Readings Study Guide 22

How to get more from readings

SECTION 1
Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3
Chapter 22
Chapter 4
Chapter 5

SECTION 2
Chapter 6
Chapter 7

Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10

Chapter 20

SECTION 3
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17

SECTION 4
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 21

Chapter 23

This chapter deals with the complicated picture of who manages wildlife. It describes U.S. and North American wildlife policies and explores how they evolved. The chapter describes the changes in American's attitudes about wildlife and the factors that have caused them. Finally, it contrasts wildlife management in the U.S. with the attitudes, policies, and mechanisms for wildlife management in Europe.

1. Sources
   1. Where do wildlife policies come from ?
      1. public interest
         1. (e.g., citizens groups, public outcry, court decisions)
         2. may be considered a normal policy pathway, where policy is developed in concert with new ideas, discoveries and changing times.
      2. Political fence-jumping
         1. (e.g., every time a new political group appoints agency personnel, new budgets are decided, new political priorities)
         2. policies may be clearly replaced by new (politically motivated) ones. But replacement can also be very subtle; budget controls may change support for agencies administering policies (selective support), new appointees may re-direct agency actions and priorities
2. Agency structure and development
   1. Wildlife management by the states began in the 1600's but did not become more than token efforts until the early 1900's.
   2. State wildlife management agencies have different titles and reflect different priorities but, all have somewhat similar structure (see Fig. 22-1 part1 and 2  in text) as a result of Federal funding regulations derived from the Pittman-Robertson Act . The prototype for this structure was developed in the Model State Game and Fish Administrative Law, 1934.
      1. By 1971, nearly all states had adopted this structure
      2. limits state political influence on wildlife management policies
      3. restricts state access to federal wildlife funding, by tying funds (through P-R Act) directly to wildlife agency and matching funds program.
         1. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, 1937 (the Pittman-Robertson Act [P-R]) annually provides > $107 million to the states for wildlife management
      4. problems with commissions
         1. commissioners interfere with agency administration
         2. commissioners may be appointed that over represent regional issues impairing sound management on statewide basis
         3. commissioners may be well intentioned but uninformed public - need to be educated every time there is a new one
         4. individual commissioners may still be swayed by partisan political pressures
      5. general divisions of state wildlife management agencies include
         1. game management
         2. non-game and/or endangered species management
         3. fisheries management
         4. law enforcement
         5. information and education
         6. various support divisions: budget, personnel, maintenance…
         7. research may be within a division above or a separate division of its own
3. Federal Agencies having wildlife management responsibilities (see Table 22-1)
4. National Biological Survey
   1. In 1993, Interior Sect'y Bruce Babbit re-organized the U.S. Dep. Interior (this is the second way policy is made see above I.A.2)
      1. created the National Biological Survey taking parts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.
      2. the main effect was to remove the research arms of those agencies and consolidate them into the new NBS
   2. the purpose of this re-organization was to deal with research needs driven by the Endangered Species Act and potential resulting major economic conflicts (e.g., spotted owls in Northwest)
      1. yet to be seen if this re-organization effective
      2. did reduce the amount of research being done.
5. New training, new profession - how did wildlife management become a profession ? Started to emerge in 1935.
   1. Aldo Leopold became the 1^st professor of game management at U. Wisconsin - and published 1^st text "Game Management" -1933
   2. Co-op Wildlife Units established in 1935-6 to assist with training of college graduates in wildlife management. Biologists until that time had 'training' in some other field like forestry
   3. P-R Act passed in 1937
6. Policy and wildlife law
   1. biological foundation - policy must be based on best biological/ecological information
      1. as our knowledge base increases our management changes
      2. because information is added in pieces mistakes have been made, but can be remedied as our interpretation of data and ecological interactions improves.
   2. enforcement - much of wildlife management is people management
      1. effectiveness of enforcement depends upon:
         1. public acceptance of regulations
         2. risk and severity of punishment
         3. personnel and funding
      2. modern wildlife conservation officers must be trained in:
         1. wildlife management
         2. public relations
         3. law enforcement
         4. often, many other relevant environmental concerns
      3. Despite the long tradition of wildlife law enforcement, there is little research on the impacts of poaching or the effectiveness of enforcement activities.
         1. perhaps main function is public relations and visible presence
         2. compliance really depends upon a "sense of ethics" about wildlife use.
7. Policy: social and economic factors
   1. the Public's living standards, moral and religious values, and traditions often affect wildlife policy - sometimes in opposition to what is biologically correct.
   2. social influences are linked to political reactions and can dictate what management actions actually get carried out.
   3. economic values of wildlife resources have played an important historic role in wildlife related policy and still do today.
8. Policy: scientific and technological factors
   1. rapid advances of scientific knowledge and technology affect management
   2. both in our understanding of the effects of humans on ecosystems and on the ability of humans to access wildlife
9. Legal jurisdiction - who "owns' wildlife ?
   1. to summarize: the Public owns the wildlife in the U.S.
   2. States have jurisdiction (through the state wildlife agency) over wildlife in the state
   3. Federal jurisdiction supersedes state rights when species are taken across state lines. Also over rides state rights for: migratory species and marine mammals (based on international treaties),and Threatened and Endangered species.
10. National policies SUMMARY OF LAWS
    1. Lacey Act -
       1. prohibited transportation of illegally killed game across state lines - helped to stop market hunting. More importantly started the progression of Federal jurisdiction over states rights.
    2. Restoration Acts - (Pittman-Robertson 1937 and Dingell-Johnson 1950)
       1. provided a consistent funding source for wildlife (P-R) and fishery (D-J) management
       2. provisions:
          1. Federal excise tax (now 11%) on sporting arms and ammunition (P-R) fishing tackle (D-J)
          2. states are allocated maximum amount of funds proportionally, based on size of state and number of licensed hunters (P-R) or proportion of water and number of licensed fishermen (D-J).
          3. no state can receive funds if any are diverted to unrelated activities like highways or state general funds
          4. states get funding on matching basis (1:3) state:federal ratio. (e.g., every $1 state is matched with $3 federal from the funds collected on the excise taxes) - this is what prevents diversion of state and federal funds to other purposes.
    3. Land and water policies
       1. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -
          1. required developers to consult with F&W agencies before developing bodies of water
          2. provided $$ for acquisition of land or water to mitigate such projects
       2. Wetland Loan Act (1961,67,76,86)- provided $$ to USFWS to mitigate rapid losses of wetlands.
       3. Wilderness Act (1964)- provided mechanism to set aside and maintain places 'where man himself is a visitor who does not remain". Regulates what actions can/cannot be done on lands so designated.
       4. Land and Water Conservation Act (1964)- Funding mechanism - fees generated from park admissions, surplus property sales, excise tax on motorboat fuels and Congressional appropriations.
       5. Sikes Act (1960)- provided for wildlife management on Department of Defense owned lands.
       6. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1986)- builds upon migratory bird treaties of 1900's. Provides international planning to protect wetland habitats of migratory waterfowl.
    4. National Environmental Policy Act (1969-70)
       1. established to help achieve a balance between human population and resource use that is consistent with a reasonable standard of living
       2. Established Council on Environmental Quality (cabinet level advisory board) and therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
       3. requires Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) on any major project with federal funding (most projects) that may have 'significant impacts on the environment'.
11. Policies of sentiment - these are policies that were passed by Congress because of pressure by the American public. Examples reminding us that wildlife management necessarily includes people management.
    1. Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act (1971) -
       1. passed as result of long-standing emotional issue about shooting of horses and burros on public lands. Initially they were being shot (inhumanely) by operators for the pet food industry.
       2. however, they are not native to western habitats and unregulated populations do cause ecological damage.
       3. "adopt a burro" program - successful or not ???
    2. Hunting on Wildlife Refuges - the Great Swamp NWR example
       1. conflict between purposes NWR's were established for and public desires, specifically anti-hunting sentiment in New Jersey.
       2. controversy required that USFWS prepare and EIS for management on the refuge. Assessment of the EIS went to court - where it was determined that hunting was not inconsistent with sound wildlife management or the purposes for which the refuge was established.
12. Public attitudes - Kellert's studies
    1. who and what -
       1. Kellert (1976) began surveys of the American public to determine their attitudes towards wildlife. From his initial research he was able to categorize peoples feelings about wildlife into several categories (see Table 10-1 in text)
       2. things that affected how people were classified were determined to be
          1. ascriptive: age, sex, race
          2. socioeconimic: job, education
          3. geographic: where you grew up(urban vs. rural), region of country
          4. familial: single-married, children vs. no kids
       3. education was single most important factor that could be changed. Information programs should be directed toward specific groups each with its own well-researched mission
       4. new non-traditional wildlife programs would be supported by these other constituencies.
    2. Americans and issues
       1. Americans are willing to pay more for goods and services to protect the environment
       2. public was opposed to non-selective predator control but supported individual animal control and capture-relocation
       3. habitat preservation was widely supported but, support diminished as it began to require more sacrifices in human lifestyle
       4. taxes supporting wildlife management had significant public support
    3. Public awareness
       1. despite positive feelings for wildlife, the American public has little actual knowledge about wildlife or specific wildlife management problems.
       2. Public's lack of knowledge about wildlife and its tendency towards 'humanistic-moralistic' creates problems for managers
          1. communication/education of the public about wildlife is primarily through the media - biased towards the plight of the cute and cuddly
          2. there was little overlap in issues of greatest concern between the public and professional biologists
13. A contrast in Europe
    1. Policies and management in Europe come from long (and different) traditions that do not exist in U.S.
    2. Imperial era (kings land) had most lasting effects in Europe.
       1. hunting forbidden without permission of king / emperor (basis of Robin Hood legend)
       2. conservation was by strictly regulating hunts
       3. Asia had more progressive habitat management
    3. European policies derived primarily from human custom
    4. aristocracy was who had access rights to hunting - dates, methods etc. all more tightly wound with cultural traditions
       1. bounty systems on predators
       2. artificial rearing of game birds (to support falconry)
    5. Hunting in Europe remains tied to ownership of the land
       1. management is very intensive shaped by private land ownership domain.
    6. European hunters are better thought of as 'gamekeepers'
       1. high standards are imposed before hunters can participate in hunting (< 1% of public is licensed to hunt and over 1/3 attempting to get licensed fail; contrasts to > 10% U.S. public licensed and the only way to fail is to be convicted felon unable to purchase a gun)
          1. system where privileged few get opportunity
             1. self-imposed limitation
          2. intensive game keeping on limited land areas
          3. education (60 hours of course work)
          4. money - very expensive
          5. internships
          6. membership in private hunting society
          7. European hunter is still an esteemed member of society
       2. European hunters do not keep what they harvest
          1. harvested game is owned/sold by the state
       3. European hunter is actively the 'wildlife manager' contrasting with U.S. where anyone can hunt and managers are a separate trained, usually public, official.
          1. intensively managed systems lead to what we would consider a very artificial hunting experience
          2. however, the European hunter is perhaps more culturally imbued and is more directly involved in the management of the land and wildlife resources that his American counterpart.
       4. One of the strongest American traditions (was a rebellion against the European) was that wildlife belonged to everyone and that everyone should have access to it.