Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Wisconsin. Conservation Department”

The following case study addresses the difficulties and promise of developing a statewide interagency public information campaign to raise general awareness of water quality issues and governmental programs to address them. Due to only moderate success of voluntary programs to curb nonpoint source pollution, agencies are looking toward information and education programs to motivate the public toward conservation behavior. One of the biggest obstacles in developing an effective information/education program is institutional barriers to interagency cooperation, mirroring difficulties local conservationists encounter in their work to restore and maintain water quality at the watershed level. Cooperation between federal agencies, and resource commitment to public information is necessary at the federal level, as well as state and local levels. Agencies involved to date include the United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service; Wisconsin State Departments of Natural Resources, and Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and Administration; University of Wisconsin-Extension; Wisconsin Land Conservation Association.

This article reviews the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (hereafter President’s Task Force) findings on law enforcement field training. The President’s Task Force was critical of the San Jose Police Department Field Training Model (hereafter the San Jose Model), the most common model used by law enforcement agencies within the United States. These criticisms were the impetus for an assessment of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Law Enforcement Field Training Program which was based on the San Jose Model. The WDNR employs conservation wardens who primarily enforce wildlife, environmental, and recreational vehicle laws. This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the WDNR field training program through surveys of the perceptions and experiences of the field training officers, recruit conservation wardens, and warden supervisors. These findings also permit analysis regarding the criticisms identified by the President’s Task Force. The author found very little existing research pertaining to field training programs and little existing research on conservation law enforcement. The findings of this study persuaded command staff within the WDNR to follow the recommendations of the President’s Task Force and adopt the Police Training Officer (PTO) Model because it incorporated adult learning concepts, problem-based learning, and was more focused on community policing. Practical applications for other agencies are discussed and needs for future empirical research related to law enforcement field training are identified.

Bridge foundations contribute significantly to the serviceability and efficiency of in-service transportation networks. Foundation failure may lead to catastrophic failure of the entire structure, which in turn results in system failure, loss of life, and detours. When the soil within ground surface layers fails to satisfy the bearing capacity requirements, deep foundations such as tubular-steel concrete-filled piles are commonly used in practice. A challenge that often exists with these systems is the uncertainty surrounding in-service capacity as well as condition, which is difficult to determine from the surface. As a consequence, transportation agencies such as the Wisconsin Department of Transportation use conservative approaches, such as neglecting the tubular-steel contribution or bounding the compressive strength of the core concrete, to design these systems. This approach, while effective for safety, can yield overly conservative and costly designs. The main purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the behavior of tubular-steel, concrete-filled, cast-in-place pilings, with a concentration on the compressive strength and composite behavior between concrete core and steel shell. In this regard, a series of experimental studies, including composite and noncomposite compression loading, core samples, push-through, and flexural testing together with a compatible finite element analysis, were conducted on a series of field-cast piles with different geometrical properties. The results indicated that the steel shell made a significant contribution to the axial loading capacity of the cast-in-place piles. Moreover, no evidence of bond loss was observed during the corresponding experimental studies.

AbstractTrade‐offs exist between timing of grassland habitat management activities (e.g., weed and brush control) while also ensuring other conservation objectives (e.g., grassland bird reproductive success) are met. On land set aside for grassland conservation (e.g., lands enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program and some state and federal wildlife management areas), federal and state agencies set time frames for land management based on avoiding disturbance of grassland bird nests. However, recent calls for considering the needs of dependent fledglings in conservation plans imply a need to evaluate whether current time frames are adequate. We used initiation and end dates for 3,257 nests of 8 obligate grassland bird species in Illinois and Wisconsin and a simulation approach for fledgling survival to estimate the potential proportion of active nests at risk when management (e.g., mowing, fire) occurred on the 1st and 15th day of May, June, July, and August during the breeding season. Management during June had the potential to impact 24–61% of nests, depending on the species. Management during July had the potential to impact 4–52% of nests, depending on the species. If disturbance occurred during August, proportionately few active nests were at risk for any species (0–9% of nests on 1 August, 0–<0.5% on 15 August). Potential proportions of fledglings at risk from management were greatest in July for 7 of the 8 species (7–18%). Our study suggests that on lands where a primary conservation objective is to increase or ensure survival of grassland birds, delaying management activities until August could be beneficial for protecting both grassland bird nests and fledglings.

Recreational hunting has been the dominant game management and conservation mechanism in the United States for the past century. However, there are numerous modern-day issues that reduce the viability and efficacy of hunting-based management, such as fewer hunters, overabundant wildlife populations, limited access, and emerging infectious diseases in wildlife. Quantifying the drivers of recreational harvest by hunters could inform potential management actions to address these issues, but this is seldom comprehensively accomplished because data collection practices limit some analytical applications (e.g., differing spatial scales of harvest regulations and harvest data). Additionally, managing large-scale issues, such as infectious diseases, requires collaborations across management agencies, which is challenging or impossible if data are not standardized. Here we discuss modern issues with the prevailing wildlife management framework in the United States from an analytical point of view with a case study of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the Midwest. We have four aims: (1) describe the interrelated processes that comprise hunting and suggest improvements to current data collections systems, (2) summarize data collection systems employed by state wildlife management agencies in the Midwestern United States and discuss potential for large-scale data standardization, (3) assess how aims 1 and 2 influence managing infectious diseases in hunted wildlife, and (4) suggest actionable steps to help guide data collection standards and management practices. To achieve these goals, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources disseminated a questionnaire to state wildlife agencies (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin), and we report and compare their harvest management structures, data collection practices, and responses to chronic wasting disease. We hope our “call to action” encourages re-evaluation, coordination, and improvement of harvest and management data collection practices with the goal of improving the analytical potential of these data. A deeper understanding of the strengths and deficiencies of our current management systems in relation to harvest and management data collection methods could benefit the future development of comprehensive and collaborative management and research initiatives (e.g., adaptive management) for wildlife and their diseases.

Introduction Most developed countries, including Australia, have a strong focus on national, state and local strategies for emergency management and response in the face of disasters and crises. This framework can include coping with catastrophic dislocation, service disruption, injury or loss of life in the face of natural disasters such as major fires, floods, earthquakes or other large-impact natural events, as well as dealing with similar catastrophes resulting from human actions such as bombs, biological agents, cyber-attacks targeting essential services such as communications networks, or other crises affecting large populations. Emergency management frameworks for crisis and disaster response are distinguished by their focus on the domestic context for such events; that is, how to manage and assist the ways in which civilian populations, who are for the most part inexperienced and untrained in dealing with crises and disasters, are able to respond and behave in such situations so as to minimise the impacts of a catastrophic event. Even in countries like Australia that demonstrate a strong public commitment to cultural pluralism and social cohesion, ethno-cultural diversity can be seen as a risk or threat to national security and values at times of political, natural, economic and/or social tensions and crises. Australian government policymakers have recently focused, with increasing intensity, on “community resilience” as a key element in countering extremism and enhancing emergency preparedness and response. In some sense, this is the result of a tacit acknowledgement by government agencies that there are limits to what they can do for domestic communities should such a catastrophic event occur, and accordingly, the focus in recent times has shifted to how governments can best help people to help themselves in such situations, a key element of the contemporary “resilience” approach. Yet despite the robustly multicultural nature of Australian society, explicit engagement with Australia’s cultural diversity flickers only fleetingly on this agenda, which continues to pursue approaches to community resilience in the absence of understandings about how these terms and formations may themselves need to be diversified to maximise engagement by all citizens in a multicultural polity. There have been some recent efforts in Australia to move in this direction, for example the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI)’s recent suite of projects with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities (2006-2010) and the current Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee-supported project on “Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism” (Grossman and Tahiri), which I discuss in a longer forthcoming version of this essay (Grossman). Yet the understanding of ethno-cultural identity and difference that underlies much policy thinking on resilience remains problematic for the way in which it invests in a view of the cultural dimensions of community resilience as relic rather than resource – valorising the preservation of and respect for cultural norms and traditions, but silent on what different ethno-cultural communities might contribute toward expanded definitions of both “community” and “resilience” by virtue of the transformative potential and existing cultural capital they bring with them into new national and also translocal settings. For example, a primary conclusion of the joint program between AEMI and the Australian Multicultural Commission is that CALD communities are largely “vulnerable” in the context of disasters and emergency management and need to be better integrated into majority-culture models of theorising and embedding community resilience. This focus on stronger national integration and the “vulnerability” of culturally diverse ethno-cultural communities in the Australian context echoes the work of scholars beyond Australia such as McGhee, Mouritsen (Reflections, Citizenship) and Joppke. They argue that the “civic turn” in debates around resurgent contemporary nationalism and multicultural immigration policies privileges civic integration over genuine two-way multiculturalism. This approach sidesteps the transculturational (Ortiz; Welsch; Mignolo; Bennesaieh; Robins; Stein) aspects of contemporary social identities and exchange by paying lip-service to cultural diversity while affirming a neo-liberal construct of civic values and principles as a universalising goal of Western democratic states within a global market economy. It also suggests a superficial tribute to cultural diversity that does not embed diversity comprehensively at the levels of either conceptualising or resourcing different elements of Australian transcultural communities within the generalised framework of “community resilience.” And by emphasising cultural difference as vulnerability rather than as resource or asset, it fails to acknowledge the varieties of resilience capital that many culturally diverse individuals and communities may bring with them when they resettle in new environments, by ignoring the question of what “resilience” actually means to those from culturally diverse communities. In so doing, it also avoids the critical task of incorporating intercultural definitional diversity around the concepts of both “community” and “resilience” used to promote social cohesion and the capacity to recover from disasters and crises. How we might do differently in thinking about the broader challenges for multiculturalism itself as a resilient transnational concept and practice? The Concept of Resilience The meanings of resilience vary by disciplinary perspective. While there is no universally accepted definition of the concept, it is widely acknowledged that resilience refers to the capacity of an individual to do well in spite of exposure to acute trauma or sustained adversity (Liebenberg 219). Originating in the Latin word resilio, meaning ‘to jump back’, there is general consensus that resilience pertains to an individual’s, community’s or system’s ability to adapt to and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event (Mohaupt 63, Longstaff et al. 3). Over the past decade there has been a dramatic rise in interest in the clinical, community and family sciences concerning resilience to a broad range of adversities (Weine 62). While debate continues over which discipline can be credited with first employing resilience as a concept, Mohaupt argues that most of the literature on resilience cites social psychology and psychiatry as the origin for the concept beginning in the mid-20th century. The pioneer researchers of what became known as resilience research studied the impact on children living in dysfunctional families. For example, the findings of work by Garmezy, Werner and Smith and Rutter showed that about one third of children in these studies were coping very well despite considerable adversities and traumas. In asking what it was that prevented the children in their research from being negatively influenced by their home environments, such research provided the basis for future research on resilience. Such work was also ground-breaking for identifying the so-called ‘protective factors’ or resources that individuals can operationalise when dealing with adversity. In essence, protective factors are those conditions in the individual that protect them from the risk of dysfunction and enable recovery from trauma. They mitigate the effects of stressors or risk factors, that is, those conditions that predispose one to harm (Hajek 15). Protective factors include the inborn traits or qualities within an individual, those defining an individual’s environment, and also the interaction between the two. Together, these factors give people the strength, skills and motivation to cope in difficult situations and re-establish (a version of) ‘normal’ life (Gunnestad). Identifying protective factors is important in terms of understanding the particular resources a given sociocultural group has at its disposal, but it is also vital to consider the interconnections between various protective mechanisms, how they might influence each other, and to what degree. An individual, for instance, might display resilience or adaptive functioning in a particular domain (e.g. emotional functioning) but experience significant deficits in another (e.g. academic achievement) (Hunter 2). It is also essential to scrutinise how the interaction between protective factors and risk factors creates patterns of resilience. Finally, a comprehensive understanding of the interrelated nature of protective mechanisms and risk factors is imperative for designing effective interventions and tailored preventive strategies (Weine 65). In short, contemporary thinking about resilience suggests it is neither entirely personal nor strictly social, but an interactive and iterative combination of the two. It is a quality of the environment as much as the individual. For Ungar, resilience is the complex entanglements between “individuals and their social ecologies [that] will determine the degree of positive outcomes experienced” (3). Thinking about resilience as context-dependent is important because research that is too trait-based or actor-centred risks ignoring any structural or institutional forces. A more ecological interpretation of resilience, one that takes into a person’s context and environment into account, is vital in order to avoid blaming the victim for any hardships they face, or relieving state and institutional structures from their responsibilities in addressing social adversity, which can “emphasise self-help in line with a neo-conservative agenda instead of stimulating state responsibility” (Mohaupt 67). Nevertheless, Ungar posits that a coherent definition of resilience has yet to be developed that adequately ‘captures the dual focus of the individual and the individual’s social ecology and how the two must both be accounted for when determining the criteria for judging outcomes and discerning processes associated with resilience’ (7). Recent resilience research has consequently prompted a shift away from vulnerability towards protective processes — a shift that highlights the sustained capabilities of individuals and communities under threat or at risk. Locating ‘Culture’ in the Literature on Resilience However, an understanding of the role of culture has remained elusive or marginalised within this trend; there has been comparatively little sustained investigation into the applicability of resilience constructs to non-western cultures, or how the resources available for survival might differ from those accessible to western populations (Ungar 4). As such, a growing body of researchers is calling for more rigorous inquiry into culturally determined outcomes that might be associated with resilience in non-western or multicultural cultures and contexts, for example where Indigenous and minority immigrant communities live side by side with their ‘mainstream’ neighbours in western settings (Ungar 2). ‘Cultural resilience’ considers the role that cultural background plays in determining the ability of individuals and communities to be resilient in the face of adversity. For Clauss-Ehlers, the term describes the degree to which the strengths of one’s culture promote the development of coping (198). Culturally-focused resilience suggests that people can manage and overcome stress and trauma based not on individual characteristics alone, but also from the support of broader sociocultural factors (culture, cultural values, language, customs, norms) (Clauss-Ehlers 324). The innate cultural strengths of a culture may or may not differ from the strengths of other cultures; the emphasis here is not so much comparatively inter-cultural as intensively intra-cultural (VanBreda 215). A culturally focused resilience model thus involves “a dynamic, interactive process in which the individual negotiates stress through a combination of character traits, cultural background, cultural values, and facilitating factors in the sociocultural environment” (Clauss-Ehlers 199). In understanding ways of ‘coping and hoping, surviving and thriving’, it is thus crucial to consider how culturally and linguistically diverse minorities navigate the cultural understandings and assumptions of both their countries of origin and those of their current domicile (Ungar 12). Gunnestad claims that people who master the rules and norms of their new culture without abandoning their own language, values and social support are more resilient than those who tenaciously maintain their own culture at the expense of adjusting to their new environment. They are also more resilient than those who forego their own culture and assimilate with the host society (14). Accordingly, if the combination of both valuing one’s culture as well as learning about the culture of the new system produces greater resilience and adaptive capacities, serious problems can arise when a majority tries to acculturate a minority to the mainstream by taking away or not recognising important parts of the minority culture. In terms of resilience, if cultural factors are denied or diminished in accounting for and strengthening resilience – in other words, if people are stripped of what they possess by way of resilience built through cultural knowledge, disposition and networks – they do in fact become vulnerable, because ‘they do not automatically gain those cultural strengths that the majority has acquired over generations’ (Gunnestad 14). Mobilising ‘Culture’ in Australian Approaches to Community Resilience The realpolitik of how concepts of resilience and culture are mobilised is highly relevant here. As noted above, when ethnocultural difference is positioned as a risk or a threat to national identity, security and values, this is precisely the moment when vigorously, even aggressively, nationalised definitions of ‘community’ and ‘identity’ that minoritise or disavow cultural diversities come to the fore in public discourse. The Australian evocation of nationalism and national identity, particularly in the way it has framed policy discussion on managing national responses to disasters and threats, has arguably been more muted than some of the European hysteria witnessed recently around cultural diversity and national life. Yet we still struggle with the idea that newcomers to Australia might fall on the surplus rather than the deficit side of the ledger when it comes to identifying and harnessing resilience capital. A brief example of this trend is explored here. From 2006 to 2010, the Australian Emergency Management Institute embarked on an ambitious government-funded four-year program devoted to strengthening community resilience in relation to disasters with specific reference to engaging CALD communities across Australia. The program, Inclusive Emergency Management with CALD Communities, was part of a wider Australian National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security in the wake of the London terrorist bombings in July 2005. Involving CALD community organisations as well as various emergency and disaster management agencies, the program ran various workshops and agency-community partnership pilots, developed national school education resources, and commissioned an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness (Farrow et al.). While my critique here is certainly not aimed at emergency management or disaster response agencies and personnel themselves – dedicated professionals who often achieve remarkable results in emergency and disaster response under extraordinarily difficult circumstances – it is nevertheless important to highlight how the assumptions underlying elements of AEMI’s experience and outcomes reflect the persistent ways in which ethnocultural diversity is rendered as a problem to be surmounted or a liability to be redressed, rather than as an asset to be built upon or a resource to be valued and mobilised. AEMI’s explicit effort to engage with CALD communities in building overall community resilience was important in its tacit acknowledgement that emergency and disaster services were (and often remain) under-resourced and under-prepared in dealing with the complexities of cultural diversity in emergency situations. Despite these good intentions, however, while the program produced some positive outcomes and contributed to crucial relationship building between CALD communities and emergency services within various jurisdictions, it also continued to frame the challenge of working with cultural diversity as a problem of increased vulnerability during disasters for recently arrived and refugee background CALD individuals and communities. This highlights a common feature in community resilience-building initiatives, which is to focus on those who are already ‘robust’ versus those who are ‘vulnerable’ in relation to resilience indicators, and whose needs may require different or additional resources in order to be met. At one level, this is a pragmatic resourcing issue: national agencies understandably want to put their people, energy and dollars where they are most needed in pursuit of a steady-state unified national response at times of crisis. Nor should it be argued that at least some CALD groups, particularly those from new arrival and refugee communities, are not vulnerable in at least some of the ways and for some of the reasons suggested in the program evaluation. However, the consistent focus on CALD communities as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘in need’ is problematic, as well as partial. It casts members of these communities as structurally and inherently less able and less resilient in the context of disasters and emergencies: in some sense, as those who, already ‘victims’ of chronic social deficits such as low English proficiency, social isolation and a mysterious unidentified set of ‘cultural factors’, can become doubly victimised in acute crisis and disaster scenarios. In what is by now a familiar trope, the description of CALD communities as ‘vulnerable’ precludes asking questions about what they do have, what they do know, and what they do or can contribute to how we respond to disaster and emergency events in our communities. A more profound problem in this sphere revolves around working out how best to engage CALD communities and individuals within existing approaches to disaster and emergency preparedness and response. This reflects a fundamental but unavoidable limitation of disaster preparedness models: they are innately spatially and geographically bounded, and consequently understand ‘communities’ in these terms, rather than expanding definitions of ‘community’ to include the dimensions of community-as-social-relations. While some good engagement outcomes were achieved locally around cross-cultural knowledge for emergency services workers, the AEMI program fell short of asking some of the harder questions about how emergency and disaster service scaffolding and resilience-building approaches might themselves need to change or transform, using a cross-cutting model of ‘communities’ as both geographic places and multicultural spaces (Bartowiak-Théron and Crehan) in order to be more effective in national scenarios in which cultural diversity should be taken for granted. Toward Acknowledgement of Resilience Capital Most significantly, the AEMI program did not produce any recognition of the ways in which CALD communities already possess resilience capital, or consider how this might be drawn on in formulating stronger community initiatives around disaster and threats preparedness for the future. Of course, not all individuals within such communities, nor all communities across varying circumstances, will demonstrate resilience, and we need to be careful of either overgeneralising or romanticising the kinds and degrees of ‘resilience capital’ that may exist within them. Nevertheless, at least some have developed ways of withstanding crises and adapting to new conditions of living. This is particularly so in connection with individual and group behaviours around resource sharing, care-giving and social responsibility under adverse circumstances (Grossman and Tahiri) – all of which are directly relevant to emergency and disaster response. While some of these resilient behaviours may have been nurtured or enhanced by particular experiences and environments, they can, as the discussion of recent literature above suggests, also be rooted more deeply in cultural norms, habits and beliefs. Whatever their origins, for culturally diverse societies to achieve genuine resilience in the face of both natural and human-made disasters, it is critical to call on the ‘social memory’ (Folke et al.) of communities faced with responding to emergencies and crises. Such wellsprings of social memory ‘come from the diversity of individuals and institutions that draw on reservoirs of practices, knowledge, values, and worldviews and is crucial for preparing the system for change, building resilience, and for coping with surprise’ (Adger et al.). Consequently, if we accept the challenge of mapping an approach to cultural diversity as resource rather than relic into our thinking around strengthening community resilience, there are significant gains to be made. For a whole range of reasons, no diversity-sensitive model or measure of resilience should invest in static understandings of ethnicities and cultures; all around the world, ethnocultural identities and communities are in a constant and sometimes accelerated state of dynamism, reconfiguration and flux. But to ignore the resilience capital and potential protective factors that ethnocultural diversity can offer to the strengthening of community resilience more broadly is to miss important opportunities that can help suture the existing disconnects between proactive approaches to intercultural connectedness and social inclusion on the one hand, and reactive approaches to threats, national security and disaster response on the other, undermining the effort to advance effectively on either front. This means that dominant social institutions and structures must be willing to contemplate their own transformation as the result of transcultural engagement, rather than merely insisting, as is often the case, that ‘other’ cultures and communities conform to existing hegemonic paradigms of being and of living. In many ways, this is the most critical step of all. A resilience model and strategy that questions its own culturally informed yet taken-for-granted assumptions and premises, goes out into communities to test and refine these, and returns to redesign its approach based on the new knowledge it acquires, would reflect genuine progress toward an effective transculturational approach to community resilience in culturally diverse contexts.References Adger, W. Neil, Terry P. Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R. Carpenter and Johan Rockström. “Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters.” Science 309.5737 (2005): 1036-1039. ‹http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5737/1036.full> Bartowiak-Théron, Isabelle, and Anna Corbo Crehan. “The Changing Nature of Communities: Implications for Police and Community Policing.” Community Policing in Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) Reports, Research and Policy Series 111 (2010): 8-15. Benessaieh, Afef. “Multiculturalism, Interculturality, Transculturality.” Ed. A. Benessaieh. Transcultural Americas/Ameriques Transculturelles. Ottawa: U of Ottawa Press/Les Presses de l’Unversite d’Ottawa, 2010. 11-38. Clauss-Ehlers, Caroline S. “Sociocultural Factors, Resilience and Coping: Support for a Culturally Sensitive Measure of Resilience.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (2008): 197-212. Clauss-Ehlers, Caroline S. “Cultural Resilience.” Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology. Ed. C. S. Clauss-Ehlers. New York: Springer, 2010. 324-326. Farrow, David, Anthea Rutter and Rosalind Hurworth. Evaluation of the Inclusive Emergency Management with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities Program. Parkville, Vic.: Centre for Program Evaluation, U of Melbourne, July 2009. ‹http://www.ag.gov.au/www/emaweb/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(9A5D88DBA63D32A661E6369859739356)~Final+Evaluation+Report+-+July+2009.pdf/$file/Final+Evaluation+Report+-+July+2009.pdf>.Folke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg. “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (2005): 441-73. ‹http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511>. Garmezy, Norman. “The Study of Competence in Children at Risk for Severe Psychopathology.” The Child in His Family: Children at Psychiatric Risk. Vol. 3. Eds. E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernick. New York: Wiley, 1974. 77-97. Grossman, Michele. “Resilient Multiculturalism? Diversifying Australian Approaches to Community Resilience and Cultural Difference”. Global Perspectives on Multiculturalism in the 21st Century. Eds. B. E. de B’beri and F. Mansouri. London: Routledge, 2014. Grossman, Michele, and Hussein Tahiri. Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism. Canberra: Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee, forthcoming 2014. Grossman, Michele. “Cultural Resilience and Strengthening Communities”. Safeguarding Australia Summit, Canberra. 23 Sep. 2010. ‹http://www.safeguardingaustraliasummit.org.au/uploader/resources/Michele_Grossman.pdf>. Gunnestad, Arve. “Resilience in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: How Resilience Is Generated in Different Cultures.” Journal of Intercultural Communication 11 (2006). ‹http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr11/gunnestad.htm>. Hajek, Lisa J. “Belonging and Resilience: A Phenomenological Study.” Unpublished Master of Science thesis, U of Wisconsin-Stout. Menomonie, Wisconsin, 2003. Hunter, Cathryn. “Is Resilience Still a Useful Concept When Working with Children and Young People?” Child Family Community Australia (CFA) Paper 2. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012.Joppke, Christian. "Beyond National Models: Civic Integration Policies for Immigrants in Western Europe". West European Politics 30.1 (2007): 1-22. Liebenberg, Linda, Michael Ungar, and Fons van de Vijver. “Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) among Canadian Youth.” Research on Social Work Practice 22.2 (2012): 219-226. Longstaff, Patricia H., Nicholas J. Armstrong, Keli Perrin, Whitney May Parker, and Matthew A. Hidek. “Building Resilient Communities: A Preliminary Framework for Assessment.” Homeland Security Affairs 6.3 (2010): 1-23. ‹http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=6.3.6>. McGhee, Derek. The End of Multiculturalism? Terrorism, Integration and Human Rights. Maidenhead: Open U P, 2008.Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton U P, 2000. Mohaupt, Sarah. “Review Article: Resilience and Social Exclusion.” Social Policy and Society 8 (2009): 63-71.Mouritsen, Per. "The Culture of Citizenship: A Reflection on Civic Integration in Europe." Ed. R. Zapata-Barrero. Citizenship Policies in the Age of Diversity: Europe at the Crossroad." Barcelona: CIDOB Foundation, 2009: 23-35. Mouritsen, Per. “Political Responses to Cultural Conflict: Reflections on the Ambiguities of the Civic Turn.” Ed. P. Mouritsen and K.E. Jørgensen. Constituting Communities. Political Solutions to Cultural Conflict, London: Palgrave, 2008. 1-30. Ortiz, Fernando. Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. Trans. Harriet de Onís. Intr. Fernando Coronil and Bronislaw Malinowski. Durham, NC: Duke U P, 1995 [1940]. Robins, Kevin. The Challenge of Transcultural Diversities: Final Report on the Transversal Study on Cultural Policy and Cultural Diversity. Culture and Cultural Heritage Department. Strasbourg: Council of European Publishing, 2006. Rutter, Michael. “Protective Factors in Children’s Responses to Stress and Disadvantage.” Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 8 (1979): 324-38. Stein, Mark. “The Location of Transculture.” Transcultural English Studies: Fictions, Theories, Realities. Eds. F. Schulze-Engler and S. Helff. Cross/Cultures 102/ANSEL Papers 12. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2009. 251-266. Ungar, Michael. “Resilience across Cultures.” British Journal of Social Work 38.2 (2008): 218-235. First published online 2006: 1-18. In-text references refer to the online Advance Access edition ‹http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2006/10/18/bjsw.bcl343.full.pdf>. VanBreda, Adrian DuPlessis. Resilience Theory: A Literature Review. Erasmuskloof: South African Military Health Service, Military Psychological Institute, Social Work Research & Development, 2001. Weine, Stevan. “Building Resilience to Violent Extremism in Muslim Diaspora Communities in the United States.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 5.1 (2012): 60-73. Welsch, Wolfgang. “Transculturality: The Puzzling Form of Cultures Today.” Spaces of Culture: City, Nation World. Eds. M. Featherstone and S. Lash. London: Sage, 1999. 194-213. Werner, Emmy E., and Ruth S. Smith. Vulnerable But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of\ Resilience and Youth. New York: McGraw Hill, 1982. NotesThe concept of ‘resilience capital’ I offer here is in line with one strand of contemporary theorising around resilience – that of resilience as social or socio-ecological capital – but moves beyond the idea of enhancing general social connectedness and community cohesion by emphasising the ways in which culturally diverse communities may already be robustly networked and resourceful within micro-communal settings, with new resources and knowledge both to draw on and to offer other communities or the ‘national community’ at large. In effect, ‘resilience capital’ speaks to the importance of finding ‘the communities within the community’ (Bartowiak-Théron and Crehan 11) and recognising their capacity to contribute to broad-scale resilience and recovery.I am indebted for the discussion of the literature on resilience here to Dr Peta Stephenson, Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing, Victoria University, who is working on a related project (M. Grossman and H. Tahiri, Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism, forthcoming 2014).

<em>Abstract</em>.—Agriculture has been identified as a potential leading source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment enrichment of water bodies within the Mississippi River basin (MRB) and contributes to impaired water quality and biological resources in the MRB and the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). This study reviewed agriculture, impacts on water quality and biological resources, and a brief introduction of watershed conservation programs in the MRB. Agriculture has increased nutrients and sediment loads to the Mississippi River and the northern GOM since the 1950s. Fish and macroinvertebrate communities have shifted, and low oxygen and high-turbidity-tolerant groups became dominant. In addition to existing conservation practices such as the Conservation Reserve Program through the 1985 farm bill and other related programs (e.g., the Wetlands Reserve Program), a recent basin-wide conservation initiative—the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI)—was launched by U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service in 2010. The MRBI provides financial incentives (more than US$222 million) to producers and landowners in 640 watersheds of 13 states to implement voluntary conservation practices that improve water quality, restore wetlands, enhance wildlife habitat, and sustain agricultural profitability. Edge-of-field and watershed monitoring have been initiated through the MRBI and related agricultural conservation programs such as Section 319 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and new initiatives such as the Discovery Farms program in Arkansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota, Pioneer Farm in Wisconsin, the Louisiana Master Farmer Program in Louisiana, and others in the MRB states. These efforts will greatly improve downstream watershed ecosystem health by avoiding, controlling, and trapping nutrient and sediment runoff from agricultural fields to the Mississippi River and GOM. Although there continues to be problems with nutrient transport, sedimentation, and depleted groundwater supplies, agriculture will likely have less influence on the future ecological health condition of the Mississippi River and GOM. Future restoration programs need to focus more on state or regional coordination by classifying restoration projects and standardizing the geographic scale and evaluation methods across the whole MRB.

As you walk into the current University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, on the second floor of Russell Laboratories, you’ll see it is a far cry from Leopold’s 424 Farm Place, next to the university cow barns. Even so, resting just outside the department’s office door is a handmade Leopold Bench—one of those simply designed pieces with crossed-plank legs holding up a plank seat and back. As the Environmental Protection Agency’s Landscaping site states: “To spy a Leopold bench in someone’s yard is to know something about the family who there resides. … Its form, resting alone under a tree or in congregation around a fire-pit, reminds us of Leopold’s thoughtfulness.” This handmade blond bench, though, is over a half-century old. It was a gift to the Professor from his department—and wood-burned into it are the names of Aldo’s secretaries and graduate students for him to remember them by, and now for us to do the same. The department, of course, has changed radically since Aldo unexpectedly left. It web page displays a photo of Aldo in the upper corner and lists twenty-two faculty members, four of whom are women (which he would have liked). The fields of expertise presented at first seem like Leopold methods and topics on steroids: forest biometry, forest genetics, molecular ecology, forest remote sensing, spatial analysis, modern climate change. Other specialties are perspectives he had already been integrating into his thinking and planning: landscape ecology, forest ecosystem ecology, tree physiology, forest and environmental history, conservation biology, land use/land cover change, hydrology, population dynamics, conservation management extension, resource policy, ecosystem management, society and natural resources. Scanning the expertise of the emeritus and affiliate faculty, you can see even further outgrowths of Leopold’s far-ranging, integrated thinking and imagining: forest pathology, natural resource and land economics, biogeochemistry, international forestry, development planning, recreation management, economic forecasting, forest soils, human behavior and resource management, nutrient and carbon cycling in forest, nursery, and urban ecosystems.

<em>Abstract</em>.—In 2006, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Muskellunge <em>Esox masquinongy </em>propagation program underwent a series of strategic modifications aimed at protecting the genetic integrity of native populations and ensuring long-term sustainability of Muskellunge fisheries in Wisconsin. In addition to refined broodstock management strategies, mating and rearing strategies were refined to minimize changes in genetic diversity throughout the propagation process. To evaluate this goal, two specific criteria were developed. First, allele frequencies should not differ between the progeny life stages and the broodstock. Second, ≥95% of rare alleles found in the broodstock (alleles present at frequencies ≤5%) should be conserved within the progeny. Samples were collected during 2012 and 2013 at Governor Tommy Thompson Hatchery (GTH) and Art Oehmcke Hatchery (AOH) and were analyzed at 14 microsatellite loci. Overall, conservation of genetic diversity levels between life stages predicted by the prescribed changes to the propagation program was apparent and likely represented major improvements over historical techniques. Nevertheless, current results identified areas for further refinement. At each hatchery, at least one of the two specific criteria was met during both years. For example, AOH conserved more than 95% of rare alleles in both production years, but significant shifts in allele frequencies were observed during both years for the pooled fingerling sample and in the majority of individual rearing pond comparisons. The Governor Tommy Thompson state fish hatchery consistently demonstrated stability in allele frequencies among life stages during both years of the study. However, during 2013, less than 95% of the rare alleles present in the GTH broodstock were conserved in the progeny. Differences identified in the gamete collection protocols, specifically standardization of egg volume from each parental pairing (reducing variance in family size), will improve conservation of genetic diversity among life stages at both hatcheries.

On June 26, 1933, the University of Wisconsin offered Aldo Leopold a position teaching the nation’s first graduate program in game management. The New York Times hailed it as the “one and only ‘wild-game chair.’” This was the chance he’d been waiting for. Despite the small salary, Leopold accepted. Letters of congratulation filled the mailbox at 2222 Van Hise. Among them was one from none other than the preservationist crusader W. T. Hornaday: …My Dear Ally, I salute the University of Wisconsin, for its foresight and enterprise in establishing the first Collegiate Professorship of Game Management created in the United States… . I congratulate the Wisconsin Alumni Foundation on its correct initiative in the choice of the Best Man for the new foundation… . It is all a helpful gesture in the struggle to save American game and sport from finally going over the precipice, A.D. 1940. …Leopold set up shop in “two small, rather dark rooms” in the basement of the university’s Soils Building. As an outsider to the academic establishment, he was expected to be more of a free-floating conservation resource for the state than a departmental teacher. He outlined some of his duties for the Milwaukee Journal: ...To conduct research in the life history of Wisconsin birds and mammals; develop cropping methods suitable for their preservation and increase; train men to devise and apply such methods; impart to other students a general understanding of the wild life conservation problem; assist farmers and other landowners in selecting and applying cropping methods; integrate game with other uses of land; and advise conservation officers on questions of wild life management and policy. …He was charged with giving radio talks and public addresses, overseeing soil erosion and game-cropping projects, and helping plan a university arboretum and wildlife refuge—all before the official teaching would begin. Since conservation was “a way of living on land” for Leopold, he wanted to involve as many people as possible.