Co-Management of Natural Resources: A Comparison of Two Caribou Management Systems

By Kruse, Jack; Klein, Dave et al. | Human Organization, Winter 1998 | Go to article overview

Co-Management of Natural Resources: A Comparison of Two Caribou Management Systems


Kruse, Jack, Klein, Dave, Braund, Steve, Moorehead, Lisa, Simeone, Bill, Human Organization


The US Man and the Biosphere High Latitude Ecosystems Directorate compared two caribou management systems in Alaska and Canada We examined the relationship between user involvement in management and management effectiveness. Measures of management effectiveness included: knowledge of the management system, agreement on acceptable harvest and herd monitoring practices, shared beliefs and perceptions on caribou population changes, perceptions of communications between management boards and caribou users, and expectations for cooperation of users with management actions. Our hypothesis was that the involvement of Canadian users in a joint management board would produce greater cooperation and agreement than the Alaskan hierarchical system. We conducted a census of government managers, and did surveys based on probability samples of approximately 200 traditional users in both countries. We found: (1) under ajoint management board, government managers are more sensitive and responsive to user concerns; and contrary to expectations, (2) direct user involvement in a joint management board does not increase the likelihood that users at the village level will cooperate with management actions. User-manager boards do not appear to be a substitute for a frequent and continued presence of biologists in traditional user communities when it comes to establishing trust in management information and supporting traditional community-based decision making.

Key words: co-management, natural resources; Canada, US, Alaska

Throughout the world, interest in the involvement of resource users in the management of resources through comanagement systems is high (McCay and Acheson 1987; Berkes 1989; Pinkerton 1989). The reasons for the high interest range from wildlife conservation to the well-being of local populations and even their cultural survival (Berkes et al. 1991; Kemp 1993). In Canada, wildlife management systems have been a central focus of aboriginal land claims negotiations (Carpenter, Hanbidge, and Binder 1991; Feit 1979; Fenge 1985). US federal land management agencies have established a separate wildlife management system for federal lands in Alaska (Caulfield 1991). Native and government organizations in Alaska are exploring ways to institute co-management principles (Nome Nugget 1995; Trent, Kruse, and Leask 1996).

Recent attempts to redesign fish and game management systems have followed one of two approaches: privatization of the resource, as in the case of individual commercial fishing quotas (Berman and Leask 1994) or formal sharing of management responsibilities between specific user groups and governments. The latter is referred to as co-management, or cooperative management (Berkes et al. 1991; Osherenko 1988). There are many possible variations of sharing management responsibilities. These range from complete delegation of all management activities to a user group (e.g., compacting'), to participation of users in advisory groups. In between are possibilities for the delegation of specific management activities (e.g., harvest monitoring, quota allocation).

The Alaska Board of Game, for example, is primarily composed of resource users. Its seven members are appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the legislature. The Alaska Board of Game sets policy and establishes regulations and is advised by professional staff from two divisions of the Division of Fish and Game (Wildlife Conservation and Subsistence). The Alaska game management system also included local advisory councils and, until recently, regional advisory councils. Field staff from both divisions frequently interact with users. Yet the rural Native community generally views the State fish and game management system as unresponsive to their concerns and favoring urban sport interests.

In practice, the major difference between the Alaska State game management system and the general concept of shared management between resource users and government is the fact that the composition of the Board of Game reflects the predominance of the urban population in Alaska. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Co-Management of Natural Resources: A Comparison of Two Caribou Management Systems
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.