Introduction
to Wildlife Conservation and Administration W210
Office: WFB
150, x3430;
Office Hrs:
Mon. 900-1000, 1500-1700, Wed 900-1000
e-mail:
tlg2@axe.humboldt.edu
Objective: To provide an understanding of the principles
surrounding current issues in wildlife and environmental conservation. We will focus on the effects of our
decisions on wildlife populations and the global environment. We will also discuss the laws and
regulations that have been put in place to protect these resources.
When you leave
the class you should have a thorough understanding of the:
1. major environmental
issues we are facing today,
2. the ecological
principles behind these issues,
3. the laws
and regulations that have been established to address these issues, and
4. the
major agencies in the U.S. that are charged with establishing and
enforcing these regulations.
In my
opinion and experience, to be successful, individuals in natural resource
fields must be able to:
1) think
critically;
2) be
knowledgeable about their specific field; and
3) be able
to communicate both orally and in written form. We will focus on all of these skills in this class.
The
environmental problems that we face as we approach the end of the 20th century
are daunting. Human technology has developed
to the point where our actions now have an effect on the global
environment. Overcoming these problems
will be the greatest challenge our species has faced. I feel that by using scientific information and considering the
moral and ethical responsibilities that we have to humans and other species and
to future generations we can make the difficult choices that lie ahead. I make no assumptions about how you as
individuals feel about these issues and I hope that all of you will respect the
opinions of everyone else in the class.
Teaching
style
I strongly
encourage an interactive style of teaching. The only "ground rules"
that I will set is that each individual must respect the perspectives and
statements of other individuals, even if you do not agree with them. Be conscientious and respectful.
Approach
to material
Course will
follow history of major events in wildlife/environmental conservation.
Examples
include: The signing of the Migratory Bird Act to put an end to market hunting
of Ardeids, Shorebirds, ducks and other migratory birds.
After
presenting the main facts surrounding these events I will provide background
information and concepts that are related to the topic. Using this approach, I hope to place these
ideas in context and make them more than dry facts. Also, I find that many of the social and political patterns
surrounding these controversies tend to repeat themselves. A knowledge of history can often help us
understand the present.
General
outline
I.
Scientific method and environmental ethics and responsibilities.
This will form the foundation for our discussions of
environmental problems and possible solutions.
II. Market
hunting and hunting regulations
Exploration of the development of our first environmental
regulations. Migratory bird treaty, and state and federal hunting regulations.
History of Hunting Regulations
Wildlife populations- models and natural regulation
Wildlife populations- predation and competition
Wildlife populations- management/Agencies (State Fish and game,
USF&WS)
Human population growth and environmental consequences
EXAM 1
III. Pollution
and Contaminants -effects on the environment-
The beginning of the modern “Environmental movement”. Recognition of the effects of industrial
growth and pollution on the environment.
First recognition of the “interconnectedness of all things” in American
society.
Ecology and Ecosystems- Nutrient cycling
Ecology and Ecosystems- Productivity
Ecology and Ecosystems- Communities
Ecology and Ecosystems- Succession and change
Ecology and Ecosystems- Regulations (NEPA, ESA, Clean Air,
Clean Water)
EXAM 2
IV. Land
Conservation, habitat, and the extinction crisis
How can we better manage our lands to maintain biological
diversity? Habitat loss and
fragmentation may lead to the loss of more species than any other factor. Introduction of the concept of habitat and
the niche and how habitat loss and fragmentation may push species towards
extinction.
Habitat- definitions and the niche
Habitat- Regulations (NFMA, ESA)
Ethics and Responsibilities
EXAM 3
V. Global
Environmental problems
Many of the environmental problems that we are facing now
are global in scope. These include:
global warming, ozone depletion, soil loss, acid deposition, forest loss and
desertification, and loss of biological diversity. We will discuss the effects of these factors on the environment
and approaches to solving them.
Exam 4
Aldo
Leopold wrote in his book “A sand county Almanac”
“One of
the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives in a world of
wounds”.
I know that
those words ring true for me and I imagine that when this course is over, you
will feel the same way. I do not wish
to leave you with the impression that the situation is hopeless, I certainly
would not be doing what I am doing if I thought there was no hope. What I do want to do is make you aware of
the current problems and provide a framework for finding solutions to those
problems.
Grading: Your final grade will be based on 4
midterm exams (100 points each) and your participation in the discussion (100
pts). The final exam (100 points) is
optional and can be used to replace your lowest midterm score. Missed exams will be given a 0.
Total of
500 points.
Letter
grades will be assigned based on your percentage of total points: > 90 A,
80-90 B, 70-80 C, 60-70 D, <60 F.
Plus and minus grades will be assigned.
Science
and the scientific method
In order to
make informed decisions about how to manage our natural resources, it is
immensely important to fully understand the problem.
Being
informed is one of the most critical responsibilities in a democratic society.
example)
Ozone depletion
Limbaugh
and others have suggested that the issue of ozone depletion is a fraud foisted
on a gullible public by scientists wanting more research money. Of course neither scientists nor talk show
hosts are above deceiving the public.
However, millions of Rush's fans trust his "facts" and opinions. They are unwilling to further investigate
the matter and believe that there is no need to worry about the effects of
climate change, ozone depletion, or any other environmental problem. Much of the problem lies in the fact that we
have not done an adequate job of educating the public (i.e. increasing our
constituency). Most individuals have
little understanding or appreciation for the scientific method and hence are
unable to make appropriate comments and decisions or ask appropriate questions
with regard to scientific findings.
One problem
is that, in the realm of public policy and intellect, it is much easier to cast
doubt, confuse, and obfuscate (cloud over) an issue than it is to clarify great
and complex issues. Further, as many of
us know from personal experience, most of the time it is much easier to create
a problem or mess than it is to clean it up or remedy it. Chernobyl, Three-mile Island, and the
pesticide problems would be examples of this.
The issues are often complex and difficult to understand and people
therefore are ready to listen to anyone that provides a simple answer. One of the problems is that people often do
not have a good understanding of the scientific method and therefore are easily
swayed by bits of information that support their preconceived notions.
The
approach we have adopted to gaining knowledge in western society is the
scientific method. We will begin this semester with a discussion on the
scientific method. How is information
gained? How reliable is the information? How can we determine the validity of
results? Can you lie (i.e. say whatever
you want) with statistics?
What is
science?
Science- “the organized, systematic
enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge
into testable laws and principles.”
from
Wilson, E. O. 1998. Science, scholars, knaves and fools. Bioscience 86:6-7.
Raven et al
list 5 components of environmental science
1. Scientific
assessment- collect and analyze data, conduct experiments
2. Risk
analysis- what could happen?
3. Public education- an
informed public makes the right choices.
4.
Political action- implementation of policies through the political process
(laws, treaties, parks and refuges)
5. Follow though- monitor
success- only way to determine if your approach solved the problem.
The
Scientific method
The
scientific method is the process we use to understand the natural world. The general approach is as follows:
1. State
the problem
2.
Formulate the hypothesis
3.
Design the experiment
4. Make
observations
5.
Interpret the data
6. Draw
conclusions
7.
Publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal
Now we
consider each of these separately
1. State
the problem
requires:
knowledge of system
insight into how it works
creativity- new ways to approach old problems
What makes a great scientist?
intuitive insight and skill at identifying relevant problems
that he/she can hope to answer
Often the most difficult and most crucial step.
ex) Muscles (Mytilus californicus)
are found in a distinct zone in the upper intertidal along the west coast. The upper line is determined by mean high
tide, the lower was about 1 m below the high tide line. This pattern is consistent up and down the
west coast.
What causes this zonation?
Possible factors:
Adaptation to physical factors- temperature, 02
level in water, desiccation, wave action, etc.
Payne observed that a starfish feeds on the muscles and the
starfish can tolerate only limited periods out of water.
He hypothesized that the lower level of the muscle line was
determined by starfish predation. Those
muscles that settled lower were always susceptible to starfish predation and
therefore could not persist.
2.
Formulate the hypothesis
Hypothesis- statement about the expected outcome or result of a
specific experiment.
ex) lower limit of M. californicus dsn is determined
by starfish predation.
null hypothesis: M. californicus dsn is unaffected by
starfish predation
Theory- general hypothesis supported by a large body of observations and
experiments
3.
Design the experiment
Experiment- A series of observation that are designed to confirm or
refute an hypothesis.
Mensurative- “natural experiment” treatments are found in nature, not
assigned by investigator.
ex) compare M. californicus dsn in areas where
Pisaster is present versus those where it is absent.
Problems? Possibility of other factors changing in both
places. This is called a confounding factor- cannot be sure that the
factor you measured is causing the change.
ex) water temp. may be warmer in the location where the
starfish is absent and this makes it hospitable to the muscle at lower tidal
levels.
Despite this problem, we often rely on mensurative
experiments in science. Examples
include; effects of smoking on health, effects of acid rain on lakes, potential
effects of increased CO2 on the climate.
Manipulative- “controlled or randomized experiment” the treatments are
assigned (usually at random) by the investigator.
ex) select several sites below normal dsn of M.
californicus. In ½ remove all starfish and exclude them with cages leave
the other half as controls.
Randomized manipulative are the only way to surmise cause
and effect. Mensurative experiments always have the possibility of
confounding factors.
4. Make
observations
using established protocol to avoid biases
ex) M. californicus colonized areas where starfish were
excluded. Measure densities by
counting the number of muscles in quadrats of a particular size.
5.
Interpret the data
-generally using statistics
ex) M. californicus are more dense in excluded vs non
excluded areas
6. Draw
conclusions
Be careful not to go beyond the facts.
ex) Starfish control M. californicus dsn in this particular
location and may be important in similar locations.
7. publish in a peer reviewed
journal- most
scientific journals require that other scientists review a paper before it is
published. This means that other
scientists in the field read and pass their judgement before the editor allows
the paper to be published. This does
not eliminate error but it means that several people in the field consider the
conclusions to be sound.
Ways of
approaching science
Inductive reasoning: Specific=> general. By making observations at different
times and or/places and finding the same general pattern we reason that this
pattern holds in all instances.
ex) all 12 bears that I have encountered run the other way
when I jump up and down and wave.
Therefore I surmise that all bears will run when I do this...
Biologists
have generally used inductive reasoning to make conclusions about the way that
nature works. Many biologists report
similar observations and findings and the findings then become a rule or theory
from which management actions or conservation strategies are derived, but the
ideas have not been truly tested, just corroborated. Recently though many biologists have spoken out against relying
too heavily on this mode. They have
advocated deductive reasoning followed by the hypothetico-deductive
method.
2) Deductive reasoning: reasoning from what is known
from scientific principles, rules, or theories etc. The accuracy of our deductions depends on the accuracy of the
underlying concepts. i.e. whether they
are correct or wrong. The H-D method
uses 3 steps: 1) observation/induction; 2) hypothesis formation; and 3)
experimentation.
We go from the general to the specific case:
1. All birds have
feathers. (General principle)
2. A quail is a
bird. (fact)
3. Quail have
feathers. (hypothesis)
This is correct because the underlying concept that all
birds have feathers was correct.
1. Wings are
adaptations for flight.
2. Penguins have
wings.
3. Penguins can fly.
This is incorrect because the concept that all wings are
adapted to fly was incorrect.
One more example.
1. Bears are wild animals.
2. Wild animals are afraid of humans.
3. When bears are aware of humans, they will run.
If a bear has been conditioned to human presence by feeding
in campgrounds, or at garbage dumps, the first assumption may be false and the
bear may be more likely to charge.
Using this approach you can begin to refine your hypotheses to understand
the system better. For instance you may
hypothesize that bears that have had little previous experience with humans
will respond differently than those that have had close contact with human
settlements. You can then test this new
hypothesis, this is how science progresses.
Inferences
from mensurative experiments
Can’t
always do experiments, so how do we infer cause and effect when all we have are
observations and information from mensurative experiments?
Answer: Can
never be sure.
ex) smoking and lung cancer- no true manipulative
experiments have been done.
Considerations
in mensurative experiments
1.
Consistency among studies- the more the better
2. Dose-response relationship- If you increase the suspected
agent the response occurs more frequently.
3.
Response to cessation-
If you stop the factor the response declines.
4. Plausible causal linkage- Can do controlled studies on parts
of the system that support the causal linkage.
Example of
acid rain deposition in NE US.
Science
cannot by itself solve our environmental problems.
“Science
can illuminate issues, it cannot solve them.”
Clark, W.
1989. Amer. Sci.
Many of the
most fundamental questions that we face are moral/ethical ones, not
scientific. For instance,
How much
climate change is acceptable?
How much
poverty is acceptable?
How much
loss of biological diversity is acceptable?
Ethics- the discipline dealing with what
is good and bad and with moral and obligation
Environmental
ethics- what is
good and bad with regard to environmental issues.
ex) A
development in Saline Valley California would dry up Devil’s Hole, a saline
spring in death valley. The Devil’s
Hole pupfish lived only in that spring. => development would lead to the
extinction of the fish. What is the
proper decision in this case?
pro
development -many
people would have homes, a developer would get rich.
anti
development- a
species of fish would be lost forever
There are
many perspectives on the proper human relation to the environment.
No perfect
theory- many different ones.
-differ in starting points
-once underlying assumptions are accepted, each is logical.
-often developed by starting with different problems or
looking at the same problem in different ways
-each has strengths and weaknesses, none wholly right or wring
-each has reasonable foundation
-**each can be held by intelligent, intellectually honest,
reflective people
Environmental
ethics centers on human’s relations to the natural world in particular the
other species that inhabit the earth.
Each takes a slightly different perspective on our relationships and
obligations to those species.
Justification
for preservation of nature falls into two broad categories.
1.
Utilitarian- Save
species or natural systems because it will benefit humans.
Benefits-
From species
a. food plants ex) corn and ancestor in Mexico
b. medicines ex) Madagascar periwinkle- human leukemia
ex) Pacific Yew- ovarian cancer
c. organic pesticides ex) BT
From ecosystems
a. clean air
b. clean water
c. soil retention
2. Intrinsic value- all
species have the same right to persist as humans. Non human focus. All organisms are self directed and
therefore has inherent self worth.
Every species represents a complex evolutionary solution,
fashioned over billions of years. Each
has a right to exist.
Justify preservation based on the notion that all species
have their own inherent value, not based on what they can provide for humans.
I. Anthropocentric
(Human centered)
(Murdy)
Enlightened
self interest- may argue for preserving natural objects based on human
interest, but not because nature itself is part of our moral community.
1. Saving
species or natural environ. will benefit humans in the long run.
2. Nature
provides great satisfaction to humans from an aesthetic standpoint and
therefore should be preserved.
Justification
1. Moral
relationships are a set of reciprocal rules we follow in society.
2.
Nonhumans cannot participate, nature/animals do not understand the rules.
3.
Therefore, it is illogical to consider animals/nature to have the same
considerations that we would give to other humans.
Arguments
against other points of view
No species works for the net good of
another, it would be self destructive to give benefits to another species.
Natural
selection would select against a benevolent species.
Weaknesses
Justifies
might = right approach to nature
no basic
moral foundation
Limited
world view
Humans
often do not obey their own moral values
II. Individualism/
Animal rights (1800's)
Extend
moral concern beyond humans to individuals of select species.
Not an
environmental ethic but has distinct environmental consequences.
Justification
Humans
deserve moral concern.
Distinction
between humans and nonhumans is vague- there are no absolute diff.
Animals have rationality, self-awareness, intelligence,
complex social bonds
Therefore we should extend
moral/ethical behavior that we would extend to humans to animals.
Arbitrary
to include all humans and exclude animals.
Generally
only extended to warm blooded animals that are most like humans (birds and
mammals).
Singer
(animal liberation)- pleasure/pain is the basis to determine right from wrong.
Schweitzer-
reverence for life, based on the will-to-live shared by all humans
Not a
workable environmental ethic
Reducing
pain/suffering for an individual often leads to the destruction of species and
ecosystems.
ex) goats
on channel islands
Individualist/animal
rights approaches have different environmental repercussions from
anthropocentric.
III. Ecocentrism
Extend
boundary of moral community beyond humans.
Include
species, ecosystems, biomes.
"A
thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty
of the biotic community. It is wrong
when it tends otherwise...". Aldo Leopold. A Sand County Almanac
Land health
is a central goal.
Considerations include the effects
of human induced changes on erosion, soil fertility, productivity, species
diversity.
Justification
All species
have common origin, evolved from common ancestor.
All things
are connected (Barry Commoner).
Must consider
consequences of action on the whole system, not just humans.
Weaknesses
What is the
role of humans in the system?
No clear
guidelines for conflicts within and between ecosystem members.
Individualist-
moral values apply to individuals, not species.
Anthropocentrist- humans give values
to species/nature therefore human needs should be considered first. We are not all equal.
IV. Other perspectives (not
commonly addressed)
Deep
ecology- Intensive
questioning of values and lifestyles.
Honor/emphasize all life
maximize diversity and self-realization
Ecofeminism- Domination of nature is linked to
domination of women.
Male psyche stresses power, domination, subjugation
Ecofem stresses appreciation of underlying relationships,
empathy, affirmation of similarities and differences.
Native
American- Hard to
generalize.
World enspirited, everything has life, and
self-consciousness.
Earth as a living being- rocks, plants, animals.
Kinship with all nature.
Identity with place.
Western
religious- Many
perspectives.
Earth put here for humans to “go forth and prosper”.
Humans were put here as stewards of gods creation- must
maintain it in good order.
Metaphors- promised land, stewardship,
Eastern
Philosophy- Many
points of view.
Islam (religions faith of Muslims, Allah is god, Mohammed is prophet)- world
created by god for human use. Humans
free to enjoy/use enviro.
Taoism- Humans and nature linked, virtuous towards nature.
Buddhism- (central Asia- suffering is inherent in life, can be liberated by
mental/moral self purification) gentle nonaggressive attitude, few wants, take
little. Killing other living things is
taboo.
Hinduism- (India, karma) various
perspectives
Hadza- hunter gather people in
Tanzania. Humans are a part of nature,
do not view the world as a dichotomy between humans and nonhumans.
Why study
alternatives?
1. to
better understand and communicate with others.
The adversarial atmosphere generated by many environmental
problems will not be resolved until we first understand the starting points,
assumptions, and strengths and weaknesses of our own positions and those who
believe differently.
2.
Diversity of ideas is a rich source of personal and cultural evolution.
Environmental
ethic should be consistent, adequate, practical.
Some problems
to consider:
Logging vs
spotted owl
Water
diversion
Exploitation
of tropical rain forests
Overhunting
and exploitation of animals
Humans have
hunted animals throughout their history.
Over most of our evolutionary history, our hunting methods have been too
inefficient to greatly reduce or eliminate species. There are some notable exceptions, however.
Prehistoric
overexploitation
Polynesians
exterminated many ground dwelling birds species as they spread across the
Pacific Islands. First humans on
Madagascar probably caused the extinction of Elephant birds, and giant
lemurs. Some suggest that first humans
in NA lead to the extinction of much of NA megafauna.
Modern
era
Overhunting
became more of a problem when guns became widely available. Species that were difficult to kill now were
relatively easy to kill. Guns became
widely available in the US in the late 1800's.
This lead to the demise of deer in the eastern US which in turn inspired
some of the first hunting regulations in this country.
Examples of
overexploitation-
white-tailed deer in the eastern US
in the late 1800's (ironic that deer are “overabundant” in many of these same
areas now).
American bison- hunted nearly to
extinction by 1890. One of the most
rapid slaughters in history.
Passenger Pigeon- The most abundant
species in NA (estimated at 5+ billion) was hunted to extinction in the early
1900's. Last one died in the Cincinnati Zoo in 1914. Habitat loss also contributed to its demise.
Wolves and
Grizzlies- exterminated from most of western US.
History
of wildlife laws
Definitions
Wildlife- Free roaming animals, i.e. wild
life.
ex) deer, squirrels, crickets, nematodes, spiders
Feral- Domesticated animals that have
become free roaming.
ex) wild horses, feral cats and dogs
Domesticated- Animals that are cared for by
humans.
ex) cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, parakeet, etc.
Game- hunted species.
ex) deer, grouse, turkeys, waterfowl
Nongame- species that are not hunted.
ex) passerines, shorebirds, shrews
Pest or nuisance species- species that cause economic damage
to farmers, ranchers, or others and therefore are not protected.
ex) starlings, rats, blackbirds, crows, and ravens
I feel that
wildlife and feral animals should be considered together when managing wildlife
population.
Subsistence- hunting provides important source of caloric intake.
ex) Hadza
Market- meat is sold for income.
ex) P. Pigeon, Eskimo Curlew, American Bison (initially)
Sport- animals are hunted for the experience and for bragging rights, meat is
not
sold (laws against it) but often is eaten by the hunter.
Early American law built on traditional British
background. In the colonies, the King
held the game in trust for the people.
Colonists used the game for food and given the right to hunt and fish by
the king. At the time of the revolution
12 of 13 colonies had some game laws.
After revolution, game held in trust by “sovereign” authority. Wildlife legally became the responsibility
of the states.
Magna
Carta- 1215
- changed ownership of game from the Crown to the people.
|
Date |
Action/Legislation |
|
1630 |
First New World bounty
system: Massachusetts Bay Company authorizes payment of one penny per wolf. Deer
populations declined soon after colonists arrived. |
|
1646 |
First closed season on a
mammal (i.e. deer), Rhode Island. |
|
1700 |
Most of the deer shot out
in the colonies; deer harvesting laws were made but not enforced. |
|
1708 |
First
closed season on birds: ruffed
grouse, quail, turkey, and heath hens in certain New York counties. |
|
1850 |
First protection for
nongame birds in Connecticut and New Jersey (screech owl and insectivorous
birds) |
|
1864 |
A hunting license was first
required by hunters in New York. |
|
1865 |
First game department-
Massachusetts Commission of Fisheries and Game. |
|
1877 |
Florida passes a plume-bird
law prohibiting wanton destruction of eggs and young. |
|
1880 |
All states had game laws. |
|
1885 |
Establishment of Federal
Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy (in 1896 becomes the Division
of Biological Survey and in 1940 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) |
Development
of present concern for wildlife
1. Sportsmen
(and women)
1840's first sportsman club founded in New York
Feared significant losses from market hunting
2. Urban
well-to-do
1860's ASPCA started in NYC
initially concerned with problems associated with domestic
animals in cities. Concern grew to
include wildlife.
3. Scientific
Community
American Ornithologists Union 1896
Took an active role in protecting birds and habitats. (AOU did one of the original assessments of
the Northern Spotted Owl 1987)
4. Environmental
Organizations
Audubon Society formed in late 1800's- mostly in response to
plight of Ardeid populations from market hunting.
Modern laws
and legislation to protect and manage wildlife
During the
1800's in the U.S. the feelings about wildlife and how they should be managed
changed. During the early part of the
century (to 1849) there was a feeling that animal populations were unlimited and
killing animals to make way for agriculture and domesticated animals was
considered good.
Era of
limits (>1850) -recognized that populations cannot be exploited forever.
Geer vs Connecticut (1896)- The Supreme Court ruled
that wildlife is the property of the state, and not the landowner.
Lacey Act (1900)-helped curb market hunting
by making interstate transport of illegally killed wild animals or birds a
federal offense and regulated the importation of exotic wildlife. Basically the Lacey Act enlisted the aid of
the federal government, through its powers over interstate commerce, in the
enforcement of state game laws.
Further, the Lacey Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt
all measures necessary for the "preservation, distribution, introduction,
and restoration of game birds and other wild birds," subject, however
to the laws of the various states.
This act came about in large part because before this States
had jurisdiction over all of the wildlife in their state. Migratory birds did not pay attention to
state boundaries so under the States rights, generous hunting seasons in each
state began to decimate migratory bird populations. States did not coordinate for the benefit of the species involved. It is said that states were involved in a
"grim competition" to allow their own citizens the largest share of
migratory birds. The act also imposed
the unprecedented step of a license fee for hunters pursuing migratory birds:
this fee was in addition to any fees the states already required. The fee was used to establish a fund for the
purchase of migratory bird habitat.
Thus more birds would be available for hunters - who after all provided
the monies to acquire these habitats.
But other, non-hunted species certainly benefitted from the acquisition
of these habitats.
Migratory Bird Treaty (with Canada) 1916 (Migratory Bird
Treaty Act passed by congress 1918).
Placed migratory bird populations under federal control.
MBTA places
11 families of migratory birds directly under federal jurisdiction.
These include: Scolapacidae-
shorebirds
Charadridae- gulls and plovers
Anseridae- ducks and geese
Ardeidae- Herons and egrets
a. Distinguished between game and nongame species
b. set bag limits
c. set outside limits on hunting seasons (States set
own dates within those limits)
d. set limits on time of day when hunting could occur
e. prohibited sale of game species (no market
hunting)
f. provided for scientific permit system (to collect
birds and eggs for scientific studies)
States were
furious- wanted to maintain control over all wildlife.
Saw waterfowl as a federal responsibility and wanted to
spend no money.
States were reluctant to conduct any waterfowl work “federal
birds”.
Federal govt. had responsibility for migratory birds but no
money to manage or protect them. There
is still some tension between state and federal agencies over this.
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (1934)- each bird hunter had to pay
a fee in addition to hunting license the “Duck Stamp”.
Funds used
for:
a. Acquisition of land as sanctuaries and breeding grounds
for waterfowl
b. Development and administration of these lands
c. Protection of certain birds
Migratory
Bird Treaty Act with Mexico (1936)
Provisions:
-Both US and Mexico will protect and enhance environment for
migratory birds
-Will prevent and abate pollution or
detrimental alteration of the environment (oil pollution was an important
motivation)
-Immediate warnings between countries of threats to
migratory birds
-Controls import/export of live plants and animals harmful
to migratory birds
-Each country must identify important breeding, wintering,
and molting areas for migratory waterfowl.
After 1936
MTBA signed, federal government tried to win back support of states for
migratory bird work.
Pittman-Robertson Act (1937)- Federal aid in wildlife
restoration act. Provided funds for
wildlife management and habitat acquisition/restoration through taxation on
hunting equipment and supplies.
Objective:
To make federal monies available to encourage state investment in waterfowl
management and wildlife research in general.
Description:
1. Funds derived from an 11% excise
tax on sporting arms and ammunition.
Act was later amended to include a 10% tax on handguns and 11% tax on
certain archery equipment. (Receipts were 165 million in 1993)
Now there is a move to tax binoculars and other outdoor
equipment to raise money for nongame species- called Teaming with Wildlife.
2. The
federal government can use a maximum of 8% for administration.
3. The remaining 92% is allocated to
the states on a 3:1 matching basis.
States submit projects for federal approval, If approved, 75% comes from
P-R funds, the states pay 25%. The
project becomes state land In the end.
4. Money is
allocated to states based on two criteria:
-Half is based on the size of the state.
-Half is based on the number of hunting license sold.
Limitations:
1. There is a maximum of 5% that can
be allocated to a state in any one fiscal year. There also is a minimum that can be allocated (?%).
2. P-R
monies can be used for projects that have as their purpose:
a. the restoration, conservation, management, and
enhancement of wild birds and mammals, and the provision for public use of and
benefits from these resources.
b. The education of hunters and archers in the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes necessary to be a responsible hunter or archer.
Thus monies can be used for:
Wildlife research, Habitat restoration, Land acquisition,
hunter education
Monies cannot be used for:
Law enforcement, Public relations activities, Game farming,
Predator control, Fisheries work
3. If the state loses control of or
diverts any of its license money away from wildlife work, it loses its
eligibility for P-R support.
4. State wildlife personnel must
have technical training equivalent to comparable jobs in the federal
government.
5. Each
state must use its annual allocation within 2 years.
State Fish
and Wildlife agencies received a total of $1.162 billion in 1986; the funding
sources broke down as follows: (from Outdoor News Bulletin 41(20):2-3, October
1987).
|
Source of funding |
Proportion |
|
Hunting and fishing license fees |
53% |
|
Federal Aid (P-R, Dingell-Johnson, &Wallop Breaux
funds) |
17% |
|
General Fund appropriation (from legislature) |
14% |
|
Interest Income (deposited license fees) |
2% |
|
Miscellaneous (tax checkoff, income from state lands,
etc.) |
14% |
Sportsmen
directly paid for 70% of total wildlife budgets for all states, only 14% came
from general tax dollars. Overall
contribution by sportsman is estimated to be 75%.
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service received an estimated $865 million in 1989 from the
following sources:
|
Source of funding |
Proportion |
|
Congressionally appropriated funds |
53% |
|
Dingell-Johnson (Fisheries) |
22% |
|
Pittman-Robertson (wildlife) funds |
15% |
|
Migratory Bird Conservation Account (Duck stamps) |
3% |
|
Cooperative Endangered Species Cooperative Fund |
2% |
|
National Wildlife Refuge Funds |
1% |
|
Other special funds and accounts |
4% |
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife distribution of the 1988 Pittman-Robertson funds to States.
$112,655,747 (from Outdoor News Bulletin 44(10):2-4, May 1990).
|
Source of funding |
Proportion |
|
Operation and maintenance |
32% |
|
Development |
20% |
|
Survey and Inventory |
15% |
|
Research |
12% |
|
Hunter Education |
8% |
|
Land Acquisition |
7% |
|
Technical Guidance |
3% |
|
Administration |
1% |
|
Planning |
1% |
Agencies
USF&WS- lead agency for management of
migratory birds.
- also responsible for T&E species designation and
recovery
- manages some marine mammals in AK. Polar bear, Walrus others?
NFS does the rest
Flyway councils- people from fed and state agencies
jointly make decisions regarding management of waterfowl.
-reps from each state AK, CA, OR, WA, NV, AZ (Pacific
Flyway)
-collectively make recommendations.
-set bag limits that are universal across states
6 ducks/day, 12 in possession only one female
1 canvasback, 2 pintail, 2 redhead, etc.
-set total season that is universal across states (93 days)
-states decide exact dates of season
Current
director- ??
Cal F&G- protecting and managing, and
enhancing F&W and native plant resources
- set state game laws for game sp. other than waterfowl
-collect license fees
Fish and
Game Commission
5 members appointed by governor
Will.
conservation Board
acquires property
$ from bonds and horse racing
Law
enforcement
USF&WS
1. Special
agents- detectives (Terry Gross)
2. Wild.
Inspectors- at borders and airports
3. Refuge
officers- Kevin Foerster enforce fed. and state game laws on refuges
Cal.
F&G
Game
wardens- enforce state and fed. game laws