In the Chase et al (2002) reading this week, Table 2 described six different approaches to engagement of interested parties were discussed, ranging along a continuum of interested party involvement and influence from the ‘Authoritative’ to ‘Co-management’. These approaches form the continuum within which wildlife managers decide which approaches are suitable for engaging with interested parties in wildlife decision-making. These authors, as well as your other required readings, provide case studies detailing the process of determining the most appropriate form of engagement. In addition, the Lute and Gore (2014) paper looks at a variety of themes that emerge out of the implementation of this continuum (portrayed as top-down and bottom-up in their discussion). <\/span><\/p>\n Be sure to address the pros and cons associated with the approaches you describe.<\/span><\/p>\n Chase, L.C., W.F. Siemer, and D.J. Decker. 2002. Designing stakeholder involvement strategies to resolve wildlife management controversies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3): 937\u2013950. <\/span><\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3784250<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/span>Download http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3784250<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Lute, M.L., and M.L. Gore. 2014. Knowledge and power in wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(6):1060\u20131068. <\/span><\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/43188240 <\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\nQuestions<\/h2>\n
\n
Literature Cited<\/h2>\n