The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation; a Reflection

[Hammsolo]

Years ago I decided to read the Bible, why? I am very practical by nature and decided if I’m going to actually be a Christian I better have read the text.

After being deeply moved by @Big Fin and Shane Mahoney and their current YouTube series I ordered the text and thought I better get reading. Knowledge is power, and shared knowledge is a greater power. As one of my old ball coaches would tell me, “Nick you can stand out alone in the valley, or we can stand on top of the mountain together as a team.”

I challenge you to order the book and get reading. I am a SLOW damn reader. I read paragraphs over and over. It is part of my diagnosis… My goal isn’t to read the book, but to be informed and prepared for the climb that is to come.

I will be posting a short blurb to this thread each morning unless I’m out chasing wildlife. Generally I meditate, read the Bible, and now I’ll be doing this as well each morning.

The introduction lays out Mahoney and Jackson’s “Seven Sisters of Conservation.” Do these all still apply today? Are they of equal value? Do they need to be treated as if they’re etched in stone, or do they need to evolve? Should anything be added?

I can’t wait to hear what others think, but I do believe we need to add a Sister. Get your mind out of the gutter, I’ve been snipped. Education. Knowledge. The only way to maintain and enhance the wild in our age is through education and knowledge. Why would people protect something they don’t even know about or understand?

 

[Treeshark]

I look forward to your thread. NAM has been discussed (and weaponized) quite a bit recently- there has been some mission creep in my opinion.

Education would be a worthwhile pillar. Equality in opportunity would be another interesting topic to discuss as it relates to NAM.

 

[Hammsolo]

My goal is learning. I don’t have an agenda outside of that. Hopefully it will lead to some great discussions about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go.

 

[Hammsolo]

Day 2 - It was a dark and stormy night…

Well, it sort of was. First, I‘ve learned that the North American Model (NAM) began evolving over 800,000 years ago as I see it when, as of what we know now, humans stood at the “gate of Alaska.”

I am no historian, and hated history class in Middle School and High School. It was always read a few questions at the end of a chapter and then hunt for answers. I didn’t learn shiz. It was monotonous and boring as hell. The teachers were the same. Shout out to the Anaconda School District! Whoop!! I pray it’s changed. Why do I mention this? I had no idea what chain of events led me to where I am today.

About 120,000 years ago humans began trotting around this continent effing it up sometimes, and managing it others. We quickly hunted a pile of mega-fauna into extinction, and it was probably necessary for survival. This started reshaping the land when we didn’t have living tractors tilling up the land, and shatting out seeds.

About 14,000 years ago we became a keystone species, in my humble opinion. Until then, we buckled in and held on for our lives. We started to manage our system, a group of parts working together to accomplish a goal. We started shifting that goal through predator management and fire management. We started evolving and inventing everything from poisonous spears to prescribed burns.

This chapter gave me a cleared picture of the past. I was given a vision of Native Americans peacefully resting amongst the Wildlife, and gently living alongside the plants and animals. The truth is that they were working hard to figure out how to survive and thrive. They learned how to manage forests and grasslands. They depleted some species at times, while protecting and enhancing others.

I found its especially intriguing to learn of the increase in populations after Westward Expansion decimated the Native population. It makes sense though, that you eliminate thousands and thousands people and the resources they relied on would’ve increase.

Archduke Ferdinand had to be a D measurer. I don’t believe for a millisecond that he killed “272,511 pieces or heads of wildlife.” Well, if it included rodents and insects maybe. Talk about a pompous ass. However, this excess and the excess of others in Europe led to a new model showing up in North America thanks to a “Band of Brothers” from America and Canada ~1900. This start led to many species rebounding due to the focus being on supporting the common man and not some elite.

I found the connection to our armed citizenry quite interesting. We actually had the means to hunt. Drrr duh drrrrr. Seems obvious now. I especially found it eye opening to read of a Japanese General advising to not invaded the United States during WWI because there would be “a gun behind every bush.”

The rest of the chapter goes on to essentially discuss protectionism, conservationism and the effects of private lands. The real defining question I have is, why do some think we are separate from the system? How do we get society to understand that we are the variable in this system with the greatest effect, but with also no absolute control? The decisions we make and the actions we take influence the land, animals, plants, and all. When we take actions there are countless reactions.

Einstein once said, “with every action there’s an equal opposite reaction. With every problem, there’s a solution: just a matter of taking action.” In wildlife and ecosystem management the first sentence just isn’t true without deeper explanation. Einstein was really speaking to matter and energy, but I won’t bore you with a long explanation. Long story short is that matter and energy is nearly constant. In most cases neither can be created nor destroyed, but changed. You kill and eat an elk, some of that elks energy moves you and your body transforms some of that elks matter into you. Do you really think that eliminating a species has a singular reaction? Do we really think that buying vegetables at the market has a singular reaction? Life and death are much more complex than that.

Why is this chapter so important? We need a deeper understanding of our past to understand our present more clearly. We must understand the NAM, what its strengths and weaknesses are currently, and continue to evolve it. The goal stays the same, but the actions change.

 

[SAJ-99]

why do some think we are separate from the system?

Not going to argue dates with someone who self-proclaims as bad at history, but I agree that hopefully the Anaconda School District has expanded its library.

Question above seems to be the key question. My guess at an answer is simply idealistic ideology and hubris. We have shown these traits as a species before- like ALL the time. Some people can’t kill another animal. Our economic structure has disconnected us from the natural world. For example, our kids might love cheeseburgers but don’t want to see the bolt used on the cow.

Maybe we want to believe everything can coexist in some harmonious way. I don’t take issue with the belief, only that it is mostly idealistic and not based on reality. It’s impractical. We have changed every part of this planet, mostly in a negative way in terms of natural balance. With the NAM we see ourselves as part of the system. If we get rid of that, we open up a Pandora’s box of potential problems we can’t even envision- the unknown unknowns, if you will. Entropy is the only constant.

 

[Hammsolo]

Day 3 - This will be a quick one, as my time has been dominated by house painting and the Washington Commission Meetings. I didn’t have any time to read yesterday, and only a little today. I have to keep momentum though.

Chapter 3 - The Social Context for the Emergence of the North American Model reminded me of just how young our country is, as well as our model of wildlife conservation. The seed germinated in the 19 teens in Canada and then rooted into America.

I had never considered how the loss of open hunting for food and monetary gain really effected groups. The move to maintain “wild lives” for people and to democratically manage wildlife as a resource in the public trust highly influenced the lives of the poor and rural. I can’t imagine being an indigenous person that hunted for sustenance, and suddenly finding myself without that freedom. That is a serious culture change. The removal of market hunting broke a system that had provided jobs and great wealth to some. Change is hard, especially when it forces an immense cultural shift.

It was necessary though as Canada and the US moved to recover multiple species and protect lands. The process was skewed toward game animals at the time, and the removal of predators became a focus. Why? Competition.

This makes me ponder the social context of today. At 8:00 the next Washington Commission Meeting begins. For all of the shenanigans and tomfoolery occurring in the commission, they can only deal with what they know. In turn, they can only be held accountable when “we” know they have the information. We must remember that all of us see our world through different binoculars. They have theirs and I have mine. None of us have the exact same set. We must share our binoculars with them. They need the Science. They need to understand our social context. Many of them didn’t, and may still not, understand the black bear situation. The thought of eating bear is foreign to many of them, and the variety of reasons others do. If we don’t inform them, who will?

 

[Treeshark]

That is an interesting paradox: at one point in time, it became necessary to move a bit away from the subsistence/hunt-to-eat part of hunting in order to save game populations (market hunting, over harvest).

Now, moving back towards a hunt-for-meat movement from what hunting has become may be needed to save it into the future (trophy hunting/monetization vs hunting for the purpose of consuming the animal).

 

[Hammsolo]

That is an interesting paradox: at one point in time, it became necessary to move a bit away from the subsistence/hunt-to-eat part of hunting in order to save game populations (market hunting, over harvest).

Now, moving back towards a hunt-for-meat movement from what hunting has become may be needed to save it into the future (trophy hunting/monetization vs hunting for the purpose of consuming the animal).

Why can’t we have both? Also, I think we are learning just how important messaging is. We are learning quickly that the formula in how a statement is made is every bit as important as the facts of the statement. It is even more important to think of the goal of your message. Are you getting people on the hunting bus, shoving them off, or even running them over? What does this bus look like? Chucking Naty Ices out the window while shooting at running critters?j

We had all prepare our message and share it. This is wood chopping. It’s slow and hard. With prep and the right tools it is easier, but never easy. Put on your damn gloves, sharpen your axe, and strengthen that back. This is going to take a minute.

 

[Treeshark]

Why can’t we have both?

I think we can. I also think it’s just as important to recognize where the puck is going- nothing is static.