Introduction: Toward Adaptive Management and Assessment in Large Mammal Conservation

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

M. Bowman, P. Davis, & C. Redgwell, Lyster's International Wildlife Law 3–23 (2d ed. 2010).

M. Cioc, The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World's Migratory Animals (2009) (reviewing the history inter alia of the African wildlife treaties and the whaling treaties).

The evolution of the law of takings in a wildlife context, beyond a concern with killing and capture to such things as harm, habitat alteration and harassment, both domestically and internationally, can be traced in D. D. Goble & E. T. Freyfogle, Wildlife Law: Cases & Materials 585–649 and 1089–1267 (2d ed. 2010).

The historical context for these broad changes in the operating environments of wildlife management agencies is confidently sketched in W. A. Adams, Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation (2004).

M. B. Mulder & P. Coppolillo, Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture 29 (2005).

J. Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History 195 (1961).

T. R. Dunlap, Saving America's Wildlife (1988).

Goble & Freyfogle, supra note 3, at 195–210; C. R. Young, The Royal Forests of Medieval England (1979).

Mulder & Coppolillo, supra note 5, at 28.

Cioc, supra note 2, at 34–56.

This is why Cioc, id., ch. 1, refers to them as Africa's “apartheid parks” and gives them fairly critical treatment.

A. Bamford et al., Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, 287 Science 950–953 (2002). A more extensive and critical overview of the growth of protected areas, both in Africa and worldwide, appears in D. Brockington, R. Duffy, & J. Igoe, Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas 18–45 (2008), reviewed along with other relevant works in G. Wandesforde-Smith, N. Watts, & A. Levine, Wildlife Conservation and Protected Areas: Darwin, Marx, and Modern Science in the Search for Patterns That Connect, 13 J. Int’l Wildlife L. & Pol’y 357–374 (2010).

On the origins and purposes of IUCN, see R. Boardman, International Organization & the Conservation of Nature (1981). For a time, the organization called itself the World Conservation Union, but it is now simply known by its acronym as IUCN.

A. S. L. Rodriguez et al., The Value of the IUCN Red List for Conservation, 21(2) Trends Ecol. Evolution 71–76 (2006). These days, all the red lists are on a composite Web site at http://www.iucnredlist.org and can be explored using a variety of search terms.

The short history of the United States endangered species laws appearing in Goble & Freyfogle, supra note 3, at 1089–1101 begins with governmental initiatives taken in 1962.

H. P. Possingham et al., Limits to the Use of Threatened Species Lists, 17(11) Trends Ecol. Evolution 503–507 (2002).

Id.

Connectivity Conservation Management: A Global Guide (G. L. Worboys, W. L. Francis, & M. Lockwood eds. 2010); J. A. Hilty, W. Z. Lidicker, Jr., & A. M. Merenlender, Corridor Ecology: The Science & Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation (2006); The Ecosystem Approach to Marine Planning & Management (S. Kidd, A. Plater, & C. Frid eds. 2011).

D. T. Fisher & R. L. Church, Clustering and Compactness in Reserve Site Selection: An Extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection Model, 49 Forest Sci. 555–565 (2003).

C. Moritz, Defining ‘Evolutionarily Significant Unit’ for Conservation, 9(10) Trends Ecol. Evolution 373–375 (1994).

B. W. Brook et al., Predictive Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis in Conservation Biology, 404 Nature 385–387 (2000).

D. Hunter, J. Salzman, & D. Zaelke, International Environmental Law & Policy 1082–1095 (3rd ed. 2007).

Id., at 1095–1122.

A. J. Bloom, Global Climate Change: Convergence of Disciplines, ch. 4 (2010).

Cioc, supra note 2.

Bowman, Davies, & Redgwell, supra note 1, at 483–584 and 587–629.

The CBD has tough critics in the ranks of wildlife law and policy scholars, as reflected in Elisa Morgera & Elsa Tsioumani, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Looking Afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity (School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Working Paper 2011/21) (22 Aug. 2011, rev’d 27 Jan. 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1914378 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1914378 (accessed 15 Feb. 2012).

The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation (S. Oldfield ed. 2003).

In the American case, see J.B. Loomis, Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles & Applications to National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges, & BLM Lands, chs. 9–13 (2d ed. 2002); Goble & Freyfogle, supra note 3, ch. 11.

This history is described on the WWF Web site at http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/History/index.html (accessed 15 Feb. 2012).

A point emphasized in Connectivity Conservation Management, supra note 18. Another side of this picture is analyzed, however, in D. Brockington & K. Scholfield, The Work of Conservation Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, 48 J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 1–33 (2010).

W. Wolmer, Transboundary Conservation: The Politics of Ecological Integrity in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, 29 J. S. Afr. Stud. 261–278 (2003).

Symposium: Animal Migration Conservation, 41 Envtl L. 277–679 (2011).

J. A. Sobel & C. P. Dahlgren, Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design, and Use (2004).

For a delightfully revealing and ground-level introduction to the difficulties that at least one biodiversity management agency, the U.S. Forest Service, has faced in grappling, still unsuccessfully, with the demands of adaptive management, albeit with a focus on sagebrush habitats and sage grouse rather than large mammals, see Nell Green Nylen, Note: To Achieve Biodiversity Goals, the New Forest Service Planning Rule Needs Effective Mandates for Best Available Science and Adaptive Management, 38 Ecology L.Q. 241–291 (2011).