Evan Weinraub
Research Mentor: Devin Judge-Lord
Mentor Department: Not Available, Public Policy
Author(s): Evan Weinraub
Session: Session 5 (2:00 PM – 2:50 PM)
Presentation Type: Poster 35
Abstract
Federal executive-branch agencies make policies through a process called rulemaking. These policies may go through many changes, often based on input during open comment periods. This is when organizations advocate for change, relying on different rhetorical strategies and achieving varying degrees of success in changing policy. I analyzed the impact advocacy groups had on a 2013 policy entitled Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered. Over 1500 comments were submitted by different advocacy groups. I read each comment, identified their policy position, placed the group into a coalition of similar demands, and assessed their successes on a scale of -2 to 2. After determining their policy demands and whether they got what they asked for, I found that each could be placed into one of two coalitions. One coalition opposes delisting gray wolves, and the other supports this. The policy draft also proposes separating the Mexican wolf from the gray wolf as a subspecies, but this did not impact the coalitions, as their interests were in keeping as many or as few wolves protected as possible. Mentions of Mexican wolves were only a strategic way to advance their interest in protecting or removing protections from wolves. In the end, gray wolves were delisted, and Mexican wolves were made a subspecies. The pro-rule coalition and its groups got what they wanted, and the anti-rule groups did not. However, the different rhetorical strategies, partially regarding the Mexican wolves’ status, reveal that a simple policy fight can have complex arguments. This research reveals how advocacy groups argue their position and whose side the federal government ultimately favors.
