Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR04042
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(4)

Wildlife management in Australasia: perceptions of objectives and priorities

Kelly K. Miller A C and Darryl N. Jones B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.

B Australian School of Environmental Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: kelly.miller@deakin.edu.au

Wildlife Research 32(4) 265-272 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR04042
Submitted: 20 May 2004  Accepted: 16 March 2005   Published: 5 July 2005

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the values and attitudes held by Australasian wildlife managers as they relate to wildlife management issues, and to gain some insight into possible future directions and priorities for Australasian wildlife management. During December 2002 – February 2003, 138 questionnaires were completed by members of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS) and registrants of the 2002 AWMS annual conference. Threatened species management, threatened communities/habitats, and management of introduced species were the issues rated as needing the highest priority for the Australasian Wildlife Management Society. Issues such as animal rights, genetically modified organisms and timber harvesting on public lands were the lowest-rating issues. Respondents expressed a strong belief in managing and controlling wildlife to achieve wildlife management objectives, a strong belief that wildlife should be protected and that wildlife managers should minimise the pain and suffering of individual animals, and a belief that resources should be directed towards conserving wildlife populations rather than protecting individual animals from non-threatened populations. While respondents held a strong belief that it is important to consult the community when developing wildlife management policies and programs, there was little support for a comanagerial approach where the community has a significant role to play in decision-making processes.


Acknowledgments

We thank the School of Ecology and Environment at Deakin University for funding this study. Thanks go to the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, particularly Professor Mike Braysher, for the distribution of questionnaires at the 2002 AWMS conference, and Dr Glen Saunders for reviewing and commenting on the draft manuscript; Dr Jody Enck from the Human Dimensions Research Unit at Cornell University for supplying a copy of the questionnaire used in The Wildlife Society survey; and to Mark Antos and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the draft manuscript. Finally, we sincerely thank all those who completed the questionnaires. The study was approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference #EC188–2002).


References

AWMS (2004). Australasian Wildlife Management Society home page. http://www.awms.org.nz/index.html [accessed 29 January 2004].

Brown T. L., Decker D. J., and Enck J. W. (1992). ‘The Wildlife Society Membership Survey.’ (Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell University: Ithaca, NY.)

Brown, T. L. , Enck, J. W. , Decker, D. J. , and Frankin, T. M. (1994). The Wildlife Society: its members evaluate its services. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, 503–510.
Decker D. J., Brown T. L., and Siemer W. F. (2001). ‘Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America.’ (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Duda M. D., Bissell S. J., and Young K. C. (1998). ‘Wildlife and the American Mind: Public Opinion on and Attitudes toward Fish and Wildlife Management.’ (Responsive Management: Harrisonburg, VA.)

Giles R. H. J. (1978). ‘Wildlife Management.’ (W.H. Freeman and Co.: San Francisco.)

Jones D. N., Enck J. W., Siemer W. F., Decker D. J., and Brown T. L. (1998). ‘An Introduction to Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management: taking the North American Experience to Australia.’ Human Dimensions Research Unit Series No. 98–7. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.)

Leopold A. (1933). ‘Game Management.’ (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York.)

Manfredo M. J., Vaske J. J., and Decker D. J. (1995). Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts. In ‘Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research’. (Eds R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller.) pp. 17–31. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)

Miller K. K. (2000). Public and stakeholder values and knowledge of wildlife in Victoria, Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne.

Miller, K. K. , and McGee, T. K. (2001). Towards incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6, 205–221.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Moulton M. P., and Sanderson J. (1999). ‘Wildlife Issues in a Changing World.’ 2nd edn. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.)

The Wildlife Society (2004). The Wildlife Society: who we are. http://www.wildlife.org/about/index.cfm?tname=members [accessed 31 May 2005].