III. Comprehensive Laws & Management Emerge

This HISTORY is an ongoing personal project that has evolved from a number of volunteer presentations. It is a draft and not for attribution. All comments and corrections welcome.

 7. A CHANGE IN THE TIDE

There for the Taking

The 1800s and early 1900s saw largely unfettered access to public lands. Fueled by industrial growth and the near absence of regulation, the resulting damage to forest, range, and water resources taught hard lessons of the “tragedy of the commons” where individual self-interest trumped any concern for the conservation and wise management of natural resources for the public.

Fortunately, a wave of individuals, including Rosalie Edge, George Bird Grinnell, Harriet Hemenway, George Perkins Marsh, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Theodore Roosevelt, along with organizations such as the Audubon Societies and Boone and Crockett Club fulminated for the passage of game laws and land-use regulations that preserved the right of access conditional on the privilege of access. Presidents and Congress began to create forest reserves and wildlife refuges, ultimately setting aside millions of acres.

Ceding Land for Public Purposes

In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, the U.S. Senate granted a tract of federal land to the State of California “known as Yosemite Valley… with the stipulation that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation… for all time.” As Chris Madson (2018) points out, up until that summer day in 1864, Congress and the federal government had viewed the federal estate, amassed by purchase, treaty, or conquest, as land to be conveyed or sold to individuals and industry for their own economic use. Now, for the first time, the federal government was acquiring or ceding land for public purposes.

In 1873, Franklin Hough addressed the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the "Duty of Governments in the Preservation of Forests.” Hough detailed the increasing over harvest of timber and documented efforts to establish forest reserves in Europe. The following year Interior Secretary Columbus Delano stated his concern for the rapid, ongoing destruction of timber on public lands. Absent some form of legislative protection, Delano warned, all trees of value would soon be gone. Such concern for conserving timberlands would continue to grow and in 1891 Present Benjamin Harrison established America’s first “national forest,” the Yellowstone National Park Timberland Reserve, followed by an additional 14 forest reserves totaling 13 million acres.[40] The first dedicated “wildlife refuge” was the Afognak Forest and Fish Culture Reserve in southwest Alaska, created by executive order in 1892.

Creation of Public Lands

The greatest expansion of public lands dedicated for the public good would await the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. In the span of seven years, 1903-1909, President Roosevelt created or enlarged 150 national forests, designated 16 national monuments (including Devils Tower in Wyoming and Grand Canyon, Arizona), and created 51 wildlife refuges in 17 states and three territories beginning with Pelican Island Federal Bird Reservation in Florida—a total of 148 million acres.[41] These forests, monuments, and refuges were carved out of the federal estate over the protests of many in Congress who heard the howls of their constituents back home against actions that placed the interests of wildlife and natural resource conservation before the wishes of the voters, especially the special interests of mining, timber, and grazing. See Chapter 15 “The Public Domain.”

Wildlife Need Habitat and More Protection

While fish and wildlife conservation efforts were well underway prior to 1900, they were proving inadequate to the task. At the turn of the century, William T. Hornaday lamented, “It seems as if all the killable game of North America, except rabbits, is now being crushed to death between the upper millstone of industries and trade, and the conglomerate lower millstone made up by the killers of wildlife.”[42] For example, the primary federal agency charged with fish and wildlife matters was the Bureau of Biological Survey, housed within the Department of Agriculture, and primarily concerned with wildlife in terms of their impacts to agriculture.

But pressure continued to build from organizations like the Boone & Crockett Club, the Audubon societies, and local sportsmen’s groups. Understanding that the loss of habitat also meant the loss of places to hunt, it stood to reason that selected areas should be set aside that provided both refuges for wildlife and places to hunt. In 1919, John Burnham, president of the American Game Protection Association, wrote, “Public shooting grounds must be established for the rank and file of the gunners who cannot afford to belong to exclusive clubs. This is the duty of the State, but the sportsmen must take the initiative… With the public shooting grounds must come more reserves where the birds should have absolute protection, for as the country becomes more settled, shooting would become impossible without them.”  While fish doubtlessly benefited, the majority of these early efforts focused on waterfowl and upland game.[43]

The period 1900-1930 saw states increasingly codify bag limits and other wildlife laws, and a number of federal laws enacted that still form the foundation for fish and wildlife conservation today. Some examples:

• Lacey Act (1900) and Black Bass Act (1926). The Lacey Act made it a federal offense to transport wild animals or birds killed from one state to another in violation of state or territorial law. While the Lacey Act stated “wild animals or birds” without limitation, in practice its protections extended only to gamebirds and fur-bearing animals. The Black Bass Act expressly extended protection to black bass (smallmouth and largemouth).

• Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (1916) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) with Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada) provided the constitutional foundation for federal regulation of migratory birds, and initiated a cross-boundary effort with Canada to halt the decline of migratory bird species, in large part due to unregulated hunting.

• Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929) enacted authority for acquisition of migratory bird habitat and creation of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

SIDEBAR- John F. Lacey, “Conservation’s Most Unsung Hero”

8. STATES GET SERIOUS ABOUT FISH AND GAME

States Embrace Game Legislation

In 1710, Massachusetts prohibited the use of watercraft disguised with hay, seaweed, or other camouflage for hunting waterfowl. By the end of the 18th century, 14 of the 16 existing states had enacted some collection of game laws including no hunting on Sunday, no hunting at night with use of fire light, and enacting closed seasons for deer, wild turkey, and Heath Hen.[44]

By 1850, 19 of the 30 existing states had embraced game protection legislation of some sort. Connecticut and New Jersey passed the first “nongame” laws protecting insectivorous birds. West of the Mississippi, the only recorded game law restricted hunting on Indian lands. By 1880, game legislation had been enacted in all 48 states including prohibitions on waste of game (Wyoming, 1871), hide hunting (Oregon, 1874) and market hunting (Arkansas, 1875). Other innovations included bag limits on game birds (Iowa, 1878) and mandated rest days for wildfowl (Maryland, 1872, and New Jersey, 1879). The first game commissions were established in California and New Hampshire in 1878 and the first nonresident license legislated in New Jersey (1873) and Delaware (1879).[45]

Today’s hunters and anglers might envy some of the earliest bag limits. For example:

• Iowa, 25 prairie chicken daily limit (1878)

• Oregon, 125 trout per day (1901)

• Oregon, 50 ducks per day or 100 per week (1901)

But as Dian Belander notes, “Sensitive observers began to see that such profligacy could not go on indefinitely, but any limit was considered an infringement of individual rights in many circles... the tension between personal freedoms and the greater good of society would ever be a major theme in conservation history, as in all history.”[46]

In Montana, the territorial legislature enacted the first wildlife law in 1854, limiting fishing methods to pole, hook, and line as the only legal means for catching trout. The first game bird laws were passed in 1869 and hunting seasons for antelope, buffalo, bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and other game were set in 1872. In 1895, the Montana Legislature created the Board of Game Commissioners, a formal state conservation agency, to oversee Montana’s wildlife resources. Among the Board’s first actions were establishing bag limits, setting hunting seasons, and hiring game wardens to enforce them. The first game warden was hired in 1889 (the year Montana achieved statehood) and the Montana Fish and Game Department was established in 1901 with one state game warden as its first and only employee. Hunting and fishing licenses for in-state residents were required in 1905 and the funds from sale of licenses and fines imposed on violators helped fund the state’s court system. Montana’s first resident hunting license for deer and elk sold for one dollar.[47]

In 1930, Aldo Leopold and a distinguished group of individuals were asked by the American Game Institute (now the Wildlife Management Institute) to draft a policy for game management. The resulting “American Game Policy” acknowledged that existing conservation programs were inadequate to stem the declines in wildlife.[48] The resulting policy laid out a broad vision, calling for a program of game animal restoration, implemented by scientifically trained professionals, and supported by a stable funding source. The policy declared that it was time for wildlife management to “be recognized as a distinct profession and developed accordingly.” In 1973, the policy was developed into the “North American Wildlife Policy” to meet growing conservation challenges including human population growth and increased demand on fish and wildlife resources. The updated policy proposed a broad range of recommended reforms from nongame and predators to hunting heritage and incentives for private landowners.[49] 

In 1934, states began adopting a set of model game laws prepared by the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners (today’s Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). In principle, such laws were to be established by nonpartisan commissions who promulgated regulations and policy based on the recommendations of biologists and scientists.[50]

The roles and responsibilities of Montana’s Fish and Wildlife Commission is typical of many state fish and wildlife agencies:

Training Wildlife Management Professionals

Leopold’s American Game Policy was to be implemented by scientifically trained professionals engaged in the distinct profession of wildlife management. To fill this need the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit program was established in 1935 to create a steady supply of trained wildlife researchers, biologists, and managers for the growing wildlife conservation effort. The first unit was established at Iowa State College with a plan for nine more at land-grant colleges and universities around the country. The program would be financed jointly by the federal government, state wildlife agency and participating college or university. A program for fisheries, the Cooperative Fishery Research Units, was initiated in 1961.

Today, the Cooperative Research program for wildlife and fisheries numbers 40 units in 38 states. In Montana, Montana State University-Bozeman hosts the Montana Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit while the University of Montana-Missoula hosts the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.

Each coop unit is a partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, state natural resource agency, host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Across the United States, the program continues to enhance graduate education in fisheries and wildlife sciences and to facilitate research between natural resource agencies and universities on topics of mutual concern.

SIDEBAR- Aldo Leopold

SIDEBAR- Building the Better Bureaucracy

The Dirty Thirties

In the 1930s, economic depression and dust storms broke families, businesses, and the landscape. Panic and poverty spread. Hungry and poor, families turned to wildlife for subsistence and conservation gains eroded like the soil itself.

Fortunately for the nation’s fish and wildlife, the ranks of hunters and anglers included leaders of business, industry, and science. The mantle of conservation previously worn by Grinnell, Lacey, Pinchot, Roosevelt, and others was now picked up by the likes of a cartoonist (J.N. “Ding” Darling), a lawyer (Carl Shoemaker), and a professor (Aldo Leopold) who noted, “There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. Like winds and sunset, wild things were taken for granted until progress began to do away with them.” Collectively this next generation of agents took on the challenges of conservation. As Lonnie Williamson (1987) points out, “They were good at their work, but also, they arrived on the scene when the Federal Government was in the most innovative mood and devising programs to beat the Depression… they took advantage of the situation and helped foster the most fruitful decade of wildlife conservation ever.”[51] 

Equally fortunate, the ranks of conservation were also increasingly influenced by women.

9. WOMEN IN CONSERVATION: under-appreciated/under-reported

Simply Not Done

We have seen that fish and wildlife conservation was heavily influenced by sportsmen—white, male, and of economic means. But women had always influenced conservation through societal and spousal relations, and that influence would become increasingly visible in the late 18th century and beyond. This growing profile has strong parallels to the women’s suffrage movement and a broadening concern for the environment.

For most of the 18th century and before, the idea of white women engaging in hunting, fishing, and wildland travel was “simply not done.” As Taylor (2016) observes, upper- and middle-class white women did not enjoy the same leeway to gad about in the wilds forsaking spouses and children as their male counterparts. That said upper- and middle-class white women certainly enjoyed a great deal more privilege as compared with working-class white men and women and people of color.[52]

Something of an exception were Native American women who were less constrained by their tribal traditions—for example, Sacagawea (1788-1812), the Lemhi Shoshone woman known for her assistance to the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and Sarah Winnemucca (1844-1891), the Northern Paiute author, activist and educator, to name just two. Dorceta Taylor’s book The Rise of the American Conservation Movement details the lives of women engaged in everything from wilderness travel and solitude to botany and bird conservation, and she offers a comprehensive look at how race, class, and gender influenced every aspect of the movement.

Thumbnails of other leading women in conservation found in 18. PROFILES IN CONSERVATION.

Defender of Birds, Bruiser of Male Egos

Just as individual men left their mark on the history of conservation, so too did women. One of those women was Rosalie Barrow Edge, arguably one of the most underappreciated figures in the conservation movement.

Born in 1877 into the upper crust of New York society, Rosalie led a privileged life. Vanderbilts and Carnegies were family friends and Charles Dickens was her father’s first cousin. But Rosalie elected to forsake any delicate notions of femininity to campaign for wildlife and national parks. “Rosalie Edge is the unrecognized godmother of the environmental movement,” states Furmansky (2009). As the “hawk of mercy,” Edge was ahead of her time as an outspoken, early 20th century activist in an era that idealized her opposite: the demure, genteel woman.

Edge applied her earlier experience in the women’s suffrage movement to become what many scholars consider one of nature’s most effective protectors since John Muir, and the greatest woman conservationist during her decades-long advocacy. She founded the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary near Kempton, Pennsylvania in 1930, the world’s first preserve for birds of prey. In addition to working to protect raptors, Rosalie organized and chaired the Emergency Conservation Committee from which she actively criticized the predator control policies of the federal government, the shooting of bald eagles in Alaska, and ongoing practices of baiting and the use of live decoys in waterfowl hunting. In person and in print Edge forcefully criticized many of the leading conservation organizations at the time as timid, hidebound, male-dominated, and ineffective at protecting wildlife. Rosalie was described by her adversaries as “strident” “thorny” and “forceful”—attributes that might be admired in a man but not in a woman of her day. Author Furmansky sums up Rosalie Edge’s contribution to conservation as follows:

“During her decades of dominance Edge was considered the greatest woman conservationist, nature’s most effective protector since John Muir… She was known as ‘the most honest, unselfish, indomitable hellcat in the history of conservation.’ But such deportment, it seems, destined Edge for oblivion.”[53] 

SIDEBAR- How Silent Spring Ignited the Environmental Movement

10. HUNTERS PONY UP FOR WILDLIFE

Paying for Wetlands

Shortly after World War I, Chief Game Warden George Lawyer began pitching the idea of a federal hunting stamp to raise funds for the acquisition of wetlands. John Burnham, president of the American Game Protective Association, liked the idea and lobbied the chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, Aldo Leopold, and others to endorse it. Bills were introduced to Congress in 1921 and 1923 but failed to move forward, in part due to opposition from waterfowl hunters and states’ rights advocates. But the proponents persevered and found fertile ground in 1929 with the passage of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The law provided for a refuge system to be financed by congressional appropriations but omitted a reliable funding source. That would take another five years.

A Stamp for Ducks

In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Under the Act, all waterfowl hunters, 16 years of age and older, were required to buy and carry an annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp or simply “Duck Stamp.” This conservation revenue innovation dedicates 98 percent of the purchase price ($1 in 1934, $25 in 2022) goes directly to waterfowl and wetlands habitat. Since its enactment more than $800 million dollars has been deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and used to purchase or lease more than 5.7 million acres of wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System—an area larger than the State of New Jersey.[54]

The first duck stamp was created by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, and his contribution to wildlife conservation didn’t stop there. Ding Darling was a nationally syndicated political cartoonist in Iowa who served under President Franklin Roosevelt as Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey from March 1934-November 1935. During that brief tenure he implemented the Duck Stamp Program, created the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit program, organized the first North American Wildlife Conference, and helped found the National Wildlife Federation. In 1935, Darling would resign from the Bureau to become the Federation’s first president. Ding’s greatest impact may have been in the series of impactful cartoons that ran in newspapers all over the country and left no one in doubt of where his sympathies lay (Sidebar).

The duck stamp became law with the strong of sportsmen, who voluntarily opted to help pay for the privilege of hunting migratory waterfowl, and the concept of “user pays, user benefits” became a vital piece of fish and wildlife management.

SIDEBAR- The Art and Advocacy of Ding Darling

User Pays User benefits Expands

In 1937, the concept of user pays user benefits took a giant step forward with passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act (“P-R”) for its primary Congressional sponsors—Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative Willis Robertson of Virginia. The legislation directed funds collected from an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be dispersed to the states and territories for the acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat. This included introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, surveys and inventories of wildlife, hunter education, and acquisition and development of public access.[55] P-R provides funds on a formula basis (state land area + number of licensed hunters in each state) to pay 75 percent of project costs. The legislation has been amended since its original enactment to extend the excise tax to pistols and revolvers, bows, arrows, and many of their parts and accessories.

P-R calls for an excise tax of 10-11 percent of the wholesale price for long guns, pistols, and ammunition to be paid by manufacturers, producers, and importers and is applied to all commercial sales and imports, whether their purpose is hunting, sport shooting, or personal defense.

In 1951, P-R funds were given a “permanent-indefinite” appropriations status that requires all taxes collected be automatically transferred to the Bureau of Biological Survey (today's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and apportioned to the states and territories. This amended language ensured that all available funds were distributed to the states rather than waiting for Congressional action.

Typical of all conservation success stories, there are the unspoken champions who worked tirelessly to achieve success. In the case of P-R, the spark plug was a lawyer named Carl Shoemaker. A publisher, director of the Oregon Fish Commission, and secretary of the Senate Special Committee on Conservation of Wildlife Resources, Shoemaker led the negotiations, drafted the legislation, and doggedly built support for the program. When it became time to identify Congressional sponsors to introduce the measure, Senators Key Pittman (chairman of the Special Committee on Wildlife), Charles McNary, and others in the Senate signed on immediately.

29 Simple Words

On the House side, Shoemaker turned to Congressman A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, chairman of the Select Committee on Conservation of Wildlife Resources. On reading the bill for the first time Robertson, who had served as chairman of the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries before entering Congress, added a short clause and then readily agreed to introduce the amended bill in the House of Representatives. The clause read:

“… and which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department.” [57]

Many have called Robertson’s clause the most important 29 words in the bill. At the time it was common for state legislatures to divert license fees and other dedicated wildlife funding to other non-wildlife purposes. With Robertson's clause any state who attempted to divert such funds would become ineligible for the program. Further, states could be required to return PR funding if audits found such diversions had occurred. For example, diversion concerns were raised in six states in FY 2010 and seven states in FY 2012. When they arise, federal and state agencies work in concert to rectify identified concerns and state fish and wildlife agencies, and their allies must remain vigilant against efforts to divert hunting and fishing license revenues to other uses.

The first P-R funded project took place in 1938 on the Weber River Delta in Utah where botulism outbreaks were killing large numbers of waterfowl. Using $7,500 in P-R funding matched with $2,500 in state funds, a five-mile long dike was constructed to impound freshwater and prevent intrusions of highly saline water from the Great Salt Lake. Since then, the Wildlife Restoration Program has apportioned $14.6 billion ($22.5 billion in inflation adjusted dollars) to the states and territories and fueled a remarkable public-private partnership for wildlife.[58]  As President Ronald Reagan noted:

“Let those who stand to benefit the most be the ones to shoulder as much of the cost as possible and give the states authority to do the needed work with just enough Federal monitoring to assure high standards of quality.” [59] 

11. FISH GET SOME RESPECT

The success of the Wildlife Restoration Program encouraged anglers to undertake a similar crusade to support fisheries restoration and management. 

The success of the Wildlife Restoration Program encouraged anglers to undertake a similar crusade to support fisheries restoration and management. In 1947, Michigan Congressman John Dingell Sr. introduced a bill modeled after Pittman-Robertson to help fund sport fish programs.[60] Although vetoed by President Truman, the bill ignited increased support from the country’s growing number of anglers. Three years later, Congressman Dingell and Colorado Senator Edwin Johnson introduced a revised bill, and on August 9, 1950, President Truman signed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act into law.

Commonly known today as Dingell-Johnson (D-J), the program applied a 10 percent excise tax on fishing rods, reels, creels, artificial baits, lures, and flies, with the revenue earmarked for sport fish restoration projects. Since 1950, D-J has funded a wide array of state projects from fishing access sites and the removal of invasive species to improved fish ladders and fish disease studies.

As with P-R, states hoping to receive D-J funds must stipulate that no license, permit, tag, and stamp fees—other than those openly exempted—will be diverted for any other purpose than to fund the fisheries functions of the state fisheries management agency.

In 1984, the Wallop-Breaux amendments expanded the list of fishing tackle subject to the 10 percent excise tax and imposed a new three percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors. The law also directed the states to equitably share these new funds between marine and freshwater projects and to allocate 10 percent of funds to boating facilities and aquatic resources education programs. At present revenues are paid from an excise tax on sport fishing equipment, import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and the portion of the gasoline fuel tax attributable to small engines and motorboats.

SIDEBAR- Why Montana Went Wild (an interview with Dick Vincent)

12. THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL of WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Form, Function and Success

The past chapters have highlighted the history of conservation in the United States and the remarkable progress made in conserving fish and wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. How did it come to be? What are the lessons learned in North America’s extraordinary successes in restoring and conserving so many fish and wildlife species?

At the risk of oversimplification, success arose organically with a great deal of energy and vision aided by helpings of serendipity and the intervention of luck. There arose a singular alchemy of amateur sportsmen, social reform-minded individuals, scientists, politicians, and others, tempered by a strong public trust foundation, who were successful in carving out new disciplines in science and management, founding organizations to advocate for new laws and policies, and helping create new governmental agencies to manage the resource.

Today, fish and wildlife conservation is rooted in a comprehensive set of game laws, habitat conservation initiatives, inter-jurisdictional law enforcement, research, education, and the concept of user-based funding.[62] State, federal and tribal governments along with nongovernmental organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Trout Unlimited can proudly take credit for their role in many of the successes.

Over time a set of seven foundational principles has emerged that spell out the form and function of successful wildlife conservation in North American (principally the United States and Canada). These principles comprise the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”

Interestingly the last tenet concerning public funding mechanisms is implied in the seven principles of the Model, but not explicitly stated—it should be. At present, hunters and anglers remain the primary source of conservation funding at the state level. In Montana, for example, revenues from license fees, permits and excise taxes (i.e., Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration) account for 98 to 100 percent of the funding for Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks.

But the numbers of hunters and anglers are in decline, especially as a percentage of the overall population. Consequently, in addition to efforts to recruit, retain, and reactivate (the 3 Rs), there is growing need to develop new approaches to encourage the non-hunting/non-angling public to contribute financially to conserve the fish and wildlife they enjoy and have an equal responsibility to protect.

In addition to securing adequate funding, three other critical improvements to the North American Model deserve attention.

First, the Model needs to include all fish and wildlife species, not simply society’s favorites. Historically, conservation efforts have been classified and prioritized by a species’ apparent usefulness—animals that are angled, hunted, or trapped. Even the term “nongame” is most commonly applied to songbirds and other “watchable” wildlife.

Second, wildlife professionals need to ramp up their engagement and work harder to ground the public in the lessons that has enabled the abundant and diverse wildlife we enjoy today.

Lastly, wildlife professionals need to step up. There is a saying in the world of negotiation that “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Often eschewing the rough and tumble of advocacy and politics, today’s wildlife professionals need to recognize it is not enough to be top-drawer biologists. They must also be able “biopoliticians.” Speaking to the challenges faced by fish and wildlife conservation advocates, the late Jack Ward Thomas, former chief of the U.S. Forest Service, concluded:

These are indeed interesting times, a time of testing. It is useless to look back for the good old days -- they are gone. It is pointless to look around for others to lead -- they aren't there. For better or worse, we're it. Whether they recognize it or not, we are agents of change in how natural resources are treated, considered, and used. If we succeed there will be accolades from historians. If we fail historians will, doubtless, take little notice—but history will be much different. [73]

Mr. Thomas’ words, spoken in 1989, resonate just as urgently, if not more so, today. In many ways little has changed in the substance of fish and wildlife conservation efforts. Many of today’s struggles are the same as those faced by previous generations. Some things, however, have become more complex and challenging—rapidly changing demographics, changes in societal and cultural behavior, and a higher level and broader diversity of public expectations are just three examples.

The enduring value of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is found in it providing a lens through which we can understand, evaluate, and celebrate how conservation has been achieved.[74]

SIDEBAR- The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation-What does it matter? (Shane Mahoney, 2019)

SIDEBAR- The North America Model of Wildlife Conservation (The Wildlife Society, 2012)

___________________

ENDNOTES

[40] Chris Madson, “Why We Have Federal Land, the citizens and leaders behind our public land resources,” Western Confluence (University of Wyoming, Fall 2018), 6-7.

[41] Douglas Brinkley, The Wilderness Warrior, Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2009), 818-830.

[42] Lonnie Williamson, “Evolution of a Landmark Law,” Restoring America’s Wildlife, 1937-1987 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987), 1-2.

[43] Lonnie Williamson, “Evolution of a Landmark Law,” Restoring America’s Wildlife, 5.

[44] T.S. Palmer, Chronology and Index of the More Important Events in America Game Protection, 1776-1911 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1912), 8-10. Efforts to protect the Health Hen (Tympanuchus cupido cupido) would prove too little too late and the species was extirpated from the New England mainland by 1870 and restricted to Martha’s Vineyard where despite heroic preservation attempts, reduced to a lone male in 1928.

[45] T.S. Palmer, Chronology and Index of the More Important Events in America Game Protection, 1776-1911, 11.

[46] Dian Olson Belandger, Managing American Wildlife, A History of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 12.

[47] Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, History (http://fwp.mt.gov/enforcement/wardens/history).

[48] Aldo Leopold, “Report to the American game conference on an American game policy,” Transactions of the American Game Conference 17 (1930): 281-283.

[49] Durward Allen, “Report of the Committee on North American Wildlife Policy,” Wildlife Society Bulletin (Summer 1973): 73-92.

[50] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program, 5-7.

[51] Lonnie Williamson, “Evolution of a Landmark Law,” Restoring America’s Wildlife, 3-4.

[52] Dorceta Taylor, The Rise of the American Conservation Movement (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2016), 83-84.

[53] Dyana Furmansky, “Getting Over Rosalie,” Audubon, January 7, 2010, https://www.audubon.org/news/getting-over-rosalie.

[54] As of September 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. History of the Federal Duck Stamp, https://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp/history-of-the-federal-duck-stamp.php.

[55] An excise tax on long guns and ammo had been in effect since 1919. It was redirected by the P-R Act to wildlife restoration and habitat.

[56] https://tracs.fws.gov/wildlifeRestorationAndHunterEducationApportionments.html

[57] Lonnie Williamson, “Evolution of a Landmark Law,” 11.

[58] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife & Sport Fish Restoration Program, Apportionments/Funding, https://www.fws.gov/program/wildlife-and-sport-fish-restoration/apportionments-and-licenses-data.

[59] August 13, 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, iii.

[60] Congressman Dingell’s conservation work would be continued by his son, John D. Dingell, Jr. (D-MI), the longest serving congressman, 1955-2015.

[61] https://tracs.fws.gov/sportFishRestorationApportionments.html

[62] Joanna Prukop and Ronald Regan, “The Value of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring, 2005): 374.

[63] Shane Mahoney, “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation- What does it really matter?” PERC Reports Vol 38. No. 1 (Summer 2019): 11-12.

[64] Summary analysis drawn from J.F. Organ et al., Summary analysis drawn from J.F. Organ et al., “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04 (December 2012), 11-23.

[65] Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322. (1979).

[66] James Huffman, The Limits of the Public Trust Doctrine, PERC Reports, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Summer 2019): 41.

[67] The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement to ensure international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. First drafted at a 1963 IUCN (The World Conservation Union) meeting, CITES was finalized at a meeting of representatives of 80 countries in 1973 and entered in force in 1975. More than 183 countries are party to the agreement.

[68] For example: Kathleen O’Neil, “Society’s Growing Disconnect with Science Calls for Attention,” American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science (2 November 2016), and D. von Winterfeldt, “Bridging the gap between science and decision making,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (20 August 2013): 14055-61.

[69] A 2015 survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists found 74% of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists reports that consideration of political interests was too high (UCS 2015). A March 2007 Inspector General report found senior officials at the Department of the Interior ordered scientific conclusion to be altered to favor development for agricultural interests. Management decisions for species as diverse as the Alabama Sturgeon and grizzly bear have provided examples of science confronting politics.

[70] J.F. Organ et al., “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04 (December 2012), 22.

[71] J.L. Sax, “The public trust doctrine in natural resource law,” Michigan Law Review 68:484.

[72] J.F. Organ et al., “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” 23.

[73] J.W Thomas, “Effectiveness, the Hallmark of the Natural Resource Management Professional,” Trans. 51st N. A. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf.  Washington, DC:  Wildlife Management Inst. (1989), 27-38. 

[74] J.F. Organ et al., “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” viii.