State Wildlife Policy and Management: The Scope and Bias of Political Conflict

State wildlife policy and management are often characterized by divisive political conflict among competing stakeholders. This conflict is increasingly being resolved through the ballot-initiative process. One important reason the process is being used so often is the way state wildlife policy and management decisions are often made by state wildlife commissions, boards, or councils (the dominant way these decisions are made in the United States). These bodies are often perceived by important stakeholders as biased, exclusive, or unrepresentative of nonconsumptive stakeholder values. As a result, unsatisfied interest groups often try to take decision-making authority away from these institutions and give it to the public through the ballot initiative. Cases and examples from Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho are examined in this context. The article finishes by outlining four broad alternatives that may be debated in the future: the no change alternative, the authoritative expert alternative, the structural change alternative, and the stakeholder-based collaborative conservation alternative(s).     

Introduction of a standardized "paternity index" for the statistical evaluation of blood group findings in paternity testing

The introduction of a standardized paternity index (PI) for the statistical evaluation of blood group findings in cases of disputed paternity is proposed and explained. By using the PI $\text{X}\text{Y}$ as parameter, it is not necessary to give the information of the probability of paternity in percent. The PI includes the full information of the blood group findings. In addition to that, by using the suggested standardization based on the probabilities of error according to Schulte Mönting and Walter the test volume is also taken into account. The interpretation of the mathematical result is given by verbal predicates, the limitations of which are orientated by the verbal predicates for the probabilities of error according to Schulte Mönting and Walter, published by us elsewhere. Besides the essential fact that the test volume is taken into account, the most important advantage of this procedure is that the mathematical result is involved in the court decision only by the PI (which is free of any valuation) and its verbal predicate and not by sometimes relatively high percentages, which may be misunderstood by laymen.