Photo by Noma Bar

Related Articles

• Five Crucial Conservation Goals for Sportsmen
• Hunting and Fishing Closures in Califorina and Louisiana
• Field & Stream Reports on The Farm Bill and its Effect on Wildlife Conservation
• Why Hunters and Anglers are a Political Force
• Hunters and Fishermen Work With Environmental Groups

Tags

No Related Topics

If you owned a car dealership, would you hire a manager who had never purchased a car, had never been a passenger in one—and didn’t even have a driver’s license?

Of course not.

So why, then, are natural resource agencies hiring young men and women to manage fish and wildlife when many of them have never hunted or fished—and are completely ignorant of the roles those traditions have played in conservation?

For almost 20 years, that question has been a cloud of worry quietly growing in the minds of the nation’s fish and wildlife managers. No longer were the applicants for jobs at state fish and game agencies almost universally avid hunters and anglers. Instead, many now had no background in the field sports. How will these new leaders preserve the North American wildlife conservation model—a core management philosophy asserting that all game and fish belong to the public, and that every citizen has a right to hunt and fish—if they do not understand the engine that drives it?

“If we don’t produce students who understand hunting and fishing, then conservation as we have known it is over—and so, probably, is hunting and fishing,” says Charlie Potter, CEO of the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation. “This is an issue we must do something about.”
Potter and others are doing just that.

Hunting 101

Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLFT) is a program that offers three-day seminars in hunting awareness for students seeking careers in natural resource management, but who have never hunted. Developed and run by the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) with funding from the McGraw Foundation, CLFT has already reached more than 200 students from universities across the nation.

Groups of as many as 16 students are brought to a regional location where they spend two and a half days in close-knit, informal discussions about the social and cultural reasons people choose to hunt, the important role hunting has played in the development of the North American conservation model, and how agencies must help manage hunting and hunters. The third day includes a hands-on hunting experience. Instructors are wildlife conservation professionals who are veteran hunters.

“No one is forced to take part in the hunting exercise, but I think only two students of the 200 have declined,” says Zach Lowe, national coordinator of CLFT. “We’re not out to make these students hunters, although we certainly welcome and encourage that interest.

“Our goal is to educate them about the role of hunting in scientific management because that was the concern expressed to us by agency heads. These agencies were telling us that while they were hiring incredibly bright and motivated students, these same students were not properly prepared for agency work because they could not connect particularly well with a key constituency of the agency: hunters.”

To verify those perceptions, the WMI researched the demographic profile of students on academic tracks toward agency work and recent hires by state and federal agencies. It also reviewed the content of the curricula that universities offer to students interested in fish and wildlife management.

According to the results, fewer than half of the students had ever hunted. More troubling, perhaps, were the findings at the universities. In a WMI survey, most department heads and faculty chairs responsible for administering wildlife programs did not think it was important that the role and history of hunting in conservation be part of the curriculum, or that the students be exposed to that tradition.

“The schools reflected the limited time they had to focus on science,” says Dick McCabe, WMI vice president. “We found out that very, very few faculty members had hunting backgrounds.” But McCabe uncovered no overt antihunting bias. “In fact, a number of agencies pointed out that the people who didn’t have a background in hunting were not opposed to it. They just didn’t know anything about it.”