1. Institutions: Stakeholder Management
• Stakeholder- a type of organization or system in which all the members or participants are seen as
having an interest in its success
• Many people have different reasons to positively or negatively value wolves
• Wolves are seen as common property, which can be hard to manage but are successfully solved
through institutions
• “systems…leading to an orderly and restricted use of natural resources”
-Environmentalist must constraint there population growth
-Hunter and livestock owners must constraint their traditions (shoot on sight)

2. Public Participation in Resource Management
• In 1970 in the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) required environmentalist statements for any government
management action
• Statement included public input and participation in the process
• Reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone suggested that wolf
management priorities have changed over time from destruction to
conservation
• Many individuals started to put their inputs and participation into
wolves which allow more room for conservation

3. Stakeholders in Minnesota Wolf Conservation
• In 1988 the state of Minnesota began implementing the first stakeholder model wolf
management plan in the United States.
• Minnesota was given more management by the federal govt because it had the largest stable wolf
population
• Once meeting started happening the “Roundtable” was convened
-every member of the roundtable had to back the plan or it was back to the drawing board
• Minnesota state legislature initially proceeded by largely overlooking the group plan altogether
and presented hunting and trapping.
• The revised plan implemented that stakeholder plan on 90 percent of the wolves range making
the remaining 10 percent into an “agricultural zone” in which landowners have more flexibility in
killing wolves

4. Evaluating Results of the “Roundtable”
• Supports
-Able to forge a consensus plan that deemed biologically sound by state scientists
-will make future wolf management issues more easily resolvable
• Critics
-felt it was a compromise and did not represent a true commit to wolves recovery
-Pro- wolf opposed the splitting of the state into two management zones
Many wolf environmentalist may have gotten more than what they pleased for
• According, David Mech an veteran wolf biologist says people may tend to over protect them
Ex. Poland: three times wolves were reintroduced with no leeway for control, all three times they were
shot down by landowners
• So it was important that Minnesota had livestock owners, hunters, and trappers in the decision-making
process allowing individuals to view wolves as a great resource to society