Wildlife For All is a national campaign to reform state wildlife management to be more ecologically-driven, democratic, and compassionate.
We advocate for a new paradigm in wildlife management that:
- Prioritizes conservation of all species – not just game animals – as part of natural ecosystems;
- Is aligned with public trust principles, i.e. that the government has a duty to protect wildlife as a public trust for the benefit of all life, including future generations;
- Is responsive to the broad public interest in wildlife, not just hunters, anglers and trappers;
- Considers and respects the interests of individual animals, not just populations and species.
The Problem with State Wildlife Management Today
- If the vast majority of the public abhors wildlife killing contests, why are they still legal in most states?
- If the people who watch wildlife far outnumber those who hunt and fish, why do our wildlife agencies still focus most of their efforts on game species?
- Why is it that at a packed state Game Commission meeting, everyone in the room can advocate for one thing but the Commission will still do the opposite?
The short answer is: our wildlife is being held hostage by a broken and antiquated system that needs our help.
Solutions: What would the ideal system of state wildlife management look like?
- It would be aligned with the Public Trust Doctrine.
- There would be statutory language declaring it to be the policy of the state to protect wildlife within a public trust framework.
- Individuals would have a right guaranteed in the state’s constitution to bring legal action against authorities to enforce compliance with the public trust doctrine.
- The state’s wildlife agency would have the legal authority to regulate the take of all species and their habitats, including invertebrates.
- State funding for wildlife conservation would be broad-based and robust, and not connected to any particular “use” of wildlife, e.g. hunting, fishing or backpacking.
Public Trust Doctrine: a better paradigm for wildlife conservation
The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) offers an alternative framework to the status quo in wildlife management that more compatible with modern ecological and societal goals. PTD is a legal doctrine with its roots in Roman and English common law. It holds that nature, including wildlife, is a public trust that the government has a “fiduciary” duty to protect for the benefit of the beneficiaries, including those not yet born.
Biodiversity, the extinction crisis, and why it matters
The world’s wildlife faces a grim future. Species and populations everywhere are disappearing at a rapid rate due to human activities. Vertebrate populations have declined worldwide by an average of 68 percent since 1970. Numbers of North American birds have dropped by nearly three billion birds over the same period. Eighteen percent of animal species in the U.S. are currently threatened with extinction.
In tied vote, Washington commissioners suspend controversial spring bear hunt
By Eli Francovich. The Spokesman-Review.
This article highlights an important example of a wildlife commission following the will of the public. Due to an unfilled commission seat, the vote ended in a 4-4 tie putting the controversial bear hunt on hold. The commissioners that voted against the hunt questioned WDFW’s population data and cited public opinion as a main reason for their vote.
Panel won’t ban coyote-killing contests
By Carol Shaye. Reno News & Review.
The article discusses the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners 5-4 vote against banning coyote-killing contests. However, as the article mentions, at least one Nevada lawmaker has vowed to bring the issue to the Nevada Legislature if the wildlife board failed to impose a ban. Changing the composition of the commission is also something legislators may consider.
Indigenous activists seek high-level help for gray wolf push
By Michael Doyle. Greenwire.
This story is noteworthy because indigenous activists are forthrightly declaring wolf management by the states to be a “social justice” issue. We couldn’t agree more.
How a B.C. conservation officer’s refusal to kill two bear cubs sparked a debate about managing wildlife
By Nancy MacDonald. Originally published in The Globe and Mail.
Although this story is about events in Canada, it illustrates how provincial wildlife management, like its counterpart in state wildlife management in the U.S., is driven by an ethos of domination (often leading to the death of wildlife) rather than coexistence, a predictable result perhaps of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation’s view of wild animals as soulless resources.
New campaign with New Mexico roots pushes for wildlife management reform
By Hannah Grover. Originally published in The New Mexico Political Report.
A newly launched initiative seeks to reform wildlife management not only in New Mexico, but across the nation.
Wildlife For All is a national campaign to reform state wildlife management to be more ecologically-driven, democratic, and compassionate.
We advocate for a new paradigm in wildlife management that:
- Prioritizes conservation of all species – not just game animals – as part of natural ecosystems;
- Is aligned with public trust principles, i.e. that the government has a duty to protect wildlife as a public trust for the benefit of all life, including future generations;
- Is responsive to the broad public interest in wildlife, not just hunters, anglers and trappers;
- Considers and respects the interests of individual animals, not just populations and species.
The Problem with State Wildlife Management Today
- If the vast majority of the public abhors wildlife killing contests, why are they still legal in most states?
- If the people who watch wildlife far outnumber those who hunt and fish, why do our wildlife agencies still focus most of their efforts on game species?
- Why is it that at a packed state Game Commission meeting, everyone in the room can advocate for one thing but the Commission will still do the opposite?
The short answer is: our wildlife is being held hostage by a broken and antiquated system that needs our help.
Solutions: What would the ideal system of state wildlife management look like?
- It would be aligned with the Public Trust Doctrine.
- There would be statutory language declaring it to be the policy of the state to protect wildlife within a public trust framework.
- Individuals would have a right guaranteed in the state’s constitution to bring legal action against authorities to enforce compliance with the public trust doctrine.
- The state’s wildlife agency would have the legal authority to regulate the take of all species and their habitats, including invertebrates.
- State funding for wildlife conservation would be broad-based and robust, and not connected to any particular “use” of wildlife, e.g. hunting, fishing or backpacking.
Public Trust Doctrine: a better paradigm for wildlife conservation
The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) offers an alternative framework to the status quo in wildlife management that more compatible with modern ecological and societal goals. PTD is a legal doctrine with its roots in Roman and English common law. It holds that nature, including wildlife, is a public trust that the government has a “fiduciary” duty to protect for the benefit of the beneficiaries, including those not yet born.
Biodiversity, the extinction crisis, and why it matters
The world’s wildlife faces a grim future. Species and populations everywhere are disappearing at a rapid rate due to human activities. Vertebrate populations have declined worldwide by an average of 68 percent since 1970. Numbers of North American birds have dropped by nearly three billion birds over the same period. Eighteen percent of animal species in the U.S. are currently threatened with extinction.
In tied vote, Washington commissioners suspend controversial spring bear hunt
By Eli Francovich. The Spokesman-Review.
This article highlights an important example of a wildlife commission following the will of the public. Due to an unfilled commission seat, the vote ended in a 4-4 tie putting the controversial bear hunt on hold. The commissioners that voted against the hunt questioned WDFW’s population data and cited public opinion as a main reason for their vote.
Panel won’t ban coyote-killing contests
By Carol Shaye. Reno News & Review.
The article discusses the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners 5-4 vote against banning coyote-killing contests. However, as the article mentions, at least one Nevada lawmaker has vowed to bring the issue to the Nevada Legislature if the wildlife board failed to impose a ban. Changing the composition of the commission is also something legislators may consider.
Indigenous activists seek high-level help for gray wolf push
By Michael Doyle. Greenwire.
This story is noteworthy because indigenous activists are forthrightly declaring wolf management by the states to be a “social justice” issue. We couldn’t agree more.
