Wildlife Recovery in North America

[Pantheraman]

Cougar Recovery East of the Mississippi River, how can it be done?

No matter what species you're dealing with, whether it be a charismatic species like the tiger, or even the very uncharismatic mussels, conservation is a challenge as it all the time, it seems like there are threats at every corner. What the threats all have in common is that in one way or another, people are involved in them. Because of this, conservation has to be inclusive if it's going to work. But how can the recovery of cougars in the east be inclusive? Well, let's look at a list of the stakeholders that would be involved.

1. Wildlife advocates/enthusiasts

2. Average everyday people like hikers, runners, and pet owners.

3. Livestock Producers

4. Hunters

5. Private Landowners

Now for the next question, how to involve each of the stakeholders? Here's what I've got so far.

Conservationists could create an organization revolving around the conservation of the big cats that would be in control of their protection and management, rather than the game agencies due to the wildlife management machine of this country making state wildlife management exclusive. Giving the management and protection authority to this organization I think could make conservation decisions on these cats inclusive of all stakeholders. Plus it would need to be the kind of conservation program that would work regardless of who's in office at the White House.

This is how one can include wildlife advocates/enthusiasts. Now for the runners, hikers, pet owners, and regular people, conservationists can teach them how to keep their kids and pets safe as well as what to do if they encounter a cougar. Not only that, but local people regardless of their background could be employed to help track the movement of cougars, and help keep conflicts to a minimum.

For livestock producers, conservationists can corroborate with them to aid in protecting their livestock, such as helping set up protective objects to keep livestock safe, providing livestock guardian dogs, or potentially certain cattle breeds like Texas Longhorns. At the same time, lost livestock could be replaced with a new animal or animals.

When it comes to private landowners, we must respect their rights. What conservationists could perhaps do is a program similar to the prey for the pack program for red wolves: landowners would be paid for maintaining their land to be suitable for cougars and they can still do what they want on their land.

For hunters, houndsmen could be employed for helping scientists put radio collars on them and perhaps to find particular cats that might need to be killed or removed. However, a person with a history of mistreating their dogs wouldn't be welcome or fired. Other hunters can be paid when they catch a cat on their trail cameras.

 

[Pantheraman]

How to Broaden Funding for State Wildlife Agencies

The state game agencies of the USA are in a funding issue. They're almost always underfunded and don't have enough funds to fully address to conservation problems in the modern world. Because of this, the idea that they should continue to be fully or mostly funded by the hunting and fishing community places the agencies in a monetarily bad position.

The solution to this problem is to diversify their funding bases outside the hunting and fishing community and include revenue from the nonconsumptive users of wildlife. However, the reason they can't do this comes down to current politics. Political connections within the wildlife management machine block and undermine efforts to diversify funds for the agencies and increase inclusivity in wildlife management decisions. This unfortunately makes the agencies more reliant on state general funds which makes them more vulnerable to state politicians, like Greg Giantforte for example.

As a result, agencies are trying to boost hunter numbers.

Aside from increased funding, another reason to increase inclusivity in wildlife management decisions is so that other stakeholders interested in wildlife are both represented of fish and wildlife commissions and have a voice in what happens with our wildlife. And it makes state wildlife conservation inclusive rather than exclusive.

But say for a moment current politics weren't getting in the way. How could the agencies receive funds from nonconsumptive users?

An old idea is to place an excise tax on camping and outdoor equipment that's paid when a person buys that stuff. Good thinking, but this isn't going to work for one simple reason: People hate paying taxes and in fact, a bill called the Teaming with Wildlife Act was introduced a long time ago and didn't pass for that reason. And the dislike of paying taxes is one thing that hasn't changed.

And now some may read this and wonder "But why don't these people just go buy a hunting or fishing license? That would take care of the problem."

Oh, you sweet summer child...

What this idea fails to consider is basic human psychology. Nobody, and I mean nobody is gonna buy a license for something they aren't going to do. In fact, we humans only get licenses because by law we have to get them. And I'll admit, even I'm guilty of this. And sure, the agencies could require nonconsumptive users to buy hunting licenses to go camping or hiking like Colorado at least tried doing, but that's only going to create resentment towards the agencies since people's minds, why should they be forced to get a license for something they aren't even doing?

Taking human psychology into account, if you want people to give you money, give them something a person would actually want to pay for. And this leads me to my funding solution.

State game agencies could collaborate with companies and manufacturers to produce products people can buy either on online stores or in physical retail stores such as shirts, water bottles, coffee cups, mugs, hats, etc and when purchased, all the money spent would go towards the most critical wildlife issues of our time. Conservation NGOs will sometimes do this as a way of boosting their funds.