The Vermont Wildlife Partnership has been working on the funding issue, but the politicization of tyhe commisssioner's position has gotten worse and worse. Serving at the pleasure of the Governor is not the modle needed to fill the responsibility of trustee of our wildlife. I'm thinking if commissioners were appointed for a 4 year term they could speak out on issues like this and know they would have their job in the morning. Not ideal but better than what we now have.
Eric
From the Allen Press web site
State wildlife agencies need reform for effective stewardship of public trust
The Journal of Wildlife Management - Many state wildlife agencies are dependent, financially and politically, on a single user group—hunters. Although this group should continue to be an integral part of wildlife conservation, agencies should adhere to the foundation upon which they were built—stewardship of the public trust. The Public Trust Doctrine postulates that wildlife is owned by no one and held in trust for the benefit of all.
The commentary, A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies, in the February issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management suggests considerations for reform of the wildlife conservation institution. State-level wildlife conservation and management dates back to the 19th century. To meet the changing ecological and social environment, institutional transformation is needed in the 21st century.
To avoid piecemeal reactions to external forces, basic principles of transformation should be established to carry wildlife conservation into the future. This commentary suggests four components the ideal institution should incorporate:
Broad-based fundingReliable, consistent, broad-based funding has not been achieved for most state wildlife agencies. The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.
Trustee-based governance
Trustee-based governance should function outside the narrow focus of various constituents and avoid subservience to political authorities. Currently, political interests dominate within many state wildlife conservation agencies. The average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is less than three years, with many being replaced for political reasons.
Multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from the professional staffTo make the best decisions regarding wildlife conservation, the best information must be available—and communicated without interference. Science should be the common ground for the institution when stakeholders become polarized over an issue.
Involvement of diverse stakeholders and partnersIt has been suggested that an “iron triangle” exists among resource management agencies, traditional user groups, and policy makers. Diverse groups such as environmentalists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, homeowners, industry, and agriculture can help build a stronger stakeholder base and bring more resources to wildlife conservation. As partners, their complementary strengths and capabilities could bring increased public support as well.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, published since 1937, is one of the world’s leading scientific journals covering wildlife science, management, and conservation. It is published eight times per year by The Wildlife Society. To learn more about the society, please visit: http://joomla.wildlife.org/.
Media Contact:
Robin Barker
Allen Press, Inc.
800/627-0326 ext. 410
rbarker@allenpress.com
The commentary, A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies, in the February issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management suggests considerations for reform of the wildlife conservation institution. State-level wildlife conservation and management dates back to the 19th century. To meet the changing ecological and social environment, institutional transformation is needed in the 21st century.
To avoid piecemeal reactions to external forces, basic principles of transformation should be established to carry wildlife conservation into the future. This commentary suggests four components the ideal institution should incorporate:
Broad-based fundingReliable, consistent, broad-based funding has not been achieved for most state wildlife agencies. The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.
Trustee-based governance
Trustee-based governance should function outside the narrow focus of various constituents and avoid subservience to political authorities. Currently, political interests dominate within many state wildlife conservation agencies. The average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is less than three years, with many being replaced for political reasons.
Multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from the professional staffTo make the best decisions regarding wildlife conservation, the best information must be available—and communicated without interference. Science should be the common ground for the institution when stakeholders become polarized over an issue.
Involvement of diverse stakeholders and partnersIt has been suggested that an “iron triangle” exists among resource management agencies, traditional user groups, and policy makers. Diverse groups such as environmentalists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, homeowners, industry, and agriculture can help build a stronger stakeholder base and bring more resources to wildlife conservation. As partners, their complementary strengths and capabilities could bring increased public support as well.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, published since 1937, is one of the world’s leading scientific journals covering wildlife science, management, and conservation. It is published eight times per year by The Wildlife Society. To learn more about the society, please visit: http://joomla.wildlife.org/.
Media Contact:
Robin Barker
Allen Press, Inc.
800/627-0326 ext. 410
rbarker@allenpress.com
This from the Journal of Wildlife Management cited above:
ReplyDeleteTrustee-Based Governance
By definition, a trustee is required to put the interests of the Trust as defined in law or other authority above self interest. Ideally, trustees should be qualified, competent, impartial, and assiduous to the interests of all trust beneficiaries. There should be a mechanism for their replacement if they prove deficient in any of these requirements, and the Trust beneficiaries should have the capacity to initiate the removal of a trustee following due process, along with a voice in the selection of new trustees. In the public sector, therefore, governmental trustees should strictly adhere to principles fundamental to care of the Trust’s assets, not those associated with the preservation of the interests of self or those of elected authorities. This necessitates a separation of the political process from the essential components of Trust oversight. Of course, recognition that such independence is appropriate requires a political consensus in the first place. The tendency within state governments, however, is to lessen independence and to demand more political account- ability of agency authorities (Organ and Fritzell 2000).
A consequence of this politicization in wildlife conserva- tion is reflected in the tenure of agency leadership. According to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is ,3 years (D. E. MacLauchlan, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, personal communication). Directors typically are replaced for essentially political reasons. This trend implies that agency directors are required to be subservient primarily to political authorities in order to keep their jobs, potentially jeopardizing oversight of the Trust. A primary cause of this is the linkage of constituents with narrow interests to the oversight of agency programs. To perform as a trust-based institution, the conservation community and political authorities must embrace the notion that state trustees should function absent the demands of narrowly focused constituents, especially when those same constituents wholly determine funding and survival of the very institutions upon which the Trust depends.
Diminishment of political authority over fish and wildlife trustees is likely to be resisted by elected officials opposed to a reduction in their power and influence. Such a change is not possible without their recognition of the validity of the concept of the public trust and the need for apolitical trustees. Yet in the absence of this reform, it is highly unlikely that stability of the Institution can be maintained. The sustainability of fish and wildlife populations in the long term would be questionable without stability in programs to protect trust resources. Accomplishment of such reform in governance likely can only be achieved through advocacy of a strong coalition of partners willing to speak with one voice and exert the requisite political
Trustee-Based Governance
ReplyDeleteBy definition, a trustee is required to put the interests of the Trust as defined in law or other authority above self interest. Ideally, trustees should be qualified, competent, impartial, and assiduous to the interests of all trust beneficiaries. There should be a mechanism for their replacement if they prove deficient in any of these requirements, and the Trust beneficiaries should have the capacity to initiate the removal of a trustee following due process, along with a voice in the selection of new trustees. In the public sector, therefore, governmental trustees should strictly adhere to principles fundamental to care of the Trust’s assets, not those associated with the preservation of the interests of self or those of elected authorities. This necessitates a separation of the political process from the essential components of Trust oversight. Of course, recognition that such independence is appropriate requires a political consensus in the first place. The tendency within state governments, however, is to lessen independence and to demand more political account- ability of agency authorities (Organ and Fritzell 2000).
A consequence of this politicization in wildlife conservation is reflected in the tenure of agency leadership. According to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is ,3 years (D. E. MacLauchlan, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, personal communication). Directors typically are replaced for essentially political reasons. This trend implies that agency directors are required to be subservient primarily to political authorities in order to keep their jobs, potentially jeopardizing oversight of the Trust. A primary cause of this is the linkage of constituents with narrow interests to the oversight of agency programs. To perform as a trust-based institution, the conservation community and political authorities must embrace the notion that state trustees should function absent the demands of narrowly focused constituents, especially when those same constituents wholly determine funding and survival of the very institutions upon which the Trust depends.
Diminishment of political authority over fish and wildlife trustees is likely to be resisted by elected officials opposed to a reduction in their power and influence. Such a change is not possible without their recognition of the validity of the concept of the public trust and the need for apolitical trustees. Yet in the absence of this reform, it is highly unlikely that stability of the Institution can be maintained. The sustainability of fish and wildlife populations in the long term would be questionable without stability in programs to protect trust resources. Accomplishment of such reform in governance likely can only be achieved through advocacy of a strong coalition of partners willing to speak with one voice and exert the requisite political
this is from the Journal article cited above:
ReplyDeleteDiminishment of political authority over fish and wildlife trustees is likely to be resisted by elected officials opposed to a reduction in their power and influence. Such a change is not possible without their recognition of the validity of the concept of the public trust and the need for apolitical trustees. Yet in the absence of this reform, it is highly unlikely that stability of the Institution can be maintained. The sustainability of fish and wildlife populations in the long term would be questionable without stability in programs to protect trust resources. Accomplishment of such reform in governance likely can only be achieved through advocacy of a strong coalition of partners willing to speak with one voice and exert the requisite political pressure.
good points Eric - some people gave Comm Laroche a lot of heat when he said that F&W Dept didn't need 1/8th of penny of sales tax for his Dept. What was he supposed to do - speak against the governor to try to get some money that he would not get anyway - then get fired and replaced by a yes-man. Better to lay down and live to fight another day. No question a better system is needed for public trust resource management. here's another recent commentary in that journal basically saying that the trustees (state biologists) need to be impartial and insulated from political processes, which is what the F&W Board is all about.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2193%2F2009-437
Anon 7/11 - The last Commissioner we had that was able to stand up to the Governor was Ed Kehoe. It is a good thing too, otherwise we might still have a bucks only law and starving deer all over the place.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't get your link to work, but I think you are referring to The Wildlife Professional article, "The future of Public Trust by John Organ and Shane Mahoney. John is a board member of Orion and you may remember Shane, he spoke to the Hunter Ed Instructors about 10 years ago. The Wildlife Society is actively involved in our fight here in Vermont because it is so important to the foundation of modern wildlife management.
As our society continues it's break down , through broken families, morals and a lack of appropreiate male role models, as Randall Eatons book suggests, we must double educational efforts on experienced outdoor peoples. Ethics ,respondsible stewardship, and compassionate hearted hunting must be made desireable and broadcast to the masses, but remains difficult to accomplish when male machoism and the fact that it is'nt a spectator stands in the way. New , good , celebreties must be brought into play to share feelings all can relate to. Only the most secure of heart can really help! Shanes attitudes are most desirable! Keep up the good Work!Rod Elmer
ReplyDeleteThe board is just as political as the commissioner's job and is really just another political hurdle for policy to overcome. Although they can't be fired, they are appointed. You can bet the governor is going to appoint his people. At any rate, the board can and has voted against what the dept has offered for science based proposals. That's really the root of the problem right? It's not so much that politics is involved, but that science is shown the door whenever it disagrees with goals.
ReplyDeleteAugust 11, 2010 5:53 PM
ReplyDeleteAnonymous \
You are very right that science gets trumped by politics more often than it should. What is disturbing is when the appointees know what is right and want to go with the best science, but are silenced by their political bosses. They feel they have no choice if they want to keep their job but comply. It seems like there must be a way to put in some buffers so they can do what they know is the right thing for the resource and to fulfill their obligation as trustee.
I think the Fish and Wildlife board is a pretty good example of where political appointees do stand up for science without fear of being fired. it helps that they are volunteers and most join for the right reasons. But the fact that they have a set term has got to help.
As it was explained to me many years ago , the collective people are the "owners" (if something they belong to like nature,, can be owned!) and they make the decisions, while the dept. was the police & science behind those decisions. The board's job was to be the buffer between. Experienced, well meaning people who listened to the people , policing and science and made decisions based on the appropriate needs of some times complex issues while maintaining, the nature's interest first, the people's interest next and the individual's lastly. Creating citizen activism and helping to control man's greeds , wastes , and affects on nature and the natural world. Perhaps there seems to be a need to require people involved with this procees to have certain credentials other then giving to the Govenor's Campaign fund! The People seem to need politions who actually care and are not just rich. The current process looses affectiveness when there is such a limited gov. and public interest in sharing resources with an ever competeing , growing human population increasingly disconected from nature and it's laws of life. How do we slow man down? The Judges are appointed to right? If swearing to do something is unnessesary why bother. People must be held accountable. Not just by the press. Damn T.V. Rod Elmer
ReplyDelete