Cynthia A. Jacobson

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, multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from professional staff, and involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners. Our suggestions reflect the fundamental tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine, which we believe is the foundation of the Institution. In bringing forth these ideas, we hope to encourage discussion about how the Institution should reform to meet the changing needs of society.

Ensuring the Future of State Wildlife Management: Understanding Challenges for Institutional Change

Abstract The social and political dynamics of wildlife management have changed markedly since the emergence of the profession. Today much of the legal responsibility to manage wildlife rests with state agencies. These agencies essentially have institutionalized the discipline, providing the regulatory, normative, and cultural foundation for wildlife management within each state. Pressure for reform of the state wildlife management institution is increasing. These pressures include the need for consistent sources of funding for wildlife management to offset the revenue decline from historically reliable license sales as numbers of hunters and trappers decline; increased interest from nontraditional stakeholders for better access to and involvement in the decision-making process; and demands from society for expansion of services provided (e.g., wildlife damage mitigation, disease control). We believe that state wildlife agencies can play a crucial role in initiating and guiding constructive reforms. We argue that state wildlife agencies can become more effective and valued by society if they are seen as agents of change. State wildlife management agencies, particularly the professionals staffing such agencies, have the opportunity to manage and lead change in a way that benefits the agencies, the public, and wildlife. We identify what we believe are some opportunities for wildlife professionals to become change agents.

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

Governance of state wildlife management has been under scrutiny with respect to its ability to change to reflect the values, norms, and cultural beliefs of contemporary society. This article reviews the existing model of governance for state wildlife management; outlines concerns about this model in light of a changing social context; discusses alternative approaches; and offers considerations for how governance could be reformed to meet societal needs.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: Bridging Entities to Facilitate Adaptive Co-Governance of Social–Ecological Systems

To address rapidly changing and uncertain environmental and social change on large landscapes/seascapes, conservation organizations need to overcome barriers to collaboration and create governance structures that integrate ecological, biological and physical sciences with social science insight and refine decisions based on new information. Adaptive co-governance frameworks are social networks supported by diverse stakeholders that use dynamic learning to inform adaptation. Disincentives for adaptive co-governance include entrenched organizational cultures, conflicting mandates/jurisdictions, and disparate interests among stakeholders. Bridging entities can foster adaptive co-governance by providing platforms for communication, relationship building and stakeholder engagement. This article reinforces the need for institutionalization of adaptive co-governance of social–ecological systems and suggests that Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are bridging entities within a broader co-governance framework. LCCs, a network of conservation organizations both governmental and nongovernmental, have great potential to facilitate conservation of rapidly changing social–ecological systems by providing structure and incentives for collaboration and shared learning.

Gender-Biased Data in Survey Research Regarding Wildlife

Underrepresentation of females among respondents to mail surveys focused on wildlife is a growing concern for survey researchers. In an effort to better understand why females are underrepresented, we analyzed the sample frame of a wildlife-focused survey for which a notable disparity existed between the number of male and female respondents in relation to actual population figures. An analysis of the sample frame used for this study indicated that male bias existed that likely contributed to female underrepresentation among survey respondents. Suggestions are made for improving sampling frames to minimize gender bias.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: Building a Network to Help Fulfill Public Trust Obligations

The Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) network (Network), comprised of 22 conservation partnerships spanning North America and U.S. Islands, is uniquely positioned to assist government members in fulfilling their public trust obligations to sustain natural and cultural resources for current and future generations by (a) ensuring inclusivity of broad stakeholder participation in conservation decision-making, and (b) building capacity for public trust to work in conservation, thus increasing the chance for successful and lasting conservation outcomes. In this article, we discuss the vision for the Network; challenges individual LCCs and the Network face in achieving the vision of sustaining natural and cultural resources for the benefit of current and future generations, a public trust obligation of most of the members; and ways in which member LCCs are making progress in this regard. We offer recommendations for the Network to consider to improve its ability to meet public trust obligations.

Toward a model for local stakeholder participation in landscape-level wildlife conservation

ABSTRACT The conservation community is increasingly taking a landscape-level approach to wildlife conservation. This approach faces obstacles, including how to ensure transboundary wildlife conservation goals that can be realized through local management actions, and how and when to engage local stakeholders in landscape conservation planning processes. Currently, local stakeholder participation is not institutionalized within these processes. This paper examines the potential role of local stakeholders in landscape conservation. In this paper, we present a preliminary model of cross-level coordination that could facilitate development and implementation of conservation across social–ecological landscapes, highlighting the possible contributions of local stakeholders. The feasibility of this model is contingent on addressing a range of challenges associated with local stakeholder participation in extra-local conservation decisions. Ultimately, we present suggestions for future research examining the potential for a locally inclusive, participatory approach to wildlife conservation across complex landscapes.

Applying Public Trust Thinking to Wildlife Governance in the United States: Challenges and Potential Solutions

ABSTRACT Public trust thinking (PTT) promises to inspire ecologically and socially responsible wildlife governance in the United States, but its application is not straightforward. We describe eight broad challenges to comprehensive application of PTT including: increasing authority and capacity; overcoming resistance to change; achieving fair consideration of all public interests; facilitating broad public participation; and fulfilling commitments to future generations. We discuss potential solutions including: distributing responsibilities for public wildlife conservation among governmental and nongovernmental entities; adopting an expansive definition of “wildlife;” promoting an inclusive interpretation of PTT among public wildlife professionals; rejuvenating relationships between the public and wildlife agencies; and increasing public participation and accountability in decision-making processes. Efforts to address challenges in specific socioecological contexts should be led by people working in those contexts. Achieving comprehensive application of PTT will require collaboration and cooperation among governmental and nongovernmental partners, supported by diverse and engaged members of the public.