Resort Fees and Service Fees in the U.S. Hotel Industry: Context and Concepts Related to Partitioned Pricing

Though hotel resort fees and other service charges are a source of considerable revenue at certain U.S. hotels, most hotels do not charge such fees, and among those that do, they do so for specific and unique market-based reasons such as the behavior of competition. This report reviews the concept of resort fees in an effort to provide a balanced perspective regarding service fees in the light of sensational media reports about the topic. This report finds that only approximately seven percent of U.S. hotels charge such fees, and such fees are mainly limited to resort hotels in certain markets. This report introduces the topic of partitioned pricing whereby prices quoted to consumers by businesses are broken into their component parts, a practice appearing to be common, appropriate, and preferred by consumers as well as businesses in particular types of transactions which may include certain hotel-consumer sales

Reproductive success of ospreys at two sites in Connecticut

Nest success rates and rates of fish delivery to nests were determined for two large Osprey populations in COlmecticut, one at Groton Reservoir, Groton, and one at Great Island, Old Lyme, during 1996 and 1997. Between 1993 and 1996 these Osprey populations had substantially different rates of nest success. Great Island Ospreys fledged few young while Groton Reservoir Ospreys had good nest success. During 1997, however, fledging rates were similar at the two sites. In 1996, low nest success at Great Island \u27resuited from high predation rates, probably due to raccoons. The higher nest success rate at this site in 1997 appears to be due to low predation rates because of the installation of new predator guards on all nest platforms. There was no evidence of raccoon predation at Groton Reservoir in either year. In 1996 Ospreys delivered Hsh to their nests at a similar rate on Great Island and Groton Reservoir. In 1997 Great Island Ospreys made more Hsh deliveries to their nests than Groton Reservoir Ospreys. The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) became a symbol of the environmental movement during the 1960\u27s and 1970\u27s. Several studies at that time showed that this once abundant fish hawk had declined radically in numbers. In the Connecticut River estuary and surrounding areas, more than 200 active Osprey nests were documented in 1940, but by 1970 only eight active nests remained (Spitzer 1980, as cited in Poole 1989). The Osprey\u27s decline was eventually traced to the chemical DDT and other organochlorines that were commonly used as pesticides and routinely sprayed on marshes to control mosquitoes during the 1940\u27s and 1950\u27s (Ames 1966). Since the use of DDT and other insecticides was balmed in the 1970\u27s, Osprey numbers along the East Coast have been increasing (Spitzer et a!. 1978). In some areas, such as the Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake Bay, Osprey populations are not making a full recovery. Predation by the Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginian us) was ad vanced as the most likely cause for nest failures along the New Jersey side of the Delaware Bay (Steidler et a!. 1991), while food shortage and sibling aggression were deemed the reason for nest failures in the Chesapeake Bay (McLean and Byrd 1991). Sibling aggression and brood reduction, which were common in Chesapeake Bay Ospreys, are often caused by food shortage, but are rarely observed in Ospreys with no food stress (O\u27Conner 1978; Stinson 1979; Poole 1984). Also, during the nesting months the male Osprey does 99.9% of the hunting for his family (Poole 1989). Food stress could be an indired caU$e of the nest failure of Ospreys; if the male camlOt find enough food, the female may be forced to hunt also, thereby leaving eggs or chicks vulnerable to predation. There were 106 active Osprey nests (nests with eggs) in Connecticut during 1996 and 131 active nests during 1997 (Victoria 1996, 1997). The last stronghold for nesting Ospreys in Connecticut during the DDT years was Great Island, a salt marsh located in Old Lyme. Historically, the densest colony of Ospreys in COlmecticut has been located in this marsh, and the nests at this site have had a high success rate. DUring the late 1970\u27s and into the 1980\u27s, when Ospreys began to recover from organochiorine poisoning, Great Island Ospreys continued to increase in numbers and to reproduce effectively. Since 1991, however, the number of successful nests on Great Island had declined dramatically, falling to zero in 1993 and remaining low through 1996 (Victoria 1996; Figure 1). The number of nesting Osprey pairs on Great Island remained high, but their nests produced few fledglings. Groton Reservoir in Groton, Connecticut has a similar number of nesting pairs to the Great Island population. The Groton Reservoir Ospreys have been very successful at producing young during the same time period that the Great Island Ospreys were reproducing poorly (Figure 1). Great Island Ospreys Hsh mostly on Long lslalld Soulld and surrounding brackish estuaries, while the Groton Ospreys appear to be Hshing mainly at the freshwater reservoir where they nest (personal observation). New England Ospreys liVing along the coast apparently rely mainly on three species of fish; winter flounder (P/euronecles americanus) make up 50% of the bird\u27s diet, Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannlls) account for 20% and river herring (A/osa spp,) account for 20% (Poole 1989). Survey trawls by the Connecticut Departulent of Environulental Protection, Fisheries Division, showed that the abundance of winter flounder off the Connecticut coast in 1995 was the lowest since data collection began in 1979 (Simpson et a!. 1995; Figure 2). The decrease in winter flounder coincided closely with the initial decrease in llest success at Great lsland. If the prey species that makes up 50% of the Osprey diet was less available to Ospreys at Great Island, this might affect nest success. Moreover, the Osprey population at Great Island is large, so there might be many males trying to find enough food for their families in approxinlately the same area. In contrast, the Groton Reservoir Ospreys apparently feed mainly on freshwater fish, so they would not be affected by the decline in fish populations in Long Island Sound. This study focused on comparing the diets of Ospreys at Great Island \u27and Groton Reservoir. The main goal was to determine whether the amounts of fish delivered to nests at the two sites were similar. Also, observations on any human and animal activity that might affect the Ospreys were recorded to attempt to determine whether there are other reasons that Great Island Ospreys were unsuccessful at breeding while Groton Reservoir Ospreys were successful

How to make climate change research relevant for Indigenous communities in Torres Strait, Australia

Several Torres Strait communities have significant infrastructure and sacred sites located only a few metres above sea level. As a consequence, these areas are vulnerable to erosion due to the projected increase in storm surge intensity caused by climate change. Common sense suggests that Islanders would welcome new scientific research about how climate change might affect them, in order to understand the significance of these impacts and the timeframes involved. However, one leader has taken a seemingly counterintuitive stance, and has refused to let new climate research occur. We explore why this position was taken, and the implications of this decision for ongoing scientific research. In order to carry out this analysis, we provide a contextual background by assessing Islanders’ recent experience with scientific researchers, and the response of policy-makers to it. We find that despite a clearly documented problem with “top-down” decision-making, this process remains. In this instance, we find that there is a systemic lack of collaboration with Islanders to allow them to prioritise their concerns, and a lack of adequate resources to allow them to build their resilience to climate impacts. We conclude that only through a genuine collaborative approach to climate adaptation can activities be properly developed, prioritised and undertaken

University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources Review: Final Report, December 2003

In July 2003, the School of Natural Resource Sciences was merged with the Conservation and Survey Division and the Water Center Nebraska State Survey. This merger produced the School of Natural Resources (hereafter referred to as the School ) in its current form. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln requested a ten-year review of the School\u27s programs and activities. The review was administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) in cooperation with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln\u27s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the College of Agriculture, and the School. The review document is divided into nine sections. The first section provides the basic background to the Report. Sections two through seven describe opportunities and challenges faced by the School organized around seven elements of a framework adopted by the Review Team. Section eight presents a summary of recommendations found within the report and the final section lists references cited in this report. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct a two or three day retreat to develop the intellectual core of the School. 2. Based upon the outcome of the retreat, develop a strategic hiring plan for all new faculty. 3. Use a professional facilitator to guide the School through sessions on maintaining the identity of existing centers, groups, and teams while building a common shared culture within the School. 4. Establish a leadership team to revisit definitions of scholarship based on the diverse, complex faculty now in the School. 5. Conduct a complete curriculum review and revision (graduate and undergraduate) around core issues defined in the retreat. 6. Establish a leadership team that promotes communication among all members of the School and insures transparency of decision-making in the School. 7. Devote the necessary resources to locate all faculty, staff, and students associated with the School into the Hardin Hall facility

The Grizzly, September 21, 1979

Alcohol Policy Revisions Cause Uproar • College Assigns Disciplinary Measures • Mailroom Services Questioned • Letters to the Editor • Sophomore Questionnaires • College Selects Akin As New Dean • Platforms for Frosh Offices • The Knack: It\u27s the Beat • Maintenance Changes • U.C. Clubs: Don\u27t Wait Till Next Year • Co-eds Rushing • Continuing Education Increases • USGA Notes • Ursinus News In Brief: 76/80 progress report; Psych prof honored; Interest inventory offered • Fearless Friday Forecast • College Elects New Board President • Middle States Reaccredits College • Hockey Sparked By Kamakaze Offense • Booters Stun Division I Drexel • Sutherland New Volleyball Coach •Gridders Fall at :29https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1020/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, September 29, 1978

Social changes open Fall term • Student Deans reorganized • Rebuck stresses individuality • News in brief: Lindback award presented to profs; Student dies suddenly; Miller heads Advance Ursinus; Women\u27s council meets; Fields speaks at VPI; Nine faculty appointed; Music director honored; New Alumni Secretary named • Ursinus middle class • Dr. Snyder, interim Dean • Letters to the editor: Damage policy questioned • Life on these American campuses • I. F. picnic: Let\u27s do it again • Good bands are available: Price shouldn\u27t be primary concern • Keith Moon: The life and death of The Who? • Richter welcomes frosh • USGA reports • Danforth fellowships offered • Portrait of the professor: Dr. Roger P. Staiger • Harriers open season • Football: Tough start • Sports profile: Dave Kennedy • Cross country looks strong • Football: Pre-season peek • Field hockeyhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1000/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, October 20, 1978

Homecoming \u2778 Promises Color, Excitement • Judiciary Board Convicts Two • Shopping Center to Expand • On Personal Expression • Is Pledging All Fun and Games? • Ursinus\u27 Financial Aid Structure • SFARC Repairs Damage Policy • Gallagher Explores Amish • Springsteen & Dylan: Poet Laureates or Veritable Zeros? • The World\u27s Largest Hamburger • Paradise Lost: College Woods Gone Junkyard? • X-C: Dual Wins • Bears Fall Prey Again • Soccer Wins Five • News in Brief: Our New Look; Remember to Vote; Yom Kippur Celebration; Ursinus Announces Business Workshop; Library News Shortshttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1003/thumbnail.jp

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Prevalence and control of trachoma in Australia, 1997–2004

This study aimed to document the prevalence of active trachoma and trichiasis from 1997 to 2003 and from 1987 to 2004, respectively, and to provide an overview of trachoma control activities in Australia in 2004. Prevalence data were obtained from state, territory and regional population health units and unpublished surveys. Information about trachoma control programs and activities currently implemented in Australia was obtained through structured interviews with staff involved in trachoma control. Active trachoma prevalences in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, ranging from 0–40 per cent, were reported from the Eastern Goldfields, Midwest-Murchison and Kimberley Population Health Units in Western Australia and the Northern Territory’s Centre for Disease Control. Large differences in trachoma prevalence were reported within and between different regions and from different years in the same region. Recent surveys of trichiasis in Kimberley and Central Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults demonstrated prevalences of 9–12 per cent in inland, desert areas. In contrast with developing countries where active trachoma and trichiasis are more common among adult women than men, Australian surveys have identified equal prevalence in both sexes. Interpretation of trachoma prevalence and inter-regional/state/national comparisons were hampered by lack of a uniform method of data collection and analysis. Trachoma control programs were implemented consistently in some communities, and irregularly and/or in piecemeal fashion in others. Trachoma control programs led by regional population health units working in collaboration with primary health care services were more likely to be consistently implemented over long periods of time. Trachoma is a significant public health issue in some Aboriginal communities within Australia. The Communicable Diseases Network Australia has developed guidelines for the public health management of trachoma which provide recommendations on trachoma screening, control and data collection trachoma for affected states and territories

University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources Review: Final Report, December 2003

In July 2003, the School of Natural Resource Sciences was merged with the Conservation and Survey Division and the Water Center Nebraska State Survey. This merger produced the School of Natural Resources (hereafter referred to as the School ) in its current form. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln requested a ten-year review of the School\u27s programs and activities. The review was administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) in cooperation with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln\u27s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the College of Agriculture, and the School. The review document is divided into nine sections. The first section provides the basic background to the Report. Sections two through seven describe opportunities and challenges faced by the School organized around seven elements of a framework adopted by the Review Team. Section eight presents a summary of recommendations found within the report and the final section lists references cited in this report. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct a two or three day retreat to develop the intellectual core of the School. 2. Based upon the outcome of the retreat, develop a strategic hiring plan for all new faculty. 3. Use a professional facilitator to guide the School through sessions on maintaining the identity of existing centers, groups, and teams while building a common shared culture within the School. 4. Establish a leadership team to revisit definitions of scholarship based on the diverse, complex faculty now in the School. 5. Conduct a complete curriculum review and revision (graduate and undergraduate) around core issues defined in the retreat. 6. Establish a leadership team that promotes communication among all members of the School and insures transparency of decision-making in the School. 7. Devote the necessary resources to locate all faculty, staff, and students associated with the School into the Hardin Hall facility