Dave Davis Table


Characteristic	Wetlands Protection	Bird Conservation
Taxonomic focus	All species - plants and animals	Bird species only
Environmental stress focus	Habitat alteration; chemilcal and other pollution; hyrologic change; invasives	Habitat alateration; chemical pollution; cats; towers/bulidings/turbines; human disturbance; invasives
Land focus	Primarily private land	Mix of public and private land
Primary actors	Government regulatory agencies	Land owners and managers - private and public
Government Structure	Complex - many agencies (primarily EPA & COE); poorly integrated in many cases	Less complex and more integrated; clear lead for United States Fish & Wildlife Service
State government role	Highly variable re. effectiveness, form, organizational location	Key role for state wildlife agencies; well-established roles, fairly consistent structure
Non-governmental roles	No focused NGO; support from variety of broad-mission NGOs	Variety of srong focused NGO's (eg. (American Bird Conservancy, American Birding Association) plus support from broad-mission NGOs
Planning and coordination infrastructure	No national-level broad partnerships; some regional or local efforts	Strong national-level partnerships, (eg. Partners in Flight, North American Birding Conservation Initiative; North American Waterfowl Management Plan) plus strong regional efforts (eg. Joint Ventures, Important Bird Areas)
Outreach and publications	Few national publications; outreach spotty	Many national publications plus many regional/lcoal newsletters, etc.
Public awareness and support	Lower - values and issues more abstract; viewed as private property issue/conflict; intensely political; lacks popular "icons"; limited/unfocused recreation component; more limited potential for ecotourism	Higher - general appreciation and support for birds; viewed more as public resource; less political; popular icons; large and visible recreational component - birding and hunting; good ecotourism opportunities
Science and professional discipline focus	Ecosystem structure and function; chemical cycles and pollution; water quality; hydrology; flood management; groundwater recharge; weaker professional society	Wildlife habitat and population biology; strong professional societies (eg. Waterbird Society, American Ornithological Union, Association of Field Ornithologists)
Principal conservation approach	Regulation - permitting and enforcement; compensatory mitigation	Voluntary and incentive-based programs including habitat restoration/enhancement
Monitoring and research	Newer field of science; less monitoring and research; less inventory - one incomplete national effort (NWI); less availalbe data	Older field of science; more monitoring and inventory (professional and citizen); more available data (eg. BBS, CBC, atlaes)
Restoration	More complex; less experience	Similar for wetland bird habitats but upland has longer and better track record
History	A more recent issue. Grew primarily out of water quality concerns; more process driven and legalistic; commonly win-lose	A much older issue; Grew primarily out of wildlife conservation concerns; less process-driven; less legalistic; more opportunity for voluntary efforts and innovation; commonly win-win
Geographic scale focus	Nested watersheds; location in watershed	Neste biological regions

Explanation: This table is intentionally generalized to highlight differences. Examples are included for purposes of clarification or illustration - they are not meant to be exhaustive lists. These views should not be seens as reflecting any institutional view or bias