species" was a question often raised in Congress during hearings to amend the ESA. 

 Scientists concerned with traditional management now found themselves struggling 

 to designate critical habitat and to employ techniques, based upon the life history of 

 species, to improve the status of the species in question. 



RESEARCH NEEDS AND DIRECTION 



Cringan et al.' recently summarized the current status of fish and wildlife research. 

 This 1979 study ascribes these attributes to fish and wildlife research: ( 1) it is difficult 

 to discriminate between basic and applied research, as they are ill-defined portions of 

 a single continuum; (2) it is increasingly multidisciplinary in structure; and (3) 

 wildlife scientists in Canada and the U.S. are major contributors to, and beneficiaries 

 of, global research in wildlife. 



The issue of whether basic or applied research should be given funding priority 

 rages on, but, as pointed out by Cringan et al., this need not be an issue at all. 

 According to the National Science Board, the distinction between basic and applied 

 research is a matter of purpose, not of subsequent use:'** 



1. Basic research: "Research which has the purpose of acquiring scientific 

 knowledge of nature phenomena, where the primary aim is fuller under- 

 standing of the subject of study, rather than specific application of the resulting 

 knowledge." 



2. Applied research: "Research which may have a similar purpose, but the prime 

 aim is the potential application of the acquired knowledge." 



It is obvious that the full range of options within the continuum from basic to 

 applied research is applicable to the problems associated with the development and 

 application of inventory methodology and other skills necessary to make accurate 

 ecological predictions. 



Cringan et al.'s reference to the multidisciplinary structure of fish and wildlife 

 research is a prerequisite to the solution of increasingly complex fish and wildlife 

 issues. In 1968, the Journal of Wildlife Management had an average of 1.8 authors 

 for the 88 papers and 41 shorter articles; in 1978, the average was 2.2 authors for 72 

 papers and 75 articles.' These data indicate an increase in multidisciplinary research 

 on wildlife. 



At a time when complex relationships need to be examined in depth over a 

 long-time interval in order to expand our ability to make valid inventories and 

 predictions, our research effort seems directed toward short-term studies to solve 

 immediate crises. The five major sectors in the U.S. which conduct wildlife research: 

 private industry, Federal agencies, universities, state agencies and nonprofit 

 organizations, have established a trend toward short-term (less than five years) 

 applied research. If we accept Cringan's distinction between basic and applied 

 research (if the aim is fuller understanding, the research is basic; if application, the 

 research is applied),'* then the myriad legislative mandates and an effort to balance 

 the Federal budget will continue to drive the research efforts toward short-term, 

 applied research. This could, in the long run, be detrimental to the generation of new 

 knowledge and thus to management efforts because, as shown by Bok," there is a 

 vital link between basic science and its application. According to the National 

 Science Board'" and Smith and Karlesky,'- there is evidence of deterioration of 

 science in this country and an insufficiency in basic research is a critical problem. 



Resource Classification and Inventory 



Nearly all of the authors in this monograph have discussed a particular 

 classification system, inventory m.ethodology or assessment and planning framework 

 (Klimstra, Russell, Bailey, Cushwa, Johnston). The October 1978 issue of the 

 Journal of Forestry was devoted to a discussion of land classification and 

 inventory. '3 There was renewed need for this attention to an area that had been 



242 



