Colville, Washington is like a lot of bare-knuckle Western towns, with dusty pickups parked at family businesses, government agencies stabilizing the boombust ranch-and-timber economy, and a string of fast-food franchises along U.S. Highway 395 that heads north to Canada. It\u2019s the late general season for deer this week in northeast Washington, but this year hunters aren\u2019t seeing nearly as many elk or pine-ridge whitetails as usual.<\/p>\n
They mostly blame wolves<\/a> that have moved into this rural corner of Washington over the past decade and the increasing number of cougars that are no longer staying way out in the Colville National Forest. Instead, lions have been coming closer to town, following the scarcity of deer right down to the city limits. Locals cite the ambush of a 9-year-old girl<\/a> playing hide-and-seek in the town of Fruitland, about 45 miles southwest of Colville, in June as evidence that cougars need to be more aggressively managed by the state\u2019s Department of Fish and Wildlife.<\/p>\n When the Fish and Wildlife Commission met in Colville last week<\/a>, they were welcomed sarcastically to the \u201ccenter of wolf recovery\u201d by members of a pro-hunting organization called Northeast Washington Wildlife Group. But the commission also heard from predator advocates, represented by members of Washington Wildlife First<\/a>, a non-profit founded last year whose mission<\/a> is \u201ctransforming the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife from a model of consumptive use\u201d to one that \u201cprioritizes the preservation of natural ecosystems.\u201d For Washington Wildlife First, the increase in predators isn\u2019t problematic; instead, it\u2019s indicative of a healthy ecosystem.<\/p>\n Tension between the two camps was palpable at the Colville meeting, says Commissioner Kim Thorburn, a retired public-health physician from Spokane and self-described \u201cnon-hunting hippie from San Francisco.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe had people from the community begging us to pay attention to the changes they\u2019re seeing on the ground,\u201d says Thorburn, the longest-serving member of the 9-person commission. \u201cThey feel that large carnivores are impacting hunting and livelihoods. We heard people say they don\u2019t let their kids stand out at isolated school bus stops any more. We heard hunters say the deer numbers are going way down. They were asking the department to be more responsive.\u201d<\/p>\n But a new majority of the Washington commission doesn\u2019t recognize those pleas as a problem. They\u2019re among an insurgent type of wildlife official that wants to transform state fish-and-game departments across the country into agencies that \u201cemphasize the intrinsic value of individual animals and healthy ecosystems.\u201d That realignment would deemphasize hunting as a wildlife management tool and devote more agency resources to non-hunted and fished species.<\/p>\n This movement, championed by a small but influential group based in New Mexico called Wildlife For All<\/a>, borrows from a number of allies, including animal-rights, rewilding, and deep ecology campaigns, few adherents of which have previously been involved in the day-to-day business of fish-and-game management. But with the appointment earlier this year of three \u201cpreservationist\u201d commissioners in Washington, reformers now hold a 5-4 majority on the board. In March, they succeeded in closing Washington\u2019s spring bear season<\/a>, despite recommendations from agency staff that the hunt was ecologically sustainable and despite opposition from Thorburn and three other commissioners.<\/p>\n Groups aligned with these freshman commissioners held an invitation-only retreat<\/a> last month to discuss strategies to \u201creform\u201d the agency. Their agenda, since removed from their website, calls for the same \u201cconservation over consumption\u201d orientation championed by Washington Wildlife First.<\/p>\n Colville\u2019s place as the center of wildlife controversy may be replaced by Spokane this week. An hour and a half to the south, Spokane is the site of the annual conference of The Wildlife Society<\/a>, the largest group of working wildlife biologists in the country. About 2,000 wildlife professionals have registered for the week-long conference that started Sunday, the first since Covid-19 shut down public gatherings.<\/p>\n The conference\u2019s agenda is packed with wonky topics such as \u201cSpatial Ecology and Modeling,\u201d \u201cConservation of Native Pollinators in Managed Forest Ecosystems,\u201d and \u201cBiometrics and Population Monitoring.\u201d<\/p>\n But it\u2019s not just deer managers, vole researchers, and habitat-improvement vendors who have descended on downtown Spokane\u2019s Davenport Grand hotel<\/a>. Washington Wildlife First is here, too, hosting a reception tonight (Monday, Nov. 7). And they\u2019ll be back on Thursday, participating in a panel discussion titled \u201cTransforming State Wildlife Management to Be More Ecologically Focused, Democratic, and Compassionate.\u201d That panel is moderated by Kevin Bixby, the head of Wildlife For All.<\/p>\n All this is too much for Brian Lynn. The vice president of marketing and communications for the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance<\/a>, Lynn has called on some sponsors of the conference to pull their support, claiming that TWS is \u201callowing an organization intent on destroying a century of scientific management to air their anti-hunting beliefs at a national conference to a roomful of biologists.\u201d<\/p>\n In a letter<\/a> published Oct. 24, Lynn compared The Wildlife Society\u2019s conference with another convention held in Spokane 19 years ago, the divisive session of the Outdoor Writers Association of America<\/a>. The normally uncontroversial gathering of outdoor journalists cleaved that year along ideological fault lines as gun-rights groups lambasted<\/a> the OWAA for accommodating environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. The rift ultimately spawned the creation of gun- and hunting-friendly Professional Outdoor Media Association<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the first domino,\u201d says Lynn (a former Outdoor Life<\/em> editor) of the inclusion of animal-rights groups in The Wildlife Society convention, the marquee event for wildlife biologists. \u201cGiving these anti-hunting groups a platform and an audience at a conference is in the playbook for breaking our conservation model. They want to eliminate predator hunting and with that our ungulate herds will decline and [the states will] sell fewer hunting licenses, and then agency funding will go away and then they\u2019ll get their wish to have a new mandate.\u201d<\/p>\n For his part, The Wildlife Society\u2019s CEO, Ed Arnett, says the Washington group, as well as Wildlife For All, are welcome at the conference as long as they abide by rules of decorum and procedure and align with the group\u2019s foundation in scientific inquiry.<\/p>\n \u201cOur conference is open to all organizations and persons who are interested in wildlife resources and subscribe to our principles, bylaws, and code of ethics,\u201d says Arnett, who doesn\u2019t expect any open confrontation between groups. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to exclude any organizations and voices simply because they have a difference of opinion\u2014radical as it might seem to some.\u201d<\/p>\n But Lynn and Thorburn both maintain the agency-reform groups\u2019 ideology runs counter to TWS\u2019s position, published in 2020<\/a>, that concludes \u201cfoundational elements of the animal rights philosophy contradict the principles that have led to the recognized successes of wildlife management in North America.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTheir stated positions plus their rejection of science should disqualify\u201d both Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife For All from attendance, let alone hosting events, that give the appearance their positions are in the mainstream, says Lynn.<\/p>\n Spokane may be the flash point for this collision of values surrounding wildlife management in America, but it\u2019s a conflict that has been arcing for decades, and has approached ignition in the past two years.<\/p>\n How do state wildlife agencies, funded primarily by anglers and hunters who buy licenses and tags, accommodate citizens with an interest in ecosystems, wildlife, and recreational access but who don\u2019t hunt, fish, or contribute financially to conservation? And how do agencies remain relevant as America becomes more demographically diverse and we lose fish and wildlife habitat at an alarming rate? That\u2019s the context for an ambitious project that started in 2018 and looked for ways state fish-and-game agencies could remain solvent and meaningful\u2014both culturally and politically.<\/p>\n The Relevancy Roadmap<\/a>, a deep investigation led by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies into strategies to broaden the base of conservation in America, concluded that groups like Wildlife For All, the Sierra Club, Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance, the NRA, and Northeast Washington Wildlife Group all have a role to play in how we manage fish and wildlife through the 21st<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Fish and Wildlife Relevancy Roadmap charts the beginning of a new era focused on expanding the relevance of conservation to more diverse constituencies,\u201d says the official Relevancy Roadmap report.<\/p>\n That sounds great in theory, but how do traditional wildlife managers\u2014and the hunters and anglers who have for decades had the loudest or sometimes only voices in the allocation of resources\u2014engage wildlife lovers who want to give every hunted animal a name? Or who believe that hunters are only interested in a game animal\u2019s trophy parts? Or who are actively working to push hunting into obscurity?<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a conversation that\u2019s been brewing for years, but nobody\u2019s been wanting to have it publicly,\u201d said an assistant agency director who didn\u2019t want to speak on the record. \u201cWe have an increasing mutualist population that we need to figure out how to deal with or they\u2019re going to deal with us. Ignoring or demonizing the population of Americans who cherish wildlife and value the habitats that they require is not the path forward.\u201d<\/p>\n As a percentage of the population, fewer Americans<\/a> are hunting and fishing while the percentage of Americans who don\u2019t have a personal connection to the natural world is increasing. That doesn\u2019t mean Americans care less about wildlife. Instead of considering wild animals on a population scale, more Americans associate with wildlife as individuals, their affection reinforced by social media and a \u201cmutualist<\/a>\u201d orientation that stresses the interdependence of species.<\/p>\n Recall the global outrage over the legal killing of Cecil the Lion<\/a> back in 2015? That incendiary defense of wildlife\u2014especially charismatic carnivores\u2014is likely to increase in coming years as mutualism defines our national character. Few younger Americans appreciate the widespread ecological benefit that license-buying hunters and anglers have provided to non-hunted species. Meanwhile, the number of license-buying hunters<\/a> is on a long-term slide. Compounding those structural problems is a collision of competing wildlife values amplified by the schisms that are increasingly dividing Americans along ethnic, cultural, and political lines.<\/p>\n As Jim Martin, the legendary Alabama conservationist, noted \u201cwildlife has gone from the sports page to the front page,\u201d as fish and game conflicts have become more politically volatile and influenced by social-justice dynamics including equity and inclusion.<\/p>\n While some traditional hunters may dismiss these perspectives as \u201cwoke\u201d or overly sensitive, wildlife managers are wise to pay attention to how social trends influence their work, says Tony Wasley, director of Nevada\u2019s Department of Wildlife and a leader of the Relevancy Roadmap effort.<\/p>\n \u201cHere\u2019s the challenge,\u201d says Wasley. \u201cIn my state, less than three percent of our citizens are engaged in any kind of hunting activity. Only eight percent of the species that we are statutorily charged with managing are pursued recreationally by hunters. So we have this challenge of getting money and support from the other 97 percent of the citizens of Nevada to take care of the other 92 percent of the species that we manage. We cannot do this with hunters alone.\u201d<\/p>\n But hunters have historically been resistant to asking non-hunters to participate in either the funding or the management of wildlife in most states. Many vocal members of the sporting community have shot down the idea of a \u201cbackpack tax<\/a>\u201d that might broaden wildlife funding (top outdoor gear retailers have also resisted the tax). By perpetuating the narrative that hunters and anglers\u2014through license fees\u2014pay for most state-delivered conservation, they\u2019ve managed to monopolize conversations about agency priorities.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve had sportsmen tell me point-blank that they don\u2019t want anyone else having an opportunity to pay because they don\u2019t want anybody to have an opportunity for a say,\u201d says Nevada\u2019s Wasley. \u201cThat\u2019s the crux of it all. How can we get more people caring about wildlife, but not just caring about it in order to name it and save it?\u201d<\/p>\n Wasley says neither pole is productive.<\/p>\n \u201cYou have the extreme traditional view that doesn\u2019t want anyone else to be involved in wildlife decisions, whether that\u2019s about trapping or predators or elk management,\u201d says Wasley. \u201cThat\u2019s a dictatorial position. But on the other end of the continuum you have folks who want to save every individual animal and shut out traditionalists. I come back to my state and maintain that if we can find those opportunities in the middle to get some of the 97 percent of the citizens to fund some of the 92 percent of the species that we\u2019re responsible for, then we\u2019ll have the capability to figure out how to manage those few species that are the most polarizing.\u201d<\/p>\n Jim Heffelfinger puts the coming reallocation of resources in a sharper context.<\/p>\n \u201cThe majority of the public wants to see large carnivores restored on the landscape<\/a>, and it would be a huge mistake if hunters positioned\u00a0themselves\u00a0on the opposite side of that overwhelming desire,\u201d says Heffelfinger, wildlife science coordinator for Arizona Game and Fish Department. \u201cElk herds in a lot of Western states are robust enough to provide meat for both the hunting community and large carnivores. Hunters have to be willing to give up some cow elk tags in the name of large carnivore restoration, which hurts me to say because my dad and sons value cow elk tags more than most families.\u201d<\/p>\n Equally important, says Heffelfinger, the extreme protectionist groups will need to compromise and allow the management of large carnivore populations on the landscape.<\/p>\n \u201cUnnecessary protection foments\u00a0extreme hate of those carnivores and the groups trying to protect them in perpetuity,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd it also wastes\u00a0millions of dollars at the expense of other species that are disappearing from planet Earth. If you made a list of endangered species in need of saving,\u00a0wolves would be at the bottom of that list.\u201d<\/p>\n Ultimately, hunters aren\u2019t really necessary to manage wildlife, says Kevin Bixby. Executive director of Wildlife For All, Bixby says predators should be considered the primary wildlife management tool by agencies, which should adopt values consistent with the animal-rights movement.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we want to save our own species, then we have to adopt an attitude of coexistence with all the other species,\u201d says Bixby. \u201cAnd we can\u2019t do that if human needs are placed above other lifeforms. That is the bottom line. Some people will never agree to that.\u201d<\/p>\n Hunters will continue to resist competition from predators, but also from other conservationists, adds Bixby, who wants to \u201cdemocratize\u201d wildlife management in America.<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone should have a voice in wildlife governance, and everyone should pay for it, too, with general tax funding\u201d he says. \u201cBut this is changing already. The number of hunters is declining, the percentage of Pittman-Robertson\u00a0dollars contributed by non-hunters<\/a>\u00a0[new gun owners and recreational shooters] is 70 percent more than hunters contribute. We want to democratize the source of funding so that we can democratize decision-making.\u201d<\/p>\n Bixby says wildlife agencies as they are currently configured don\u2019t reflect the public trust, one of the pillars of the North American model of wildlife conservation<\/a>. That\u2019s a widely accepted construct that provides moral and legal authority to agencies to manage public wildlife as trustees. But Bixby says consumptive conservationists have misinterpreted the idea of \u201cpublic trust.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the messages I hope to bring to Spokane is that the more people resist giving up power in wildlife governance, the less credibility they\u2019ll have with the broader public,\u201d says Bixby. \u201cPeople complain about \u2018ballot biology,\u2019 but that\u2019s what happens when your institutions are not responsive to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n Bixby would like to start this \u201cdemocratization\u201d of wildlife agencies by broadening the definition of who can serve as a commissioner. \u201cRight now, more than 75 percent of wildlife commissioners represent hunters or anglers or agriculture. We believe that\u2019s undemocratic. The government as trustee of the resource has a duty to represent the interests of all the people.\u201d<\/p>\nBattle Lines in Spokane<\/h2>\n
A Rising Divide<\/h2>\n
Who Funds Conservation?<\/h2>\n
![\"pheasant](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorlife.com\/uploads\/2022\/11\/07\/Screen-Shot-2022-11-07-at-4.05.05-PM.png\")
Sharpening Ideologies <\/h2>\n