Ben Beardmore, Meghan Henry, Lauren Bradshaw, Robert H. Holsman
Hunter participation in testing harvested white-tailed deer for chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a critical wildlife disease surveillance strategy; however, this strategy has not been evaluated to determine what may promote or discourage hunter participation in testing when involvement is voluntary. We used a binomial logit model to predict the relative influence of harvest location and several psychological constructs on hunters' voluntary participation in testing for CWD in Wisconsin, USA. The presence of CWD in the county of harvest was a significant factor in determining hunter participation in testing. We found hunters' testing behavior was influenced by risk perceptions associated with CWD impacts on the deer population and consumption of venison from areas of the state known to have CWD. Higher risk perceptions associated with CWD impacts to economic values and recreational hunting experiences decreased the likelihood of testing for the disease. Belief in the efficacy of CWD management actions was another significant factor; however, this effect varied with levels of trust in information provided by the managing agency, attention paid to news coverage related to CWD, and risk perceptions associated with economic and recreational impacts. For agencies seeking to increase hunter engagement with CWD management through participation in voluntary testing programs, a key challenge is to demonstrate how testing contributes to effective disease management.
{"title":"Factors influencing Wisconsin deer hunter participation in voluntary CWD testing","authors":"Ben Beardmore, Meghan Henry, Lauren Bradshaw, Robert H. Holsman","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70072","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jwmg.70072","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hunter participation in testing harvested white-tailed deer for chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a critical wildlife disease surveillance strategy; however, this strategy has not been evaluated to determine what may promote or discourage hunter participation in testing when involvement is voluntary. We used a binomial logit model to predict the relative influence of harvest location and several psychological constructs on hunters' voluntary participation in testing for CWD in Wisconsin, USA. The presence of CWD in the county of harvest was a significant factor in determining hunter participation in testing. We found hunters' testing behavior was influenced by risk perceptions associated with CWD impacts on the deer population and consumption of venison from areas of the state known to have CWD. Higher risk perceptions associated with CWD impacts to economic values and recreational hunting experiences decreased the likelihood of testing for the disease. Belief in the efficacy of CWD management actions was another significant factor; however, this effect varied with levels of trust in information provided by the managing agency, attention paid to news coverage related to CWD, and risk perceptions associated with economic and recreational impacts. For agencies seeking to increase hunter engagement with CWD management through participation in voluntary testing programs, a key challenge is to demonstrate how testing contributes to effective disease management.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70072","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144869272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>The Wildlife Society (TWS) has been publishing research on wildlife management and conservation for >85 years and has worked to build a strong reputation for rigorous peer review to publish vetted results that can directly benefit wildlife. Our publications rely on countless hours of uncompensated work from authors, reviewers, and our Editorial Board. This system helps ensure that the evaluative steps of science are not biased by financial gain, but it may also lead authors to wonder where the money from publication charges is spent. In a publishing environment that is seeing an increasing number of predatory or for-profit journals, authors are understandably concerned about who is profiting from publication costs when they choose where to submit their research. For TWS journals, the answer is clear but often not communicated: your society benefits financially from TWS publications.</p><p>For about 200 years following the establishment of society-owned journals, societies largely subsidized publishing costs through wealthy benefactors and elite society members, but by the 1950s scientific journals began to see profits due to an increase in government funding for research and libraries (Fyfe et al. <span>2022</span>). These profits allowed scientific societies to greatly expand programs aimed at furthering their missions, such as continuing education, professional development, and advocacy efforts. Subsequently, most scientific societies today obtain a substantial portion of their program budget from royalties associated with publications (Brainard <span>2019</span>).</p><p>Publications have been a priority for TWS since our original constitution and bylaws in 1938. Our initial objectives were to 1) establish professional solidarity and maintain professional standards, 2) develop wildlife management along sound biological lines, 3) produce publications to effect these ends, and 4) protect the interests of our members. The science published in our journals clearly supports our objectives, and the revenue generated from these publications enables us to fund programs that support and advocate for wildlife professionals.</p><p>In the 2025 fiscal year, 22% of TWS's income was from journal publications, largely stemming from royalties, subscriptions, and publication fees. Part of these proceeds support TWS staff who manage the review, content editing, and production processes for the journals, and the rest goes to other programs such as policy efforts advocating for wildlife professionals and wildlife, leadership programs, and grants that support our membership. The Society owns and maintains control over its journals, and the majority of funds collected come to TWS, but we manage our journal portfolio through contracts with publishing partners that provide essential services in exchange for a portion of our publication income. In an increasingly complicated publishing world, TWS relies on these partners for their expertise in indexing, submission
{"title":"The costs of publishing in scientific journals: Where does the money go?","authors":"Allison S. Cox","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70073","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jwmg.70073","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Wildlife Society (TWS) has been publishing research on wildlife management and conservation for >85 years and has worked to build a strong reputation for rigorous peer review to publish vetted results that can directly benefit wildlife. Our publications rely on countless hours of uncompensated work from authors, reviewers, and our Editorial Board. This system helps ensure that the evaluative steps of science are not biased by financial gain, but it may also lead authors to wonder where the money from publication charges is spent. In a publishing environment that is seeing an increasing number of predatory or for-profit journals, authors are understandably concerned about who is profiting from publication costs when they choose where to submit their research. For TWS journals, the answer is clear but often not communicated: your society benefits financially from TWS publications.</p><p>For about 200 years following the establishment of society-owned journals, societies largely subsidized publishing costs through wealthy benefactors and elite society members, but by the 1950s scientific journals began to see profits due to an increase in government funding for research and libraries (Fyfe et al. <span>2022</span>). These profits allowed scientific societies to greatly expand programs aimed at furthering their missions, such as continuing education, professional development, and advocacy efforts. Subsequently, most scientific societies today obtain a substantial portion of their program budget from royalties associated with publications (Brainard <span>2019</span>).</p><p>Publications have been a priority for TWS since our original constitution and bylaws in 1938. Our initial objectives were to 1) establish professional solidarity and maintain professional standards, 2) develop wildlife management along sound biological lines, 3) produce publications to effect these ends, and 4) protect the interests of our members. The science published in our journals clearly supports our objectives, and the revenue generated from these publications enables us to fund programs that support and advocate for wildlife professionals.</p><p>In the 2025 fiscal year, 22% of TWS's income was from journal publications, largely stemming from royalties, subscriptions, and publication fees. Part of these proceeds support TWS staff who manage the review, content editing, and production processes for the journals, and the rest goes to other programs such as policy efforts advocating for wildlife professionals and wildlife, leadership programs, and grants that support our membership. The Society owns and maintains control over its journals, and the majority of funds collected come to TWS, but we manage our journal portfolio through contracts with publishing partners that provide essential services in exchange for a portion of our publication income. In an increasingly complicated publishing world, TWS relies on these partners for their expertise in indexing, submission","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144869271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tooth and Claw: Top Predators of the World By \u0000 Robert M. Johnson, \u0000 Sharon L. Gilman, and \u0000 Daniel C. Abel, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2023. pp. 352. $45.00 (hardback). ISBN: 978-0-691-24028-2","authors":"Tyler J. Brasington","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70074","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145341667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}