Start A Petition

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

Animals  (tags: The North American Model for Wildlife Co, wildlife, habitat, animals, animalrights, protection, americans, corruption, dishonesty, freedoms, politics, lies, ethics, crime, media, protection, cruelty, conservation, environment, ethics, death )

- 1914 days ago -
President Teddy Roosevelt and Conservationist John Muir, Where is the NAM? by, John Laundre, an ecologist at the State University of New York at Oswego


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


roxy H (350)
Thursday December 26, 2013, 6:39 pm
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.

John Laundre, an ecologist at the State University of New York at Oswego, noticed the impact of fear on animals' behavior after the re-introduction of grey wolves in Yellowstone National Park while he was studying elk. And he has found that the greatest impact predators can have over their prey is not by killing but rather by instilling fear in them. He coined the term for this: landscape of fear.

The North American Model
of Wildlife Conservation
and Public Trust Doctrine
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
While the Industrial Revolution initiated rapid technology
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):

Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
Elimination of Markets for Game
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a
Legitimate Purpose
Wildlife Are Considered an International
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge
of Wildlife Policy
Democracy of Hunting

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

Posted by Rick Meril at 8:09 PM

Krystal R (120)
Friday December 27, 2013, 7:58 am
This is a fantastic read!

Steve S (70)
Friday December 27, 2013, 9:45 am
Thank You

. (0)
Saturday December 28, 2013, 7:25 am
Now I haven't hunted or fished in many years and don't feel the need to do so. Quoting Teddy Roosevelt is kind of a misnomer as he was quite the big game hunter; especially in Africa. During the 1800s and early 1900s it was nothing to go out and bag as many of various species as you could in a day, every day. I could cite the case of the bison in the Midwest or the West or the passenger pigeon in the East. It was very fashionable and culinary approved of eating squab. If it moved they shot it. There are places in the world where hunters form a big semi circle and shoot anything that moves in that arc. That still continues today and it is a reprehensible practice.
The 18th and early 19th centuries were different times and for the most part many of my friends who are hunters and anglers today obey the laws and do believe in conservation. Most of them would not shoot a wolf for example or a deer out of season or a bear for that matter unless absolutely necessary. However when you have too many of one species and no species to keep the balance then you wind up with a species that is inbred and diseased or becomes a threat to the human populace. Cougars that wind up on Vancouver Island are regularly shot and that's a shame. The cat is just doing what it's genetically programmed to do.
I think you can make the case for controlled hunts at specific times of the year. Of course there are specific problem species such as coyotes that do need to be controlled. Let's not forget either that we have encroached on their natural habitat. Foxes in British cities are becoming a problem just as coyotes are in North America but do you cull them when they have entered homes and put children in danger or eradicated the competition such as Aunt Franny's cats or children for that matter? I don't believe in eradicating any species as you upset the overall balance and we as a species have done immense damage already but there does need to be some control.
I know Roxy is a big supporter of the wolf. I concur with her that the wolf doesn't need to be curtailed at this time. In the future maybe... Thank goodness old hound dog Teddy developed a conscience.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 28, 2013, 11:38 am
Great post, thank you!
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Animals

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.