Reforming wildlife management is a complex and often contentious issue in the United States, particularly in Western states where large carnivores come into conflict with human interests. Recent cases involving fraudulent actions by guides and hunters have brought to light deeper systemic issues that extend beyond individual incidents. These situations reveal the culture surrounding wildlife often views animals as trophies for collecting or “nuisances” to be eliminated, reflecting a broader, troubling trend in wildlife governance.
The Problematic Culture Surrounding Wildlife
Across the U.S., wildlife is viewed by state and federal agencies through a distorted lens: the North American Model of wildlife conservation. In this philosophy, animals are not managed as equal denizens of a broader community. Instead, they’re classified as game—animals prized for hunting and recreation—and nongame species—animals not valued by this system that focuses on exploitation.
Game species receive attention and funding, though through this myopic, single-species focus. Nongame species are largely ignored as they lack funding and advocacy from within this culture.
The even more unfortunate exception to this treatment, though, are animals classified as “predators” or problems. From iconic species like mountain lions, wolves, and bears to backyard frequenters like raccoons, skunks, and coyotes, these animals are either treated as trophies to display or as nuisances that can be killed by any means necessary.
This mindset is not just a series of isolated incidents but indicative of a failing system in how we manage wildlife. State wildlife agencies frequently focus on managing and increasing populations of game species like deer, elk, and ducks because hunting licenses and related fees generate significant revenue. This financial model incentivizes maximizing robust populations of these animals for hunters, often at the expense of ecological stability and function.
As a result, wildlife management plans are frequently designed to maximize game species numbers, while viewing predator species, which play a critical role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, as populations that must be reduced to “protect” game.
Carnivores like wolves, mountain lions, and bears are often viewed as threats to livestock, pets, and game animal populations, leading to policies that allow or even encourage their removal—often through means of extreme cruelty.
Additionally, animals labeled as “nuisances,” such as coyotes or raccoons, are frequently targeted with fewer protections and little public consideration of their vital ecological roles.
This imbalance in management reflects a cultural bias where species that provide direct economic or recreational benefit when viewed through this extractive mindset are valued more than those that contribute to ecosystem health—arguably the most beneficial as ecosystem engineers and keystone species. Moreover, this shortsighted approach undermines biodiversity and the natural predator-prey relationships that are essential for healthy and resilient ecosystems.
This approach also ignores the intrinsic value of wild animals, and disregards the growing body of research on animal intelligence and emotions, which is even more reason to advocate for reforming wildlife management.
A Lack of Consequences for Illegal Behavior
One of the critical issues at play is the lack of penalties for animal cruelty and illegal wildlife behavior. Studies have shown that when states fail to enforce protective policies and liberalize hunting regulations, it creates an atmosphere that encourages illegal actions, and normalizes cruelty. In many instances, this has led to a sense of entitlement among certain hunters who feel justified in disregarding laws.
Take, for instance, the contrast in how different wildlife crimes are punished. In the case of egregious animal cruelty towards a young wolf in Daniel, Wyoming— despite being a high-profile situation that garnered global outrage—the perpetrator, Cody Roberts, faced little to no legal repercussions, highlighting the lag between prevailing ethical norms and antiquated state laws. In fact, the Wyoming Legislature Committee overseeing efforts for change had the opportunity to address the public’s overwhelming demand to ban snowmobiling over wildlife, but chose not to.
In stark contrast are recent incidents involving Utah and Idaho guides. In Idaho, three guides—Chad Michael Kulow, Andrea May Major, and LaVoy Linton Eborn—were indicted on multiple counts of conspiracy and Lacey Act violations related to illegal mountain lion hunts. They conducted unauthorized guiding activities, leading to the illegal killing of several mountain lions and falsifying reports to state authorities.
Similarly, in Utah, former wildlife official Walt Heaton was implicated in an illegal hunting scheme involving baiting practices for mule deer, which violates state laws. Heaton’s company directed clients to baited areas under the guise of official approval, leading to his resignation and ongoing legal scrutiny.
In these cases, which have received far less attention, the defendants are facing significant jail time, hefty fines, and probation. This disparity highlights the inconsistencies in how wildlife crimes are handled, reflecting a broader systemic failure. State law reflects the antiquated view of animals as things, resources, property. Thus, the crimes involved are property crimes, theft of the public’s game animals, and not a crime of cruelty towards sentient beings.
While states often take little to no action (either through lack of enforcement capacity or lack of political will), federal involvement is even more reluctant. The federal government rarely intervenes in these matters, often relying on outdated legislation like the 124-year-old Lacey Act to address violations. This lack of timely and effective federal oversight leaves states to manage their wildlife with varying degrees of commitment and effectiveness.
Moreover, the narratives around these crimes often fail to connect the dots between them, creating an incomplete picture of wildlife management issues. As communities rally against specific incidents, they often overlook the broader implications of a culture that disrespects wildlife, excludes other voices from decision making, and prioritizes hunting over conservation.
A Call for Dialogue and Action
These systemic issues warrant a deeper conversation about how we manage wildlife in the U.S. and why the conversation on reforming wildlife management – especially at the state level – is so vital. Understanding the interconnectedness of these incidents can shed light on the larger failures in wildlife governance.
If you’re interested in exploring these issues further, there’s much to discuss—whether it’s the legal challenges surrounding wildlife crimes or the broader implications of shifting political landscapes to value a culture of coexistence.
Together, we can advocate for a wildlife management system that prioritizes protection and respects the intricate balance of our ecosystems. Only by addressing these systemic issues can we hope to ensure a sustainable future for wildlife and the communities that depend on them.
If you’re ready to join the movement and take action, make sure to grab our Advocacy Toolkit for tips and ideas on how to get started in your state.