The elephant in the room
by Walter Medwid
The recent coverage on the subject of returning the mountain lion back to the state, generated a good discussion in the media. Wildlife advocates pushed and the leadership team at the Fish and Wildlife Department (FWD) pushed back urging caution. This one issue brings to mind the many contentious wildlife issues where FWD has taken a firm position against what wildlife advocates seek. The battlegrounds have included recreational trapping, bear hounding, the public policy of treating coyotes as vermin, and the list goes on.
The FWD’s embrace of these practices has left advocates frustrated in seeing antiquated traditions sanctioned in the 21st century. It would be easy to label these debates as hunters and trappers versus those who oppose hunting and trapping. But that false assessment would trivialize and misdirect the debate as well as ignore the findings of a major values survey that shines a bright light as to just why these controversial wildlife practices are so protected by FWD.
America’s Wildlife Values study was supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ”… the research team (was) led by Colorado State University’s Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources include(d) partners representing top academic/research institutions, regional fish and wildlife management associations, and state fish and wildlife agency personnel. “ The survey included sampling Vermonters and also a separate survey was done of the staff at FWD.
Those results are remarkable, if not stunning. For example the survey of Vermonters showed that the largest group of us (34%) are mutualists-who score low on domination and believe wildlife and humans are meant to coexist. However, in the survey of FWD staff, mutualists barely showed a pulse with only 5.1% of staff identifying as such. Conversely, nearly 68% of the FWD staff identify as traditionalists who score high on the domination scale, and believe wildlife is to be used and managed for the benefit of humans.
That score is greater than two and half times the score of Vermonters. The chasm between the staff and the public was further illustrated by participation rates in hunting and fishing. The survey found that 21% of Vermonters fish and 15% hunt whereas 82% of FWD fish and 86% hunt. Obviously the differences are exponential. And on the subject of mountain lions, the survey found that the vast majority of staff (88.7%) felt that agency management favor herbivores over carnivores, hence the resistance to lions and the policy of treating the state’s apex predator as vermin.
While the results of any survey may be questioned, it is worth noting that one of the co-authors of this survey is a trusted and long standing FWD consultant.
To add even further distance to the chasm, the Fish and Wildlife Board that holds extraordinary regulatory and public policy-making authority over wildlife, is even more lopsided with nearly all members identifying as traditionalists.
The stunning part of this is that a branch of government that purports to serve all Vermonters has been staffed not with mission as paramount but rather agenda. Stunning too is the fact that the executive branch takes every opportunity to ensure Vermonters’ values will not be represented within a division- a division that is thought of by many as a glorified fish and game club rather than an agency serving all Vermonters fairly.
It is no wonder that there is a wide swath of the public that feel the wildlife governance system is broken. The voice for state wildlife agencies in this country (The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)), the Wildlife Society-representing thousands of wildlife biologists, and even the majority of staff at FWD believe that agencies must focus more on adapting to change. The staff at FWD gets it. AFWA (FWD is a dues paying member) has issued a report calling for agency transformation.
The report states, “Every citizen has a stake in and benefits from healthy fish and wildlife, but most have little contact with or understanding of the state agency responsible for their stewardship. To remain relevant, state fish and wildlife agencies will need to transform their structures, operations and cultures to meet the changing expectations of their customers. If state fish and wildlife agencies fail to adapt, their ability to manage fish and wildlife will be hindered and the public and political support compromised. “
Tragically, Vermont is the poster child of an agency that no longer reflects Vermonters and desperately needs transformation to reflect their values. FWD is in the crosshairs of fiscal, identity and wildlife crises. There is opportunity for reinvention to align with 21st century challenges and values held by Vermonters, join forces with those citizens and achieve long-term solvency. That won’t happen in the current model of operation.