As a student of history, it’s not difficult to find parallels in modern life with things that came before us — often long before. For example, Pericles (495-425 BC), the legendary Greek politician and general during the Golden Age of Athens, once said, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Today, when it comes to the makeup of state fish and wildlife commissions, politics is playing an increasingly bigger role in both the makeup of these commissions and the decisions they are making, which seriously affects how fish and wildlife are managed in their respective states. It’s something you should be paying close attention to.
A little more history. Nearly a hundred years ago, fish and wildlife management began to be science-based, with bag limits and seasons set accordingly. As more people became recreational hunters and anglers, competing interests turned to elected officials in governor’s offices and state legislatures to influence the allocation of wildlife benefits. According to the 2022 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Commission Guidebook, in the early 1930’s, AGFA “developed the Model Game Law as a way to moderate the influence of partisan politics on wildlife policy and allow for more deliberative decision-making related to complex fish and wildlife management issues. The model law called for creation of citizen Commissions with power over wildlife agency policies and regulations, budgets, and selection of a chief administrator who would be responsible for carrying out the policies and programs of the agency.” These commissions would ideally, among other things, “reduce undue intrusion of politics into agency and wildlife management;” and, “ensure public engagement in establishing policies and regulations.”
Times change, as they always do. In modern times, as the percentage of the general population that participates in recreational hunting and fishing continues to diminish, many state fish and wildlife commissioners are not impartial individuals with an intimate knowledge of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, but instead single-issue advocates placed on these boards through the influence of their supporters on governors with the goal of enacting strategic outcomes that adversely affect the ability of the public to hunt and fish.
Examples abound, perhaps none as stark as in Washington state, where I currently live. Exhibit A is commissioner Lorna Smith, who was appointed to the commission in January, 2021, by leftwing governor Jay Inslee in violation of state law (she long served on a county planning commission; state law forbids wildlife commissioners from holding another state, county, or municipal elective or appointive office, which she subsequently resigned following a lawsuit.) She is a card-carrying member of Wildlife For All, an animal rights group dedicated to spreading an animal-rights ideology throughout the nation. In 2023, Smith was a driving force behind canceling spring black bear hunting and turning the traditional system of game management upside down, removing hunters from the picture. Today, commission meetings often feature discussions of such things as “woke-ism,” “equity,” and “cultural bigotry,” with a little wildlife management thrown in on the side. In 2024, Colorado’s state senate confirmed an animal rights lawyer to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, a 14-member board not exactly overflowing with avid hunters. The year 2024 also saw the Kansas state legislature pass a law requiring wildlife commissioners to be appointed by elected officials, including party leaders of the state’s House and Senate. The list goes on.
These changes in wildlife commission makeups are due in no small part to a measurable shift in how the public values wildlife. The percentage of people in America who describe themselves as “mutualists” — defined as people who believe that people and wildlife are meant to co-exist, and have near-equal rights — is a little more than a third of the general population. According to the Mutualism Co-Op, by definition “mutualism” is a particular strain of anarchist thought. At the same time, just 28% of Americans call themselves “traditionalists” who believe wildlife is a resource to be managed for the benefit of the general public. As time passes, the influence of hunters and anglers on state fish and game departments, and state game commissions, is dwindling.
This brings to the forefront an argument the traditional hunting and angling communities have had for decades, that being the fact that it is the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, tags, stamps, and so on, as well as revenue from both the Pittman/Roberston and Dingell/Johnson acts, that have footed the bill for conservation for generations — not to mention the countless volunteer hours sportsmen gladly give to improve wildlife habitat. At the same time, non-consumptive users — bird watchers, wildlife photographers, hikers, mountain bikers, river runners, foragers, and more — pay little, if anything. When will they start chipping in? And when a state wildlife commission decides to ban the hunting of mountain lions, for example, not on the basis of science but on emotion fueled by an anti-hunting agenda, the state loses revenue directly and indirectly associated with that hunt. When cougar, grizzly bear and wolf populations grow and kill big-game animals in ever-increasing numbers, both opportunities and success rates for hunters dwindle — often to the point where the average, everyday hunter begins asking himself, “Is this really worth it anymore?”
“All politics is local.” So stated Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, the Democrat from Massachusetts who served as the 47th speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1977-1987. It behooves all sportsmen to pay close attention to the state fish and game commission appointment process and advocate for commission appointees that share their values. The future of traditional hook-and-bullet-based management, and your ability to hunt and fish, depends on it.
