Wildlife Management 2.0: A Revolution in the Making
Contribution to PAN Works
by Fred W. Koontz, PhD
Dr. Fred Koontz is an ethological zoologist with a diverse professional background and layered expertise, working in myriad contexts on behalf of wildlife around the world. Fred now focuses on wildlife agency reform, among many other projects. We are glad to share this informative and dynamic, action-oriented essay from Fred, as our readers will hear much more from him in the future.
Don’t scare the children or tell the authorities, but a rebellion is underway. A battle not widely recognized in the media is happening with words and ideas, not guns and violence. The government’s foremost purpose as custodian of the nation’s flora and fauna is slowly refocusing from natural resource consumption to biodiversity conservation and animal wellbeing. This ongoing paradigm revolution is responding to the dual emergencies of climate change and biodiversity loss and to changing public wildlife values held toward ecosystems, species, and individual animals. Yet, agency change in a democracy is slow, and not all agree. Time will tell if this revolution succeeds.
Wildlife policy and laws in the U.S. are promulgated at federal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as by Native Americans on their tribal lands. In turn, various government and tribal agencies carry out these directives. The 50 state wildlife departments (“fish & game”) collectively spend $5.6 billion annually managing 450 million acres of wildland and employing 50,000 staff [1]. If only by virtue of their assets, state wildlife departments should serve key roles in conserving biodiversity. Unfortunately, their work centers on only a relatively small number of hunted and fished species, at the detriment of hundreds of nongame species and countless animals. Consequently, state wildlife agencies are on the front lines of efforts to broaden U.S. wildlife management.
Working with other biologists, citizens, and ethicists for the last 12 years, I have attempted to improve the conservation and compassion for Washington state’s wild animals managed by its Department of Fish & Wildlife (“DFW”). My experience includes volunteering as an endangered species project collaborator, nongame animal advisor, and serving in 2021 on the nine-member Fish & Wildlife Commission (“Commission”), the board overseeing DFW. While my story is limited to Washington state, similar disagreements disrupt most state wildlife agencies [2].
Observations of a Wildlife Commissioner
Wildlife commissioners in Washington state are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. They include value-diverse hunters, anglers, environmentalists, scientists, wildlife-related commercial dealers, and ranchers from across the state. Washington’s Commission struggles to address public disharmony surrounding its decisions. Recent controverses included increasing cougar hunting to benefit elk hunting, setting lethal removal rules for endangered wolves, reducing hatchery production to protect wild fish, and stopping wildlife killing contests and spring bear hunting. Conflicts at public meetings typically emerge when testimony divides sharply into two, similar-sized vocal camps: preservation (not killing) versus harvest (consumption or recreational killing). Each side spars with their “best available science,” often continuing the debate in the press and uncivilly on social media. Unfortunately, commissioners, DFW managers, and political leaders are stuck in a political quagmire of indecision [4]. Should DFW stick to its traditional focus of regulating and promoting hunting and fishing or should they prioritize biodiversity conservation and animal wellbeing?
Commission decisions rely on facts and values [5] and here lies the quagmire’s cause: Which facts and whose values count? DFW and the Commission proclaim that their actions, policies, and rules are based on science. Any discussion of values and ethics is despairingly called emotional and unscientific. Science is exalted as the absolute decision arbiter, but wildlife science itself typically is incomplete and open to differing interpretations, easily sparking combative charges of bias and self-interest [6]. Discounting public values and social norms normally provides an advantage to DFW and their status quo supporters because “agency science” gets top billing and hushes other perspectives. On controversial issues, however, when stakeholders voice differing value-driven positions, their sway on the Commission plays out politically. Despite all the talk of science-based decisions, I found that values not science drive Commission decisions.
The traditional hunter and angler stakeholders (who historically funded the majority of DFW’s budget) often promote values-driven priorities that are incompatible with those of the expanding group of biodiversity conservation and animal wellbeing advocates. Both groups passionately lobby commissioners, DFW staff, the governor, and legislators. For many traditional hunters this is an existential battle to maintain recreational hunting, driving passion, polarization, and at times uncivil behavior. Commissioners attempt to find consensus by relying on Washington’s legislated mandate and laws.
The mandate, RCW77.04.012 [7], written in 1994, instructs the Commission and DFW to: Protect, perpetuate and preserve the state’s fish, shellfish and wildlife; conserve and authorize take so as not to impair the resource; seek to maintain the economic wellbeing and stability of the fishing industry; and attempt to maximize hunting and fishing opportunities for all citizens. The result is an anthropocentric dual purpose with an emphasis on consumption of game and fish with little regard for individual animals. This regrettably is the same preservation-versus-harvest dichotomy driving much of the conflict seen in public meetings. Washington’s dual Department mandate, and the increasingly divergent perspectives on values and priorities, make consensus unlikely. There is no middle path.
The call to clearly define DFWs’ purpose as “conservation first for all species” with greater compassion for individual animals is fueled by a recognition that biodiversity loss is insufficiently addressed by state wildlife agencies [2]. Equally important is influential research from America’s Wildlife Values Project [8], which revealed that as the United States modernizes, there is a shift from utilitarian wildlife values to more mutualist ones. The Project categorized people across the U.S. and employees of state wildlife agencies along four value types: 1) Utilitarians (“Traditionalists”) believe wildlife should be managed for human benefit, and prioritize human domination and wellbeing over the wellbeing of wildlife; 2) Mutualists belief that wildlife and humans ought to coexist in harmony with animals being granted rights of some form, and that treating animals as mere resources should stop; 3) Pluralists mix utilitarian and mutualistic values depending on the situation; and 4) Distanced individuals lack a well-formed wildlife values orientation, indicating less interest in wildlife issues.
The Project found that across the U.S., Traditionalists make up 28% of the population, Mutualists 35% of the population, Pluralists 21% of the populations, and Distanced individuals make up 15% of the population. There are numerical differences in these values across states and racial/ethnic groups but, in general, Traditionalists are declining while Mutualists are increasing. With strongly differing worldviews relevant to the animal-human relationship, and with near-equal numbers of Traditionalists and Mutualists in many states, revising policy based on changing social norms (of behavior toward wildlife and animals) is politically difficult for decisionmakers in most cases. Yet for some egregious issues (e.g. animal killing contests) Pluralists and Mutualists have united and leveraged change. However, because Traditionalists’ values have dominated the culture and power structures of state wildlife agencies for the last century, status quo tends to carry the day.
The Project also studied the values for each state and its wildlife agency. Washington residents were similar to the national averages on values type, with 28% Traditionalists, 38% Mutualists, 19% Pluralists, and 14% Distanced individuals [9]. Significant differences, however, were found between Washingtonians and DFW staff, who were 48% Traditionalists, 17% Mutualists, 27% Pluralists, and 8% Distanced individuals. This 20% “values misalignment” undoubtedly contributes to public distrust of the agency, and at times probably causes a bias toward traditional management by the DFW staff. Nationally, this “culture gap” between public and agency Mutualists is even greater: 35% to 8%.
After serving as a Washington wildlife commissioner, I believe that an updated legislated mandate is necessary. It should recognize that protecting the state’s full animal diversity, health, and wellbeing are DFW’s and the Commission’s paramount purpose. A clear focus on conservation of all species rather than maximizing the killing of animals for food or pleasure is essential to meet the State’s public wildlife trust responsibility. The “forever protection” of the wildlife trust will sustain the benefits that nature provides to people, today and tomorrow. And my fellow Mutualists would add that wildlife trust benefits should be allocated justly among all animals, who are essential and sentient beings who share our land, waters, and community.
Changing DFW’s mandate recognizes that government agencies require modifications as knowledge improves and public needs and values change. In democracies, personal ethics and values vary, but good public policy is grounded in best science, democratically derived social norms, and ethically defensible positions.
Breaking News: Washington State Aims Toward a New Era of Wildlife Management
In April, the Commission for the first time proposed a “Conservation Policy.” The policy directs DFW to preserve and protect Washington’s fish and wildlife and their habitats by proactively addressing current and emerging conservation challenges. “It will serve as overarching guidance to inform a variety of Department decisions relative to budget development, setting priorities, and the management of fish and wildlife,” said Barbara Baker, Commission Chair [10]. The policy [11] acknowledges that humankind is in the midst of a biodiversity extinction crisis and must act now while we still have the building blocks for success; defines terms such as “conservation” and “ecosystem-based management”; and identifies conservation as DFW’s top priority. I am hopeful that this ground-breaking new Commission policy will be approved later this summer.
Another victory last April for the agency reform movement is that new funding was appropriated from the Legislature to DFW to improve the conservation of nongame animals and ecosystems. Buried on page 430 of the 1,404-page 2023–2024 $69 billion state operating budget [12] is $23 million for the next two years and $15 million annually thereafter to DFW solely for the protection, recovery, and restoration of biodiversity and for an independent review of the Department and Commission. While $23 million is only about 3% of DFW’s operating budget, it is a 30% increase for their nongame work.
Perhaps more significant than the new funding for catalyzing long-term change will be the required review of the Department and Commission. The Ruckelshaus Center, a joint program of Washington State University and University of Washington [13], will undertake the project for the Legislature and report by June 2024. Their assignment includes, within the environmental context of climate change and biodiversity loss, evaluating DFW’s responsibility to protect the public wildlife trust on behalf of all current and future Washingtonians. Based on its findings, the report potentially will recommend changes to DFW’s legislated mandate and the Commission’s governance.
The review provides an opportunity for a public dialogue and suggestions to the Legislature and Governor for DFW and Commission reform. The Ruckelshaus Center certainly will talk to expert biologists and interested Washingtonians to evaluate DFW’s mission outcomes and the Commission’s governance effectiveness. Scientists will tell them that biodiversity is declining [14] at an unprecedented rate. Soaring species extinctions coupled with climate change threaten Washingtonians’ wellbeing and risk our children’s future. Today’s poor wildlife prognosis was not present 100 years ago when wildlife agencies were established to sustain fish and game harvest. Their “wise use, without waste” purpose made sense in that earlier era. Times are different and public needs have changed.
The Review Panel will remind Washington’s elected and appointed officials that they are obligated to protect wildlife as a public trust for current and future generations. The sad truth is that they are failing. DFW’s historic focus remains on sustaining only a modest number of food fish and game animals, despite knowing that more than 268 other Washington animals are in conservation need [15] and even common species are largely unstudied and require stewardship. The inconvenient truth is that DFW’s current mandate, budget, and priorities are weighted heavily toward a small set of recreationally and commercially valuable animals. This limited perspective jeopardizes long-term biodiversity health and resiliency, the foundation for human and nonhuman wellbeing.
From these unquestionable scientific truths the Review Panel most likely will produce a long list of improvement recommendations. I hope they also discover that Washington’s needed wildlife agency reform should open a larger, discussion on how society’s changing human-animal relationship will affect the state’s wildlife management at DFW and at all its natural resource agencies.
Through my work with DFW, I observed that a large barrier to aligning DFW actions with today’s environmental needs and social norms is the limited understanding among the public, agency staff, and decision makers on key concepts of ethics, social norms, science objectivity, and the transparent use of facts and values. I found that animal-related public discussion and debate are key because they allow ethicists and scientists to highlight deeper philosophical issues driving society’s treatment of nature and animals. PAN Works is one venue for these discussions.
References
[1] Anonymous. (2017). The state conservation machine. Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. https://tinyurl.com/4k9wr4xc (accessed 06/04/2023).
[2] Wildlife for All. (2022). Wildlife for all: a national campaign to reform state wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate, and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. https://wildlifeforall.us (accessed 06/04/2023).
[3] Washington Biodiversity Council. (2007). Washington’s biodiversity: status and threats. Washington State Governors Office. Olympia, WA. https://rco.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/BiodiversityStatusThreats.pdf (accessed 06/07/2023).
[4] Koontz, F.W. (2022). Refocus Fish & Wildlife mandate on conservation. The Seattle Times, Opinion Page, April 7. https://tinyurl.com/6at922fn (accessed 06/04/2023).
[5] Lynn, W. S. (2006). Between science and ethics: what science and the scientific method can and cannot contribute to conservation and sustainability. Pages 191–205 in D. Lavigne, editors. Gaining ground: in pursuit of ecological sustainability. University of Limerick, Limerick, IRL.
[6] Treves, A., Elbroch, M., Koontz, F., & Papouchis, C. M. (2022) How should scientific review and critique support policy? PLOS One: https://tinyurl.com/28z3n4vv (accessed 06/04/2023).
[7] Anonymous. (2022) Washington State Revised Code of Washington, RCW 77.04.012. RCW 77.04.012: Mandate of department and commission. (wa.gov) (accessed 06/04/2023).
[8] Manfredo, M. J., Sullivan, L., Don Carlos, A. W., Dietsch, A.M., Teel, T. L., Bright, A. D., & Bruskotter, J. (2018). America’s wildlife values: the social context of wildlife management in the U.S. National report from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values.” Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources. America’s Wildlife Values — AWV (colostate.edu) (accessed 06/04/2023).
[9] Dietsch, A.M., Don Carlos, A.W., Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Sullivan, L. (2018). State report for Washington from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values.” Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources. 02aug2019_09_wa_state_report.pdf (accessed 06/04/2023).
[10] Anonymous. (April, 2023) New Release: Fish and Wildlife Commission seeks public input on draft Conservation Policy, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Olympia, WA. https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/fish-and-wildlife-commission-seeks-public-input-draft-conservation-policy (accessed 06/04/2023).
[11] Wildlife Commission. (2023). Conservation policy for public review. Fish & Wildlife Commission, Olympia, WA. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/conservation-policy-draft-15-publicreview-final.pdf. (accessed 06/04/2023).
[12] Anonymous. (2023). Washington State Legislature, Budget 2023–2024. Olympia, WA. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5187-S.PL.pdf (accessed 06/04/2023).
[13] Anonymous. (2023). The William D. Ruckelshaus Center website. Seattle, WA. https://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/ (accessed 06/04/2023).
[14] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global biodiversity outlook 5. Montreal, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf (accessed 06/04/2023).
[15] Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2015). Washington’s state wildlife action plan: 2015 update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01742/wdfw01742.pdf (accessed 06/04/2023).
Kim Hightower is the communications specialist for PAN Works.
Please visit PAN Works for more about our work on ethics and animal wellbeing.
