There is no argument that for healthy and sustainable wildlife populations for generations to come, things need to change with the times. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) has been, and currently is, the backbone of wildlife conservation in North America. It has brought back species from the brink of extinction on multiple occasions throughout the country’s history. From bison to deer to turkey, the hunters-as-conservationists model has done wonders to safeguard wildlife for future generations.
The most important part that all the opponents of the model forget to take into account is why the NAMWC works. It has a funding base: you and me, the hunters and anglers of this country. Without the funding mechanism that supports all the research and on-the-ground restoration work, there is no conservation. There is an old saying I’ve heard many times while talking and asking questions about conservation over the years: “If it pays, it stays.” Many people are uncomfortable with this, but many people are uncomfortable with reality.
Not everything needs to or should be broken down to monetary value, but as of right now, that’s what makes the world go around. There have been many attempts to fund conservation in North America outside the NAMWC. Examples include the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA) and Teaming With Wildlife, but as often happens, everyone wants to have their say in the arena until it’s time to open their checkbook. As the saying goes, “It’s not a principle until it costs you money,” and when it comes to wildlife conservation, there are a lot of folks screaming about their principles and ethics but not a lot of open wallets. So take that for what it’s worth.
This is not to say hunters and anglers get a free pass either. When it comes down to it, there is a lot more to conservation than just buying fishing rods, ammo, and your hunting license. Yes, it helps, but there is also a lot going on behind the scenes that we need to pay attention to. There are groups pandering to the anti-hunting crowd, using hunting rhetoric to disguise their true intentions, such as the quote I found on a website, which I won’t name as they don’t deserve any more attention than they already receive:
“Our organization is not opposed to hunting when the hunters eat what they kill out of necessity or because they prefer wild foods to meat sourced from industrial animal agriculture.”
This boils down to “We agree with hunting, as long as it’s the kind of hunting that WE agree with.” There are websites similarly loaded with what amounts to anti-hunting propaganda, and oddly enough, never any data, science, statistics, or even quotes from wildlife biologists confirming their data. I wonder why that is?
I get it. Wildlife is cute. It’s easy to write it all off as harmless, as long as it doesn’t affect you, of course. It’s not a big deal when they’re going after wolves, coyotes, and cougars, which you probably don’t hunt anyway, so who cares. But they are just going after the low-hanging fruit.
There are already talks about genetic manipulation and sterilization to control wildlife populations. That future isn’t that far off. These groups want to BAN HUNTING OUTRIGHT. It’s never a big deal until it’s deer, elk, or wild sheep, and by then it will be too late. Human beings have been hunting for about 2 million years. No matter what anyone says, it’s in our DNA. We are predators, the top of the food chain; it’s what has made us successful enough to populate every last corner of the continent.
Hunting is as ingrained in our DNA as our need to be outside, to eat, to sleep. It’s not alarmist to get people to start to see the truth because as you sit here reading this, there are groups actively raising funds and lobbying in Congress to restrict and eventually take away your right to hunt. They have the advantage of saying we are all evil, heartless killers while showing cute little baby animals. All we have to back ourselves up is science and wildlife management data that have proven time and time again to maintain healthy populations of game species and, by proxy, non-game wildlife through habitat restoration and good, science-based management practices.
This is not about “We as hunters and anglers pay for conservation.” This is about making sure wildlife is managed properly for future generations. As part of not only the NAMWC but also the law, wildlife is a public trust, which means that wildlife is considered a resource held in trust by the government for the benefit of present and future generations. This principle is rooted in the idea that wildlife and other natural resources are not owned by individuals but are managed collectively for the common good. That means wildlife is for everyone, as it should be.
Unfortunately, the ones who don’t want to do their part and help chip in are also the ones who want to have their say in wildlife management by voting. Yelling is not funding. Funding is funding. The reason we don’t vote on wildlife is because we are terrible at making decisions that are in the best interest of wildlife. You know who is pretty good at it though? Scientists and wildlife biologists.
I’m currently reading a textbook on wildlife management to try and understand all this at a deeper level. I don’t understand most of what I am reading. Once they said “λ,” my pretending to understand what was going on ended. Management isn’t simply “culling and counting.” There are complex population dynamics and formulas involved that account for lower and higher populations and how scientists factor in the carrying capacity of a population in a certain region. I’ll never pretend to understand this, and neither should you, unless you’re a wildlife manager.
I also don’t understand what the surgeon did in a recent surgery, and I am sure as hell glad that there wasn’t a public vote that decided how the doctor was going to perform the surgery. It’s the same with wildlife. Let the people who dedicate their lives to learning the insanely detailed wildlife management and biology work do their jobs. That’s literally what WE are paying them for.
No, I’m not advocating for blindly letting wildlife managers and biologists do whatever they want. Anything taken too far is bad. What I am advocating for is making sure hunters and anglers don’t lose what they love based on the uninformed public’s misguided ideology. Wildlife conservation isn’t perfect. Anything that exists has flaws and shortcomings. Can things be more ethical and transparent? Yes, of course. That is the case with anything. But we also must put trust in the science that has time and time again brought animals here in North America back from the brink of extinction.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was, and is, for over 100 years, the light in the dark for wildlife. Without it, there would be no bison, no deer, no elk, no wild turkey. We, as outdoorsmen and outdoors-women, must take a stand and not let either our hunting rights or the health of wildlife be eroded by uninformed, emotionally driven interests. We must stand together and stand up for wildlife conservation as stewards of the wildlife we hold dear, not only for ourselves but for everyone, whether they want us to or not.
Paul Fuzinski (Aptitude Outdoors)
