RANGELANDS12(2), April 1990
operationwas substantially higher because of theadditional driving associated with guiding huntersand may
also involve picking up hunters in town. Providing guiding services requiresadditionallabor and includesa cost
for the operator to becomelicensed as an outfitter and
guide. This is a requirementin Wyoming if the hunting
enterpriseused landsnotowned by the operator, including public lands, or if guides are hired by theoperator.
The budget for Example 2 is shown in Table 2. In this
examplethebreakeven charge is $24.81 per hunter day.
Comparingthebreak-even chargewith the estimated fee
of $36.32 per day (Table 1) suggests that this type of
operationis also profitable.
Example 3 describes an agriculturaloperation that provides 14,400 acres for deer and antelope hunting. The
hunting enterpriseoperates for 28 days with thirty-five
customershunting an average offourdays per hunteror
140 hunterdays.With theinclusionof lodging and meals,
Example 3 is the mostcapital and labor intensive operation consideredin the analysis. Costs of the recreation
enterprise increase substantiallybecause ofthe increase
in labor inputs, investment in cabins,and food expenses.
Onehundredpercentofthe fixed costsofthecabinswere
allocatedto therecreation operationbecause mostoperators indicated that these units were used only for the
hunting enterprise. Vehicle requirements were similarto
Example 2.
The budget for Example 3 is shown in Table 2. When
121
allocating15%ofthefixed vehiclecoststo the enterprise,
the break-even charge is $77.90 per hunter day. In comparing thebreak-even chargeswith theestimated feeof
$111.93,it appears this option is also profitable.
Discussion and Conclusions
Additional income was the primary reason cited by
operators for beginning a recreation enterprise. While
ranch recreationhasthepotential to earna profit, realizing that potential dependson each operator'ssituation.
Eachoperator mustevaluate his particularsituation and
considerany subjectivefactors, suchas dealingwith the
public,whenassessing thepotential ofa ranch recreation
enterprise. When landowners recognize and are able to
realize a profitable situation through hunting and other
recreationactivitieson their land, wildlife habitat will be
viewed as an asset and not a liability.
Literature Cited
Agee, D.E. 1986. Cost ofproducing crops, WorlandArea, Wyoming,
1985-86. Division of Agricultural Economics and Cooperative
ExtensionService, University of Wyoming. Bulletin 644R. July.
Guynn, D.E. 1979Managementof deer hunters on private land in
Colorado. Ph.D. Diss., Colorado State University.
Lacey, J.R., StevenB. Laursen,Jack C. Gllchrlst, Roger M. Brownson, Jan Anzlk, and Stuart Doggert. 1987. Economic and social
implications of managing wildlife on private land in Montana.
MontanaState University,CooperativeExtension Service.
Thomas,J.W. 1987. Fee hunting on the public's lands?—Anappraisal.Trans.NorthAmericanWildlife NaturalResourceConference.
49:445-467.
Exotic Big Game: A Controversial Resource
Stephen Demarals,David A. Osborn, and James J. Jackley
Establishment of exotic big game in the United States
has becomea topic of great controversydue to possible
dietarycompetition and diseaseinteractionswith native
wildlife and domesticlivestock.The potential for greater
financial returns from exotic big game production than
from traditional livestockranching stimulatesthe introduction of exotics in spite of these dangers. To insure
success, managers should consider all biological and
economic aspects of exotic big game before venturing
into this industry.
Exotic big game refers to all non-nativehoofed mammals which have game status in at least part of their
current U.S. distribution. Managed appropriately,exotic
big game can improvetheeconomicstabilityof ranching
and increase the diversity of game species available to
hunters. If not responsiblymanaged, exotics may madAuthors are assistant professor and graduate researchassistants.Range
and Wildlife ManagementDepartment,TexasTechUniversity,Lubock,Texas
79409.
This isCollegeofAgricultural SciencespublicationT-9-565andWelderWildlife Foundationcontribution 358.
vertently becomeunwanted, even harmful inhabitantsof
our rangelands.
Problems can occur when stocking exotic big game
with incompleteknowledgeofthebiologyofthespecies,
its habitat requirements, disease relationships, or its
impacton native biota (Ables 1977). Additional research
on theecological implications of free-rangingexotics is
needed to establish proper management guidelines for
thesespecies.
Pros and Cons
The positive aspectsof exotic big game are summarized in five general categories: (1) year-roundincometo
the landowner,(2) increased opportunitiesfor hunters,
(3) preservation ofendangered species, (4) fillingofopen
niches,and (5) aesthetic value.
Incorporationofexotic big game hunting and/orexotic
venison production intoa ranchingenterprisecangenerate year-round income. Many states allow exotic big
game to be harvested at the landowner's discretion.The
122
RANGELANDS12(2), April 1990
grasses (Robinson and Bolen 1989).
Another positiveaspectof exotic big game is their aesthetic value.Eachyear approximately10,000 payingtourists visit theV.0. Ranch,a commercialwildlife enterprise
specializingin exoticand nativebig game in KerrCounty,
Texas toviewand photographtheseanimals (L. Schreiner,
pers. comm.).
Negative aspectsof exotic big game can be summarized into the following four general categories:(1) competition for niches, (2) uncontrolledspread, (3) disease
complications,and (4) interbreedingwith nativewildlife.
Theoretically,onlyone species can occupy a niche. If
two species share thesame nicheone or both species will
FIg. 1. Exotic species depleted in their native lands, suchas this
blackbuck antelope,can beraisedinthe United States for eventual
repopulation.
harvest of animalscan bescheduled accordingtooptimal
growth and development, economicfactors, and market
demand. Exotic vension production can be a lucrative
form of agriculture (von Kerckerinck1987).
Introductionsof aoudad sheep, Persian ibex,and Siberian ibex in New Mexicoare examples where introduced
big game have increased hunting opportunitiesfor the
public (Upham 1980). The islands of Hawaii have no
nativedeer; however, axis deerand black-taileddeerwere
introduced on Hawaii in 1868 and 1961, respectively
(Tomich 1969). Thirty-eight thousand hunters received
permits to hunt axis deer in Hawaii during the 1988 season, and morethan 50 percentof the hunterswere successful (T. Kaiakapu, pers. Comm.).
The preservation of endangered species often can be
accomplishedmore easily in the United States than in
developingcountries.Through the efforts of theAfrican
Fund for Endangered Wildlife and Game Conservation
International, the American Association of Zoological
Parks and Aquariums, and ranchersin the UnitedStates,
aSpeciesSurvivalPlanhasbeen established to enrichthe
geneticsof captiveendangered species (Winckler1985).
Niche refers to a species' specialized requirements,
which include food, cover, and space. A niche can be
considered"open" ifall the necessary requirements for a
speciesare presentbutnotbeing used. The ring-necked
pheasant, introducedin theUnitedStates from Asia, successfullyfilled a nichewhich opened asthenative prairies
were converted to cereal grains and other domestic
FIg. 2. Theexpanding venisonmarketprovides a commercialuseof
exotic game presently occupying rangelands in Texas.
suffer. For example, the decline of white-tailed deer on
Assateague Island, Maryland, is attributed to sika deer
(Keiper1985).
Theeffectsof unregulated competitionbetween native
white-tailed deer and two species of exotic deer within
96-acredeer-proofedenclosureswerestudied in Texas.
Equal numbersof axisdeerand white-taileddeerandsika
deer and white-tailed deer were placed in two separate
enclosures for nine years without human interference.
After nine years, the axis/white-tailed deer enclosure
contained 15 axis deer and only three white-taileddeer
and the sika/white-taileddeer enclosures contained 62
sika deer and no white-taileddeer.With no human intervention to regulate density and minimize competition,
and limited resources within the96-acre enclosures, axis
deer and sika deeroutcompetednativewhite-tailed deer
(Baccus et at. 1985).
RANGELANDS12(2), April 1990
Uncontrolledspreadofexoticscanbea problem. Some
landowners do not want to include them in their management plan.Approximately45 percentof the exoticbig
game in Texasare not behindgame-prooffencing (Iraweek 1989). Population control is difficult without adequate fencing (Harmeland Litton 1981).
Disease complicationscan resultfrom the interactions
of nativegame,exoticgame,anddomesticlivestock. The
FIg. 3. Exoticandnative game on common rangelands are controversial due topossible dietary and diseaseinteractions.
tropical bont tick native to Africa is the most notorious
biological vector of heartwater disease and three were
recovered from recently released black rhinos in Texas
despite quarantine efforts (Winckler 1985). Heartwater
has not been reported in the United States; but if it is
introduced,this disease could result in high mortality of
cattle, sheep, goats, and deer (Mebusand Logan 1988).
Interbreeding among similar species degrades the
integrity of both populations.Hybridization of red deer
and North American elk is so common among farmed
deer in NewZealandthat a deer bloodtypingservicehas
been developed to ensurea breedingstock of pure animals (Brown 1988). Inter-breedingbetween sika deer and
red deer has been documented in Czechoslovakia, Great
Britain, Ireland, and NewZealand(Ratcliff 1987).
CurrentStatus
Texas heads the list of states inhabited by exotic big
game, both in total numbersand species. A surveyconducted in 1988 estimated thepopulationofexotics in the
statein excess of 164,000animals(Traweek 1989).Sixty-
123
seven species were represented. Axis deer, native to
India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, is the mostcommon exotic
species in the statewith 39,000 animals.Nilgai antelope,
also from India,rankssecondwith over36,700 and blackbuck antelope,almost extinct on the plains of India and
Pakistan, ranks as the third most common exotic with
over21,200 animals. Thesethreespecies alongwith aoudadsheep (from NorthAfrica), fallowdeer (originatingin
the Mediterranean area), and sika deer (from southeast
Asia)constitute87 percentof thetotal numberofexotics
in Texas.
Texans have seen exoticsthat were first introduced in
the 1930's for aestheticreasons evolve into commercial
game animalsand meat producers. Fewotherstatesoffer
fee hunting of exotic big game. Several states recognize
the potentialofthevenisonindustry and haveexotic deer
farms or anticipate them in the near future. The North
AmericanDeer Farmers Associationhas members in 22
states (J. von Kerckerinck, pers. comm.).
The legal status of exotic big game is receivingattention in somestate legislatures. In Arizona, recentlegislation removed axis deer, fallow deer, sika deer,and blackbuckantelopefroma listof species which requirepermits
for ownership(R. Engle-Wilson, pers. comm.).The propagationof exoticungulateswill soon be legalin Vermont,
but a confinement law will be stringently enforced (B.
Day, pers. comm.). Farmers in Maine will be allowed to
sell exotic venison effective January 1, 1990 (J. Powell,
Pers. comm.).TheTexasLegislaturepassed a lawin 1987
that qualified landowners for an agriculturaltax exemption when exotic big game is raised for meat production
(Salmon et al. 1989).
An amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946effectiveFebruary 13, 1989,addedwaterbuffaloand
all members of the deerand antelopefamiliesto a list of
species eligible for USDA certification. Eitherfederal or
statemeat inspectors may performthe ante-mortemand
post-mortem inspections required for certification. This
USDAapprovalenables venisonto be sold interstateand
exported (Federal Register1989).
Research Progress
Dietary Overlap
The areas most needing research have been identified
as the dietary overlap and the disease complications
associatedwithexoticintroductions(DemaraisandOsborn
1988). An understandingof the forage needs and the
competitive relationships among ungulate species is
needed for proper management.
Food habits of aoudad (barbary) sheep, blackbuck
antelope, axis deer, fallow deer, and sika deerwere studied in the Edwards Plateau Region of Texas. The study
suggested that all fiveexotics have the ability to compete
directly for forage with thewhite-taileddeer (Butts et al.
1982).
Browsecomprisedabout one-halfof the aoudad'sdiet
and forbuse varied with seasonal availability,in studies
conducted in New Mexico and Texas (Simpson et al.
RANGELANDS12(2), April 1990
124
1978, Simpson et al. 1980). Diet overlap and potential ated MCF has becomea serious disease in farmed deer,
competition between aoudadand both native muledeer killing 20-50 percentof infected herds (McAIlum 1980).
and desert bighorn sheep has been described.
Evidence suggests that MCF could be a problem in
Blackbuckantelopecompetewith white-taileddeerfor domestic livestock, native herbivores, and exotic big
browse and forbs on the Edwards Plateau (Butts et al. game in North America (Heuschele 1985). The reported
1982). However, dietary overlap with cattle on grasses hosts for MCF are numerous, including many species
which are popular on big game ranches. The first natumay be moresevere.
Dietaryoverlapstudieshave shown conflicting results rally occurring outbreak of MCF in North America was
among exotic deerspecies and white-taileddeer (Dema- reported in a herdof axis deerand one white-taileddeer
rais and Osborn 1988). Axis and fallow deer diets vary on a Texas ranch (Clark et al. 1970). Sanford and Little
from primarily grasses (Smith 1977, Elliott and Barrett (1977) documented two separate incidents of sika deer
1985) to primarily browse (Butts et al. 1982). Grasses mortality in Canadadueto MCF. In one ofthesecases, a
were highly preferred and intensivelygrazed by fallow sika deer having successfully passed a periodof quarandeer in Germany (von M. Petrak 1987).
tine succumbed to MCFwithin 24 hours ot its release to
Springtime diets of axis, fallow, sika, and white-tailed theMetro Toronto Zoo.
deer weredifferentiatedby forage class(i.e., grass, forb,
The range of bluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic
browse)on the Edwards Plateau of Texas (Henke et al. hemorrhagicdisease virus (EHDV) includesmanycoun1988). Axis andfallow deerconsumed>93 percentgrass, tries the world-wide (Hoff and Trainer1981). The northwhite-tailed deerconsumed >90 percentforbs and some eastern UnitedStates, Canada, and NewZealand are curbrowse, and sika deer consumeda variety of all three rently free of BTV (Odend'Hal 1983). Two varieties of
EHDV are believed to exist in North Americaand four of
forage classes during May-July.
and
exist
between
the 20 identified varieties of BTV occur in the United
Dietaryoverlap
potential competition
sika deerand white-taileddeer in Texas (Buttset al. 1982) States (Thomas 1981). The virusesare very similar and
and Maryland(Keiper 1985). Sikadeerappear veryadap- are collectivelyreferred to as hemorrhagicdisease. the
table to new areas and will utilize many different plant wild, infectedanimalsmaybe attractedto waterand lose
both appetite and fear of man (Trainer 1964).
species (Obrtel et al. 1985).
The ability of sika and fallow deer to use a grass diet
Cattleand goatsaresusceptibleto BTVyet rarely show
these
a
over
whiteclinical
gives
species competitiveadvantage
signsofdisease. They are considered to be importailed deer where quantities of forbs and browse are tant long-termreservoirs ofthevirus.Areas experiencing
limited. Forage competition between white-tailed deer highdeermortality asa resultofhemorrhagicdisease are
and axis and fallow deer may not be significant when typicallythosewhere thepopulationhassurpassed carryforbs and browse are present in adequate amounts, ing capacity (Prestwood et al. 1974).
because the forage classes consumedby these species
Die-offsassociated with BTV and EHDV haveoccurred
in othernativeand exotic big game. Rieman et al. (1979)
can be quite different (Henke et al. 1988).
analyzed serum from axis deerand fallowdeer,finding 60
DiseaseComplications
There is a potential for disease complicationsamong percentand 33 percent,respectively, testing positive for
mixed populations of native and exotic big game and BTV antibodies. The higher prevalence exhibited in axis
domestic livestock. A preliminary disease survey con- deerwas attributedto their closeproximity to cattle.
ductedby theSoutheastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease
Conclusion
Study,the U.S. Department ofAgriculture,theZoological
Societyof San Diego, and Texas Tech Universityshowed
Exotics have been presentin localized areas for many
evidenceof exposure (i.e., antibody titres) to four dis- years. Little hasbeen donetoanswer biologicalquestions
eases or disease groups within one or moreofthe species vital tosuccessfulmanagement. Weshould strivetocapisurveyed (Heuschele et al. 1988). The results indicated talize on the positive qualities of exotic big game while
possibleexposureto malignantcatarrhalfeverand blue- minimizingtheir negative effects. This task can only be
tongue/epizootichemorrhagicdisease. Eitherdisease, if achieved by increasingtheknowledgeavailable to rangeestablished, could result in mortality of domestic live- land resource managers.
stock and big game.
Literature Cited
Malignant catarrhalfever (MCF) is an infectious viral
disease that hasbeen documentedthroughouttheworld. Ables, E.D. 1977. Introduction, p 7-23. In: Ed. Ables (ed). Theaxis
deer in Texas.Tex. A&M Univ. Press, College Station.
In Africa, the disease is closely associated with the wildebeest and in the eastern part of this country accounts Baccus,J.T., D.E. Harmel,andWE.Armstrong. 1985. Management
ofexotic deerin conjunction withwhite-tailed deer.p.213-226.In:
for as much as 7
n
percent mortality in domestic cattle
herds (Heuscheie1985). In countries outsideof Africa, a
sheep-associated virus is more common. Outbreaksof
the wildebeeststrainare usually linkedto zoologicalcollections(Odend'Hal 1983). In NewZealand, sheep-associ-
S.L. Beasom and S.F. Roberson (eds.), Game harvest management. CaesarKlebergWildI. Res. Inst., Texas A&I Univ.,Kingsville.
Brown, G. 1988. Deer bloodtyping: the searchfor the purereds.The
Deer Farmer52:40.
Butts, G.L., M.J. Anderegg, W.E. Armstrong, D.E. Harmel, C.W.
Ramsey, and S.H. Sorola. 1982. Food habits of five exotic ungulates on Kerr Wildlife ManagementArea, Texas. Tech. Series 30,
Tex. Parksand Wildi. Dept., Austin.
125
RANGELANDS12(2), April 1990
Clark, K.A., R.M. Robinson, R.G. Marburger, L.P. Jones, and J.H.
Orchard.1970. Malignantcatarrhalfever inTexascervids.J.Wildl.
Dis. 6:376-383.
Demarals,S., and D.A. Osborn. 1988. Exotic big game in Texas:
statusofourknowledge.p138-143.In: Proc.mt. RanchersRoundup. Tex. Agr. Res. & Ext. Center, Uvalde.
Elliott, H.W., and R.H. Barrett. 1985. Dietary overlap among axis,
fallow, andblacktailéd deerandcattle.J. Range Manage. 38:435-439.
Federal Register. 1989. Rulesand regulations. United States Gov.
Print. Off. 54:1328-1333.
Harmel, D.E., and G.W. Litton. 1981. Deer management in the
EdwardsPlateauof Texas.Tex. ParksandWildl.Dep., Wildi. Div.
PWDBooklet 7000-86.
Henke, S.E., S. Demarais,andJ.A. Pflster. 1988. Digestivecapacity
and dietsof white-tailed deer and exotic ruminants in Texas. J.
WildI. Manage. 52:595-598.
Heuscheie,W.P. 1985. Rabiesandother viral diseases. Vet.Clinics of
N. Am., Food Animal Practice.3:45-59.
Heuscheie,W.P., S. Demarais,V.F. Nettles,J. Blue, and M. Richardson. 1988. Evidenceof exposureto infectious diseases by whitetailed deer and exotic ruminants in Texas. Abstract, Tex. Chap.
Wildi.Soc., Del Rio.
Hoff, G.L., and D.O. Trainer. 1981. Hemorrhagic disease of wild
ruminants.p. 45-53. In:J.W. Davis, L.H. Karstad,and DO. Trainer
(eds.), Infectious diseasesof wild mammals. 2nd ed. Iowa State
Univ. Press. Ames.
Keiper, R.R.1985. Are sikadeerresponsiblefor thedecline ofwhitetailed deer on Assateague Island, Maryland? Wildl. Soc. Bull.
13:144-1 46.
McAllum, H.J.F.1980. Malignantcatarrhalfever in deer: symptoms,
possiblecausesand diagnosis.Ministry ofAgr. and Fish.Wellington, New Zeal.
Mebus,C.A., and L.L. Logan. 1988. Heartwaterdiseaseofdomestic
and wild ruminants.J. Am.Vet. Med.Assoc. 192:950-952.
Obrtel, R., V. Halisova,and I. Kozena.1985. The winter diet of sika
deer (Cervus nippon) in the Manetinsko area. Folia Zoologica
34:291-302.
Odend'Hal, S. 1983. The geographical distribution of animal viral
diseases. Academic Press. Dep. Anatomy and Radiology, Univ.
Georgia, Athens.
Prestwood,A.K., T.P. Kistner, F.E. Kellogg, and F.A. Hayes. 1974.
The 1971 outbreak of hemorrhagic disease among white-tailed
deer of the southeasternUnited States.J. Wildl. Dis. 10:217-223.
Ratcllffe, P.R. 1987. Distribution and current status of sika deer,
Cervus nippon, in Great Britain. Mamm. Rev. 17:39-58.
Rlemann, H.P.,R. Ruppanner,P.Willeberg,C.E. Franti,W.H. Elliott,
R.A. Fisher, O.A. Brunetti, J.H. Aho, Jr., J.A. Howarth, and D.E.
Behymer. 1979. Serologic profile of exotic deer at Point Reyes
Natural Seashore.J. Am. Vet. Med.Assoc. 175:911-913.
Robinson, W.L., and E.G. Bolen. 1989. Wildlife ecology and management. MacMillan PubI.Co., New York.
Salmon, R., J. Bailey, E. Timmerman,0. Guarino, K. Galilmore, C.
Rogers,and R.Briggs. 1989. Exotic game inTexas:an overviewof
commercial potential. Tex. Dep. Agric., Austin.
Sanford, S.E., and P.B. Little.1977. The gross and histo-pathologic
lesions of malignant catarrhal fever in three captive sika deer
(Cervus nippon) in southernOntario. J. Wildl. Dis. 13:29-32.
Simpson, C.D., L.J. Krysi, D.B. Hampy,and G.G. Gray. 1978. The
barbary sheep:athreat to desert bighorn survival.Trans. Desert
Bighorn Council 22:26-31.
Simpson, C.D., L.J. Krysl, andT.G. DIckinson.1980. Food habits of
barbary sheep in the GuadalupeMountains, New Mexico. Proc.
Barbary SheepSymp.,Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX 87-91.
Smith, J.C. 1977. Food habits, p.62-74. In:E.D.Ables (ed.).The axis
deer in Texas.Tex. A&M Press, College Station. 86 p.
Thomas,F.C. 1981. Hemorrhagic disease. p87-96. In: W.R.Davidson, F.A. Hayes,V.F. Nettles, and F.E. Kellog (eds.). Diseases and
parasitesofwhite-tailed deer. Misc. PubI.No.7, Tall Timbers Res.
Stat. Tallahassee, Fl.
Tomich, P.O. 1969. Mammalsin Hawaii: a synopsis and notational
bibliography. p. 83-87. In: B.P. Bishop Museum Special Pub. 57.
Bishop MuseumPress, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Trainer, 0.0. 1964. Epizootic hemorrhagicdisease in deer. J. Wildl.
Manage. 28:377-381.
Traweek,M.S. 1989. Statewidecensus ofexoticbig game animals.
Fed. Aid Proj. W-109-R-12,Job 21, Texas Parks and WildI. Dep.,
Austin.
Upham,L.L. 1980. BLM'scurrent statusofexotic wildlife speciesand
exoticintroduction policy. Proc.Barbary SheepSym.,TexasTech
Univ., Lubbock, TX:17-18.
von Kerckerinck, J. 1987. Deer farming in North America:the conquest ofa new frontier. Phanter Press. Rhinebeck,N.Y. 225 p.
von M. Petrak, G. 1987. Feeding values and grazing intensity of
chosen food plants of the fallow deer. Sonderdruck aus Bd.
33:98-105.
Winckler, S. 1985. A zoo called Texas.Audubon 87:72-81.
Frasier's Philosophy
One of the greatestobstaclesto the advancement of
new or different ideas is the inability for effectivecommunication. Recently, I was in a meetingwith two wellrespected scientists. Wewereattemptingtowrite ascientific article for publication in a refereed journal. The
discussionbecame very heated in defining and describing what constitutes a scientific study. One person was
trained in the biological sciences and the other in an
engineering field. It was a major surprise to realize that
both ofthese people werearguingthesame point,evento
the point of using thesame words. The problem was that
the wordsusedwerebeingassigned differentconceptual
meanings, depending upon the individual's discipline.
Once it was realized that therewereno basic differences,
thework rapidly progressed to a satisfactoryconclusion.
This type of conflict canoccurwhen a group of people
agree upon the meaningof a term. If others, outsidethe
group, do notaccept this definition,there will always be
disagreement and misunderstanding. This is some of the
basis for the misinterpretationsand misconceptionsthat
some peoplehave oftheSocietyfor Range Management.
We have definitions and meanings of words and phrases
that are notperceived in the same light by othersoutside
the Society.I useas an example theword"range."We use
itto mean atype of'land resource." To many people it isa
type of "land use" primarily use by domesticanimals. As
long as thisdifference in word meaningexists, there will
alwaysbe misunderstanding. Therearetwochoices: (1)
convince others of our meaning or (2) use anotherword
with a universally accepted meaning. Let us hopethat we
have the wisdomto make the right choice.
Considerhowharditisto change yourself and
you'llunderstandwhat little chanceyou have
of trying to change others.
Jacob M. Braude