The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

[mike rossi]

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

The model illustrates how conservation evolved in the U.S. and Canada since its beginning during the Teddy Roosevelt era. Although The Model is considered to have seven basic tenants, its roots go back to the fundamental reasons that our European ancestors got on boats and came to the New World.  That is, that fish and game should not belong to a king or nobleman, but should be held in public trust. (Probably not what were you taught in elementary school about why Europeans immigrated to the USA.)

Video (43 minutes) Note: The video does not address the fact that the public majority, not just hunters, is heavily engaged in conservation these days. : http://youtu.be/xRx-HcVQDRQ

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the world’s most successful. No other continent has conserved as many species of native wildlife as North America. While other countries struggle to conserve the wildlife they have left, we enjoy great abundance and diversity of wildlife.  This is due, in large part, to forward thinking by early conservationists who saw the need to conserve wildlife and their habitats. Their efforts were the source of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which strives to sustain wildlife species and habitats through sound science and active management. 

There are TWO basic principles to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation 

Our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. 

In addition to these two basic principles there are “Seven Sisters” that make up the framework of this model.

THE SEVEN SISTERS

1. Wildlife Is Held In The Public Trust:  The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone. Through shared ownership and responsibility, opportunity to enjoy wildlife is provided to all. 
2. Commerce In Wildlife Is Regulated:  Early laws banning commercial hunting and the sale of meat and hides ensured the sustainability of wildlife through the regulation of harvest and the sale of wildlife parts such as teeth, claws and antlers.
3. Hunting And Angling Laws Are Created Through Public Process:  Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations.  Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. 
4. Hunting And Angling Opportunity For All:   The opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base support for wildlife law enforcement, habitat conservation and research.
5. Hunters And Anglers Fund Conservation:  Hunting and fishing license sales and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for management of all wildlife, including wildlife species that are not hunted.
6. Wildlife Is An International Resource:   Proper stewardship of wildlife and habitats is both a source of national pride and an opportunity to cooperate with other nations with whom we share natural resources. Cooperative management of migrating waterfowl, songbirds and marine life is one example of successful international collaboration.
7. Science Is The Basis For Wildlife Policy:  The limited use of wildlife as a renewable natural resource is based on sound science.  Wildlife agency professionals adapt management strategies based on population and habitat monitoring to achieve the sustainability of wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Source: Georgia Wildlife Resources Division
2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE, Social Circle, GA 30025

A Primer on the Wildlife Trust

Source: Jeremy Bruskotter

The wildlife trust doctrine–a branch of the broader public trust doctrine that deals specifically with wildlife–was established in a series of court cases that provide the foundation for state-based conservation of wildlife that some refer to as the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation.  Two Supreme Court cases (i.e., Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. 367 (1842) and Geer v. Connecticut 161 U.S. 519 (1896)), provide the basic foundation of this legal doctrine.  In Martin v. Waddell, the court applied English common law to reject a landowner’s claim to an oyster fishery that was located under the public waters of the state of New Jersey.  The court concluded that with the formation of the United States, the lands that had once belonged to England passed to the state of New Jersey; applying English common law, the court held that the “land under navigable waters…were to be held…in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown.”  English policy, since the time of the Magna Carta, was to preserve such resources “for the benefit of the public”.   Thus, the landowner could not lay claim to the oyster fishery because his actions deprived the citizens of New Jersey any access to this resource, which was held collectively by the citizens of that state.

Although the dispute in Martin v. Waddell focused on the lands under the navigable waters and the oyster beds attached thereto, the Court in Geer v. Connecticut, using a similar rational, extended the trust obligation to terrestrial wildlife (woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail).  In this case, again relying on English common law, the court held that wildlife (ferae naturae ) were public property – “the ownership of the sovereign authority . . .  [to be held in] trust for all the people of the state” and that it was the” duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.”  These cases set the stage for modern wildlife management by state agencies, in which states act as trustees, managing and conserving wildlife resources on behalf of their citizens.  This doctrine underpins our system of wildlife conservation in the United States, and is recognized by the Wildlife Society as one of the seven “pillars” of the North American Model.

An Obligation to Conserve?

While the notion of sovereign ownership of wildlife is well established, there has been little discussion regarding states’ obligations under the wildlife trust doctrine.  The Court in Geer made it clear that the trustee-beneficiary relationship establishes an obligation on the part of the state to “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust” (emphasis added). The court added that:

“..the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good” (emphasis added).

Yet, the nature of states’ obligations is ill-defined for, as Freyfogle and Goble (2009:33) noted, “there is no trust document that sets forth the precise terms of the trust.”  Moreover, there has been little opportunity–or need–to establish the case law necessary to “flesh out” these obligations because the statutory protections provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the associated federal control have largely precluded the need for protecting species outside the ESA framework; that is, because the ESA provides federal protections for species that are imperiled, there has been no need for interested citizens to force states to protect species through litigation, thus establishing the case law necessary to formalize states’ obligations. (Note: We disagree with part of this; lawsuits against state wildlife agencies and the FWS of the nature described have actually been common for at least 15 years and are not always the subject of federally or state listed species, although true most are ESA issues.)

Confusion at the crux: Science, policy and wildlife management

The interplay between science and policy and how it affects the objectives of wolf management lies near the heart of the wolf issue.  Scientifically-collected and analyzed data has traditionally played an essential role in wildlife management in the United States.  Time-tested methods are used to assist wildlife managers in understanding population trends and the factors (e.g. immigration, mortality, birth rates) that can potentially impact wildlife populations.  This tradition has been symbolically codified as one of seven “components” or principles of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (see also Organ & Mahoney 2007).  It has also led to the wide-spread perception that wildlife management objectives should be determined by science rather than politics.  Thus Malloney (2011:179) recently expressed frustration that “wolf management…tends to be guided by opinion and politics rather than science.” This perception misunderstands the role of science in wildlife policy; in fact, it misunderstands what types of questions science is capable of answering.  Science can answering factual or “is” questions–bounded, of course, by some error.   Science, cannot answer questions questions are fundamentally subjective or “normative”  in nature.

According to the Wildlife Society, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation demands that  “science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy” (Batcheller et al. 2010 ). Here the use of the word “discharge”, which Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines as “to throw off or deliver a load, charge, or burden” further contributes to the confusion regarding the role of science.  Science simply is not capable of “discharging” (or “delivering”) wildlife policy (or any other policy, for that matter); to set such high expectations for science is to set it, and scientists, up for failure.  Rather, science merely informs policy decisions, which, as the term “policy” implies, are ultimately discharged via political processes.  Some may think this distinction trivial, but it is a fundamental source of conflict where wolves are concerned. Until stakeholders–including wildlife professionals–recognize the limitations of science and the types of information it provides, the role of science will be a continued source of friction and conflict. (Note: the average person is a stakeholder and usually there are public comment opportunities, both by attending hearings and giving oral testimony or by submitting written comment. For science to inform a stakeholder, that person must distinguish between propaganda, pseudo-science, real science, and science journalism. Science Journalism is the most frequent form of information which is confused with scientific reports).

Further Reading:
 

60 page PDF: http://www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org/documents/scientific/North%20American%20Model%20of%20Wildlife%20Conservation.pdf

43 page PDF: http://www.wafwa.org/html/pdfs/AZ_NAM%20Training%20and%20Resource%20Guide%20-%20july2009.pdf

7 page PDF: http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/HUNT/4%203%20Scandinavia%20plus%20cover.pdf

17 page , non PDF document: The History of Wildlife Conservation and Research in the United States – and Implications for the Future

http://cnr.ncsu.edu/fer/directory/documents/Article-HistoryofWildlifeResearch.pdf

 

[d-bone20917]

Good post Mike.  I'll have to check out the video when I get a chance.  Protecting the North American model and access to our public lands throughout the U.S. should be the number 1 priority of all sportsman.