Welcome to the 80^th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. WMI thanks you and all the conference partners, exhibitors, and state agency sponsors, who are critical to making this conference successful. I also offer special thanks to Jim Douglas for his "Welcome to Nebraska" address.

Although this is the 80^th North American Conference, it is the 100^th gathering of fish and wildlife leaders under the administration of the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) and its forerunners. Known first as the National Game Conference, it was initially held in New York City in 1915. At that time, WMI was called the American Game Protective and Propagation Association. In 1936, the annual meeting was renamed and the numbering started anew as the 1st North American Wildlife Conference. In 1960, the meeting was finally re-named the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, but the consecutive numbering continued. Therefore, the 79th "North American" was actually the 100th. However, as the 1943 Conference was not held because of World War II restrictions, the North American Conference celebrates it's true centennial in 2015.

I want to thank the special session organizers and the speakers for sharing their expertise with us. This year, the sessions will address conflict resolution in conservation, creating costumers out of consumers, species sustainability and the Endangered Species Act, and the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units. I encourage you to attend and participate in the discussions.

Normally I try to report some of the conservation events and issues that have occurred since we last met. This year I am not going to spend much time on this because I have another concern that I want to share. However, I will take a few moments to recognize some of the major activities of the past year.

The landscape level planning, implementation plans, and actual work on the ground to conserve lesser prairie chickens and greater sage-grouse have been truly remarkable. The collaboration among the state fish and wildlife agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, industry, and private landowners has been unprecedented. This work should serve as a model for the conservation of all species, not just those in dire need of conservation.

Although Congress fumbled the ball on the Sportsmen's Act of 2014, we hope to push the Sportsmen's Act of 2015 across the goal line. The Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports has a national game plan to advance hunting recruitment, retention, and reengagement. By establishing the Blue Ribbon Panel on Conservation Funding, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has brought together head coaches from across the spectrum to plot a path for enhanced conservation funding. This year, the National Conservation Leadership Institute reached its 10-year milestone and will have provided leadership training to more than 350 program fellows, placing quarterbacks on the field at the federal, state, tribal, and private levels. Finally, and to totally wear out my awkward football analogy, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has reached its 50^th year of existence with an unfortunate 1 and 49 record. A record that needs to be inflated not deflated.

LWCF has provided tremendous treasures for this nation; however, some of us envision a better future. We would like to see fish and wildlife conservation included as a stated purpose of a modernized conservation funding mechanism. We would like to see public access to public lands be an integral component of a new trust fund; one derived from non-renewable resource revenues that would address renewable resource issues. A modern funding mechanism could cast off the baggage that LWCF unduly carries. It could be more relevant to the American people and those in Congress who were not even born when LWCF was first enacted. It would be a long and rocky road to pass a new conservation funding bill. To chart a new path forward we must engage relevant stakeholders, both on the revenue and expense side of the ledger. The path must recognize the needs and desires of diverse interests: urban, rural, conservation, historical, recreational, the regulated, and the regulators. A number of us have been working toward that outcome.

Now, on to my concern, in thinking about 100 years of conservation progress, I immediately thought about some of the technological advances that have enhanced fish and wildlife science. Early biologists labored without the technological tools of radio telemetry, remote sensing, geographic information systems, DNA analysis, and population modeling. The development of these tools provided advances in population management, landscape ecology, and a better understanding of the ecosystem concept. Today, fish and wildlife biologists have the knowledge, skills, and tools that were unimaginable 100 years ago.

As a result, one might think that fish and wildlife science would be widely respected across the continent. Decisions would always be made with the best science at hand. Obviously that is not always the case. Our science-driven decisions are today, as in the past, muddled by politics, economics, lawsuits, and a distrust of science. For the next few minutes, I want to focus on science and the public's views on science.

This past January, the Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), released a report entitled, "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". I will cite just three examples to demonstrate the difficulty that we face in shaping public opinion about our natural world.

First, although 98 percent of AAAS scientists believed that humans have evolved over time, only 65 percent of U.S. adults surveyed agreed, 31 percent believed that humans have existed in present form since the beginning. Almost half of those respondents believed that scientists agree that humans have existed in present form since the beginning. Second, according to the report, 97 percent of AAAS scientists believed in climate change and 95 percent believed it is a serious problem. Only 73 percent of U.S. adults believed in climate change and 25 percent believed there was no solid evidence of climate change. Third, with respect to animal use, 89 percent of AAAS scientists were in favor of the use of animals in research while less than half of U.S. adults surveyed shared those same views.

Evolution, climate change, and animal use are complex issues. Science is hard. Most humans chose to pursue other academic subjects to make a living. But we all know that science provides the underpinning of civilization and the understanding of our world. To make good decisions, it is not necessary for everyone to understand science but it is necessary that everyone respect science. That goes for public policy-makers even more than the general public. Of the AAAS scientists surveyed, only 27 percent responded that the best scientific information guided government regulations most of the time for clean air and water and only 15 percent believed that scientific information guided regulations for land use.

This dichotomy between the public and scientists' views is even more disturbing because the gap seems to be widening not closing. Think about the recent debate over vaccination. Social media allows anyone to advance their beliefs in 140 characters or less. Celebrities, who are better known than scientists, express their views on television and social media. Twenty-four hour cable news networks provide a microphone to almost anyone who raises objections about science. Lobbyists undermine science that may economically harm their clients' interests. Politicians listen to those same lobbyists and their ill-informed constituents. Advocacy organizations make a lot of money touting or dismissing science. It is not hard to understand why science appears to be losing ground to misunderstanding, misinformation, and ideology.

Where does that leave us as fish and wildlife scientists and policy makers? Every one of us has had to deal with situations where science was misunderstood, ignored, or rejected. It is easy to place the blame on others. However, we better assess our public information and outreach efforts before we cast the first stone. We have reveled in the advances in our science. We hold conferences to explain our work to our colleagues. We make up new terms and acronyms and throw them about in meetings like they were so many intellectual spitballs.

How often have we taken the time and effort to inform the public, in layman's terms, about population dynamics, ecosystem functions, cumulative effects, or the public trust doctrine? Everybody in this room has a good understanding of these terms. Our constituents, our customers, do not. Unless we want to become irrelevant to society, we better figure out a way to explain our use of science so the public can understand and appreciate it.

Leopold had a way with words, "When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." That simple quote captures what we do. However, we face challenges that Leopold could not have imagined. We have science knowledge and tools that were unavailable to him. As the science has become more sophisticated, we must find ways to simplify our explanations to the public. How are we going to convince the public that science matters, that fish and wildlife conservation matters? We can only accomplish this by telling our story in ways that are relevant to and resonate with the public.

Please keep those words in mind - "relevant" and "resonate". We have to describe conservation in ways that are relevant to the public and in ways that resonate with the public. To fail in either is a failure for conservation.

In closing, some of you participated in an informal survey to assess the success and failure of conservation in the last 100 years. Our thanks go to Mark Duda from Responsive Management for conducting this survey. Rollie Sparrowe and Paul Hansen will discuss those results with you. WMI wanted to share the communities' perspective not just ours. Then Lynn Scarlett will address the future of conservation with her unique insight and enthusiasm that will challenge us all as we work for conservation. I am sure their presentations will be relevant to you and will resonate with you.

Thank you for participating in this conference and I thank you for your dedication to fish and wildlife conservation.