Content uploaded by John Organ
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Organ on May 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why hunting has defined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
... The NAMWC is a philosophical model and set of principles that guides wildlife management and conservation decisions in the US and Canada. It has its origins in the 19th century conservation movement and was formally described by Geist et al. (2001) as being characterized by protected areas, restricted commercial exploitation of wildlife, common laws and regulations dedicated to species and habitat conservation, state and federal wildlife management, and dedicated systems of funding for conservation (Geist, 2006;Geist et al., 2001;Geist & McTaggart-Cown, 1995). The NAMWC is commonly taught in university wildlife programs and forms the basis of the philosophies of many state, provincial, and federal natural resource agencies in the United States and Canada (Feldpausch-Parker et al., 2017). ...
... The NAMWC is a philosophical model and set of principles that guides wildlife management and conservation decisions in the US and Canada. It has its origins in the 19th century conservation movement and was formally described by Geist et al. (2001) as being characterized by protected areas, restricted commercial exploitation of wildlife, common laws and regulations dedicated to species and habitat conservation, state and federal wildlife management, and dedicated systems of funding for conservation (Geist, 2006;Geist et al., 2001;Geist & McTaggart-Cown, 1995). The NAMWC is commonly taught in university wildlife programs and forms the basis of the philosophies of many state, provincial, and federal natural resource agencies in the United States and Canada (Feldpausch-Parker et al., 2017). ...
... The first principle of the NAMWC is the idea that wildlife is a communal resource held in trust for the public by the government (Geist et al., 2001). This concept comes from the American Public Trust Doctrine, which derives its legal basis from an 1848 US Supreme Court ruling built around Chief Justice Roger Taney's interpretation of the English Magna Carta, which was in turn based on the Roman Institutes of Justinian of 529 CE (Organ et al., 2012). ...
Efforts to recruit, retain, and include Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) in environmental fields often falls short, in part, due to limited conceptualizations of conservation and environment. At the core of this is the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, an important approach to conservation and wildlife management that has influenced conservation globally. This model, however, is based upon a specific subset of worldviews, driven by Western and Eurocentric constructions of wilderness and nature. This model creates a narrow view of human‐environment relationships and erases cultures and communities that explicitly view themselves as part of nature. We review the seven tenets of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, highlighting their limitations and exclusion of other models of environmental and natural resource management and alternative relationships with nature. In order to support long‐term environmental engagement and culturally responsive research, 21st century environmental practitioners should shift our thinking around conservation to center counter narratives of BIPOC communities, scientists, and professionals as part of and meaningfully connected to nature. We argue that relying solely on the historically dominant language and ideologies at the core of the North American Model perpetuates disparities in environmental engagement and limits retention of BIPOC in environmental fields. We further highlight how shifts in understanding conservation and relationships to nature enables us to re‐frame our work to support equitable, inclusive, and just conservation science and practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Examples of third-order change in U.S. sh and wildlife conservation include the formation of the rst federal U.S. sh and wildlife conservation agency (the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries in 1871), followed shortly by the passage of a series of important laws (e.g., the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950). ese laws in uenced development of the NAM (Geist 1995;Geist et al. 2001;Organ et al. 2012), the privatization of wildlife movement (Geist 1988;Robbins and Lunginbuhl 2005), and the closure of the commons to public hunting and shing (e.g., Serenari and Peterson 2016). ...
... This divide presents a paradox for many states in the eastern and midwestern United States like Indiana in which 97% of land is under private ownership: deer management relies heavily on the cooperation of local property owners who may be increasingly skeptical of hunters and unwilling to provide access to their land. Under the North American Model (NAM) of wildlife conservation(Geist 1995, Geist et al. 2001, state agencies are entrusted to manage wildlife populations and their habitat for the equal benefit of all citizens, a principle known as the public trust ideal(Decker et al. 1996, Pomeranz et al. 2014). Yet the NAM's historical foundation and legal funding structure (i.e., financial reliance on fees collected from hunting permits) have advanced the concerns of white male hunters, affording little consideration to those of non-hunters, women, and other minorities(Yarbrough 2015, Peterson and. ...
... Managers of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) recommend hunting regulations based on science and stakeholder input with the intent that harvest outcomes are appropriate for the management goals of an area (Smith and Coggin 1984, Geist et al. 2001, Riley et al. 2002, Hansen 2011, Organ et al. 2012. Fifteen state agencies indicate using some form of antler restriction to help achieve management goals (Quality Deer Management Association [QDMA] 2018). ...
Stakeholder input is part of the decision‐making process in wildlife management but reaching a decision that satisfies everyone may be impractical when stakeholders are divided on a particular issue or regulation. Antler point restrictions for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are intended to protect yearling males from harvest by hunters. Still, stakeholders debate the value of using antler restrictions to achieve harvest goals. In 2013, Michigan implemented antler point restrictions in 12 counties in the northwest area of the state. Using a series of piecewise regressions and annual harvest data from 23 counties in Michigan, we tested the hypotheses that antler point restrictions caused a change in the age structure of harvested male deer (H1), antlerless harvest (H2), and hunter numbers (H3). We found support for H1, but we did not find support for the other hypotheses. Based on our results, antler point restrictions would be a useful tool where the management goal is to advance the age structure of the male segment of the white‐tailed deer harvest. However, we found no evidence that implementing antler point restrictions would help managers increase the antlerless harvest or recruit more hunters to the area. Therefore, managers might consider using antler point restrictions to reduce the harvest of yearling males, but these regulations are unlikely to have notable or lasting impacts on antlerless harvest or hunter numbers. Our results confirm that antler point restrictions are effective at increasing the age structure of harvested male white‐tailed deer. However, we found no evidence that antler point restrictions influenced the trajectory in the number of hunters or antlerless harvest in Michigan during the study period.
... The NAM is a set of seven tenets that portrays and promotes conservation and hunting of the public domain [21]. However, these seven tenets of the NAM were created by Western wildlife biologists using colonial rhetoric and conservation values [22,23]; they are rooted in Western conceptions of property, human-animal relations, and science [24]. According to the sixth tenet of the NAM, science is the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy; however, Western science paradigms are the only formally recognized way of monitoring wildlife [25]. ...
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is becoming more prominent in wildlife management decisions and policy making. The cooperation of TEK and Western science paradigms have been beneficial for conserving our natural resources and wildlife populations. However, there are still concerns with accepting TEK as part of wildlife management, policy, and regulations. With increasing challenges to wildlife conservation, it is vital to implement Indigenous TEK to form more robust and holistic approaches to wildlife management. Here, we present two case studies in the upper Midwest region of the United States involving the Ojibwe tribe that show the importance of TEK collaboration and how that knowledge can be used for the betterment of ecologically sensitive species—lake sturgeon and eastern timber wolves.
Having reproducible and transparent science‐based processes in wildlife management ensures the integrity of decision making. These processes are particularly important when establishing harvest frameworks, as guiding information in the peer‐reviewed literature is limited. We provide an example using multiple data sets, whose products guided aspects of the development of a harvest framework for a population of recolonizing American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) in Missouri, USA. To characterize the spatial distribution of harvest, we used 10 years (2010–2019) of black bear global positioning system (GPS) location data and 30 years (1991–2020) of sightings data to assess spatial vulnerability to harvest as the intersection among information on bear occurrence, bear sightings, and hunter land‐use tendencies (i.e., the avoidance of steep slopes, large distances from roads). We then used the spatial vulnerability assessment, information on the distribution of public and private lands, and easily discernable boundaries (i.e., major highways, rivers) to suggest boundaries for bear management zones. Additionally, to identify the timing of harvest that would limit female harvest bias, we assessed the temporal vulnerability of harvest using sex‐based changes in average daily step lengths and monthly utilization distribution sizes during fall. Black bear occurrence and sighting propensity was greater in southwestern Missouri, and potential hunter land use appeared pervasive across the landscape given the lack of landscape features that would disincentivize use. Given the influence of black bear occurrence and sighting propensity, spatial harvest vulnerability diminished from southern and southeastern to central portions of Missouri, with areas north of the Missouri River not a part of the established black bear range. We consequently divided areas south of the Missouri River into 3 black bear management zones: a small southwestern zone with primarily private lands and high harvest vulnerability, a southeastern zone that encompassed considerable public lands and moderate amounts of vulnerability, and a central zone that was composed mainly of areas of low vulnerability. Temporally, males did not exhibit movement‐based changes, but females became less active after the first week of October and used 63.9% less area through fall. Based on movements rates of males and females, a hunting season after the first week of October could reduce the likelihood of females being harvested. Harvests from the black bear harvest season in 2021 suggest that the proportion of bears harvested in each zone was similar in distribution to the proportion of permits allocated across zones with no harvest sex bias, which was aligned with agency goals. Animal movement and space use data products can guide harvest framework decision‐making.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the historic development of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation’s seven elements, and its male-gender-specific narrative under the belief of human entitlement. The chapter also explains briefly the NAM’s ethical, and scientific grounding shaped by outdated beliefs. To properly discuss the reach and impacts of the model, it is necessary to name some key individuals responsible for its popularity and related wildlife policy. This will more clearly identify the important links between the wildlife conservation field and its companion industry of wildlife killing, also known as the ‘Conservation-Industrial Complex.’ This network of organizations includes governmental agencies, professional as well as hunting and trapping associations, universities, corporations, the global trophy hunting and fur trade, and lobbying forces. Their work results in a pervasive, well-funded, legislative defense of wildlife killing methods despite growing concern among the public for the wellbeing of individual wild animals.
The management of wildlife in the United States and Canada, including the monitoring and maintenance of the health of wildlife populations and the ecosystems on which they depend, are conducted under a set of principles that aim for sustainable use. This set of principles is known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (the Model), and it guides wildlife management and conservation decisions in both countries. The purpose of this perspective is to highlight how wildlife health is an important part of the Model and is vital to its future. It is proposed that wildlife health and the Model support one another. First, the history and fundamental ideas of a public trust that shaped the Model are reviewed. Next, wildlife health is defined and examples are offered that highlight how the Model supports wildlife health and how health affects the Model, as well as the limitations or threats if one moves away from the Model's defining principles. Finally, controversies surrounding the Model are reviewed and a perspective on the future is offered, based in large part on the work of Aldo Leopold. Leopold's thinking about health of the land and its organisms was well ahead of its time, and the scientific underpinnings of his writings in making the case for wildlife health and the Model are recounted. As a simple addendum to Leopold's land ethic, a plea for a health ethic is called for, whereby healthy wildlife and healthy landscapes are an obligation of the Model and modern society because health "tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community."41.
This document provides a variety of potential provisions for state legislators. Each provision attempts to address and improve different facets of identifying and protecting state wildlife movement and habitat connectivity. The following pages provide rationales for enhancing existing or creating new provisions and, where available, include examples of model or sample legislative language. Although intended to be sufficiently flexible to apply anywhere in the U.S., the sample provisions included in the document are not tailored to any specific state. As a result, those provisions may require additional modifications or refinements, depending upon the state’s desired goal, as well
as the enactment of additional provisions related to compliance, enforcement, or other avenues of accountability.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.