Governing wildlife, building trust: An assessment of United States wildlife commission composition, policy guidance, and decision-making transparency

IF 2.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2026-09-11 Epub Date: 2026-08-13 DOI:10.1111/csp2.70354
Iree Wheeler, L. Embere Hall, John L. Koprowski, Joseph D. Holbrook, Temple Stoellinger, Kelly H. Dunning
{"title":"Governing wildlife, building trust: An assessment of United States wildlife commission composition, policy guidance, and decision-making transparency","authors":"Iree Wheeler,&nbsp;L. Embere Hall,&nbsp;John L. Koprowski,&nbsp;Joseph D. Holbrook,&nbsp;Temple Stoellinger,&nbsp;Kelly H. Dunning","doi":"10.1111/csp2.70354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the United States, wildlife management policies are often developed through citizen wildlife commissions or boards that guide agency decision-making while balancing diverse stakeholder interests. Despite their central role in wildlife governance, little information exists regarding how these commissions are structured across states or how decision-making processes are communicated to the public. We conducted a 50-state assessment of wildlife commission composition, stakeholder representation requirements, policy guidance regarding information sources, and public-facing descriptions of decision-making processes. Of the 50 states reviewed, 47 maintain active wildlife commissions, while three states manage wildlife policy directly through agency structures. We found substantial variation in commission composition, appointment mechanisms, representation requirements, regulatory authority, and commission specificity. Geographic representation requirements were common, while explicit stakeholder representation requirements were less frequent and most often focused on agricultural and sportsperson interests. We also found considerable variation in the ways that states provide formal guidance for information use and how states communicate decision-making processes through public-facing materials. Many states provide basic information regarding commission membership and meeting schedules but offer limited information regarding how scientific information, stakeholder input, or other considerations are incorporated into commission deliberations. This study provides the first national inventory of wildlife commission structures, policy guidance, and decision transparency across the United States. By documenting variation among states, this research establishes a baseline for future studies examining relationships between governance structures, stakeholder trust, public participation, and broader wildlife governance outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"8 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70354","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70354","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States, wildlife management policies are often developed through citizen wildlife commissions or boards that guide agency decision-making while balancing diverse stakeholder interests. Despite their central role in wildlife governance, little information exists regarding how these commissions are structured across states or how decision-making processes are communicated to the public. We conducted a 50-state assessment of wildlife commission composition, stakeholder representation requirements, policy guidance regarding information sources, and public-facing descriptions of decision-making processes. Of the 50 states reviewed, 47 maintain active wildlife commissions, while three states manage wildlife policy directly through agency structures. We found substantial variation in commission composition, appointment mechanisms, representation requirements, regulatory authority, and commission specificity. Geographic representation requirements were common, while explicit stakeholder representation requirements were less frequent and most often focused on agricultural and sportsperson interests. We also found considerable variation in the ways that states provide formal guidance for information use and how states communicate decision-making processes through public-facing materials. Many states provide basic information regarding commission membership and meeting schedules but offer limited information regarding how scientific information, stakeholder input, or other considerations are incorporated into commission deliberations. This study provides the first national inventory of wildlife commission structures, policy guidance, and decision transparency across the United States. By documenting variation among states, this research establishes a baseline for future studies examining relationships between governance structures, stakeholder trust, public participation, and broader wildlife governance outcomes.

管理野生动物,建立信任:对美国野生动物委员会组成、政策指导和决策透明度的评估
在美国,野生动物管理政策通常是通过公民野生动物委员会或委员会制定的,这些委员会指导机构决策,同时平衡不同利益相关者的利益。尽管它们在野生动物治理中发挥着核心作用,但关于这些委员会如何跨州组织或如何向公众传达决策过程的信息却很少。我们对50个州的野生动物委员会组成、利益相关者代表要求、有关信息来源的政策指导以及面向公众的决策过程描述进行了评估。在被审查的50个州中,47个州维持着活跃的野生动物委员会,而3个州直接通过机构结构管理野生动物政策。我们发现在佣金组成、任命机制、代表要求、监管机构和佣金特异性方面存在很大差异。地域代表性要求是常见的,而明确的利益相关者代表性要求则不太常见,而且最常侧重于农业和运动员的利益。我们还发现,各州为信息使用提供正式指导的方式以及各州如何通过面向公众的材料传达决策过程存在相当大的差异。许多州提供了关于委员会成员和会议时间表的基本信息,但提供的关于科学信息、利益相关者意见或其他考虑因素如何纳入委员会审议的信息有限。这项研究提供了美国野生动物委员会结构、政策指导和决策透明度的第一个全国性清单。通过记录各州之间的差异,本研究为未来研究治理结构、利益相关者信任、公众参与和更广泛的野生动物治理结果之间的关系建立了基线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书