2010
DOI: 10.2193/2008-485
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies

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, multi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
95
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
95
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Landowners and development are often viewed as threats to conservation (Jacobson et al, 2010), yet antagonistic views of these stakeholders can Table 2. Average be unwarranted.…”
Section: Conservation Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Landowners and development are often viewed as threats to conservation (Jacobson et al, 2010), yet antagonistic views of these stakeholders can Table 2. Average be unwarranted.…”
Section: Conservation Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wildlife professionals using appropriate new technology can attain credibility with the public and increase public trust in government regulation of wildlife populations (Jacobson et al 2010;Smith 2011). Perhaps more important, IR technology may increase the precision and efficiency of sage-grouse monitoring programs while releasing time and resources for other conservation efforts.…”
Section: Management Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These benefits accrue whether beneficiaries are aware of them or not and go beyond the interests and uses trustees have historically sought to balance . PTT has been advanced as a potential solution to contemporary environmental challenges including atmospheric pollution (Coplan, 2010;Wood, 2012), wildlife conservation (Jacobson, Organ, Decker, Batcheller, & Carpenter, 2010;Meyers, 1989), marine ecosystem governance (Turnipseed, Crowder, Sagarin, & Roady, 2009), and access to potable water (Takacs, 2008) and ecosystem services (Ruhl & Salzman, 2007). Protecting ecosystems generally, not just specific components or uses, should be a priority for trustees (Bosselmann et al, 2012;Weiss, 1992;Ruhl & Salzman, 2007;Wood, 2014).…”
Section: Principle 1: Human Well-being Is Dependent On Benefits Provimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is therefore imperative that trustees consider impacts of their decisions in the broadest terms. Policies or management practices that privilege individual beneficiaries or groups are inconsistent with PTT (Horner, 2000;Jacobson et al, 2010;Wood, 2009).…”
Section: Principle 3: All Beneficiaries Are Equalmentioning
confidence: 99%