Wildlife thoughts over 250 long years

Thirteen colonies declared their independence from the Kingdom of Great Britian in 1776. They won the war of independence in 1783 and in 1787, the united colonies adopted a Constitution “in order to form a more perfect union.” In this 250th anniversary year, many people are rereading that Constitution to rediscover what it actually says about how the people would rule with democratic ideals to insure liberty and equality. No other country had tried democracy; America was, thus, exceptional.

Where does nature fit into the ideals expressed in those founding documents? Nature wasn’t mentioned, but the citizens of the new country did have one important demand – in the USA there would be no king or kingly ownership of wildlife. One of the early decrees from the judicial branch of the new government was that property that once belonged to the king passed to all the people.

This meant that the fish and wildlife belonged to all the people — democracy in hunting and fishing. With this privilege came responsibility.

I’d like to revisit what I think is the fundamental way we have accepted the responsibility of wildlife ownership, and that way is stewardship. Responsible stewardship didn’t begin immediately. For example, settlers in South Dakota thought that the game was free and inexhaustible. Wildlife was needed for man to subsist and the prairies provided it in abundance.

However, there was “tragedy on the commons” as over-harvest reduced wildlife. In the early 1900s, the term “conservation” became known. Since then, wildlife conservation has evolved in two areas, 1) the role of government, and 2) the role of the users —the hunter and angler.

My history of government’s role might send government scholar Dr. Bob Burns “tisking” all the way to the library, but here goes…one of the democratic ideas in this new country was that hunting and fishing would be regulated by law rather than privilege, wealth or land ownership. It was called the Public Trust Doctrine, which means that governments act as trustees, holding animals and natural resources in trust to protect and manage for the benefit of the people, including future generations.
The Public Trust Doctrine was upheld in Supreme Court cases in the 1800s, and by other rulings since.

The Public Trust responsibilities mostly fall to the states to implement. In South Dakota, the protection and management of fish and wildlife began when the Territorial Legislature passed laws setting hunting seasons and bag limits for some game.

The Territorial Legislature was putting the Public Trust Doctrine into practice. Sheriffs and deputies had the power to enforce the laws, however, the laws were “winked at.”

For example, the Brookings newspaper in 1890 has this: “Not withstanding the laws which strictly prohibit the catching of fish in our lakes by means of net and seines, hardly a day passes that nets are not drawn in Lake Campbell. This open defiance of the law ought to be punished.”

South Dakota became a state in 1889 and attention was soon given to fish and wildlife conservation measures because “the game and fish were at dead zero.” The GFP Department was created “because of the desire of the people to have once again the wildlife that had been lost through drought, blizzard, changing land use, and unbelievable slaughter.” (quotes from GFP 1959 Ann. Rept. titled Looking Back 50 Years)

The Public Trust Doctrine is one of the keystones of what is now called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The model is based on revolutionary ideals for sustaining wildlife populations and the right to hunt and fish.

One principle of the model is that wildlife can only be killed for good reasons like food and population control - commerce in dead wildlife is against the law.

An 1880 edition of the Brookings Register had an editorial about market hunters. The editor wrote about market hunters at Lake Campbell: “From reliable sources we learn that they are making a business of shipping game out of state in direct defiance of our state laws. Look this up, somebody and stop this market hunting.”

The North American Model acknowledges that some wildlife species cross international borders and can best be managed by international treaties. Another principle is that managing wildlife should be based on science done by professional wildlife and fisheries biologists. Regulations are made based on scientific data.

Yes, a politician might say (correctly) that science is only one of the things considered when making policy, but policies should foster sustainable wildlife populations.

The role of hunters and anglers in wildlife conservation is as important as government’s role. Their role has two parts: money and ethics. Hunting and fishing are “user-pays” activities.

Hunting and fishing licenses and tags directly support state conservation agencies. Hunters and anglers pay Federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. Two landmark pieces of legislation, named after congresspersons (Pittman-Robertson Act, Dingle-Johnson Act) require Federally-collected excise taxes to be returned to the states, and can only be used for conservation. South Dakota receives about $30 million yearly. Again, user pays.

The actions of the outdoor enthusiast in keeping the right to hunt and fish are as important as funding. To keep the opportunity to hunt, the hunter must remember wildlife belongs to all of the people. In South Dakota, most wildlife is on private land. Landowners form their opinions when they see how outdoorsmen behave. Nature writer Aldo Leopold wrote:

“A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact.”

Fundamental to a hunting ethic is the idea of fair chase, which means that the hunter must earn their success while giving the animal a reasonable chance to escape. Fair chase means developing hunting and fishing skills and ecological knowledge rather than relying on technology or artificial advantages.

South Dakota requires hunters to take the HuntSafe Course that teaches hunting safety and ethics.
In summary, my broad brush has highlighted four principles related to wildlife conservation: Public Trust Doctrine, North American Model of Wildlife Management, user-pays, and fair chase ethics.

These principles are idealistic just like the constitutional words about freedom and liberty. What the words really mean can be/has been challenged, and it is tough to live up to ideals of what society should be.

However, such ideals give us goals to work toward for a “more perfect union,” and better stewardship of natural resources.