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.
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.
- In New Hampshire in late 2019, state legislators introduced HB 1571. The bill amends the qualifications potential members of the Fish and Game Commission must meet. This proposed law would have allowed recreational clubs and conservation organizations to be a part of the nominating process which is currently made up of sportsmen. The bill curtails scientific wildlife management by stating that participants must simply accept scientific methods.
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: Ellary TuckerWilliams; 202-573-6079; firstname.lastname@example.org
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Recently, two Montana state representatives have proposed more aggressive legislation addressing the state's gray wolf population. These bills range from the addition of a wolf tag into big game combination tags, to year-round sanctioned harvest without a license, use of snare traps, and private reimbursement of wolf harvest. Currently, the wolf population in Montana sits at 850 wolves, which is 700 over the state’s minimum recovery goal of 150 wolves. Which of the below options for wolf management do you support? (Select all that apply)Vote Here
- Regulated hunting under the management of the state fish and wildlife agency during a specific season (28.57%)
- Year-round hunting of wolves without a license (14.29%)
- The use of snares (trapping) without hunting allowances (0.00%)
- A combination of hunting and trapping during specific seasons regulated by the fish and wildlife agency (38.10%)
- The establishment of a bounty program to incentivize harvest during specific seasons (4.76%)
- Other (0.00%)
- I do not support the take of wolves (14.29%)