In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 Conservation’s Next Generation 80 In the 1980s, cooperative conservation at the Leopold Memorial Reserve had become well established. e Sand County and Aldo Leopold Shack Foundations focused on restoration, scientific research, education , and outreach. Together, these efforts promoted ecological land management infused by the philosophy of Aldo Leopold. But at a national level, leading researchers had developed a new, broadened vision for conservation biology and landscape ecology. ese advances eventually affected the Leopold Memorial Reserve, placing it within a larger regional setting that extended beyond the local context of its existing land-management and scienti fic research programs.1 For two young foundations that were still finding their niche as environmental nonprofit organizations and that were outgrowing their initial operations in the process, this transition was not painless. e two decades leading up to the new millennium involved con- flict between the foundations, as well as between some of the reserve’s original founders and new staff and consultants. Nearing his 1993 retirement, for example, Frank Terbilcox found his vision for the reserve challenged by adherents to a landscape approach. Terbilcox had left a significant signature on the land within the Leopold Memorial Reserve. He had expanded Aldo Leopold’s use of controlled burns, prairie restorations, and food-patch plantings, implementing them throughout the reserve at targeted locations. He also led the effort to add several artificial waterfowl ponds. Many years later, the Aldo Leopold Foundation ecologist, Steve Swenson, observed appreciatively of Terbilcox that “virtually everything we do now, he was doing as a one-man band back then. He really is part of that second generation of conservationists out here.”2 As Swenson implied, not only had the Leopold Memorial Reserve been greatly affected by the custodians of the land after Leopold, but the reserve was also transitioning to a third generation of conservationists. Changes in Land Management Philosophy A set of independent scientific reviews of the management strategies of the reserve triggered changes in its conservation practices. In June 1988 five ecologists from around the country conducted the first outside review of the Leopold Memorial Reserve. e intent of the analysis was to systematically assess whether the reserve had achieved its objectives.3 e principal author of the review, the University of Wisconsin–Madison limnologist John Magnuson, wrote in the introduction of the team’s report that “the time is right for the Reserve to develop a master plan for research and management to build on its superb history of success and accomplishment.”4 In its report, the external review team quickly pointed out the strengths of existing operations at the reserve. ey supported the prairie restorations that had been a key part of the property’s management since Leopold ’s early experiments in ecological restoration. e work of Terbilcox, the Bradleys, and the reserve’s management committee in the realm of outreach and research was also affirmed. Tours that were hands-on and showed aspects of land management—for example, by directly demonstrating or involving participants in prairie restoration and native-plant seed collection—had already been part of Terbilcox’s tour program for several years. e report commended the Bradleys for their summer graduate fellows program and shack seminars, which had been successfully operating for a decade. With its affirmation of these efforts, the review team identified aspects of the reserve’s conservation mission that they believed should remain a part of its future plans. e research review team’s report, though, also suggested several new directions for the reserve. ey recommended that a tighter link be established between management and research by factoring management questions into research projects and having research results drive management decisions—all of which were part of an iterative process that had by this time become known in the field as “adaptive management.”5 In one Conservation’s Next Generation 81 example of this practice, the review team successfully argued that food patches be discontinued in favor of providing more sites for native-plant restoration. is was based on research that had shown that the ongoing use of food patches favored game species and that the surplus food provided by patches offset the reductions in the deer herd brought about by regulated hunting.6 e review team maintained that a greater exchange of ideas among scientists, managers, and administrators in this and other areas would improve an already strong foundation of research and management . Finally...

Share