Guiding agencies’ public-trust responsibility is just the start of their unsung, often misunderstood, role

In Mississippi the only requirements to be considered as a fish-and-game commissioner are to have bought a hunting or fishing license for five of the past 10 years and to have no fish-and-game violations within the past five years.

In North Carolina, each member of the Wildlife Resources Commission “shall be an experienced hunter, fisherman, farmer, or biologist who shall be generally informed on wildlife conservation and restoration problems.”

New Mexico requires at least one member of its 7-member commission to “manage and operate a farm or ranch that contains at least two species of wildlife.”

New Jersey requires six of its 11 Fish and Game Council members to be sportsmen recommended by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and another three to be farmers recommended for gubernatorial appointment from agricultural groups.

This small sample size indicates the wide variety of commission composition, but also their fairly narrow constituencies. As we detailed in the previous column that looked at pressures to broaden the mandate of and participation on wildlife commissions, most commissioners reflect traditional constituencies of the agencies they oversee: hunters and anglers. The inclusion of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural representatives on boards reflects the close connection between wildlife and rural economies.

But increasingly there’s a close connection between agencies and what are called “non-consumptive” constituencies, too. Birdwatchers, floaters, habitat advocates, and even animal-rights activists have an interest in sustainable management of states’ fish and wildlife, along with the terrestrial and aquatic habitats they require. So why aren’t more of these non-traditional constituencies reflected on commissions, especially as hunters and anglers decrease as a percentage of the total population? That’s a question these non-traditional groups are asking as they demand more representation on wildlife boards, and it’s a question some legislatures are asking as they consider changing the charters of commissions.

PUBLIC-RESOURCE TRUSTEES

Rather than ensuring inclusion from every interest group in a state, a more constructive way to look at wildlife governance is to consider commissioners’ (often unpaid) jobs. It’s not necessarily to represent constituencies, but rather to “be effective trustees of their state’s natural resource public trust assets.”

That language, lifted from an influential and thorough “Commission Guidebook” published by the Wildlife Management Institute with input from the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, hints at the reason we have state-level wildlife agencies and commissions in the first place. Rather than giving management authority of America’s fish and wildlife to the federal government or to private landowners, early conservationists tasked states with managing the wildlife resources within their boundaries, and because deer, trout, and grouse are public resources just as air and water are, they established commissions to guide the stewardship of these resources in “the public trust” by creating transparent and accountable boards of trustees.

This arrangement has successfully restored wildlife populations over the past century, and has created a reciprocal relationship between hunters and anglers and fish-and-game agencies. Agencies manage resources for a sustainable surplus, available to hunters and anglers to harvest, and their licenses fees fund more surplus-oriented management. But that symbiosis leaves out those who don’t want to fish or hunt, and wildlife species that aren’t managed for the rod or the gun. That’s the dynamic that wildlife activists want to change, by installing more “non-consumptive” commissioners on oversight boards.

The fact that the background or constituency of a trustee may be changing is quite separate from their role, which is generally to provide policy guidance to the state’s fish-and-wildlife agency. If science should guide resource management decisions, commissioners can use social science, community mores and values, and prevailing public sentiment as they provide policy oversight.

But commissioners should keep their trustee responsibility free from political influence and make “thoughtful, informed decisions that are in the best interest of the people of the state, including both current and future generations,” according to the Commission Guidebook.

Commissioners make durable, legally and ethically defensible decisions when they follow tenants of what’s come to be known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes allocation of wildlife resources through democratic and legal processes, that wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purposes, that commercialization of wildlife should be avoided, that wildlife policy should be guided by science.

The guidebook takes note of the changing human values toward wildlife that we covered in our previous column about wildlife commissions. But the document also ticks off some of the astonishing considerations—some old but many new—that wildlife agencies and their commissioners must weigh. They include:

• Demands from a broader range of citizens whose interests and concerns about wildlife management differ from those previously engaged with the agency
• Constituents’ concerns about welfare of individual animals versus animal populations
• Concerns about private property rights and access to public lands
• Exotic or non-native species impacting native species and ecosystems
• Decreasing trust in government and science
• Increased human development impacting fish and wildlife habitat
• Decreasing or static staffing of state agencies
• Limited funding of agencies to meet increased public demands and expectations
• Increased detection and management of wildlife diseases
• Decreasing tenure of agency directors and senior staff

Those changes, plus many more, are an indication that the role of wildlife commissioner is getting harder and more complicated by the year. But a few attributes of commissioners can ensure that wildlife resources are managed equitably, that agencies comply with constitutional and regulatory expectations, and that commission decisions are subject to public review, comment, and engagement.

Here are some of the guidebook’s qualities for an effective and informed commissioner. Commissioners should:

• Support the agency’s mission and legal mandate
• Comply with policies and open meeting laws
• Review background material in advance and come prepared to meetings
• Actively participate in commission meetings
• Listen to and consider the perspectives of all citizens who provide input, along with those of other commissioners
• Fully consider the ecological, social, ethical, economic, and political science information provided by staff and others
• Seek as much information to make informed decisions, but be adaptable when presented with new information
• Weigh information carefully and don’t listen only to the loudest voices
• Be objective, and put personal biases aside
• Be respectful of staff time, expertise, responsibility, and perspectives, and be equally respectful of stakeholders’ time and perspectives

Given the wide variability in qualifications, backgrounds, and affiliations, it’s fair to ask: how does your own wildlife commissioner conform to these institutional expectations? Do you personally know your own wildlife commissioner? To put an even sharper point on the topic, how often do you engage in your state’s wildlife management?

If your voice has been absent from your state’s wildlife-management conversation, maybe it’s time to get involved. Because, as recent headlines have shown us, if you don’t engage, someone else will, and their interests may not align with yours.

– Andrew McKean, Outdoor Industry Communication Council

About the Outdoor Industry Communication Council

Formed around the commitment to educate all Americans about the origins of conservation funding in America, the Outdoor Industry Communication Council is powered through a multi-state conservation grant and represented by companies, wildlife agencies, professional communicators, and conservation organizations. This project is funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (F23AP00404), supported with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and jointly managed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.