Commentary A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies CYNTHIA A. JACOBSON, 1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518, USA JOHN F. ORGAN, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035, USA DANIEL J. DECKER, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 245 Roberts Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5905, USA GORDON R. BATCHELLER, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, Albany, NY 12233-4754, USA LEN CARPENTER, 4015 Cheney Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA ABSTRACT The wildlife conservation institution (Institution) needs to reform to maintain legitimacy and relevancy in the 21st century. Institutional reform is inherently slow. Limitations resulting from historical and resource dependencies between state wildlife agencies and hunters have left the Institution poorly positioned to meet changing ecological and social complexities. In this paper, we suggest that an ideal Institution would have the following 4 components: broad-based funding, trustee-based governance, multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from professional staff, and involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners. Our suggestions reflect the fundamental tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine, which we believe is the foundation of the Institution. In bringing forth these ideas, we hope to encourage discussion about how the Institution should reform to meet the changing needs of society. KEY WORDS funding, governance, Public Trust Doctrine, state wildlife agency, wildlife conservation institution. Decades ago, state-level wildlife conservation and manage- ment developed the characteristics of an established institu- tion: enduring formal and informal rules, articulation of values and beliefs, and development of norms and related behavior patterns that sustain and constrain its activities (Jacobson and Decker 2006). Similar to many institutions whose origins date back to the late 19th century, the need for reform of the wildlife conservation and management institution (Institution) to meet contemporary challenges has been articulated (Heberlein 1991, Manfredo and Zinn 1996, Gill 2004, Jacobson et al. 2007). The question, ‘‘reform into what?’’ has not yet been posited let alone answered. Reform of an institution, if attempted strategically in response to multiple, coupled changes in the ecological and social environment, rather than as a piecemeal reaction to external pressures, requires foresight on the part of leaders and stakeholders to envision what changes might address contemporary and anticipated needs, constraints, and opportunities (Jacobson and Decker 2006). As pressures for change grow, competing ideas will emerge and need to be debated openly within the Institution. We hope to facilitate the discourse with some ideas about the underlying nature of a reformed future Institution. In this paper we do not explicitly consider sport and commercial fisheries manage- ment. Our focus is on wildlife management and conservation at the state level; however, certain principles contained herein may apply to fisheries issues as well. Although the need and some ideas for reform have been suggested previously, it is clear that the Institution largely remains anchored to a paradigm (i.e., philosophy, assump- tions, and related practices) that impedes dealing effectively with contemporary challenges (Jacobson and Decker 2006). It has been suggested that the Institution has difficulty with change because of its historical relationship with and political and financial dependency on a single user group, hunters (Patterson et al. 2003, Nie 2004, Anderson and Loomis 2006). Hunters are key stakeholders; their contri- butions and integral role in wildlife conservation continue to be important. Maintaining hunter involvement and financial support of the Institution is necessary, but not sufficient. In light of the contemporary challenges facing the Institution due to changing ecological and social conditions, the inadequacy of our existing funding mechanisms to support wildlife management and conservation (Jacobson et al. 2007), increasing uncertainty of political support, and environmental threats of global proportion, we believe that the Institution must expand and evolve. A fundamental overhaul is needed. We offer 4 considerations for reform to secure the relevance of the Institution into the future: broad-based funding, trustee-based governance, multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from professional staff, and involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners in the Institution. Our suggestions reflect the fundamental tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD), which we believe is the foundation of the Institution. Our purpose is to encourage wildlife professionals to think about the extent and nature of change needed to position the Institution for greatest effectiveness in the future. Although speculative, we also suggest consequences that might be expected without change and adaptation. WHY INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IS NEEDED Fundamentally, the Institution exists because society values wildlife. The current wildlife conservation paradigm has its grounding in the near and actual extirpation of wildlife and 1 E-mail: cindi.jacobson@alaska.gov Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):203–209; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2008-485 Jacobson et al. N Conservation Institution 203