Where is the NAM?
BY-jOHN Laundre
The North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (NAM) is heralded by hunters and game agencies across the country as THE model for wildlife management. Additionally, if you would believe them, it was hunters and the sacred NAM that saved wildlife from past destruction, ironically by hunters, in the late 1800's to early 1900's. What does this hallowed doctrine say and is it being used today? Well, among the "seven sisters", the 7 tenets of the Model, there are several that hunters proudly point to as guiding lights to wildlife management. The two I want to address today are 1) Wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purposes and 2) Science is the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy.
This all sound good and on a high moral standard but recent incidences, sponsored by hunters and game agencies indicate how much of a sham the NAM is. What is a legitimate reason to kill wildlife? Obviously most hunters would say THE legitimate reason to kill wildlife is to eat it. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation interprets the NAM as restricting the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns, or feathers. Another obvious reason to kill wildlife is if it poses an immediate threat to human life. Another reason might be argued if the species in question was seriously threatening the viability of another species.
Given the above, how is the sacred NAM applied to the conservation/management of predators? We know they are not killed for food! Killing them just for their fur would seem to be as frivolous as killing another species for their antlers, horns, or feathers! Why does the coat industry still get to use wild animal fur when the hat industry has been denied the use of wild bird feathers? There is no evidence that healthy wolves nor coyotes are a threat to people and though cougars have attacked and killed people, the risk that happening is a lot less than your son or daughter being injured or killed in a school sporting event. There are no conclusive studies showing that 1) predators "decimate" game populations and 2) reducing or eliminating predators enhances these game populations. So the only true legitimate purpose for killing predators should be the same as for deer, to eat them!
Given all this, one has to ask then, what is the "legitimate" reason the state of Utah has re-enacted a bounty system, paying people, to kill coyotes? It is not for food, it is not even for their fur. It is not to "protect" other species. It is to just kill them…because. If this does not represent "casual" killing of wildlife, I don't know what does. Also, Idaho is planning on a "kill the most, the biggest coyote/wolf contest this winter. People will get prices for just the shear killing of animals that are not a threat to humans or other wildlife and again, the contestants will not eat them after! In the Great Plains, cougars are struggling to make a comeback to their ancestral homes. Yet almost every time one shows up cowering in a culvert or up a tree, no obvious threat to anyone, they are killed, even, recently in South Dakota, dug up with a backhoe just to shoot it. What is the "legitimate" reason for killing them? None.
President Teddy Roosevelt and Conservationist John Muir
As for using science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy, again, recent events indicate the blatant disregard for the NAM. In South Dakota, a population of only around 150 adult animals is being "harvested", politically correct way of saying killed, to the tune of 70 to 100 animals a year. What scientific study of wildlife populations has demonstrated that killing 45 to 65 percent of the population yearly is sustainable? None! Yet the game agency continually justifies this excess killing as sound wildlife management. And it is even worse in Nebraska. Their best guess is that they have 20-22 cougars in the state. My guess is that it is more like 15. For any other species, the science would consider this to be a highly endangered population. Yet what is the Nebraska game agency doing? They are opening a hunting season to kill up to 3 animals, regardless of sex! In whatever other real world, would a game agency have a season to kill these many animals out of such a small population? None! Would we do it for a population of 22 bighorn sheep or elk? NO! And why are these states having these seasons to kill cougars? For food? Because they are a threat? Again, it is to just kill them for casual reasons, a trophy, a clear violation of their sacred NAM.
It is these recent actions and more, championed by hunters and sanctioned by game agencies that convinces me that the NAM is a worthless document filled with lies and hypocrisy. It is not the revered model for conservation nor sound wildlife management. It is consistently ignored and abused by the very people who fool themselves thinking that they are conservationists. Only when the majority of hunters and hunting groups put ecosystem integrity, including the SOUND conservation of predators, in front of their desire to kill for killing sake can they begin to consider themselves stewards of ALL wildlife and we will return to the 21st century of wildlife conservation. Until then, hunting has become not the honored tradition it has been but a tool for the decimation of native predator populations. Populations that Science has shown to be essential to ecosystem integrity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
purchase John's book on Amazon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Public Trust Doctrine |
Overview
In recent years, the recognition of wildlife conservation
in the U.S. and Canada as distinct from other forms worldwide has led to the adoption of the term “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”
The Public Trust
Doctrine, derived from the 1842
U.S. Supreme Court case Martin v. Waddell, is considered the keystone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. It represents the common law foundation for trust status of wildlife resources in the United States.  Background
While the Industrial Revolution initiated rapid technology
development and laid the foundation of the urban workforce, the movement also placed harsh demands on the natural world. In particular, the food supply required by the rapidly growing urban population caused game to be hunted at unsustainable levels. Simultaneously, an urban upper class emerged with the leisure time that afforded hunting under self-imposed “sporting” conditions that promoted fair play, self-restraint, pioneer skills, and health. Conflicts between these distinct hunting groups resulted in successful advocacy by the upper class for the elimination of markets for game, allocation of wildlife by law rather than privilege, and restraint on the killing of wildlife for anything other than legitimate purposes.
In 1842, the Supreme Court rule in Martin v.
Waddell set the foundation in U.S. common law for the principle that wildlife resources are owned by no one, to be held in trust by government for the benefit of present and future generations.
The court ruling, combined with the advocacy of
the upper class sport hunters, resulted in the Public Trust Doctrine.
Concern over the protection of wildlife in the
United States prompted a concern in Canada over the potential for similar misuse of wildlife. The subsequent collaboration of the U.S. and Canadian wildlife conservationists led to treaties establishing certain species of marine mammals and migratory birds as international resources and to the creation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The heart of the Model is composed of seven focal points (as stated in the TWS Final Position Statement on The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation):
It wasn’t until President Theodore Roosevelt’s
administration that the implementation of wildlife policy significantly began. Actions such as the 1930 American Game Policy and the 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act set a precedent for the role of science over partisanship as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy. Comprehensive conservation principles and their scientific application led to increased professional management of hunting programs. As a result, hunting is accessible to citizens of all social classes in the United States and Canada, a feature not found in many other conservation models |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment