I vastly appreciate the opportunity of being with you all today to help launch what, I am certain, will prove an extraordinary workshop. I bring you specific greetings and words of welcome from colleagues in eastern Washington and elsewhere in the interior Pacific Northwest and particularly from the organization that John Munn and I work for, the College of Agriculture and Home Economics and Cooperative Extension, Washington State University. We are delighted indeed to have this meeting in our corner of the world this year

Depuit, Edward J.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996) Extension Wildlife & Fisheries Specialists Conferences June 1996 Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks Edward J. Depuit Washington State University, Pullman, WA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewfsc8  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Depuit, Edward J., "Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks" (1996). 8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996). 14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewfsc8/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension Wildlife & Fisheries Specialists Conferences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening RemarksOPENING REMARKSEDWARD J. DEPUIT', Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164I vastly appreciate the opportunity of being with youall today to help launch what, I am certain, will prove anextraordinary workshop. I bring you specific greetings andwords of welcome from colleagues in eastern Washingtonand elsewhere in the interior Pacific Northwest andparticularly from the organization that John Munn and Iwork for, the College of Agriculture and Home Economicsand Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.We are delighted indeed to have this meeting in our cornerof the world this year.As our state's land grant university, Washington StateUniversity (WSU) has long supported wildlife biology andmanagement as an area of emphasis. Wildlife is presently"housed" in the College of Agriculture's Department ofNatural Resource Sciences (which I chair). We have whatI believe is a vital, high quality and growing program.With regard to teaching, over 50% of our total studentbody of 450 is composed of wildlife majors (andenrollment in wildlife has roughly tripled since 1990). Wehave six faculty in wildlife with specializations in avianand mammalian ecology, habitat ecology, wildlife nutrition,population ecology, and animal damage management. Ourresearch program, I believe, has achieved national andinternational reputation in several areas, such as nutritionalecology of large herbivores and predators—includingmoose, deer, elk, woodland caribou, and the only captivegrizzly bear research facility in the country.Having said all this, we remain hampered at WSU bylack of Extension Specialist support specifically inWildlife. However, the strength (indeed, foundation) ofour department lays in its interdisciplinary nature, wherebywildlife science is integrated with other natural resourcefields. Consequently, wildlife concerns are incorporatedwithin many (indeed, most) of the stewardship, continuingprofessional education, and youth extension programmingconducted by forestry and range specialists and by ourstate extension faculty colleagues.Now that you know a little about us, I'd like to imparta few personal perspectives on fish and wildlife extensionneeds and challenges in Washington. I will try to framethese opportunities within the theme of this week'smeeting: Educational Challenges for the Next Century—Where Should We Be Going From Here.'Chair, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,Washington State University.In 1991, Jim Miller helped produce a NationalGuidance Statement for Extension Wildlife and Fisheriesprograms, a statement that clearly identified wildlife/fisheries as (I quote): " . . .an integral part of the totalextension mission...." This underlaying principle, whilecertainly accepted by folks like us, in my experience isoften not fully recognized (institutionally) by the land-grant universities which employ us. I therefore believe ourfirst challenge is an internal one, to do a better job ofeducating our own organizations on the essentiality ofproperly supported wildlife extension programs that arewell-integrated with those in other related fields.With regard to subject matter focus, we certainly arenot hampered by a shortage of topics for extensionprogramming. Selected subjects of particular importancehere in Washington, for example, include such areas asconservation biology and biological diversity, managementfor both game and non-game species, integration ofwildlife with land management practices (such asagriculture, grazing, forestry, etc.), wetland/aquatic habitatconservation—and the list goes on and on.I'm not going to dwell upon these and other subjectmatter areas overmuch, except to state my belief that we(here in Washington at least) need to be increasinglyfocused upon types of wildlife habitat that have"traditionally" been afforded less attention than "wild"lands . I am talking here about urban/suburban areas, the"urban-rural" interface, and intensively managedlandscapes such as cropland and managed forests. Theseareas do provide highly significant habitats for certainspecies of wildlife; and comprise a part of the overallmatrix of habitats serving wildlife populations on alandscape scale. Perhaps most importantly, these types of"non-wild" lands in aggregate comprise the "type" ofhabitat (and support the wildlife) with which most of ourstate's population comes into most regular contact.I believe we need to focus upon a truly (to use anoverused term) "holistic" approach to understanding andmanaging wildlife populations and habitats, as inter-relatedto the matrix of other natural resources and resource valuesexisting in our state's ecosystems. This approach isimplicit within the emerging paradigm of ecosystemmanagement, and reinforces the notion that to besuccessful in wildlife conservation one must do more thanmyopically focus upon wildlife alone.We also, in my opinion, have some challenges relatedto the audiences/clientele we serve in wildlife extensionprograms. While continuing education programs targetedOpening Remarks—DePuit • 1to practicing natural resource professionals remainimportant, my considered opinion is that in the future wemust devote proportionately greater attention to non-professional audiences such as:• Rural and, particularly, urban youth, who will be thepublic opinion and decision makers of the future,• The general public (that is, the opinion/decisionmakers of today), many of whom may not haveintimate, day-to-day contact with wildlife but whononetheless feel an affinity for wildlife, and• The small, but important, proportion of the public whodepend upon natural resources for socioeconomicsustenance, such as farmers, loggers, fishermen, etc.,since this is a segment of society that can directlyinfluence wildlife through day-today activities.These constituencies need accurate, objective andusable information—particularly in light of the deluge of"dis"-information they are often exposed to.This brings me to some "philosophic" thoughts onneeds from extension fish and wildlife programs in thefuture. As professionals and public servants, I believe wemust take particular pains to separate "fact from fancy" ineducational programs. We have a responsibility to remainobjective and impartial in programs that are soundly basedupon science. Wildlife issues often can be contentiousand, again, our audiences certainly receive more than a fairshare of "partiality" from the media and from interestgroups on both sides of questions. Despite humantemptations to the contrary, we must not fall into the trap ofpartisanship, for reasons related to both professional ethicsand loss of credibility.I further believe that we need to integrate the"science" of fish and wildlife with socioeconomic valuesand needs in extension programming. Most of us got intothe fields of natural resources as scientists. We thus have atendency to view and educate upon fish and wildlife from arather narrow, purely scientific (or, to some, "eco-centric")standpoint. Society, however, views and assigns values towildlife and other natural resources from economic,cultural, and/or aesthetic perspectives that often are basedupon other factors. We need to recognize and integratethese socioeconomic factors right along with scientificprinciples when we provide extension education.John Munn asked that I conclude my remarks with aperceived "Chief Need" for fish and wildlife programs ofthe 21st Century. Where should we be going from here(and how should we get there)? I would sum up myrecommendations, in a global sense, with two words (andboth begin with the letter "C"): Coordination andCollaboration. By Coordination, I am referring to thechallenges of integrating fish and wildlife concerns, issues,and principles with those of other fields of science thatmay be relevant, and (as noted previously) with the needsand desires of society. By Collaboration, I am referring notonly to teamwork of wildlife extension professionals withthose in other relevant fields in program delivery, but alsoto partnerships with and among our various constituencies.The risks of not rising to this challenge—of remaininginsular in fish and wildlife extension programs—are greatindeed. Can fish and wildlife extension professionals betruly effective working solely from the perspective of fishand wildlife, and/or in isolation from fellow professionalsin other resource fields? Probably not. Let me pose someadditional questions of a more positive nature:Would chances of success in preserving old-growth-dependent wildlife be improved by coordinated, active,and willing involvement of wildlife biologists, foresters,loggers, environmentalists, etc., working together ratherthan at "loggerheads," as so often in the past?Would chances of preserving or restoring anadromousfish be enhanced by fisheries biologists working togetherwith agriculturalists, engineers, ranchers, etc., rather thanin isolation from or in opposition to each other?Would an atmosphere of mutual understanding andrespect, if not total agreement; and working forward tobuild upon points of mutual agreement help in movingdisparate interest groups toward consensus in resolvingproblems—instead of today's common recourse tolitigation?My answer to all these questions is a simple "Yes."In conclusion, I believe we have some realopportunities as fish and wildlife extension professionalsas we progress toward the 21st Century. We are in aunique position to both impart coordination andcollaboration in the programs we deliver (i.e., "lead byexample"). We also are in a position to foster thesemindsets of coordination and collaboration within thevaried constituencies we serve. A number of models toachieve these goals have been around for some time as focifor extension efforts, such as Holistic ResourceManagement, Coordinated Resource ManagementPlanning and, more recently, Collaborative Learning.These and other models all require a willingness ofextension professionals to transcend traditional disciplinaryboundaries; to work together with others in related fields;and to serve all concerned constituencies in progressingtoward shared goals.2 • Educational Challenges for the 21 g Century

Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries 
Extension Specialists Conference (1996) 
Extension Wildlife & Fisheries Specialists 
Conferences 
June 1996 
Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks 
Edward J. Depuit 
Washington State University, Pullman, WA 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewfsc8 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Depuit, Edward J., "Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks" (1996). 8th Triennial National 
Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996). 14. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewfsc8/14 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension Wildlife & Fisheries Specialists Conferences 
at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 8th Triennial National 
Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996) by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks
OPENING REMARKS
EDWARD J. DEPUIT', Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
I vastly appreciate the opportunity of being with you
all today to help launch what, I am certain, will prove an
extraordinary workshop. I bring you specific greetings and
words of welcome from colleagues in eastern Washington
and elsewhere in the interior Pacific Northwest and
particularly from the organization that John Munn and I
work for, the College of Agriculture and Home Economics
and Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.
We are delighted indeed to have this meeting in our corner
of the world this year.
As our state's land grant university, Washington State
University (WSU) has long supported wildlife biology and
management as an area of emphasis. Wildlife is presently
"housed" in the College of Agriculture's Department of
Natural Resource Sciences (which I chair). We have what
I believe is a vital, high quality and growing program.
With regard to teaching, over 50% of our total student
body of 450 is composed of wildlife majors (and
enrollment in wildlife has roughly tripled since 1990). We
have six faculty in wildlife with specializations in avian
and mammalian ecology, habitat ecology, wildlife nutrition,
population ecology, and animal damage management. Our
research program, I believe, has achieved national and
international reputation in several areas, such as nutritional
ecology of large herbivores and predators—including
moose, deer, elk, woodland caribou, and the only captive
grizzly bear research facility in the country.
Having said all this, we remain hampered at WSU by
lack of Extension Specialist support specifically in
Wildlife. However, the strength (indeed, foundation) of
our department lays in its interdisciplinary nature, whereby
wildlife science is integrated with other natural resource
fields. Consequently, wildlife concerns are incorporated
within many (indeed, most) of the stewardship, continuing
professional education, and youth extension programming
conducted by forestry and range specialists and by our
state extension faculty colleagues.
Now that you know a little about us, I'd like to impart
a few personal perspectives on fish and wildlife extension
needs and challenges in Washington. I will try to frame
these opportunities within the theme of this week's
meeting: Educational Challenges for the Next Century—
Where Should We Be Going From Here.
'Chair, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Washington State University.
In 1991, Jim Miller helped produce a National
Guidance Statement for Extension Wildlife and Fisheries
programs, a statement that clearly identified wildlife/
fisheries as (I quote): " . . .an integral part of the total
extension mission...." This underlaying principle, while
certainly accepted by folks like us, in my experience is
often not fully recognized (institutionally) by the land-
grant universities which employ us. I therefore believe our
first challenge is an internal one, to do a better job of
educating our own organizations on the essentiality of
properly supported wildlife extension programs that are
well-integrated with those in other related fields.
With regard to subject matter focus, we certainly are
not hampered by a shortage of topics for extension
programming. Selected subjects of particular importance
here in Washington, for example, include such areas as
conservation biology and biological diversity, management
for both game and non-game species, integration of
wildlife with land management practices (such as
agriculture, grazing, forestry, etc.), wetland/aquatic habitat
conservation—and the list goes on and on.
I'm not going to dwell upon these and other subject
matter areas overmuch, except to state my belief that we
(here in Washington at least) need to be increasingly
focused upon types of wildlife habitat that have
"traditionally" been afforded less attention than "wild"
lands . I am talking here about urban/suburban areas, the
"urban-rural" interface, and intensively managed
landscapes such as cropland and managed forests. These
areas do provide highly significant habitats for certain
species of wildlife; and comprise a part of the overall
matrix of habitats serving wildlife populations on a
landscape scale. Perhaps most importantly, these types of
"non-wild" lands in aggregate comprise the "type" of
habitat (and support the wildlife) with which most of our
state's population comes into most regular contact.
I believe we need to focus upon a truly (to use an
overused term) "holistic" approach to understanding and
managing wildlife populations and habitats, as inter-related
to the matrix of other natural resources and resource values
existing in our state's ecosystems. This approach is
implicit within the emerging paradigm of ecosystem
management, and reinforces the notion that to be
successful in wildlife conservation one must do more than
myopically focus upon wildlife alone.
We also, in my opinion, have some challenges related
to the audiences/clientele we serve in wildlife extension
programs. While continuing education programs targeted
Opening Remarks—DePuit • 1
to practicing natural resource professionals remain
important, my considered opinion is that in the future we
must devote proportionately greater attention to non-
professional audiences such as:
• Rural and, particularly, urban youth, who will be the
public opinion and decision makers of the future,
• The general public (that is, the opinion/decision
makers of today), many of whom may not have
intimate, day-to-day contact with wildlife but who
nonetheless feel an affinity for wildlife, and
• The small, but important, proportion of the public who
depend upon natural resources for socioeconomic
sustenance, such as farmers, loggers, fishermen, etc.,
since this is a segment of society that can directly
influence wildlife through day-today activities.
These constituencies need accurate, objective and
usable information—particularly in light of the deluge of
"dis"-information they are often exposed to.
This brings me to some "philosophic" thoughts on
needs from extension fish and wildlife programs in the
future. As professionals and public servants, I believe we
must take particular pains to separate "fact from fancy" in
educational programs. We have a responsibility to remain
objective and impartial in programs that are soundly based
upon science. Wildlife issues often can be contentious
and, again, our audiences certainly receive more than a fair
share of "partiality" from the media and from interest
groups on both sides of questions. Despite human
temptations to the contrary, we must not fall into the trap of
partisanship, for reasons related to both professional ethics
and loss of credibility.
I further believe that we need to integrate the
"science" of fish and wildlife with socioeconomic values
and needs in extension programming. Most of us got into
the fields of natural resources as scientists. We thus have a
tendency to view and educate upon fish and wildlife from a
rather narrow, purely scientific (or, to some, "eco-centric")
standpoint. Society, however, views and assigns values to
wildlife and other natural resources from economic,
cultural, and/or aesthetic perspectives that often are based
upon other factors. We need to recognize and integrate
these socioeconomic factors right along with scientific
principles when we provide extension education.
John Munn asked that I conclude my remarks with a
perceived "Chief Need" for fish and wildlife programs of
the 21st Century. Where should we be going from here
(and how should we get there)? I would sum up my
recommendations, in a global sense, with two words (and
both begin with the letter "C"): Coordination and
Collaboration. By Coordination, I am referring to the
challenges of integrating fish and wildlife concerns, issues,
and principles with those of other fields of science that
may be relevant, and (as noted previously) with the needs
and desires of society. By Collaboration, I am referring not
only to teamwork of wildlife extension professionals with
those in other relevant fields in program delivery, but also
to partnerships with and among our various constituencies.
The risks of not rising to this challenge—of remaining
insular in fish and wildlife extension programs—are great
indeed. Can fish and wildlife extension professionals be
truly effective working solely from the perspective of fish
and wildlife, and/or in isolation from fellow professionals
in other resource fields? Probably not. Let me pose some
additional questions of a more positive nature:
Would chances of success in preserving old-growth-
dependent wildlife be improved by coordinated, active,
and willing involvement of wildlife biologists, foresters,
loggers, environmentalists, etc., working together rather
than at "loggerheads," as so often in the past?
Would chances of preserving or restoring anadromous
fish be enhanced by fisheries biologists working together
with agriculturalists, engineers, ranchers, etc., rather than
in isolation from or in opposition to each other?
Would an atmosphere of mutual understanding and
respect, if not total agreement; and working forward to
build upon points of mutual agreement help in moving
disparate interest groups toward consensus in resolving
problems—instead of today's common recourse to
litigation?
My answer to all these questions is a simple "Yes."
In conclusion, I believe we have some real
opportunities as fish and wildlife extension professionals
as we progress toward the 21st Century. We are in a
unique position to both impart coordination and
collaboration in the programs we deliver (i.e., "lead by
example"). We also are in a position to foster these
mindsets of coordination and collaboration within the
varied constituencies we serve. A number of models to
achieve these goals have been around for some time as foci
for extension efforts, such as Holistic Resource
Management, Coordinated Resource Management
Planning and, more recently, Collaborative Learning.
These and other models all require a willingness of
extension professionals to transcend traditional disciplinary
boundaries; to work together with others in related fields;
and to serve all concerned constituencies in progressing
toward shared goals.
2 • Educational Challenges for the 21 g
 Century


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ewfsc8

Plenary Session—Welcome and Opening Remarks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries