Telling our Story – Ensuring Conservation Remains Relevant in our Country
Jon Gassett Wildlife Management Institute
A Brief History Lesson…
Colonization & Early Attitudes 1500s – 1700s
• Frontier in America – Free of restraints – Self-determination – Personal freedoms – Sense of righteousness
Early Game Laws
• 1630 Massachusetts wolf bounty
• 1646 Rhode island deer hunting closure
• 1739 Massachusetts Deer Reeves
• Circa 1800 – restrictions on taking of white-tailed deer in all 13 original colonies
By the 1850s, large areas of North America had been colonized by Europeans who exhibited considerably resentment against
game laws.
Westward Expansion & Exploitation (1800s – 1930’s)
The Turning Point
• 1842 Supreme Court Decision (Martin v. Waddell). Wildlife in the U.S. belongs to all the people and stewardship is entrusted to the states. • Landowner was excluding others
from taking oysters from a mudflat in New Jersey.
• Basis of ruling was initially to guarantee a food supply for all.
• Continued to be applied as wildlife became valued for other reasons.
• Basis for the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
The Conservation Movement
• Teddy Roosevelt • George B. Grinnell • Gifford Pinchot • John Muir
• American Sportsman (1871) • Forest and Stream (1873) • Field and Stream (1874) • American Angler (1881)
Rise of the Conservation Organizations • American Wildlife Institute (WMI) • Boone & Crockett Club • American Wild Fowlers (DU) • National Association of Game
Wardens and Commissioners (AFWA)
• North American Wildlife Federation (NWF)
• Audubon Society • Campfire Club
Public Trust Doctrine
• Common law base for state and federal wildlife laws – Wildlife cannot be privately owned – Held in trust by government for beneficiaries – Government is Trustee – Public are Shareholders
North American Model for Wildlife Conservation
1. Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust. 2. Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife. 3. Democratic Rule of Law. 4. Hunting Opportunity for All. 5. Non-frivolous Use. 6. International Resources. 7. Scientific Management.
Federal Protection and Funding
• 1894 “public policy demands that the traffic in game should be abolished” – G.B. Grinnell – Yellowstone Park Protection Act – Lacey Act – Weeks-McClean Act – Migratory Bird Treaty Act – MB Hunting Stamp Act – PR & DJ Acts
Formation of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Massachusetts – 1895 New Hampshire – 1878 Mississippi – 1932
American System of Conservation Funding (User pay - Public Benefit)
• License and Permit fees • Pittman-Robertson • Dingell-Johnson • Wallop-Breaux • State Wildlife Grants • NGO Partnerships
Advent of Licensing
• (1719) New Jersey law that prevented non-residents from taking oysters or putting them on board a vessel not owned by a resident.
• (1745) North Carolina law that required non-residents to prove they planted 5,000 hills of corn in the proceeding year in the county they wished to hunt.
• (1840) Virginia and (1854) North Carolina laws prohibiting non-residents from harvesting wild fowl.
Advent of Licensing • (1872) Maryland required residents hunting wild waterfowl from
sneak boats, sink boxes, or blinds to procure a license to do so.
• (1873) New Jersey issued the first non-resident hunting license in the U.S. Restricted non-residents from taking wildlife within the state without first procuring a “membership” – fee was $5 for first year and $2 each subsequent year.
• (1895) Michigan established a general hunting license system to
harvest deer. Fees were $0.50 for residents and $25 for non-residents.
Federal Funding
• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act • Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act • State Wildlife Grants
Funding for Wildlife Restoration Program (1937), Sport Fish Restoration Program (1950), and State Wildlife Grants (2001),
since inception
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
$900,000,00019
3919
4219
4519
4819
5119
5419
5719
6019
6319
6619
6919
7219
7519
7819
8119
8419
8719
9019
9319
9619
9920
0220
0520
0820
1120
1420
17
Wildlife Restoration Funds Sport Fish Restoration Funds State Wildlife Grants
Successes in Game and Fish Recovery
• Deer • Turkey • Bear • Elk • Waterfowl • Game Birds • And many others
Conservation is big business License and Permit Sales - Hunting $853M
License and Permit Sales - Fishing $709M
Wildlife Restoration - States $797M
Wildlife Restoration - FWS $28M
Sport Fish Restoration - States $352M
Sport Fish Restoration - FWS $86M
State Wildlife Grants $50M
Total Direct ~ $2.9B
Economic Impact (Retail – Hunting) ~ $24B
Economic Impact (Retail – Fishing) ~ $36B
State and Local Taxes (Hunting) ~ $3.5B
State and Local Taxes ( Fishing) ~ $4.9B
Blue Ribbon Panel
Conserving America’s wildlife diversity would require: • Funding - $1.3B per year from off-shore gas/oil revenue
(with 25% match from states). • Relevancy – we must make conservation relevant to the
citizenry again.
So how do we tell this story…
Ensuring Fish & Wildlife Agency Relevancy
National Conservation Outreach Plan
Efforts Going On Nationwide
Nationally Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation State level Arizona Colorado
Multi State Conservation Grant
• Recommendation #2 of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources: Increasing Agency Relevancy (Telling the State Story).
• How: National Conservation Outreach Plan
• Get behind one consistent and universal message. • Increase awareness of state fish and wildlife
agencies and their role in protecting and conserving wildlife.
Project Goals
Gathering State Input Which of these resources would be useful to you in reaching a broader audience?
States Involved
Missouri Oklahoma
Nebraska Arizona
Colorado Hawaii
New Jersey Georgia
Wyoming Michigan
Montana Texas
Utah Idaho
North Carolina Virginia
Arkansas Kansas
Maine California
Future generations There are messages that resonate across state lines and populations.
Customizable and budget flexible A successful plan will account for different agencies’ resources and
priorities.
Metrics of success Showing value of messaging is crucial to long-term buy-in and support. Audience spectrum Each state has different view on priority audience for AFWA campaign. Messages should not be about us (agency); about them (customer) Impacts on what they love
Key considerations for the campaign
Audience Definition
Most avid about outdoor activities. Optimistic, like to
have fun, concerned about environment.
Participate in a number of activities. Tend to be married
with children and very family oriented.
Outdoorsy, adventure-seeking
and sociable. Thrive on being active. Enjoy
making memories with family and
friends.
Like to try many activities. Skew
young. Not motivated by relaxation – are on the move and have a competitive nature.
More likely than other segments to be single,
middle-aged men with no kids at home. Confident, optimistic
and enjoy a challenge.
Outdoor Enthusiasts
Family Outdoors
Affable Adventurers
Dabblers Outdoor Excitement
The pride people have in their state stems from the natural resources that surround them. Fish and wildlife agencies
make it their priority to ensure that these resources are around for future generations to enjoy.
Message to Convey
Outdoor Media
Store Kiosks
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Topic-based
Digital Advertising
Digital Content Marketing
Pandora - Podcasts
Agency Landing Pages
Agency Landing Pages
Facebook (Carousel)
Facebook (Timeline Events)
Print Media
So where are we now…
• Approval at the last National Fish and Wildlife Business Summit by partners (states, industry, NGO’s)
• Message Testing • Roll-out • Adopting by partners as our “Smokey Bear”
Campaign • Widespread distribution and use
Thank you!