Wildlife policy in the states: a comparative case study of policy change in California, Colorado, and Ohio

Abstract

In the wildlife policy arena, ballot initiatives have been used increasingly over the past two decades to wrest control of policy from legislators and bureaucrats. This trend has led to dramatic changes in policy as professionals are forced to adapt to changing political winds. In this dissertation, I use a model of policy change developed in the early 1990s by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones to examine how activists have used the ballot initiative to change wildlife policy arena. Case studies in Ohio, California, and Colorado are examined. Whether the wildlife establishment prevails is affected by the success of opponents in altering policy image through this unique venue. The comparative case studies provide strong evidence that the ballot initiative is a potent tool in achieving a major policy change in the wildlife arena, particularly in California and Colorado. However, three states do not necessarily signify a trend. More research is needed on the impact of ballot initiatives in other states and in other issue areas before e definitive statement can be made that the initiative venue is an effective way to dramatically alter the policy. The Baumgartner and Jones model, however, proved to be of mixed use when analyzing the wildlife measures in the states. Clearly, policy change advocates can achieve success in shifting the venue to the ballot initiative. However, this success is not guaranteed when aggressive and well-funded hunting interests fight back, as occurred in Ohio in 1998. Policy image clearly is a key intervening variable. Success in generating favorable coverage in the media and spendiving more money than the opposition helps to guarantee a favorable image. The model also has a top-down focus that limits its effectiveness in analyzing the roles played by local and state policy entrepreneurs as agents of change.