Can commercial hunting in North America save our wildlife?

Worldwide, our wildlife populations are in decline except for a few notable exceptions. Surprisingly, The United States, Canada and South Africa all have a multitude of species that are rebounding and thriving when just less than 100 years ago many of our native species were at risk of extinction. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been a crucial framework for the protection of our wildlife.

What is the North American Model of Conservation? I’m glad you asked! The NAMC is based on seven principles:

1) Wildlife is held in public trust

In North America, natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

2) Prohibition on commerce of Wildlife

Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.

3) Democratic rule of law

Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

4) Hunting opportunity for all

Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.

5) Non-frivolous use

In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers.

6) International resource

Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Working together, the United States and Canada jointly coordinate wildlife and habitat management strategies. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 demonstrates this cooperation between countries to protect wildlife. The Act made it illegal to capture or kill migratory birds, except as allowed by specific hunting regulations.

7) Scientific management

Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America’s wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on animals to track the animals’ movements to determine where they give birth and how they react to motor vehicles in urban centers.

What some of our wilderness looks like…..for now.

Wildlife populations are rebounding in North America so why fix what’s not broken? Rebounding populations for some species are not enough. An increasing amount of Americans are moving to urban areas and more and more people are out of touch with wildlife. The success of biodiversity and our wildlife is contingent upon the evolution of our model. We should have forward thinking on what our management system might look like 1,5, 10, 20 or 30 years from now. Now as we saw above, the second pillar was the prohibition on the sale of wildlife.

Prohibition on commerce of Wildlife

Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.

What does it actually mean to “Prohibit” the sale of wildlife. Currently we allow the sale of furbearing species, their pelts and their meat. It is however, taboo to eat beaver, muskrat, fox, coyote etc. Also some of them are quite disgusting to eat depending on their diet. The reason that this exists is because a conservation purpose underlies the exception. So it’s illegal to sell wildlife except furbearers.

What about the greater New York City, Long Island, Ithaca, New Jersey and increasingly urbanized areas. Populations of deer in Westchester, Suffolk and Tompkins country are much higher than the habitat can support. A conservation problem exists. So what do we do? Some might say a conservation purpose underlies an exception. Here’s a solution you might not be so happy with.

Highly-regulated controlled commercial harvest by a group of skilled hunters. Now this proposal is limited to regions that are bordering increasingly urban areas as sub/urbanization decreases habitat availability for our wildlife. But the argument is that we need to create a better incentive for reducing wildlife in these areas.

Westchester county has learned with their bow-only management program that regardless of how many participants are admitted into the program, consistently only a small group of top hunters, about 10%, are responsible for the majority of deer harvest each year.

Tompkins county is learning something similar with it’s program as well. I’ll be headed up there this weekend for a shot at up to two deer a day and the program has been inadequate in protecting biodiversity as a result of overpopulation.

We are working to create an economic incentive so that people care about wildlife. Why should anyone care about animals when you never see them, you don’t have a relationship with them, nor do you experience them on a consistent basis.

Perhaps there is room in the model for regulated commercial harvest. In Scandinavian countries wildlife is a private resource to do whatever individuals wish to if it is on their property. Their wildlife populations are relatively stable. I am not advocating taking away a public resource but rather adding a very different tool in the belt of conservationists. Forward thinking hunters were the first to institute regulation after the war-torn past of market hunting destroyed large swaths of wildlife.

To many hunters this may seem sacrilegious. I might argue that factory farming is sacrilege. I might argue that deforestation is sacrilege. I might argue a logarithmic fall in biodiversity is sacrilege. Hopefully our view on the sanctity of our wildlife is enough to save them, whether we give new tools to conservationists or not.

We❤ our readers. Excited to continue the conversation. Find us at foodpioneer.com