Publication

The controversial elk reduction program (elk hunt) in Grand Teton National Park, WY, has been a source of conflict since it was legislated in 1950. The hunt is jointly managed by the National Park Service and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. This forced organizational partnership and the conflicting mandates of these two agencies have led to persistent conflict that seems irresolvable under the current decision-making process. To better understand the decision-making process and participant perspectives, we reviewed management documents, technical literature, and newspaper articles, and interviewed 35 key participants in this case. We used these data to analyze and appraise the adequacy of the decision-making process for the park elk hunt and to ask whether it reflects the common interest. We found deficiencies in all functions of the decision-making process. Neither the decisions made nor the process itself include diverse perspectives, nor do they attend to valid and appropriate participant concerns. Agency officials focus their attention on technical rather than procedural concerns, which largely obfuscates the underlying tension in the joint inter-jurisdictional management arrangement and ultimately contributes to the hunt's annual implementation to the detriment of the common interest. We offer specific yet widely applicable recommendations to better approximate an inclusive and democratic decision-making process that serves the community's common interests.