This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
The Management of
Amphibians, Reptiles and
Small Mammals in North
America: Historical
Perspective and Objectives1
Robert C. Szaro2
Historically the management of public lands from a mu1tiple use perspective has led to a system that emphasizes those habitat components or
faunal elements that primarily resulted in some sort of definable economic value. While this often benefitted other species that were not even
considered in the original prescriptions, it also negatively impacted others. We no longer can afford to take
this simplistic view of ecosystem
management. We need to use a more
holistic approach where ecological
landscapes are considered as units,
and land management practices incorporate all elements into an integrated policy. This includes examining the impacts of proposed land
uses on amphibian, reptile, and small
mammal populations.
With the passage of the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, the
monitoring of all renewable natural
resources became law. Even with this
legislation, most emphasis by National Forests in the United States has
been placed on big game, other game
species, or threatened and endangered species. Yet, the act lists five
Paper presented at symposium, Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and
Small Mammals in North America. (Flagstaff AZ. July 7 9-2 1, 1988).
*Robert C. Szaro is Research Wildlife Bioloaist, USDA Forest Service, Rockv Mountain- ores st and Range ~ x ~ e r i m estation,
nt
at the Station's Research Work Unit in
Tempe, in ~00pefationwith Arizona Stat8
University.Station Headquarters is in Fort
Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State
University.
categories of management indicator
species: (1)endangered and threatened plants and animals; (2) species
with special habitat needs; (3) species
commonly hunted, fished, or
trapped; (4) nongame species of special interest; and (5) plant and animal
species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.
Nongame birds have been the first
group to benefit from changing management practices and public concern. The management of nongame
birds within the National Forest System received a big boost from the
"Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame
Birds" held in Tucson in May 1975
(Smith 1975).Since that initial symposium, four regional workshops
were held emphasizing the management of nongame birds in forest and
range habitats (Degraaf 1978a, 1978b;
Degraaf and Evans 1979; Degraaf
and Tilghman 1980).There have also
been Forest Service sponsored symposia targeting specific bird groups
such as owls (Nero et al. 1987) and
birds using specific habitat features
such as snags (Davis et al. 1983).
Only recently has the management
of other nongame species gained increased recoenition. The landmark
symposium oneflHerpetological
Communities"
in Lawrence,
Kansas, August 1977, as part of the
I2
joint meeting of the Herpetologists'
League and the Society for the Study
of Amphibians and Reptiles, was the
first attempt to organize a vehicle for
the incorporation of papers dealing
with herpetological communities
(Scott 1982).Yet, as Gibbons (this
volume) clearly shows, little progress
has been made in the recognition of
amphibians, reptiles, and small
mammals as being important focal
points for research and management
efforts. It is encouraging that recent
comprehensive symposia have incorporated papers dealing with these
groups. There was an entire session
on Amphibians and Reptiles in the
symposium "Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management" (Johnson et
al. 19851, and almost 30% of the
Southern Evaluation Project Workshop reports work on amphibians,
reptiles, and small mammals (Pearson et al. 1987).
The intent of this symposium was
to bring scientists and managers together to exchange knowledge and
ideas on habitat requirements, management needs, and other information on these often overlooked components of North American fauna.
Another purpose was to summarize
the state-of-the-scienceof habitats
and habitat requirements of species
within these groups. Of particular
interest were papers emphasizing
habitat models, habitat requirements,
sampling techniques and problems,
community dynamics, and managemen t recomrnenda tions.
The overwhelming response to
our announcement for papers was
unexpected. More than 60 abstracts
were originally submitted for presentation. In order to overcome recent
criticism concerning so-called "gray"
literature (Bart and Anderson 1981,
Capen 1982, Finch et al. 1982, Scott
and Ralph 1988),we made every effort to improve the quality of the
symposium and its subsequent proceedings. All authors were required
to submit their first drafts 5 months
prior to the meeting in order to ensure adequate time for peer review
and editing. Each manuscript was
reviewed by two experts familiar
with the topic, and edited for style
and content by one of the symposium editors.
We found the meeting itself to be a
fertile exchange of ideas and techniques between managers and researchers from all over the country.
Those attending found the meeting
extremely enlightening both for researchers and managers because of
their exposure to new viewpoints. It
is a testament to those attending and
the quality of the presentations that
very little discussion occurred outside the meeting hall when papers
were in progress. Virtually all participants were present throughout the
symposium, from the first session to
the last.
We hope this symposium will
prove to be the boost that these faunal groups need to get increased research and management recognition.
For only with an adequate data base
can models be developed that predict
diversity in relation to natural or
man-made disturbance of ecosystems. These holistic models are of the
utmost importance for the maintenance of worldwide biodiversity
(Wilson and Peters 1988).Ecosystem
diversity is a key correlate with biological productivity and has recently
attracted considerable interest both
from theoreticians and from professionals concerned with management
of land and water systems (Suffling
et al. 1988).We feel that amphibians,
reptiles, and small mammal populations may prove to be the ultimate
indicators of habitat quality and
health, because of their sedentary
characteristics which make them
much more susceptible to management activities than do highly mobile
bird species and ubiquitous species
such as deer and turkey.
Literature Cited
Bart, J. and D. R. Anderson. 1981.
The case against publishing symposia proceedings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9:201-202.
Capen, David E. 1982. Publishing
symposia proceedings: another
viewpoint. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:183-184.
Davis, Jerry W., Gregory A. Goodwin, and Richard A. Ockenfeis
(Technical Coordinators). 1983.
Snag habitat management: Proceedings of the symposium.
USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report RM-99. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colo.
226 p.
Degraaf, Richard M. (Technical Coordina tor). 1978a. Proceedings of the
workshop on nongame bird habitat management in the coniferous
forests of the western United
States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-64.
Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 100 p.
Degraaf, Richard M. (Technical Coordinator). 1978b. Proceedings of the
workshop: Management of southern forests for nongame birds.
USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report SE-14. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Asheville, North Carolina. 176 p.
Degraaf, Richard M. and Keith E.
Evans (Proceedings Compilers).
1979. Management of north central
and northeastern forests for
nongame birds. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report
NC-51. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minn.
268 p.
Degraaf, Richard M. and Nancy G.
Tilghman (Proceedings Compilers). 1980. Workshop proceedings:
Management of western forests
and grasslands for nongame birds.
USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-86. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
535 p.
Finch, Deborah M., A. Lauren Ward,
and Robert H. Hamre. 1982. Comments in defense of symposium
proceedings: response to Bart and
Anderson. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:181-183.
Johnson, R. Roy, Charles D. Ziebel,
David R. Patton, Peter F. Ffolliott,
and Robert H. Hamre (Technical
Coordinators). 1985. Riparian ecosystems and their management:
reconciling conflicting uses. First
North American Riparian Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins,
Colo. 523 p.
Nero, Robert W., Richard J. Clark,
Richard J. Knapton, and R. H.
Hamre (Editors). 1987. Biology
and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report RM-142.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins,
Colo. 309 p.
Pearson, Henry A., Fred E. Smeins,
and Ronald E. Thill (Proceedings
Compilers). 1987. Ecological,
physical, and socioeconomic relationships within southern national
forestsf Proceedings of the southern evaluation workshop. USDA
Forest Service General Technical
Report SO-68. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans,
Louisiana. 293 p.
Scott, J. Michael and C. John Ralph.
1988. Quality control of symposia
and their published proceedings.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:68-74.
Scott, Norman J., Jr. 1982. Herpetological communities. USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 13.239 p.
Smith, Dixie R. (Technical Coordinator). 1975. Proceedings of the symposium on management of forest
and range habitats for nongame
birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-1.
Washington, D.C. 343 p.
Suffling, Roger, Catherine Lihou, and
Yvette Morand. 1988. Control of
landscape diversity by catastrophic disturbance: a theory and
a case study in a Canadian Boreal
Forest. Environmental Management 12:73-78.
Wilson, E. 0. (Editor) and Frances M.
Peter (Associate Editor). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. 521 p.