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.

With increasing negative wildlife‐related impacts on humans, public expectations of agency roles are transitioning and wildlife managers are becoming more concerned about public acceptance of management interventions, particularly lethal measures. One goal of human dimensions research in wildlife is to provide managers with a better understanding of the relationship among stakeholders' values, beliefs, and acceptance of management actions. We used data obtained from a survey of Alaska residents on managing wolf (Canis lupus) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) predation on moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) to explore 2 general questions: 1) is opposition to lethal control of wildlife context‐free (an individual is opposed to lethal control regardless of circumstance) or context specific (an individual's support or opposition to lethal control depends on circumstances)? And 2) does perceived impacts of wildlife on humans make a difference in an individual's expression of support or opposition to lethal actions? We found that support for lethal methods for management of wolves and grizzly bears to minimize predation on moose and caribou was influenced by the impact that predation was perceived to have on humans' access to moose and caribou, whether access was a concern primarily for food or recreational hunting. Specifically, respondents were more likely to support the use of lethal methods to control predation in situations where the effect of predation on moose and caribou had the greatest subsequent impact on humans' access to these big game resources. Conversely, lethal control of predators was less likely to be supported in situations where the impact of predators on moose and caribou was perceived to be less severe with respect to human needs. We use the phrase “impact dependency” to highlight the importance of context‐specific influences on public evaluations of management actions. Although inherent characteristics of potential management interventions (e.g., relative humaneness, cost, efficiency, etc.) are important considerations in decision making, our findings suggest that researchers and managers also should consider how public support or opposition for a particular management action is influenced by public perceptions of the nature of impacts being experienced by people.

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.

No abstract