





































Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement: Lessons for Pennsylvania


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 20, Issue 1 (2018). © 2018 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v20i1.178. All rights reserved.

Organizational Identity Change  
in Conservation Law Enforcement

Lessons for Pennsylvania

MICHAEL J. MCSKIMMING
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania

ROBERT VANCE DUNBAR
Conservation Officers of Pennsylvania

AHMET GULER
Lamar University

Conservation officer safety has become a growing concern across the United 
States. This is particularly true since the scope of conservation law enforcement 
has expanded to include duties often relegated to more traditional law enforce-
ment agencies such as state and local police. As a result, several states have 
changed the titles of their conservation officers to reflect a more police-oriented 
stature (e.g., Conservation Police Officer). This study analyzes how a change 
in organizational identity, through a title change, impacts conservation offi-
cers, the general public, traditional law enforcement agencies, and governmen-
tal entities. The major findings suggest that those states that have changed the 
titles of their officers have experienced enhanced organizational legitimacy with 
natural resource users, other law enforcement agencies, and state legislatures. 
Given these findings, this article argues that it would be advantageous for Penn-
sylvania to at least consider making a title change for their conservation officers.

It has been widely held that conservation officers are at a higher risk of 
assaults than traditional police officers. The problem is further exacerbated 
by the expanding scope of the enforcement responsibilities of conserva-

tion law enforcement over the last several years. More specifically, conser-
vation law enforcement evolved from specializing in conservation-specific 



20 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

infractions (e.g., hunting and fishing infractions, user safety, and resource 
protection) to an increased focus on drug offenses and other laws that were 
outside the scope of their duties (Shelley, O’Connor, and Crow 2009). As a 
result of this shift in focus, research has suggested a correlation between 
increased assaults and use-of-force incidents with conservation officers who 
engage in general policing outside the scope of traditional conservation law 
enforcement (Carter 2004; Eliason 2006; Eliason 2011; McSkimming and 
Dunbar 2015; Patten 2012).

This unfortunate reality has prompted conservation law enforcement 
agencies to explore meaningful policy changes that would enhance the safety 
of their officers. For example, a number of conservation agencies in the United 
States eliminated their original title and adopted some form of police des-
ignation in their title (e.g., Conservation Police Officer) (McSkimming and 
Dunbar 2016; Patten, Crow, and Shelley 2015). However, very little if anything 
is known about the effectiveness of a title change on officer legitimacy and 
safety. This article enhances the literature on conservation officer safety by 
addressing the following questions: (a) Why have various states changed the 
titles of their officers? (b) What impact, if any, has the name change had? and 
(c) What issues, if any, do organizations experience in the change process?

Literature Review

Organizational Change

Conservation law enforcement is defined as a special type of policing that 
is mainly responsible for enforcing wildlife and fishing laws on public lands 
(national and state parks and forests) and waterways (lakes, rivers, and res-
ervoirs) (Eliason 2011; Forsyth and Forsyth 2009; Palmer and Bryant 1985). 
Conservation Officers (COs) are historically responsible for enforcing wildlife 
regulations in order to protect wildlife and other natural resources in the 
United States (Falcone 2004; Eliason 2007). When we examine the historical 
development of conservation law enforcement as a profession, we find the 
first state-level conservation agents responsible for protecting state parks and 
natural resources in Michigan and Missouri at the beginning of the twentieth 
century (Falcone 2004). Wildlife hunting and fishing as leisure activities were 
privileged activities of elite classes in the Middle Ages in England and later 
in the United States (Nauright and Parrish 2012). Fundamental changes in 
American culture resulted in an increase in leisure time, which combined with 
the affordability of automobiles for the working class to create an increasing 
need for wildlife and fishing enforcement in the second half of the twentieth 
century in the United States (Falcone 2004).



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  21

In the United States, there are different titles such as “wildlife manage-
ment agents, fish and game wardens, park rangers, conservation agents, nat-
ural resource police, and conservation police officers” (Falcone 2004, 56) for 
the enforcement of wildlife and other natural resources laws at the state and 
federal levels. Conservation Officers or COs were generally placed under the 
management of the conservation department at the state level and under the 
responsibility of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service at the federal level 
(Falcone 2004). However, due to recent changes in the occupational respon-
sibilities of COs and to respond to the changing nature of wildlife and natu-
ral resources enforcement, most states established a Department of Natural 
Resources in the 1990s (Eliason 2007; Falcone 2004).

According to researchers (Chavez and Tynon 2000; Eliason 2007; Falcone 
2004; Pendleton 2000; Sherblom, Keränen, and Withers 2002), occupational 
responsibilities of COs have recently changed due to several factors. First, the 
recruitment and retention of hunters and anglers are declining and other non-
traditional users of outdoor recreational areas (e.g., birdwatchers, hikers, and 
ATV riders) are on the increase. These nontraditional users of state-controlled 
lands and waters are reshaping the enforcement duties of conservation offi-
cers and placing them at a greater risk for assault and use of force (Shelley, 
O’Connor, and Crow 2009). Second, crimes that are considered to be urban, 
such as drug possession and use, are now problems in rural areas, especially 
in national and state parks, forests, and waterways. Finally, some researchers 
(Carter 2006; Shelley, O’Connor, and Crow 2009) highlight the role of occupa-
tional identity and organizational subculture and the increased emphasis on 
traditional law enforcement over that of wildlife and fishing law enforcement 
as reasons for changes in occupational responsibility. While seasoned conser-
vation officers prefer to specialize in traditional wildlife and fish law enforce-
ment, a new generation of officers emphasizes traditional law enforcement 
duties (Shelley, O’Connor, and Crow 2009) rather than identifying as “game 
wardens,” “wildlife enforcement,” or “duck cops” (Oliver and Meier 2006).

Some scholars (Eliason 2010; Falcone 2004; Shelley, O’Connor, and Crow 
2009) define this change as an organizational transition from a specific wild-
life enforcement role to a general law enforcement role. This transition has 
broadened the organizational roles and responsibilities of COs and their occu-
pational title from being a game warden to a traditional police officer (Eliason 
2007; Falcone 2004; Forsyth 1994; Patten 2012; Shelley, O’Connor, and Crow 
2009). Due to these changes, COs have to deal with more traditional policing 
roles than before and they need to shift their attention and resources to law 
enforcement duties and responsibilities as their counterparts do in city police 
departments. However, as discussed in the literature (Eliason 2014; Patten 



22 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

2012; Patten, Crow, and Shelley 2015), this shift in organizational role respon-
sibilities, from wildlife and fish law enforcement to general law enforcement, 
creates some confusion, tension, and frustration among COs. These are the 
main issues discussed in organizational behavior literature relating to identity 
change.

Organizational Identity

The term “identity” has been the subject of research for psychologists and 
was recently applied to groups and organizations (Brown 2001). Organiza-
tion members’ answers to “Who are we as an organization?” and “Who do we 
want to be as an organization?” (Albert and Whetten 1985) form the mean-
ing of organizational identity in their minds (Corley and Gioia 2004). Albert 
and Whetten (1985) defined organizational identity as members’ beliefs about 
their organization’s central, distinctive, and enduring characteristics. Ravasi 
and Schultz (2006) stated that, although Albert and Whetten’s organizational 
identity definition is widely accepted among researchers, two different per-
spectives on organizational identity have emerged: social actor perspective 
and social constructivist perspective.

According to the social actor perspective (Ravasi and Schultz 2006), which 
is theoretically based on institutional theory, organizational identity can be 
traced to official institutional claims because they define central, enduring, 
and distinctive features for organizations. As defined by Gioia and Chittipeddi 
(1991), there are two main identity-related actions during change process in 
organizations: sensegiving and sensemaking actions. While sensemaking 
actions happen when organizational members reevaluate and reinterpret their 
collective identity under changing circumstances, sensegiving actions include 
managerial efforts to present the new organizational identity to internal and 
external audiences (Ravasi and Schultz 2006). Organizational leaders engage 
in sensegiving to influence their members’ perceptions of collective identity 
by providing them with consistent and legitimate narratives to construct 
their identity. On the other hand, social constructionists view organizational 
identity as a shared collective schema that is constructed through negotia-
tion and sensemaking among organizational members. Elstak (2008) argued 
that organizational identity has mainly been approached from the social con-
structivist point of view, while studies from the social actor perspective are 
rare. However, in order to understand the relationship between the perceived 
organizational identity and institutionally claimed identity, there should be 
more research about how organizational members interpret and negotiate 
institutionally claimed organizational identities.



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  23

Organizational members continuously interpret events in their surround-
ings to make sense of what is going on in their environment (Apker 2004; 
Weick 1979). Sensemaking activities continually occur in organizations; 
however, when a surprise or change emerges, sensemaking becomes a more 
conscious and less automatic activity for organizational members to find the 
gap between their schema and existing reality (Balogun and Johnson 2005). 
Organizational change is a catalyst for organizational members to engage in 
sensemaking collectively (Apker 2004; Maitlis 2005). Balogun and Johnson 
(2005) stated that, when individuals encounter a change in their organiza-
tions, they try to make sense of what is happening around them in order to 
adapt their cognitive understanding to a new state in the organization and 
find appropriate responses to a change initiative. 

According to Corley and Gioia (2004), change is challenging for organi-
zational members because it disrupts organizational identity, which is the 
members’ collective sense about their organization’s distinctiveness and 
uniqueness. Due to ambiguities and uncertainties in the change process, 
organizational members try to make sense of how new initiatives will affect 
their organizational identity in order to see whether changes fit their col-
lective understanding of organizational identity. Therefore, members’ sen-
semaking process will play a critical role in revising organizational reality 
embedded in organizational identity. Moreover, Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) 
state that to deal with environmental threats, organizations need to achieve a 
strategic change in organizational members’ way of thinking. Gioia, Thomas, 
Clark, and Chittipeddi (1994) defined this change as a cognitive reorientation 
of organization directly related to changes in identity. To achieve cognitive 
reorientation, organizational members—including top management—need 
to engage in sensemaking and sensegiving processes. While the sensemak-
ing process helps participants experiencing strategic change to construct 
and reconstruct their collective identity, sensegiving serves as a tool to influ-
ence others (both insiders and outsiders of an organization) in redefining 
the organizational reality during the change process (Gioia and Chittipeddi 
1991).

In earlier studies, organizational identity was viewed as stable and resis-
tant to change (Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal, and Hunt 1998). However, subsequent 
studies (Chreim 2005; Corley and Gioia 2004; Gioia, Schultz, and Corley 
2000) suggested that organizational identity can be viewed as a f luid and 
unstable concept in order to explain adaptation and change in organizations. 
Gioia, Schultz, and Corley (2000) referred to Gagliardi’s explanation of “the 
firm must change in order to preserve its identity” (Gagliardi 1986, 125), 
defining this explanation as a paradoxical statement because they think that, 



24 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

if organizational identity needs to adapt to changes in its environment, it 
cannot be stable and rigid. Moreover, Gustafson and Reger (1995) asserted 
that organizations need to engage in fundamental changes to be successful 
in the turbulent environment; however, at the same time, they have to main-
tain their organizational identity to provide stability and continuity for their 
members. Similarly, Fiol (2002) says that a paradoxical relationship exists 
between organizational identity and change. Although organizational suc-
cess depends on having a sense of strong identity among members, organi-
zational change requires loose ties with organizational identity in order not 
to anchor too deeply into the features of organizational identity to initiate 
change. To cope with this paradoxical issue, Corley and Gioia (2003) argued 
that organizations maintain consistent labels to explain their identity while 
the meanings of these labels are continuously reinterpreted according to 
changes in the environment. Thus, organizational members ensure a sense 
of continuity in their identity while being flexible by interpreting emergent 
issues differently.

Sensemaking is an important phenomenon for analyzing how individuals 
in an organization perceive organizational change (Balogun and Jenkins 2003; 
Ericson 2001; Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Isabella 1990). Weick (1979) argued 
that no one accurate way exists for perceiving organizational change; rather, 
several interpretations can exist according to an individual’s sensemaking of 
change (Apker 2004; Grill and Carver 2008; Taylor 1999). Gioia and Thomas 
(1996) argued that members’ views about their organizational identity and 
image can result in varying interpretations of envisioned image and iden-
tity. Due to their different roles and responsibilities, members can interpret 
change differently (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991). Top managers have more 
relationships with higher levels of the organizational environment, whereas 
rank-and-file employees interact with organizations’ actual customers on the 
ground, meaning that their sensegivers will signal different issues in changes 
and will make sense of changes in a different manner (Taylor 1999). When a 
change occurs in an organization, members make more effort to make sense 
of what is going on because change challenges shared understanding, insti-
tutionalized practices, and organizational schemata (Balogun and Johnson 
2005; George and Jones 2001).

In this study, we will analyze how a change in organizational identity, 
through a title change, impacts conservation officers, the general public, tra-
ditional law enforcement agencies, and governmental entities. More specifi-
cally, we will determine if such a title change provides more organizational 
legitimacy and safety for officers as they encounter a wider array of both 
resource and nonresource users.



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  25

Pennsylvania Conservation Officers

Pennsylvania is unique in that it is the only state where fish and game com-
missions are separated, run independently, and funded primarily through 
license and registration sales. The commissions are managed by commis-
sioners appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Conserva-
tion officers of both agencies are empowered to enforce most state laws but 
are encouraged to concentrate on enforcing the laws within the title of their 
agency. Fish officers and game officers do maintain a professional working 
relationship with each other as well as with officers from parks and forestry, 
but they normally turn over violations outside of their title rather than prose-
cute them. Law enforcement of each agency consists of a bureau nested within 
what is primarily a non–law-enforcement agency.

Executive leadership consists principally of biologists and administrative 
personnel who have risen to the top of their bureaus. Executive leadership 
including law enforcement personnel is better represented in the Pennsyl-
vania Game Commission than in the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commis-
sion due to the greater number of officers within that agency; game officers 
outnumber fish officers by roughly four to one. Pennsylvania has 67 counties 
with an average of one fish officer and three game officers assigned to each 
county. The remaining officers are assigned to managerial and other duties. 
Both agencies are struggling with vacancies and lack of funding to hire and 
train new officers. Officers of both agencies belong to the Fraternal Order of 
Police in the Conservation Police Officers lodge and are issued reflective vests 
and other uniform items with the word “police” on them. Administrators of 
both agencies have been reluctant to effect a title change to include the word 
“police.”1

Methods

Data

The data for this study were derived from 31 semistandardized interviews 
with personnel from conservation law enforcement agencies throughout 
the United States. These include agencies that have a police designation in 
their title (n = 16) and agencies that do not (n = 15). All agencies were identi-
fied through a simple search of “Conservation Law Enforcement Agencies 
by State.” Initial phone calls were made to the listed agencies to determine 
(1) if the appropriate agency was contacted, and (2) if there was an individual 
within that agency who could offer assistance with the research. If the wrong 
agency was contacted, the person who was contacted pointed the researchers 



26 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

in the right direction. In many cases, multiple calls had to be made. This was 
particularly true when it was unclear who would be in the best position to 
assist the researchers. After about three weeks of phone calls, a final sample 
(n = 50) of potential respondents was complete. However, not all potential 
participants were interviewed for the study.

A first round of calls was made to all 50 designated officials. Some inter-
views were conducted immediately, some were scheduled for another time, 
and in other instances, messages were left to call the researchers back. After 
approximately two weeks, a second attempt was made to reach those who 
were not available at the time of the initial call or who did not return the 
researchers’ initial calls. This round of calls yielded more interviews, and once 
again, messages were left for those who were not available. One final round 
of calls was made a week later. However, in this instance, no further messages 
were left to contact the researchers, and the researchers decided to use the 
sample size they were able to generate for final analysis. Each participant was 
informed of the nature of the study, invited to participate in the study, and 
assured confidentiality.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted by telephone over four months. In many instances, 
interviews were audiotaped with the respondent’s permission and ranged 
from 20 minutes to one and one-half hours. Interviews were conducted in 
comfortable locations for the respondents (e.g., office, home, in the field). All 
interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using a stan-
dard form of thematic content analysis (Berg 2007).

For the purposes of this study, two interview schedules were created, 
for those states with a title change and for states without a title change (see 
Appendices A and B). Each instrument was worded specifically for the type of 
information desired and reflected differences between the agencies. Research-
ers were careful to follow the scripted interview questions as closely as possible 
and asked follow-up questions when appropriate.

Results

States with a Police Title

A majority of states that have a police designation for their officers, such as 
Conservation Police Officer, Natural Resource Police Officer, Environmental 
Police Officer, Environmental Conservation Police Officer, Wildlife Conser-
vation Law Enforcement Officer, and Conservation Law Enforcement Officer, 



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  27

are along the east coast of the United States (nine states out of 16). Five states 
have had their title for more than two decades, the oldest being New York and 
Maryland, which adopted “police” designations in 1974. Delaware was the 
most recent state to adopt the “police” designation in 2014. Agencies with the 
police designation have indicated that the title, for the most part, has provided 
benefits that a nonpolice designation failed to produce.

Benefit One—Credibility in the Eyes of the Public
First, and perhaps most important, it was widely reported from those agencies 
interviewed that having the title of “police” gave them instant credibility in the 
eyes of the public. For many conservation agencies, gaining respect and under-
standing on the part of the public had been difficult at best. According to the 
majority of respondents, the general public “just didn’t get it” or “didn’t care” 
what the agencies did or what they were empowered to do. Often they would 
hear such things as, “You’re not a cop. I do not have to listen to you,” or “Get 
back in your truck and mind your own business.” This lack of understanding 
on the part of the public had an impact, as pointed out by the following:

It was like the people were looking at us and going “What the f**k?” I 
mean we were pulling people over for stuff [violations not relating to 
natural resource law], like we are empowered to do and they looked 
at us like we were from another planet. They would give our guys s**t 
and all that. It wasn’t worth it, so we stopped it for the most part. 

However, once the title “police” was put into place, there seemed to be 
a shift in public perception. This was particularly true for states engaged in 
aggressive promotional campaigns (e.g., outdoor clubs and organizations, 
outdoor shows, television and radio broadcasts, etc.) highlighting what the 
officers were empowered to do. Initially there was a bit of “confusion” on the 
part of the public, but once the “word spread,” this confusion seemed to dis-
sipate. Consider the following:

You have to understand, we operated a certain way for so long and now 
we changed overnight. But we really didn’t—just our title changed and 
that had to be explained. I can still see some of the eyes on the good 
ol’ boys faces when I said that I was now a cop and could arrest them 
for DUI. I swear one guy spit his soda all over the place. Yeah, it hit 
them hard but we went out to them and explained it all. That is what 
you have to do, make them understand. Once they did, things seem 
to be pretty good. 



28 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

Unfortunately, these agencies could not provide convincing quantitative 
data to support their claims that the title change brought about a better rap-
port with the public. However, it was clear that something was indeed hap-
pening, and they were more than happy to embrace the title change. Many 
respondents clearly pointed out that their interactions with the public were 
“smoother,” they had fewer incidents of questioning their “authority,” and they 
had fewer verbal and physical assaults. Agencies reported having an increased 
number of calls from citizens about both resource violations and crimes code. 
As one respondent put it, “It is like we are legitimate now; we are the police!”

Benefit Two—Credibility with Other Law Enforcement Agencies
Second, other law enforcement agencies and the courts have reacted to these 
officers more favorably as a result of their donning the police title. Frequently, 
conservation law enforcement officers require the assistance of other agen-
cies such as the local police, sheriffs, and state police. This could range from 
asking for help in an active incident or an ongoing investigation, requiring 
laboratory work, or requesting the use of equipment that the agency does not 
have handy (e.g., ATVs, night vision equipment, helicopters, etc.). One would 
assume that interagency cooperation and respect was a given, and that help 
would be available for the asking. However, according to some respondents, 
this was not necessarily the case when it came to conservation officers. It was 
made clear that not all law enforcement officers are created equal. However, 
once the name “police” was officially attached, perceptions changed rapidly. 
Consider the following from an agency located in the northeastern part of the 
United States:

It was as if we really did not exist in the law enforcement community. 
Then once we applied the title “police” to our name, we now can get 
search warrants and other law enforcement agencies call upon us for 
assistance: from public safety stuff to emergency management. It was 
like the door was suddenly opened and we were legit. 

A conservation agency in a geographically different region gave a similar 
response. According to a respondent from that conservation agency, the name 
change has “increased the number of calls for assistance from other state and 
local law enforcement and from homeland security itself.” Many additional 
agencies have also claimed instant “credibility” with other law enforcement 
agencies. No other changes were made apart from adding “police” to their 
title.



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  29

Benefit Three—Credibility with Legislatures
In addition to experiencing enhanced credibility with the public and other law 
enforcement agencies, a significant number of those interviewed suggested 
that the name change has increased visibility and financial support from their 
legislatures. Law enforcement agencies rely heavily upon monies from their 
respective state governments. As needs increase and support decreases, con-
servation agencies have received barely enough to “survive on their own.” 
Having to compete with “more legitimate law enforcement agencies,” many 
have had to find creative ways to finance such things as deteriorating fish 
hatcheries, officer training programs, vehicle replacement, and equipment 
upgrades. Interestingly, financial concerns seemingly disappeared for many 
agencies once they became “recognized by the higher-ups” as being “real law 
enforcement.” As these conservation agencies began to enjoy a stronger rela-
tionship with traditional law enforcement agencies, they found it “easier to 
get sponsored bills passed in the legislature” and funding seemed to increase. 
Many credit this enhanced relationship with their state legislatures to the fact 
that their agencies were strongly tied with “recognizable” agencies such as 
Homeland Security, and in some cases, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service. As one respondent remarked, “It seems you only become legitimate 
once someone else finds you to be. Once that happens, you get what you want 
and need. We should have figured that out years ago.”

States without a Police Title

Entities without a police designation (n = 15) are clearly divided between 
those that have at least considered adopting a “police” designation for their 
officers and those that are emphatically against it. Seven out of the 11 agen-
cies reported that there has never been “official” talk about changing their 
officers’ titles, but believe that a title change would benefit the officers in the 
field. According to one agency representative, “We are aware of the issues 
and know of the recent changes. We simply are not there yet, but I think we 
will be.” Another official made the claim that, “Our officers are being taken 
advantage of because they are not thought of as being real police.” Interest-
ingly, while many agencies have not elected to go with an official title change, 
a few states (Arizona, Hawaii, and Wisconsin) have at least changed markings 
on their vehicles, patches, and vests, or introduce themselves as “police” when 
interacting with the public. When asked why those changes were made, each 
participant indicated that, “The term ‘police’ is understood by everyone, and 
having that term visible makes a difference when interacting with the public.” 



30 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

Finally, one state (Arizona) considered a title change about five years ago but 
remains divided on the issue. During an interview an official from Arizona 
made the point clearly:

We have an issue with illegal immigrants coming into our state, and if 
you do not have the word “police” on your vehicle, they do not under-
stand. We had agents in the field doing some wildlife census, and when 
they got back to the truck, it was full of illegals. They asked for a ride to 
the nearest city. One officer asked them why they thought they could 
get a ride and the reply was, “’Cos it did not say police on your truck 
so we figured it was safe.” The officers told them that they needed to 
get the hell out of there and that they were indeed police officers. If we 
had that word on the vehicle, they would not have jumped in.

He went on to add:

Changing the title of the conservation officers in the northern part of 
the state really does not make sense, since the majority of the people 
up there know who we are and what we do. There is an acceptance. 
So given this division, we will continue to struggle with the idea of 
change. 

The picture is quite different for states that have maintained their original 
titles. Some members of state agencies simply love the traditional title, and 
their officers are dead set against a title change (n = 4). As one interviewee 
put it, “We have a tradition here and our officers believe that a change would 
tarnish that tradition.” Another participant was more emphatic about the idea 
of a title change when he said, “Our officers love the name Game Warden and 
there is no need to change that for any reason. Period and end of story.” For 
the remaining states that have resisted a change, it was clear that they wanted 
to avoid the “stigma” of being called police. According to one official, “We 
are not police and we were told by the higher-ups to never hire former police 
officers. We are in the game of conservation, not policing.”

Discussion and Conclusion

The current study examines the merits of changing the title of conservation 
officers to a “police” designation. Conservation law enforcement officers suffer 
from a lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, other law enforcement 
agencies, and in some instances, their corresponding legislatures. However, 



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  31

once a single word is added to their title, a different reality presents itself. A 
significant number of agencies now enjoy increased awareness and acceptance 
by the public of their enforcement authority, better relationships with tradi-
tional law enforcement agencies (local, state, and in many cases, federal), and 
increased funding from their state legislatures.

Furthermore, many participating state agencies have indicated that they 
have had easier reception and passage of their proposed legislation with their 
state lawmakers or legislatures. This has been important to them as they strive 
to promote laws that protect, conserve, and enhance their natural resources. 
For conservation agencies that had already completed their identity change 
process, it made sense to change their titles as well. They viewed it as a positive 
contribution to their organizational identity.

Data also revealed resistance to making the title change in a few states. For 
some agencies, changing their title flies in the face of a longstanding tradition. 
Their officers are proud to be called “wardens,” and changing that devalues 
their position. For others, the term “police” is not wanted because the percep-
tion is that they are conservation officers and not police officers. Their duty 
is resource protection, not traditional law enforcement activities. Similar to 
the earlier studies (Eliason 2014; Patten 2012; Patten, Crow, and Shelley 2015), 
we found that changing the title of “conservation officer” to “conservation 
police officer” created confusion, tension, and frustration among members of 
some state conservation law enforcement organizations. This is particularly 
true regarding conservation law enforcement organizations in states without a 
title change that are currently in the middle of organizational identity change. 
Conservation law enforcement officers working in these organizations try 
to make sense of organizational change happening in their organizational 
environment (Apker 2005; Balogun and Johnson 2005; Weick 1979). Due to 
changes in the occupational responsibilities of conservation officers and ongo-
ing changes in conservation law enforcement, conservation law enforcement 
organizations in states without a title change experience tension between their 
current organizational identity and new demands coming from their orga-
nizational environments. While they want to keep the traditional features 
of their organizational identity, such as wildlife and fish enforcement, natu-
ral resource protection, and warden-oriented culture, they also feel pressure 
to adjust to the new working environment. These conflicting demands will 
reshape the new organizational identity as a result of power struggles, orga-
nizational culture clashes, and resistance to change in these organizations.

Conservation officer safety and legitimacy should be a priority for all con-
cerned. Times have changed and as recent events have indicated, the respect 
for law enforcement authority is eroding. Changing the title of conservation 



32 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

officers to more of a police designation should not be viewed as the “magic 
solution” that will yield greater legitimacy for these officers. However, it 
may be a significant step forward in increasing officer safety. Coupled with 
increased public education, media programming, and legislative support, sig-
nificant strides can be made to enhance conservation officer safety. Conserva-
tion officers who are sworn to enforce state laws are police. It is a part of their 
training and duties. The public understands the authority of police officers. 
Therefore, the simplest step with the most immediate impact that conserva-
tion agencies can take to protect their officers is to include “police” in their 
title and in the markings of their uniforms, vehicles, and vessels. Administra-
tors are concerned that conservation officers will focus more on policing than 
natural resource protection. States that have made the title change have shown 
this concern to be false.

A study such as this should be viewed as a starting point for further 
research into conservation officer safety and legitimacy. Essentially, it sug-
gests three avenues for further inquiry. First, while respondents verbalized 
that their agencies experienced an enhanced sense of credibility in three areas 
(the public, other law enforcement agencies, and state legislatures), it would 
be interesting to collect quantitative data to validate those statements. For 
example, future research might examine the rate of officer assaults before and 
after a title change. Similarly, future research might examine the differences 
in calls for assistance from other law enforcement agencies before and after 
the title change. Finally, examining changes in funding or policies impacting 
the work of conservation agencies might reveal how a title change increases 
the perceived legitimacy of their requests with lawmakers.

Another study could focus on how conservation law enforcement officers 
develop coping mechanisms to deal with feelings of confusion, tension, and 
frustration during the process of organizational identity change. Thus, we 
can better understand how officers make sense of identity change and what 
types of responses they develop to manage problems they encounter during 
the change process. This research could be realized in one of the conserva-
tion law enforcement organizations that are still in the process of title change.

A final direction for research would be to garner information on those 
who have directly interacted or associated with the participating agencies and 
officers. This particular study addresses only those who work in the agencies 
that purposely availed themselves of the study. Some bias may exist because 
only those agencies who believe the title change was instrumental in their 
increased legitimacy participated. Including civilians who have come into 
contact with conservation officers, other law enforcement officers, and state 
legislators would greatly enhance the current data.



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  33

Policy Implications for Pennsylvania

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
should consider a title change for its conservation officers. This holds true for 
both the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game 
Commission. Both independent agencies work closely with other law enforce-
ment agencies, and having the “police” designation would greatly enhance 
their legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the agencies they associate with 
in the field. Based upon the interviews and data collected for this study, we 
recommend the following policies to be developed as soon as possible.

First, the titles of “Waterways Conservation Officer” and “Wildlife Con-
servation Officer” should be replaced with “Waterways Police Officer” and 
“Wildlife Police Officer.” Pennsylvania is in the unique position of having 
two independent agencies: one focused on fish and boat enforcement, and the 
other covering the protection of mammals and birds. As a result of having 
these separate entities, it makes sense to have two titles at present. If for some 
reason the two agencies merge into one large entity that will oversee both fish 
and game enforcement, we would suggest that “Conservation Police Officer” 
be used.

Second, all conservation officer vehicles, boats, hats, officer jackets, hats, 
and uniforms should contain the word “police” in appropriate and remarkable 
lettering and color. As suggested by the data, states that have undergone a title 
change have found it to be in their favor to have the word “police” printed on 
as many official items as possible. Ironically, states retaining their original 
title have in some instances incorporated the word “police” on their vehicles 
and uniforms. Even these agencies have recognized the importance of the 
word “police,” and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should follow suit.

Third, an extensive campaign to educate the public about the full powers 
of Pennsylvania conservation officers should be undertaken. It should begin 
with the creation of informational pamphlets distributed to radio and print 
media across the Commonwealth. Each state agency should be responsible for 
the information contained in the pamphlets (for the purposes of validity and 
accuracy), and the literature should be made readily available to the general 
public. Furthermore, conservation officers should be encouraged, if not man-
dated, to attend as many outdoor clubs and fishing-oriented organizations as 
possible. Some may view this as “preaching to the choir,” but it is our position 
that more public exposure will reinforce the new “police” designation. Ulti-
mately, with greater awareness, the public will “get it.”

Finally, we suggest that criminal justice curricula across the Common-
wealth begin to include discussions of the duties and powers of conservation 
officers in their classes. Introduction to criminal justice or law enforcement 



34 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

classes might be the most appropriate to this end. It appears that the most 
popular criminal justice texts fail to mention or discuss conservation officers 
as “police officers,” so it is safe to assume that faculty who teach these classes 
are not exposing their students to this reality. The lacuna in the literature and 
the classroom certainly does not bode well for the legitimacy of conservation 
officers as police.

These policy recommendations for the Commonwealth may bring 
legitimacy to those officers who protect, conserve, and enhance the natural 
resources of Pennsylvania. Many of the northern states have been proactive in 
changing the titles of their officers to reflect the true scope and nature of their 
work. While it is admirable to hold true to traditions, the time might be right 
for Pennsylvania to join the growing number of states that have understood 
the need to bring legitimacy to their conservation officers. As Director John 
Arway of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission succinctly put it:

Our law enforcement staff is second to none and has evolved from 
Fish Wardens to Waterways Patrolmen to Waterways Conservation 
Officers. The evolution of their name is a result of society’s changes. 
Officers didn’t need body armor, semi-automatic weapons or even 
computers or smartphones when they were Fish Wardens, but they do 
today. (Gearhart 2016, 37)

We hope that Director Arway and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
are willing to evolve even further.

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR AGENCIES  
WITH POLICE DESIGNATION

1. Has the name of your law enforcement officers ever changed since 
its creation? If yes, go to question # 2. If no, go to [question #1 in 
Appendix B]. 

2. What was their official title prior to the change?
3. If the title has changed, what year was it changed?
4. How long had the agency used the prior title?
5. Why was the name of your agency changed?
6. What impact, if any, has the name change had on interactions 

between your officers and the public? [PROBE—Have there been 
any noticeable changes in the assault rates or use of force since 
the title change? Any supporting documentation? Has the agency 
received any feedback from its officers regarding their perceptions 
of the changes since the title’s inception? Do you have any anec-
dotal evidence to offer?]



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  35

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR AGENCIES  
WITHOUT POLICE DESIGNATION

1. Has your agency ever considered changing the title of its law 
enforcement officers to represent their status as a policing agency? 
If yes, go to #2. If no, stop here.

2. What factors have influenced the idea of changing your agency 
name? (e.g., other agencies changing their names, time for a change, 
public pressure, etc. . . .)

3. What obstacles, if any, may stand in the way of changing your 
agency name?

NOTES

Acknowledgments: A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual 
meetings of the Northeast Fish & Wildlife Conference, Annapolis, Maryland—April 
2016 by Michael J. McSkimming. The authors would also like to extend their appreciation 
to Megan Williams, who contributed significantly to the design and the data-gathering 
stages of the project. The authors would also like to extend their appreciation to Ed Bow-
man for reading numerous drafts and offering valuable comments and suggestions.

1. For more information, go to http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/Agency 
Overview/Pages/default.aspx, or http://www.pgc.pa.gov/InformationResources/AboutUs/
Pages/WhatWeDo.aspx

REFERENCES

Albert, Stuart, and David. A. Whetten. 1985. “Organizational Identity.” In Research in 
Organizational Behavior, eds. Larry. L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw. Greenwich, 
CT: JAI, 263–295.

Apker, Julie. 2004. “Sensemaking of Change in the Managed Care Era: A Case of Hospital-
Based Nurses.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 17 (2): 211–227.

Balogun, Julie, and Mark Jenkins. 2003. “Re-Conceiving Change Management: A 
Knowledge-Based Perspective.” European Management Journal 21 (April): 247–257.

Balogun, Julie, and Gerry Johnson. 2005. “From Intended Strategies to Unintended 
Outcomes: The Impact of Change Recipient Sensemaking.” Organization Studies 26 
(November): 1–29.

Berg, Bruce L. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th ed. Boston: 
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Brown, Andrew D. 2001. “Organization Studies and Identity: Towards a Research 
Agenda.” Human Relations 54 (January): 113–122.

Carter, Timothy J. 2004. “Force Against and by Game Wardens in Citizen Encounters.” 
Police Quarterly 7 (December): 489–508.

———. 2006. “Police Use of Discretion: A Participant Observation Study of Game War-
dens.” Deviant Behavior 27 (November): 591–627.

Chavez, Deborah J., and Joanne F. Tynon. 2000. “Research: Triage Law Enforcement: 
Societal Impacts on National Forests in the West.” Environmental Management 26 
(November): 403–407.

   



36 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

Chreim, Samia. 2005. “The Continuity-Change Duality in Narrative Texts of Organiza-
tional Identity.” Journal of Management Studies 42 (April): 567–593.

Corley, Kevin G., and Dennis A. Gioia. 2003. “Semantic Learning as Change Enabler: 
Relating Organizational Identity and Organizational Learning.” SSRN eLibrary. 
Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=637228#. Accessed 
June 14, 2009.

———. 2004. “Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-off.” 
Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (June): 173–208.

Eliason, Stephen L. 2006. “A Dangerous Job? An Examination of Violence against Con-
servation Officers.” The Police Journal 79 (December): 359–370.

———. 2007. “From Wildlife Specialist to Police Generalist? The Scope of Nonwildlife 
Violations Encountered by Conservation Officers.” Southwest Journal of Criminal 
Justice 4 (2): 120–132.

———. 2010. “Patrolling the Peaks and the Plains: An Examination of Big Sky Game War-
dens.” Criminal Justice Studies 24 (December): 409–418.

———. 2011. “Death in the Line of Duty: Game Warden Mortality in the United States, 
1886–2009.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (December): 319–326.

———. 2014. “Life as a Game Warden: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” International 
Journal of Police Science & Management 16 (September): 196–204.

Elstak, Mirdita N. 2008. “The Paradox of the Organizational Identity Field.” Corporate 
Reputation Review 11 (September): 277–281.

Ericson, Thomas. 2001. “Sensemaking in Organisations: Towards a Conceptual Frame-
work for Understanding Strategic Change.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 17 
(March): 109–131.

Falcone, David. 2004. “America’s Conservation Police: Agencies in Transition.” Policing: 
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 27 (March): 56–66.

Fiol, C. Marlene. 2002. “Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming 
Organizational Identities.” Organization Science 13 (December): 653–666.

Forsyth, Craig J. 1994. “Bookers and Peacemakers: Types of Game Wardens.” Sociological 
Spectrum 14 (January): 47–63.

Forsyth, Craig J., and York A. Forsyth. 2009. “Dire and Sequestered Meetings: The Work 
of Game Wardens.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34 (December): 213–223.

Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan J., Kimberly B. Boal, and James G. Hunt. 1998. “Organizational 
Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change 
in Prospector and Defender Banks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (March): 
87–126.

Gagliardi, Pasquale. 1986. “The Creation and Change of Organizational Cultures: A Con-
ceptual Framework.” Organization Studies 7 (April): 117–134.

Gearhart, Spring. 2016. “150 Years of Excellence.” Pennsylvania Angler & Boater 85 
(March/April): 34–37.

George, Jennifer M., and Gareth R. Jones. 2001. “Towards a Process Model of Individual 
Change in Organizations.” Human Relations 54 (April): 419–444.

Gioia, Dennis A., and Kumar Chittipeddi. 1991. “Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strate-
gic Change Initiation.” Strategic Management Journal 12 (September): 443–448.

Gioia, Dennis A., and James B. Thomas. 1996. “Identity, Image, and Issue Interpretation: 
Sensemaking during Strategic Change in Academia.” Administrative Science Quar-
terly 41 (September): 370–403.



Organizational Identity Change in Conservation Law Enforcement  37

Gioia, Dennis A., Majken Schultz, and Kevin G. Corley. 2000. “Organizational Identity, 
Image, and Adaptive Instability.” Academy of Management Review 25 (January): 63–81.

Gioia, Dennis A., James B. Thomas, Shawn M. Clark, and Kumar Chittipeddi. 1994. “Sym-
bolism and Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influ-
ence.” Organization Science 5 (August): 363–383.

Grill, Kristine M., and Leilani Carver. 2008. “Organizational Change as Sensemaking, not 
Resistance, in NBC’s The Office.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National 
Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Gustafson, Loren T., and Rohanda K. Reger. 1995. “Using Organizational Identity to 
Achieve Stability and Change in High Velocity Environments.” Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 38 (August): 464–468.

Isabella, Lynn A. 1990. “Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers 
Construe Key Organizational Events.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (March): 
7–41.

Maitlis, Sally. 2005. “The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking.” Academy of 
Management Journal 48 (February): 21–49.

McSkimming, Michael J., and Robert V. Dunbar. 2015. “Conservation Officer Safety: 
Research, Recent Advances, and Policy Changes in Pennsylvania.” Presented at the 
Annual Meeting of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, New-
port, RI.

———. 2016. “What Is in a Name?: Conservation Officer Safety and Legitimacy.” Presented 
at the Annual Meeting of the Northeast Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Annapolis, MD.

Nauright, John, and Charles Parrish, eds. 2012. Sports around the World: History, Culture, 
and Practice [4 volumes]. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Oliver, Willard M., and Cecil A. Meier. 2006. “‘Duck Cops,’ ‘Game Wardens,’ and ‘Wildlife 
Enforcement’: Stress among Conservation Officers.” Applied Psychology in Criminal 
Justice 2 (May): 1–25.

Palmer, Eddie C., and Clifton D. Bryant. 1985. “Keepers of the King’s Deer: Game War-
dens and the Enforcement of Fish and Wildlife Law.” In The Rural Workforce: Non-
Agricultural Occupations in America, eds. Clifton D. Bryant, Donald. J. Shoemaker, 
James K. Skipper, and William. E. Snizek. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Harvey, 
111–37.

Patten, Ryan. 2012. “Drunk and Angry Is No Way to Enjoy the Outdoors: An Examination 
of Game Wardens and the Use of Force.” International Journal of Comparative and 
Applied Criminal Justice 36 (March): 121–132.

Patten, Ryan, Matthew S. Crow, and Tara O. Shelley. 2015. “What’s in a Name? The Occu-
pational Identity of Conservation and Natural Resource Oriented Law Enforcement 
Agencies.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (December): 750–764.

Pendleton, Michael R. 2000. “Leisure, Crime and Cops: Exploring a Paradox of Our Civil-
ity.” Journal of Leisure Research 32 (1): 111–115.

Ravasi, Davide, and Majken Schultz. 2006. “Responding to Organizational Identity 
Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture.” Academy of Management 
Journal 49 (June): 433–458.

Shelley, Tara O’Connor, and Matthew S. Crow. 2009. “The Nature and Extent of Conserva-
tion Policing: Law Enforcement Generalists or Conservation Specialists?” American 
Journal of Criminal Justice 34 (June): 9–27.



38 Michael J. McskiMMing, roBert Vance DunBar, anD ahMet guler

Michael J. Mcskimming is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Lock Haven Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining the faculty at Lock Haven, he taught classes at 
Gannon University. In addition to his teaching experience, he has 15 years of experience 
in the area of conservation law enforcement. His research interests include criminal jus-
tice ethics, criminal justice policy, and conservation law enforcement. His publications 
include articles in Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Criminal Justice Policy Review, and Free 
Inquiry in Creative Sociology.

robert Vance Dunbar has a master’s degree in criminal justice and has worked in law 
enforcement for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1991. He currently serves as a 
patrol supervisor of conservation officers in the north-central region of the state. His pub-
lications include articles in the Green Line, the International Game Warden, Pennsylvania 
Angler & Boater, and Pennsylvania Forests magazines. He also authored the book Rattlers 
& Snappers: Reptiles, Amphibians, and Outlaws.

ahmet guler is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Lamar University. Before 
joining Lamar University, he taught classes at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. 
He also has more than 15 years of experience in the field as a police manager. His research 
interests include police organizations, terrorism, and information technology in criminal 
justice organizations. He has published several articles and book chapters on these topics.

Sherblom, John, Lisa Keränen, and Lesley Withers. 2002. “Tradition, Tension, and Trans-
formation: A Structuration Analysis of a Game Warden Service in Transition.” Jour-
nal of Applied Communication Research 30 (January): 143–162.

Taylor, Steven S. 1999. “Making Sense of Revolutionary Change: Differences in Members’ 
Stories.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 12 (June): 524–539.

Weick, Karl E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.




