Governance of State Wildlife Management: Reform and Revive or Resist and Retrench?

Jacobson, Cynthia A.; Decker, Daniel J.

doi:10.1080/08941920801898465

Cited by 46 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But there are risks; responding to minority interest groups is common in US wildlife policy arenas (Gill 1996), and has resulted in demonstrations and ballot initiatives, which have reduced the authority or flexibility of wildlife agencies (Gill 1996;Torres et al 1996;Jacobson and Decker 2008;Treves 2008).…”

Section: Compensation Is Popularmentioning

confidence: 98%

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The costs of wildlife conservation distribute unequally across society. Compensation can potentially redress inequities and raise local tolerance for endangered wildlife that damage property. However, the rules for payments generate controversy, particularly as costs mount and species recover. In Wisconsin (USA), gray wolf damage payments grew notably over 28 years and eventually undermined budgets for conserving other endangered species. We measured attitudes to compensation among 1,364 state residents, including those who voluntarily contributed funds and those likely to receive compensation, and we interviewed elected officials about the politics of payment rules. Most respondents endorsed compensation for wolf damages to livestock-even when wolves are no longer endangered-but opposed payments for wolf damage to hunting dogs on public land. Most donors opposed killing wolves and over one-fourth unconditionally rejected a wolf hunt. We predict the latter donors would stop contributing funds for compensation if the state were to implement a proposed wolf hunt. Controversy over payment rules reveals clashing values regarding wildlife between those receiving and those Co-authors arranged in alphabetical order.A. Treves (paying for compensation. Moreover, the costs of compensation ratchet up as endangered species recover and claims of entitlement expand. Hence we recommend conservationists use sunset clauses and an adaptive management of compensation programs.

show abstract

Section: Compensation Is Popularmentioning

confidence: 98%

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success of WDNR wolf management also reflects expertise in the agency, a factor that has received little attention in current analyses of the political process underlying wildlife policy (e.g., Jacobson & Decker, 2008;Nie, 2002). The prior authors have noted the need for wildlife managers to acknowledge diverse wildlife values and bring stakeholders together for deliberative, consensus-based discussions; make decisions that meet local views of fair, democratic legitimacy; and measure the changing attitudes of their many constituencies.…”

Section: Conclusion About Wolf Policy and Interest Groupsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Had state wolf policy makers failed to occupy the common ground, they might have lost authority and flexibility through various mechanisms: (a) had wolf population and threats to it been mismanaged, the federal government might have delayed delisting (USFWS, 2007(USFWS, , 2008; (b) had property damages, population growth, or lethal control of wolves been widely perceived as mismanaged, interest groups might have tried direct democracy or additional lawsuits to wrest authority from the WDNR as has happened in other states (Gill, 1996;Jacobson & Decker, 2008;Torres, Mansfield, Foley, Lupo, & Brinkhaus, 1996); or (c) had illegal killing of wolves reached unsustainable levels, the WDNR might have lost control de facto. Few of these events transpired and the ones that did were not overwhelming.…”

Section: Conclusion About Wolf Policy and Interest Groupsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The policy arena was crowded with traditional hunting, trapping, and farming interests joining less traditional groups, notably those concerned with animal welfare and ecologists concerned with the function of top predators in ecosystems (Nie, 2002). The resulting diverse mix of values toward wolves and varied economic, recreational, aesthetic, and ecological arguments complicated decision-making on wolf policy (Jacobson & Decker, 2008), but also generated new resources for wolf management and opportunities for interdisciplinary research in the human dimensions of wildlife.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Recovery: Wisconsin's Wolf Policy 1980–2008

Treves

2008

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife protectionists, livestock producers, and black bear hunters influenced wolf policy in Wisconsin, USA, over the past 29 years. Wolf policy aligned closely with protectionist values until 2003, when litigations over lethal control and wolf reclassification created a rift. Since 2003, livestock producers and bear hunters have had more influence over wolf policy. Throughout, state managers steered steadily toward regaining management authority from the federal government and finding common ground between the wildlife values held by different stakeholders. Human dimensions research helped find this common ground and shape wolf policy, particularly when it integrated ecology, social science, and management applications. From spatial, predictive models of wolf attacks on domestic animals and attitudinal surveys on compensation and hunting, managers combined results into novel proposals to balance divergent interests. Wolf policy exemplifies the challenges facing wildlife managers as new wildlife values confront older ones and stakeholders demand a say in policy.

show abstract

“…In the wake of growing parallel interests in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Organ et al, 2012) and the need for transformation of state fish and wildlife agencies to better reflect broad social norms and values (Jacobson & Decker, 2008), the importance of the public trust doctrine as the legal foundation and overarching philosophy guiding wildlife management is being revisited and reinvigorated (Batcheller et al, 2010). According to interpretations of this doctrine (e.g., Batcheller et al, 2010;Sax, 1970;Wood, 2014), fish and wildlife in the United States belong to all citizens, inclusive of current and future generations, and are managed by governments as public trust resources for their citizens' benefit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%