# COMMERCIALIZATION OF WILDLIFE



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Below is the ND Wildlife Society's white paper on commercialization. Some fine minds produced a worthwhile document. DM

The mission of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is to
provide a forum for discussion of ecological issues among natural resource
professionals; to enable its membership to pursue conservation of natural
resources; and to inform the public on ecologically wise uses of natural
resources in support of a conservation ethic.
http://www.ndctws.homestead.com/OctNov04.pdf
_____________________________________________________________

*COMMERCIALIZATION OF WILDLIFE*
A standard principle of wildlife management in the United States is that wildlife belongs to the public. This principle goes back to the founding fathers of this Nation and has been supported by the Supreme
Court. Commercialization of wildlife occurs when the public wildlife (or fish) resource is used or exploited by individuals for financial gain. Examples of commercialization include fee hunting, guiding
and outfitting for compensation, and hunting derbies or contests. Under certain circumstances, activities such as taxidermy, emphasis on trophy hunting, shooting preserves and game farms, sales of trophy
animals or heads, and certain non-traditional livestock may be considered as commercialization of wildlife.
Commercialization of wildlife becomes a wildlife management issue when commercial interests interfere with or conflict with the ability of a wildlife management agency to manage the public's wildlife. Other
aspects of commercialization include efforts by commercial interests to influence or interfere with wildlife or natural resource management or the public's opportunity to access their wildlife and naturalresources. This may include lobbying efforts by commercial interests and landowners to secure guaranteed access to licenses or permits or access to public lands for fee operations. 
Commercialization may result in law enforcement issues because of the need to provide success to paying clients.
Commercialization may conflict with the public's access to its wildlife resources, may directly or indirectly impact those wildlife resources, or affect a wildlife or natural resource agency's management
programs.
Commercial interests who use or exploit wildlife seldom make a financial or meaningful contribution to the production, conservation, or protection of that wildlife resource. While commercialization of wildlife
may impart a monetary value to wildlife and to natural resource experiences, it seldom provides a benefit to the resource or to the agencies charged with managing wildlife and natural resources.
This committee recognizes that there are differences between commercial interests use of the public's wildlife resource and an individual's right to conduct commercial activities involving wildlife on his or her own land. Landowners have the right to limit or manage access and trespass on their lands.
However, landowners, guides, outfitters, clients, or other commercial interests should have no special consideration in the issuance of licenses or tags.
Commercial activities that provide recreational opportunities to the public, but do not require the exploitation of the public wildlife resource or restrict the public's access to wildlife are generally not an
issue.

*Commercialization of Wildlife Committee
Law Enforcement Issues*
I. Introduction: Many of the various aspects of commercialization of wildlife require state and/or federal game wardens and law enforcement officers to inspect operations, investigate violations, work big game
depredation complaints, assist the Board of Animal Health with non-traditional livestock operations, and other duties that relate to commercial use of wildlife. As the commercialization of wildlife grows in
North Dakota, more time will have to be directed at these commercial activities.

II. Potential Aspects of Commercial Uses of Wildlife that require additional Law Enforcement:
A. Guides and Outfitting and Fee Hunting:
1. May be more inclination to commit violations - when a hunter pays for the right to hunt an exclusive area, such as in a fee operation or a guided hunt, that hunter may expect more. Bag limits may become meaningless, especially behind locked gates and in an area were there are few wardens. Guides may feel pressured to give clients what they want even if it means braking wildlife laws.
2. More time-consuming investigations - increased costs and time will be needed to investigate illegal activities associated with guides and outfitters. Such investigations are of high importance but detract from other duties performed by law enforcement staff, or other conservation
responsibilities from the Game and Fish Department. Illegal guiding cases consume huge amounts of
staff hours bringing a case to trial.
3. Ties up land - as more hunters lose their favorite place to hunt, some may become frustrated and tend to violate laws. One estimate claims that guides and outfitters have leased or tied up approximately 70 % of Hettinger County and 50 % of Adams County One survey reveals that the average guide controls almost 16,000 acres of land, and that the average hunting/lodging provider controls over 5,500 acres.
4. Additional time is required to inspect records and operations - one full-time warden position has been added to the NDGFD to oversee commercial hunting operations.
5. Increased depredations - Due to a limited harvest of big game animals on fee hunting and leased land operations, there may be increased wildlife depredations during the fall and winter.

B. Non-traditional Livestock Operations:
1. Inspections - state wardens usually inspect big game enclosures for the State Board of Animal Health (BOAH).
2. Escapes - wardens are the first notified and usually assist BOAH with the capture or euthanasia of escaped big game animals.
3. Wildlife Disease Testing - wardens assist BOAH with collecting samples for disease testing.
4. Utilizing sportsmen's' dollars for monitoring private ventures - all dealings with BOAH issues not only detracts from NDGFD wardens time to conduct other duties, but uses sportsmen's' dollars/license fees to do so

C. Hunting Contests:
1. Require extra patrols for surveillance and compliance for coyote, pheasant, and snow goose contests.
2. Potential illegal activities associated with big buck contests.

D. Other Commercial Uses of Wildlife: All these activities require conservation agencies' staff time and funds for monitoring and regulation. As these businesses and other commercial operations involving wildlife increase, additional time and funds will be required and taken from other resource management activities.
1. Taxidermists
2. Shooting Preserves and Game Farms
3. Bait vendors

III. Recommendations: The North Dakota Game and Fish Department should regulate all aspects of commercialization of recognized game species.
The NDCTWS supports increased civil penalties involving illegal commercial take of wildlife.

Commercialization of Wildlife/Nature Based Tourism
I. Introduction: Nature Based Tourism (NBT) is a general term to cover that portion of the tourism industry that relies on wildlife and natural resources as its drawing card, with the exception of hunting and
fishing. NBT may take on many forms in North Dakota from visiting the scenic and historic Badlands along the Little Missouri River, birding festivals and contests, berry-picking, harvesting wild native plants
for private or commercial use, fossil digs, harvesting "caviar" from legally caught paddlefish, and crafts that depend on natural resources such as driftwood, bark, "weeds" for their components.
II. Definition: This broad topic can include activities such as photography, camping, hiking, biking, wildlife watching, horseback riding, canoeing, water skiing, and others when done commercially or as part of a paid tourism activity.
III. Potential impacts to the natural resource base in North Dakota due to NBT: As with any activity based on the consumptive use such as collection or harvest, or the non-consumptive use such as access to certain sites, views, or vistas, there is the potential for over harvest, overuse, or the diminished quality of the experience from the volume of people using the resource or competing for use of the resource at the same time.
IV. Private vs public land: Development of new visitor services (travel, interpretive, others) or commercial development intended to accommodate the NBT industry should not impact public lands,
public access to public lands, the public's natural resources, or the funding generated by user group to support these resources.

V. Funding of NBT industry/activities: The NDCTWS opposes having the natural resource agencies having to pay or support the development of commercial NBT industry. Funding for infrastructure development should come from the beneficiaries of the NBT industry, not from re-direction of wildlife and natural resource management funds.
VII. Support of NBT: The NDCTWS supports further development of NBT on private lands, and supports NBT on public lands where compatible or consistent with area objectives and management plans. It is not acceptable to make a private profit on public land or from the public resources.

VIII. Recommendation: The NDCTWS recommends that natural resources agencies work up front with NBT groups, the North Dakota Department of Tourism, and others to identify areas of support and agreement and areas of potential conflict, in order to work together more efficiently.

Commercialization of Wildlife
Fee Hunting and Fishing (Includes Guides and Outfitters)
I. Mission of NDCTWS: To provide a forum for discussion of ecological issues among natural resource professionals; to enable its membership to pursue conservation of natural resources; and to inform the
public on ecologically wise uses of natural resources in support of a conservation ethic.
II. Introduction: Providers of hunting and fishing opportunities for fee gain financially from public resources and often attempt to influence the management of those resources. As a result, this topic is of
great interest to professional wildlife managers and to consumptive and non-consumptive users of public wildlife and other natural resources.
III. Definition of fee hunting and fishing: Fee hunting and fishing occurs when money or other tangible payment is made to a party in exchange for assistance to locate, pursue, or access public wildlife for the
purpose of taking that wildlife. Public wildlife includes all fish and wild animals held in trust and managed by state or federal agencies for the people of North Dakota and the Nation.
IV. Potential negative impacts to wildlife management in North Dakota due to fee hunting:
A. Less opportunity for the public to access wildlife resources.
B. Interference with wildlife management decisions by wildlife professionals.
C. Potential for increased illegal take of wildlife; i.e., over-bagging justified because of costs and fees, over-bagging because of high wildlife populations on fee operation lands.
D. Unfavorable distribution of harvest (geographically, and demographically) which may lead to disease or depredation problems on private lands, and over harvest and over- use of public lands.
E. Reduced hunter numbers which results in reduced license revenues, reduced advocacy for hunting, agency conservation programs, and reduced support for public wildlife conservation agencies.
F. Undesirable consequences to habitat.
V. Beneficiaries of fee hunting and fishing:
A. Individuals, guides, and outfitters who receive payment from hunters and fishermen.
B. A select group of hunters and fishermen who can afford or chose to pay for hunting access or trophy fees.

VI. *Funding for fee hunting: In most cases fee hunting is an extractive business where a select group of individuals benefit at the expense of a larger public that provide funding for wildlife management and
conservation. Public agencies should not subsidize or fund the management of habitat, hunter numbers and permits, or wild
populations that primarily benefit fee hunting operations*.

VII. Recommendation: Oppose any fee hunting or fishing operations/activities in which the participants;
A. Restrict hunting/fishing access to wildlife by the public.
B. Influence or attempt to influence the distribution of hunting licenses or permits to benefit their fee hunting or fishing operations.
C. Influence or attempt to influence wildlife population or habitat management by public agencies primarily to benefit their fee hunting or fishing operations.

Commercialization of Wildlife Hunting and Fishing Contests
I. Introduction of Hunting Contests and how they relate to the NDCTWS Mission: Hunting and Fishing
Contests promote a use of natural resources, therefore an issue of concern to the NDCTWS. Many related issues; ethics, the potential for cheating/poaching, public perceptions, especially with regard to contests
for the most animals killed, i.e., prairie dog or coyote shoots, or the fastest limit of snow geese; also affect wildlife and natural resource management.
II. Definition of Hunting Contests: Any organized hunting activity that establishes competition and/or a scoring system with prizes or money awarded based on the number of or size of wildlife. Examples
include: biggest buck, heaviest doe, longest pheasant tail, largest goose, most waterfowl, most coyote/fox, most prairie dogs, or most rattlesnakes, etc. In North Dakota, hunting contests generally involve a
consumptive use of wildlife, but there is potential for non-consumptive uses such as birding contests.

IV. Potential impacts to natural resources in North Dakota due to Hunting Contests:
A. There is potential that Hunting or Fishing Contests could promote illegal activities that may require management agencies to redirect staff time to monitor or regulate these activities that may interfere with the management agencies ability to manage natural resources.
B. There is potential for Hunting and Fishing Contests to interfere with the general public's (not participating in the contests) ability to access and enjoy either consumptive or non-consumptive uses of wildlife.
C. There is potential for Hunting Contests to negatively impact local wildlife populations and associated species (i.e. prairie dogs and associated burrowing owls, mountain plovers, etc).
V. Beneficiaries of Hunting Contests: Hunting Contests may enhance the enjoyment of outdoor recreation for some of the general public and promote support for wildlife, natural resource protection and
management. Certain businesses and chambers of commerce that support and/or promote the contest likely benefit from an increased customer base and sales during the contest period. These beneficiaries
rarely contribute to the management of the natural resource base that supports their commerce.
VI. Private vs. Public lands: Hunting Contests occurring on private lands are generally not a natural resource agency concern unless the contest has a significant negative impact on wildlife populations.

Hunting Contests that occur on public lands and interferes with the general public's ability to access and/or enjoy wildlife on these public lands is a concern for the managing agency.
VII. Funding for Hunting Contests: The general public should not have to pay for Hunting Contest, their promotion, or regulation.
VIII. Support for Hunting Contests: Recommendation to maintain a neutral position on Hunting Contests in general. However, Hunting Contests should not have a significant negative impact on wildlife
populations and associated species/habitats. Hunting Contests should not interfere with the general public's ability to access and/or enjoy wildlife/natural resources on public lands. Hunting Contests
should not interfere with a natural resource agencies ability to manage wildlife/natural resources or redirect staff time to regulate these contests.

Commercialization of Wildlife:* Allocation of Lottery Licenses*
Introduction: Many surrounding states already allocate a portion of their lottery licenses to guides and outfitters for sale to clients. In Montana, two-thirds of the big game licenses are allocated to guides/outfitters to sell as a part of their package hunts. The South Dakota State Legislature in 2004
considered a proposal to allow ranchers and farmers to sell West river deer licenses. One half of the nonresident
allocation of white-tailed deer licenses per unit are available to licensed guides and outfitters in North Dakota.

Issue: Such allocations remove licenses from the public that does not want to or need to hunt with a guide. They may re-distribute harvest in an area above or below what the wildlife management agency intends or proposes. Such allocation may alter the age structure and /or sex ratio in a big game population over a small area, or even a large area, depending on the percentage of licenses that are allocated to guides, outfitters, ranchers or farmers.
Position: The NDCTWS recommends and strongly supports that all license sales and allocation be conducted through the North Dakota Game and Fish Department in order to assure fair distribution of licenses, and maintain desired harvest levels and wildlife populations.

Game Farms and Shooting Preserves
I. Introduction: Two components in the commercialization of wildlife that are on the increase in North Dakota are shooting preserves and game farms or non-traditional livestock operations. Both are designed
to diversify or increase on-farm income, and shooting preserves may provide outdoor recreation opportunities. For purposes of the NDCTWS discussion, the two operations are defined as follow:
II. Definition: A shooting preserve is a facility where native, introduced, or exotic species of wildlife are propagated, raised, released and are hunted on a per gun, per animal released, or per animal shot payment
basis. In North Dakota, these facilities raise and shoot primarily upland game birds such as pheasants and chukars. There are currently thirty-three shooting preserves licensed by the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department. Current regulations call for the maintenance of records on the number of animals raised and killed. Although birds released by shooting preserves are somewhat free to fly anywhere, mammals are
generally confined by high fences or enclosures.
Game Farms or non-traditional livestock operations raise and sell animals for meat, horns/antlers, hides or feathers, or to sell as breeding stock. Species raised in North Dakota include native, non-native, and exotic game animals such as white-tailed deer, mountain lions and fallow deer or exotic livestock species.
These facilities are licensed by the State Board of Animal Health within the State Department of Agriculture, and must maintain defined standards for animal health and sanitation. The Board of Animal
Health currently licenses about 35-40 game farm/non-traditional livestock operations in the State. In addition, there are 103 farmed elk operations licensed in North Dakota. Farmed elk operations are not included as non-traditional livestock operations, and farmed elk or captive deer herd operators can develop shooting operations without having to be licensed as a shooting preserve.
Issues: Proponents of preserves and game farms often suggest that there are wildlife benefits due to good land stewardship and herd management. Although this may be true in some cases, it is not universally
true, and in many cases the high fences are needed to confine animals within poor quality habitats. Both types of facilities maintain confined wildlife or semi-wild species of wildlife or exotic species and
run risks of having disease outbreaks which could spread to either unconfined wildlife populations or to domestic livestock operations. In addition, shooting preserves by their nature of providing animals to
shoot or to release and shoot, decrease the need for traditional hunting and outdoor skills, and emphasize the kill of animals at the expense of the total hunting experience or exposure to the relationship between
wildlife and habitat.
The following is the position of NDCTWS with regard to shooting preserves and game farms:
1. Oppose further conversion of the public's native wildlife to private ownership.
2. Oppose high-fenced enclosures, regardless of size, if they exclude free-ranging native wildlife from
critical seasonal habitats or migration routes.
3. Support regulations and enforcement to prevent escapes and facilitate the recovery in the event of an escape.
4. Support the state wildlife agencies as the primary regulatory agency over native North American ungulates, including those confined by high fences.
5. Encourage anyone using a high fence to confine ungulates to thoroughly analyze and understand potential effects and commit to minimizing the risks to native species.
6. For all ungulates confined by high fences, encourage management at or below natural carrying capacity in a manner that prevents inbreeding, disease, habitat degradation and effects on non-target species.
7. Encourage authorized agencies to collaborate with interested parties on funding and development of systems for detecting and monitoring wildlife diseases within enclosed and free-ranging native and exotic ungulate populations.
8. Support a moratorium on further construction of high-fenced facilities and the shipment of live ungulates until live animal diagnostic tests are available for detecting and monitoring important infectious
diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD), brucellosis, and tuberculosis.
9. Oppose the use of funds generated from traditional sources (recreational licenses, tags, and other fees) for confined-ungulate inspections and regulatory programs.
10. Oppose all high fences as a management tool except for those associated with research facilities.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

You're right. This reads as a well thought out position.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

It was a long read, but worth it. How does a guy join or support NDWS?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

rowdie

Here is the link to their home page

http://www.ndwf.org/index.html

Bob


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Been a member for 35 years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is the North Dakota Wildlife Society, not the Wildlife Federation. They are a group of wildlife professionals.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Oops 

Try this one.

http://www.ndctws.homestead.com/NDCTWS_HOME.html

Sorry

Bob


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Please accept my retraction.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I beleive they allow associate memberships. This is the group that brought in Dr. Valerius Geist to Bis last winter for the speaking engagement on canned hunts and the North American Model of Wildlife Management.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

The North Dakota Chapter of The Widlife Society is a state chapter of The Widlife Society. Both groups are made up of professional wildlife scientists actively involved in research and management. The Wildlife Society publishes several professional, scientific journals containing the latest research on wildlife.

The position paper on commercialization was developed by a committee of Chapter members in response to the increasing commercialization of wildlife. It was developed over many months and included a great deal of hard work and research by the committee members.

The Chapter relies on sound, scientific information and data to meet goals and objectives set forth for wildlife management. Our web site has more information on the Chapter; who we are and what we do. I invite you to check it out.


----------

