I try to teach a graduate seminar on wildlife population dynamics at least once a year. In that class, I ask the students what papers they think had the greatest impact on wildlife ecology and management. I typically get a laundry list of works on whatever the fancy new statistical method is for estimating a demographic, space use, a genetic parameter or what not and as expected; suggestions tend to skew towards the individual students field of study/interest. While I am certain that all of the papers suggested are good papers, I often wonder about what impact those papers really have on conservation and management? Do they represent complete paradigm shifts that cause our field to entirely rethink our past and our future approaches to how we collect conservation data, or do they just represent a refinement to an extra decimal place of a more general approach we already use?

In context, I was looking at papers from the Wildlife Society Bulletin while I was at The Wildlife Society's Annual Conference in Louisville. I realized during that review that Wildlife Society Bulletin papers have been the archetype of paradigms in wildlife conservation and management. I think about the paper by Johnson et al. (2001) on Statistics for wildlifers: how much and what kind? and the influence that had on graduate students (including myself) interested in statistical ecology. What about Hunter (1989), who in 2 pages on Aardvarks and Arcadia: two principles of wildlife research detailed for graduate students the importance of hypotheses and the need to consider larger questions at broader scales? And of course, there is Anderson (2001) on The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies, which I would argue in 4 pages represents the generality (sensu Dunham and Beaupre 1998) on which many subsequent papers focused on estimating p and increasing the accuracy of population parameter estimates, or those that the students always recommend to me as having the greatest impact.

I bring up these papers to point out that the Wildlife Society Bulletin is the wildlife conservation and management journal on which our field relies (perhaps unknowingly) heavily on, a fact that hit me full on at the TWS meeting this year. In support of my contention, I wanted to point out a simple number that I think encapsulates the reach of the Bulletin over the last several years. In 2018, the Bulletin had approximately 60,000 downloads (meaning 60 K downloads of Bulletin papers occurred), but, since the transition to Open Access in 2022, as of November 2023 we are at 147,000 downloads. Impact cannot be measured just in a ranking of a journal, but on the use of the content within that journal for conservation and management.

I do want to continue to remind everyone that the Wildlife Society Bulletin would not be what it is today if not for the hard work and efforts of the Wildlife Society Bulletin's Associate Editors. Being an Associate Editor is a truly rewarding experience, and if any of our readers would like to join our Associate Editor board, please feel free to contact me directly to discuss.

I would, as always, be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Anna Knipps, Dr. Jeff Levengood, and Ms. Ashley Tunstall from the Wildlife Society Bulletin staff, as their support behind the scenes running the Wildlife Society Bulletin is one of reasons that the Bulletin has been successful. I also wanted to note that Ms. Tunstall recently graduated and has accepted a biologist position with Ducks Unlimited, and we here at the Bulletin wish her well! Finally, I continue to echo my previous calls to all readers and authors of the Wildlife Society Bulletin. If you are contacted to be a referee, please accept, as the expenditure of your time on others' work will support the expenditure of others' time on your work.

我尝试每年至少举办一次关于野生动物种群动态的研究生研讨会。在那堂课上，我问学生们他们认为哪些论文对野生动物生态和管理影响最大。我通常会得到一份工作清单，内容涉及任何新奇的统计方法，用于估计人口统计、空间使用、遗传参数或其他不符合预期的内容；建议往往偏向于个别学生的学习/兴趣领域。虽然我确信所有建议的论文都是好论文，但我经常想知道这些论文对保护和管理到底有什么影响？它们是否代表了彻底的范式转变，导致我们的领域完全重新思考我们过去和未来如何收集保护数据的方法，或者它们只是代表了我们已经使用的更通用方法的细化到小数点后一位？

在上下文中，我在路易斯维尔参加野生动物协会年会时正在查看野生动物协会公告中的论文。在那次审查中，我意识到野生动物协会公报论文已经成为野生动物保护和管理范式的原型。我想到了约翰逊等人的论文。( 2001 )野生动物统计：数量和种类？以及对对统计生态学感兴趣的研究生（包括我自己）的影响。亨特（Hunter，1989）在两页的《土豚和阿卡迪亚：野生动物研究的两条原则》中为研究生详细介绍了假设的重要性以及在更广泛的范围内考虑更大问题的必要性，他又如何呢？当然，Anderson ( 2001 ) 的《野生动物实地研究需要掌握正确的基础知识》，我认为在 4 页中代表了普遍性（sensu Dunham 和 Beaupre  1998），许多后续论文都集中在估计p和提高总体参数估计的准确性，或者学生总是向我推荐的影响最大的参数。

我提出这些论文是为了指出，《野生动物协会公报》是我们领域（也许是在不知不觉中）严重依赖的野生动物保护和管理期刊，这一事实在今年的 TWS 会议上给我留下了深刻的印象。为了支持我的观点，我想指出一个简单的数字，我认为它概括了过去几年公报的影响范围。2018 年，《公告》的下载量约为 60,000 次（意味着《公告》论文的下载量达到 6 万次），但自 2022 年过渡到开放获取以来，截至 2023 年 11 月，下载量为 147,000 次。影响力不能仅通过期刊的排名来衡量，还可以通过该期刊内容在保护和管理方面的使用来衡量。

我确实想继续提醒大家，如果没有《野生动物协会公报》副主编的辛勤工作和努力，《野生动物协会公报》就不会成为今天的样子。成为副主编是一次真正有益的经历，如果我们的任何读者想加入我们的副主编委员会，请随时直接与我联系进行讨论。

一如既往，如果我不感谢野生动物协会公报工作人员的 Anna Knipps 博士、Jeff Levengood 博士和 Ashley Tunstall 女士，那就是我的失职了，因为他们在幕后支持野生动物协会公报的运行是原因之一公告取得了成功。我还想指出，Tunstall 女士最近毕业并接受了 Ducks Unlimited 的生物学家职位，我们在公告中祝她一切顺利！最后，我继续呼应我之前对《野生动物协会公报》所有读者和作者的呼吁。如果您被联系担任推荐人，请接受，因为您在别人工作上花费的时间将支持其他人在您工作上花费的时间。