There are only three things that a manager can do with faunal space:

• increase it
• decrease it or
• stabilize it.

That is true for most of things in wildlife management. It represents a general statement, a concept within general systems theory, and the more general concepts that we have, the better will be our analyses...and our designs. The world of faunal resource management is enormously large. Genera; concepts are essential.

We have to know what we want to do among these three statements about rates, and that requires that we state objectives. Assuming that they have been stated and that demand is a part of the statement, then approximate numbers of animals needed to meet demand can also be stated. We may then decide how many we now have, then estimate the difference between that and the number we need, and if the animals are known to be responsive to changes in their environment, we can invest in tactics to cause the change in abundance that will overcome the difference. Where 100 animals are perceived to be needed, and the estimated population is now 70, then work may begin to cause the improvements that will increase the population by 30 animals...and not one animal more...because of the costs. This is straight-forward marginal analysis in basic economics. (Also note that the manager cannot claim to have produced 100 animals. These are the results of Nature or past managers' work; only the extra production can be properly tallied.) The habitat can be made less favorable and the population will decline (at a cost) or by careful annual work, it can be stabilized. Of course all of these numbers have limits, so when someone claims they need 100 animals, it may be reasonability assumed that they mean from 90 to 110 animals. The population estimate has the same or greater bounds (confidence limits or bounds for the statistical estimate), and expected effects are approximations. The combinations of several probabilities can result in some low probabilities for "success."

Jakinchuk(1982) said of wildlife habitat inventory -- what are the questions and how are the answers used? (Rarely does the use of inventories in wildlife work justify the excessive statistical requirements applied...and the associated costs and risks often involved.) Where are the animals? reflects on the population and its behavior and here it becomes evident that the animals cannot be separated from where they live. Inventory, thus includes the animals and their behaviors (e.g., of the foods present, what are they eating (availability Vs. preference).) Where could they be? (seasonal differences and probability of occurrence) When are they there? What do they need to survive over an extended period (say 100 years at least)? What are the constraints on their expansion? How many are there? What is the range of abundance (perhaps the desired limit will be reached naturally?) and How much space of a particular type do they need to maintain a stated level? What are the consequences of natural catastrophe?

Perhaps these are the questions for inventory. I am not sure. Inventory seem a passive activity. The efforts ahead are to analyze the present faunal space and to increase, stabilize, or decrease it in light of natural processes, the desired population levels, and costs...all of them. Maybe all of that is called inventory. So be it. Inventory is very expensive.

There are several thousand large animals in North America that can be called wildlife. There are several time this many in Africa and Central and South Americas and in the Indo-Chinese parts of the world. Each is unique; each has special requirements. Given the time and cost that have allowed knowledge to accumulate about the white-tailed deer and to realize that an insufficient amount is known about this one species, then the prospects for the others seem remote. A more general approach is needed. In the business world, the new expression is "look for the problem pattern, then solve it for everything." Perhaps this is at the core of the general systems approach

We start by rejecting "habitat" as the appropriate word. We use faunal space and that is described elsewhere.We make an abiotic emphasis since by using the factors that influence all aspects of the environment of the animals we may gain some control over them before they are mixed and integrated into the plants and animals being observed. We can use them as factors in analytical equations (models) that allow us to explain relations, say, between animal abundance and precipitation. This may allow us to predict (having connotations about the future, not just "estimate") the effects of irrigating an area on animals.

Next we adopt a closed system view point and put a boundary around an area. The population, by definition exists somewhere. Without a boundary, it exists everywhere and this is un-analyzable. Feedback, always in progress, allows us to adjust the boundary later, enlarging or reducing it. The boundary reflects concepts about the context of the general system. Next we realize how indefinite the boundary really is. Watershed boundaries are questionable. Political boundaries for counties are debated. Even surveyed lines can be questioned and GPS work sheds new light on ownerships. Even horizontal Vs topographic or surface area can be questioned. Determining the exact area is critical to estimating density and we run into problems with Areas before we count the first animal and then have to divide animals by area to get the estimate of density. Abundance is the count, density is the count per unit area (typically the hectare with 2.47 hectares per acre), and A*, hereinafter, is the area per animal (typically horizontal hectares per animal). One deer per 15 hectares has more intuitive appeal and tendency to flow into managerial ideas than knowing that there are 0.07 deer per hectare.

First the boundary

Area is probably the most important variable, most easily gained, and one most often ignored in order to get to what is perceived to be the science of any wildlife issue. Think of islands of different size. There are density limits. The larger the watershed, potentially the more animals there(SCS art,1959) may be within it, assuming all other conditions are the same. Of course they are not the same and thus we can begin the further analyses. The most devious trick of the manager is to claim animal increases achieved simply by expanding the area claimed (changing the boundary) as that which is managed.

Next, although biomes and types and ecological classification are important, most species will differ more between ages of forest stands or communities than they will between minor differences in community types. Of course desert animals are different that those of a fir forest, but within a region, animals will differ more between major age differences than between stand types. There are too many subtleties and exceptions to try to make the point more precisely. The emphasis: concentrate on the age of communities.

Age over type

Communities are always changing. One of the most important concept of ecology is that of the changes in an area that create conditions in which a new group of plants and animals can flourish, even though the previous ones may find the new conditions (resulting from their existence) unsuitable. Once called succession, there were many connotations and erroneous views of that process. We prefer to simplify it to transitions and recognize that there may be many pathways to the same advanced end state, the old-aged community, the ancient forest, the primitive community, the glacial derelict community, etc. Climax is so-much-debated that it carries no special meaning. Even thought there are many pathways to a common advanced-age community, the end state is predictable (within generally acceptable bounds). The conditions to this state, the intermediate age categories, become very important. These categories of the transition are the entities to which species can be directly related. It is within communities of these types and ages that you find species of interest. Once called seres, these age classes have the conditions for select species. Some species have gross needs and they may be found in several of these categories. Others have very specific needs. They may occur in only one or a few categories. The manager's task is to perpetually provide and assure a stable inventory of such categories if stability is the demand. Otherwise they may be decreased or increased, depending on the objectives of the clients. If the area in the boundary is small, assuring adequate acreages with the proper ages (as in timber rotation) can be very difficult. If impossible, the manager needs to tell the clients as soon as possible. Balancing clients' expectations with potential achievements is the essence of people management, that of avoiding dissonance. The union of populations, faunal space work, and people management must be stress continually.