I have written often about the attempt at mixing politics with the science of wildlife management. A couple of questions that continuously pop up is how do you avoid politics when it comes to decisions on wildlife management and if there is any room for such politics how much is enough and who decides?

I think it would be safe to say that it is virtually impossible to create a situation where no politics existed in any fish and game department. Having said that, we have to figure out how much is enough.

All states are set up a bit differently when it comes to wildlife management. Some states have their own separate department, while others are part of a bigger department, often a department of environmental affairs or natural resources.

Within these departments often the wildlife managers, including biologists, are manged by the same head person who oversees conservation officers or more times than not affectionately referred to as game wardens.

Depending on how a particular state functions, the head of the fish and game has certain authority over specific tasks involving fish and game. Usually this would entail setting bag limits or seasons on game animals. New laws to help regulate fish and game aspects most of the time come from the legislative branch. These laws can be proposed by the fish and game department, legislators and/or citizens.

In a previous article I wrote about the reasons why we have wildlife laws. I also explained how that every day more laws are being proposed that are not based on science, public safety, etc., but on ethics and views from those living a progressive lifestyle who deem hunting, trapping and fishing to be inhumane, unnecessary or just passe. We also are seeing a strong upsurge in efforts by special interest groups within the sporting community sometimes at the expense of other special interests. It is these forms of politics that are interfering with good sound wildlife management.

But what happens when it seems that an entire fish and game department has focused its resources on the promotion of its own political agenda? When this happens, science gets put on the back burner in place of promoting personal beliefs. If the head honcho for the fish and game department becomes a strong advocate for the preservation of wildlife and has very little support for game harvesting practices, how does this affect the sportsmen of that state? How do we prevent that from happening?

For too long I think hunters, trappers and fishermen have had it relatively easy. But today when participation in these outdoor pursuits is dwindling, land access is shrinking and more and more people believe that animals have more rights than humans, we are faced with a constant fight to keep what we have. We have to become more active and more outspoken.

Two things have happened because of the complacency of hunters. Animal rights groups have found holes in our defenses and they have worked to exploit those to promote their agenda to rid the country of hunting, trapping, fishing and any recreational activity that involves animals.

The other thing is wildlife agencies, in other words biologists, wildlife managers, including conservation officers, have been able to work unchecked by us sportsmen and as such have gotten away with things that perhaps they shouldn’t have.

A line has to be drawn somewhere as to how politically involved fish and game personnel can and should be in addressing issues concerning wildlife management. It is commonplace for the head person at the fish and game or a designated representative, to appear at a hearing about discussion concerning a proposed law to answer questions and even voice support or opposition to this bill and the reason for such a position. Is it alright for that same person to actively campaign for or against a bill outside of their professional scope?

Of course we can’t tell an employee they can’t participate in political activities on their own time but how far should we allow them to go when in uniform on government time? Here’s an example. Let’s say a group of citizens decided to bring a citizen’s initiative for a statewide vote to end bear hunting. This is not unusual because we have seen this play out in several states in the past few years.

Should we expect the state’s fish and game department to publicly state support or opposition to such an initiative? I believe that in most cases this would be considered an acceptable practice. What if an officer of the fish and game department attended meetings with the groups sponsoring the initiative? Or attended meetings with organized groups in opposition to the initiative?

In other words, should taxpayer dollars be used to send a representative of fish and game, let’s say using government transportation, to a meeting of the group who is the main sponsor of the bear hunting referendum? Should that officer be permitted to actively participate with groups that are for or against such legislation? Could this become a huge advantage in that a particular group could have access to privileged information?

Some states have guidelines that prohibit fish and game employees from actively participating in political activities while on duty or with state-own vehicles, equipment or buildings. But there are documented cases where this has gone on in the past. What is being done about it? Is this something you have seen? If so, report it.

With such a polarization these days as a result of more and more people speaking out on issues, this leaves our fish and game personnel in a bit of a bind. As more and more wildlife issues are being debated from the position of ethics and social standing, we are going to have a dilemma on our hands.

I think the simple days of counting game and deciding how long a hunting season was going to be has gone by the wayside. I believe that with more and more special interests garnering large sums of money for support will completely upset the balance of our wildlife management policies. No longer will biologists be able to tell their boss the recommendations they believe should be employed as part of a game management plan. Politics will bore its way into the planning, threatening to derail all the efforts that have been put into management plans over the last several decades.

States are fortunate when they have leaders of fish and game departments who believe that maintaining a healthy game population while at the same time providing opportunities for hunters, trappers and fishermen to harvest that same game, is in the best interest of our people. Everyday we see more and more wildlife managers going the way of the anti-hunters and animal rights groups and abandoning the original mission of fish and game to provide game animals for hunting, etc.

The pressures placed on these leaders from such groups have caused many to cave in to their wishes and sportsmen are suffering for it. Our investment through license fees goes up and the benefits in return have diminished.

Sportsmen have to unite, even the special interest sportsmen. We have to become more vocal, more organized and more powerful in order to fight against the forces working against us. We have to send a clear message to fish and game personnel that they are under our microscope and we will not tolerate personal agendas and politicking at our expense.

At the same time a clear and focused sportsmen organization will let the animal rights groups and anti-hunting, anti-gun people know we aren’t going to just go away. We are here to fight.

So ask yourself again many of the questions I have posed here today as to where we should draw the line with politics and wildlife management. How should our license dollars be spent? How do we fight the onslaught from special interest groups? How can we better halt the increase in politics that force the hand of wildlife managers?

Remember nearly everyone of these fish and game employees wouldn’t have a job if we didn’t pay our license fees. They are commissioned by the state to manage our wildlife for everyone and provide opportunities for hunting, trapping and fishing. They work for us and we should begin again to act as though they do.

Tom Remington

Related Posts