ABSTRACT

Brief History of Genetic Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 Disease, Damage, and Invasive Species: New Challenges in Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Case Study 1: White-Tailed Deer Overabundance, Damage, and Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Case Study 2: Feral Swine, an Exotic Invasive That Poses Risks from Damage and Disease 321 Case Study 3: Gray Fox and Rabies in the Southwestern United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Common Themes in Applied Management Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 Theoretical Foundations of Population Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Population Structure: Social Structure, Management Units, and Factors Affecting Population

Distribution and Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Assignment Methods: Direct Identification of Individuals, Migrants, and Populations. . . . . . . . . 328 Genetic Bottlenecks and Effective Size: Assessing Demographic History and

Effectiveness of Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Parentage and Relatedness: Inferences into Animal Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Management Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

The science and profession of wildlife management were born during the early twentieth century as the need for a sound knowledge base and a corps of professionals to gather and implement the knowledge (e.g., biologists, managers, and wildlife scientists) became apparent (Mackie 2000). By this time, many wildlife species had declined in number or were locally extirpated in the United States due to overexploitation and loss of habitat. Accordingly, early wildlife management and research efforts in the United States were heavily influenced by a mandate of preservation and recovery. By the mid-to-late twentieth century, many charismatic species [e.g., deer, elk (Cervus elaphus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and many species of waterfowl, wading birds, and raptors] were beginning to recover. The restoration of these species is a major conservation success story; so successful in fact that few outside of the wildlife realm are aware just how severe the declines were a few decades before. As game species recovered, a portion of wildlife research and management efforts shifted to focus on the sustainable use of these recovered species, developing harvest theory and refining

Hewitt: “7487_c018” — 2007/5/16 — 16:16 — page 318 — #2

rare or lesser-known threatened and endangered species began to receive increased attention.