Why It Matters: Opportunities for public engagement with state fish and wildlife agencies and commissions is an often-underappreciated part of wildlife management. During public comment periods, professionally trained biologists balance on-the-ground information on wildlife habitat and populations with the desires of the public that such agencies serve. Together, this system allows state agencies to communicate their intentions, balance those intentions with the interests of the public, and make informed management decisions. These comment periods serve as a stark contrast to the recent increase in “Ballot Box Biology” being undertaken by many anti-conservation organizations that seek to enact their will through ballot initiatives, many of which are rooted in incendiary misinformation and all of which exclude the science-based management tenets that are the bedrock of our North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Highlights:
- The Missouri Department of Conservation is currently accepting public input on deer management in the Show-Me State.
- Hunters and conservationists can weigh in on the state’s deer management plan, which includes Missouri’s deer hunting frameworks.
- Comment periods are a preferred method of engaging the public regarding wildlife management decisions by allowing professionally trained biologists to combine stakeholder input with on-the-ground information on wildlife and their habitat.
Now through October 17th, the Missouri Department of Conservation is hosting an online public comment period regarding the state’s deer management. During this comment period, stakeholders are invited to answer survey questions about the current state of Missouri’s deer herd, as well as current hunting seasons and their framework. This online survey period is being accompanied by a series of open house listening sessions across the state.
Public input during these comment periods plays an important role in informing state wildlife management decisions. Under the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, wildlife are a public trust resource managed by state fish and wildlife agencies for the benefit of all citizens. By accepting comments designed to inform their decisions, professionally trained biologists have the opportunity to compare on-the-ground data about wildlife and their habitat with the opinions of those for whom they are managing these resources. This, in turn, helps shape management decisions to ensure that the state continues to manage wildlife sustainably and effectively.
Recently, anti-hunting interests who have not been successful in pushing their agenda through the state agency rulemaking process or the legislature have opted instead for more prescriptive referenda in the form of ballot measures. This “Ballot Box Biology” gained tremendous attention last year with the attempt to ban bobcat and mountain lion harvest in Colorado via Proposition 127. While the efforts of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and many in-state and national partners were successful in defeating Proposition 127, the strategy remains one that we, as sportsmen and women, are likely to continue to see arise in many states. Make no mistake, the will of the public should be, and is, considered when state agencies are making wildlife management decisions, but it is important that the public input informs, rather than overrules, the efforts of those best trained and equipped to make science-backed management decisions.
