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. (a Supreme Court ruling)
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. Federal Wildlife Policy
Principal Laws
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

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 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?