Lion Management in Africa’s Human-Populated Regions

Citation:

Western, Guy, David W. Macdonald, Andrew J. Loveridge, and Amy J. Dickman. “Creating Landscapes of Coexistence: Do Conservation Interventions Promote Tolerance of Lions in Human-Dominated Landscapes?” Conservation & Society 17, no. 2 (2019): 204–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26611746.

Summary:

The article relates to national parks in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Kenya, as it investigates the attitudes of local communities towards lion populations in and around these parks.

In Zimbabwe, the study focuses on Hwange National Park and the surrounding districts of Tsholotsho and Hwange. The research suggests that the failure of conservation policies like CAMPFIRE and the current political and environmental situation in Zimbabwe have led to negative perceptions of lions among community members in these areas.

In Tanzania, the study is centered on Ruaha National Park. The research indicates that top-down wildlife management policies and a history of community evictions for the creation and expansion of protected areas, including Ruaha National Park, have resulted in local communities perceiving very little benefit from conservation.

In Kenya, the study takes place in southern Maasailand, where community conservancies have successfully built trust in conservation by allowing communities to benefit from and perceive ownership of wildlife. This has resulted in a predominant desire among respondents to see lion populations increase, primarily driven by the potential for increased tourism revenue.

Report compiled by Greta Helfenstein – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back To Top

New Strategies for New Challenges Facing Our National Parks

Citation:

SCHWARTZ, MARK W., KENT H. REDFORD, and ELAINE F. LESLIE. “Fitting the US National Park Service for Change.” BioScience 69, no. 8 (2019): 651–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26756408

Summary:

This article discusses the ever-changing challenges faced by the US National Park Service (NPS) in managing national parks and suggests new strategies to address these challenges. One particular challenge being the significant threat that invasive animal species pose to national parks, which are causing unprecedented levels of adverse impacts. For instance, in the Everglades National Park, invasive species like the Burmese pythons, which have been imported and released due to the pet trade, have reduced mammal and bird densities by two-thirds in just the past decade. These invasive species also threaten some species with extinction. Current control efforts are not succeeding at controlling these invasive species in the Everglades. In total, 75% of parks that responded to an internal survey report invasive animal species residing within their park, representing a suite of 331 different species in 1409 populations spread across 245 parks.

The National Park Service (NPS) is currently not dedicating sufficient resources to invasive animal control. However, emerging biological technologies such as gene drives and synthetic biology are providing potential new opportunities for managing both invasive and endangered species. The authors argue that innovation, creativity, and bold action proposals are needed to face the ongoing crises of biological impairment. They suggest that the NPS should consider system-wide strategic plans for common challenges such as managing broadly distributed harmful and affecting invasive species that involve controversial strategies.

Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back To Top

Burros Enough to Borrow: The Killing of Burros in Grand Canyon National Park

Citation:

Harlow, Abbie. “‘The Burro Evil’: The Removal of Feral Burros from Grand Canyon National Park, 1924-1983.” The Journal of Arizona History 60, no. 4 (2019): 437–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45410639

Summary:

This article discusses the history of feral burros in Grand Canyon National Park and the efforts to remove them. The National Park Service initially conducted annual burro culls due to environmental concerns, but public opposition arose in the 1960s and 1970s. Environmental and animal advocacy groups clashed over the removal, leading to the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971. However, the NPS continued its removal efforts, and in the 1980s, the Fund for Animals successfully removed the burros using helicopters and slings.

Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back to Top

Preserving the Wild: Balancing Conservation and Recreation in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges

Citation:

Zellmer, Sandra B. “WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT IN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE REFUGES.” Environmental Law 44, no. 2 (2014): 497–547. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43267707.

Summary:

The National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are both “dominant use” land management agencies that operate under a similar conservation-oriented mandate. However, their approaches to wilderness management differ in several ways.

NPS has at times shown hostility towards wilderness within their systems, likely due to concerns that wilderness might disrupt visitor use and limit its management discretion over park activities and resources. There may also be a perception that NPS does not need wilderness due to its long history and reputation as a preeminent land steward among federal agencies.

On the other hand, FWS may view wilderness as interfering with its discretion and ability to manage wildlife populations and restore habitat through deliberate intervention. This approach is favored by state fish and game agencies that exert pressure on FWS. There are also indications that FWS may be too willing to utilize aggressive interventions in wilderness areas where such tactics may restore or enhance wildlife populations.

In terms of planning, both agencies are guided by the preservation, management, and use of resources. However, their plans differ in their specifics. For instance, wilderness management plans should specify desired future conditions for wilderness areas and establish indicators, standards, conditions, and thresholds beyond which management actions will be taken to reduce human impacts on wilderness resources.

In summary, while both agencies are committed to conservation, their approaches to wilderness management reflect different priorities and pressures, leading to distinct strategies and outcomes.

Report compiled by Greta Helfenstein – article summary generated with Humata AI

 

Back to Top

Managing Nature in the National Parks

Citation:

Pritchard, James A. “The Meaning of Nature: Wilderness, Wildlife, and Ecological Values in the National Parks.” The George Wright Forum 19, no. 2 (2002): 46–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43597801.

Summary:

The article discusses the historical development of ecological and wildlife values in the national parks, with a specific focus on Yellowstone National Park. It explores how these values became intertwined and how they shaped the management and protection of wildlife in the parks. The article also highlights the role of scientists, conservationists, and the National Park Service in promoting the preservation of natural landscapes and the protection of wildlife.

In the early years of the National Park Service, there was a significant tension between preservation and development. Stephen Mather and Horace Albright, key figures in the establishment of the National Park Service, believed that the preservation of scenic landscapes would be best achieved through development that created a wide base of support for the national parks. This included road building in the parks, which was seen as a way to increase accessibility and public appreciation for these natural spaces.

However, this approach to development was met with resistance. The modern wilderness movement, which began in opposition to road building projects such as the Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park, argued for the preservation of wilderness in its natural state. This tension between preservation and development was a defining feature of the early years of the National Park Service and continues to influence its approach to wildlife management today.

In the 1930s, ecological and wildlife values became firmly intertwined in the national parks, represented by the establishment of the National Park Service (NPS) wildlife division. This division instituted the Fauna series of publications on national park wildlife, recommended extensive biological research in the national parks, and proposed guidelines for wildlife management that emphasized an ecosystem-oriented approach and the restoration of wildlife to natural conditions.

The 1963 Leopold Report accentuated wilderness and ecological values for the park system. The report suggested that the parks should represent a “vignette of primitive America,” making it an enduring icon for park management. The report did not advocate any particular landscape condition, but rather spoke to the purposes of the parks as a management guide.

During the 1960s and 1970s, wildlife and ecological values found new focus in Yellowstone with the work of John and Frank Craighead. Their work on elk and bear movements provided proof that wildlife were not just park denizens, but animals of a significantly larger ecosystem. This led to the conception of a larger ecosystem centering on Yellowstone.

In the 1970s, scientists began to incorporate new concepts into ecological values for the parks. For example, Yellowstone staff created a plan allocating natural fire zones encompassing thousands of hectares

Overall, the preservation of natural landscapes and the protection of wildlife in national parks has been a collaborative effort involving scientists, conservationists, and the NPS, each contributing their unique perspectives and expertise

Report compiled by Bill Youngs – article summary generated by Humata AI

Back to Top