Summary of North Amer. Conservation Model

[KSdan]

Thought some of you may be intrigued by this:[MY EDIT: This summary comes from an article, "North American Wildlife Conservation Model" by Eric Aldrich- quoting the model as demonstrated by Valerius Geist]

1.Wildlife is a public resource. This is a notion that dates back to the Bible, in legal codes of ancient Rome. A wild animal was owned by no one until it was physically possessed. The concept was solidified in the Unites States to the extent that wildlife was held in common ownership by the state for the benefit of all people. And it has withstood tests in the U.S. courts.

2. Markets for trade in wildlife were eliminated. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to sustaining those species. At the same time, however, allowing markets for furbearers has helped managed them as a sustainable resource, in conjunction with restrictive regulations, and advocacy of trappers for land stewardship.

3. Allocation of wildlife by law. States allocate surplus wildlife by law, not by market pressures, land ownership or special privilege. The public gets a say in how wildlife resources are allocated; the process fosters public involvement in managing wildlife

4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons. Under the "Code of the Sportsman," hunters use as much as they can. The harvest of wild animals must serve a practical purpose if society is going to accept it.

5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, transcend boundaries and one country's management can easily affect a species in another country.

6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. This is a key concept of wildlife management. It has its roots in the Prussian Forestry System, arising in this country as the basis of wildlife management by the convincing forcefulness of Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold. By spawning the profession of wildlife management, North Americans were decades ahead of their global neighbors.

7. The democracy of hunting. In the European model, wildlife was allocated by land ownership and privilege. In North America, anyone in good standing can participate.

[Adrian Farmer]

A very good summary, Dan! With regards to number 2, market hunting in this country was perhaps most detrimental to migratory birds.  The reason for that had at least something to do with the "tragedy of the commons", depletion of a resource by many people acting independently without knowledge of, or responsibility for, the consequences of their actions.  In response to rapidly declining populations in the late 1800's and early 1900's, several key national and international laws were implemented to manage migratory birds that transcend the boundaries of States or countries (your number 5).  Nowadays, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility to manage these migratory species, and works on an international scale, with biologists from other countries to insure sustainability of these species for the benefit of all people.

[ChuckC]

E. Don Thomas has a new book out. .  "How Sportsmen saved the world".  As always it is well written and I personally think it should be required reading for all hunters (if only) and fishermen.

He did a ton of research and frankly, we have a lot to be proud about.  I learned a LOT from reading that book and I will certainly read it again and soak up some more.
ChuckC

[JCJ]

Originally posted by KSdan:
Thought some of you may be intrigued by this:
 
3. The public gets a say in how wildlife resources are allocated; the process fosters public involvement in managing wildlife
.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. This is a key concept of wildlife management.
 

Should the public voice trump the voice of Science in such matters?

[Adrian Farmer]

Good question JCJ. From my perspective, the public voice should not trump the voice of science.  But, some wildlife management questions cannot be answered within the realm of science, and by their very nature involve human value judgements. This is where the public voice comes into play.

For example, it might be possible to manage a white-tailed deer herd for 1) maximum harvest, or 2) trophy buck harvest.  Which of these objectives is best?  The answer is largely a matter of human values-i.e., what's the preferred objective given the particular setting, hunter desires, landowner constraints, public wishes, etc.  Given a choice of objectives, science can step in and outline a strategy to achieve that objective.

There are probably better examples that I could have used to make the point that both scientist and the public have a key role to play in wildlife management, a complicated endeavor involving both science and human values.

[KSdan]

Guys- For clarification- that summary is not mine (though I agree with it). The rules do not allow me to link. I did edit it above, as I should have a least placed names on it.  

The "heart" of the model was that natural resources had intrinsic value (beyond just commerce) and therefore were a moral good to conserve (use for good purposes).  It was in the best interest of the people (the community of families and their progeny) to use these resources wisely.  It was in this view that Wildlife was placed in a public trust.

Random thoughts:

1) There will always be tension between private land rights/issues (which are a good), and conservation concerns (the public trust).  The 160 year model was a success because of a willingness on both ends to compromise in the middle with humility and denial of self for the greater good of the community and future.

2) You have to be careful with the idea of "science."  As modern science has posited itself as "fact" or "infallible."  Which is not exactly accurate.  Within the gathering of empirical evidence, and particularly the interpretation of such evidence, there is always human bias/presuppositions in the mix.  It seems to me that the point of the model was that decisions were to be made, with the least amount of politicking, using the best of the empirical evidences that would benefit the resource and its conservation (which implies good usage).    

3) Google folks like T. Roosevelt, conservation, Valerius Geist, and Posewitz to name a few.  That will get you to places for a good education.

[Mark Baker]

Thanks Dan for posting this....the assault on the terms of this is IMO, the biggest threat to the future of hunting now and will even grow bigger.   It may not be market hunting anymore, but "pay to play", and lack of participation, resulting in lower funding for game depts. across the country, as "regular joes" are forced out of access, and availablility of resources to pursue the wildlife that is "theirs" to pursue.   It's become an industry run-amok, for profit....and sprawling human populations destroying habitat and access for wildlife, and the decay in hunter numbers as a result....that will slowly kill what was a premier concept in wildlife management.  We have to fight for it at every chance we get.....as it is whittled away under our own noses.

[pianoman9701]

Nice post and concisely put. Thank you. I look forward to interactions with non-hunters about our sport and the opportunity to educate them on what we do. Posts like this are valuable. It's so important to know about hunting, the conservation model, legislation that we've helped forward, and our history. Most non-hunters are interested but have no clue what we do and why. Informed and non-threatening discussion keeps people voting on our side of the issues and not with the wackos.