Premium
Knowledge and power in wildlife management
Author(s) -
Lute Michelle L.,
Gore Meredith L.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the journal of wildlife management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1937-2817
pISSN - 0022-541X
DOI - 10.1002/jwmg.754
Subject(s) - wildlife , wildlife management , power (physics) , environmental resource management , geography , knowledge management , computer science , environmental science , biology , ecology , physics , quantum mechanics
Who has knowledge and how it is communicated between groups can help determine who has power in wildlife management. Despite a trend toward more transactional processes that purposefully incorporate stakeholder knowledge, technical and science‐based information remain dominant inputs for wildlife governance in the United States and elsewhere. Thus, most decision‐making rests with wildlife managers and politicians, depends on scientific knowledge, and includes varying involvement of local stakeholders. Resultant tension from top‐down wildlife governance can result in conflict over stagnated decision‐making in wildlife management. Understanding public perceptions of knowledge and power can help improve management effectiveness that balances top‐down and bottom‐up approaches. We used Michigan wolf management as a case study to explore these ideas, the first study to our knowledge to explore this relationship in regard to a delisted endangered species. Through semi‐structured interviews of highly involved stakeholders throughout Michigan ( n = 21) 6 months after wolves were delisted in August and September 2012, we qualitatively explored public perceptions related to 1) power inequalities among groups and 2) the role of scientific knowledge in decision‐making associated with hunting wolves in Michigan. Emergent themes related to relationships between power and knowledge in wolf management were 1) sources of knowledge for decision‐making, 2) political power overrides science in decision‐making, 3) special interests disenfranchise other publics, and 4) mistrust of decision‐makers exists among stakeholders. With further testing and validation, these themes might inform predictive models and inferential studies useful for public participant planning and stakeholder engagement. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.