Applying the North American model of wildlife conservation to hunting behavior – it's not as simple as it sounds

In North America, wildlife are managed as a public trust resource. This means that wild animals are owned by no single person; rather, they belong to the public and policy is discharged by trust managers (e.g., wildlife... [ view full abstract ]

In North America, wildlife are managed as a public trust resource. This means that wild animals are owned by no single person; rather, they belong to the public and policy is discharged by trust managers (e.g., wildlife biologists), such that current and future generations benefit. The origin of public ownership is rooted in 6th century Roman civil law that was reaffirmed by the English Magna Carta, and later carried to the United States colonies and legalized through 19th Century common law. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which provides the foundation for contemporary wildlife management, was originally described in the mid-1990s. The “model” ascribes 7 pillars, 1) Wildlife as a public trust resource; 2) Elimination of markets for wildlife; 3) Allocation of wildlife is by law; 4) Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose; 5) Wildlife is considered an international resource; 6) Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy; and 7) Democracy of hunting is maintained. In North America, science is generally used to help inform policy regarding how individual populations should be managed. Although we recognize that wildlife management has both biological and sociological considerations, it should be considered “messy” in that there are often no clearly defined solutions. For example, United States hunters are regarded as conservationists due to a history of leadership in wildlife management funding and the resulting financial contributions of hunting license fees and excise taxes paid on sporting arms and ammunition. Although these stakeholders provide the majority of funding, they often oppose decisions that are counter to their personal belief system. Because public (primarily hunter) support is necessary, policy decisions operate within a human dimensions framework. To address management issues, agencies often use human dimensions surveys to elucidate stakeholder opinions about a particular game species and, due to their influence on agency funding and management activities, hunters are often the population of interest. These surveys generally include a range of questions including attitudes towards management actions and perceptions of trust in agency staff regarding decision-making. The latter is closely tied to hunter satisfaction and perceptions in game population size. In Minnesota, a 2005 survey of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunters, which coincided with the highest deer populations ever recorded, trust in agency decision-making was above the midpoint of a 5-point scale. However, follow-up surveys of deer hunters completed 2015-2017 after generally meeting publicly established population goals statewide (i.e., during a time of lower deer populations), trust had declined. To address the challenge of maintaining hunter support while managing wildlife as a public trust, researchers and agencies are increasingly relying on attitude surveys of various populations (hunters, landowners, general public) and more structured decision-making techniques to identify preferences and support for management. However, changing stakeholder attitudes, lack of hunter support for publicly-established goals, and the discovery of chronic wasting disease have challenged the notion that hunters can effectively manage deer populations for societal benefit and, ultimately, the durability of the North American Model for wildlife management.