Wildlands and Wildlife

Whose Values Count?

A recent Bioscience paper on stemming the biodiversity crisis framed the growing debate over the role of state fish and wildlife agencies quite succinctly. The authors stated, “We are not concerned that state agencies value hunting; nor do we claim that state agencies do nothing to restore native wildlife. Rather, our concern is that, given the magnitude of the problem … they do too little for the biodiversity crisis, and in comparison, they spend too much effort on the promotion of wildlife-associated recreation. In short, agencies tend to prioritize recreation over the restoration and conservation of wildlife.”

“In short, agencies tend to prioritize recreation over the restoration and conservation of wildlife.”

This reality bumps into Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities’ big, bold, and vitally important goal of conserving 10–20 percent of the New England landscape as wildlands and another 60 percent in actively managed woodlands, existing farmland, and wetlands. The wildlands, as defined in Wildlands of New England, are where management is explicitly intended to allow natural processes to prevail with “free will and minimal human interference.” Essentially this is a coexistence model. Such wildlands not only serve to protect the varied resources—they also enhance biodiversity and can lift the human spirit. Surely, we have enough information and experience to know that our model of dominance over nature rather than coexistence has long since run its course.

“Surely, we have enough information and experience to know that our model of dominance over nature rather than coexistence has long since run its course.”

The idea of allowing natural processes to prevail on wildlands, however, presents a major challenge beyond securing the lands. This manage-for-coexistence model flies in the face of our current approach to wildlife governance (management decision-making), which, as the Bioscience authors indicate, is not grounded in a coexistence model. Rather, it is based in the traditional approach, where wildlife is perceived as existing for human use and is managed for human benefit; where game species get the lion’s share of resources; where, in many states, an anti-predator bias looms large (e.g., the de facto declaration of our apex predator, the coyote, as vermin); and where practices such as the use of body-crushing, leg hold, or drowning traps—or even the use of snares and the use of hounds in hunting bears, raccoons, or coyotes—are allowed by regulators, with variations depending upon the state. Since these practices are so controversial and yet prevalent, the questions are: Whose values count when it comes to establishing state public policy over wildlife? And, who makes those determinations?

*To many, coyotes are regarded as a nuisance.* Courtesy of Stowe Reporter

Perhaps the best data source for gaining a better understanding of public values toward wildlife as compared to agency culture and values is America’s Wildlife Values: The Social Context of Wildlife Management in the U.S. The report, led by researchers at Colorado State University, was funded largely by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) grant and released in May of 2019. The report contains data obtained from public surveys in all 50 states and from 28 state fish and wildlife departments. In New England, four of the six state agencies, those serving Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, participated in the survey. New Hampshire’s and Maine’s agencies did not.

For the purposes of the study, people were generally classified into four types:

Traditionalists or utilitarians — those who believe that wildlife should be used for and managed for the benefit of people
Mutualists — those who see wildlife as part of their extended social networks
Pluralists — those whose values are determined by the specific situation at hand
Distanced — those with low levels of interest in wildlife

The chart below shows the results for New England states.

Note the striking differences in public vs. state agency attitudes toward wildlife. Whereas agency respondents aligned strongly with the traditionalist approach that views wildlife as managed for human use and benefit, respondents from the general public had varying attitudes throughout the region, with a mutualist or coexistence attitude prevailing in every state. Note that New Hampshire and Maine agencies chose not to participate in the survey. Graphs developed by Brian Hall from data in *America’s Wildlife Values*.

Two takeaways that jump out of the data are, first, that mutualists form the largest block of citizens in each of the New England states, and, second, that mutualists are dramatically underrepresented, while traditionalists are vastly overrepresented, in the staffs of state fish and wildlife departments. It is worth noting that nationwide, 35 percent of the public identified as mutualists, yet only eight percent of responding agency staff identify as mutualists.

This landscape is further impacted by related cultural undercurrents. For instance, the Department of the Interior noted in its 2018 survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation the long-term decline in participation rates in hunting and fishing. In Vermont, for example, the heyday in license sales was in the mid-1970s, and the license sales rate has fallen since that time. Inherent in the decline in license sales is the apparent ongoing cultural shift away from traditional to mutualist values.

Added to this is the significant environmental undercurrent in the number of species that has been listed in each state under the category of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. These are species that need help because of threats such as habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, invasive exotic species, diseases, and climate change. Collectively, roughly 3,000 species have been listed by the New England states, raising the question of whether agencies with clear bias toward serving hunting and fishing license holders are sufficiently concerned, and whether resources are appropriately allocated, to address such major and complex environmental needs. According to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, around 10 percent of state wildlife agency spending goes to the conservation of species that are not hunted or fished, even though these species make up approximately 98 percent of wildlife species. To sharpen that point, NWF and the USFWS indicate that while state wildlife agencies receive 60 percent of their funding from sources tied to hunting and fishing, only four percent of the public hunt and only 17 percent engage in fishing. By contrast, 36 percent of the U.S. public engage in wildlife watching.

All of these moving pieces have not gone unnoticed by key wildlife institutions like The Wildlife Society (TWS), the major membership organization for wildlife professionals, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), the trade group representing the interests of state fish and wildlife agencies. AFWA, recognizing the multiple threats to wildlife as well as cultural changes, convened a panel of experts to make recommendations on addressing the challenges. The resulting Blue Ribbon Panel Report on The Future of America’s Fish and Wildlife was released in 2016 and contained two recommendations. One was on funding and focused largely on the means to address the need of the 12,000 species identified nationally in State Wildlife Action Plans that are in greatest conservation need. The other addressed the issue of agency relevancy with a perceptive observation:

“Every citizen has a stake in and benefits from healthy fish and wildlife, but most have little contact with or understanding of the state agency responsible for their stewardship. To remain relevant, state fish and wildlife agencies will need to transform their structures, operations and cultures to meet the changing expectations of their customers. If state fish and wildlife agencies fail to adapt, their ability to manage fish and wildlife will be hindered and their public and political support compromised.”

That finding was remarkable in that an organization serving and funded by state fish and wildlife agencies challenged its own members to transform their operations and cultures. In the November/December 2021 issue of The Wildlife Professional, TWS’s Director of Wildlife Policy stated, “I think one of the largest challenges facing our profession is our collective willingness and ability to adapt to observed shifts in public attitudes and perspectives on wildlife management and conservation.” He added about fish and wildlife departments, “These agencies operate as an extension of the public’s will and must adapt to its needs if they want to remain relevant and successful.”

Those messages to agencies could not be any clearer. Not only have institutions taken clear positions, some of the luminaries in the wildlife profession, such as Dr. Daniel Decker at Cornell University, have been instrumental in laying out roadmaps for agencies to consider through multiple peer-reviewed papers. One in particular stands out: “Governance Principles for Wildlife Conservation in the 21st Century.” This seminal paper, with Decker as lead author, lays out 10 key principles that should undergird decision-making (See Table 1 from this paper). One principle is worth highlighting: Wildlife governance will apply social and ecological science and citizens’ knowledge, and will trust administrators’ (agency staffs’) judgment.

“These principles represent guidance for ecologically and socially responsible wildlife conservation. They address persistent, systemic problems and, if adopted, will bring the institution into line with modern expectations for governance of public natural resources. Implementation will require changes in values, objectives, and processes of the wildlife conservation institution. These changes may be difficult, but promise improved wildlife conservation outcomes and increased support for conservation.”

Table 1. Key Governance Principles for Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife governance will be adaptable and responsive to citizens’ current needs and interests, while also being forward-looking to conserve options of future generations.
Wildlife governance will seek and incorporate multiple and diverse perspectives.
Wildlife governance will apply social and ecological science, citizens’ knowledge, and trust administrators’ judgment.
Wildlife governance will produce multiple, sustainable benefits for all beneficiaries.
Wildlife governance will ensure that trust administrators are responsible for maintaining trust resources and allocating benefits from the trust.
Wildlife governance will be publicly accessible and transparent.
Wildlife governance will ensure that trust administrators are publicly accountable.
Wildlife governance will include means for citizens to become informed and engaged in decision making.
Wildlife governance will include opportunities for trust administrators to meet their obligations in partnerships with non-governmental entities.
Wildlife governance will facilitate collaboration and coordination across ecological, jurisdictional and ownership boundaries.

It is abundantly clear that the “wildlife institution” is calling for change—that agencies should be rapidly adapting to the wildlife crisis before us, and to the accompanying strong mutualistic perspective in the public’s mind. However, all of the evidence indicates that those realities have been insufficient in spurring substantive agency transformations. But that may be changing. Vermont appears to be a New England hotbed of a campaign to bring the state’s wildlife governance into alignment with the forces advocating for socially and ecologically responsible wildlife conservation. An introduced bill, S.258, which follows previously proposed legislation to modernize governance, seeks to transform the decision-making process for game species and “transfer the authority to adopt rules for the taking of fish, wildlife, and fur-bearing animals from the Fish and Wildlife Board to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.” The governor would no longer hold absolute authority over who sits on the board. The board would become advisory only and would be composed of both traditionalists and mutualists (e.g., representing consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife), and members would be required to attend training in such subjects as wildlife biology, ethics, coexistence, and the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife.¹ If it should become law, the legislation would be a significant step forward in bringing the missing balance to the answer to the question: Whose values count? The law may also serve as a catalyst for other wildlife advocacy groups and citizens in nearby states to engage in efforts to modernize their own state’s models of governance. What is clear is that agencies will change only with strong external pressures from the citizenry.

For more on the discussions in Vermont, see this May 8, 2024 VTDigger article, “Wild divide: Can wildlife management policy reflect Vermonters’ complex views?”

Strategies to advance the work to conserve lands are vitally important. However, if our land conservation campaigns move forward without an equivalent effort within wildlife agencies spurred on by their constituencies and perhaps legislation, to modernize how we exist with wildlife, we will have protected a heart but one without a beat. Our best endeavors in protecting wildlands in the truest sense in New England and elsewhere are endeavors that strive for a robust coexistence model with wildlands and wildlife, and a wild, beating heart.

“Yet what is hidden from most Americans is another impending fish and wildlife crisis. For every game species that is thriving, hundreds of nongame species are in decline. Unlike the conservation finance system that was created for game and sport fish, there is no comparable funding mechanism to manage the majority of fish and wildlife under state stewardship. As a result, thousands of species of birds, frogs, turtles and even the iconic monarch butterfly are slipping through the cracks and could become endangered in the future.”

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2016. Blue Ribbon Panel Report on The Future of America’s Fish and Wildlife.

“Wildlife conservation is losing ground in the U.S. for many reasons. The net effect is declines in species and habitat. To address this trend, the wildlife conservation institution (i.e., all customs, practices, organizations and agencies, policies, and laws with respect to wildlife) must adapt to contemporary social-ecological conditions.”

Decker, D., C. Smith, A. Forstchen, D. Hare, E. Pomeranz, C. Doyle-Capitman, K. Schuler, and J. Organ. 2015. Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conservation Letters: A Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 9, 4: 290–295.

“The (Wildlife) Institution has been criticized for being captured (unduly influenced) by consumptive interest groups. Some have even gone as far as suggesting that an iron-triangle relationship exists among resource management agencies, traditional user groups (e.g., hunters), and policy makers that ‘limits access to resource management decision processes to those outside the triangle and creates still more social tension and conflict.’”

Cynthia Jacobson, et al. A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies. Jacobson, C. A., J. F. Organ, D. J. Becker, G. R. Batcheller, and L. Carpenter. 2010. A conservation institution for the 21st century: Implications for state wildlife agencies. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74, 2: 203–209.

¹ In Vermont and New Hampshire, a board or commission (rather than agency management) composed of those representing license holder interests holds the authority to make regulations and establish public policy over all game species.

Walter Medwid served as Executive Director of the Adirondack Mountain Club, the International Wolf Center (IWC), Northern Woodlands and other environmental organizations before retiring in 2020. He has studied wolves in Yellowstone National Park, the Northwest Territories, Minnesota, and Ellesmere Island in Canada’s High Arctic.

Walter is a co-founder of the Vermont Wildlife Coalition, serves on the Advisory Committee of Wildlife For All, is a member of IWC’s Education Committee, and serves on the board of his county’s Natural Resources Conservation District. He has spent the last 15 years attempting to influence Vermont’s wildlife management policies.

Walter lives in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom above Lake Memphremagog with his wife, rescue dog, and demanding vegetable garden.

Whose Values Count?

Agroecology as Faith

Nature’s Best Hope: An Interview with Doug Tallamy