Search

In light of the trajectory of wildlife governance in the United States, the future of sustainable use of wildlife is a topic of substantial interest in the wildlife conservation community. We examine sustainable‐use principles with respect to “good governance” considerations and public trust administration principles to assess how sustainable use might fare in the 21st century. We conclude that sustainable‐use principles are compatible with recently articulated wildlife governance principles and could serve to mitigate broad values and norm shifts in American society that affect social acceptability of particular uses. Wildlife governance principles emphasize inclusive discourse among diverse wildlife interests, which could minimize isolated exchanges among cliques of like‐minded people pursuing their ambitions without seeking opportunity for sharing or understanding diverse views. Aligning governance practices with wildlife governance principles can help avoid such isolation. In summary, sustainable use of wildlife is likely to endure as long as society 1) believes the long‐term sustainability of wildlife is not jeopardized, and 2) accepts practices associated with such use as legitimate. These are 2 criteria needing constant attention. © 2017 The Wildlife Society. Governance of wildlife management in the U.S. is likely to influence the future of sustainable use of wildlife. A more inclusive governance structure could reduce threats to sustainable use by providing opportunities for sharing broad perspectives and understanding policy tradeoffs.

Recent evolution of the wildlife management institution in the United States includes adoption of good governance principles, wherein stakeholders expect and are provided opportunities for input and involvement in making decisions about public wildlife resources. Concurrently and perhaps paradoxically, state wildlife agencies are encouraged to operate with fidelity to the public trust doctrine and the principles of public trust administration, which may require trust administrators (i.e., appointed commissioners and public wildlife managers) to keep trust beneficiaries (i.e., theoretically all citizens, but especially special interests) at arm's length (i.e., restricted from having undue control) with respect to directly influencing decision-making. In addition, public trust administration includes citizens taking responsibility for holding trust administrators accountable and requires government to provide citizens recourse for doing so. In practice, however, accountability typically is achieved through political influence or litigation, both routes antithetical to efficient public trust resource administration. This set of potentially conflicting expectations—practicing good governance through citizens' engagement in wildlife decision-making processes, limiting beneficiaries' direct influence on decisions of trust administrators, and citizens' responsibility for holding trust administrators accountable—creates an apparent conundrum for state wildlife agencies. As a catalyst for deliberation about the implications of public trust doctrine in the wildlife profession, we describe potential problems and suggest ways for public wildlife managers to perform their responsibilities with due diligence to the combined expectations and requirements of good governance and the public trust doctrine. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

ABSTRACT The wildlife conservation institution (Institution) needs to reform to maintain legitimacy and relevancy in the 21st century. Institutional reform is inherently slow. Limitations resulting from historical and resource dependencies between state wildlife agencies and hunters have left the Institution poorly positioned to meet changing ecological and social complexities. In this paper, we suggest that an ideal Institution would have the following 4 components: broad-based funding, trustee-based governance, multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from professional staff, and involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners. Our suggestions reflect the fundamental tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine, which we believe is the foundation of the Institution. In bringing forth these ideas, we hope to encourage discussion about how the Institution should reform to meet the changing needs of society.

Abstract:State wildlife management is in a period of change unlike any other in its history. The growing human population in most states is having unprecedented impacts on the natural environment. At the same time, society's interests and expectations regarding wildlife and wildlife management, respectively, are changing. Increasing demands on state wildlife management agencies and subsequent costs, as well as the declining relative numbers of hunters, the traditional funding source for state wildlife management, have caused the state wildlife management institution to acknowledge and address the need to find and secure nontraditional funding sources. We interviewed administrators from 24 state wildlife agencies to understand these leaders' perspectives on how their agencies have responded to pressure to develop alternative funding mechanisms. Specifically, we wanted to know if agency behavior was generally consistent with a typology of strategic organizational response, ranging from passive conformity to active resistance. We found evidence that state wildlife agencies exhibited strategic behavior consistent with this typology and, in some cases, were innovative in their efforts to secure alternative funding. In other cases, agency behavior was limited by real or perceived external constraints, particularly political factors. We provide a modified typology of organizational response reflecting the context of state wildlife management. Not all responses are appropriate or feasible for all agencies, so agencies must evaluate their environments to determine which strategies offer the greatest potential benefits and least potential costs. Agencies unable to behave strategically due to political or other constraints would benefit from establishing broad‐based partnerships, including traditional and nontraditional stakeholders, with the purpose of building support for alternative funding of state wildlife management.