Securing Alternative Funding for Wildlife Management: Insights from Agency Leaders

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.

Deer and elk hunter recruitment, retention, and participation trends in Montana

“…This has clear implications for wildlife conservation activities; the same wildlife survey activities were more expensive in 2008 as compared to 2004 if they relied on oil‐based fuel. In addition to increasing costs, public demands for services on state wildlife agencies are broadening and increasing (Jacobson and Decker 2006, Jacobson et al 2007).…”

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

“…Decades ago, state-level wildlife conservation and management developed the characteristics of an established institution: enduring formal and informal rules, articulation of values and beliefs, and development of norms and related behavior patterns that sustain and constrain its activities (Jacobson and Decker 2006). Similar to many institutions whose origins date back to the late 19th century, the need for reform of the wildlife conservation and management institution (Institution) to meet contemporary challenges has been articulated (Heberlein 1991, Manfredo and Zinn 1996, Gill 2004, Jacobson et al 2007). The question, ''reform into what?''…”

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of sandhill crane habitat management

“…Globally, funding for species conservation has been shown to be far lower than needed (McCarthy et al , Polasky ). Furthermore, budget shortfalls have pushed wildlife management agencies to seek alternative strategies to fund management programs (Jacobson et al ). In the face of limited and sometimes dwindling budgets, field practitioners need tools that evaluate the economic efficacy of wildlife management decisions.…”