Other Scholarly Content
 

The heritage program: 25 years old and looking ahead assessing the future of the heritage program : final report

Public Deposited

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/xs55mg88v

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract
  • Over the last 25 years numerous approaches, understandings, and perceptions about natural areas have changed – changes which affect the relevance of programs such as the Heritage Program. As one participant stated, “the complexity of science in general has been humbling”. The last 25 years has shown many assumptions and premises upon which the Heritage Program were founded have changed. Most important has been the recognition that to focus primarily on pristine areas is not the only way to conserve, that pristine ecosystems do not exist, and that management and restoration are needed in much of the landscape. Nature is much more dynamic and less easily compartmentalized than once assumed. Habitat needs are more complex, context (e.g., capacity for seed dispersal and fire) is becoming more important, and species are often quite tenacious instead of fragile. There is a better understanding that the survival of many species occurs outside of our influence and control. Aside from habitat loss, the major threats most impacting Oregon’s natural heritage, global climate change and exotic species invasions, were not viewed as important when the program was created. Twenty-five years ago meta-population theory did not exist. Technology, including the prevalence and advancement of computers and database management, has progressed. Institutions such as watershed councils, land trusts, and water trusts either did not exist when the Heritage Program began have come into being, or were not considered very important to conservation. Socially, there is a greater sense that biodiversity is now “on the edge”, that more has been lost than we had thought. Also, there is the appreciation that ecosystems provide services and functions other than what can be provided by small “islands” of natural areas. In essence, the Heritage Program needs to accommodate these and other changes by working with a broader context of conservation strategies.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Issued
Non-Academic Affiliation
Table of Contents
  • 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................4;1.1 Approach...................................................................................................................4;1.2 Review Meetings Structure.......................................................................................5;1.3 Participants................................................................................................................5;1.4 Structure of Report....................................................................................................6;2.0 INVENTORY OF THE HERITAGE PROGRAM......................................................6;2.1 What has worked well?.............................................................................................6;2.2 What needs improvement?........................................................................................7;3.0 KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................8;3.1 Legislative Issues......................................................................................................8;3.1.1 Key Issue: Acknowledgement of changed concept of natural areas.................8;(Out-dated language)........................................................................................8;3.1.2 Key Issue: Governance.....................................................................................9;3.1.3 Key Issue: Administrative rules for Goal 5 and the Program do not align.....11;3.2 Non-legislative Issues............................................................................................11;3.2.1 Key Issue: The role of research in natural areas (this has legislative implications in the definition of natural areas)...............................................11;3.2.2 Key Issue: Need new programmatic framework............................................12;3.2.3 Key Issue: Misconceptions about and lack of visibility of the Program........15;3.2.4 Key Issue: Feedback loops to decision-makers..............................................15;3.2.5 Key Issue: Lack of support of the Program....................................................16;3.2.4 Key Issue: Coordination.................................................................................17;3.2.5 Key Issue: Data...............................................................................................18;APPENDIX A: Comments From Stakeholders...............................................................20;APPENDIX B: Defenders of Wildlife Memorandum......................................................22;APPENDIX C: List of Invitees.........................................................................................24
Rights Statement
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces

Relationships

Parents:
In Collection:

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details 25_Years_Old_and_Looking_Ahead_Assessing_the_Future_of_the_Heritage_Program.pdf 2017-09-22 Public Download