Why We Must Reform Wildlife Management
“All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.” – Aldo Leopold
​
“So we come to the tough question: what about an ethical position with regard to that part of the total environment that is not human and is not of human manufacture and is not seen to be in the human interest? Is it possible to conceive of an ethic that could be extended outward, as it were, from man to non-man? From human society to nonhuman society, or wild nature?” – John A. Livingston
There’s a foundational shift in societal values occurring in North America regarding wildlife management. Hunters – and the wildlife management system so heavily influenced and controlled by the hunting-industrialized complex of hunters, state agencies, hunting organizations, the hunting industry and hunting media – are not only stuck in the past, but often stubbornly circle the wagons to defend the indefensible. As the late Jim Posewitz, author of “Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethics and Traditions of Hunting,” once put it: “Circling the wagons is not a good strategy when there are far too many people outside that circle.”
​
At the heart of these changes in values is the very definition of “conservation.” Traditionally, the word has been defined in a utilitarian nature, “The managed use of resources, with the goal of protecting and improving them, for the enjoyment and profit of future generations.” This perspective reduces animals to “resources,” to be used by people for amusement and profit. Today, more and more people are preferring to view conservation as Canadian naturalist John A. Livingston, author of “The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation,” defined it in 1981: “The preservation of wildlife forms and groups of forms in perpetuity, for their own sakes, irrespective of any connotation of present or future human use.”
​
In other words: wildlife has intrinsic value.
​
Writer, professor, and philosopher Aldo Leopold, widely considered the “father of modern wildlife management,” expressed this fundamental shift away from utilitarianism in his 1949 classic, “A Sand County Almanac.” He defined conservation as “a state of harmony between men and land,” and developed what he called a “Land Ethic.” He urged humans to view themselves as “plain members and citizens of biotic communities” who should extend ethical considerations to ecological wholes (“soils, waters, plants and animals”). He summed it up as such: “We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
Among the flaws of the much-touted North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, while crediting Leopold for much of it, is that it doesn’t incorporate Leopold’s Land Ethic or his changed views towards killing predators.
​
(In 1949 Leopold wrote: "I personally believed, at least in 1914 when predator control began, that there could not be too much horned game, and that the extirpation of predators was a reasonable price to pay for better big game hunting. Some of us have learned since the tragic error of such a view and acknowledged our mistake.")
The North American Model treats certain species, particularly hunted species such as deer and elk, as commodities for a small minority of citizens, hunters, who are essentially viewed as customers of the state wildlife agencies that manage the wildlife.
​
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was formalized in 2001 by Canadian Wildlife Biologists Valerius Geist and Shane Mahoney, along with John Organ of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They identified seven principles, or tenets, that they felt made wildlife conservation successfully in North America: 1) Wildlife resources are a public trust; 2) Markets for game are eliminated; 3) Allocation of wildlife is by law; 4) Wildlife can be killed for a legitimate purpose; 5) Wildlife is considered an international resource; 6) Science is considered the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy, and, 7) Democracy of hunting is standard.
​
They called these seven tenets “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”
​
Nowadays, to hear some hunters, hunting organizations, the hunting industry and the hunting media tell it, you might think Theordore Roosevelt himself discovered the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation engraved in stone tablets on San Juan Hill. It’s often touted with religious-like fervor. Geist himself, in 1995 (the same year wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park after a 100-year absence) said, “The North American Model is probably the greatest environmental achievement of the 20th century. . . and may be one of the greatest achievements of North American culture.” In 2012, then Chief Executive Officer of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation David Allen said, “The North American Model is the most successful wildlife model in the history of the world . . . The Model is second to none and is the most democratic and sustainable system the world has ever seen.”
​
But David Allen also said this: “Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds. Wolves are decimating our elk populations. To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens. We need to aggressively kill more wolves, and the next step the grizzly bear.” In 2018, Geist said, “Wolves do unbelievable damage to wildlife, they do great damage to agriculture, they pose a real threat to public health and safety, and they kill humans under now well-known circumstances.”
​​
None of what these men said about wolves was true. But that didn’t matter. They were telling most hunters what they wanted to hear.
There exists a huge disconnect. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation wouldn’t be so bad if wildlife managers adhered to it. They don’t. And they don’t because states generally view hunted wildlife as commodities to sell in the form of hunting tags to their customers, the hunters. To understand why, we need to look at how wildlife conservation is funded.
​
Hunters and anglers often claim that they pay for wildlife conservation. They don’t.
State wildlife agencies receive most of their funding from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and from federal money derived from excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, generates revenue from taxes on guns, ammunition, and archery equipment. The Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950, known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, generates revenue from taxes on motor-boat fuel, small-engine fuel and fishing tackle. These fees are dispersed to state wildlife agencies in the form of matching grants.
​
These federal grants and licenses fees fund, on average, fund 52 percent of state wildlife agency budgets. In some states, like Montana, it’s significantly more. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks receives 54 percent of its funding from hunting and fishing license fees, and another 26 percent in federal grants derived from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson grants. In nearby Idaho, the Fish and Game Department receives 39 percent of its budget from license fees, and 50 percent from federal grants. That’s 80 percent of Montana’s, and 89 percent of Idaho’s state wildlife agency budgets that hunters and anglers take credit for while claiming to “pay for conservation.”
​
But there’s a few problems with that claim: First, only 22 percent of people buying guns identify as hunters. Seventy-eight percent don’t. Only two thirds of those who buy motor-boat and small-engine fuel fish. A third don’t. Secondly, not all the funding that goes to state wildlife departments goes towards conservation. Much of it is used for setting and enforcing hunting and fishing regulations; the recruitment and training of new hunters and anglers; setting up and maintaining shooting ranges; establishing and improving access for hunters and anglers; raising and stocking nonnative species such a pheasants and brown trout (often with negative consequences to native species) and killing native predators such as wolves, coyotes, bears and mountain lions to appease hunters who wrongly believe carnivores are killing all “their” elk and deer.
​
According to a 2015 study by Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management, called “Wildlife Management Funding in the U.S.,” by Mark Smith and Donald Molde, when the cost of managing and protecting federal lands by federal agencies is added to the mix (National Forest lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Wildlife Refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Parks managed by the U.S. Park Service), all funded by general tax revenue paid by all Americans, the total contribution from hunters towards conservation totals about six percent of funding nationwide. Six percent! Regarding nonprofit conservation organizations: “The 10 largest non-profit conservation organizations contribute $2.5 billion annually to habitat and wildlife conservation; of this, 12.3 percent comes from hunters and 87.7 percent from the non-hunting public.”
​
By examining public information about budgets of various conservation, wildlife advocacy, land management agencies and nonprofit organizations, and revenues from
the Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson Acts, the authors concluded, “approximately 95 percent of federal, 88 percent of nonprofit and 94 percent of total funding for wildlife conservation and management come from the non-hunting public.”
​
And yet, because state wildlife agencies receive such large portions of their budgets from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, and because the direction and policies of these agencies is directed by governor-appointed “game” or “wildlife” commissions primarily made up of hunters, anglers and hunting and fishing guides, state policies greatly favor species that hunters and anglers like to catch and kill – often to the detriment of other species, particularly large carnivores.
The misguided belief that they do pay for conservation leads to an alarming sense of entitlement and arrogance among some hunters. In a two-part series on hunting wolves for the Sportsmen Channel, the host Randy Newberg, who kills animals for entertainment and profit, claims only “hunters” should have a say in how wildlife on our public lands are managed. He refers to those who oppose wolf hunting as "wingnuts" and "screwballs," "from wherever," and says they have no right "to tell us how to manage wildlife." Although federal public lands are funded and owned by all Americans, Newberg (who moved to Montana from Minnesota) claims, “The people of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho protected these huge landscapes. And then you people come here and tell us how to do it? You screwed up your backyard so bad you can't even get a rabbit to live there. And then you people come here and tell us what we're going to do? . . . We set the dinner table for these wolves, and we have every right to kill these wolves.”
It's a common attitude among hunters.
​
“With increased awareness and interest of the general (non consumptive) public in controversial wildlife management issues such as fur trapping, predator control, trophy hunting, coyote killing contests and wolf reintroduction,” Smith and Molde wrote in their 2015 report, “a debate is before us as to whether the general public is or should be afforded a proper voice in wildlife management decisions.”
​
The so-called “management” of wolves and attempts to delist and hunt grizzly bears in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho serve as good examples.
​
In a recent notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its “failure” to remove grizzly bears from the ESA, Idaho Governor Brad Little wrote, “Idaho’s entire congressional delegation and the State of Idaho are lockstep in efforts to delist grizzly bears. Idaho has continually demonstrated leadership in species management.” Attorney General Raúl Labrador added, “In their desire to stop Idahoans from hunting or managing our own destiny, they pretend Idaho cannot handle the management of species.”
​
Yet, Idaho hired a bounty hunter to try and eliminate two packs of wolves on federal land in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness; organized wolf-killing competitions and killer co-ops to pay trappers to kill wolves; declared wolves a “disaster emergency” and allocated $2 million to killing wolve; conducted secretive aerial shooting of wolves from helicopters with no public knowledge or input. and spent $30,000 to kill 23 wolves – all as part of ongoing efforts to appease hunters and trappers.
​
“My opinion and the opinions of many wildlife professionals have changed over the past two years,” Servheen wrote in a widely published opinion piece. “This shift in perspective happened when legislatures and governors in Montana and Idaho enacted new laws to try and kill wolves through aggressive, indiscriminate wildlife killing methods that would harm grizzlies. Science-based state wildlife management was replaced by legislation entirely founded on anti-predator misinformation and emotion.”
​
Servheen previously supported the delisting of grizzlies, until state legislators – in what he referred to as “a clown car of absurdities” – began passing laws to increase the killing of wolves. In Montana, people can now annually kill up to 20 wolves (10 by trapping, and 10 by hunting) through baiting, snaring, and shooting, day and night, with the aid of night-vision optics. In most of Wyoming, wolves are classified as “varmints” and can be shot on sight with no limits.
​
While hypocritically touting the virtues of the virtues of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, many hunters – and the powerful and influential hunting-industrial complex – continue to support and defend predator-killing contests, prairie dog and dove shoots, the introduction of nonnative species to catch and kill, and the political management of large native carnivores based on fear-mongering myths, lies and misconceptions while ignoring science. This is not conservation.
​
Wildlife management must be reformed to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. All people should have a say, and all species should be protected.
The North American Model
of Wildlife Conservation
Tenets
The core principles of the Model are elaborated upon in the seven major tenets:
​
Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
In the North American Model, wildlife is held in the public trust. This means that fish and wildlife are held by the public through state and federal governments. In other words, though an individual may own the land upon which wildlife resides, that individual does not own said wildlife. Instead, the wildlife is owned by all citizens. With origins in Roman times and English Common law, the public trust doctrine has at its heart the 1842 Supreme Court ruling Martin V. Waddell.
​
Elimination of Markets for Game
Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife population. This principle holds that unregulated economic markets for game and non-game wildlife are unacceptable because they privatize a common resource and lead to declines. The Lacey Act of 1900 effectively made market hunting illegal in the United States, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 provided international protections from the market.
​
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Wildlife is allocated to the public by law, as opposed to market principles, land ownership, or other status. Democratic processes and public input into law-making help ensure access is equitable. Laws regulating access to wildlife include the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Endangered Species Preservation Act and Fur Seal Act of 1966, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
​
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
Under the North American Model, the killing of game must be done only for food, fur, self-defense, and the protection of property (including livestock). In other words, it is broadly regarded as unlawful and unethical to kill fish or wildlife (even with a license) without making all reasonable effort to retrieve and make reasonable use of the resource.
​
Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
As wildlife do not exist only within fixed political boundaries, effective management of these resources must be done internationally, through treaties and the cooperation of management agencies.
​
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy
The North American Model recognizes science as a basis for informed management and decision-making processes. This tenet draws from the writings of Aldo Leopold, who in the 1930s called for a wildlife conservation movement facilitated by trained wildlife biologists that made decisions based on facts, professional experience, and commitment to shared underlying principles, rather than strictly interests of hunting, stocking, or culling of predators. Science in wildlife policy includes studies of population dynamics, behavior, habitat, adaptive management, and national surveys of hunting and fishing.
​
Democracy of Hunting
This tenet is inspired by Theodore Roosevelt's idea that open access to hunting would result in many benefits to society. This tenet supports access to firearms and the hunting industry, of which much funding for conservation is derived.