Gaining Compliance and Cooperation with Regulated Wildlife Harvest

Rudolph, Brent A.; Riley, Shawn J.

doi:10.1002/9781119376866.ch5

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Procedural fairness, also identified as a component of good governance (Decker et al ), is created when the methods by which SWAs make decisions are easily understood by stakeholders, the processes are considered fair, and stakeholders believe they have a voice in the decision process regardless of outcome (Lauber et al , Schroeder et al ). An important component of agency performance is technical competence in carrying out wildlife management, yet the way decisions are made (Chase et al ) and benevolence toward stakeholders shown by SWA personnel (Rudolph and Riley ) appear even more important in building trust between stakeholders and the SWA. Our findings are consistent with studies from other public resource fields that have indicated processes used to reach a decision can be just as important as the outcome itself (Moffat et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The need for trust and the subsequent turnover of power to the government as a trustee (e.g., SWA) is a deep‐rooted concept in modern democracies (Fukuyama , Warren ). In application to wildlife management, trust is critical in cases such as hunters’ support for regulations (Schroeder et al ) and cooperation with policies such as a ban on feeding or baiting wildlife (Rudolph and Riley ). Although interests in wildlife and stakeholders of SWAs are more diversified than in the past, most decisions made by trustees (e.g., legislators, commissions, agency directors) are regulatory and typically focused on allocation issues such as season timing and length, characteristics of harvests (e.g., antler point restrictions), and bag limits that affect a narrow yet important set of stakeholders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…State wildlife agencies frequently accomplish objectives through regulations and laws sanctioned by power (i.e., trustees), yet such regulatory frameworks have limited effectiveness in the absence of stakeholder cooperation or compliance, which are rooted in trust of the regulatory agency (Gregory and McDaniels , Rudolph and Riley ). Results from 26 focus groups with stakeholders of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Division (DNRWD) that were used to inform strategic planning (Lauricella et al ) revealed a pronounced desire by external stakeholders for more and better communication between the SWA and stakeholders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Competency in science and application of ecology long have been identified as professional qualifications to enhance wildlife research and management (Sinclair ), and are stressed in most university curricula in wildlife management (Baydack ) and conservation biology (Van Heezik and Seddon ). Procedural fairness, which encompasses perceptions of processes and procedures used by a decision‐maker rather than the actual outcome of the decision, is recommended as an essential component of effective wildlife governance (Lauber and Knuth , Decker et al , Rudolph and Riley ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in science and government regulatory agencies (e.g., state wildlife agencies) is a growing issue among wildlife managers and administrators who are attempting to engage stakeholders and develop effective, public wildlife conservation. However, a paucity of research has investigated attributes affecting stakeholder trust in wildlife agencies. We proposed a theoretical model of 2 key factors that can affect levels of trust: procedural fairness and technical competency. We used structured equation modeling to examine the influence of these factors on trust in a state wildlife agency by a prominent wildlife stakeholder, licensed hunters ≥18 years old. We tested the model with results from a mail‐back questionnaire (n = 2,708 respondents, 39.6% response rate) about trust in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Division. The respondent population closely reflected Michigan's population of hunting license‐holders regarding demographic and geographic composition. The modified measurement model fit the data well, supporting the uniqueness of the procedural fairness, technical competency, and trust measures. The test of the structural model indicted that stakeholder perceptions of procedural fairness and technical competence exhibited by agency personnel positively influenced trust; however, the coefficient for procedural fairness was nearly 4 times greater than that of perceived technical competence of personnel. Perceived congruency of values between stakeholders and the agency was the most important modifier of the relationship of fairness and competency on trust. Our findings identify influential pathways wildlife professionals generally and state wildlife agencies specifically can take to strengthen stakeholders’ trust and confidence in their agencies. The complexity of public wildlife management ensures that there always will be factors affecting trust in state wildlife agencies for which agencies can do little about. Yet, development of decisions processes perceived by stakeholders to be fair and transparent and investment in agency personnel with skills in stakeholder engagement likely will be effective ways to foster trust and confidence in state wildlife agencies. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is little doubt that the feeding ban should be implemented in areas with CWD, but then compliance and regulation enforcement are important issues to consider (Rudolph and Riley ). Information campaigns may have some effect on changing hunter behavior in efforts to control disease (Muter et al ), but the media may overemphasize scientific uncertainty (Heberlein and Stedman ), and the effects of campaigns to change behavior are not always strong (Triezenberg et al , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal regulation of supplementary cervid feeding facing chronic wasting disease

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The supplementary feeding of cervids is a widespread practice across the northern hemisphere. There are few studies, however, regarding the extent of feeding in space and time. There are adverse effects of supplementary feeding, of which the most severe are increased parasite and disease transmission. With the recent emergence of chronic wasting disease (CWD) among cervids in Norway, a legal regulation was issued that banned all supplementary cervid feeding. We quantified the spatial extent and intentions of feeding cervids across all of Norway using a questionnaire at the municipality scale. We also compared spatial extent of feeding before and after the feeding ban to shed light on the ability of regulations to control supplementary feeding. Supplementary feeding to increase winter survival and targeting roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) was more common (48.4% of the municipalities) than the feeding of red deer (Cervus elaphus; 20.5%) and moose (Alces alces; 7.4%). The main feeding period was January–March, but extensive feeding also occurred from November to December and in April. Reducing traffic accidents was also a motivation, particularly for the feeding of moose (14.5%), and this was the main motivation (86%) for public feeding. Among the 65.7% that responded, 53.3% reported they knew about supplemental feeding of cervids in their municipality. In the region with the first feeding ban, 80.2% of municipalities were feeding in 2015–2016 before the ban, which was reduced to 68.4% in 2016–2017 and remained at 68.4% in 2017–2018. In the remainder of Norway, 81.4% were feeding in 2015–2016, and 72.6% were feeding in 2016–2017, but after the ban, this increased to 78.6% in the harsh winter of 2017–2018. Our study highlights that regulations across broad scales may not be followed and that more spatially targeted regulations and increased enforcement are required for disease transmission to be more effectively combated. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

show abstract