Most people see little similarity between a battlefield manager and a natural resource manager. However, except for the element of time, many striking similarities may be drawn. Indeed, there are more differences between the tranquil scenes of mountain scenery, forests, rivers or grasslands and bomb scarred battlefields where survival is often the prime objective. The similarities center around the basic need for information upon which good decisions may be made. Both managers of battlefields and of natural resources require accurate, timely, and continuous information about changing conditions. Based on this information, they each make decisions to conserve the materials and resources under their charge. Their common goal is to serve the needs of the people in their society. On the one hand, the goal is victory in battle to perpetuate a way of life or a political system. On the other, the goal is victory in an ongoing battle against fire, insects, disease, soil erosion, vandalism, theft, and misuse in general. Here, a desire to maintain natural resources in a productive and healthy condition prevails. The objective of the natural resource manager is to keep natural resources in such a condition that they will continue to meet the needs and wants of the people who claim them for their common good. In this paper, the different needs for information are compared and a little history of some of the quasi-military aspects of resource management is given. Needs for information are compared and current uses of data acquisition techniques are reviewed. Similarities and differences are discussed and future opportunities for cooperation in data acquisition are outlined.