Wildlife governance and the politics of transborder commons: the gray wolf case

Wildlife management north and south of the Border is markedly different and is a direct reflection of the respective political systems. This variance in governance structures on either side of the border makes coordination, implementation, and management of transborder natural resources difficult. Transborder wildlife, particularly those shared across international borders, present many challenges to their successful management. Environmental governance scholars have indicated that a shift to more "fluid" polycentric governance, or multiple centers of governance among several smaller jurisdictions, may be more effective than governance through a single large structure. The following questions were used to guide (1) a sub-national governance comparison, (2) semi-structured interviews, and (3) a public perception survey. Is wolf management in the Cascadia region polycentric in arrangement and practice? Do perceptions of wolf governance vary across the Border? And what role do those perceptions play in current and future management? Semistructured interviews of fourteen wolf and wildlife managers were conducted to gain an understanding of wolf management in the Cascadia ecoregion and to examine regional wolf manager's perspective on wolf governance in the region. A public perception survey was administered and completed by 369 citizens in British Columbia and Washington State to establish if citizens supported and identified with the managers and agencies involved in wolf governance. Survey and interview results indicated that there are few venues for polycentric wolf governance in WA and even fewer in B.C. Citizens in both WA and B.C. agreed that the states/provinces should be the primary lead wolf managers and that public should be more involved in the wolf management process.