State fish and wildlife agency culture: Access points to leverage major change

Abstract

Amid a time of unprecedented social‐ecological change, professionals within and outside of the US wildlife conservation community have called for transformation of existing processes and structures to ensure that the benefits of wildlife conservation can be realized well into the future. Current momentum behind an initiative to help increase conservation relevancy among population segments that have historically been underserved by the conservation community is underway. Sustainable institutional change will not be realized, however, without attending to internal cultural change within the conservation community itself. Although elements of an ideal institution have been suggested, specific interventions related to institutional culture need deeper exploration. State fish and wildlife agencies—a primary organizational actor within the conservation community—play a central role in institutional transformation. Using a systems framework, this essay describes key leverage points for cultural change for which interventions could result in sustainable culture shifts. Five possible interventions are introduced to stimulate conversation among conservation practitioners seeking to initiate transformational change within their specific cultural contexts.

Conservation decision makers worry about relevancy and funding but not climate change

“…Supervisory board members are intended to be the voice of their constituents, be it statewide or in an assigned district, and typically they are appointed based on their background as a sportsperson (The Wildlife Management Institute 1987), however, appointments may be influenced by politics. Supervisory boards were created in the era of client-based management (Leopold 1933, Decker et al 1996, Peterson and Rodriguez 2012 relevant, multiple channels must be considered (Pauley et al 2022), including changing the culture of the agency itself to be more diverse and reflect the population it represents (Jacobson et al 2022).…”

“…Such alliances will be critical if wildlife agencies seek to build political support and funding mechanisms outside historically dominant areas of hunting, fishing, and trapping (Price Tack et al 2018). As wildlife agencies strive to remain relevant, multiple channels must be considered (Pauley et al 2022), including changing the culture of the agency itself to be more diverse and reflect the population it represents (Jacobson et al 2022).…”

Mapping social conflicts to enhance the integrated management of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

“…Effective social‐ecological integration requires continued collaborations between wildlife biologists and social scientists, in spaces that promote reflexivity (Atkins, 2004), relational thinking (Cruikshank, 2005; Haraway, 1988; Latour, 2005), and negotiation of epistemological differences (Angelstam et al, 2013; Fielding, 2012). Interdisciplinary research also faces limited funding, training, leadership, and acceptance within natural resource agencies and even academic institutions (Jacobson et al, 2022; Teel et al, 2022). Although these institutional barriers persist, wildlife agencies and organizations can work to increase their social science capacities and shift their institutional cultures toward recognizing the importance of social data and local knowledge (Bélisle et al, 2018; Jacobson et al, 2022; Manfredo et al, 2019; Morales et al, 2021).…”

“…Interdisciplinary research also faces limited funding, training, leadership, and acceptance within natural resource agencies and even academic institutions (Jacobson et al, 2022; Teel et al, 2022). Although these institutional barriers persist, wildlife agencies and organizations can work to increase their social science capacities and shift their institutional cultures toward recognizing the importance of social data and local knowledge (Bélisle et al, 2018; Jacobson et al, 2022; Manfredo et al, 2019; Morales et al, 2021). Geospatial analysis provides one relatively accessible tool for wildlife agencies and organizations to begin integrating complex social and ecological landscapes and viewing the relationships between humans and wildlife through cross‐scalar and cross‐disciplinary lenses (Fielding, 2012; Teixeira, 2016).…”