Resource Science: A new North American Model of Wildlife Management

Wildlife issues are important to livestock producers and the natural resource industries of mining, oil and gas, and timber because of regulations that limit access to resources. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the best-known wildlife law because it allows government regulation of all land use, including private property. I think this is inappropriate in the U.S., which is based on freedom and property rights—not government control.

Basic wildlife management principles in the U.S. and Canada are known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This model is not law or regulation; it is a set of ideas that are the basis of modern wildlife management that has restored wildlife populations over the last century. Its basic ideas are:

• Wildlife is owned by all citizens and managed by state and federal governments. A landowner does not own the wildlife on his or her land. This derives from English common law and was instituted in an 1842 Supreme Court ruling.

• Wildlife cannot be commercially sold, and market-hunting for meat is not allowed. The Lacey Act of 1900 made market hunting illegal in the U.S. In some places, sale of animal parts such as hides and horns is allowed.

• Taking of wildlife is regulated by laws.

• Wildlife can only be killed for legitimate reasons, such as food, fur, self-defense and protection of property (including livestock). This idea is the basis for regulations prohibiting “wanton waste” and requiring salvage of meat from game animals.

• Wildlife is an international resource. Some wildlife cross national borders (like migratory ducks and geese) and requires coordinated management.

• Science is the basis for wildlife management, for example to understand population dynamics and habitat.

• Every citizen has equal opportunity to hunt, fish and use wildlife in accordance with regulations. In the U.S. this is at the state level. Residents of a state have more opportunity than non-residents for access to fish and game.

These ideas are similar to state fish and game regulations, and are generally accepted by citizens as legitimate. I suggested changes to this model previously (WLJ Nov. 19, 2019) and propose new changes as follows.

• Change the name to Model of Wildlife Management, not Wildlife Conservation. Managing wildlife is what we do, conservation is part of management. Some wildlife is not conserved; for example, invasive species are managed by removing them from the landscape.

• Recognize the U.S. Multiple Use Act of 1960 (see the References). This is a federal law passed by the U.S. Congress which directs the secretary of Agriculture to develop the renewable resources of timber, range/grazing, water, recreation and wildlife on national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services. The Multiple Use Act includes five major uses (timber, range/grazing, water, recreation and wildlife) of national forests in one law, without prioritizing one use over another. This indicates that other laws like the ESA should not be used to allow wildlife to take priority over other land uses. The Multiple Use Act should be extended to other federal lands including Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service lands.

• Currently, the ESA and other regulations result in wildlife taking precedence over other land uses. The Multiple Use Act should institute all management objectives being given equal priority. For example, managing for timber harvest, livestock grazing and wildlife populations in one location should be coordinated, and wildlife should not be prioritized. The ESA should be amended to reflect the Multiple Use Act.

• ” Science is the basis for wildlife management, for example to understand population dynamics and habitat” should be amended as: “Science is the basis of wildlife management. Science must include all science, not only government science which is often biased against agriculture and the natural resource industries.” (See Cronin 2021 in the References).

• Wildlife management objectives on private property will be determined by landowners. Landowners will determine their own management objectives and not be limited from using their land by government. The government may offer voluntary incentives to landowners to achieve wildlife management objectives (e.g., monetary, tax incentives and access to grazing and timber on adjacent federal land).

Mahoney and Yablonski (see the References and notes) describe how wildlife belongs to the public but most wildlife habitat is on private property in the U.S. and Canada. These authors note the current North American model should be flexible and open to change because of this. My recommendations offer such changes. My recommendations also make the model consistent with basic American principles.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government taking private property without just compensation; and the Tenth Amendment gives all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people.

To be consistent with our constitution, a U.S. Model of Wildlife Management could include:

the states have exclusive authority to manage and regulate fish and wildlife, and the federal government can assist if states approve it.

Private property will not be regulated by government for fish and wildlife management or habitat. Voluntary incentives can be provided to landowners to manage fish and wildlife.

These proposed changes will be opposed by those environmentalists who promote federal government control of public and private property. However, they are consistent with our Constitution and basic American principles and should be adopted into the North American Model of Wildlife Management. — Dr. Matt Cronin

(Matthew Cronin is a scientist at Northwest Biology & Forestry Co. and a teaching professor at Montana State University, Bozeman. He was a research professor at the University of Alaska.)