REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES
The invasive tentacles of the “ ecological ” approach to game management seem innocuous to many , but only demonstrate how mindful and active we must be in every facet of management and protecting the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation . Animal-rights advocates have put the following plan into play throughout the United States .
STEP 1 : Get anti-hunters on the commission . The fight for political relevance begins here . Control the commission and you control the state game agency , seasons and methods . By lowering standards for commissions , it ’ s easier to get antihunters and environmentalists on state boards .
When populations of large carnivores like wolves expand , anti-hunters argue for increasing the size of so-called core ranges and corridors , rather than controlling the populations within their established ranges .
U . S . FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ( 2 )
WHERE WE ’ VE SEEN IT : Michigan , New Hampshire , Vermont .
STEP 2 : Sow discord , vote against hunting . Once appointed to a game commission , it ’ s easy to question the science of biologists under the guise of safety and being judicially conservative with the resource .
WHERE WE ’ VE SEEN IT : This spring in Washington , anti-hunting commissioners muddied biologist-derived science and proposed scenarios outside the realm of probability . In California , a game commissioner questioned the relevance of the NAMWC in today ’ s society .
STEP 3 : Adjust tag availability . As prey populations plummet , game biologists and commissions have no recourse except to reduce tag availability .
WHERE WE ’ VE SEEN IT : An elk study in southeast Washington proved extreme predation of calves , primarily by mountain lions . An antihunting commissioner questioned why increased predator management was needed when all that was required was a reduction in available elk tags in the unit to offset the loss of calves .
CORRUPTING THE MODEL Animal-rights supporters have made statements in commission meetings , during public comment periods and in the media that their opinions and views of wildlife management hold equal — or even greater — weight than those of hunters , going so far as to explicitly cite the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation by name as evidence of their knowledge .
The first point of the NAMWC is that “ wildlife is a public resource .” The animal-rights movement has perverted this point to justify their position by reasoning that since it ’ s a public resource , public opinion is paramount in the discharge of wildlife management . They use the same reasoning with another point , the “ democracy of hunting .” Obviously , their reasoning is corrupt . What those advocates forget to mention , and what we as sportsmen need to fill in , is the context of those principles .
Wildlife is a public resource . However , that doesn ’ t mean public opinion determines management decisions . It indicates that fish and game , whether on public or private property , belongs to the public ( harkening back to , and correcting , the European model of game ownership ). The tenet states that governments at various levels have a role in managing the resource on behalf of all citizens to ensure long-term sustainability .
The “ democracy of hunting ” doesn ’ t suggest that a mob of dissidents will get their way , but rather that access to and use of wildlife isn ’ t dependent on wealth , prestige or land ownership — again , differentiating our model from the European model and protecting it from corruption by an oligarchy .
Another point , “ wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose ” gets trotted out during discussion over predator hunting and other management practices . Activists stress legitimate , wasteful and frivolous , words found within the context of the principle , and reason that since hunters don ’ t eat coyotes or kill them in large numbers , as an example , then there isn ’ t a legitimate reason to hunt them . They fail to acknowledge that when hunting is implemented around calving season , both ungulates and livestock suffer decreased predation ; however , their point has often been repeated in the media and to the non-hunting public , which is a public-relations problem for predator management .
Finally , even accepted science suffers under the warped reality of the animal-rights movement . As “ the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy ,” the NAMWC states that science is to guide management decisions . For animal-rights activists ,
SPRING 2022 23