"Perhaps the greatest challenge that faces professionals engaged in. . . 



research and management is the organization of knowledge and insights 



into forms that can be readily applied. To say we don't know enough is to 



take refuge behind a half-truth and ignore the fact that decisions will be 



made regardless of the amount of information available. . .it is far better to 



examine available knowledge, combine it with expert opinion on how the 



system operates, and make predictions about the consequences of alter 



native management actions." 



This is not to suggest, however, that research in the area offish and wildlife impact 



assessment is complete or that it should cease. Quite the opposite is true. As our 



ability to analyze and synthesize has increased, the gaps in the knowledge necessary 



to expand our understanding and make predictions about impacts have become 



obvious. The basic research regarding the life history of an organism and its 



relationship to its habitat and ecosystem is lacking for most species, especially the 



nongame species. However, now that those gaps have been recognized, efforts are 



being made to fill them. 



The classification and inventory methodology is in a state of flux and will likely 

 remain that way for some time. Congress has imposed inventory and assessment 

 mandates on numerous agencies with myriad responsibilities. It is doubtful that any 

 one system will meet all its needs. But a concerted effort must be made to insure that 

 the data generated in one system is compatible with that generated by other systems. 

 A centralized data base is a likely outcome of the joint effort of the agencies to work 

 together in meeting their mandates. 



Research must also be expanded in the area offish and wildlife valuation. This 

 monograph has treated numerous approaches to "valuate" fish and wildlife. In 

 general, they are by: species-population, community, environmental values, habitat, 

 and economics. Greater effort must be devoted to developing "valuation" method- 

 ologies that will allow fish and wildlife to better compete in resources-allocation 

 decisions. 



It is generally accepted that the United States has the world's best funded and 

 largest number offish and wildlife scientists. Their work is unexcelled, yet according 

 to Cringan et al.^ they fall short of their potential for the following reasons: 1. 

 imbalance in ratio of applied to basic research; 2. overemphasis of short-term, at the 

 expense of long-term studies; 3. sub-optimal levels of multidisciplinary efforts; 4. 

 overemphasis of commercially important species, as compared to nongame species; 

 and 5. emphasis upon single species, rather than on communities and ecosystems. 



Overall, the Congress has provided a tremendous opportunity for those profes- 

 sionals working with fish and wildlife resources. Their mandate is clear — develop an 

 improved data base and "valuation" methodologies and inventory information to 

 enable fish and wildlife resources to compete in the resources allocation process. 

 Their challenge will be met. 



REFERENCES 



1. Speth, G. 1979. Preface. In Trans. Forty-Fourth N. ^mer. Wildl. and Nat. 

 Resour. Conf. March 24-28, 1979. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Wildlife 

 Management Institute. Washington, D.C. 



2. Udall, S. L. 1963. The Quiet Crisis. Holt Rinehart, and Winston. New York, 

 N.Y. 266 pp. 



3. Gottschalk, J. S. 1979. Concluding remarks, p. 83. In Trans. Forty-Fourth N. 

 Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. March 24-28, 1979. Toronto, Ontario, 

 Canada. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C. 



4. Schindler, D. W. 1976. The impact statement boondoggle. Science. 192:509. 



5. Watt, K. F. 1977. Why won't anyone believe us? Simulation. 28(1): 1-3 



6. Ward, D. V. 1978. Biological Environmental Impact Studies: Theory and 

 Methods. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. 157 pp. 



247 



