Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 295–316 | Cite as

Elk management and policy in southern Greater Yellowstone: Assessing the constitutive process

  • Susan G. Clark
  • Marian E. Vernon
Research Article

Abstract

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA, is recognized globally as a model for land and wildlife conservation, management, and policy. A major policy problem in the region is the highly contentious winter feeding of elk (Cervus elaphus) on 23 government feed grounds in western Wyoming through cooperative management under several state and federal agencies. Numerous non-governmental groups and concerned citizens are also affected by elk management or seek to contribute to management policies. The long-term controversy shows that this issue centers on how management and policy should be made and who should be involved in decision-making—the constitutive policy process. This paper examines and appraises the constitutive process in this case, including how competency, authority, and control are allocated. It also looks at how institutions, analytic techniques, procedures, and people are structured, selected, and included or excluded in decision-making processes. Our data come from a multi-method approach over the past decade, including participant-observation, historical literature, interviews, media analysis, and technical reports. Our analysis shows that institutional dynamics severely constrain the scope of deliberations, the production of practical problem definitions, and the search for improvements in elk management. We recommend that participants focus on the constitutive level of policy making, i.e., the underlying structure and functioning of policy processes, learn how these elements function and affect processes and outcomes, and learn to configure them in ways that embody democratic principles, serve common interests, and resolve policy problems.

Keywords

Constitutive and ordinary policy processes Elk management Persistent policy problem Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We were supported by the Schiff Fund for Research on Wildlife, Habitat, and the Environment, the Carpenter-Sperry Research Fund, and the Williams Fund through Yale University’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. The Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative provided logistic support. E. Deliso and J. Peterson conducted interviews in 2005–2006 and 2011, respectively. We thank all individuals who consented to be interviewed. Finally, we thank D. Casey, L. Dorsey, E. Deliso, and J. Peterson, who critically reviewed the manuscript.

References

  1. Boyce, M. S. (1989). The Jackson elk herd: Intensive wildlife management in North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brunner, R. D. (2006). A paradigm for practice. Policy Sciences, 39, 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunner, R. D. (2010). Adaptive governance as a reform strategy. Policy Sciences, 43, 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunner, R. D. (2014). Introduction to the transaction addition of Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry (pp. vii–xix). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brunner, R. D., & Clark, S. G. (1996). Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: An introduction to the decision process. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark, & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Special issue of endangered species UPDATE: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery: Concepts, applications, cases (Vol. 19(4), pp. 74–80). Ann Arbor: School of Natural Resources and Environment, the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., Klein, R. A., & Olsen, E. A. (Eds.). (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. M., Edwards, C. M., & Tucker, D. W. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner, R. D., & Steelman, T. A. (2005a). Beyond scientific management. In R. D. Brunner, T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M. Edwards, & D. W. Tucker (Eds.), Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making (pp. 1–45). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brunner, R. D., & Steelman, T. A. (2005b). Toward adaptive governance. In R. D. Brunner, T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M. Edwards, & D. W. Tucker (Eds.), Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making (pp. 268–304). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Laboratory methods for assessing experts’ and novices’ knowledge. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 167–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 49–70). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, J. E., Danter, K. J., Griest, D. L., Mullins, G. W., & Norland, E. (1998). Ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation: An assessment. Work Order 30. Columbus: US Fish and Wildlife Service and Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, S. G. (1993). Creating and using knowledge for species and ecosystem conservation: Science, organizations, and policy. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 36(3), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, S. G. (2000). Wildlife resources: The elk of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. In J. Burger, E. Ostrom, R. B. Norgaard, D. Policansky, & B. D. Goldstein (Eds.), Protecting the commons: A framework for resource management in the Americas (pp. 91–108). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, S. G. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resources professionals. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, S. G. (2008). Ensuring Greater Yellowstone’s future: Choices for leaders and citizens. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, S. G., & Brunner, R. D. (1996). Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: an introduction to the decision process. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Special Issue: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery: concepts, applications, cases (Vol. 19, pp. 74–80). The University of Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, S. G., & Brewer, G. D. (2000). Introduction. In S. G. Clark, D. Casey, & A. Halverson (Eds.), Developing sustainable management policy for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming (pp. 9–22). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Bulletin 104, 1–210.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, S. G., & Milloy, C. (2014). The North American model of wildlife conservation: An analysis of challenges and adaptive options. In S. G. Clark & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Large carnivores, people, and governance: Reforming conservation in the North American west. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, S. G., & Rutherford, M. B. (2005). The institutional system of wildlife management: Making it more effective. In S. G. Clark, M. B. Rutherford, & D. Casey (Eds.), Coexisting with large carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone (pp. 211–253). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, S. G., & Vernon, M. E. (2015). Governance challenges in joint management: The Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming elk case. Environmental Management, 56(2), 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2015). Integration and interdisciplinarity: Concept, method, and education. Policy Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11077-015-9210-4.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, S. G., Cherney, D. N., & Clark, D. (2014a). Large carnivore conservation: A perspective on constitutive decision-making and options. In S. G. Clark & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Large carnivores, people, and governance: Reforming conservation in the North American west (pp. 251–288). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, S. G., Rutherford, M. B., & Mattson, D. (2014b). Large carnivores, people, and governance. In S. G. Clark & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Large carnivores, people, and governance: Reforming conservation in the North American west (pp. 1–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Craighead, J. J. (1952). A biological and economic appraisal of the Jackson Hole elk herd. New York: New York Zoological Society and the Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Dean, R., Gocke, M., Holz, B., Kilpatrick, S., Kreeger, T., Scurlock, B., et al. (2004). Elk feed grounds in Wyoming. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WY_ELKFEEDGROUNDS0001685.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2015.
  28. Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fischman, R. L., & Ruhl, J. B. (2015). Judging adaptive management practices of U.S. agencies. Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12616.Google Scholar
  31. Halverson, A. (2000). The National Elk Refuge and the Jackson Hole Elk herd: Management appraisal and recommendations. In S. G. Clark, D. Casey, & A. Halverson (Eds.), Developing sustainable management policy for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming (pp. 23–52). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Bulletin 104, 1–210.Google Scholar
  32. Healy, R., & Ascher, W. (1995). Knowledge in the policy process: Incorporating new environmental information in natural resource policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kannan, P. M. (2009). United States laws and policies protecting wildlife. The 2008 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card. Colorado Springs: Colorado College State of the Rockies Project. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/fc919f40-c24a-4287-ab6c-d649e4dca7a6.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2015.
  34. Keiter, R. B. (2013). To conserve unimpaired: The evolution of the National Park idea. Washington DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Clarifying value judgment: Principles of content and procedure. Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 1(1–4), 87–98.Google Scholar
  37. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society. New Haven: New Haven Press.Google Scholar
  40. Li, T. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthews, A. S. (2011). Instituting nature: Authority, expertise, and power in Mexican forests. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., & Chen, L. (1980). Human rights and world public order: Basic policies of an international law of human dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., & Reisman, W. M. (1981). The world constitutive process of authoritative decision. In M. S. McDougal & W. M. Reisman (Eds.), International law essays: A supplement to international law in contemporary perspective (pp. 191–286). New Haven: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  44. Muth, R., Finley, M. M., & Muth, M. F. (1990). Harold D. Lasswell: An annotated bibliography. New Haven: New Haven Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  46. Parsons, W. (1996). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  47. Peterson, M. N., & Nelson, M. P. (2016). Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is problematic for modern wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2016.1234009.Google Scholar
  48. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, B. L. (2001). Winter feeding of elk in western North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, B. L. (2012). Where elk roam: Conservation and biopolitics of our national elk herd. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.Google Scholar
  51. Steelman, T. A., & Dumond, M. E. (2009). Serving the common interest in US forest policy: A case of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Environmental Management, 43, 396–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. The Wildlife Society. (2007). Final TWS position statement: The North American model of wildlife conservation. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/41-NAModel%20Position%20Statementfinal.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2015.
  53. Thomas, J. W., & Toweill, D. (2002). Elk of North America: Ecology and management. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service. (2015a). Final supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement: Long-term special use authorization for the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to use national forest system lands for the winter elk management activities at Alkali Creek feed ground. Teton County: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service. (2015b). Draft record of decision: Long term special use authorization for the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to use national forest system lands for the winter elk management activities at Alkali Creek feed ground. Teton County: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  56. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, & the National Park Service. (2007). Final bison and elk management plan and environmental impact statement for the National Elk Refuge/Grand Teton National Park/John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. Teton County: U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
  57. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1994). An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation: An approach to more effectively conserve the nation’s biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  58. Vernon, M. E., Bischoff-Mattson, Z., & Clark, S. G. (2016). Discourses of elk hunting and grizzly bear incidents in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vernon, M. E., & Clark, S. G. (2015). Addressing a persistent policy problem: The elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Society and Natural Resources. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1080337.Google Scholar
  60. Vogel, J. M. (2006). Persistent policy problems. Dissertation, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  61. Wilbrecht, J., & Robbins, R. (1979). History of the National Elk Refuge. In M. S. Boyce & L. D. Hayden-Wing (Eds.), North American elk: Ecology, behavior, and management (pp. 248–255). Laramie: University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
  62. Wilkinson, K., Clark, S. G., & Burch, W. (2007). Other voices, other ways, better practice: Bridging local and professional knowledge. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Report No. 14 (pp. 1–57).Google Scholar
  63. World Bank Group. (2015). Thinking with mental models. In World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior (pp. 62–78). Washington DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0342-0.
  64. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. (2013). Job completion report: Elk. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/JCR_BGJACKSON_ELK_20130006053.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2015.
  65. Yellowstone National Park. (2005). Yellowstone resources issues handbook 2015. Mammoth, Wyoming: Yellowstone National Park.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Institution for Social and Policy StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations