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

Abstract

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).

When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management

“…However, the survey also indicated that few scientists were engaged in activities that they perceived as necessary for the success in conservation and development. Widening this divide, it was believed that research should be done without public engagement to prevent bias (starting around the 1960s), especially with potentially controversial or sensitive information (Steelman, 2001;Robertson and Hull, 2003;Nie, 2004). It is unclear if the rise of PhDs during this period was, in part, a reaction to this changing social context.…”

Public trust thinking and public ownership of wildlife in Italy and the United States

“…Responsibilities are more clearly specified in the United States, where legal obligations unequivocally lie with trustees (individual elected and appointed officials, e.g., legislators and wildlife commissioners; Smith, 2011). Trustees in the United States often fail to fulfill their responsibilities due to lack of enforcement of PTD and related laws (Freyfogle & Goble, 2009;Hare et al, 2017;Horner, 2000) and preferential treatment of particular special interests (Horner, 2000;Jacobson, Organ, Decker, Batcheller, & Carpenter, 2010;Nie, 2004). Trustees in the United States often fail to fulfill their responsibilities due to lack of enforcement of PTD and related laws (Freyfogle & Goble, 2009;Hare et al, 2017;Horner, 2000) and preferential treatment of particular special interests (Horner, 2000;Jacobson, Organ, Decker, Batcheller, & Carpenter, 2010;Nie, 2004).…”

Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: what is the problem?

“…Previous studies have amply documented this phenomenon, which arose not only from a culture shared among hunters and agency personnel, but also from agency reliance for revenues on hunting-related taxes and license sales, and decision making buffered from the influences of elected officials by appointed boards or commissions (Decker et al 1996;Gill 1996Gill , 2001Byrd 2002;Nie 2004;Clark and Rutherford 2005;Jacobson and Decker 2006). All aspects of routine state-level wildlife decision making, from intelligence to termination, were sequestered from electoral processes and comparatively unresponsive to those, such as AW Foes, who pursued ''nonconsumptive'' interests in wildlife.…”

“…State wildlife management agencies with a stake in AWs differed from federal bureaus by their particularly strong allegiance to the traditional precepts of bureaucratized scientific management (Nie 2004;Clark and Rutherford 2005). State-authored documents frequently referred to ''managing for the good of the resource'' or ''of wildlife'' (e.g., Arizona Game & Fish Department 8-9 August [2003] and Bleich [2005]), which presupposes that resources existed independent of human desires, and that judgment of ''good'' and ''bad'' existed independent of human morality.…”