Many of you are familiar with fish and wildlife management as landowners and hunters. Wildlife regulations from state fish and game departments and federal agencies are important to farmers and ranchers who must deal with wildlife such as bears and wolves killing livestock, elk competing for range, and hunters wanting access to land.
Wildlife managers, hunters, and conservationists in the U.S. and Canada have a set of guiding principles known as “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.” This model is not law or regulation, but it is a set of ideas that form the basis of modern wildlife management that has resulted in the restoration of wildlife over the last century. Its basic tenets are:
1. 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;
2. 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. Exceptions apply in some places for animal parts such as hides and horns;
3. Taking of wildlife is regulated by laws;
4. 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;
5. Wildlife is an international resource. Some wildlife cross national borders (like migratory ducks and geese) and requires coordinated management;
6. Science is the basis for wildlife management, for example to understand population dynamics and habitat; and
7. 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 who may be restricted in access to fish and game.
You can see the similarity of these ideas to state fish and game regulations, and they are generally accepted by many citizens as legitimate.
An alternative model is the private ownership of wildlife. In the U.S. and Canada some wildlife can be privately owned, such as elk and bison on game ranches, and many African species are privately owned on game ranches in Texas and Florida. But in the U.S. and Canada most wildlife is publicly owned and regulated by government. This is not the case in some other countries.
In the southern African countries of Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, and South Africa, wildlife can be privately owned and commercially used by landowners. This has resulted in greatly improved wildlife populations because landowners have an incentive to manage their land to benefit wildlife.
It has been suggested that this model could be applied elsewhere, such as Australia and New Zealand (see Wilson, Hayward, and Wilson in the References).
I suggest two changes to the North American Model that emphasize private property rights. First, tenet number 6 should be amended as:
“Science is the basis of wildlife management which must be done in accordance with private property landowner management objectives”.
As described by Mahoney and Yablonski (see the References), 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 to address this issue.
I think that instituting incentives for private property owners would be an important change.
In the U.S. some incentives are provided to landowners such as the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Colorado Ranching for Wildlife Program, and the Montana Block Management system. However, wildlife regulation is increasingly encroaching on private property rights, primarily through the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
A second change to the North American Model can make it a United States Model consistent with our basic principles. Canada and other countries can also tailor a model to fit their principles. I think two American principles should be recognized in a U.S. Model:
The FifthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government taking private property without just compensation; and the 10th 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. The federal government can assist with states’ approval.
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 environmentalists who rely on federal government control of public and private property. However, they are consistent with our Constitution and basic American principles (see Cronin in the references). — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC and an affiliate professor at Montana State University. He can be reached at croninm@aol.com.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation
Cronin, M.A. 2019. Wildlife, War, and God. Published by Matthew A. Cronin, Bullet Books, produced and distributed by Liberty Hill Publishing, Maitland, FL.
Mahoney, S. 2019. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. PERC Reports,
Summer 2019, Pages 10-16. The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC),
Bozeman, MT.
Wilson, G.R., M.W. Hayward, and C. Wilson. 2017. Market-based incentives and private
ownership of wildlife to remedy shortfalls in government funding for conservation.
Conservation Letters, Volume 10, Number 4, Pages 485-492.
Yablonski, B. 2019. Rethinking the North American Wildlife Model. PERC Reports, Summer
2019, Pages 18-23. The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), Bozeman,
MT.
