Wildlife as a Public Trust

Chapter 22

American Game Policy

Aldo Leopold 1930– Public ownership of game lands– Recognize private landowners as custodians of

wildlife and should be provided compensation– Bring user groups, landowners, and public

together– Training in wildlife biology– Research

American Game Policy

– Provide funding for all wildlife from general public and hunters

1930’s conflict– Hunting was free – Landowner should be compensated for the cost

of enhancing game– Proposed public lands for hunting– Compensation to landowners

– Set early seed for lease hunting

American Game Policy

Was it successful?– Wildlife profession established

• Collegiate training, professional societies, journals• TWS 1937

– Established funding sources• Duck stamp

– Habitat management?• Not as successful• Wetland destruction, clean farming, burgeoning population, etc.

– Anti-hunting sentiment increased– Watchable wildlife unforeseen popularity then

American Game Policy

Redone in 1970’s by Durward Allen– Ecological perspective

• Ecosystem services

– Loss of species diversity effect on humans

– Improve image of hunters

– Environmental training for children

Impetus for Wildlife Policy

Activist groups– NEPA (1969) and Silent Spring– Clearcutting in National Forests (1973)– Banning leg-hold traps in MA (1996)

Political fence-jumping– Changes in federal administration

• Executive orders

• Budgets

State Agencies By 1910 nearly every state had an agency responsible

for wildlife management– Single commissioner

Names of state agencies vary– Fish, wildlife, game, natural resources, conservation, marine,

environment(al) 1930’s multi-member commissioners model

– Promoted by International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners

– NC Wildlife Resources Commissioners 1970’s most states followed this model

Wildlife Commissions

Ideally commissioners form policy and interact with state legislative and executive branches– Staff provides technical expertise– Separation can become burred

Must represent entire state Listen to staff recommendations 3-15 members, smaller is more effective

Wildlife Commissions Pitfalls

Delve into routine admin matters Provincialism Repetition of past mistakes

– Bounty, artificial feeding, stocking Partisan political pressures

Wildlife Agencies

Game Fisheries Nongame/endangered species Law enforcement I & E

– NCWRC Conservation Education division

Federal Agencies - Interior

USFWS• Migratory birds, refuges, hatcheries, endangered

species, federal aid to states, international agreements, regional offices

USGS– Biological Resources Division (BRD)

• Research functions– Coop Fish and Wildlife Research Units

Federal Agencies - Interior

NPS• Research and management of national parks, Wild

and Scenic Rivers

BLM• Western states, 55% of all federal lands, grazing,

mining, timber, watersheds

Federal Agencies - Agriculture

FS• National forests and grasslands, research and

management, fire, regional experiment stations

NRCS• Soil surveys, water conservation, no research,

habitat development on private lands

Federal Agencies - Commerce

NMFS• Management and research on marine species,

offshore development as part of NOAA

Federal Agencies - Defense

ACoE• Dredging, stream stabilization, etc. on navigable

waters and coastal wetlands, permits through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Roots to 1885• Federal effort to determine status of bird populations

Bureau of Biological Survey (1896)– Research on birds and mammals in relation to

agriculture, horticulture, and forestry

– Enforcement w/ Lacey Act in 1900

– Ding Darling and duck stamp (1934)• 1934 $1, 1991 $15

– Managed refuge system began 1903 Pelican Island

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Transferred to DOI and renamed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1940– President Franklin Roosevelt added fish to the title

National Biological Service

1993 Bruce Babbitt formed National Biological Survey

• Scientists from FWS, NPS, and BLM

• Research, inventory, and monitoring

1994 Congress -- Republican “revolution”

• Reduce the size of government• Lead to abolish NBS• Compromise in 1996

– NBS moved to USGS and changed to Service

National Biological Service

Transferred from FWS to USGS– All coop research units– Patuxent Research Center

• Bird Banding Lab

– Other Centers

Wildlife Education

Ding Darling– Proposed Cooperative Research Units

(1935)– Partnership between universities,

USGS (before FWS), Wildlife Management Institute, and state management agencies

• Federal employees on university campuses

• 9 units in1935-36• Fisheries added in 1962• 1993 incorporated in NBS

Policy and Law

Ideally policy and regulations are scientifically based

• Buck only, to antlerless, to QDM

• Proposed deer season modifications in NC?

• Early teal seasons

Enforcement

Effective enforcement depends on1. Publics willingness and ability to comply

• Protect hen bobwhites? hen pheasants?

• ID waterfowl before shot?• Point system works after birds are shot

• Similarity of appearance and endangered species

2. Risk and severity of punishmentGuilty of game laws violation

3. Enforcement personnel Establish a sense of ethics among sportsmen

Policy

Sociopolitical climate must be considered– Doe harvests

– Wars fought over trapping rights

Public’s interest in wildlife waxes and wanes

• Low during wars, high 1930’s and 1960’s

Legal Jurisdiction

Issues not confined to political boundaries– Whaling, air pollution, migratory birds, etc.

Constitutional clauses for federal jurisdiction over wildlife– Commerce (Article 1, Section 8)

• State ownership of resident species• Can conserve wildlife within a state’s borders but cannot exclude use

by citizens of another state

– Treaty (Article 1, Section 10)• Federal government jurisdiction over migratory species through treaty

and commerce clauses

Legal Jurisdiction

– Property (Article IV, Section 3)

• Wildlife on federal lands is property of the government through property clause

National Policies

– Lacey Act (1900)• Prohibited transport of illegally killed game across state lines• Established federal role in all wildlife

– Restoration Acts (1930’s)• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

– Pittman-Robertson Act (PR)• Excise tax on sporting arms and ammo• Apportioned to states on 1:3 match

– Research, land acquisition, construction, maintenance, hunter safety

• Dingle-Johnson (DJ) fisheries (1950), Wallop-Breaux (1984)• Secured state license fees so they couldn’t be diverted for

other uses

National Policies

Land and Water– Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934)

• Wildlife received equal treatment in water projects– Massive dislocations of water supplies must consider fish

and wildlife values

– Mitigation lands required

– Wetland Loan Act (1961)• Loans to FWS to acquire wetlands

National Policies

Wilderness Act (1964)– Maintain wilderness

• “Man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)1. Established values of pristine landscapes2. Hunting and fishing allowed, but habitat not

managed to enhance them3. Studies with minimal human impact

National Policies

Land and Water Conservation Act (1964)– Land and Water Conservation Fund

• Admission fees, surplus property sale, fine, excise tax on motorboat fuels, oil and gas lease appropriations from Congress

• Acquire lands for parks, refuges, etc.

• Redirected to build playgrounds in cities

Sikes Act (1960)– FWS to cooperate w/ DOD on military bases

• Wildlife must be integral part of resource management

National Policies

National Environmental Policy Act• Congress passed 1969, Nixon signed 1970

– Required all federal agencies to respond to environmental issues in the same way

– Use all practical means to enhance and protect environmental quality

• Feds became environmental trustee for the future

– Established Council n Environmental Quality (CEQ)– Executive branch to advise president

National Policies

National Environmental Policy Act– Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

• Major actions must include EIS– Discloses fully effects on environment

– Proposes alternatives

– Prior to EIS prepare environmental assessment (EA)• Can find “no significant impact”or require full blown EIS

– Survey all species of wildlife

Policies of Sentiment

Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (1971)– Protects from killing on

public lands

– Range damage still continues

– Fund for Animals• “Adopt a Burro” program

• Costly, save an overabundant population, but not World’s threatened equines

Policies of Sentiment

Hunting on National Wildlife Refuges– Allowed on most

– Multiple use or inviolate sanctuaries?

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge– Established 1964

– Deer hunting stopped 1968, became overabundant

– Proposed hunt 1973, restrained by law suit

– Prepared EIS

– Ruled hunting not inconsistent w/ mission

– Hunting resumed in 1974

Public and Professionals

Public’s view of management might not jibe with manager’s recommendations– Public servants, cater to “misguided” wants?

Managers face legal constraints– Courts decide

Some management options might not be acceptable to the public– Hunting in suburbia

Wildlife management is people management

Attitudes Toward Wildlife

Ascriptive (demographic)– < 30 more naturalistic than than those >65– Women more compassion for wildlife– People of color more negative and dominionistic attitudes

toward wildlife Socioeconomic

– Less educated are more utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic– College educated more naturalistic, ecological– Is education the key?

• Less educated need to learn more about nature• More educated need to, learn more about hunting

Attitudes Toward Wildlife

Geographic– Rural more utilitarian, less moralistic– Smaller towns most naturalistic– West more utilitarian, East more humanistic

Familial– Single more humanistic– Married more utilitarian

Public Awareness

Willing to support endangered species and habitat preservation to a point

Prefer nonlethal control methods– Don’t appreciate costs of efficacy

Willing to pay taxes and entrance fees But….

– 75% believe coyotes are endangered– 1/2 didn’t know spiders have 8 legs or insects lacked a

backbone– 25-30% w/ college degree, 80% high school

– Majority care more about individual animals that populations

Canadian Wildlife Service

Dominion Wildlife Service (1947)

Canadian Wildlife Service (1971)

Field surveys of waterfowl– Countries cooperate under

NA Waterfowl Management Plan

– NA Bird Conservation Initiative

Mexico

Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales– Natural resources as

well as wildlife

– Direcion General de Vida Silvestre

Europe

Long regime of monarchs with privileges Small countries with dense human

populations– Few large areas with little impact

Hunting an individual privilege connected to land ownership– Private domain not public trust– “Gamekeepers” and harvest management

Europe

Rigorous tests required– 0.4% Germans licensed hunters

Private hunting societies– Carefully controlled shooting plans– Penalties for poor performance– Function like state agency in USA

Highly intensive management– Resident species tightly protected– Migrants not so -- “take while the taking is good”

Germany Hunting districts -- revier

– Privately owned– Trophies prized

Jaegermeister Meat sold in public markets

– Money goes to revier -- landowner Intensive forest management and agriculture

– Little wildlife habitat– Supplemental feeding and fencing typical

Predator control Hunting in Germany