Anyone who travels internationally to hunt or fish will quickly learn and appreciate how different our game laws and management system are. Some who haven’t too often complain that fish and game laws are unfair, too strict, or in some cases downright frivolous. Understanding the system we have and how it came to be might assuage some of that anxiety.

Europeans emigrated to North America for a variety of reasons, several of which include fleeing a feudal system under which much of the land and all the fish and wildlife belonged to nobility or the wealthy elite. They established a new precedent under which wildlife was available for all to harvest. That sufficed for some time, but as the human population grew and spread, so did the impact on wildlife resources.

Cultural change brought about largely by the Industrial Revolution shifted people from a largely self-sufficient lifestyle, where they often lived far apart from one another, to human population centers where increasingly more had regular employment. Both these changes shifted the status of fish and wildlife from a subsistence resource to a marketable commodity. With increased demand, some once-common species suffered significant population declines.

The response was a grass-roots movement, led largely by hunters and anglers, advocating for protection. A landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court established the Public Trust Doctrine wherein fish and wildlife are common property owned by no one but held in trust to be managed by state and federal governments. From that, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was born.

The model has seven basic tenets or guiding principles. One is the aforementioned Public Trust Doctrine. The second eliminated commercial hunting and the sale of most fish and wildlife – marine and some freshwater fisheries being notable exceptions that are nonetheless highly regulated. The third allows for allocation of wildlife by law, which is done largely through bag limits, seasons, and other regulations based on sound management principles and established through a public process.

The next calls for responsible use, which is one definition of the word conservation. Wildlife cannot be destroyed for frivolous reasons or wasted, but can be used under several broad categories, including recreational hunting and fishing. The fifth tenet acknowledges that wildlife is an international resource. Wildlife does not acknowledge international boundaries, and some, like migratory birds, may travel across many boundaries. This requires international cooperation, which is often accomplished through treaties and convention.

The sixth tenet, championed by Theodore Roosevelt, is the principle that management decisions should be based on the best available science. From this, he and contemporaries like Aldo Leopold launched the modern discipline of fish and wildlife management. Last, but not least, is the principle of democracy, wherein the opportunity to hunt, trap and fish should be fairly and equitably afforded to all citizens regardless of wealth, landownership, class or privilege, an acknowledgment to the settlement of our continent and later establishment of our nation.

The model is not perfect, but is acknowledged by many, including internationally recognized conservationist and wildlife advocate Shane Mahoney, as being “the best that the world has ever seen.” Flaws exist, like conflicts between public rights and those of private landowners, and vestiges of archaic blue laws like a ban on Sunday hunting. For the most part, however, it promotes sustainable wildlife resources and their wise use, where deemed appropriate.

Bob Humphrey is a freelance writer and Registered Maine Guide who lives in Pownal. He can be reached at: bob@bobhumphrey.com

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Ask Maine Audubon: Annual Christmas Bird Count shows some surprises

Next »

Hunting: Animals, birds doing their best to prepare for and survive winter