Optimism and Challenge for Science‐Based Conservation of Migratory Species in and out of U.S. National Parks |
| |
Authors: | JOEL BERGER STEVEN L. CAIN ELLEN CHENG PETER DRATCH KEVIN ELLISON JOHN FRANCIS HERBERT C. FROST SCOTT GENDE CRAIG GROVES WILLIAM A. KARESH ELAINE LESLIE GARY MACHLIS RODRIGO A. MEDELLIN REED F. NOSS KENT H. REDFORD MICHAEL SOUKUP DAVID WILCOVE STEVE ZACK |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, , Missoula, MT 59801 U.S.A.;2. North American Program‐Wildlife Conservation Society, , Bozeman, MT 59715 U.S.A.;3. Grand Teton National Park, , Moose, WY 83012 U.S.A.;4. Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environment, , Lamai Goempa, Bumthang, Bhutan;5. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, , Fort Collins, CO 80525 U.S.A.;6. Vice President's Office, National Geographic Society, , Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S.A.;7. Office of Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, , Washington D.C., 20240 U.S.A.;8. Glacier Bay Field Station, National Park Service, , Juneau, AK 99801 U.S.A.;9. The Nature Conservancy, , Bozeman, MT 59715 U.S.A.;10. EcoHealth Alliance, , New York, NY 10001 U.S.A.;11. Biological Resource Management Division, , Fort Collins, CO 80525 U.S.A.;12. Office of the Director, National Park Service, , Washington D.C., 20240 U.S.A.;13. Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, , D.F., Mexico;14. Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, , Orlando, FL 32816 U.S.A.;15. Archipelago Consulting, , Portland, ME 04013 U.S.A.;16. Schoodic Education and Research Center, Acadia National Park, , Winter Harbor, ME 04693 U.S.A.;17. Ecology, Evolutionary Biology & Public Affairs, Princeton University, , Princeton, NJ 08544 U.S.A.;18. Wildlife Conservation Society, , Portland, OR 97229 U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | Public agencies sometimes seek outside guidance when capacity to achieve their mission is limited. Through a cooperative agreement and collaborations with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), we developed recommendations for a conservation program for migratory species. Although NPS manages ~36 million hectares of land and water in 401 units, there is no centralized program to conserve wild animals reliant on NPS units that also migrate hundreds to thousands of kilometers beyond parks. Migrations are imperiled by habitat destruction, unsustainable harvest, climate change, and other impediments. A successful program to counter these challenges requires public support, national and international outreach, and flourishing migrant populations. We recommended two initial steps. First, in the short term, launch or build on a suite of projects for high‐profile migratory species that can serve as proof to demonstrate the centrality of NPS units to conservation at different scales. Second, over the longer term, build new capacity to conserve migratory species. Capacity building will entail increasing the limited knowledge among park staff about how and where species or populations migrate, conditions that enable migration, and identifying species’ needs and resolving them both within and beyond parks. Building capacity will also require ensuring that park superintendents and staff at all levels support conservation beyond statutory borders. Until additional diverse stakeholders and a broader American public realize what can be lost and do more to protect it and engage more with land management agencies to implement actions that facilitate conservation, long distance migrations are increasingly likely to become phenomena of the past. Optimismo y Retos para la Conservación Científicamente Basada de Especies Migratorias Dentro y Fuera de Parques Nacionales de E.U.A. |
| |
Keywords: | conservation migration national parks planning capacity capacidad de planeació n conservació n migració n parques nacionales |
|
|