The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, commonly referred to as the “NAM” or the “Model”, was created for the purpose of conservation in an era of instability for many wildlife species due to overhunting, lack of informed management decisions, and poor land use practices.[1] The North American Model can be attributed to Valerius Geist and Shane Mahoney, along with U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist John Organ,[2] who together presented the Model at a wildlife conference in 2001.[3] The Model was formally endorsed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (“AFWA”) in 2002.[4] While the Model name was coined in the early 2000’s, the ground was being paved for the Model by early conservation pioneers in the 1800’s, like George Bird Grinnell and Theodore Roosevelt, two of the nation’s greatest environmental advocates and leaders of the early conservation movement.[5]
Stalwarts for conservation like Grinnell and Roosevelt recognized that North America had a unique landscape, full of natural systems and unique wildlife, that garnered protection. Without conservation, forests were decimated for their lumber product, wiping out entire populations that relied on the forest as their home for breeding, feeding, and nesting. Before the importance of fishing regulations was realized, fisheries populations were recreationally and commercially over-harvested, leading to stock crashes that took decades to rebuild to a sustainable level. The Model seeks to protect North America from the dismal outcome of a baren land, missing the wildlife that once roamed the Great Plains or trekked the Smoky Mountains.
The North American Model collectively refers to the United States and Canada, but excludes Mexico, the Model name being “conceptual rather than geographic.”[6] Mexico’s conservation movement began at a different time and developed under different circumstances than the United States and Canada, but the conservation approaches between the countries should be compared to advance wildlife conservation.[7] There are a few differences between the application of the Model in the United States and Canada, but there are also many similarities in its application as a whole between the two countries.[8] The Model has gained much attention since its conception in 2001, including pushback on the pillars of the Model and discussions for rethinking the Model as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to inform the reader on the history of the Model, the importance and need for conservation, provide an overview of the seven pillars, and outline the conflicts regarding the Model today. An amicus curiae brief discussing the North American Model is also included to represent how it has been referenced in court proceedings.
The Seven Pillars
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is made up of seven pillars (also known as the seven sisters) of conservation. These include: 1) wildlife as a public trust resource; 2) prohibitions on commerce; 3) democratic rule of law; 4) hunting opportunity for all; 5) non-frivolous use; 6) wildlife as an international resource; and 7) scientific management.[9] Shane Mahoney writes, “[r]efined and modified over time, these pillars of the North American [Model of Wildlife Conservation] may best be remembered as the Seven Sisters for Conservation. Despite many adversities, the Sisters have remained resilient, proud and strong. We ought to know their names….”[10] The names of the pillars can vary, but regardless of the name, the purpose of the pillar is the same. An analysis of each pillar is included to provide a robust understanding of the Model.
1. Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource
A public trust resource is a resource, such as wildlife, water, or even air, that is held in trust for the people by the state or federal government.[11] The concept of a public trust resource is found in the Public Trust Doctrine (“PTD”), the roots of which can be traced back to Roman times.[12] In the United States, the PTD was established in the 1842 Supreme Court decision Martin v. Waddell,[13] where the Court “declared certain resources could not be taken into private ownership.”[14] Often, the federal government gives states the right to govern the resources found therein, and that state can allocate resources accordingly. In terms of wildlife, this translates to lack of private ownership of wildlife by individuals, including private landowners—wildlife as a public trust resource eliminates the need for a person to have a special status to make a claim to the resource.[15] Prohibitions on commerce, democratic rule of law, and hunting opportunity for all spring from this pillar.[16]
2. Prohibitions on Commerce
Prohibitions on commerce arose from the over-exploitation of game animals for economic/market value. Because wildlife was a public trust resource, anyone could harvest an animal and sell the meat, fur, or other animal parts for a profit, ultimately privatizing a public resource.[17] While prohibiting commerce on wildlife cannot bring certain species back from extinction, like the passenger pigeon that went extinct largely due to the exploitation of pigeon meat,[18] it can protect others from continued over-exploitation due to the market value of the species. An example of prohibitions on commerce is states enacting legislature that prohibits the buying or selling of deer meat.[19]
3. Democratic Rule of Law
Democratic rule of law (also referred to as allocation of wildlife by law) is the concept that “every citizen [has] a right of access by law, and by law every citizen [has] a right of say.”[20] Democratic rule of law eliminates markets, land ownership, or status in society dictating ownership of wildlife and public input ensures access to wildlife is equitable.[21] Laws and regulations are developed with input from the people and are then enforced by the state and federal government to ensure proper management and use of wildlife.
4. Hunting Opportunity for All
Closely following the democratic rule of law pillar, hunting opportunity for all eliminates the system found in many other countries where the opportunity to hunt is only afforded to individuals that have a certain status, whether it be land ownership, wealth, or another factor.[22] While there are barriers to hunting opportunity for all, such as a lack of access to hunting equipment or other necessary resources, this pillar works to ensure that no one individual has a greater entitlement to hunting than another solely based on a certain status.
5. Non-Frivolous Use
The non-frivolous use pillar is made of up many elements that ultimately lead to a person being an ethical sportsman if they participate in hunting. The non-frivolous use pillar is summarized by the Wildlife Society and the Boone and Crockett Club as follows:
The concept of a sportsman can be summarized as one who, when hunting game: does so primarily for the pursuit or chase; affords game a “sporting” chance (fair chase); seeks knowledge of nature and the habits of animals; derives no financial profit from game killed; will inflict no unnecessary pain or suffering on game; and will not waste any game that is killed.[23]
The non-frivolous use pillar can also be referred to as “wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose.”[24] Framing the pillar in this language, the point is to emphasize that the opportunity to pursue wildlife is not a game but should be taken seriously, with practice, planning, dedication, and forethought put into the pursuit of wild game.
6. Wildlife as an International Resource
Wildlife, unlike people, do not adhere to borders and are constantly migrating across local, state, and international lines. Wildlife as an international resource recognizes that one country’s actions may have a significant impact on the wildlife presence in another country and seeks to coordinate strategies when wildlife species migrate through multiple countries.[25] A prime example of this is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which provides for international management of migratory bird species.[26]
7. Scientific Management
Scientific management is a pivotal aspect of the Model. This pillar is tasked with ensuring that management and regulatory decisions are made based on scientific research and analysis, including, “surveys, population dynamics, behavior and habitat studies, statistics, and contemporary adaptive management and structured decision making.”[27] Without a thorough understanding of a species, the population, and the habitat that it lives in, regulatory decisions can be made that are inconsistent with the species at hand. Scientific management is an efficient means to conserving wildlife because of the holistic nature of the research and considerations in place.
----------
[1] B&C Position Statement – The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Boone and Crockett Club (last accessed May 9, 2024).
[2] John Organ now serves as the Chief of the U.S.G.S. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, but previously worked for USFWS for 35 years. See Dr. John Organ, USGS Headquarters Staff Member (last accessed May 9, 2024).
[3] Michael Furtman, Like No Other Place: The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Izaak Walton League of America (2015).
[4] North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (last accessed May 9, 2024).
[5] B&C Position Statement, supra note 1.
[6] John F. Organ, et al., The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation at 2, The Wildlife Society and the Boone and Crockett Club Technical Review 12-04 (Dec. 2012).
[7] Id. See also supra note 6 at 35-45 (Appendix: Status of Wildlife Management in Mexico).
[8] Id.
[9] Shane Mahoney, The Seven Sisters: Pillars of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, Bugle (Sept/Oct, 2004).
[10] Id. at 142.
[11] Darren K. Cottriel, Right to Hunt in the Twenty-First Century: Can the Public Trust Doctrine Save an American Tradition?, 27 Pac. L. J. 1235, 1262 (1996).
[12] John F. Organ, et al., The Public Trust Doctrine at 11, The Wildlife Society Technical Review 10-01 (Sept. 2010).
[13] Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842).
[14] Organ, et al., supra note 6 at 11.
[15] Id. at 12.
[16] Mahoney, supra note 9 at 142.
[17] Organ, et al., supra note 6 at 14.
[18] Billions to None…The Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon, Audubon (last accessed May 9, 2024).
[19] See South Carolina Code of Laws § 50-11-1910.
[20] Organ, et al., supra note 6 at 14.
[21] Id. at 16.
[22] Id. at 23.
[23] Id. at 19.
[24] Id. at 18.
[25] Id. at 19.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 21.
Comments