Established with the dedicated purpose of protecting and conserving wildlife, game commissions have been understandably staffed by experts in the field throughout their existence. Such experts’ ability to make responsible and effective decisions regarding wildlife management has become contested through non-sportsmen and women pushes for representation on game commissions. Having board members that are neutral on the matter or even directly oppose hunting, trapping, and fishing leads to obstructionism, which in turn will potentially restrict access and opportunity for sportsmen and women.
Game commissions were created with a singular purpose - to protect and conserve wildlife through regulations and sustainable hunting. Since their creation, these entities have been understandably staffed by experts in the wildlife management field: mostly hunters, anglers and trappers. Utilizing their extensive knowledge of the outdoors, these board members have been able to make responsible, informed, and effective decisions regarding fishing and wildlife conservation. In recent years, however, people who do not hunt, fish or trap, and in some cases are fundamentally opposed to these practices, have made pushes for representation on game commissions. They believe that commissions should represent the entire population and not just hunters, anglers, or trappers.
The new pressure for non-consumptive constituents to be on game commission’s poses an alarming problem that directly threatens the future of conservation. Sportsmen and women contribute an incredible amount to conservation efforts through the purchasing of hunting licenses, permits, tags, stamps and other outdoor related gear, in addition to other contributions to habitat organizations. Having Commissioners that are neutral on the matter or even directly oppose hunting, trapping, and fishing leads to obstructionism, which can restrict access and opportunity for sportsmen and women. If opportunities to hunt are reduced, it follows that sportsmen’s and women’s ability to contribute to conservation efforts will dramatically decrease, putting conservation efforts for both game and non-game species at risk as.
Points of Interest
- In January of 2016, a pro-hunting California Fish and Game Commissioner turned in his resignation over frustration of non-consumptive obstruction from other Commissioners.
- In multiple instances partisan politics has been the driver of commission regulation and not sound science, which sets a dangerous precedent.
- The addition of anti-sportsmen and women onto game commissions represents a dangerous shift in values, from conservation to preservation.
- In 2018, an Idaho Commissioner resigned following criticism and controversy after sharing pictures from an African safari hunting trip.
- In Oregon in 2019, a retired marine, rancher, and hunting guide was appointed by the Governor to serve on the Commission but was later rejected by the Senate following criticism by environmentalist groups for big game hunting photos on social media.
It is imperative to keep hunters, anglers and trappers on fish and game commissions, so that they may advance and protect the time-honored traditions that sportsmen and women hold dear. In addition, keeping pro-hunters on game commissions retains sportsmen’s and women’s ability to contribute to wildlife conservation through the purchasing of hunting licenses, stamps, and other outdoor related gear.
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Aoibheann Cline (916) 633-3664; firstname.lastname@example.org.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
A key component of the American System of Conservation Funding, the Pittman- Robertson Act directs excise taxes on firearms, ammo, and archery equipment to wildlife conservation. Since its inception in 1937 the Act has generated more than $12 billion towards conservation. However, there has been a loss of 5 million hunters in the past decade. One proposed solution to help fund conservation is to dedicate lottery proceeds for conservation purposes. Would you support this effort in your state?Vote Here
- Yes. (87.50%)
- No, only sportsmen and women should fund conservation. (12.50%)
- No, I support alternative funding mechanisms, but not lottery funds. (0.00%)
- Unsure. (0.00%)