Allison, G. T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois. 338 pp. Bean, M. J. 1992. Issues and controversies in the forthcoming reauthorization battle. Endangered Species Update 9.1-4. Byars, L. L. 1984. Strategic management: Planning and implementation (cases and concepts). Harper and Row, New York, 992 pp. Clark, T. W. 1986. Professional excellence in wildlife and natural resource organizations. Renewable Resource Journal 4:8-13. Clark, T. W. 1992. Practicing natural resource management with a policy orientation. Environmental Management 16: 423-433. Clark, T. W., and J. R. Cragun. 1991. Organization and management of endangered species programs. Endangered Species Update 8:1-4. Clark, T. W., and A. H. Harvey. 1988. Implementing endangered species recovery policy: Learning as we go? Endangered Species Update 5:35-42. Clark, T. W., and S. R. Kellert. 1988. Toward a policy paradigin of the wildlife sciences. Renewable Resources Journal 6:7-16. Clark, T., and R. Westrum. 1987. Paradigms and ferrets. Social Studies of Science 17:3–31. Clark, T. W., and R. Westrum. 1989. High performance teams in wildlife conservation: A species reintroduction and recovery example. Environmental Management 13: 663-670. Clark, T. W., R. Crete, and J. Cada. 1989. Designing and managing successful endangered species recovery programs. Environmental Management 13:159–170. Clark, T. W., E. D. Amato, D. G. Whitemore, and A. H. Harvey. 1991. Policy and programs for ecosystem management in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: An analysis. Conservation Biology 5:412–422. Clark, T. W., P. Schuyler, T. Donnay, P. Curlee, T. Sullivan, P. Cymerys, L. Sheeline, R. Reading, R. Wallace, A. Marcer-Badle, Y. Defretes, and T. Kennedy, Jr. 1992. Conserving biodiversity in the real world: Professional practice using a policy orientation. Endangered Species Update 9:5-8. Duda, M. D. 1991. A bridge to the future: The wildlife diversity funding initiative. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 32 pp. Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organizational design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 426 pp. Gibbons, A. 1992. Mission impossible: Saving all endangered species. Science 256:1386. Goldstein, B. D. 1992. Science at EPA. Science 255:1336. Greenwalt, L. 1988. Reflections on the power and potential of the endangered species act. Endangered Species Update 5:7-9. Hamilton, D. P. 1992. Better science at EPA? Science 255: 147. Harrison, R. 1972. Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review May-June:119128. Hornocker, M. 1982. Letter to the editor. The Wildlifer November-December:51-52. Jackson, J. A. 1986. Biopolitics, management of federal lands, and the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. American Birds 40:1162–1168. Jackson, J. A. 1987. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Audubon Wildlife Report 1987:479–493. Jackson, J. A., P. Ramey, and B. J. Schardien. 1977. The red-cockaded woodpecker in north Mississippi. Mississippi Kite 7:14-17. Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of group think: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 245 pp. Kellert, S. R. and T. W. Clark. 1991. The theory and application of a wildlife policy framework. Pages 17-36 in W. R. Mangun and S. S. Nagel (eds.), Public policy issues in wildlife management. Greenwood Press, New York, 196 pp. King, W. B., J. A. Jackson, H. W. Kale, II, H. F. Mayfield, R. L. Plunkett, Jr., J. M. Scott, P. F. Springer, S. A. Temple, and S. R. Wilbur. 1977. Report of the committee on conservation, 1976-77: The recovery team-recovery plan approach to conservation of endangered species: A status summary and appraisal. Auk 94(4, suppl.): 1DD-19DD. Kohm, K. A. 1991. Balancing on the brink of extinction: The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, DC, 318 pp. Ligon, J. D., P. B. Stacey, R. N. Conner, C. E. Bock, and C. S. Adkisson. 1986. Report of the American Ornithologists' Union committee for the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 103:848-855. Lindblom, C. E. 1980. The policy-making process. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 131 pp. Loucks, O. L. 1992. Forest response research in NAPAP: Potentially successful linkage of policy and science. Ecolog ical Applications 2:117–123. Marshall, E. 1992. Science and science advice in favor at EPA. Science 255:1504. May, R. M. 1986. The cautionary tale of the black-footed ferret. Nature 320:13-14. McFarlane, R. W. 1992. A stillness in the pines: The ecology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. W. W. Norton, New York. Miller, B., D. Biggins, L. Hanebury, and A. Vargas. 1993. Reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. Pages 455–464 in G. Mace and P. Olmney (eds.), Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman-Hall, London. Montgomery, P. 1990. Science friction. Common Cause November/December:24-29. O'Connell, M. 1992. Response to: "Six biological reasons why the endangered species act doesn't work and what to do about it." Conservation Biology 6:140–143. Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 307 pp. Phenicie, C. K. and J. R. Lyons. 1973. Tactical planning in fish and wildlife management and research. US Depart 92-528 96-17 ment of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Research Publication 123, Washington, DC, 15 pp. Prescott, J., and M. Hutchins. 1991. Joining efforts for preservation of biodiversity. Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 227–232. Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1991. Towards an endangered species reintroduction paradigm. Endangered Species Update 8:1-4. Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't work-and what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5:273–282. Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practioner. Basic Books, New York, 374 pp. Snyder, N. R. F. 1986. California condor recovery program. Pages 56-71 in S. E. Stenner, C. M. White, and J. R. Parrish (eds.), Raptor conservation in the next 50 years. Raptor research report 5. Raptor Research Foundation, Hasting, Minnesota. Snyder, N. R. F., and H. A. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation of the California condor. Current Ornithology 6:175-267. US General Accounting Office. 1988. Endangered species: Management improvements could enhance recovery program. GAO/RCED-89-5, 100 pp. US General Accounting Office. 1989. Spotted owl petition evaluation beset by problems. Report No. RCED-89 79. Volkman, J. M. 1992. Making room in the ark: The Endangered Species Act and the Columbia River Basin. Environ ment 34:18. Warwick, D. 1975. A theory of public bureaucracy: Politia, personality, and organization in the State Department. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 252 pp. Weinberg, D. 1986. Decline and fall of the black-footed ferret. Natural History February:63–69. Wemmer, C., and S. Derrickson. 1987. Reintroduction: The zoologists dream. Pages 48–65. in Annual Proceedings, American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Wheeling West Virginia. Yaffee, S. L. 1982. Prohibitive policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 239 pp. CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus Description: The California condor is a large, distinctly marked vulture, with a nine foot wingspan and glossy black feathers and white markings on its wings. A dark ruff borders its bald head and neck. Range: There are no California condors in the wild. The last remaining condors lived in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties in California. They are thought to have formerly ranged along the Pacific coast from Canada to Mexico and across the southern United States; Pleistocene condor bones have been found as far east as Florida and even upper New York state. Habitat: Condors inhabited California mountains and foraged in the flat plains and coastal areas. Diet: Condors are carrion eaters, feeding on the carcasses of dead deer, cattle and sheep. In former times, when their range was wider, it fed on elk and pronghorn antelope carcasses and on dead seals, whales, and fish along coastal regions. Social Organization: Condors are monogamous and pair for life. The female lays one egg per season in cliff caves with a sandy substrate. If an egg is broken or taken early in the breeding season they will often lay another. From egg to independence may take over two years. Conservation Status: There are no California condors left in the wild. One to three captive produced young may be released to the wild as early as late 1991. They are listed as an endangered species in the IUCN Red Book, endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and as an Appendix I species under CITES. Threats to Survival: California condors were eliminated in the wild by a variety of factors, including lead poisoning caused by eating carrion shot by hunters. Other causes of the condor's demise were pesticide poisoning which weakened its eggs, accidental and deliberate shootings, strychnine and cyanide poisoning intended for coyotes, collisions with high power lines, changes in its habitat due to higher human population and a naturally low reproductive rate. Zoo Programs - SSP: At present, zoos represent the only hope for the California condor. There are only 40 condors in the world-- held at San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo. In these zoos, condors have laid eggs which have been successfully hatched. California condors are managed with Andean condors under a single SSP program. A studbook was recently completed for the California น Conservation: To reduce the threat of lead poisoning, pure copper bullets are being investigated as an alternative for deer hunting within the future condor range. Protected areas being considered for the reintroduction and conservation of condors include areas outside California such as the Grand Canyon in Arizona and Grey Ranch in New Mexico. Reintroduction: Female Andean condors have been released at test sites for California condor reintroduction. Since they have a similar diet and range, the Andean condors' progress should be an indicator of how California condors might fare in these areas. The released condors are being encouraged to eat only carcasses set out by the species manager. It is felt that California condors' foraging patterns must be influenced in a way to help them adapt to a modern world, which would require keeping them fed in protected areas a great proportion of the time. RED WOLF Canis rufus Description: The Red wolf's name is misleading, as its coat ranges from tawny, cinnamon red, grey or black. At 40 to 80 pounds, it is slightly smaller than the Grey wolf, but larger than the coyote. Range: The Red wolf formerly ranged over the entire southeastern United States, from the Atlantic Coast to Texas and Oklahoma. Habitat: The Red wolf can adapt easily to live in a variety of habitats, but will often avoid agricultural areas. Diet: Their diet is primarily made up of small animals, especially rabbits and hares, raccoons, squirrels, rodents and fish, but it will also hunt deer. Social Organization: Unlike the Grey wolf, the Red wolf does not live in packs but more often in pairs or small family groups. Red wolves breed once a year and have litters of two to eight pups. Conservation Status: Pure Red wolves are thought to be extinct in the wild, though Red wolf-coyote hybrids may still be found. It is listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the IUCN Red Data Book. Pure Red wolves are now restricted to small reintroduced groups at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, NC; Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN; Horn Island at Gulf Islands National Seashore, MS; Bull's Island at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, SC; and St. Vincent's Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL. Threats to Survival: Three problems reduced the Red wolf population-- hunting of the wolves as a livestock predator, destruction of its habitat through logging and agriculture, and hybridization with coyotes. As the wolf has retreated, the coyote has expanded its range to fill the Red wolf's predatory role. Zoo Programs - SSP: The Red wolf is the first SSP to be combined with a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan. All of the Red wolves in the program are owned by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and are loaned under a special permit for breeding. It was decided that the only way to save the Red wolf was to capture the remaining pure wild stock and establish a captive breeding program. There are currently about 180 captive and 55-60 free ranging Red wolves, up from 14 wild-caught wolves in 1984. Conservation: The SSP and reintroduction programs are part of the Recovery Plan for the Red wolf administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |