{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/40561"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/40561","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Assessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program: promoting and conducting sound wildlife management","abstract":"A questionnaire was sent to all U.S. state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1993 (response rate 90.2%). Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available non-industrial private forest (NIPF) acreage enrolled in the FSP (x = 3.4%) did not differ regionally. Professional foresters prepared over 80% of stewardship plans. However, FSP Coordinators perceived that, among all types of preparers, foresters had the greatest need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even though site inspections were important in many states. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (i.e., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (i.e., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Nationally, landowners requested recommendations for general wildlife improvements more often than either consumptive or non-consumptive wildlife use objectives. Creating and/or managing snags, creating edge, developing food plots, and establishing mast producing species were recommended most often. A second questionnaire was sent to 300 randomly chosen Virginia FSP participants (1991 - 1993) (response rate 81.3%) who declared \"wildlife\" as their primary or secondary management objective. Respondents reported high satisfaction with Virginia's FSP. Lack of time, money, and equipment, and not knowing where to find skilled help were identified as impediments to implementing recommendations. Work on wildlife recommendations had been initiated by 37 - 69% of landowners.","abstract_html":"A questionnaire was sent to all U.S. state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1993 (response rate 90.2%). Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available non-industrial private forest (NIPF) acreage enrolled in the FSP (x = 3.4%) did not differ regionally. Professional foresters prepared over 80% of stewardship plans. However, FSP Coordinators perceived that, among all types of preparers, foresters had the greatest need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even though site inspections were important in many states. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (i.e., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (i.e., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Nationally, landowners requested recommendations for general wildlife improvements more often than either consumptive or non-consumptive wildlife use objectives. Creating and/or managing snags, creating edge, developing food plots, and establishing mast producing species were recommended most often. A second questionnaire was sent to 300 randomly chosen Virginia FSP participants (1991 - 1993) (response rate 81.3%) who declared "wildlife" as their primary or secondary management objective. Respondents reported high satisfaction with Virginia's FSP. Lack of time, money, and equipment, and not knowing where to find skilled help were identified as impediments to implementing recommendations. Work on wildlife recommendations had been initiated by 37 - 69% of landowners.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Hudson, Teresa Michelle"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences","degree_department":"Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Parkhurst, James A."],"committee_members":["Giles, Robert H. Jr.","Stauffer, Dean F."],"year":1995,"date_issued":"1995-10-05","date_published":"1995-10-05","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:29Z","subjects":["Virginia","land management","survey"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-01102009-063302"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-01102009-063302","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/40561","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Parkhurst, James A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Giles, Robert H. Jr.","Stauffer, Dean F."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Hudson, Teresa Michelle"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:26:43Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:26:43Z","2009-01-10"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1995-10-05"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Virginia","land management","survey"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-01102009-063302"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/40561"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["A questionnaire was sent to all U.S. state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1993 (response rate 90.2%). Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available non-industrial private forest (NIPF) acreage enrolled in the FSP (x = 3.4%) did not differ regionally. Professional foresters prepared over 80% of stewardship plans. However, FSP Coordinators perceived that, among all types of preparers, foresters had the greatest need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even though site inspections were important in many states. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (i.e., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (i.e., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Nationally, landowners requested recommendations for general wildlife improvements more often than either consumptive or non-consumptive wildlife use objectives. Creating and/or managing snags, creating edge, developing food plots, and establishing mast producing species were recommended most often. A second questionnaire was sent to 300 randomly chosen Virginia FSP participants (1991 - 1993) (response rate 81.3%) who declared \"wildlife\" as their primary or secondary management objective. Respondents reported high satisfaction with Virginia's FSP. Lack of time, money, and equipment, and not knowing where to find skilled help were identified as impediments to implementing recommendations. Work on wildlife recommendations had been initiated by 37 - 69% of landowners."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Assessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program: promoting and conducting sound wildlife management"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Parkhurst, James A."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Giles, Robert H. Jr.","Stauffer, Dean F."],"dc:contributor.department":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"],"dc:creator":["Hudson, Teresa Michelle"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:26:43Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:26:43Z","2009-01-10"],"dc:date.issued":["1995-10-05"],"dc:description.abstract":["A questionnaire was sent to all U.S. state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1993 (response rate 90.2%). Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available non-industrial private forest (NIPF) acreage enrolled in the FSP (x = 3.4%) did not differ regionally. Professional foresters prepared over 80% of stewardship plans. However, FSP Coordinators perceived that, among all types of preparers, foresters had the greatest need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even though site inspections were important in many states. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (i.e., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (i.e., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Nationally, landowners requested recommendations for general wildlife improvements more often than either consumptive or non-consumptive wildlife use objectives. Creating and/or managing snags, creating edge, developing food plots, and establishing mast producing species were recommended most often. A second questionnaire was sent to 300 randomly chosen Virginia FSP participants (1991 - 1993) (response rate 81.3%) who declared \"wildlife\" as their primary or secondary management objective. Respondents reported high satisfaction with Virginia's FSP. Lack of time, money, and equipment, and not knowing where to find skilled help were identified as impediments to implementing recommendations. Work on wildlife recommendations had been initiated by 37 - 69% of landowners."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-01102009-063302"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/40561"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Virginia","land management","survey"],"dc:title":["Assessing and evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program: promoting and conducting sound wildlife management"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:29Z"}