Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Sterling Miller (1990)
Population Management of Bears in North America, 8
H. Lasswell (1971)
From fragmentation to configurationPolicy Sciences, 2
B. Mclellan (1990)
Relationships between Human Industrial Activity and Grizzly Bears, 8
J. Heinen, R. Low (1992)
Human Behavioural Ecology and Environmental ConservationEnvironmental Conservation, 19
D. Mattson (1990)
Human impacts on bear habitat use, 8
R. Reading, T. Clark, S. Kellert (1994)
Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystemSociety & Natural Resources, 7
G. Caughley (1994)
Directions in conservation biologyJournal of Animal Ecology, 63
R. Costanza, H. Daly (1992)
Natural Capital and Sustainable DevelopmentConservation Biology, 6
Larry Aumiller, Colleen Matt (1994)
Management of McNeil River State Game Sanctuary for Viewing of Brown Bears, 9
S. Herrero (1985)
Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance
H. Romesburg, H. Romesburg (1981)
WILDLIFE SCIENCE: GAINING RELIABLE KNOWLEDGERangelands, 7
R. Mace, Steven Minta, Timothy Manley, Keith Aune (1994)
ESTIMATING GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION SIZE USING CAMERA SIGHTINGS
M. Burgman, S. Ferson, H. Akçakaya (1993)
Risk assessment in conservation biology
Ronald Brunner, L. Gunderson, C. Holling, S. Light (1997)
Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutionsJournal of Wildlife Management, 61
M. Mcdougal, W. Reisman, A. Willard (1988)
The World Community: A Planetary Social Process
B. Mclellan (1989)
Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. III: Natality and rate of increaseCanadian Journal of Zoology, 67
Alan Miller (1985)
Cognitive styles and environmental problem‐solvingInternational Journal of Environmental Studies, 26
S. Kellert, T. Clark, R. Reading, A. Clarke (1994)
A sociological perspective: valuational, socioeconomic, and organizational factors.
L. Barnthouse, J. Boreman, S. Christensen, C. Goodyear, W. Winkle, D. Vaughan (1984)
Population Biology in the Courtroom: The Hudson River ControversyBioScience, 34
Sterling Miller, E. Becker, W. Ballard (1987)
Black and Brown Bear Density Estimates Using Modified Capture-Recapture Techniques in Alaska, 7
Alan Miller (1993)
The role of analytical science in natural resource decision makingEnvironmental Management, 17
R. Gregory, R. Keeney (1994)
Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder valuesManagement Science, 40
D. Ludwig, R. Hilborn, C. Walters (1993)
Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history.Science, 260 5104
W. Roush (1995)
When rigor meets reality.Science, 269 5222
S. Funtowicz, J. Ravetz (1994)
EMERGENT COMPLEX SYSTEMSFutures, 26
D. Mattson, B. Blanchard, R. Knight (1992)
Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark pine seed cropsJournal of Wildlife Management, 56
The science and management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Rocky Mountains of North America have spawned considerable conflict and controversy. Much of this can be attributed to divergent public values, but the narrow perceptions and incomplete and fragmented problem definitions of those involved have exacerbated an inherently difficult situation. We present a conceptual model that extends the traditional description of the grizzly bear conservation system to include facets of the human domain such as the behavior of managers, elected officials, and the public. The model focuses on human‐caused mortality, the key determinant of grizzly bear population growth in this region and the interactions and feedback loops among humans that have a major potential influence on bear mortality. We also briefly evaluate existing information and technical methods relevant to understanding this complex human‐biophysical system. We observe not only that the extant knowledge is insufficient for prediction (and in some cases for description), but also that traditional positivistic science alone is not adequate for dealing with the problems of grizzly bear conservation. We recommend changes in science and management that could improve learning and responsiveness among the involved individuals and organizations, clarify some existing uncertainty, and thereby increase the effectiveness of grizzly bear conservation and management. Although adaptive management is a promising approach, we point out some key—as yet unfulfilled—contingencies for implementation of a method such as this one that relies upon social processes and structures that promote open learning and flexibility in all facets of the policy process.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 1996
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.