Title page for ETD etd-01102009-063302
|Type of Document
||Hudson, Teresa Michelle
||Assessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program :promoting and conducting sound wildlife management
||Master of Science
||Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
|Parkhurst, James A.
|Giles, Robert H. Jr.
|Stauffer, Dean F.
- land management
|Date of Defense
A 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.
|| Approximate Download Time
| 28.8 Modem
|| 56K Modem
|| ISDN (64 Kb)
|| ISDN (128 Kb)
|| Higher-speed Access
next to an author's name indicates that all
files or directories associated with their ETD
are accessible from the Virginia Tech campus network only.
If you have questions or technical
problems, please Contact DLA.