Let’s look at predation from the perspective of the management agencies and the funding model upon which they survive.

In a nutshell revenue comes from hunting and fishing licenses, and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which is an excise tax on guns, ammunition, and other firearms accessories, collected by the federal government and reapportioned to the states according to hunting activity. The Dingell-Johnson Act offers similar financial support to states for fish restoration and management projects.

Where there is a monopoly of funding, it follows that there will also be a monopoly of policy and in the case of wildlife management it helps to take a very brief look back at how it happened.

Following westward expansion and settlement, wildlife became a commodity on a much larger scale than that of the early fur trappers who were scattered about the west. Massive herds were lost to commercial endeavor, bounties were put on large carnivores. Bears, mountain lions, and wolves were vilified, persecuted and in many places extirpated by wanton destruction. No-one really cared about the role of the predators, in fact, when the realization dawned that the ungulate herds were in trouble the hatred for the predators increased.

The ‘call to action’ to try and save elk and deer was the introduction of regulated hunting. The 10th amendment of the constitution gives states jurisdiction over the wildlife within their borders, so the first iteration of the modern day state wildlife agency was born.

In return for buying a license and agreeing to be limited in their opportunity to hunt by season and number of animals that could be removed from the population, a tacit agreement of sorts was seeded, that the agency would continue to do its best to provide a ‘crop’ of wildlife at a stable and sustainable rate. It is no coincidence that even though we know the very foundation of survival is the predator/prey relationship, and that is not, by any means a bad thing, hunters do not ‘kill’ their prey, they ‘harvest’ it.

Mountain lions eat deer. Mountain lions kill deer to eat them, they are good at it. Mountain lions and deer have lived together on the north american continent for at least the last 10,000 years and lions have not wiped out their food source!

When added pressure is put on lions and other predators as a way to recover herds it is palliative and political. It is done for the optics of seeming to take an action that will pacify constituents who think there is more control over the natural world than there is.

Biologists work hard to make sure that original tacit contract of providing regular crop to hunt and harvest. In fact, no species has actually been extirpated since hunting regulations became the acceptable method of wildlife management, although, the grizzly bear came awfully close.

But the question is, is this wildlife or agriculture in the wild?

Nature actually does not work to a schedule of production, it is wilder, less predictable, a series of highs and lows, adaptations, randomness.

That is why pretending that killing more mountain lions is going to bring back the herds is disingenuous, not only to the people who mistakenly believe it, but to the grand design that has so many more threads than just the single one you think you can control.

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.