of the region. Data from two southern states indicated
increases in pheasant harvest since the mid-1970 's (fig.
24) — a notable deviation from the significant declines
observed in all other assessment regions. Northern bob-
white harvests have closely followed the trend in their
populations with a consistent drop of over 50% during
the last 20 years. The decline in rabbit harvests has been
slightly more moderate than quail with a 40% drop being
reported. Squirrel harvests declined slightly between
1965 and 1970 but have since recovered to levels that
exceed those observed in 1965. In the three southern
states reporting grouse harvests, the number of birds
taken has declined by over 20% since 1975 and may be
associated with the decline in early forest successional
stages.
Rocky Mountain. — In general, small game harvests in
the Rocky Mountain region have shown a convex
pattern — increases through the mid-1970 's and early
1980 's followed by declines (fig. 25). Quail-harvest gains
through 1980 have recently been lost. More recent har-
vests have dropped well below levels observed during the
late 1960 's and early 1970 's. After increasing through the
mid-1970 's, rabbit harvests by 1985 had declined to 1965
harvest levels. The highest grouse harvests were
experienced during the mid-1970 's after which signifi-
cant declines have been observed. Squirrel harvest
increased by 18% by 1980, after which it dropped nearly
40% by 1985. Pheasant-harvest trends, an exception to
the convex pattern in 20-year harvests, have declined by
more than 30% since 1965.
Pacific Coast. — Obvious declines in pheasant and quail
harvests have been observed in the Pacific Coast region
since 1965. Pheasant harvests have declined by 60%
while quail harvests have declined by 80% (fig. 25). After
increasing through the mid-1970 's, forest grouse harvests
have declined to levels observed in the mid-1960 's. Sage
grouse harvests have declined dramatically since 1965.
Furbearers
Mammals referred to as furbearers constitute a wild-
life resource valued not only ecologically and recreation-
ally but also for income. Most furbearing animals are
taken by trapping rather that hunting due to their secre-
tive habits (Deems and Pursley 1983). This furtiveness
makes information on population status difficult to col-
lect. For most species, the only available information is
on harvest levels, the trends of which may be more a
reflection of fur price than of population status.
In addition to the information deficiencies on status
and trends in the furbearer resource, trapping is further
36
Rocky
Harvest (MlrHone) Mountain Harvest (Thousands)
Year Year
NOTE.— Number of Rocky Mountain states reporting harvest
trends through 1985: Pheasant-10, Quail-5, Rabbits-8,
Prairie Grouse-10, Forest Grouse-9, Squirrels-3. Number of
Pacific Coast states reporting harvest trends through 1985:
Pheasant-3, Quail-2, Forest Grouse-3, Prairie Grouse-2
Source: Data supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies
Figure 25.— Recent trends in small game harvests in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast
regions.
characterized by long-term controversy. Trappers are
under growing pressure to abandon their activity (Reiger
1978) to the extent that anti-trapping sentiment threatens
the future of trapping in many areas of the country (Foner
1982; Linscombe, pers. comm., 1987).
Populations. — Few data on the population status of
furbearers exist that are of sufficient scope and extent
for use in national resource assessments. Two national
summaries that have addressed furbearer population
trends were completed by Deems and Pursley (1983) and
Sisson-Lopez (1979). These reports provide qualitative
indications of recent historical trends — the findings of
which are summarized here. Only those species that are
most commonly harvested, of significant economic
value, or of particular public interest are reviewed.
The five furbearers most commonly harvested in the
1980's were the muskrat, raccoon, nutria, opossum, and
beaver (Linscombe 1988). Muskrat populations have
been, and continue to be, abundant throughout their
North American range. Trends indicate fairly stable
populations with short-term fluctuations tracking wet-
land habitat condition. One exception to this general
trend was in the Rocky Mountain region where there was
a gradual decline from 1955 to 1975 (Sisson-Lopez 1979),
possibly reflecting diminishing wetlands.
The remaining four species have all shown recent
population increases. The raccoon has become more
numerous since the turn of the century, its adaptability
reflected by increasing urban and suburban populations
and by range extension to the north. Nutria, a rodent
introduced from South America, has become so abun-
dant in some areas that it is regarded as a pest. Now
established in 15 states, the nutria raises concern about
competition with native species such as the muskrat
(Linscombe and Kinler 1985). Beavers are probably more
abundant now than they were at the turn of the century
(Deems and Pursley 1983). The few and isolated popu-
lations that existed in the early 1900's have expanded
to include most of the beaver's original range.
Transplanting programs, harvest regulations, and an
abundance of suitable habitat are factors responsible for
the observed increase. The Virginia opossum has been
expanding its range northward; however, it remains
most abundant in the South. A high reproductive rate,
use of a broad range of land cover types, and adaptabil-
ity have contributed to the opossum's increased distri-
bution and abundance.
The red fox and mink are two additional species of
interest because of their economic importance. In terms
of total value (price per pelt x total harvest), the red fox
37
and mink were the fourth and fifth most valuable spe-
cies in 1985, behind raccoon, muskrat, and beaver (Lins-
combe 1988). Recent trends for fox and mink are less
favorable than for the more commonly harvested fur-
bearers. Sisson-Lopez (1979) found evidence that both
species had declining trends in some regions of the
country. Fox declines appear associated with human
pressures in the open prairie regions while mink
declines may be tied to loss of important wetland
habitats.
Two other species that warrant consideration because
of high public interest are the coyote and bobcat. Because
of depredation problems, the coyote has been a center
for debate on predator control issues. Despite intensive
control programs, coyote numbers appear to be increas-
ing in many regions of the country. In addition, the coy-
ote's range has been expanding eastward through north-
eastern (Moore and Millar 1984) and some southeastern
states. Coyote range expansion probably results from
elimination of the gray wolf, clearing of forests, agricul-
tural practices, and adaptation to suburban environ-
ments (Carbyn 1982).
The bobcat became a species of particular public con-
cern when pelt prices rose exponentially during the mid-
1970's. The dramatic price increase followed high
demand for spotted-fur garments when supplies were
low due to restrictions on imported spotted-cat pelts.
Because bobcats are susceptible to excessive hunting and
trapping pressure (Koehler 1987), there was widespread
public contention over the impact that increasing trap-
ping pressure would have on the viability of bobcat
populations. Part of the difficulty was a general dearth
of information on bobcat abundance and ecology to
accurately assess population status. Existing information
suggests that bobcat populations increased during the
1950's and early 1960's but have since declined (Ander-
son 1987). The increase coincided with intensive con-
trol efforts to reduce coyote populations which are
thought to compete with bobcats (Nunley 1978). Despite
changes in abundance, the distribution of bobcats has
changed little historically— exceptions include the mid-
western and mid-Atlantic states where they have been
eliminated from much of the area by intensive agricul-
tural practices (Deems and Pursley 1983, Koehler 1987).
Trappers. — Trappers, themselves, share attributes of
the species they pursue. Trappers tend to be withdrawn
(Reiger 1978) and comprise a small percentage of the
U.S. population, which makes studying their activity
difficult. Unlike hunters, trappers have a profit motive
attached to their activity. In addition to economic incen-
tives, growing public and legislative pressures to
eliminate trapping or restrict trapping methods affect
trapper numbers. Many states have passed, or are con-
sidering, legislation that would outlaw trapping or sig-
nificantly restrict where and how trapping is done.
Although regulations can affect participation in trap-
ping, price is the dominant factor explaining recent
trends in the number of trappers. There has been a strong
correspondence between number of trappers and total
fur value (fig. 26), and there is some indication of a 1-
year lag in trapper response to prices. Based on data from
300
Value (Million $)
Number (Thousands)
300
Value
Trappers1
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
1 Number of states reporting: 30
Source: Linscombe (1988)
Figure 26.— Comparison of trends in total annual value of furs taken
and the number of trappers from 1974-1985.
30 states, 1974-1985, trapper numbers peaked in 1980
after which numbers declined by nearly 35% (Linscombe
1988).
Furbearer Harvest. — Data on furbearer harvest trends
are more complete than data on population levels or
number of trappers. National harvest trends since 1970
correspond to the expected pattern given the value and
trapper trends reviewed above. Number of furbearers
harvested showed nearly a three-fold increase over the
1970-1980 period. However, by 1985, furbearer harvest
had been halved from peak levels (fig. 27). This pattern
is consistent within each assessment region, with peak
harvests all occurring during the 1979-1980 period.
Harvest trends for the five most commonly harvested
furbearers show only minor deviations from the total har-
vest trend (fig. 28). The greatest relative declines since
the late 1970's have occurred with muskrat, nutria, and
opossum — all declining by over 60%. Raccoon harvests
have declined at a more moderate rate while beaver har-
vests have actually increased since 1983.
Prices that trappers have received per pelt are a strong
determinant of harvest. From 1978 to 1985 the average
price per pelt dropped by nearly 40% (fig. 29). In con-
stant (accounting for inflation) 1974 dollars, the gross
return realized by trappers has declined by 61% over the
same period. Unless consumer demand for natural fur
garments increases, or new foreign markets are found,
these trends will not likely reverse in the near future.
Fish
Fish species in the United States are found in a vari-
ety of aquatic habitats from inland rivers, streams, lakes,
pond and reservoirs, to estuaries and open marine
environments. Both the freshwater and marine fishery
resource have extremely important economic, recrea-
tional, and environmental value. Maintenance and
improvement of the nation's fisheries benefit human
health and nutrition, economic prosperity, and leisure
enjoyment (Gordon 1988). In 1986 alone, the 239,000
people who engaged in commercial fishing took approx-
imately 6 billion pounds valued at $2.8 billion (USDC
38
Harvest (Millions)
Harvest (Millions)
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
Harvest (Thousands)
2000
1500
1000
500
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
Source: Linscombe (1988)
Figure 27.— Trends in total fur harvest for the nation and by assess-
ment region from 1970-1985.
Harvest (Thousands)
2500
2000
1500
1000 -
500 -
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
Source: Linscombe (1988)
Figure 28.— Harvest trends for the five most commonly harvested
furbearers (1970-1985).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service 1987). In addition, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b) found that more than
one out of every four persons in the United States fished
in 1985.
Despite the importance of the nation's fisheries as
sources of recreation and livelihood, little information
exists that can be used to identify or evaluate changes
in fish species distribution and abundance. Information
on trends in the number of users and commercial har-
vest are more complete. Recreational use is monitored
by the Fish and Wildlife Service and commercial users
and harvests are monitored by the National Marine Fish-
ery Service. This report focuses on that portion of the
fishery resource that is potentially impacted by land
management activities. Consequently, emphasis is
placed on inland and anadromous fish species with less
consideration of marine species.
Populations. — The numbers of fish in the nation's
lakes, streams, reservoirs, and estuaries are rarely inven-
toried except at specific locales. Although many popu-
lation surveys have been completed, generally it is not
possible to extrapolate beyond the specific area sampled.
Only one known study provides estimates of the nation's
fishery population resources. The distribution and abun-
dance of the nation's fish resources were considered as
a part of the 1982 National Fisheries Survey (Judy et al.
1984). Fish were categorized as sport and nonsport spe-
cies and related to the number of miles of streams in
which they occurred.
Sport fish species occurred in 73% of the nation's
streams while nonsport species were found in 68%.
Twenty-one percent of all streams sampled contained no
fish largely due to lack of water in intermittent streams.
Anadromous sport fish species were present in 11% and
commercial fish species were found in 17% of the stream
miles sampled. Defined in terms of stream miles occu-
pied, largemouth bass and carp were the most widely
distributed sport and nonsport species, respectively
(table 17).
Given the distribution of the fisheries resource de-
scribed above, Judy et al. (1984) went on to classify sport
and nonsport fish into five abundance categories: abun-
dant, common, uncommon, rare, and expected. The
survey found 64% of the stream miles sampled to be
suitable (i.e., support an abundance class of abundant
39
Dollars
Table 17. — Ten most prevalent sport and nonsport fish species occurring
in the nation's waters.
-*- Price/Pelt
Price/Pelt in
Constant 74 $'s
I 74 76 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Year
Source: Linscombe (1988)
Figure 29.— Trends in average price per pelt from 1974-1985.
or common) for sport fish while sport fish were uncom-
mon or rare in only 7% of the stream miles sampled
(table 18). Sport fish were found to occupy the greatest
number of stream miles in the common category (41%)
while nonsport fish occupy the most miles of stream in
the abundant category.
Evaluating these statements is difficult without a sec-
ond point of reference either in terms of data from a
previous time or an explanation of the factors that
produced the results. Attempting to address recent
trends in the condition of the freshwater fishery
resource, Judy et al. (1984) asked biologists to rate the
ability of the nation's waters to support fish communi-
ties over a 5-year period. The results indicated little
change — 4% of the streams improved, 5% were
diminished, and 91% of the streams remained
unchanged in their ability to support fish communities.
Longer trends in the distribution and abundance of
some fish species are available only from specific
regional studies. In New England, the plight of the
Atlantic salmon is, in many respects, indicative of trends
in other anadromous salmonids. Beland (1984) estimated
that in precolonial times, as many as 500,000 returning
adult Atlantic salmon migrated up 34 river systems. The
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1984) estimated that
7,000 adult salmon now enter only 16 New England river
systems. Of the total returning adult spawners, only
about 1,000 are from natural reproduction — the remain-
der being from hatchery stock.
The factors responsible for the Atlantic salmon decline
are varied. Commercial harvests have been cited in the
species' early decline (New England Fishery Manage-
ment Council 1987), and harvest continues to limit
recovery. Boreman et al. (1984) estimated that for every
adult salmon returning to New England rivers, one to
five are caught in the ocean fishery. Despite the mortal-
ity associated with commercial harvests, probably the
most limiting factor has been inaccessible spawning and
nursery habitat caused by dams lacking fish-passage
structures. Beland (1984), Oatis et al. (1985), and Stolte
(1982) estimated that on the six major river systems
under restoration, less that 50% of the potential
Stream miles where
Percentage of total
Species
species occurred
stream miles
Sport fish species
Largemouth bass
263,859
27.3
Rainbow trout
213,461
22.1
Bluegill
188,495
19.5
Channel catfish
148,343
15.4
Smallmouth bass
142,142
14.7
Green sunfish
126,074
13.1
Brook trout
103,507
10.7
Black crappie
98,190
10.2
Spotted bass
98,129
10.2
Rock bass
94,682
9.8
Nonsport fish species
Common carp
187,417
19.4
Creek chub
176,709
18.3
White sucker
166,823
17.3
Gizzard shad
131,730
13.6
Bluntnose minnow
126,665
13.1
Stoneroller
122,337
12.7
Green sunfish
115,234
11.9
Common shiner
112,112
11.6
Fathead minnow
110,531
11.4
Golden shiner
106,602
11.0
Source: Judy et al. (1984).
Table 18. — National estimates of fish class abundance for "all streams."
Stream miles
Percentage of total
Fish class abundance
in class
stream miles
Sport fish
Abundant
221 ,694
23.0
Common
391,757
40.6
Uncommon
52,582
5.5
Rare
12,228
1.3
Expected
65,619
6.8
Nonsport fish
Abundant
334,700
35.1
Common
303,713
31.9
Uncommon
22,344
2.3
Rare
4,727
0.5
Expected
60,414
6.3
Source: Judy et al. (1984).
spawning and nursery habitat is accessible to returning
adults.
Similar factors have been implicated in the decline of
chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Although
many salmonid species inhabit the Columbia River
basin, the chinook is perhaps the most economically,
culturally, and politically important (Phinney 1986).
Examination of commercial and recreational catches,
dam counts, and hatchery returns provides minimum
estimate of in-river runs of salmon. Trends since 1965
indicate that lower-river chinook runs have shown sig-
nificant improvement because of increased hatchery
production. Conversely, upper-river runs have declined
sharply (fig. 30). The cumulative impact of hydroelectric
40
Number of fish (Thousands)
600
01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
Source: Phinney (1986)
Figure 30.— Trends in upper-river chinook salmon returns in the
Columbia River Basin, 1965-1983.
projects is certainly a major obstacle to chinook runs;
however, excessive ocean and in-river fishing rates have
also contributed to the decline (Phinney 1986).
Some resident salmonids have also suffered range res-
trictions and population declines. In the Appalachian
region of Tennessee, brook trout only occupy 20% to
30% of their estimated range at the turn of the century
(Bivens et al. 1985). Severe range restrictions and popu-
lation declines have also been noted in many native
western trout species (Behnke and Zarn 1976). Hybridi-
zation and competition with nonnative salmonids have
contributed to the decline in both the eastern and
western trout populations. Habitat degradation result-
ing from irrigation projects, mining, logging, road con-
struction, and overgrazing has also been an important
factor in the demise of these native trout populations.
The negative impacts on the nation's fishery resources
associated with human development are not restricted
to coldwater species. In the agriculturally dominated
landscapes of the Midwest, warmwater fish communi-
ties have deteriorated significantly. Karr et al. (1985)
documented that since the mid-1800's 67% of Illinois
River fish species and 44% of Maumee River species
have experienced population declines or have been
eliminated. Human activities that have had the greatest
impact on these warmwater fish communities include:
lowered water tables and nutrient enrichment associated
with agricultural development; construction of naviga-
tional locks, channels, levees, milldams, and other
impoundments; discharge of oxygen-demanding wastes
and toxic chemicals; excessive water consumption; and
introduction of exotic species (Karr et al. 1985).
Recreational and commercial fishers. — The number
of people pursuing recreational fishing has been increas-
ing over the last 20 years, although the trend varies by
type of fishing (table 19). Freshwater fishing represented
86% of the total number of anglers in the United States
in 1985, and the number of freshwater anglers has
increased consistently since 1965. The number of salt-
water anglers has recently increased after a decline in
participation in 1980.
There are some regional differences in the trends of
sport anglers (table 20). The number of anglers has con-
sistently increased in all regions except the North where
a decline of nearly 1 million anglers occurred between
1975 and 1980. Since 1980, however, fishing participa-
tion in the North has increased back to levels observed
in 1975. In the South and Rocky Mountain regions, a
higher percentage of the population fishes than in the
North and Pacific Coast regions. It might be expected
that outdoor recreationists in the East would be increas-
ingly attracted to fishing over hunting because of less
restrictive regulations and greater accessibility.
The number of commercial fishers is largely governed
by the availability of fish stocks and markets for the
catch. The demand for edible fish products has increased
significantly. From 1965 to 1985, the per capita con-
sumption of fish increased by nearly 35% (Bunch 1985).
Accompanying this noted increase in demand has been
a significant influx of commercial fishers. In 1985, there
were 80% more commercial fishers in the United States
than 20 years earlier (fig. 31).
Commercial fish harvest. — State agencies estimate
recreational harvest through creel census methods which
tend to be site specific. There are no known national or
regional summaries of creel-census information although
there are now individual states that are developing
standardized data summaries for their fisheries. The
National Recreational Fisheries Policy (USDI Fish and
Table 19. — Total freshwater and saltwater anglers and days of fishing (1965-1985).
Freshwater anglers Saltwater anglers All anglers
Days of Days of Days of
Number % of U.S. fishing Number % of U.S. fishing Number % of U.S. fishing
Year (thousands) population (thousands) (thousands) population (thousands) (thousands) population (thousands)
1965 23,962
1970 29,363
1975 36,599
1980 35,782
1985 39,122
16.9 426,922
18.9 592,494
21.3 890,576
19.4 788,392
20.0 895,027
8,305 5.9
9,460 6.1
13,738 8.0
11,972 6.5
12,893 6.6
95,837 28,348
113,694 33,158
167,499 41,299
164,040 41,873
171,055 45,345
20.0 522,759
21.4 706,187
24.0 1,058,075
22.7 952,420
23.2 1,064,486
NOTE: Total participants based on people 12 years old and older. For the purposes of trend analysis the figures reported for 1965-1985 have
been adjusted to permit comparison across years, as explained in appendix C of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b).
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b).
41
Table 20. — Number and percent of the U.S. population sport fishing by assessment region (1965-1985).
North1 South2 Rocky Mountain3 Pacific Coast
Number % of U.S. Number % of U.S. Number % of U.S. Number % of U.S.
Year (thousands) population (thousands) population (thousands) population (thousands) population
1965 12,810 16.8
1970 16,212 20.2
1975 19,228 22.2
1980 18,231 20.7
1985 19,685 22.0
10,533 24.5 1,261
11,599 22.8 1,769
14,435 26.5 2,252
15,395 25.1 2,500
17,068 25.4 2,765
25.1 3,744 21.4
31.3 4,030 20.0
29.7 5,386 23.4
27.3 5,747 21.9
27.1 5,829 20.3
includes the states of ND, SD, NE, KS and excludes MD, WV, and DE.
2lncludes the states of MD, WV, and DE.
3Excludes the states of ND, SD, NE, and KS.
NOTE: Total participants based on people 12 years old and older. For the purposes of trend analysis the figures reported for 1965-1985 have
been adjusted to permit comparison across years, as explained in appendix C of USDI Fish md Wildlife Service (1988b).
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b).
Wildlife Service 1988c) recommends developing a con-
sistent and comprehensive system for collecting, stor-
ing, and retrieving recreational fisheries harvest infor-
mation. Implementation of this policy would
significantly improve the capability to monitor the sta-
tus of the nation's fishery resource. In the absence of a
consistent regional or national information base, little
can be said about the amount of fish harvested by recrea-
tional anglers.
Commercial fish harvest is reported annually by the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Several species or
species groups of commercial fish live in the nation's
lakes, streams, and estuaries and are influenced by land-
management practices. The discussion that follows will
emphasize these species.
Domestic harvests of salmon vary in relation to a num-
ber of complex and interacting factors including the
Users (Thousands)
250 | 1
200
150
100
50 -
Ol ' I ' I ' I ' I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Source: USDI, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1967-1969);
USDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (1971-1975, 1976a, 1976b,
1977, 1978,1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1981-1983, 1984a, 1984b,
1985-1987)
Figure 31. — National trends in numbers of commercial fishers,
1965-1985.
quality of the run (determined by weather, survival, etc);
subsistence fishing pressure from Native Americans;
regulations on species, gear, and particular fishing
grounds; and finally, pelagic harvests from foreign-flag
vessels. Commercial harvest of salmon for the nation
averaged approximately 300 million pounds during the
late 1960's, dropped to about 200 million pounds in
1975, and increased to a high of around 730 million
pounds in 1985 (fig. 32), valued at nearly $440 million.
The 1966 harvest represented a record high for the
previous 20 years indicating that recent historical trends
in harvest have increased substantially. The increasing
harvest was, in part, a response to escalated domestic
and foreign demand. Between 1975 and 1985, domes-
tic per capita consumption of canned salmon products
doubled from 0.3 pounds to 0.6 pounds (Bunch 1985);
and exports of salmon increased nearly five-fold from
71,000 pounds to 338,000 pounds (USDC National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service 1976b, 1986). Despite increas-
ing demands, the average value per pound since the last
assessment has declined by 43% (57.7 cents/pound in
1975 to 32.8 cents/pound in 1985, in constant 1975
dollars).
The salmon harvest comes almost exclusively from the
Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The national contribution
of the Great Lakes commercial salmon fishery is minor,
and the Atlantic salmon fishery is still recovering from
a long history of overharvest and blocked access to breed-
ing habitats by waterway projects (Stolte 1986).
The trends of individual salmon species are important
because of the differences that exist in their life histo-
ries, harvest, and habitat situations. Pink and sockeye
salmon are the most heavily harvested species followed
by chum, and then considerably smaller amounts of Chi-
nook and coho (fig. 32). Harvests of pink, sockeye, and
to a lesser extent chum, salmon have increased over the
recent historical period while chinook and coho salmon
have remained at a relatively stable harvest level. Poor
runs of pink and sockeye salmon in the early 1970's
probably resulted from severe winters in 1970-1972 and
42
800
600
400 -
200
Pounds (Millions)
Pounds (Millions)
120
100
80
60
40
Pounds (Millions)
Chum #
/\ JK \ Coho
Chinook
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Source: USDI, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1967-1969); USDC, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
(1971-1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1981-1983, 1984a
1984b, 1985-1987);
Figure 32.— Commercial harvest of salmon by species nationwide,
1965-1985.
heavy pelagic harvests; however, improved weather con-
ditions in subsequent years improved the runs and the
harvest for these species.
In addition to the salmon, steelhead trout are commer-
cially harvested in the Pacific Northwest. The record of
commercial landings of steelhead during the 1965-1977
period is one of considerable variation with the number
of pounds varying between 250,000 and 700,000 from
one year to the next.
The striped bass, historically a species of the North
American Atlantic coast, has been transplanted to the
Pacific Coast plus many freshwater lakes and streams.
In its original range, overharvest, chemical contamina-
tion, declining pH levels, and dams have combined to
significantly reduce population levels (Fosburgh 1985a).
The commercial harvests of striped bass have dropped
dramatically since the early 1970's. Attempts to insti-
tute a moratorium on commercial harvests have been
unsuccessful and the commercial harvest shown in
figure 33 primarily represents the remaining Atlantic
Coast use.
1964
Source: USDI, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1967-1969);
USDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (1971-1975, 1976a, 1976b,
1977, 1978, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1981-1983, 1984a, 1984b,
1985-1987)
Figure 33.— Commercial harvest of striped bass nationwide,
1965-1985.
A large number of freshwater finfish are commercially
harvested in various lakes and streams and include bull-
head, catfish, yellow perch, crappie, walleye, sauger,
and pike. During the late 1970's, freshwater finfish har-
vests fluctuated between 80 and 90 million pounds. In
1980, freshwater commercial harvests increased dramat-
ically to about 130 million pounds, after which harvests
have stabilized near 120 million pounds. The amount
of freshwater finfish harvested commercially depends
largely on the demand for fish which expanded in recent
years with a stabilized per capita demand for red meat
(Joyce in press).
Other commercial fisheries associated with large rivers
and estuarine environments include the shellfish. These
species are critically influenced by land and water
management practices. Shellfish harvests have fluctu-
ated around 1 billion pounds over the last 15 years (fig.
34). The total commercial crab harvest nearly doubled
between 1971 and 1980, falling back to earlier levels by
1985. Blue crabs were at their lowest harvest levels in
the late 1960's and early 1970's but increased during the
mid-1980's. The higher harvest of shellfish in the late
1970's and early 1980's was primarily the result of
increases in the shrimp harvest. Blue, snow, and king
crabs were largely responsible for the increase in crab
harvests observed in the late 1970's.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Individual species are a tentative signature on the
genetic composition of the earth. Over the last 20 years,
however, the rate at which species are now being lost
has generated much concern. In a review of global
extinctions, Flesness (1986) conservatively estimated a
six-fold increase (0.124 species/year to 0.767 spe-
cies/year) in the vertebrate species extinction rate
occurred in the periods 1600-1825 and 1826-1975.
43
Since the turn of the century, a determined effort has
been made to reduce the impact that man has on the rate
of animal species extinctions. Early treaties between the
United States and other nations such as Canada, Mex-
ico, England, and Russia attempted to reduce excessive
exploitation of animal populations. However, not until
1966, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act,
did the United States adopt legislation specifically
addressing the protection of endangered species. New
legislation that improved on the identified flaws in the
earlier statute was enacted in 1969 (the Endangered Spe-
cies Conservation Act) and in 1973 (the Endangered Spe-
cies Act), the latter being amended in 1978, 1982, and
1988. Two status categories are recognized: endangered,
which covers species in danger of extinction through-
out all or significant parts of their ranges; and threa-
tened, which includes species likely to become endan-
gered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
significant parts of their ranges.
Many states have comparable endangered species pro-
grams directed at preserving species within state bound-
aries. Under current federal legislation, state programs
are eligible for federal matching dollars of up to 75%
of program costs. This series of federal and state laws
established the requirement for all federal and participat-
ing state agencies to conserve endangered wildlife and
fish through restrictions on activities that jeopardize con-
tinued existence, or the implementation of management
programs that are directed ultimately at population
restoration.
Number and distribution. — The number of species
officially considered threatened and endangered is moni-
tored by the Fish and Wildlife Service and reported
monthly in the Endangered Species Technical Bulletin.
Since the last national assessment of wildlife and fish,
the number of listed species has increased in every
animal class (table 21). Interpretation of this increase is
difficult since there is a continual process of adding and
Lbs/year (Millions)
1400
Ol ' I ' I ' I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I ' I 1 I ' I
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Year
Source: USDI, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1967-1969);
USDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (1971-1975, 1976a, 1976b,
1977, 1978, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1981-1983, 1984a, 1984b,
1985-1987)
Figure 34. — Commercial harvest of shellfish nationwide, 1965-1985.
Table 21. — Number of threatened and endangered animal species.
Endangered
Threatened
I otai
I otal
Category
1988
1988
1988
1980
Mammals
50
7
57
25
Birds
76
10
86
70
Reptiles
15
18
33
18
Amphibians
5
4
9
7
Fish
47
30
77
41
Invertebrates
55
13
68
39
Total
248
82
330
200
Source: USDA Forest Service (1981); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
(1988a).
deleting species from the list. New information regard-
ing the status of listed and unlisted species is continu-
ally being evaluated. While more listed species may
mean more species have become endangered, it may also
mean evaluation has been completed for candidate spe-
cies. Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has suffi-
cient information to initiate formal listing procedures for
approximately 1,000 candidate plant and animal species
(Bean 1986).
Although the number of species listed and the rate
with which listing has taken place is difficult to inter-
pret from an ecological standpoint, the distribution of
these species by county is valuable for interpreting how
threatened and endangered species relate to the major
biomes of the United States (fig. 35). Areas with major
modification of natural environments have greater con-
centrations of threatened and endangered species, such
as in the sun belt and coastal counties. Also, areas with
sensitive desert environments have high numbers of
threatened and endangered species. This is explained,
in part, by the number of animals that live within refu-
gia (primarily unique aquatic habitats) in otherwise harsh
environments.
By definition, the populations of threatened and
endangered species are low; however, very little infor-
mation on the population levels of most endangered spe-
cies exists. For this reason, we chose to consider the sta-
tus of endangered species in two categories: those that
are recovering, and those that have not improved since
they were listed. Examples of species that have been
recovering include the American alligator, peregrine fal-
con, southern sea otter, and Puerto Rican parrot; species
such as the California condor, black-footed ferret, and the
red-cockaded woodpecker have not been increasing.
Recovering species. — The fact that there have been few
complete recoveries is not surprising given the short exis-
tence of protective legislation. However, even in the 20-
year period of endangered species legislation some spe-
cies have responded favorably to protection. The Amer-
ican alligator was in danger primarily because of over-
harvesting. Since its listing, the alligator has recovered
sufficiently to be removed from the federal threatened and
endangered list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987b),
and in many areas, strictly regulated annual harvests for
economic purposes continue to increase.
44
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (pers. comm. 1981)
Figure 35.— Distribution of federal threatened and endangered species by counties in the United States.
The peregrine falcon was placed on the threatened and
endangered list because organochlorine pesticides
inhibited its reproductive success. The pesticides caused
thin egg shells which broke during incubation or, in dry
climates, allowed embryos to desiccate before hatching.
The banning of pesticides such as DDT in conjunction
with a captive breeding program was instrumental in
recovery success. The tundra peregrine has recovered
to the point where it was "downlisted" to threatened
status in 1983 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1983).
Despite such success, however, the peregrine will prob-
ably remain on the threatened and endangered list until
organochlorine pesticides are completely eliminated
from the peregrine's range, including Latin America
(Craig 1986).
The southern sea otter, like the alligator, was an over-
exploited species. Protection afforded the species by its
listing as endangered increased the probability of suc-
cessful reintroduction aimed at establishing viable popu-
lations along the coasts of California and Oregon (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service 1986a). Implementation of
several important recovery tasks has given researchers
reason to believe that annual population increases on the
order of 4% to 5% can be expected (Ladd and Riedman
1987).
The Puerto Rican parrot was listed because of habitat
reductions and exploitation of the bird as a pet (Mac-
Pherson 1987). Listing has controlled exploitation and
provided the impetus for habitat improvements needed
for the species to attain viability. From a low of 13
individuals in 1975, the population has grown to 41
individuals today (MacPherson 1987).
Declining species. — The California condor has frus-
trated the attempts of those involved in its recovery
because of habitat degradation and low breeding poten-
tial. The condor population has declined in spite of
breeding programs and research efforts to learn more
about the bird's habitat requirements. As of 1984, only
15 birds were known to exist in the wild (Bean 1986),
and in a final effort to retain what little genetic variabil-
ity existed, all known individuals were captured and
placed in a captive breeding program.
The black-footed ferret was listed largely because of
its low population resulting from habitat degradation
including a declining prey base (prairie dogs). The secre-
tive habits of the species, low population, and failures
associated with captive breeding have disappointed
researchers trying to assist the species' recovery. The
dramatic reduction of a recently located breeding popu-
lation in Wyoming from 128 to 16 individuals caused
by an outbreak of distemper (Williams et al. 1988),
emphasized the vulnerability of isolated populations.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is on the threatened
and endangered species list primarily because its habitat
has been deteriorating through loss of older loblolly/
shortleaf and longleaf/slash pine forests under which
fires frequently burn to reduce the hardwood understory
(Lennartz and McClure 1979). The woodpecker, con-
tinues to decline because the amount of habitat that
meets its specialized habitat requirements continues to
45
decline. No known subpopulation of red-cockaded
woodpeckers is increasing or stable, and its long-term
survival seems heavily dependent on public land owner-
ships (Jackson 1987).
Relationship between population declines and land
types. — Early on, scientists concerned about threatened
and endangered species identified the major factors con-
tributing to species endangerment. A consistent factor
for many species was man-induced loss or degradation
of habitat. Other major causes include disease, exces-
sive harvest, and inadequate protection from human
disturbance. Figure 36 indicates the relative importance
of the factors contributing to animal species becoming
threatened or endangered based on data in the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Information Sys-
tem (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987c).
An attempt to compare threatened and endangered
species with habitat yields figure 37. Though such a
chart may help a person visualize how species status
relates to habitat status (as described in earlier sections),
interpretation must be done with caution. Simple associ-
ations do not convey full natural history or ecological
processes. The utility of this information, like so much
of the material presented in this assessment, is to pro-
vide a broad perspective for organizing policies and
management decisions rather than for recommending
specific land management actions. Understanding these
constraints should assist in obtaining useful insight from
figure 37.
For example, a high number of threatened or endan-
gered species associate with urbanland, primarily
because urbanland uses superimpose other land types
and represent a drastic modification of the original
habitats. For some species, urbanland represent a sig-
nificant mortality factor attributable to the nation's
extensive transportation network. But many threatened
and endangered species are also associated with agricul-
tural land types which have disturbed and fragmented
forest and range ecosystems.
Number of species
120 | —
Habitat loss Exploitation Inadequate laws Disease^ Other
Factor
includes predation
NOTE. --Based on 116 animal species
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1987c)
Figure 36.— Factors contributing to animal species being threatened
or endangered.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ag Barren Forest Range Tundra Urban Water Wetland
Land type
NOTE. --Based on 116 animal species. Number of species
across land types do not sum to 116 because species are
represented in more than one land type
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1987c)
Figure 37. — Number of threatened and endangered animal species
associated with land types for the United States.
In the case of natural habitats, the number of endan-
gered species comes from the original and potential
diversity of the land type. Hence, forest and water/ wet-
land types contain the greatest numbers of endangered
species because they also contain the largest number of
species. Tundra on the other hand is a harsh, less diverse
environment with a relatively small list of endangered
and associated species.
Summary
The current status of and recent historical trends in
populations and uses of wildlife and fish resources are
related to trends in their habitats. Species associated
with agricultural, mature and old-growth forest, native
grassland, and wetland environments have had declin-
ing or unstable populations in the last 20 years. Breed-
ing birds that have shown recent population declines are
more numerous in the East than in the West. Breeding
birds that have increased tend to be those adapted to
more intensive land uses, particularly urban/suburban
environments. Population trends in game species have
varied. With the exception of geese, migratory game bird
populations have declined. Big game species across all
regions have shown recent population increases with the
exception of deer in the Pacific Coast region. Small game
population trends differ between agriculture and fore-
stland. Those small game species associated with
agricultural lands have shown significant declines over
the last 20 years, while most forest small game popula-
tions have remained stable or increased. Trends in fur-
bearer populations have varied — the most commonly
harvested species have stable or increasing populations,
while other species such as red fox and mink have shown
46
regional declines. While there is limited quantitative
information on how the nation's fish communities have
changed, specific regional studies help. Generally, the
capacity of the nation's waters to support healthy warm-
water and coldwater fisheries has declined in response
to anthropogenic degradation of aquatic habitats and
introductions of competing fish species.
Recent trends in the recreational use of wildlife and
fish are a function of the availability of wildlife and fish
resources and the public's relative preference for differ-
ent kinds of recreational activities. Nonconsumptive
recreation has increased at a substantially greater rate
than other forms of wildlife and fish recreation. Most of
the increase in nonconsumptive recreation occurs with
activities in and around people's residences or in associ-
ation with their other outdoor activities. The number of
persons that actually took trips for the sole purpose of
viewing wildlife has not kept pace with the increase in
U.S. human population. Though the number of big game
hunters has generally increased during the last 20 years,
the number of small game and migratory game bird hun-
ters has declined, a probable response to lower game pop-
ulations, reduced access, and crowded hunting condi-
tions. The number of trappers has recently declined in
apparent response to low prices, but fewer trappers may
also reflect public and legislative pressure to restrict this
activity. Both recreational and commercial fishers' num-
bers have consistently increased during the last 20 years.
Recent historical trends in game harvests reflect a com-
bination of animal population levels and hunter effort,
and in the case of furbearers, price. Consequently, the
harvest trends noted are consistent with the population
and user characteristics summarized above. Notable
exceptions to this expected relationship concerns ducks
in the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways which have
shown stable harvests despite a declining number of hun-
ters and duck populations.
The recent historical trends summarized reflect the
wildlife and fish resource situation on all lands. No dis-
tinction has been made regarding resource trends within
specific ownership categories. To evaluate the potential
effectiveness of future Forest Service programs in manag-
ing natural resources, a review of the recent resource sit-
uation on public lands is required.
WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCES
ON PUBLIC LANDS
The public generally perceives that public lands have
attained the stature that the early conservationists such
as Roosevelt, Pinchot and others had in mind when they
began establishing the National Forest System, the Na-
tional Park System, and the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-
tem. Some conservation and management success on pub-
lic land is evident: large ungulate populations, critical
habitat for threatened and endangered species, large
predator populations, and a general uniqueness of local
faunas. Partially as a result of federal laws, federal agen-
cies have greatly improved inventory data, analytical meth-
ods, management policies, and management practices.
Using all these, managers attempt to maintain viable
populations, habitat diversity, and species diversity in
concert with the full complement of other values asso-
ciated with managed forest and range ecosystems.
The following discussion documents the recent his-
tory of wildlife and fish on public lands in general, and
specifically on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands. These two agencies are emph-
asized because they administer the majority of federal
lands and because they are directed by legislation to
monitor and manage wildlife and fish resources in a mul-
tiple resource context. Because public land distribution
varies considerably across each assessment region (fig.
38), the recent trends in wildlife and fish resources on
the agencies' lands differ accordingly.
The National Forest System (NFS) comprises 191 mil-
lion acres on 156 national forests (186.4 million acres),
19 national grasslands (3.8 million acres), and a number
of other land units associated with land-utilization proj-
ects, research and experimental areas, and purchase
units. These lands are primarily in the West, which con-
tains 87% of NFS lands. Apart from comprising a much
smaller proportion of the land base, eastern NFS lands
are further distinguished from those in the West by the
significant amount of private inholdings that often occur
within a national forest's promulgated boundary— a
characteristic requiring careful consideration in manag-
ing natural resources, particularly mobile resources such
as wildlife and fish.
The NFS is one of the most valuable public land net-
works for the nation's wildlife and fish resources (Barton
and Fosburgh 1986). This value is reflected in habitat
diversity, the number and variety of wildlife and fish spe-
cies, and the number of recreationists that use the NFS.
National forests contain approximately 128,000 miles of
streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes, and more than half
the nation's big game habitat. These aquatic and terres-
trial habitats are used by over 3,000 species of wildlife
and fish, and support 41% of the recreational use that
occurs on all federal lands (Barton and Fosburgh 1986),
of which 14% is devoted to wildlife and fish-related recre-
ation including birdwatching, fishing, and hunting
(USDA Forest Service 1985b).
The BLM has exclusive management jurisdiction on
approximately 334 million acres (USDI Bureau of Land
Management 1986). The BLM manages 46% of all fed-
eral lands — more than any other federal agency. These
lands are primarily distributed west of the Mississippi
River with only 0.7% of the land administered by the
BLM occurring in the East.
Within its boundaries, the BLM manages a variety of
ecosystems including Alaskan tundra, old-growth forest
of the Pacific Northwest, and the deserts of the South-
west. Associated with these ecosystems is a variety of
wildlife and fish species that are enjoyed by consump-
tive and nonconsumptive users. These lands not only
provide essential habitat for game species, they are also
critical to the survival of rare and endangered wildlife
and fish. The BLM has management responsibility for
over 80% of the desert bighorn sheep habitat as well as
130 plant and animal species listed as threatened and
endangered (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1988).
47
Rocky
Source: The Conservation Foundation (1984)
Figure 38.— Federal lands as percentage of total area, by state, 1980.
The lands administered by the FS and BLM constitute
a vast land area that supports many renewable natural
resources. Under a multiple resource management phi-
losophy, the current status of and recent trends in wild-
life and fish resources on FS and BLM lands have been,
in general, more auspicious than those observed on pri-
vate lands.
Wildlife and Fish Habitat on Public Lands
Forestland Habitats
Most forestland is privately owned. Nearly 71% of the
total forestland in the United States was in nonfederal
ownership in 1987 (Bones in press). Of the forestland
under federal management (29%), the majority is man-
aged by the FS (67%); the BLM manages an additional
13%; and the remaining 20% falls under the jurisdic-
tion of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, or the Department of Defense. Most federal
forestland is found in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific
Coast regions, with federal lands in the East only con-
stituting about 9% of the regional forestland area.
One indication of forest habitat status on public lands
is the trend in timber removals. The annual removals
of growing stock indicate that since 1962 removal rates
across all ownerships have increased (table 22). Propor-
tionately, the increase has been the greatest on forest
industry lands. Comparison of average removals for the
1962-1970 and the 1976-1986 periods indicates that
timber removals have increased 43% on forest industry
lands, 36% on other public lands, 12% on other private
lands, and 3% on NFS lands.
The regional pattern in timber harvests varies in rela-
tion to the predominance of public land within each
region. The South and Pacific Coast regions supply the
majority of the harvested timber volume. In the South
the majority (over 90% in 1986) of the harvested volume
comes from private lands, whereas in the Pacific Coast
42% comes from public lands. Of these two major tim-
ber producing regions, the South has had the most sig-
nificant increases in timber removals since 1962 (table
22).
The timber harvesting that has occurred on national
forests, and public lands in general, required an exten-
sive network of roads. Road construction has resulted
in a number of outcomes including: (1) increased access
48
Table 22. — Trends in timber removals by ownership and assessment region (1962-1987).
Other Forest Other
Region Year NFS public industry private
Million cubic feet
All regions
1962
1,873
723
2,958
6,406
1970
2,322
966
3,765
7,041
1976
2,121
1,077
4,229
6,802
1 987
2,209
1 ,216
5,380
8,235
North1
1962
84
137
213
1,643
1970
100
173
323
1,876
1976
124
184
406
1,945
41987
119
155
582
1,895
South2
1962
186
130
1,133
4,075
1970
272
184
1,497
4,548
1976
286
213
1,791
4,279
51987
314
291
2,425
5,668
Rocky Mountain3
1962
414
86
130
111
1970
527
86
186
94
1976
465
93
177
110
1987
455
74
161
139
Pacific Coast
1962
1,188
369
1,481
577
1970
1,423
523
1,759
523
1976
1,244
586
1,855
468
1987
1,321
696
2,212
534
1 1ncludes ND, SD (east), NE, KS, and KY.
2Does not include KY.
3Does not include ND, SD (east), NE, KS.
"Does not include KY.
^Includes KY.
Source: Haynes (in press), USDA Forest Service (1982).
for fire, insect, and disease protection; (2) increased
access for wildlife and fish recreation; (3) potential in-
creased disturbance of sensitive wildlife species includ-
ing elk and grizzly bears; and (4) increased stream
sedimentation resulting in degraded fish habitat (Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality 1985, Fosburgh 1985b).
In addition to road development impacts, other forest
habitat issues are emerging about public lands. Old-
growth habitats are becoming increasingly rare, partic-
ularly on private lands. In 1977, more than half of the
remaining old-growth in the Pacific Coast occurred on
national forests; most of the old-growth in the Rocky
Mountains occurs on NFS lands; and in the South, cur-
rent trends indicate that much of the old-growth pine
forests will only be found on national forests or other
public lands (Lennartz et al. 1983).
With increasing management intensity on private
timberlands, public forestlands will become increasingly
unique when compared to private ownerships. This is
of primary concern in the East for two reasons: (1)
national forests could become isolated habitat islands
which could threaten the maintenance of biological
diversity (Harris 1984, Lennartz et al. 1983, Norse et al.
1986); and (2) public preferences are modifying the
objectives for managing national forests to include in-
creased consideration of the unique environments found
there.
Rangeland Habitats
The majority (64.1%) of the nation's rangeland acres
are in private ownership (Bones in press). Of the 276 mil-
lion acres of rangeland in public ownerships, the BLM
and FS administer 54% and 15%, respectively.
The condition of federally owned rangelands is
difficult to evaluate for wildlife and fish resources. If we
assume that range in good condition for certain domes-
tic species will also be in good condition for similar
wildlife species (Wagner 1978), then rangeland habitats
on BLM and NFS lands appear to be improving (Joyce
in press). Reduced use and improved management have
contributed to range rehabilitation, although the recov-
ery appears slow on BLM lands due to the long history
of uncontrolled free range use and the longer vegetation
recovery periods characteristic of arid climates (Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality 1985).
Public lands only provide about 7% of the total grazed
forages consumed by livestock (Joyce in press). Recent
trends in grazing use of federal rangelands, as measured
by animal unit months (AUM's), indicate that total graz-
ing use of NFS and BLM lands declined through the mid-
1970's (table 23). From 1980 to 1985, however, there was
a slight (about 6%) increase in the grazing use of NFS
and BLM lands — despite a nationwide decline in cattle
herd size across all ownerships. This short-term trend
49
likely is due to a redistribution of the industry from East
to West where public lands are the predominant owner-
ship (Joyce in press).
On NFS lands, grazing use declined approximately
4% from 1965 to 1975, after which use increased to
levels exceeding those reported in 1965 (table 23). The
low use level reported for 1975 reflects, in part, the state
of the cattle industry at a time when much of the nation's
livestock went to market and grazing declined. Trends
in NFS grazing use by assessment region are similar to
the nationwide trend with all regions showing gains in
the last 5 years.
Bureau of Land Management rangelands have wit-
nessed a general reduction in grazing use. During the
1970-1980 decade, BLM lands experienced a total
decline in grazing use of 21% (table 23). The majority
of the decline occurred in the Rocky Mountain region
with use in the Pacific Coast remaining relatively con-
stant. Subsequent grazing use on BLM lands (1980-
1985) increased 9%.
The overall impact of these grazing trends on range-
land habitats for wildlife and fish is difficult to deter-
mine. Obviously, livestock grazing can cause numerous
conflicts with wildlife and fish resources; however, the
extent of the conflicts cannot be easily quantified.
One of the most important wildlife and fish issues
related to rangeland grazing concerns the impacts of
livestock on riparian areas. Barton and Fosburgh (1986)
characterize cattle damage to riparian zones on public
lands as the most serious conflict between livestock and
wildlife and fish. Heavy use of riparian areas by livestock
results in a direct and significant impact on both terres-
trial and aquatic habitats (Ohmart and Anderson 1986),
and these habitats are particularly important in the arid
environments that characterize much of the western
rangelands. Nearly 76% of the breeding birds in the
Southwest depend on water-related habitats (Johnson et
al. 1977); in Oregon's southeastern Great Basin coun-
try, nearly 80% of terrestrial wildlife species depend on
riparian zones or use these areas more than other habitats
(Thomas et al. 1979); and 40% of the vertebrate wild-
life species in Colorado associate with riparian areas
which comprise only 3% of the land base (Melton et al.
1984). Besides the importance of riparian areas to
livestock and wildlife, riparian areas are also valued for
their recreational opportunities and are prime sites for
road construction (Thomas et al. 1979).
The concern for riparian management on NFS and
BLM lands is heightened when one considers only 3 mil-
lion acres of riparian habitat are managed by these agen-
cies (Prouty 1987). The varied demands concentrated on
riparian areas make this habitat type a focal point for
resource conflict (Platts 1979). Unfortunately, inventory
information on riparian habitats is inadequate to evalu-
ate recent trends in the condition of this important
habitat type.
Wetlands
Nearly 74% of the remaining wetland habitats are pri-
vately owned, leaving about 25% under either federal
or state ownership and 2% under the jurisdiction of local
governments (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service n.d.a)
With increasing human populations, and the proximity
of population centers to coastal wetlands, the pressure
to develop private wetlands will remain intense (Tiner
1984). As private wetland habitat continues to be lost,
the importance and value attributed to those acres pro-
tected under federal and state ownerships will continue
to escalate.
Within the federal ownership category, 40% of the
lands classified as wetlands are managed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (fig. 39). The FS has management
responsibility for 23% and the National Park Service,
BLM, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and
Air Force manage the remaining 37%.
No standard national inventory permits an assessment
of wetland trends in the FS. However, the Public Land
Statistics published by the BLM do report wetland acre-
age. The number of wetland acres under the BLM's juris-
diction have declined since 1979 (table 24). This trend
is not a reflection of actual degradation or destruction
of wetland habitats but a reflection of recent Alaskan
land transfers from the BLM to the State and Native
Americans. Alaska accounted for 97% of the total BLM
wetland acres in 1986.
The trends in BLM wetlands by assessment region are
more indicative of the management emphasis that wet-
land types are receiving. In the Pacific Coast region, the
dynamics are again dominated by the land transfer
Table 23. — Trends in grazing use on NFS and BLM lands.
Year
Total
North
South
Rocky Mountain
Pacific Coast
NFS
BLM1
NFS
NFS
NFS
BLM1
NFS
BLM1
Thousand AUM's
1965
9,339
108
184
8,004
1,043
1970
9,284
13,039
40
354
7,910
11,651
980
1,388
1975
8,971
11,935
54
316
7,492
10,550
1,109
1,386
1980
9,757
10,308
67
225
8,202
8,929
1,263
1,380
1985
10,124
11,218
78
248
8,431
9,812
1,366
1,406
^Multiply by 1.2 to be comparable to NFS, see Joyce (in press) for explanation.
Source: Joyce (in press).
50
Acres (Millions)
Table 24.— Trends in wetland acres on lands administered by the BLM.
AF -- Air Force
BLM -- Bureau of Land
Management
BOR — Bureau of
Reclamation
COE — Corps of
Engineers
FWS — Fish and
Wildlife Service
FS — Forest Service
NPS — National Park
AF BLM BOR COE FWS FS NPS Other
Public Agency
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service [n.d.la
Year
National
Pacific
Coast
Rocky
Mountain
Eastern
Thousand acres
1979
46,951
46,797
154
1980
48,960
46,794
151
35
1981
23,189
23,018
171
33
1982
27,474
27,289
185
35
1983
17,235
16,043
192
35
1984
16,246
16,043
203
35
1985
16,248
16,041
207
35
1986
16,248
16,041
207
37
Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management (1981-1987).
Figure 39.— Distribution of federally-owned wetland habitats.
pattern in Alaska. This masks the general increase in
BLM wetland habitat reported in California, Washing-
ton, and Oregon. Similar increasing trends in wetland
area are also observed in the Rocky Mountain region
where wetland acres have increased by over 35% since
1979. These increases are attributed to a number of fac-
tors including more intensive wetland improvement pro-
grams, a wet weather cycle during 1983-1985, and more
intensive inventories and more precise definitions that
have resulted in more acres being classified as wetland.
Wildlife and Fish Populations on Public Lands
Big Game and Other Large Mammals
Wildlife population statistics on public lands are com-
piled in cooperation with state wildlife agencies. Histor-
ical trends are published by the FS and BLM in their
annual reports concerning wildlife and fish management
on lands under their jurisdiction (USDA Forest Service
1965-1977, 1978-1985; USDI Bureau of Land Manage-
ment 1966-1988). The populations reported by these two
agencies are not mutually exclusive estimates and there-
fore cannot be added to estimate total populations on
public lands. The migratory habits of many large mam-
mal species can result in the use of FS and BLM lands
at different times of the year. In addition, the lands
managed by these agencies are occasionally "checker-
boarded" with private lands preventing a definitive
censusing.
Big game populations in the NFS have, in general,
remained stable or increased over the recent historical
period of this report (fig. 40). The mule deer, including
the black-tailed deer subspecies, is an exception. It
declined during the late 1960's through the mid-1970's.
This decline was range-wide and not specific to NFS
lands. No single factor has been identified as being
responsible for the decline (Connolly 1981). The only
other large mammal that has shown a significant decline
is the gray wolf. Wolf numbers have declined by 50%
since the 1970's. Factors contributing to this decline
include forest successional changes in the north-central
portion of the U.S. that support less prey (The Conser-
vation Foundation 1984) and wolf reduction efforts in
Alaska aimed at increasing ungulate populations for
sport and subsistence use (Peterson 1986). The most
notable increases in big game abundance have occurred
with wild turkey, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, and moun-
tain lion.
Within assessment regions, population trends vary
from the nationwide trends. In the North (appendix C,
table C-l), bear and turkey populations have remained
fairly stable, while moose populations have increased
by nearly 70% since 1965. White-tailed deer declined
through the early 1970's, after which numbers appear
to have stabilized at about 300,000 animals. The decline
in northern deer abundance may be related, in part, to
declining forestland acreage in the early successional
stages that provide higher carrying capacity.
Southern big game abundance trends have either been
increasing or stable since 1965 (appendix C, table C-2).
White-tailed deer numbers have remained between
250,000 to 300,000 while black bears have fluctuated
around 3,000 animals. Wild (feral) pig populations have
gradually increased in the last 20 years; in some areas,
populations have increased to levels where competition
with native fauna and damage to flora is a concern. Wild
turkeys are a success story in the South. Numbering
around 40,000 birds in 1965, turkeys increased three-
fold by 1984.
Big game and other large mammal species inhabiting
the Rocky Mountains have had varying population
trends (appendix C, table C-3). While moose, pronghorn,
elk, mountain lion, and bighorn sheep have all gradu-
ally increased over the last 20 years, black bear and col-
lared peccary populations have remained relatively sta-
ble. Species that have tended to decline include deer,
turkey, mountain goat, and woodland caribou although
it now appears that turkey and deer numbers are
recovering.
In the Pacific Coast region, several species have
increased significantly. Wild turkey and pronghorn
populations have increased by 200% and 79%, respec-
tively (appendix C, table C-4). Declining species include
the gray wolf, deer, mountain goat, and bear.
51
Population (Thousands)
Population (Thousands)
Elk
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
Population (Thousands)
Moose
Bighorn sheep
Wolly Mtn lion
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
Source: USDA, Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985)
Figure 40.— Trends in big game populations on NFS lands.
Trends in big game populations on BLM lands gener-
ally are consistent with the trends observed on NFS
lands. However, for Alaskan big game species, the trends
are heavily influenced by the conveyance of land to the
State and Native Americans. Of the species that were
minimally affected by the land transfer, pronghorn and
elk have shown increasing numbers while deer have
declined (table 25). Of the Alaskan species, trends prior
to and after the land transfer appear to be either stable
or upward. The only exception to this pattern is with
caribou, the population of which declined from the late
1960's through the early 1970's.
The eastern-states BLM office reported stable big game
trends since 1980. Because of small BLM acreage in the
east, these lands do not make a significant contribution
to national big game production. In 1985, 100 moose,
1,200 deer, and 100 black bears used eastern BLM lands
during part of the year.
In the Rocky Mountain region, the BLM showed
significant increases for all species except deer (table 26).
The most significant gains over the 1966-1985 period
were observed with bear (378%), elk (227%), and moose
(135%) populations. Deer numbers have declined by
27%.
Trends reported for the Pacific Coast region are influ-
enced by the conveyance of BLM land in Alaska making
interpretation of long-term trends difficult. Qualitative
evaluations are possible by examining trends prior to and
after the mid-1970's estimates. Deer and caribou were
the only species showing downward trends (table 27).
The deer decline is attributed to a drop in mule deer
abundance in California, Oregon, and Washington. A
presumed cause for the caribou decline is heavy harvest
of adults and high calf predation from gray wolves and
grizzly bears (Bergerud 1978).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Since federal land managing agencies have a legal
responsibility to improve the status of threatened and
endangered species, the association that exists between
endangered species and federally administered habitat
is important to understand. The association is due, in
part, to land management actions that have maintained
or enhanced endangered species habitats to the point
where public lands are frequently the only place where
these species still exist. In addition, die criteria that were
used to justify the acquisition or retention of federal land
frequently meant that public lands were unique with
respect to animal species occurrence. For example, the
Fish and Wildlife Service actively acquires land as a
means of protecting threatened and endangered species
as authorized under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, and the National Park Service has continually
acquired some of the most unique lands in the United
States. As a result, a high proportion of endangered spe-
cies inhabit public lands.
The FS's threatened and endangered species program
includes habitat management for endangered, threat-
ened, proposed, and candidate (category 1 or category
2) species. The "proposed" category includes those spe-
cies officially proposed for listing by the Fish and Wild-
life Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
"Candidate" species comprises taxa for which the Fish
and Wildlife Service currently has substantial biologi-
cal information to support a proposal to list the species
52
Table 25.— Trends in selected big game populations on BLM lands.
Year
Moose
Pronghorn
Elk
Deer
Sheep
Caribou
Bear
Thousands
1966
91
175
42
1,689
45
600
21
1970
101
183
67
1,462
44
600
25
1975
152
191
96
1,499
41
450
74
1980
88
241
101
1,260
45
250
37
1985
89
266
130
1,209
21
260
38
Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management (1966, 1970, 1975, 1981, 1986).
Table 26.-
—Trends in selected big game populations on BLM lands in the Rocky Mountain Region.
Year
Moose
Pronghorn
Elk
Deer Sheep
Bear
Thousands
1966
1
162
35
1,176
7
1
1970
1
168
61
945
7
2
1975
2
147
86
968
9
2
1980
3
223
96
843
9
3
1985
3
246
114
855
13
4
Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management (1966, 1970, 1975, 1981, 1986).
Table 27.— Trends in selected big game populations on BLM lands in the Pacific Coast.
Year
Moose
Pronghorn
Elk
Deer
Sheep
Caribou
Bear
Thousands
1966
90
13
8
513
38
600
20
1970
100
14
6
517
38
600
23
1975
150
14
11
530
32
450
72
1980
85
17
13
414
36
250
34
1985
85
20
16
353
8
260
35
Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management (1966, 1970, 1975, 1981, 1986).
as endangered or threatened (category 1), or taxa for
which current information indicates that listing species
may be appropriate but conclusive biological data are
not available to support the development of proposed
rules (category 2).
Currently, 109 endangered species, 42 threatened spe-
cies, 4 species either endangered or threatened depend-
ing on location (e.g., grizzly bear), 9 proposed species,
plus an additional 90 category 1 species and 737 category
2 species occur on FS lands (Rami, pers. comm., 1988).
Consequently, the FS manages habitat that directly
affects approximately 30% of the U.S. plant and animal
species which have been listed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Southern, Southwestern, and Eastern Forest
Service Regions had the greatest number of proposed,
threatened, or endangered species; the Northern and
Alaska Regions had the least (Rami, pers. comm., 1988).
The number of listed species occurring on NFS lands
is expected to increase as new species are listed and as
new information on species distributions becomes
available.
The BLM currently has responsibility for habitat used
by 82 threatened and endangered animal species, of
which 77 have approved recovery plans (USDI Bureau
of Land Management 1988). The largest species concen-
tration occurs in Nevada, with 21 threatened or endan-
gered animal species occurring on BLM lands (table 28).
BLM personnel have also estimated that they have land
management responsibility for approximately 6.5 mil-
lion acres of terrestrial and 1,850 miles of aquatic habitat
used by threatened and endangered species. In addition
to officially listed species, the BLM also provides habitat
for 870 candidate species, some 620 of which are plants
(see Joyce in press).
53
Table 28.— Number of threatened and endangered species and habitat
occurring on BLM lands by state.
Habitat acres
Aquatic
CtatA
oidie
Animal ci"\as*£ac
Animai species
(inousariusj
nauiiai miies
Alaska
5
100
Arizona
17
454
304
California
19
350
6
Colorado
8
938
200
Idaho
6
81
302
Montana
8
400
250
Nevada
21
36
339
New Mexico
7
50
10
Oregon
7
97
12
Utah
13
2,160
446
Wyoming
5
1,846
Eastern U.S.
13
50
Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management (1988).
Recreational Use of Wildlife and Fish
on Public Lands
Proportionate Use Patterns of Public Lands
Ownership patterns in wildlife-related recreation,
measured as the proportion participants or days spent
recreating within various land ownerships, were ob-
tained from the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Sur-
veys of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recre-
ation. These surveys represent the only standard
inventory of users that permits a national and regional
comparison of where hunters and nonconsumptive
recreationists chose to participate with respect to land
ownership categories. These surveys have been con-
ducted every 5 years since 1965; however, because of
changes in survey design, historical trends are difficult
to interpret. As opposed to earlier years, the 1980 and
1985 surveys were similar enough in their reporting of
ownership use pattern to permit an evaluation of recent
trends in public land use by the outdoor recreating
public.
Nonconsumptive wildlife related recreation on pub-
lic lands. — Within the nonconsumptive-use categories
defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service, only primary
nonresidential recreational participation was described
in terms of land ownership. Results of the 1980 (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census
1982) and 1985 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1988b)
surveys indicate that public land areas are critical to
primary nonresidential nonconsumptive recreation, and
they are becoming more important (fig. 41). In 1980,
75% of the total nonconsumptive users participated on
public lands, and that figure increased to 86% in 1985.
The majority of the increase is associated with state-
owned areas which witnessed a 20% increase in propor-
tional participation. Participation declined significantly
on local areas and declined slightly on federal lands.
Hunting on public lands. — The trends in proportion-
ate hunting use by ownerships showed minor shifts dur-
ing the period of 1980 to 1985 (table 30). The days
Participants (Millions)
100%
public owned
area
Public Area
'Total primary nonresidential participation on all ownerships
NOTE.— Percentages reflect the proportion of total primary nonresidential
participation for a given year. Percentages across land ownerships will not
sum to 100 since persons may participate in several ownership categories.
Source: USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC, Bureau of Census (1982);
USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988a)
Figure 41.— Participation on public areas by primary nonresidential
participants.
spent hunting on public lands for all types of hunting
activities declined by 3.4%. This was the result of a sig-
nificant drop in the days spent on the "other" public
land category. The proportionate number of days spent
on federal and state-owned areas actually increased by
2% between 1980 and 1985. The increased use of fed-
eral and state lands is explained by less habitat being
available from private land due to more intensive land
use and reduced accessibility.
The patterns observed for all hunting activities are
generally maintained across each hunting type with the
exception of big game. The proportionate number of
days that big game hunters spent on public lands
declined to a much greater degree than was observed for
small game or migratory bird hunting. In addition, the
proportion of days spent big game hunting on federal
lands declined slightly between 1980 and 1985— the
only type of hunting where this was observed.
Trends in the Number of Participants on Public Lands
Proportionate use, as discussed above, only provides
information on the relative importance of different land
ownerships to hunting and nonconsumptive activities.
The results of that analysis showed that public lands,
in general, are receiving a greater share of the noncon-
sumptive and consumptive wildlife-related recreation.
However, these figures do not provide information on
the magnitude of use on these ownerships; such data
were obtained from annual reports published by the FS.
Nonconsumptive recreation. — Within the NFS, statis-
tics on nonconsumptive activities (recorded as total
nature study) were not collected until 1980. Since 1980,
54
Table 29. — Regional distribution of primary nonresidential participation on public lands in 1980.
Local or
regional park National
Total primary or natural State-owned wildlife Other
Region of nonresidential Any public area area area refuge federal area
residence participants Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Numbers in thousands
National
28,822
21,731
75.4
9,820
34.1
12,545
43.5
4,561
15.8
6,283
21.8
North1
14,867
1 1 ,049
74.3
5,262
35.4
6,912
46.5
2,144
14.4
1,802
12.2
South2
6,754
4,604
68.2
1,791
26.5
2,414
35.7
966
14.3
1,281
19.0
Rocky Mountain3
2,125
1,725
81.2
577
27.2
735
34.6
264
12.4
970
45.7
Pacific Coast
5,076
4,353
85.7
2,192
43.2
2,484
48.9
1,068
21.0
2,228
43.9
includes the states of ND, SD, KS, and NE and excludes MD, WV and DE.
includes the states of MD, WV, and DE.
^Excludes the states of ND, SD, KS and NE.
NOTE: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census (1982).
Table 30.— Percentage of total days spent hunting on public land by type of hunting and ownership.
1980 1985
All Big Small Migra, All Big Small Migra.
hunting game game birds hunting game game birds
Percent
All Public
31.6
40.7
25.9
28.7
28.6
34.2
22.9
28.4
Federal
9.3
15.4
5.9
6.0
10.4
15.1
6.3
8.3
State
10.4
13.2
8.8
10.1
11.6
13.2
10.1
11.6
Other1
11.9
12.0
11.1
12.5
6.6
5.9
6.5
8.5
1 0ther public land includes locally managed areas and unclassified public land use.
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau
of Census (1982).
total nonconsumptive user-days on NFS lands peaked
in 1981 at 1.55 million user-days and declined to approx-
imately 1.27 million user-days in 1984 (fig. 42).
Although this trend is surprising given increased pub-
lic interest in nonconsumptive recreational activities,
participation in primary nonresidential nonconsumptive
activities may be leveling off. Over the period from 1980
to 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service noted a general
decline in the proportion of the population participat-
ing in primary nonresidential nonconsumptive activi-
ties and actual declines in the number of participants
in some regions of the country (USDI, Fish and Wild-
life Service 1988b; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and
USDC Bureau of Census 1982).
Regional trends in nonconsumptive use on NFS lands,
in general, follow the national trends within this owner-
ship (appendix C, table C-5). Nonconsumptive user-days
declined in every region from 1980 through 1984 except
in the South. This regional pattern is consistent with the
regional trends across all land ownerships. The South
experienced the most significant gains in primary non-
residential participants while participation declined in
the North and Pacific Coast regions (see table 13).
Migratory game bird hunting. — The only available
statistics on trends in migratory bird use were for water-
fowl hunting and therefore do not include the webless
migratory species. Waterfowl use on FS lands peaked
in 1978 at approximately 800,000 user-days. By 1984,
use was 25% below peak levels (fig. 42).
Although the waterfowl use pattern on NFS lands
within each assessment region is consistent with that
observed on all land (appendix C, table C-6), the mag-
nitude of the decline varies greatly by region. The Pacific
Coast region has had the greatest decline from peak use
(approximately 50%) while use has remained relatively
stable in the Rocky Mountains (10% decline from peak
period). The trend in waterfowl use on eastern national
forests has ranged from a 32% decline in the North to
an 18% decline in the South.
The downward trend in waterfowl use on FS lands is
not specific to these lands as waterfowl use has consis-
tently declined across all ownerships. The decline is
likely a function of many interacting factors including
declining waterfowl populations, regulations, and
changes in recreational preferences.
55
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
User Days (Millions)
Coldwater fishing
Big game hunting
Small game hunting
J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
User Days (Millions)
Warmwater fishing
Nonconsumptive
o — § — e — & — &-
Waterfowl hunting
4-
+
+
1964 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
Source: USDA, Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985)
Figure 42.— Trends in wildlife-related recreation user-days on NFS
lands.
Big game hunting. — The number of user-days that the
recreating public has devoted to big game hunting on
national forests has been increasing nationwide (fig. 42).
From 1966 through 1977, big game user-days fluctuated
around 9.5 million, after which a gradual increase was
observed, peaking in 1983 at 11.1 million user-days. This
trend is generally maintained within each assessment
region although the magnitude of changes varies by
region (appendix C, table C-7). The North has witnessed
over a 55% increase in big game hunting use since the
early 1970 's. Big game hunting use in the South has
increased consistently since 1967 and appears to be
related to the previously noted deer and turkey popula-
tion increases. Trends in big game hunting use within
the Rocky Mountain region lagged a few years behind the
dynamics of mule deer populations. The decline in deer
numbers during the early 1970 's is followed by declin-
ing use in the mid to late 1970 's. Since 1978, the number
of big game user-days has increased to record levels in
the Rocky Mountains. Pacific Coast big game hunting use
on NFS lands has remained relatively stable over the last
20 years, fluctuating around 2.9 million user-days.
Although the number of days spent pursuing big game
on FS lands has increased or remained stable, the impor-
tance of each region in terms of its relative contribution
to the national total is shifting. The West has always
accounted for the majority of big game use on FS lands
(approximately 70% of the national total). However, be-
tween the 1966-1968 and 1982-1984 periods, the aver-
age contribution of each region to the national total
showed that the South has had the greatest percentage
gain (16.8% to 19.2%), followed by the Rocky Mountains
(40.4% to 42.2%) and North (10.8% to 11.8%). The Pacific
Coast's relative contribution to the total number of big
game user-days has declined by over 5% between the two
time periods.
Small game hunting. — National forest personnel have
reported the number of small game mammal and upland
game bird user-days as a part of the annual wildlife report
from 1965 through 1984. The trend for combined small
game mammal and upland game bird users was upward
for the first 15 years followed by a noticeable decline (fig.
42). In 1984, the South accounted for the greatest propor-
tion of national forest small game use (42%); the North
and Rocky Mountains accounted for a similar proportion
of small game user-days (24% and 22%, respectively);
and the Pacific Region had the smallest proportion of
small game use at 12% (appendix C, table C-8). Small
game species occupying national forests are generally not
associated with agricultural lands. Therefore, small game
recreational use on NFS lands has not been influenced
by the general national decline in agriculture-associated
small game populations.
Fishing. — Following a decline of 4 million fishing user-
days in the late 1960 's, fishing has steadily increased on
national forests through 1980. The level of coldwater
angling use on national forests was consistent at nearly
12 million user-days between 1967 and 1981, after which
use dropped to about 11 million by 1984 (fig. 42). Warm-
water fishing user-days nearly doubled between 1967 and
1975, after which numbers stabilized at about 4 million
user-days (fig. 42).
Important regional differences exist in the distribution
of angling use on national forests (appendix C, table C-
9). In the North, fishing has stabilized around 2 million
fishing user-days. Warmwater fishing participation
increased from less than 900,000 user-days in 1967 to
about 1.4 million by 1984. Coldwater fishing has main-
tained a relatively stable level of use at about 650,000
user-days.
The amount of fishing use on Southern national forests
increased from less than 2 million to about 3 million
user-days over the 1965-1984 reporting period. These
trends are influenced by the amount of warmwater fish-
ing which makes up over two-thirds of the fishing use
in the region.
In the Rocky Mountain region, coldwater fishing
accounts for nearly 95% of the total number of recrea-
tional fishing days on NFS lands. After averaging about
5 million user-days through 1975, coldwater fishing use
increased to 6 million user-days by the early 1980's. No
trend is apparent in warmwater fishing with use fluctu-
ating around 300,000 user-days.
56
The total number of fish user-days on Pacific Coast
national forests has fluctuated in the recent past.
However, the general trend is one of declining use, par-
ticularly over the 5-year period from 1979 to 1984. As
in the Rocky Mountains, coldwater fishing is dominant,
accounting for over 90% of the total fishing use. The
decline in coldwater fishing participation is probably a
function of many factors including declining anadro-
mous fish numbers during the late 1970's and early
1980's and regulations (Lee, pers. comm., 1987).
Harvests of Wildlife and Fish
on Public Lands
Big Game and Other Large Mammal Harvests
Harvest statistics for big game species (including gray
wolf) on public lands were available for FS lands only.
National trends in total big game harvest can be ex-
plained, in part, by trends in animal populations and
users. Regression analysis showed that 88% of histori-
cal harvest variations is explained by changes in big
game populations and hunter effort (as measured by
user-days) . Other factors that influence observed harvest
levels include hunting season regulations and weather.
Total big game harvests on FS lands declined from
1965 through 1977, followed by a gradual increase
through 1984. This observed trend is dominated by the
historical harvest of deer which account for approxi-
mately 75% of the total number of big game animals har-
vested (fig. 43). Harvests of elk, turkey, mountain lion,
and bighorn sheep have also increased while mountain
goat and wolf harvests have declined.
In the Northern region, both turkey and black bear har-
vests increased on FS lands. Deer harvests reached a
record low in the early 1970's, after which harvest
increased to levels approaching those observed in the
mid-1960's (appendix C, table C-10).
All species of big game showed increased harvests on
Southern national forests. Turkeys showed a 350%
increase in harvest since 1965 while deer and black bear
harvests increased by 145% and 95%, respectively
(appendix C, table C-ll).
Rocky Mountain big game harvest trends are variable
owing to the diversity of big game species found on
national forests in this region (appendix C, table C-12).
Deer have accounted for the majority of the big game har-
vest in this region. During the mid-1960's, deer
accounted for at least 80% of the total big game harvest.
During periods of lower populations (mid to late 1970's),
deer harvests accounted for only 60% of the big game
total. Species that have shown consistent increases in
harvest include elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and
mountain lion. The only species with a consistently
declining harvest trend is mountain goat.
Big game harvests from FS lands in the Pacific Coast
Region appear more variable than the other regions
(appendix C, table C-13). Fall weather patterns, partic-
ularly in Alaska, have a significant influence on
observed big game harvests of moose, mountain goat,
sheep, and caribou. Species showing consistently
increasing harvests are those found on national forests
in California, Oregon, and Washington and include
pronghorn and wild turkey. Regional wolf and bear har-
vests have declined by 50% and 25%, respectively.
57
Fish Harvests
The FS and BLM have annually reported the harvest
of anadromous salmon and steelhead but not the har-
vest of other fish species. Anadromous fish harvests from
FS and BLM lands are based on the estimated contribu-
tion that these lands make to the annual production of
these species, rather than the harvest that actually occurs
on NFS lands.
For national forests, information on fish harvests are
categorized as commercial, recreational, and Native
American. The largest segment of the harvest is taken
by commercial fishing. The total salmon harvest for the
nation was about 700 million pounds, of which 15%
(112 million pounds) was attributable to the NFS (fig.
44) . Considering the 5 million pounds of salmon and
steelhead harvested by recreational users and 2 million
pounds taken by Native Americans, national forest con-
tributed nearly 120 million pounds of salmon and steel-
head in 1984. The majority of the recreational (40%) and
Native American (50%) harvest of salmon and steelhead
occurs in the Pacific Coast region.
The trend in commercial fish harvested on BLM lands
has been highly variable during the last 20 years. A high
of 100 million pounds was harvested in 1972 and 1973
followed by a low of only 12 million pounds in 1977 (fig.
45) . In recent years, the commercial harvest of ana-
dromous fish produced on BLM lands has been around
60 million pounds.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pounds (Millions)
I
i
I
l
I
m
1400
1200
1000 -
800
600
400
200
0
Total Pacific Coast Alaska
Region
Pounds (Thousands)
iHi Commercial
im Recreational
I I Native American
HH Commercial
HI Recreational
I i Native American
Rocky Mountain North
Region
Summary
Public lands constitute a vast area that supports many
renewable natural resources of which wildlife and fish
are an important component. The NFS together with the
Bureau of Land Management are responsible for the
management of 525 million acres of forest and rangeland
ecosystems. As multiple-use land managing agencies,
the FS and BLM give wildlife and fish prominent con-
sideration in resource management activities. Conse-
quently, forest and rangeland ecosystems on public
lands provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife and fish
species. However, indications are that important wild-
life and fish habitat will be lost or diminished in qual-
ity unless wildlife and fish concerns continue to be
acknowledged in future resource planning.
Within forest environments, important habitat issues
on public lands are ultimately tied to trends in timber
removals. Harvest of timber is dependent on roads, and
recent construction trends have heightened concern for
the potential impacts on species sensitive to human dis-
turbance and increased sedimentation of stream habitats.
Timber harvesting also alters the mix of forest succes-
sional stages. As demands for timber increases, old-
growth forest environments are becoming increasingly
rare on private lands, leaving public agencies with the
responsibility for managing these unique habitat types.
In a way analogous to forest environments, forage
removals on public lands are the ultimate source of wild-
life and fish management issues within rangeland
Source: Dombeck (pers. comm. 1987)
Figure 44.— Salmon and steelhead harvested from national forest
production.
Pounds (Millions)
120 i
ol 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — I — 1 — I — 1 — I — 1 — I — 1 — I — 1 — I — 1 — I
1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
Source: USOI, Bureau of Land Management
(1970-1986)
Figure 45.— Trend in commercial fish harvest from BLM public land
production.
environments. However, rangeland habitat problems
appear also to be related to the historical overgrazing of
range ecosystems. Attendant with recent declining
trends in public-land grazing has been improvement in
58
range condition. However, because of the slow recov-
ery of vegetation in arid climates, rangeland habitats
could still see significant improvements with time and
implementation of appropriate management practices.
A particularly important wildlife and fish habitat issue
associated with range ecosystems is grazing use of ripar-
ian habitat. Failure to manage livestock use of riparian
areas severely degrades this habitat for both terrestrial
and aquatic species.
The majority of big game species have been increas-
ing on national forests and BLM lands in response to the
joint habitat and population management between state
and federal agencies. Threatened and endangered spe-
cies are a special responsibility of public agencies, and
considerable effort has been exerted to improve the sta-
tus of these species on public lands through habitat
management and the implementation of approved recov-
ery plans.
Recreational use patterns associated with federal lands
showed some unexpected trends given the increasing
uniqueness of these lands with respect to wildlife and
fish habitats and populations. The proportionate num-
ber of days spent on federal ownerships has declined
slightly for nonconsumptive recreation and big game
hunting, and increased for small game and migratory
game bird hunting. In the case of national forests, trends
in the number of user-days since the last assessment
showed declines in nonconsumptive recreation, water-
fowl hunting, and small game hunting; increases in big
game hunting and warmwater fishing; and stable levels
of coldwater fishing.
As land-use intensifies on private lands in response
to increasing human populations and increased demand
for commodity goods, public lands will probably become
more unique with respect to the distribution of native
vegetation, wildlife and fish communities, and recrea-
tion opportunities. Evaluating the relative importance
of public lands to future wildlife and fish recreation and
populations requires recreational use and inventory
projections.
59
CHAPTER 2: PROJECTIONS OF WILDLIFE AND
FISH RESOURCE USE
Resource-demand projections are an integral part of
national resource assessments, and when compared
against future trends in resource supplies, they provide
insights into possible imbalances between the demand
for and supply of natural resources. For wildlife and fish,
demand analysis is interpreted to involve projections of
resource use (Hoekstra and Hof 1985). This modification
on the traditional economic analysis framework is nec-
essary since true demand analysis requires a conven-
tional market structure that generally does not exist for
wildlife and fish.
Wildlife and fish use can be categorized into three
classes according to the common values held for wild-
life and fish resources. These categories are commercial,
existence, and recreational values (Hoekstra et al. 1983).
The capability to project future trends in wildlife and
fish use varies across these categories because data
requirements and analysis methods differ.
For commercial fisheries and furbearers, a traditional
competitive market exists. However, analyses to project
commercial use at scales appropriate for national assess-
ments have not, as yet, been completed.
Existence value represents a category of wildlife and
fish use acknowledging that some people derive satis-
faction from just knowing that certain species or fauna
exist. People hold these values even though they may
never use (consumptively or nonconsumptively) the
resource directly. Consequently, existence values are
independent of current use and expected future use and
therefore must be derived from altruistic motives (Ran-
dall and Peterson 1984). Passage of such laws as the
Endangered Species Act provides evidence for the extent
to which existence values are held by the public.
Although a general description of existence values is
widely accepted, a precise and common definition of the
concept does not exist (Bishop 1987). Such a definition
is required before future trends in this use category can
be analyzed.
In the case of recreational use, standard national sur-
veys addressing wildlife and fish related recreation have
been conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census
1982). These data have been used to examine the corre-
lation between participation levels in recreational activi-
ties and socioeconomic factors presumed to be impor-
tant in explaining why persons choose to participate in
certain recreational activities. Projected changes in the
socioeconomic factors explaining participation permit
an estimation of future users. Because of the analytical
constraints associated with commercial use, and because
of the need for future theoretical development to address
existence value, this chapter only discusses projections
of recreational use.
Two aspects of recreational use will be addressed.
First, participation in six recreational activities related
to wildlife and fish are projected for the nation and each
of the four assessment regions. These projections are
compared to expected future trends in wildlife and fish
recreation on national forests. Second, the growing
interest in fee-hunting on private lands is examined as
an emerging issue of wildlife and fish recreation. Future
trends in the number of hunters participating in fee-
hunting are reviewed.
PROJECTION OF WILDLIFE AND
FISH RECREATION
Projecting the number of people engaging in wildlife
and fish recreational activities provides important infor-
mation that can be used to anticipate future changes in
participation levels and their relative preference for
specific recreational activities. The last national assess-
ment of wildlife and fish projected increases for all
recreational activities examined (USDA Forest Service
1981). The magnitude of envisioned increases ranged
from 90% for freshwater fishing to 24% for small game
hunting over a 50-year projection period from 1980 to
2030. These projections were based on linear extrapo-
lations of historical participation rates by age group over
the previous 30 years. During this historical period, the
number of licensed hunters doubled and the number of
licensed anglers more than tripled.
60
The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed two
national surveys on wildlife and fish associated recrea-
tion since the 1979 wildlife and fish assessment (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service 1988b; USDI Fish and Wild-
life Service, and USDC Bureau of Census 1982). These
surveys indicate participation patterns have recently
changed. They show declining number of hunters,
increasing anglers, and increasing nonconsumptive
users. This pattern has been observed by others. Gilbert
and Dodds (1987) noted that increasing nonconsump-
tive interests and a potentially declining number of hun-
ters will change the clientele of the future wildlife
manager; in New York, Brown et al. (1987) showed that
lower participation in hunting can be expected given
sociodemographic trends; and in Colorado, the Execu-
tive Task Force on the Future of Wildlife (1987) noted
that the number of big game hunters may be expected
to decline while participation in fishing and noncon-
sumptive uses is expected to increase.
Attempting to explain these perceived changes, empir-
ical relationships between participation and hypoth-
esized factors affecting participation were estimated. The
projection method reported here was developed by
Walsh et al. (1987) and used to analyze nonconsump-
tive use, coldwater fishing, warmwater fishing, big game
hunting, small game hunting, and migratory bird hunt-
ing. These activities are defined in table 31.
Projection Approach
Several studies have attempted to project recreational
activity at scales appropriate for national assessments
(Adams et al. 1973, Cicchetti et al. 1969, Hay and
McConnell 1979, Hof and Kaiser 1983). It must be
emphasized that these past projections of wildlife and
fish use, and the projections reviewed here, do not
represent true demand in the economic sense, but rather
an estimate of the actual expected consumption. As
argued by Hof and Kaiser (1983), if the objective is to
identify future over-use problems, then the relevant
quantity to project is actual expected consumption not
quantity demanded.
For nonmarket goods, such as wildlife and fish, Hof
and Kaiser (1983) recommended the following theoreti-
cal form for recreation projections:
Qc = ftP.Xi.Qp)
where
Qc = the quantity of resources actually consumed;
P = a price surrogate, e.g. , travel cost or time costs;
XA = traditional "demand shifters" such as income,
age, and education; and
Qp = the quantity of resource provided or available.
Walsh et al. (1987) followed this theoretical form and
examined the relationship between participation in
wildlife and fish recreational activities and 20 hypothe-
sized explanatory variables, including two price
variables, nine demand shifters, and nine resource avail-
ability variables that tended to be activity specific (table
32). Their approach to project Qc (defined as the num-
ber of participants) can be summarized in three steps.
First, empirical relationships between explanatory vari-
ables and the probability that an individual will partic-
ipate in a given recreational activity were estimated from
available data. The data for this study were obtained
from the 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife- Associated Recreation (USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, and USDC Bureau of Census 1982). Logistic
regression analysis was used to estimate the projection
model coefficients.
The second step involved projection of the explana-
tory variables from the 1980 base year to 2040. To
develop a reasonable range of forecasts that
acknowledges the uncertainty about future conditions,
three alternative future scenarios were completed. The
scenarios resulted in high, medium, and low forecasts
of the factors affecting participation in wildlife and fish
recreational activities (table 33). The projections of
explanatory variables were based on various sources
including Darr (in press), USDC Bureau of Census
(1984b), Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates
(1985), USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis (1985), and
Hof and Kaiser (1983). In general, the medium scenario
represented a projection of the recent historical situa-
tion. The high and low scenarios assumed an acceler-
ated and slower rate of change, respectively (Walsh et
al. 1987). The resource quantity and quality variables
were unchanged through the projection period. Conse-
quently, resource availability is not a factor in the
projected recreation trends. The impact of changing
resource availability (as measured by habitat or animal
populations) on recreational use will be addressed in
chapter 4.
The third step in the projection methodology was to
apply the projected changes in the explanatory variables
to the logistic regression equations. The result was an
estimated change in the probability of participating in
various recreational activities. Total number of par-
ticipants was calculated by multiplying participation
probabilities by the projected human population. To
facilitate comparison among recreational activities, rela-
tive change from a 1980 base year is shown.
These projections are based on two important
assumptions:
1. The relationships between participation in wild-
life and fish recreation and socioeconomic factors
remain constant over time.
2. Programs are not implemented in the future that
either restrict or promote participation in these
activities.
Consequently, the trends depicted represent what may
occur with the continuation of current management
levels and public preferences. Of course, resource man-
agement agencies may implement programs to influence
or change the course of these trends.
61
Table 31.— Definitions of the types of fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation.
Type of activity Census survey definition
Nonconsumptive trips
Fishing, total
Coldwater
Warmwater
Hunting, total
Big game
Small game
Migratory birds
Trips or outings of at least 1 mile from home for the primary purpose
of observing, photographing, or feeding wildlife, without which the trip
or activity would not have been undertaken. Trips to zoos, circuses,
aquariums, and museums, and trips to fish or hunt are not included.
The sport of catching or attempting to catch fish with hook and line or
by archery, spearing, gigging or shooting frogs, seining and netting
(but not for bait). Related pursuits that are not considered fishing in the
survey include commercial fishing and catching or gathering shellfish
(crabs, clams, oysters, etc.).
Includes freshwater trout, kokanee, and anadromous fishes such as
salmon and steelhead.
Includes smallmouth and largemouth bass, panfish such as bluegill
and crappie, walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, catfish, bullheads,
etc.
The act of searching for wildlife with the intent to take individuals by
using firearms or archery. Only hunting for pleasure or recreation is
included. Excluded are trapping animals, commercial hunting, search-
ing for animals to photograph, capturing animals live (e.g., to put in a
zoo or for biological research), and hunting for frogs. Excluded are
those who did not have a weapon but may have accompanied others in
the field.
Large wild animals hunted for sport or food, such as, but not limited to,
deer, elk, bear, antelope, and wild turkey.
Smaller wild animals, such as rabbits, quail, grouse and pheasant,
which are hunted for sport or for food; waterfowl, other migratory birds,
and animals generally considered to be pests or varmints are
excluded.
Birds regularly moving seasonally from one region or climate to
another for feeding or breeding; for example, ducks, geese, doves, and
woodcock.
Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census (1982).
Results
Empirical Relationships
The effect of each explanatory variable on participa-
tion levels varies by recreational activity. Walsh et al.
(1987) found:
- Price was a significant variable in all recreation
activities; as travel cost, licence fees, access fees,
and other expenses increase, participation would
decline.
- The cross-price variable indicated that noncon-
sumptive activities and fishing are substitutes for
hunting. As a result, if costs associated with hunt-
ing increase, then nonconsumptive participation
and fishing can be expected to increase.
- Higher income had a positive relationship to par-
ticipation in nonconsumptive activities, coldwater
fishing, and migratory bird hunting. Increased
income was associated with lower participation
rates in big game hunting. Income was not an
important determinant of participation in warm-
water fishing or small game hunting.
- Age was related to participation in fishing, big
game hunting, and nonconsumptive activities in
a quadratic fashion. That is, age was positively
related to participation up to a point after which it
had a negative relationship. Increasing age had a
negative relationship to migratory game bird
hunting.
- People living in urban environments were less likely
to participate in hunting and fishing activities.
However, given that a person is a hunter or fisher,
urban residents were more likely to participate in
coldwater fishing and migratory game bird hunting,
and less likely to hunt big game. Area of residence
did not affect participation in nonconsumptive
activities, warmwater fishing, or small game
hunting.
- Males were more likely to participate in most con-
sumptive activities. However, given that a person
is a hunter or angler, a person's sex did not appear
to be an important factor explaining participation
in big game hunting or warmwater fishing. A per-
son's sex was not important in explaining partici-
pation in nonconsumptive activities.
62
Table 32.— Description of explanatory variables used in recreation projections.
Variable type
Variable name
Definition
Price variables
Price
Mverage vanaDie cosi or mnes per parucipdni in
respondent's region of residence.
Cross-price
Average variable cost or miles per participant in other
fish and wildlife activities in respondent's region of
residence.
Demand shifters
Income
Respondent's gross household income.
Employment
Respondent worked for wages last week.
Age
Respondent's age.
Education
Respondent's education level.
Marital status
Respondent's marital status.
nousenoiu size
iNurnucr oi pt?rborio iiviny in re&punucrii b nuuoonuiu.
Race
Respondent's race.
Sex
Respondent's sex.
Residence
Respondent's place of residence.
Resource Quantity,
quality variables
Success rate
Average number of fish caught or wildlife bagged per
day or season in respondent's region of residence.
Forest
Forestland, public and private, in respondent's state of
residence.
Range
Pasture- and rangeland in respondent's state of
residence.
Water
Total fishable water in respondent's state of residence.
uoiowaier
risnaDie coiu water in responoeni s staie or residence.
Warmwater
Fishable warm water in respondent's state of
residence.
Habitat
Migratory waterfowl habitat in respondent's state of
residence.
Songbirds
Maximum value of number of songbird species per
ecological stratum in state of residence.
Big game
Population of big game in respondent's state of
residence.
Source: Walsh et al. (1987).
Employment was not shown to affect most con-
sumptive and nonconsumptive recreation.
Household size was positively related to participa-
tion in hunting and nonconsumptive activities.
Education level was positively related to coldwater
fishing and migratory bird hunting and negatively
related to small game hunting.
Resource availability showed the expected positive
relationship with participation levels. Conse-
quently, with improved resource management pro-
grams, involvement in wildlife and fish recreation
should increase.
National Projections
Indexed participation projections are depicted in
figure 46. The results indicate that under the medium-
level assumptions described above, more people will
participate in nonconsumptive activities, cold and
warmwater fishing, and migratory bird hunting over the
50-year planning horizon. Coldwater fishing and
primary nonresidential nonconsumptive activities have
projected gains exceeding 150%. Warmwater fishing is
also expected to gain more participants but at a slower
rate than coldwater fishing. Migratory bird hunting,
63
Table 33.— Indexed projections of the explanatory variables under high, medium, and low assumptions.
Disposable
personal
income Marital Average
National Median Race Sex per capita Employment Residence status Family variable
population age (percent (percent ($1000's (percent Education (percent (percent size cost/day
Year (millions) (years) white) male) 1982) employed) (years) urban) married) (number) (dollars)
Initial
High
1980
1
.000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1
.000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1
000
i yyu
1
. 1 dli
1 .090
0.979
1 .000
1 .235
1 .069
1
047
0.974
0.998
0.997
1
.094
1
^by
1 . 1 87
0.959
1 .000
1 .484
1 .107
1
.094
0.948
0.980
0.994
1
.192
2010
1
.415
1.227
0.939
1.000
1.773
1.068
1
.142
0.923
0.979
0.991
1
.266
2020
1
.575
1.223
0.922
1.000
2.052
1.008
1
189
0.897
0.977
0.990
1
.326
2030
1
.735
1.243
0.905
1.000
2.461
0.973
1
236
0.871
0.975
0.985
1
.402
2040
1
890
1.237
0.889
1.000
3.016
0.932
1
283
0.845
0.974
0.982
1
.479
1990
1
103
1.100
0.983
1.000
1.213
1.052
1
.024
1.001
0.984
0.964
1
.077
2000
1
.207
1.210
0.967
1.000
1.432
1.071
1
055
1.003
0.969
0.930
1
.153
2010
1
293
1.283
0.951
1.000
1.721
1.025
1
087
1.004
0.953
0.894
1
230
2020
1
371
1.310
0.937
1.000
2.022
0.994
1
.118
1.005
0.936
0.857
1
.306
2030
1
.430
1,360
0.923
0.996
2.420
0.958
1
150
1.007
0.921
0.821
1
383
2040
1
.464
1.387
0.909
0.996
2.961
0.920
1
.181
1.008
0.905
0.784
1
459
1990
1
085
1.107
0.985
1.000
1.181
1.019
1
008
1.026
0.969
0.930
1
042
2000
1
.154
1.233
0.971
1.000
1.361
1.091
1
024
1.052
0.936
0.857
1
097
2010
1
194
1.333
0.957
1.000
1.619
0.972
1
039
1.077
1.905
0.787
1
154
2020
1
214
1.390
0.943
0.996
1.891
0.932
1
055
1.103
0.872
0.714
1
223
2030
1
208
1.463
0.929
0.990
2.264
0.895
1
071
1.129
0.841
0.644
1
291
2040
1
169
1.507
0.915
0.984
2.766
0.858
1
087
1.155
0.809
0.571
1
361
following short-term declines, is the only hunting
activity expected to show increased participation by
2040. The number of people participating in big game
hunting increases slightly in the short-term but shows
a 6% decline over the long-term. Small game hunting
is the only activity in which participation consistently
declines throughout the projection period with an over-
all loss of 17%.
The model projections (under the medium-level
assumptions) were compared to the preliminary findings
from the 1985 survey (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
1988b). The model was used to predict 1985 participation
300
250
200
150
100
50
Index
- *— Coldwater Fishing
— I — Nonconsumptive Recreation
Warmwater Fishing
-S- Migratory Bird Hunting
Big Game Hunting
-0- Small Game Hunting
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Figure 46.— Projected participation in major wildlife and fish
associated recreational activities (Base=1980=100).
levels by interpolating between the 1980 base year and
the 1990 estimate. The model was consistent in terms of
the direction of change (i.e., increases and decreases in
participation). However, the model underestimated the
change in participation of consumptive activities and
overestimated the change in nonconsumptive recrea-
tionists (fig. 47).
The patterns in recreational participation vary under
the three alternative future scenarios (table 34). All recre-
ational activities are expected to increase under the high
assumption scenario while only nonconsumptive and
fishing activities are expected to increase under the low
assumption scenario. Despite scenario variation in
expected participation levels, all scenarios tend to indi-
cate that hunting, relative to nonconsumptive recreation
and fishing, is expected to become less important to the
outdoor recreationist.
Regional Projections
Regional wildlife and fish recreation projections were
developed by assuming that relative changes in human
population levels resulted in an equal percentage change
in participation, all other things being equal — a conclu-
sion reached by several studies (Walsh et al. 1987).
Regional projections of the price and demand shifting
variables were not possible. Consequently, the regional
projections of recreation repor *d here assume no
regional variation in the explanatory variables and are
64
tied only to regional differences in population growth.
Based on the projected changes in the distribution of
human populations, the Rocky Mountain region is
expected to have the largest increases in wildlife and fish
recreation with all recreational activities showing an
increase in the number of participants over the 1980 base
year (table 35). The Pacific Coast and South also are
expected to have greater recreational participation than
the national average with all activities except small game
hunting showing increases over the base year. In the
North, where population growth is expected to be the
slowest, the indexed change in the number of par-
ticipants is lower than was predicted for the nation as
a whole.
National Forest Projections
Recreational participation rates on national forests
have been projected as part of the forest planning proc-
ess. These projections show the anticipated levels of
wildlife and fish recreational activity indexed to a mid-
1980 base year (table 36). National forests are expected
to receive increased participation in all recreational
activities. Nonconsumptive and recreational fishing are
Table 34.— Indexed projections of the number of participants (Base = 1980 = 100) in major wildlife and
fish recreation activities under high, medium, and low scenario assumptions.
Nonconsumpti- Fishing Hunting
ve
wildlife-related
Cold-
Warm-
Big
Small
Migratory
Year
trips
water
water
game
game
birds
Base year use
(million)
1980
28.8
6.9
29.5
11.8
12.4
5.3
1990
125
118
115
102
98
100
2000
160
141
132
105
96
102
High
2010
193
171
152
108
96
112
2020
227
207
177
114
101
131
2030
271
261
205
117
103
154
2040
319
346
241
121
108
199
Compound annual
growth rate
1.952
2.090
1.477
0.318
0.128
1.153
1990
122
115
112
101
97
97
2000
149
131
124
100
91
94
Medium
2010
175
153
138
99
88
100
2020
201
178
153
99
88
112
2030
229
212
168
97
85
125
2040
254
263
186
94
83
151
Compound annual
growth rate
1.566
1.625
1.040
-0.103
-0.310
0.689
1990
117
111
110
99
95
94
2000
136
122
118
95
87
87
Low
2010
155
135
126
91
80
87
2020
171
149
134
87
77
93
2030
185
167
139
84
71
97
2040
194
193
145
74
66
110
Compound annual
growth rate
1.111
1.102
0.621
-0.501
-0.690
0.159
120
100
Use indexed to 1980
Non Fresh- Big Small Migratory
consump- water game game bird
five fishing hunting hunting hunting
Activity
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
Survey
Projection
Figure 47.— Comparison of 1985 model projections and 1985 Fish
and Wildlife Service survey results.
65
Table 35.— Indexed projections of recreational activities (Base = 1980 = 100) by assessment region.
Activity and 1980
region users 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Thousands
— index
Nonconsumptive
North
11 4,582
116
136
155
176
198
217
South
7,302
125
137
187
217
250
280
Rocky Mountain
2,949
131
169
205
241
281
315
Pacific Coast
4,431
129
165
196
226
259
288
Big game hunting
North
5,832
96
91
88
87
84
80
South
4,173
104
105
106
107
106
103
Rocky Mountain
1 ,412
108
113
116
119
1 19
116
Pacific Coast
969
106
111
111
112
110
106
Small game hunting
North
5,707
92
83
78
77
74
71
South
4,766
100
96
94
95
93
92
Rocky Mountain
1 ,534
104
104
103
106
104
103
Pacific Coast
922
102
101
98
99
96
94
Migratory bird hunting
North
1,576
93
86
89
98
108
129
South
2,544
100
100
107
121
136
166
Rocky Mountain
736
105
107
117
135
153
187
Pacific Coast
632
103
105
112
126
142
171
Warmwater fishing
North
(2)
107
113
123
134
146
159
South
116
131
148
166
184
205
Rocky Mountain
121
141
162
184
207
231
Pacific Coast
119
138
154
173
191
211
Coldwater fishing
North
(2)
109
120
136
156
183
225
South
118
139
164
193
231
289
Rocky Mountain
123
149
179
218
260
326
Pacific Coast
122
146
171
201
240
298
1 Nonconsumptive use estimates by region were only available for 1985.
2Breakdown of total freshwater fishing into cold and warmwater fishing was not possible at the
regional level.
Source: Estimates of actual use are from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census
(1982).
expected to increase at the greatest rates over the plan-
ning period. The Rocky Mountain region shows the
greatest gain in nonconsumptive recreation, small game
hunting, waterfowl hunting, and total fishing. The South
is expected to have the largest increases in big game
hunting. Comparison of the relative rates of participa-
tion for national forests with those across all ownerships
(see tables 35 and 36) shows that national forests are
expected to become relatively more significant in provid-
ing opportunities to hunt big game and small game
species.
PROJECTION OF FEE-HUNTING
ON PRIVATE LANDS
Fee-hunting encompasses numerous access and leas-
ing systems, but generally involves charging the hun-
ter for access to the land and may also include charges
for taking of animals. The price that is actually charged
is dependent on a number of factors including the game
species hunted, success, and services offered by the
landowner.
Future participation trends in fee-hunting are impor-
tant because of the implications to wildlife management
on private lands (Ruff and Isaac 1987, Wiggers and
Rootes 1987). In addition, future studies of fee-hunting
could provide previously unavailable transaction-based
estimates of wildlife values that are comparable to other
natural resources for use in multiple resource planning
(Schenck et al. 1987).
Less than one-third of all hunters used public land in
1980 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau
of Census 1982), emphasizing the importance of private
land in consumptive wildlife related recreation. How-
ever, access is beginning to constrain the opportunity
to hunt on private lands. The National Shooting Sports
Foundation (1986) found that of the 19 factors that could
curtail hunting, access to huntable land was considered
66
Table 36.— Projections of recreational wildlife and fish user-days (12-hour activity day) by assessment
region on national forests (mid-1980 base year).
Activity and Mid-1980
region user-days 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Thousands Index
Nonconsumptive
North
106
100
112
125
140
159
161
South
192
169
182
193
208
224
240
Rocky Mountain
537
124
150
178
206
235
265
Pacific Coast
509
106
136
154
172
190
210
Big game hunting
North
1,223
106
112
117
125
129
131
South
2,007
119
125
134
137
139
141
Rocky Mountain
4,562
105
108
113
116
122
127
Pacific Coast
2,821
101
107
111
114
118
122
mall game hunting
North
984
102
108
116
124
128
133
South
1,691
93
98
103
107
113
119
Rocky Mountain
882
104
114
125
136
146
156
Pacific Coast
500
102
108
111
115
119
123
Waterfowl hunting
North
188
93
106
120
133
146
160
South
107
104
109
116
121
127
133
Rocky Mountain
197
96
109
122
134
148
161
Pacific Coast
94
106
117
126
133
142
150
Total fishing
North
2,129
98
113
129
149
153
162
South
2,767
84
89
96
101
108
115
Rocky Mountain
5,749
104
119
133
149
165
182
Pacific Coast
4,960
109
131
139
147
155
163
the number one problem facing hunters nationwide. Fee-
hunting could change the trend in access to private lands
because private landowners who previously denied
access may be more willing to exchange permission for
remuneration. However, fee-hunting could further com-
pound the access problem. For example, after survey-
ing all 50 states Wiggers and Rootes (1987) found that
lease-hunting resulted in more private land opened for
hunting in 12 states while four states reported declines.
In 1980, 1.4 million hunters (8% of all hunters) paid
either access or lease fees (Langner 1987a). Lease agree-
ments have increased over the last 10 years and are most
prevalent in the South and Mid-Atlantic regions accord-
ing to Wiggers and Rootes (1987), who also speculated
that two important factors influencing the prevalence of
fee-hunting were a lack of public land and high human
populations. Langner (1987a) substantiated these specu-
lated relationships empirically and found that not only
did a high percentage of private land increase the prob-
ability of participation in fee-hunting, so did hunter
experience, education level, and total travel-related
hunting expenditures. Income level was also an impor-
tant factor explaining whether or not a person fee-hunted
(Langner, pers. comm., 1987b).
Langner's modeling approach was identical to that of
Walsh et al. (1987), and it predicted participation in fee-
hunting given that a person was a hunter. Projections
of fee-hunting participation thus required projections of
explanatory variables and the total number of hunters.
Projections of income, education, and travel-related
expenditures were taken from table 33 under the
medium assumption scenario. Hunter experience and
percent land in public ownership were assumed to
remain constant. The projected number of total hunters
was calculated using the model developed by Walsh et
al. (1987).
Application of these assumed changes to the fee-
hunting model indicated that the number of hunters par-
ticipating in some form of fee-hunting could increase
more than 150% by 2040 (fig. 48). The proportion of
hunters participating in fee-hunting is expected to
increase to an even greater degree since the total hunt-
ing population is expected to increase only slightly.
Based on these results, approximately one in every five
hunters may be participating in fee-hunting by 2040.
SUMMARY
Wildlife and fish resource use projections were based
on empirical models developed from established
national surveys of participation in wildlife and fish
recreational activities. These models do not project
demand in the economic sense but rather project ex-
pected levels of use (measured as number of participants)
67
300
250
200
150
Use indexed to 1980
100
Fee-hunting
Total hunting
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Figure 48.— Projected participation in fee-hunting compared to total
hunting.
based on changes in demographic and socioeconomic
determinants of participation. The projections assume
no direct intervention on the part of resource managing
agencies that will either restrict or promote future par-
ticipation. Rather, the projections reported here examine
future trends in wildlife and fish recreation if we assume
a continuation of current management levels and pub-
lic preferences.
The results indicate that the relative importance of var-
ious recreation activities related to wildlife and fish will
shift. Coldwater fishing and nonconsumptive activities
could increase at the greatest rate with the number of
participants more than doubling by 2040. In general,
hunting could become relatively less important as the
number of big game and small game hunters decline.
More hunters will probably participate under fee-
hunting situations in the future. As many as one in five
hunters may be participating in some form of fee-hunting
by 2040.
Comparing the future trend of wildlife and fish recre-
ation on all ownerships with that expected on national
forests, as determined from the forest planning process,
indicates that these public lands will become more
important in providing outdoor recreation for big game
and small game hunters. Mandates requiring multiple
resource planning on national forests will help maintain
the amounts and quality of future wildlife and fish
habitats and also continue to provide the public with
opportunities for nonconsumptive and consumptive
recreational activities involving wildlife and fish
resources.
68
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTIONS OF WILDLIFE AND
FISH RESOURCE INVENTORIES
Projections of wildlife and fish inventories have been
difficult to address analytically (Crawford 1984, Hench
et al. 1985). This difficulty has limited the incorpora-
tion of wildlife and fish objectives into multiple resource
planning (Thomas 1986). The data bases and modeling
capabilities to support forecasts of wildlife and fish
inventories vary depending on the resource attribute of
interest. Land-use projection models provide some
insights into likely future habitat trends, and regional
habitat-based wildlife and fish abundance models have
been developed to evaluate land use and land manage-
ment impacts for a limited number of regions and tar-
get species. To present the most complete set of inven-
tory projections covering as many species and as much
geography as possible required supplementing conven-
tional analysis with the judgment of resource
professionals.
This chapter summarizes the results from the appli-
cation of these various inventory projection approaches
at the national and, where possible, regional level.
Inventory projections are discussed for three attributes
of wildlife and fish resources. First, habitat is considered
by reviewing land use and land cover changes. Second,
population is discussed based on information from state
and federal agencies and an application of regional
habitat-based wildlife and fish abundance models in the
South. Third, future wildlife harvest trends are
examined.
PROJECTIONS OF HABITAT INVENTORIES
Projected wildlife habitat availability was based on
expected changes in land-use and land-cover categories
as surrogates for an explicit projection of wildlife and
fish habitat. Although land-use and land-cover estimates
provide previously unavailable information on future
wildlife habitat, they only coarsely indicate how land
types and the intensity of land management are expected
to change. Explicit statements of wildlife habitat trends
will require further research on species-habitat relation-
ships and a commitment to multiple resource consider-
ations at the outset of the analysis.
Overview of Land Use Changes
As part of the resource assessment analysis, the Forest
Service recently predicted that the area of major land-
use and land-cover categories will change (Bones in
press) (table 37). The prediction was based on assump-
tions about various demographic, social, and economic
variables (Darr in press). Forestland is expected to
decline slightly over the next 50 years with an overall
4% loss. This represents a continuation of the gradual
decline noted during the recent history. Where fore-
stland losses were attributable to cropland conversions
during the 1980's, forestland reductions after 1990 are
ascribed primarily to urban expansion and reservoir con-
struction (Bones in press).
Rangeland area could increase by approximately 5%
as a result of cropland reverting back to rangeland. The
increase is expected for two reasons: (1) diminishing sur-
face and subsurface water supplies with an associated
rising cost of water could reduce land in irrigated
agriculture, and (2) the Conservation Reserve Program
is expected to convert substantial acres of highly erodi-
ble cropland to permanent grass cover. A more detailed
discussion of rangeland area changes and factors
explaining these changes can be found in Joyce (in
press).
The crop and pasture land projections depicted in
table 37 show an overall loss of 94 million acres (an 18%
reduction) by 2040. The Conservation Reserve Program
has the greatest short-term impact as highly erodible
cropland is converted to permanent cover. Other factors
also contribute to the decline, such as natural reversion
to native vegetation as irrigated acres decline, and con-
version to urbanland uses continues. Reduced cropland
also has been projected by other resource management
agencies. The second appraisal for the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act (USDA Soil Conservation
Service 1987) projected that acres actually planted to
crops could decline from 370 million acres to 347 mil-
lion acres nationwide by 2030.
The increase in "other" land uses will be dominated
by the dynamics of urbanland uses. The urbanization of
69
Table 37.— Major land-use acreage trends for the United States from
1987-2040.
Year
Forest1
Range
Crop2
Other3
Total4
Million acres
1987
727
770
528
232
2,257
2000
715
809
470
260
2,254
2010
711
809
460
272
2,252
2020
707
809
451
283
2,250
2030
703
810
443
292
2,248
2040
699
810
437
301
2,247
^Includes transition zones, such as areas between heavily forested
and nonforested land.
2Pastureland is included.
^Includes urban and other land categories.
ATotal area declines due to increased water areas.
Source: Bones (in press).
rural lands causes particular concern because the conver-
sion is essentially permanent and the associated changes
in habitat quality extend beyond urban boundaries.
Increased disturbance from humans and domestic
animals, conversion of natural vegetation communities,
and potential declines in water quality all tend to shift
the composition of the animal community to more com-
mon native or exotic species that are more adaptable to
urban environments (DeGraaf 1986).
The regional shifts in major land uses show the poten-
tial for greater land area changes than at the national
level (table 38). Regional changes in the commercial tim-
berland acreage portion of the forestland base indicate
that all regions could experience acreage reductions over
the projection period. The decline in commercial tim-
berland, relative to the acres present in 1982, is expected
to be the greatest in the Pacific Coast and the smallest
in the Rocky Mountains. The South will probably lose
the greatest absolute area (approximately 9 million acres)
of commercial timberland as a result of urban expansion
and some conversion to cropland (Bones in press).
Regional rangeland area is projected to show signifi-
cant increases early in the projection period in response
to the Conservation Reserve Program (table 38). Acre-
age increases will be focused in the Rocky Mountain and
Southern regions. After the year 2000, rangeland area
could decline slightly in the Rocky Mountains and the
North but continue to increase slightly in the South and
Pacific Coast.
Effects of a Federal Program:
The Food Security Act of 1985
The projected changes in the terrestrial land base
presented here are based on recent surveys and analyses
and suggest a different land base future than has been
judged by others in past national reports on wildlife
habitat (see Frayer 1987; National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council 1982). Important land-use
policy changes are responsible for the new perception
of the future. An important policy change with the
potential to significantly improve the amounts and con-
dition of wildlife and fish habitat resulted from the Food
Security Act of 1985 (also called the 1985 Farm Act).
This Act contains several conservation programs
directed at reducing soil erosion which may secondar-
ily benefit wildlife and fish habitat.
An important provision of this new policy, the Con-
servation Reserve Program (CRP), is intended to remove
highly erodible cropland from production. The Secre-
tary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into contracts
with farmers to take erosion-prone acres out of crop
production for a period of at least 10 years. The farmer
receives annual rent payments, technical assistance, and
cost-sharing payments (up to 50%) to convert these acres
into permanent grass or tree cover.
The CRP is anticipated to encourage the conversion
of 40 to 45 million acres by 1990. Most of these acres
will be converted to grasses. As of the fifth sign-up
period (August 1987), about 23 million acres had been
Table 38. — Projection of regional timber and range land uses from 1982-2040.
Land type
Region
1982
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Million acres
Commerical forest
North
153
152
151
150
149
148
South
194
189
188
187
185
185
Rocky Mountain
61
60
60
60
59
59
Pacific Coast
72
70
69
69
68
67
Range
North
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
South
116
128
128
129
130
130
Rocky Mountain
413
440
439
438
437
436
Pacific Coast
241
241
242
242
243
244
Source: Bones (in press).
70
enrolled with the average size per contract being 110
acres though not necessarily as a continguous land unit.
The major crop types that had been affected through the
fourth sign-up, in rank order, were wheat (42% of all
base acres contracted), corn (23%), sorghum (12%), and
barley (11%).
Farmer participation at the regional level has varied.
The greatest interest has occurred in the Rocky Moun-
tain region, particularly the Great Plains states where
about 10 million acres have been enrolled. The North-
ern and Southern regions have approximately 5 and 6
million acres under contract, respectively. The Pacific
Coast has 1.5 million acres currently enrolled. Based on
the projected changes in cropland acres, wildlife and fish
habitat will be influenced most significantly in the Rocky
Mountains, and next most importantly in the South and
North.
Three additional conservation provisions complement
CRP objectives: the "Sodbuster," "Swampbuster," and
Conservation Compliance programs. The Sodbuster and
Swampbuster provisions deny eligibility to receive fed-
eral farm subsidies, including price support payments,
crop insurance, disaster payments, and low interest
loans to those farms that plow new, highly erodible land,
or convert wetlands to annual crop production. The
Swampbuster provision is particularly important since
agricultural development is the major recent cause of
wetland drainage and clearing (see chapter 1; Office of
Technology Assessment 1984).
The Conservation Compliance provision requires
those who produce crops on highly erodible land to com-
ply with an approved conservation plan in order to
remain eligible for USDA farm program benefits. Based
on the Soil Conservation Service 1982 National
Resources Inventory (USDA Soil Conservation Service
and Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory 1987),
117.6 million acres of highly erodible cropland existed
in 1982. Treatment of these lands through implementa-
tion of an approved conservation plan or through enroll-
ment in the CRP could greatly reduce the off-site depo-
sition of sediments to other lands and especially to
aquatic ecosystems.
Prior to the passage of this law, perceptions of the
amount and quality of future waterfowl and upland game
habitat were discouraging. That negative outlook was
based on expected increases in cropland acreage,
decreased wetland acreage, and increased use of inten-
sive management practices on cropland, forestland, and
rangeland (National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council 1982).
Frayer (1987) projected wetland acreage based on a
continuation of historical trends between the mid-1950's
and the mid-1970's. In that analysis, vegetated palus-
trine wetlands were estimated to lose 5.5 million acres
between 1974 and 2000 (table 39). These changes
include 3.8 million acres of forested palustrine wetlands
and 1.7 million acres of emergent palustrine wetlands.
Table 39.— Projections of area of wetland types for the conterminous
United States 1974-2000.
WotlanH
weiiana
type
1974
1986
1990
1995
2000
Thousand acres
Estuarine
wetland
5,243
4,923
4,850
4,765
4,686
Palustrine
open water
4,393
o,yyo
6,494
0,987
Palustrine
flat
577
641
663
690
717
Palustrine
forested
49,713
47,824
47,262
46,584
45,932
Palustrine
scrub-shrub
10,611
10,955
1 1 ,065
1 1 ,200
11,333
Palustrine
emergent
28,441
27,559
27,297
26,989
26,701
Total
98,978
97,501
97,135
96,722
96,356
Source: Frayer (1987).
The non-vegetated and open water wetland types were
projected to increase in acreage between 1974 and 2000,
due to the anticipated creation of pond and reservoir wet-
land categories.
The wetland projections made by Frayer (1987)
exclude expected changes in land use stemming from
recent legislation or regulations. The Swampbuster pro-
vision of the Food Security Act of 1985, therefore, has
the potential to significantly alter Frayer's projections.
The possible benefits attributable to this provision can
be evaluated by examining recent estimates for the
amount of wetland habitat that could be converted to
cropland. The Soil Conservation Service 1982 National
Resources Inventory identifies nearly 5.2 million acres
of nonfederal wetlands classified as having a medium
to high potential for conversion to cropland (table 40).
Determining those wetlands with potential for drainage
was based on the wetland types that were drained in the
recent past.
The potential for additional wetland drainage varies
by region. The greatest acreage of remaining nonfederal
wetland that could be drained occurs in the Northern
and Southern regions (table 40). Small amounts of non-
federal wetlands are suitable for drainage in the Rocky
Mountain and Pacific Coast regions. However, relative
to the total nonfederal wetland area remaining, over 12%
could be lost in the Pacific Coast. The Swampbuster pro-
vision of the Farm Act was established to stop the incen-
tives paid to private landholders who would convert
these forest and range wetlands into cropland.
71
Table 40. — Nonfederal wetlands with potential for conversion to cropland.
Wetland acres with
IT _ A — 1 - A 1 — - ■
Total wetland
potential conversion
Percent
Region
acres
to cropland
of total
Thousand acres
North
26,183
1,587
6.1
South
38,735
2,518
6.5
Rocky Mountain
8,544
758
8.9
Pacific Coast1
2,570
319
12.4
Total
76,032
5,184
6.8
^Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service, and Iowa State University
Statistical Laboratory (1987).
The potential impact of the Food Security Act on
improving wildlife and fish habitat is significant. Sub-
stantial increases in upland habitat associated with agri-
cultural lands, maintenance of wetland acres, and siza-
ble reductions in soil erosion could prove beneficial to
small game, nesting waterfowl, nongame animals, and
fish. Whether this potential is realized depends on
several factors. Under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget
restrictions, future appropriations could be reduced
(Cubbage and Gunter 1987) thereby lessening the effec-
tiveness of the conservation programs. Increases in com-
modity prices could decrease farmers' dependence on
federal subsidies. Alternatively, hunter participation in
lease agreements which, unlike timber harvesting and
grazing, is permitted under the Food Security Act, could
provide increased incentive for farmers to manage for
wildlife habitat on their lands. Finally, questions arise
concerning the long-term implications to wildlife and
fish habitat following the 10-year contract period. When
all of these considerations are brought together, the
future habitat impacts ascribable to the Food Security
Act, while providing reason for optimism, are subject
to considerable uncertainty.
PROJECTION OF POPULATION INVENTORIES
Information on future wildlife population levels was
available from several sources. State wildlife and fish
agencies provided both short-term (1995) and long-term
(2040) projections of wildlife populations. The National
Forest System (NFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service
provided additional sources for projections stemming
from their management responsibility. A fourth contri-
bution came from regional habitat-based population
models. These models were developed and used to
predict wildlife and fish abundance changes in response
to land use and timber management changes across all
land ownerships in the South (Flather et al. in press,
Flebbe et al. 1988).
Table 41. — Indexed projections in big game populations by region
(Base = 1985 = 100), with number of states contributing to regional
mean shown in parentheses.
Region
Species 1995 2040
North
Wild Turkey
153
(8)
214
(7)
White-Tailed Deer
102
(9)
97
(7)
Black Bear
109
(5)
107
(5)
South
Wild Turkey
128
(7)
122
(5)
White-Tailed Deer
114
O)
111
(8)
Black Bear
133
(4)
150
(3)
Rocky Mountain
Wild Turkey
203
(5)
208
(5)
Deer
114
(11)
115
(10)
Elk
125
(8)
144
(7)
Pronghorn
101
(10)
115
(9)
Black Bear
106
(5)
105
(5)
Pacific Coast
Wild Turkey
198
(2)
198
(2)
Deer
99
(3)
100
(4)
Elk
110
(1)
107
(2)
Pronghorn
100
(1)
100
(2)
Black Bear
120
(1)
110
(2)
State Agency Population Projections
The projections provided by the state wildlife and fish
agencies contributed the most complete geographical
information. The short- and long-term percentage
change estimates from 1985 represent professional
judgement on the likely future condition of selected big
game and small game populations. These estimates con-
sidered historical population trends, likely future land-
use changes, and proposed wildlife management prac-
tices. State estimates were summarized as a regional
mean of reporting states weighted by the 1985 animal
population level within each state. In general, most state
agencies are optimistic that populations will increase for
both big and small game in the next 10 years, with some
exceptions.
Big Game
Eastern big game populations could be generally
higher in the future (table 41). Wild turkey is one spe-
cies for which important increases are forecasted. The
substantial historical increase noted in the North (see
chapter 1) is expected to continue through 2040.
Projected turkey increases in the South, although more
moderate than in the North, also represent a continuing
historical trend. Several factors influence the expected
changes in wild turkey populations. Translocation as a
management practice and immigration into suitable
habitats could contribute to future population growth.
White-tailed deer in the North could maintain their
mid-1980's population with regional estimates ranging
within 3% of the 1985 estimates. The maturing forests,
lower rates of farm abandonment, and less timber
72
harvesting contribute to stable deer populations in the
North. In the South, white-tailed deer populations are
expected to show slight increases through 2040.
Black bear populations in both the North and the
South could moderately increase. In the short-term, the
expected increase in the North will be slightly more con-
servative than in the South. In the long-term, both
regions could realize less than a 10% increase from 1985
population levels.
The Rocky Mountain states expect, in general, greater
short- and long-term gains in big game populations than
were reported in the East (table 41). Wild turkey popu-
lations are expected to double in the short-term on the
Great Plains with little additional increase expected by
2040. As in the East, increased turkey populations will
come from translocation practices and natural
immigration.
Future population increases for the region's three most
abundant ungulates will range from 44% for elk to 15%
for deer and pronghorn. Elk populations could gradu-
ally and consistently increase over the next 50 years.
This growth will result from continuing the favorable
habitat conditions and successful population manage-
ment strategies implemented during the last 20 years.
Modest increases in deer (both mule and white-tailed)
populations are foreseen with mountain states expected
to do better than the plains states. More plains states
reported future deer declines, possibly due to anticipated
conversion of cropland acres to permanent grass under
the Conservation Reserve Program. Pronghorn popula-
tions could remain stable over the next 10 years.
However, from 1995 to 2040 both mountain and plains
states express mixed expectations about pronghorn num-
bers with the regional average trend being slightly
upward.
In the Pacific Coast region, only the wild turkey could
show significant changes from the mid-1980's popula-
tion level. Turkey populations could nearly double over
the next 10 years. All other big game species, including
deer (mule, black-tailed, and white-tailed), elk, prong-
horn, and black bear could remain at 1985 population
levels or increase slightly (not exceeding 10%) by 2040.
No clear geographic pattern, habitat factor, or manage-
ment action explains why the states anticipate the
changes they have reported with the exception of wild
turkey, the expanding populations of which are a prod-
uct of the nationwide management attention this bird
has received and will continue to receive.
Small Game
Most small game species are projected to either remain
stable or increase over 1985 population estimates (table
42). Northern bob white are a notable exception to this
pattern. Over the species' primary range, populations
could continue the decline that has occurred over the
last 20 years. Although the rate of decline is less than
in recent history, the bobwhite is not expected to recover
to 1985 population levels.
In the South, all the small game species for which
projections were available showed short-term declines or
Table 42.— Indexed projection in small game populations by region
(Base = 1985 = 100), with number of states contrib. g to regional
mean shown in parentheses.
Region
Species 1995 2040
North
Forest Grouse
110
(5)
101
(4)
Pheasant
120
(2)
150
in
Quail
93
(3)
93
(3)
Rabbit
112
(3)
106
(3)
Squirrel
105
(3)
120
(3)
South
Forest Grouse
100
(2)
120
(2)
Quail
(G\
\p>
(JJ
Rabbit
98
(4)
106
(2)
Squirrel
95
(4)
98
(2)
Rocky Mountain
Forest Grouse
100
(2)
100
(2)
Prairie Grouse
98
(4)
97
(4)
Pheasant
189
(5)
185
(5)
Quail
123
(5)
115
(5)
Rabbit
154
(2)
208
(2)
Squirrel
117
(3)
117
(3)
Pacific Coast
Forest Grouse
100
0)
100
(2)
Prairie Grouse
120
(1)
109
(2)
Pheasant
101
(2)
120
(3)
Quail
(1)
100
0)
Rabbit
100
(1)
100
(1)
1A/o dafa provided.
stable population levels. Quail show the greatest decline,
followed by squirrels and rabbits. Only rabbits and
grouse are expected to exceed the mid- 1 980 's popula-
tion by 2040.
In the North, only the bobwhite could decline. Ruffed
grouse populations could remain relatively stable over
the projection period. Stable grouse populations appear
related to the low level of forest regeneration in general,
and in particular, the recent loss of the aspen-birch forest
type. Anticipated pheasant population gains in the North
are attributed to improved upland habitat quality
associated with the CRP. Although the CRP's long-term
impacts remain unknown, state wildlife agencies expect
pheasants to increase consistently through 2040. Rab-
bit populations could show moderate short-term gains,
then dwindle to mid-1980's levels in the long-term.
Squirrel populations could grow 5% per decade over the
50-year projection period, mostly because of maturing
forests.
The anticipated expansion of intensive management
for southern forests, greater human population increases
in the South compared to the North, and further matur-
ing of the northern hardwood forests collectively explain
the disparate small game projections for these eastern
regions. Similarly, differences in the perceived habitat
improvement benefits stemming from the CRP explain
differences in projected species responses. While the
pheasant could respond favorably to the CRP, the bob-
white probably will not because overhead cover require-
ments provided by woody shrub species is less likely
73
to develop on CRP acres during the 10-year contract
period.
In the Rocky Mountain region, states are optimistic
about all upland small game populations except for
prairie grouse species (table 42). Most species could
experience modest increases over the next 10 years and
these gains could either be maintained or increase fur-
ther in the long-term.
The majority of the small game populations in the
Pacific Coast region could remain stable over the projec-
tion period. Pheasant and prairie grouse are exceptions
to this pattern with regional population gains of 20%
for prairie grouse in the short-term, and for pheasant in
the long-term.
National Forest System Population Projections
As part of the Forest Planning process, individual
national forests are required to project the likely future
status of natural resources. For this assessment, a com-
bination of habitat models and professional judgment
was used to project big game population. The majority
of species could increase in response to proposed man-
agement activities (table 43).
Black-tailed deer, a mule deer subspecies typically
managed as a distinct group, presents a major exception.
Although the combined trend for Forest Service Region
5 (California and Hawaii) and 6 (Oregon and Washing-
ton) is slightly upward, combining across regions
masked important differences in this case. In Region 6,
black-tailed deer populations are expected to decline by
nearly 20% over the projection period. Presumably, this
trend is owed to changes in forest succession. Early
stages of secondary succession following logging
develop into midsuccessional stages unfavorable to
black-tailed deer. Region 5 populations could increase
by approximately 25%, which more than offsets the
declines noted in Region 6. All other Pacific Coast big
game populations could increase or remain stable over
the 50-year planning period.
All other assessment regions anticipate big game
increases. The South shows substantial long-term gains
in wild turkey, white-tailed deer, and black bear. The
population increases on national forests are predicted
to be relatively greater than total increases anticipated
by state agency personnel. Consequently, NFS lands will
tend to support a greater proportion of the South's big
game populations. This scenario appears consistent with
the expected intensification of timber management on
private land in this region.
As in the South, big game populations on northern
national forests could consistently increase over the
projection period. For all species except wild turkey,
Table 43.— Regional big game population trends for national forests.
Region
Species
Mid-
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Thousands
North
Wild Turkey
34
52
53
54
55
56
56
White-Tailed Deer
327
321
327
334
340
347
354
Moose
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
Black Bear
11.8
9.8
10.3
10.9
11.4
11.9
12.5
South
Wild Turkey
123
253
258
275
283
289
291
White-Tailed Deer
281
392
290
405
436
437
440
Black Bear
3.7
5.4
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.8
Rocky Mountain
Wild Turkey1
59
134
139
144
148
153
158
Mule Deer
1,055
1,152
1,181
1,196
1,218
1,238
1,260
White-Tailed Deer2
284
304
317
320
322
325
327
Elk
408
476
496
511
527
541
556
Bighorn Sheep2
16
28
29
31
31
31
32
Pacific Coast3
Wild Turkey
8.3
10.8
12.2
14.3
16.3
18.4
21.5
Mule Deer
336
338
376
382
386
392
398
Black-Tailed Deer
412
407
441
433
425
421
423
White-Tailed Deer
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Elk
94
95
96
98
99
100
101
Bighorn Sheep
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Black Bear4
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
1Dafa from Forest Service Regions 2 and 3.
2 Data from Forest Service Regions 1, 2, and 3.
3Data from Forest Service Regions 5 and 6.
4Data from Forest Service Region 6.
74
increases are slight (less than 10%). Wild turkey num-
bers could increase by 62% on national forests compared
to a total 114% increase projected by state personnel.
All big game species on national forest lands in the
Rocky Mountain region could show long-term popula-
tion increases. However, the relative increases may be
either equal to or more moderate than those anticipated
across all regional ownerships. Deer population projec-
tions on national forests, relative to mid-1980's levels,
show a gain equal to that anticipated by state agency per-
sonnel. Wild turkey and elk show lower relative
increases on national forests compared to state agency
data.
Fish and Wildlife Service Population Projections
As one of the federal government's lead agencies for
fish and wildlife conservation and management, the Fish
and Wildlife Service must prepare various resource
management plans. One common component of these
plans is the specification of future wildlife and fish
resource status. Future status is often defined as habitat,
population, or harvest objectives to be reached through
implementation of management activities. In other cases,
future status is described as a continuation of recent
trends. This section summarizes the findings from two
national plans, one on waterfowl and one on fishing.
The North American Waterfowl Plan (USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986a)
aims to restore those duck and goose populations which
have declined recently (see chapter 1), and it also calls
for maintaining current numbers for all other waterfowl
species. The plan has a 15-year horizon, to the year 2000,
and proposes habitat acquisition, improvement, and
restoration to accomplish the population objectives.
Under the assumed implementation strategy, the Fish
and Wildlife Service projects that breeding population
levels for the 10 most common species of ducks will
increase from the 27 million birds observed in 1985 to
36 million by 2000. Successful implementation depends,
to a large degree, on funding. Since cost estimates for
plan implementation exceed anticipated federal
appropriations, the private sector and states will play
a critical role in meeting funding requirements.
To assess the nation's future hatchery fish require-
ments, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a
national survey (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1968b). The findings
from this survey indicate that fishable water is expected
to increase from 87.1 million acres in 1980 to 104.6 mil-
lion acres by 2040 — an overall increase of approximately
20%. This projection was based on water quality
improvements on streams and lakes, accelerated stock-
ing programs, and expected reservoir construction.
Habitat-Based Abundance Projections for the South:
A Case Study
Past assessments of natural resources have relied on
a limited application of analytical approaches to project
resource supplies and inventories. Assessments have
also been criticized for not analyzing resource response
in a multiple resource context (Schweitzer et al. 1981).
In response to such criticism, Joyce et al. (1986) deve-
loped a regional modeling framework designed to ana-
lyze multiple resource responses to land management
activities. The southern United States was chosen as a
test area for application because this region was already
the focus of a regional study of timber resources. The
combining of these two efforts resulted in the first
regional evaluation of timber resources that also ana-
lyzed multiple resource impacts stemming from timber
management actions and changing land use (USDA
Forest Service 1988). This case study represents a pro-
totype of how future national assessments may address
regional multiple resource analyses.
Linking wildlife and fish resources into the multiple
resource framework required the capability to predict
resource response to general land management activi-
ties. The objective of the wildlife and fish modeling com-
ponent was to develop regional abundance and occur-
rence models that were consistent with and responsive
to models that projected regional shifts in land use and
timber inventory characteristics. Models were developed
for white-tailed deer, wild turkey, red-cockaded wood-
pecker, and trout. A detailed description of the wildlife
and fish models can be found in Flather (1988), Flather
et al. (1989), and Flebbe et al. (1988).
Projection Approach
The description of a species' habitat depends on the
scale of the resource management problem. At a regional
scale, patterns in land use and forestland characteristics
define a coarse representation of wildlife and fish
habitat. For fish, this approach represents an extension
of within-stream habitat models to consider changes in
the watershed land base where streams occur.
The modeling approach is patterned after Klopatek
and Kitchings (1985) and uses discriminant function
analysis to establish statistical relationships between
land use and forestland descriptors, relative abundance
classes of white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and trout, and
occurrence of active red-cockaded woodpecker nesting
colonies. The wildlife models used counties as the sam-
pling unit while the fish model used watersheds defined
by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Land base data were obtained from Forest Service
inventories (USDA Forest Service 1985a) for area esti-
mates of commercial timberland for forest cover types
(natural pine, planted pine, oak-pine, upland hardwood,
and lowland hardwood) and forest age classes. The Soil
Conservation Service's 1982 National Resource Inven-
tory (USDA Soil Conservation Service and Iowa State
University Statistical Laboratory 1987) was used to esti-
mate area in all other land types including cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and human-related land uses
(urbanland, roads, railroads, farm structures, strip
mines).
Projected changes in land use and land cover (i.e.,
forest type, cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and
75
human-related land uses) were provided by a land area
projection model developed by Alig (1984). Changes in
forest age classes were provided by the timber resource
inventory model (Tedder et al. 1987). Projected changes
in the land base were applied to the wildlife and fish
models to estimate the impacts on the wildlife and fish
species that were modeled. The result is an indexed
projection of wildlife and fish abundance or occurrence
in future years compared with the 1985 base year.
Separate projections for the Southeast (Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) and
South-central (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama) were made for the
wildlife species. Trout projections are reflective of the
coldwater fishery area in the southeast.
Results
To accomplish the objective of modeling the possible
impacts of changing land use and forest vegetation char-
acteristics on wildlife and fish abundance and occur-
rence, a number of assumptions were required. These
assumptions acknowledge those factors which influence
wildlife and fish numbers and habitat relationships but
which cannot be incorporated into the modeling frame-
work. Quantified characterization and inclusion of these
assumptions into regional models will require further
research. The specific ecological assumptions made in
this analysis were as follows:
1. Wildlife and fish populations used in establishing
the habitat relationship models occurred at the
habitat's carrying capacity.
2. Wildlife and fish population changes predicted
over the projection period (1985-2030) are due
solely to changes in land use and forestland charac-
teristics. Consequently, factors other than habitat,
including competition, harvest rates, and wildlife
and fish population management practices, are
assumed to remain constant over the projection
period.
These are obviously simplifying assumptions;
although changes in factors are likely, data were not
available to incorporate their influence into species
habitat relationships or to project their influence over
time. In addition, the wildlife and fish modeling effort
represents an impacts analysis that is entirely driven by
the land use and the timber inventory projections. Feed-
back mechanisms, whereby the wildlife and fish
responses alter the timber resource and timber manage-
ment activities, are being considered for future research.
In light of these assumptions, projections were made
for a baseline condition representing the likely future
demand for timber products and what level of timber
management would be required to ensure that timber
supplies would meet that demand. The land area
changes under this likely future baseline condition for
the Southeast and South-central between 1985 and 2030
are summarized in table 44. The overall land use and
forest type patterns are similar across the two regions
and the projected trends indicate more intensive forest
Table 44.— Projected land area changes (percent of total land base) in
the South between 1985 and 2030.
Southeast
South-central
1985
2030
1985
2030
Total cropland
14.6
14.6
18.5
18.9
Total pasture/range
12.9
12.1
17.8
14.5
Human-related land
9.0
12.3
5.9
9.9
Total forestland
57.8
55.3
54.9
53.7
Natural pine
14.6
7.6
11.1
7.2
Planted pine
8.5
15.7
4.6
14.1
Oak-pine
6.6
6.7
9.7
6.5
Upland hardwood
18.7
17.2
20.2
17.4
Lowland hardwood
9.4
8.1
9.3
8.5
Age class 1 (0-20 yrs.)
10.3
15.1
16.6
18.6
Age class 2 (20-50 yrs.)
24.2
14.9
31.3
15.0
Age class 3 (50 + yrs.)
14.8
9.6
2.4
6.0
Hardwood age class 1
6.4
11.1
12.5
14.1
Hardwood age class 2
14.7
11.3
24.7
12.5
Hardwood age class 3
13.5
9.6
2.1
5.8
Pine age class 1
5.8
6.7
8.1
7.3
Pine age class 2
12.8
7.5
12.1
5.8
Pine age class 3
2.6
0.1
0.5
0.5
management and more human dominated land uses.
Forest area in general, and to a lesser degree pasture,
declined over the projection period. Cropland showed
only slight increases in the South-central region. Area
of human-related land uses showed relatively large
increases across both subregions. The most notable forest
type changes that occurred were conversion of natural
forest types to pine plantations. Natural pine accounts
for the majority of the converted acres; however, oak-
pine and upland hardwood types also were harvested
and planted to pine. The major changes in forest stand
structure involved gains in younger forest age classes
in both subregions, and increases in older hardwood age
classes in the South-central.
The wildlife and fish responses to these land base
changes are shown in figure 49. White-tailed deer, a spe-
cies with relatively general habitat requirements, was not
closely correlated in its response to changes in any sin-
gle land cover characteristic. Deer are projected to
experience approximately 18% density declines in both
subregions. The decline was attributed to an overall loss
of forested habitat acres, specifically upland hardwoods
and the conversion of natural pine and oak-pine stands
to planted pine. Increased acreage in human-related uses
including urbanland and roads also contributed to the
overall decline in deer numbers. Human-related land use
not only directly reduces available habitat but is gener-
ally associated with higher mortality resulting from
increased hunting pressure and human-related
disturbance.
Wild turkeys have more specific habitat requirements
than deer and were closely tied to the hardwood com-
ponent of the forestland base. Increased human-related
land use acres and the general loss of upland hardwood
and oak-pine types contributed to the early decline.
However, after the year 2000, average turkey density
increased slightly in the Southeast and recovered in the
76
Southeast
Index
2000 2010
Year
Southcentral
2020
2030
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Index
Turkey
Woodpecker -
1980
1990
2000 2010
Year
2020
2030
Source: Flather et al. (1989); Flather (1988); Flebbe et al. (1988)
Figure 49. — Projected changes in wildlife and fish abundance under
the baseline conditions for the Southeast and South-central regions.
decrease in the older age classes of hardwoods and
increased area in human-related land uses. Implicit in
these relationships are factors such as water temperature,
instream cover, and shading that are favorable for trout
under older hardwoods and unfavorable under most land
cover other than forests.
The habitat -based abundance results for white-tailed
deer and wild turkey are more pessimistic than the state
agency projections. Under an assumed future of in-
creased urbanization and more intensive timber manage-
ment, both big game species are predicted to decline.
However, the habitat-based models predict what may
occur if no consideration is given to future wildlife
management activities directed at altering the projected
trends. For this reason, the projections reflect only a
potential future for deer and turkey in the South. State
and federal agencies have the option to intensify deer
and turkey management to offset perceived declines, and
this may be reflected in the projections provided by these
agencies. Similarly, private landowners may find
increased economic incentive (e.g., trespass fees, hun-
ter lease agreements) to manage their lands for wildlife
production. What this analysis has shown is that
increased management expenditures and more intensive
wildlife and fish management likely will be required in
the future if deer, turkey, and trout populations and
suitable nesting sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers are
to be maintained in the South.
PROJECTION OF HARVEST INVENTORIES
Projections of future harvests were obtained from state
and federal wildlife agencies. Because harvest is more
easily monitored than populations, many wildlife man-
agement agencies use harvest as an indicator of wildlife
population status. State and NFS personnel provided esti-
mates of the likely future harvest based on anticipated
changes in animal populations, available habitat, and
participation rates in hunting. The Fish and Wildlife
Service projected future duck harvests under assumed
implementation of the North American Waterfowl Plan.
South-central in response to increased acreage of older
hardwood stands.
The red-cockaded woodpecker showed the greatest
decline of all species in the Southeast. Projections were
made for the occurrence of active nesting sites within
a county. The number of counties supporting active nest-
ing colonies declined by nearly 70% in the Southeast
and 20% in the South-central. The red-cockaded wood-
pecker has highly specialized habitat needs. Mature pine
stands are required for nesting habitat. The decline fol-
lowed conversion of mature natural pine to planted pine
on private plantations. The leveling off in the number
of counties supporting active colonies happened because
of the expected retention of mature pine stands on fed-
eral ownerships, particularly national forests.
As was observed with the wildlife species, trout abun-
dance in the coldwater region of the Southeast also
declined. The approximately 30% decline reflected a
State Agency Harvest Projections
Estimates of harvests for 1995 and 2040 were treated
in the same manner as state agency population projec-
tions. State estimates of the percentage harvest change
from 1985, for each species, were summarized as a
regional mean that was weighted by 1985 harvest esti-
mates. In general, state agencies expect harvest levels
for the majority of species to increase. All of the notable
declines in future harvests were reported for small game
species primarily associated with agricultural habitats.
Big Game
Big game harvests are regulated to a greater degree
than are harvests of small game species. For this reason,
the projected harvests of big game are affected by both
77
harvest regulations and animal population level. Most
big game harvests could increase by 1995 (table 45) and
the majority by more than 20%. The Pacific Coast region,
in general, is an exception to this pattern. Deer and elk
harvests could increase slightly by 1995 declining
toward 1985 levels by 2040. Bear harvests could remain
stable throughout the projection period. Wild turkey is
the only big game species in the Pacific Coast region for
which harvests could increase significantly — nearly dou-
bling by 1995.
Wild turkey harvests across all regions will show the
most consistent and largest relative short-term increases.
Both the North and Rocky Mountain regions expect
increases of about 40% by 2040. Turkey harvests in the
South could increase 50% by 1995, yet the increase will
probably not last over the projection period but decline
to within 15% of 1985 levels.
Deer harvests in the East could increase by 1995 and
then remain stable through the remainder of the projec-
tion period. Deer harvests in the Rocky Mountains could
increase similarly to the East by 1995. However, short-
term gains may not be maintained as projections by 2040
decline to 1985 harvest levels. Given that western deer
populations are projected to remain stable from 1995
through 2040, declining harvests may reflect expected
declines in the number of future big game hunters pur-
suing deer.
Harvest projections for the remaining big game spe-
cies in the Rocky Mountain region are generally optimis-
tic. Steady increases are expected for elk harvests
through 2040 for all reporting states. Pronghorn harvests
could increase in the short-term. The long-term projec-
tion for pronghorn is mixed in terms of the magnitude
and the geographic location of the change, but on aver-
age is expected to decline slightly compared to 1995
estimates.
Small Game
Species which associate with either agriculture or
forest could experience some short-term declines in har-
vest levels (table 46). The majority of these declines are
minor with the exception of the quails. Northern bob-
white harvests are expected to decline by approximately
15% in the South while quail harvests in the Pacific
Coast are expected to drop 50%, both by 1995. Lower
quail harvests are expected to continue over the projec-
tion period in all regions with the Pacific Coast, Rocky
Mountain, and Southern regions expecting long-term
declines greater than 20%. Declining quail harvests were
expected given the previously noted population
declines.
Other species for which slight harvest declines are
anticipated by 1995 include ruffed grouse and squirrel
in the North, and rabbit and squirrel in the South. The
trends for squirrel and rabbit harvests are consistent with
the habitat trends in the South. Estimates of future ruffed
grouse harvests are difficult to interpret based on either
habitat or hunter effort since they demonstrate cyclic
population patterns that have yet to be satisfactorily
explained.
Table 45.— Indexed projection in big game harvests by region
(Base = 1985= 100), with number of states contributing to regional mean
shown in parentheses.
Region
Species 1995 2040
North
Wild Turkey
114
(9)
139
(7)
White-Tailed Deer
123
(13)
121
(11)
Black Bear
125
(6)
110
(5)
South
Wild Turkey
152
(8)
115
(9)
White-Tailed Deer
128
(8)
126
(6)
Black Bear
139
(4)
179
(3)
Rocky Mountain
Wild Turkey
136
(10)
143
(9)
Deer
128
(11)
118
(11)
Bear
123
(5)
99
(4)
Elk
114
(8)
139
(7)
Pronghorn
125
(11)
117
(10)
Pacific Coast
Wild Turkey
196
(3)
195
(4)
Deer
106
(3)
102
(4)
Elk
106
(1)
102
(2)
Pronghorn
(1)
100
0)
Black Bear
100
(1)
100
(2)
1A/o dafa provided.
Table 46.— Indexed projection in small game harvest by region
(Base = 1985 = 100), with number of states contributing to regional
mean shown in parentheses.
Region
Species 1995 2040
North
Grouse
97
(8)
100
(6)
Pheasant
136
(9)
122
(7)
Quail
98
(9)
86
(8)
Rabbit
113
(10)
103
(9)
Squirrel
98
(10)
107
(9)
South
Grouse
100
(1)
125
(1)
Quail
84
(6)
79
(4)
Rabbit
102
(4)
103
(3)
Squirrel
99
(6)
109
(4)
Rocky Mountain
Forest Grouse
224
(8)
215
(7)
Prairie Grouse
143
(9)
92
(8)
Pheasant
142
(10)
122
(9)
Quail
99
(8)
77
(9)
Rabbit
153
(9)
143
(8)
Squirrel
117
(8)
113
(8)
Pacific Coast
Forest Grouse
110
d)
108
(2)
Prairie Grouse
100
(1)
100
(2)
Pheasant
99
(3)
99
(4)
Quail
50
(2)
59
(3)
Rabbit
103
(2)
102
(2)
Squirrel
100
(D
100
(1)
Pheasant and prairie grouse harvests could increase
over the primary ranges largely because of increased
habitat and subsequent population growth derived from
the CRP. The gain is primarily a short-term expectation.
78
Harvests after 1995 depend on the longevity of the CRP
and accessibility of private lands to small game hunters.
National Forest System Harvest Projections
Future big game harvests on national forests (table 47)
are generally correlated with anticipated increases in
populations. The one exception is Pacific Coast black
bear harvests which could increase despite stable pop-
ulations over the projection period (table 43). All
other big game species could experience consistent
gains in harvest over the 50-year planning period. The
greatest harvest increases, relative to the mid-1980's esti-
mate, could occur with wild turkey in all regions, black
bear in the Pacific Coast and South, and bighorn sheep
in the Rocky Mountains. Mule deer could show the
greatest absolute harvest increase in the Rocky
Mountains.
In general, the relative increase in big game harvests
from the national forests is greater than the totals
reported by state agencies. Consequently, national
forests could become more important to big game hun-
ters. An important causal factor that may affect this
projection is limited private land access. This observa-
tion is amplified in the west where, historically, the
harvest of some big game species has come almost
exclusively from federal ownerships (Hoekstra et al.
1981).
Fish and Wildlife Service Harvest Projections
As described under the population projection section
of this chapter, the Fish and Wildlife Service has set har-
vest objectives for waterfowl under assumed imple-
mentation of the North American Waterfowl Plan (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Serv-
ice 1986a). The harvest objectives specified in the plan
would permit 2.2 million hunters to harvest 20 million
ducks annually, for an average seasonal harvest of 9.1
birds per hunter by the year 2000. Realization of these
objectives is contingent upon full completion of the
management schedule for purchase, protection, and
improvement of approximately 5.5 million acres of
waterfowl habitat in the United States and Canada.
SUMMARY
Wildlife and fish resource inventory projections were
based on professional judgments and empirical models.
The results from these various analyses indicate that the
South and Rocky Mountain regions will have the most
significant future land base changes. The South is
expected to lose acres in natural vegetation cover to
urban and cropland development. The Rocky Mountain
region, which includes the Great Plains, is expected to
experience the largest increases in the rangeland base
due to plantings associated with the Conservation
Reserve Program under the 1985 Farm Act. Other Farm
Table 47.— Regional big game harvest trends for national forests.
Region
Mid-
Species
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Thousands
North
Wild Turkey
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.2
White-Tailed Deer
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Moose
0.32
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.41
0.41
Black Bear
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
South
Wild Turkey
10
27
29
32
33
34
35
White-Tailed Deer
49
57
59
62
64
65
66
Black Bear
0.45
0.70
0.82
0.86
0.96
1.0
1.4
Rocky Mountain1
Mule Deer
166
168
175
181
187
193
199
White-Tailed Deer
41
42
45
45
46
46
46
Elk
61
62
64
66
67
70
71
Bighorn Sheep2
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.30
Pacific Coast3
Wild Turkey
0.19
0.66
1.7
2.5
3.1
3.8
4.7
Mule & Black-Tailed Deer
55
60
64
65
68
69
72
Elk
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
Black Bear4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
1Dafa from Forest Service Regions 1, 2, and 4.
2Data from Forest Service Regions 1 and 2.
3Data from Forest Service Regions 5 and 6.
4Data from Forest Service Region 6.
79
Act conservation programs also have the potential to sig-
nificantly reduce the rate at which wetland habitats are
converted to cropland, and also to reduce the sedimen-
tation of wetlands and other aquatic habitats.
Wildlife population projections provided by state
agencies tended to be consistent with the projected
changes in habitat. All big game populations and har-
vest levels for which information was available are
expected to increase or remain stable over the 50-year
projection period. The future for small game populations
and harvests is less optimistic. Historical declines in
northern bobwhite populations and harvests are
expected to continue. Pheasant populations and har-
vests, however, are projected to respond favorably in all
regions to increased habitat resulting from the CRP.
The state agency projections implicitly consider the
effects of planned wildlife management activities on
future wildlife populations. Analyzing the impacts of
changing land use and timber management while hold-
ing wildlife and fish management constant was the sub-
ject of a case study (and regional prototype for future
assessments) in the South. Projections of white-tailed
deer, wild turkey, red-cockaded woodpecker, and trout
distribution and abundance indicated that all species
could decline in the future. The results of this case study
demonstrated that under expanding human populations
and more intensive timber management, more intensive
wildlife and fish management will be required to main-
tain or improve future wildlife and fish populations.
Wildlife and fish inventory projections provided by
federal managing agencies indicated that national forest
lands will continue to become more important to wild-
life and fish resources in the future. Objectives speci-
fied by the Fish and Wildlife Service under two national
plans, if realized, are expected to reverse the declining
trends in waterfowl populations and harvests that have
been observed in the recent past, and to increase the
amount of fishable waters.
80
CHAPTER 4: COMPARISON OF RESOURCE
INVENTORY AND USE PROJECTIONS
An important question to be addressed by natural
resource assessments is whether future resource supplies
are capable of supporting future levels of resource
demand. The economic theory that supports supply-
demand comparisons of commodity resources is not
applicable to resources that are not produced, bought,
or sold in a traditional competitive market. Conse-
quently, for wildlife and fish, such comparisons are
based on projected levels of resource use and invento-
ries. Wildlife and fish recreational use and resource
inventories have been projected as independent quanti-
ties in chapters 2 and 3. To make inventory-use com-
parisons, an analysis approach is required that converts
units of use (number of recreationists) and units of inven-
tory (number of animals, acres of habitat) into a com-
mon base.
The approach used in the 1979 national assessment
for big and small game hunting compared the projected
percentage change in wildlife populations to the
projected percentage change in the number of hunters
(USDA Forest Service 1981). Although such compari-
sons indicated change in the potential consumptive pres-
sures placed on wildlife populations, the approach failed
to acknowledge that participation in wildlife and fish
recreation depends partly on resource availability (Hay
and McConnell 1984, Hof and Kaiser 1983, Walsh et al.
1987).
This assessment uses a different approach to make
inventory-use comparisons. As described in chapter 2,
Walsh et al. (1987) developed a series of models that
empirically related participation in wildlife and fish
recreational activities with factors thought to be impor-
tant in explaining that participation. Resource supply
was one factor explicitly used in these models, and this
inclusion allowed an examination of how changes in
resource supplies might alter participation in wildlife
and fish recreational activities.
The recreational use projections reviewed in chapter
2 presented expected levels of participation in major
wildlife and fish recreational activities due solely to
socioeconomic determinants of recreation preferences
and recreation participation rates. These projections are
interpreted to represent a base level participation that
could be expected assuming a future level of resource
inventory similar to that which was available to recrea-
tionists in the past. Changing the level of resource avail-
ability not only acknowledges the uncertainty associated
with the future status of wildlife and fish inventories,
but also provides a means to examine situations where
future resource inventories may not be sufficient to meet
projected base level participation.
This chapter is organized into three major sections.
First, the resource supply variables for each wildlife and
fish recreational activity are defined and reviewed. This
is followed by an analysis of the sensitivity of projected
participation in wildlife and fish recreation to hypo-
thetical alternative future wildlife and fish resource
inventory situations. The final section addresses the
degree to which habitat, population, and harvest
changes projected in chapter 3 will affect future partici-
pation in wildlife and fish recreational activities, and
the degree to which base level use (demand) will be met
by future resource inventories (supply).
INDICATORS OF WILDLIFE AND
FISH RESOURCE SUPPLIES
Habitat area affects wildlife and fish population levels,
which in turn affect the resource available for viewing
by nonconsumptive recreationists and harvest by anglers
and hunters. Past studies of factors affecting participa-
tion in wildlife and fish recreational activities have
acknowledged the relationship between habitat and
animal populations. Typically, they used acres of
habitat, abundance of wildlife, or harvest success rates
interchangeably to examine resource supply effects on
recreational opportunities and the quality of the recrea-
tional experience. The indicators of resource supply
reported here are those that Walsh et al. (1987) found
to be important, based on statistical criteria, in ex-
plaining participation in wildlife and fish recreation.
81
Although one or several of the basic supply indicators
listed above were incorporated into each model, the
actual supply indicator used varied by recreational
activity reflecting, in part, basic differences in the fac-
tors affecting participation in each activity.
For primary nonresidential nonconsumptive recrea-
tion, total acres of forest, pasture, and range in each state
were used as the resource supply proxy. These land
types collectively represent a basic measure of the
amount of natural habitats available to wildlife, which
are in turn the output sought by the nonconsumptive
recreating public. Forestland was defined to include all
areas at least 10% covered by trees of any size. Pasture
and rangeland were defined as areas predominantly
vegetated by grasses, legumes, forbs, or shrubs suitable
for grazing but excluding land used for orchards, vine-
yards, or other crops. It was assumed that increases in
more intensive land uses (e.g., cropland and urbanland)
would decrease the opportunity to participate in, and
the attractiveness of an area for, primary nonresidential
nonconsumptive activities.
Participation in hunting was also affected by the
amount of public and private forest, pasture, and range
in each state. Although some cropland is used for hunt-
ing, Walsh et al. (1987) assumed that increases in
cropland area tends, in general, to destroy game habitat.
McConnell (1984) found that increasing the amount of
cropland decreased the likelihood of persons engaging
in hunting activities.
Resource supply indicators for specific hunting activi-
ties included:
Big game hunting. — Total population of deer, elk,
moose, pronghorn, black bear, bighorn sheep,
mountain goat, boar, and wild turkey within the
respondent's state of residence.
Small game hunting. — Average number of small game
harvested per day in the respondent's region of
residence.
Migratory bird hunting. — Average number of migra-
tory game birds harvested per day in the respond-
ent's region of residence.
Participation in fishing was affected by the acreage of
fishable water available to potential anglers in each state.
Fishable water area was chosen as the appropriate sup-
ply indicator over total inland water area since only 73%
of the streams sampled in the National Fisheries Survey
(Judy et al. 1984) were found capable of supporting sport
fish populations during some portion of the year. Failure
to sustain game fish was attributed to intermittent flows
and water quality problems (see chapter 1).
Participation in coldwater fishing was further affected
by the proportion of fishable waters specifically capa-
ble of supporting a coldwater fishery. State estimates of
the proportion of total fishable waters suitable for col-
dwater fishing were used to estimate the availability of
coldwater fish habitat (Resources for the Future 1980).
Participation in warmwater fishing had a stronger
statistical relationship with the average number of warm-
water fish species taken per day than the availability of
warmwater fish habitat.
In addition to the statistical criteria used in selecting
resource supply variables, data availability also limited
the full suite of potentially important resource supply
indicators that could be examined. For example, the
actual land area open to the recreating public would be
a better indicator of resource availability than total forest,
pasture, or range, particularly in the East where private
land ownership dominates. Similarly, area of habitat of
varying quality would also be a likely important indi-
cator of resource supply. However, nationally complete
information on each state's land area open to the public
or the amount of habitat in various quality classes was
not available. Consequently, potentially better indica-
tors of resource supply are definable, yet current inven-
tory information does not support an examination of
their effect on participation in wildlife and fish recrea-
tional activities at this time. This fact should be kept in
mind when interpreting the relative sensitivity of each
recreational activity to changes in resource supply.
SENSITIVITY OF RECREATIONAL USE
TO CHANGES IN RESOURCE SUPPLIES
Potential changes in public participation in wildlife-
related recreational activities that could be attributed to
resource management activities were evaluated by alter-
ing the level of the resource supply indicators within
the recreation participation models developed by Walsh
et al. (1987). Resource management activities that could
be interpreted as beneficial or detrimental to wildlife and
fish habitat or populations were represented by assum-
ing a 20% increase or decrease in the activity-specific
supply indicators. The number of recreationists under
inflated and deflated resource supply conditions were
compared to the base level projections reviewed in chap-
ter 2 to measure the sensitivity of each activity to changes
in resource supply. The sensitivity of each recreational
activity to changes in resource supply are shown in
figures 50-55. Each figure shows the recent historical
participation from chapter 1, the base level use projec-
tion from chapter 2, and projections depicting the sen-
sitivity of each recreational activity to changes in
resource supply. Participation levels have been indexed
to a 1980 base year which was set to 100 to facilitate com-
parison across recreational activities. Equal portions of
the assumed change in resource supply indicators are
applied to each decade such that the total change in
resource supply by 2040 is equal to 20% of the base year.
Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation
Primary nonresidential nonconsumptive wildlife
recreation was not sensitive to a 20% change in the
amount of forest, pasture, and range (fig. 50). Hay and
McConnell (1984) also found that resource availability
was not an important factor explaining participation in
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. The low sensitiv-
ity of primary nonresidential activities to changes in
resource supply may be a function of two factors. It may
82
Index
— •— Historical
—\— 20% increase 1
Base use
-B- 20% decrease 1
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
1Use based on 20% increase or decrease in resource
inventories.
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDC, Bureau
of Census (1982); USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
200
150
100
Index
50 -
1970
1990 2010
Year
2030
Historical
J
— r— 20% increase
— — Base use
-B- 20% decrease1
Use based on a 20% increase or decrease in
resource inventories.
NOTE.—Historical trends based on participants 12 years old
and older that hunted waterfowl
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
Figure 50.— Sensitivity of primary nonresidential nonconsumptive
recreation to changes in resource supply (Base = 1980 = 100).
Figure 51.— Sensitivity of migratory bird hunting activities to
changes in resource supply (Base = 1980 = 100).
indicate that an appropriate measure of resource supply
has not yet been specified, or it may be that current
resource supplies are more than sufficient to support cur-
rent recreational activity. Considering that nonconsump-
tive activities are less constrained to a particular season,
current opportunities to observe, photograph, or study
wildlife may be sufficient to support current public
demand for primary nonresidential activities. Determin-
ing whether model misspecification or sufficient sup-
plies is the reason for the observed relationship will
require further research.
Recreational Hunting
Hunting activities tended to be more sensitive to
changes in resource supply than nonconsumptive activ-
ities although specific types of hunting vary consid-
erably. Migratory game bird hunting was the most sen-
sitive with a 20% increase in resource supply resulting
in a greater than 10% change from base level participa-
tion (fig. 51). The habitat supply indicator for migratory
game bird hunting is measured as the amount of forest,
pasture, and range acres within a state. A wetland habitat
variable was examined but found to be insignificant in
explaining participation in migratory game bird hunt-
ing (Walsh et al. 1987). A similar observation was made
by Miller and Hay (1981) and may be related to the inclu-
sion of webless migratory game bird hunters (e.g., wood-
cock and dove hunters) in this category of recreational
use.
Big game hunting was the second most sensitive
activity to changes in resource supply (fig. 52). A 20%
change in acres of forest, pasture, and range habitats and
in big game populations resulted in a 5% change in the
number of big game hunters. A major assumption in the
120
100
Index
— Historical
—\— 20% increase 1
-*- Base use
-B- 20% decrease1
1970
1990 2010
Year
2030
Use based on 20% increase or decrease in
resource inventories.
NOTE. --Historical trends based on participants 12 years old
and older
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
Figure 52. — Sensitivity of big game hunting activities to changes
in resource supply (Base = 1980 = 100).
analysis of big game hunting was that increases or
decreases in animal populations were important infor-
mation used by potential big game hunters in deciding
whether or not to participate. Given the noted concerns
for decreased accessibility to hunting land, crowded
hunting conditions (National Shooting Sports Founda-
tion 1986), and the projected increases in hunter lease
agreements, future big game participation may become
83
120
100 -
Index
Index
— Historical
—\— 20% increase1
Base use
~H- 20% decrease
1970 1990 2010 2030
Year
'use based on a 20% increase or decrease in
resource inventories.
NOTE. —Historical trends based on participants 12 years old
and older
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
— •— 20% increase
—\— Base use
20% decrease
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Use based on a 20% increase or decrease in
resource inventories.
Figure 54.— Sensitivity of coldwater fisheries to changes in resource
supply (Base = 1 980 = 1 00).
Figure 53.— Sensitivity of small game hunting activities to changes
in resource supply (Base = 1980 = 100).
more dependant on accessible game and lease prices
than total game populations.
Small game hunting was least sensitive to changes in
resource supply (fig. 53). The assumed 20% change in
forest, pasture, and range habitat and in the number of
small game animals harvested per day translated into a
4% change in the number of small game hunters
compared to the base level projection. Small game hunt-
ing was the only wildlife-related recreational activity
for which statistically significant relationships be-
tween participation and an activity-specific measure of
resource supply could not be found (Walsh et al. 1987).
The lack of significant relationships between recreation
use levels and resource supply probably indicate that
more appropriate measures of small game resource
supply exist. As reviewed in chapter 1, the evidence
suggests that declines in small game hunters results
from limited access to suitable habitat, increasingly
crowded hunting conditions, and declining game popu-
lations (National Shooting Sports Foundation 1986).
Apparently, current supplies are insufficient to main-
tain the quality of the recreational experience. Although
the actual availability of small game habitat and pop-
ulations and levels of crowding are difficult to
measure, such indicators of supply may more accurately
reflect the resource supply determinant of participation
in small game hunting. An additional consideration is
that the analysis of small game use may be too coarse.
It may not adequately account for the potential dif-
ferences in the factors that determine whether, for
example, a quail hunter or squirrel hunter decides to
hunt.
Recreational Fishing
Coldwater fishing on inland waters (excluding salt-
water and Great Lake fishing) was found to be more sen-
sitive to changes in the resource supply indicators than
was warmwater fishing. An assumed 20% change in the
proportion of a state's fishable waters suitable for col-
dwater fishing resulted in nearly an 11% change from
the base level condition (fig. 54). Comparisons to histor-
ical trends were not possible since the National Survey
of Fishing and Hunting (USDI Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, and USDC Bureau of Census 1982) did not differen-
tiate between cold- and warmwater fishing. Coldwater
fishing was the most sensitive recreational activity to
changes in resource supply. Observed participation
could deviate dramatically from the base level projec-
tion in response to the future availability of fishable
waters.
The decision of whether to participate in warmwater
fishing was a function of both the amount of fishable
water in general, and specifically the number of warm-
water fish species caught per day. Warmwater fishing
appears to be less sensitive to shifts in resource supply
with a 20% change yielding only a 2% shift in the num-
ber of warmwater fishers (fig. 55).
IMPLICATIONS OF RESOURCE INVENTORY
PROJECTIONS ON RECREATIONAL USE
Sensitivity analysis indicated the relative magnitude
of recreational use response to hypothetical changes in
resource supply indicators. Incorporation of resource
inventory projections into the inventory-use comparison
approach previously outlined provides an opportunity
to examine whether anticipated levels of resource inven-
tories will meet base level projections of resource use.
84
Index
200 |
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
1Use based on a 20% increase or decrease in
resource inventories.
Figure 55. — Sensitivity of warmwater fisheries to changes in
resource supply (Base = 1980 = 100).
Increasing human populations imply that future
recreationists will each find less habitat and fewer
animals. Accounting for the per capita availability of
resources has been shown to be important in capturing
the effect of crowding on the availability of recreation
opportunities (Hay and McConnell 1984, Walsh et al.
1987). Based on this logic, wildlife and fish inventory-
use comparisons would be better based on two alterna-
tive resource supply situations. The first would be to
predict the number of recreational participants, assum-
ing that habitat and animal populations will be main-
tained, resulting in a per capita decline in the future
availability of resource supplies. The second would be
to examine participation levels using the projected
habitat and animal populations provided by federal and
state resource managing agencies. This latter projection
represents the future status of wildlife and fish resources
assuming implementation of state and federal manage-
ment programs. These two comparisons, reviewed
below, provide one evaluation of the extent to which
future resource management will meet anticipated levels
of use.
Declining Per Capita Resource Availability
Dividing the various resource supply indicators for
each recreational activity by the projected human popu-
lation level (see table 33, medium level assumptions)
results in a 32% decline in wildlife and fish resources
available to each potential recreationist by the end of the
projection period (year 2040). Migratory game bird hunt-
ing and coldwater fishing show the greatest declines
from the base condition (table 48). The crowded condi-
tions implied under this analysis result in at least a 10%
decline in the number of coldwater fishers and migra-
tory bird hunters. More moderate declines in the num-
ber of big game hunters and small game hunters are
noted. Warmwater fishing showed the least percentage
decline from the base condition of all the consumptive
recreational activities. Nonconsumptive recreation
showed essentially no deviation from the base level use
projection — an expected result given the low sensitiv-
ity of nonconsumptive recreation to shifts in resource
supply.
State and Federal Agency Projections
of Resource Inventories
Given the declining participation under the per cap-
ita resource availability projection, a legitimate question
arises. To what extent will anticipated land base changes
and planned wildlife and fish management activities
support a greater level of recreational participation than
that projected under the declining per capita availabil-
ity of resources? In other words, what proportion of the
recreational user "gap" depicted in table 48 will be
eliminated by future resource management activities?
The land base, population, and harvest projections are
reviewed in detail in chapter 3. A brief national sum-
mary is presented here. The amount of land classified
as forest, pasture, or range is expected to change little
over the projection period of this report. The 26 million
acre decline in forest area and the 40 million acre
increase in pasture and range results in a 1% net gain
Table 48. — Comparison of national base level recreational use projections to projected use under declining per capita availability of resources
at 2040 (Index = 1980 = 100).
Nonconsumptive
Coldwater
Warmwater
Big game
Small game
Migratory game
Use projection
recreation
fishing
fishing
hunting
hunting
bird hunting
Base level1
254
263
186
94
83
151
Per capita resource
availability
253
232
179
87
79
127
Difference
1
31
7
7
4
24
(°/o of Base)
*
(12)
(4)
(7)
(5)
(16)
1From chapter 2.
Less than 1%.
85
in land area capable of supporting wildlife and fish
recreational activities. Changes in aquatic habitat
(defined as fishable water) could potentially increase by
20% according to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (1968b). For this
analysis, the 20% gain in fishable water was assumed
to be distributed equally among both cold- and warm-
water fisheries. Big game populations are expected to
increase over the projection period. A sum across state
agency big game projections indicates that an 11% gain
in the number of big game animals can be expected if
management activities planned by the state are actually
implemented. Under a similar assumption, harvest
levels of small game are expected to increase only 2%
nationwide. The relatively small gain in the resource
supply indicator for small game hunting is due primar-
ily to declines in species associated with agricultural
habitats, particularly northern bobwhite (see table 46).
If habitat acquisition and habitat improvement activities
scheduled in the North American Waterfowl Plan are
accomplished, then hunter success (average number of
birds bagged) is projected to increase by 17% (USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service
1986a).
Percent ol Bate
120 1 1
Non- Cold Warm Big Small Migratory Projection
con- Water Water G?me Oame Birds
sumptive
Figure 56.— Comparison of resource use projections under per cap-
ita availability and state/federal projection of future resource sup-
plies as a percentage of base use conditions at 2040
(Base = 1980 = 100).
Recreational use projections under this set of resource
supply indicators showed that even under assumed
implementation of proposed management to improve
future resource supplies, a relatively large component
of unmet "demand" may remain for migratory game bird
hunting (fig. 56). More moderate deviations from base
level use, in rank order, were observed for big game
hunting, coldwater fishing, and small game hunting.
Nonconsumptive recreation and warmwater fishing
deviated the least from base conditions.
SUMMARY
Comparison of wildlife and fish resource use and
resource inventories is complicated by the fact that the
number of people engaging in wildlife and fish recrea-
tion depends on the availability of wildlife and fish
habitats and populations. A modeling approach that
explicitly considered the relationship between recrea-
tional use levels and resource inventories provided a
framework within which to compare the resource use
and inventory projections. Coldwater fishing and migra-
tory game bird hunting were the recreational activities
most sensitive to changes in resource supply, followed
by big game hunting, small game hunting, and warm-
water fishing. The number of nonconsumptive recrea-
tionists was not affected by changes in the resource sup-
ply variable.
Increasing human populations imply that there will
be less habitat and fewer animals per potential recrea-
tionist. A comparison of recreational use projections
under two different resource supply situations — one
assuming declining per capita resource availability, and
another based on resource projections provided by state
and federal agencies — indicate that migratory game bird
hunting could potentially have the greatest proportion
of "unmet demand." Big game hunting, coldwater
fishing, and small game hunting had potentially moder-
ate levels of unmet demand. The social, economic, and
environmental implications of these comparisons, and
of the use and inventory projections in general, are the
subject of chapter 5.
86
CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF WILDLIFE
AND FISH INVENTORY AND USE PROJECTIONS
Wildlife and fish inventory and use projections have
certain social, economic, and environmental implica-
tions. Social implications concern the behavior of
individuals and groups and encompass cultural, socie-
tal, psychological, and physiological aspects. Economic
implications concern consumption and production rela-
tionships, human community impacts, and monetary
aspects of wildlife and fish resources. Environmental
implications, arising out of concern for ecosystem
health, are ultimately based on understanding the func-
tioning of ecological systems.
Past evaluations of social, economic, and environ-
mental implications of resource supplies and demands
have tended to focus primarily on direct implications.
However, direct implications stemming from resource
use and management may represent only a small part
of the cumulative impacts that can trace throughout
social or ecological systems. Although people generally
recognize that accounting for cumulative impacts is
important, characterizing them can be especially
difficult (Harris 1988). The complexity of social and
environmental systems, as reflected in our limited
understanding of how these systems respond when per-
turbed (human-induced and otherwise), hampers
attempts to quantitatively address the implications. Con-
sequently, this chapter largely synthesizes the literature
on the potential impacts, direct and cumulative, as they
relate to the uses and inventories of the nation's wild-
life and fish resources.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Brown and Manfredo (1987) defined a social value
typology that includes cultural, societal, psychological,
and physiological values. These categories were used to
discuss social implications. Although they are defined
as separate classes of social value, they are not mutu-
ally exclusive.
Cultural Values
Different cultures, as defined by language, geographic
boundary, and common historical and ethnic heritage
(Kellert 1980), perceive and use wildlife and fish differ-
ently. Being able to use wildlife and fish resources in
a manner consistent with those perceptions reinforces
the social bond related to a person's cultural heritage.
Of the four social value categories, those dealing with
cultural matters have been controversial regarding wild-
life and fish resource use in recent years. For example,
Native Americans' desire for increased jurisdiction over
wildlife and fish resources to ensure preservation of their
cultural heritage conflicts with the public trust doctrine
(Steiner and Roberts 1987) in which state and federal
governments control the management of wildlife and
fish resources. The issue is an ongoing legal struggle
concerning cultural values (Skoog 1979). Included in
this conflict is the harvest of threatened and endangered
species by Native Americans for subsistence and reli-
gious purposes (Bean 1986).
The general problem of illegal harvest also has roots
in varying cultural values held for wildlife and fish
resources. Disregard for harvest regulations can often be
traced to traditional values held by certain cultural seg-
ments of society (see Anderson 1988).
Although individuals and cultural groups concede
that wildlife and fish resources can only sustain a finite
amount of consumptive use, determining and regulat-
ing appropriate resource distribution has been difficult
(Cook 1982, Van Ballenberghe 1986). Failure to resolve
the conflicts stemming from differences in cultural
values could result in excessive use of wildlife and fish
resources.
Societal Values
Societal values concern relationships among people
and include family and social cohesion, social interac-
tion, and community use values (Brown and Manfredo
87
1987, West 1986). Differences in societal values held by
different cultures sharing a common resource have con-
tributed to the difficulty in mediating resource use.
Native Americans tender religious, subsistence, and
other societal reasons for experiencing and consuming
wildlife and fish resources. More recent immigrants to
North America have societal values that include build-
ing personal character and social bonding among family
and friends while participating in wildlife and fish
related outdoor activities (Driver and Brown 1986). The
implications of plural societal values are that wildlife
and fish are important to different segments of the United
States population in different ways. Despite variation in
the public's interpretation of societal values, all interpre-
tations share the basic similarity that family, commu-
nity, and nation receive constructive influences from
wildlife and fish.
Psychological Values
The psychological value of wildlife and fish is most
obvious to the recreational user. The value of the oppor-
tunity to spend time in a natural environment observ-
ing or photographing wild animals, catching trout, or
stalking big game is difficult to describe or quantify.
Equally difficult to quantify is the value that a person
derives from just knowing that species exist within a
functioning ecosystem even though he or she may never
use the resource directly (e.g., view or photograph that
species). These experiences can be described in terms
of the psychological value to an individual's personal
well being. The cumulative implications stemming from
this direct psychological benefit are broad and include
increased productivity in the work place, enhanced
creativity, enhanced cooperation, and increased respect
for the law (Driver and Brown 1986, Ewert 1986). While
the majority of individuals in the United States have
positive psychological feelings toward wild animals,
some people do dislike or find some wild animals to be
threatening (Kellert 1980).
Physiological Values
Wildlife and fish resources can be of physiological
benefit to individuals. Many recreational, commercial,
and subsistence pursuits of wildlife and fish resources
require a high degree of physical exertion resulting in
fitness benefits to participants (Ewert 1986). Certain
recreational experiences are perceived as a "competi-
tion" between human being and animal that involves
mastering certain physical skills in order to observe,
photograph, or harvest wild animals. Participants often
express the belief that engaging in wildlife and fish
recreation improves physical health through exercise,
change of pace, and reduction of stress (Brown and
Manfredo 1987).
Implications to Future Social Values
The wildlife and fish use and inventory projections
reviewed in chapters 2,3, and 4 raise concerns over the
ability of wildlife and fish habitats and populations to
meet future public demands for these resources. If
resource inventories are not maintained and improved,
then future social benefits currently attributable to
wildlife and fish resources may decline. Wildlife and
fish recreational activities could become overcrowded
with an overall reduction in perceived societal, psycho-
logical, or physiological benefits as quality of experience
is degraded.
Restricting future levels of use can facilitate balanc-
ing resource use with existing resource inventories.
However, limiting the public's opportunity to enjoy
wildlife and fish will not only infringe on the lifestyles
of certain cultural segments of society but may also
reduce or eliminate recreational outlets for which few
complete substitutes exist (Krutilla and Fisher 1975). An
alternative management option that at least maintains
the social benefits attributable to wildlife and fish
resources is to increase inventories to accommodate
anticipated levels of use. The opportunities that exist to
accomplish this, as perceived by state and federal
managing agencies, are discussed in chapter 6.
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
Economic implications are those that affect the way
in which goods and services are produced, consumed,
and exchanged in society. For wildlife and fish, eco-
nomic implications are discussed as the effects on con-
sumers (e.g., changes in "prices" paid for wildlife and
fish outputs) and the effects on local economies and
resource management budgets (e.g., changes in gross
expenditures that ultimately affect businesses and
resource managing agencies that support or provide
wildlife and fish outputs).
Consumer or Price Effects
The capability to measure monetary value or prices
varies with the way a resource is bought or consumed
by the public. Unlike timber, mineral, and livestock
resources which are generally bought and sold in the
market place, wildlife and fish outputs are primarily
produced and consumed outside traditionally organized
markets. Exceptions to this generalization are found with
commercial products such as fish and furs, and with fee-
access for wildlife and fish recreation.
Commercial Products
Dockside salmon prices from 1979 to 1985 (measured
in constant 1979 dollars) went from 77 cents/pound to
88
43 cents/pound, while total value (price x harvest) went
from $413 million to $310 million— reductions of 44%
and 26%, respectively (USDC National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service 1979, 1985). Average pelt prices and total
fur value received by trappers have also declined (Lin-
scombe 1988). Between 1979 and 1985, the average real
price per pelt received by trappers declined by 50%,
while real total value declined by 75% (see figs. 26 and
29).
Predicting change in future dockside salmon and pelt
prices is difficult; however, there are indications that
scarcer resources could result in increased future prices
for these commercial products. Weber (1986) discussed
the concern for excessive salmon harvests and the need
to restrict the future take to ensure future stocks are not
depleted. If such restrictions are implemented, it seems
likely that salmon prices will increase. Fur prices are
variable due to changes in fashion. Assuming a constant
demand for natural furs, then habitat losses, particularly
wetland habitats, and potential restrictions in harvest
from anti-trapping sentiments, are likely to limit pelt
supplies resulting in future price increases.
Recreational Value of Wildlife and Fish
Apart from these commercial products, actual cash
transactions for wildlife and fish outputs are relatively
uncommon. In the absence of actual transactions, re-
searchers have had to rely on indirect measures of
wildlife and fish recreational values (Davis and Lim
1987).
Recreational and experiential uses of wildlife and fish
have been measured in a variety of ways (Stoll 1986),
but all methods involve estimates of prices consumers
would be willing to pay under a market situation (Ver-
burg et al. 1987). The two primary techniques used dur-
ing the last 20 years for estimating recreational value of
wildlife and fish are the "indirect actual market," or
travel cost method, and the "direct hypothetical mar-
ket," or the contingent value method (Peterson et al.
n.d.). As described by Rosenthal et al. (1984), the travel
cost method uses actual observations of travel costs and
travel time from various origins to a particular recrea-
tion site, characteristics of that recreation site, and
characteristics of consumers to indirectly estimate the
price consumers may be willing to pay for a given recrea-
tional activity. Under the contingent value method, sur-
veys are designed to directly elicit price estimates that
consumers would be willing to pay for different types
of recreational activities under a series of hypothetical
situations.
In an effort to estimate the value of various wildlife
and fish recreation activities, Sorg and Loomis (1984)
summarized the best available information based on
these indirect value estimation techniques. Brown and
Hay (1987) subsequently estimated wildlife and fish
recreational values from each state based on the 1980
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
and USDC Bureau of Census 1982) using the contingent
value method. The wildlife and fish recreation values
estimated from these two sources vary and reflect, in
part, value differences associated with changes in loca-
tion (site or state). Although the range in estimates is
high, recreationists appear willing to pay the most for
a day of big game hunting, followed by waterfowl hunt-
ing, small game hunting, cold water fishing, and warm-
water fishing (table 49).
Future Trends in Recreation Values
Given this review of current recreational value esti-
mates, an important consideration for resource decision-
making is whether future values will change, and in
what direction. Peterson et al. (n.d.) described some
factors that are responsible for changes in recreational
economic values over time including: (1) changes in the
real value of money, (2) changes in the real value of
recreation due to supply and demand changes, (3)
changes in methods and measurements, and (4) confu-
sion over concepts and definitions. Factor 1 can be con-
trolled by converting nominal values into real (net of
inflation) dollars. Factors 3 and 4 affect the interpreta-
tion of historical value trends as evidence for future
trends. While it is important to control for factors 1,3,
and 4, estimating change in value is most dependent on
factor 2 — namely, how will future supply (inventory)
and demand (use) relationships for wildlife and fish
resources influence future value?
In theory, changes in the balance between inventories
and use would change wildlife and fish prices in the
same fashion as though these resources were market
goods. The results of the inventory and use comparisons
reviewed in chapter 4 indicate that future inventories
of wildlife and fish habitats and populations may not
be capable of supporting the desired levels of recrea-
tional use. Under such a future, economic theory would
project an increase in wildlife and fish recreation
prices. In addition to resource scarcity, the lack of per-
fect substitutes for wildlife and fish recreation activities
(Krutilla and Fisher 1975) also would suggest future
increases in the economic value of wildlife and fish
recreation.
Although theory suggests that prices will increase, the
magnitude of the increase is unknown. Research on
economic valuation of wildlife and fish resources has
focused primarily on current estimates of value be-
cause no accepted or reliable method for predicting
future values presently exists (Schweitzer and Stone
1987).
Despite the methodological problems associated with
projecting future values, some data can be used to
estimate the rate of value change based on trends from
89
Table 49.— Estimates and range of net economic values for various wild-
life and fish recreational activities.
Activity day values in 1982 dollars
Sorg and Loomis Brown and Hay
Activity
Range
Range
Mean
Dollars /day
Big game hunting1
18-
-132
15-33
22
Small game hunting
16-
-43
Waterfowl hunting
Coldwater fishing5
16-
-85
9-26
15
9-
-38
8-33
14
Warmwater fishing
15-
-26
1 Brown and Hay estimates are for deer hunting only.
2Brown and Hay estimates are for trout fishing only.
Note: All values were rounded to the nearest dollar.
Source: Brown and Hay (1987), Sorg and Loomis (1984).
the recent past. Peterson et al. (n.d.) and Sorg and
Loomis (1984) were able to compare estimated values
for coldwater fishing and deer hunting in three western
states. Two time periods, at least 5 years apart, were
used. Adjustments were made in the estimates to con-
trol for methodological differences, and comparisons
were made within states to control for site differences.
Based on these results, the real value of coldwater fish-
ing appears to have increased from the late 1960's to the
early 1980's at an average annual rate of 8.6% in Idaho
and 5.5% in Arizona (table 50). The real value of deer
hunting in Colorado increased at an average annual rate
of 7.6% from 1974 to 1980.
Additional information on value trends of wildlife and
fish recreation come from private access fees, ownership
costs, and private lease fees for the primary purpose of
fishing and hunting. Private fees and lease agreements
provide previously unavailable transaction-based esti-
mates of wildlife and fish values (Schenck et al. 1987).
The demand for fee-hunting appears to be increasing
(White 1987), and the projections reviewed in chapter
2 indicate that participation in fee-hunting could more
than double by 2040 (see fig. 48). As demand has in-
creased, the amount individual hunters and anglers have
spent for private fees also has increased. The average
annual increase from 1980 to 1985 (in constant 1980
dollars) varied from 7.1% for fishing to 12.3% for big
game hunting (fig. 57) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
1988b; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDC
Bureau of Census 1982). The increase in expenditures
by persons who owned or leased land for wildlife and
fish recreation was substantially greater. From 1980 to
1985, the average real amount an individual spent per
year increased from $406 to $900 for an average annual
increase of 24%. If the number of days spent hunting
or fishing per individual under fee or lease situations
has increased over this 5-year period, then the rates of
increase reported here overestimate the increase on a per
unit-day activity basis.
Local Economy and Management Budget Effects
For commercial salmon and fur resources, harvest res-
trictions go beyond affecting the price. They also affect
the income of fishers and trappers and income and
employment in other businesses dependent on the har-
vests of these species (e.g., fish processing plants, fur-
riers). Although the local economic implications
associated with commercial harvests are important, par-
ticularly in regions such as the salmon-harvest areas of
Alaska and the Northwest, more nationally widespread
implications are associated with recreational aspects of
wildlife and fish resources.
Historically, the role of economics in fisheries and
wildlife management has been limited to estimating
wildlife and fish recreation expenditures (Verburg et al.
1987). However, gross expenditures do not provide a
satisfactory measure of economic value, but rather pro-
vide insight into local economic impacts (Bishop 1987).
Expenditures also have a direct impact on state wildlife
and fish management budgets.
Gross expenditures (in constant 1965 dollars) associ-
ated with hunting and fishing increased significantly
from 1965 through 1980 for all activities except small
game hunting and waterfowl hunting (figs. 58 and 59)
(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1988b). After 1980,
gross fishing expenditures continued to increase while
hunting expenditures declined. Trends in expenditures
for nonconsumptive recreational activities were only
available since 1980 and indicate that trip-related
Table 50. — Recent historical trends in the value of coldwater fishing and deer hunting in three western states.
Activity day values
Activity State Study Year (1982 dollars)
Coldwater fishing Idaho Gordon (1970) 1968 11.57
Sorg et al. (1982) 1982 25.55
Arizona Martin et al. (1974) 1970 25.75
Miller and Hay (1984) 1980 39.90
Deer hunting Colorado Miller (1980) 1974 18.40
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [n.d.] 1980 26.78
90
100
Real 1980 dollars
Dollars (Billions)
1980
1985
Total Total Big game Small game Migratory
fishing hunting hunting hunting bird
hunting
Activity
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1986b)
Figure 57.— Trend in private access fees (dollars per individual) for
fishing and hunting.
Dollars (Billions)
Total fishing
Freshwater
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (1968b)
Figure 58.— Trends in gross expenditures for fishing from
1965-1985.
expenditures for primary nonresidential recreation
declined from $1.58 billion in 1980 to $1.34 billion in
1985 (in constant 1965 dollars).
Given the recreation use projections in chapter 2, gross
expenditures for fishing could increase in response to
increased participation. Expenditures associated with
primary nonresidential nonconsumptive trips could also
increase since the number of recreationists engaging in
this activity is expected to increase substantially (154%)
by 2040. Hunting-related expenditures could decline as
Total hunting
-H- Big game
Small game
-0- Waterfowl
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Source: USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988b)
Figure 59.— Trends in gross expenditures for hunting from
1965-1985.
total participation drops. If restrictive regulations are
implemented to bring resource use in line with future
resource inventories, then the expected increase in fish-
ing expenditures would be dampened while the decline
in hunting expenditures would be accentuated.
The effect of future declines in hunting-related
expenditures goes beyond the direct impact on support
businesses (e.g., those businesses providing lodging,
food, equipment, etc.). An input-output model has been
developed to track the expenditure effects throughout
a regional economy (Alward and Palmer 1983). In a case
study of how changes in big game hunting regulations
affect the Colorado regional economy, Alward et al.
(1984) showed that reduced expenditures not only
affected direct support services but also affected wages
and employment throughout the majority of industrial
sectors comprising the regional economy. Although the
greatest impact of reduced hunting expenditures would
be to local areas that provide support services to this
recreational activity, in the longer term substitute spend-
ing patterns would likely result in a restructuring of the
regional economy rather than a total reduction in eco-
nomic activity (Alward et al. 1984).
Declines in the number of hunters and declining
expenditures also would impact state wildlife and fish
agency budgets. The majority of funds available to state
agencies are derived from hunters and anglers either
through licence fees or excise taxes on equipment that
are authorized under the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-
Johnson, and Wallop-Breaux Acts. State managers have
expressed concern that revenues have not kept pace with
inflation as many wildlife and fish agencies have
experienced substantial declines in real revenue from
license sales (Anderson et al. 1985). To maintain wild-
life and fish programs, states have had to increase license
fees or seek alternative funding sources.
91
Between 1979 and 1986, state agencies have witnessed
shifts in the relative contributions from various funding
sources (fig. 60). The most significant change in fund-
ing source was the increase from general state revenues.
The proportional contribution of licence revenues has
declined along with federal payments. The decline in
the proportional contribution from federal payments
would have been greater had it not been for the Wallop-
Breaux program which tripled revenues into the Dingell-
Johnson program (The Wildlife Conservation Fund of
America 1987).
Anticipating further declines in hunter participation
and the potential need for restricted access and use, state
agencies will continue to face fiscal challenges and may
have to restructure programs and funding sources (see
for example Executive Task Force on the Future of Wild-
life 1987, Van Vleck 1984). One potential opportunity
for increasing state revenues concerns the nonconsump-
tive user. Although states have taken important steps
towards integrating nongame programs into the manage-
ment of wildlife and fish resources (45 states had
recently allocated funds for nongame and endangered
wildlife programs), the programs remain severely under-
funded (Cerulean and Fosburgh 1986). In 1986, nongame
programs represented less than 5% of the total budget
in 29 states (Audubon Activist 1987). The nongame
income tax check-off program, which is now in use in
over 30 states, has witnessed significant declines as other
checkoff options have been added to state income-tax
forms (Shelton 1987). Harpman and Reuler (1985) con-
cluded that although check-off programs were success-
ful in the short-term, they should not be considered a
stable, long-term source for funding nongame wildlife
and fish programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Evaluating environmental implications of the wild-
life and fish use and inventory projections requires
Total License Total Licence
Revenues Revenues
57% 53%
State Funds 1% State Funds 2%
9* 14%
1979 1986
NOTE. — Other sources includes tax checkoffs
Source: Wildlife Management Institute.
Outdoors News Bulletin 41(20).
Figure 60.— Sources of funds for fish and wildlife management in
1979 compared to 1986.
understanding ecological systems and society's values
for the mix of outputs that can be produced from the
environment.
Society's values related to the environment have
changed overtime. The "exploitation era" of the 1800's
was driven by strong commercial values (Poole and
McCabe 1987). The abundance of natural resources on
the North American continent appeared boundless.
However, after a century of market hunting, trapping,
clearing of forests for agriculture, fuel, and wood prod-
ucts, and plowing of native prairie, some Americans
reconsidered the ability of the environment to support
the rate of resource exploitation witnessed during the
early 1900's (Kimball and Johnson 1978). As wildlife and
fish resources became scarce, society's values changed.
Notable declines, and in some cases the extinction, of
wildlife and fish species stimulated a new emphasis on
resource conservation. A series of protective laws was
passed and wildlife and fish management became a
profession entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring
that wildlife and fish resources would be available to
future generations.
Despite the growing support for wildlife and fish con-
servation and the mounting success stories attributable
to wildlife and fish management, rising human popula-
tions will continue to encroach on remaining wildlife
and fish habitat. In addition, continued demand for tim-
ber, domestic livestock, and crops will conflict, in many
instances, with wildlife and fish resources. The
challenge for future wildlife and fish management
involves how to balance these multiple resource
demands within the constraints defined by the environ-
ment. Failure to do so will result in unfavorable environ-
mental alterations for wildlife and fish.
Demands for wildlife and fish resources are also
expected to increase in the future, although the relative
importance of various recreational activities is expectv. !
to change. Hunting-related demands are expected to
become relatively less important than fishing and non-
consumptive recreation. Similarly, the American pub-
lic increasingly pressures management agencies to main-
tain the integrity of ecological systems (Russell 1987) as
evidenced in the passage of laws such as the Endangered
Species Act and a number of other federal laws directed
at maintaining habitat and species diversity (Bean 1977,
Lund 1980). Consequently, more people demanding
more wildlife and fish recreation opportunity indirectly
demand more vigorous habitat and population manage-
ment on a dwindling land base. The environmental
implications of this assessment involve both habitat and
species population considerations.
Implications for Wildlife and Fish Habitat
In recent history, the amount and quality of wildlife
habitat has been changing. Additional changes are
expected in the future, including a decline in forestland
area, an increase in rangeland acres (expected under
92
the Conservation Reserve Program), and continued
increases in urbanization. The "Swampbuster" and
"Sodbuster" provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act
could slow the rate at which wetlands are drained and
highly erodible rangeland is converted to crop produc-
tion. Acreage of open water habitats is projected to
increase with farm pond and reservoir construction, and
water quality is expected to improve as a result of the
1985 Food Security Act conservation programs and com-
pliance with clean water legislation. In addition to these
habitat composition changes (i.e., the amounts of land
in various land-use types), future habitats will likely
become more fragmented and insular in nature.
In this scenario, the composite national land area
available for suitable wildlife habitat is likely to decline.
This, coupled with a general increase in the number of
wildlife and fish recreationists, will result in more
crowded conditions.
Increased density of outdoor recreational use has been
shown to cause vegetation trampling, changes in vege-
tation composition, soil compaction, and increased ero-
sion (Cole 1986, Vaske et al. 1983), all resulting in
degraded terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Washburne and
Cole (1983) have reported that recreational use of wilder-
ness areas (a portion of which is related to wildlife and
fish use) has caused vegetation problems in 71% of all
wilderness areas, soil impacts in 61%, and water pollu-
tion in 18%. Similar recreation impacts have also been
noted in some riparian forests in the eastern United
States (Cole and Marion 1988).
Although such impacts can be attributed to both con-
sumptive and nonconsumptive activities, they appear to
be especially common among nonconsumptive uses
because of the significant increase in participants.
Wilkes (1977) has stated that the term "nonconsump-
tive" has been detrimental to land-use planning because
it projects a notion that such activities are benign in
terms of environmental impacts, when in fact there are
some very real and important impacts that must be
addressed to preserve wildlife and fish habitat.
Implications for Wildlife and Fish Populations
As the amount and quality of habitats change, so will
the distribution and abundance of wildlife and fish spe-
cies. Wildlife and fish are critical components of
ecosystems and perform various important functions
such as pollination, dispersal and germination of seeds,
soil and nutrient cycling processes, herbivory, preda-
tion, parasitism, and competition (Prescott-Allen and
Prescott-Allen 1987). As these roles interact over time,
they influence the distribution and abundance of spe-
cies, the composition of functioning biotic communities,
and thus ultimately determine the biotic diversity of
animal communities (Harris 1988, Talbot 1987).
Based on the recent historical and future land base
trends, faunas could become less diverse as human use
of the land intensifies — a concern that is both national
and global in scope (Norton 1986, Schonewald-Cox et
al. 1983, Wilson 1988). Based on our current under-
standing, the effects of land-use intensification on biotic
diversity can be grouped into four categories (Harris
1988): (1) loss of large, wide-ranging species, (2) loss
of area-sensitive or interior species that require large
tracts of contiguous habitat, (3) loss of genetic integrity,
and (4) increased abundance of habitat generalists
characteristic of disturbed environments. Ultimately,
these four impacts result in the loss of species that give
different communities their unique and distinguishing
faunal characteristics while species already widespread
and common among many regions are becoming more
prominent.
Concern for declining diversity in natural communi-
ties is a concern for increasing species rarity and, in the
extreme case, a concern for species extinctions. Species
associated with old-growth or mature forests, native
prairie, and wetlands seem destined to become rarer.
Apart from these general perceptions, no one can predict
with certainty how many additional species will become
threatened or endangered with extinction. However, as
land uses intensify, the potential exists for a higher
proportion of the fauna to be threatened with extinction.
In the United States, less than 10% of the vertebrate
fauna is threatened or endangered. In West Germany,
where intensive land use has a much longer history, 41%
of the vertebrate fauna is endangered or threatened (The
Conservation Foundation 1984).
Two direct consequences of increasing species rarity
are prominent. First, genetic diversity declines which
may ultimately affect the survival or recovery of a spe-
cies. Loss of genetic diversity permanently eliminates
opportunities to study how animals relate to their
environments and their potential utility to human:
(Ehrlich 1988, Schonewald-Cox 1986). A second conse-
quence of rarity is that species' distributions become res-
tricted to isolated areas. Although protection of special
habitats has been important in the preservation of some
species, Russell (1987) has expressed the view that the
ecological legacy that the public wishes to leave to future
generations is not one of open zoos in a few isolated areas
of natural habitat, but one of healthy ecological systems
in a common setting with human populations.
Increasing species rarity within a community is often
accompanied by increasing abundance of common,
widespread species with general habitat requirements.
As was noted in chapter 1, downward trends in breed-
ing nongame bird populations was accompanied by
increases in species adapted to urban environments. In
addition, Degraaf (1986) found that the habitat gener-
alists dominating urban bird communities were often
exotic species. Exotics are anthropogenically displaced
species that have not been subjected to the revolution-
ary processes important in the original formation of
existing biotic communities and therefore violate the
community's natural history.
93
Expression of reduced biotic diversity through domi-
nance of a few abundant species can also lead to impor-
tant economic costs associated with crop losses, reduc-
tion in timber regeneration, or livestock losses. In 1980,
estimated losses of property to wildlife exceeded $8.6
million, and the Animal Damage Control Program (then
under the Fish and Wildlife Service) spent $17.6 mil-
lion in wildlife damage control efforts (USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service 1981b). Overabundant wildlife usually
generates concern for human health. Excessive popula-
tions of some furbearers has contributed to near epidemic
levels of rabies throughout much of the East (Burridge
et al. 1986), and increasing deer populations in the
suburban Northeast are raising concern for the spread
of Lyme disease.
In addition to concerns for reduced biological diver-
sity stemming from land-use intensification, use of wild-
life and fish resources in excess of what inventories can
support also has important implications to certain wild-
life and fish populations. Despite declining dockside
prices, commercial salmon harvests were the highest
ever in 1985; the salmon population probably cannot
sustain such harvest rates (Weber 1986). Illegal duck har-
vest in one Gulf coast state has been estimated to exceed
four times the legal harvest, a situation an already declin-
ing duck population cannot withstand (Anderson 1988).
Negative impacts associated with excessive use of wild-
life and fish, however, are not restricted to consump-
tive activities. Nonconsumptive recreational activities
have also been implicated in the displacement and even
the death of wildlife (Cole 1986, MacArthur et al. 1982,
Ream 1979, Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Vaske et al.
1983).
Environmental Implications from
other Resource Demands
Clearly, public demands for resources other than wild-
life and fish are an important consideration in identify-
ing environmental implications. Demands for timber,
range, and agricultural goods affect the kinds, amounts,
and quality of wildlife and fish habitat. Increasing
demands for timber products will likely have to be met
with more intensive timber management (Haynes in
press). Similarly, livestock forage demand is anticipated
to increase which will require implementation of range-
land improvements to meet that demand (Joyce in press).
The anticipated needs for more intensive management
actions, in response to future demands for a single
resource, carry with them multiple resource conse-
quences (Hof and Baltic 1988, Risser et al. 1984).
The wildlife projections provided by state wildlife
agencies did not explicitly consider these other resource
demands on the land resource base and their resultant
influence on wildlife and fish populations. Considering
multiple demands for the resources jointly produced
from any land type is necessary to avoid unanticipated
resource management conflicts in the future.
As an example of the potential conflicts that can result,
future wildlife demands for forage were compared to
Indexed to 1965
1.4
0.8
0.6
Livestock
-B- Wildlife
-0- Pasture & Range
1960
2040
Source: Historical data: Livestock: USDA [various years],
Joyce {in press], Wildlife: State Wildlife Agencies:
12 of 15 western states
Figure 61.— Indexed trends in livestock and wildlife AUM's and
pasture- and rangeland area in the western United States.
livestock demands for forage. Big game (deer, elk, and
pronghorn) population projections from the state wild-
life agencies were converted to AUM requirements and
compared to projected livestock AUM's for the western
United States (fig. 61). From 1985 to 2040, big game
AUM's are projected to increase 19%; livestock AUM's
are projected to increase 32%. Yet, the rangeland base
is only expected to increase 10%. Although the degree
of direct competition between wildlife and domestic
livestock will depend on the species mix (wild and
domestic) in any given area, the projections indicate that
grazing pressure on western rangelands will intensify
to a much greater degree than that implied by separate
wildlife or livestock projections.
SUMMARY
The wildlife and fish use and inventory projections
imply certain economic, social, and environmental con-
sequences that can occur if resource use and invento-
ries are not balanced. The social values associated with
fish and wildlife resources range from those held by
Native Americans for subsistence and religious values,
to rest, relaxation, and personal camaraderie resulting
from recreational experiences dependent upon wildlife
and fish. Declining future inventories or restricting
opportunities to enjoy wildlife and fish not only
infringes on the lifestyles of certain cultural segments
of society, but also reduces or eliminates a recreational
outlet for which few substitutes exist.
The economic costs associated with increasing scarc-
ity of wildlife and fish resources can be grouped into
direct effects on the "prices" paid by consumers and
indirect effects on local economies and resource manage-
ment budgets. Direct effects on consumers are most
94
obvious with commercial species such as salmon and
furbearers. Concerns have been raised over the need to
preserve minimum levels of salmon stocks, the loss of
wetland habitats for furbearers, and a growing public sen-
timent against trapping. Under such restrictions in future
supplies, consumers can expect to pay more for these
products.
A similar situation holds for wildlife and fish recrea-
tion. Although not normally bought or sold under a mar-
ket structure, wildlife and fish will "cost" recreationists
more in the future. As habitat is lost or made unavaila-
ble to the recreating public, and as expanding human
populations result in more crowded conditions, future
recreationists may have to travel greater distances to find
suitable recreation sites, or may have to pay access fees
which may limit participation to the more affluent of
society.
Restrictions on commercial harvests and projected
declines in hunting also have indirect economic impacts
on income, employment, and state resource management
budgets. Employment and income impacts have impor-
tant consequences in fishing communities such as coastal
Alaska where other opportunities are limited. Declining
hunter participation and associated expenditures could
impact local areas that provide support services for this
recreational activity. State wildlife and fish management
agency budgets, for which funds are derived primarily
from licence fees and excise taxes on equipment, would
also be affected.
Growing human populations will continue to encroach
on the remaining wildlife and fish habitat. In addition,
continued demand for timber, livestock, water, and agri-
cultural crops will conflict, in many instances, with wild-
life and fish resources. The challenge for future wildlife
and fish management involves how to balance these mul-
tiple resource demands within the constraints defined
by the environment.
The more crowded conditions suggested by compari-
sons of future demands and supplies indicate that vege-
tation impacts, soil compaction, water pollution, distur-
bance of wildlife, and other environmental problems will
increase. Although such impacts can be attributed to all
forms of wildlife and fish recreation, these impacts are
of particular concern with the fishing and nonconsump-
tive recreating public because of the magnitude of
projected increases.
As the amount and quality of habitats change, so will
the distribution and abundance of wildlife and fish. The
growing pressures on wildlife and fish are likely to be
especially significant for endangered and threatened spe-
cies and those species with the potential to become so.
As the biotic diversity of the nation's wildlife and fish
communities diminishes, the nation loses part of its
natural heritage and future options for study and other
interactions.
The specific resource management issues that stem
from the social, economic, and environmental impacts
discussed here were identified by state and federal
resource managers. Chapter 6 summarizes these issues
and reviews the management opportunities that exist to
address them.
95
CHAPTER 6: MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE
WILDLIFE AND FISH RESOURCE SITUATION
Wildlife and fish resources were once perceived to
have unlimited capacity to support human use (Kimball
and Johnson 1978, Schmidt 1978, Taber 1983). With
unregulated exploitation of wild populations and
habitats, the fact became apparent that conservation
of the nation's flora and fauna would require manage-
ment— willful and informed manipulation by human
beings.
Regulating the exploitation of wildlife and fish re-
sources was the first and most important conservation
concern in the early history of wildlife management.
However, simply regulating the take of game popula-
tions failed to control the decline of many animal popu-
lations. Growing human populations and the attendant
intensified land-use has reduced the availability of suita-
ble wildlife and fish habitats. Human beings have ex-
panded their niche at the expense of other animals
(Brokaw 1978). The implication is that conservation of
wildlife and fish resources, in light of what are often con-
flicting human demands for natural resources, will
require improved wildlife and fish management (Taber
1983).
WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Management issues were identified by state agencies
responsible for wildlife and fish management, National
Forest System biologists, and Bureau of Land Manage-
ment biologists. These agencies provided a priority list-
ing of the most important management issues for each
of eight species groups. These groups included big
game, small game, waterfowl, anadromous fish, resident
coldwater fish, resident warmwater fish, nongame, and
threatened and endangered species. Within each species
group, management issues were split into four cate-
gories: habitat, population, user, and planning-related
issues.
Issues Perceived by the States
States are entrusted with the stewardship of wildlife
and fish resources; and as resource trustees, they have
a major responsibility for wildlife and fish management.
Federal agencies also have wildlife and fish stewardship
obligations for migratory birds, marine animals, and for
animals and habitats on federal lands. However, the fed-
eral stewardship role has, in general, been one of cooper-
ation with states to facilitate their management goals
(Lund 1980). Under the state ownership doctrine, the
state wildlife agencies must hold a comprehensive view
of wildlife and fish resources within its boundaries. Con-
sequently, the state biologists' perceptions of the impor-
tant wildlife and fish management issues presumably
represent a composite across all land ownerships.
Information provided by state agencies was summa-
rized by examining the mean priority ranking (where
"1" represents an issue of greatest concern) across states
and the frequency with which an issue was cited. The
overall importance of an issue was assumed to be a func-
tion of its mean rank and its frequency. An index of rela-
tive importance was calculated using the following
method:
1. Divide the mean rank of each management issue
by the frequency. The management issue with the
lowest quotient is interpreted to be the most
important.
2 . Calculate an ' ' index of importance ' ' for each issue
relative to the most important management issue.
This was accomplished by dividing the quotient of
the most important issue identified in step one into
the quotient associated with each management
issue. Thus, the most important issue has an index
of importance equal to 1.0.
3. Sort the scores of relative importance calculated in
step two in ascending order. The result is a list of
management issues from the most important to the
least important.
96
Summary Across Species Groups
State wildlife and fish biologists identified 30 manage-
ment issues (table 51). At the national level, seven issues
appeared to be particularly important to current resource
managers. These issues are evenly distributed across the
major management categories of habitat, population,
user, and planning.
Habitat ranked as the most important management
issue identified. Habitat area loss and habitat quality
degradation were the two most frequently cited problems
and were the greatest concern of all identified manage-
ment issues. As human populations expand and land
uses intensify, the amount and quality of wildlife and
fish habitats suffer. Habitat is in many ways the most
fundamental management issue now confronting state
agencies, for landscapes lacking in suitable wildlife and
fish habitats will no longer support animal populations
to monitor or uses to regulate. Although states hold wild-
life and fish resources in trust, they have no habitat
management authority on private lands unless land-
owners request assistance or enter into habitat manage-
ment agreements.
The third and fourth most critical management issues
concerned aspects of wildlife and fish populations. In-
ventory information on wildlife occurrence, population
Table 51 .—Management issues for all species groups identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank
of 1.0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat loss
1.0
142
1.6
1.0
54
1.6
Habitat degradation
1.6
117
2.1
1.9
37
2.1
Lack population
information
2.0
98
2.2
1.4
43
1.8
Population low/
unoccupied habitat
3.3
57
2.1
4.0
21
2.5
Restricted access
3.3
71
2.6
3.1
29
2.7
Lack info, on public/
public support
3.3
70
2.6
3.0
29
2.6
Multiple resource
conflicts
3.7
60
2.5
2.5
28
2.1
Lack habitat info.
(requirements/
inventory)
5.3
37
2.2
4.2
12
1.5
Excessive demand
6.3
42
3.0
4.6
22
3.0
Pollution
7.0
33
2.6
4.4
19
2.5
Limited resource
planning
9.2
25
2.6
8.8
10
2.6
Population too high
12.2
8
1.1
6.8
5
1.0
Habitat management
constrained/ineffective
12.4
20
2.8
67.5
1
2.0
Increased human
populations
13.0
15
2.2
30.4
3
2.7
Enforcement of
regs./inadequate regs.
14.5
19
3.1
12.2
10
3.6
Interspecific competition
15.1
17
2.9
59.1
2
3.5
Barriers to migration
17.8
8
1.6
9.5
5
1.4
Hunter ethics
18.9
15
3.2
25.3
4
3.0
Insufficient/inadequate
harvest
23.7
9
2.4
50.6
2
3.0
Excessive harvest
24.1
7
1.9
25.9
3
2.3
Illegal harvest
25.3
13
3.7
23.6
4
2.8
Declining/low demand
29.3
10
3.3
59.1
2
3.5
Population distribution
inadequate
33.0
7
2.6
25.3
2
1.5
Habitat diversity loss
39.9
4
1.8
22.5
3
2.0
Disease/parasites
53.3
5
3.0
59.1
2
3.5
Other population-related
problems
53.3
5
3.0
33.8
3
3.0
Political constraints
68.0
3
2.3
67.5
1
2.0
Predation
79.9
3
2.7
Excessive access
155.3
2
3.5
Other habitat-related
problems
266.3
1
3.0
1.0
38
1.7
1.0
42
1.6
1.5
8
1.6
2.4
24
2.6
1.1
45
1.9
1.0
11
1.5
3.7
15
2.5
2.1
32
2.5
2.6
8
2.8
2.6
14
1.6
2.8
18
1.9
4.2
4
2.3
4.3
15
2.9
3.1
22
2,6
2.6
5
1.8
4.5
13
2.6
2.5
26
2.5
11.0
2
3.0
4.7
11
2.3
5.4
17
3.5
2.4
4
1.3
9.5
8
3.4
3.9
15
2.2
5.5
2
1.5
9.6
7
3.0
6.1
13
3.0
7.5
6
2.0
12.4
7
3.3
22.0
3.0
6.1
7
1.9
12.8
7
3.4
7.3
1.0
16.8
2
1.5
26.3
1
1.0
7.0
9
2.8
8.8
9
3.0
7.3
1.0
4.2
8
1.5
35.0
3
4.0
7.3
1.0
13.4
5
3.0
17.5
3
2.0
7.3
1.0
33.5
2
3.0
11.8
8
3.6
2.1
5
1.4
27.9
2
2.5
26.3
1
1.0
50.3
2
4.5
12.4
7
3.3
7.3
2
2.0
8.4
4
1.5
39.4
2
3.0
29.3
1
4.0
9.7
3
1.3
52.5
1
2.0
22.4
4
4.0
26.3
4
4.0
36.7
1
5.0
33.5
2
3.0
17.9
5
3.4
22.0
1
3.0
27.9
2
2.5
52.5
2
4.0
14.7
1
2.0
22.4
1
1.0
45.9
2
3.5
7.3
1
1.0
39.4
2
3.0
32.8
2
2.5
23.6
3
2.7
78.8
1
3.0
29.3
1
4.0
67.1 1 3.0
Note: f = Frequency.
97
levels, and population parameters (e.g., natality and
mortality rates) are difficult to obtain. Considerable
research has been devoted to developing both theory and
techniques for monitoring wildlife and fish populations;
however, for large scale assessments there is a need for
practical techniques that provide information at the
regional and state levels of geographic resolution
(Hawkes et al. 1983, Moyle et al. 1979, Sanderson et al.
1979). Although the importance of population inventory
deficiencies varies across species groups, it represents
the third most important management issue when sum-
marized across all species groups. The fourth most
important management issue involved low population
levels. In some cases, this management issue is ulti-
mately related to low habitat quality. In other cases,
wildlife and fish population levels have not reached the
carrying capacity of the habitat, or suitable habitat
remains unoccupied.
Issues related to resource use are another important
component of wildlife and fish management. Regulat-
ing the number of consumptive users, hunting and fish-
ing season lengths, and harvest quotas are important
responsibilities of state agencies. The amount of forest
and rangeland environments has not changed dramati-
cally in the recent past, nor is it expected to change
dramatically in the future (Bones in press). However, the
availability of land for wildlife and fish recreation has
become an important concern. Although certainly
related to habitat loss, restricted access is an equally
important factor contributing to the declining availabil-
ity of land for recreation. This is of particular interest
in areas of the country with little public land. The
problem is not restricted to these areas since access to
public land is often controlled by private landowners
and trespass privileges are not always granted.
Another important issue related to use of wildlife and
fish resources concerns the lack of comprehensive infor-
mation on attitudes about wildlife and fish resources and
their management. There are two points of reference in
this management issue. State agencies lack information
on the public attitudes and values held for wildlife and
fish resources, and the public lacks information on the
justification for specific management actions
implemented by state agencies. Ultimately, both trans-
late into a concern for public support of wildlife and fish
management. As summarized by Peek (1986), wildlife
managers need more than ever to ensure public under-
standing of how proposed management activities will
benefit the resource, or run the risk of declining support
stemming from a misinformed public.
Because the nation faces increased competition for
resources produced from a finite land base, multiple
resource conflicts are an important concern of state wild-
life and fish managing agencies. More intensive agricul-
tural practices and timber management, competition
with livestock, mineral development, water withdrawals
for consumption or irrigation, and wildlife damage to
crops all serve to illustrate that wildlife and fish manage-
ment is much more complicated than direct habitat
improvement, manipulating animal populations, or
regulating use. Resource planning that acknowledges
and addresses wildlife and fish in a multiple resource
context is critical if future supplies of wildlife and fish
habitats and populations are going to be available to
commercial, subsistence, and recreational user groups.
Although widely recognized as an important planning
objective, the integration of wildlife and fish programs
into other land management activities remains a nota-
ble shortcoming (Peek 1986).
These major issues tended to be consistent across each
assessment region though the rank order varied (table
51). There were only a few cases where the most impor-
tant regional issues were absent from the national list.
In the South, a general concern for increasing human
populations due to increased migration to the sunbelt
states was raised as an important issue. In the Rocky
Mountains, a lack of habitat inventory information was
viewed as a constraint on effective wildlife management.
Interspecific competition was the third most important
issue in the Pacific Coast, owing to unique problems on
the Hawaiian archipelago with exotics.
The summarization across all species groups provides
a general picture of the states' perception of important
wildlife and fish management issues. However, impor-
tant issues specific to individual species categories are
lost in such a comprehensive summary.
Big Game
A total of 20 big game management issues were iden-
tified by state wildlife and fish agencies. Many are the
same as those described by Wolfe (1978) and the previ-
ous wildlife and fish assessment (USDA Forest Service
1981). The highest ranked big game management issues
included habitat loss, habitat degradation, restricted
access for users, excessive game populations, mul-
tiresource conflicts, and deficient data to quantify wild-
life and fish populations (table 52).
The recent historical picture documented in chapter
1 indicates that issues related to big game management
exist at several scales. For example, the loss of forestland
throughout the nation will, in general, reduce the habitat
available to forest big game species. More specifically,
the loss of winter range or thermal cover in the North
and West could make the habitat remaining for big game
species less useful. Human development on winter range
and domestic livestock conflicts were important habitat
related concerns in the West. In the North, the absence
of forest disturbance was an important habitat manage-
ment issue. Farming and timber harvesting have re-
placed, in part, the natural role of fire in disrupting and
retarding forest succession (Wolfe 1978). However, forest
disturbance factors have not kept pace with the forest
succession resulting in a deterioration of big game
habitat quality in the North.
An issue unique to big game management was that
population levels of some species were considered exces-
sive. This was largely an issue related to white-tailed
deer in some of the eastern and midwestern states.
Although excessive big game populations were not fre-
quently cited, in those states where it was a problem it
was the most important big game management issue.
98
Table 52.— Management issues for big game identified by. state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank of 1.0
represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat loss
1.0
21
1.6
1.0
9
1.8
1.0
5
1.6
1.3
6
1.5
1.3
1
1.0
Habitat degradation
1.6
16
1.9
2.9
4
2.3
3.9
2
2.5
1.0
8
1.6
1.0
2
1.5
Restricted access
2.0
17
2.6
2.1
6
2.5
1.5
5
2.4
3.2
5
3.2
1.3
1
1.0
Population too high
2.1
7
1.1
1.3
4
1.0
2.3
2
1.5
5.0
1
1.0
Multiple resource conflicts
2.3
18
3.1
1.9
8
3.0
3.4
3
3.3
2.8
6
3.3
2.7
1
2.0
Lack population information
2.4
14
2.6
1.7
6
2.0
2.3
6
2.8
2.3
2
3.5
Insufficient/inadequate harvest
3.6
7
1.9
7.5
2
3.0
1.2
4
1.5
5.0
1
1.0
Population low/unoccupied habitat
3.8
8
2.3
3.8
3
2.3
2.4
3
2.3
5.0
1
1.0
4.0
1
3.0
Lack info, on public/public support
4.9
10
3.7
2.3
8
3.6
15.6
1
5.0
15.0
1
3.0
Illegal harvest
5.5
9
3.8
5.0
3
3.0
4.2
3
4.0
10.0
2
4.0
6.7
1
5.0
Hunter ethics
6.1
6
2.8
5.0
1
1.0
4.4
4
3.5
2.7
1
2.0
Excessive demand
7.9
5
3.0
8.8
2
3.5
9.4
1
3.0
6.3
2
2.5
Increased human populations
9.8
2
1.5
10.0
1
2.0
3.1
1
1.0
Enforcement of regs. /inadequate regs.
13.1
1
1.0
1.3
1
1.0
Political constraints
13.1
1
1.0
5.0
1
1.0
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
19.7
2
3.0
4.7
2
3.0
Lack habitat info, (requirements/inventory)
23.0
2
3.5
15.6
1
5.0
10.0
1
2.0
Declining/low demand
23.0
2
3.5
20.0
1
4.0
15.0
1
3.0
Excessive access
23.0
2
3.5
15.0
1
3.0
5.3
1
4.0
Interspecific competition
26.3
2
4.0
9.4
1
3.0
25.0
1
5.0
Wofe: / = frequency.
Restricted access for users was a contributing factor
to the excessive population issue since it constrains
meeting harvest objectives. Restricted access is also a
concern since it prevents satisfaction of the user demand
for the resource. The availability of big game hunting
recreation on public lands becomes an increasingly
important consideration as access is restricted on pri-
vate lands. The southeastern states were particularly
concerned about access to big game ranges.
Alteration of habitat resulting from land use changes,
logging or the lack of logging activities, developed recre-
ation areas, disturbance from off-road vehicles, livestock
management, and crop damage by big game species were
the basis for the multiple resource conflict issue.
Small Game
A majority of the most important issues related to
small game management were the same as for big game;
however, the order of importance was different. From
the states' perspectives, the critical management issues
were habitat area loss, restricted access, habitat degra-
dation, multiple resource conflicts, and low populations
or unoccupied habitat (table 53).
A prominent small game management issue was low
populations of species associated with agricultural
habitats. However, inadequate populations of small
game can not be discussed independently from habitat
degradation and loss. Many small game species require
a close juxtaposition of life requisites. Consequently, the
trend toward more intensive agriculture (see chapter 1)
has reduced the availability of suitable small game
habitats. Fortunately, most small game species have a
high reproductive potential and can recover quickly from
low population levels when suitable habitat becomes
available.
Much of the small game resource is produced on pri-
vate land and related to agriculture forest-range inter-
faces or early successional forest habitats. Even where
quality habitat exists, restricted access to private lands
has resulted in populations that are unavailable to the
recreating public. This is particularly important to small
game recreation since nearly 75% of all small game hunt-
ing occurred on private lands in 1980 (USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service, and USDC Bureau of Census 1982).
The relative rankings of small game management
issues within assessment regions deviated little from the
national level. Concerns for habitat loss, habitat degra-
dation, and multiple resource conflicts were well distrib-
uted across the country and tended to maintain their rela-
tive rankings across regions. Restricted access was
generally ranked as a more important issue and was a
more wide-spread concern than low population levels.
Low small game populations were a prevalent concern
in the South.
Waterfowl
Twenty-five issues were identified to be of concern re-
garding waterfowl management (table 54). Long-distance
migration is a distinctive feature of this group. Conse-
quently, management issues raised by individual agen-
cies many times spanned state and national boundaries.
Loss of wetland habitats was clearly the most impor-
tant national and regional management issue related to
this species group. Wetland habitat degradation and iso-
lation resulting from intensive use of surrounding
upland environments was also one of the top concerns
raised by the state agencies. As reviewed in chapter 1,
the major factor contributing to habitat loss and degra-
dation was agricultural development. Although ducks
will make use of agricultural grains, they prefer natural
99
Table 53.— Management issues for small game identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank of
1.0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank Importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat loss
1.0
25
1.2
1.0
11
1.2
1.0
7
1.4
1.0
6
1.2
1.3
1 1.0
Restricted access
2.5
19
2.3
2.6
8
2.3
3.5
4
2.8
2.4
5
2.4
1.0
2 1.5
Habitat degradation
3.2
15
2.3
5.3
4
2.3
3.8
4
3.0
1.7
6
2.0
1.3
1 1.0
Multiple resource conflicts
4.3
12
2.5
5.7
4
2.5
2.8
3
1.7
4.4
4
3.5
1.3
1 1.0
Population low/unoccupied habitat
4.6
9
2.0
7.0
3
2.3
2.2
3
1.3
3.8
2
1.5
5.3
1 4.0
Lack population information
6.0
9
2.6
4.6
4
2.0
5.0
3
3.0
2.0
2 3.0
Lack info, on public/public support
6.3
7
2.1
8.3
3
2.7
2.3
4
1.8
Increased human populations
6.9
6
2.0
2.2
3
1.3
8.8
2
3.5
1.3
1 1.0
Hunter ethics
11.7
5
2.8
27.5
1
3.0
20.0
1
4.0
6.3
2
2.5
2.7
1 2.0
Lack habitat info, (requirements/inventory)
12.5
5
3.0
9.2
2
2.0
8.8
2
3.5
20.0
1
4.0
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
15.6
4
3.0
3.8
4
3.0
Habitat diversity loss
15.6
2
1.5
6.9
2
1.5
Excessive demand
17.5
5
4.2
8.7
4
3.8
30.0
1
6.0
Declining/low demand
31.3
2
3.0
7.5
2
3.0
Insufficient/inadequate harvest
46.9
2
4.5
25.0
1
5.0
5.3
1 4.0
Limited resource planning
62.5
1
3.0
27.5
1
3.0
Predation
62.5
1
3.0
15.0
1
3.0
Note: f = frequency.
Table 54. — Management issues for waterfowl identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank of 1.0
represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat loss
1.0
27
1.4
1.0
12
1.2
1.0
6
1.5
1.0
7
1.7
1
2
1
Multiple resource conflicts
3.2
11
1.8
2.0
6
1.2
12.0
1
3.0
8.2
2
4.0
1
2
1
Population low/unoccupied habitat
3.7
10
1.9
8.3
4
3.3
1.3
3
1.0
1.4
3
1.0
Habitat degradation
4.4
11
2.5
10.0
2
2.0
3.8
4
3.8
1.9
4
1.8
2
1
Restricted access
5.0
12
3.1
11.0
3
3.3
4.4
3
3.3
2.3
5
2.8
6
3
Lack population information
6.3
8
2.6
5.7
3
1.7
6.0
2
3.0
6.2
2
3.0
8
4
Excessive demand
7.1
9
3.3
20.0
2
4.0
2.6
5
3.2
6.2
2
3.0
Population distribution inadequate
7.7
5
2.0
7.5
2
1.5
5.0
2
2.5
4
2
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
8.5
5
2.2
20.0
1
2.0
12.0
1
3.0
5.1
2
2.5
2
1
Pollution
9.2
8
3.8
12.3
3
3.7
5.0
2
2.5
6.5
3
4.7
Lack info, on public/public support
13.5
4
2.8
12.5
2
2.5
6.2
2
3.0
Population too high
19.3
1
1.0
10.0
1
1.0
Increased human populations
19.3
2
2.0
4.0
2.0
Interspecific competition
21.2
3
3.3
50.0
1
5.0
12.4
1
3.0
4
2
Predation
24.1
2
2.5
5.1
2
2.5
Excessive harvest
28.9
2
3.0
15.0
2
3.0
Political constraints
28.9
2
3.0
20.0
1
2.0
16.5
1
4.0
Illegal harvest
33.8
2
3.5
16.0
4.0
12.4
1
3.0
Declining/low demand
33.8
2
3.5
16.5
1
4.0
6
3
Limited resource planning
38.6
2
4.0
40.0
1
4.0
16.5
1
4.0
Hunter ethics
43.4
2
4.5
20.0
5.0
16.5
1
4.0
Habitat diversity loss
57.9
1
3.0
30.0
1
3.0
Other population-related problems
57.9
1
3.0
12.4
1
3.0
Lack information (requirements/inventory)
77.1
1
4.0
16.0
4.0
Enforcement of regs./inadequate regs.
96.4
1
5.0
20.0
5.0
Wore: f = frequency.
foods that grow in or near water (Bellrose 1976). Geese,
on the other hand, are more adaptable and will feed read-
ily on green vegetation or waste grains on upland sites
(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987a). Agricultural
crops are the mainstay of migrating and wintering goose
populations (Bellrose 1976). Based on these differing
habitats, state concerns for habitat loss and low water-
fowl populations were, in general, related to ducks
rather than geese.
Because of the close association between waterfowl
habitat and agriculture development, multiple resource
conflicts also ranked as an important waterfowl manage-
ment issue. Multiple resource conflicts, however, are not
restricted to agricultural land uses but also include tim-
ber, range, and water management interactions.
Another correlate of wetlands in agricultural environ-
ments is concern over the availability of the resource
to the recreating public. Nearly three-quarters of the
100
nation's remaining wetland habitat is privately owned
and restricted access for waterfowl hunters is a problem
cited in all regions of the country. Although hunter lease
agreements may provide incentive to landowners to pro-
vide access and preserve wetland habitats, participation
in waterfowl hunting may become limited to that clien-
tele who can afford to pay for the privilege to hunt on
private land. In a survey asking state agencies to rank
those species most important in hunter lease arrange-
ments, Wiggers and Rootes (1987) found that waterfowl
was the most frequently cited species category, followed
by white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and bobwhite quail.
Two issues that were of regional importance, primar-
ily in the East, were inadequate waterfowl population
distribution and the use of lead shot. Although of low
national priority, some southern states are concerned
that waterfowl populations are being held farther north
during the fall migration which effectively limits the
availability of waterfowl for southern hunters. This alter-
ation of migration chronology has been documented for
both snow and Canada geese in response to agricultural
development and associated reservoir construction in the
Midwest (Batemen et al. 1988, Simpson 1988). Lead
poisoning in ducks that ingest lead shotgun pellets and
secondary poisoning in some raptors that feed on those
ducks has been documented (USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 1987a). However, with total conversion to non-
toxic steel shot planned by 1991, the lead shot issue
should only continue into the short-term.
Anadromous Fish
The most important management concerns related to
the anadromous fishery result from the migratory habits
of the species comprising this category. These species
mature in the ocean and migrate to spawning areas in
headwater streams. The number one management issue
identified by the states was dams that exist in the east,
west, and Great Lakes coastal rivers that serve as migra-
tion barriers (table 55). Originally, fisheries biologists
thought that providing upstream passage for adults
would be sufficient to maintain anadromous fishery
stocks. However, research has shown that fish can suffer
high mortality as they encounter dams during juvenile
downstream migration (Northwest Power Planning
Council 1987). The concern associated with juvenile
migration to the ocean is further confounded by water
storage facilities designed to increase the generating
capacity of mainstem hydroelectric dams. These storage
facilities decrease water flows over spillways and force
passage through the turbines where mortality can be as
high as 15% to 20% per dam (Phinney 1986). Conse-
quently, the cumulative impacts associated with passage
through multiple hydroelectric facilities can be high,
particularly during low flow years (Phinney 1986).
Although considerable progress has been made in the
installation of fishways, additional installations, and
improved operation of fishways formed the basis for con-
cern with returning adult spawners. Inadequate flows
at fishways have resulted in ineffective use of these facil-
ities by migrating salmon and steelhead (Northwest
Power Planning Council 1987).
Additional management issues of primary concern
included: (1) habitat degradation associated with
sedimentation, and the loss of within stream and stream-
side cover; (2) low populations of certain species includ-
ing the Atlantic salmon and striped bass; (3) both point
and nonpoint sources of pollution; (4) multiple resource
conflicts with agricultural development, increased sedi-
ment and loss of streamside cover associated with tim-
ber harvesting and road development, and livestock con-
flicts associated with grazing on riparian areas; and (5)
excessive harvest. Continual excessive harvests could
have the greatest long-term effect on the anadromous
fishery but also have the best opportunity for short-term
change.
Resident Coldwater Fish
Primary concerns for coldwater fishery management
included the loss and degradation of habitat (table 56).
Fewer miles of coldwater streams resulting from
Table 55. — Management issues for anadromous fish identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank
of 1 .0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Barriers to migration
Habitat degradation
Population low/unoccupied habitat
Pollution
Multiple resource conflicts
Excessive harvest
Habitat loss
Lack population information
Excessive demand
Enforcement of regs. /inadequate regs.
Other population-related problems
Disease/parasites
1.0
8
1.6
1.0
5
1.4
1.2
8
1.9
1.3
5
1.8
2.5
H 4
2.0
5.4
2
3.0
3.3
3
2.0
3.6
2
2.0
3.4
5
3.4
3.6
3
3.0
3.8
2
1.5
5.0
2
2.0
3.6
2
2.0
5.0
1
1.0
3.6
1
1.0
5.0
2
2.0
3.6
2
2.0
7.5
2
3.0
14.3
1
4.0
7.5
2
3.0
10.7
1
3.0
15.0
1
3.0
10.7
1
3.0
2.5
2
2.5
1
1
1
2.0
1
1.0
4
1
4
1.0
2
1.0
4.0
1
2.0
6.0
1
3.0
5
1
5
2.0
1
1.0
2
1
2
4.0
1
2.0
3
1
3
Wofe: / = frequency.
101
Table 56.— Management issues for resident coldwater fish identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority
(rank of 1.0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat degradation
1.0
18
1.4
Habitat loss
1.8
11
1.5
Population low/unoccupied habitat
2.7
11
2.3
Restricted access
2.8
12
2.6
Pollution
3.4
8
2.1
Lack population information
4.1
10
3.2
Multiple resource conflicts
4.1
5
1.6
Excessive demand
5.5
7
3.0
Interspecific competition
6.0
6
2.8
Lack info, on public/public support
6.9
6
3.2
Excessive harvest
9.6
2
1.5
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
12.9
2
2.0
Other population-related problems
19.3
2
3.0
Limited resource planning
25.7
1
2.0
Illegal harvest
25.7
1
2.0
Disease/parasites
28.9
2
4.5
Other habitat-related problems
38.6
1
3.0
Enforcement of regs./inadequate regs.
64.3
1
5.0
1.0
7
1.3
1.2
2
1.0
1.2
7
1.7
4.8
3
2.7
1.0
3
1.3
1.0
5
1.0
2.0
6
2.2
2.9
2
2.5
3.8
3
2.3
2.3
7
3.0
4.6
1
2.0
2.5
4
2.0
2.2
5
2.0
6.9
1
3.0
5.0
2
2.0
3.1
4
2.3
3.3
3
4.3
5.5
3
3.3
4.0
2
1.5
2.3
1
1.0
5.0
2
2.0
4.0
4
3.0
5.0
3
3.0
10.8
1
2.0
4.4
4
3.5
8.1
2
3.0
11.5
1
5.0
4.5
3
2.7
5.4
1
1.0
4.6
1
2.0
6.9
1
3.0
5.0
1
1.0
8.1
2
3.0
10.0
1
2.0
10.8
1
2.0
21.5
1
4.0
6.9
1
3.0
25.0
1
5.0
Wofe. f = frequency.
impoundments, siltation of spawning beds, point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, water withdrawals, and
increased temperature associated with low flows and low
streamside cover all interact to eliminate or significantly
reduce the quality of coldwater fish habitat.
As with other groups, habitat management issues have
an associated concern for multiple resource conflicts.
Agricultural land uses can increase sediment loads and
pollution; timber harvesting and associated road-build-
ing can alter protective streamside vegetation and also
increase the amount of sediments reaching coldwater
streams; and cattle grazing in riparian zones can signif-
icantly alter vegetation and stream bank structure which
are important cover components of fish habitat.
In addition to habitat issues, insufficient information
on population status, population parameters, and har-
vest were also cited as an important deficiency constrain-
ing effective management. Potential productivity and
harvest pressure can vary considerably from one water
body to the next, and detailed inventory information is
required to plan for a balanced and efficient use of col-
dwater fishery resources.
Restricted access was also identified as a management
issue constraining efficient use of resident coldwater
fishery resources. Access was a particularly important
problem in the North where the proportion of public
land is low. Access was less of a concern in the South,
presumably because public land access is available in
the few locations where coldwater habitats occur.
Of the 18 coldwater fisheries issues identified by the
states, no identifiable regional profile emerged, suggest-
ing that the issues are generally consistent throughout
the nation.
Resident Warmwater Fish
Of the 17 management issues identified for warmwater
fisheries, habitat degradation was the most frequently
cited and had the highest management priority (table
57). Warmwater habitats are frequently associated with
many of the most intensive human uses of the environ-
ment, and pollution and other forms of habitat degra-
dation are a significant consequence. While significant
progress has been made in improving the nation's warm-
water rivers and streams in recent years, water quality
was still the number one issue with state agencies. Exces-
sive nutrients from point and nonpoint pollution sources
stimulates high phytoplankton blooms causing dissolved
oxygen levels to drop below threshold levels needed to
sustain the fishery (Boyd 1979). As reviewed by Fajen
(1981), other important factors contributing to habitat
degradation involve stream channelization which elim-
inates alternating pool and riffle zones, floodplain
development which destablizes the floodplain, and
water withdrawals resulting in low instream flows. Loss
of important wetland spawning and nursery habitats
affects many fish, such as the pikes.
Management concerns related to excessive demand
and restricted access are frequently correlated. Accessi-
ble warmwater fishing areas are often forced to sustain
excessive levels of use that could be alleviated with
increased area of fishable water open to the public. Both
fish populations and recreational satisfaction are dimin-
ished under crowded conditions.
As was the case for coldwater fisheries, inadequate in-
formation on populations and harvests of warmwater spe-
cies is also a major concern. Resource decision-making
102
Table 57.— Management issues for resident warmwater fish identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority
(rank of 1 .0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat degradation
1.0
23
2.0
1.0
7
2.0
1.0
6
2.0
1.0
10
2.0
Habitat loss
1.8
13
2.0
1.8
5
2.6
1.7
3
1.7
1.6
5
1.6
Excessive demand
2.1
12
2.2
1.1
6
1.8
6.0
1
2.0
2.6
5
2.6
Lack population information
2.2
12
2.3
1.0
7
2.0
3.8
2
2.5
5.0
3
3.0
Pollution
2.3
9
1.8
1.3
5
1.8
1.5
2
1.0
6.3
2
2.5
Restricted access
3.1
10
2.7
2.0
4
2.3
6.0
2
4.0
4.5
3
2.7
Population low/unoccupied habitat
4.4
7
2.7
5.3
2
3.0
2.6
5
2.6
Multiple resource conflicts
5.8
2
1.0
3.5
1
1.0
3.0
1
1.0
Lack info, on public/public support
6.4
5
2.8
2.7
3
2.3
8.8
2
3.5
Interspecific competition
7.7
3
2.0
9.0
1
3.0
10.0
1
2.0
Enforcement of regs./inadequate regs.
8.1
4
2.8
7.0
2
4.0
3.0
1
1.0
10.0
1
2.0
Declining/low demand
9.5
4
3.3
10.5
1
3.0
5.5
3
3.3
Excessive harvest
11.5
1
1.0
3.0
1
1.0
Lack habitat info, (requirements/inventory)
14.4
2
2.5
3.5
1
1.0
20.0
1
4.0
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
14.4
2
2.5
3.8
2
2.5
Limited resource planning
17.3
2
3.0
3.0
1
1.0
25.0
1
5.0
Population distribution inadequate
23.0
2
4.0
10.0
2
4.0
Note: f = frequency.
Table 58. — Management issues for nongame species identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of national priority (rank
of 1.0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Lack population information
1.0
25
1.8
1.0
10
1.8
1.1
5
1.6
1.0
9
2.0
2.7
1 2.0
Lack info, on public/public support
1.1
27
2.1
1.3
8
1.8
1.0
7
2.1
1.0
11
2.4
4.0
1 3.0
Habitat loss
1.3
21
2.0
1.6
6
1.7
1.0
7
2.1
1.5
6
2.0
1.3
2 2.0
Lack habitat info, (requirements/inventory)
2.8
10
2.0
6.9
2
2.5
4.2
2
2.5
1.7
5
1.8
1.3
1 1.0
Limited resource planning
2.9
12
2.5
3.2
4
2.3
1.7
4
2.0
3.8
4
3.3
Habitat degradation
3.0
12
2.6
3.3
5
3.0
5.0
2
3.0
3.5
3
2.3
1.0
2 1.5
Population low/unoccupied habitat
6.9
2
1.0
4.6
1
1.0
1.3
1 1.0
Multiple resource conflicts
6.9
4
2.0
2.8
2
1.0
6.7
1
2.0
18.3
1
4.0
Enforcement of regs./inadequate regs.
6.9
6
3.0
4.2
4
3.0
13.3
1
4.0
9.2
1
2.0
Interspecific competition
13.9
1
1.0
1.3
1 1.0
Habitat diversity loss
13.9
1
1.0
3.3
1
1.0
Pollution
17.1
3
3.7
11.1
2
4.0
4.0
1 3.0
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
18.5
3
4.0
10.0
1
3.0
10.3
2
4.5
Increased human populations
20.8
2
3.0
3.3
1
1.0
22.9
1
5.0
Excessive demand
55.6
1
4.0
22.2
4.0
Hunter ethics
55.6
1
4.0
22.2
4.0
Restricted access
69.4
1
5.0
27.8
5.0
Note: f = frequency.
requires population and harvest data to recommend
management actions and to evaluate the success of such
activities. Currently, this capability appears to be gener-
ally lacking with warmwater fish and many other spe-
cies groups.
Nongame Wildlife
Unfortunately, nongame species individually and col-
lectively enjoy less data accumulation than game spe-
cies. Therefore, the most important management con-
cerns were the lack of information about nongame
population status, habitat requirements, habitat inven-
tories, and public attitudes and use (table 58). Basic
information on population trends and habitat needs is
required for effective incorporation of nongame wildlife
into multiple resource planning. The states cite both as
being inadequate at this time. A similar finding, reported
by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1982a), revealed
that in 31% of the considered cases, reasons for declines
among bird species identified as having declining or
unstable populations were either unknown or the spe-
cies were not adequately monitored. The paucity of
information regarding nongame wildlife is widely recog-
nized and a number of workshops have been held to
improve the information base on regional aspects of non-
game communities and their management (DeGraaf
1978, 1979, 1980; Smith 1975). However, the focus of
these workshops has been heavily biased toward non-
game birds. Information on nongame mammals, reptiles,
103
amphibians, fish, and invertebrates has been more
difficult to obtain. Even for the relatively well studied
class of birds, efficient and accurate estimates of popu-
lations cannot be accomplished with current methods
(Verner 1985).
Existing information about nongame species,
however, does suggest that habitat loss is as much of a
concern for this group as for others. Forest management
practices influence forest succession, which in turn
affects the fauna inhabiting a site at any given time. As
forests are managed more intensively, the tendency is
to shorten the successional process which can effectively
eliminate the habitat for species requiring mature forest
stands. Intensive, even-aged forest management can sim-
plify stand structure, can reduce or eliminate special
habitat components such as snags for cavity-nesting spe-
cies, and can also affect the landscape diversity of forest
types and successional stages.
Similar concerns for nongame wildlife inhabiting
rangeland types exist and are associated with agricul-
tural development and livestock management. Cultiva-
tion eliminates grassland communities, grazing can alter
vegetation composition and impact special habitat com-
ponents such as riparian areas in arid climates, and the
seeding of exotic species can impair native floras. All
negatively impact wildlife communities.
Urbanization associated with expanding human popu-
lations is a common disturbance factor on both forest and
rangeland environments. Urbanization results in the
removal or alteration of natural vegetation which can sig-
nificantly affect the native fauna. The effect of urbani-
zation on nongame bird communities has shown that,
overall, species diversity declines with the avifauna
becoming dominated by a few common, often exotic,
species (DeGraaf 1986, Geis 1974).
The preceding discussion is not meant to imply that
forest and rangeland management for timber or livestock
is consistently detrimental to nongame communities.
Rather, nongame wildlife represents such a diverse array
of species that forest or rangeland management that fails
to recognize the animals' habitat needs will tend to
reduce the natural biotic diversity characteristic to a par-
ticular region. Given that information on nongame com-
munities is lacking, no one can ensure that the habitats
of all species will be maintained.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Management issues identified by state biologists were
pertinent to species on both federal and state endangered
species lists. The major concerns of the states for threat-
ened and endangered species were the loss and degra-
dation of habitat (table 59). These issues were consistent
with the information provided by the USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Information Sys-
tem as reviewed in chapter 1. The frequency with which
habitat loss was cited, however, is inflated since state lists
often include species occurring at the periphery of their
ranges. Consequently, habitat may have been historically
rare within a particular state as opposed to being recently
lost through resource or human development.
Since part of the basis for a species to be considered
threatened and endangered is a low population level,
finding that states listed this as an important manage-
ment issue is not surprising. However, population levels
of these species have declined to the point where the
genetic consequences must now be considered. As popu-
lations reach critically low levels, genetic variability is
lost which can ultimately reduce the probability of spe-
cies survival and recovery (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983).
The other major management concerns for threatened
and endangered species were the lack of adequate infor-
mation about species population levels, habitat require-
ments, and public attitudes, which in turn limit effec-
tive incorporation of threatened and endangered species
into comprehensive resource planning efforts. These
Table 59.— Management issues for threatened and endangered species identified by state wildlife and fish management agencies in order of
national priority (rank of 1 .0 represents issue of greatest concern).
National North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean Index of Mean
Management issue importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank importance f rank
Habitat loss
1.0
22
1.9
1.9
6
1.8
1.0
7
1.9
1.0
7
1.9
1.7
2
2.5
Lack population information
1.0
19
1.6
1.1
8
1.4
2.5
3
2.0
1.1
6
1.8
1.0
2
1.5
Lack habitat info, (requirements/inventory)
1.3
17
1.8
1.0
7
1.1
5.5
2
3.0
1.1
7
2.0
2.7
1
2.0
Habitat degradation
2.0
14
2.3
5.7
3
2.7
3.7
3
3.0
1.0
6
1.7
1.7
2
2.5
Lack info, on public/public support
2.5
11
2.3
4.2
3
2.0
2.1
4
2.3
2.8
3
2.3
4.0
1
3.0
Population low/unoccupied habitat
3.6
6
1.8
6.4
1
1.0
7.4
1
2.0
2.8
3
2.3
1.3
1
1.0
Limited resource planning
3.6
7
2.1
4.0
4
2.5
3.7
2
2.0
1.3
1
1.0
Multiple resource conflicts
7.9
3
2.0
3.2
2
1.0
14.7
1
4.0
Enforcement of regs. /inadequate regs.
8.9
4
3.0
11.1
2
3.5
11.1
1
3.0
7.4
1
2.0
Disease/parasites
8.9
2
1.5
7.4
1
2.0
1.3
1
1.0
Increased human populations
10.7
3
2.7
9.5
2
3.0
7.4
1
2.0
Habitat management constrained/ineffective
14.8
2
2.5
4.6
2
2.5
Pollution
17.8
2
3.0
9.5
2
3.0
Interspecific competition
20.8
2
3.5
18.4
1
5.0
2.7
1
2.0
Excessive demand
47.5
1
4.0
25.5
1
4.0
Hunter ethics
47.5
1
4.0
25.5
1
4.0
Illegal harvest
59.4
1
5.0
18.4
1
5.0
Note: I = frequency.
104
issues are related, in part, to the ownership pattern of
remaining habitat. Several states claimed that threatened
and endangered species management could not be effec-
tive on private lands, citing landowners' lack of concern
for the species, limited regulatory authority, and inade-
quate public understanding about the basis for the states'
concern for these species.
Issues Perceived on Public Lands
The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) are responsible for managing wildlife and fish
resources on approximately 525 million acres. Although
the states technically have the lead responsibility in the
management of resident wildlife and fish populations, the
FS and BLM are responsible for managing wildlife and
fish habitats. However, strict adherence to this division of
responsibility would foster inefficient management of
wildlife and fish resources. Consequently, wildlife and
fish management is, in practice, conducted through
cooperation among state and federal agencies.
The FS and the BLM are multiple-use agencies which
by definition means that decisions have to be made as
to how lands are used among a variety of competing
uses. In many cases, the source of the wildlife and fish
management issues facing these two agencies can be
traced to this multiple resource management responsi-
bility. Biologists from both agencies were asked to pro-
vide a priority listing of the major management issues
for each species category. Because of the high degree of
cooperation between federal and state agencies, many
of the issues are similar to those cited by state personnel.
Forest Service
Biologists provided information on the most impor-
tant management issues facing wildlife and fish
resources in their region. As with the state agencies, the
issues varied across the species groups.
For big game species, a major habitat management
issue concerned the effect of intermingled land owner-
ships. Big game species range widely and independently
of ownership boundaries. Effective management of big
game species on national forests was often viewed as
being constrained by human development and resource
management on surrounding private lands. This was
especially a concern in the West where development of
private lands is resulting in losses of important winter
ranges, and in the East where private ownerships
dominate. Other important habitat-related problems
included: (1) a noted decline in shade-intolerant timber
types (e.g., aspen, jack pine) through natural forest suc-
cession which has reduced the amount and quality of
deer and moose habitat in the North; (2) reduction in
winter thermal cover (lowland conifer and cedar) in the
North; and (3) maintenance of a suitable mosaic of old-
growth and second-growth stands for species such as
Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska.
Management issues related to the recreational use of
big game were also a prominent concern and were
largely related to the distribution of that use. In some
cases, hunting pressure and excessive access have
increased on national forests as hunting opportunities
declined on private ownerships. Road development
associated with timber harvesting has increased the
accessibility of game to the public and in some instances
has facilitated the illegal harvest of deer and black bear.
Conversely, in some cases restricted access was the con-
cern. For example, private landowners can deny passage
through their property to national forest land, and major
portions of some national forests remain undeveloped
and inaccessible to big game hunters. The composite
result of both access issues is an inadequate distribution
of big game recreational use.
A final concern for big game management is that mul-
tiple uses of national forests often conflict with big game
management objectives. This issue translates into a gen-
eral concern for adequate integration of wildlife into the
resource planning process.
Traditionally, small game and waterfowl have re-
ceived less emphasis in the resource planning process
on national forests. The habitat-related concerns that
were raised centered around three issues: (1) loss of both
early and late forest serai stages, (2) livestock grazing
impacts on riparian and other wetland habitats, and (3)
declining quantity and quality of wetland habitats on
public and private lands. Other management problems
associated with small game and waterfowl derived from
the low priority that these species have received in the
past. These included a general lack of population and
habitat inventory information. In some regions, biolo-
gists felt that the resource was underutilized by the
public.
Approximately 50% of salmon and steelhead spawn-
ing and rearing habitat occurs on national forests in Ore-
gon, Washington, and Idaho; in Alaska the estimate is
27% (Barton and Fosburgh 1986). However, biologists
have noticed fewer spawners returning to the headwaters
on national forests resulting in an underutilization of
available habitat. FS biologists also noted habitat degra-
dation problems associated with livestock grazing,
sedimentation from timber harvesting and road develop-
ment, lack of overhead cover resulting in high water tem-
peratures, and low pH in some eastern streams. Other
management issues that constrain effective planning for
anadromous fish included inadequate information on
habitat condition, the cumulative impacts of forest
management, and the economic benefits and levels of
recreational use of the fishery.
Resident cold- and warmwater fishery resources share
many habitat concerns with the anadromous fishery. In
the West, habitat management issues focused on the loss
of streambank structure and vegetation due to livestock
grazing and poor implementation of recommended
streamside silvicultural practices. In the East, habitat
concerns involved low streamside cover which elevates
water temperature, low pH, and nuisance aquatic vege-
tation which promotes stunting among panfish popula-
tions and hinders fishing. Stunted panfish was also the
result of inadequate predators. As with anadromous fish,
an important management issue was the lack of adequate
105
information on habitat, populations, factors limiting
productivity, and the effectiveness of direct habitat
improvements.
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)
mandated the FS to maintain a diversity of plant and
animal communities and to ensure viability of all animal
species inhabiting the NFS. Consequently, wildlife and
fish management and planning must consider the animal
community in its entirety, including nongame species
which constitute the majority of species found on
national forests. A frequently cited nongame manage-
ment issue raised by FS biologists related directly to the
viability requirement. Insufficient information on non-
game population status and habitat requirements con-
found their responsibility to demonstrate that viability
of species will be assured. A contributing factor to the
inventory problem is the implied number of wildlife and
fish species that must be monitored. The NFMA recog-
nizes this concern and requires the designation of spe-
cies which "indicate" the trends of other species with
similar habitat requirements. However, the basic
assumption underlying this approach (i.e., that the sta-
tus of one species is representative of the status of several
species) has been challenged (Block et al. 1987, Landres
1983, Mannan et al. 1984, Szaro 1986, Verner 1984). As
a result, considerable uncertainty exists in the selection
and use of indicator species in resource planning for
nongame species.
In addition to concerns stemming from the require-
ment for maintaining viable populations, important non-
game management issues involved quantity and qual-
ity of habitat. In particular, the disappearance of
old-growth forests, poor distribution of age classes, and
loss of bottomland hardwoods were of concern in the
East. Key issues raised in the West were provision of ade-
quate habitat for cavity-nesting species, maintenance of
old-growth forest habitats for such species as the spot-
ted owl, loss of aspen communities to succession, and
the degradation of riparian habitats from livestock graz-
ing practices.
A particularly important subset of nongame wildlife
and fish are those species that are currently listed as
threatened and endangered. The FS consults with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure recovery of listed
species. Species of particular concern include the griz-
zly bear, California condor, red-cockaded woodpecker,
Kirtland's warbler, woodland caribou, bald eagle, pere-
grine falcon, Puerto Rican parrot, Lahontan cutthroat
and greenback cutthroat trout, and the gray, Indiana, and
Virginia big-eared bats. By definition, concern for low
populations and maintenance of habitat are of primary
concern for these species. However, other management
issues included the lack of comprehensive information
on the distribution of all threatened and endangered spe-
cies on national forests, intermingled ownerships hin-
dering effective management and limiting the recovery
of some species, and conflicts between public use in
areas with high access and species requiring limited
human disturbance.
Bureau of Land Management
BLM biologists from western states provided informa-
tion on wildlife and fish management issues of primary
importance to the agency. In general, the management
issues identified are consistent with those issues iden-
tified by FS and state biologists. The discussion here will
focus on those issues emphasized as particularly impor-
tant on BLM lands.
Without question, the most important wildlife and fish
management issue cited by BLM biologists was the effect
of livestock grazing. BLM lands have a history of over-
grazing, and although range conditions have improved
somewhat, the majority of the public range is still seri-
ously deteriorated and producing far below its poten-
tial (Barton 1987). Degraded rangeland condition par-
ticularly affects big game winter ranges, which are
prevalent on BLM lands, and small game habitats.
Another important issue related to grazing was the
impact of livestock on riparian communities. Riparian
areas are critical to wildlife and fish, particularly in arid
climates. In the West, riparian systems support a dispro-
portionate number of wildlife species when compared
to adjacent upland ecosystems (Ohmart and Anderson
1986). Livestock also make disproportionate use of ripar-
ian systems, and BLM biologists cited maintenance and
recovery of riparian ecosystems more frequently than any
other management issue across all species groups.
Other habitat-related issues included adequate distri-
bution of water, conflicts with mineral development,
unoccupied desert bighorn sheep habitat, noxious weed
infestation, and encroachment of undesirable woody
species.
Intermingled ownerships were also cited as a hin-
drance to effective wildlife and fish management.
Instances exist where key habitat features exist on pri-
vate ownerships and therefore are beyond the manage-
ment jurisdiction of the BLM; access to BLM lands is
often restricted under such ownership patterns; and
intermingled ownerships also result in ineffective
resource planning unless there is a high degree of
cooperation among all land owning parties.
Throughout much of its existence, the BLM lacked the
authority and funding to manage its lands (Barton 1986).
The agency's mandate to manage for multiple uses is
relatively recent. As a consequence of this history, BLM
biologists have cited limited inventory information on
the amounts and quality of wildlife and fish habitats,
the status of wildlife and fish populations, ecological
relationships between animals and their habitat, and the
distribution of threatened and endangered species as res-
trictions on effectual multiple use planning.
WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
Wildlife and fish management has been defined as the
art and science of "changing the characteristics and
interactions of habitat, wild animal populations, and
men in order to achieve specific human goals" (Giles
1969:1). As defined by Poole and Trefethen (1978),
106
the primary goal of wildlife and fish management is to
maintain animal populations at levels that are consis-
tent with the capacity of the ecological system and the
social, economic, and cultural needs of the public.
Failure to manage wildlife and fish resources would
almost certainly lead to the domination of generalist spe-
cies rather than a balanced interacting fauna (Bolen and
Rodiek 1986, Lyle 1985). Berryman (1983:473) asked the
questions: "Do we want only to preserve islands of
habitat, only remnants offish and wildlife populations?
Or do we want fish and wildlife resources to remain as
a part of the fabric of our total landscape and environ-
ment?" The management opportunities discussed here
are in the spirit of the latter; however, the former is a
possible future for some species and communities.
The management issues identified by state and fed-
eral agencies were classified into four categories: habitat,
population, user, and planning-related issues. This cate-
gorization is also appropriate for discussing future wild-
life and fish management opportunities. The order in
which these aspects of wildlife and fish management are
listed is not arbitrary. Habitat is often the factor most
limiting to wildlife and fish species, and it makes little
sense to consider population manipulations if the habitat
does not exist. By the same logic, regulation of users
becomes unnecessary when wild populations are not
present to be enjoyed by the recreating public. Planning
is listed last as it involves all aspects of wildlife and fish
management, and in a world of competing uses, must
also consider aspects of management across multiple
resource areas.
Habitat Management Opportunities
Management issues related to wildlife and fish habitat
focused on two aspects. The first was a concern for the
loss or total removal of certain habitat types from the
landscape. The second was a concern for degradation
or the reduced quality of habitats and was usually
associated with multiple resource conflicts.
The most obvious management opportunity involves
the outright purchase of land. This gives the resource
managing agencies control over land-use activities that
would otherwise jeopardize the existence of the habitat.
Probably the best example where acquisition has been
critical to the preservation of a habitat type is the pro-
tection of wetland habitats under the National Wildlife
Refuge System. Under such programs as the Migratory
Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, the Wetlands
Loan Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
the Refuge System has grown to 90 million acres (Office
of Technology Assessment 1984). The Endangered Spe-
cies Act also authorizes the purchase of land for the pro-
tection of critical habitat.
Another important land acquisition opportunity exists
through established natural area programs. State
(Schwegman 1983), private (Cantera 1983) and federal
(Burns 1983) natural area programs have all contributed
to an extensive network of protected plant and animal
communities. As of 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service
had designated 194 natural areas followed by the FS
(148), National Park Service (64), and the BLM (23)
(Burns 1983). The BLM also has special authority to
designate and protect Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC). Protection of rare floras and faunas is
a prominent objective of this program. The BLM now
has approximately 300 ACEC's that cover over 5 million
acres (Almand, pers. comm., 1988).
Coordination and cooperation among private, state,
and federal programs will be critical to the effective
management of these lands in the future (Harwell 1983).
Consideration must be given to the size, shape, distri-
bution, and linkages among communities of the same
type if the goal of preserving natural diversity is to be
attainable. As noted by Hoose (1983), the effect that
large-scale disturbance factors such as acid rain, global
warming, depletion of aquifers, and air and water pol-
lution will have on the viability of some natural area
communities remains unknown. Similarly, protected
communities may lose integrity at their borders as pri-
vate land uses intensify. The implication is that the
management of natural areas will have to become more
intensive and involve considerations on a broader land-
scape scale. For example, corridors of habitat to connect
nature reserves have been proposed as being important
in facilitating gene flow to maintain the ecological
integrity of rare and isolated communities (Harris 1984,
Office of Technology Assessment 1987).
Protection through purchase is in most cases limited
by inadequate funds. The partial purchase of property
rights through conservation easements, long-term leas-
ing agreements, or management agreements with land-
owners have been used effectively in wildlife and fish
habitat protection as alternatives to purchase (Gilbert and
Dodds 1987). Private landowner incentive programs
offer still another habitat protection opportunity that can
range from wildlife habitat management assistance to
preferential tax treatment for landowners who preserve
wildlife habitat. The Sodbuster, Swampbuster, and con-
servation easement provisions of the 1985 Food Secu-
rity Act (see chapter 3) provide examples of where such
wildlife habitat protection opportunities have recently
been implemented.
Protection, through purchase or otherwise, of wild-
life and fish habitats is rarely sufficient to maintain the
quality of the habitat into the future. The majority of the
nation's wildlife and fish habitats exist under a resource
management environment of competing uses for the
land. Consequently, the general situation facing wild-
life and fish managers is that the creation and enhance-
ment of wildlife and fish habitats must be coordinated
with other land and resource uses.
Reduced to its most fundamental principles, all forms
of habitat restoration or enhancement involve the manip-
ulation of wildlife and fish food, cover, and water in both
time and space. The specific habitat management activi-
ties that are implemented depend on management objec-
tives; however, some examples of habitat management
opportunities are discussed below.
Restoration of degraded ecosystems has a relatively
short history in the United States and probably saw its
107
beginnings with the restoration efforts of prairie
ecosystems initiated by Aldo Leopold (Jordan et al.
1987). Out of those initial efforts grew an understand-
ing of fire's role in prairie ecosystems. Since that time,
research has demonstrated the important role that fire
plays in the maintenance of many range and forest com-
munities. Since the 1970's, many national parks and
wilderness areas have been managed under a "let it
burn" policy, but this may change as we learn about the
consequences of such a policy. Passive management of
fire, however, is not always feasible and deliberate con-
trolled burns are a valuable wildlife management tool
for improving habitat for wild ungulates (Scotter 1980)
and other game and nongame species associated with
or dependent on early successional stages (Landers 1987,
Peek 1986).
Wildlife and fish restoration may also take the form
of simply removing or more effectively controlling dis-
turbance factors. In some cases, resting riparian areas
from livestock grazing has been shown to be effective
in restoring streamside vegetation communities (Kauff-
man and Krueger 1984) with associated benefits to both
terrestrial and aquatic animals. Wetlands can sometimes
be restored by eliminating cultivation and rendering
drainage systems ineffective (Office of Technology
Assessment 1984). Control of point and nonpoint sources
of pollution will allow aquatic ecosystems to recover.
Reductions in the use of certain pesticides has helped
in the recovery of some raptor populations (Evans 1982).
Removal of barriers to migrating anadromous fish
represents an opportunity to significantly increase the
production on spawning habitats. The Northwest Power
Planning Council (1987) is examining a number of struc-
tural modifications to fishways that will increase the
number of returning adult spawners and reduce mortal-
ity to juveniles during downstream migration.
More intensive restoration efforts could involve the
direct manipulation of food and cover through seeding,
planting, or chemical applications to control noxious or
undesirable plants. Aquatic habitat developments also
represent an intensive form of restoration management
that includes the creation of wetland habitats, water
facilities for wildlife in arid climates, structures to
enhance the within-stream cover, and small ponds for
warm water fish habitat.
Habitat restoration through direct manipulation of
food, cover, and water for the sole purpose of enhanc-
ing wildlife and fish habitat is often prohibitively expen-
sive. More efficient habitat management can be attained
through the integration of habitat management consider-
ations into the management of other resources. Fun-
damentally, incorporating wildlife and fish habitat con-
cerns into multiple resource management systems entails
ensuring that habitat diversity is maintained. Three
aspects of habitat diversity are important. The first aspect
is vertical diversity, or the number of vegetation layers
present within a given plant community. However, wild-
life and fish are mobile resources and therefore require
consideration of a horizontal diversity component to
habitat as well. The size, shape, and distribution of vege-
tation types and successional stages in a given area and
through time are important to the maintenance of the
regional animal community. The final aspect of wild-
life and fish habitat diversity is the presence of special
habitat components including snags, caves, talus slopes,
cliffs, and dead and down woody material. The absence
of such special components will result in some species
being absent from the community.
Timber and livestock management practices can all be
modified to ensure that these aspects of habitat diver-
sity are provided. Wildlife and fish can benefit from tim-
ber and livestock management, but only if planned for
in advance. Timber harvesting methods, harvest rota-
tions, and intermediate silvicultural treatments can be
used to enhance or maintain, rather than limit the quan-
tity and quality of wildlife and fish habitat (Everest et
al. 1987, Harris 1984, Thomas 1979). Similarly, grazing
systems, season of use, multiple species grazing, and
livestock improvement practices (e.g., water facilities,
control of noxious plants, fire) can be used to minimize
impacts to riparian systems or even enhance habitat qual-
ity for wild ungulates on winter ranges (Joyce in press,
Scotter 1980). Although integration of wildlife and fish
management into timber and range management may
carry costs (no single resource output is maximized), it
will ensure that certain values, some of which are
difficult to quantify, will not be excluded.
Integrated wildlife and fish management certainly
represents a viable management opportunity under pub-
lic lands with multiple use objectives. However, it
should not be assumed that integrated resource manage-
ment is not feasible on private lands. Opportunities exist
for state and federal agencies to provide technical
assistance to private landowners who desire to manage
wildlife and fish habitats on their lands. Opportunities
to assist private landowners could be expanded in the
future. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, substantial
acreage of highly erodible cropland will be planted to
permanent cover which, if appropriate species are
chosen, can provide high quality habitat for wildlife and
improve fish habitat by reducing soil erosion into aquatic
ecosystems. In addition, private landowners, including
large industrial timber companies, are now entering into
lease agreements with hunters and anglers or charging
access fees for the privilege of using their lands. McKee
(1987) showed that net revenues from the joint produc-
tion of wildlife and timber under fee hunting situations
in the South were greater than revenues generated from
maximizing timber production. Such economic incen-
tives may provide the motivation for active wildlife and
fish management on private lands, and state and federal
agencies have the opportunity to assist in guiding that
management.
Population Management Opportunities
Although habitat management may provide the great-
est opportunities for improving future wildlife and fish
resources, in some cases actual manipulation of popu-
lations is required to address certain management issues.
Wildlife managers can often manipulate animal numbers
108
through properly planned harvests more effectively than
manipulating environmental factors to improve habitat
(Scotter 1980). Under these situations, the goal is one
of preventing habitat deterioration stemming from overly
abundant wildlife. One of the more important manage-
ment problems noted by the states was excessive popu-
lations of some big game species. Number of licenses,
hunting season lengths, and either-sex regulations can
all be adjusted to balance big game populations with the
environment's capacity. The states have the primary
authority for the setting of harvest regulations for resi-
dent game populations and population management
through exploitation will continue to be an important
responsibility of state agencies.
Another management issue raised by state and federal
agencies was the prevalence of unoccupied habitat.
Transplanting of wild stock offers an opportunity to
hasten colonization of suitable habitat — assuming that
the disturbance factor responsible for the species dis-
placement has been removed (e.g., competing species).
This technique was used effectively in reestablishing
white-tailed deer (Downing 1987) and wild turkey
(Lewis 1987) populations in the East. Transplanting
animals into suitable habitat represents one of the most
important opportunities for maintaining threatened and
endangered species. Captive breeding programs and sub-
sequent reintroduction into suitable habitat are critical
to the restoration of such species as the peregrine fal-
con, red wolf, California condor, Puerto Rican parrot,
greenback cutthroat trout, and black-footed ferret.
Aquaculture, the propagation of aquatic species in
controlled environments, represents a general manage-
ment opportunity that has both recreational and com-
mercial application (Parker and Stevens 1988). Fish
hatcheries, although important in the restoration of some
endangered fishes, have their greatest utility in sup-
plementing heavily exploited fish populations. A sig-
nificant portion of the commercial and recreational har-
vest of sport fish is produced in hatcheries. However,
artificial propagation should not be considered a sub-
stitute for natural reproduction (Everhart and Youngs
1981).
Given expected demand increases for commercial fish
products and recreational fishing, aquaculture will likely
become a more prominent management practice used to
meet these rising demands on the nation's fishery
resources. It has been estimated that aquaculture in the
United States will produce 2 billion pounds of fish by
the year 2000 (Parker and Stevens 1988). Stock-enhance-
ment through aquaculture will also continue to be
important in maintaining recreational fishing opportu-
nities, particularly in and around high population
centers.
Increased production from aquaculture can be accom-
plished through improved propagation practices which
increase survival, increasing the capacity of existing
facilities, and the building of new rearing facilities. For
example, the Northwest Power Planning Council
(1987) has found that acclimation ponds can improve
survival of released fish and is recommending the
development of low-cost, small-scale hatcheries. Smaller
scale hatcheries have the advantage of smaller water sup-
ply requirements and they are readily adaptable to an
individual drainage which facilitates the preservation of
gene pools.
Other management opportunities that involve the
direct manipulation of populations include the removal
of pest or competing species. For example, certain bird
species have a long history of damaging crops and caus-
ing health problems. When populations become exces-
sive, intensive measures to control their numbers may
have to be implemented. However, Dolbeer and Stehn
(1979) pointed out that such measures may only be tem-
porary solutions and recommended that studies be
initiated to determine the cause for population increases
so that longer term solutions can be achieved. In the case
of interspecific competition, removal of the competing
species may be the only possible solution to the manage-
ment problem and has been an important management
practice in the protection of threatened and endangered
species such as the Kirtland's warbler (Walkinshaw and
Faust 1974) and Hawaiian birds (Scott and Sincock
1985).
User and People Management Opportunities
Management issues related to use of wildlife and fish
resources focused mainly on concerns for access. The
states control use through restrictions on the number of
licenses available or through special regulations that
attempt to control the distribution of user pressure
within the state. However, if access to land or water
supporting wildlife and fish is limited, regulations to
control use can be ineffective and recreationists can
become dissatisfied. From the state's perspective, res-
tricted access was the fifth most important management
issue across all species groups. The reasons for closing
lands are varied and include concern for liability,
property damage, interference with other activities, and
disturbance of privacy. Another major factor is that the
landowners have traditionally received little or no eco-
nomic return for allowing hunting or fishing on their
lands. Evidence reviewed in chapters 2 and 5 showed
that economic return to private landowners stemming
from wildlife and fish recreation has been increasing and
will probably continue to increase in the future. Conse-
quently, opportunities exist for state and federal pro-
grams to promote and assist landowners in establishing
such businesses. A more active policy for lease hunting
and fishing could put wildlife and fish agencies in a
stronger position to take an active role in shaping lease
agreements and ultimately provide an opportunity to
work more closely with private landowners in the
management of habitats (Wiggers and Rootes 1987).
On public lands, both restricted and excessive access
were important management concerns. Opportunities to
increase access to public lands involve adjustments to
ownership patterns through land exchanges, acquisition,
or easements. Solution of the restricted access problem
must, in part, address concerns for excessive access by
helping to redistribute use. Road closures in high use
109
areas provide one opportunity for controlling the poten-
tial detrimental impacts on the land, and wildlife and
fish populations.
Another important management concern was an unin-
formed public. As competition among land uses inten-
sifies, wildlife and fish managers will require that the
public have a complete understanding of the manage-
ment problems and the justification for proposed man-
agement activities. Without public acceptance, wildlife
and fish management will be ineffective. Public infor-
mation and education programs are an obvious oppor-
tunity for gaining public confidence and support for
wildlife and fish management on private, state, or fed-
eral lands.
The concern for user information, however, does not
stop with educating the public. Managing agencies must
educate themselves on public attitudes and values. Such
information can be useful in establishing the priority that
should be assigned to various management activities.
The clientele has changed and will continue to change
in the future. The future demands for wildlife and fish
recreation, based on the results presented in chapter 2,
are expected to shift from hunting to fishing and non-
consumptive activities. Managing agencies will need to
respond to these shifts or risk failure in fulfilling the
stewardship obligations entrusted to the resource manag-
ing agencies.
Planning Opportunities
Planning involves the specification of objectives,
implementation of management strategies, and an evalu-
ation of how well objectives were met. Four factors cited
as contributing to ineffective decision-making were: (1)
inadequate cooperation among agencies, (2) poorly coor-
dinated planning among resource areas, (3) inadequate
information on population and habitat status, and (4)
limited capability to predict animal response to resource
management activities.
Cooperative and Coordinated Planning
Cooperative planning is particularly important for
mobile resources such as wildlife and fish. Political and
administrative boundaries have been defined without
respect to ecological systems. Wildlife and fish planning
and management under multiple and intermingled land
ownerships can be futile for wide-ranging species or spe-
cies inhabiting aquatic systems unless habitat conditions
across all ownerships are considered. Cooperative plan-
ning across land managing agencies, landowners, and
user groups has been recognized in the National Recrea-
tional Fisheries Policy (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
1988c) as being critical to effective and efficient manage-
ment of the nation's fishery resources.
Opportunities to improve the planning environment
include consolidation of land ownerships through pur-
chase or land exchange. In the FS, purchase and
exchange of lands are authorized under the 1911 Weeks
Act, the 1922 General Exchange Act, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, and a number of laws
authorizing the purchase or exchange of lands for
specific purposes including the Wilderness Act of 1964,
the Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975, the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1973, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968,
and the Sikes Act of 1967. While the authority exists,
proposals for large land exchanges between agencies
have met with resistance. The 1985 proposal to exchange
35 million acres between the FS and BLM was delayed
because interest groups felt that such land swaps should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Barton and Fos-
burgh 1986). While focus on smaller land units and the
"politics" involved may engender a perception that land
purchase and exchanges are ineffectual, it appears to be
an unavoidable consequence of the process.
Coordinated planning among resource areas, as re-
viewed under habitat management opportunities, prob-
ably represents the single greatest opportunity for
improving the future wildlife and fish resource situation.
Leopold (1933) noted that wildlife and fish management
is essentially the "favorable alignment" of timber,
agriculture, and livestock activities. Despite the history
behind the concept, and the acceptance of its importance
in wildlife and fish management, it has been difficult
to integrate wildlife and fish management into compre-
hensive land use plans (Peek 1986). Part of the difficulty
stems from incomplete information on how wildlife and
fish respond to various timber, livestock, and water
management activities. Knowledge gaps defined by the
state and federal agencies help define the future research
needs related to effective planning and management.
Research Needs
The information needs identified by the state and fed-
eral agencies fell into three broad categories: (1) species-
habitat relationships, (2) population inventories, (3) pub-
lic attitude about wildlife and fish values. Species-
habitat relationship information is basic to any manage-
ment plan. Additional research on species-habitat rela-
tionships is important for at least two reasons. First,
basic knowledge of species life requisites is necessary
before we can manage existing systems in a manner that
maintains the biological diversity typical of a given com-
munity. Second, such knowledge is important to resto-
ration efforts of those habitats that have become rare
including old-growth forests (Nyberg et al. 1987), wet-
lands (Pearce 1985), tallgrass prairie (Piatt 1983), and
riparian systems (Platts 1986).
Apart from providing a knowledge base from which
to recommend management and restore communities,
species-habitat relationship information is also impor-
tant in the development of resource planning models.
Since the last national assessment of wildlife and fish
(USD A Forest Service 1981), researchers have expended
considerable effort to develop quantified characteriza-
tions of wildlife and fish habitat in the form of species-
habitat relationship models (Fausch et al. 1988, Verner
et al. 1986). One objective of these habitat models is to
aid planners in assessing the impacts from multiple
resource management on wildlife and fish resources. The
110
value of these models is as a tool to explore potential
outcomes based on what biologists believe to be the
habitat requirements of modeled species (Starfield and
Bleloch 1986). Research has provided the resource plan-
ner with a diversity of habitat modeling approaches;
however, model development has exceeded model vali-
dation and testing of basic assumptions. The research
challenge now is not to develop new techniques for
modeling wildlife and fish habitat but to rigorously
explore the basic underlying assumptions and to test the
performance of extant modeling approaches (Fausch et
al. 1988, Sweeney and Wolters 1986).
Another area of future research concerns the applica-
tion and testing of wildlife and fish habitat models at
larger scales. Most habitat modeling efforts have focused
on site-specific studies, but policy and management
decisions are being made at regional scales. There is in-
creasing recognition that informed resource planning
decisions cannot be made exclusively at the site-level
(Risser et al. 1984) and that more emphasis needs to be
placed on analyses that explicitly address large geo-
graphic areas (Gall and Christian 1984, Sanderson et al.
1979). As reviewed in chapter 3, the use of wildlife and
fish habitat models to evaluate the impacts from timber
management and land-use change represented the first
time that regional wildlife and fish models were linked
to regional timber inventory and land use models (USDA
Forest Service 1988). The conceptual framework for
regional multiple resource analyses has been described
(Joyce et al. 1986) and applied in the South (Flather et
al. 1989, Flebbe et al. 1988). Further research on regional
multiple resource modeling is needed in the areas of:
rigorous evaluation of model performance, extending the
methodology to other regions of the country, and incor-
porating wildlife and fish, forage, and water feedbacks
that alter timber management and land use decisions.
Apart from being used to predict wildlife and fish
response to land management activities, an additional
use of habitat models is to support wildlife and fish
population monitoring. Habitat characteristics are eas-
ily inventoried relative to wildlife and fish populations.
The basic assumption of this application is that changes
in habitat amounts and quality can be used to predict
changes in animal population levels. Recent research has
shown, however, that this assumption does not hold for
some species (Rotenberry 1986, Van Home 1983), and
that other factors (interspecific interactions, weather,
disease, mortality on wintering habitat, etc.) must be
considered when explaining variation in population
levels. Additional research is needed to characterize
those kinds of species where the assumption of popula-
tion levels tracking habitat condition is and is not valid.
The implication of the uncertainty associated with the
habitat-population relationship is that inventories of
habitat alone will not be sufficient to ensure that
community diversity and viable populations will be
maintained. Both state and federal agencies expressed
concern that information on population status and im-
portant population parameters was inadequate to man-
age the resource effectively. This was more of a concern
with nongame species than for game species. Inventory
information was available for some game mammals and
birds, and some nongame bird species, yet generally
absent for small mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles,
and invertebrates. Although local inventories of such
species may be available for a specific site, systematic
and comprehensive approaches to monitoring wildlife
and fish populations are lacking. Existing methods are,
in general, too expensive and of questionable accuracy.
Recent suggestions to use indicator species or guilds to
monitor wildlife and fish communities have potential
shortcomings (Verner 1986). Future research directed at
developing wildlife and fish monitoring techniques
applicable across a variety of scales (site, management
unit, region) is not only important for providing base-
line information on population status, but it is also
important in evaluating the predictive accuracy of
species-habitat relationship models.
The final area of needed research, as reflected by state
and federal agencies, is in characterization of the pub-
lic attitudes and values held for wildlife and fish
resources. Because state and federal management agen-
cies are public agencies, they need to know who the pub-
lic is, what the public desires, what the public is will-
ing to pay, and the factors responsible for changes in
these components (Lyons 1987). The attitudes and wants
of consumptive wildlife and fish recreationists have been
studied to a much greater degree than either noncon-
sumptive users or nonusers. Such information is criti-
cal if management agencies are to respond and adjust
their programs to satisfy the public demands. Failure to
do so will only result in an eroding of public support
and declining funding levels.
Characterizing the client is but one important compo-
nent of research addressing the human dimension of
wildlife and fish resource management. Another impor-
tant component concerns estimating the economic value
of wildlife and fish resources. Such information is not
only important to setting wildlife and fish management
priorities, but it is also critical if wildlife and fish are
going to compete on a commensurate basis with other
resources under multiple use management. Although a
number of techniques have been developed to estimate
nonmarket wildlife and fish resource values, additional
research is needed to test model assumptions and vali-
date methodologies. There is also a need to extend the
user projection analysis used in chapter 2 to more
accurately examine the relationship between wildlife
and fish resource inventories and participation in wild-
life and fish related recreation (Lyons 1987). Finally, the
growing prevalence of fee-hunting in the United States
offers an opportunity to further study the economic value
of wildlife and fish resources and its role in private land-
use management decisions.
OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING WILDLIFE AND
FISH RESOURCES
Obstacles are those factors that prevent implementa-
tion of effective management opportunities. Unmet
management goals and objectives can lead to a dissatis-
fied clientele or deterioration of the resource itself. The
111
most common obstacles identified by state and federal
agencies were lack of knowledge, inadequate or unsta-
ble funding levels, and inadequate staffing and quali-
fied personnel.
Insufficient knowledge has two aspects. The first is
that research is required to add to the information base
on wildlife and fish management. The research needs
discussed above in the areas of habitat relationships,
population monitoring, and public attitudes and values
address this aspect of insufficient knowledge.
The other aspect concerns increased information
exchange between researchers and managers. An effi-
cient system is needed to transfer knowledge from those
solving management problems to those who have the
responsibility of implementing these solutions. (Seitz et
al. 1987). As described by Naisbitt (1982), the United
States is evolving into an information based, high tech-
nology society. The wildlife and fish profession needs
to take advantage of information transfer technology to
ensure that managers are applying state-of-the-art tech-
niques and researchers are informed of the evolving
problems facing managers.
Concern for sufficient funding was by far the most fre-
quently cited obstacle. As reviewed in chapter 5, many
state agencies have experienced substantial declines in
real spending power. Similar declines have been noted
in federal agency budgets. Between 1980 and 1985, in
constant dollars, the FS budget declined by 16%; fund-
ing for wildlife and fish habitat management on national
forests declined by 9%; wildlife and fish research fund-
ing declined by 9%; and funding for the State and Pri-
vate Forestry Program which provides technical
assistance to private landowners declined by 38% (Bar-
ton and Fosburgh 1986). Similarly, funding appropria-
tions for wildlife habitat management on BLM lands
declined by 22% from 1981 to 1986 (Barton 1987).
Adequate staffing is not unrelated to agency budgets.
However, number of personnel is only part of the con-
cern. As resource management problems become more
complex, the qualifications for addressing the problems
change. Education of existing personnel and the train-
ing of new professionals must evolve with these changes
to ensure that resource professionals can be effective.
Recommendations for improved curricula and continued
training include: (1) explore new approaches to moti-
vate the work force to continue formal education
opportunities (Hamilton et al. 1987); (2) increase the
opportunities for participation in continuing education
programs (Cross 1987), with increased employer respon-
sibility to do so (Nielsen 1987); and (3) revision of
natural resource curricula to include not only a biologi-
cal background, but also an increased emphasis on
courses in law, communications, political processes,
economics, long-range planning, information manage-
ment and computer science, and human resource
management (Knuth 1987, Streeter 1987).
SUMMARY
An important component of national resource assess-
ments is to explore the management issues and attendant
management opportunities that exist for minimizing the
social, economic, and environmental costs associated
with future imbalances in anticipated resource use and
inventories. Management issues and opportunities were
categorized into four areas: habitat, population, user,
and planning.
Priority management issues were identified from
responses provided by state and federal biologists. At
the national level, and for all species groups covered in
this assessment, habitat loss and habitat degradation
were ranked as the two most important wildlife and fish
management issues. Habitat is the most fundamental
management issue now confronting resource managing
agencies, for landscapes lacking in suitable wildlife and
fish habitats will no longer support animal populations.
Management concerns related to wildlife and fish
populations were ranked as the third and fourth most
critical national issues. Inadequate population inventory
information was cited as hindering effective manage-
ment of wildlife and fish. A general concern for low
populations of some species groups was viewed as an
area for potential future improvement.
User-related issues were also a prominent concern of
wildlife and fish resource management agencies. Res-
tricted access to both public and private lands has
resulted in an inadequate distribution of recreation use
and managers felt they had insufficient information on
public attitudes and values held for wildlife and fish.
The latter was emphasized as particularly important
since it ultimately affects public support for management
activities.
The final issue of national concern was related to mul-
tiple resource planning. More intensive agricultural
practices and timber management, competition with
livestock, mineral development, water withdrawals for
consumption or irrigation, and wildlife damage to crops
all serve to illustrate that wildlife and fish management
is much more complicated than direct habitat improve-
ment, manipulating animal populations, or regulating
use.
The specific management opportunities addressing
habitat-related issues included:
- Protection of key habitats (including wetlands,
native grasslands, old-growth forests, fish spawn-
ing areas, and critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species) through public purchase, ease-
ment, leasing agreement, or establishment of natural
areas.
- Increasing the size, diversity, and distribution of key
habitat tracts to preserve the natural diversity char-
acteristic of a given region.
- Restoration of degraded ecosystems through: 1)
direct manipulation of vegetation and water through
seedings, plantings, physical or chemical treatment,
creation of wetlands, and development of water
facilities and stream structures, or 2) removal or
effective control of disturbance factors including
control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
removal of barriers to migrating fish, controlling
livestock access to riparian areas, and removal of
wetland drainage systems.
112
Opportunities for direct management of wildlife and fish
populations included:
- Manipulation of populations through appropriate
harvest strategies to ensure that populations remain
within the productive capacities of their habitat.
- Increasing the reintroduction of species into areas
where they have been displaced from suitable habi-
tat or where suitable habitat has been developed.
- Increasing fish hatchery production through im-
proved propagation practices, increasing the capac-
ity of extant facilities, and the building of new
facilities.
- Control or removal of pest or competing species.
Opportunities for user and people management included:
- Improving access to private lands by promoting pro-
grams that would assist landowners in establishing
wildlife and fish-related businesses.
- Increasing the use of land acquisition and user
management programs to increase the amount of
habitat available to recreationists and to better dis-
tribute use across suitable sites.
- Implementing programs to educate the public about
the need for and objectives of wildlife and fish
management.
- Implementing techniques to monitor public attitudes
and values associated with wildlife and fish resources
to better address the public's needs and wants.
Opportunities to improve resource planning include:
- Increasing interagency cooperation, among the
many agencies that have responsibility for manage-
ment of habitat, wildlife and fish populations, and
hunting and fishing.
- More fully integrating wildlife and fish manage-
ment objectives into the management of forest and
range lands for multiple resources.
- Through research, improving the information base
(e.g., habitat inventories, population inventories,
habitat-population relationships, valuation of wild-
life and fish resources) needed to effectively
manage the wildlife and fish resource.
This review of important management problems,
potential management opportunities, and obstacles to
effective management indicates that improving the
future wildlife and fish resource situation will become
an increasingly difficult task. Human populations are
expanding and land use is intensifying, yet declining
funds for wildlife and fish management is an increas-
ing concern. Unless these trends change, the wildlife
and fish profession is faced with the challenging task
of solving increasingly complex management problems
with a shrinking monetary and personnel resource base.
The wildlife and fish management issues and opportu-
nities that could be addressed by future FS programs are
discussed in chapter 7.
113
CHAPTER 7: IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST SERVICE
WILDLIFE AND FISH PROGRAMS
LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION OF RPA AND THE
ASSESSMENT-PROGRAM RELATIONSHIP
The Forest Service (FS) is one of the largest land-
managing agencies in the federal government and the
natural resources on the lands it administers are impor-
tant national assets. National forests provide approxi-
mately 15% of the total wood volume harvested nation-
wide, 5% to 10% of the nation's livestock forage, a
portion of the nation's energy and mineral resources,
43% of the total recreation visitor-days spent on federal
lands, and habitat for approximately 3,000 species of
wildlife and fish including critical habitat essential to
the survival and recovery of many threatened and endan-
gered species (Barton and Fosburgh 1986, Joyce in press,
USDA Forest Service 1987).
Although the multiple benefits associated with FS
lands are widely appreciated, the authority to manage
the full variety of natural resources on national forests
was not legally explicit until 1960 when the Multiple-
Use Sustained Yield Act was passed. This Act estab-
lished the policy that national forests shall be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. While the
resources to be considered were made explicit, the sta-
tute was criticized for being vague on how to reconcile
conflicting resource uses (Bean 1977).
The Sikes Act Extension of 1974 further defined the
authority to manage wildlife and fish on public lands
by directing the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to develop comprehensive plans for the conser-
vation and rehabilitation of wildlife and fish resources
in cooperation with state agencies. While the Act facili-
tated the execution of wildlife and fish management pro-
grams, it did little to change the "unlimited discretion"
that the FS exercised in fulfilling its multiple use man-
dates (Bean 1977).
The dispute surrounding multiple use and the allo-
cation of resources was eventually addressed explicitly
in the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976. These Acts defined a frame-
work to guide long-term planning of natural resources
on the nation's forest and rangeland base and required
the preparation of a comprehensive Assessment that
addressed the status and needs of forest and range
resources; a Program outlining resource management
levels and budget requests based on the findings of the
assessment; and detailed Resource Management Plans
for the national forests. The assessment is intended to
be the factual and analytical basis for the FS Program.
The Program specifies the resource goals "...to enable
public and private initiative to meet the full range of
opportunities that would secure for our people the
benefits..." from the nation's forest and rangelands (Wolf
1982: 139). These goals are to be realized through
resource management on national forests, by assisting
states and the private sector through forestry assistance
programs, and by conducting and promoting research
within and outside the FS.
The 1985 Program (USDA Forest Service 1986b) speci-
fied the primary agency goal for wildlife and fish
management as follows:
Assure a diverse, well-distributed pattern of habitats
for viable populations of wildlife and fish species in
cooperation with states and other agencies. Provide
technology and manage habitat to help recover threat-
ened and endangered species, and to increase the
productivity for native game and nongame species
consistent with other resource uses, values, and user
demands.
This goal reflected a considerable broadening of the
traditional FS wildlife and fish management focus and
was a response to increased public interest in wildlife
and fish resources. The findings of this wildlife and fish
assessment do not suggest that the FS should deviate
from this goal. Rather, this assessment emphasizes the
need for the agency to promote this broader ecological
approach to wildlife and fish management on FS lands.
114
This chapter summarizes the broad implications of this
assessment to the major FS Program areas as they affect
wildlife and fish resources.
MAJOR FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMS
The wildlife and fish assessment has direct implica-
tions for three FS Program areas:
National Forest System. — Includes the administration
and multiple-use management of national forests
and national grasslands.
State and Private Forestry. — Includes programs that
extend financial and technical assistance to states
and private landowners.
Research. — Includes the development of scientific and
technical knowledge to enhance the economic and
environmental value, and the management of the
nation's forest and range resources.
The expenditures and workforce in each of these pro-
gram areas is concentrated in the National Forest Sys-
tem (NFS) (fig. 62). In fiscal year 1986, the NFS
accounted for 83% of the $2.1 billion FS budget and
employed over 92% of the FS workforce (USDA Forest
Service 1987). The State and Private Forestry Program
accounted for just over 3% of the budget and only 0.5%
of the workforce. FS Research spent approximately 6%
of the budget and employed 7% of the workforce. The
broad FS Program implications of the wildlife and fish
assessment will be discussed for each of these major pro-
gram areas.
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
The FS is responsible for the administration of 191
million acres, including 156 national forests (186.4
million acres), 19 national grasslands (3.8 million
acres), and a number of smaller land units (275,000
acres) including land-utilization projects, research and
experimental areas, and purchase units. Within the lands
administered by the FS, wildlife and fish resources are
managed primarily through manipulation of habitat
while state agencies primarily manage populations and
regulate harvests. As implied by the Sikes Act Exten-
sion, however, efficient management of wildlife and
fish resources requires a close working relationship
among agencies with wildlife and fish management
responsibility.
The wildlife and fish assessment has implications to
the NFS Program in four general areas. These four areas,
stated as assessment findings, include:
1. The demand for wildlife and fish recreational
activities is expected to increase in the future
resulting in a shift in the relative importance of var-
ious activities demanded by the public.
2. NFS lands are expected to become more important
in: (a) the protection and preservation of certain
wildlife and fish species, (b) the preservation and
protection of vegetation communities that define
important wildlife and fish habitats, and (c) provid-
ing wildlife and fish recreational opportunities.
National Forest
Research
128 (6%)
Expenditures Workforce
(Million Dollars) (Number of Employees)
1Oiher consists of Human Resource Programs
and Working Capital Fund
Source: USDA, Forest Service (1987)
Figure 62.— Expenditures and workforce by major Forest Service
program areas.
3. As demands for all natural resources increase,
integration of wildlife and fish management con-
siderations into comprehensive land management
plans will become increasingly important.
4. Because wildlife and fish are mobile resources, the
purchase and exchange of land that will consoli-
date land ownership patterns will promote more
efficient management of the resource.
Changing Demands for Wildlife and Fish
The national wildlife and fish recreational user projec-
tions showed that the relative importance of various
activities to the outdoor recreating public is expected to
shift. While the number of people participating in non-
consumptive activities, cold water fishing, and warm-
water fishing is expected to increase, participation in big
game hunting and small game hunting is expected to
decline (see fig. 46). Although participation in all types
of wildlife and fish recreational activities is expected to
increase on national forests, a similar shift in relative
importance is expected. Nonconsumptive recreation and
total fishing showed the greatest increases in future use
(see table 36). The FS's wildlife and fish habitat manage-
ment program should acknowledge these findings by
shifting priority to management actions that will address
those activities demanded by the public.
Increased Importance of
National Forest System Lands
As land use intensifies on private lands, NFS lands
will become more unique with respect to biotic commu-
nity composition. Some of the unique wildlife and fish
habitats associated with national forests include:
Old-growth forests. — More than half of the remaining
old-growth in the Pacific Coast occurred on national
forests in 1977; most of the old-growth in the Rocky
Mountains occurs on FS lands; current trends indi-
cate that much of the old-growth pine forests in the
115
South will only be found on national forests or other
public ownerships in the future.
Wetlands. — Twenty-five percent of the remaining wet-
land habitats are under public ownership. The FS
has management responsibility for 23% of the feder-
ally owned wetlands. Included in the definition of
wetland are riparian areas which are a critical wild-
life and fish habitat component particularly in arid
rangeland ecosystems.
Fish spawning habitat. — Approximately 50% of the
anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat in
California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho is on
national forests. In Alaska, 27% of the anadromous
fish spawning and rearing habitat is on national
forests.
With expanding human populations and increasing
demands for multiple resource products from a finite
land base, the pressure for intensive management of tim-
ber, range, and agricultural resources will remain strong.
Consequently, management to conserve these habitat
types on national forests will become increasingly
important.
Correlated with the uniqueness of certain national
forest wildlife and fish habitats are unique faunas. Of par-
ticular importance is the maintenance of biotic diversity
on national forests (see Norse et al. 1986). The biologi-
cal diversity issue is, in part, concerned with maintain-
ing the number and kinds of species that exist or have
existed on national forests in the recent past. Although
maintaining biotic diversity is laudable, methods to
quantify, monitor, and anticipate changes in biotic diver-
sity in response to various management activities have
not been developed. National forests should establish a
process for quantifying and evaluating biological diver-
sity that will permit incorporation of specific diversity
objectives in National Forest Plans.
Threatened and endangered species are a special
consideration in maintaining diversity. The current
distribution of some vanishing species is becoming
increasingly associated with NFS lands. Recent esti-
mates indicate that 155 threatened or endangered species
occur on national forests, of which 81 have approved
recovery plans. However, because of budget and person-
nel constraints, national forests have emphasized re-
covery efforts on 13 high-priority species including the
grizzly bear, California condor, red-cockaded wood-
pecker, Kirtland's warbler, woodland caribou, bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, Puerto Rican parrot, Lahontan
cutthroat and greenback cutthroat trout, and the gray,
Indiana, and Virginia big-eared bats.
National forests are also expected to become increas-
ingly important in providing wildlife and fish recrea-
tional opportunities. One of the most commonly cited
management issues related to recreational use of wild-
life and fish was restricted access to private lands (see
chapter 6). This has resulted in emphasizing the impor-
tance of NFS lands in providing such outdoor recrea-
tional opportunities. Specifically, the recreational use
projections reviewed in chapter 2 showed that, relative
to private lands, national forests are expected to become
more important in providing opportunities to hunt big
game and small game species.
As national forests become increasingly distinctive
with respect to habitat, faunal, and recreation opportu-
nities, wildlife and fish management must intensify to
ensure that the wildlife and fish goal, as outlined in the
1985 FS Program, is met. The FS manages habitat in two
ways: directly, through specific habitat improvement
practices, and indirectly, through coordination and miti-
gation measures in projects designed primarily for other
resources. Direct habitat management, in many cases,
offers the only approach to improve habitat for fish,
threatened and endangered species, and waterfowl
(USDA Forest Service 1985b). Some of the opportuni-
ties to directly improve wildlife and fish habitats on
national forests to meet future demands include:
1. Expand programs to improve wildlife and fish
habitats by increasing food supplies and suitable
cover, improving water quality and availability,
and improving the distribution of habitat.
2. Apply silvicultural and range management prac-
tices to emphasize management of indicator
species.
3. Preserve and enhance waterfowl nesting, migra-
tion, and wintering habitat.
4. Reintroduce displaced or extirpated species into
areas where suitable habitat exists or has been
developed.
5. Increase efforts to define, protect, and improve
essential habitats of threatened and endangered
species.
6. Remove natural and man-made barriers to fish
migration.
Wildlife and Fish Coordination
The second major approach to wildlife and fish habitat
management on national forests is through coordination
with management for other resources. In part, these
activities are intended to minimize adverse impacts on
wildlife and fish habitat from timber harvesting, road
building, grazing, mineral development, and other
resource projects. However, mitigation is not the only
objective of integrating wildlife and fish resource con-
siderations in other resource management activities.
When feasible, wildlife and fish coordination efforts are
to be designed to generate simultaneous resource
benefits. For the wildlife and fish resource, these benefits
take the form of indirect habitat improvements.
This assessment, along with associated assessment
documents for timber, range, water, recreation and
wilderness, and minerals, indicates that there will be
increasing demands for multiple resource outputs from
national forests. In order to meet these multiple resource
demands, coordination among resources must continue
as a high priority in wildlife and fish habitat manage-
ment. Although funding for coordination has com-
manded the majority of wildlife and fish habitat man-
agement budgets in recent years (Barton and Fosburgh
1986), more effective integration of wildlife and fish
116
resource considerations in multiple use resource plans
remains one of the most important management oppor-
tunities for wildlife and fish on NFS lands.
One recent advancement directed at improving the
integration of wildlife and fish into resource planning
is the Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships program.
The program involves the development of data base
management systems and predictive models that permit
resource managers to evaluate wildlife and fish responses
to a diversity of resource management alternatives. These
models have been applied in various situations in provid-
ing information for Forest Plans, environmental analyses,
and site-specific projects (USDA Forest Service 1987).
Further development of the habitat relationships program
is required to ensure that the maintenance of wildlife and
fish diversity on national forests is considered in the
resource planning process.
Consolidation of Land Ownership Patterns
A major management concern for public lands is the
difficulty associated with managing a mobile resource
over a land base with intermingled and fragmented land
ownership (see chapter 6). Most of the larger mammalian
and many avian species range widely and independently
of ownership boundaries. Consequently, some wildlife
and fish resource management can be unsuccessful
because of conflicting land uses or conflicting resource
management objectives. Potential wildlife and fish man-
agement problems associated with NFS lands in a mosaic
of state and other federal ownerships can be solved
through cooperation among resource managing agen-
cies. However, land ownership patterns characterized
by private inholdings, private land surrounding rela-
tively small blocks of national forest, or private owner-
ship of critical habitat components can impede attain-
ment of resource management objectives. In the western
United States, land ownership problems tend to be
associated with mixed public and private ownership of
critical habitat areas. In the East, concern is growing that
as private land uses intensify, national forests will
become isolated habitat islands with the eventual loss
of those species requiring large areas of suitable habitat.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
State and Private Forestry provides technical and
financial assistance to states to help protect and improve
the productivity and management of nonindustrial pri-
vate forestlands (USDA Forest Service 1987). The
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 authorized
the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with state fore-
sters and provide assistance in a variety of forest-related
activities which include fire prevention and control,
prevention and control of forest insects and diseases, and
forest management and utilization (USDA Forest Serv-
ice 1987). The latter activity can benefit wildlife through
habitat improvement projects.
Private lands have been identified as having consider-
able potential for wildlife and fish habitat improvement
and many investigations have concluded that wildlife
and fish resources are considered a primary objective of
some private landowners (Barton and Fosburgh 1986).
Despite the importance of private lands in providing
wildlife and fish habitat and recreational opportunities,
the State and Private Forestry Program has recently
experienced reductions in funds and personnel. Two
findings presented in this assessment suggest that the
FS Program should emphasize the importance of the
State and Private Forestry activities in promoting effec-
tive multiple resource forest management including
wildlife and fish resources, particularly in regions domi-
nated by private ownership. These two findings were
the projected increase in fee-hunting and the substan-
tial increases in permanent grass and tree cover on pri-
vate lands associated with the Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram under the 1985 Food Securities Act.
Fee-hunting and access fees for wildlife and fish recre-
ation on private lands are providing a strong economic
incentive for landowners to consider wildlife and fish
habitat needs — a consideration that has been absent in
the past. Landowners need to be exposed to the full array
of products that can be marketed from their land. As
reviewed by Sample (1987), the Office of Management
and Budget strongly advocates increased efforts to edu-
cate landowners about the economic opportunities that
exist for their lands, including hunting leases and camp-
ing permits. In addition to information on existing mar-
kets, landowners need technical assistance on appropri-
ate management practices to improve the quality and
sustain productivity of wildlife and fish habitats.
Further support for more intensive education and tech-
nical assistance programs stems from the 1985 Food
Security Act. Under this Act, substantial acreage of
highly erodible cropland will be planted to permanent
cover. If planned correctly, these lands can provide high
quality wildlife habitat and significantly improve fish
habitat through reductions in soil erosion and increased
streamside cover. The State and Private Forestry Program
has the opportunity to guide and provide assistance on
how these lands are managed for multiple forest
resources including wildlife and fish. The private land-
owner has the potential to supplement his income
through recreation fees while the nation as a whole can
benefit from improved wildlife and fish habitat on lands
where there has been a significant eroding of suitable
habitat in the recent past.
FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH
The Research Program of the FS is, in general, respon-
sible for the development of scientific and technical
knowledge to enhance the economic and environmen-
tal values of the nation's forest and rangeland ecosystems
(USDA Forest Service 1987). The Program is divided into
seven functional areas: Timber Management; Forest
Insect and Disease; Forest Products and Harvesting;
Forest Fire and Atmospheric Sciences; Forest Environ-
ment; Forest Inventory, Economics, and Recreation; and
International Forestry. Research in these seven areas is
conducted in cooperation with the nation's 61 forestry
117
schools and through the USDA Cooperative State
Research Service.
Today, the dominant authority for Forest Research is
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978. This legislation revised and consolidated
the FS's research authority from several previous Acts.
In addition, the Act specifically required that research
on natural resources include investigations related to
threatened and endangered species and improving wild-
life and fish habitat (Barton and Fosburgh 1986).
Research related specifically to wildlife and fish is part
of Forest Environment Research and is covered under
four broad areas: (1) threatened, endangered, and sen-
sitive species; (2) anadromous and coldwater fish
habitats; (3) wildlife and fish interactions with livestock;
and (4) wildlife and fish interactions with timber
management.
In developing future research needs for wildlife and
fish, the 1985 Program (USDA Forest Service 1986b)
concluded:
Wildlife and fish habitats will continue to be threat-
ened by urban and suburban development pressures
and industrial activities, timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, and mining for energy production. Research
is needed to: (1) further understand habitat require-
ments of anadromous and other coldwater fish, deter-
mine how their productivity is related to land manage-
ment, and develop guidelines to integrate production
with other resource management issues, and (2)
improve wildlife monitoring techniques to measure
the response to management.
The knowledge gaps and research needs identified in
this assessment support a continuation of this research
goal and also suggest a need to broaden future research
related to wildlife and fish. As reviewed in chapter 6,
information needs identified by federal agency person-
nel fell into three broad categories: (1) species-habitat
relationships, (2) inventory and monitoring techniques,
and (3) wildlife and fish values.
Species-habitat relationship research has improved the
capability of wildlife and fish resource specialists to
understand and predict resource response to land man-
agement activities. However, there is a pressing need to
test and refine those models that have been developed
to ensure that land managers are making reasonable deci-
sions about multiple resource production (Sweeney and
Wolters 1986). In addition, new models need to be devel-
oped in order for the FS to meet its legislated goal of
maintaining biodiversity and habitats capable of
supporting viable populations of all native and desired
non-native (exotic) species that are found on NFS lands.
As the demand for multiple resource outputs from
national forests and national grasslands intensifies,
accurate representation of wildlife and fish responses to
alternative land management strategies will be critical
to scientifically-based resource allocation decisions.
Research in the area of improving existing inventory
or monitoring methodologies is needed for several
reasons. First, inventory information on most of the
wildlife and fish species inhabiting national forests does
not exist. As discussed in chapter 6, inventory informa-
tion tends to focus on game animals and selected non-
game species of particular concern, yet is generally lack-
ing for all other animal classes. Existing techniques are
of questionable accuracy or are too expensive to provide
a practicable approach to a comprehensive and sys-
tematic inventory of wildlife and fish resources on FS
lands. Secondly, further research on population inven-
tory techniques is required to establish the validity of
species-habitat relationship models. Although habitat
inventories, in conjunction with species-habitat models,
may provide great assistance to inventories of the fauna,
such faunal inventories will still be required to assess
the predictive accuracy of habitat-based models.
A final broad area of research needs concerns the
characterization of public attitudes and values held for
wildlife and fish resources. The FS must not only moni-
tor the state of wildlife and fish populations and habitat,
but it also must monitor the economic values of wild-
life and fish. Public demands related to wildlife and fish
resources change and methods need to be developed to
both measure and anticipate that change. Such informa-
tion is critical if the FS, or any agency with wildlife and
fish stewardship obligations, is to respond to public
demands. Quantification of these demands in terms of
economic values is critical if wildlife and fish are to com-
pete on an equal basis with other resource elements that
are demanded from NFS lands.
In addition to these broad research areas, FS planning
requirements under the Renewable Resources Planning
Act and National Forest Management Act imply that
such research needs to be conducted at a number of geo-
graphic scales. These Acts require planning at the
national, regional, and national forest level. Research in
the areas outlined above must address resource manage-
ment issues across these planning levels. Risser et al.
(1984) summarized the need for multiple-scale resource
analyses by concluding that informed resource planning
can no longer be based solely at the site level, but must
develop methodologies for examining the interaction of
resources within landscapes or larger geographic areas.
Questions concerning the habitat configurations
required by wide-ranging terrestrial species, or the
regional ecology of anadromous fish, necessitate an
extension of traditional resource management scales to
include a landscape ecology research approach.
Some people perceive the FS is at the forefront offish
and wildlife research (Fosburgh 1985b), and this percep-
tion should continue in the future by ensuring that the
Research Program addresses land management and plan-
ning problems facing wildlife and fish resources. Re-
search in the areas outlined above, and across planning
scales, will provide a sound basis for meeting the goal
of the RPA— namely "... to ensure that the nation
achieves the full potential obtainable from its renewa-
ble resource base and avoids irreversible crisis in
resource use" (Hewett 1982:225).
118
SUMMARY
The findings of the assessment have wildlife and fish
program implications to the NFS, technical and cooper-
ative assistance, and research. Four conclusions have par-
ticular importance to wildlife and fish management on
national forests. First, the demand for wildlife and fish
recreation appears to be shifting away from hunting to
fishing and nonconsumptive activities. Such changes
should encourage prioritization of those management
activities that will address what is demanded by the pub-
lic. Second, national forests are expected to become more
important in the management of certain wildlife and fish
habitats and their associated fauna, and in providing
wildlife and fish recreational opportunities. For exam-
ple, old-growth forests are becoming increasingly res-
tricted to national forests; national forests and national
grasslands provide critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species and they provide increasingly impor-
tant lands for recreation. Third, as demands for all
natural resources increase, integration of wildlife and fish
management considerations into the management of
other resources will be critical. The wildlife and fish
management opportunities considered in conjunction
with the opportunities for timber, range, water, recrea-
tion and wilderness, and minerals indicate that there will
be a need for more intensive and coordinated manage-
ment if future multiple resource demands are to be met.
Fourth, because wildlife and fish are mobile resources,
purchase and exchange of land can consolidate land
ownership patterns and promote more effective and effi-
cient management of the resource.
This assessment also suggests that the future FS Pro-
gram should emphasize the importance of technical and
cooperative forest management assistance programs in
achieving effective wildlife and fish management on pri-
vate lands. The basis for this conclusion stems from the
projected increase in fee-hunting and the substantial
increases in permanent grass and tree cover on private
lands associated with the Conservation Reserve Program
under the 1985 Food Securities Act. Through State and
Private Forestry, the FS has the opportunity to guide and
provide assistance on how these lands are managed with
respect to wildlife and fish resources. The private lan-
downer has the potential to supplement his income
through recreation fees while the nation as a whole can
benefit from improved wildlife and fish habitat on lands
where there has been a significant degradation of suita-
ble habitat in the recent past.
The program implications to NFS's and technical
assistance have related implications to wildlife and fish
research. The research needs identified in this assess-
ment include development and testing of species-habitat
relationship models, improving inventory and monitor-
ing methodologies, and developing techniques to quan-
tify public attitudes and values held for wildlife and fish
resources. Research in these areas will improve resource
management on both national forests and private lands
and will also provide a stronger technical basis for mul-
tiple resource planning.
119
REFERENCES
Adams, R. L.; Lewis, R. C; Drake, B. H. 1973. Outdoor
recreation, a legacy for America: appendix "a" and
economic analysis. Washington DC: Bureau of Out-
door Recreation.
Administration of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and
Burro Act. 1980. Third report to Congress. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Akins, G. 1982. Deputy Commissioner, Alaska De-
partment of Environmental Conservation, Testimony
of the State of Alaska Regarding Sec. 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Presented before the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine
Fisheries.
Alig, Ralph J. 1984. Forest acreage trends in the South-
east: econometric analysis and policy simulations.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 155 p. Ph.D.
dissertation.
Almand, J. David. 1988. Personal communication. Let-
ter of April 7, 1988. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Chief, Division of Wild-
life and Fisheries, Washington, DC.
Alward, G. S.; Palmer C. J. 1983. IMPLAN: an input-
output analysis system for Forest Service planning. In:
Seppala, R.; Row, C; Morgan, A., eds. Forest sector
models: proceedings of the first North American con-
ference. AB Academic Publishers: 131-140.
Alward, G. S.; Sullivan, B. J.; Hoekstra, T. W. 1984. Using
socioeconomic data in the management of fishing and
hunting. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. 49: 91-103.
Amaral, Michael J. 1985. The Aleutian Canada goose.
In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1985. New York, NY: The National Audubon Society:
437-442.
Anderson, Dennis. 1988. Empty skies: ducks in crisis.
St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, Febru-
ary 7, Section C: 1, 12.
Anderson, Eric M. 1987. A critical review and annotated
bibliography of literature on the bobcat. Special Report
No. 62. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 61 p.
Anderson, Mark W.; Reiling, Stephen D.; Criner, George
K. 1985. Consumer demand theory and wildlife
agency revenue structure. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
13: 375-384.
Audubon Activist. 1987. Comparison of state nongame
programs. March 1987: 16.
Autenrieth, Robert E. 1986. Sage grouse. In: DiSilves-
tro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. New
York, NY: The National Audubon Society: 763-779.
Bailey, R. W. 1980. The wild turkey status and outlook
in 1979. In: Proceedings of the fourth national wild
turkey symposium. 4: 1-9.
Barton, Katherine. 1986. Wildlife and the Bureau of Land
Management. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon
Wildlife Report 1986. New York, NY: The National
Audubon Society: 497-541.
Barton, Katherine. 1987. Bureau of Land Management.
In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1987. New York, NY: Academic Press: 3-59.
Barton, Katherine; Fosburgh, Whit. 1986. The U.S.
Forest Service. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon
Wildlife Report 1986. New York, NY: The National
Audubon Society: 1-156.
Bateman, Hugh A.; Joanen, Ted; Strutzenbaker, Charles
D. 1988. History and status of midcontinent snow
geese on their Gulf Coast winter ranges. In: Weller,
Milton W., ed. Waterfowl in winter. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press: 495-515.
Bean, Michael J. 1977. The evolution of national wild-
life law. Council on Environmental Quality. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 485 p.
Bean, Michael J. 1986. The endangered species program.
In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1986. New York, NY: The National Audubon Society:
347-372.
Behnke, R. J.; Zarn, Mark. 1976. Biology and manage-
ment of threatened and endangered western trouts.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 45 p.
Beland, K. F. 1984. Management of Atlantic salmon in
the state of Maine: a strategic plan. Bangor, ME: Atlan-
tic Sea-Run Salmon Commission.
Bellrose, Frank C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of
North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books.
543 p.
Bergerud, A. T. 1978. Caribou. In: Schmidt, John L.; Gil-
bert, Douglas L., eds. Big game of North America: ecol-
ogy and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole
Books: 83-101.
Berner, A. H. 1984. Federal land retirement programs — a
land management albatross. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
49: 118-131.
Berryman, Jack H. 1983. Comments on emerging non-
federal initiatives in resource management. Transac-
tions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 48: 473-474.
Bishop, Richard C. 1987. Economic values defined. In:
Decker, Daniel J.; Goff, Gary R., eds. Valuing wildlife:
economic and social perspectives. Boulder, CO: West-
view Press: 24-33.
Bivens, Rick D.; Strange, Richard J.; Peterson, Douglas,
C. 1985. Current distribution of the native brook trout
in the Appalachian region of Tennessee. Journal of the
Tennessee Academy of Science. 60: 101-105.
Block, William M.; Brennan, Leonard A.; Gutierrez, R. J.
1987. Evaluation of guild-indicator species for use in
resource management. Environmental Management.
11: 265-269.
Bolen, Eric G.; Rodiek, Jon E. 1986. Setting the stage.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 51: 201-202.
120
Bones, James T. [In press.] An analysis of the land situ-
ation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Boreman, J.; Lange, A. M. T.; Anthony, V. C. 1984. Esti-
mates of harvest of USA Atlantic salmon in non-USA
fisheries. Working paper for ICES working group on
north Atlantic salmon. St. Andrews, New Brunswick:
ICES. 5 p.
Bortner, James Bradley. 1987. American woodcock har-
vest and breeding population status, 1987. Washing-
ton DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 6 p.
Boyd, Claude E. 1979. Water quality in warmwater fish
ponds. Auburn, AL: Auburn University Agriculture
Experiment Station. 359 p.
Boyd, Raymond J. 1978. American elk. In: Schmidt, John
L; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big game of North
America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA:
Stackpole Books: 11-29.
Brace, R. K.; Pospahala, Richard S.; Jessen, Robert L.
1987. Background and objectives on stabilized duck
hunting regulations: Canadian and U.S. perspectives.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 52: 177-185.
Brady, Stephen J. 1985. Important soil conservation tech-
niques that benefit wildlife. In: Office of Technology
Assessment. Technologies to benefit agriculture and
wildlife. OTA-BP-F-34. Washington, DC: U.S. Con-
gress, Office of Technology Assessment: 55-62.
Brokaw, Howard P., ed. 1978. Wildlife and America.
Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
532 p.
Brown, Gardner, Jr.; Hay, Michael J. 1987. Net economic
recreation values for deer and waterfowl hunting and
trout fishing, 1980. Working Paper No. 23. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service. 27 p.
Brown, Perry J.; Manfredo, Michael J. 1987. Social
values defined. In: Decker, Daniel J.; Goff, Gary R.,
eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspec-
tives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 12-23.
Brown, Tommy L.; Decker, Daniel J.; Purdy, Ken G.;
Mattfeld, George F. 1987. The future of hunting in
New York. Transactions of the North American Wild-
life and Natural Resources Conference. 52: 553-566.
Buechner, Helmut K. 1961. Regulation of numbers of
pronghorn antelope in relation to land use. La Terre
et la vie. 2: 266-285.
Bunch, Karen L. 1985. Food consumption, prices, and
expenditures. Statistical Bulletin No. 749. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Burger, George V. 1978. Agriculture and wildlife. In:
Brokaw, Howard P., ed. Wildlife and America.
Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality:
89-107.
Burgess, Robert L.; Sharpe, David M., eds. 1981. Forest
island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Eco-
logical Studies 41. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
310 p.
Burns, Russell M. 1983. Natural area selection and man-
agement: U.S. Forest Service programs. Transactions
of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 48: 497-503.
Burridge, M.; Sawyer, L.; Bigler, W. 1986. Rabies in
Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Health
and Rehabilitation Services. 147 p.
Butler, William. 1985. The cackling Canada goose. In: Di-
Silvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1985.
New York, NY: National Audubon Society: 428-432.
Cantera, Lawrence. 1983. Private natural area programs:
an overview. Transactions of the North American Wild-
life and Natural Resources Conference. 48: 495-496.
Carbyn, L. N. 1982. Coyote population fluctuations and
spatial distribution in relation to wolf territories in Rid-
ing Mountain National Park. Canadian Field-
Naturalist. 96: 176-183.
Carlson, Catherine A. 1985. Wildlife and agriculture: can
they co-exist? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
40: 263-266.
Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations.
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 234 p.
Cerulean, Susan; Fosburgh, Whit. 1986. State nongame
wildlife programs. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed.
Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. New York, NY: The
National Audubon Society: 631-656.
Cicchetti, Charles J.; Seneca, Joseph J.; Davidson, Paul.
1969. The demand and supply of outdoor recreation.
New Brunswick, NJ: Bureau of Economic Research,
Rutgers — The State University. 301 p.
Cline, David; Lenhart, Cynthia. 1985. The dusky Canada
goose. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wild-
life Report 1985. New York, NY: National Audubon
Society: 433-436.
Cole, David N. 1986. Resource impacts caused by recre-
ation. In: The President's Commission on Americans
outdoors. A literature review. Natural resources man-
agement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office: 1-11.
Cole, David N.; Marion, Jeffery L. 1988. Impacts in some
riparian forests of the eastern United States. Environ-
mental Management. 12: 99-107.
Connolly, Guy E. 1981. Trends in populations and har-
vest. In: Wallmo, Olaf C, ed. Mule and black-tailed
deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press: 225-243.
Conservation Foundation, The. 1984. State of the
environment: an assessment at mid-decade. Washing-
ton, DC: The Conservation Foundation. 586 p.
Cook, Gregory F. 1982. Wildlife and fishery allocation
in Alaska, 1982: allocations for subsistence, commer-
cial, and recreational uses. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
47: 617-629.
Coulter, Malcolm W.; Baird, John C. 1982. Changing
forest land uses and opportunities for woodcock man-
agement in New England and the maritime provinces.
In: Dwyer, Thomas J.; Storm, Gerald L., eds. Wood-
cock ecology and management. Wildlife Resource
Report 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 75-85.
121
Council on Environmental Quality. 1985. Environmen-
tal quality 16th annual report of the council on
environmental quality. Washington, DC. 446 p.
Cowan, James H.; Turner, R. Eugene. 1988. Modeling
wetland loss in coastal Louisiana: geology, geography,
and human modifications. Environmental Manage-
ment. 12: 827-838.
Cowardin, Lewis M.; Carter, Virginia; Golet, Francis C;
LaRoe, Edward T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 103 p.
Craig, Gerald. 1986. Peregrine falcon. In: DiSilvestro,
Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. New
York, NY: National Audubon Society: 807-826.
Crawford, Hewlette S. 1984. Wildlife habitat manage-
ment and changing forest practices in the Northeast.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 1: 12-14.
Cross, Gerald H. 1987. Continuing education in natural
resources: needs and opportunities. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 52: 691-696.
Cubbage, Frederick W.; Gunter, John E. 1987. Conser-
vation reserves: can they promote wildlife habitat and
tree crops while protecting erodible soil? Journal of
Forestry. 85: 21-27.
Darr, David. [In press.] Basic assumptions. Gen. Tech.
Rep. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Davis, Robert K.; Lim, Diane. 1987. On measuring the eco-
nomic value of wildlife. In: Decker, Daniel J.; Goff, Gary
R., eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspec-
tives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 65-75.
Deems, Eugene F.; Pursley, Duane. 1983. North Amer-
ican furbearers: a contemporary reference. Washing-
ton, DC: International Association of Fish and Wild-
life Agencies. 223 p.
DeGraaf, Richard M., tech. coord. 1978. Management of
southern forests for nongame birds: proceedings of the
workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-14. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeast-
ern Forest Experiment Station. 176 p.
DeGraaf, Richard M., tech. coord. 1979. Management of
north central and northeastern forests for nongame
birds: proceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NC-51. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Sta-
tion. 268 p.
DeGraaf, Richard M., tech. coord. 1980. Management of
western forests and grasslands for nongame birds:
proceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 535 p.
DeGraaf, Richard M. 1986. Urban bird habitat relation-
ships: application to landscape design. Transactions
of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 51: 232-259.
Dolbeer, Richard A.; Stehn, Robert A. 1979. Population
trends of blackbirds and starlings in North America,
1966-76. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 214.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 99 p.
Dolton, David D. 1986. Mourning dove administrative
report: 1986. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, lip.
Dolton, David D. 1987. Mourning dove breeding popu-
lation status, 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 p.
Dombeck, Mike. 1987. Personal communication. Letter
of July 24, 1987. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, National Fisheries Program, Washing-
ton, DC.
Downing, Robert L. 1987. Success story: white-tailed
deer. In: Kallman, Harmon, ed. Restoring America's
Wildlife, 1937-1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 45-57.
Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1986. Probable personal
benefits of outdoor recreation. In: The President's
Commission on Americans outdoors. A literature
review. Values and benefits. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office: 63-70.
Droege, Sam. 1988. Personal communication. Summary
results of trend analysis results for 1966-1987. August
1988. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management,
Laurel, MD.
Dunks, J. H.; Reeves, M.; Dolton, D. D.; Zapatka, T.
1982. Migration, harvest, and population dynamics of
mourning doves banded in the Central Management
Unit, 1967-77. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No.
249. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 128 p.
Dwyer, T. J.; McAuley, D. G.; Derleth, E. L. 1983. Wood-
cock singing ground counts and habitat changes in the
northeastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Man-
agement. 47(3): 772-779.
Ehrlich, Paul R. 1988. The loss of diversity: causes and
consequences. In: Wilson, E. O., ed. Biodiversity.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 21-27.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. National water
quality inventory: 1986 report to Congress. EPA-
440/4-87-008. Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. 141 p.
Erskine, A. J. 1978. The first ten years of the coopera-
tive breeding bird survey in Canada. Report Series 42.
Canadian Wildlife Service. 61 p.
Evans, David L. 1982. Status reports on twelve raptors.
Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 238. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service. 68 p.
Everest, Fred H.; Beschta, Robert L.; Scrivener, J.
Charles; Koski, K. V.; Sedell, James R.; Cederholm,
C. Jeff. 1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production:
a paradox. In: Salo, Ernest O.; Cundy, Terrance W.,
eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery
interactions. Seattle, WA: College of Forest Resources,
University of Washington: 98-142.
Everhart, W. Harry; Youngs, William D. 1981. Princi-
ples of fishery science. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publish-
ing Associates, Cornell University Press. 349 p.
122
Ewert, Alan. 1986. Values, benefits and consequences
of participation in outdoor adventure recreation. In:
The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors.
A literature review. Values and benefits. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: 71-80.
Executive Task Force on the Future of Wildlife. 1987.
Wildlife 21: a report to the governor, the legislature,
and the people of Colorado on the future of wildlife
into the 21st century. 24 p.
Fajen, Otto F. 1981. Warmwater stream management
with emphasis on bass streams in Missouri. In: Krum-
holz, Louis A., ed. The warmwater streams sympo-
sium. Southern Division of American Fisheries Soci-
ety: 252-265.
Farris, A. L.; Cole, S. H. 1981. Strategies and goals for
wildlife habitat restoration on agricultural lands.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 46: 130-136.
Fausch, Kurt D.; Hawkes, Clifford L.; Parsons, Mit G.
1988. Models that predict standing crop of stream fish
from habitat variables: .1950-85. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-213. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Sta-
tion. 52 p.
Flather, Curtis H. 1988. Wildlife abundance and occur-
rence models: application in regional resource plan-
ning. In: Gelinas, R.; Bond, D.; Smit, B., eds. Perspec-
tives on land modelling. Montreal, Canada:
Polyscience Publications: 37-48.
Flather, Curtis, H.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Chalk, David
E.; Cost, Noel D.; Rudis, Victor A. 1989. Recent histor-
ical and projected regional trends of white-tailed deer
and wild turkey in the southern United States. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-172. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.
Flebbe, Patricia A.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Cost, Noel D.
1988. Recent historical and projected regional trends
of trout in the southeastern United States. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-160. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.
Flesness, Nate. 1986. Status and trends of wild animal
diversity. In: Office of Technology Assessment. Tech-
nologies to maintain biological diversity. Vol. 2. Con-
tract Papers Part B: animal technologies. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Techni-
cal Information Service: 2-38.
Foner, Henry. 1982. The fur marketplace. In: Sander-
son, Glen C, ed. Midwest furbearer management.
North Central Section, Central Mountains and Plains
Section, and Kansas Chapter of The Wildlife Society.
195 p.
Fosburgh, Whit. 1985a. The striped bass. In: DiSilves-
tro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1985. New
York, NY: The Audubon Society: 417-425.
Fosburgh, Whit. 1985b. Wildlife and the U.S. Forest
Service. DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife
Report 1985. New York, NY: The National Audubon
Society: 305-431.
Fowler, Charles W.; Smith, Tim E., eds. 1981. Dynamics
of large mammal populations. New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons. 477 p.
Franklin, Jerry F.; Cromack, Kermit, Jr.; Denison, Wil-
liam; McKee, Arthur; Maser, Chris; Sedell, James;
Swanson, Fred; Juday, Glen. 1981. Ecological charac-
teristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-118. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 48 p.
Frayer, W. E. 1987. In the absence of concern: wetland
projections to the year 2000. In: Lund, Gyde H.;
Caballero-Deloya, Miguel; Villarreal-Canton, Raul,
eds. Land and resource evaluation for national plan-
ning in the tropics: proceedings of the international
conference and workshop; 1987 January 25-31;
Chetumal, Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-39. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice: 383-385.
Frayer, W. E.; Monahan, T. J.; Bowden, D. C; Graybill, F.
A. 1983. Status and trends of wetland and deepwater
habitats in the conterminous United States, 1950 's to
1970 's. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,
Department of Forest and Wood Sciences. 32 p.
Frey, H. Thomas. 1983. Expansion of urban area in the
United States: 1960-1980. ERS Staff Report
AGES830615. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco-
nomic Research Service. 22 p.
Frey, H. Thomas; Hexem, Roger W. 1985. Major use of
land in the United States: 1982. Agricultural Eco-
nomics Report No. 535. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resource
Economics Division. 29 p.
Gable, Robert R.; Dobrott, Steven J. 1988. Saving the
masked bob white. Endangered Species Technical
Bulletin. 13: 6-7.
Gall, B. C; Christian, K. R. 1984. A program for a wild-
life inventory. Journal of Environmental Management.
19: 277-289.
Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don
A.; Lewis, MontE.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation
and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.
Geis, Aelred D. 1974. The new town bird quadrille.
Natural History. 83: 54-60.
Gilbert, Frederick F.; Dodds, Donald G. 1987. The
philosophy and practice of wildlife management.
Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
279 p.
Giles, R. H. 1969. Wildlife management techniques. 3rd
ed. Revised. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society.
663 p.
Gordon, Douglas. 1970. An economic analysis of Idaho
sport fisheries. Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game.
Gordon, William G. 1988. Study recommends federal
fisheries reorganization. Journal of Forestry. 86: 5-7.
Graber, R.; Graber J. 1983. The declining grassland birds.
Illinois Natural History Survey Reports No. 227. Cham-
paign, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey.
123
Guldin, Richard W. [In press.] An analysis of the water
situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech.
Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer-ecology
and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books.
870 p.
Hamilton, Larry E.; McCluskey, Daniel C; Lance, Donna
L. 1987. Educating natural resource managers in a
multiple-use federal agency. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
52: 707-713.
Hamilton, Thomas E.; Thorton, Philip L. 1982. The RPA
assessment and program. In: Hewett, Charles E.;
Hamilton, Thomas E., eds. Forests in demand: con-
flicts and solutions. Boston, MA: Auburn House Pub-
lishing Company: 169-189.
Harpman, D. A.; Reuler, C. F. 1985. Economic aspects
of the nongame checkoff. Nongame Newsletter. 3:5.
Harris, Larry D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island bio-
geography theory and the preservation of biotic diver-
sity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 211 p.
Harris, Larry D. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts
on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates. Environ-
mental Management. 12: 675-693.
Harwell, Hugh J. 1983. A national perspective on natural
area programs: major problems and suggested solu-
tions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 48: 518-530.
Hawkes, Clifford L.; Chalk, David E.; Hoekstra, Thomas
W.; Flather, Curtis H. 1983. Prediction of wildlife and
fish resources for national assessments and appraisals.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-100. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p.
Hay, Michael }.; McConnell, Kenneth E. 1979. An anal-
ysis of participation in nonconsumptive wildlife recre-
ation. Land Economics. 55: 460-471.
Hay, Michael J.; McConnell, Kenneth E. 1984. Harvest-
ing and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation decisions.
Land Economics. 60: 288-396.
Haynes, Richard W. [In press.] An analysis of the tim-
ber situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen.
Tech. Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station.
Hench, John E.; Flyger, Vagn; Gibbs, Robert; Van Ness,
Keith. 1985. Predicting the effects of land-use changes
on wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wild-
life and Natural Resources Conference. 50: 345-351.
Hewett, Charles E. 1982. Achieving the potential of the
Resources Planning Act. In: Hewett, Charles E.; Hamil-
ton Thomas E., eds. Forests in demand: conflicts and
solutions. Boston, MA: Auburn House Publishing
Company: 225-233.
Hirsch, Allan; Krohn, William B.; Schweitzer, Dennis
L.; Thomas, Carl H. 1979. Trends and needs in fed-
eral inventories of wildlife habitat. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 44: 340-359.
Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Farrell, Michael P.; Flather,
Curtis H.; Hawkes, Clifford L. 1983. Wildlife and fish
data base for the 1989 national RPA assessment. In:
Proceedings of a national workshop on computer uses
in fish and wildlife programs. Blacksburg, VA: Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:
75-83.
Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Hof, John G. 1985. National
assessments of wildlife and fish: a technical frame-
work. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-122. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-
tion. 6 p.
Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Thomas, Jack Ward; Lennartz,
Michael R.; Worley, David P. 1981. Managing federal
lands for production and use of wildlife and fish.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 46: 336-344.
Hof, John G.; Baltic, Tony. 1988. Forest and rangeland
resource interactions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-156. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi-
ment Station. 31 p.
Hof, John G.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1983. Long-term outdoor
recreation participation projections for public land
management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research. 15:
1-14.
Hoose, Phillip M. 1983. Successes and problems in try-
ing to preserve natural diversity. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 48: 510-513.
Hubbard, John P. 1977. Importance of riparian ecosys-
tems: biotic considerations. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones,
Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation and
management of riparian habitat: a symposium. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 14-18.
Hunter, Malcolm L. 1987. Managing forests for spatial
heterogeneity to maintain biological diversity. Trans-
actions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 52: 60-69.
Jackson, Jerome A. 1987. The red-cockaded woodpecker.
In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1987. New York, NY: Academic Press: 479-494.
Johnson, R. Roy; Haight, Lois T.; Simpson, James H.
1977. Endangered species vs. endangered habitats: a
concept. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech.
coords. Importance, preservation and management of
riparian habitat: a symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson,
AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:
68-79.
Jordan, William R.; Gilpin, Michael E.; Aber, John
D. 1987. Restoration ecology: ecological restora-
tion as a technique for basic research. In: Jordan, Wil-
liam R.; Gilpin, Michael E.; Aber, John D., eds. Resto-
ration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological
research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press:
3-21.
124
Joyce, Linda A. [In press.] An analysis of the forage sit-
uation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech.
Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Joyce, Linda A.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Alig, Ralph J.
1986. Regional multiresource models in a national
framework. Environmental Management. 10: 761-772.
Judy, R. D., Jr.; Seeley, P. N.; Murray, T. M.; Svirsky,
S. C; Whitworth, M. R.; Ischinger, L. S. 1984. 1982
national fisheries survey. Vol. 1. Techical report: ini-
tial findings. FWS/OBS 84/06. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
141 p.
Karr, James R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using
fish communities. Fisheries. 6: 21-27.
Karr, James R.; Fausch, Kurt D.; Angermeier, Paul L.;
Yant, Philip R.; Schlosser, Isaac J. 1986. Assessing bio-
logical integrity in running waters: a method and its
rational. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Pub-
lication 5. 28 p.
Karr, James R.; Toth, Louis A.; Dudley, Daniel R. 1985.
Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: a history of
degradation. Bioscience. 35: 90-95.
Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W. C. 1984. Livestock
impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside man-
agement implications... a review. Journal of Range
Management. 37: 430-438.
Kellert, Stephen R. 1980. Contemporary values of wild-
life in American society. In: Shaw, William W.; Zube,
Ervine H., eds. Wildlife values. Tucson, AZ: Univer-
sity of Arizona: 31-60.
Kelly, Dean. 1986. American woodcock. Administration
report. 1986 breeding population status. Laurel, MD:
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 9 p.
Kimball, Thomas, L.; Johnson Raymond E. 1978. The
richness of American wildlife. In: Brokaw, Howard P.,
ed. Wildlife in America. Washington, DC: Council on
Environmental Quality: 3-17.
Klopatek, Jeffery M.; Kitchings, J. Thomas. 1985. A
regional technique to address land-use changes and
animal habitats. Environmental Conservation. 12:
343-350.
Knuth, Barbara A. 1987. Educating tomorrow's profes-
sionals: an integrated approach. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 52: 722-728.
Koehler, Gary. 1987. The bobcat. In: DiSilvestro, Roger
L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1987. New York, NY:
Academic Press: 399-409.
Krutilla, John V.; Fisher, Anthony. 1975. Economics of
natural environments. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press. 292 p.
Ladd, Wilbur N.; Riedman, Marianne L. 1987. The
southern sea otter. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed.
Audubon Wildlife Report 1987. New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press: 457-478.
Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for manag-
ing wildlife in southern pine forests. In: Dickson,
James, G.; Maughan, O. Eugene, eds. Managing
southern forests for wildlife and fish. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Sta-
tion: 19-27.
Landres, Peter B. 1983. Use of the guild concept in envi-
ronmental impact assessment. Environmental Manage-
ment. 7: 393-398.
Langner, Linda L. 1987a. Hunter participation in fee access
hunting. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. 52: 475-482.
Langner, Linda L. 1987b. Personal communication. Eco-
nomic Research Service, Washington, DC.
Lee, Philip L. 1987. Personal communication. Letter of June
12, 1987. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice, Portland, OR.
Lennartz, Michael R.; Knight, Herbert A.; McClure, Joe
P.; Rudis, Victor A. 1983. Status of red-cockaded wood-
pecker nesting habitat in the South. In: Wood, Don A.,
ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium n. Tallahas-
see, FL: State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission: 13-19.
Lennartz, M. R.; McClure, Joe P. 1979. Estimating the
extent of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in the
Southeast. In: Frayer, W. E., ed. Forest resources inven-
tories: vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univer-
sity: 48-62.
Leopold, Aldo. 1933. Game management. New York, NY:
Charles Scribner's Sons. 481 p.
Lewis, John B. 1987. Success story: wild turkey. In:
Kallman, Harmon, ed. Restoring America's wildlife
1937-1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service: 31-43.
Linscombe, R. Gregory. 1987. Personal communication.
Quebec City, Quebec, Canada: Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries.
Linscombe, R. Gregory. 1988. A study of the current sta-
tus and prospective trends in the furbearer resource and
their management. Interagency agreement between
USDA Forest Service and the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries. [Data available from R. Gregory
Linscombe, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish-
eries, Route 4, Box 78, Darnell Road, New Iberia, LA
70560.]
Linscombe, Greg; Kinler, Noel. 1985. Fur harvest distri-
bution in coastal Louisiana. In: Frederick, Byron C;
Swank, Phillip J.; Chabreck, Robert H., eds. Fourth
coastal marsh and estuary management symposium.
Louisiana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Loui-
siana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit: 187-199.
Lund, Thomas A. 1980. American wildlife law. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press. 179 p.
Lyle, J. T. 1985. Design for human ecosystems. New York,
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 288 p.
Lyons, James R. 1987. Basic and applied social research
needs in wildlife management. In: Decker, Daniel J.;
Goff, Gary R., eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and soci-
al perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 285-295.
MacArthur, R. A.; Geist, V; Johnston, R. H. 1982. Cardiac
and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human
disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46:
351-358.
125
MacPherson, Sandra L. 1987. History and status of the
endangered Puerto Rican parrot. Endangered Species
Technical Bulletin. 12(7): 6-7.
Mannan, R. William. 1980. Assemblages of bird species
in western coniferous old-growth forests. In: DeGraff,
Richard M., tech. coord. Management of western
forests and grasslands for nongame birds. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 357-368.
Mannan, R. William; Morrison, Michael L.; Meslow, E.
Charles. 1984. The use of guilds in forest bird manage-
ment. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12: 426-430
Martin, William; Gum, Russell; Smith, Arthur. 1974.
The demand for and value of hunting, fishing and
general rural outdoor recreation in Arizona. Tech.
Bull. 211. Tucson, AZ: Agriculture Experiment Sta-
tion, University of Arizona. 56 p.
Maser, Chris; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1983. Introduction.
In: Thomas, Jack Ward; Maser, Chris, tech. eds. Wild-
life habitats in managed rangelands — the Great Basin
of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-160.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi-
ment Station. 15 p.
Matthiessen, Peter. 1987. Wildlife in America. Viking,
NY: Elisabeth Sifton Books. 332 p.
McClure, Joe P.; Cost, Noel D.; Knight, Herbert A. 1979.
Multiresource inventories — a new concept for forest
survey. Res. Pap. SE-191. Asheville, NC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station. 68 p.
McConnell, Kenneth E. 1984. Developing a forecasting
model for fishing and hunting activities. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Program Plans.
McKee, C. William. 1987. Economics of accommodat-
ing wildlife. In: Dickson, James, G.; Maughan, O.
Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife
and fish. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station: 1-5.
Melton, Brenda L.; Hoover, Robert L.; Moore, Richard
L.; Pfankuch, Dale J. 1984. Aquatic and riparian wild-
life. In: Hoover, R. L.; Wills, D. L., eds. Managing
forest lands for wildlife. Denver, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region: 261-301.
Menzel, B. W. 1983. Agricultural management practices
and the integrity of instream biological habitat. In:
Schaller, F. W.; Bailey, G. W., eds. Agricultural
management and water quality. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press: 305-329.
Miller, David L.; Angermeier, Paul L.; Hughes, Robert
M. 1988. Regional application of an index of biotic
integrity for use in water resource management. Fish-
eries. 13: 12-20.
Miller, G. C; Graul, W. D. 1980. Status of sharp-tailed
grouse in North America. In: Vohs, P. A.; Knopf, F.
L., eds. Proceedings of the prairie grouse symposium.
Stillwater, OK: University of Oklahoma: 18-28.
Miller, James E.; Holbrook, Herman L. 1983. Return of
a native: the wild turkey flourishes again. In: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture:
116-173.
Miller, John R.; Hay, Michael J. 1981. Determinants of
hunter participation: duck hunting in the Mississippi
Flyway. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
63: 677-684.
Miller, John; Hay, Michael. 1984. Estimating substate
values of fishing and hunting. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 49: 345-355.
Miller, Ronald R. 1980. The demand for the Colorado
deer hunting experience. Fort Collins, CO: Department
of Economics, Colorado State University. 164 p. Ph.D.
dissertation.
Miller, Stephen A. 1984. Estimation of animal produc-
tion numbers for national assessments and appraisals.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-105. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.
Moore, Gary C; Millar, John S. 1984. A comparative
study of colonizing and longer established eastern coy-
ote populations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:
691-699.
More, Thomas A. 1979. The demand for nonconsump-
tive wildlife uses: a review of the literature. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NE-52. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experi-
ment Station. 16 p.
Morgan, James K. 1971. Ecology of the Morgan Creek
and East Fork of the Salmon River bighorn sheep herds
and management of bighorn sheep in Idaho. Logan,
UT: Utah State University. 156 p. M.S. thesis.
Moyle, Peter B.; Andrews, Rupert E.; Jenkins, Robert M.;
Noble, Richard L.; Saila, Saul B.; Wick, William O.
1979. Research needs in fisheries. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 44: 176-187.
Naisbitt, John. 1982. Megatrends: ten directions trans-
forming our lives. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.
290 p.
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Coun-
cil. 1982. Impacts of emerging agricultural trends on
fish and wildlife habitat. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. 243 p.
National Association of Conservation Districts. 1979.
Pasture and range improvement report. Ankeney, IA:
National Association of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. 38 p.
National Shooting Sports Foundation. 1986. Hunting fre-
quency and participation study. 7 p. [Available from
the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., P.O.
Box 1075, 1075 Post Road, Riverside, CT 06878.]
New England Fishery Management Council. 1987. Fish-
ery management plan for Atlantic salmon. Saugus,
MA: New England Fishery Management Council. 64 p.
Nielsen, Larry A. 1987. Designing natural resource edu-
cation: lessons from real professions. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 52: 714-721.
126
Norse, Elliott A.; Rosenbaum, Kenneth L.; Wilcove, David
S.; Wilcox, Bruce A.; Romme, William H.; Johnston,
David W.; Stout, Martha L. 1986. Conserving biologi-
cal diversity in our national forests. Washington, DC:
The Wilderness Society. 116 p.
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1987. Columbia River
Basin fish and wildlife program. Portland, OR: North-
west Power Planning Council. 246 p.
Norton, Bryan G., ed. 1986. The preservation of species:
the value of biological diversity. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press: 305 p.
Noss, Reed F. 1987. From plant communities to land-
scapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature
Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation. 41: 11-37.
Nunley, G. L. 1978. Present and historical bobcat popu-
lation trends in New Mexico and the West. Proceed-
ings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 8: 77-84.
Nyberg, Brian J.; Harestad, Alton S.; Bunnell, Fred L.
1987. "Old growth" by design: managing young forests
for old-growth wildlife. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
52 : 70-81.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1981. Personal communi-
cation. Map depicting distribution of threatened and
endangered animal species. Oak Ridge Geographies,
Oak Ridge, TN.
Oatis, P.; Henry, S.; Iwanowicz, R.; Greenwood, J.; Cook-
son, J.; Lanier, J.; Kimball, D; Rizzo, B.; Stotle, L. 1985.
Restoration of Atlantic salmon to the Merrimack river.
1985 through 1999. A planning document of the Mer-
rimack River. Policy and technical committee. Concord,
NH: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries
Assistance.
Odum, Eugene P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology.
Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Sanders Company. 574 p.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Wetlands: their
use and regulation. OTA-0-206. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1985. Technologies to
benefit agriculture and wildlife. OTA-BP-F-34.
Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment. 137 p.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to
maintain biological diversity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 334 p.
Ohmart, Robert D.; Anderson, Bertin W. 1986. Riparian
habitat. In: Cooperrider, Allen Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.;
Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inventory and monitoring of
wildlife habitat. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center:
169-193.
Owen, Ray B., Jr., chairman. 1977. American woodcock.
In: Sanderson, Glen C, ed. Management of migratory
shore and upland game birds in North America.
Washington, DC: International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies: 149-186.
Paradiso, John L. 1986. Audubon's crested caracara, one
of Florida's most distinctive raptors, proposed for list-
ing. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 11(7): 1-4.
Parker, Nick C; Stevens, Verl. 1988. Aquaculture: an over-
view for 1988. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 53:
561-563.
Partridge, Linda. 1978. Habitat selection. In: Krebs, J. R.;
Davies, N. B., eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolution-
ary approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,
Inc.: 351-376.
Pearce, John B. 1985. Estuarine habitat enhancement and
restoration. Transactions of the North American Wild-
life and Natural Resources Conference. 50: 457-464.
Peek, James M. 1986. A review of wildlife management.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 486 p.
Peterson, George L.; Loomis, John B.; Sorg, Cindy F. [n.d.]
Trends in the value of outdoor recreation. Unpublished
Staff Paper. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 14 p.
Peterson, Rolf O. 1986. Gray wolf. In: DiSilvestro, Roger
L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. New York, NY:
The National Audubon Society: 951-967.
Phinney, Lloyd A. 1986. Chinook salmon of the Colum-
bia River basin. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon
Wildlife Report 1986. New York, NY: Academic Press:
715-741.
Piatt, Dwight R. 1983. Preservation of the tallgrass prairie:
opportunities for action. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
48: 551-556.
Platts, William S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/
stream ecosystems — an overview. In: Cope, Oliver B.,
ed. Forum — grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems;
1978 November 3-4; Denver, CO. Vienna, VA: Trout
Unlimited, Inc.: 39-45.
Platts, William S. 1986. Managing riparian stream
habitats. In: Wyoming water 1986 and streamside zone
conference. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming:
59-62.
Poole, Daniel A.; McCabe, Richard E. 1987. Wildlife
tomorrow. In: Restoring America's wildlife 1937-1987.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service: 325-340.
Poole, Daniel A.; Trefethen, James B. 1978. The main-
tenance of wildlife populations. In: Brokaw, Howard
P., ed. Wildlife in America. Washington, DC: Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality: 3-17.
Porter, R. D.; White, C. M. 1977. Status of some rare and
lesser known hawks in western United States. In:
Proceedings of the ICBP world conference on birds of
prey; 1975; Vienna. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office. 442 p.
Prescott-Allen, Christine; Prescott-Allen, Robert. 1987.
The first resource. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press. 529 p.
Prouty, Mike. 1987. A new program for riparian
research. Forest Research West. April: 7-10.
Rami, Teresa. 1988. Personal communication. Letter of
June 29, 1988. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Wildlife and Fisheries Staff, Washington, DC.
Randall, Alan; Peterson, George L. 1984. The valuation
of wildland benefits: an overview. In: Peterson, George
L.; Randall, Alan, eds. Valuation of wildland resource
benefits. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 1-52.
127
Raveling, Dennis G. 1984. Geese and hunters of Alaska's
Yukon Delta: management problems and political
dilemmas. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 49:
555-575.
Raybourne, Jack W. 1987. The black bear: home in the
highlands. In: Kallman, Harmon, ed. Restoring
America's wildlife, 1937-1987. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service:
105-117.
Ream, C. H. 1979. Human-wildlife conflicts in back-
country: possible solutions. In: Ittner, Ruth; Potter,
Dale R.; Agee, James K.; Anschell, Susie, eds. Pro-
ceedings, Recreational impacts on wildlands. R-6-
001-1979. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region:
153-163.
Reiger, George. 1978. Hunting and trapping in the new
world. In: Brokaw, Howard P., ed. Wildlife and
America. Washington, DC: Council on Environmen-
tal Quality: 42-52.
Resources for the Future. 1980. RFF fishable water sur-
vey. [Available from Resources for the Future, 1616
P Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.]
Risser, Paul G.; Karr, James R.; Forman, Richard T. T.
1984. Landscape ecology: direction and approaches.
Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No.
2. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey.
18 p.
Robbins, Chandler S.; Bystrak, Danny; Geissler, Paul H.
1986. The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen years,
1965-1979. Resour. Publ. 157. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
196 p.
Roe, H. B.; Ayers, Q. C. 1954. Engineering for agricul-
tural drainage. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
501 p.
Rosenthal, Donald H.; Loomis, John B.; Peterson, George
L. 1984. The travel cost model: concepts and ap-
plications. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-109. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
10 p.
Rotenberry, John T. 1986. Habitat relationships of shrub-
steppe birds: even "good" models cannot predict the
future. In: Verner, Jared; Morrison, Michael L.; Ralph,
C. John, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relation-
ships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press: 217-221.
Rudis, Victor A.; Birdsey, Richard A. 1986. Forest
resource trends and current conditions in the lower
Mississippi Valley. Resour. Bull. SO-116. New
Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.
Ruff, Robert L.; Isaac, Thomas A. 1987. Public access
and fee hunting on private nonindustrial forests in
Wisconsin. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 52:
483-495.
Russell, Milton. 1987. Environmental protection for the
1990's and beyond. Environment. 29: 12-15, 34-38.
Saling, Col. Neil E. [n.d.]. District Engineer for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Statement
before the Senate Committee on Environmental and
Public Works, Anchorage, AK.
Sample, V. Alaric. 1987. Improving the link between
RPA assessment findings and the RPA Program: the
view from OMB. Renewable Resources Journal. 5:
6-12.
Samson, Fred B. 1980. Island biogeography and the con-
servation of nongame birds. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
45: 245-251.
Sanderson, Glen C; Abies, Ernest D.; Sparrowe, Rollin
D.; Grieb, Jack R.; Harris, Lawrence D.; Moen, Aaron
N. 1979. Research needs in wildlife. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 44: 166-175.
Schenck, Eric W.; Arnold, Wayne; Brown, Edward K.;
Witter, Daniel J. 1987. Commercial hunting and fish-
ing in Missouri: management implications of fish and
wildlife "markets." Transactions of the North Ameri-
can Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 52:
516-529.
Schmidt, John L. 1978. Early management: intentional
and otherwise. In: Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas
L., eds. Big game of North America: ecology and
management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books:
257-270.
Schneegas, Edward R. 1967. Sage grouse and sagebrush
control. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. 32: 270-274.
Schonewald-Cox, Christine. 1986. Diversity, germplasm
and natural resources. In: Kim, Ke Chung; Knutson,
Lloyd, eds. Foundations for a national biological sur-
vey. Lawrence, KS: Association of Systematics Collec-
tions: 45-54.
Schonewald-Cox, Christine M.; Chambers, Steven M.;
MacBryde, Bruce; Thomas, W. Lawrence, eds. 1983.
Genetics and conservation. Menlo Park, CA: The Ben-
jamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. 722 p.
Schwegman, John E. 1983. State natural area programs.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 48: 491-494.
Schweitzer, Dennis L.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Cushwa,
Charles T. 1981. Lessons from past national assess-
ments of wildlife and fish: information and coordina-
tion needs for the future. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
46: 147-155.
Schweitzer, Dennis L.; Stone, Robert N. 1987. Eco-
nomics, elephants and snarks: predicting future
values. Western Wildlands: 16-19.
Scott, J. Michael; Sincock, John L. 1985. Hawaiian birds.
In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1985. New York, NY: The Audubon Society: 549-562.
Scotter, George W. 1980. Management of wild ungulate
habitat in the western United States and Canada: a
review. Journal of Range Management. 33: 16-27.
128
Seitz, William K.; Streeter, Robert G.; Kirby, Ronald E.;
Taylor, Alan R.; Cortese, Thomas J.; Cross, Diana H.
1987. Increasing communication between research and
development scientists and operational managers —
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approach. Trans-
actions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 52: 405-417.
Sheffield, Raymond M. 1981. Multiresource inventories:
techniques for evaluating nongame bird habitat. Res.
Pap. SE-218. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experi-
ment Station. 28 p.
Shelton, Napier. 1987. What about our nongame birds.
Defenders: 25-29.
Short, Henry L. 1986. Rangelands. In: Cooperrider,
Allen Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds.
Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver,
CO: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Service Center: 93-122.
Simpson, S. G. 1988. Use of the Missouri River in South
Dakota by Canada geese in fall and winter, 1953-1984.
In: Weller, Milton W., ed. Waterfowl in winter. Min-
neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press:
529-540.
Sisson-Lopez, Jill. 1979. An analysis of the U.S. fur
trade. Final Report for the USDA Forest Service.
Cooperative Agreement 16-773-CA. [Report on file at
the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-
tion, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO
80526-2098.]
Skoog, Ronald O. 1979. Native claims settlements and
resource management in Alaska. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 44: 567-572.
Smith, Dixie R., tech. coord. 1975. Symposium on the
management of forest and range habitats for nongame
birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 343 p.
Smith, R. A.; Alexander, R. B.; Wolman, M. G. 1987.
Water-quality trends in the nation's rivers. Science.
235: 1607-1615.
Sorg, Cindy F.; Loomis, John B. 1984. Empirical esti-
mates of amenity forest values: a comparative review.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-107. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.
Sorg, Cindy F.; Loomis, John B.; Donnelly, Dennis.
1982. The net economic value of cold and warmwater
fishing in Idaho. Memo. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
1980-1982, 1984, 1986. Vital statistics. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
Sowell, B. F.; Krysl, L. J.; Hubbert, M. E.; Plumb, G.
E.; Jewett, T. K.; Smith, M. A.; Appelgate, S. L.; Wag-
goner, J. W. 1983. Wyoming wild horse and cattle
grazing research. Rangelands. 5: 259-262.
Spies, Thomas A.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1988. Old growth
and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of
western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Jour-
nal. 8: 190-200.
Stalmaster, M. V.; Newman, J. R. 1978. Behavioral
responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 42: 506-513.
Starfield, A. M.; Bleloch, A. L. 1986. Building models
for conservation and wildlife management. New York,
NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. 253 p.
Steiner, Frederick; Roberts, John. 1987. Prospect: pub-
lic trust doctrine. Landscape Architecture: 112, 116,
118.
Stoddart, Laurence A.; Smith, Arthur D.; Box, Thadis
W. 1975. Range management. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company. 532 p.
Stoll, John R. 1986. Methods for measuring the net
contribution of recreation to national economic
development. In: The President's commission of
Americans outdoors. A literature review. Values and
benefits. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office: 19-33.
Stolte, L. W. 1982. A strategic plan for the restoration
of the Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River basin.
Laconia, NH: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery
Assistance. 84 p.
Stolte, Lawrence. 1986. The Atlantic Salmon. In: DiSil-
vestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986.
New York, NY: The Audubon Society: 692-714.
Streeter, Robert G. 1987. Lessons from megatrends: an
educational tool for entering the 21st century. Trans-
actions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 52: 697-706.
Sweeney, James M.; Wolters, Gale L. 1986. Techniques
for future decision-making in range, wildlife, and
fisheries management. In: Crowley, John J., ed. Re-
search for tomorrow. 1986 yearbook of agriculture.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
336 p.
Swift, Bryan L. 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems in
the United States. Water Resources Bulletin. 20:
223-228.
Szaro, Robert C. 1986. Guild management: and evalua-
tion of avian guilds as a predictive tool. Environmen-
tal Management. 10: 681-688.
Taber, Richard D. 1983. Toward the progress of wild-
life conservation in North America. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 48: 460-479.
Talbot, Lee M. 1987. The ecological value of wildlife to
the well-being of human society. In: Decker, Daniel
J.; Goff, Gary R., eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and
social perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:
179-186.
Tedder, P. L.; La Mont, Richard N.; Kincaid, Jonna C.
1987. The timber resource inventory model (TRIM):
a projection model for timber supply and policy anal-
ysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-202. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 82 p.
Thomas, Jack Ward, tech. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in
managed forests, the Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. 512 p.
129
Thomas, Jack Ward. 1986. Wildlife-habitat modeling-
cheers, fears, and introspection. In: Verner, Jared; Mor-
rison, Michael L.; Ralph, C. John, eds. Wildlife 2000:
modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial ver-
tebrates. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin
Press: xix-xxv.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Bryant, Larry D. 1987. The elk. In:
DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report
1987. New York, NY: Academic Press Inc.: 495-507.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Maser, Chris; Rodiek, Jon E. 1979.
Riparian zones. In: Thomas, Jack Ward; Maser, Chris,
tech. eds. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands —
the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-80. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 18 p.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Mannan, R.
William; Schoen, John W.; Lancia, Richard A. 1988.
Management and conservation of old-growth forests
in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16:
252-262.
Tiner, Ralph W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States:
current status and recent trends. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
59 p.
Tomlinson, R. E.; Smith, P.; McKibbenR. 1987. Agricul-
tural cropping practices and possible effects on mourn-
ing dove populations in the Western Management
Unit. [Unpublished Report.] Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
18 p.
Trost, Robert E.; Sharp, David E.; Kelly, Sean T.;
Caswell, F. Dale. 1987. Duck harvests and proximate
factors influencing hunter activity and success during
the period of stabilized regulations. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 52: 216-232.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. [Various years.]
Agricultural statistics. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1965.
Timber trends in the United States. Forest Resource
Report No. 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. 235 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1965-
1977. Annual wildlife report. Washington, DC: Divi-
sion of Wildlife Management.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974.
The outlook for timber in the United States. Forest
Resource Report 20. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office. 374 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1978-
1985. Wildlife and fish habitat management in the
Forest Service. Washington, DC: Wildlife and
Fisheries.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979.
The 1979 wildlife and fish data base. [Data base stored
at the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO
80526-2098.1
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1981.
An assessment of the forest and range land situation
in the United States. Forest Resource Report 22.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
352 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982.
An analysis of the timber situation in the United
States, 1952-2030. Forest Resource Report 23.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
499 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985a.
Forest Service resource inventory: an overview. Wash-
ington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Resource Economics Research Staff.
29 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985b.
Wildlife and fish habitat management in the Forest
Service. Washington, DC: Wildlife and Fisheries.
154 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986a.
National Forest System threatened and endangered
species program — a brief. [Data available from USDA
Forest Service, Wildlife and Fisheries Staff, Washing-
ton, DC]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986b.
Final environmental impact statement: 1985-2030
Resources Planning Act program. FS-403. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987.
Report of the Forest Service: fiscal year 1986. Wash-
ington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 172 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988.
The South's fourth forest: alternatives for the future.
Forest Resource Report 24. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv-
ice. 1987. The second RCA appraisal. Soil, water, and
related resources on nonfederal land in the United
States: analysis of condition and trends. [Review
Draft.] Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv-
ice; Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory. 1987.
Basic statistics, 1982 national resource inventory. Sta-
tistical Bulletin-756. Washington DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 153 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1984a
(and earlier years). 1982 census of agriculture. Vol. 1.
Geographic area series. Part 41. United States sum-
mary and state data. AC82-A-51. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. 420 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
1984b. Projections of the population of the United
States, by age, sex, and race: 1983-2080. Current
Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 952. Washing-
ton DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis. 1985. 1985 OBERS BAE regional projections.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
130
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1971-1975. Fishery statistics of the
United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1976a. Fisheries of the United States,
1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 100 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service. 1976b. Fishery statistics of the United
States, 1973. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 458 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1977. Fishery statistics of the United
States, 1974. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 424 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service. 1978. Fishery statistics of the United States,
1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. 418 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1979. Fisheries of the United States,
1978. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 120 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1980a. Fisheries of the United States,
1979. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 131 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1980b. Fishery statistics of the United
States, 1976. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
419 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1981-1983. Fisheries of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1984a. Fisheries of the United States,
1983. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 121 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service. 1984b. Fishery statistics of the United
States, 1977. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 407 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-
eries Service. 1985-1987. Fisheries of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Infor-
mation Service. 1987. National acid precipitation
assessment program (NAPAP) interim assessment: the
causes and effects of acidic deposition. Vol. 1. Execu-
tive Summary. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries. 1967-1969. Fishery statistics of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Commerical Fisheries.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. 1966-1988. Public land statistics. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1966.
Waterfowl status report, 1966. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 96 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1967.
Waterfowl status report, 1967. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 144 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1968a.
Waterfowl status report, 1968. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 158 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1968b.
National survey of needs for hatchery fish. Publication
63. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Fish and Wildife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1969.
Waterfowl status report, 1969. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 153 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1971.
Waterfowl status report, 1970. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 157 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1972.
Waterfowl status report, 1972. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 146 p.
131
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. [n.d.]a. Quantification of private/public-owned
wetlands. [Data available from USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetland Inventory, Washington, DC]
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. [n.d.]b. 1980 national survey of fishing, hunting
and wildlife-associated recreation. Memo. Division of
Program Plans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1974. Migratory game bird briefing book. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service. 47 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1975. Waterfowl status report, 1973. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 105 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1977. 1975 national survey of hunting, fishing, and
wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 91 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1980a. Waterfowl status report, 1975. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 86 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1980b. Waterfowl status report, 1976. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 88 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1981a. Waterfowl status report, 1978. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 96 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1981b. Animal damage control program national
summary, 1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1982a. Nongame migratory bird species with unsta-
ble or decreasing population trends in the United
States. 24 p. [Report on file at the Office of Migratory
Bird Management and Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center.]
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1982b. Waterfowl status report, 1979. Office of
Migratory Bird Management. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
96 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1983. Proposed reclassification of the peregrine
falcons in North American. Federal Register. 48(41):
8796-8802.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1984. Restoration of Atlantic salmon to New
England rivers. Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment. DES. 84/37.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1985. Environmental assessment: proposed hunt-
ing regulations on the eastern population of woodcock.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 17 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1986a. New hope for the southern sea otter. Endan-
gered Species Technical Bulletin. 11(10-11): 5-7.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1986b. Northern aplomado falcon [Falco femoralis
septentrionalis). Endangered Species Technical Bulle-
tin. 11(3): 1.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1987a. Draft supplemental environmental impact
statement: issuance of annual regulations permitting
the sport hunting of migratory birds. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
250 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
1987b. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 12(7): 1.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1987c. Endangered species information system.
[Data available from ESIS Project Leader, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Broy-
hill Building, Suite 500, Washington DC 20240.]
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1988a. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin.
13(11-12): 12.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1988b. 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting,
and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC.
167 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1988c. National recreational fisheries policy.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service. 20 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986a. North Amer-
ican Waterfowl Management Plan. 31 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986b. Status of
Waterfowl and Fall Flight Forecasts. 36 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
1982. 1980 national survey of fishing, hunting and
wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 156 p.
Van Ballenberghe, Victor. 1986. Legislation, litigation and
allocation: a case history of subsistence hunting in
Alaska. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. 51: 107-115.
Van Home, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator
of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:
893-901.
Van Vleck, Gordon K. 1984. Funding for fish and wild-
life resources. Cal-Neva Wildlife Transactions: 1-6.
Vaske, Jerry J.; Graefe, Alan R.; Kuss, Fred R. 1983. Recre-
ation impacts: a synthesis of ecological and social
research. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. 48: 96-107.
Verburg, Edwin A.; Charbonneau, John J.; Mangun, Wil-
liam R.; Llewellyn, Lynn G. 1987. The importance of
fish and wildlife values to the profession. In: Decker,
Daniel J.; Goff, Gary R., eds. Valuing wildlife: eco-
nomic and social perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press: 49-62.
132
Verner, Jared. 1984. The guild concept applied to man-
agement of bird populations. Environmental Manage-
ment. 8: 1-14.
Verner, Jared. 1985. Assessment of counting techniques.
In: Johnston, Richard F., ed. Current ornithology, vol.
2. Plenum Publishing Corporation: 247-302.
Verner, Jared. 1986. Future trends in management of
nongame wildlife: a researcher's viewpoint. In: Hale,
James B.; Best, Louis B.; Clawson, Richard L., eds.
Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a
developing art: 149-171.
Verner, J.; Boss, A. S. 1980. California wildlife and their
habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-
37. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 439 p.
Verner, Jared; Morrison, Michael L.; Ralph, C. John, eds.
1986. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships
of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, WI: The University
of Wisconsin Press. 470 p.
Waddell, Karen L. 1989. Personal communication.
USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station, Fore-
stry Sciences Laboratory. Portland, OR.
Wagner, Frederic H. 1978. Livestock grazing and the
livestock industry. In: Brokaw, Howard P., ed. Wild-
life and America. Washington, DC: Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality: 121-145.
Wagner, Frederic H. 1983. Status of wild horse and burro
management on public rangelands. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 48: 116-133.
Wagner, Frederic H. 1985. Progress and problems,
1934-1984, in improvement of wildlife habitat.
Proceedings: National celebration 50th anniversary
Taylor Grazing Act. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. 51-58.
Wagner, Frederic H. 1988. Personal communication.
College of Natural Resources, Utah State University.
Logan, UT.
Walkinshaw, L. H.; Faust, W. R. 1974. Some aspects of
Kirtland's warbler breeding biology. Jack-Pine War-
bler. 52: 65-75.
Wallmo, Olaf C. 1978. Mule and black-tailed deer. In:
Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big game
of North America: ecology and management. Harris-
burg, PA: Stackpole Books: 31-41.
Walsh, Richard G.; Harpman, David A.; John, Kun H.;
McKean, JohnR.; LeCroy, D. Lauren. 1987. Long-run
forecasts of participation in fishing, hunting, and non-
consumptive wildlife recreation. Tech. Rep. 50. Fort
Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Colorado
Water Resources Research Institute. 81 p.
Washburne, R. F.; Cole, D. N. 1983. Problems and prac-
tices in wilderness management: a survey of managers.
Res. Pap. INT-304. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 56 p.
Weber, Michael. 1986. Federal marine fisheries manage-
ment. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon wildlife
report 1986. New York, NY: The National Audubon
Society: 267-344.
Weller, Milton W. 1986. Marshes. In: Cooperrider, Allen
Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inven-
tory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Service Center: 201-224.
Weller, Milton W. 1988. Issues and approaches in assess-
ing cumulative impacts on waterbird habitat in wet-
lands. Environmental Management. 12: 695-701.
West, Patric C. 1986. Social benefits of outdoor recrea-
tion: sociological perspectives and implications for
planning and policy. In: The President's commission
of Americans outdoors. A literature review. Values and
benefits. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office: 93-102.
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. 1985.
Wharton long-term forecast to the year 2040 assum-
ing U.S. Bureau of Census middle series population
projections. Special report to the Forest Service.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
White, Ronald J. 1987. Big game ranching in the United
States. Mesilla, NM: Wild Sheep and Goat Interna-
tional. 355 p.
Wiggers, Ernie P.; Rootes, William A. 1987. Lease hunt-
ing: views of the nation's wildlife agencies. Transac-
tions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 52: 525-529.
Wildlife Conservation Fund of America, The. 1987. 1987
survey of state wildlife agency revenue. Columbus,
OH: The Wildlife Conservation Fund of America.
Wildlife Management Institute. 1987. Outdoor News
Bulletin. 41(20).
Wildlife Management Institute Staff. 1978. The future.
In: Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big
game of North America: ecology and management.
Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 417-424.
Wilkes, Brian. 1977. The myth of the non-consumptive
user. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 91: 343-349.
Williams, E. S.; Thorne, E. T.; Appel, M. J. G.; Belitsky,
D. W. 1988. Canine distemper in black-footed ferrets
(Mustela nigripes) from Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases. 24: 385-398.
Wilson, E. O., ed. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. 521 p.
Wolf, Robert E. 1982. The goals of the authors of the
RPA. In: Hewett, Charles E.; Hamilton Thomas E., eds.
Forests in demand: conflicts and solutions. Boston,
MA: Auburn House Publishing Company: 137-146.
Wolfe, Michael L. 1978. Habitat changes and manage-
ment. In: Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds.
Big game of North America: ecology and management.
Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 349-368.
Wood, Gene W.; Causey, M. Keith; Whiting, R. Mon-
tague, Jr. 1985. Perspectives on American woodcock
in the southern United States. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference. 50: 573-585.
Yoakum, James D. 1978. Pronghorn. In: Schmidt, John
C; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big game of North
America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA:
Stackpole Books: 103-121.
133
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
Anadromous. — Species of fish that mature in the ocean,
and then ascend streams to spawn in freshwater.
Animal unit month (AUM). — The amount of forage re-
quired for a 1,000 pound cow, or the equivalent, for 1
month.
Archipelago. — Any large body of water with many islands.
Assessment regions. — Regions used in this and other
resource assessment documents and include the:
Northern. — Assessment region encompassing the states
of Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Mas-
sachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, West
Virginia. This includes Forest Service Region 9.
Pacific Coast. — Assessment region encompassing the
states of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and
Washington. This includes Forest Service Regions 5,
6, and 10.
Rocky Mountain. — Assessment region encompassing
the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mon-
tana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. This includes
Forest Service Regions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Southern. — Assessment region encompassing the states
of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This
includes Forest Service Region 8.
Big game. — Large wild animals hunted, or potentially
hunted, for sport or food including deer, elk, bear,
pronghorn, and wild turkey.
Biotic factors. — Environmental influences caused by
plants or animals.
Category 1. — Taxa for which the FWS currently has sub-
stantial information to support the biological appropri-
ateness of proposing to list the species as endangered
or threatened and the development of proposed rules
is anticipated.
Category 2. — Taxa for which information now in the pos-
session of the FWS indicates that proposing to list the
species is possibly appropriate but conclusive biologi-
cal data is not currently available to support develop-
ment of proposed rules.
Coldwater fishing. — Includes freshwater trout, kokanee,
and anadromous fishes such as salmon and steelhead.
Commercial timberland. — Forestland which is producing
or capable of producing crops of industrial wood and not
withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or admini-
strative regulation. (Note: Areas qualifying as commercial
timberland have the capability of producing in excess of
20 cubic feet per year of industrial wood in natural stands.
Currently, inaccessible and inoperable areas are included.)
Commercial value.— Income derived from the sale or trade
of wild animals or their products or from direct and con-
trolled use of wild animals and their progeny.
Community. — A group of populations of plants and ani-
mals in a given place; ecological unit used in a broad
sense to include groups of various sized and degrees
of integration.
Critical habitat. — Air, land, or water area which, if des-
troyed or degraded, would appreciably decrease the
likelihood of survival and recovery of a threatened or
endangered species or a segment of its population.
Cropland. — Land under cultivation within the last 24
months including cropland harvested, crop failures, cul-
tivated summer fallow, idle cropland used only for
pasture, orchards and land in soil improving crops, but
excluding land cultivated in developing improved
pasture.
Cumulative impacts. — The impact on the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably fore-
seeable future actions regardless of what agency (fed-
eral or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individ-
ually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over time.
Ecological value. — The contribution of wild animals to
productive ecosystems.
Ecosystem. — A complete, interacting system of organisms
considered together with their environment.
Endangered species. — Any species of animal or plant
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a sig-
nificant portion of its range. Designated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Estuarine wetlands. — Wetlands found along the U.S. coast-
line and associated with estuaries or brackish tidal
waters.
Existence value. — Valuing an environment regardless of
the fact that one may never demand in situ the services
it provides.
Exotic. — Foreign; not native.
Flat. — A level landform composed of unconsolidated sedi-
ments, usually mud or sand. Flats may be irregularly
shaped or elongate and continuous with the shore,
whereas bars are generally elongate, parallel to the shore,
and separated from the shore by water.
Forest industry lands. — Lands owned by companies or
individuals operating wood-using plants.
Forestland. — Land at least 10% stocked by forest trees of
any size, or formally having such cover, and not cur-
rently developed for other uses.
Forest type. — A category of forest defined by its vegetation
(particularly its composition) and/or locality (environ-
mental) factors.
Aspen-birch. — Forests in which aspen, balsam poplar,
paper birch, or gray birch, singly or in combination,
comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common asso-
ciates include maple and balsam fir.)
Elm-ash-cottonwood. — Forest in which elm, ash, or Cot-
tonwood, singly or in combination, comprise a plural-
ity of the stocking. (Common associates include wil-
low, sycamore, beech, and maple.)
Fir-spruce. — Forests in which true firs (Abies spp.),
Engelmann spruce, or Colorado blue spruce, singly
or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stock-
ing. (Common associates are mountain hemlock and
lodgepole pine.)
134
Hemlock-Sitka spruce. — Forests in which western
hemlock and/or Sitka spruce comprise a plurality of
the stocking. (Common associates include Douglas-
fir, silver fir, and western redcedar.)
Lodgepole pine. — Forests in which lodgepole pine
comprises the stocking. (Common associates include
subalpine fir, western white pine, Engelmann
spruce, aspen, and larch.)
Maple-beech-birch. — Forests in which 50% or more
of the stand is maple, beech, or yellow birch, singly
or in combination. (Common associates include
hemlock, elm, basswood, and white pine.)
Oak-gum-cypress. — Bottomland forests in which
tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or southern
cypress, singly or in combination, comprise a plur-
ality of the stocking except where pines comprise
25% to 50% in which case the stand would be clas-
sified as oak-pine. (Common associates include
cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and
maple.)
Oak-hickory. — Forests in which upland oaks or hick-
ory, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality
of the stocking except where pines comprise 25%
to 50%, in which case the stand would be consi-
dered oak-pine. (Common associates include yellow-
poplar, elm, maple, and black walnut.)
Oak-pine. — Forest in which hardwoods (usually
upland oaks) comprise a plurality of the stocking but
in which southern pines comprise 25% to 50% of
the stocking. (Common associates include hickory
and yellow-poplar.)
Pinyon-juniper — Forest in which pinyon pine and/or
juniper comprise a plurality of the stocking.
Guilds. — A group of species exploiting a common
resource base in a similar fashion.
Habitat. — Place where an animal finds the required
arrangement of food, cover, and water to meet its
biological needs.
Hardwoods. — Dicotyledonous trees, usually broad-
leaved and deciduous.
Indicator species. — Any species, groups of species, or
species habitat elements selected to focus management
attention for the purpose of resource production, pop-
ulation recovery, maintenance of population viability,
or ecosystem diversity.
Interspecific competition. — Competition between two or
more different species.
Juxtaposition. — The minimum geographic interspersion
of habitat requirements that must occur if a habitat is
to be barely suitable for a species.
Lacustrine wetlands. — Wetlands and deepwater habitats
situated in topographic depressions or dammed river
channels. Each area must exceed 20 acres or have
depths in excess of 2 meters or have an active wave-
formed or bedrock shoreline feature.
Migratory birds. — Birds regularly moving seasonally
from one region of climate to another for feeding or
breeding.
Minimum viable population (MVP). — The number of
individuals required to achieve a specific level of
viability.
Nominal dollars. — Value of output in a given period in
the prices of that period or in current dollars.
Nonconsumptive use. — Activities which do not result
in the death or attempted death of an individual
animal.
Nongame. — Native vertebrate species that are not con-
sumptively taken for sport, food, fur, or profit.
Nonpoint source pollution. — Pollution that is diffuse in
both origin and in time and points of discharge and
depend heavily on weather conditions such as rain-
storms or snowmelt. Pollutants can originate on
natural source areas or on areas affected by man's
activities.
Old-growth. — A stand that is past full maturity and
showing decadence; the last state in forest succession.
Palustrine emergent wetlands. — Wetlands dominated by
herbaceous vegetation including certain grasses, cat-
tails, rushes, and sedges. Often referred to as "marsh,"
"wet meadow," "fen," and "inland salt marsh."
Palustrine forested wetlands. — Wetlands dominated by
trees taller than 20 feet. They occur mostly in the east-
ern half of the United States and Alaska and include
such types as black spruce bogs, cedar swamps, red
maple swamps, and bottomland hardwood forests.
Palustrine nonvegetated wetlands. — Wetlands with
little or no vegetation other than aquatic beds.
Palustrine open water wetlands. — Small inland open
water bodies which are not part of the lacustrine
system.
Palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. — Wetlands dominated
by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Commonly
referred to as "bog," "pocosin," "shrub-carr," or
"shrub swamp."
Palustrine vegetated wetlands. — Broad categorization of
wetlands include emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested
wetlands.
Palustrine wetlands. — Interior wetlands which largely
consist of freshwater, although inland salt and brack-
ish marshes exist in arid and semiarid areas.
Pasture. — Land which is currently improved for graz-
ing by cultivation, seeding, fertilization, or irrigation.
Pelagic. — Occurring in open water and away from the
bottom.
Point source pollution. — Any discernible, confined con-
duit, including pipes, ditches, channels, sewers, tun-
nels, vessels, and other floating craft from which pol-
lutants are discharged.
Poletimber stands. — Stands at least 10% stocked with
growing stock trees of which half or more is sawtim-
ber and/or poletimber trees with poletimber stocking
exceeding that of sawtimber.
Population. — A group of individuals of a single species.
Primary nonresidential. — Trips at least 1 mile from
place of residence for the primary purpose of observ-
ing, photographing, or feeding wildlife.
Primary residential. — Activities around the residence
for which primary purpose is wildlife related.
Proposed species. — Species officially proposed for list-
ing by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service as threatened or endangered.
Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
135
Range condition. — The departure of a site's vegetation
composition from that expected under the climax plant
community.
Rangeland. — Land on which the potential natural vege-
tation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs,
or shrubs, including land revegetated naturally or
artificially that is managed like native vegetation.
Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas,
shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities,
coastal marshes, and wetlands that are less than 10%
stocked with forest trees of any size.
Real dollars. — Attempts to isolate changes in physical
output in the economy between time periods by valu-
ing all goods in the two periods at the same prices,
or in constant dollars.
Recreational value. — Benefits of pleasure, adventure,
and enhanced physical and mental health from out-
door activities involving the pursuit or sometimes
accidental enjoyment of wildlife.
Riparian. — The abiotic and biotic components found
within the area defined by the banks and adjacent areas
of water bodies, water courses, and seeps and springs
the waters of which provide soil moisture sufficiently
in excess of that otherwise available locally so as to
provide a more moist habitat than that of contiguous
flood plains, and uplands.
Saplings. — Live trees of commercial species 1.0 inch to
5.0 inches in diameter at breast height and of good
form and vigor.
Sawtimber stands. — Stands at least 10% occupied with
growing stock trees, with half or more of total stock-
ing in sawtimber or poletimber trees, and with saw-
timber stocking at least equal to poletimber stocking.
Secondary nonresidential. — Enjoyment from seeing or
hearing wildlife on a trip at least 1 mile from place
of residence that is taken for another purpose such as
camping, driving, or boating.
Secondary residential. — Enjoyment from seeing or hear-
ing wildlife while pursuing other activities around the
place of residence.
Seedlings. — Established live trees of commercial species
less than 1.0 inch in diameter at breast height and of
good form and vigor.
Seedling and sapling stands. — Stands at least 10%
occupied with growing stock trees of which more than
half of the stocking is saplings and/or seedlings.
Sensitive species. — Species which have been identified
by a Forest Service regional forester for which popu-
lation viability is a concern.
Serai. — Series of stages that follow one another in a
usually predictable sequence of ecological succession.
Each serai stage is a community with its own
characteristics.
Small game. — Smaller-sized wild animals such as rab-
bits, quail, grouse, and pheasants which are hunted,
or potentially hunted, for sport or food. This does not
include waterfowl, other migratory birds, and animals
generally considered to be pests or varmints.
Snag. — A standing dead tree from which the leaves and
most of the limbs have fallen and is more than 20 feet
high. Dead trees less than 20 feet are called stubs.
Softwoods. — Coniferous trees, usually evergreen, hav-
ing needles or scalelike leaves.
Stand-size class. — Classification of forestland based on
the predominant size of timber present, that is, saw-
timber, poletimber, or seedlings and saplings.
Succession. — Progressive development of a biotic com-
munity involving replacement of species and modifi-
cation of the physical environment until a community
with a relatively stable species composition is reached.
Threatened species. — Any species of animal or plant
which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a por-
tion of its range.
User-day. — Any combination of 12 hour days such as
one person participating in an activity for 12 hours or
12 persons participating in an activity for 1 hour each.
Urban areas. — Areas within the legal boundaries of
cities and towns; suburban areas developed for
residential, industrial, or recreational purposes; school
yards, cemeteries, roads, railroads, airports, beaches,
powerlines, and other rights-of-way, or other land not
included in any other specified land use class.
Viability. — The state of being capable of living, grow-
ing, or developing.
Warmwater fishing. — Includes largemouth and small-
mouth bass, panfish such as bluegill and crappie, wall-
eye, northern pike, muskie, catfish, bullheads, etc.
Wetlands. — Lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or
near the surface or the land is covered by shallow
water. Wetlands must have one or more of the follow-
ing three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land
supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate
is predominantly undrained hydric soil, or (3) the sub-
strate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered
by shallow water at some time during the growing sea-
son of the year.
Wilderness. — An area of undeveloped federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which
is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have
been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticed; (2)
has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primi-
tive and unoccupied type of recreation; (3) has at least
5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition, and (4) may also contain ecological, geolog-
ical, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic,
or historical value (from Wilderness Act 1964).
136
APPENDIX B: LATIN NAMES
BIRDS
Bittern, American
Botaurus lentiginosus
Bittern, Least
Ixobrychus exilis
Bluebird, Eastern
SiaJia sialis
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Bobwhite, Northern
Lolmus virginianus
Bobwnite, Masked
Coiinus virginianus ridgwayi
Bunting, Lark
Caiamospiza melanocorys
Bunting, Lazuli
Passerina amoena
Bunting, Painted
Passerina ciris
Canvasback
Aytnya valismena
Caracara, Crested
Caracara plancus
Cardinal, Northern
Cardinalis cardinalis
Chat, Yellow-breasted
Icteria virens
Chickadee, Boreal
Parus hudsonicus
Chukar
AJectoris chukar
Condor, Lalilornia
Gymnogyps caJi/ornianus
Cormorant
Phalacrocorax spp.
Cowbird, Brown-headed
Molothrus ater
Crane, Whooping
Grus amencana
Lurlew, Long-billed
Numenius americanus
Dickcissel
Spiza americana
Dove, Common-Ground
LoJumoma passerina
Dove, Mourning
Zenaida macroura
Dove, Rock
Columba livia
Duck, American Black
Anas rubripes
Duck, Wood
Aix sponsa
Eagle, Bald
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Eagle, Southern Bald
Haiiaeetus leucocephalus Jeucocephal
Egret
Ardeidae
Egret, Reddish
Egretta ru/escens
Falcon, Northern aplomado
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falcon, Peregrine
talco peregnnus
Falcon, Prairie
talco mexicanus
Finch, House
Carpodacus mexicanus
Flicker, Northern
Colaptes auratus
rlycatcher, Alder
Empidonax ainorum
Flycatcher, Olive-sided
Lontopus boreaiis
rlycatcher, Scissor-tailed
lyrannus jorjicatus
rlycatcher, Willow
Empidonax trailhi
uadwall
Anas strepera
Goldfinch, American
Carduelis tristis
Goose, Aleutian Canada
Branta canadensis leucapareia
Goose, Cackling
Branta canadensis minima
Goose, Dusky Canada
Branta canadensis occidentalis
Grosbeak, Black-headed
Pheucticus meianocephalus
Grouse, Blue
Dendragapus obscurus
Grouse, Ruffed
Bonasa umbeJJus
Grouse, Sage
Centrocercus urophasianus
Grouse, Sharp-tailed
lympanuchus phasianeliu?
Grouse, bpruce
Dendragapus canadensis
Gull, Franklin s
Larus pipixcan
Harrier, Northern
Circus cyaneus
T T 1 /~1 »
Hawk, Cooper s
Accipiter cooperii
Hawk, Ferruginous
Buteo regalis
Hawk, Sharp-shinned
Accipiter striatus
Heron
Ardeidae
Heron, Little blue
Egretta caerulea
Ibis
Threskiornithidae
137
DTD TIC
Jay, Blue
Cyanocitta cnstata
Jay, Gray
Perisoreus canadensis
Junco, Dark-eyed
Junco hyemalis
Kingfisher, Belted
Ceryle alcyon
Kinglet, Ruby-crowned
Regulus calendula
Vita Cnoil
Rite, onaii
Rostrhamus sociabilis
Lark, Horned
Eremophila aJpestris
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Meadowlark, Eastern
SturnelJa magna
Meadowlark, Western
Sturnella neglecta
Merlin
Falco columbarius
Mockingbird, Northern
Mimus polyglottos
unuitj, urciidru
i(,lr!I US SpUlJUs
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
Owl, Burrowing
Athene cunicularia
Owl, Great Horned
Bubo virginianus
Owl, Screech
Otus spp.
Owl, spotted
Strix occidentalis
Parrot, Thick-billed
Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha
Parrot, Puerto Rican
Amazona vittata
Pelican, Brown
PeJecanus occidentalis
Pheasant, Ring-necked
Phasianus colchicus
Phoebe, Eastern
Sayornis phoebe
Pintail, Northern
Anas acuta
Plover, Snowy
unaraarius aiexanannus
Prairie-Chicken, Greater
Tympanuchus cupido
Ptarmigan
Lagopus spp.
Quail, California
Callipepla californica
Quail, Gambel's
Callipepla gambeJii
Quail, Mountain
Oreortyx pictus
Quail, Scaled
Callipepla stjuamata
Kail, black
Laterallus jamaicensis
Redhead
Aythya americana
Robin, American
Turdus migratorius
Sandpiper, Upland
Bartramia longicauda
Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied
Sphyrapicus varius
Scaup
/* ir+nT7/l pt\t\
ixyiixyu. t>pp«
Shoveler, Northern
nnus ciypeaia
Shrike, Loggerhead
Lanius Judovicianus
Snipe, Common
GalJinago gallinago
Sparrow, Baird's
Ammodramus bairdii
Sparrow, Black-throated
/impmspiza omneaia
Sparrow, Chipping
SpizeJJa passerina
Sparrow, rield
Spizella pusilla
Sparrow, Grasshopper
/immoaramus savannarum
Sparrow, Henslow's
Ammodramus henslowii
Sparrow, House
Passer domesticus
Sparrow, Lark
Chondestes grammacus
Sparrow, LeConte's
Ammodramus leconteii
Sparrow, Savannah
Passerculus sandwichensis
Sparrow, Song
MeJospiza vnelodia
oparrow, Vesper
Pooecetes gramineus
Sparrow, White-throated
Zonotncnia aloicollis
Starling, European
Sturnus vulgaris
Swallow, Barn
Hirundo rustica
Swallow, Cliff
Hirundo pyrrhonota
Swan, Trumpeter
Cygnus buccinator
Tanager, Western
Piranga Judoviciana
Teal, Blue-winged
Anas discors
Teal, Green-winged
Anas cvecca
138
BIRDS
Tern, Gull-billed
Tern, Roseate
Thrasher, Curve-billed
Thrush, Wood
Titmouse, Tufted
Towhee, Rufous-sided
Turkey, Wild
Veery
Verdin
Vireo, Bell's
Vireo, Red-eyed
Vireo, Warbling
Warbler, Bachman's
Warbler, Blue-winged
Warbler, Golden-cheeked
Warbler, Kirtland's
Warbler, Nashville
Warbler, Pine
Warbler, Prairie
Warbler, Prothonotary
Warbler, Tennessee
Warbler, Worm-eating
Wigeon, American
Woodcock, American
Woodpecker, Ivory-billed
Woodpecker, Pileated
Woodpecker, Red-cockaded
Wood-Pewee
Wren, Bewick's
Wren, Cactus
Wren, Carolina
Wren, Sedge
Wren, Winter
MAMMALS
Bat, Gray
Bat, Indiana
Bat, Virginia big-eared
Bear, Black
Bear, Grizzly
Beaver
Bison
also Buffalo
Boar,
also European wild
Bobcat
Caribou, Woodland
Cottontail
Coyote
Deer
Deer, Black-tailed
Deer, Columbian white-tailed
Deer, Key
Deer, Mule
Deer, Desert Mule
Deer, Sitka black-tailed
Deer, White-tailed
Elk
Ferret, Black-footed
Fox, Gray
Sterna nilotica
Sterna dougallii
Toxostoma curvirostre
Hylocichla mustelina
Parus bicolor
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
MeJeagris gaJlopavo
Catharus /uscescens
Auriparus flaviceps
Vireo bellii
Vireo oJivaceus
Vireo gilvus
Vermivora bachmanii
Vermivora pinus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Dendroica kirtlandii
Vermivora ru/icapilla
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica discolor
Protonotaria citrea
Vermivora peregrina
Helmitheros vermivorus
Mareca americana
Scolopax minor
Campephilus principalis
Dryocopus pileatus
Picoides borealis
Contopus spp.
Thryomanes beivickii
CampyJorhynchus brunneicapiUus
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Cistothorus pJatensis
Troglodytes troglodytes
Myotis grisescens
Myotis sodalis
Plecotus townsendii virginianus
l/rsus americanus
Ursus arctos
Castor canadensis
Bison bison
Sus scrofa
Lynx rufus
Rangifer tarandus caribou
SyJvilagus spp.
Canis latrans
Odocoileus spp.
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Odocoileus virginianus columbianus
Odocoileus virginianus clavium
Odocoileus hemionus
Odocoileus hemionus crooki
Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis
Odocoileus virginianus
Cervus elaphus
Mustela nigripes
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
139
MAMMALS
Fox, Northern Swift
Vulpes velox hebes
Fox, Red
Vulpes vulpes
Fox, San Joaquin Kit
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Goat, Mountain
Oreamnos americanus
Gopher, Pocket
Geomyidae
Hare
Lepus spp.
Jackrabbit
Lepus spp.
Jackrabbit, Black-tailed
Lepus cali/ornicus
Jackrabbit, White-tailed
Lepus townsendii
Jaguarundi
Felis yagouaroundi
Javelina
Dicotyles tajacu
Lion, Mountain
Felis concolor
Lynx
Lynx candensis
Manatee
Trichechus manafus
Marmot, Yellow-bellied
Marmota flaviventris
Mink
Mustela vison
Moose
Alces alces
Mouse, House
Mus musculus
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethicus
Nutria
Myocastor coypus
Ocelot
Felis pardalis
Opossum, Virginia
Didelphus virginiana
Otter, Sea
Enhydra lutris
Panther, Florida
Felis concolor covyi
Peccary, Collared
Tayassu tajacu
Pig
Sus scrofa
Pika
Ochotona princeps
Prairie Dog
Cynomys spp.
Prairie Dog, Utah
Cynomys parvidens
Pronghom
Antelocapra americana
Pronghorn, Sonoran
Antelocapra americana sonoriensis
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Rat, Giant Kangaroo
Dipodomys ingens
Rat, Kangaroo
Dipodomys spp.
Rat, Norway
Rattus norvegicus
Ringtail
Bassariscus astutus
Sheep, Bighorn
Ovis canadensis
Sheep, Dall
Ovis dalli
Sheep, Desert bighorn
Ovis canadensis merriam
Skunk
Mustelidae
Squirrel
Sciurus spp.
Squirrel, Fox
Sciurus niger
Squirrel, Gray
Sciurus carolinensis
Squirrel, Northern flying
Glaucomys sabrinus
Wolf, Gray
Canis lupus
Wolf, Eastern Timber
Cam's lupus Jycaon
Wolf, Red
Canis ru/us
Wolf, Texas red
Canis ru/us ru/us
Wolverine
Gulo gulo
FISH
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Bass, Largemouth
Micropterus salmoides
Bass, Smallmouth
Micropterus dolomieui
Bass, Striped
Morone saxatilis
Bass, White
Morone chrysops
Buffalo
Ictiobus spp.
Bullhead
Ictalurus spp.
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Catfish
Ictalurus spp.
140
FISH
Catfish, Walking
Chubs
Crappie
Paddlefish
Perch, White
Perch, Yellow
Pickerel
Pike
Salmon, Chinook
Salmon, Chum
Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Pink
Salmon, Sockeye
Sauger
Shad
Shad, Gizzard
Sheepshead
Smelt
Suckers
Trout, Greenback cutthroat
Trout, Lahontan cutthroat
Trout, Steelhead
Tullibee
Walleye
Whitefish
REPTILES
Crocodile, American
Hawksbill
Tortoise, Desert
Turtle, Ridley Sea
Rattlesnake, New Mexico ridge-nosed
CRUSTACEANS
Crab, Blue
Crab, King
Crab, Snow
PLANTS1
Alder, Red
Aspen
Beech
Creosote
Elm
Fir, Douglas
Larch
Maple
Maple, Red
Mesquite
Pine, Lodgepole
Pine, Ponderosa
Pine, Western white
Redwood
Sweetgum
Sycamore
Tupelo
For a complete list of plants associated with
Clarias batrachus
Coregonus spp.
Pomixis annularis
Pomixis nigromacuJatus
Lepisosteus spp.
PoJyodon spathula
Morone americana
Perca flavescens
Esox spp.
Esox spp.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Stizostedion canadense
Alosa sapidissima
Dorosoma cepedianum
Aplodinotus grunniens
Osmeridae
Catostomidae
Salmo clarki stomias
Salmo clarki henshawi
Salmo gairdneri
Coregonus spp.
Stizostedion vitreum
Coregonus spp.
Crocodylus acutus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Gopherus agassizii
Lepidochelys spp.
Crotalus willardi obscurus
Callinectes spp.
ParaJithodes camschatica
Paralithodes platypus
Lithodes acquispina
Chionoecetes bairdi
Alnus rubra
Populus spp.
Fagus grandi/oJia
Larrea tridentata
Ulmus spp.
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Larix spp.
Acer spp.
Acer rubrum
Prosopis juliflora
Pinus contorta
Pin us ponderosa
Pinus monticola
Sequoia sempervirens
Liquidambar styracrflua
Platanus spp.
Nyssa spp.
forage and range ecosystems, refer to Joyce (in pressj.
141
APPENDIX C: TRENDS IN WILDLIFE AND FISH POPULATIONS, USE, AND
HARVEST ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
Table C-1 .—Trends in selected big game populations on NFS lands in
the North.
Table C-2.— Trends in selected big game populations on NFS lands in
the South.
Gray
Black
Black
Wild (feral)
Year
Moose
Deer
wolf
bear
Turkey
Year
Deer
Turkey
bear
pig
1965
3,920
467,000
900
1 1 ,800
38,200
1965
248,000
41,800
3,100
1,300
1966
4,100
414,000
620
1 1 ,000
20,000
1966
265,000
52,000
3,800
1,400
1967
4,300
442,000
800
10,000
21,000
1967
277,000
55,000
4,000
1,600
1968
4,200
396,000
360
8,100
24,000
1968
289,000
57,000
4,000
1,600
1969
4 000
360
9 100
29 000
1 QfiQ
pro nnn
^ Ann
1.400
1970
3^00
338,000
450
8^800
18^000
1970
284,000
69,000
2,700
860
1971
3,800
304,000
450
7,600
21,000
1971
285,000
74,000
3,100
1,500
1972
4,800
297,000
520
8,300
31,000
1972
303,000
85,000
2,800
2,500
1973
5,100
281,000
480
8,900
29,000
1973
286,000
81,000
2,900
2,400
1974
5,200
298,000
480
8,900
28!000
1974
307,000
85,000
2,500
2,600
1975
2,200
312,000
420
8,900
29,000
1975
306,000
77,000
2,600
2,000
1976
2,500
290,000
600
9,400
30,000
1976
309,000
82,000
2,600
1977
3,000
323,000
580
8,600
33,000
1977
301,000
86,000
2,800
2,500
1978
2,710
314,114
574
9,547
42,656
1978
303,060
95,382
2,853
2,282
1979
3,320
307,985
322
16,659
44,933
1979
289,280
104,662
3,230
1,522
1980
3,245
315,109
378
9,226
50,772
1980
298,330
111,185
4,015
1,710
1981
3,780
320,512
347
10,820
50,017
1981
279,886
115,866
3,958
1.525
1982
5,485
317,962
348
10,070
39,384
1982
265,164
122,730
2,432
1,684
1983
6,978
318,042
348
12,097
39,438
1983
275,526
124,133
3,027
1,954
1984
6,589
326,619
345
1 1 ,800
34,319
1984
280,504
123,187
3.722
2,415
Source: USDA Forest Service (196t
-7977, 1978-1985).
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-
7977, 1978-1985).
Table C-3.— Trends in selected big game populations on NFS lands in the Rocky Mountains.
Mountain
Mountain
Bighorn
Year
Moose
Pronghorn
Elk
Peccary
lion
Turkey
Deer
goat
sheep
Caribou Bear
1965
12,250
47,100
268,000
24,000
75,400
1,742,100
9,990
11,533
140
44,800
1966
12,400
42,700
266,000
27,000
84,400
1,609,200
10,330
1 1 ,343
140
46,105
1967
12,990
40,600
280,000
28,000
81,800
1 ,642,900
10,490
12,237
100
46,200
1968
12,770
34,900
263,000
22,000
69,000
1,617,600
9,670
10.825
115
44,125
1969
1 1 ,450
34,900
270,000
24,000
69,000
1,612,100
9,670
10,825
85
43,930
1970
13,640
32,900
274,000
21 ,000
66,900
1 ,595,900
9,720
11,000
85
43,630
1971
13,400
34,900
275,000
21,000
65,300
1,560,900
9,360
11.190
90
43,560
1972
14,020
37,800
276,000
21,000
53,600
1,518,900
9,340
1 1 ,480
80
45,390
1973
13,970
34,500
272,300
20,000
5,000
55,200
1,184,700
8,910
11,680
70
43,591
1974
14,820
38,900
282,000
21,000
5,540
56,100
1,352,200
8,640
11,870
60
43,570
1975
15,300
41,500
292,000
21,000
5,390
54,800
1,219,950
8,260
12,900
45
43,025
1976
15,770
39,900
293,000
21,000
5,670
52,400
1,102,930
7,280
13,130
45
43.415
1977
15,700
44,800
323,000
21,000
6,030
52,600
1,120,680
7,900
13,790
40
42.220
1978
16,027
54,789
307,989
20,183
6,288
54,617
1,118,451
8,242
14.334
41
40,840
1979
16,091
43,332
302,443
19,273
6,197
55,205
1,097,746
7,592
15,016
30
41.670
1980
16,640
43,379
298,404
21 ,277
6,452
57,702
1,099,797
8,067
15,757
30
42,835
1981
16,504
42,747
332,573
22,187
6,776
57,456
1,198,656
8,086
16,936
25
43.931
1982
15,987
45,275
346,783
23,746
7,027
59,105
1,289,533
7,713
17,512
15
41,247
1983
15,722
54,464
362,593
24,701
7,320
61,363
1,238,384
7,650
17,586
20
42.157
1984
15,566
52,704
371,759
25,783
7,608
65,689
1,197,102
7,915
17,658
17
44,552
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
142
Table C-4.— Trends in selected big game populations on NFS lands in the Pacific Coast.
raw
mountain
Digiiorn
Voar
t ear
WOOSc
rrongnorn
won
Elk
Ti irU aw
i ur Key
goal
Parihni i
Deal
1965
4,515
3,000
1,900
92,820
2,710
1 ,564,900
21,800
2,015
6
55,301
1966
4,720
3,100
1,800
91,050
3.600
1,511,900
20,400
2,390
10
56,300
1967
3.920
3,000
2,000
94,250
3.400
1,633,100
20,100
3,460
50
54,303
1968
5,020
3,000
2,300
87,540
4.200
1,535,700
21,300
3,500
60
53,404
1969
5,316
3,400
2,100
90,400
4.600
1,436,300
20,800
2,980
75
51,102
1970
6,415
4,000
2,102
87,900
5.000
1,392,000
20,900
2,715
40
52,102
1971
5,615
4,200
2,100
90,500
4,900
1,316,000
20,200
2,440
170
50,002
1972
6,015
4,100
1,400
92,100
5,200
1,172,900
20,000
2,590
200
47,002
1973
5,620
4,700
1,004
93,600
5,300
1 ,045,600
20,000
2,630
280
43,620
1974
5,400
3,600
804
103,700
4,900
1 ,035,000
19,000
2,590
300
43,912
1975
4,618
4,300
800
104,700
4,200
972,000
18,100
2,560
355
46,003
1976
4,518
4,700
750
107,900
4,400
999,000
15,900
2,630
355
46,702
1977
4,630
5,300
702
107,190
3,900
980,000
16,300
3,310
355
45,004
1978
4,586
5,181
700
106,931
C Q1Q
OtOl o
1 f\AO OOO
1 C OQ7
10,00/
O A 1 O
ODD
1979
4,492
5,320
825
102,864
5,773
972,035
13,929
3,236
355
48,149
1980
4,901
5,457
825
96,599
6,514
955,724
13,760
3,279
255
47,052
1981
4,853
5,482
842
95,298
6,798
991 ,747
14,179
2,937
OCR
40,5700
1982
5,298
5,506
867
100,817
6,934
1,031,711
13,711
3,663
503
48,591
1983
4,925
5,217
767
99,605
7,386
981,992
15,651
3,762
6
40,804
1984
4,091
5,376
817
93,853
8,144
933,556
17,237
2,744
306
46,406
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
Table C-5.— National and regional trends in nonconsumptive user days on NFS lands.
Rocky
Pacific
Year
National
North
South
Mountain
Coast
1980
1,342,500
120,000
150,800
525,000
546,700
1981
1,550,770
127,100
205,600
633,600
584,400
1982
1 ,474,500
114,300
194,300
591 ,900
574,000
1983
1 ,277,400
115,700
179,900
537,100
444,700
1984
1 ,277,700
106,400
200,000
536,500
434,800
Source: USDA Forest Service (1980-1985).
Table C-6.— Trends in migratory bird user-days on NFS lands by assessment region.
Rocky
Pacific
Year
National
North
South
Mountain
Coast
1966
649,000
199,000
113,000
161,000
176,000
1967
614,000
188,000
113,000
158,000
155,000
1968
573,000
188,000
94,000
136,000
155,000
1969
574,000
201,000
94,000
127,000
152,000
1970
585,000
198,000
86,000
129,000
172,000
1971
621,000
232,000
90,000
147,000
152,000
1972
675,000
231,000
96,000
173,000
175,000
1973
657,000
229,000
92,000
163,000
173,000
1974
769,500
242,200
122,800
194,400
210,100
1975
775,300
276,400
117,400
183,100
198,400
1976
757,700
272,300
112,800
160,900
211,700
1977
813,900
232,600
1 1 1 ,700
222,300
247,300
1978
818,100
242,000
1 1 1 ,700
203,500
260,900
1979
801,500
241,800
118,000
209,800
231 ,900
1980
723,100
226,500
117,100
205,800
173,700
1981
796.700
234,500
123,000
222,200
217,000
1982
757,600
201,800
128,000
215,800
212,000
1983
613,700
198,600
122,700
197,200
95,200
1984
578,800
188,300
100,200
196,300
94,000
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
143
Table C-7.— Big game user-days on national forests by assessment region.
Rocky
Pacific
Year
National
North
South
Mountain
Coast
1966
9,916,000
963,000
1,871,000
4,007,000
3,075,000
1967
9,253,000
1,059,000
1 ,400,000
3,831,000
2,963,000
1968
9,449,000
1,083,000
1,535,000
3,725,000
3,106,000
1969
10,034,000
1 ,072,000
1,593,000
4,043,000
3,326,000
1970
10,075,000
1,123,000
1,550,000
4,072,000
3,330,000
1971
10,032,000
1 ,030,000
1 ,747,000
4,106,000
3,149,000
1972
9,076,000
781,000
1,818,000
3,787,000
2,690,000
1973
9,373,000
889,000
1,836,000
4,012,000
2,636,000
1974
9,742,500
917,100
1,818,000
4,105,200
2,902,200
1975
9,813,400
1,014,400
1,877,600
4,101 ,400
2,820,000
1976
9,415^300
1,129,300
l!855i500
3!677|200
2!753!300
1977
9,738,000
1 ,236,500
1,951,900
3,961,200
2,588,400
1978
9,632,700
1,223,500
1 ,934,200
3 673 000
2 802 000
1979
10,186,400
1,218,500
2^23^000
4,138,900
2,806,000
1980
10,445,800
1 ,333,400
1,960,600
4,111,600
3,040,200
1981
10,875,200
1 ,354,400
2,091 ,000
4,584,600
2,845,200
1982
10,875,900
1 ,296,500
2,120,800
4,520,300
2,938,300
1983
11,148,100
1,345,000
2,130,100
4,697,900
2,975,100
1984
10,612,000
1 ,222,500
2,006,600
4,561,800
2,821,100
Source: USDA Forest Service (1966-1984).
Table C-8. — Trends in small game user-days on the national forests by assessment region.
Rocky
Pacific
Year
National
North
South
Mountain
Coast
1965
3,891,000
1,075,000
1,202,000
546,000
350,000
1966
3,535,000
924,000
1,405,000
706,000
500,000
1967
3,252,000
866,000
1,271,000
620,000
495,000
1968
3,227,000
792,000
1 ,343,000
590,000
501,800
1969
3,436,000
897,000
1 ,423,000
594,000
522,000
1970
3,488,000
880,000
1 ,480,000
617,000
511,000
1971
3,646,000
920,000
1,575,000
635,000
516,000
1972
3,378,000
768,000
1,592,000
593,000
425,000
1973
3,713,000
948,000
1,664,000
638,000
469,000
1974
3,719,000
956,000
1,593,500
678,100
491,400
1975
3,834,100
1,015,200
1,635,800
686,500
496,600
1976
3,899,400
1 ,090,400
1,612,500
664,300
532,200
1977
3,965,100
1,031,600
1 ,690,900
746,100
496,500
1978
4,195,400
1 ,042,300
1,729,100
807,500
616,500
1979
4,340,000
1 ,007,500
1,792,800
866,000
673,700
1980
4,711,000
1 ,279,400
1 ,925,300
914,100
592,200
1981
4,741,100
1,180,700
1 ,906,300
1 ,044,600
609,500
1982
4,601,700
1,113,700
1,807,100
1,019,600
661,300
1983
4,367,300
1,101,100
1,757,100
951,000
557,500
1984
4,056,500
984,200
1 ,690,300
882,500
498,700
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
144
Table C-9. — Warm- and coldwater fishing user-days on national forests, by region.
National
North
South
Rocky Mountain
Pacific Coast
Year
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
1Qfi7
? 4^7 Oflfl
1 ? ?4ft nnn
pn4 nno
686 000
1 1 54 000
596 000
?qi nnn
4 97"? 000
108 000
5 993 000
W,WWW|WWW
9 "38s nnn
1 1 ^n nnn
fin7 nnn
609 000
1 1 96 000
541 nnn
w" 1 |UwU
?R4 nnn
4 ftnfi nnn
1 28 000
5 574 000
J, J ' ' , WWW
1 QfiQ
? BR? nnn
1 141 nnn
662 000
1 275 000
1 | <— ' wtWWW
571 000
ti 1 nnn
O 1 1 ,\J\J\J
4 Qfi? nnn
135 000
1 WW , WWlS
5 339 000
W | WWW (WWW
1970
^ mQ nnn
1 1 7*51 nnn
1 ?Q4 nnn
579 000
\J / *J . WWW
1 281 000
1 ) <_-W ■ jWWW
595 000
^nfi noo
4 Q7Q nnn
138 000
1 JU | www
5 598 000
1971
O, I oo,uuu
1 1 qi 7 nnn
1 ^si nnn
646 000
w" w ,uuu
1 334 000
582 000
?m nnn
^ 1 ^fi nnn
271 000
5 533 000
vJfWWWfWWW
1972
Tin? nnn
1 1 Rnn nnn
1 n7? nnn
623 000
1 391 000
1 |WW 1 (WWW
619 000
W 1 w ,vvw
243 000
^ pns nnn
396 000
www 1 www
5 1 53 000
W( IwWjWWW
1973
3,314,000
12,000,000
1,125,000
619,000
1 ,433,000
672,000
360,000
5,444,000
396,000
5,265,000
O CCD
J. boo, /UU
1 ijiie. 1 ,oUU
1 ,4U4,UUU
can cnn.
1 /too cnn
/ / w,OUU
oov, yuu
o.ooo, yuu
4U4,^UU
c 01 0 onn
1975
4,432,200
1 1 ,783,800
1,601,800
661,100
2,095,800
741 ,800
373,100
5,196,800
361,500
5,184,100
1976
4,152,800
1 1 ,772,800
1,352,400
705,400
2,053,600
735,600
389,400
5,186,400
357,400
5,145,400
1977
3,894,200
1 1 ,834,700
1 ,335,300
680,200
2,194,900
690,600
226,000
6,123,100
138,000
4,340,800
1978
4,118,500
12,059,200
1 ,384,500
698,600
2,181,800
723,200
265,600
5,870,400
286,600
4,767,000
1979
3,937,700
1 1 ,649,500
1 ,231 ,400
625,300
2,126,200
799,800
293,400
5,959,100
286,700
4,825,300
1980
4,328,800
12,358,600
1 ,330,500
622,100
2,327,700
823,100
331,500
6,027,500
339,100
4,885,900
1981
4,096,400
12,402,300
1,389,200
640,400
2,047,900
798,300
326,900
6,215,200
332,400
4,748,400
1982
4,089,400
11,989,100
1 ,387,200
664,100
2,034,800
774,500
324,900
5,898,300
342,500
4,561,200
1983
4,119,400
11,402,600
1,428,100
658,000
2,010,900
764,600
282,800
5,371,700
397,600
4,248,300
1984
4,046,700
11,125,600
1,327,600
639,500
1 ,966,900
787,400
351,100
5,365,800
401,100
4,332,900
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
Table C-10.— Harvest trends for selected big game species on NFS lands
in the North.
Table C-1 1 .—Harvest trends for selected game species on NFS lands
in the South.
Black
Black
Year
Deer
Turkey
bear
Year
Deer
Turkey
bear
1965
62,000
450
760
1965
20,000
2,300
230
1966
66,000
2,100
900
1966
32,000
4,800
370
1967
60,000
1,700
970
1967
32,000
5,500
420
1968
68,000
2,100
650
1968
34,000
4,700
500
1969
62,000
2,100
890
1969
32,000
5,800
560
1970
54,000
2,900
850
1970
33,000
6,800
310
1971
41 ,000
3,100
760
1971
36,000
7,200
370
1972
29,000
3,600
770
1972
36,000
6,600
310
1973
37,000
3,300
730
1973
34,000
6,000
300
1974
39,000
4,200
650
1974
36,000
6,900
300
1975
43,000
3,600
670
1975
39,000
5,400
210
1976
44,000
4,600
790
1976
41,000
6,400
230
1977
45,000
4,100
760
1977
41,000
6,800
330
1978
51 ,597
5,217
1,147
1978
39,739
7,969
264
1979
53,900
4,895
1,268
1979
39,705
9,552
310
1980
54,329
5,596
1,262
1980
41,908
11,241
359
1981
54,484
7,675
1,278
1981
41,859
1 1 ,605
310
1982
60,607
7,444
1,356
1982
45,728
10,816
282
1983
56,564
7,377
1,255
1983
49,120
1 1 ,569
364
1984
61,348
4,291
1,401
1984
48,788
10,432
450
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
145
Table C-1 2. —Harvest trends in selected big game species on NFS lands in the Rocky Mountains.
Mountain
Mountain
Bighorn
Black
Tear
Moose
Prongnorn
Elk Pecarry
lion
Turkey
Deer
goat
sheep
bear
1965
1,450
10,670
50, 1 00
2,300
6,450
295,470
624
380
4,849
1966
1,420
7,900
47,000
2,900
6,805
342,230
604
365
4,734
1967
1,530
7,490
50,400
3,800
6,380
294,520
588
316
5,103
1968
1,610
7,340
50,800
4,600
5,650
309,000
620
362
4,730
1969
1,590
6,930
57,800
3,000
4,910
325,860
615
370
5,301
1970
1,380
5,940
61,500
3,400
3,886
300,570
600
286
4,616
1971
1,570
6,290
58,400
3,000
4,170
298,160
550
380
4,453
1972
1,725
6,260
50,800
2,600
5,500
254,480
517
290
4,451
1973
1,911
6,480
53,500
2,300
522
3,660
243,600
480
298
4,178
1974
2,050
6,840
63,600
2,500
579
4,985
228,990
540
357
4,056
1975
1,950
7,480
12,000
2,300
680
4,415
191,450
460
80
918
1976
2,050
8,270
63,600
2,500
700
6,030
159,245
380
409
4,621
1977
1,740
9,070
55,400
3,000
660
4,670
140,540
420
399
4,362
1978
2,036
9,790
60,753
2,148
691
4,724
170,753
409
402
4,406
1979
1,815
7,852
58,194
2,595
ceo
5,335
177,301
376
448
4,341
1980
1,840
5,724
60,108
2,608
649
6,126
169,118
394
505
4,300
1981
1,663
5,814
58,204
3,742
619
6,024
177,557
361
505
4,655
1982
1,716
7,252
64,985
3,506
741
6,975
203,055
347
528
4,003
1983
1,609
9,307
65,824
3,865
936
7,406
191,309
263
596
3,995
1984
1,396
10,716
64,172
3,671
862
7,038
212,130
280
682
4,377
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
Table C-13.-
—Harvest trends in selected big game species on NFS lands in the Pacific Coast.
Gray
Mountain
Mountain
Bighorn
DiacK
Year
Moose
Pronghorn
wolf Elk
lion
Turkey
Deer
goat
sheep
uariuou
bear
1965
760
90
280 18,060
0
133,420
800
10
0
3,560
1966
470
110
230 14,300
36
109,200
660
25
4,030
1967
340
90
240 16,120
30
141,280
880
40
0
3,901
1968
470
110
290 13,120
90
126,680
770
38
0
3,510
1969
730
90
230 13,100
80
143,500
850
56
0
3,430
1970
840
120
240 13,160
40
105,800
900
57
0
3,660
1971
750
130
250 15,090
60
96,820
800
79
0
2,690
1972
720
220
210 11,040
85
77,290
690
24
0
3,040
1973
500
300
92 11,915
143
235
61,560
920
23
6
3,160
1974
410
270
65 14,018
73
80
72,060
770
25
12
3,020
1975
210
220
100 15,031
121
90
65,000
800
25
40
3,280
1976
161
185
120 17,025
102
90
69,700
640
12
85
3,170
1977
161
370
80 15,030
120
100
63,100
610
13
80
3,090
1978
217
329
77 18,923
146
110
97,246
550
18
27
2,971
1979
327
263
110 18,077
169
122
83,085
605
57
30
3,117
1980
115
284
81 16,689
152
127
77,507
639
25
33
3,108
1981
295
274
88 21,288
138
177
81,526
537
28
38
3,086
1982
371
296
98 18,619
167
189
91,887
510
26
42
2,975
1983
375
305
87 18,188
127
189
68,621
638
32
0
2,795
1984
365
315
147 15,772
111
186
68,590
620
38
42
2,740
Source: USDA Forest Service (1965-1977, 1978-1985).
146
i" U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989-676-566
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11