Massasauga Home Range Patterns in the Midwest

Abstract: The massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) has drastically declined throughout its range mainly due to habitat loss and human persecution. Populations of the massasauga that occur north and east of the Missouri River, USA, are currently candidates for listing under the United States Endangered Species Act. In areas where land managers wish to improve habitat for existing populations or create habitat for repatriation efforts, an understanding of massasauga spatial ecology is necessary to ensure that adequate sized blocks of habitat are created and properly managed. We studied spatial ecology of massasaugas at 2 sites in Wisconsin and 3 sites in Missouri over an 11-year period. Our results indicated that male massasaugas had larger spatial requirements than all other cohorts. Our study sites supporting viable populations indicated that managers interested in restoring or enhancing massasauga habitat should use 100 ha as a minimum restoration or management target. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):754–759; 2008)     

EXPLOITATION IN PAYMENTS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method but there is significant debate about whether and in what amount such payments are appropriate. This paper is concerned with exploitation and whether there should be a lower limit on the amount researchers can pay their subjects. When subjects participate in research as a way to make money, fairness requires that researchers pay them a fair wage. This call for the establishment of a lower limit meets resistance in two places: (1) denial that the payments offered by researchers are wages for participation; and (2) concern about undue inducement. This paper critically examines these arguments for and against a lower limit. It shows that the need for a lower limit cannot be avoided by adopting a non‐wage payment model and that concerns about undue inducement are unjustified in all trials except those that present greater than minimal risk. This analysis suggests the following compromise position: there should be an unconditional lower limit on payment amounts so that researchers cannot offer less than a fair wage, and when researchers cannot satisfy this limit because fairness requires a problematically large payment, then researchers should offer no payment at all.     

MORE ON BENCHMARKS OF FAIRNESS: RESPONSE TO BALLANTYNE

This paper challenges the fitness of Angela Ballantyne's proposed theory of exploitation by situating her ‘fair risk account’ in an ongoing dialogue about the adequacy conditions for benchmarks of fairness. It identifies four adequacy conditions: (1) the ability to focus on level rather than type of benefit; (2) the ability to focus on micro‐level rather than macro‐level fairness; (3) the ability to prevent discrimination based on need; and (4) the ability to prescribe a certain distribution as superior to all others. While the fair risk account satisfies the first condition, this paper argues that it has difficulty satisfying the last three conditions. Ballantyne's proposal includes several new and promising features, but in order for the fair risk account to be useful in identifying and preventing exploitation, Ballantyne must either clarify and augment her theory or challenge the relevance of the adequacy conditions it fails to meet.