I feel fortunate to have grown up in a world of sociologists – journalism would be much better if more practitioners had contact with the social sciences, rather

than close-minded editors

 —Peter Hessler 2011 MacArthur Fellow

Time for Change? Challenging the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

Tom HeberleinSociologist

The North American Driving Model

A great contribution to the world

• Drive on the right hand side • Efficient (people don’t have to decide what to

do)• Reduces traffic accidents• Tax on fuel is earmarked to build and maintain

even more roads• Much of the greatness of America is due to

the wonderful system of roads and driving on the right

A lot of the rest of the world has not figured this out (London)

All going the Wrong Way!

Sweden made the shift 3/9 1967

Many think Sweden’s economy among the strongest in Europe because they had the vision to adopt the North American Driving Model

The North American Driving Model

• Was forged by Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Ford

• Was followed religiously by Aldo Leopold

1935 Chevrolet

The Sociological Question

• Why have you never heard this pitch for the North American Driving

Model before?–This is a question that sociologists (not

editors) ask. • But we hear similarly postured praise for

the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation? WHY???

Contradictions/Stresses in the NAMWC Model

That the model is being defended so strongly suggests that it is “broken,”and that it is in someone’s INTEREST

to defend it rather than fix it

The Scarcity-Abundance Contradiction

• Model was designed to reduce scarcity and produce abundance

• Has been extremely effective.• Problem today is abundance—too many

animals and in the wrong places.• The model has few tools to reduce abundance– Like a car with only an– accelerator pedal

Single vs. Multiple Interests

• The model was “Born in the hands of hunters” to increase the numbers of GAME species

• There are now many others interested in wildlife and especially non game species

• Non consumptive wildlife recreationists have very different interests from hunters and are being left out.

• CONFLICTING INTERESTS

Single Species vs Ecosystems

• NAMWC focus on single species– More deer, more ducks, more elk– And even “more” wolves (to a point)

• If you want more of a particular kind of animal the NAMWC is just what you want.

• But what ABOUT ecosystems that are healthy, sustainable, diverse, complex, or resilient ?– How does the model provide these??

Socialism-Individualism Contradiction

• Government control of wildlife– Wildlife belongs to the people (state)

• Wildlife managed by the state – Wildlife Management—as socialism as noted by

James Kroll-the Wisconsin Deer Czar• Hunters have strong individualistic values – Hunters have lost their own initiative—demanding

more deer from the government.– The worst fear of the conservatives, when it comes to

wildlife we have a “ Nanny State”

Science Based Wildlife Policy (Pillar 6)

• Obviously science is important for management. But . . .

• Expert Knowledge is only legitimate knowledge– The government experts know more than YOU do

• Socialized wildlife management creates a cadre of government employees to defend the status quo– Who is writing and publishing the hoopla about the

Model???

Government Management

• Nimble?• Experimental?• Agencies have their own agenda– WDNR opposed elk restoration in the north– It took to politicians (Tommy Thomson and Martin

Hansen) to get the elk restored• Sportsmen provide a cash cow for research

and management. Why change something that is producing so much money!

NAMWM--an almost Irrational Fear of Markets

• Elimination of markets for game– Major innovation in the 19th century– Has been exported all over the world– Takes away a major tool for dealing with

abundance• Also it does not allow pricing as a way of

allocating a scare resource or dealing with resource damage

• Controlled markets are powerful a tool

The North American Wildlife Conservation Model

Came out of the 19th century to solve the problems of the 19th century and now longer suits the problems and

opportunities of the 21st.

Negotiating the Future by Looking Backward

With Predictable Results

With these stresses and contradictions change will come

What can we as Outdoor Communicators do to help facilitate

that change?

The Three Most Conservative Organizations in the World

“and the golden age of journalism”

• journalists imagined and created future

• they did not simply report press releases for railroads and or the New York police

• they captured the imagination of the people and leaders

• Roosevelt edited reporter manuscripts and lifted from them for his messages to congress

The Role of Media

• The Media doesn’t tell us what to think • BUT—IT DOES TELL US WHAT TO THINK ABOUT.

The media sets agendas• In that sense articles that explore how things

might be can and will reframe the discussion• Don’t simply point out the problems but explore in

depth the potential solutions• Outdoor communicators must create the new

ideas—cuz the vested interests will not come up with them

Three Examples

• Diversity– We think it is good in ecosystems and in social

systems—how to get it in social system• Crane Hunting– Empowerment, sharing the wealth, and moving

beyond the “nanny state”• Reframing wildlife– Paying environmental damages for high deer

populations

Diversity

• Quit writing articles about how few women in the Conservation Congress.– This is obvious– The Congress will never fix it– If you were a woman would you want to hang out in

an organization with 97% males?– How many men join organizations with 97%

females?• Instead explore structural solutions to the

problem like . . .

Diversity Requirements

• In each county require that ONE of the Congress delegates NOT hold a hunting or a fishing license (easy to verify though records)

• Might phase in—beginning with the most urban counties first and gradually spread.

• Write the story on how this might work• It is possible that the non-consumptives might

not support this because they think the Congress is useless-this is important information

Co-Management/Empowerment

• Proposal for an entire new model bringing together hunters and non consumptive advocates

• Empowering the International Crane Foundation and crane supporters

• Taking power away from the DNR (a step toward empowering the citizens)

• Currently there are no benefits to the ICF or Crane supporters from a hunt

Experimental Framework

• Legislature gives the ICF authority to manage cranes in Wisconsin—with some start up money

• In three years there must be a crane hunting season with X number of tags issued

• The ICF will get all of the application fees and license fees as a result of the hunting season

• They can use these funds in any way they want for any of their programs possibly $250,000 to $ 2,500,000 a year. (wolves – turkeys)

Think About It

• The ICF has plenty of experience and a track record of dealing cranes

• This gives the IFC a direct benefit of hunting for their programs (currently hunting only benefits the hunters)

• It sets up a model that gives an alternative to state centered (aka socialized) wildlife management.

Reactions?

• Science based management would scream!– This is a direct threat to their power– The creativity of their arguments will be amazing

• Hunters would scream!– The system now is rigged in their favor—change is

dangerous—they might rather give up back tags.• The International Crane Foundation– There are obvious benefits.– But some cranes would die at the hand of the hunters– Would membership and donations decline?

Reframe High Game Populations as an environmental insult

• Wildlife Damage/Eco system change law suits– When Nekoosa Edwards dumps waste in the river they

are liable for damages to the ecosystem– When deer hunters create huge deer populations that

have documented ecosystem effects no one pays.• Have hunters pay more for licenses in units with

more deer. – Incentive for lower deer numbers– Money available for ecosystem restoration

Conclusion

• The defense of the NAMWC suggests that it is flawed

• Merely covering over the flaws is not sufficient to preserve it.

• Needs to change and adapt and be reinvented• Outdoor communicators can contribute best

by bringing in the NEW ideas necessary for change

pecker på hela handen

THANK YOU very

much

Attitudes Do Change--1987

“Governor Thompson retired his veto pen one amendment too soon . . . he should have scratched S. 29.48(6). This law, in effect, allows anyone in Wisconsin to sell fish or game to a licensed taxidermy school. Make no mistake. This is a dangerous law that creates a commercial market for fish and wildlife. . .”

The DNR hoped Thomson would veto Wood’s idea because it thinks the law will eventually cripple the state’s fish and wildlife programs.”

Same Columnist-27 years later

• “Selling venison is illegal—but why? Should you be allowed to sell your own wild game if you want to.” 2014

• “And selling venison wouldn’t necessary end science based management.”

• Don’t laugh—it took Leopold 30 years to change his attitude toward wolves