UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The challenges of integrative approaches in wildlife management : caribou management in insular Newfoundland Decker, Stephen Edmund 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_november_decker_stephen.pdf [ 8.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0373202.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0373202-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0373202-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0373202-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0373202-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0373202-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0373202-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0373202-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0373202.ris

Full Text

  THE CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATIVE APPROACHES IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: CARIBOU MANAGEMENT IN INSULAR NEWFOUNDLAND by Stephen Edmund Decker  B.A., Grenfell Campus, Memorial University (2004) M.A., Memorial University (2007)  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) October 2018  © Stephen Edmund Decker, 2018  ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: The Challenges of Integrative Approaches in Wildlife Management: Caribou Management in Insular Newfoundland submitted by Stephen Edmund Decker in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of  Doctor of Philosophy.   Dr. Kevin Hanna (Irving K. Barber School of Arts & Sciences) Supervisor Dr. Dan Decker (College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cornell University) Co-Supervisor Dr. Karen Hodges (Irving K. Barber School of Arts & Sciences) Supervisory Committee Member Dr. John Wagner (Irving K. Barber School of Arts & Sciences) Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Adam Ford (Irving K. Barber School of Arts & Sciences) University Examiner Dr. Michael Quinn (Research, Scholarship and Community Engagement, Mount Royal University) External Examiner   iii  Abstract  The field of wildlife management is evolving and adopting Integrated Resource Management (IRM) approaches. As part of this evolution, contemporary wildlife management is informed by a greater diversity of stakeholders and other land-use issues than in the past and also acknowledges the place of individual wildlife species in the larger ecosystem. Though well-recorded from a theoretical perspective, the extent to which this evolution is manifested in an applied wildlife management setting has received little attention in the literature.   This dissertation explores and further elucidates the connection between the overarching field of IRM and the current Human Dimensions-focused stage in the evolution of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Through a case study of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou) management on the island of Newfoundland, Canada, this research examines the extent to which the purported trends toward more IRM approaches are manifest on the ground   Stakeholder interviews and a content analysis of relevant popular media articles and other published materials were analyzed using an analytical framework that was based on a series of characteristic dimensions of IRM. Study findings suggest that while the various dimensions of IRM are, to varying extents, manifest in the wildlife management context identified, the significant challenges of fragmented management departments, disciplines, and a lack of a formalized structure for stakeholder engagement remain. This dissertation makes a unique contribution to the IRM and human dimensions of wildlife management (HDWM) literatures by identifying and exploring a significant gap between theory and practice in wildlife management and by also identifying and analyzing a lack of attention to managing wildlife in the public trust.  iv   The latter sections of this dissertation return to the research questions to address the challenges of adopting more integrated approaches in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland. The dissertation also contributes to the practice of wildlife management by concluding with the identification of an opportunity to implement a more resilient, stakeholder-engaged management structure that is insulated from the ebb and flow of agency staff and budget allocations and that can help ensure the sustainable management of wildlife in the public trust.   v  Lay Summary Experts who study wildlife management have documented important changes in the field over the last several decades. Most recently, these changes suggest a transition toward more Integrated Resource Management (IRM) approaches.   This study reveals that, there is a gap between what is written in the literature and how wildlife management is carried out. Evidence of this gap comes from a case study of caribou management on the island of Newfoundland on Canada’s east coast. By conducting interviews with stakeholders and by critically reviewing relevant news stories, government press releases, and government reports, I determined that while there is some evidence of integrative approaches being practiced in the context of Newfoundland caribou management, significant challenges remain that inhibit the adoption integrative approaches. This thesis concludes with suggestions regarding how these challenges can be overcome to allow wildlife management to evolve and attain the subjective and objective benefits of IRM.     vi  Preface  My interest in the field of human dimensions of resource and wildlife management is the direct result of growing up in a rural, resource-based community in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As almost all the residents of my hometown are (or at least were) employed in either the forestry or fishing industry, it is not surprising that I have taken an interest in the resource management decision making that had, and continues to have, such a large impact on the residents of my hometown and other resource users. This interest is reflected in my academic studies at both the undergraduate and graduate level.  My small, resource-based-town furnished me with an early exposure, at approximately 10 years of age, to the strong coupling between social and ecological systems. Like countless other families in Atlantic Canada at the time, my family was significantly impacted by the collapse of the northern cod fishery in the early 1990s. The loss of this economic and cultural backbone sent shockwaves throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador and resulted in unemployment, financial hardship, outmigration, and a host of resulting social ills. In many rural communities, the collapse of the cod fishery also resulted in much anger and mistrust directed toward those government officials charged with managing the resource. During this time, passionate discussions about the perceived incompetence, indifference, and dishonestly of federal fisheries resource managers were common at dinner tables throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador.   Upon beginning graduate studies, it was revealed to me that, likely as a result this experience during my formative years, my writing betrayed an implicit prejudice against resource managers and their willingness and ability to manage resources in the public trust. Once this was pointed out to me by my supervisor, I had the opportunity to revisit and re-evaluate some of the social norms that had helped shape my perspectives. Since that time I have worked vii  closely and cordially with resource managers at various levels in several different countries - and perhaps most closely with wildlife managers in the context of the current study. While I am confident that my perspective on the capabilities of resource managers is decidedly less negative and myopic than earlier in my academic career, I feel the need to acknowledge this point here as in many of the subsequent chapters I discuss the relationship between resource managers and users and also address the topic of the willingness and capacity of managers to act as trustees of wildlife as per the Public Trust Doctrine. I am confident, however, that my analysis of this evidence and associated conclusions are arrived at objectively and by way of the evidence provided.  This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, Stephen Edmund Decker. The interview portion of the research was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board (H14-00122). The inclusion of copyrighted material has been permitted by the copyright holders.    viii  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents…………….………………………………………………………………...viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 17 Chapter 2. Integrated Resource Management as a Theoretical Framework ........................ 18 2.1 Research Rationale ......................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Brief Objectives Statement and Research Questions ..................................................... 27 2.3 Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................... 29 2.3.1 A Note on the use of the term “Paradigm Shifts” ................................................... 30 Chapter 3. Integrated Resource Management ......................................................................... 32 3.1. Components of Integrated Resource Management .......................................................... 33 3.2 Shifts Toward Integration............................................................................................... 34 Chapter 4. Evolution of Wildlife Management ........................................................................ 39 4.1 The First Phase of Wildlife Management ...................................................................... 40 4.2. The Second Phase of Wildlife Management .................................................................. 41 4.3 The Third Phase of Wildlife Management ..................................................................... 42 4.4 The Third Phase and Beyond ......................................................................................... 43 4.5 Exploring Trends Toward Integration ............................................................................ 46 4.5.1 Coupled Social-Ecological Systems ....................................................................... 46 4.5.2 Ecosystem-Based Management .............................................................................. 49 4.5.3 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 51 4.6 Integration Challenges in Wildlife Management ........................................................... 53 4.6.1 Nested Interdisciplinary Challenges ....................................................................... 55 4.6.2 Vertical Integration Challenges .............................................................................. 60 4.6.3 Horizontal Integration Challenges .......................................................................... 66 ix  4.7 Evolving Definitions of Success .................................................................................... 69 4.7.1 Integrated Definition of Success ............................................................................. 70 4.7.2 Addressing Impacts as Success ............................................................................... 70 Chapter 5. Method and Approach ............................................................................................ 74 5.1 Research Methods and Data Analysis ............................................................................ 77 5.1.1 Deriving Data in Qualitative Research ................................................................... 77 5.1.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 78 5.1.3. Analysis of Management Plans, Press Releases, and Popular Media Articles ....... 84 6.1 Wildlife Management as a System ................................................................................. 86 6.2 The Presenting Situation: Components of Newfoundland’s Caribou Management Context ...................................................................................................................................... 87 6.2.1 Human History in Newfoundland prior to Confederation ...................................... 87 6.2.2 The Natural Environment ....................................................................................... 90 6.2.3 Caribou Population Status and Decline .................................................................. 96 Chapter 7. Analysis of the Presenting Situation: Key Relationships and Drivers of Change..................................................................................................................................................... 100 7.1 Cultural Significance of Caribou.................................................................................. 100 7.2. Caribou Declines and the Issue of Predation by Coyotes ................................................ 102 Sutherland, & Bath, 2016) will likely influence the extent to which wildlife managers attempt to control coyote numbers through bounties and coyote hunting seasons. ............................. 105 7.3 Resource Exploitation .................................................................................................. 105 7.4 Hunting ......................................................................................................................... 107 Chapter 8. Stakeholder Group Overview ............................................................................... 109 8.1 Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation ....................................................... 110 8.2 The Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club ............................................................................ 110 8.3 Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association ................................................... 111 8.4 Department of Environment and Conservation ............................................................ 112 8.5 Rural Secretariat ........................................................................................................... 114 8.6 The Department of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation ................................................. 114 8.7 Provincial Department of Natural Resources ............................................................... 115 8.8 Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association..................................................... 115 8.9 Provincial Wildlife Policy and Governance Context ................................................... 116 8.9.1. Challenges ................................................................................................................. 118 x  Chapter 9. Dimensions of Integrated Resource Management in Newfoundland Caribou Management .............................................................................................................................. 120 9.1 Horizontal Integration .................................................................................................. 121 9.2 Horizontal Fragmentation ............................................................................................ 124 9.3 Vertical Integration ...................................................................................................... 130 9.3.1 Caribou Resource Committee ............................................................................... 130 9.4 Integrating Different Types and Sources of Information ............................................. 133 9.5 Bridging the Gap between Informative and Decisive Integration................................ 135 Chapter 10. Key Themes and Research Outcomes ................................................................ 146 10.1 Vertical Integration and Managing Wildlife in the Public Trust ................................. 146 10.2 Horizontal and Ecosystem-Based Approaches ............................................................ 149 10.3 The Importance of Decisive Integration....................................................................... 157 Chapter 11. A More Integrated Approach to Caribou Management in the Public Trust . 162 Chapter 12. Conclusions, Crisis, and Opportunity: Building Resilience in Wildlife Management .............................................................................................................................. 172 12.1 The Theoretical Basis and Strategy for Developing the Third Sector ......................... 177 References .................................................................................................................................. 182 Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 206   xi  List of Tables Table 1. Sampling of Benefits of Integrated Approaches ............................................................. 34 Table 2. Characteristics of Ecosystem Approaches ...................................................................... 50 Table 3. Common Barriers to Ecosystem-Based Management .................................................... 51 Table 4. Relevant TEK Research in Canadian Wildlife Management ......................................... 59 Table 5. Interview Questions ........................................................................................................ 83 Table 6. Peruvian Framework Applied to Newfoundland Caribou Management ........................ 88 Table 7. Wildlife Governance Principles .................................................................................... 166 Table 8. Subjective and Objective Benefits of Integrated Resource Management Approaches................................................................................................................................................... ..178    xii  List of Figures Figure 1. Male Woodland caribou in Newfoundland ................................................................... 22 Figure 2. Map of Newfoundland and Labrador ............................................................................ 91 Figure 3. Ecoregions of Newfoundland ........................................................................................ 92 Figure 4. Woodland Caribou in Wetland Barren Area ................................................................. 94 Figure 5. Newfoundland Forest Landscape .................................................................................. 94 Figure 6. Eastern Coyote in Newfoundland .................................................................................. 95 Figure 7. Expanding Range of the Eastern Coyote ....................................................................... 95 Figure 8. Canadian Distribution of Woodland Caribou ................................................................ 97 Figure 9. Estimated Abundance of Newfoundland Caribou ......................................................... 97 Figure 10. Newfoundland Caribou Herds ..................................................................................... 98 Figure 11. Newfoundland Caribou - Focused Information Placemat ......................................... 101 Figure 12. Newfoundland Coat of Arms ..................................................................................... 103 Figure 13. Royal Newfoundland Regiment (RNR) Badge ......................................................... 103 Figure 14. Caribou Calf Abundance ........................................................................................... 105 Figure 15. Distribution of Industrial and Fire Disturbance in Woodland Caribou Habitat ........ 107 Figure 16. Online Advertisement for Newfoundland-based Outfitting Company ..................... 112 Figure 17. Simplified Wildlife Management Model with No Opportunity for Formal Stakeholder Input…………………………………………………………………………………………….118 Figure 18. Survivorship Estimates for Caribou Calves from 1979-2005 ................................... 129 Figure 19. An Integrative Approach to Wildife Management in Newfoundland. ...................... 169 Figure 20. Concerns Regarding Departmental Budget Cuts in the Popular Media .................... 173 Figure 21. The Adaptive Cycle ................................................................................................... 175    xiii  List of Acronyms HDWM: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management  IRM: Integrated Resource Management  CRC: Caribou Resource Committee EBM: Ecosystem Based Management WAC: Wildlife Acceptance Capacity  TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge AIM: Adaptive Impact Management TK: Traditional Knowledge  LK: Local Knowledge  NGO: Non-Governmental Organization ILUC: Interdepartmental Land Use Committee CAQDA: Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis COSEWIC: Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada NLWF: Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation NLOA: Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association CWDC: Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee CPAWS: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society WGP: Wildlife Governance Principles    xiv  Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, Dr. Kevin Hanna for his enduring patience, support, and guidance throughout my program of study and preparation of the dissertation. I would also thank committee member Dr. Dan Decker for his invaluable contribution to my understanding of the field of human dimensions of wildlife management. Thanks also to committee members Dr. Karen Hodges and Dr. John Wagner for their encouragement and considered comments on my thesis drafts. It would be remiss of me not to also acknowledge and thank Dr. Derrek Armitage and Dr. Scott Slocombe for their contributions during the formative stages of my research during my time at Wilfrid Laurier University.  I am also grateful to the interviewees who participated in my study and the many other individuals who assisted by sharing or alerting me to relevant popular media articles or simply taking the time to talk through their experience and perspectives regarding the research context. Many of these individuals gave freely of their time even while experiencing the great professional and personal turmoil resulting from provincial government layoffs and budget cuts.   My colleagues at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University, where I was employed as a Lecturer in Geography and Environmental Studies throughout the data collection and dissertation writing stages of my doctoral program, are also deserving of recognition. In addition to offering their heartfelt encouragement, many also worked to ensure my teaching, research, and service commitments at Grenfell had minimal impact on my studies.  Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my parents, Ed and Janet Decker; my wife, Sherry; and my children, Emily and Gabriel, for their patience, understanding, support, and encouragement.  xv  Dedication In dedicating this thesis, I find myself first looking back, and then forward. Looking back, I realize that the path that has led me to this stage really began with the mentorship of Dr. Nick Novakowski. Nick was my most influential and inspiriting professor during my undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University. He encouraged me to go to graduate school (in truth, he was adamant that I do so!) and then, when I returned to the Grenfell Campus, as a Lecturer, Nick quickly became a close friend and invaluable colleague. Unfortunately, Nick passed away in 2015 and I’d like to dedicate this thesis to his memory. In looking forward, I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my children, Emily and Gabriel, whose boundless interest in and love of the natural environment provides hope for a more sustainable future.    xvi    17 Chapter 1. Introduction North American wildlife management has changed significantly since its game animal and consumptive user-focused beginnings in the latter half of the 1800s and has evolved into a management model informed by the Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management (HDWM) (Gigliotti, Shroufe & Gurtin, 2009). Many scholars suggest that evolution in the field is continuing with trends toward wildlife management practices that are more closely aligned with components of Integrated Resource Management (IRM) (Bhattacharyya & Slocombe, 2017; Gigliotti et al., 2009; Scalet, 2007).  Integrative efforts and components of IRM are means to facilitate subjectively and objectively better decisions through earnest consideration of a diversity of knowledge sources and problem definitions (Freddy, et al. 2004; Lawrence & Daniels, 1996), taking an ecosystem approach as opposed to viewing individual species or ecosystem components in isolation (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Bennett, 2017; Slocombe, 1998; Grumbine, 1994), and by legitimizing diverse forms of knowledge (Kendrick & Manseau, 2008; Moller, Berkes, Lyver & Kislaliogla, 2004; Kendrick, 2003). Others emphasize the importance of integrative management approaches in fostering a more diverse ownership of the decision-making process, its findings and resulting management strategies (Lachapelle & McCool, 2005; Lawrence & Daniels, 1996); building trust between adversarial groups (Ring, 2009; Kendrick, 2003; Rhoads, Wilson, Urban & Herricks, 1999); and identifying and adopting stakeholder-defined impacts as management foci (Enck et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2002). Slocombe and Hanna (2007) suggest that integrated approaches seek to reconcile the following dimensions:  disciplines; information; spatial/ecological units; governments; agencies; interests/sectors; and perceptions, attitudes and values as just some of the dimensions that integrated approaches seek to reconcile.   18 Chapter 2. Integrated Resource Management as a Theoretical Framework Integrated approaches (the applied strategies used to foster greater integration) and concepts of IRM (the guiding principles of the integrative management perspective) are essential for further advancement of wildlife management and to truly realize the benefits of the field’s current stage in its evolution that is informed by HDWM. Integrated Resource Management is therefore a fitting theoretical framework to guide this research.  With roots in the Conservation Movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007; Kline, 1997, Mitchell, 1986), IRM predates by more than 100 years the contemporary calls for integrated management efforts in wildlife management. Integrated resource management is, therefore, well ‘ahead of the curve’ in terms of addressing the many challenges inherent in efforts to integrate the various dimensions warranting consideration in contemporary resource management contexts.  Exploring linkages between IRM and HDWM can help reveal the role of IRM components in addressing both past and future challenges in HDWM. Indeed several wildlife management scholars have highlighted the need for integration and, consequently, integrative approaches in wildlife management (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Ring, 2009; Enck et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2003; Riley et al., 2002; Ewel, 2001). Moreover, papers in the HDWM literature show a growing interest in integrative approaches to wildlife management. Some HDWM scholars have identified an “emerging paradigm” in wildlife management that identifies the management of stakeholder-defined impacts as the “essence of wildlife management” (Riley et al., 2002). Impacts are defined by Riley and colleagues (2002, p. 587) as “a subset of effects from wildlife-related interactions or events sufficiently important to warrant management attention”. Others have noted that a focus on impacts acts as a catalyst for integrating the traditionally isolated  19 human and biological dimensions in wildlife management efforts (Decker et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2002; Ring, 2009). It seems that just as the multi-use and multi-value nature of forests and water basins initiated discussions of IRM more than a century ago (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007; Mitchell, 1986), wildlife-related impacts are catalyzing current efforts to adopt integrated approaches in the field of wildlife management.  Such evolution in the field of IRM begs the question of what has changed? And why do problems persist? Many things have changed, not the least of which is the ever-increasing knowledge of the complexity of natural systems, increasing attention to the importance of acknowledging coupled social-ecological systems in subjectively and objectively effective resource management, and the increasing frequency of earnest public involvement efforts (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). Concurrent with the shifts in the field is contemporary scholarly interest in reaffirming, and in some cases, reevaluating wildlife managers’ adherence to the Public Trust Doctrine (Artelle, et al., 2018; Decker et. al., 2014a; Forstchen & Smith, 2014; Jacobson & Haubold, 2014; Organ, Decker, Stevens, Lama & Doyle-Capitman, 2014; Pomeranz, et al., 2014; Smith, 2011), which helps form the basis of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation – the model best fitting in the management context in question. “The Public Trust Doctrine holds that wildlife are property owned by no one and are held in trust by government for the benefit of present and future generations of citizens” (Organ & Batcheller, 2009, p. 161). As such, the doctrine holds that the public places trust in government officials to act as stewards on its behalf, to manage the resource for the benefit of all, with fairness of access and the long-term sustainability of the species at the fore of policy and decision making.  20 The basis of the Public Trust Doctrine extends back to Roman Law (AD529) which established that natural resources should be treated as public property, this tenet, along with many other aspects of Roman civil law, found its way into the Magna Carta (AD1215), and eventually, after the identification of the king as trustee of such resources, into English civil law. In applying English law to its American colonies, the principle stating that the king should act as the trustee of wildlife was brought to the New World. After American independence, trusteeship of wildlife was conferred to the states (Sax, 1999; Organ & Batcheller, 2009). Similarly, in Canada, the Crown, as part of its responsibility for huge tracks of land yet-unclaimed for settlement, was charged with safeguarding wildlife populations (Organ & Batcheller, 2009), a responsibility then passed on to appropriate federal, provincial, and territorial government departments and agencies. As wildlife belongs to all Canadians and is thus to be held in public trust, the federal-level Canadian Wildlife Service has wildlife and associated land management responsibilities for migratory species, while the provinces, and in some cases territories, develop management guidelines and harvest levels for wildlife populations in their jurisdictions (Heffelfinger, 2013).    For most of the 150 years of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the Public Trust Doctrine on which it is based (Organ, et al., 2014), the “Public,” or beneficiaries upon whose behalf wildlife were to be managed by government trustees, almost exclusively included consumptive users (Organ & Batcheller, 2009). Then, as the third, human dimensions-focused phase of wildlife management emerged in the 1970s, the near-exclusive game species and hunting interest-focus began to be questioned by increasingly diverse stakeholders. Managers soon found that the top-down, game animal-focused strategies used during the second phase were no longer considered acceptable by the public. Previously overlooked stakeholders  21 began to criticize managers’ failure to address the conservation of non-game species (Van Dyke, 2008) and an inability of emerging, non-consumptive stakeholders to earnestly engage in the policy making and decision-making process. Given the field’s past, and in some cases enduring, focus on consumptive users, this much greater diversity of stakeholders has challenged wildlife managers in their efforts to maintain their role as trustees of wildlife resources while also facilitating effective stakeholder involvement efforts. This challenge is very apparent in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland where a diversity of values placed on caribou is juxtaposed with an equally diverse and expanding suite of population and habitat pressures.  Since managing wildlife on behalf of citizens will include the practical need to think about a single resource such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus) within a holistic context—one which recognizes the interrelationships between social dimensions, economic uses of land and resources, and ecological realities—the links to integrated resource management are evident conceptually, if not always in practice.  It is this most recent/emerging shift toward more integrative approaches that is the focus of this thesis. Based on an in-depth examination of recent caribou management efforts in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, this thesis contributes to the literature on evolution in the field of wildlife management toward more integrative approaches (Figure 1). I will also present information regarding the perhaps-unrealized     22  Figure 1. Male Woodland caribou in Newfoundland (© 2012 Safari Club International, by permission)  onus on trust managers, those wildlife management agencies charged with managing wildlife in the public trust, to more effectively adhere to the Public Trust Doctrine. It will be argued that to help achieve the tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine, management agencies should actively foster the development of civil society interest groups and the associated management structure that will allow stakeholder groups to make earnest contributions to wildlife management and decision making.    2.1 Research Rationale If the field of wildlife management is indeed transitioning into a new phase more closely aligned with IRM approaches, why are there enduring disagreements between managers and other stakeholders in some wildlife management contexts (Heberlein,  2004; Weeks & Packard, 1997), examples of a lack of collaboration and coordination between management agencies in other contexts (Dale & Newman, 2007) and a continued emphasis on command and control management approaches in still other contexts (Holling & Meffe, 1996)? Despite the widespread acceptance of IRM and the stated importance of integrated management approaches to tackling problems in complex social-ecological systems, the  23 integration and application of IRM continues to present formidable challenges for many areas of resource and environmental management (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007; Lawrence & Deagen, 2001; McCool & Guthrie, 2001). Throughout its long history, and perhaps even more so in recent decades, wildlife management has faced a series of substantial and evolving integration challenges. Efforts to address these challenges are reflected in the field’s stages of evolution, new definitions of wildlife management, and even new definitions of success in wildlife management.  With a considerable amount of scholarly discourse in wildlife management already devoted to the development or adoption of integrated approaches (Ring, 2009; Wilson & Clark, 2007; Riley et al., 2003; Riley et al., 2002), there is a need to explore the nature of  enduring conflicts surrounding efforts to facilitate integration among relevant government departments, between stakeholders and decision makers, the place of integrated approaches in wildlife management, and the implications for wildlife management theory and practice, especially as it relates to reaffirming adherence to the Public Trust Doctrine.  While the literature suggests a trend toward more integrated approaches in wildlife management, questions remain regarding how and to what extent such trends are manifest ‘on the ground’ and even whether shifts toward integration are feasible or desirable in all contexts. To explore these questions, research is needed to reveal stakeholder perspectives regarding the objectives of wildlife management in a particular context and identify challenges and opportunities for adopting more integrative approaches. Research is also needed to examine wildlife management plans and actions that explore opportunities for more integrative management approaches such as collaboration between relevant government agencies and departments or adopting more ecosystem-based management approaches.     24 In this thesis I address the case of the management of caribou populations in Insular Newfoundland (hereafter referred to as simply Newfoundland). This wildlife management context was adopted as the empirical basis of this thesis. In recent years, caribou populations in Newfoundland have declined by approximately 60%: from 90,000 animals in 1996 to 37,000 animals in 2008, with the population just recently beginning to stabilize (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2008; 2015). In response to these declines, the Wildlife Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation initiated the Enhanced Caribou Management Strategy in 2006 (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009). In addition to the significant natural science-focused research and management efforts associated with this strategy, the Minister of the Department of Environment and Conservation also committed to "working with key stakeholders to ensure sound management of our caribou herds, and [considering] their insights…as we work toward the long-term goal of sustaining these herds for future generations” (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2008, para. 78). In working toward this commitment, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador established the Caribou Resource Committee (CRC) in 2008. Serving as a quasi-terms of reference, a press release from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2009, para. 1) stated that the CRC was to “act as a two-way conduit taking information from the committee to the respective stakeholder groups, while also providing a means for these groups to be directly engaged in the work of the [five-year caribou-management] strategy”. This committee included representatives of the  Aboriginal Women’s Network; the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation; the Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club; the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association; the Department of Environment and Conservation (including the branches of Environment, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, and Natural Heritage); the Rural  25 Secretariat; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association; and the Department of Natural Resources (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009).  The establishment, composition, and perceived merits of this Committee, as well as the Province’s overall management response to the caribou decline, presents an exceptional opportunity to ‘ground truth’ the purported trends toward more integrative wildlife management approaches identified in the literature. The relevance of this case study is underscored by the fact that, prior to the CRC, few if any established mechanisms were in place for information exchange between managers and stakeholder groups in the context of Newfoundland wildlife management. Furthermore, though the CRC was established for a specific time period and purpose, it may represent a model for more integrated, locally-relevant, and responsible wildlife management and decision making in the future. The importance of such a model, which shares knowledge and decision-making authority with relevant stakeholders, is perhaps even more relevant given recent, significant budget and staffing cuts within the provincial wildlife management division (in fact the body referred to as the ‘Wildlife Division’ in this research was restructured during the spring 2017 round of budget cuts and layoffs) (Roberts, 2017). While the consequent impacts of these cuts will undoubtedly reduce wildlife managers’ ability to obtain meaningful data upon which to base decisions, it is conceivable that the reduced provincial wildlife research and management capacity will be the impetus for moving toward a more integrative research and management model that effectively engages stakeholders in the management of the province’s wildlife resources.  Concurrent with the need to reaffirm the role of wildlife managers as trust managers (per the Public Trust Doctrine) of the wildlife resource in the context of caribou management in  26 Newfoundland is the discourse surrounding current caribou management efforts and associated research foci in the province. Much of this discourse suggests a significant disconnect between the management efforts pursued by managers and what some stakeholders have identified as fundamental objectives. Fundamental objectives are defined by Riley et al. (2002) as the reasons why management is needed and what it should accomplish in terms of stakeholder-defined impacts. This fragmentation exists in Newfoundland despite efforts by managers to solicit and incorporate the views of at least some of the stakeholder groups associated with caribou management (through the CRC).  Popular media interviews with some stakeholder groups (particularly the outfitting industry) also indicate a perceived lack of integration of information from less conventional knowledge sources. For instance, the significant declines in insular caribou populations have translated into lower hunting success rates and consequent losses in revenues for many outfitters (Hutchings, 2007; McGrath, 2005). Consequently, some outfitters, especially those who rely primarily on caribou hunting in Newfoundland, strongly supported a cull of caribou predators including black bears (Ursus americanus), lynx (Lynx canadensis), and especially coyotes (Canis latrans) (Kean, 2008; Newell, 2008). Exemplifying a perception by some outfitters that the Wildlife Division of the Provincial Department of Environment and Conservation was not adequately addressing declining caribou numbers, one outfitter stated that “[w]e have to do something about it now - not next year, but now…[t]he minister is having a prod at something that needs a bomb dropped on it" (Newell, 2008, para 5).    27 2.2 Brief Objectives Statement and Research Questions Given the purported trend toward more integrative approaches in wildlife management, such disagreements give rise to a series of key research questions, which are relevant both to Newfoundland caribou management and other wildlife management contexts across North America, indeed wherever management agencies seek to maintain their commitment to the Public Trust Doctrine. In this thesis, I address six questions that employ the dimensions of IRM as an analytical framework and that help elucidate challenges and options for advancing IRM-based approaches to wildlife management:  1. Has the trend toward integrative approaches, as identified in the literature, been translated into the planning and implementation of caribou management efforts in Newfoundland? 2. Are agencies, other than those branches tasked specifically with wildlife management, involved in the planning and implementation of wildlife management efforts in the province?   3. How are disciplines other than those focused on wildlife biology (notably the social sciences) engaged in the development and implementation of caribou management? 4. What are the challenges and opportunities associated with engaging a greater diversity of disciplines to manage caribou in a more integrative manner? 5. Are concepts of ecosystem-based management incorporated into wildlife management planning and implementation in the province? 6. Are stakeholders` views integrated into decisions about caribou management? While the overarching field of IRM has been enriched by its long use in forest and water resource management and, in more contemporary applications, is supported by the components of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM), adaptive management and informed by the concept of  28 coupled social-ecological systems, the adoption of integrated approaches in the field of HDWM is a relatively recent evolution.  Examining linkages between integrated resource management and modern wildlife management can provide important empirical and theoretical knowledge about the state of wildlife management more generally. Taken together, the research questions listed above can be viewed as elements of the much larger question of what should be the theoretical basis of   Wildlife Management? As wildlife management has evolved, new phases, new definitions of success, and even new definitions of wildlife management have been emphasized and adopted (Decker et al., 2009; Gigliotti et al., 2009; Scalet, 2007; Riley et al., 2002). While early views on wildlife management in the late 1800s and early 1900s emphasized restrictive game regulations (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Loo, 2006) and habitat or population-related interventions to help sustain or increase game populations for consumptive users (Leopold, 1933), modern interpretations identify the management of wildlife impacts as the “essence of wildlife management” (Decker, et al., 2009; Riley et al., 2002). This evolution in definitions of success and identification of relevant stakeholders coincides with two recent, complementary discussions in the wildlife management literature regarding trends toward more integrative approaches and calls for reaffirming managers’ adherence to the Public Trust Doctrine.  In this thesis, examining managers’ and other stakeholders’ perspectives on the objectives of wildlife management has provided empirical evidence of the extent to which the shift toward integration, as identified in the literature, is manifest in the context of Newfoundland caribou management. Examining a particular wildlife management issue can also identify similarities and differences about objectives held by stakeholder groups and managers. It may be the case that the difference between managers and other stakeholders is not quite as schismatic as it may seem.  29 Before delving into the specifics of the Newfoundland caribou management case study and the contribution of the study findings to answering the research questions listed above, a discussion of the theories, concepts and evolution of wildlife management toward more integrated approaches is warranted.    2.3 Organization of the Dissertation In the next chapter, I focus on the field of IRM and its evolution. In Chapter four, I explore the connection between IRM and the field of Wildlife Management with a discussion on the phases of wildlife management that have been observed during the field’s evolution toward more integrated approaches. Chapter four also highlights several ‘bridging concepts’ that tie the current human dimensions-focused phase of wildlife management and the overarching field of IRM.  Chapter five describes the research method and data collection and analysis employed in the empirical component of the research. Chapters six and seven provide information on the research context including Newfoundland’s wildlife management system, caribou population status, drivers of change, and other aspects of the ‘presenting situation’. Chapter eight provides information on each of the stakeholder groups represented on the Caribou Resource Committee. Chapter nine presents study results regarding the manifestation of the dimensions of IRM in the case study context. Chapter 10 provides a discussion of these results and makes connections with supporting theories and literature. Chapter 11 offers conclusions regarding key themes and research outcomes. Finally, chapter 12 outlines the opportunities for greater stakeholder group development and engagement afforded by recent crises in provincial wildlife management.   30 2.3.1 A Note on the use of the term “Paradigm Shifts” As some readers may feel that there are scholars whose use of ‘paradigm shifts’, when referring to changes in the field of wildlife management, is inaccurate, a brief section is included in this thesis to address the use of the term “paradigm”. As presented by Kuhn (1962), a scientific paradigm represents a theoretical orientation that is supported by a particular set of research approaches and provides a lens through which to evaluate research results. As the fundamental theoretical orientation of a field changes, a new paradigm is introduced and the research questions asked and the phenomena observed change substantively. Undoubtedly, the recent shift away from wildlife management’s dogged adherence to a focus on game animals and consumptive users, and other significant transitions that the field has undergone in the last several decades, are very much paradigm shift-like. Indeed, some scholars have identified three eras in the evolution of the field (further explained below) from a focus on Restrictive Game Regulations (late 1800s – early 1900s) during the first era, to Leopold’s (1933) Environmental Interventions (1930s – 1960s) of the second, to the more contemporary (1970s – current) Human Dimensions-focused phase. While sometimes presented as paradigm shifts (Gigliotti, et al., 2009; Rilely, et al., 2002), these phases, and the potential emerging era focused on IRM approaches, fall short of the truly revolutionary changes discussed by Kuhn (1962).     A paradigm shift, as defined by Kuhn (1962) is substantially more revolutionary than the more gradual progression or evolution witnessed in the field of wildlife management. As stated by Kuhn (1962, p. 103), "the normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but actually incommensurable with that which has gone before”. Such a complete replacement of old paradigms by new paradigms does not coincide with the more gradual evolution of the field as recorded by wildlife management scholars. The use of the term  31 paradigm shift will therefore be used infrequently in this dissertation and only in those instances where scholars’ use of the term is reflected in the content of the thesis.     32 Chapter 3. Integrated Resource Management The realization that ecosystems are complex is not new (see Elton, 1930; Connell & Sousa, 1983). This realization, however, has generated substantial interest in how we respond to and manage ecosystems (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Gunderson & Holling, 2002) as complexity and uncertainty have significant implications for the choice of resource management approach (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Lachepelle, McCool & Patterson, 2003; Bellamy, McDonald, Syme & Butterworth, 1999). System complexity and an increase in the number of wicked problems have been accompanied by calls from increasingly diverse stakeholders for greater decision-making transparency and influence (Lachapelle et al., 2003).  This combination has necessitated significant shifts and evolution in fields of research related to environmental planning and management (Friedmann 1973; Gigliotti, et al., 2009; Margerum, 1997; Riley et al., 2002; Slocombe & Hanna, 2007).  Acknowledging the need to change from a command and control, equilibrium-seeking management approach (Holling & Meffe, 1996), Moller, Berkes, Lyver and Kislalioglu (2004, p. 11), state that “[t]here is a growing recognition that conventional scientific approaches may be insufficient in the face of complexity.” Similarly, Ludwig (2001, p. 763) states, “we need to change our approach to complicated environmental problems. There are no experts on these problems, nor can there be.” Ludwig (2001) seems to support the abovementioned evolution in wildlife management and suggests that these complex social-ecological systems, of which human resource use and ecosystem impact are part, are best addressed using participatory decision-making processes in which scientists and local people work together. The benefits of such integrated management approaches to resource management decision making have long been acknowledged in the natural resource and environmental management literature (Table 1).   33 3.1. Components of Integrated Resource Management IRM has achieved widespread acceptance as a guiding principle in fields related to resource and environmental management (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). Similar to the use of backcasting (which involves identifying a desired future state and then developing means to achieve said state) in the development of policies directed toward sustainable development (Dreborg, 1996), several concepts have been identified as a means of contributing to IRM as a desired future. As suggested by Robinson (1990), however, backcasting is explicitly normative which may account for somewhat different areas of emphasis in the components identified as contributing to IRM.  In addition to the components of EBM and Adaptive Management (Berkes, 2008; Slocombe, 2004; Lee, 1999; Slocombe, 1998; Holling, 1986), a third, long-standing concept that informs all other components of IRM is coupled social-ecological systems. As stated by Berkes, Colding and Folke (2003; and Berkes & Folke, 1998), social systems such as resource governance systems, knowledge concerning human-environment interactions, and environmental worldviews are inextricably linked with ecosystems and thus influence the organisms in an ecosystem and their interaction with their environment. Berkes et al. (2003) suggest that the extent of social-ecological linkages is such that one cannot be separated from the other. Quinn (2012, p. xxiv) applies similar thinking to protected area governance and states “Effective governance affects not only ecosystems and biodiversity, but also human health and well-being”.     34 Table 1.  Sampling of Benefits of Integrated Approaches Benefit Reference(s) Fostering a more diverse ownership of the process, its findings and resulting management strategies Lachapelle & McCool, 2005; Lawrence & Daniels, 1996 Legitimizing diverse forms of knowledge Moller et al, 2004 Emphasizing ends to management as opposed to means (i.e. identifying stakeholder-defined management foci) Riley et al, 2002 Making subjectively and objectively better decisions through earnest consideration of a diversity of knowledge sources and problem definitions Lawrence & Daniels, 1996 Shifting from single objective-yield focus to one that informs the sustainable provision of various goods and services  Messier, et. al., 2015 Managing for whole ecosystems as opposed to individual species  Berkes & Folke, 1998 Fostering trust between traditionally adversarial groups Ring, 2009; Kendrick, 2003; Rhoads, Wilson, Urban & Herricks, 1999  3.2 Shifts Toward Integration While often spurred by the increasing frequency and magnitude of wicked problems, shifts toward more integrated approaches are hardly new (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007; Mitchell, 1986; McHarg, 1969). Mitchell (1986), for example, dates ideas of comprehensive natural resource management back to 1878 when John Wesley Powell called for extensive and comprehensive reclamation plans for arid areas of the Western United States (Powell’s plans highlighted the interrelatedness of various aspects of the natural environment and management sectors). Integration has a long history in resource management with many manifestations, refinements and new semantic labels.    35 “Integration has long been a strong theme in natural resources, particularly in forest and water resource management. Since the late nineteenth century, a collection of paradigms has evolved from the early ideas of conservation and wise use…which included integrated resource management, multiple use, ecosystem approaches, adaptive management, and various decision making tools such as environmental assessment or policy analysis.” Slocombe and Hanna (2007, p. 2) The early adoption of integrated approaches in natural resource management can be attributed to the complex, multi-use and multi-valued resource management sectors that managers were then, as now, asked to manage. River systems and forest areas are host to a wide variety of often-competing values and management priorities. It is not surprising that efforts to integrate multiple uses and values began in these areas as early as the late 19th and early 20th century (Mitchell, 1986; Mitchell & Shrubsole, 2007; Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). For instance, integration in the area of watershed management was well established in the 1930s and 1940s in parts of Canada and the United States while the actual term Integrated Resource Management was popularized in the 1960s following curriculum development projects supported by the Society of American Foresters (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). Similarly, resource or conservation efforts at the transboundary interface also foster such integrative thinking.  Quinn (2012) compares such contexts to the ecological concept of ecotones where natural and social systems overlap. While maintaining the interdisciplinary/multi-resource sector-focus of early IRM approaches, contemporary definitions of IRM emphasize components and linkages most vital to generating an adequate understanding of, and effective response to, complex resource and environmental management issues (Mitchell, 2002). Slocombe and Hanna (2007) suggest that  36 today, IRM is focused on two key dimensions: the natural environment (specifically natural systems thinking) and forms of consultations, participation and collaboration. Thus current versions of IRM, in addition to acknowledging the role of effective resource management in contributing to both healthy economies and ecosystems, also involve the integration of community and expert participation as well as institutional and policy considerations (Bellamy, et al., 1999).  Generally, shifts toward integrative resource management are seen as a response to increasingly contentious and complex problems (Bellamy & Johnson, 2000). As suggested by Slocombe and Hanna (2007) such integration challenges are the result of a fragmentation - the opposite of integration – of interests, social and ecological systems, jurisdictions, management responsibility, and the like. Rittel and Webber (1973) refer to these as “wicked” problems while Miller (1993, p. 563) defines them as “complex, messy problems about which little is known.” Still others define wicked problems as those with “great uncertainty about cause–effect relationships and where values and goals are conflicting or competing” (Lachapelle & McCool, 2005, p. 279). Kroll (2007, p. 228) identifies “habitat loss due to human population growth, the spread of exotic species, and the forest health crisis” as common examples of wicked problems. Similarly, Ludwig (2001, p. 758) lists “the conservation of world forest resources, the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and global climate change” as other prominent examples.   The IRM components of EBM and Adaptive Management are both means of addressing complex resource and environmental management issues. EBM emphasizes the ecosystem concepts of scale, complexity, interrelatedness, and human influence (Grumbine, 1994; Slocombe, 2004; 1998). Like EBM, adaptive management also highlights the importance of  37 ecologically appropriate management scales, but also emphasizes the importance of employing management strategies as policy experiments to foster learning and increase effectiveness (Berkes, 2008; Holling, 1986; Lee, 1999). Relatedly, adaptive management also builds the capacity of institutions to adapt to change (Berkes, 2008; Holling, 1986; Lee, 1999).  This evolution toward the contemporary foci of IRM is particularly evident in the field of wildlife management. As discussed in greater detail below, scholars who have chronicled the evolution of the field of wildlife management identify three eras with some identifying the emergence of a fourth (Brown & Wurman, 2009;  Gigliotti et al., 2009; Loo, 2006; Manfredo, 2008; Scalet, 2007), each with its own notion of wildlife management and each describing a trend toward more integrative management approaches. It is important to understand the evolution of the field through these earlier shifts as it helps shed light on current wildlife management challenges and approaches.  For instance, despite some scholars and practitioners adopting a modern definition of a stakeholder as “any person who will be affected by, or will affect wildlife management” (Decker, Brown & Knuth, 1996; Riley et al., 2002;), the field’s early (during the first two phases of wildlife management: late 1800s – mid 1960s) focus on consumptive users continues to challenge managers’ abilities (real and perceived) to address the concerns of more diverse and skeptical stakeholders in some contemporary contexts (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Van Dyke, 2008). Moreover, this close association with consumptive users is also leading to unprecedented challenges in the financial aspects of wildlife management. As the number of hunters decline throughout North America, traditional funding for state wildlife management, which in the Unites States is generated in part from hunting license sales and taxes on firearms, is also disappearing (Jacobson, Decker & Carpenter, 2007). Admittedly, these lingering challenges are  38 exacerbated by the less-than-universal adoption of such broad definitions of stakeholder and, relatedly, the halting transition into a more pluralistic and integrative phase of wildlife management.    39 Chapter 4. Evolution of Wildlife Management Early views on the merits of human dimensions research in the area of natural resource management were focused on economic-based research (e.g., economic ornithology – Whelan, Şekercioğlu, & Wenny, 2015) leading to a preoccupation (both real and perceived) with this rather limited area of social science research (Ewert, 1996). More recent views concerning HDWM research often extend beyond economic considerations. For many, the research foci that come to mind when one refers to the ‘human dimensions of wildlife management’ are components of what Manfredo, Decker and Duda (1998) broadly refer to as ‘social information.’ Depending on the motivations of the researcher, components of these social dimensions have been identified more specifically as hunter motivations and satisfaction (Decker & Connelly, 1989); attitudes, beliefs, and levels of support or opposition regarding wildlife management strategies (Decker & Bath, 2010; Decker, Bath, Simms, Lindner & Reisinger, 2010); demographic characteristics and trends (Bath, 1996; Mangun, 1992); cultural-social carrying capacity (Decker & Purdy, 1988; Green, Askins & West, 1997), willingness to pay for wildlife conservation efforts (Bath, 1998); traditional ecological knowledge; and natural science-based wildlife knowledge (Moller et al., 2004).  These dimensions, however, represent only a small part of what comes under the field’s purview as HDWM is concerned not only with which dimensions are studied but also how this research is conducted (Loker, Decker & Chase, 1998; Manfredo et al., 1998) as well as the tools and techniques for applying human dimensions information in decision making contexts (Chase, Decker & Lauber, 2004; Loker, Decker & Schwager, 1999; Jacobson & Decker, 2008;). HDWM researchers have also recently operationalized human dimensions information by sometimes borrowing from other fields (often the overarching field of IRM) or proposing novel frameworks  40 and approaches for integrating social information into what are traditionally wildlife management contexts that are informed predominantly by natural science information (Decker et al., 2006; Enck et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2003; Riley et al., 2002; Ring, 2009). Such human dimensions considerations, however, were not always an accepted part of wildlife management. The current HD-informed stage of wildlife management is preceded by two earlier phases that, by comparison, gave little consideration to the broader social dimensions of wildlife management and focused instead on game animal management (Gigliotti et al., 2009). Exemplifying this early concentration on game animals is the establishment of the New York Sportsman Club in 1844. Considered one of the earliest organized wildlife conservation efforts in North America, the New York Sportsman Club began just ahead of the Conservation Movement and wildlife management’s first phase (Brown & Wurman, 2009). The Club employed the legal expertise of many of its members to aggressively target wildlife law breakers and to develop and lobby for stronger game laws (2009). With few other game conservation efforts being employed at the time, the Sportsman Club’s approach proved successful and was soon adopted in neighboring areas and even into Canada.  Loo (2006) describes the emergence of several influential sportsmen’s clubs in Canada during the mid-1800s which, like the New York Club, both influenced local game laws and spurred the development of larger scale legislation.   4.1 The First Phase of Wildlife Management The predominatly prescriptive approaches such as those initiated by the New York Sportsman Club set the stage for the first phase of wildlife management in the late 1800s as this region saw the introduction of game wardens to enforce increasingly restrictive game regulations (Gigliotti et al., 2009). These approaches were essentially ‘supply side’ efforts aimed at  41 maintaining or increasing game populations by restricting the number of ‘withdrawals’ by hunting and poaching (Loo, 2006). Though this first phase sought to build upon the momentum of the Sportsman Club’s approach, game populations continued to decrease and as Aldo Leopold stated at the time “[t]he set of ideas which served to string out the remnants of the virgin game supply, and to which many conservationists feel an intense personal loyalty, seems to have reached the limit of its effectiveness. Something new must be done” (1933, p. 411).   4.2. The Second Phase of Wildlife Management Aldo Leopold, widely considered the father of North American game management (Noss, 1998), was trained as a forester under the mentorship of the first professional forester who was born in America, Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot ushered in a new era of resource management through the establishment and intensive management of forest reserves (Pinchot, 1947; Thomas, 1998). By seeming to apply some of the principles of his foresters’ training (such as pest management and efforts to foster regeneration) to wildlife management, Leopold developed a new approach to wildlife management that helped establish a new era in the field (Manfredo, 2008).  The beginning of this second phase in the 1930s coincided with the release of Leopold’s seminal book Game Management (1933) in which he outlined management approaches that, in addition to the strict regulations of the first phase, also included efforts to manipulate the natural environment to conserve game animals. Leopold identified the following strategies for wildlife conservation under this new phase of wildlife management: predator control, reservation game lands, artificial replenishment (e.g., restocking and reintroductions) and environmental controls (e.g., control of food, shelter and disease). The introduction of these strategies emphasized the importance of formal management agencies and trained managers and wardens who were able to administer these new approaches.   42 Wildlife managers operating under the second phase of wildlife management were assisted by government, which lent credibility to their efforts, and by influential stakeholders interested mainly in the conservation of game populations for consumptive use (i.e., hunting and fishing) (Gigliotti et al., 2009). However, just as Leopold’s later works (Leopold, 1949) displayed an evolution in thinking toward a more ecological approach to nature conservation including the consideration of a Land Ethic and intrinsic values of wildlife, the field of wildlife management also continued to evolve toward its next phase. By the 1960s, with the emergence of environmentalism, both the credibility of government and the diversity of perspectives regarding wildlife management had changed considerably.   4.3 The Third Phase of Wildlife Management Like the modern Environmental Movement, the third and current phase of wildlife management began in the 1960s (Gigliotti et al., 2009). During this time, approaches to game management based solely on natural science began to be questioned by diverse and skeptical stakeholders. Managers soon found that the public no longer considered the top-down strategies focused on game animals acceptable. New stakeholders began to criticize managers’ failure to address the conservation of non-game species (Van Dyke, 2008) and the views of both consumptive and non-consumptive users of wildlife. The credibility and effectiveness of government agencies also began to be questioned at this time (Alford, 2001) as citizens reacted to several high profile environmental crises, such as the shipwreck and resulting oil spill of the Torrey Canyon (Vaughan, 2017) and fire along the lower reaches of the then-heavily polluted Cuyahoga River (Rotman, 2017), leading to public demand for more participatory forms of decision making.  43 To meet these new challenges and address the HDWM, managers had to once again expand their areas of expertise. The importance of addressing the social dimensions of wildlife management was highlighted by some authors in the middle of the 20th century (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Manfredo, 2008). It was, however, not until the 1970s (Hendee & Potter, 1971) that the importance of human dimensions research began to gain traction among practitioners working the area of natural resource management.    The current, or third phase of wildlife management, which focuses on human dimensions, “deals with assessment and application of social information in fish and wildlife decision making” (Manfredo et al., 1998, p. 280). Manfredo, Vaske & Sikorowski (1996, p. 54) provide a more functional definition of HDWM and describe it as “an area of investigation which attempts to describe, predict, understand, and affect human thought and action.” The transition into this current phase, however, has not been without problems. Perhaps stemming from management agencies’ long history of catering to the needs of consumptive users (Manfredo et al., 1998), initial efforts sometimes failed to address the true diversity of values placed on wildlife.  Not surprisingly such approaches did not adequately address the public’s desire for earnest consideration of the views of non-consumptive users and more participatory forms of decision making. As the current phase became established, large amounts of human dimensions information was amassed that focused on describing the perceptions, attitudes, values and motivations of wildlife management stakeholders but in some cases little of this information was incorporated into management activities (Gigliotti et al., 2009).  4.4 The Third Phase and Beyond  When we consider the increasing importance of human dimensions aspects throughout wildlife management, it becomes apparent that the field of HDWM encompasses much more  44 than conducting surveys of attitudes (Manfredo et al., 1998). As stated by Brown (2009, p.9) “[f]rom what was an elite system of decision-making about the management and use of natural resources...a far more pluralistic and democratic system has been forged”. Some have suggested, however, that the largely biophysical-oriented training of many resource and wildlife managers (Manfredo et al., 1998) may challenge efforts to reconcile stakeholder and manager perspectives and adopt approaches that integrate information on human dimensions (Jacobsen & McDuff, 1998). Indeed, while local resource managers are often responsible for fostering integrative management approaches (Mitchell, 2002) these managers sometimes lack experience in the social sciences (Jacobsen & McDuff, 1998) and may thus be ill-prepared to address the social aspects of a particular management issue. While some research has shown that there remains reluctance among managers to share decision-making authority with other stakeholders (especially in contexts that are predominantly technical (Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004)), human dimensions concepts and approaches are increasingly seen as an integral part of modern wildlife management as HDWM becomes part of the ‘way of doing business’ in wildlife management (Manfredo et al., 1998; Riley et al., 2002). Generally, wildlife managers accept that “sustaining fish and wildlife will depend on people, which means that managers must understand these people and their relationships to fish and wildlife” (Brown, 2009, p.7).  HDWM is thus perhaps best viewed as a philosophical orientation where both human and natural science dimensions are considered throughout the wildlife management process. Indeed, several authors have proposed new definitions of wildlife management to reflect the significance of social science considerations. Decker et al. (2009, p. 324) state that “[w]ildlife management is more than conflict resolution, renewable harvest of wildlife, and preservation or restoration of wildlife…[it]…is about understanding and managing the impacts of direct and indirect human- 45 wildlife interactions.” Riley and colleagues, in their work outlining the concept of adaptive impact management, also highlight the importance of stakeholder-defined impacts in identifying management foci and put forward the following definition of wildlife management to coincide with what they refer to as yet another “emerging paradigm” in the field: “[w]ildlife management is the guidance of decision-making processes and implementation of practices to purposefully influence interactions among and between people, wildlife, and habitats to achieve impacts valued by stakeholders” (2002, p. 586).  Though seeming ambitious, Riley et al.’s (2002) suggestion that wildlife impact management is “the essence of wildlife management” is not unprecedented. Decker and Purdy in their work on applying the concept of carrying capacity to public acceptance of wildlife note that “any significant discrepancy between the management objective and WAC [wildlife acceptance capacity] for a key constituency represents a potential management problem” (1988, p. 55). The importance of stakeholder-defined impacts (defined by Riley et al. (2002, p. 587)) as “significant beneficial and detrimental effects resulting from events or interactions involving humans and wildlife (including wildlife habitats), wildlife management interventions, and various stakeholders.”) in establishing and prioritizing management objectives was also highlighted earlier by Shaw (1985) and similarly, Anderson’s 1985 definition of wildlife management identified “human benefit” (p. 3) as the goal of management.  Why then, with these earlier examples pointing to the importance of stakeholder-defined impacts in setting management priorities, do Riley et al. (2002) identify their focus on impact management as an “emerging paradigm” within the current human dimensions-focused phase of wildlife management? The answer lies in Decker et al’s. (1992) review of some then-recent works that noted an important lack of effort among some researchers and practitioners to  46 integrate human and biological dimensions into the wildlife management contexts in question. In practicing such fragmented wildlife management, researchers and managers acknowledged the importance of human dimensions research (and continued to amass human dimensions data) but failed to incorporate such data into management (Decker et al., 1992). In essence, such integration challenges refer to what Hanna (2013, pers comm) characterizes as “data with no place to go or few mechanisms for use in decision making or implementation.” Riley et al. (2002) identify and encourage a shift from such fragmented approaches to more integrative and participatory forms of wildlife management.   4.5 Exploring Trends Toward Integration   While efforts to address the integration gap identified by Decker et al. (1992) represent an important step forward for the field of wildlife management (Riley et al., 2002), lingering integration challenges remain in HDWM. Since its inception, the field of HDWM has faced a series of significant integration challenges requiring HDWM scholars to borrow from the field of IRM. Of particular interest in the area of linkages between HDWM and the approaches associated with IRM are the concepts of coupled social-ecological systems, EBM, and adaptive management. These areas hold promise as bridging concepts between IRM and HDWM as they shed light on challenges and opportunities for adopting more integrated approaches in wildlife management.   4.5.1 Coupled Social-Ecological Systems  Acknowledging linkages between social and ecological systems means adopting a systems approach (Berkes & Folke, 1998). Unlike earlier definitions that saw humans as external  47 to ecosystems, a systems-based definition of ecosystem explicitly identifies humans as part of the ecosystem and acknowledges positive and negative feedbacks between the natural environment and social systems (Berkes & Folke, 1998). These social systems include “property rights, land and resource tenure systems, systems of knowledge pertinent to environment and resources, and world views and ethics concerning environment and resources” (1998, p. 4). Berkes and Folke (1998) proposed the term ‘social-ecological systems’, which abbreviates neither ‘social’ nor ‘ecological’ to emphasize both the importance of each component and the interrelatedness between them.  Also central to discussions of systems approaches are the terms complexity, uncertainty and change. Ecosystems are not static but constantly change (Holling, 1973). Because of the complex interrelationship between ecosystem components, however, predicting such changes is also complex. This propensity to change does not mean that ecosystems are unstable; rather stability in ecosystems comes from the ability of the ecosystem to respond appropriately to change (i.e. withstand perturbations without crossing a threshold to a fundamentally different structure) and sometimes shift to another steady or equilibrium state while still maintaining the integrity of the overall system (Holling, 1973). Scholars of adaptive management  refer to this as resilience and define it as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004, p. 4). Brown and Williams (2015, p. 4) put forward that “[r]esearch on resilience of social-ecological systems often involves the capacity for system functions to persist and adapt in response to a disturbance”. Resource crises result when the resource ecosystem can no longer respond appropriately to change (i.e. is no longer resilient) (Gunderson, 2000).   48 While ecosystems are often considered to be complex, many of the command-and-control style resource management efforts (which include an assumption that we can actively control ecosystem structure and function to manage for a particular ecosystem state indefinitely into the future (Hilderbrand, Watts, & Randle, 2005)) used to date have likely contributed to rapid and unpredictable ecosystem changes resulting in significant resource crashes (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Gunderson, 2000; Holling & Meffe, 1996). In an effort to maintain a more lucrative, predictable and easily managed rate of resource consumption (often discussed in terms of maximum sustained yield or total allowable catch), we have arrested the natural variability of ecosystems by manipulating ecosystem components and suppressing natural successional change and natural variability in the ecosystem. The result of this control of ecosystems is a diminished resilience of both the resource ecosystem and the social systems that depend on it (Holling, 1986). As stated by Holling and Meffe (1996, p. 328) “if natural levels of variation in system behaviour are reduced through command-and-control, then the system becomes less resilient to external perturbations, resulting in crises and surprises.”  Crises and surprises in social systems result from resource-based communities and resource development institutions depending on levels of resource use that are artificially held constant or even increased through intensive environmental management. By not allowing for natural variations in the resource ecosystem, local economies are not sufficiently diverse to adapt to the significant changes that occur when the social-ecological system finally flips (Holling & Meffe, 1996). When natural variability is removed from ecosystems, management agencies are also guilty of becoming myopic, self-reinforcing and inflexible, and can become complacent in their environmental monitoring efforts and focus instead on efficiently delivering a constant rate of resource products (Carpenter & Brock, 2008; Holling & Meffe, 1996).  49  As stated by Holling and Meffe (1996, p. 335), “command-and-control management can lead to short term economic returns, but it also increases the vulnerability of ecosystems to perturbations that otherwise could be absorbed.” Thus the need for a more holistic approach to management, both from an institutional and ecological perspective, is obvious. In response, components of IRM have been developed to guide the integration of the various dimensions identified by Slocombe and Hanna (2007). Ecosystem-based management and adaptive management are two such components.   4.5.2 Ecosystem-Based Management Slocombe (1998) notes that EBM is focused on managing activities within ecosystems (as opposed to managing ecosystems) and is thus able to be applied at sufficiently large spatial scales in transdisciplinary and integrative contexts (Slocombe, 1998; 1993a; 1993b). Based on longstanding characteristics of ecosystem approaches (Table 2) (Grumbine, 1994; Slocombe, 1998), EBM is cognizant of the ecosystem concepts of scale, complexity, interrelatedness, and human influence.  EBM also places a value on spatial and temporal context. This focus on place helps ground management and helps foster a sense of ownership more than concepts like sustainable development which have a less-grounded/identifiable geographical focus (Slocombe, 1998). EBM has been adopted widely in recent decades (Hanna, Clarke & Slocombe, 2008; Sardà, O’Higgins, Cormier, Diedrich, & Tintoré, 2014) and with a focus     50 Table 2.  Characteristics of Ecosystem Approaches An ecosystem approach… - describes parts, systems, environments and their interactions - is holistic, comprehensive, trans-disciplinary  - includes people and their activities in the ecosystem - describes system dynamics (e.g., through concepts of stability and feedback) - defines the ecosystem naturally (e.g., bioregionally instead of arbitrarily) - looks at different levels / scales of system structure, processes and function - recognizes goals and taking an active management orientation - incorporates actor-system dynamics and institutional factors in the analysis - uses an anticipatory, flexible, research and planning process  - entails an implicit or explicit ethics of quality, well-being, and integrity  - recognizes systemic limits to action – defining and seeking sustainability (Adapted from Slocombe, 1998)  on bioregional management units, ecological integrity, and interconnections within and beyond borders EBM has been identified as especially applicable for managing protected areas and water basins (Hanna et al., 2008; Slocombe, 1998; Yaffee, 1996). When one considers some of the most common barriers facing EBM efforts (Table 3), however, it becomes obvious that the main challenges of adopting such a holistic approach are not ecological but are rather social or institutional in nature. Indeed, the level of conceptual, spatial and institutional integration required in EBM has raised flags for some critics. For example, in his examination of the administrative and institutional challenges facing EBM, Imperial (1999, p. 450) states that “many authors underestimate the problems associated with changing organizational arrangements and incorporating human values into decision-making processes”. Slocombe (1993b) also recognizes these difficulties and identifies challenges in achieving the necessary integration both between the policies of government and between different disciplines. As stated by Yaffee (1996, p. 725) “[c]learly many of the key principles underlying ecosystem-based approaches create significant challenges for how human activities    51 Table 3.  Common Barriers to Ecosystem-Based Management Fragmentation and specialization in administration and research Competition within and between agencies and governments Arbitrary, politically defined management units Short-term, local and self-interested politics and economic determinism A structural and functional orientation Obscure terms and goals such as sustainability and integrity Top-down planning and management processes Poor use of existing information (Adapted from Slocombe, 1998)  are organized.” Yaffee (1996, p. 724) suggests that such challenges likely contribute to the adoption of watered-down versions of EBM that are perhaps best referred to as “ecosystem-based approaches” which though not meeting all the criteria of EBM, are examples of “ecosystem management written in small letters.”   4.5.3 Adaptive Management To address these challenges management must be both cognizant of and informed by ecosystem characteristics and adapt to changing circumstances (Messier et al., 2015; Slocombe, 1998). A preoccupation, however, with the command-and-control status quo of a hypothetical steady state ecosystem delivering a constant volume of resources sometimes leads managers to disregard opportunities to adopt more adaptive management approaches (Walters, 1997). Also, given the complexity of ecosystems, the introduction of alternative management strategies could have significant, unknown consequences. Active adaptive management has been proposed as a management structure that can deal with such uncertainty by treating management efforts as experiments (Lee, 1993; Walters, 1986; Walters & Holling 1990) and learning from alternative  52 management options (Armitage, Berkes & Doubleday, 2007). Adaptive management has also been employed in wildlife management as a means to effectively integrate the human and ecological dimensions associated with wildlife-related impacts (Enck et al., 2006) Despite these integrative benefits, some have sought to improve upon the largely natural science-based goals associated with adaptive management efforts (Enck et al., 2006) while others have highlighted practical challenges facing adaptive management such as a lack of ‘buy in’ by agencies seeking to protect status-quo management approaches and concerns over potential losses as optimum management strategies are being selected (Walters, 1997). Finally, skeptical and uninformed stakeholders may give little consideration to adaptive management’s emphasis on learning, but instead view it as little more than highly trained experts simply using trial and error. In response to these challenges, adaptive management has evolved significantly. New hybrid forms of adaptive management incorporate characteristics of collaborative management and also emphasize the importance of concepts such as resilience thinking and governance approaches.  Adaptive co-management blends the co-management basis of respect for and incorporation of alternative knowledge systems and sharing of decision-making power by government and other stakeholders with the resilience and learning focus of adaptive management (Armitage et al., 2007; Folke, Hahn, Olsson & Norberg, 2005; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004). Emerging from this combination, adaptive co-management has been attributed with “provid[ing] an evolving and place-specific governance approach that supports strategies that help respond to feedback (both social and ecological) and orient social-ecological systems toward sustainable trajectories” (Armitage et al., 2007, p. 5).  As this definition suggests, the goal of this form of adaptive management is not about trying to achieve some optimal level  53 of ecosystem productivity but is instead focused on optimal management capacity through earnest stakeholder engagement (Johnson, 1999). The term adaptive governance has been proposed to emphasize the importance of this management capacity and highlight the role of social contexts in enabling management that is both adaptive and adopts ecosystem-based approaches (Dietz, Ostrom & Stern, 2003). According to Pierre (2000, p. 4) governance refers to “sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutions, cooperate interests, civil society, and transnational organizations.” Adaptive governance is then described as a way to operationalize adaptive management as it is cognizant of and grounded in the often-complex, multi-objective interplay between the various actors associated with management in dynamic ecosystems (Dietz et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005; Cvitanovic, 2015).   4.6 Integration Challenges in Wildlife Management  As wildlife management has continued to evolve toward greater integration of human dimensions (Gigliotti et al., 2009), scholars and practitioners have faced a series of challenges. For instance, in the years leading up to the establishment of the field of HDWM, scholars and practitioners were challenged with establishing the credibility of social science research in the traditionally biological science-focused field of wildlife management. While human dimensions considerations are generally accepted as integral to or nested within wildlife management today (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Decker et al., 2009; Riley et al., 2002), such social science perspectives had little credibility three decades  ago. Writing in 1987, Decker, Brown & Mattfeld highlighted this challenge of disciplinary integration and outlined three significant barriers for integrating social science into wildlife management: - Biological bias of wildlife management agency staff and management approaches  54 - Communications gap between biological and social scientists requiring explicit efforts by social scientists to acquaint wildlife managers with the terminology and methodologies of social science research - Wildlife managers’ image of social science that its findings are less-than-credible and that the extent of social science methodology is simple surveys Although the challenges in the field are rarely discussed in terms of IRM, shifts toward HDWM are fostering the integration of dimensions previously considered in isolation, if considered at all. This ongoing integration pertains to efforts to employ effective public involvement to solicit relevant information to integrate with complementary science-focused wildlife information. As wildlife managers continue to face ‘wicked’ and increasingly contentious wildlife management issues, both scholars and practitioners are being challenged to adopt integrated approaches and find themselves borrowing from the broad field of IRM.  One example of the ongoing evolution of wildlife management toward more integrated approaches is the recent reevaluation of the Public Trust Doctrine in light of addressing the interests of an increasing diversity of wildlife stakeholders. The Public Trust Doctrine “proposes that resources common to humans – including air; running water; the sea; and, in North America, wildlife – should be held in trust for all people by the state” (Manfredo, 2008, p. 15). It follows then, that to serve the public interest, wildlife trustees must have a good understanding of public values. Efforts to solicit and integrate information regarding such public values requires effective strategies for public involvement. As stated by Manfredo (2008, p. 22), “[t]he human dimensions sciences can offer unique contributions to wildlife conservation. They can provide information that helps decision makers understand the interests and more effectively adhere to the tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine”.     55 4.6.1 Nested Interdisciplinary Challenges While considerable evolution has been documented in the field of wildlife management; evolution which describes increasing credibility and integration of social and biological science perspectives, other scholars have revealed an apparent lack of adherence to some of the foundational science-based hallmarks of North American wildlife management. Artelle, et al. (2018) found that most of the 667 management jurisdictions they surveyed in the United States and Canada contained fewer than half of the indicator criteria of a credible science-based approach to management. As many of the hallmarks and criteria (e.g. subjecting management plans to external review responding to public inquiry, and providing appropriate management information to the public) identified in the study pertain directly to the aforementioned fragmented approaches, the need foster greater integration in wildlife management is ongoing. One type of integration challenge facing HDWM involves establishing the credibility of social science research in the traditionally biology-focused field of wildlife management. As “interdisciplinary” often refers to the integration of or cooperation between unrelated disciplines to achieve a common research goal (Tress, Tress & Fry, 2005), the term “nested” is included here to acknowledge the fact that while social science was once considered an obscure area of research outside the purview of wildlife management, human dimensions considerations and wildlife management are in fact inextricable. While the field of HDWM is generally accepted as integral to or nested within wildlife management today (Decker et al., 2009; Gigliotti et al., 2009; Riley et al., 2002), the integration of such social science perspectives with the biological science (identified by Tress, Tress & Fry (2005) as a transdisciplinary approach)  received little attention until recent decades and the significant challenges of integrating natural and social science dimensions into a less fragmented approach persist in some contexts.    56 Although such challenges featured prominently in the first decades following the introduction of HDWM in the early 1970s (Gigliotti et al., 2009), the literature suggests that while there is an enduring need to demonstrate the importance of social science perspectives in successful wildlife management (Freddy et al., 2004), significant progress has been made in overcoming these integration challenges. This opinion is supported by modern definitions of wildlife management that acknowledge the importance of human dimensions considerations (Decker et al., 2009; Riley et al., 2002). While wildlife management has come a long way in adopting efforts to integrate various dimensions under HDWM, the integration facilitated by some IRM approaches surpasses that of HDWM efforts. As in the HDWM literature, Slocombe and Hanna (2007) identify the disciplinary boundaries of research as one set of dimensions that are often fragmented and thus requiring integration in the pursuit of IRM. Though early IRM sought to integrate related resource sectors to avoid duplication and conflict (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007), modern versions of IRM also integrate community and expert participation as well as institutional and policy considerations (Bellamy et al., 1999). The importance of such social science input in IRM is emphasized by Slocombe and Hanna (2007), who suggest that recent thinking with respect to IRM is focused on two key dimensions: the natural environment (specifically systems thinking perspectives) and various forms of consultations, participation and collaboration.  The adaptive co-management variation on traditional adaptive management exemplifies a commitment to earnest efforts to not only solicit but also integrate social information into resource management. Adaptive co-management blends respect for and incorporation of alternative knowledge systems and sharing of decision-making power by government and other stakeholders with the resilience and learning focus of adaptive management (Armitage et al.,  57 2007; Folke et al., 2005; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004). Adaptive co-management not only seeks to integrate western science-based knowledge with local and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) but looks to TEK and indigenous perspectives on coexisting with and learning from the landscape as the basis of original forms of adaptive management (Moller et al., 2004; Nadasdy, 2007).  While the integration of different forms of knowledge is far from an assured outcome of adaptive co-management (Armitage, 2008; Nadasdy, 2005), the potential for adaptive co-management to facilitate even greater levels of integration of human and biological dimensions in wildlife management is obvious. In fact, almost 20 years ago adaptive management was identified as the process of choice for waterfowl harvest in the United States and adaptive harvest management was also identified by a committee of The Wildlife Society as an approach that could help integrate science and management (Johnson & Chase, 2000; Lancia et al., 1996).  More recently, Riley and colleagues (2002; 2003) also acknowledge the importance of adaptive management in wildlife management efforts and presented their own variant called adaptive impact management (AIM). Riley et al.’s (2002; 2003) AIM, with its focus on integration and stakeholder-defined wildlife impacts perhaps more closely aligns with adaptive co-management than classic adaptive management.  The potential of co-management arrangements to respond to conflicting interests from increasingly demanding stakeholders and foster ownership of decision making in often-contentious wildlife management contexts has been well documented in the HDWM literature. Some scholars also suggest that co-management is deserving of consideration for application in a wider variety of wildlife management contexts (Chase, Schusler & Decker, 2000; Decker & Chase, 1997). The utility of co-management arrangements in resource management efforts is  58 exemplified by the formal adoption of co-management into comprehensive land claims agreements in Northern Canada (Armitage, 2008; Moller et al., 2004). Several authors (Table 4) have explored efforts to integrate TEK and western science to manage wildlife more effectively in Canada, particularly caribou, under such co-management arrangements. The more general term of Traditional Knowledge (TK), is defined as “a unified world-view incorporating all aspects of aboriginal society, spirituality, economy, and culture” (Dale & Armitage, 2010, p. 2), while TEK, the natural environment-focused subset of TK (2010) pertains to the functioning of local ecosystems and land skills (Pierce, Ford, Cunsolo-Wilcox, & Smit, 2015). While these terms have a distinct focus on the local and traditional knowledge of Aboriginal peoples, TEK, and other locally-relevant and locally-based forms of knowledge, often referred to as Local Knowledge (LK) can be produced by all stakeholders, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.     59 Table 4. Relevant TEK Research in Canadian Wildlife Management Species Location Management Collaboration Reference Beaver (Castor canadensis) James Bay / Northern Quebec Collaboration between Cree hunters and provincial resource managers  Berkes, Feeny, McCay & Acheson, 1989 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) British Columbia Amalgamating TEK/LEK and western scientific knowledge to identify and understand spatial and temporal range shifts of Grizzly bears Service, Adams,Artelle, Paquet, Grant, & Darimont, 2014 Barren Ground Caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) Northwest Territories / Nunavut  Beverly-Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board. Co-management body made up of government managers and members of the Inuit, Dëne, and Métis.    Kendrick & Manseau, 2008; Kendrick, 2003  Barren Ground Caribou  Northwest Territories / Nunavut  Community-based monitoring of caribou body condition relying mainly on body fat.   Lyver & K’É, 2005 Barren Ground Caribou  Northwest Territories / Nunavut Incorporating Denésǫłiné systems of monitoring, sharing information about, and adapting to changes in caribou migration patterns to better adapt to future ecological changes  Parlee, Manseau & K’É, 2005 Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus  caribou) British Columbia  Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of Western science and TEK in predicting caribou habitat selection. Polfus, Heinemeyer, Hebblewhite, & Taku River Tlingit First Nation, 2014  Narwhal (Monodon monoceros) Nunavut Knowledge co-production using diverse types and sources of knowledge including TEK. Dale & Armitage, 2011 Peary Caribou (Rangifer tarandus. pearyi), Muskox (Ovibos moschatus)  TEK regarding hunting and land skills in climate change adaptation and related changes in subsistence hunting  Pearce, Ford, Cunsolo Wilcox, & Smit, 2015.   60 [The term] ‘Local knowledge’ is preferred by some as it emphasizes the fact that knowledge generated and held by resource-users (aboriginals included) is often limited to a fairly specific geographic context. It also recognizes that detailed understandings of ecosystems may not only be held by aboriginals but by non-aboriginal user-groups as well (Dale & Armitage, 2010, p. 2) For those charged with managing wildlife in the public trust, the role of co-management arrangements as a means of facilitating the necessary knowledge exchange (LK and western scientific) and relationships between wildlife trustees and concerned segments of the public should not be overlooked. In efforts to adhere to the Public Trust Doctrine, co-management arrangements can furnish trustees with not only locally-based ecological information, but also with the rapport necessary to better understand the publics on whose behalf they are to manage wildlife species.   4.6.2 Vertical Integration Challenges This category of challenges can be further subdivided into the following two areas: 1) efforts to gather information from stakeholders and interest groups and, 2) efforts to incorporate such information into wildlife management. The former set of challenges relates to using appropriate public involvement techniques, while the latter set of challenges relate to operationalizing human dimensions information to inform management efforts.   4.6.2.1 Public Involvement and the Administrative Process Writing almost five decades ago, Henning (1968, p. 246) made explicit what was already known by many of the natural resource managers working at the time: “politics, with its struggle  61 of power, interests, and values, is definitely involved in the administrative process of natural resources.” Henning’s statement acknowledges the often-complex mixture of multi-level governance actors that influence the administration of natural resources. Within this conglomerate of governance, Francis (2007) acknowledges the importance of what some refer to as the ‘third sector’ (connected to but separate from the public and private sectors) of civil society interest groups who, often through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), greatly influence the administrative process.  Pierre (2000) also identifies other parties to governance which, in addition to ‘the government’ and other state actors, influence administrative process. According to Pierre (2000, p. 4) governance refers to “sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutions, cooperative interests, civil society, and transnational organizations.” Such increases in the influence of non-state actors (e.g., civil society and institutions) in administrative processes has been ongoing since the Progressive era of the early 20th Century when concerns about the ability of elected officials to represent the public interest effectively and fairly resulted in appointments of citizens to boards and commissions (Mitchell, 1997). While this was a significant step toward a more responsible and responsive governance approach, the nature and representativeness of public appointments can be contentious and debated. Consequently, public skepticism of government has continued to increase in many contexts resulting in a desire for increasingly participatory decision-making approaches (Jacobson & Decker, 2008).  As the administration of wildlife resources is a direct product of governance, the trend toward truly participatory or deliberative democracy has elicited a range of views from stakeholders in the wildlife management arena. Some resource and wildlife managers are  62 concerned that this trend will both erode the role of expert scientific judgment in decisions (Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004) and present considerable practical challenges as existing bureaucracies are not equipped to embrace truly deliberative processes (Jacobson & Decker, 2008). Other scholars suggest such participatory approaches may not be well suited to address the large range of influence and opinions of the stakeholder groups often associated with natural resource and wildlife management efforts (Jacobson & Decker, 2008). Conversely, some scholars suggest that the deliberation among stakeholder groups, which is inherent in such participatory approaches, is central to resolving seemingly intractable conflicts (Elliot, Gray & Lewicki, 2003; Schusler & Decker, 2002). As suggested by Kleinschmit, Böcher, & Giessen (2009), debates regarding ‘top down’ versus more ‘bottom up’ approaches highlight the importance of argument and deliberation in contributing to accountable, legitimate, and effective policy and decision making.  Such differing views regarding the credibility and role stakeholders in contributing to decision making processes coincides with Dovers and Price’s (2007) distinction between informative and decisive integration. Information from stakeholders has traditionally served an ‘informative’ role – and thus, when compared with the decisive form of integration, had less influence on actual decision making and policy formulation. In contrast, decisive integration involves collaboration between relevant disciplines or government departments and agencies to make significant contributions to decision making and policy-development (Dovers & Price, 2007).  Public involvement approaches, the applied aspect of HDWM, can be employed to help reduce conflict, build trust, and credibility between managers and the public and forestall litigation by those who wish their voices to be heard (Bath & Enck 2003; Lawrence & Deagen  63 2001). Public involvement is essential for effective IRM as eliciting the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and values of stakeholders is the first step in understanding opinions and knowledge of different interests and consequently integrating this information into management. Effective public participation can also build support for change and aid in implementation. Well-designed efforts for public involvement are of great importance to successful resource and wildlife management.  Local resource managers are often responsible for gathering information from or bringing together diverse stakeholders (Mitchell, 2002). These managers are often well trained in the biological and ecological aspects of resource management but often lack training and experience in the social sciences (Jacobson & McDuff, 1998). Indeed research by Decker and Bath (2010) found significant discrepancies between European experts in managing large herbivores and general public participants concerning preferences for characteristics and methods of public involvement commonly used in wildlife management contexts. For example while large herbivore restoration experts attributed high levels of importance to including scientific information in decision making, general public respondents attributed high levels of importance to the cost effectiveness and representativeness of the public involvement effort (Decker & Bath, 2010). Addressing such public involvement challenges is of great importance as the extent to which decision-making processes are tailored to those characteristics most preferred by members of the public has an impact on the willingness of the public to accept resulting decisions (Lauber & Knuth 1999; Decker & Bath, 2010).    64 4.6.2.2 Integrating Human Dimensions Information in Wildlife Management HDWM researchers have recently begun efforts to operationalize human dimensions information by proposing sometimes-novel frameworks and approaches for integrating social information into what are traditionally biology-focused wildlife management contexts. Such efforts are the result of a natural evolution after addressing earlier challenges (after we have gathered the information from stakeholders, what do we do with it?) and a need to address calls for more effective integration of social information into management (Gigliotti et al., 2009). In fact several recent HDWM works discuss the importance of applying what are essentially IRM approaches and concepts in wildlife management contexts (Enck et al., 2006; Ewel, 2001; Riley et al., 2002; Riley et al., 2003; Ring, 2009). HDWM researchers acknowledge that simply gathering and analyzing human dimensions information will not lead to its integration with biological considerations in the wildlife management process; targeted efforts are needed to facilitate this integration (Decker et al., 2006; Heberlein, 2004). If human-dimensions considerations are indeed part of wildlife management, why then are targeted and novel approaches needed to integrate human dimensions into wildlife management? In some cases, the problem stems from a lack of effective communication between social science researchers and managers regarding the type of human dimensions information needed in a particular management context. By creating a manager’s model or conceptual map of where human dimensions considerations fit into or are required in a management system, Decker and colleagues (2006) identified aspects of human dimensions research that could fill information gaps in the management system. Thus to address the challenge of matching science research managers’ needs, human dimensions researchers need to collaborate with managers to  65 identify and provide the forms of social science information that is required by managers and can consequently influence policy (Decker et al., 2006).  Similarly, some scholars suggest that challenges of integrating human dimensions information into wildlife management stem from an improper framing of the management objectives. Riley et al. (2002) advocate the adoption of two levels of objectives – fundamental and enabling – that are informed by stakeholder opinion and can better guide management efforts than traditional ecologically or biologically-defined goals. Fundamental objectives indicate why management is needed and what it should accomplish in terms of stakeholder-defined impacts (Enck et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2002) while “[e]nabling objectives specify outcomes and management actions needed to achieve fundamental objectives” (Enck et al., 2006, p. 699).  Similar to Riley’s et al. (2002) focus on impacts, several other scholars also emphasize human-wildlife conflicts and stakeholder-defined impacts (Decker et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2002; Ring, 2009) as means to facilitate discussions of integrated approaches to wildlife management. As impacts are “defined and weighted by human values” (Riley et al., 2002) the human dimension automatically earns a ‘seat at the table’ in any discussions regarding efforts to manage human-wildlife impacts and conflicts. Decker et al. (2006) acknowledge the role of impacts in catalyzing discussions around integrated approaches to wildlife disease management (WDM) and state that “WDM presents a challenge and an opportunity to integrate biological and human dimensions insight for improved wildlife management” (2006, p. 152). Similarly Ring (2009, p. 91) states “integrative biodiversity research is especially important when dealing with human-wildlife conflicts”. While a focus on stakeholder-defined impacts may facilitate greater integration between the human and biological dimensions of wildlife management, true IRM  66 demands the integration of a wider variety of dimensions than just human and biological considerations.  The fundamental and enabling objectives identified by Riley et al. (2002) also share similarities with the substantive and procedural goals of EBM identified by Slocombe (1998). Both identify the achievement of enabling objectives and procedural goals (respectively) as prerequisites for achieving higher level fundamental objectives and substantive goals, Riley et al. (2002) and Slocombe (1998) differ on which higher level goals and objectives should entail. While Riley et al. (2002) advocate the adoption of stakeholder-defined wildlife impacts as one of the fundamental objectives of wildlife management, Slocombe (1998, p. 486) identifies substantive goals as “desired states or characteristics of the ecosystem being managed.” As explained further below, a focus on stakeholder-defined impacts holds many benefits for current efforts to achieve integration in wildlife management. If, however, wildlife management is poised for yet another shift (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Scalet, 2007), and is to adopt an ecosystem-based approach to management, managers would be wise to follow Slocombe’s (1998) example and expand fundamental objectives to better reflect ecosystem-scale goals.      4.6.3 Horizontal Integration Challenges This last phase of integration challenges in wildlife management pertains to efforts to facilitate a more holistic approach to resource management– essentially facilitating integration between what Dale (2001; Dale & Newman, 2007) refers to as the silos of resource management agencies in Canada. Again, addressing this set of challenges is a natural progression as wildlife management better integrates social science information into its activities. Such horizontal integration coincides with Dovers and Price’s (2007) decisive integration as once integration  67 between the silos is achieved, relevant parties are able to contribute directly to decision-making processes. Unlike the other sets of challenges outlined above, however, which involved interactions between stakeholders, social scientists and wildlife managers, addressing the fragmentation of authority for resource management will require a combined effort among various resource management agencies.   4.6.3.1 Fragmentation of Authority   Perhaps the most prevalent integration challenge facing natural resource management practitioners is the fragmentation of authority over natural resources (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). In Canada, such fragmentation arguably began in 1867 with the British North America (BNA) Act. In allocating natural resource jurisdiction and responsibility between various federal, territorial and provincial government departments, the BNA Act set the stage for the resource management agency silos that today face challenges in responding to interdependent resource management challenges with integrative solutions (Dale & Newman, 2007). Despite numerous attempts to reorganize resource management agencies to better reflect the interconnectedness of various resource sectors and their parent ecosystems, such efforts have often failed to gain widespread support (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2000; Miller, Gale & Brown, 1987).   One such reorganization attempt can be found in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where responses to crown land development applications from provincial resource management agencies were sometimes contradictory, thus posing significant challenges for both the Crown Lands Division and applicants. In an attempt to facilitate a more coherent and coordinated assessment of crown lands applications, the Lands Management Division (a then  68 newly formed management division) established the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee (ILUC) in 1983 (Fugate, 1986). The committee’s rather ambitious goal was to “coordinate government’s resource development activities” (Fugate, 1986, p. 219). More specifically the committee was to “[act] as a “clearing house” for development programs, policies, legislation and proposed administrative and/or planning boundaries [and] where possible, to integrate resource and land uses through the development of land use policies and Regional Crown Land Plans” (p. 219). As outlined by Miller et al. (1987), such administrative models have often proved unsuccessful. Indeed Fugate (1986) outlined several challenges facing the ILUC from its inception. In addition to a lack of a guiding land-use policy and scant or non-existent econometric and resource inventory data, Fugate (1986) also identified fragmentation in administrative and legislative resource management mechanisms as impeding integration.   Despite these challenges the ILUC still exists, having survived several reorganizations of provincial resource management departments and branches. The ILUC is identified as the ‘go to’ body to “ensure public sector policies and decisions on land use and resource management are related and complementary” (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010, para. 2). The actual efficacy of this committee, however, has not yet been definitively evaluated.   Hopper, McDonald and Mitchell (1999) identify the establishment of a new agency or committee (such as the ILUC) as an example of an explicit and targeted effort to achieve integration between resource management agencies. Hopper et al. (1999) contrast such high levels of intervention with voluntary or minimalist approaches where agencies cooperate out of trust and goodwill. It seems, however, that in the case of the ILUC even coercion has brought about little integration.    69 4.7 Evolving Definitions of Success  Just as the field of wildlife management and its challenges have evolved, so to have definitions of success in wildlife management. During the first phase of wildlife management, success was relatively simply defined. Gigliotti et al. (2009), and earlier Hendee (1974), noted that in this first era managers catered to a narrowly-focused set of stakeholders interested primarily, if not solely, in the hunting of game animals. The measuring stick for success was thus simply the number of game animals harvested  (Hendee, 1974). During the second phase of wildlife management, specifically after World War II, wildlife managers’ initial measure of success became somewhat inadequate. As the public’s wilderness recreation increased, the relative importance of hunting wildlife began to decrease (Brown, 2009) translating into an apparent decrease in the success (at least when using former hunting-focused metrics) of wildlife management efforts. Contrary to managers’ expectations, however, participation in wilderness pursuits continued to increase despite fewer numbers of fish and wildlife being consumed. In response, wildlife managers adopted ‘days-a-field’ as a new measure of success but also doggedly held on to the perception that the consumption of game was the motivation for days-a-field and thus a prerequisite for satisfaction (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Hendee, 1974).   Managers soon realized that hunting contributed only partially to wildlife users’ satisfaction. Questions regarding the true components of wildlife users’ satisfaction required the application of the newly recognized field of HDWM (Gigliotti et al., 2009). Hendee (1974), who together with Potter (and other colleagues of that period) helped increase the awareness of HDWM research with the publication of their important paper just three years before (see Hendee & Potter, 1971), conducted some of this important early HDWM research and described  70 a range of satisfactions delivered by outdoor activities that extended into stakeholders’ non-consumptive values of wildlife. This pivotal work added new dimensions to managers’ definitions of wildlife management success and helped shift the focus beyond the harvest-related measures so closely monitored by wildlife managers at the time (Gigliotti et al., 2009)   4.7.1 Integrated Definition of Success  If indeed the field of wildlife management is adopting characteristics of IRM, definitions of success in wildlife management must therefore also be integrative. Definitions of success in interdisciplinary approaches to conservation should explicitly include interdisciplinary criteria (Bellamy et al., 1999; Margoluis & Salafsky, 1998). Indeed successful management goes beyond simple products and delivers other dimensions of success such as learning, relationship building and ownership of the management effort (Lachapelle et al., 2003). In the case of my research in this thesis, success can be gauged both objectively (in terms of caribou conservation gains) and subjectively (in terms of a stakeholder engagement that is perceived to be earnest and fair).    4.7.2 Addressing Impacts as Success  On the surface, defining success as addressing stakeholder impacts may seem to exclude input from areas of biological research and equate to management by polling, which Decker & Chase (1997) strongly caution against. The identification and management of impacts, however, is actually a process that demands the integration of human and biological dimensions. While the evaluation of effects, and consequently the identification of impacts, is based on values, the work of managers and scientists is essential for investigating, describing, predicting, and communicating about the magnitude and influence of these effects (Bazzsaz et al., 1998). Further  71 integration between human and biological dimensions can occur if scientists call upon human dimensions researchers to identify gaps in stakeholder knowledge (White, 2001).   Stakeholder defined impacts, however, are by definition grounded in the management context in question and, in turn, this relevance to the area and its stakeholders helps foster ownership of the decision-making process and its outcomes. Riley et al. (2002) identify these and other benefits of focusing on stakeholder-defined impacts in their discussion of Adaptive Impact Management (AIM). According to Riley et al. (2002), these benefits include: - Increased relevancy of wildlife management to society - Greater stakeholder satisfaction - Managers more likely to and capable of embracing change and uncertainty  rather than avoiding it - Learning becomes a motivator as well as a product throughout the management  system AIM builds on conventional adaptive management (Gunderson, Holling & Light, 1995; Holling, 1978; Lee, 1993; Walters, 1986) but shifts the focus of management away from wildlife population or species habitat objectives and instead recognizes these as enabling objectives that may be necessary to achieve fundamental objectives defined by stakeholder-defined impacts. Riley et al. (2003, p. 88) provide the following example to help explain the connection between fundamental and enabling objectives  A fundamental objective of black bear management could be to increase the psychological well-being of a community in which negative black bear–human interactions are frequent events. Enabling objectives state how fundamental objectives  72 will be achieved. An enabling objective… could be to increase the level of education about successfully living with black bears in that particular community. The learning referred to in the list of benefits above, while an essential part of propelling simple trial-and-error into the realm of adaptive management (Armitage et al., 2007) also serves an integrative function as it results from interactions and a sharing of perspectives between managers, stakeholders and scientists to develop common understanding (Riley et al., 2002; Schusler, Decker & Pfeffer, 2003). Fundamental objectives indicate why management is needed and what it should accomplish in terms of stakeholder-defined impacts (Enck et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2002) while “[e]nabling objectives specify outcomes and management actions needed to achieve fundamental objectives” (Enck et al., 2006, p. 699). Thus, as stated by Decker et al. (2006), to achieve 1st order or fundamental objectives, management efforts are designed to manipulate factors contributing to 2nd order or enabling objectives. Pairing fundamental objectives, which are often defined using social dimensions, and enabling objectives, which are often articulated from a natural science or biophysical-focused perspective in this manner emphasizes social-ecological integration in wildlife management and also allows managers, with help from stakeholders, to evaluate alternate enabling objectives (Riley et al., 2002). By tying management alternatives to stakeholder-desired outcomes managers have greater flexibility for treating management strategies as experiments, an essential component of adaptive management (Lee, 1993). Finally, by working with stakeholders to evaluate the impact of various enabling objectives on fundamental objectives, managers and scientists are better able to respond to uncertainty, which is also central to adaptive management (Holling, 1978) as well as adaptive co-management (Armitage, et al., 2007).   73 Based on the ideas of AIM (Riley et al., 2002; 2003), successful wildlife management entails maximizing positive wildlife impacts and minimizing negative wildlife impacts. While such an impact management approach might seem overly simple, addressing wildlife impacts is integrative, locally relevant, adaptive, and measurable. Identifying impact management as “the essence of wildlife management” (Riley et al., 2002) marks a significant turning point in wildlife management. New definitions of wildlife management that incorporate impact management have been proposed and are gaining acceptance and some identify impact management as an “emerging paradigm” in wildlife management (Riley et al., 2002). While a focus on stakeholder-defined impacts holds many benefits for current efforts to achieve higher levels of integration in wildlife management, the field of wildlife management continues to evolve and managers must be prepared to formulate new definitions of success to coincide with new directions in wildlife management. If wildlife management is set to transition into a new phase based on ecosystem management approaches (Gigliotti et al., 2009; Scalet, 2007), managers must be prepared to be not only proactive, but also expand definitions of success to better reflect ecosystem-scale goals.    74 Chapter 5. Method and Approach  In this thesis, I examine the extent to which components of IRM are incorporated into the planning and implementation of wildlife management efforts associated with declining caribou populations in Newfoundland. I focus on several prominent components that are often at the center of contemporary integrated resource and environmental management efforts: disciplines; information; spatial/ecological units; governments; agencies; interests/sectors; and perceptions, attitudes and values (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007). My research objectives are defined in terms of these dimensions of IRM and relevant stakeholders’ interest in, adoption of, and attention toward integrating these dimensions in planning and management efforts. To answer my research questions, the methodological approach I adopt for this dissertation employs two qualitative research techniques: content analysis and stakeholder interviews. Combining these research methods contributes to a deeper understanding of the caribou management context, stakeholder perspectives, and the status of provincial wildlife management efforts in terms of integrated management approaches.   To accomplish these research objectives, I used three sources of evidence (interviews, popular media items, and government press releases) as a form of research method triangulation (Schwandt, 2007). Yin (2009) notes the importance of employing complementary and corroborating sources of evidence and cautions that without such triangulation of sources the case study will be weakened by a reliance on just interview data. As stated by Yin (2009, p. 103), “[f]or case studies, the most important use of documents is to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources…Because of their overall value, documents play an explicit role in any data collection in doing case studies”. Specifically, I used the following research methods and sources of evidence:  75  I conducted 18 in-depth interviews with CRC members and other relevant stakeholders (this latter group includes those individuals sometimes asked to provide information to the CRC regarding specific issues). This aspect of the research elucidates stakeholder perspectives regarding the objectives of wildlife management and identifies challenges and opportunities for adopting more integrative approaches.  I analyzed approximately 15 management plans, press releases, and relevant academic literature. This examination of the published literature and other relevant materials of wildlife management activities (press releases, meeting minutes, management plans and interviews with managers) was conducted to explore interest in and opportunities for adopting integrative management approaches such as collaboration between disciplines or government agencies or shifts toward ecosystem-based management approaches. Materials considered valid for analysis included those items that focused on caribou management in Newfoundland from 2000 to 2016. A selection of provincial government press releases is included in Appendix A.  I analyzed approximately 20 relevant popular media articles. Examining the popular media discourse surrounding caribou management in the province. This provided me with an understanding of how such issues are framed in the popular literature. Materials considered valid for this part of the analysis included popular media items that focused on caribou management in Newfoundland from 2000 to 2016. A selection of these is also included in Appendix A. Stakeholder perspectives can vary greatly between and even within groups associated with caribou management efforts in Newfoundland. The ideal method for gathering this information would allow participants to speak freely and would also allow me to identify points  76 of dissent and common ground between stakeholder groups and managers. Given the importance of hearing participants’ own voices in gaining an in-depth understanding of stakeholder perspectives, the most appropriate approach was to gather information from stakeholders directly using an inductive approach.  To gather data for this dissertation, I used in-depth interviews. These interviews employed open-ended questions (Yin, 2009) to allow interviewees to express their opinions regarding both the framing of the problem in question as well as the desired objectives of management. As stated by Marshall and Rossman (2006, p. 101), this method [in-depth interviews] “is based on an assumption fundamental to qualitative research: The participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the participant views it (the emic perspective), not as the researcher views it (the etic perspective)”. While interviews were based on a set of pre-determined, open-ended questions, participants’ were given and displayed considerable latitude in their answers and thus provided me with a rich narrative upon which to conduct my analysis. Such an emic perspective also allows the researcher to learn the background and context of the issue from the participant’s perspective. This understanding was essential in identifying areas of common ground as well as the basis of disagreements about management approaches and the contested nature of knowledge and experience associated with caribou management in Newfoundland.  Kahn and Cannell (1957) describe interviewing as “a conversation with a purpose” (as cited in Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 101), and while the interview should be structured around general topics and questions it should allow participants to tell their own stories regarding their perspectives. Researchers should, however, ensure that interview questions stay on topic and are tailored towards the goals of the study (Miller & Salkind, 2002). This caution is especially  77 important when using open-ended questions as such interview methods are less structured than other quantitative research techniques and thus may be influenced by the approach and biases of the interviewer. Despite the need to safeguard against such problems, however, open-ended questions are a valuable research tool and are considered “appropriate and powerful under conditions that require probing of attitude and reaction formations and ascertaining information that is interlocked in a social system or personality structure” (Miller & Salkind, 2002, p. 310).  5.1 Research Methods and Data Analysis The interview portion of the research was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics board (H14-00122). The 18 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants in the main stakeholder groups affected by caribou management. Interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder and later transcribed for analysis. While I completed the majority of interview transcription, a research assistant did assist with some aspects. The research assistant signed a non-disclosure form prior to beginning the transcription process.   5.1.1 Deriving Data in Qualitative Research  As suggested by Mason (1996, p. 54), ‘reading’ interviews in an interpretative sense allows a researcher to “make inferences about something outside of the interview interaction itself”. For such inferences to be credible, however, interviews must be transformed into reliable data. The creation of such data has important implications for how interviews are conducted and recorded, how interviews are interpreted, and how other qualitative analysis, such as content analysis, are carried out.  The management and analysis of qualitative data is often a daunting task for social scientists. Mason (1996) suggests that researchers must not only employ a  78 consistent system for organizing and sorting their data, but must also have a clear idea of what constitutes data in the context of their research. While many of the complexities of sorting, organizing, and analyzing data can be addressed by employing specialized Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDA) software (NVivo11© software was used to carry out data analysis for this dissertation), the decision on what qualifies as data depends on what the researcher wishes to learn.   One of my main goals was to explore the extent to which dimensions of IRM are manifest in the management of declining caribou populations in Newfoundland. Thus, ‘data’, for the purpose of this research, comprised  information from relevant popular media items, management plans, published literature, and interviews that focused on the  dimensions of IRM (disciplines; information; spatial/ecological units; governments; agencies; interests/sectors; and perceptions, attitudes and values (Slocombe & Hanna, 2007)). These dimensions formed the analytical framework for this analysis and were used as ‘nodes’ or themes in the CAQDA software under which the data derived from popular media articles, press releases, publications, and interviews were organized. Analyzing data in this manner allowed for an organized examination of the discourse surrounding dimensions of integrated resource management in the caribou management case study.   5.1.2 Interviews While the formal, recorded portion of the interview was usually one to two hours in duration, most interview sessions began and/or ended with more informal discussions about the research context, the policy setting, and the interviewees’ work and other contributions to  79 wildlife management. These informal interactions were important in helping me gain a deeper understanding of the research context.  As the management context is fractious and sensitive, securing an interview often required rapport-building. This trust-building process took place over weeks and even months for some informants, and often involved numerous, less formal interactions (dialogue/conversation) well before a formal interview was granted. Given this process, some portions of interviews could not be quoted in the thesis and as such cannot be an explicit part of the analysis. In such cases interviewees asked that some of their statements be kept ‘off the record’ as they were discussing a particularly controversial topic or referring specifically to a particular individual.  While these extra-interview contributions are not used as interview data, they did contribute greatly to my understanding of the research context and added depth and richness to the interview. As put forward by Glaser (2002): ‘All is Data’, an assertion further explained and supported by Charmaz (2006, p.16) who suggests that, while data quality and its usefulness for interpretation varies, “[e]verything you learn in the research setting(s) or about your research topic can serve as data”. This information provides a substantive understanding of the challenges and interpersonal setting within which stakeholders work together. The eventual formal interview was the culmination of a careful process of building relationships with informants, well before the point of being able to ask the interview questions. This approach provided an opportunity to understand the perspectives, experiences and beliefs of informants, adding to the depth of understanding the factors that shape stakeholders’ contributions to wildlife management.  Interactions with prospective/eventual study participants and opportunities to gain a greater understanding of the research and management context and history also included  80 attending the Labrador Research Forum in May 2017 (which included several significant discussions on caribou population declines, the species’ importance to Indigenous people, and the contentious nature of caribou management). I also attended the Wildlife Division’s 2016/2017 Annual Big Game, Small Game, and Fur Plan Presentation (November, 2015) and wildlife management-related meetings with the Wildlife Division Director (May, 2016). Through my other research projects (including working with Division staff to conduct a review of a human dimensions survey for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (October, 2015)), working closely with the Division director and senior manager of research to prepare an internal report (Decker & Edwards, 2016) on the relevance and merits of the Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee (CWDC), and working with senior managers to conduct an ongoing baseline study of Newfoundland residents’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the 2015 – 2020 Moose Management Plan, I was also able to interact with various Wildlife Division staff. These and other less formal interactions with Wildlife Division staff, consumptive users of wildlife, Indigenous groups, and other relevant stakeholders, were afforded through my position as a faculty member in the Environmental Studies program at Memorial University’s Grenfell Campus.   Interactions with relevant stakeholders, considered discussions regarding the research topic, and my own personal experience with and knowledge of various aspects of the research context and history, whether gained from living and working in the study context or as part of my dissertation research, contribute to the research process by alerting me to pursue concepts and types of research questions of particular relevance to the context in question. Such information is referred to by Blumer (1969) as sensitizing concepts. Collectively, research  81 interviews and other less-formal means of gaining a deeper understanding of the research context contribute to the in-depth nature of the research.  The initial stakeholder groups that I contacted included members of the CRC that was established by the Department of Environment and Conservation in 2008 (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009). The committee was formed to act as a forum for information exchange between stakeholder groups and managers associated with caribou management efforts in Newfoundland (2009).  This committee included representatives from the Aboriginal Women’s Network; the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation; the Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club; the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association; the Department of Environment and Conservation; the Rural Secretariat; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association; and the Department of Natural Resources (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009). The interviews conducted with representatives of these groups comprise a near-census of the CRC as at least one member of all groups except one was interviewed. I made several attempts to contact the Committee representative of this last stakeholder group but was not successful. Unfortunately, this was the only member of this stakeholder group able to provide comment on group’s participation in the CRC.  While the composition of the committee is wide ranging, throughout the data collection phase of the study, I made efforts to ensure that any other concerned or affected stakeholder groups were identified and invited to participate in the study. Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions (Table 5) regarding perceptions of the problem of caribou declines, the objectives of caribou management in the province, the status of manager or public/lay knowledge, and the integration of input from different management agencies. This aspect of the  82 research allowed me to compare views between stakeholder group representatives regarding caribou management objectives, the status of various forms of knowledge, as well as perspectives on how the problem of caribou decline is framed. Interview questions were developed based upon both my own a priori understanding of the research context (and associated sensitizing concepts; Blumer, 1969) and also the underlying IRM theories upon which the study is based. The first two interview questions were used to establish interviewees’ position in the research context, their stakeholder group affiliation, and their perspectives regarding the caribou decline and its ramifications. This pair of questions helped inform my understanding of the differences of opinion between stakeholders regarding the caribou decline and management efforts. For instance, while some interviewees held that the decline was simply part of the caribou’s natural population cycle, others criticized the provincial Wildlife Division for failing to register the decline, initially failing to adjust hunting quotas in response to a falling population, or failing to take stronger action to reduce the number of predators on caribou. Interviewees’ responses to these questions helped me probe responses to subsequent interview questions.  The remainder of the interview questions, excluding the last two, were used to gain evidence of the extent to which the local caribou management context manifested the purported trend in the literature toward more integrated approaches. These interview questions focused on public involvement and efforts to solicit and integrate various types and sources of knowledge into decision making about caribou management. Such topics coincide with the IRM field’s focus (per Slocombe & Hanna, 2007) on the natural environment and forms of consultations, participation and collaboration.     83 Table 5.  Interview Questions 1. Please describe your experience with caribou management efforts in the province 2. What is the status of caribou herds in the province? Is there a problem, what is it? What are the main issues surrounding this problem?  3. How would you define successful caribou management in the province? (Emphasis on process or outcome will not be specified to examine respondent’s desired area of focus)  4. If not discussed previously: how would you define successful decision-making/management process with respect to caribou management in Newfoundland? 5. Based on your definition of successful decision-making process, how successful are current caribou management efforts?  6. What should be the main objectives of caribou management in the province with respect to the management process?  7. What actions are required to meet the objectives you have identified?  8. Which, if any, of the objectives you identified are being met? How? Which ones are not? Why? 9. Who is involved in making caribou management decisions? Is everyone involved who should be involved? (who/why/why not)? 10. Should the concerns/opinions of some segments of the population (whether organized stakeholder groups or informal groups or classes of residents) carry more weight than others? Which ones? Why? 11. Are there groups who you feel should not be involved in making caribou management decisions? (who/why/why not)? 12. What is the role of information from managers (the Wildlife Division) in caribou management decision-making in the province?   13. For stakeholders: to what extent are the views of your group integrated into caribou management decision making?  14. For managers: how do you integrate stakeholder views into decision making and management efforts? 15. For managers: to what extent do you integrate the views of other provincial departments, agencies, and branches whose mandates relate in some way to caribou management efforts in the province? 16. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about caribou management in the province that we have not already discussed? 17. Are there any other individuals or groups that you think I should talk to regarding these issues?  84  This set of questions about consultation and integration also provided indirect evidence of the extent to which the Public Trust Doctrine was adhered to in Newfoundland caribou management. If wildlife managers are to truly act as trustees of wildlife, there must be opportunities to solicit and integrate information from public stakeholder groups, and all citizens, on whose behalf wildlife conservation is to be carried out.   5.1.3. Analysis of Management Plans, Press Releases, and Popular Media Articles The final component of my research involved examining relevant popular media articles, management plans, and press releases of the provincial Wildlife Division and the overarching department of Environment and Conservation (note that the names of these departments changed due to provincial government restructuring in 2017). The latter were obtained from the Provincial News Releases website and from correspondence with wildlife division staff members while the former were collected from the online archives of local news media outlets. A total of 45 such items was examined. A selection of these documents are appended at the end of this thesis. Materials considered valid for analysis included those popular media articles, management plans, and press releases that focused on caribou management in Newfoundland from 2000 to 2016 (this period captures the time during which the recent caribou population decline was discovered and consequent management responses).  The analysis of popular media articles, management plans, and press releases as a research method requires more rigorous treatment than simple careful reading of documents. The more systematic method of content analysis has been defined as  “a phase of information-processing in which communication content is transformed, through objective and systematic application of categorization rules, into data that can be summarized and compared” (Paisley,  85 1969, p. 133). As suggested by Holsti (1969), authentic content analysis, like many methods of scientific inquiry, must be objective, systematic, and generate data that is generalizable and linked with theory.   As with the interview data above, Nvivo 11© was employed to apply the analytical framework, comprised of the dimensions of IRM, to the management plans, press releases, and popular media articles. This helped bring order to the data and aided in identifying relevant themes.     86 Chapter 6. The Study Setting 6.1 Wildlife Management as a System  A system can be defined as a set of interacting parts that have coherence or identity. While terms and concepts generally associated with systems approaches often relate to purely biophysical systems, their relevance to social systems is sometimes less clear (Brown & Williams, 2015). For instance, while it may be relatively easy to understand how systems concepts such as complexity, resilience, dynamics, and adaptation relate to an ecosystem, it is less clear how these concepts relate to a social-ecological system. Berkes and Davidson-Hunt (2008), however, clearly identify humans as “part of complex adaptive system[s] that includ[e] both social and ecological subsystems”. Similarly, Scheffer, Westly, Brock & Holmgren (2002, p. 195) highlight the characteristics of dynamics and adaptation in social and ecological systems and state that “[e]cosystems change in response to the stress imposed by human use, and human societies adjust their behaviour affecting ecosystems in response to perceived changes in these systems”.  As Kay (2008, p. 15) suggests, the first step in seeking a system-based understanding of an issue is to “identify the key elements of the situation and the relationships between them”. The wildlife management system, composed of the interactions among wildlife species, their habitats, and the people who depend on or are affected by their management (Decker, Riley, & Siemer, 2012; Giles, 1978), is described as part of a social-ecological system. The recent significant decline in the population of caribou, Newfoundland’s largest native herbivore, thus presents an opportunity to examine this wildlife management issue as an integrated, social-ecological system.    87 6.2 The Presenting Situation: Components of Newfoundland’s Caribou Management Context To guide my examination of this system, I will loosely follow the Peruvian framework as outlined by Murray, Sanchez-Choy and Sanchez-Zayala (2008). This framework highlights linkages between ecosystems and human health (Murray et al., 2008) but provides an effective way of organizing elements influencing the management issue in question. The Peruvian framework is composed of four interconnected areas of analysis to be addressed by researchers seeking a clearer understanding of the system: The Presenting Situation, Analysis of the Presenting Situation, Description of System Dynamics and Key Relationships, and The Research Agenda. Table 6 presents a brief overview of the application of the Peruvian framework to caribou management in Newfoundland. Below, each stage of the framework is explored in greater depth in relation to caribou management in Newfoundland. This will be followed by the dissertation sections pertaining to research results, conclusions, and future opportunities.    6.2.1 Human History in Newfoundland prior to Confederation By the time Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot) ‘discovered’ Newfoundland for England in 1497, Indigenous groups had been living on the island for more than 5000 years (Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, 2018a). Following the Maritime Archaic peoples, who seem to have all but died out by 3000 B.P. (Baker, 2003; Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, 2018a), the Groswater people became prevalent on the island from approximately 3200 B.P. until their numbers also declined considerably by 2200 B.P. (Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, 2018b). The next Indigenous group to occupy the Island was the Dorset people who, before     88 Table 6. Peruvian Framework Applied to Newfoundland Caribou Management Presenting Issues - Caribou populations in NL decreased by 60% in just 12 years - Recently arrived, coyote perceived by many as the cause of caribou decline - Sustainable caribou management strategy identified as a priority for NL government - Conflicting opinions of the cause of decline by public and managers - Largely a consumptive user-focus in stakeholder input Historical Review - History of distrust of and conflict between resource users and management agencies - Caribou is NL’s largest native herbivore (cultural significance)  - Few attempts at integrated fish and wildlife management approaches - Strong history of resource exploitation and consequent caribou habitat alteration  Stakeholder Analysis - Stakeholders include: wildlife managers, general public, hunting outfitters, hunters and conservation groups - Little evidence of engagement with Qalipu and Miawpukek First Nations Bands - Important to understand manager’s opinions about local knowledge/opinions to promote a social-ecological systems approach - Conflicting views between groups Issue Analysis - Public perceptions of role of coyotes in caribou declines proving important - Population decline part of natural cycle but poses significant social-ecological impacts - Little opportunity for broad stakeholder input - Some call for the eradication of coyotes - Ongoing challenges in promoting an integrated approach to management The Research Agenda - Main challenges facing caribou management in Newfoundland include difficult-to-predict factors such as global climate change impacts and changes in predator numbers and also challenge of lack of cooperation between stakeholders and managers - Ways forward for working toward more integrated approaches to wildlife management Description of System Dynamics and Key Relationships - Influence of various system components on caribou population numbers - Drivers of change in the system: hunting of caribou, caribou predation, and habitat changes. - Key relationship for the system is also a driver of change: lack of interaction and collaboration between managers and stakeholders Policy and Governance Analysis - Governance issues stem from a consumptive user-focused approach to management   - Governance issues stemming from stakeholder desires to contribute to management - Nested spheres of influence regarding levels of government responsible for wildlife management    89 dying out in by 1200 B.P., were contemporaries of the Beothuk people (Baker, 2003; Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, 2018b).   When Vikings reached the northern tip of the Newfoundland’s Northern Peninsula in 1000 B.P, the Beothuk people were still present in Newfoundland and at that time had already inhabited the Island for two centuries or more. Because of battles with newly-arriving Europeans, however, a lack of resistance to their diseases, and restricted access to critical resources, members of the Beothuk Aboriginal group numbered less than 1000 by the time of John Cabot’s visit and became extinct when the last surviving Beothuk woman died in 1829 (Baker, 2003). Today, the only First Nation group remaining in Newfoundland is the Mi’kmaq people.  Though the Mi’kmaq people have lived on the Island since the 1500s, they were not granted a reserve and Indian status by the federal government until 1987 (Baker, 2003; Qalipu First Nation, 2016) when the Miawpukek Reserve was established on the south coast of Newfoundland. Today, as many as 100,000 individuals in Newfoundland continue to seek formal recognition as founding members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation band (Government of Canada, 2017; Hanrahan, n.d.). The Qalipu, band is comprised of 66 traditional Mi’kmaq communities, many along Newfoundland’s south and west coasts (Qalipu First Nation, 2016). It is important to distinguish between the island of Newfoundland and the Labrador portion of the province with respect to Indigenous peoples. The Labrador portion of the province is home to substantial populations of people from three distinct Indigenous groups: the Inuit of Nunatsiavut, The Southern Inuit of NunatuKavut, and the Labrador Innu. Through their strong connection to the land as well as formal self-governance arrangements, land claims agreements, and well-organized Indigenous group representation, Indigenous peoples in Labrador are able to  90 participate in a greater number of wildlife-related advisory groups while few if any formal stakeholder engagement processes exist for informed wildlife management in Newfoundland,  The first official European settlements were established in Newfoundland in the early 1600s (Baker, 2003). Over the next 300 years, English control of the island, and its lucrative cod fishery, was challenged several times by the French until 1904, when France relinquished all claims to the Island except for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon located near Newfoundland’s south coast (Baker, 2003); these islands remain French territory today. In 1949, Newfoundland’s first provincial government was established and the former British colony became Canada’s youngest province (Baker, 2003).   6.2.2 The Natural Environment   Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada’s most easterly province. The province is composed of the main island of Newfoundland, which is approximately 111,400 km2, and the more northerly Labrador portion, which is part of mainland Canada and is approximately 294,300 km2 (Government of NL – Land Area, 2018) (Figure 2). In describing the terrestrial characteristics of Newfoundland, the Island is often divided into three zones, which are in turn subdivided into ecoregions (Bell, 2002) (Figure 3).     91   Figure 2. Map of Newfoundland and Labrador (© 2002 Natural Resources Canada, open government licence https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada)    92  Figure 3. Ecoregions of Newfoundland (© Riche, 2002, by permission)  The southern boreal zone includes the following ecoregions: Avalon Forest, South Avalon Burin Oceanic Barrens, Southwest Newfoundland, and the southern portion of the Long Range Mountains. The middle boreal zone is composed of Northern Peninsula, Northeastern Newfoundland, and Central Newfoundland ecoregions. Finally, the northern boreal zone includes the northern portion of the Long Range Mountains ecoregion and the Strait of Bell Island ecoregion (Bell, 2002).  Newfoundland has cool summers and cold to mild winters. Precipitation ranges from 900 mm to 1600 mm per year. Throughout the Island’s ecoregions mean annual temperatures range from 2.5oC to 5.5oC with mean summer temperatures between 10oC and 12.5oC, and average winter temperatures between –5.5oC and -1oC (Bell, 2002). With the exception of the south coast  93 where extensive wetland barrens can be found (Figure 4), the vegetation of Newfoundland is composed mainly of Black spruce (Picea mariana) forest throughout the centre of the Island with Balsam fir (Abies balsamea) forests nearer the coasts (Figure 5). Throughout Newfoundland, forest areas are intermixed with or in close proximity to intermittent and sometimes-extensive plateaus and lowlands. These barren areas are often referred to as moss or rock and heath barrens (Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007).  Newfoundland is home to several mammal and bird species which prey on or scavenge caribou. These include black bears, lynx, fox (Vulpes vulpes) and bald eagles (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) (Bell, 2002; Department of Environment and Conservation – Land Mammals, n.d.). In addition to these native species, several other non-native animals also closely interact with insular caribou populations. These species have been introduced or have naturally expanded their range to Newfoundland.   The most relevant intentional species introduction is moose (Alces alces) (introduced 1904) (Department of Environment and Conservation – Land Mammals, n.d.) while Coyotes (Figure 6), the only animal in recent years to naturally expand its range to include insular Newfoundland, are likely also the most controversial in discussions related to caribou conservation. Since crossing sea ice from Nova Scotia during the mid-1980s (Figure 7) coyotes have spread throughout insular Newfoundland (Blake, 2006).   94  Figure 4. Woodland Caribou in Wetland Barren Area. (© 2012 Randell et al., by permission)   Figure 5. Newfoundland Forest Landscape. (© 2011 Wiersma, by permission)     95 Figure 6. Eastern Coyote in Newfoundland. (© 2017 Robertson, by permission)             Figure 7. Expanding Range of the Eastern Coyote (© 2006 Blake, by permission)   96 In Newfoundland, coyotes are often blamed for contributing to recent significant declines in caribou populations but are seen by others as filling an important ecological niche left after the human-induced extinction of the Newfoundland wolf (Canis lupus beothucus) (extinct since approximately 1922) (Department of Environment and Conservation – Land Mammals, n.d.; Schaeffer & Mahoney, 2007).  6.2.3 Caribou Population Status and Decline  The preferred habitat of woodland caribou includes mainly old growth coniferous forests in winter and more open scrub and barren areas in summer, areas where they can access ground-level and arboreal lichens  (Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007; Thomas & Gray, 2002). It is not surprising therefore that the distribution of Woodland caribou across Canada very closely reflects the distribution of the nation’s boreal forest (Figure 8). While western populations of caribou are considerably more fragmented, and therefore more vulnerable, than those in more central and eastern areas (Ray, et al. 2014; Thomas & Gray, 2002), populations across Canada are experiencing significant declines. The latest woodland caribou status assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, 2014) indicates that the status of the Newfoundland population has changed since the 2002 assessment. While the Newfoundland population was deemed Not at Risk in 2002, this status has now been upgraded to Special Concern (Figure 9). As stated by COSEWIC 2014,  This population has fluctuated in abundance over the last 100 years and presently has declined by approximately 60% over the last 3 caribou generations. The decline was due to limited forage when the population was at high density, harvest, and predation.   97                                                                                                                                                                                            Figure 8. Canadian Distribution of Woodland Caribou. (© 2002 Thomas & Gray, by permission)    Figure 9. Estimated Abundance of Newfoundland Caribou. (© 2014 Weir, et al., by permission)   Prior to the 2014 COSEWIC report, and foretelling the change in the Newfoundland caribou population’s assessment status from Not at Risk in 2002 to Special Concern in 2014, a   98 Various indices suggest that the population is improving but there is concern that Eastern Coyote, which has recently arrived to Newfoundland, may become a significant predator and influence recruitment such that the population continues to decline. (COSEWIC, 2014, p. 3) 2008 press release from the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation presented emerging research findings regarding the decline. By 2008, Provincial wildlife managers reported that caribou populations in Newfoundland had decreased by an average of 60% and some of the Island’s herds (Figure 10) had fallen by as much as 90%. This decrease represented a reduction from 90,000 animals in 1996 to 37,000 animals just 12 years later (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2008).   Figure 10. Newfoundland Caribou Herds. (© 2015 Kuehl, by permission)  99     100 Chapter 7. Analysis of the Presenting Situation: Key Relationships and Drivers of Change  Drivers of change in socio-ecological systems can be natural and social. From the system analysis presented here, several key drivers of change can be identified that have the potential to significantly influence the management of caribou in Newfoundland. These drivers include: the cultural significance of caribou, caribou declines and the issue of predation by coyotes, the impacts of natural resource exploitation, and caribou hunting.    7.1 Cultural Significance of Caribou The cultural significance of caribou, or reindeer, as domesticated herds are referred to in northern Europe, can be traced back as early as 12,000 B.C. when early Europeans began to rely on these animals as their main prey species in postglacial Europe (Müller-Wille et al., 2006). The domestication of reindeer (which includes keeping herds of various sizes, using tamed reindeer as decoys to capture wild caribou, milking, and using the animals for transport and draught purposes) began approximately 2000 years ago (Müller-Wille et al., 2006). From this time forward, various levels of domestication spread throughout Europe, eventually reaching northernmost Europe by the late seventh century A.D. (Müller-Wille et al., 2006).    For Newfoundland’s first human inhabitants, caribou held both spiritual significance and also utilitarian value. Even today Indigenous, First Nations groups, and even non-Indigenous people across Canada continue to attribute spiritual significance to caribou (Figure 11) and also hunt the animal for subsistence purposes (Kendrick, 2003; Thomas & Gray, 2002). For the Qalipu, one of Newfoundland’s two First Nation Mi’kmaq Indigenous Bands, the importance    101  Figure 11. Newfoundland Caribou - Focused Information Placemat. (© 2016 Intervale Associates, by permission)  of caribou is not only represented in the name of their band: Qalipu (ha-lee-boo) which means Caribou in Mi’kmaw language, but is manifested in all aspects of their culture.  The caribou were a staple of the Mi’kmaq people and were essential to their survival in Newfoundland. They were used for food, tools, clothing, wigwam covering and floor blankets, caribou-skin canoes, moccasins, snowshoes, caribou-hide packsacks…Using a name that is linked to wandering and migration makes sense for a landless band, because the native people lived a lifestyle similar to the caribou. They were not tied down to surveyed and fenced-in land, and they travelled the length and breadth of Newfoundland in their wanderings. The caribou, even in early times, were considered noble and dignified (Qalipu First Nation, 2016, para., 8).   102 Furthermore, as newly arriving Europeans began to settle in Newfoundland, the caribou provided a source of materials and food and also came to symbolize their new home. This symbolism was exemplified as early as 1637 when an Elk-like representation of a caribou was incorporated into the Newfoundland coat of arms (Figure 12) (Canadian Heritage, 2009). Recently the provincial Liberal party presented a proposal to redesign the coat of arms to include a more accurate representation of a caribou and a more accurate and respectful depiction of the province’s indigenous peoples (Fitzpatrick, 2018). In 1795, a caribou symbol was also included in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment’s Badge (Figure 13). As this unit was established in 1795, it is interesting to note that though many of the soldiers of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment would have been first or second generation immigrants to Newfoundland, this storied military unit adopted the caribou as a symbol of their new homeland (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2008).  7.2. Caribou Declines and the Issue of Predation by Coyotes The literature pertaining to caribou management offers a variety of possible reasons for declines in caribou populations across Canada. Some of the most often cited reasons include: parasites and disease; habitat degradation from residential construction, energy infrastructure, or forestry; predation; climate change and weather; and hunting (Blake, 2006; Mahoney & Schaefer, 2002; Mahoney & Virgl, 2003; Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007; Thomas & Gray, 2002). While all these causes are also present in Newfoundland, a 2015 provincial government report summarizing the preceding intensive five-year caribou research and management initiative concluded that the Newfoundland caribou population decline was    103                         Figure 12. Newfoundland Coat of Arms. (© 2018 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by permission. Retreived from Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador, 2011)        Figure 13. Royal Newfoundland Regiment (RNR) Badge. (© 2018 Provided courtesy of RNR and the Department of National Defence. Retreived from Government of Canada – Canadian Army, 2018)    104 simply the latest in series of historical cycles between unsustainably high populations and consequent population crashes (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2015).  Although the current caribou population decline seems to be part of a natural, multigenerational cycle (COSEWIC, 2014), a number of factors have been identified as contributing to the recent decline. Licenced hunting of caribou, which continued even during the first years of the decline with relatively high harvest quotas based on past, high population estimates, undoubtedly contributed to the inevitable population decline (Government of Newfoundland, 2015). At various times habitat degradation and behavioural interruptions from forestry operations and hydroelectric development as well as incidents of disease outbreaks have also been identified as limiting factors for Newfoundland caribou populations (Mahoney & Schaefer, 2002; Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007; Mahoney & Virgl, 2003). The provincial Department of Environment and Conservation (2015; 2008) has identified predation, particularly by black bears and coyotes, as influencing the caribou population decline through a reduction in calf survival (Figure 14). Predator management, especially the management of coyotes, is perhaps the most conspicuous and controversial of the drivers of change in this system. Although coyotes reached Newfoundland naturally (Blake, 2006), public reaction to these animals and wildlife managers’ management plans for these and other caribou predators undoubtedly extends into the social realm. With many coyote hunting opportunities available to Newfoundland residents and, until recently, the provincial government providing a scientific research reward for coyote carcass submission, public perception of coyotes directly influences hunting pressure on this predator. While there is no evidence of an established mechanism for information exchange between wildlife managers and stakeholders, the perception of coyotes by both hunting outfitters and the general public (Frank, Glikman,   105   Figure 14. Caribou Calf Abundance. (© 2014 Weir, Morrison, Luther & Mahoney, by permission)  Sutherland, & Bath, 2016) will likely influence the extent to which wildlife managers attempt to control coyote numbers through bounties and coyote hunting seasons. 7.3 Resource Exploitation First nations groups relied heavily on caribou and other animals for their food, clothing and tools. Later, with European settlement, the Island’s rich cod fishing grounds became Newfoundland’s most valuable resource (Overton, 1980). Then, as European immigrants established more formal settlements, Newfoundland’s forest and mineral resources increased in  106 importance (Overton, 1980). Eventually, the hydroelectric potential of the province’s rivers was realized and several hydroelectric dams were constructed (Baker, 2003; Mahoney & Schaefer, 2002). Most recently, oil has become one of the Island’s most lucrative resources and several major oil wells have been established just offshore (Baker, 2003).  Just as in western Canada (Ray et al., 2014; Thomas & Gray, 2002), habitat degradation and change is likely an important driver of change in Newfoundland’s caribou management. Forestry operations and hydroelectric developments affect the habitat, behaviour, and predation of caribou in Newfoundland (Mahoney & Schaefer, 2002; Mahoney & Virgl, 2003; Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007). If forestry operations and oil, mineral and hydroelectric resource exploitation continue in Newfoundland, impacts on caribou habitat and consequently caribou populations will undoubtedly increase (Figure 15). For example, the Muskrat Falls hydroelectricity development may have contributed to the significant decline of the once great George River Caribou Herd in Labrador (Wall, 2016). In the final report on the five-year caribou research and management initiative, however, the impact of resource development on Newfoundland caribou was found to be negligible owing to the Island’s large tracts of as-yet- undeveloped, intact caribou habitat (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2015).    107  Figure 15. Distribution of Industrial and Fire Disturbance in Woodland Caribou Habitat. (© 2012 Lee, by permission)  7.4 Hunting Hunting of wildlife species is a common way for some societal groups to supplement their food supply and carry on cultural traditions; hunting is also an important recreational activity for hunters as well as a lucrative endeavour for outfitters (Brown et al., 2000). While these factors influence hunting pressure on Newfoundland’s caribou, perhaps the greatest influence on hunting rates in the province is wildlife managers’ dependence on hunting to control population numbers (Brown, et al., 2000). Although the most recent population status assessment by COSEWIC (2014) identifies Newfoundland caribou as a population of Special Concern, the 2002 assessment of the same population found them to be Not at Risk and, according to the  108 authors of the 2002 assessment report, the Newfoundland population was, at that time, identified as one of only a few local populations across Canada that was increasing (Thomas & Gray, 2002). As predicted in the work by Brown et al. (2000), Thomas and Gray (2002) identified the importance of hunting as a mechanism to control the increasing populations in Newfoundland and avoid impending carrying capacity-related habitat damage. As the impending caribou population decline was still unanticipated in the 2002 COSEWIC assessment, caribou hunting quotas in Newfoundland were maintained and even increased in the 2000s even as populations were, in reality, rapidly declining. While it is likely that people have hunted Newfoundland caribou since the arrival of the first humans on the Island approximately 5,000 years ago, licensed hunting began only in the early 1970s (Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007). Within two decades, caribou license holders were harvesting just over 1,000 animals per year (Schaefer & Mahoney, 2007). By the 2007-08 caribou hunting season the number of licenses issued had increased to 2,800 (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2009). In response to significant declines in caribou populations, however, the number of licenses was reduced to 1,200 for the 2008-09 hunting season, and some areas of the province were closed to hunting altogether (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2009). More recently, during the 2015- 2016 hunting season, Caribou hunting quotas on Newfoundland Island were set at just 745 animals, a slight increase from the 740 animal quota of the previous season (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2015).      109 Chapter 8. Stakeholder Group Overview Stakeholder groups represented on the CRC were contacted for interviews for the study. These stakeholder groups include the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women’s Network; the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation; the Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club; the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association; the Department of Environment and Conservation; the Rural Secretariat; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association; and the Department of Natural Resources (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009). All but the Aboriginal Women’s Network were successfully interviewed for the study. Considerable efforts were made to contact the Aboriginal Women’s Network representative who served on the Caribou Rescue Committee but this person had moved out of the region and I was unable to arrange an interview. Each of the remaining stakeholder groups represented on the Caribou Resource Committee is expanded upon below. Before providing this overview, however, the lack of representation of Indigenous groups in both the CRC and in the data collection phase of this study warrants further discussion.  As outlined above, there are significant differences in Indigenous populations and levels of engagement in wildlife management between Newfoundland and Labrador. With the Miawpukek and Qalipu First Nations bands established in Newfoundland, the absence of representation of these bands on the CRC is unfortunate. While it was not possible to ascertain what efforts were taken to engage local Indigenous groups on the CRC, the Aboriginal Women’s Network was the only indigenous group to be represented. As Indigenous perspectives are often seen as fostering environmentally sustainable livelihood systems (Magni, 2016), the IRM approaches sought in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland would undoubtedly be well-informed by such holistic perspectives. Indeed, this close connection between wildlife  110 and Indigenous peoples is well documented in Labrador where a number of integrated resource management efforts benefited from an earnest engagement of local Indigenous groups. Examples of such collaboration include the Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-management Board (Torngat Secretariat, 2015) and provincial government’s planned co-management of the George River and Torngat caribou herds in Labrador (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2018).The lack of involvement of either the Miawpukek or Qalipu First Nations bands on the CRC calls into question the extent to which CRC membership truly represented the diversity of views regarding caribou management in the province. Any future iteration of the Newfoundland CRC must ensure adequate Indigenous representation as well as a greater diversity of other groups as well.   8.1 Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation The Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation is the provincial branch of the Canadian Wildlife Federation and promotes itself as being the “largest and oldest conservation organization in the province with over 22 affiliated conservation groups and several thousand members” (NLWF, n.d., para. 2). The NLWF engages in conservation issues in a variety of ways, including conservation education, advocacy and lobbying efforts, and even wildlife research and monitoring (NLWF, n.d.).   8.2 The Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club  The Notre Dame Rod and Gun Club, one of eight in the province, is based in Lewisporte and provides shooting range facilities, comradeship to members, and advocates for fish and wildlife conservation. The Club’s advocacy role is often carried out through contributions to popular media articles, often by calling into question staff or funding reductions for conservation  111 and enforcement (Wells, 2015); or promoting nature conservation measures such as the creation of new protected areas (Quinn, 2016).        8.3 Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association  The Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association (NLOA) represents 63% or approximately 110 outfitting businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador (BTCRD/NLOA, 2015). The goals of the NLOA include the following: develop positive working relationships with relevant government departments and organizations, provide assistance and information to outfitters to help enhance their business, and promote and expand the industry for the benefit of their members and the province as a whole (NLOA, 2013). According to the NLOA, the outfitting industry contributes $40 million annually to the provincial economy (Hutchings, 2007) (Figure 16). With significant declines in insular caribou populations, however, many outfitters have experienced lower hunting success rates and consequent losses in revenues (Hutchings, 2007; McGrath, 2005). Many hunting outfitters, especially those who rely on caribou hunting in Newfoundland, strongly support a cull of caribou predators including black bears, lynx, and especially coyotes (Kean, 2008; Newell, 2008).   112  Figure 16. Online Advertisement for Newfoundland-based Outfitting Company. (© 2011 Efford’s Hunting Adventures, by permission)  When one considers the monetary value of Newfoundland’s outfitting industry, their extensive membership base throughout the province, and the industry’s strong opinions regarding caribou and predator management, the importance of this industry to the socio-ecological system of caribou management in Newfoundland becomes obvious. Perhaps further emphasizing the importance of the outfitter stakeholder group in Newfoundland’s caribou management system is the fact that the cull of predators, as called for by some in the outfitting industry, has also been promoted by the provincial Department of Environment and Conservation (along with significant reductions in hunting quotas) as one of their main caribou conservation strategies to be tested as part of the five-year caribou research and management initiative (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2008).    8.4 Department of Environment and Conservation  Wildlife managers in Newfoundland are usually employees of the Wildlife Division of the Provincial Department of Environment and Conservation (recently renamed as the  113 Department of Fisheries and Land Resources). With the initiation of the Enhanced Caribou Management Strategy in 2006 by the Wildlife Division, caribou management was firmly established as one of the main priorities of the division and the department as a whole (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007). The $15.3 million earmarked for the development of this strategy allowed wildlife managers to complete the necessary research to establish baseline information on the natural environment to inform future management of caribou in the province (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2008).  In addition to the natural environment research foci of this strategy, the Department of Environment and Conservation also committed to “clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in wildlife research and management to ensure better cooperation and management of wildlife in the Province” (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007). In working toward this commitment, the CRC was established to facilitate the exchange of information between managers and stakeholders (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2009).  Like most other government departments in the province, the Department of Environment and Conservation has recently undergone significant restructuring. The new (2017) Department of Fisheries and Land Resources now houses the Lands Branch, the Natural Areas Program, and, most relevant to the current issue in question, the Divisions of Wildlife and Fish and Wildlife Enforcement (Executive Council, 2017). This iteration of restructuring for the Department of Environment and Conservation, and the associated wildlife-related portfolios, is the latest in a series of attempts to reorganize the division and its branches over the years in the name of efficiency. The implications of such restructuring are expanded upon in next chapter.   114 8.5 Rural Secretariat  Again, like most other provincial government departments, the Rural Secretariat was recently reorganized under a new structure. Since 2012, the Office of Public Engagement absorbed the Rural Secretariat and four other offices that focused on public engagement (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – Involve NL, n.d.). The inclusion of a representative of the Rural Secretariat on the CRC reflects the economic, cultural, and social importance of the caribou to the rural communities of Newfoundland. Fittingly, the first mandate of the Rural Secretariat is to “[p]romote the well-being of rural Newfoundland and Labrador through a comprehensive and coordinated approach aimed at integrating economic, social, [and] cultural aspects of rural and regional development” (St. Anthony – Port au Choix Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, 2012, p. 15).   8.6 The Department of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation Reorganized as the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry, and Innovation in February of 2017, the former Department of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation, which was represented on the CRC, was charged with a diverse mandate that included supporting and developing “the tourism and cultural and heritage industries, and increased participation in physical activity and sport to improve the economic, social, and physical well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador” (Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, 2008, p. 3). The primary connection between this department and the caribou discussions relate to the tourism potential from wildlife viewing and the province’s outfitting industry.   115 8.7 Provincial Department of Natural Resources  Prior to provincial department restructuring in 2015 and again, in February 2017, the Department of Natural Resources included the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency. While a number of portfolios falling under this Department’s umbrella relate to caribou management in Newfoundland, perhaps the most relevant is forest resource management. The Forestry and Agrifoods branch is currently housed within the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. This new departmental structure separates portfolios related to renewable resource industries from those pertaining to non-renewable resources (Executive Council, 2017).  The Forest Services branch is guided by the following vision:  To conserve, manage and use the ecosystems of the Province, while ensuring the productivity and sustainability of these systems and their functions, which sustain forests and to provide for the utilization of resources by the people of the Province under the principles of sustainable development, an ecologically-based management philosophy, and sound environmental practices (Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, 2017, para 1). With its mandate to manage forest resources that occur on the same landscape as  Newfoundland’s caribou, the inclusion of the Department of Natural Resources on the CRC is both fitting and perhaps indicative of a desire for a more integrated resource management approach to caribou research and management.   8.8 Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association  Similar to the NLWN, the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association also engages in a variety of activities in pursuit of their mandate to “promote and preserve the  116 trapping heritage of our province” (Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association, 2014, para. 1). Since their inception in 1977, the main activities pursued by the Trappers Association include promoting trapper education, lobbying relevant provincial government bodies in support of the Association’s mandate, and also “educating new and veteran trappers, as well as the interested public, in the latest innovative methods, equipment and economic and cultural value of our profession” (Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association, 2014, para. 1).  8.9 Provincial Wildlife Policy and Governance Context Though conservation or enforcement officers are often the most visible representatives of wildlife management in the province, wildlife management policy and decision making rests with the Wildlife Division (currently housed within the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources but formerly, during the time period identified as the focus for my work, within the Department of Environment and Conservation). While the Wildlife Division is the government agency often seen as the decision-making body in wildlife research, conservation, and management, it is perhaps best viewed as a part of the larger governance structure hierarchy made up of interactions between a variety of other institutions and actors that influence management direction (Francis, 2007). In describing governance and its influence on caribou management in Newfoundland it becomes obvious that while there are a number of actors and institutions affected by the direction of caribou management in the province, there are few opportunities for these groups to have an earnest influence on wildlife management decisions (Figure 17).   While some provincial wildlife management direction is provided by federal guidance (e.g. species at risk), the preferences voiced by relevant provincial ministers, an inter-provincial  117 committee of wildlife directors (the CWDC), and the wildlife division researcher’s own scientific and contextual understanding of the issues in question, this more simplified management model (8.2) differs considerably from the Adaptive Impact Management (AIM) model presented by Riley et al., (2003) and a later manager’s model for wildlife disease management presented Decker et al. (2006). For both the AIM and disease management models stakeholder input is necessary from the beginning as the impacts warranting management attention are defined through stakeholder input.   In Newfoundland wildlife management, however, the only provincial actors for which there is an established mechanism for providing input into wildlife management and decision making are consumptive wildlife users as much of the data upon which wildlife management decisions are based comes from hunters in the form of big game harvest effort, rates, and locations (Department of Environment and Conservation – Hunting and Trapping Guide, 2009). The only formal collaboration conduit between wildlife managers and stakeholders was the CRC, which was established for a specific purpose and for a short period of time (the five-year caribou research and management initiative). As discussed in later chapters, this committee or one like it could play an important role in more integrated approaches to provincial wildlife management in the future (Figure 17)    118             Figure 17. Simplified Wildlife Management Model with No Opportunity for Formal Stakeholder Input   8.9.1. Challenges  Issues of complexity and difficulty of prediction are important challenges facing managers of Newfoundland’s caribou populations. Drivers of change such as changes in predator numbers or the influence of global climate change on caribou habitat are difficult to predict. One overarching challenge can, however, be identified that has a clear and immediate impact on caribou management in Newfoundland: the challenge of fostering cooperation between managers Change in Natural Phenomena Impacting Wildlife Population or Habitat Viability Wildlife management agency (WMA) concern about population viability and broader natural system WMA Broad Policies and Goals - Which are defined by:  - Natural science research - Federal policy direction - Direction from CWDC* - Direction from provincial minister - Interdepartmental amenability   - Harvest data from licence returns Identification and evaluation of enabling objectives and implementation of the preferred management alternative(s)  System response to management strategy implementatiMonitoring change in the natural system Leads to… Triggered by… Guides the… Results in… Requires… Resulting in…  119 and stakeholders in the province. A wildlife management system is composed of the interaction between wildlife species, their habitats, and the people who depend on, affect, or are affected by management (Giles, 1978). As evidenced by a lack of an established means of information exchange or any form of long-term cooperation organization between wildlife managers and stakeholders, wildlife in the province has traditionally been managed from a biological and ecological understanding of the species with management information coming mainly from harvest data. This continued lack of collaboration between managers and a wider diversity of stakeholders is a pervasive challenge facing the caribou management system in Newfoundland.  As stated by Nobel, Ramirez, and Lightfoot (2008, p. 152) in their discussion of the challenges of linking hard and soft systems “[a] further challenge is the complexity of relationships between local and national policy makers and their clients, the local community”. This statement coincides very well with each of the key relationships that have the potential to influence change in the caribou management system in Newfoundland. The lack of a dedicated, long-term intermediary organization between stakeholders and wildlife managers has the potential to negatively influence the legitimacy and thus effectiveness of future caribou management (Figure 17). For instance, hunters and outfitters might react negatively to significant reductions in the number of caribou hunting licences issued by the Department of Environment and Conservation if the stakeholders are unaware of or disagree about appropriate caribou management. Similarly, without some form of consensus or collaboration between stakeholders and wildlife managers regarding the role of predation or various forms of habitat degradation on caribou populations, managers can expect little cooperation and compliance with the management strategies they propose to address this issue.     120 Chapter 9. Dimensions of Integrated Resource Management in Newfoundland Caribou Management The results from this study are organized to facilitate an examination of how the various dimensions of IRM are manifested in caribou management in Newfoundland. The dimensions of IRM identified by Slocombe and Hanna (2007) include disciplines; information; spatial/ecological units; governments; agencies; interests/sectors; and perceptions, attitudes and values. As some IRM dimensions are closely related and were addressed in concert or simultaneously in both interviews and popular media articles, the dimensions are grouped here into three categories to frame this results section.   The three general categories and the IRM dimensions associated with each include the following:  Horizontal Integration. Efforts to address the fragmentation of authority for resource management between various government departments and agencies, horizontally, at the same (federal or provincial) level. The IRM dimensions falling within this general category include Governments (especially relevant provincial government departments), Agencies, and Interests/Sectors (e.g. forestry, hunting, conservation).  Vertical Integration. Identification and application of appropriate public involvement strategies to solicit relevant information from affected stakeholder groups as well as efforts to integrate this human dimensions information to inform management. The IRM dimensions falling within this category include Perceptions, Attitudes and Values; Disciplines (especially the integration of natural and social science perspectives), and Information. Ecosystem Approaches. The data and discourse emerging from interviews and popular media articles pertaining to landscape-scale and ecosystem-based management efforts, adaptive management, and the IRM dimension of Spatial-Ecological Units.    121 9.1 Horizontal Integration To elucidate the extent to which horizontal integration was manifested in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, interview data, departmental reports and popular media articles were analyzed with the intention of isolating discussion pertaining to horizontal integration, such as integration of or fragmentation between relevant government departments, interest groups, and sectors.  The need for greater integration between relevant government departments and the sometimes-diverse interests they represent was highlighted by a majority of interviewees and in a considerable number of popular media articles and press releases. In fact all 18 interviewees addressed the importance of horizontal integration in some form, with many referencing the need for successful caribou management to be informed both by strong wildlife research (e.g., field surveys of caribou and predators, habitat and forage capacity, population/animal health assessments) and information regarding the cultural and economic significance of caribou and various management strategies; these latter values were often represented by the provincial departments of Tourism and Forestry. The need for such integration was well articulated by one interview participant, who called attention to fragmentation between government departments that resulted in a breakdown in collaboration and coordination,   “I think what’s required in this particular case is a higher-order direction on what the decision makers want us to do. [Currently] a central agency within government tells the Wildlife Division this is your mandate and tells Forestry or Agrifoods this is your mandate and you squirrel away and do your separate things and hope everything works out. And most times it doesn’t unless someone at the end of the day provides direction and says ‘listen we’re going to get along here and we got to find a way to move things forward in harmony’” (Interview #8).   122  Similarly, when discussing successful caribou management approaches, one interviewee acknowledged both the ecological and social aspects,  “…I think there are two aspects to it [successful caribou management in Newfoundland]. One would be an ecological one, so we have populations…whose persistence is assured…[w]here caribou are still playing the role that they normally do as important herbivores as important prey items…they are doing their ecological role…I think that the other part [of being] successful would be the connection to people… successful in my mind would also mean some cultural attachment…or just understand the value of caribou to the culture of the people on the Island” (Interview #7). With the intent of fostering a more horizontally integrated approach, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has taken steps to combine (geographically at least) the departments responsible for the management of forests, wildlife, and agriculture. In 2000, then Premier Brian Tobin announced the regionalization of nine government departments to areas outside of the capital city of St. John’s. The relocation of 275 positions was promoted in a press release from the Premier’s office as a way to both “make government more accessible in different parts of the province, [and to also help] more evenly distribute the economic benefits of government to more communities" (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2000, para. 2). Included among these relocated departments was the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, which at the time also housed the Inland Fish and Wildlife Branch, the body responsible for the management of big and small game, endangered species, and inland fish.  From the standpoint of integrated resource management, moving the Inland Fish and Wildlife Branch to Corner Brook to “permit a further integration with the department’s forestry  123 mandate, which is already located in Corner Brook” (2000, para. 42) was an ambitious goal. The Premier’s office acknowledged the importance of such integration and stated that,  “The department has adopted an eco-system based approach to the management of our outdoor resources. Ecosystem management strategies take values into consideration including forestry, wildlife, fish, rare plants, eco-tourism potential and recreational use. The consolidation of Wildlife & Inland Fish and Forestry Headquarters into one location will strengthen the department’s ecosystem management philosophy” (2000, para. 43). Ambitions such as these coincide directly with the integrative approaches necessary to reduce fragmentation and achieve horizontal integration.  Discourse about the importance of bringing relevant values and government departments together to address caribou management challenges in Newfoundland was also evident in popular media articles and provincial government reports. Though many of the provincial government reports were focused on natural science, almost 25% of the 45 popular media articles and provincial government reports addressed, to varying extents, topics related to integration, inter/multidisciplinary approaches, ecosystem-based approaches, collaboration, or landscape-scale approaches. For instance, a 2011 bulletin from the Canadian Boreal Initiative stated, “to conserve caribou and facilitate more effective forest management planning, the Island of Newfoundland should adopt a landscape-level approach that seeks to maintain large intact landscapes across areas inhabited by caribou. …Until an effective approach to managing large intact landscapes is developed, the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Natural Resources should adopt a temporary deferral on new commercial     124 harvesting and road building within intact forest landscapes occupied by caribou” (Wells, Jacob, Goudie, & Feldgajer, 2011, p. 2). Similarly, a 2015 provincial government report on insular caribou populations stated that, “Conservation and sustainable use of Newfoundland’s caribou population over the long term will require collaboration of scientists, managers, enforcement officials, land developers and resource extraction industries” (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2015, p. viii).  9.2 Horizontal Fragmentation   While the goals of the relocation of a number of government offices from the capital city to Corner Brook did coincide with the aims of IRM, the result was a geographical separation of wildlife science research (which remained in St. John’s and was eventually directed by the Sustainable Development and Strategic Science Branch) and wildlife management (which was headquartered in Corner Brook). Related to this relocation, a substantial number of interviewees highlighted a period of significant fragmentation both within the provincial Wildlife portfolio (between the areas of wildlife research and wildlife management) and between the Wildlife Division and the Department of Forestry in the province. Of the 18 interviews conducted, 11 interviewees, acknowledged fragmentation between these two essential components and cited instances of inadequate information sharing or collaboration, thus preventing truly effective wildlife conservation. The quotations below capture the sentiment expressed by many of the interviewees who called attention to this fragmentation: “I don’t know that the best use is made of the data for caribou management…you know there are some sensitivities regarding caribou management and that doesn’t help, right?  125 There’s some of this, I guess, friction between agencies and you know…if that were to be removed I think management could be improved” (Interview #9).  “…there was a critical five-year period there after the wildlife division got shifted to Corner Brook and the upheaval that resulted from that and the acrimony, the internal acrimony that resulted from it” (Interview #14).  “Because of the way that the caribou initiative was carried out, there was, in my experience, very little contact with wildlife division by itself – this [the Five-Year Caribou Strategy] was a separate entity, it was funded in a certain window of time…and while there was some flow of information…it was, let’s say, difficult for a variety of reasons having to do with historical mistrust between the somewhat fractured, that’s putting it mildly, effort on the island. So information flow happened, but it was difficult” (Interview #6). Commenting more specifically on the apparent fragmentation within the wildlife management portfolio, one interviewee stated:  “There are two groups and [for] the caribou piece specifically, it seems like the SDSS [Sustainable Development and Strategic Science based in St. John’s] had been given some authority, they certainly were given a substantial budget to look at this question of what the optimal number of caribou ought to be. But at the same time the Wildlife Division [based in Corner Brook], which apparently, even though they were within the same department, are completely separate from those activities…were, I assume, in parallel trying to do similar work and it became known to many people very soon that there was…not always harmony between those two” (Interview #8).   126 Similarly, another interviewee acknowledged the management challenges caused by the, separation (geographical and otherwise) between science (St. John’s) and management (Corner Brook). In discussing the separation of the two in 2000, one interviewee stated that, “It became much more difficult for the folks charged with management to access information and there were several instances of people being very angry about that” (Interview #11).  Unfortunately, it seems that efforts to foster integration between relevant departments and agencies, in this case forestry, agriculture, and wildlife, instead inadvertently contributed to fragmentation not only between departments but also between the areas of science and management within the wildlife portfolio. Commenting on the seemingly long-held and entrenched incongruity, whether real or perceived, between these two sectors, one interviewee stated, “what you had was a bunch of…wildlife biologists in the wildlife division and they had spent a good part of their career angry at habitat deterioration that they perceived was the outcome of forestry operations and suddenly their adversaries were supposed to be their chums, and that just didn’t work” (Interview #11). Similarly, regarding efforts to foster greater collaboration between other provincial natural resource management departments and the Wildlife Division, one participant stated,   “there has to be an admission [by] the authorities that are tasked with managing wildlife in this province to…acknowledge the fact that there needs to be inclusion in the decision-making process and in spite of us [a provincial natural resource management department] having asked to be part of the decision-making process, we were not permitted to be part of it…at various intervals we had requested to be part of the discussion and you know we  127 were asked for our input but not permitted to be at the table where the real questions were taking place” (Interview #8).  Both interviewees and popular media articles reported that the timing of the disruption caused by the relocation and attempted integration of the above-mentioned departments unfortunately directly coincided with an important turning point in the status and trajectory of Newfoundland caribou populations. The rapid shift in Newfoundland caribou populations from growth, to a peak population in excess of 90,000 animals in 1996, to the beginning of a rapid decline (by 9%/year during some periods), occurred between the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s (Mahoney & Weir, 2009), which coincided with this tumultuous time for those provincial bodies charged with wildlife research and management.   The challenges and management implications of this population shift were not lost on those closely associated with caribou management efforts. As one interviewee stated, “It seems that nobody was inspired to do their job as wildlife managers…so for five years nothing really got done and this was the critical five years” (Interview #14). The suggestion that the work of provincial wildlife managers and researchers was sidetracked during this pivotal time period is supported by the fact that in an otherwise essentially unbroken record of research, caribou population data gaps occur during this transition period. By the time the caribou research program was restarted, caribou population trajectories had changed drastically (Figure 18). This coincidence of disrupted research and management when the trajectory of the caribou population reversed is captured succinctly by one interviewee,    “if you look at [the caribou population data] there is a break. That’s [the data are] virtually continuous from the late 1970s, early 1980s until 1997 I think, something like that [a data gap] until something like 2004, that was the [caribou] population peak. Just at  128 the time when we should have been trying to learn what was going on, that [research on caribou populations] turned off and I know, I was there…That was largely due to “small p” politics, so much disruption of the department that research essentially turned off at the crucial moment” (Interview #7). This untimely data gap has also been highlighted in the popular media with one CBC News article stating,  “Newfoundland and Labrador kept excellent data on caribou for nearly 100 years, but in 1997, the work of counting the animals abruptly stopped. When it resumed in 2003, researchers were shocked to discover that almost no caribou calves were surviving their first year” (CBC News, 2012, para. 3) The fragmentation within the wildlife portfolio also negatively affected the department’s ability to formulate and implement effective management efforts. Commenting on what were perceived to be inappropriate caribou hunting licence allocations during the early stages of the caribou population decline, one anonymous letter to the editor presented an opinion regarding an unfortunate combination of factors detracting from effective caribou conservation,  “Licences were increased from 4,525 in 1996 to 7,730 in 2001 and occurred at a time when the wildlife division was in total disarray and the coyote was just getting a foothold throughout the island” (Letter to the Editor, 2008, para. 4).  Since the initiation of the Caribou Recovery Program in 2008 extensive, detailed, and rigorous data have been collected on many relevant indices of caribou population status and trajectories (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2015). Through modeling and interpolation of information from before and after the 1997 – 2003 data gap (Figure 18), provincial government researchers have filled in the information gaps created during the years  129 when no data were gathered. Figure 18 however, shows the significant transition in caribou calf recruitment that occurred during the 1997 – 2003 lapse in data collection. In the 2002 assessment  by COSEWIC, Newfoundland caribou were the only North American population of Woodland caribou to be declared as “Not At Risk”, and at that time, Newfoundland was home to 82,000 by COSEWIC, Newfoundland caribou were the only North American population of Woodland caribou to be declared as “Not At Risk”, and at that time, Newfoundland was home to 82,000   Figure 178. Survivorship Estimates for Caribou Calves from 1979-2005. (© 2009 Mahoney & Weir, by permission)  caribou, which represented 80% of all Woodland caribou in North America (Trindade, et al., 2011). By 2012, however, the population had fallen by 66% to 32,000 animals (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2015).and a more recent COSEWIC assessment in 2014 assessed Newfoundland Woodland caribou as a Species of Special Concern (COSEWIC, 2014).    130 9.3 Vertical Integration Vertical integration refers to the application of public involvement strategies to solicit relevant information from affected stakeholder groups as well as efforts to effectively integrate this human dimensions information into management. In this case study, there were some efforts to move beyond the traditional wildlife biology inputs and to solicit information from other affected stakeholder groups. In the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, the CRC is the most obvious manifestation of vertical integration.   9.3.1 Caribou Resource Committee  The CRC was established in 2008 as a means of information exchange between stakeholder groups and the Sustainable Development and Strategic Science branch of the provincial government, which was responsible for studying caribou population declines and developing a management strategy (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009, para. 1). The composition of the committee was diverse and included representatives of 12 stakeholder groups associated with caribou management in the province (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009). The CRC, however, represented only special interest groups and not necessarily the broader public interest. Related to this point, one interviewee stated the following:  “…we don’t have a great diversity of NGOs in this province…to argue  articulately in the public domain for their views…what we have is a very simplified decision-making process that largely sees the decisions flowing between the professionals within government responsible for these resources and the government officials who ultimately make the decision” (Interview #17).   131 While the diversity of NGOs in the province likely falls short of other jurisdictions in Canada, it seems that while some stakeholder groups, such as Newfoundland’s First Nations bands mentioned above, are present and active in the province, they were not represented on the CRC. Relatedly, one interview participant identified concerns regarding the composition of the committee and the extent to which its members truly represented the range of interests associated with the caribou management in the province. Commenting on the composition of the committee the interviewee stated,   “…it seems that some of them [CRC members] may even be…preselected…I think probably for the right intent, but they are also invited because I think there is a view that they’re the people who might best help government navigate this issue. Either because they will be more cooperative or because you know they are just the people that are identified as probably useful for committee structures….But there’s a risk in how you choose, and if you don’t set up a system where you know it’s very open, transparent and maybe equal in terms of who can come to the table then maybe you lose something there because you’re making certain assumptions” (Interview #1). The manner in which stakeholder group representatives are selected by those convening such a committee can influence the actual and perceived efficacy of the group. Details on how CRC representatives were chosen is not available, but the above statement suggests that specific individuals may have been invited to form the committee. While, as expanded upon below, a diversity of groups should be invited to join such a committee, the selection of representatives should be left to each individual group. Such attention to the equity of procedure (how decisions are made and by whom) is highlighted by Dawson, Martin & Danielsen (2018) as an important objective for effective protected areas governance. In the context of Newfoundland caribou  132 management, adopting such a practice will both address concerns of collusion between representatives and those convening the group and also foster a greater sense of ownership of the process by the groups represented.  Discussions by most interviewees regarding the CRC, however, were more positive. In commenting on the interests represented on the committee one participant stated, “…the caribou resource committee was struck to involve stakeholders from the community...everybody who is there I think has some valuable kind of role to play or…simply as an information conduit to the membership or their own stakeholders…. They can pass on the information and the community at large can decide what they want to do with it” (Interview #2). Similarly, commenting on the merits of the CRC, one interviewee stated,   “…it’s…important to provide a voice to anybody who thinks they have an interest in it [caribou population decline and associated management responses] ...I think the Caribou Resource Committee did that. You know my thinking is that it captured a very wide range of perspectives, both government and non-government” (Interview #8). Still another interviewee commented positively on the function of the CRC and stated,  “…[through the CRC]…the different members have suggested lines of research that we might want to take part in…so we certainly considered those…” (Interview #9) With few avenues for participation available to stakeholders previously (or even subsequently), it is not surprising that many participants in the current study indicated strong support for the CRC and the opportunities for information sharing it provided. As noted by one interviewee,  133 “Up until now [prior to the CRC], most of this stuff [wildlife management decision making] has been done sort of ‘in house’ without any real input from the community or stakeholders like the NLWF [Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation] or the outfitters association, and other groups like that. This is, seems to me anyway, the first real effort at getting stakeholders like that involved in the process, in the management process and I think that is something that’s going to have to continue for sure” (Interview #2). Similarly, another interviewee commented on the role of the CRC in providing a venue for an open and respectful exchange of information.  “The Caribou Resource Committee process did a real good job at facilitating a discussion amongst all stakeholder groups that had an interest and educat[ed] me, I learned a lot from that process that I didn’t know about outfitting. And it was only through healthy debate at that table” (Interview #8).  9.4 Integrating Different Types and Sources of Information Participants indicated a strong desire to have both stakeholder information and scientific research information respected and integrated into management efforts. For instance, when asked for their opinion regarding successful caribou management, one interviewee articulated the need for both natural and social science knowledge and perspectives: “I think there are two aspects to it. One would be an ecological one, so we have populations…whose persistence is assured...where caribou are still playing the role that they normally do as important herbivores as important prey items, for example they are doing their ecological role that population persistence is assured. I think that the other  134 part successful would be the connection to people. So we know [the] relationship of caribou to Newfoundlanders” (Interview #7) Similarly, another interviewee also mentioned the need for natural and social science in successful caribou management process and stated, “successful caribou management would first and foremost take into consideration…an appropriate population density, but at the same time not being oblivious of the views of other resource users and [the] needs of folks who have depended on caribou for a long time for subsistence” (Interview #8). The multifaceted nature of the effects, and thus diverse interests associated with caribou management issues facing Newfoundland, was captured by one interviewee who stated,  “I don’t think it’s [the caribou population decline] a one dimensional problem I think it’s a multi-dimensional problem, there’s a lot of considerations, to take into account, you have economic issues with outfitters, you have tourism industry, you have people in conservation biology, you know there is a lot of intangible values about caribou it is a bit of an icon of our province, this point of view spiritually all the way to hunting for food to many, so we have a broad interest and value in caribou, so it is critical that the objectives we set manage it in a sustainable way but take into account a lot of values and interests as best we can” (Interview #1)  When asked about the contribution of various sources of information to decision making, one interviewee echoed this perspective and acknowledged that while “non-scientists” may have information that may contribute to the decision-making process, it should be evaluated differently than the contributions of research and management professionals.  135 “I don’t want to overplay the role of the scientist here, but the problem with, the non… and maybe I shouldn’t use the word science, maybe it’s information. Those of us who had really detailed information about what happened versus those of us who know the surface of it” (Interview #5). Not surprisingly, differences of opinion persist regarding both the validity of different sources of information and also the extent to which information solicited from stakeholders should contribute to management. This sentiment is captured well by one interviewee who stated,   “Guidance and advice is not necessarily equal…I think…the value you get in advice has to be…assessed you know in light of the expertise…that’s providing that advice. If you have naïve information or misinformation then you have to start discounting some of that and getting on with information that you know, is valid and is useful…I think decision makers have to probably place a little bit of priority on some types of advice given its background and given the expertise behind it and given the motives behind it too” (interview #1). This distinction between stakeholder information and “expert input” coincides with the discussions in the literature (Dovers and Price, 2007) regarding the distinction between informative and decisive forms of Integration, discussed below.   9.5 Bridging the Gap between Informative and Decisive Integration  Dovers and Price (2007) make the distinction between informative integration, which refers to efforts to solicit various types of information from relevant disciplines and stakeholders to help inform decision-making processes, and decisive integration, which involves the formulation of actual decisions and policy. Important parallels can be drawn between the  136 categories of vertical and horizontal integration in Newfoundland caribou management presented above and the categories of informative and decisive integration as presented by Dovers and Price (2007). While interviewee comments show that participants in the CRC wanted more effective horizontal and vertical integration, there is little evidence in this case study of efforts by wildlife managers to elevate stakeholder input to the level of decisive integration and thus facilitate the earnest engagement of stakeholders in actual decision making.  A number of interviewees advocated for bridging the gap between informative integration and decisive integration. As stated by one interviewee: “what we need is a process that’s inclusive and has more moving parts with meaningful roles to have…a reception of information, a delivery of information from the experts and an opportunity to meaningfully influence the dialogue and decision making. For instance, if you ask…[the]…public, ok, here’s our data, do you think we should manage these populations to rise and fall or do we manage them and try to maintain 60 – 65,000 animals and hopefully reduce these perturbations? And professionals should be able to say here are the risks and benefits of each of these approaches, which do you think is best? But we don’t do that. We don’t do anything even remotely close to that, so that’s what we should be doing” (Interview #17).  Similarly, another interviewee indicated the risk of stakeholders becoming disillusioned if not given the opportunity to make an earnest contribution to the decision-making process,  “To me successful decision making means that the right players sit around the table and have an open frank discussion and then come to some decision around that …but that government needs to be open to it as much as anybody else. You can’t expect the outfitter to come to the table and lay bare his soul and government to say “mhmm, yeah, well”  137 [interviewee’s inflection suggests this is to mean indifference/apathy], there has to be…you gotta establish trust around that [the decision-making process] and you have to be seen to establish trust. It’s not enough to say “ok we’re here now, we’re open, we’re gonna be doing it” (Interview #15). Yet another interviewee suggested that decision-making processes void of earnest public involvement contributes to mistrust of wildlife trustees,  “There is a mistrust of government where unless the [decision making] process is open…so you’re managing a resource on behalf of the people but you’re a government entity or you work directly for government…but people don’t think that you work for government and therefore what you say is true or right…there’s a huge mistrust of government which has gone from politicians to public servants” (Interview #16). Reiterating the absence of a formal stakeholder-engagement structure, one interviewee stated,  “Successful decision making has to be far more inclusive in this province than it is…[there is]… very little mechanism of any meaningful nature for the public at large to engage in that decision-making process” (Interview #17).  Similarly, another interviewee expressed displeasure with the lack of a formal committee that is truly representative of the diversity of interests regarding caribou management in Newfoundland,   “in terms of going out and formally engaging multiple sectors it doesn’t really happen very well in my opinion...in the past [prior to the CRC] there have been committees of stakeholders that have been engaged to [formally] advise on caribou management decisions…but what there hasn’t really ever been to my knowledge is a committee that includes people that don’t have a vested interest, people who aren’t financially interested” (Interview #12).   138 While not referring specifically to the CRC, or stakeholder groups more generally, disillusionment with the integrity of wildlife managers as trustees was also reported in an anonymous but strongly-worded letter to the editor that called attention to increases in license sales during the first few years of the caribou decline and questioned the actual role of coyote predation in the decline,  “those unparalleled [caribou] licence increases [which occurred just as caribou populations began to decrease] were in response to intensive lobbying from special interest groups. And [it’s] not surprising within a few short years the folly of increasing quotas without the science to support such a decision became evident when everyone realized that the caribou population could no longer sustain those great financial expectations. However, rather than accept responsibility for the part they contributed to this caribou population decline, hunters and outfitters alike pointed the finger at the coyote as the culprit” (Letter to the Editor, 2008, para. 7).  In discussing the perceived inadequacy of efforts to provide an effective means for stakeholders to provide input into wildlife decision making, a number of interviewees referenced the district-level public consultation process used by forest resource managers as an example of a more effective process,  “I’ve said for many, many years: if we did as good a job in wildlife with respect to what forestry was doing [regarding public consultation], we would have made an order of magnitude leap forward, but of course we don’t” (Interview #17). Again referencing the public consultation process employed by the Forestry Division another interviewee stated,  139  “[the] forestry branch carries out a very comprehensive public consultation process in its forest management planning process…most often it does create some controversy…but at the end of the day it is a comprehensive process and anyone who thinks they have an interest in it is invited to attend and participate in it…I don’t see that in wildlife and if it exists it’s certainly not something that I would have saw fit to participate in…because I just didn’t know it existed” (Interview #8). In discussing a current lack of integration and a desire for greater integration of the general public and stakeholders in wildlife-related decision making, several interviewees adopted a more normative tone. One interviewee acknowledged the need for greater engagement with stakeholders in decision making by posing a rhetorical question, “Do we have any oversight body whose responsibility it is to review the decisions of the professionals and the government and be able to make comments on it or to make decisions even around that? NO! But that’s common in many jurisdictions; wildlife commissions in the United States do exactly that” (Interview #17). Similarly, another interviewee also called for a more formalized and inclusive decision-making process by stating,   “we need to have a conversation in Newfoundland and Labrador about caribou not just in times of crisis but…some kind of council or board or co-management board, or something like that, where scientists and managers and outfitters and informed members or interested members of the public can discuss caribou maybe on a yearly basis” (Interview #7).  Interviewee contributions on this topic reflect a desire for greater efforts to bridge the gap between informative and decisive integration. Such an evolution in decision making and policy- 140 formulation will require wildlife trustees to revisit the importance of Public Trust Thinking and also work to facilitate consultation and collaboration that reflect the characteristics of good governance.   9.6 The Manifestation of Ecosystem Approaches  While much of the transition toward a more holistic IRM approach to caribou management in Newfoundland involves fostering both horizontal and vertical integration, IRM approaches also require landscape-scale, multi-species, and ecosystem-based management efforts. To determine the extent to which such holistic, ecosystem-approaches were manifest in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, interview transcripts, popular media articles, and provincial government reports were mined for information pertaining to landscape-scale and ecosystem-based management efforts, adaptive management, and the IRM dimension of Spatial-Ecological Units.    Through various related discussions, interviewees offered insight on the topics of landscape-scale and ecosystem-based management approaches. A number of interviewees discussed the connection between caribou population changes, habitat conditions, and the impact of resource development on habitat. For example, one interviewee commented:  “I believe there’s not enough current emphasis on the habitat issue and tied into that of course is that I don’t think our forestry plan that we have in the province is tied into wildlife concerns as much as it should be. The focus…in this province is development, development, development, right? So, wherever you can extract some value from the land or environment that’s where most of the effort and money is going. But that’s not something…[that]…will be able to go hand in hand with effective wildlife management in the future” (Interview #2).  141 Another aspect of ecosystem-based approaches emphasized in the literature (Dearden & Mitchell, 2012, p. 165) is the “dynamic nature of the ecosystem”. One interviewee acknowledged such natural fluctuations in wildlife populations and, also in-line with ecosystem-based thinking, commented on connections between caribou forage availability and the natural disturbance of forest fires,  “animal populations left to themselves peak and crash all the time; that’s the way it happens. In the…70s and 80s it was extremely lush; the tops of the hills were loaded with lichens and then you go back a few years later and there is hardly anything left…we’ve controlled forest fires pretty well in the later years. One time [in the past] forest fires came and they burned and after that the barren lands produced the type of food that caribou liked and we haven’t had any major, major burns since the 60s” (Interview #3). Among interviewees, social-ecological systems thinking was evident in comments surrounding caribou declines and the viability of the province’s outfitting industry. However, one interviewee suggested the social-ecological connection was not fully appreciated by some wildlife scientists,   While…everybody wanted the herds to be sustained, [some] individuals were facing huge financial disruption and loss and scientists look at it from a different perspective all together: “we need to keep the caribou because we need to keep the caribou blah blah blah” and that doesn’t always go over well when people are facing personal ruin, which some of them [outfitters] were” (Interview #15). A similar lag in the uptake of ecosystem-based management efforts was also reported in response to managers’ apparent enduring focus on single species approaches. According to one interviewee, the purported transition toward broader ecosystem thinking may not yet be fully implemented on the ground,  142 “I think there’s still…individual species that because of their direct impact and influence and interest [from] the public for which I work, [some species will still receive]…huge efforts in their management in spite of some of these other kind of perspectives about ecosystem management” (Interview #10).   The quotations above suggest that while at least some components of ecosystem-level thinking are part of the vernacular of stakeholders, there are some instances where ecosystem-level thinking is less well developed among wildlife trust administrators. In their written communications, however, trust administrators clearly acknowledge the importance of ecosystem-level approaches. For instance, in describing the province’s caribou research and recovery strategy Fifield, Lewis, and Gullage (2012, p.1) state, “It is a comprehensive program to improve Newfoundland caribou management by improving ecosystem-level knowledge of caribou and their predators.” An earlier report by wildlife trust administrators also cited ecosystem-level management considerations by acknowledging the connections between ecosystem components and the implications of resource development on caribou habitat.   “It must also be borne in mind that available habitat can be influenced by human activity, not only as a result of direct habitat alteration (e.g., timber harvesting) but also through induced avoidance by caribou of even preferred habitat, in response to human activity” (Mahoney & Weir, 2009, p.19). Also exemplifying provincial wildlife professionals’ knowledge of the importance of multi-species thinking is a popular media interview with Shane Mahoney, then director of the Sustainable Development and Strategic Science Branch. When discussing the trajectory of caribou populations in the province, the director stated,  “…bear in mind it’s never a fixed point…Figuring out and achieving that sustainable  143 population will require the management not only of caribou, but of predator populations, such as black bears, coyotes and lynx. We really are taking a system approach here, and we’re studying the bears, we’re studying the coyotes, at the same time that we’re studying the prey” (Romaniuk, 2012, para. 22 – 25). As suggested by some of the earlier statements from interviewees, however, it seems that such ecosystem-level thinking in actual on-the-ground management efforts remains incomplete. Provincial chapters of national stakeholder groups concerned by the caribou population decline in Newfoundland also call attention to wildlife trustees’ alleged inattention to ecosystem-scale management approaches. For instance, the Newfoundland chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) in their evaluation of caribou conservation efforts stated,  “In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are discouraged about the lack of progress our government has made in developing effective caribou conservation measures over the past year…On the Island of Newfoundland, there is an over-emphasis on predator control as the solution to improving calf survival rates. There is little or no discussion of the interaction of habitat quality in exacerbating the documented effects by predators, and the burgeoning numbers of the introduced moose that keep predator populations high while caribou numbers rapidly decline” (CPAWS, 2013, para. 2). Similar sentiments regarding wildlife managers’ perceived lack of attention to ecosystem-level considerations were also echoed in the popular media. In a local newspaper, an invited commentary by a prominent environmental scientist highlighted a perceived lack of attention by provincial natural resource managers to acknowledge the connection between habitat degradation and caribou population declines,  “Woodland caribou are in serious trouble on the island of Newfoundland and the public  144 need to reflect on the major contributing factors. The fact that these ungulates need intact mature coniferous forests is why they are called "woodland" caribou…Caribou abandon traditional range when clearcuts and related logging activity approach within 10 kilometres of core areas” (Goudie, 2010, para. 4) A final point related to the transition toward more ecosystem-based approaches pertains to the application of management efforts at scales that better coincide with the ecological needs of the management context in question; that is to say a shift away from purely politically-defined management units. Interviewees were divided regarding the extent to which caribou research and management in Newfoundland adequately addressed such management scale considerations. In discussing collaboration with other jurisdictions facing caribou declines one interviewee stated, “I think it’s dangerous to extrapolate from Scandinavia or Alaska to a place like Newfoundland and vice versa because nature is a little too complex for us, it is not that simple, but even when we do have some understanding of fundamental principles and biological principles on a large mammal like this, the fact is it’s usually much more complicated than we have the tools for” (Interview #1). Conversely, as part of a similar discussion, another interviewee stated,  “…the Newfoundland situation I don’t think is any different than you know lots of caribou populations certainly across North America, where you do see these you know periodicities of cycles of hyper abundance and then fairly long periods of quite low abundance, and then they build up again” (Interview #10). Greater collaboration and information sharing with other jurisdictions was also supported by another interviewee who stated,  145 “…a lot of these sort of studies and research and actions plans and what have you are much the same as what’s going on in other provinces…the ones that have caribou have declining populations and that’s something that probably should have been tapped into more than it was or is” (Interview # 2).  While caribou populations in Newfoundland are similar to other Woodland caribou herds in that they are experiencing significant declines (Morrison, et al., 2012), it seems that some unique contextual factors (e.g. less concerns regarding habitat disturbance in this jurisdictions than in other habitat areas across Canada) preclude simply generalizing “studies, research, and action plans” (Interview #2) from other jurisdictions to address caribou declines in Newfoundland.     146 Chapter 10. Key Themes and Research Outcomes The overall objective of this research was to examine the extent to which components of integrated resource management were incorporated into the planning and implementation of wildlife management efforts associated with declining caribou populations in Newfoundland. Six research questions were identified in support of this objective. This concluding section provides a review of findings in response to the research questions and reflects on the overarching research objective.  The research questions identified for this study can be grouped into three categories. The first two questions can be grouped together under the area of vertical integration while questions three and four pertain to the related areas of horizontal integration and ecosystem based approaches. Taken together, the final two questions are not dissimilar to the overarching research objective and, in addressing these, will provide a fitting summary of my findings.   10.1 Vertical Integration and Managing Wildlife in the Public Trust In this study, interview contributions and content analysis furnished extensive information to help address the first two research questions that focused on stakeholder engagement and interdisciplinary integration. While there was little evidence of efforts to enlist other disciplines in caribou management efforts, the CRC was, for the most part, very well received by interviewees as an earnest attempt to achieve greater vertical integration. The CRC provided a greater diversity of views (relative to a previous lack of stakeholder engagement), regarding caribou management efforts and the impacts of caribou management decisions. While two interviewees did raise concerns regarding how committee members were selected and the extent to which the CRC represented all viewpoints regarding caribou declines in the province,  147 the CRC could be considered as a model to build upon for establishing a more formalized and empowered stakeholder group to engage in caribou management discussions in a long term and more effective way. The potential for a more formalized stakeholder engagement process, including earnest efforts to engage with Indigenous groups, to inform Newfoundland wildlife management will be explored in the next chapter. The effective engagement of stakeholders in decision-making, perhaps more than any of the other dimensions of IRM, requires the integration of disciplines that are often considered in isolation. In fact, the term “interdisciplinary” often refers to the integration of or cooperation between unrelated disciplines to achieve a common research goal (Tress, Tress & Fry, 2005). Similarly, Dovers and Price (2007, p. 43) acknowledge “connections across major disciplinary divides – such as social and natural sciences and the humanities – might be expected to be more difficult to achieve”.  In the traditionally biology-focused field of wildlife management, establishing the credibility and importance of social science research is a recent and ongoing transition (Freddy et al., 2004; Gigliotti et al., 2009). In most jurisdictions, however, human dimensions concepts and approaches are increasingly accepted as essential for effective wildlife management in contemporary contexts (Forstchen & Smith, 2014; Hunt, 2013; Manfredo et al., 1998; Riley et al., 2002). Wildlife managers increasingly accept that “sustaining fish and wildlife will depend on people, which means that managers must understand these people and their relationships to fish and wildlife” (Brown, 2009, p.7).   Given the contentious nature of many wildlife management issues, especially in cases of scarce wildlife (Enck & Bath, 2012), it is obvious that management efforts based solely on natural science are not sufficient and must be also informed by human dimensions. In the caribou  148 management case study, the CRC represents the only formal effort to achieve such vertical integration. Although the extent to which committee representatives effectively acted as information conduits with their respective stakeholder groups was not assessed, the CRC represents a significant, albeit historically atypical, effort to solicit information from a diversity of stakeholders affected by caribou management in the province. It is important to note, however, that simply basing management decisions on some index of public attitudes or stakeholder opinion, without also integrating natural science information, is equally problematic. Decker and Chase (1997, p. 794) warn of such ‘management by public poll’ approaches and suggest that while “human dimensions knowledge aids decision-making, [it] seldom, if ever, in itself reveals what should be done in a particular situation. In most situations, wildlife managers must avoid any temptation to use only stakeholder preferences as the basis for decisions.”  Sources and types of information with relevance to resource and wildlife management efforts are varied, often present different forms of information (e.g. anecdotal, historical, quantitative, or geospatial), and have differing levels of credibility or relevance to the management efforts in question.  For Newfoundland caribou, some interviewees emphasized what they saw as differences in the role and perhaps even credibility of information coming from experts vs. non-experts (Interview #5) and, similarly, the difference between guidance (presumably provided by experts) and advice (presumably provided by non-experts) (Interview #1).  This distinction between the perceived credibility and role of stakeholder information and “expert input” coincides with the discussions in the literature (Dovers & Price, 2007) regarding the merits of informative and decisive forms of integration. Addressing fragmentation and  149 working toward greater integration of various types and sources of information is an important step toward more integrated resource and wildlife management efforts. This assertion is supported by both contemporary scholars in the field of wildlife management and study participants regarding the extent to which stakeholder groups (which are often seen as contributing to just informative integration) should be given the opportunity to make an earnest contribution to the decision-making process, and thus participate more formally in decisive integration. This final point relates directly to discussions in the literature that identify a need, given the increasing complexity of the natural resource management context, for the evolution of wildlife management practice toward more integrative approaches that are built upon Public Trust thinking and supported by elements of good governance (Decker et. al., 2016; Jacobson & Haubold, 2014). A means of addressing this need will be presented in the section 10.3.   10.2 Horizontal and Ecosystem-Based Approaches In response to the third research question regarding interdepartmental integration: study results show little evidence of explicit efforts to achieve horizontal integration by engaging with other disciplines or government branches in discussions regarding caribou management in the province. In fact, interview contributions and content analysis clearly identify a period of significant fragmentation both within the provincial wildlife portfolio (between the areas of wildlife research and wildlife management) and between the Wildlife Division and the Department of Forestry in the province. This fragmentation impacted both the objective (note significant change in caribou population trajectory during the gap in population data collection which occurred during the tumultuous relocation of offices) and subjective (note interviewee contributions and popular media articles referencing the animosity and preoccupation resulting from this attempt at horizontal integration) efficacy of the associated public trust managers.  150 The importance of greater integration between relevant government departments and the interests they represent was highlighted both by interviewees and in popular media articles and press releases. These data, however, suggest that while much of the discourse surrounding caribou management efforts in Newfoundland focused on the importance of efforts to achieve horizontal integration and thus help foster more integrated decisions, such efforts are hindered by significant fragmentation challenges between and even within wildlife management related divisions.  As the complexity of wildlife population models continues to increase (e.g. Population Viability Analysis (Anderson, Sunde, Pellegrino, Loescheke, & Pertoldi, 2017)), those managers charged with implementing associated management strategies sometimes struggle to understand and effectively interpret model outputs (Chapron, 2015). This disconnect between science and management can, similar to that experienced in the context of Newfoundland caribou management, have serious implications for effective wildlife management and departmental collaboration. To address this problem, some scholars highlight the merits of new, innovative technology. Chapron (2015) proposes that greater integration between science and management can be achieved by using apps (applications - small software programs downloaded onto mobile devices) which translate the complex data and source codes of models into practical outputs better aligned with managers’ needs. While such efforts to streamline the wildlife management model through more effective integration of science and management coincides with one of the sought-after dimensions of IRM, the reduced capacity of managers to interpret complex population models was identified as the impetus for the proposed integrative strategy.     With a number of departments related to natural resource management in Newfoundland experiencing a substantial reduction in capacity due to layoffs and restructuring, the challenges  151 and merits of such innovative means to achieve more effective and integrative management efforts should be considered. One such example, as discussed above, is the failure of an ambitious attempt to foster collaboration between relevant government departments through the relocation of the forestry and wildlife departments to Corner Brook. While one would expect that given the ease and speed of information sharing afforded by today’s advanced information technology, such as the population modelling app suggested by Chapron (2015), the distance between St. John’s and Corner Brook would be irrelevant. In reality, however, it seems that geography, or perhaps some other less-quantifiable phenomenon, served to impede effective information exchange between people at the two locations.  The 700 km shift in from St. John’s to Corner Brook had significant career and family impacts for employees asked to move. This upheaval caused significant professional and personal turbulence leading up to, during, and immediately following the relocation. While some affected employees accepted the relocation without much objection, others resisted this significant change: some sought alternate arrangements within the Branch, others moved into positions in other departments, and still others quit their positions rather than move across the province.  While some interviewees cited personality conflicts as contributing significantly to the fragmentation between science and management (interviewee contributions on this matter are not detailed here due to concerns of confidentiality), there exists a rich literature on the rigidity of established resource management bureaucracies and the affinity for the status quo. This literature helps explain both the enduring fragmentation and animosity between relevant interests and sectors, government departments, and also between science and management of wildlife in Newfoundland. As discussed in the next chapter, to transition from a resource management  152 structure that traditionally saw very little integration between government departments to one in which forestry, in-land fisheries, and wildlife management are to work together to foster an “ecosystem management philosophy” takes more than a simple consolidation of office space.   As suggested by Young (2008), integration challenges can be exacerbated by characteristics of institutions. Young (2008) identifies such problems as: collective action problems (individuals within a group pursue personal goals through self-serving actions), social practices problems (where compliance with institutional rules becomes second nature in the pursuit of appropriateness and little consideration is given to larger consequences) and knowledge-action problems (where agency understanding of and response to environmental problems is shaped by governance systems and prevailing discourses). Carpenter and Brock (2008) present similar institutional problems in terms of traps where institutions that are rigid, self-reinforcing and inflexible are in a “rigidity trap” whereas institutions that, despite having the potential for change, do not have the capacity (e.g. resource or organizational capacity) to realize this change are in a “poverty trap”.   The failed St. John’s to Corner Brook horizontal integration effort has characteristics of both a rigidity trap and a poverty trap. The siloed nature of natural resource management departments in the province obstructed the hoped-for cooperation between forest and wildlife managers. As outlined above, a number of interviewees noted this incongruity citing a lack of effective collaborative relationships between wildlife research scientists and managers and between relevant government departments,  “…suddenly their adversaries were supposed to be their chums, and that just didn’t work”   (Interview #11)   153  “…we were asked for our input but not permitted to be at the table where the real   questions were taking place” (Interview #8). Evidence of a poverty trap also emerged during interviews. Interviewees made reference to a lack of integrative direction from an overarching, organizing body resulting in enduring fragmentation between relevant government departments. “I think what’s required in this particular case is a higher-order direction on what the decision makers want us to do” (Interview #8)  One consequence of the fragmentation and turmoil of these traps is the setting of inappropriate caribou hunting licence quotas during the first years of the population decline. Provincial wildlife researchers admit that, “the high rate of harvest in the early part of the decline phase exacerbated the rate of decline” (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2015, p. 42). This finding both reaffirms the unfortunate timing of the 1997 – 2003 gap in caribou population data and also highlights the significant management ramifications of the fragmentation, both geographically and professionally, of science and management between St. John’s and Corner Brook.   In less than a decade, provincial wildlife research and management priorities had to switch from management of an abundant species to management of a scarce species. As noted by Enck and Bath (2012, p. 189), “some of the most contentious wildlife issues in the history of modern wildlife management have been about scarce wildlife management.” The saliency of management of scarce wildlife is, perhaps, to be expected as concerns of scarcity of a desirable wildlife species bring to the fore a diversity of stakeholder values such as the animal’s ecological significance, cultural and spiritual impacts of a declining number of individuals, and the economic ramifications of reduced or restricted consumptive or non-consumptive uses of the  154 animal. The importance of effectively responding to wildlife scarcity therefore has great subjective and objective importance for managers.  While much of the transition toward an IRM approach to caribou management in Newfoundland involves bridging the gap between vertical and horizontal integration (and in turn between informative and decisive integration) and facilitating the adoption of Public Trust-based and good governance-informed Wildlife Governance Principles (WGP) (per Decker et al., 2016), IRM approaches also require the adoption of landscape-scale, multi-species, and ecosystem-based management. In addressing my fourth research question focused on the manifestation of ecosystem-based approaches in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, I found that while wildlife trustees did indeed advocate for the adoption of management approaches informed by ecosystem-level considerations, a number of interviewees and popular media items highlighted an apparent lack of appreciation of both the landscape scape and coupled social-ecological system considerations fundamental to ecosystem-based approaches.  The importance of such a landscape-scale approach is emphasized by Liu and Taylor (2002) who provide a hypothetical example where a myopic focus on timber harvesting leads to unintended changes in deer populations, which in turn increase the number of deer-vehicle accidents, increase crop damage, and even reduce forest regeneration. As stated by Liu and Taylor (2002, p.11), “This example illustrates the need for simultaneously and holistically managing deer, timber, and other natural resources in the landscape. To eliminate or minimize such conflicts and maintain high landscape integrity, it is important to take an integrated approach that incorporates multi-scale, cross boundary, and adaptive management”   155  Given the insightful discussion offered by interviewees regarding topics relating to Vertical and Horizontal Integration, it is not surprising that interviewees also commented regarding the merits of landscape-scale and ecosystem-based management approaches. Interviewees’ acknowledgement of the importance of a landscape approach to management, and their knowledge of the interactions between the components of natural systems, coincides with Slocombe’s (1998) set of characteristics of ecosystem approaches.  Social-ecological systems thinking was very evident among interviewees with much of the discourse surrounding the connection between caribou population declines and the implications for both resident hunters and the province’s outfitting industry. There is a perception among some interviewees, however, that the extent and relative importance of such social-ecological connections are perhaps not yet fully appreciated by some wildlife trust managers. Similarly, some interviewees reported that the practice of emphasizing ecosystems over single species approaches, a prerequisite of ecosystem-based approaches (Dearden & Mitchell, 2012), is also somewhat underdeveloped in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland. An analysis of popular media articles and relevant government reports, however, showed that ecosystem-level thinking is indeed part of the discourse of wildlife trust administrators.  Another indicator of a transition toward more ecosystem-based approaches pertains to the choice of spatial-ecological units appropriate to caribou management. Slocombe (1998), in his presentation of characteristics of ecosystem approaches, cautions against the enduring tendency to employ arbitrary (from a natural systems perspective), politically defined management units. This assertion is reaffirmed by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) which suggests that those employing ecosystem-based approaches must define the ecosystem  156 naturally using bioregional units that better coincide with natural systems. Given that Woodland caribou population declines are a continent-wide phenomenon (Mahoney & Weir, 2009), research into causes of population declines and management responses in Newfoundland leads to questions of scale and discussions regarding the extent to which findings from other jurisdictions regarding causes of population declines and effective recovery strategies can be generalized to Newfoundland.   For their part, wildlife trustees have considered the topic of appropriate spatial-ecological units. In Newfoundland, like other jurisdictions, a main driver of caribou declines is low calf survival and recruitment (Mahoney & Weir, 2009; Morrison et al., 2012). In Newfoundland, however, predation is the main proximate cause of low calf survival (Mahoney & Weir, 2009; Trindade et al., 2011). As stated by Mahoney and Weir (2009, p. 6), however, “there have been many anthropogenic and natural changes to the island ecosystem, including changes to habitat and the predator guild of caribou, which may affect the capacity for caribou to recover.” Thus it seems that, as suggested by some interviewees, while there are merits to looking more broadly (in a geographical or jurisdictional sense) at the causes of caribou declines and effective recovery strategies, local conditions can cause the appropriate spatial-ecological unit scale to shrink considerably. Mahoney and Weir (2009, p. 10) provide a more specific description of these locally unique conditions and state that, “Previously, it was primarily black bear and lynx which preyed on caribou calves, whereas we now record predation by black bear, lynx, coyotes, and bald eagles. While the proportion of calves killed by coyotes and eagles is new, the proportion of calves killed by black bears has decreased, suggesting possible competitive interaction between predators. Furthermore, during the 2003-2007 studies the percentage of death ascribed to  157 individual predators varied between the Gaff Topsails, Mount Peyton and Middle Ridge herds (data not shown). Such variability means that efforts to reduce predation pressure may require herd specific strategies.” Given the importance of locally unique factors such as these, it is not surprising that Mahoney and Weir (2009, p. 6) state [h]erds are the units of caribou conservation.” The evolution in wildlife management, which, as outlined in the following chapter, will be facilitated to some extent by the adoption of the WGPs, also requires a shift to broader management approaches that are informed by coupled social-ecological systems thinking (Decker et al. 2016). Just as moving toward more integrative approaches requires both wildlife trust administrators and beneficiaries to foster Vertical and Horizontal integration in management, so too must each of these actors work to foster ecosystem-level thinking and action.   10.3 The Importance of Decisive Integration  In the literature, and in some management contexts in North America (e.g. kincentric ecology perspectives in co-management of wildlife in British Columbia (Bhattacharyya & Slocombe, 2018)), wildlife management is moving toward more integrative approaches (Organ et al., 2014). Efforts to manage for wildlife impacts and the need to address conflict and contentious management issues have assisted in this transition. Addressing impacts requires input from both natural and social dimensions and impact management thus serves an integrating function (Ring, 2009; Riley et. al., 2002). As my final research questions (and in a more general sense, my overarching research objective) focus on the extent to which the wildlife management  158 evolution documented in the literature is manifest in a particular wildlife management context, addressing these questions provides a fitting summary of my study findings.  In the case of Newfoundland caribou management, despite the fact that significant and rapid caribou population declines have significant cultural, economic, and ecological impacts, there is little evidence of the purported trend toward more integrative wildlife management approaches. While this study has made unique contributions to the discourse surrounding the importance of greater collaboration between relevant government departments, stakeholders, and sectors, and a desire to shift toward IRM approaches, it is clear that for the most part, caribou management in Newfoundland has been limited to command and control management approaches (per Holling & Meffe, 1996) and, as noted in other contexts by Gigliotti et al. (2009), rarely extended beyond addressing the needs of consumptive users of wildlife. Though the CRC, which was designed as a short-term means of information exchange between managers and selected stakeholders, does represent an interesting attempt at greater vertical integration, the degree to which CRC members represented the true diversity of perspectives relevant to caribou management was questioned by some.  In response to the last research question (focused on challenges and opportunities for fostering a more integrative approach to wildlife management in Newfoundland) my findings also highlight the significant challenges posed by an enduring fragmentation both within and between relevant departments and between stakeholders and trust managers. These challenges are the result of what Carpenter and Brock (2008) and Young (2008) refer to as institutional characteristics that result in an adherence to the status quo and self-serving actions (Carpenter and Brock, 2008; Young, 2008). Such challenges were evident in the less-than-successful attempt at horizontal integration via the amalgamation of provincial departments under one roof  159 on the province’s west coast. Vertical integration challenges were also identified, with some interviewees questioning the extent to which the CRC truly represented the diversity of interests regarding caribou management in Newfoundland while others lamented the lack of opportunity for stakeholder engagement following the dissolution of the CRC.  Perhaps one of the most important points emerging from this study relates to the need to bridge the gap between informative and decisive integration. Dovers and Price (2007) suggest that often the integration of stakeholder and general public beliefs, attitudes, and values into resource management falls short of contributing directly to decision making and instead plays a peripheral or informing role. Conversely, integration between relevant disciplines and government departments or agencies often, though not in this case study, contributes much more directly to actual decision making and policy formulation and is referred to as decisive integration. As the field of wildlife management continues to evolve and adopt more characteristics of IRM, the importance of earnest stakeholder engagement in decision making, and consequently bridging the gap between informative and decisive integration, also increases.  Related to this evolution, a number of recent works show increasing attention to the management implications of Public Trust Thinking (Decker et al., 2014, 2015; Forstchen & Smith, 2014) and consequently broadening the scope of management beneficiaries beyond consumptive users. In adhering to their mandate to manage wildlife in the public trust, wildlife managers in Newfoundland must engage in earnest efforts to develop an in-depth understanding of their publics and effectively engage them in decision making. Such efforts require adherence to the tenants of good governance and the adoption of the WGPs outlined by Decker, et al., (2016) (Table 7).  In the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, wildlife trustees are further  160 challenged by a lack of organized NGOs with which to engage, or perhaps more accurately, by a lack of NGOs that are perceived as having a relevant stake in such discussions. As the groups represented on the original CRC do not comprise an exhaustive list relevant stakeholders (e.g. lack of representation from First Nations Bands and nature conservation organizations), it is possible that those asked to convene the original CRC betrayed the enduring focus on consumptive users so common during the field’s earlier phases of evolution. To address this shortcoming, a more modern, less-restrictive definition of stakeholder should be adopted.  Decker, et al. 2015 suggest the use of ‘wildlife beneficiaries’, a term which expands opportunity for engagement to all citizens, not just the special interest groups sometimes referred to as stakeholders. An impartial process for selecting representatives to join committees must also be adopted.  López-Bao, Chapron & Treves (2017, p. 139) also caution against a focus on narrow, entrenched interests and identify a lack of a broader, participatory decision making process as the “Achilles heel of participatory conservation”  If wildlife management in Newfoundland is to follow the Public Trust Doctrine and keep pace with the field’s evolution toward IRM approaches, trustees must work to develop both stakeholder capacity (through social learning) and appropriate engagement structures. The importance of fostering efforts to develop the capacity of affected stakeholder groups to help realize the benefits of Public Trust Thinking has also been recognized by Hare, Decker, Smith, Forstchen, and Jacobson (2017, p. 519), “[i]t [overcoming he impediments to public trust thinking] will only be achieved through committed collaboration and cooperation among governmental and nongovernmental partners immersed and invested in specific conservation issues, supported and legitimized by diverse beneficiaries engaged throughout decision-making processes”. While such efforts to delve into the realm of building social capital and fostering  161 social learning among stakeholder groups may seem beyond the scope of work for wildlife trustees, the subjective and objective benefits of earnest engagement with diverse wildlife beneficiaries supports the assertion by Riley et al., (2002) that such efforts to address the impacts of wildlife management truly is the essence of wildlife management.    162 Chapter 11. A More Integrated Approach to Caribou Management in the Public Trust This research has presented information from interviews, popular media articles, and provincial government reports, which provides evidence of a desire to adopt a more integrative approach to wildlife management in Newfoundland. In the context of caribou management in the province there is, however, a lack of evidence of efforts to continue (following the dissolution of the CRC) even this level of stakeholder engagement. In the case study examined, there is also no evidence of a formal mechanism to engage with a greater diversity of wildlife beneficiaries or a means to elevate stakeholder input to bridge the gap between informative and decisive integration.  The necessity of effective stakeholder engagement when managing resources in the Public Trust (Decker et al., 2016) coincides directly with the tenets of good governance. According to Pierre (2000, p. 4) governance refers to “sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutions, cooperate interests, civil society, and transnational organizations.” Building upon these decision-making practices and procedures, good governance “promotes equity, participation, pluralism, transparency, accountability and the rule of law, in a manner that is effective, efficient and enduring” (United Nations, 2016, para. 2). When one considers the core concepts of both Public Trust thinking and good governance, it is not surprising that a number of common traits can be identified that coincide with IRM thinking and are directly relevant to wildlife management (Decker et al., 2016; Weiss, 2000).   Advancing wildlife management by revisiting and reviving Public Trust thinking and working to align management efforts more closely with good governance has been highlighted in a series of recent works by HDWM scholars (Decker et. al., 2014b; Forstchen & Smith, 2014;  163 Jacobson & Haubold, 2014; Organ et al., 2014; Pomeranz et al., 2014; Smith, 2011). Many of these works lament the creeping erosion of the Public Trust Doctrine by “forces that restrict or remove public access to wildlife resources and by the unwillingness of courts to apply the public trust beyond what is codified in law” (Organ & Batcheller, 2009, p. 166). Perhaps even more applicable in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, however, are the undesirable outcomes associated with wildlife management systems that are not firmly rooted in Public Trust thinking. Batcheller et al. (2010, pp. 10-11) identify the outcomes of detachment from Public Trust thinking as:  - a diminished connection or indifference toward wildlife resources stemming from a disassociation with nature, which means wildlife may become irrelevant to the general public thereby reducing public support for conservation. - wildlife resources that are viewed as an artifact of the past, separated from  modern life, to be seen and appreciated yet with a lack of understanding and acceptance of sustainable use, and - wildlife resources viewed as a liability or threat to be minimized to the extent possible rather than an asset to be conserved and managed for the benefit of current and future generations.  Batcheller et al. (2010) extend the detachment stemming from a lack of attention to Public Trust thinking from disillusionment with the management agency, where one might expect it to fall, to the actual wildlife resource. Regardless of where stakeholders’ apathy falls, the importance of adhering to the Public Trust Doctrine is nonetheless obvious. It is troubling, and perhaps telling of the wildlife management context in Newfoundland, and one might reasonably suspect likely in other jurisdictions as well, that to a greater or lesser extent, evidence of each of the above less- 164 than-favorable outcomes are present in the current discourse surrounding caribou management in the province, at least as it relates to disillusionment with the management agency or process. As evidenced in both interviewee contributions and popular media article content, when stakeholders, the beneficiaries in the Public Trust Doctrine, are denied earnest engagement in decision making, disillusionment with the wildlife management process and disengagement with the wildlife resource managers are possible outcomes.  As was noted above, addressing these challenges require earnest efforts to engage stakeholders in decision making; working toward this evolution in wildlife management approaches will bridge the gap between informative and decisive integration and foster adherence to good governance and Public Trust thinking. As stated by Batcheller et al. (2010, p. 15), “The public is the beneficiary of the trust for whom assets are managed. Trustee accountability for those assets is necessary for the PTD [Public Trust Doctrine] to be effective, and will be best served with an informed and engaged public. Public input into decision-making processes will help assure trustee understanding of and responsiveness to contemporary needs, as well as public understanding of competing demands on trust resources.”   Dovers and Price (2007) refer to horizontal collaboration, absent of the true disciplinary integration that would be required when integrating natural science and social science information (concerning the perceptions, attitudes, and values of related stakeholder groups), as a lesser or “additive” degree of integration, one that is void of the mutual appraisal of the operating assumptions and methods of the collaborating disciplines that is central to more truly integrative forms of collaboration. Thus while efforts to achieve greater horizontal integration are  165 imperative, it is important to note that such inter-departmental collaboration captures just one part of the evolution toward integration in the field of wildlife management and overlooks efforts to reconcile the disconnection between informative and decisive integration – which translates into a disconnect between beneficiaries and the decision making process. In pursuit of such evolution in wildlife management approaches, Decker et al. (2016) have formulated 10 Wildlife Governance Principles (WGP) (Table 7). These WGPs are designed to help advance thinking and practice in wildlife management by combining key components of Public Trust thinking and good governance. While the potential benefits of embracing the WGP identified by Decker et al. (2016) are clear and align to address current shortcomings in wildlife conservation efforts, the actual adoption and implementation of these principles will undoubtedly be impeded due to the inertia of current processes and decision making structures, as outlined above. Decker et al. (2016, p. 293) also refer to a number of other institutional challenges, including “unknown or alienated beneficiaries, special interest group exclusivity, and narrow conservation outcomes” that can impede the adoption of WGP. These challenges align well with Young’s (2008) findings following the application of ‘new institutionalism’ thinking to analyze environmental governance systems, which suggest that integration challenges can be exacerbated by characteristics of institutions, which sometimes present their own problems. Young (2008) outlines these problems as: collective action problems, social practice problems, and knowledge-action problems. Carpenter and Brock (2008) present similar institutional problems in terms of traps where institutions that are rigid and self-reinforcing are said to be in a rigidity trap whereas institutions that, despite having the potential for change, do not have the capacity to realize this change and move the system forward are said to be in a poverty trap (Carpenter & Brock, 2008). As    166 Table 7 Wildlife Governance Principles  Wildlife governance will be adaptable and responsive to citizens’ current needs and interests, while also being forward-looking to conserver options of future generations. Wildlife governance will seek an incorporate multiple and diverse perspectives. Wildlife governance will apply social and ecological science, citizens’ knowledge, and trust administrators’ judgement. Wildlife governance will produce multiple, sustainable benefits for all beneficiaries.  Wildlife governance will ensure that trust administrators are responsible for maintaining trust resources and allocating benefits from the trust.  Wildlife governance will be publicly accessible and transparent. Wildlife governance will ensue that trust administrators are publicly accountable. Wildlife governance will include means for citizens to become informed and engaged in decision making. Wildlife governance will include opportunities for trust administrators to meet their obligations in partnerships with non-governmental entities. Wildlife governance will facilitate collaboration and coordination across ecological, jurisdictional and ownership boundaries.  (Adapted from Decker, et al., 2016)  suggested by Decker et al. (2016), and similar to the rigidity traps, social practice, and collective action problems identified by Carpenter and Brock (2008) and Young (2008) above, reluctance to change and adherence to the status quo by wildlife trustees (relevant, elected and appointed officials), trust managers (wildlife conservation professionals) and perhaps even beneficiaries, may be the biggest challenge facing adoption of WGPs. This inertia has also been identified more recently as “institutional resistance” by Hare, et al. (2017) in their presentation of challenges and solutions regarding the application of Public Trust thinking in wildlife governance. Hare and colleagues (2017) also identify an additional seven challenges to applying Public Trust thinking. The challenges presented by Hare et al. (2107) pertain to issues of wildlife  167 trustees’ responsibilities in fostering Public Trust thinking, the importance of impartiality in terms of broad stakeholder group engagement, including beneficiaries in decision making, accountability of wildlife management, and the legitimacy of the decision-making process. Not surprisingly, many of the solutions proposed for these challenges coincide with the WGP presented above as well as the need to foster more decisive integration – these characteristics are evident in the integrative wildlife management model presented below.  Unlike in the United States where wildlife trusteeship in many states extends to formally appointed wildlife conservation commissions that are comprised of affected stakeholders with wildlife management decision-making authority (i.e., decisive integration) (Jacobson & Haubold, 2014), such explicit efforts to ensure stakeholder input on wildlife management is largely absent in Newfoundland. While some examples of such engagement may be seen in the activities of resource management and assessment boards in Canada’s north (e.g. The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, n.d.), the Canadian experience is largely one of seeing stakeholders as advisory, and often involved through ad hoc structures, with little formal power or authority to create policy and direct operational and management activities. Influence is exercised through the willingness of agencies to listen to and accept the advice of such groups, or through the political and social power of stakeholders exerted through political sway. In Newfoundland, in addition to the likely almost-universal challenges of fostering Public Trust thinking, is the fact that there are hardly any organized stakeholder groups which, even if given the opportunity to contribute to decisive integration, could effectively engage in decision making efforts and, in so doing, hold trustees accountable.  While figure 17 above presented a rather simplified overview of the current management structure for caribou management in the Newfoundland, figure 19 presents a more integrative  168 wildlife management process achieved through earnest and ongoing engagement with a hypothetical Wildlife Beneficiary Governance Committee (WBGC). Decker et al. (2015) suggest that wildlife beneficiaries represent a much greater diversity of perspectives than the special interest groups often labelled as “stakeholders”. In the context of wildlife management in  Newfoundland, a WBGC would therefore represent a greater diversity of viewpoints than the original CRC that was established in 2009 as part of the Enhanced Caribou Management Strategy. In addition to the original CRC members (listed above), the composition of the proposed WBGC should therefore, also include non-consumptive users of wildlife, those who value wildlife intrinsically, First Nations bands, representatives of federal and provincial environment-related government departments, and other relevant beneficiaries. The process for selecting the representatives of each of these groups should be left up to each group.  Figure 19 also shows (using callouts) some of the other WGP-based benefits associated with such engagement efforts which include: social learning, greater public support for management strategies, interdepartmental collaboration, rapport building between beneficiaries and managers, adherence to Public Trust Thinking, and greater integration between natural and social science. The importance of not only recognizing established stakeholder groups but also fostering efforts to aid in their establishment and function is central to responsible wildlife management. Indeed many of the “possible paths to solution” [solutions to the challenges of realizing the benefits of Public Trust Thinking] identified by Hare et al. 2017) include a number of references to such explicit efforts including establishing relationships with private landowners and NGOs, developing communication between trust administrators and historically excluded beneficiaries, establishing rules to ensure diversity of interests are represented, and broadening beneficiary participation.    169                    Figure 189. An Integrative Approach to Wildife Management in Newfoundland.  Change in Natural Phenomena Impacting Wildlife Population or Habitat Viability  WMA Broad Policies and Goals - Which are defined by:  - Natural science research - Federal policy direction - Direction from CWDC* - Direction from provincial minister - Interdepartmental amenability   Identification and evaluation of enabling objectives and implementation of the preferred management alternative(s)  System response to management strategy implementation Monitoring changes in the natural system Evaluated based on… Results in… Wildlife Beneficiary Governance Committee (WBGC) impacts: Concern about effects from wildlife-related interactions or events  Identification of fundamental objectives (defined in terms of impact on beneficiaries) Guides the… Engagement Guides the… Monitoring changes in WBGC Impacts Requires… Leads to… Social learning  Greater Public Support for Management Rapport building and knowledge exchange for Management Horizontal and Vertical Integration Objective (conservation) and subjective (fairness) benefits of the integrative approach  Interdepartmental information exchange  Natural and social science roles Evidence of Public Trust Thinking * Note. white background rectangles show roles and benefits for engagement with hypothetical WBGC while black background rectangles show original process stages   170 In the context of wildlife management in Newfoundland, however, such stakeholder groups are, except for mainly consumptive users (e.g., hunting and trapping associations), virtually non-existent or, as in the case of the CRC, not often part of consultation efforts. The need for more formalized stakeholder engagement has been relayed through a number of interviewee contributions presented earlier. Thus it seems that despite a study by Bathceller, et al (2010) which found that, in constitutional or statutory language at least, Canadian provinces and territories satisfactorily addressed almost all criteria of the Public Trust Doctrine, including accountability of trustees (Batcheller, et al., 2010), in practice, much work remains to be done in Newfoundland, and likely in other jurisdictions as well.  Before one can even begin to move towards bridging the gap between vertical and horizontal integration, before efforts to link informative and decisive integration, and before efforts to reinstate Public Trust thinking and good governance by adopting Decker et al.’s (2016) WGPs and the solutions outlined by Hare et al. (2017), a diverse and robust cadre of beneficiaries must be effectively engaged and, where necessary, established and cultivated, in Newfoundland.  The need to nurture this third sector (Francis, 2007) is recognized by Pomeranz et al. (2014), who suggest that as trends in wildlife management shift toward more locally-focused approaches, agency staff will be limited in their capacity and should employ a more effective, regional-level stakeholder engagement approach. In a contribution to a local newspaper commenting on efforts by the provincial government to foster collaboration between the portfolios of Wildlife and Forestry, a well-known environmental scientist also acknowledged the importance of evaluating agency capacity for addressing a more integrative and ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management and stated, “The human mind abhors change, and you can't take individuals trained as industrial foresters and turn them overnight into ecosystem  171 managers, which is what DNR [the Department of Natural Resources] has attempted by reclassifying its District Unit foresters” (Goudie, 2010, para. 9). Similarly, Decker et al. (2016) counsel that the responsibility for such efforts to ‘set the stage’ for the adoption of WGPs should be shared among all the players in the wildlife conservation institution and state that, “the onus for change lies not only with trust administrators but also with individual beneficiaries and organizations that represent various interests in wildlife, all of whom are responsible for establishing appropriate trustee-beneficiary relations with public wildlife agencies and supporting necessary change both politically and monetarily” (Decker et. al., 2016, p. 4). While for some wildlife managers and powerful special interest groups, sharing decision making responsibility with stakeholder beneficiaries may seem like relinquishing power (Decker et al., 2016), such efforts represent a positive evolution in the practice of wildlife management, a shift toward the theories and approaches of the field of IRM. As stated by Decker et al. (2016, p.5) wildlife management needs to “shift from operating under a framework focused predominately on a narrow set of wildlife interests, to a social-ecological paradigm and concomitant approach to wildlife conservation that embraces the interests and participation of a broader public.”     172 Chapter 12. Conclusions, Crisis, and Opportunity: Building Resilience in Wildlife Management This research provided case study based evidence of a significant gap between theory and practice in wildlife management. Evidence is also presented in support of efforts to earnestly engage with wildlife stakeholders and foster the development of the ‘third sector’ to contribute to wildlife management efforts in Newfoundland. The original contribution of this thesis to the IRM and HDWM literature is strengthened by an examination of the challenges and opportunities of adopting more integrated approaches in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland and by the identification of a integrative wildlife management model to foster a more resilient, stakeholder-engaged management structure that can help ensure the sustainable management of wildlife in the public trust. In this work, I also refer to recent, significant staffing cuts and substantial reorganization of the provincial Department of Environment and Climate Change and especially the Wildlife Division that it once housed (Figure 20). The intersection of these two topics: a keen desire for greater engagement of stakeholders and the reduced capacity of wildlife management agencies, presents a rich opportunity for evolution in the practice of wildlife management in the province.  While the staffing cuts were part of a public sector-wide reduction in staff and budgets in an effort to rein in provincial budget deficits, many felt that those departments and agencies with portfolios related to the environment and resource conservation were unfairly targeted. Dr. Bill Montevecchi, a professor in Cognitive and Behavioral Ecology at Memorial University and outspoken nature conservationist expressed his views regarding these latest cuts as follows:    173        Figure 20. Concerns Regarding Departmental Budget Cuts in the Popular Media. (© 2013 CBC News, by permission; © 2017 The Independent, by permission; © 2016 The Western Star, by permission; © 2017 The Telegram, by permission)  174 “Newfoundland and Labrador's wildlife resources are at the heart our province's heritage and culture.” The opening line of the former Department of Environment and Climate Change website says it all. If only we believed it. The ongoing “death by a thousand cuts” has achieved its goal. The province’s environmental support structures have been damaged to the point of incapacitation…The elimination of programs, the firings of expert biologists and environmental scientists and the hodgepodged organizational reform of the province’s environment and other departments has created a non-functional system. (Montevecchi, 2017) Given the greatly-reduced capacity and efficacy of provincial environment and resource conservation agencies, there is little evidence of a silver lining for the remaining fractured and incapacitated wildlife trustees striving to deliver their mandate of nature conservation. There is  hope, however. Holling (2004), in his discussion on adaptive cycles and connections between the Panarchy framework (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) and transformation in other anthropogenic systems, underscores the great opportunities for reorganization that can only be made available through crisis. The concept of an Adaptive Cycle (Figure 21) is rooted in the study of ecosystem dynamics and consists of four distinct phases: growth or exploitation (represented in the figure by the letter ‘r’), conservation (‘K’), collapse or release (‘Ω’), and reorganization (‘α’) (The Resilience Alliance, n.d.). The transitions between phases in the adaptive cycle are termed accumulation: the transition from growth to conservation, and reorganization: the transition from collapse to reorganization, with this second transition leading to renewal to restart the cycle (Figure 21). Gunderson and Holling’s (2002) Panarchy framework describes a nested hierarchy of adaptive cycles that are connected through different phases or levels over time or space. In explaining the connection between crisis and opportunity Holling states,  175 Growth is important, but even more so are the forces in a healthy system that dominate during episodes when growth is halted or reversed, when deep uncertainty explodes, or when several alternative futures are unexpectedly perceived. Suddenly, the resulting unpredictability stifles informed action or triggers ignorant reaction. It is a time of back-loop crisis, but also of opportunity. (2004, p. 4)           Figure 191. The Adaptive Cycle. (From Panarchy edited by Lance H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling. Copyright © 2002 Island Press. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington, DC)  When viewed as an adaptive cycle, the current crisis facing provincial wildlife managers and agencies presents an opportunity to evolve away from the current, top-down wildlife management structure and reorganize with a more integrative and pluralistic approach that involves the establishment of and engagement with the Wildlife Beneficiary Governance Committee (WBGC) proposed above and consequently the incorporation of Decker’s et al. (2016) wildlife governance principles and a renewed adherence to the Public Trust Doctrine. As  176 is obvious from the concerns expressed in interviews and popular media items regarding the much-reduced capacity of wildlife managers to effectively research and conserve wildlife in the province, the current top-down management system is not resilient to the recurring perturbations of budget cuts and layoffs. If, however, bureaucratic structures were in place to support and earnestly engage with beneficiaries in a long-term and meaningful way, environment and resource conservation in the province would be much more resilient to such perturbations and insulated from the ebb and flow of provincial budget priorities and sometimes-rapidly changing partisan management priorities. While this study did not assess the capacity of provincial government departments to allow for this evolution, my study has shown empirical data and scholarly literature in strong support of the effective development of and engagement with the third sector in wildlife management in Newfoundland.  If, as proposed above, the WBGC, with its diverse composition of well-represented beneficiaries, was established as a long-term entity and imbued with the ability to earnestly inform decision-making, lobby government, and engage the broader public in salient caribou-related issues, the impact of the recent deconstruction of the Wildlife Division on caribou management would be reduced. The impact of the budget cuts and restructuring could be mitigated by the WBGC members’ ability to maintain the institutional memory of caribou management issues and to engage their respective beneficiary groups and the broader public in lobbying for maintaining or restoring the capacity of the Division. With such empowerment, WBGC members would also be able to ensure that the views of the public, in whose trust wildlife is to be managed, are made known to trustees. As the CRC was already trialed as an engaged, informative stakeholder group in the context of caribou management in Newfoundland, and as many participants applauded its composition and function, and lamented its end, the  177 proposed WBGC could be seen as an considerably-improved model for a more formal, appropriately empowered body, perhaps similar to the wildlife commissions employed in some areas of the United States.  Of course, any intention to transition the WBGC or any other stakeholder or beneficiary group from an informative integration role to a decisive integration role should not be taken lightly. Such a shift requires due consideration of both the challenges posed by other similar structures (Lord & Cheng, 2006) and, relatedly, how the engagement structure should be designed to avoid previously identified pitfalls while maintaining effectiveness (Talley, Schneider & Lindquist, 2016).   12.1 The Theoretical Basis and Strategy for Developing the Third Sector The theoretical framework underlying this thesis comes from the field of IRM. From this theoretical basis, the seven dimensions of IRM, as outlined by Slocombe and Hanna (2007), were employed to shape my research questions and to guide my data collection and analysis. When considering the rationale for the widespread shift toward integrated approaches, a large number of scholars have outlined the objective and subjective benefits of integrated approaches (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Enck et al., 2006; Freddy, et al., 2004; Grumbine, 1994; Kendrick, 2003; Kendrick & Manseau, 2008; Lachapelle & McCool, 2005; Lawrence & Daniels, 1996; Moller et al., 2004; Riley et al., 2002; Slocombe, 1998; Slocombe & Hanna, 2007).  These benefits (Table 8) coincide directly with the dimensions of IRM. By taking a systems perspective, adopting ecosystem-based and adaptive management approaches, fostering multidisciplinary methodologies, and practicing earnest public engagement, resource and wildlife management can more effectively address fragmentation between and within disciplines; sources and types of information; spatial/ecological units; governments; agencies;   178 Table 8. Subjective and Objective Benefits of Integrated Resource Management Approaches Subjective Benefits of IRM Objective Benefits of IRM Fairness of decision making process Bio-regionally defined management units Shared ownership of decisions Diversity of problem definitions Mutual (manager/stakeholder) respect and trust Diverse forms and sources of knowledge Development of social infrastructure (efficacy of the third sector through social learning) Recognizing social-ecological system linkages Removal of barriers / Rapport building between managers and stakeholders Adaptive (impact) management  interests/sectors; and perceptions, attitudes and values. Fostering the development of a third sector in Newfoundland caribou management is therefore an essential prerequisite for addressing the fragmentation in IRM dimensions, as identified in the chapters above. Given the well-documented challenges of transitioning to more integrated approaches in Newfoundland wildlife management, however, if the impetus for this next evolution in the field must come from an institutional body removed from the inertia of the sometimes myopic, trapped (per Carpenter & Brock, 2008; Young, 2008), and recently incapacitated wildlife management structures at the provincial level. As Hare et al. (2017, p.519) state in their examination of the challenges and solutions of “institutional resistance” in applying Public Trust thinking in wildlife governance,  Doing so [overcoming institutional resistance challenges] will require significant changes to many practices and processes of wildlife conservation, and the philosophical orientation upon which they are founded. It will only be achieved through committed collaboration and cooperation among governmental and nongovernmental partners  179 immersed and invested in specific conservation issues, supported and legitimized by diverse beneficiaries engaged throughout decision-making processes. The Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee (CWDC) is well positioned to champion this much-needed evolution in the practice of provincial wildlife management. The CWDC is composed of representatives from the 13 Canadian provinces and territories who are charged with wildlife conservation in their respective jurisdictions (CWDC, 2015). The Committee also includes federal-level representation from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fittingly, the strategic vision of the CWDC coincides very well with many of the tenants of IRM,  Contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity by ensuring healthy populations of wildlife and the habitats that support them across their natural distributions that maintain or enhance the ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits of wildlife in Canada (CWDC, 2015, p. 2) In pursuit of this vision, the CWDC relies on “a collegial partnership of the [above] jurisdictions / agencies and works with stakeholders and partners to affect wildlife conservation on the landscape” (CWDC, 2015, p. 1). As outlined by Decker and Edwards (2016), the CWDC has sought to aid provincial and territorial agencies in their pursuit of effective and efficient wildlife conservation though the identification and promotion of management direction of interprovincial or regional importance, by providing a forum for information sharing on best practice, and by bringing the Committee’s collective knowledge and influence to bear on contentious, trans-border, or especially challenging issues.  With evidence (from both the current study and earlier work on the efficacy of the CWDC by Decker and Edwards, 2016) of fragmented approaches already emerging within and  180 between some jurisdictions, the  CWDC can bring its information and influence to bear to free provincial wildlife management agencies from  the rigidity and poverty traps that currently encumber their evolution toward IRM. As stated by Decker and Edwards (2016, p. 21), Thankfully, the CWDC is not encumbered by the inertia of a rigid bureaucracy as provincial or territorial agencies might be and CWDC members are free to foster the evolution of the Committee to enable it to more effectively support local agencies and respond to changing priorities and approaches in wildlife management in Canada.   One of the main mechanisms of influence at the provincial agency level that is available to the CWDC is regional workshopping efforts. While the CWDC strives to address issues of interprovincial importance, national-level initiatives sometimes suffer from a lack of relevance at the regional or provincial level (Decker & Edwards, 2016). Decker and Edwards (2016) suggest that a regional approach may find a middle ground between the “too-general” nation-wide topics and the “too-specific”, context/province-specific approaches and thus contribute more effectively to the formulation of local management strategies while also maintaining relevance to at least several provincial or territorial jurisdictions. Provincial wildlife managers would likely benefit greatly from a series of regionally-themed CWDC workshops (perhaps focused on the impacts and associated management implications of important regional wildlife species) that concentrated on the challenges and benefits of adopting IRM approaches in wildlife management. Of course these workshops should also focus on the importance of fostering the development of the third sector (e.g. the WBGC proposed here) as a means to facilitate the subjective and objective benefits that the transition toward IRM would deliver. Decker and Edwards (2016, p. 18) in their examination of CWDC members’ most preferred workshop themes found that     181 the themes of  information sharing, large landscape/ecosystem-based approaches and human dimensions were identified in several instances by participants as being important and relevant and, in the case of human dimensions and landscape-scale management, were identified as the most informative workshop topics to date. To arrest the increasing rate of species loss and habitat degradation, wildlife management needs to evolve and take action to remain relevant and effective. Embarking on this next stage will require greater integration of the social aspects of wildlife use and management with technical and scientific knowledge, and the development of integrative institutional systems and structures that build and hold trust. Given the supra-provincial focus of the CWDC, the committee’s already-established mechanism for regional wildlife management policy influence, and committee members’ pre-existing interest in topics related to IRM-related themes, the CWDC has the potential to help usher in the next stage in the evolution of wildlife management toward IRM.    182 References  Alford, J. R. (2001) We’re all in this together: the decline of trust in government 1958-1996. In What is it about government that Americans dislike? J. R. Hibbing and E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.). (p. 28-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Anderson, S. H. (1985). Managing our wildlife. Columbus: OH: Charles E. Merrill.    Anderson, L. H., Sunde, P., Pellergrino, I., Loescheke, V., & Pertoldi, C. (2017). Using population viability analysis, genomics, and habitat suitability to forecast future population patterns of Little Owl Athene noctua across Europe. Ecology and Evolution, 7, 10987 – 11001.   Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons, 2, 7-32.   Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2007). Introduction: Moving beyond co-management. In D.  Armitage, F. Berkes & N. Doubleday (Eds.) Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning and multi-level governance (pp. 1 – 18). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.   Artelle, K. A., Reynolds, J. D., Treves, A., Walsh, J. C., Paquet, P. C., & Darimont, C. T. (2018). Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management. Science Advances, 4, 1 – 6.   Baker, M. (2003). History of Newfoundland and Labrador: summary chronology of events. Published by the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening our place in Canada.   Batcheller, G. R., Bambery, M. C., Bies, L., Guynn, D., McEnroe, M., O’Brien, M., & Roehm, G. (2010). The public trust doctrine: Implications for wildlife management and conservation [Technical Review 10-01] Bethesda, MA: The Wildlife Society.  Bath, A. (1998). The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife management.  Ursus, 10, 349-355.  Bath, A. J. & Enck, J. (2003). Wildlife-human interactions in Canadian and U.S. national parks. Report submitted to National Park Social Science Series publication. Washington: U.S. National Park Service.  Bath, A. J. (1996). Increasing the applicability of human dimensions research to large predators. Journal of Wildlife Research, 1, 215 – 220.    183 Bazzaz, F., Ceballos, G., Davis, M., et al. (1998). Ecological science and the human predicament. Science, 282. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819981030%293%3A282%3A5390%3C879%3AESATHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B  Bell, T. (2002). Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador: ecoregions of Newfoundland. Retrieved on July 15th, 2017 from http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/environment/ecoregions-newfoundland.php  Bellamy, A., G. McDonald, G. Syme, & J. Butterworth. (1999). Evaluating integrated resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 337–353.  Bellamy, J.A. & Johnson, A. K. L. (2000). Integrated Resource Management: Moving from rhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management, 25, 265-280.  Bennett, E.M. (2017). Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems. 20, 31 - 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0049-0  Berkes, F. & Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2008). The cultural basis for an ecosystem approach: Sharing across systems of knowledge. In: The Ecosystem Approach. Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability (D. Waltner-Toews, J.J. Kay and N.-M.E. Lister, eds.) Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 109 - 124.  Berkes, F., Feeny, D., McCay, B., & Acheson, J. M. (1989). The benefits of the commons. Nature 340: 91-93. Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In F. Berkes, C. Folke & J. Colding (Eds.). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience (pp 1 – 26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology (2nd Ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis.  Berkes, F., Coldling, J. & Folke C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding & C. Folke (Eds.) Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.   Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (n.d.). Safeguarding caribou for present and future generations. Retrieved January 20, 2018 from http://arctic-caribou.com/  Bhattacharyya, J. & Slocombe, S. (2018). Animal agency: Wildlife management from a kincentric perspective. Ecosphere, 8, 1 – 17. doi 10.1002/ecs2.1978  Blake, J. (2006). Coyotes in insular Newfoundland: Current knowledge and management of the Island’s newest mammalian predator. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env /wildlife/publications/coyotenews2.pdf  184 Blumer, H.G. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall.  Brown, P. J. (2009). Introduction: perspectives on the past and future of human dimensions of fish and wildlife. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker & E. A. Duke. (Eds.). Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions (pp. 1-13). Island Press: Washington, DC.  Brown, E. D. & Williams, B. K. (2015). Resilience and resource management. Environmental Management, 56, 1416-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0582-1  Brown, R. D., & Wurman, L. H. (2009). A brief history of wildlife conservation and research in the United States. Missoula, MT: Boone & Crockett Club.  Brown, T. L., Decker D. J., Riley, S. J., Enck, J. W., Lauber, T. B., Curtis, P. D., & Mattfeld, G. F. (2000). The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 797-807.   BTCRD/NLOA. (2015). Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association business retention & expansion (BR&E). Published by the Department of Business, Tourism, Culture, and Rural Development in partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association.   Canadian Heritage. (2009). Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved on March 25th, 2009, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/101/118-eng.cfm  Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65-76.  Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. (2008). Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society, 13. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art40/  CBC News. (2012). Shrinking Newfoundland caribou herds still a mystery. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/shrinking-newfoundland-caribou-herds-still-a-mystery-1.1249987  CBC News [Newfoundland and Labrador]. (2012, December 9). Outfitters optimistic about improving fortunes. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/outfitters-optimistic-about-improving-fortunes-1.1157289  Chapron, G. (2015). Wildlife in the cloud: A new approach for engaging stakeholders in wildlife management. Ambio, 44(Suppl. 4), 550-556.  Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.     185 Chase, L. C., Decker, D. J., & Lauber, T. B. (2004). Public participation in wildlife management: what do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources, 17, 629 – 639.  Chase, L.C., Schusler, T.M. and Decker, D.J. (2000) Innovations in stakeholder involvement: What's the next step? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 208–217.  Connell, J. H. & Sousa W. P. (1983). On the evidence needed to judge ecological stability or persistence. The American Naturalist. 121, 789-824.  COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Newfoundland population, Atlantic-Gaspésie population and Boreal population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxiii + 128 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).  CPAWS. (2013). Santa’s reindeer cousins faring worse in Newfoundland and Labrador than some other jurisdictions [News Release]. Retrieved from http://cpawsnl.org/news/santas-reindeers-cousins-faring-worse-in-newfoundland-and-labrador-than-som  Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K. & Marshall, N. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: A review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 112, 25-35.   CWDC (2015). Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee: Strategic Agenda. Internal Document prepared by the CWDC.  Dale, A. & Armitage, D. (2010). Marine mammal co-management in Canada’s arctic: knowledge co-production for learning and adaptive capacity. Marine Policy. 35, 440-449.   Dale, A. & Newman, L. (2007). Governance for integrated resource management. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 56 - 71). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.  Dale, A. (2001). At the edge: Sustainable development in the 21st century. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press.   Dawson, N., Martin, A. & Danielsen, F. (2017). Assessing equity in protected areas governance: Approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conservation Letters, 11, 1 – 8.  Dearden, P. & Mitchell, B. (2012). Environmental change and challenge: A Canadian perspective (4th ed.). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.    186 Decker, D. J. et al (1992). Toward a comprehensive paradigm of wildlife management: Integrating the human and biological dimensions. In W. R. Mangun (Ed.) American fish and wildlife policy: The human dimension (pp. 3 – 32). Southern Illinois University Press.   Decker, D. J. et al. (2006). Wildlife disease management: A manager’s model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 151-158.  Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L. & Knuth, B. A. (1996). Human dimensions research: Its importance in natural resource management. In A. W. Ewert (Ed.) Natural Resource Management: The Human Dimension (pp. 29 – 47). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.   Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L. & Mattfeld, G. F. (1987). Integrating social science into wildlife management: Barriers and limitations. In M. L. Miller, R. P. Gale & P. J. Brown (Eds.). Social Science in Natural Resource Management Systems (pp. 83 – 92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.   Decker, D. J. & Chase, L. C. (1997). Human dimensions of living with wildlife - A management challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 788 – 795.  Decker, D. J. & Connelly, N. A. (1989). Motivations for deer hunting: Implications for antlerless deer harvest as a management tool. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 455‐463.  Decker, D.J., Forstchen, A.B., Organ, J.F….(2014). Impacts management: an approach to fulfilling public trust responsibilities of wildlife agencies. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38, 2-8.  Decker, D. J., Forstchen, A. B., Pomeranz, E. F., Smith, C. A., Riley, S. J., Jacobson, C. A., . . . Batcheller, G. R. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in wildlife management: Does the public trust doctrine imply limits? The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79 (2), 174–179. doi:10.1002/ jwmg.809. Decker, D. J. & Purdy, K. G. (1988). Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16, 53-57.  Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J. & Siemer, W. F. (2012). Human dimensions of wildlife management. In  D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley & W. F. Siemer (Eds.). Human dimensions of wildlife management (2nd ed.) (pp. 3 – 14). Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore: MA.    Decker, D. J., Siemer, W. F., Leong, K. M., Riley, S. J., Rudolph, B. A. & Carpenter, L. H. (2009). Conclusion: What is wildlife management? In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker & E. A. Duke. (Eds.). Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions (pp. 315-327). Island Press: Washington, DC.  Decker, D.J., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle-Capitman, C., Schuler, K. and Organ, J. (2016), Governance Principles for Wildlife Conservation in the 21st Century. Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12211   187 Decker, S. E. & Bath, A. J. (2010). Public versus expert opinions regarding public involvement processes used in resource and wildlife management. Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00129.x  Decker, S. E. & Edwards, C. (2016). A report on members’ perspectives regarding the Canadian Wildlife Director’s Committee (CWDC). Report submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Director’s Committee. (29 pages) Decker, S. E., Bath, A. J., Simms, A., Lindner, U. & Reisinger, E. (2010). The return of the king or bringing snails to the garden? The human dimensions of a proposed restoration of European bison (Bison bonasus) in Germany. Restoration Ecology, 18, 41-51.  Department of Environment and Conservation (Department of Fisheries and Land Resources) (n.d.) Fisheries and land resources: land mammals. Retrieved on July 1, 2017 from http://www.flr.gov.nl.ca/wildlife/snp/programs/education/animal_facts/mammals/index.html\  Department of Environment and Conservation. (2008). News release: five-year caribou strategy seeks to address declining populations. Retrieved on July 10, 2009, from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2008/env/0207n06.htm  Department of Environment and Conservation. (2010). Interdepartmental Land Use Committee (ILUC) Retrieved on Oct. 15, 2010, from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/ environmental_review/land_use_committee.html  Department of Environment and Conservation. (2015). A report on the Newfoundland caribou: a summary and interpretation of the state of knowledge of the island of Newfoundland’s caribou population and key considerations for sustainable management. Prepared by the Department of Environment and Conservation.   Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. (2017). How we manage our forest. Retrieved on May 5th, 2018 from http://www.faa.gov.nl.ca/forestry/managing/manage.html  Department of National Defence. (2009). The Royal Newfoundland Regiment. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/ol-lo/vol-tom-3/par2/rnr-eng.asp  Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (2008). Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: annual report 2007-08. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from www.tcii.gov.nl.ca/publications/recreation/2008/TCR_annrep200708.pdf  Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P.C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1902-1912.  Dovers, S. & Price, R. (2007). Research and the integration imperative. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 36-55). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.  188  Dreborg, K. H. (1996). Essence of backcasting. Futures, 28, 813-828.   Efford’s Hunting Adventures. (2011). Big game hunting Newfoundland Canada. Retrieved on May 5th, 2018 from http://effordshunting.nf.ca/  Elliot, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R. (2003). Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray and M. Elliott (Eds.). Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.   Elton, C. (1930). Animal ecology and evolution. New York: NY: Oxford University Press.   Enck, J. W. & Bath A. J. (2012) Human dimensions of scarce wildlife management. In  D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley & W. F. Siemer (Eds.). Human dimensions of wildlife management (2nd ed.) (pp. 189 – 202). Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore: MA.    Enck, J. W., Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J., Organ, J .F., Carpenter, L. H. & Siemer, W. F. (2006). Integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive management of wildlife-related impacts. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 698-705.  Ewel, K. C. (2001). Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems, 4, 716-722.  Ewert, A. W. (1996). Human dimensions research: perspectives, expectations and the future. In A. W. Ewert (Ed.), Natural resource management: the human dimension (pp. 257-263). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.  Executive Council. (2017). News releases: achieveing a more efficient public sector. Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from  http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2017/exec/0222n03.aspx  Fifield, D.A., Lewis, K.P. and Gullage, S.E. (2012). Application of distance sampling to determine calving ground abundance and aggregation of parturient females in the Middle Ridge herd, June 2012. Technical Bulletin No. 005, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s, NL, Canada.  Fisheries and Land Resources. (2017). How we manage our forest. Retrieved on July 1st, 2017 from http://www.faa.gov.nl.ca/forestry/managing/manage.html  Fitzpatrick, A. (2018). Liberals want to redesign Newfoundland and Labrador coat of arms. Retrieved on June 25th, 2018 from http://www.thetelegram.com/news/liberals-want-to-redesign-newfoundland-and-labrador-coat-of-arms-219113/  Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473.  189  Forstchen, A.B. & Smith, C.A. (2014). The essential role of human dimensions and stakeholder participation in states’ fulfillment of public trust responsibilities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 417-426.  Francis, G. (2007). Evolution of contexts for protected areas governance. In K. S. Hanna, D. S. Clarke & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Transforming parks and protected areas: Policy and governance in a changing world (15 – 38). New York, NY: Routledge.  Frank, B., Glikman, J. A., Sutherland, M. & Bath, A. J. (2016). Predictors of extreme negative feelings toward coyote in Newfoundland. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21, 297-310.   Freddy, D. J., et al. (2004). How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 916-927.  Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: The theory of transactive planning. New York: The Free Press.  Fugate, G. (1986). Newfoundland’s Interdepartmental Land Use Committee: An approach to integrated resource management. In R. Lang (Ed.) Integrated approaches to resource planning and management (pp. 215 - 228). Calgary, AB: The Banff Centre School of Management.  Gigliotti,  L. M.,  Shroufe,  D. L.  &  Gurtin,  S.  (2009). The changing culture of wildlife management. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker & E. A. Duke (Eds.), Wildlife and society: The science of human dimensions (pp. 75-89). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.   Giles, Robert H (1978). Wildlife management. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman,   Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist Grounded Theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3, Art. 12, http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203125.  Goudie, I. (2010, March 18). Woodland caribou: Going down with the trees [Guest Commentary]. The Advertiser Newspaper.  Goudie, I. (2011, November 23). Caribou and forestry [Letter to the Editor]. The Telegram Newspaper.   Government of Canada – Canadian Army. (2018). 1st Battalion, The Royal Newfoundland Regiment. Retrieved from http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/1-royal-newfoundland-regiment/index.page    190 Government of Canada. (2017). History of the Qalipu Mi’Kmaq first nation enrollment process. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1372946085822/1372946126667  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – Involve NL (n.d.) Office of public engagement: about office of public engagement’s role with the community sector. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from http://www.involvenl.ca/about/ope  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2000). Premier announces regionalization of government services. [News Release]. Retrieved from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2000/exec/0727n03.htm  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2009). News release: caribou resource committee established to bring stakeholder perspective to the table. Retrieved on April 5th, 2011, from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/env/0908n02.htm  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2012). Provincial caribou strategy gains attention on international stage. Retrieved from https://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2012/env/0518n06.htm  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2012). Caribou survey taking place on Northern Peninsula, Newfoundland and Labrador [Government Press Release]. Retrieved from  https://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2012/env/0222n03.htm  Government of Newfoundland and Larbrador. (2015). A report on Newfoundland caribou: Highlights. St. John’s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.   Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2018). Provincial government plans co-management approach to conserve Labrador caribou. Retrieved on July 1, 2018 from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2018/ffa/0130n03.aspx  Government of Newfoundlnad and Labrador. (2018). Land Area. Retrieved on July 1, 2018 from https://www.gov.nl.ca/aboutnl/area.html  Green, D., Askins, G. R. & West, P. D. (1997). Public opinion: Obstacle or aid to sound deer management? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 367-370.    Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8, 27-38.  Gunderson, L. H. & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.  Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience - in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425-439.    191 Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S. & Light, S. S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.    Hanna, K. S., Clarke, D. A. & Slocombe, D. S. (2008). Introduction: protected areas in a changing world. In K. S. Hanna, D. A. Clark & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.). Transforming parks and protected areas: Policy and governance in a changing world. (pp. 1 – 12). New York: Routledge.  Hanrahan, M. (n.d.) Who are the aboriginal peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from http://staff.library.mun.ca/staff/staffdir/acadcouncil/feb12/WhoAreAboriginalPeoplesNewfoundlandLabrador.pdf  Hare, D. J., Decker, D. J., Smith, C. A., Forstchen, A. B., & Jacobson, C. A. (2017). Applying public trust thinking to wildlife governance in the United States: challenges and potential solutions, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22, 506-523, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1359864  Heberlein, T. A. (2004). “Fire in the Sistine Chapel”: How Wisconsin responded to chronic wasting disease, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 165-179. Heffelfinger, J. R. (2013). Hunting and trapping. In P. R. Krausman & J. W. Cain III (Eds.) Wildlife management and conservation: contemporary principles and practices. (pp. 130 – 143). Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.  Hendee, J. C. & Potter, D. R. (1971). Human behavior and wildlife management: needed research. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.36, 383-396.   Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2, 104-113.   Henning, D. H. (1968). The politics of natural resources administration. The Annals of Regional Science, 2, 239-248.   Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador. (2011). The arms, seals, and emblems of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/arms-seals-and-emblems.php Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C, & Randle, A. A. (2005). The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society, 10. Retrieved on June 20th, 2018 from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art19/   Holling, C. S. & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328-337.  Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.   192     Holling, C. S. (1986). Science and policy for sustainable development. Environment, 28, 39 DOI: 10.1080/00139157.1986.9928829   Holling, C. S. (2004). From complex regions to complex worlds. Ecology and Society, 9, URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art11  Hooper, B. P., Mcdonald, G. T. & Mitchell, B. (1999). Facilitating integrated resource and environmental management: Australian and Canadian perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42, 747 — 766.   Hunt, L.M. (2013). Using human-dimensions research to reduce implementation uncertainty for wildlife management: a case of moose (Alces alces) hunting in northern Ontario, Canada. Wildlife Research, 40, doi: 10.1071/WR12185.  Hutchings, G. (2007). Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association – NLOA: over 100 years- will there be another? Presentation Delivered at Labrador Expo, 2007. Retrieved March 25th, 2009, from http://www.expolabrador.com /Presentations_07/Hutchings.pdf  Imperial, M. T. (1999). Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24, 449-465.   Interval Associates. (2016).Nature heritage and interpretation. Retrieved on July 15, 2017 from http://www.intervale.ca/ser2-H.html  Jacobson S. K. & McDuff, M. D. (1998). Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 12, 263-267.  Jacobson, C. A. & Decker, D. J. (2008). Governance of state wildlife management: Reform and revive or revisit and retrench? Society and Natural Resources, 21, 441-448.   Jacobson, C. A., Decker, D. J. & Carpenter, L. (2007). Securing alternative funding for wildlife management: insights from agency leaders. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 2106-2113.    Jacobson, C.A. & Haubold, E.M. (2014). Landscape conservation cooperatives: building a network to help fulfill public trust obligations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 427- 436.  Johnson, B. L. (1999). The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology, 3 [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8/    193 Johnson, F. A. & Case, D. J. (2000). Adaptive regulation of waterfowl harvests: lessons learned and prospects for the future. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 65, p. 94–108  Kay, J. J. (2008). Framing the situation: Developing a system description. In D. Waltner-Toews, J. J. Kay & N. M. E. Lister (Eds.). The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. (p. 15-34). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.   Kean, G. (2008). No decision to compensate outfitters: minister. The Western Star Newspaper, November 28, 2008 issue.  Kean, G. (2013, December 9). President of Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association wants province to gain more exposure. The Western Star Newspaper.   Kendrick, A. & Manseau, M. (2008). Representing traditional knowledge: Resource management and Inuit knowledge of barren-ground caribou. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 404–418.  Kendrick, A. (2003). The flux of trust: caribou co-management in Northern Canada. Environments, 31, 43-59.  Kleinschmit, D., Böcher, M. & Giessen, L. (2009). Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental governance – an overview. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 309-312.  Kline, B. (1997). First along the river: A brief history of the U.S. environmental movement. San Francisco, CA: Acada Books.  Kroll, A. J. (2007). Integrating professional skills in wildlife student education. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 226-230.  Kuehl, G. (2015). Environment Canada – as cited in Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) specific populations: COSEWIC assessment and status report 2014, part 2. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/cosewic-assessments-status-reports/caribou-specific-populations-2014/part-2.html  Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: A brilliant, original analysis of the nature, causes, and consequences of revolutions in basic scientific concepts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.  Lachapelle, P. R. & McCool, S. F. (2005). Exploring the concept of “ownership” in natural resource planning. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 279-285.  Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F. & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy’ world. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 473-490.    194  Lancia, R.., Braun, C., Collopy, M., Dueser, R., Kie, J., Martinka, C., Nichols, J., Nudds, T. Porah, W. & Tilghman, M. (1996). ARM! For the future: adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 436-442.  Lauber, T. B. & Knuth B. A., (1999). Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 19-37.   Lawrence, R. L. & Deagen, D. A. (2001). Choosing public participation methods for natural resources: a context specific guide. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 857-872.  Lawrence, R. L., & Daniels, S. E. (1996). Public involvement in natural resource decision making: goals, methodology, and evaluation. Corvallis, OR: Forest Research Laboratory Publication, Oregon State University.  Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.   Lee, K. N. (1999). Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/  Lee, P.G. (2012). Canada’s woodland caribou: Industrial disturbances in their ranges and implications for their survival. Global Forest Watch Canada International Year of Sustainable Energy, Publication 1. Edmonton, AB.   Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.  Leopold A. (1933). Game management. (1986 Edn). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.  Letter to the Editor. (2008, February 22). Coyote can’t be blamed for crisis in caribou population. The Western Star Newspaper.   Liu, J. & Taylor, W. W. (2002). Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and new approaches In: L. Jianguo & W. W. Taylor (Eds.). Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.   Loker, C. A., Decker, D. J. & Chase, L. C. (1998) Ballot initiatives – antithesis of human dimensions approaches or catalyst for change? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 3, 8-20.  Loker, C. A., Decker, D. J. & Schwager, S. J. (1999). Social acceptability of wildlife management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 152-159.   195 Loo, T. (2006). States of nature: Conserving Canada's wildlife in the twentieth century, Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.  Lopez-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G. & Treves, A. (2017). The Achilles heel of participatory conservation. Biological Conservation, 212, 139-143.  Lord, J. K. & Cheng, A. S. (2006): Public Involvement in State Fish and Wildlife Agencies in the U.S.: A Thumbnail Sketch of Techniques and Barriers, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 55-69  Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over. Ecosystems, 4, 758-764.  Lyver, P.O’B. & K’É, Ł. (2005). Monitoring barren-ground caribou body condition with Denésǫłiné traditional knowledge. Arctic, 58, 44-54  Magni, G. (2017). Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development agenda. European Journal of Education, Research, Development and Policy, 52, 437-447 https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12238  Mahoney, S. P. & Schaefer, J. A. (2002). Hydroelectric development and the disruption of migration in caribou. Biological Conservation, 107, 147-153.  Mahoney, S. P. & Virgl, J. A. (2003). Habitat selection and demography of a nonmigratory woodland caribou population in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 321-334. Mahoney, S. P. & Weir, J. N. (2009). Caribou data synthesis report - Overview of the status of Woodland caribou in insular Newfoundland: research methodology, results, interpretations and future projections [Technical Bulletin No. 001]. St. John’s, NL: Sustainable Development and Strategic Science – Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Manfredo, M. J. (2008) Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation issues.  New York, NY: Springer.   Manfredo, M. J., Decker, D. J. & Duda, M. D. (1998). What is the future for human dimensions of wildlife? Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural  Resources Conference, 278-292  Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J. & Sikorowski, L. (1996). Human dimensions of wildlife management. In A. W. Ewert (Ed.) Natural resource management: the human dimension. (pp. 53-72). Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc.  Mangun, W. R. (1992). Fish and wildlife policy issues. In W. R. Mangun (Ed.) American fish and wildlife policy: The human dimension (pp. 3 – 32). Southern Illinois University Press.     196 Margerum, R. D. (1997). Integrated approaches to environmental planning and management. Journal of Planning Literature, 11, 459-475  Margoluis, R. and Salafsky, N. (1998) Measures of Success: Designing, Managing and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Washington DC: Island Press  Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006) Designing qualitative research (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Mascarenhas, M. & Scarce, R. (2004). “The intension was good”: Legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 17-38.  Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.   McLeod, J. (2012, June 25). Caribou crisis. The Telegram Newspaper  McCool, S. F., & Guthrie, K. (2001). Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 309 – 323.  McGrath, D. (2005). Caribou crash: hunters warn of tough times for one of Newfoundland’s favourite game animals. Outdoor Canada, 33, 1-14.   McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.  Messier, C., Puettmann, K., Chazdon, R., Andersson, K. P., Angers, V. A., Filotas, E., Tittler, R., Parrott, L. & Levin, S. A. (2014). From management to stewardship: viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters, 8, 368-377. doi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/conl.12156  Miller, A. (1993). The role of analytical science in natural resource decision making. The Journal of Environmental Management, 17, 563–574.  Miller, D. C. & Salkind, N. J. (2002). Handbook of research design and social measurement (6th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Miller, M. L., Gale, R. P. & Brown, P. J. (1987). Natural resource management systems. In M. L. Miller, R. P. Gale & P. J. Brown (Eds.). Social Science in Natural Resource Management Systems (pp. 2 - 32). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.  Mitchell, B. & Shrubsole, D. (2007). An overview of integration in resource and environmental management. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 21-35). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.   197 Mitchell, B. (1986). The evolution of integrated resource management. In R. Lang (Ed.) Integrated approaches to resource planning and management (pp. 13 – 26). Calgary, AB: The Banff Centre School of Management.  Mitchell, B. (2002). Resource and environmental management (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Limited.   Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in government boards and commissions. Public Administration Review. 57:160–167.  Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9 [Online] www.ecologyandsociey.org/vol9/iss3/art2  Montevecchi, B. (2017). Birds I view:  Budget cuts to environment and conservation are lethal. Northeast Avalon Times (March, 2017), Retrieved on July 15th, 2017 from http://play.psych.mun.ca/~mont/outreach.html  Moller, G. (2002, August). Ripples versus rumbles [Letter to the editor]. Scientific American, 287(2), 12.  Morrison, S. F., Weir, J. N., Mahoney, S. P. and Luther, J.G. (2012). Projection of woodland caribou populations in Newfoundland: An application of Leslie – Matrix population models to predict future of Newfoundland caribou herds (2010 – 2035). [Technical Bulletin No. 003]. St. John’s, NL: Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Müller-Wille, L., Heinrich, D., Lehtola, V. –P., Aikio, P., Konstantinov, Y. & Vladimirova, V. (2006). Dynamics in human-reindeer relations: reflections on prehistoric, historic and contemporary practices in Northernmost Europe. In B.C. Forbes, M. Bölter, L. Müller-Wille, J. Hukkinen, F. Müller, N. Gunslay, & Y. Konstantinov (Eds.), Reindeer Management in Northernmost Europe (27-45). Germany: Springer.  Murray, T., Sanchez-Choy, J., & Sanchez-Zavala, F. (2008). Food, Floods, and Farming: An Ecosystem Approach to Human Health on the Peruvian Amazon Frontier. In Waltner-Toews D., Kay J., & Lister N. (Eds.), The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability (pp. 213-236). Columbia University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/walt13250.16  Nadasdy, P. (2005). The anti-politics of TEK: The institutionalization of comanagement discourse and practice. Anthropologica, 47, 215-232.  Natural Resources Canada. (2002). Reference Maps. Retrieved from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/reference-maps/16846   198 Newell, D. (2008). Outfitter calls for immediate coyote cull to protect caribou. The Advertiser Newspaper, May 26, 2008 issue.  Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage (2018a). Maritime Archaic Tradition. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/aboriginal/maritime-archaic.php  Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage (2018b). Paleo-Eskimo Peoples. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/aboriginal/palaeo-eskimo.php  Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association. (2014). The Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association: who we are. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from https://www.nltrappers.com/who-we-are  NLOA, (2013). Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters: About. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from http://nloa.ca/main/about  NLWF. (n.d.) NLWF – A brief overview. Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from http://www.nlwf.ca/about_us.html  Nobel, R., Ramirez, R. & Lightfoot, C. (2008). Linking hard and soft systems in local development. In D. Waltner-Toews, J. J. Kay & N. M. E. Lister (Eds.). The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. (p. 141-156). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.  Noss, R. (1998). Aldo Leopold was a conservation biologist. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 713-718.  Organ, J. F. & Batcheller, G. R. (2009). Reviving the public trust doctrine. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker & E. A. Duke. (Eds.). Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions (pp. 161-171). Island Press: Washington, DC.  Organ, J. F., Decker, D.J., Stevens, S.S., Lama, T.M. & Doyle-Capitman, C. (2014). Public trust principles and trust administration functions in the North American model of wildlife conservation: contributions of human dimensions research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 19, 407-416.  Overton, J. (1980). Tourism development, conservation, and conflict: game laws for caribou protection in Newfoundland. Canadian Geographer, 24, 40-49.   Paisley, W. J. (1969). Studying style as deviation from encoding norms in G. Gerbner, et al. (Eds.). The analysis of communication content: development of scientific theories and computer techniques (pp. 133-146). Wiley: New York, NY.   Parlee, B., Manseau, M. & K’É, Ǻ. (2005). Using traditional knowledge to adapt to ecological change: Denésôåiné monitoring of Caribou Movements, Arctic, 58, 26-37.    199 Pearce, T., Ford, J. Cunsolo Wicox, A. & Smit, B. (2015), Inuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), subsistence hunting and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 68, 233-245.   Pierre, J. (2000). Understanding governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.). Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. (pp. 1 – 10). New York, NY: Oxford.  Pinchot, G. (1947). Breaking new ground, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.  Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). Some observations on the terminology in cooperative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 63-72.  Polfus, J.L., Heinemeyer, K., Hebblewhite, M., Taku River Tlingit First Nation. (2014). Comparing Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science Woodland Caribou Habitat Models. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 112–121. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.643.  Pomeranz, E.F., Decker, D.J., Siemer, W.F., Kirsch, A., Hurst, J. & Farquhar, J. (2014). Challenges for multilevel stakeholder engagement in public trust resource governance. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 448-457.  Qalipu First Nation. (2016). Qalipu cultural information. Retrieved on July 15th from http://qalipu.ca/culture-heritage/qalipu-cultural-information/  Quinn, M. S. (2012). Introduction. In M.S. Quinn, Broberg, L. & Freimund, W. (Eds.). Parks, Peace, and Partnership: Global Initiatives in Transboundary Conservation. Energy, Ecology, and the Environment Series (no. 4) [online at  http://press.ucalgary.ca/books/9781552386422]  Quinn, M. (2016). Make Indian Arm Brook an ecological reserve, says rod and gun club. CBC news article Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/indian-arm-brook-reserve-1.3636949  Randell, H., Weir, J. N., Luther, J. G. and Mahoney, S. P. (2012). Population projections of insular Newfoundland caribou using population viability analysis [Technical Bulletin No. 004]. St. John’s, NL: Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.   Ray, J. C., Cichowski, D. B., St. Laurent, M-H., Johnson, C. J., Petersen, S. D. & Thompson, I. D. (2015). Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the Species at Risk Act, 2002-2014. Rangifer, 35, spec. iss. No. 23, 49-80.   Resilience Alliance (n.d.) Adaptive cycle. Retrieved on June 15, 2017 from https://www.resalliance.org/adaptive-cycle  200  Rhoads, B. L., Wilson, D., Urban, M. & Herricks, E. E. (1999). Interaction between scientists and non-scientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management, 24, 297-308.  Riche, T. (2002). Newfoundland and Labrador heritage: ecoregions of Newfoundland. Retrieved on January 15th, 2017 from https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/environment/ecoregions-newfoundland.php  Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F. & Parsons, G. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 585-593.  Riley, S. J., Siemer, W. F., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F. & Berchielli, L. T. (2003) Adaptive impact management: an integrative approach to wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 81-95.  Ring, I. (2009). Toward a framework for integrating human dimensions in wildlife management. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker & E. A. Duke. (Eds.). Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions (pp. 90-103). Island Press: Washington, DC.  Rittel, J. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Political Science, 4, 155–169. Roberts, T. (2017). Nearly 300 jobs cut as N.L. looks to make ‘flatter, leaner’ civil service. Retrieved on December 7th, 2017 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/management-public-sector-cuts-1.3993452  Robertson, J. (2017). Living with coyotes in Newfounland and Labrador. Retrieved on April 5th, 2018 from http://www.flr.gov.nl.ca/wildlife/all_species/coyotes.html  Robinson, J. (1990). Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Future, October, 820-842.  Romaniuk, T. (2012, June 23). Scientists hope to solve caribou mystery. [Newspaper Article]. The Telegram Newspaper.  Rotman, M. (2017). Cleveland historical: Cayahoga River fire. Retrieved on January 15, 2018 from https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63  Safari Club International. (2012). SCI Foundation sponsors caribou strategy in Newfoundland. Retrieved from http://manitobasci.ca/sci-foundation-sponsors-caribou-strategy-in-newfoundland/ Safari Club International. (2013). Canadian ministry supports caribou research strategy. Retrieved from https://firstforwildlife.com/2013/09/04/canadian-ministry-supports-caribou-research-strategy/  201   Sardà, R., O’Higgins, T., Cormier, R., Diedrich, A. & Tintoré, J. (2014). A proposed ecosystem-based management system for marine waters: Linking the theory of environmental policy to the practice of environmental management. Ecology and Society, 19, 1-14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07055-190451  Sax, J. L. (1999). Introduction to the public trust doctrine. In G. E. Smith & A. R. Hoar. (Eds.). The public trust doctrine and its application to protecting instream flows (pp. 5-12). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Instream Flow Progress Assessment: Hadley, MA.  Scalet, C. G. (2007). Dinosaur ramblings. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 1749-1752.  Schaefer, J. A. & Mahoney, S. P. (2007). Effects of progressive clearcut logging on Newfoundland’s caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 1753-1757.  Scheffer, M., Westly, F., Brock, W. A., & Holmgren. (2002). In L. H. Gunderson & C. Holling. (Eds.). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.  Schusler, T. M. & Decker, D. J. (2002). Engaging local communities in wildlife management area planning: An evaluation of the Lake Ontario Islands Search Conference. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 1226-1237.  Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J. and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Exploring social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 309-326.  Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.   Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2004). The ecosystem approach: CBD guidelines. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved on Feb 15, 2018 from https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ea-text-en.pdf  Service, C.N., Adams, M.S., Artelle, K.A., Paquet, P., Grant, L.V. et al., (2014). Indigenous knowledge and science unite to reveal spatial and temporal dimensions of distributional shift in wildlife of conservation concern. PLoS ONE 9: e101595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101595  Shaw, J. H. (1985). Introduction to wildlife management. New York: McGraw-Hill     Slocombe, D. S. & Hanna, K. S. (2007). Integration in resource and environmental management. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-20). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.  202  Slocombe, D. S. (1993a). Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development. Environmental Management, 17, 289-303  Slocombe, D. S. (1993b). Implementing ecosystem-based management. BioScience, 43, 612 – 622.  Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Lessons from experience with ecosystem-based management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 31-39.  Slocombe, D. S. (2004). Applying an ecosystem approach. In B. Mitchell (Ed.). Resource and Environmental Management in Canada: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty (3rd ed.) (pp. 420 – 441).  Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.  Smith, C.A. (2011). The role of state wildlife professionals under the public trust doctrine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 75, 1539-1543.  St. Anthony – Port au Choix Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat. (2012). St. Anthony – Port au Choix Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat Executive Council annual activity report 2010-2011. Retrieved on June 1st, 2017 from www.ope.gov.nl.ca/pe/publications/pdf/sapac_201011_report.pdf  Talley, J. L., Schneider, J. & Linquist, E. (2006). A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management: the Five-Feature Framework. Ecology and Society, 21(4), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08830-210438  The Canadian Boreal Initiative. (2011). Intact habitat landscapes and woodland caribou on the island of Newfoundland. Retrieved from https://www.borealbirds.org/sites/default/files/publications/Newfoundland-Caribou.pdf  The Canadian Press [CTV News Atlantic]. (2011). Newfoundland caribou population declines by thousands. Retrieved from https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/newfoundland-caribou-population-declines-by-thousands-1.726638  The Labradorian. (2011, November 24). Group calls for protection of woodland caribou. The Labradorian Newspaper.     The Northern Pen. (2009, May 19). NL: Can oil justify danger to caribou in Parsons Pond? The Northern Pen Newspaper.   The Telegram. (2008, March 17). More coyotes, fewer caribou [Letter to the Editor]. The Telegram Newspaper.   The Telegram. (2010, July 22). Coyote cull. The Telegram Newspaper.  203  The Telegram. (2010, March 3). Caribou surveys using paint markings to get underway in Newfoundland. The Telegram Newspaper.   The Telegram. (2011, November 23). Caribou and forestry [Letter to the Editor]. The Telegram Newspaper.  The Telegram. (2012, February 22). Caribou survey gets underway. The Telegram Newspaper.  The Telegram. (2012, June 23). Scientists hope to solve caribou mystery. The Telegram Newspaper.   The Telegram. (2012, May 18). Finland intrigued by Newfoundland caribou conservation plan: minister. The Telegram Newspaper.   The Telegram. (2013, March 1). Caribou surveys to take place in Middle Ridge area. The Telegram Newspaper.  The Western Star. (2009, April 3). Declining population; outfitters expect caribou hunt will be banned by 2010. The Western Star Newspaper.    Thomas, D. C. & Gray, D. R. (2002). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Ottawa, ON: COSEWIC Secretariat.   Thomas, J. W. (1998). What would Aldo have done? A personal story. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 761-766.  Torngat Secretariat. (2015). About the Torngat Secretariat. Retrieved on May 15, 2018 from https://www.torngatsecretariat.ca/home/about.htm  Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. (2005). Defining integrative research concepts and process of knowledge production. In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P. (Eds.). From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 13 – 26). Heidelberg: Springer.  Trindade, M., Norman, F., Lewis, K.P., Mahoney, S.P., Weir, J. & Soulliere, C. (2011). Caribou Calf Mortality Study. A summary and analysis of the patterns and causes of caribou calf mortality in Newfoundland during a period of rapid population decline: 2003-2007. Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, NL.  United Nations. (2016). Global issues: Governance. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/governance/   204 Van Dyke, F. (2008). Conservation biology: foundations, concepts, applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.   Vaughan, A. (2017). Torrey Canyon disaster – the UK’s worst-ever oil spill 50 years on. The Guardian, Retrieved on January 15, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/18/torrey-canyon-disaster-uk-worst-ever-oil-spill-50tha-anniversary  Veteran’s Affairs Canada. (2008). Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial. Retrieved on March 25th, 2008, from  http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm? source=memorials/ww1mem/beaumonthamel  Wall, L. (2016). Hunting ban on George River caribou herd upheld by provincial government. Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/george-river-hunting-ban-upheld-1.3505386  Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. , and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9, 1 - 5. Retrieved on July 1, 2018 from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/  Walters, C. (1997). Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1. Retrieved on June 1st, 2018 from  http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1   Walters, C. J. & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology, 71, 2060-2068.  Walters, C. J. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillian.  Weeks, P., & J. M. Packard. (1997). Acceptance of scientific management by natural resource dependent communities. Conservation Biology, 11, 236–245.  Weir, J. N., S. F. Morrison, J. G. Luther, and S. P. Mahoney. (2014). Caribou Data Synthesis– Progress Report #2. Status of the Newfoundland population of woodland caribou. Technical Bulletin No. 008, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Government Of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, NL.  Weiss, T.G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Q., 21, 795-814.  Wells, J., Jacobs, J., Goudie, I. & Feldgajer, J. (2011). Intact Habitat Landscapes and Woodland Caribou on the Island of Newfoundland. Canadian Boreal Initiative, Ottawa, Canada.   205 Wells. K. (2015). Rod and gun club questions staffing reduction. The Lewisporte Pilot. Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from http://www.lportepilot.ca/news/local/2015/5/20/rod-gun-club-questions-staffing-reduct-4152741.html  Whelan, C. J., Şekercioğlu, C. H. & Wenny, D. G. (2015). Why birds matter: from economic ornithology to ecosystem services. Journal of Ornithology, 156 (supplement 1), 227 – 238.  White, G. C. (2001). Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin Technical Review 07-2. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.  Wilson, S. M. & Clark, S. G. (2007). Resolving human-grizzly bear conflict: an integrated approach in the common interest. K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 137-163). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.  Wiersma, Y. (2011). Landscape ecology and spatial analysis lab. Retrieved on January 10th, 2017 from https://nllandscapeecology.com/about/  Yaffee, S. L. (1996). Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human institutions, Ecological Applications, 6, 724 – 727.  Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.) – Applied social research methods series (volume 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.   Young, O. (2008). Institutions and environmental change: The scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. In O. R. Young, H. Schroeder & L. A. King (Eds.). Institutions and environmental change principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 3-46). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.     206 Appendix  Selection of popular media items and press releases presented in chronological order      207  (© 2008 The Western Star, by permission)    208   (© 2008 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by permission)    209      210     211   (© 2008 The Telegram, by permission)   212     213   214  (© 2009 The Northern Pen, by permission)    215  216   217  (© 2009 The Western Star, by permission)   218    (© 2010 The Telegram, by permission)  219   220    221     222   (© 2010 The Telegram, by permission)     223    224     225   226  (Goudie, 2010 - © 2010 The Advertiser, by permission)  227   228  (Goudie, 2011 - © 2011 The Telegram, by permission)    229   230  (© 2011 The Labradorian, by permission)   231    232   (© 2011 Canadian Boreal Initiative, by permission)    233   (© 2011 The Canadian Press, by permission)    234   (© 2012 The Telegram, by permission)    235   (© 2012 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by permission)   236    237  (© 2012 The Telegram, by permission)     238   239   240  (© 2012 CBC News, by permission)    241   242   243   (© 2012 The Telegram, by permission)  244  (© 2012 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by permission)    245   246  (McLeod - © 2012 The Telegram, by permission)   247    248   (© 2013, Safari Club International, by permission)    249   (© 2013 The Telegram, by permission)    250     251     252  (Kean - © 2013 The Western Star, by permission) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0373202/manifest

Comment

Related Items