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 email@example.com.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
The House Appropriations Committee is now making decisions regarding funding allocations for FY 2020. Which of the following conservation priorities – largely led by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Members – is the most important to you?Vote Here
- North American Wetlands Conservation Act (13.45%)
- Chronic Wasting Disease management and studies (21.85%)
- National Fish Habitat Conservation (5.88%)
- Wildlife Migration Corridors (47.90%)
- National Wildlife Refuges (7.56%)
- Exemption of lead fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (3.36%)