ABSTRACT The plenary theme at the 2008 annual conference of The Wildlife Society was, “Thriving within limits: toward a scenario of hope.” Wildlife professionals are still grappling with how wildlife management relates to sustainability as global limits, especially energy, become more obvious in affecting resource management. “Sustainability” as used in this paper is derived from the commonly cited, Brundtland Report definition of sustainable development as, “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Further, it is activity that simultaneously addresses the interlinked aspects of economy, environment, and social well‐being. To be effective in the future, natural resources agencies and organizations (NGOs) will be compelled to 1) reduce energy use by increasing efficiency of unavoidable uses and reducing optional energy uses; 2) anticipate how energy costs will affect resource use by various stakeholders; and 3) mitigate climate change by reducing combustion processes and thereby greenhouse gases. Because of their fundamental missions, natural resource entities have a special obligation to employ exemplary conservation practices. Challenges are great, but opportunities are significant. Higher fuel costs will constrain some management practices, but may limit further development of more rural and underdeveloped lands, thereby reducing habitat fragmentation and often wildlife damage complaints. Will energy costs promote smaller vehicles, reduction of some management practices, greater focus on recreational areas closer to population centers, consolidation of offices with other entities, and more video‐conferencing of meetings? Will wildlife management be effectively integrated into landscapes where energy crops are produced along with food and where “life‐cycle analysis” measures the full ecological footprint of land management? Agencies and NGOs can partner with stakeholders to design landscape use that is more sustainable (less pollution, conserving of energy and soil, more biologically diverse), provides better connections to nature, and enhances overall resource conservation. Educational institutions have a critical role because they are instrumental in preparing future resource managers. © 2014 The Wildlife Society. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

In many waterfowl species, females in better body condition have greater reproductive success than those in poor condition; thus, large-scale changes in body condition could influence species I population dynamics. Indices of annual productivity have decreased in Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), and the "spring condition" hypothesis (SCH) has been proposed to account for poor production and low populations in this species. We compared nutrient reserves of female Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks (A. collaris) collected during the breeding season at multiple sites in the Canadian boreal forest, the region where similar to 70% of both species breed and where they have had contrasting population trends for the past 25 years. Lesser Scaup tended to carry greater somatic lipid but slightly lower protein reserves than Ring-necked Ducks, after controlling for size. The proportion of females developing follicles was similar in both species, though Lesser Scaup initiated egg development later and exhibited less temporal variance in nesting date than Ring-necked Ducks. We also directly tested the SCH by comparing contemporary arrival and prebreeding body masses of Lesser Scaup with historical values at one boreal-forest site. However, body masses of Lesser Scaup collected in 2003-2004 were comparable to those of Lesser Scaup collected at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, during 1968-1970. Overall, our results suggest that currently, body condition of boreal-breeding Lesser Scaup is relatively similar to that of Ring-necked Ducks and to historical levels for Lesser Scaup. Future studies of factors that limit recovery of Lesser Scaup should examine migration patterns and the effects of climate change on the timing of both energetic requirements in Lesser Scaup and food-resource availability.

Conservation BiologyVolume 21, Issue 5 p. 1359-1362 Are We Consuming Too Much—for What? HERMAN E. DALY, HERMAN E. DALY School of Public Affairs, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1821, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBRIAN CZECH, BRIAN CZECH Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID L. TRAUGER, DAVID L. TRAUGER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM E. REES, WILLIAM E. REES University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMANSI GROVER, MANSI GROVER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorTRACY DOBSON, TRACY DOBSON Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 10C Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK Biology and Environmental Studies, Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author HERMAN E. DALY, HERMAN E. DALY School of Public Affairs, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1821, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBRIAN CZECH, BRIAN CZECH Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID L. TRAUGER, DAVID L. TRAUGER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM E. REES, WILLIAM E. REES University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMANSI GROVER, MANSI GROVER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorTRACY DOBSON, TRACY DOBSON Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 10C Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK Biology and Environmental Studies, Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 19 September 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00770.xCitations: 28Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature Cited Arrow, K., P. Dasgupta, L. Goulder, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, S. Levin, K.-G. Mahler, S. Schneider, D. Starrett, and B. Walker. 2004. Are we consuming too much? Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 147–172. Christensen, J. 2005. Are we consuming too much?: it turns out we may be worrying too much about how much we consume and far too little about how to invest. Conservation Biology in Practice 6: 14–19. Czech, B. 2001. Incorporating nonhuman knowledge into the philosophy of science. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 665–674. Czech, B., D. L. Trauger, J. Farley, R. Costanza, H. E. Daly, C. A. S. Hall, R. F. Noss, L. Krall, and P. R. Krausman. 2005. Establishing indicators for biodiversity. Science 308: 791–792. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Trauger, D. L., B. Czech, J. D. Erickson, P. R. Garrettson, B. J. Kernohan, and C. A. Miller. 2003. The relationship of economic growth to wildlife conservation. Technical review 03-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda , Maryland . Wackernagel, M, and W. E. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island , British Columbia . Whitehead, A. N. 1925. Science and the modern world. Free Press, New York . Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Citing Literature Volume21, Issue5October 2007Pages 1359-1362 ReferencesRelatedInformation

On 18 September 2004, The Wildlife Society (TWS) published an official policy statement on economic growth and wildlife conservation. We believe this policy statement did not adequately address the issues. Thus, TWS missed an opportunity to lead the natural resource profession in refuting the fallacious rhetoric that "there is no conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation" through the adoption of a strong policy statement on economic growth. Although we commend TWS Council for adopting a policy statement on economic growth, we believe the final wording contains several weaknesses. Here, we take a closer look at the statement and further evaluate how it might be strengthened in the future.

Author(s): Brian Czech, Eugene Allen, David Batker, Paul Beier, Herman Daly, Jon Erickson, Pamela Garrettson, Valerius Geist, John Gowdy, Lynn Greenwalt, Helen Hands, Paul Krausman, Patrick Magee, Craig Miller, Kelly Novak, Genevieve Pullis, Chris Robinson, Jack Santa-Barbara, James Teer, David Trauger and Chuck Willer Reviewed work(s): Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 2003), pp. 574-577 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784341 . Accessed: 09/08/2012 12:03

We tested for interactions among five duck species breeding on a set of 236 ponds over 4 yr. Species differed significantly in the time of hatching of broods and in their use of pond sizes. Abundance of broods was significantly correlated with pond perimeter, and hens with broods appeared to be more selective of pond sizes than breeding pairs. Because of the large number of replicates of isolated habitat units, i.e., ponds, we could perform several tests of the hypothesis that competition among broods determines the distribution and abundance of broods in time and space. In the aggregate, our analyses indicate that the degree of overlap among species is proportional to the intensity of competition as estimated by several methods. This result implicates that interspecific competition, past and present, is responsible for the differential use of pond sizes by ducks, the complementary occurrence of certain species on equivalent ponds, and in part, the divergence of early and late life history patterns.

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are 35-to-40 pound doglike mammals that have entered metropolitan areas of Virginia. They have thrived in other large cities in the United States and have a very good chance for survival here. Being generalists, they eat plants, animals, and even garbage. However, their diet mainly includes rodents, other small mammals, fruits, and vegetables, all of which are available in metropolitan areas. Although coyotes may help reduce the numbers of other problematic animals, we must respect their wild nature while learning to co-exist with them.