Wildlife Management

So I've been seeing a lot of stories this week in the news, in articles, and hearing them in podcasts, regarding different events that occur due to both successful and failed wildlife management plans. It actually dawned on me that the average citizen doesn't even know what it is, how it works, or even why it's important.

There are four levels of wildlife management. At the top we have the one that most people probably do have some familiarity with; The United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reason most people are familiar with this level is because of the Endangered Species Act. The next level is held by the state and goes by different names depending on the state. Here in Massachusetts it's the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. The next tier down is your municipal levels. These are your town and city Conservation Departments and Natural Resource Departments. The final level is in the private sector of Wildlife Managers. Some of these could be certified wildlife biologists hired by a landowner to manage the resources on their properties, right down to your pest control company you hire to remove the raccoons from your attic.

All of these programs provide important services to our resources, but very few people know how they work. As a matter of fact, they do so much it would probably take me a year per level even at the length of my articles to describe the intricacies of each one. As I have many other topics I want to go over in the future, I'm only going to key in on some very important topics that I think warrant notice. I'm going to start at the top and work my way down, but I'm also going to leave out the bottom tier as that side, in this situation, is really only relevant to the individuals hiring management.

I'm also going to preface this by saying I'm likely to get more than a few people upset. I'm not looking to start an argument, I am simply expressing my opinions on these matters and describing some facts and situations surrounding them that helped me form those opinions. That being said, I'm still anticipating more than a few unkind comments to show up below. If anyone should feel the need to lash out, just know I'm not going to engage you, and I encourage my readers to do the same. If you have a differing opinion and want to discuss it, I have no problem with that, especially if you want to site facts and situations that brought you to that conclusion.

So, starting on the Federal level I'm going to discuss a couple of issues with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In my opinion, the original creation of this legislation was a great step forward for conservation in our nation. The idea behind it was to list species of plants and animals that due to lack of population, resources, and habitat, were in danger of going extinct. Each species listed on the ESA also had specific requirements for what was considered recovery. At the point of recovery a specie would then revert back to state management, which would allow federal funding and manpower to be focused on the other species listed on the ESA.

At this point there are 1661 species of plants and animals on that list. Out of all of these species, 85 have been delisted. My count is likely off, but 11 have been delisted due to extinction. Another 21 were delisted because evidence found that they shouldn't have been on the list in the first place. Approximately 52 species have been delisted due to recovery. That's 3.1% recovered since the inception of the act, which causes opponents of the act to claim that it's not working. However, if you list 1661 species over the course of 40+ years, and all but those 11 still exist, I call that a success. Just look in the last 20 years to show the advances we've made. 36 species were recovered and only 4 went extinct. The only problem I see is when the act is misused.

The two major species that have caused the most contention are the gray wolf and the grizzly bear. Gray wolves were on the original list in 1973. The listing pertained only to the wolves in the contiguous United States as the one's in Alaska had a good foothold. In 2013 the USFW service announced that gray wolves had met all of the original parameters required to be considered a recovered species and warrant delisting. However, they were not actually delisted until 2017. By the time they were finally delisted, the gray wolf population was at 300% of the listed parameters for recovery.

The reason it took so long was for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a sub specie known as the Mexican gray wolf had not met recovery requirements. However, they were soon listed as a separate specie under the ESA and are now under their own management plan. After that clerical error, it was hung up in the courts. Several animal rights organizations sued the government using the ESA as a tool to prevent the states from taking back the management of the gray wolf because they did not want them to be hunted. Hunting and trapping are tools that states can use in order to manage populations and help resolve human and animal conflicts.

Interestingly enough, and little known to the public, these wolves were having a negative impact with another species, the caribou. Did you even know we have caribou in the United States outside of Alaska? These herds are being managed by state agencies, private groups, and even tribal organizations. They were having a fair amount of success as well. As the gray wolves recovered, obviously their territories grew. During the time that the delisting was tied up in court, their range overlapped that of the caribou. One particular heard during that time actually dropped from 47 animals down to 12. Obviously not all of them were killed by wolves, but their data shows that they did have a fairly major impact on the herd.

The grizzly bears are now going through the same process. These bears have met and exceeded all of the requirements under the ESA management program to be considered recovered and as such be delisted. As a matter of fact, they met those requirements over a decade ago. As they move through the process of delisting, there are already groups filing their lawsuits, I'm sure we'll see a repeat of the gray wolf process.

On an interesting note, the bald eagle was delisted on August 9, 2007. I cannot find a record of any animal rights group filing a law suit against that ruling. Likewise, the Modoc Sucker was delisted in 2016. The Concho water snake was delisted in 2011. Again, I cannot find a record of law suit. Interestingly enough, none of these animals are considered game animals. I'm not arguing whether your belief is that hunting is right or wrong. You can clearly see that the ESA is being used by groups to further their own agenda, instead of what it's original intention was.

The worst part about this, is that over the course of the years that the gray wolf and grizzly bear de-listings have been tied up in court, how much money has been spent? Now imagine how much good that money could have done if it was available to the USFW to be drawing up management plans and acting on them for the other species on the ESA that do not yet have plans. Instead, we're tying all of that money up in lawyers, court fees, and time spent.

Now as we move down to the state level, we have your conservation departments, usually with a division governing fish and wildlife. These are the real boots on the ground. They have countless biologists, ecologists, and environmental scientists in the field collecting data on the different species of plants and animals (and if you want to get technical, protists). They have another force of scientists and administrators interpreting that data and putting it into workable management plans for every specie they govern.

These management plans are very thorough, and to the average person trying to read them, exhausting. They cover ecological needs, human encounter variables, control methods, and contingency plans. On our public lands, those plans trickle down to field workers improving habitats for these plants and animals. Even to the biologists and Law Enforcement who have to tranquilize the bear wandering downtown is part of that management plan. The actual number of manhours that states devote to conservation and wildlife management is mind boggling.

When we move down to the municipal level is where it can get hairy and, at times for me, frustrating. In the news right now, Framingham is dealing with a beaver issue. Framingham has the same problem as most of the eastern towns, they've created their conservation rules surrounding the emotions of individuals instead of looking into an actual wildlife management program.

Firstly, the they've basically regulated trapping out of town owned conservation land. They did this by applying a regulation that states that no animal other than deer may be taken on conservation land. You can't trap deer, so essentially you've made trapping illegal on the conservation lands. In addition, they've limited hunting to archery only, only in two of their 5 largest areas, and you may only take antlerless deer. From a purely biological view, this is not a conservation effort rooted in wildlife management, this is a regulation effort rooted in hunter management. They wanted to get rid of what they considered trophy hunters. Anyone who has studied deer at all, knows they are born on a one to one ratio of gender. Now while most northeastern states are moving slow on the realization that hunting equal amounts of both genders creates healthier populations, there is no biological evidence that hunting only antlerless deer helps anything other than regulating hunters.

Now we come to the issue of beavers. Obviously they're over populating the affected area and causing damage to private property as well as roadways. The town saw fit to remedy this problem by bringing in a trapper to reduce the number of beavers in the area. That's a smart move, however, had they been more trapper friendly this problem may not have existed in the first place. However, in making this move they've come under fire.

I've read probably 7 different articles from news sources, as well as seen a story on televised news on two separate stations. Most of these stories were just what a journalist story should be, a statement of the facts, and interviews with opinions on both sides of the issue. However, one of the more major newspapers, and you can find this out for yourself, completely showed it's hand even in just the headline. The writer suggested that the town was literally going to war on the beavers. This headline is so completely absurd that I'm surprised it came from one of the leading news sources in the state.

The idea that a town, whose conservation laws are so steeped in animal rights rhetoric, would go to war with a wild animal is ridiculous. I am positive that the commissions regulating this project did not conclude that they have to eradicate all beavers from the town or even the area affected. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that if they decided on a number of beavers to be removed, that the number is at best an informed guess. Likely, it will temporarily solve the problem, and without future management, the issue will arise again in a few years. Also consider that this is not the first time they've had to resort to this solution. I might also add that the application for an emergency trapping permit in Framingham is flawed. It states that you can apply for the permit to target muskrats with body gripping conibear style traps. By state law, conibear style traps are only usable on an emergency beaver permit.

Now lets move to other locations. There are several towns that have even more strict regulations on their conservation lands. Many towns have made it completely illegal to hunt or trap on conservation land in the town. This makes it totally ironic. I say this because on average, $100 million a year is spent on outdoor licenses, game permits, bird stamps, and other recreational fees. Another $85 million or so on average is raised through the Pittman-Robertson Act, an 11% tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. That's almost $200 million a year for conservation nationally. (Edit - Thank you to John McDonald) The averages listed above seem to be since the inception of the PRA in 1937. A press release from Secretary Zinke on March 20, 2018 shows that the funds acquired and passed on to conservation programs shows over $600 million raised through these programs from last year alone. If we only look at the last 5-10 years or so, that average rises to $500 million a year from the PRA and another $100 million through other programs. At this point, I haven't found current numbers on licensing, stamps, and tags.

Historically, I've seen that these funds generally make up anywhere from 50%-70% of the conservation funds that are given to the municipalities through State and Federal grants. So let's take a perspective view on this. A town like Marshfield has over 2500 acres of conservation land. Some of that land is State owned, and some is privately owned. Looking at the map, the town probably owns about 40%, or about 1000 acres. A majority of that land was bought by the conservation commission. Say 50% of the funds that they appropriated for those purchases were granted to them through hunting and trapping taxes and fees. However, hunters and trappers are not allowed to use that land in that way.

Who uses that land? Hikers, bikers, and dog walkers do. I can't count how many times I've walked trails in town to find water bottles, energy bar wrappers, and piles upon piles of dog droppings. In general, none of those people spent a dime to have those lands, yet any one of them will claim they have more right to utilize that land than hunters and trappers. Most of the hikers are pretty good stewards of the land, but especially dog walkers are a problem. Along with the litter, and fecal matter, they are constantly letting dogs off leash to run around. There's a leash law in town. These animals run off, harass wildlife, other hikers, and other dogs. Yet they don't spend a dime to have these lands. If you think that conservation of wildlife means no hunting or trapping, then you should also not allow dogs on conservation land. They do more damage to wildlife than outdoorsmen and women (at least that's my opinion).

Now I'm not going to the extreme of banning all activity. ALL people who use public land should be leaving that land in better shape than when they got there. THAT is conservation. However, public land is just that... public. It's owned by you, and it's owned by me. Why should you be allowed to use that land for a legal activity like hiking, when I cannot use that land for a legal activity like hunting? Now I'm not saying to open ALL public lands to these activities. Some areas just don't make sense. For example, it would be rather odd to have a bunch of goose hunters shooting off rounds in one of the parks in Boston. Out here in the rural areas though, hunters and trappers have just as much right to use public land as anyone else. They also provide a service in controlling conflict between humans and wildlife. Hunting and trapping is a wildlife management tool and can be just as important as picking up trash.

In closing, wildlife management on the federal and state levels have done a great job in protecting valuable resources and ecosystems. Like anything else, when the tools we have are used as intended, they are extremely effective. When they are not, they have the potential to do more harm than good. On a local level I think there is a lot more work to be done. Our local conservation departments should be focusing on science and data to protect our wildlands and not creating legislation based on emotion. Hunting is not the beast it once was. There is no more commercial harvest of animals for large industries and there hasn't been for decades. We need to stop demonizing the outdoorsman and woman.

Thank you to all who read this. Thank you to my sources: USFW, ESA, MAFW, Montana F&G, Wyoming F&G, and MEFW. If you enjoyed this article, please like and follow the page. Be a part of the conversation by joining The Ethical Sportsman Group. Spread the word about conservation and wildlife management. Feel free to share this article around your communities. As sportsmen and women, if we want to leave the legacy of conservation, public lands, and that sense of the wild to our children, it starts with educating the public. I always hear people say they need to get out of the city and back to nature for awhile. I've never heard anyone say they needed to get away from nature to spend some time in the city. One thing we can all agree on is that we need to protect the wild.