Attitudes toward State-level threatened and endangered species protection in Kansas

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 1-13

  Cook, Philip S ^a   Cable, Ted T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0013406217     PISSN: 10871209     EISSN: 1533158X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10871209609359075     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bath, A. (1989). The public and wolf réintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 297-306.
2. Griffin, C. R., & French, T. W. (1992). Protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitats by state regulations: The Massachusetts initiative. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 57, 674-683.
3. Harris, L. (1985). Current public perceptions, attitudes and desires on natural resource management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 50, 68-71.
4. Irvin, W. R. (1992). The Endangered Species Act: Prospects for reauthorization in 1992. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 57, 642-647.
5. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. (1991). Threatened and endangered species permit summary - 1991. Pratt, KS: Author.
6. Kellert, S. R. (1980). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. InternationalJournalfor the Study of Animal Problems, 1(2), 87-119.
7. Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1985). Bibliography of human/animal relations. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
8. Loomis, J. B., & Walsh, R. G. (1986). Assessing wildlife and environmental values in cost-benefit analysis: State of the art. Journal of Environmental Management, 22, 125-131.
9. Melquist, W. (1995). Funding endangered species recovery through Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 60, 473-479.
10. Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ V2.0 [Computer software], Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
11. O’Laughlin, J., & Cook, P. S. (with Rogers, K. & Merrill, T.). (1995). Endangered Species Act at the crossroads: New directionsfrom Idaho case studies. (Policy Analysis Group Report No. 13). Moscow: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences.
12. Roper Organization. (1993). Times Mirror magazines national environmental forum survey.
13. Schneider, W. (1983). The environment: The public wants more protection, not less. National Journal, 15 (13), 676-677.
14. Sonner, S. (1995, January 22). Poll: Most Americans don’t want forests used for commercial ventures. Lewiston Morning Tribune, p. 6C.
15. Trillhaase, M. (1995, March 1). Environmental policies irk Idahoans—poll: Government is too protective. Idaho Statesman, pp. 1A, 8A.
16. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1988). 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17. Wexler, M. (1995). Americans speak out. National Wildlife, 33 (3), 34-37.