INSIDE THE CAMPAIGN TO DIVORCE HUNTERS FROM WILDLIFE POLICY

A nationwide campaign is underway to limit the influence of hunters in crafting wildlife policy. The movement has gained traction in recent years as proponents work to restructure state game commissions to be less responsive to the wishes of hunters.

“This movement has really spread throughout the country,” Joe Mullin told MeatEater. Mullin works for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation as the Northeastern States Manager, and he reports that he’s observed “a more concerted, organized, and accelerated effort” to pass bills that remodel game commissions along less hunter-friendly lines.

Director of State Policy and Stewardship for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Tim Brass, has also been tracking this movement.

“Historically, sportsmen have had a big voice, and we’re concerned not only that we’re losing some of the voices we have had, but in some cases the people that they’re putting on the commissions under the ‘sportsman’s’ name are questionable in terms of their credentials as hunters and anglers,” he said in an interview with MeatEater.

Mullin identified efforts in Washington State, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon that would make it easier to install anti-hunting proponents on the governing bodies meant to manage game species.

Wildlife for All, an environmental nonprofit, most clearly articulates the ideas that underwrite these efforts. Organized by current and former employees of the Humane Society, the Sierra Club, Wildearth Guardians, Animal & Earth Advocates, and Project Coyote (among others), Wildlife for All describes the current system of wildlife management as “outdated.”

“The hallmarks of this outdated system are a focus on producing a harvestable surplus of game animals under an agricultural model [and] preference given to consumptive wildlife users (hunters, anglers and trappers) over the broader public,” Wildlife for All says on its website. They seek to replace the current model with one based on the “public trust doctrine,” which they define as including a responsibility to protect “all life.”

If their efforts are successful, Mullin warns that the voices of hunters and anglers will be diminished. “If game commissions don’t have adequate representation from the outdoor sporting community, decisions will likely be made to the detriment of hunters, trappers, recreational shooters. There’d be no safeguards to prevent obstructionism at that point,” he said.

Overthrowing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

For over 80 years, hunters and anglers have formed the bedrock of the American system of conservation funding. This “user pays, public benefits” structure has allowed the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to become the world’s most successful conservation framework, and hunters and anglers nationwide have contributed over $25.5 billion. This money has been used to save wetlands and bring species like turkeys and whitetail deer back from the brink of extinction.

State game commissions work with state wildlife agencies to manage a state’s natural resources, and many have statutory mandates to set hunting seasons, maximize hunting opportunities, and set bag limits. Game commissioners are appointed in a variety of ways, but many also require a certain level of representation from the hunting community. (Some, for example, require commissioners to hold hunting or fishing licenses for a certain number of years before being considered for the position.)

But recent legislation would seek to change that system. In Maryland, for example, House Bill 188 was endorsed by the Humane Society would require representatives from the “wildlife preservation” and “passive wildlife recreation communities” to serve on the state’s Wildlife Advisory Commission.

“This bill is giving a diverse set of stakeholders seats at the table on this commission,” bill sponsor Delegate Julie Palakovich Carr said.

In New Mexico, House Bill 486 takes the “public trust” language from Wildlife for All and uses it to rewrite state wildlife policy. Instead of providing for “an adequate and flexible system” to “provide and maintain an adequate supply of game and fish,” this new system would manage the state’s wildlife “as a public trust resource with intrinsic and ecological value, as well as for the benefit, use