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 regulating and sustainable hunting. Since their creation, these entities have been understandably staffed by experts in the wildlife management field: mostly hunters, trappers, and anglers. 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 mind In recent years, however, people who do not hunt or trap, and in some cases are fundamentally opposed to the practices, have made pushes for representation on game commissions. They believe that commissions should represent the entire population, and not just hunters, trappers, and anglers.
This new pressure for non-consumptive constituents to be on game commission’s poses an alarming problem that directly threatens the future of conservation. It is no secret that 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 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. 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 well.
Points of Interest
- In January of 2016, the last 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.
It is imperative to keep hunters, trappers, and fishermen and women on 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 Brent Miller at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Which of the following do you think would most effectively support increasing hunting participation numbers?Vote Here
- Improve hunter and target shooter involvement in regulatory and legislative processes. (12.80%)
- Enact or expand temporary hunter education deferral programs (apprentice license programs, multiyear options, programs for all first-time hunters regardless of age, and programs promoting hunting of multiple game species). (10.40%)
- Offer shooting sports and hunter education as school activities and recreation programs. (61.60%)
- Link existing programming into family-oriented organizations (such as churches and home-school groups) where participants will have the social support to continue. (15.20%)