A proposal to conserve black-footed ferrets and the prairie dog ecosystem

Prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) have been poisoned throughout this century because of grazing competition with livestock. Recent evidence showed these early claims were exaggerated, but animal control was already entrenched in government policy. As a result, ongoing government subsidized poisoning has reduced prairie dogs to about 2% of their former distribution. The reduction of prairie dogs diminished species diversity in the arid grasslands of North America, including the potential extinction of the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Cost-benefit analysis revealed that poisoning costs more than any grazing benefits accrued. This analysis did not consider the long-term costs of reversing ecosystem degradation, the intangible value of biological diversity as a public benefit, or the depletion of biotic resources as a loss of actual or potential wealth. The government presently finances the poisoning policy and the preservation of endangered species like the black-footed ferret, two apparently conflicting programs. We, therefore, propose an integrated management plan that considers both interests. We propose that federal monies allocated to the poisoning program be converted into a rebate for ranchers who manage livestock while preserving the prairie dog community. This would redirect funds and personnel already allocated to prairie dog eradication to an incentive for ranchers who manage for livestock and wildlife. Livestock interests and grassland biotic diversity would both benefit.     

A model for improving endangered species recovery programs

This paper discusses common organizational problems that cause inadequate planning and implementation processes of endangered species recovery across biologically dissimilar species. If these problems occur, even proven biological conservation techniques are jeopardized. We propose a solution that requires accountability in all phases of the restoration process and is based on cooperative input among government agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and the academic community. The first step is formation of a task-oriented recovery team that integrates the best expertise into the planning process. This interdisciplinary team should be composed of people whose skills directly address issues critical for recovery. Once goals and procedures are established, the responsible agency (for example, in the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service) could divest some or all of its obligation for implementing the plan, yet still maintain oversight by holding implementing entities contractually accountable. Regular, periodic outside review and public documentation of the recovery team, lead agency, and the accomplishments of implementing bodies would permit evaluation necessary to improve performance. Increased cooperation among agency and nongovernmental organizations provided by this model promises a more efficient use of limited resources toward the conservation of biodiversity.     

Benchmarking for continuous performance improvement: Tactics for success

Benchmarking is a powerful management technique that can help improve an organization's environmental performance on a number of dimensions. Benchmarking is not a cookbook solution but a systematic process of searching for the organization that is the best at a given process (“best-in-class”) and continually adopting or adapting new processes to accelerate improvement. As a continual process including planning, analysis, integration, action, and maturity phases, benchmarking should be integrated into the planning stage of the management system. Once processes are strategically identified, they can be improved within the company's Total Quality Management program. Many benefits, such as teamwork and job satisfaction, accompany benchmarking, but the greatest companywide advantage is becoming more competitive. Finding a suitable partner is crucial to the success of the benchmarking process. This article shows the traditional one-on-one approach is the most effective because it saves time and money that allows organizations to learn from each other. In addition, examples of where benchmarking partners may be found, as well as several success indicators in the benchmarking process, are presented. Since the ultimate intent of benchmarking is positive change, the difference between reengineering and continuous performance improvement and the role benchmarking plays in each is also discussed.     

Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST): Is there a limit for biotechnology in applied animal agriculture?

The intent of this article is to outline, integrate, and interpret relevant scientific, economic, and social issues of rbST technology that have contributed to the acceptance dilemma for this product. The public is divided into social groups, each with its own set of criteria on which they base rbSTs acceptability. Criteria for the scientific community may best be described as physiological. However, for consumers, criteria may be more practical, or procedural, including human health, animal welfare, environmental concerns, and overproduction. Because the business of dairy production depends on demand from the consuming public, the criteria for acceptance of rbST by producers largely reflects those of the consumers. Of necessity, producers are also critical of rbST from a business and animal improvement standpoint. Although this article demonstrates that rbST has met most physiological criteria for acceptance, the consuming public has treated the acceptance issue with forceful skepticism. The question this article addresses is, why? The authors comment that with rbST and other biotechnologies applied to agricultural animal production, it will be the responsibility of government health agencies, scientists, and manufacturers of the products to provide early, adequate, and honest public education. Attention to the concerns of the public may be the only means to prevent hysteria over this and future agricultural products of biotechnology and will, therefore, allow the public to form logical and thoughtful criteria assessments with respect to acceptance or rejection of each product.