Assessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program: promoting and conducting sound wildlife management

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHudson, Teresa Michelleen
dc.contributor.committeechairParkhurst, James A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberGiles, Robert H. Jr.en
dc.contributor.committeememberStauffer, Dean F.en
dc.contributor.departmentFisheries and Wildlife Sciencesen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:26:43Zen
dc.date.adate2009-01-10en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:26:43Zen
dc.date.issued1995-10-05en
dc.date.rdate2009-01-10en
dc.date.sdate2009-01-10en
dc.description.abstractA questionnaire was sent to all U.S. state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1993 (response rate 90.2%). Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available non-industrial private forest (NIPF) acreage enrolled in the FSP (x = 3.4%) did not differ regionally. Professional foresters prepared over 80% of stewardship plans. However, FSP Coordinators perceived that, among all types of preparers, foresters had the greatest need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even though site inspections were important in many states. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (i.e., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (i.e., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Nationally, landowners requested recommendations for general wildlife improvements more often than either consumptive or non-consumptive wildlife use objectives. Creating and/or managing snags, creating edge, developing food plots, and establishing mast producing species were recommended most often. A second questionnaire was sent to 300 randomly chosen Virginia FSP participants (1991 - 1993) (response rate 81.3%) who declared "wildlife" as their primary or secondary management objective. Respondents reported high satisfaction with Virginia's FSP. Lack of time, money, and equipment, and not knowing where to find skilled help were identified as impediments to implementing recommendations. Work on wildlife recommendations had been initiated by 37 - 69% of landowners.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.format.extentxxiii, 215 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-01102009-063302en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01102009-063302/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/40561en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V855_1995.H834.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 34404151en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectVirginiaen
dc.subjectland managementen
dc.subjectsurveyen
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V855 1995.H834en
dc.titleAssessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program: promoting and conducting sound wildlife managementen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplineFisheries and Wildlife Sciencesen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V855_1995.H834.pdf
Size:
6.88 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Masters Theses