The previously quiet governance of fish and wildlife is being shaken by the arrival of partisan politics and agents of cultural change

I spent late nights reviewing biologists’ justifications for big-game season changes. I received hundreds of public comments, sometimes during those late nights, and tried to respond to all I could. I toured real estate acquisitions with hunters and wildlife managers. I helped translocate bighorn sheep. When casting votes I tried to be a fair advocate for not only Montana’s fish and wildlife resources but for my neighbors, whether they hunted or fished or farmed or simply liked to watch birds and wildlife.

Although politics was always just off-stage — and it was politics that eventually tanked my service — I never felt that influence, either from partisan politicians or interest groups, colored my votes or compromised my opinion of a topic.

In that regard, I may be one of the last of the unaligned wildlife commissioners in the West, and possibly the whole country. Since I left the position four years ago, one of the trends to emerge in wildlife management is the polarization and politicization of wildlife commissions, with single-issue appointees and commissioners who are placed on boards to ensure a strategic outcome.

The appointment of what I’d call activist commissioners has turned fish-and-wildlife management on its head in some states, and has forced a reassessment of the role of commissions, which for decades have been quiet backwaters of collegiality.

State Skirmishes

Exhibit A is Washington, where the state’s wildlife commission has a recent majority of members interested in rapidly expanding the mandate of the fish and wildlife department from one that mainly serves hunters and anglers to one that places equal weight on all fish and wildlife resources, including those that aren’t hunted or fished. Because hunters and anglers traditionally have paid for most resource management, they’ve had disproportionate influence over the commission. As that’s changed, commission meetings have become arenas where opposing sides debate everything from “woke-ism” to cultural bigotry, with fish-and-wildlife management mentioned sometimes as an afterthought.

In Colorado earlier this year, the state Senate narrowly confirmed an animal rights lawyer to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, the body that governs the state’s wildlife-management agency. Vermont lawmakers, responding to pressure to add more non-hunters to the state’s Fish & Wildlife Board, nearly overturned a century of tradition in March when they considered removing rule-making authority from the legislature and giving it to the commissioner of Fish & Wildlife.

In Kansas, the conservative state legislature passed a law earlier this year that requires wildlife commissioners to be appointed by elected officials, including party leaders of the state’s House and Senate.

In Kentucky, a Senate bill filed during the 2024 legislative session would have transferred authority from the governor to the elected Commissioner of Agriculture for appointing Fish and Wildlife Commission members. Ultimately the bill was not taken up for action by the state’s General Assembly.

No Longer Just Hunting and Fishing

At the core of all these changes is a shift in public values of wildlife. An influential study of Americans’ wildlife values published in 2018 found the percentage of citizens who describe themselves as “mutualists,” believing that humans and wildlife are meant to co-exist, was fully 35 percent of the population. Meanwhile 28 percent of Americans define themselves as “traditionalists,” believing that wildlife is a resource that should be managed for the benefit of people. Twenty-one percent defined themselves as “mutualists,” holding beliefs that share traditionalist and mutualist values, and 15 percent of Americans are what is defined as wildlife “distanced,” meaning that they rarely interact with nature or develop beliefs around wildlife management.

Trend lines suggest that the percentage of mutualists is on the rise nationally while the percentage of traditionalists is declining. That seems to square with other data that suggest the traditional constituency of fish-and-game agencies — hunters and anglers — is becoming less numerous, influential, and relevant over time as Baby Boomers age out of the population.

Meanwhile, the management mandates of natural-resource agencies is increasing, as they’re tasked with overseeing non-game fish and wildlife species in an era of habitat transition, as well as managing a diversifying community of outdoor recreationists, from mountain bikers and birdwatchers to foragers and floaters.

Political leaders, recognizing that fish-and-wildlife commissioners can make long-lasting resource decisions outside the legislative arena, are increasingly installing activist commissioners who are in some cases accelerating the transition from traditional wildlife management and in other cases doubling down on traditional hook-and-bullet management.

Whether one or the other prevails may depend on who sits on fish-and-wildlife commissions, and how widely or narrowly they view their constituencies.

Part 2: In the next installment, we’ll look at best practices for commissions, and efforts to create more informed and effective commissioners.

The Wildlife Management Institute is working with partners through the Outdoor Industry Communications Council to share information about hunting and fishing in America. This story is produced by the OICC and ONB readers are encouraged to share the information with their networks.

About the Outdoor Industry Communication Council

Formed around the commitment to educate all Americans about the origins of conservation funding in America, the Outdoor Industry Communication Council is powered through a multi-state conservation grant and represented by companies, wildlife agencies, professional communicators, and conservation organizations. This project is funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (F23AP00404), supported with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and jointly managed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.