The selection of these and other topics and 

 experience gained in assembHng this document 

 suggest more comprehensive information and im- 

 proved analytical techniques are needed to better 

 describe the status of wildlife and fish resources, to 

 define effective and efficient management strategies 

 to improve that status, and to evaluate those 

 strategies to ensure the most effective activities 

 receive the highest priorities under limited budgets. 



Except for a few recreationally and commercially 

 important species, little quantitative information is 

 available on either the demand for or supply of wild- 

 life and fish populations. The only widely available 

 -information concerns the numbers of licenses sold to 

 hunters and anglers and the numbers of animals and 

 fish harvested. No State believes it has credible 

 information of this type for more than 40 species; 

 most are comfortable only when speaking to half that 

 number. Credible estimates of statewide population 

 levels are still rarer, and estimates of the numbers of 

 nonconsumptive users are fragmentary at best. More 

 complete information is available for some much 

 smaller areas, but it probably never includes more 

 than a small fraction of the entire spectrum of fauna. 

 In many areas, available information is inadequate to 

 allow a complete list of vertebrate species to be 

 compiled. 



These kinds of data are needed simply to monitor 

 what people want and the present conditions of wild- 

 life and fish, so that the greatest needs for manage- 

 ment programs to correct unsatisfactory conditions 

 can be identified. Identifying programs that will be of 

 the greatest benefit in the future requires projecting 

 demands and populations and the availability of 

 those populations to users. At this time, projecting 

 demands for these resources is almost entirely a mat- 

 ter of personal judgment; the understanding of the 

 determinants of demand is still rudimentary. 



The state of the art of projecting population levels 

 is relatively advanced for a few species of importance 

 to consumptive users. Unfortunately, traditional ap- 

 proaches for dealing with one species at a time have 

 two major drawbacks: the process is so expensive and 

 slow that serious attention is seldom focused on 

 "minor" species and little information is gained about 

 the interrelationships within faunal communities. 

 Current work in developing "species profiles" as a 

 basis for grouping species by similar habitat require- 

 ments promises to allow at least first-order projec- 

 tions of the conditions of entire faunal communities 

 within the near future and to provide a comprehen- 

 sive basis for more detailed species-by-species anal- 

 yses that will be needed for improved projections. 



A major constraint on projecting wildlife condi- 

 tions is the dearth of inventory data defining the 

 extent of existing habitats. No comprehensive and 

 quantitative inventory of available habitats exists for 

 any substantial part of the Nation, nor are there a 

 commonly accepted conceptual basis and set of tools 

 for developing such an inventory. '- To predict condi- 

 tions and develop management programs oriented to 

 the future, quantitative measurements are needed 

 that can be related to inventory data on other re- 

 sources. The extent to which habitat measurements 

 can be correlated with existing historical data, and 

 particularly with the relatively extensive information 

 that is available for timber resources, will determine 

 the ability to develop historical trends and projections. 



To develop management strategies that are most 

 likely to enhance wildlife and fish in the future, it is 

 necessary to better understand the impacts on wildlife 

 and fish of both major and minor changes in the land 

 and water base. The conversion of forest and range 

 lands to agricultural and urban uses will continue, 

 and it is likely that energy and water-related develop- 

 ments will expand considerably. 



What are the quantitative implications of man- 

 agement activities to animal populations? How many 

 more deer or salmon will be produced by following a 

 particular habitat management regime or by limiting 

 consumptive use? With few exceptions, we have little 

 ability to quantitatively predict the consequences of 

 alternative combinations of habitat manipulation and 

 use regulation. Of general concern in the manage- 

 ment of terrestrial species are the potential gains and 

 losses of using controlled fire and chemicals and care- 

 fully tailored silvicultural and livestock grazing 

 techniques. 



Insects, diseases, and wild fires have direct impacts 

 on the vegetation that provides habitat for wildlife 

 and indirect impacts on aquatic habitats. Research is 

 needed to define short-term and long-term conse- 

 quences to wild fauna and to utilize or compensate 

 for these potentially destructive agents in forest and 

 range land management. 



In general, good management strategies are those 

 that lead to desired conditions most quickly, are eco- 

 nomically efficient, place low demands on budgets, 

 and have low negative impacts on other resources. 

 Insuring desirable conditions for wildlife and fish 

 populations frequently imposes constraints on the 

 uses of other resources. Because such constraints 

 imply very real costs, research is needed to set those 



" Hirsch, A., W. B. Krohn, D. L. Schweitzer, and C. H. Thomas. 

 Trends and needs in Federal inventories of wildlife habitat. In 

 Trans. No. Amer. Wildl. and Natur. Resource Conf. 44:267-284. 

 1979. 



151 



