Caring without Despairing - The Cougar Fund

Oh dear, you just received another ‘call to action’ in your mail. You want to help, you really do. You have written letters in the past, you have even gone to meetings where decisions are made, but does your voice ever get heard?

Honestly, it is hard to say, categorically, that the public comment system in most of the states where regulations are adjudicated, serves the fair hearing of diverse viewpoints.

Going to the meetings is so very important, but your preparation for the meeting is even more important, and that is the purpose of this blog.

When a decision is to be made about a wildlife regulation before an agency commission, usually appointed by the state’s governor, the options that are presented to them are the result of many weeks of departmental investigation, analysis, recommendation, and sifting through of written public comments. The general disposition of those comments, although all are kept on file, is that the main points are mined and tabulated and presented. We must always remember that this is NOT A VOTE. In state comments are prioritized, while out-of-staters, unless from bordering habitat, are usually viewed as ‘outsiders’. It does not matter how many people are passionate about a particular subject, be it for, or against something, the numbers, unless coming from the traditional constituency that funds wildlife agencies, rarely have an effect. In fact, any form letters that an organization sends you, that you simply sign, will only be counted as ONE public comment, no matter how many are turned in. Commissioners are probably not going to overturn departmental recommendations at a meeting, even if it is packed to the gills with advocates, especially if the regulation comes up once every three years and that is the only time they will see you. It is still important to be there.

Is there a better path forward? Well, let’s look at why there is such lopsided willingness to listen to citizens about what happens with wildlife, afterall, it is held in the Public Trust for all of us. It’s all about the money.

The system of funding of wildlife management agencies is based on three main sources of income. Revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, federal excise tax dollars from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts and a lesser amount from grants.

(It should be noted here, that while Pittman-Robertson money is raised through a tax on firearms and archery equipment, only 20% is the purchase of guns and bows used for hunting, the other 80% is hobby shooting/archery and/or personal or home security. However it is distributed according to the number of hunters in each state.)

There are a few states that have bountiful resources of wildlife and they have seen a definite uptick in interest in hunting, although there has been resistance from within the states to an increase in out of state hunting! Other states are seeing measureable drops in interest in hunting.

Knowing all this, where the money comes from, who gets heard, who doesn’t, we understand that it isn’t always easy to step up and speak out for the animals you care about. The Cougar Fund would like to help! If you would like to know more about being prepared, understanding state policies and procedures, gaining confidence to testify or write letters without relying on a form, please email us info@cougarfund.org. When there is a deadline for comment or a meeting looming, it can be intimidating, so let us help you get prepared ahead of time. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. We are happy to chat or zoom, or help in any way. You are important and together, the only limits are those of vision.

Comment on Facebook

Again, I only see the use of dogs in going after a Rouge animal that has done serious wrong. Being hunted by a pack of dogs is so unfair and disrespectful to such an incredible animal. I think Ranchers should get double or even triple compensation if a Lion or Wolf takes down their livestock. One of one isn't enough. At least they will be happy and not be so hateful towards an Apex animal. I am from New England - we had the Eastern Mountain Lion subspecies. We killed them all off and they have been deemed extinct by Smithsonian. The last one was killed in Maine in 1938. This is why I have such an interest in them and am involved in their conservation. This will always be a hot topic - we shall see how it unfolds.

Just curious... I live in Colorado, and a common refrain you hear from opponents of this measure is that we should not be doing "ballot box biology", and that biology should be left to the biologists. I guess the problem I have with this argument is that all you have to do is read The Ninemile Wolves by Rick Bass or the chapter on "The Predatory Bear" in Dominion of Bears to see that wildlife agencies are frequently politicized, and they themselves have agendas that are not rooted in sound biology (CPW does actually have a decent reputation though). Utah's recent changes to their Mountain Lion hunting rules certainly weren't rooted in biology. When you dig deeper, it seems like a lot of the opposition to these measures has to do with protecting hunting and ranching interests. Ranchers don't want any depredations, and hunters want to be able to kill predators so there are more ungulates for hunters to kill (outfitters obviously have an economic stake in these decisions). I don't mean to demean either group of people... I have eaten plenty of beef in my life, and, while I don't hunt, I understand that it is a part of some people's way of life. But if I were sitting with a fellow Colorado resident who was telling me that the State should not be engaging in "ballot-box biology", what counterargument would you recommend that I make?