The History of Wildlife Conservation in North America

 

Prior to the approval of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in 1980, few or insufficient legal measures were in place to regulate and protect the management of wildlife. In 2001, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) was developed, and it has since served as a successful guideline for legal and environmental entities to better manage wildlife across the continent.

The 20th century witnessed a surge in legal efforts to regulate wildlife conservation. With countless species at risk due to human activities like development and hunting, several acts functioned to protect wildlife populations. In 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protected specific species of migratory birds, prohibiting their capture for purposes including transport or sale. Listed species include parakeets, cranes, and black-billed cuckoos.

Twenty years later, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937. The act allocated taxes on firearms toward state-based endeavors to enhance wildlife conservation. Several states used the funds to rehabilitate migratory bird habitats and establish new feeding areas for animals.

The Wildlife Restoration Act inspired future legal measures to improve conservation across the United States. For example, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 guaranteed permanent funding for fisheries. In the decades since its passing, the act has raised more than $8 billion to protect a wide variety of sport fish and their habitats.

In 1980, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, thereby authorizing financial and technical assistance to establish and enforce conservation programs targeting nongame fish and wildlife. From 1982 through 1985, the act boosted funding for such programs by providing $5 million annually.

The aforementioned acts collectively demonstrated a successful framework for wildlife conservation, namely the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC). Coined by Valerius Geist, this framework comprises seven interdependent principles.

The first principle posits that wildlife resources are a public trust. This idea arose due to animal rights infringement. Claims of ownership and commercial sales of live wildlife generated legal and environmental problems. Therefore, this principle confirms the government’s role in regulating wildlife management on behalf of American citizens to eliminate illegal activities.

Eliminating markets for game species is the crucial second principle. As wildlife populations declined, the government intervened to ensure the survival of such species and the preservation of biodiversity. Today, commercial operations for the sale of certain animals continue to pose a threat to wildlife conservation. For instance, trade markets for reptiles remain unregulated, while turtle sales are particularly hard to track due to the high demand in Asian food markets.

The third NAMWC principle emphasizes governmental regulation of hunting activities. It controls wildlife by law, granting the public access to wildlife based on specific criteria. Hunting seasons are clearly defined, with regulated methods of take and bag limits.

The fourth principle states that killing wildlife is reserved for particular food or protective reasons. Outside legitimate purposes, killing wildlife for pleasure as in sport hunting in previous decades is banned.

Some species such as migratory birds do not belong to one area, often crossing international borders. This makes their management more complicated than that of native species. The fifth principle highlights the international shared responsibility of protecting wildlife, especially endangered species.

As with most fields, science has become the standard when informing policy. The sixth principle of NAMWC presents science as the primary tool to develop wildlife policy and guide informed decision making.

The seventh and final principle maintains that hunting is open to the public without special access for particular individuals based on their wealth, social status, or land ownership. In recent years, this principle has engendered an open debate of gun control regulations that compromise access to hunting.