The Alberta Wildlifer
Summer 2000, Vol. 11, No. 3
Editors: Troy Sorensen and Dave Hobson
|
The Alberta Wildlifer |
Summer 2000, Vol. 11, No. 3 |
|
Editors: Troy Sorensen and Dave Hobson |
|
| Previous Newsletters |  |
 |
For those that were able to attend the 11th Annual Meeting of the Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society (ACTWS), I hope you found the conference as exciting and insightful to attend as I found in organizing it. One of the highlights of the conference for me was the level of enthusiasm portrayed by our membership. Of particular note was the interest shown by students from the Lethbridge Community College Student Chapter and the newly formed Student Chapter at the University of Alberta. One of my goals as president will be to foster increasing interaction between the ACTWS and the students at LCC, the U. of A. and other educational institutions in the province.
As we increasingly move into a digital age, email and web pages are increasingly used as vehicles for information exchange and archiving. Our webmaster, Troy Sorensen, has been working with students at the University of Calgary redesigning our chapter web site. I find the website a constant source of information. Did you know that you can post or view job ads on our site, view chapter newsletters (from Vol 1 to current), link to a tremendous variety of other sites, or study the history of the chapter? Take some time to become familiar with the ACTWS site, share it with a friend or colleague… or better yet have them apply for an ACTWS membership through the on-line application form.
While the web is here to stay, old-fashioned networking remains a very effective way of monitoring issues. As ACTWS members, you have an opportunity and, I would say, a responsibility to be vigilant of conservation issues that are occurring on a regional, provincial, national and international level. As an association of wildlife biologists, members of the ACTWS provide professional advice on issues that affect wildlife and wildlife management in Alberta. In our daily activities we are involved in a host of conservation issues and I would invite you to increase your involvement in chapter activities by advising the executive of conservation issues that we may want to review and/or volunteering to assist the Conservation Chair in the review process. Many of us are also involved in processes that do, or should, involve review by various stakeholders; if you sit on such a committee, I’d ask you to recommend that the ACTWS be considered as one of the reviewers.
The annual meeting is only one of many ACTWS activities that members should participate in… please, get involved… contact any of the Executive for more information.
Elston Dzus
The editors are looking for "a few good men/women" to report activities from various organizations around the province. These reports were done fairly regularly in the past and we would like to re-initiate the practice. The following are examples of reports received in the past:
The reporter would hopefully comment on the organization's activities, upcoming events, correspondence, issues, etc. Hopefully the reporter would submit reports on a regular basis but no commitment is necessary. If you feel up to the challenge email Troy.Sorensen@telus.net with your report.
Do you have an old manuscript that never got submitted but is
nevertheless interesting?
Are you starting a project and would like some publicity?
Have you found a better field/lab method to conduct research?
Submit your articles to The Wildlifer and get instant publication. We could even have your
article peer reviewed, if you wish.
One of our founding members described the creation of the Alberta Chapter as a forum for wildlife biologists to exchange professional views AND an opportunity to get together periodically to HAVE A GOOD TIME. Based on comments (in italics below) received following the annual conference, we’ve continued a tradition of sound science and having a great time.
"…very good experience for a new member. I learned a lot regarding wildlife research in Alberta."
"Fantastic presentations – great line-up of speakers"
"Combined fun casino / silent auction was a great mixer – very entertaining."
Part of the reason for going to Lethbridge was to show support for the Student Chapter at Lethbridge Community College; students and staff are to be congratulated for all their hard work and support. Despite going about as far south as we could feasibly go in Alberta, attendance in Lethbridge was incredible. We had 201 registered, including 68 students. Of 48 people who completed evaluation forms (15 students and 33 regular members), 96% felt the conference offered good value.
We tried a variety of new things this year and judging by the evaluations and verbal comments, attendees felt quite positive about the changes. This is not to say that things can’t be improved or that the format followed in past years was not a good one. Rather, a little variety from year to year is accepted by the membership. Comments received at the conference will be taken into consideration by the organizers of the 12th Annual Meeting in 2001.
There was little difference in the evaluation form responses between students and regular members; as such we present below a summary of the responses to the evaluation questions for all members combined. Values given are percentages (%) of 48 responses.
| Question | Positive |
Neutral |
Not Needed |
| Thursday evening social to start the conference | 74 |
26 |
0 |
| Friday breakfast to meet and talk with colleagues | 82 |
18 |
0 |
| Full day on Friday (instead of half day) | 96 |
4 |
0 |
| Plenary session Friday to start session | 85 |
15 |
0 |
| Plenary Saturday to get everyone out to sessions. | 75 |
21 |
4 |
| Casino | 79 |
13 |
8 |
The photo contest was another new addition for 2000. While 69% of respondents voted favorably on the venue, it was obvious that we needed to promote the event better as 15% of respondents were not aware of the event. While it could be argued that we did advertise it quite well, we just need to do a better job next year. One suggestion was to bring the actual photos to the conference and let the attendees vote for their favorites. Another comment …
"Keep photo contest, hopefully there will be more interest. There will be from me." suggests that we try it again next year.
For those skeptics of digital presentations, Janice James and the folks from the Lethbridge Community College did an outstanding job. Commented one attendee:
"best integration of powerpoint presentations I have ever seen – WELL DONE!"
Other notable comments include
"I think it was a great idea to have everything in one room…do it again next year!"
"Billeting was a good idea"
"Great fun and interesting, but need better methods to mix students and biologists…"
See you at next years conference for more fun and professional exchange.
Elston Dzus
ACTWS President
Meetings such as this always result from the combined efforts of many people. The executive of the Alberta Chapter of The Wildlife Society and conference coordinator, Elston Dzus, would like to acknowledge the volunteers who have dedicated many hours to making this meeting a success. Our apologies to those individuals who helped out but are missing from the following list; your help is greatly appreciated.
Foremost among this year’s volunteers are members of The Lethbridge Community College (LCC) Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the LCC Conservation Enforcement Association; they served a variety of key roles including registration, poster facilitation, billeting, shuttle service, running the mixer and casino, audio-visual and assisting with the auction. Terry Kowalchuck and Janice James (LCC professors) were key liaisons.
Our plenary speakers (M. Boyce, V. Adamowicz, L. Fitch, and B. Stelfox) provided stimulating presentations. Plenary chairs were C. Gates and E. Merrill.
Session Chairs were executive members from the newly formed U. of A. student chapter: B. Harrison, L. McInenly, T. Hope, and S. McKeage.
G. Hamilton was the ACTWS executive contact for the scholarship program. The Robert Goddard Memorial Scholarship review team consisted of Ian Ross, Bill Samuel and Karen Oldershaw. Ron Bjorge and two assistant reviewers screened applicants for the University student award. Ron also coordinated judging the student papers with the assistance of M. Jalkotzy and D. Collister.
Paul Jones coordinated the fund-raising auction with the assistance of B. Calverley, M. Pybus, J. Fitch, L. Cerney, and several LCC students. John Perlich (Perlich Brother Auctioneers) provided vocal wizardry for the live auction. We thank everyone who participated in the auction either by donating items or by spending hard-earned cash to acquire auction items.
D. Mckinnon and a host of volunteers ran the registration. Gail Matheson organized the conference evaluation. T. Sorensen promoted the conference on our website and ran the photography contest. D. Hobson served as the official conference photographer.
M. Pybus, B. Samuel, C. Gates and T. Kowalchuck organized the mentoring program.
We also thank all the authors of the posters and oral presentations, and of course, you, for attending the conference and making it a success.
K. Smith solicited donations; the ACTWS greatly appreciates the support provided by:
Two $600 student scholarships for the year 2000 were awarded at the Annual General Meeting in March. These were: the ACTWS Student Award, won by Nadine Raynolds from University of Calgary, and the Robert K. Goddard Memorial Scholarship, won by Chris Garrett of Lethbridge Community College. Congratulations to you both!
Most of the money for these awards comes from the auction held at the Annual General Meeting. Funds not immediately required to make scholarship pay-outs are invested in GICs. The long-term plan is to fund the scholarships fully through interest income. The financial picture has been good, and so the AGM passed a motion calling for the creation of a third award, aimed at graduate students. The motion also asked that the award amounts be increased. These actions clearly demonstrate the continued strong interest by ACTWS members in helping students and promoting excellence. Details of the graduate student award remain to be worked out. One of these details is that I will be looking for about 3 volunteers to review applications, and make recommendations. Please let me know if you are interested.
Notifications to students of the scholarship competitions will go out in the fall, with a deadline probably between Dec. 15 and Jan. 15, 2001. Winners will be announced at the following AGM. The purpose of the awards is to reward excellence in the emerging generation of wildlifers, to increase awareness of and interest in The Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and to provide an opportunity for established wildlife professionals and students to interact. Criteria evaluated in selecting a winner include previous years' marks, volunteer and work experience, a typed essay indicating career plans and a letter of reference from a faculty member or other wildlife professional.
George Hamilton
Scholarship Committee Chair
George Hamilton (left) presenting the 1999 Undergraduate Student Scholarship to Stephanie
Kurulok (U of A).
The 1999 Undergraduate Student Scholarship Certificate of Recognition went to Kimberly Pearson (U of A, photo not available).
The 2000 Undergraduate Student Scholarship went to Nadine Raynolds (U of C, photo not available).
Lorne Fitch (right) presenting the 2000 Robert K. Goddard Award to Chris Garrett
(Lethbridge Community College).
Terry Kowalchuck (left) presenting The Wildlife Society Student Leadership Award to Brian
Adcock for his active roll in the operations of the Lethbridge Community College student
chapter.
Martin Jalkotzy (left) presenting Student Poster award to John Hornung.
Ron Bjorge (left) presenting 1st prize to Stephanie Kurulok (center) and 2nd place prize
to Erin MacFarlane (right) for their student oral presentations.
Mike Dorrance (right) presenting Dedicated Service award to Ron Bjorge.
Bill Wishert (left) presenting William Rowan award to Eldon Bruns on behalf of Val Geist.
Kirby Smith (left) congratulating Bill Wishart in recognition of receiving the Bighorn
Award.
Troy Sorensen (right) presenting 1st place price to Len Poloshuk for his hawk owl photo in
the Wildlife Category.
Jason Duxbury was not present to accept his first place prize for this photo in the Scenic
Category.
Troy Sorensen (right) presenting 1st place prize to Stephen Hanus for his "Chicken
Boy" photo in the Humor category.
Second place winners included Jason Duxbury's photo of a Sharp-shinned hawk, Len Poloshuk's photo of a bog sunset, and Jason Duxbury's photo of "Gords." To see the second place photos, or any of the 52 submitted photos, visit the ACTWS website at www.albertadirectory.com/actws. B
The 2000 executive from left to right: Cormack Gates (Director), Elston Dzus (President),
Evelynn Merrill (Director), Dave Prescott (Director), George Hamilton (Director), Dave
Mckinnon (Secretary-Treasure), Mike Dorrance (Past-President).
The Alberta Chapter of The Wildlife Society’s annual auction generates funds to supports student scholarships. This years’ auction was the most successful in the history of the ACTWS, raising $4107.00. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the following for their assistance during the night of the auction: Linda Cerney, Margo Pybus, Jan Ficht, and the students of the Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society at Lethbridge Community College – your help was greatly appreciated. A big thank you to John Perlich and his assistant from Perlich Brothers Auction Market for donating their time and services to be our auctioneer. A thank you to those members who arranged for donations and assured there arrival. Last but not least to the following for donating items (in no particular order):
Adam Albright Robert Albright Terrance Blomgren
Mark Boyce Frans Brouwers Eldon Bruns
Lu Carbyn Mike Dorrance Leo Dube
Dale Eslinger Jan Ficht Janice James
Terry Kowalchuk Pat Marklevitz Dennis Pfeffer
Dave Prescot Margo Pybus Mike Spencer
Bill & Donette Samuel Brad Stelfox
John Stelfox Karin Taylor Hugh Wollis
Paul Woodard Bob Wynes
Alberta Conservation Association Artistic Taxidermy
Avocet Environmental Inc. Ducks Unlimited
Cupper’s Coffee and Tea Eco Edge Inc.
Friends of Elk Island Society Geometrics
Global Tracking Systems Inc. The Westin Hotel
B. Macabee’s Bookseller Ltd.
Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd.
Wildbird General Store
U of A Student Chapter
…. And a thank you to all those who came out and supported the auction.
Paul Jones
Auction coordinator
The Alberta Chapter of The Wildlife Society (ACTWS) is pleased announce that it will be hosting the first Northwest section meeting of the 21st century. At a recent executive meeting, the ACTWS accepted the request put forward by Jack Conelly to host the meeting. We had many great comments about the last Alberta-based conference (1996) and look forward to the opportunity of hosting the 2001 meeting.
Anyone who has been involved in organizing such a conference knows that there is a tremendous amount of hard work that goes into the preparation and delivery of such a meeting. As such, we are inviting those who would like to provide input or assist in any way to contact the local organizing committee. We will be soliciting ideas for a conference theme, symposia and other features that you may have to make the conference a success. We will be working through the Northwest Section executive board for formal contacts, but we’d encourage you to contact us directly as well.
Dates, locations and a myriad of details need to be decided upon. We will be providing updates regarding the conference on our chapter website (http://www.albertadirectory.com/actws/ ) and through the section newsletter. Our chapter meetings have been a tremendous success in recent years and we look forward to building on past successes in 2001. One of the highlights of our meetings has been a fund-raising auction; proceeds go to our scholarship fund. The 2000 auction generated some lively competitive bidding and we raised just over $4,000. To bring you into the fold, we’re inviting you to begin thinking of items that you could bring to the conference, and of course make sure your arm is well stretched in preparation for the bidding.
Please contact our conference coordinator (and president-elect for the ACTWS chapter) Arlen Todd with suggestions or to volunteer your services (Arlen.Todd@gov.ab.ca or phone 780-778-7112). o
By Anne Hobbs
It's been a busy new millennium for biologists with the Natural Resource Service (NRS) in the Northern East Slopes Region. Considerable time has been spent reviewing land use proposals from local industries (e.g. mining, logging, and petroleum) and in working with companies to minimize or mitigate any potential negative effects of these activities on wildlife. A working group comprised of government biologists and mining personnel has been established to investigate the source and aquatic effects of elevated selenium levels in mining landscapes. Selenium occurs naturally in trace amounts in rocks, soil, water, and organisms, but at elevated concentrations may cause deformities and death in animals. Elevated selenium levels have been detected in the waters of lakes created from mining activities and in the tissues of bighorn sheep foraging on reclaimed mining sites. Selenium was an issue of concern in February at the hearings for the proposed Cheviot Mine. A panel of NRS staff presented preliminary findings from the Northern East Slopes grizzly bear project and responded to questions at these hearings. Closing arguments will be heard when the hearings resume in Hinton on April 25th.
This past January, a group lead by the eminent biologist Dave Hobson donned spelunking gear and went underground to count bats at Cadomin caves. Approximately 500 bats from 4 species (little brown myotis, big brown bat, long-eared myotis, and long-legged myotis) were recorded. Bat surveys have been ongoing since 1973 and no significant changes in numbers have been observed throughout the years.
In February, members of NRS worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Game Department to capture 37 bighorn sheep from a reclaimed mine site near Cadomin for relocation to Hells Canyon along the Idaho/Oregon border. The sheep on the Cardinal River Coals Ltd. reclaimed mine areas are larger than those in nearby Jasper Park and have established a healthy, sustainable population. In the past decade, 190 sheep have been moved from the Cadomin area to enhance populations in Kananaskis Country, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho. The movement patterns, survival, and reproduction of transplanted sheep suggest that relocations have been successful.
Aerial surveys for ungulates were conducted in 3 wildlife management units (WMU's) from January to March when snow conditions permitted. Population estimates for moose were 3277 + 605, 1068 + 173, and 747 + 133 for WMU's 349 (N of Whitecourt), 348 (S of Whitecourt), and 337 (SW of Evansburg), respectively. Moose numbers are similar to those 2 to 3 years ago in WMU 349, but have been reduced by 50% in WMU 348, where heavy tick infestation occurred last year. It is not yet known how numbers in WMU 337 compare with those from previous years. Three to 24% of moose had light (<25% body) hair loss from ticks in 2000.
NRS has been involved in studying caribou in the region since the 1970s and this research continues today in association with the West-central Alberta Caribou Standing Committee. Caribou are blue listed (may be at risk) in Alberta and are designated as vulnerable by the Committee of the Status of Endangered Species in Canada. Ongoing field studies in the North East Slopes include radio-telemetry monitoring, winter range aerial surveys, habitat assessment, lichen regeneration studies, and repellent testing to reduce highway mortality. These data are to be used to determine seasonal ranges, habitat use, population trends, survival and recruitment rates, and responses to land use activities. There are presently 3 caribou ranges within the Northern East Slopes Region. The Redrock/Prairie Creek herd consists of approximately 300 individuals while the A la Peche and Little Smoky herds have 150-200 and 60+ individuals, respectively. The size of the A la Peche herd has been stable to declining since the early 1980s. The population trends for the remaining two herds are unknown. The Little Smoky herd remains in the forested lowlands year round (woodland ecotype) while the other herds generally migrate between the mountains and forested foothills. In recent years, however, the A la Peche herd has failed to move to their winter range in the foothills, preferring instead to remain in the mountains. As a result, mortality rates of caribou along highway 40 north of Hinton have decreased from 11% in the winters of 1991-92 and 1992-93 to 0% in 2000. In years where caribou have migrated across the highway, the caribou cowboy program has successful in reducing road kills.
Future summer activities for NRS in the region include aerial surveys of harlequin ducks, trumpeter swans, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. 4
May 2 - 5, 2000
Coos Bay, Oregon
Session topics include: research methods and techniques, management of bear-human conflicts, ecology, state and provincial status reports, social aspects, and management and conservation. For more information, contact Troy Sorensen (Troy.Sorensen@telus.net, 780-723-8556) for full registration package.
May 6-11, 2000
Salem, Oregon
The deadline for registration is quickly approaching on 15 February 2000. The conference to be held near Salem, Oregon, is open to scientists interested in tree squirrels and their ecology and conservation in the broadest sense. We encourage a diversity of biologists to attend with the common theme being the use of tree squirrels as model systems for biological research. Conference participation is limited to 80 attendees. Oral and poster presentation sessions are scheduled at the Silver Falls Conference Center in the foothills to the Cascade Mountains of western Oregon. Roundtable discussions, a whale-watching cruise and a banquet are also scheduled. Preconference festivities include an optional excursion to the High Desert country of eastern Oregon. Registration after the 15th of February will be possible but only as space permits. A web site has been created that details the conference and contains registration materials at:
May 8 - 12, 2000, Edmonton, Alberta
An international conference focusing on the current scientific understanding of forest carbon dynamics in the circumpolar boreal region. Verbal and poster presentations are invited on the following themes: boreal forest carbon budgets, monitoring carbon fluxes and stocks, forestry practices for carbon management, social and economic issues, and implications of Kyoto. Abstracts should be submitted to the Conference Coordinator (5320 - 122 St. Edmonton, Alberta, T6H 3S5, Fax: 780 - 435 - 7356, email: carbon@nofc.forestry.ca) by November 1, 1999. For more information visit the website: www.nofc.forestry.ca/carbon.
August 2000
Hosted by the Manitoba Chapter of the Wildlife Society, this 2-3 day meeting will feature several paper sessions, field trips and evening get-togethers.
Contact: Bob Emery, ph 204-467-3238, b_emery@ducks.ca
November 1 - 3, 2000
TELUS Convention Centre
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS: The purpose of CEEM 2000 is to provide participants with clear and practical solutions for the proactive and effective management of cumulative effects. This three day forum will examine processes for managing cumulative effects using examples from a variety of development projects and perspectives. Practitioners are invited to submit an abstract summarizing a paper for presentation at the symposium either orally on in a poster session. All papers are required to describe practical real-world experience that emphasis management of cumulative effects and should involve principles that are applicable to a variety of geographic regions or administrative jurisdictions. The following themes are preferred:
Successful stakeholder involvement processes
The deadline for abstract submission is January 30th, 2000. For more information please contact: George Hegmann - Technical Program Coordinator, Tel: (403) 750-7668 or Email: ghegmann@axys.net Full details on the symposium and instructions for submission of abstracts can be found on the symposium website at: www.aspb.ab.ca/ceem2000.html
The Wildlife Society (TWS) has a long tradition of recognizing the importance of written communication in the conservation and management of wildlife resources, and has made repeated efforts to enhance this skill among its members and other wildlifers. Baskett (1985) noted that our society’s own constitution once highlighted publication as a principal reason for the organization’s existence. Perhaps the best evidence of this is the inclusion of chapters devoted to writing in all but one of the 5 editions of the "Wildlife Techniques Manual". Interestingly, the most recent edition of the "Wildlife Techniques Manual", a well-recognized publication of the society (Bookhout 1994), excluded this subject from its contents. As editors and reviewers of manuscripts, many of us have become concerned that writing standards may be on a slow decline, especially in recent years. We see this as potentially alarming, not only for those professionals that unfortunately possess poor writing skills, but for the many colleagues that are asked to provide critical reviews of manuscripts from the editorial office. In our opinion, this should be an important concern of us all, particularly when we realize there has been a remarkable proliferation of wildlife journals and paper submissions in recent years.
The importance of any decline in writing skills is best viewed in terms of costs, which boils down to time. While a few manuscripts are returned to authors immediately after submission because of inappropriate subject matter or improper formatting (currently, about 18% of submitted manuscripts have been returned to authors for such reasons), the majority (about 400 per year) find their way into the hands of your colleagues (referees and associate editors) who voluntarily facilitate the peer-review process by donating their limited time and energy. Referees are asked to evaluate the methodology, analyses, originality, and clarity of each manuscript before the associate editor recommends that the Editor-in-chief accept or reject the paper. It is this voluntary commitment of time that we as editors and associate editors would like to manage, making the volunteer effort as efficient and rewarding as possible. Without the help of these referees, the quality control process of publishing would become increasingly difficult and expensive. The solution of course is rather simple: we as authors should make every possible effort to make sure that we submit a well-written, properly formatted, manuscript.
There are at least 2 good reasons for authors to be painstaking about their paper submissions in terms of grammar and format. First, it will insure effective communication of their message to their intended readership, and, secondly, it will decrease the amount of time your peers must devote to the review of your work, potentially increasing the probability of acceptance (these factors, of course, are not independent of each other). There are times when editors can easily read the frustration and disappointment of a referee who recognizes the potential of a paper that is poorly written. Unfortunately, these submissions often result in considerable time investments by referees and editors as they attempt to facilitate the publication of important research findings, and they likely help explain the often arduous and lengthy process of peer review. One must wonder whether these are the type of papers that have turned many potential reviewers away from volunteering their valuable time to the process. It is not unusual for the editorial office to contact 3 or more of our colleagues before a reviewer is found for a submitted manuscript. For manuscripts submitted since assuming the editorship this year, reviewers of "acceptable" manuscripts have devoted 30% more time to these compared to those judged "exceptional" (6.6 hr vs. 5.0 hr, respectively). However, it is not unusual to find a reviewer devoting upwards of 12 hr on such manuscripts. Also enlightening is the observation that reviewers of manuscripts judged "unacceptable" devote an average of 5.5 hr reviewing the work, suggesting that frustration forces an early exit.
In our view, we in The Wildlife Society should all try to minimize the amount of time that our colleagues must devote to reviewing submitted manuscripts. The editorial staff of JWM encourages all authors involved in the preparation of a manuscript to make every effort possible to improve the quality of their submissions before your colleagues are asked to provide a constructive review. This would be easy if we as authors would become cognizant of the burden we place on the reviewers who volunteer their time away from other duties. It would also help if authors became more aware that a poorly written paper distracts from their message and irritates many reviewers to the point they often loose an appreciation for the effort that went into the work. Neither outcome is good, but simply reflects human nature.
We believe that many authors could help streamline the review process if they were willing to add a step or 2 to their own presubmission protocol. Based on some of the submissions that we have seen, every hour invested in presubmission review saves an equal amount of time for referees and editors. There are of course a variety of effective approaches that authors can adopt for improving the quality of manuscripts. As a minimum, all authors should take the time to study the format and writing style in published papers and consult the "Manuscript Guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife Management" (Ratti and Smith 1998). A lot can be learned by examining what has worked for others. We also recommend reviewing the guidelines for writing (Scott and Ayars 1980) in the fourth edition of the Wildlife Management Techniques Manual (Schemnitz 1980). Recruiting the assistance of colleagues, friends, or organizational resources for presubmission review is another useful approach to this end. Whatever approach you eventually adopt, rest assure your colleagues will ultimately benefit from your efforts to improve manuscript quality. The editorial staff of JWM is excited about the upcoming challenges of producing a quality scientific journal, and eagerly invite all prospective authors to ask questions or seek out our advice on matters of publication. We also look forward to seeing a continuation of the tremendous variety of papers that are now submitted to JWM each year for possible publication. As facilitators, we will do our best to make the peer-review process as constructive and useful as possible.
LITERATURE CITED
Baskett, T. S. 1985. Quality control in wildlife science. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:189-196.
Bookhout, T. A. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C., USA.
Ratti, J. T., and L. M. Smith. 1998. Manuscript guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife Management Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (1, Suppl.).
Schemnitz, S. D. 1980. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C., USA.
Scott, T. G., and J. S. Ayars. 1980. Writing the scientific report. Pages 55-60 in S. D. Schemnitz, editor. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C., USA.
Robert L. Lochmiller (Editor in Chief)
And
David S. Maehr (Associate Editor)
_