Like all good Midwestern kids, I grew up hunting and fishing. These were activities my dad grew up doing and his dad before him. These outdoor activities were part of the American character (well…the white male American character) that stemmed out of cocktail that combined Manifest Destiny with divine dominion. And it became ingrained in the way we conserve and manage wildlife today.

I don’t hunt or fish any more (I’m just bad at it), and I don’t have any issues with people who do that, but I do have a problem with how hunting and fishing a often the primary goals of most of our state fish and wildlife agencies. Because hunters and anglers wanted to manage wild populations into the future (so they could keep hunting and fishing them), they developed the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. Essentially, through regulated hunting and fishing, animal populations would be managed to maximize harvest without causing extinction. It would also be a way to raise funds through hunting license fees and taxes and gear and equipment. And in many ways, this model works. But in many ways, it doesn’t.

Fortunately, I didn’t have to look far to find someone to talk to about my concerns and vast opinions on the matter. My friend (and fellow Tacoman) Erin joined me to dive into the philosophy and economics that underpin how state fish and wildlife agencies are funded and what they focus on. Pour a drink (ideally while in your home and six feet away from everyone else) and enjoy the conversation.

Cheers!