Wildlife Management and Protection Policy

1. Wildlife Management and Protection Policy Text: Cubbage et al., 1992

2. Wildlife Policy in the US • From laissez faire (“let things be”) philosophy  to recognition of dwindling resources  to mgmt of individual species and populations  to ecosystem mgmt • Before: wildlife policy aimed at conservation of sports game & fish • Now: holistic, include other aspects (ecology, aesthetics, ethics) • ESA of 1973: wildlife protection policy for ecological purposes • Science - to guide wildlife policy: findings interpreted in many ways? • Scientists’ (YOUR) important role in public debates

3. Ownership of Wildlife 2 theories of assigning rights over wildlife: • Rights assigned to individual private decision makers who manage the resources in society’s best interest (under private property rights) Vs. • Rights assigned to a gov’t agency who determine optimal harvest levels for each species, provide equality of access to users (not possible in #1) • essence of American system of property rights in wildlife • rejects traditional private rights in English game law

4. Ownership of Wildlife So, who owns wildlife?

5. Ownership of Wildlife So, who owns wildlife? In reality, wildlife cannot be truly owned by any person, private or governmental!! (Hughes vs. Oklahoma, 1979) (a Supreme Court ruling)

6. Ownership of Wildlife • State regulates wildlife hunting, even on federal lands • States set hunting seasons, conditions, issue licenses • National Parks Service – often ignore state hunting & fishing regs • No hunting on national parks • US Fish & Wildlife Service – can choose to manage wildlife refuges in ways inconsistent with state wildlife law • BLM’s lands – state wildlife law dominates • Forest Service & BLM’s wildlife responsibilities -- directed more toward habitat protection and enhancement

7. Ownership of Wildlife Items to ponder about: • Landowners – have ultimate control over wildlife. Why? • What are the chances of private-public partnership on providing these wildlife access/hunting opportunities here in Iowa? (For. Reserve Law?) • Since responsibility for wildlife is split between the stewards of resident wildlife populations (the state) and their habitat (the landowners), what issues can you think of relating to regulation and habitat management?

8. Wildlife Management Objectives 4 major wildlife mgmt policy goals derived from English law: 1. to provide for sustained periodic harvests 2. to regulate human behavior (use of weapons, methods of taking wildlife) 3. policy favors particular groups (special hunting privileges, licenses) 4. to promote the rights of animals

9. Wildlife Management Objectives Six common wildlife goals among the states: 1. preserve all species and ecosystems 2. provide non-game wildlife enjoyment opportunities 3. provide hunting opportunities for state residents 4. promote econ. development (attract out-of-state hunters) 5. make wildlife mgmt self-supporting (user fees) 6. use of appropriated funds, other sources to support wildlife mgmt programs

10. Wildlife Management Objectives Four categories of activities constituting wildlife mgmt: 1. habitat management 2. predator control 3. species introduction 4. regulation of wildlife consumers

11. Aldo Leopold • Professor of Game Mgmt & Conservationist • A Young Forester, A Game Manager, A Wildlife Ecologist

12. Aldo Leopold (1887 – 1948) • Illustration compared Leopold’s life and the evolution of wildlife mgmt & protection in the US • Born in 1887 in Iowa • Started career as forester with Forest Service • Develop comprehensive way of thinking about relationship between humans and natural world • Wrote first book on game mgmt • Helped launched game mgmt as a profession at Univ. of Wisconsin • Helped establish first administratively protected wilderness area in America • Helped establish Wilderness Society • 1946 – published “A Sand County Almanac” • “Land Ethic”

13. Aldo Leopold: Forester • 1906 – Leopold enrolled at Yale University for a forestry career • 1909 – Leopold got MS degree, joined Forest Service, worked in SW US • Problem in Southwest: Native wildlife stock was depleted; remaining game animals were on national forests. FS had no legislative mandate to administer its lands for wildlife or recreation (Organic Act of 1897 provides for timber and watershed only) • Used forced rest period to think about game conservation and recreation. • Forest Service took Leopold’s idea of recreation  compatible with other forest uses • As chief of recreation planning, Leopold did not favor some areas subdivided for recreation  led to promotion of roadless wilderness areas

14. Aldo Leopold: Wildlife Manager • 1928 – Leopold left the FS; conducted game surveys in the Lake States with funding from a trade association • Game mgmt  survey  appraisal of environmental factors affecting productivity  policy measures to restore game • Replace “kill restrictions” with building up supply through “habitat mgmt” • Considered new policy stressing: • idea of production in the wild • encouraging game protection & habitat mgmt by landowners • cooperation with the conservation movement

15. Aldo Leopold: Wildlife Manager • 1933 – published first ever “Game Management” book • 1934 –on President’s Committee on Wildlife Restoration • states in better position than fed gov’t to encourage game mgmt practice by private landowners • promote idea of research and program admin at state level • 1935 – creation of Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Program, establishing research units in 9 of the nation’s land grant colleges (Iowa State has one – right here at NREM!)

16. Aldo Leopold: Wildlife Ecologist • Studied and found German forestry & wildlife mgmt methods to be highly artificial • Started thinking about systems, not individual species • Objective switched: Indiv. species protection  preserve healthy functioning ecosystem • “The Land Ethic” – “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” • “A Sand County Almanac” – Leopold’s greatest legacy; reflections on interrelations of ecology, aesthetics, and ethics.

17. Monday – March 29, 2010

18. Wildlife Management and Protection Policy(continued)

19. State Wildlife Policy • Controlling the Take • Increasing Populations and Managing Habitat • Non-game Concerns

20. State Wildlife Policy • colonial period to the late 19th century: principal goal of American wildlife policy was unrestricted taking. Animals were slaughtered for 3 Fs: Food, Furs, and Fun • special interest groups that carried through the call for real protection and enforcement of laws: • 1. sports hunters – promoted the sporting values of wildlife • 2. nature lovers – helped develop different attitudes about wildlife • 1880 – all states enacted laws protecting fish & game and most had hired game protectors/wardens • Hunters joined forces with nature lovers & the ladies’ clubs in the 1980s to campaign against the slaughter of plume birds • Lacey Act of 1900 – first general federal wildlife statute.

21. State Wildlife Policy Controlling the Take • Key considerations to early wildlife conservation: 1. policy eliminating killing for mass markets 2. control no. of sports takers – licensing system • Funding from license revenues and federal excise taxes • Wildlife law enforcement significant portion of state wildlife agency personnel & budgets

22. State Wildlife Policy • Principal goal of wildlife mgmt  maintain population at levels best for the animals and consistent with people’s cultural, economic, and social needs; • Manage habitat Non-game Concerns • Policies to protect wildlife have ethical, aesthetic and ecological dimensions, BUT nongame wildlife programs not funded well compared to traditional game programs

23. Federal Wildlife Policy • Starting 1900, Congress enacted a host of wildlife protection statutes • Federal laws  impressive but fragmented, incomplete • Fed laws preserve important roles for states, yet limits state mgmt discretion • States retain control over wildlife within their borders but may exercise power only within framework of federal constitutional law • Principal thrust of federal wildlife policy cooperate with states to facilitate sport goals • New policies reflecting ecological concerns for species preservation are some of most controversial natural resource issues of 1990s.

24. US Fish & Wildlife Service • Administers many of the laws protecting wildlife • Charge: protection & restoration of migratory & endangered wildlife species • 1939: two agencies (USDA Biological Survey, and USDC Bureau of Fisheries) transferred to USDI • 1956: Congress renamed it to US F&W Service • F&WS had 2 bureaus (Bu. of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife and the Bu. of Commercial Fisheries) • Bu. of Comm. Fisheries transferred to Dept of Commerce (1970), and renamed as National Marine Fisheries Service.

25. US Fish & Wildlife Service Mission: “to protect, conserve, and enhance fish & wildlife and their habitats for continuing benefit of the American people”. • The seven principal functions of the agency are: 1. manage national wildlife refuge system of 400 refuges (~ 89 million ac) 2. protect endangered species 3. protect habitat 4. conduct research 5. enforce fish & wildlife laws 6. provide recreational fishing 7. advise other agencies

26. Lacey Act Migratory Bird Conservation Act & Duck Stamp Act Animal Damage Control Act Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act Taylor Grazing Act & Forest Wildlife Refuge Act Fed. Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act Bald Eagle Act Fish Restoration and Mgmt. Act Sikes Act Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Anadromous Fish Conserv. Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Protection Act Fed. Water Pollution Control Laws Marine Mammal Protection Act Endangered Species Act Fishery Conservation & Mgmt Act Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Pacific Northwest Power Planning Conservation Act Federal Land Management Federal Wildlife Policy Principal Laws

27. 3 Other Federal Laws How do the following affect wildlife management? • NEPA of 1970 • NFMA of 1976 (FS) • FLPMA of 1976 (BLM)

28. 2 Trends in Federal Wildlife Law There are two trends in federal wildlife law that are worth noting. • 1st -- the requirement that agencies consult with US F&W S in planning the dev’t of land and water resources in order to consider wildlife needs (mandated by the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended in 1946 and 1958, and the ESA of 1973) • 2nd – combination of public participation and ecosystem mgmt in the planning process (concept of wildlife as a “public trust” resource and its use shall be accomplished with broadest possible public participation) (influenced by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and ESA of 1973)

29. Managing Habitat and Ecosystems • Congress allows some hunting & fishing on most federal land systems, including wilderness areas • The regulation of taking is left to the discretion of the states • National parks  closed to hunting • National monuments, reserves, preserves, & recreational areas  some hunting allowed • Public land mgmt today is undergoing transformation into ecosystem-based mgmt.

32. Protecting Biological Diversity • Endangered Species Act • Listing • Critical Habitat • Protection

33. Endangered Species Act Purposes: 1. to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend may be conserved, 2. to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species Objective of FWS based on ESA: “… to improve the status of endangered or threatened species so that they can be delisted.” 2 main processes created by ESA: • designation of species and their critical habitat through “listing” and • protection • Listing process is needed before protection through ESA can be set in motion!

34. Endangered Species Act: Listing • Listing – selecting species to be put on the endangered species list. • Conservation: “the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures are no longer necessary.” • Endangered species “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or any significant portion of its range.” • Threatened species species “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” • 5 criteria defined by law for this listing: • the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. • overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. • disease or predation. • the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. • other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

35. Endangered Species Act: Critical Habitat • Critical habitat “the area occupied by the species at the time of listing and essential to its conservation.” • Critical habitat designation – among most controversial aspects of FWS activities! • Nonbiological factors, including economics, are to be used in determining critical habitat.

36. Endangered Species Act: Protection • Protection involves three prohibitions and required consultation among agencies. Prohibitions are: • Trade in endangered species without a permit • No person may take an endangered species. • A federal agency may not act unless it insures that its action will neither jeopardize a species nor adversely affect designated its critical habitat. • Term definitions: • Take “means to harass, harm pursue, hunt, shoot. Wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” • Harm“an act which actually kills of injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” • Jeopardize “to engage in an action that reasonably may be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species.”

37. Endangered Species Act Economics and the ESA • ESA now includes economic concerns (not until spotted owl listing) • 1978 amendments required economic concerns to be considered in the designation of critical habitat after a species has been listed. • 1988 amendment requires FWS to report annually on a species-by-species basis all federal expenditures and grants to states for the conservation of species under the act.

38. Endangered Species Act The God Committee or the God Squad (Endangered Species Committee) • The 1978 amendment created the Endangered Species Committee (or the God Committee) • Committee decides whether or not a particular species could be exempted from the ESA • Committee may be convened when there are irreconcilable conflict between a development project and species conservation needs • Composition: chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, USDA sec, USDI sec (committee chair), USDoD sec, EPA administrator, and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. President also appoints one individual from each affected state.

39. Endangered Species Act Always a controversial policy, much debates during re-authorization. So, Should the ESA be reauthorized?