July 2024 Edition | Volume 78, Issue 7
Published since 1946
Understanding the Management, Funding, and Staffing of Human-Wildlife Conflicts by State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
In 2023, a project was funded through the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (Grant F23AP00472) to examine the costs associated with human-wildlife conflict (HWC). The project was conducted by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), with the assistance of Southwick Associates and the Wildlife Management Institute. The purpose of this project was to survey state wildlife professionals on how wildlife conflict is mitigated, funded, and staffed to gain a comprehensive understanding of HWC management strategies in all 50 states. The objective was to determine the current status of staffing, expenditures, statutes, regulations, and policies related to HWC for 50 state wildlife agencies and provide recommendations that increase effectiveness and delivery of programs nationally. The intended outcome was a comprehensive resource that individual states can use as a reference to guide decisions.
To complete the project objectives, 1) a comprehensive review of state agency damage programs was completed, and 2) a survey was administered to wildlife conflict staff employed by all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies. To increase response rates, we emailed a survey link four times and followed up with two phone calls toward the end of the survey period. Overall, 43 states responded to the survey.
Results showed that statutory authorities, budgets, spending, and species vary tremendously across the states. The common theme among states is they manage an array of wildlife conflict from ungulate depredation to migratory birds to predator control. Direct compensation to landowner/ranchers for wildlife damage was seen in 16 states, mostly in the West. Interestingly, USDA-Wildlife Services manages the bulk of airport conflict, typically through permitting and contracts. Regarding staffing, 31 states indicated they had dedicated staff and averaged 12 FTEs per state. All responding states used existing staff to address conflict as part of their regular job duties. Finally, funding for wildlife conflict should be described as a mandate without a dedicated funding source. Overall, 95% of responding states used game and fish funds to respond to conflict issues. Only 36% used general tax revenues, and only 10% indicated they received private donations. With the continued decline in hunting license sales, the inability of agencies to fully capture their Pittman-Robertson allocation is a possibility. This has the potential to create a situation where a smaller license-based fund is increasingly paying for activities that cannot be avoided.