Of Rewilding and State Agencies

  

Cougars are considered a species of "Least Concern" overall but remain extirpated from much of their historic range, including the eastern United States.  Photo credit: NPS (Public Domain)

What should be the central goal of state wildlife agencies? 

According to a December 2023 article and study published in BioScience Magazine, American constiuents believe a top priority of state wildlife agencies should be the restoration of locally extinct or imperiled wildlife species.  The BioScience survey presented five actions of state wildlife agencies and asked the 3589 participants to prioritize the list.  These options included: (1) restoration of locally extinct (extirpated) or endangered species, (2) increasing recreational hunting/trapping opportunity, (3) leasing and purchasing more lands for recreational access, (4) improvement and management of existing wildlife habitat, and (5) removing exotic and invasive species.  In the United States, some examples of invasive species include feral hogs, northern snakehead fish, nutria, Burmese pythons, and zebra and quagga mussels. Respondents, including hunters, heavily favored the restoration option, which was the most popular #1 choice (43%).  For all respondents in the aggregate, the least popular choice was promotion of hunting/trapping opportunities (7%), while for hunters the least popular option was increased recreational access. 

The idea of rewilding – restoring wildlife to strengthen habitat resilience and biodiversity - is gaining traction.  Beavers, for example, are a keystone species crucial to wetland habitats and help mitigate the impact of drought with their presence.  Historic and current conservation efforts have primarily focused on species-level extinctions.  However, geographic range contraction is a frequently overlooked yet critical aspect of the biodiversity crisis.   As the authors state: "Unambiguous legal and ecological reasoning indicates that an adequate interpretation of the legal definition of endangerment includes species that have been extirpated from large portions of their historic range —even if the species is not in danger of global extinction.”  (Carlson, et. al, 2023)

 

This is certainly true of cougars.  While cougars are technically listed as a species of “least concern” and still exist in western North America (as well as much of Central and South America where they are locally known as pumas) they historically roamed throughout the continent.  Cougars were extirpated in the Midwest and eastern United States in the 1800s, except a lone remnant, known as the endangered Florida Panther.  In the Western United States, some regional cougar populations in areas like the Olympic Peninsula and Southern California are imperiled due to habitat fragmentation, leading to genetic isolation and high rates of fatalities from vehicle collisions.  Where present, cougars are a keystone species.  Since administration of the federal Endangered Species Act currently does nothing to address range contraction, conservation nonprofits and tribes often take up efforts to save locally threatened cougar populations (such as the Panthera Puma Program, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Cougar Conservancy).  However, the issue of rewilding often falls on state wildlife agencies, presenting an obstacle for the restoration of native carnivores and other species that are not prioritized by hunters but ecologically important. 

 

Currently, state agencies not only prioritize consumptive recreational access and use (hunting, fishing and trapping) over wildlife restoration and recovery, but devote most of their resources towards promoting an abundance of game species most favored by hunters and anglers, such as deer, ducks, trout and turkey.  Natural predators of game species, like wolves, cougars, and bobcats, are often viewed as "competition" and disfavored at all levels by state wildlife agencies.  As Aldo Leopold warned back in 1949, this is not an ecological approach, and overbrowsing by deer has harmful impacts on the biodiversity of eastern forests.  

 

The Bioscience study demonstrates strong support for restoring species that are extirpated or locally endangered.   Constituents view wildlife restoration as a priority over increased recreational access and promotion of hunting.  This approach means acknowledging the ecological importance of wildlife (not just utilitarian benefits to humans) and the critical role a species is unable to fulfill in regions where they have become locally extinct due to historical persecution, unregulated hunting, or habitat degradation.   In suitable habitat, the restoration of species like wolves, beavers, bison, and cougars - all listed as feasible candidates for rewilding - would also restore ecosystem functions that have been lost.  Public views towards wildlife and conservation are continuing to evolve.  Americans increasingly favor a more inclusive, ecologically-driven approach to state wildlife management that looks to the future and engages with hunters and non-hunters alike. 

Read more on Bioscience.

Changing Wildlife Values

 

A wild bobcat pouncing in Marin County, California | Photo credit: Matt Knoth (Shutterstock)

In 2018, a collaborative project led by Colorado State University and supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Conservation Grant program surveyed Americans' values regarding wildlife.  The survey project, called America's Wildlife Values, categorized four different wildlife value orientations - traditionalist, mutualist, pluralist, and distanced.  Traditionalists have a utilitarian view of dominance over nature, and perceive wildlife as a resource to be managed for human benefit.  Mutualists perceive wildlife and wild nature as part of our interconnected community, and prioritize compassion and co-existence with wildlife. Pluralists fit somewhere in between, favoring one orientation or the other depending on the situation, and those who are Distanced are generally disinterested in wildlife-related issues.  The survey lists state-by-state results for these four categories, and compares them with the values of state wildlife agencies, which tend to be disproportionately slanted towards Traditionalist types.  Overall, Mutualists comprise 35% of Americans, followed by Traditionalists at 28%, Pluralists at 21%, and Distanced at 15%.  In addition, Mutualist values are also increasing, while Traditionalist values are declining. 

In addition to an ongoing increase in Americans who identify as mutualists and a decline in traditionalists, ‘non-consumptive’ recreational activities such as birding, wildlife viewing, and photography are growing in popularity.  Today, both urban and rural Americans observe and identify wildlife, providing crowd-sourced geospatial data to citizen science social networks like iNaturalist, which launched in 2008 and has 7.6 million registered users.  Panthera director and leading wildcat researcher Dr. Mark Elbroch has noted shifting wildlife values that the current system of wildlife management does not reflect.  Bobcats are a prominent example, as charismatic carnivores increasingly contributing to ecotourism and wildlife photography, particularly in northern California and national parks such as Shenandoah and Yellowstone.  Additionally, bobcats are recognized as a keystone species important for ecosystem stability.  

Regulations under the current system of wildlife management, which permit exploitative, often unlimited annual bobcat hunting and trapping seasons for pelts, trophy mounts, and so-called "predator control" outside protected areas, are out of step with changing wildlife values in our country.  However, more and more people are appreciating bobcats alive and in the wild.  Wildlife photographers are increasingly enticed by the chance of filming a bobcat in the wild, and treasure the rare encounter with the adaptable yet elusive felines.   

“Cultures around the world are changing, and wildlife managers need to think beyond the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which prioritizes hunting and trapping constituents over non-consumptive users.” 

–Elbroch, L.M., et al. (2017). Contrasting Bobcat Values. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 26(12), 2987-2992.