ICCB 2013 Program - Society for Conservation Biology

...............................................
Symposium: A National Network for Wildlife Conservation: Challenges and Solutions
Room 302
Wednesday, July 24, 8:00 to 10:00
Organizer(s):
Brad Griffith, U.S.G.S., Alaska Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Lynn Maguire, Nicholas School of the Environment, Vicky
Meretsky, School of Public and Environmental Affairs
There is a clear need for a national conservation support-program that promotes large scale biodiversity conservation through
information sharing and capacity-building services (BioScience 62(11):970-976). This network could build on the substantial
expertise of state conservation programs that are guided by State Wildlife Action Plans and increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of conservation at the national scale. Implementing such a network will present a multitude of challenges that
include identifying one or more host organizational structures and funding support, ensuring sustained participation of
network members, and incorporating lessons learned from existing regional collaborations in a timely way. We seek to
preserve the momentum generated by the referenced BioScience paper by assembling a group of potential network members
and experts in large-scale collaborative efforts to elaborate on the opportunities and challenges of implementing a national
network for wildlife conservation. Our symposium will connect ecosystems, technical and human dimensions of wildlife
conservation, and stakeholders from states, non-governmental organizations, and federal agencies in a collaborative effort to
advance the formation and implementation of a national network for wildlife conservation.
Wednesday
08:00 The Northeast Collaboration for Wildlife Conservation
John Kanter, New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept.
08:15 A national structure for collaborative science and conservation planning at the landscape scale - the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives
Benjamin S. Thatcher, USFWS Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
08:30 Building a national and international constituency for large scale conservation
Gary M. Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation
08:45 Overcoming the ‘coordination challenge’: Connecting actors across scales to build effective relationships between
science and practice
Carina Wyborn, University of Montana
09:00 The National Ecosystem Services Partnership: Lessons for a National Conservation Network
Lydia Olander, Duke Univversity
09:15 A network connecting science and conservation: NatureServe’s perspective
Mary Klein, NatureServe
Open discussion follows from 9:30 to 10:00
...............................................
Symposium: Defining Recovery and Recovery Criteria for Endangered Species: Science and
Policy Issues Behind the Current Debate in the US and Canada
Room 303
Wednesday, July 24, 8:00 to 10:00
Organizer(s):
Carlos Carroll, KCCR
The US Endangered Species Act and Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) are among the world’s most important biodiversityrelated
statutes. The Canadian federal government has suggested that SARA needs to be streamlined, in part by substituting
ecosystem conservation for time-consuming recovery plans developed for individual species. In the US, recent reviews have
proposed that, given the number of taxa which may require species-specific conservation measures in perpetuity, policymakers
need to shift emphasis from long-term federal management of listed species to more rapid delisting that allows management
by state and private entities. In contrast, others see such calls for more streamlined planning and management as undermining
conservation of vulnerable taxa. In essence, this debate hinges on unresolved questions concerning how the public interprets
the meaning of recovery and what cost it is willing to bear to achieve it. For some, recovery may imply self-sustaining
populations that can play their historic role in ecosystems, whereas others see recovery of a small intensively-managed
population as sufficient. This symposium addresses the theme of ICCB2013 as it brings together a multi-disciplinary group of
biologists and policy experts from the US and Canada to address policy questions surrounding the definition of recovery, as
well as the related issue of how planners can efficiently and transparently develop recovery criteria that guide recovery efforts.
124