| I examined ecosystem management (EM) using questionnaires from 46 state and territorial wildlife agencies and interviews in 11 states. Political culture, agency traditions, and other bureaucratic factors were examined to seek differences in wildlife conservation practices within organizations and to determine which influenced EM adoption. Twenty-two of 46 states claimed to be using EM; most adopted it in the early to middle 1990s. Socioeconomic and political factors (14 potentially affecting agency operations and 18 presumed to influence EM adoption) could not be linked to EM adoption. There was no correlation between state political culture or state ideology and EM. Although the importance of state natural heritage programs and the experience of federal agencies were not evident from survey responses, they were cited as important by interviewees. The wildlife agency chief and governing commissions had the greatest impact on EM adoption and practice.; There were few distinctions between EM and non-EM agencies. All emphasized game or charismatic species, using population-level management. Most worked within the confines of state wildlife management areas. They dealt principally with hunter constituents, and promoted hunting and trapping. Despite this hunter and game orientation, agency staff appeared to be concerned about all species of wildlife. All stressed the importance of working with private landowners and other public agencies in large-scale projects. There was a high level of interagency and interdisciplinary cooperation between wildlife agency staff, other agencies, and non-governmental conservation organizations. Inadequate funding, insufficient staff, encroaching urbanization, and strong economic development pressures were all cited as major obstacles to EM.; State wildlife agencies are good candidates to use collaboration and adaptive management within an EM framework. However, agencies must undertake wildlife conservation within a complex political environment, interact with diverse public(s), and assume an advocate's role for natural resources and the land in the collaboration process. |
