Looking to the Future of Wildlife Conservation: Durable Wildlife Policy for the 21st Century

Wildlife conservation in the United States was built by the dollars of consumptive users. Monies from the sale of hunting licenses, as well as excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery tackle through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (PR), currently fuel a complex system of wildlife conservation via multiple levels of government. However, the number of hunters in this country is rapidly declining, the sale of firearms and ammunition is increasingly unrelated to hunting, and contemporary consumers tend to express different values than traditional hunters. These changes pose significant challenges of relevancy and funding to state and federal fish and wildlife agencies charged with wildlife management and conservation. This thesis seeks to contribute to three topics that are relevant to the future of the field of wildlife conservation by clarifying commonly used – but rarely defined – language, analyzing state-specific responses to declines in funding for conservation, and analyzing concerns regarding the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The first chapter of this thesis aims to clarify terms commonly used in scholarship related to the take of wildlife to facilitate clear communication. When definitions vary among practitioners and academics, misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication arise. Reconciling distinctions between legal and social licensure facilitates more accurate depictions of take. The second chapter catalogues and analyzes dedicated revenue generated for state wildlife agencies via 25 distinct mechanisms and sought to identify factors which influence intrastate diversity in dedicated revenue. The third chapter examines a growing body of literature regarding the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and finds significant variation in critiques of this concept. I address these concerns in the historical context of the model. In short, this thesis addresses wildlife communication, the funding model of wildlife conservation, and a model which describes one interpretation of the laws and policies which differentiate wildlife conservation in the United States and Canada from the rest of the world. It is my hope that this work will be of some use to those who seek to conserve wildlife and wild places for future generations

Examining Evident Interdisciplinarity Among Prides of Lion Researchers

Lions (Panthera leo) have experienced dramatic population declines in recent decades and today, inhabit just a fraction of their historic range. The reasons behind these declines are many, but conflict with humans, principally motivated by lion depredation of livestock, is among the most influential. Recent calls within the scientific community have identified that wicked problems like these should be addressed using interdisciplinary approaches. Here we examined the extent to which human-lion conflict research has been interdisciplinary. We conducted an extensive review of the literature and uncovered 88 papers, published between 1990 and 2015, that assessed human-lion interaction and the ecology of lions exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. While human-lion conflict research experienced near-exponential growth (y = 8E-194e0.222x, R2= 0.76) across this time period, the number of co-authors engaged in this research changed very little (x = 3.28, se = 0.19). Moreover, co-authors of this research tended to be affiliated with units from just three highly-related STEM disciplines (biology, wildlife management, and environmental science). Comparatively, co-authors affiliated with units in the humanities and social sciences occurred in < 4% of all papers examined. Our analysis also presents a novel framework that positions human-lion conflict research as having not two dimensions, as has been commonly conceptualized, but five dimensions. These dimensions include not only the human and the lion dimensions, but also the livestock, wild prey, and environmental dimensions. None of the papers that we evaluated concurrently studied all five of these dimensions to determine their impact on human-lion conflict. Furthermore, despite the fact that human-lion conflict research was primarily developed by co-authors from STEM disciplines, the most common dimension evaluated was the human dimension which requires social science and humanities expertise. Our analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity among human-lion conflict research has historically been low. These low levels of interdisciplinarity observed from 1990 to 2015 however, are not necessarily representative of the ongoing efforts to develop more inclusive research teams. Thus, we discuss the implications of this research for the development of sustainable solutions to conserve lions and preserve human well-being and identify potential avenues forward to create more interdisciplinary prides of lion researchers

Examining Evident Interdisciplinarity Among Prides of Lion Researchers

Lions (Panthera leo) have experienced dramatic population declines in recent decades and today, inhabit just a fraction of their historic range. The reasons behind these declines are many, but conflict with humans, principally motivated by lion depredation of livestock, is among the most influential. Recent calls within the scientific community have identified that wicked problems like these should be addressed using interdisciplinary approaches. Here we examined the extent to which human-lion conflict research has been interdisciplinary. We conducted an extensive review of the literature and uncovered 88 papers, published between 1990 and 2015, that assessed human-lion interaction and the ecology of lions exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. While human-lion conflict research experienced near-exponential growth (y = 8E-194e0.222x, R2 = 0.76) across this time period, the number of co-authors engaged in this research changed very little (x = 3.28, se = 0.19). Moreover, co-authors of this research tended to be affiliated with units from just three highly-related STEM disciplines (biology, wildlife management, and environmental science). Comparatively, co-authors affiliated with units in the humanities and social sciences occurred in &lt;4% of all papers examined. Our analysis also presents a novel framework that positions human-lion conflict research as having not two dimensions, as has been commonly conceptualized, but five dimensions. These dimensions include not only the human and the lion dimensions, but also the livestock, wild prey, and environmental dimensions. None of the papers that we evaluated concurrently studied all five of these dimensions to determine their impact on human-lion conflict. Furthermore, despite the fact that human-lion conflict research was primarily developed by co-authors from STEM disciplines, the most common dimension evaluated was the human dimension which requires social science and humanities expertise. Our analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity among human-lion conflict research has historically been low. These low levels of interdisciplinarity observed from 1990 to 2015 however, are not necessarily representative of the ongoing efforts to develop more inclusive research teams. Thus, we discuss the implications of this research for the development of sustainable solutions to conserve lions and preserve human well-being and identify potential avenues forward to create more interdisciplinary prides of lion researchers