North American Conservation Model, 7 Pillars

[AT Hiker]

I was listening to a podcast the other day and a comment was made about the "role of hunters in the North America Conservation Model". I wanted to fact check the statements and in my search I stumbled upon a article by Shane Mahoney. I really like this guy, not only is he an excellent lecturer on wildlife but his voice is pure brilliance. If you have never heard him speak, do yourself a favor and listen to him.

Anyways, this article is excellent for describing the Conservation model. I think everyone should read it, both hunter/fisher and those that do not partake.



http://conservationvisions.com/sites/de ... part_3.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vermin93]

Mark Kenyon's interview of Shane Mahoney on the Wired to Hunt podcast is a good listen and I agree that Shane's voice is pretty entertaining.

Here it is for those who would like to listen.

Shane Mahoney and the history and future of hunting in North America.

http://wiredtohunt.com/2015/12/10/w...e-history-future-of-hunting-in-north-america/

 

[jaybird62]

Shane is my favorite orator. Period. I met him back in the '90s when I was working for the NWTF. I scheduled him for a speaking engagement at one of our conferences. After the first one, I used him several more times. Great man.

 

[BSK]

Anyways, this article is excellent for describing the Conservation model. I think everyone should read it, both hunter/fisher and those that do not partake.

http://conservationvisions.com/sites/de ... part_3.pdf

I couldn't agree more AT Hiker. Every hunter/fisherman should read and understand the North American Conservation Model, and understand what is different about it than other systems used around the world. In my opinion, it's critical hunters understand WHY our system has been so successful--so that they don't unintentionally undermine the critical aspects of it.

As some read through it, they will realize there are aspects of the Model that should prompt discussion and debate in today's hunting world. For instance, the most critical aspect of our Model--the one consideration that truly saved North American wildlife--was the prohibition on the commercial use of wildlife; i.e. the selling of game animals. As stated in the article, "Hunters and anglers led the effort to eliminate killing wildlife for profit." Now this provision was intended to stop the sale of game animals as a commercial meat source for resale in meat markets and restaurants. However, is what "Trophy Ranches" are doing not also the "killing of wildlife for profit?" These Trophy Ranches will claim they are only selling access to hunt trophy animals, but when fees are determined by the inches of antler killed, I don't think their argument holds up. Now I'm not suggesting that these type of enterprises absolutely violate the North American Conservation Model, but I do think these commercial enterprises role in hunting deserves debate and discussion. I WILL suggest STRONGLY that the buying and selling of "breeder bucks" and other game animals for profit IS in violation of the North American Model and should be outlawed.

Another aspect of the Model that in my opinion deserves debate and discussion is the idea of freedom of access to a publicly held resource. One of the primary problems with European wildlife management was that the "landed gentry" owned the wildlife on their lands and can do what they please with them. With the American Model, the government owns the wildlife everywhere and holds these animals in the publics trust, and manages them for the publics benefit. However, in America we still have to balance the legal rights of landowners to control access to their properties against the right of the people to access wildlife they collectively own. Again, I believe this is an area deserving of debate and discussion.

 

[Mike Belt]

A Sand County Almanac

 

[TheLBLman]

Leupold

 

[BSK]

Mike and The LBLman,

In my opinion, "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leupold, is still the best dissertation on wildlife management philosophy ever written.

 

[Mike Belt]

Agreed! When I first read it in around 1970 I was already deeply involved in the outdoors. It made a profound impact on me even then.

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . . it's critical hunters understand WHY our system has been so successful--so that they don't unintentionally undermine the critical aspects of it.

VERY MUCH AGREE!

However, is what "Trophy Ranches" are doing not also the "killing of wildlife for profit?" These Trophy Ranches will claim they are only selling access to hunt trophy animals, but when fees are determined by the inches of antler killed, I don't think their argument holds up. Now I'm not suggesting that these type of enterprises absolutely violate the North American Conservation Model, but I do think these commercial enterprises role in hunting deserves debate and discussion.

Let's do it.
Sounds like you ARE suggesting these type enterprises violate the NA model?

Personally, I don't have much issue with the costs being commensurate to the harvest.
When I buy a lobster dinner, I expect to pay more than for a hamburger. And if the waitress does a great job, she gets a larger tip.

I WILL suggest STRONGLY that the buying and selling of "breeder bucks" and other game animals for profit IS in violation of the North American Model and should be outlawed.

How so?
I also agree the buying & selling of "breeder bucks" is a bad idea, but how does it violate the NA model?

Another aspect of the Model that in my opinion deserves debate and discussion is the idea of freedom of access to a publicly held resource. One of the primary problems with European wildlife management was that the "landed gentry" owned the wildlife on their lands and can do what they please with them. With the American Model, the government owns the wildlife everywhere and holds these animals in the publics trust, and manages them for the publics benefit. However, in America we still have to balance the legal rights of landowners to control access to their properties against the right of the people to access wildlife they collectively own. Again, I believe this is an area deserving of debate and discussion.

Care to elaborate more?

I think the landowner SHOULD generally control who accesses his property.
But what about when a very small landowner (say has 5 acres) annually kills the "public" deer that normally "inhabit" the adjoining 500 acres as well, where another/other landowner(s) prefer NOT to have so many of "their" deer (or particular deer) killed annually? In many cases a very small landowner is adversely effecting both a public resource as well as the opportunities of other landowners regarding what they prefer to do on their land if not for the behavior of an adjoining landowner? In this case, a small minority is greatly (adversely) effecting a large majority?

I am mainly "thinking" here in the context of free-roaming deer which generally "roam" over not hundreds, but actually thousands of acres over the course of a year, and within that context, most landowners "own" less than 100 acres of these deer's "range" typically encompassing numerous landowners (at least in TN). It can be a very different discussion should the game be changed to rabbits, migratory birds, or how about fish in a pond?

If I kill all the rabbits that roam my land, it probably would have little effect on the rabbits roaming my neighbor's land. But if I annually wipe out most of the 1 1/2-yr-old bucks on my land, I may be wiping them out on my neighbors' as well?

 

[AT Hiker]

I WILL suggest STRONGLY that the buying and selling of "breeder bucks" and other game animals for profit IS in violation of the North American Model and should be outlawed.

How so?
I also agree the buying & selling of "breeder bucks" is a bad idea, but how does it violate the NA model?

Wildlife belongs to the public according to our model. Selling "breeder bucks" is hardly beneficial to US.

I will admit that I was, partly still am, ignorant to these high fenced operations. My previous stance was "who cares, it doesn't effect me". Now, I see it completely different.

In addition, as I have mentioned before in other post, that the far right Republicans are not helping matters when it comes to wildlife management. Auctioning off state tags (especially those from the public pool), wanting to transfer public lands, giving land owners and special interest groups MORE rights to OUR wildlife. Its happening blatantly in the Western states now, just wait until it moves East.

I believe one New England state has even proposed a type of market hunting to help control deer numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BSK]

However, is what "Trophy Ranches" are doing not also the "killing of wildlife for profit?" These Trophy Ranches will claim they are only selling access to hunt trophy animals, but when fees are determined by the inches of antler killed, I don't think their argument holds up. Now I'm not suggesting that these type of enterprises absolutely violate the North American Conservation Model, but I do think these commercial enterprises role in hunting deserves debate and discussion.

Let's do it.
Sounds like you ARE suggesting these type enterprises violate the NA model?

Personally, I don't have much issue with the costs being commensurate to the harvest.
When I buy a lobster dinner, I expect to pay more than for a hamburger. And if the waitress does a great job, she gets a larger tip.

I WILL suggest STRONGLY that the buying and selling of "breeder bucks" and other game animals for profit IS in violation of the North American Model and should be outlawed.

How so?
I also agree the buying & selling of "breeder bucks" is a bad idea, but how does it violate the NA model?

TheLBLman,

In both situations--the Trophy Ranch and the selling of breeder bucks--the intent is to sell an actual animal for profit. That flies in the face of the first and most important principle of the NAC Model--elimination of the killing/selling of wildlife for profit.

Now I can think of a bunch of ways other business endeavors are philosophically similar, but in none of them is a physical animal being sold.

Another aspect of the Model that in my opinion deserves debate and discussion is the idea of freedom of access to a publicly held resource. One of the primary problems with European wildlife management was that the "landed gentry" owned the wildlife on their lands and can do what they please with them. With the American Model, the government owns the wildlife everywhere and holds these animals in the publics trust, and manages them for the publics benefit. However, in America we still have to balance the legal rights of landowners to control access to their properties against the right of the people to access wildlife they collectively own. Again, I believe this is an area deserving of debate and discussion.

Care to elaborate more?

As a landowner, I fully concur that landowners have the right to decide who is on his or her property at any time and what they can do while there. However, at some point in land size, we're back to the European Model of wildlife management where the landowner owns the wildlife, as only a small percentage of the wildlife ever leaves a huge private piece of property. Can or should anything be done about this? That's the point of my question. Personally, I don't see how without trampling on property ownership rights, but perhaps someone has a good idea.

I think the landowner SHOULD generally control who accesses his property.
But what about when a very small landowner (say has 5 acres) annually kills the "public" deer that normally "inhabit" the adjoining 500 acres as well, where another/other landowner(s) prefer NOT to have so many of "their" deer (or particular deer) killed annually? In many cases a very small landowner is adversely effecting both a public resource as well as the opportunities of other landowners regarding what they prefer to do on their land if not for the behavior of an adjoining landowner? In this case, a small minority is greatly (adversely) effecting a large majority?

I am mainly "thinking" here in the context of free-roaming deer which generally "roam" over not hundreds, but actually thousands of acres over the course of a year, and within that context, most landowners "own" less than 100 acres of these deer's "range" typically encompassing numerous landowners (at least in TN). It can be a very different discussion should the game be changed to rabbits, migratory birds, or how about fish in a pond?

If I kill all the rabbits that roam my land, it probably would have little effect on the rabbits roaming my neighbor's land. But if I annually wipe out most of the 1 1/2-yr-old bucks on my land, I may be wiping them out on my neighbors' as well?

All good point TheLBLman, but again, if we start saying that the landowners with the largest properties--who might be "harmed" by the actions of smaller land-holding neighbors--get to "make the rules to their benefit," then we're right back to the European Model. Ultimately, the professionals employed by the public trust get to decide what the appropriate harvest numbers are for the entire area, realizing that a few could exploit those rules and cause harm to neighbors.

 

[TheLBLman]

Just to be clear, I believe commercial "deer farming" and/or the selling of so-called "breeder bucks" are overall of more harm than good, and would be particularly bad ideas to try to establish in states (such as TN) currently void of such "industry".

In both situations--the Trophy Ranch and the selling of breeder bucks--the intent is to sell an actual animal for profit. That flies in the face of the first and most important principle of the NAC Model--elimination of the killing/selling of wildlife for profit.

Now I can think of a bunch of ways other business endeavors are philosophically similar, but in none of them is a physical animal being sold.

I have a cattle farm. My "intent" is to sell actual physical animals for profit. :tu:
OK, cows are not "wild" life, although an occasional heifer could qualify.
That said, just how different is the selling of deer (philosophically) from the commercial selling of bobwhite quail? Or mallard ducks?

. . . . . at some point in land size, we're back to the European Model of wildlife management where the landowner owns the wildlife, as only a small percentage of the wildlife ever leaves a huge private piece of property. Can or should anything be done about this? That's the point of my question. Personally, I don't see how without trampling on property ownership rights, but perhaps someone has a good idea.

But then how many properties are THAT huge, particularly in TN?
And, if a property is that huge, how many don't allow public hunting for a "reasonable" access cost?

By a larger margin than any private landowner in Tennessee, I would argue that my hunting rights are being trampled on more by the National Park Service, since they don't allow any hunting inside the Smokey Mountain National Park. Or how about a National Wildlife Refuge implementing a program to decimate the deer herds on thousands of acres, adversely effecting deer populations on any adjoining private properties?

. . . . if we start saying that the landowners with the largest properties--who might be "harmed" by the actions of smaller land-holding neighbors--get to "make the rules to their benefit," then we're right back to the European Model. Ultimately, the professionals employed by the public trust get to decide what the appropriate harvest numbers are for the entire area, realizing that a few could exploit those rules and cause harm to neighbors.

Not disagreeing with this, but these ideals cut both ways.
I believe the most "European" models of wildlife management (at least in TN) are more centered in large national parks and national wildlife refuges than large privately owned properties. In fact, in today's world (and in part because of the success of the NA model) the more legitimate of concerns MAY be regarding the exploits of some with smaller properties adversely effecting their neighbors' properties (both large & small).

Part of what I'm trying to communicate is the conversation must address not just the effect of extremely large landowners on those "public" deer, but the effect of the extremely more numerous very small landowners. Under the assumption that those professionals employed by the public trust establish game laws based on, say the killing of one deer per every 300 acres in a county, what happens when the average 300-acre land mass is owned by 30 different individuals, each owning only 10 acres? To say the least, makes a good case against hunting over bait?