Be A Voice for Wildlife

“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“If you don’t know where you are going,
you’ll end up someplace else.”
― Yogi Berra

How would a new theory of change work on Delaware Bay? Two posts ago, I outlined 6 new strategies for achieving restoration of Delaware Bay ecosystem. They are not technical proposals- I call for no new research or new funds for existing conservation projects. Its not a call for new staff either. It’s a theory composed of six rough cut strategies drawn more from common sense and personal experience than a specific conservation policy or technical source. Moreover my proposing these strategies is not an esoteric exercise. Much of the work that I lead or take part in leading on the bay and other places falls within them.

Improving Conservation on Delaware Bay and other small places

1. Free conservation from left-right politics and recreate a new conservation constituency.
2. Allow people who love birds to pay for a system that protects all birds and their habitats and is controlled by birders
3. Encourage projects within which government agencies take part but citizen groups, communities and non-profits lead.
4. Create new ways for the public to take meaningful roles in conservation and pay for the privilege.
5. Create conservation solutions that embrace market forces
6. Allow local citizens a direct role in deciding the character of conservation in their community

As with any project plan, we must always start with the primary goal. My version is to create a naturally functioning ecosystem that provides sustainable benefits for both wildlife and the rural residents of Delaware Bay. This goal combines the interests of both wildlife and rural residents on the basis that no well functioning conservation effort is possible without the dedication of rural citizens populating the land to be conserved.

Next we should choose the method for reaching that lofty goal. These come from the six strategies. First among these is to unite the interests of rural residents, sportsmen and the people who love birds to put aside left-right differences that divide us and drain our political power.

People who care about birds ( arguably 1 out of 6 people in NJ) and sportsmen (1 out of 12) should lead the development of a new and non-idealogical coalition. Without idealogical bias, they have the best chance of convincing other outdoor users, hikers, kayakers, photographers to finally take responsibility for their use. Together they could take the first step towards commanding the political system: compel all outdoor-users to join a conservation group of thier choice, demand taxes and permits on outdoor equipment, and insist that all the disparate conservation groups organize into one voting block speaking for the interest of wildlife and wild lands. When I give presentations to conservation groups and people ask what can they do I answer without hesitation — go out and get 10 people to join your conservation group. 1 out of 6 people love wildlife, they only need to be convinced to join in the voice to conserve them.

These tables from the USFWS 2011 Survey of hunting fishing and wildlife related recreation, shows results for wildlife enthusiasts and more specifically people who care for birds, just in NJ. To put it into context, the state has about 8.8 million citizens but only 5.3 million registered voters. What would happen if 1/2 of the people who love birds organized into a voting block. What if those people joined with the 750,000 anglers ( who are organized because they buy licenses) or the 110,000 hunters ( also organized ) into one block that insisted agencies protect and paid a modest tax or fee to make it happen?

Imagine the power of a electoral block that would include 1 our of every 6 voters? That voice could command it’s own power and money and one of the first uses should be to rededicate the moribund institutions that guide conservation. Groups like the NJ Fish and Game Council.

An anachronism, as its name suggests, the Council was created at the time when all states were creating similar councils after the 1935 passage of the Pittman Robertson Act. The Act authorized taxes on guns and ammunition and led to state hunting licenses and other permit fees. Early conservationists new better than shower corrupted politicians with a largess of cash and power. Instead they gave state fish and wildlife agencies freedom from political interference by developing councils that hired Fish and Game Agency Directors instead of governors and kept money in accounts separate from the state treasury. This allowed wildlife professionals the chance to run the agencies and prevent politicians from using the position as a electoral award and politically influencing hunting and fishing seasons. An independent council insured sportsmen money was well spent.

Unfortuntely many of the councils, like NJ’s see their role as narrowly defined to game animals and rarely resist the agencies political needs. Why should they when hunters and fishermen are footing the bill and gun company lobbies and thier foundations shower the agencies and sportsmen groups with goodies like state-of-the-art gun ranges that ultimately help them (gun industry) sell more guns and ammo.

This graph represents the money received by USFWS for distribution to states from 11% tax on all guns and ammo. This fund, originally from the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, was pivotal in the long standing battle to protect wildlife. Now its not enough because most wildlife fall outside the realm of this money – it is primary dedicated to game animals. Moreover it unites hunters and give them the most powerful voice in conservation. Birders could push for a similar tax on their equipment and it would upend the world of conservation.

But these compromised agency watchdogs could be re-instituted with new funding and a wider constituency. Once organized and properly represented, conservationists could take aim at any number of problems. Foremost among them is forcing agencies to manage wildlife responsibly, repairing damaged lands and restoring depleted fish and wildlife populations. Conservationists should re-invigorate their own role by insisting work be done by guilds of trained volunteers. Its standard practice in Europe, it should be here.

A good example of this here in NJ is the Delaware Bay Shorebird Project. On both sides of the bay teams trained volunteers lead by paid professionals capture and band thousands of shorebirds as they migrate to their Arctic breeding areas. If we tried to pay everyone, the project would not happen. If the project didn’t happen we would have lost the bedrock of protection on Delaware Bay. So volunteers play an essential role in conservation and it could be happening in every area of important work.

Volunteers can do the work of staff if they are given the training and support they need to do the work. In most other countries, it is guilds of volunteers that do much of the work being done by paid staff in the US. There are many reasons for this, the most important is that in the U industry has forced agencies to distrust data collected by unpaid staff. Not coincidentally industry also lobbies to cut budgets of paid staff. It’s time to resist this and get citizens back into the work of protecting wildlife – for fun.

Staff could be creating efficient pathways for wildlife enthusiasts to take part in trapping and handling, monitoring, habitat management and saving staff for the hard parts – project management, analysis of data and report writing. The consequence of sharing the load is that experienced, trained and motivated volunteers become ramparts for the animals they love. Ramparts upon which agencies and groups can defend wildlife and wild land. This has already happened for bald eagles and shorebirds on Delaware bay, it could happen for all wildlife and fisheries on the bay, and become the basis upon which similar protection occurs in other landscapes.

We need to get more action for the money spent. Conservationists can demand public-private partnerships that force agencies to play support roles in projects driven by conservation groups and volunteers. A conservation movement devoid of partisan overlays can push for market driven adaptive management solutions that turn failure into success with steady progress, transparency and good science. Public-private partnerships are more efficient and successful at delivering action and product from government funds. Its true in all other areas of social welfare, why not conservation?

Keep in mind it not all about money, despite the desperate pleas of agencies and groups. Wildlife work is incredibly inefficient. For example, in 2011 my colleague Christina Frank and I investigated the outcome of all land management projects devoted to wildlife habitat restoration in the last 15 years on both sides of the bay. These projects added up to millions in funding and with only a few exceptions either ended in failure, or never ended. This is sadly typical. Moreover don’t believe it only about more staff. In my lifetime for example agencies have systematically prevented citizens from taking substantive roles in wildlife management and research. They do this at the behest of corporate interests who claim volunteers create bad science. Instead industry insists on paid staff do routine jobs, than force agencies to cut funds with their war against good government. Instead of good science the result is no science and no good direction.

Its vital that people who love the wildlife of Delaware Bay, sportsmen, birders, photographers find common cause with the people who live on Delaware Bay. It is this blogs opinion that good conservation is impossible without the support of local people. That depends in part on how it materially benefits them, so we must all work towards conservation that allows local jobs in the harvest and use of wildlife and habitat resources. Conservationists can find common cause with local people by insisting on sustainable recourse use and partnering with them to create a powerful voice that combines the welfare of wildlife, wild land and the rural economies. It our only chance to counter the ever growing influence of corporate money.

This is my theory of change for Delaware Bay.