Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] The heritage program: 25 years old and looking ahead assessing the future of the heritage program : final report

  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 ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The heritage program: 25 years old and looking ahead assessing the future of the heritage program : final report Author: Gaines, Lisa, Kagan, Jimmy 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. Title: The heritage program: 25 years old and looking ahead assessing the future of the heritage program : final report Author: Gaines, Lisa, Kagan, Jimmy 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. Close