www.ecologicalcitizen.net LONG ARTICLE

Beyond the North American Conservation Model and towards Earth

For nearly 150 years, the view of wild animals as ‘renewable natural resources’ and ‘property’ Anja Heister to be managed, controlled and used has dominated and conservation in the US. The North American Model is the driver of this strong About the author anthropocentric and utilitarian stance, which has not only led to an annual killing spree Anja is a campaigner for where millions of wild animals lose their lives to hunters and trappers nationwide but has wildlife rights and lives in Missoula, MT, USA. also resulted in a staggering spiral of plant and animal extinctions globally. This article examines the worldview of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and its dangers, Citation and it points out the need for compassion for all Earthlings and for the embrace of Earth Heister A (2019) Beyond the rights. The author also provides steps everyone interested in changing the paradigm of North American Wildlife lethal management of wild animals can take to help accelerate the transition. Conservation Model and towards Earth rights. The Ecological Citizen 3(Suppl A): n a sunny winter day more than a their favourite animal species (and 67–74 . decade ago, my partner and I came opportunities) disappear. Ideas and actions Oacross a pine marten hanging by a taken by these early recreational hunters to Keywords front arm from a leghold trap on the limb stem the decline of certain ‘game’ species, Animal ; of a tree in the woods. After we freed her such as elk, deer and antelope, caused ; from the trap, she limped away and then by market hunters developed over time biodiversity; conservation; stopped, turned around and gave us a long into . These were collectively rights of nature look, perhaps of thanks. This traumatic described as the North American Wildlife experience set me on my path of inquiry Conservation Model in 2001 (Geist et al., into what makes this cruelty against wild 2001). animals possible and still legal. My journey Some of the early ‘sport’ hunters, including led me to the little-known North American Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell Wildlife Conservation Model. Along the and Gifford Pinchot, also spearheaded the way, I was dumbfounded to learn that our establishment of national parks and wildlife releasing the poor pine marten was illegal refuges. They led the historic transition – that creature was property of the trapper. from unmitigated slaughter of wild animals An invisible force with powerful, received to regulated hunting, and trapping. beliefs, the North American Wildlife However, by replacing commercial hunting Conservation Model (hereinafter, the with the concept of sport hunting, early Model) has been directing wildlife-related recreational hunters succeeded in conserving policies, regulations and laws, and shaping wild animals for human use, and at the also how society relates to wild animals same time preserving methods to exploit and nature. Owing to similar temporal them: hunting and trapping. and social circumstances in the US and Strikingly, today, a growing sector of the Canada, the Model conceptually includes American public is shifting its beliefs about both countries. Its history reaches back to wild animals and increasingly embracing the 1800s, a time when European settlers mutualism, an egalitarian that mercilessly slaughtered wild animals for views non-human animals, including commerce, driving several animal species wild individuals, as if they were members to extinction or near extinction. This also of an extended family, deserving rights led to a conflict with another group – the and care. This was one of the findings by a wealthy, urban ‘sport’ hunters, who saw recent US report that surveyed public and

The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 67 Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model www.ecologicalcitizen.net

“The United States Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency relies heavily on leghold traps and strangulation snares among other indiscriminate Figure 1. Raccoon skins at the North American Fur Auction in Stoughton, WI, USA (photo: Wisconsin devices in their Department of Natural Resources [CC BY-ND 2.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/]). annual slaughter governmental staff’s attitudes towards control, wildlife killing machine” (Predator of millions of wild wild animals and showed that mutualists Defense, 2014) – relies heavily on leghold animals under the (35%) have now outpaced traditionalists traps and strangulation snares among guise of (28%), who believe that non-human other indiscriminate devices in their annual protection.” animals should be used for the benefit slaughter of millions of wild animals under of humans (Manfredo et al., 2018). Yet at the guise of livestock protection. The federal the same time, the relationship between agency killed more than 2.3 million wild humans and non-human animals conveyed animals in 2017, down from 4.4 million by the Model, and reflected in federal and animals in 2013 [United States Department state fish and wildlife agencies’ policies, of Agriculture, 2019]). Given the task of remains firmly locked in the historic grip conservation to curb society’s destructive of anthropocentrism tethered to strong relation to the more-than-human world, it . The Model’s approach is disturbing to see the acceptance – and – which has no consideration for the even promotion – of the Model’s tenets intrinsic of non-human animals by certain conservationists. Unwittingly – is responsible for legitimizing an perhaps, they are thus legitimizing another annual killing of millions of individual strand of destruction – the recreational wild animals. It has been estimated that killing of wild animals. hunters in the US alone kill between 100 Nevertheless, state and federal wildlife and 200 million animals annually, the agencies, most hunting organizations, majority for ‘recreation’ (Bekoff and Pierce, and even professional wildlife 2017). In addition, trappers kill between 6 associations such as The Wildlife Society, and 21 million wild fur-bearing animals promote and defend the Model. The annually (Figure 1; White et al., 2010). Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Furthermore, the United States Department (CSF; www.congressionalsportsmen.org), a of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency body based in Washington, DC, is perhaps – a body that one documentary rightly the Model’s most powerful lobbying force. exposed as an “unaccountable, out-of- Together with partners, including the

68 The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 www.ecologicalcitizen.net Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model

National Rifle Association, the Sportsmen’s describe the concept of “fair chase” and Alliance, and the Safari Club International, rejection of frivolous and wasteful killing. CSF applies high-pressure political 5 “Wildlife is considered an international influence in protecting their interests in resource”: Many wildlife species are hunting, angling, shooting and the trapping of international importance (see, for of wild animals. This has been exemplified example, the transnational Migratory Bird by two main supporters, who stated: “the Act established between Canada and the Model has ensured that hunters are a force USA in 1916), and management of wildlife to be reckoned with, despite representing is an issue of international concern. only about 6 percent of the North American 6 “Science is the proper tool to discharge population (13.7 million hunters in the US in wildlife policy”: The implementation of 2011)” (Mahoney and Jackson, 2013: 454).1 policies, such as hunting and trapping Indeed, the pro-hunting and trapping seasons or protection of endangered industry comes out in full swing whenever species, should have a scientific basis at a the public attempts to curtail recreational certain level. hunting and trapping or governmental 7 “Democracy of hunting is standard”: lethal management of predators. Aldo Leopold called this idea the Nevertheless, several national and state- “democracy of sport” (Meine, 1988: 169), focused organizations fight either through reflecting the Model’s inherent focus on legal challenges or through grassroots hunting as a democratic process, where efforts, including ballot initiatives against everyone has a right (i.e. access to), and a the cruelties involved in the recreational responsibility for, wildlife. killing of wild animals. Examples include the Center for Biological Diversity, The Model’s detrimental impact on “The Model is one WildEarth Guardians and Footloose society: Reflecting and reinforcing of many forces that anthropocentrism Montana. The last of these, of which I am have historically a co-founder, is a non-profit organization The Model is one of many forces that created and continue based in Missoula, MT, that promotes trap- have historically created and continue to free public lands. maintain the human–nature dichotomy to maintain the and a strong hierarchy. Because the Model’s human–nature The Model’s seven tenets priority is the (lethal) use of wild animals, dichotomy and a The seven tenets of the Model are as follows its tenets are a moral structuring of the strong hierarchy. (The Wildlife Society and the Boone and relationship between humans and non- ” Crockett Club, 2012): humans. Here, humans are considered 1 “Wildlife resources are a public trust”: subjects with moral value (they matter), Wildlife is a common resource and held in while non-human animals are assigned an trust by the government for the benefit of inferior status as public or private ‘property’, present and future human generations. or as a ‘natural resource’ (tenets #1, #2, #3, 2 “Markets for game are eliminated”: #5 and #6). The tenets describe acceptable Historic markets for game species were purposes for killing animals (#4), and also eliminated; trapping for fur and markets claim the right of humans to kill animals for for animal pelts are exempted.2 sport touted in the ‘democracy of hunting’ 3 “Allocation of wildlife is by law”: (#7). Underlying such a strong sense of ‘Surplus’3 of wildlife is allocated to the entitlement to decide over wild animals’ public for consumption by law, not by lives and deaths are certain widely shared the market, land ownership or special beliefs: “that the Earth belongs to humanity; privileges. that the planet consists in resources for 4 “Wildlife can be killed only for a the betterment of people; and that human legitimate purpose”: This beings are ‘obviously’ superior to all other legitimizes killing wildlife for “food, species” (Crist, 2017: 62). According to this fur, self-defense or property protection” perspective, humans are not perceived as (Geist et al., 2001: 178), and then goes on to a part of nature, but, instead, our species

The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 69 Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model www.ecologicalcitizen.net

is arbitrarily elevated into a realm deemed and societies of wolves in Denali National separate from, outside of and above Park, captured non-human individuality by nature. This is a worldview with disastrous pointing out that every wolf is embedded consequences, as it is playing out globally in in a net of relationships within and outside the unprecedented extinction crisis. their families, and thus every wolf is not The Model’s clear-cut separation between only an individual but essential (Haber and humans and wild animals demands a Holleman, 2013). In the same vein, a group strong hierarchical view of the world (scala of conservationists and animal naturae) in order to justify its grand-scale recently urged for conservation strategies exploitation of wild animals for ‘recreation to include concern for collectives and and use’. This is also a moral scaling that individual animals, “particularly for those justifies the non-vital desires of hunters who possess sophisticated capacities for and trappers, while demoting the vital and emotion, consciousness and sociality” basic needs and interests of wild animals (Wallach et al., 2018: 1). With the rise of staying alive, unharmed by humans. “ Animals as ‘natural resources’ of sport hunting Let us take a closer look at how the Model ontologizes wild animals for use. First, it With the rise of sport hunting legitimized legitimized through directs its focus on the ecological collective, through the Model came the displacement the Model came the not the individual animal. Second, it of wild animals, along with natural displacement of wild downgrades the status of wild animals to entities such as trees, plants, soil, water animals, along with ‘natural renewable resources’. And third, it and rocks into a legally defined category categorizes wild animals as property. of natural resources. The added epithet natural entities such of ‘renewable’ turned animals into a as trees, plants, soil, The Model’s view of the whole resource that “with wise management, water and rocks into The Model’s allegiance is to the collective can be perpetuated indefinitely for the a legally defined – the ecosystem, the animal species and enjoyment of present and future [human] population. In this sense, the individual generations” (Bolen and Robinson, 2003: category of natural animal has no moral worth because the 3). And while humans are bestowed with resources.” individual essentially does not exist. the right to manage (control, manipulate The message here is that the individual and kill), wild animals are denied what they animal is expendable, interchangeable share with us – biological kinship, self-will and “only valuable insofar as it carries the and independence, autonomy and self- genetic coding to perpetuate the species, determination, and cognition, which in turn is by evolution adapted to and species-specific culture and . its surroundings and helps to perpetuate This outdated view of fellow creatures is no the healthy functioning of the ecosystem” longer congruent with scientific and ethical (Mallory, 2001: 69). Focusing on abstract advancements (Singer, 1975; Midgley, 1979; constructs ensures that the individual Regan, 1985; Adams, 1990), both of which animal conveniently vanishes into the mist are aligned in urging us to change our view of the species or population and that he or she of non-human animals – wild and domestic can be sacrificed for the greater of the – from objects to subjects, sentient beings whole or for the experience of the individual with lives, rights, interests and needs like sport hunter (Kheel, 2008). This view ignores humans. “Science is confirming the obvious: non-human nature’s intrinsic standing and other animals hear, see, and smell with their value. It utterly dismisses compassion and ears, eyes and noses; are frightened when respect for the lives of individual animals. they have reason for fright and feel happy It denies that they are good for their own when they appear happy” (Safina, 2015: 23). sake and therefore ought to be protected. Of And not only that, but scientific discoveries course, this view is far from being universal now include the existence of sentience within the conservation community. For in taxa other than mammals, including example, the late biologist Gordon Haber, octopuses, reptiles and fish. In addition to who spent 40 years documenting the lives widespread cognition, moral behaviour as

70 The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 www.ecologicalcitizen.net Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model

well as personality differences exist among and naturalist Henry Beston (1956: 25), non-human individuals of many animal who described our fellow creatures so species (Bekoff and Pierce, 2017). All such beautifully: “they are not brethren, they recent findings point to the same: Life is one are not underlings, they are other nations and experienced by all. caught with ourselves in the net of life From rats chirping (laughing) when and time.” tickled and bees dancing to polar bears sliding down a snowy hill for fun, there The Model’s promotion of is no longer any doubt that biodiversity aggression, violence and cruelty consists of bodies and minds. This is to wild animals is detrimental to “The Model’s further supported by the 2012 Cambridge society’s efforts to increase pro- disconnect between social behaviours Declaration on Consciousness (Dvorsk y, human and non- 2012). Sentience obviously gives an animal Reflective of the global destruction of human animals an advantage in survival and did not arise de nature caused by a separation between novo in humans but developed from species humanity and more-than-human nature, breeds abuse, cruelty already equipped with emotions and the the Model’s disconnect between human and and violence against capability of both from physical non-human animals breeds abuse, cruelty wild animals.” pain and from fear, anxiety and stress and violence against wild animals. Nowhere (Rollin, 1998). Thus, the Model’s focus on is this more apparent than in trapping human interests that seemingly outweigh wild animals for their fur or just for ‘fun’. animals’ sentience is morally bankrupt Trapping is clearly an act of violence and its view of wildlife individuals as non- against unsuspecting and defenceless wild sentient natural renewable resources is animals, who are lured into a baited snare, scientifically unsound.4 leghold or conibear trap. Common injuries include broken teeth and broken bones, and Animals as ‘human property’ psychological and physiological trauma. In The Model continues to rely on the archaic such desperate situations it is common for ancient principle of Roman common a trapped animal to chew off his or her foot law, which classifies animals as ‘things’. or twist off an entire limb to escape the pain Accordingly, all wild animals in the US are and panic (trappers call this “a wring-off”). either public human property, owned by the Trappers commonly kill a trapped animal nation’s citizenry and held in trust by state by stomping, strangling or beating him wildlife agencies for present and future or her to death, by shooting, by poisoning, human generations, or become private by chemical injection or by drowning. For property when physically immobilized by example, the Trapper Education Manual a human with a license to kill, via bullet, encourages inexperienced trappers to use hook, arrow, trap or snare. With that, submersion techniques and recommends the Model has cast an all-encompassing that trappers who are underage or otherwise net over wild animals, granting them no not legally permitted to carry a firearm protecting from abuse, torture and death. “strike smaller furbearers such as raccoon, Unsurprisingly, states’ animal cruelty opossum, and fox hard at the base of the skull laws exempt the practices of hunting and with a heavy wooden or metal tool to kill or trapping. In practical terms, this means, render them unconscious” (International for example, that when a bobcat gets caught Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in a snare or trap, he or she transitions 2005: 98). This manual then instructs from public ‘property’ to the trapper’s such trappers: “Placing your foot over private ‘property’ and, as such, is entirely the head and chest area and compressing at the trapper’s mercy. As I mentioned at these organs will lead to death.” There is the start of this article, anyone finding no mandate as to how a trapped animal and releasing a trapped animal can be should be killed ‘humanely’, nor is there fined for illegal interference. Contrast the monitoring of, let alone a charge, for these Model’s perspective with that of writer crimes in the woods. No thought is given

The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 71 Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model www.ecologicalcitizen.net

to the death by starvation of offspring of wild animals for ‘recreation’ in the 21st animal mothers killed in traps. century, disguised as a ‘conservation Trapping’s inherent callousness and lack tool’ that controls populations and funds of empathy for wild animals has been a conservation efforts (contentions that have cause for great societal concern in the US both been discredited [Baker, 1985; Smith since at least the turn of the 20th century. and Molde, 2014; Murray, 2017]), are most Indeed, no fewer than 450 anti-trapping certainly part of the legacy of the Model. At bills were introduced in state legislatures or a time when close to 1500 vertebrates and in the US Congress between 1901 and 1982 invertebrates are listed as either endangered The Model’s “ (Gentile, 1987). The link between animal or threatened with extinction (U.S. Fish & obsolete and crassly cruelty, domestic violence and murder Wildlife Service, 2019), and a warning has anthropocentric has long been established (Phillips, 2014). been published of the imminent extinction construction of wild However, I believe that there also needs of 1 million species (IPBES, 2019), killing to be more research into links between animals for fun and trophies continues animals hampers the killing of wild animals and human to be rampant in the world, perpetuated societal efforts to aggression, including violence against and glorified by such notorious trophy- increase empathy humans and other crimes. This is critically hunting organizations as the Safari Club and compassion for important since studies have shown that International (a partner organization of the belief in human superiority over animals Boone and Crockett Club). With partnerships all beings. ” is associated with greater prejudice against like this has come a global, powerful and human outgroups, such as immigrants and wealthy lobbying force in support of killing other minorities, and vice versa (Kymlicka for conservation that is not only culturally and Donaldson, 2014). ingrained but also legally and politically Notably, the Model is silent on the issues entrenched and sheltered. Wild animals of lack of empathy and absolving animal are caught in the net cast between hunters, cruelty. It is entirely out of kilter, if not governmental wildlife agencies and policy- undermining of, the mandate to address makers, with the segment of the public who the most pressing threats to the integrity are against hunting and trapping being of our planet – human population growth, excluded. However, while the lobbying force habitat loss and fragmentation, global may be with wildlife killers, the national climate change. The Model’s obsolete and and international public is increasingly crassly anthropocentric construction of objecting to the recreational killing of wild wild animals hampers societal efforts to animals, as shown by the overwhelming increase empathy and compassion for all global outrage over the killing of Cecil the beings. lion shot by an American trophy hunter (Bekoff, 2018). From anthropocentrism I think that, with leadership from a to Earth Rights conservation community that recommits to While the Model originated in the US and intrinsic valuation in order to help transform Canada, its ideas and practices, particularly our relationship with nature (Piccolo et the view of wild animals as mere trophies, al., 2018), now is the time to inspire people have spread globally. In fact, one of the nationally and globally towards more Model’s early pioneers, President Theodore ecocentric values. As Manfredo et al. (2018) Roosevelt, founded in 1887 the Boone and have shown, a growing sector of the American Crockett Club, which is an organization public is shifting its value orientation from that measures, scores and tracks ‘big game’ utilitarianism to mutualism, which involves animals killed through any legal means in love and empathy for wildlife individuals North America. In 1909, Roosevelt went on characterized by trust and the desire for a safari expedition to East Africa, which a mutually respectful relationship with ended with more than 11,000 wild animals wild animals. People with a mutualistic shot, including elephants and lions (Pollak, orientation are “less likely to support actions 2012). Global trophy hunting and killing resulting in death or harm to wildlife”

72 The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 www.ecologicalcitizen.net Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model

and “are more likely to engage in welfare state’s legislature, where all too often enhancing behaviors for individual wildlife, bills detrimental to wild animals are and more likely to view wildlife in human being passed. Consider running for office terms” (Teel and Manfredo, 2010: 130). to promote wildlife- and Earth-friendly I applaud Thomas Berry’s approach in policies and vote for legislators who our goal to overcome our ingrained sense champion these. Bring attention to the of superiority when he proposed that plight of wild animals by writing letters “the Earth is a communion of subjects, to your local newspaper. If you belong to and that rights originate where the a congregation, the peace movement, or universe originates and not from human any social , political or conservation jurisprudence” (Cullinan, 2003: 108). This organization, question them on their stance “This revival of means “we cannot claim that humans on wildlife individuals (you’ll be surprised). a long-standing have human rights without conceding that You can also join an Earth rights group sensibility of other members of the Earth Community or a Community Environmental Legal also have rights” (Cullinan, 2003: 108). For Defense Fund chapter, or support the Earth interconnectedness this to happen, nature and its non-human Law Center. And you can make a profound with the more- denizens need to be released from their difference for all animals, domestic and than-human world legally enshrined property status. Instead, wild, and for the health of the planet more also presents an the more-than-human world must be broadly, by switching to a vegan diet. n recognized as having rights to exist, persist opportunity to and flourish, with people having a moral Notes strengthen our 1 In 2016, the number of hunters was 11.5 million, obligation and authority to enforce nature’s potential for healing compared with 86 million bird watchers and rights on behalf of ecologies and their photographers (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, what we’ve torn denizens. This enormous transformation 2016). apart.” of our relationship with nature has been 2 This is just one of many contradictions within taken up by the rights of nature movement the Model. (Sólon, 2018) and associated legal initiatives 3 In a wildlife management context, the term (e.g. Earth Law Center, 2019), which provide ‘surplus’ refers to the manipulation of animal us with a much-needed holistic ethical and populations through lethal means, when an legal framework that re-embeds humans “accelerated growth rate provides a surplus of animals beyond the number required for into the ecological context and gives replacing the losses—a surplus that may be nature a voice. This spiritual and practical, harvested by hunters or other predators” (Bolen justice-based vision of Earth democracy has and Robinson, 2003: 185). already begun to shape a crucial egalitarian 4 This is against the backdrop as Curry (2018) and relationship with the more-than-human Gray (2018) have argued, that sentience is not world. For example, in 2008 Ecuador included essential to an individual having rights of nature in its new Constitution and moral standing – agency and interests do not require sentience but do qualify for value and and, more recently, the Maori tribe in New standing. Zealand achieved the legal recognition of a large river as an ancestor with legal References . This revival of a long-standing Adams CJ (1990) The Sexual Politics of Meat: A feminist- sensibility of interconnectedness with the vegetarian critical theory. Continuum International Pub more-than-human world also presents an Group, New York, NY, USA. opportunity to strengthen our potential for Baker R (1985) The American Hunting Myth. Vantage Press, healing what we’ve torn apart. Survival, and New York, NY, USA. hopefully flourishing, in a much-depleted Bekoff M (2018) Cecil the Lion: His life, death, and effects world profoundly depends on the awakening on conservation: An interview with Andrew Loveridge, of love and respect. author of Lion Hearted, who knew Cecil well. Available at https://is.gd/CeZ94q (accessed July 2019). Ways forward Bekoff M and Pierce J (2017) The Animals’ Agenda: One way in which you can effect change Freedom, compassion, and coexistence in the human age. is to get involved in your country’s or Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA.

The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019 73 Beyond the North American Wildlife Conservation Model www.ecologicalcitizen.net

Beston H (1956) The Outermost House: A year of life on the Murray CK (2017) The lion’s share? On the economic great beach of Cape Cod. Viking, New York, NY, USA. benefits of trophy hunting (a report for the Humane

Bolen EG and Robinson W (2003) Wildlife Ecology and Society International, prepared by Economists Management. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, at Large, Melbourne, VIC, Australia). Available at NJ, USA. https://is.gd/8Db3Es (accessed July 2019).

Crist E (2017) The affliction of human supremacy. The Phillips A (2014) Understanding the Link Between Ecological Citizen 1: 61–4. Violence to Animals and People: A guidebook for criminal justice professionals. Available at https://is.gd/WuAo3p Cullinan C (2003) Wild Law: A manifesto for earth justice. (accessed July 2019). Green Books, Totnes, UK. Piccolo JJ, Washington H, Kopnina H and Taylor B (2018) Curry P (2018) Ecological Ethics: An introduction (revised Why conservation scientists should re-embrace their 2nd edition). Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. ecocentric roots. Conservation Biology 32: 959–61. Dvorsky G (2012) Prominent scientists sign declaration Pollak M (2012) Roosevelt’s Elephant. New York Times, that animals have conscious awareness, just like us. 26 October. Available at https://is.gd/zaktCE Survival, and Available at https://is.gd/8jcR2v (accessed July 2019). “ (accessed July 2019). Earth Law Center (2019) What is Earth Law? Available at hopefully flourishing, Predator Defense (2014) EXPOSED: USDA’s secret war on https://is.gd/IXKtw1 (accessed July 2019). in a much-depleted wildlife. Available at https://is.gd/c1NCa8 (accessed Geist V, Mahoney PS and Organ JF (2001) Why hunting July 2019). world profoundly has defined the North American model of wildlife Regan T (1985) The Case for . University of depends on the conservation. In: 66th Transactions of The North American California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 175–85. awakening of love Rollin BE (1998) The Unheeded Cry: , Gentile JR (1987) The evolution of anti-trapping sentiment animal pain and science. Iowa State University Press, and respect. ” in the United States: A review and commentary. Wildlife Ames, IA, USA. Society Bulletin 15: 490–503. Safina C (2015)Beyond Words: What animals think and feel. Gray J (2018) Green fidelity and the grand finesse: Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, USA. Stepping stones to the ‘Pacocene’. The Ecological Citizen Singer P (1975) : A new ethics for our 1: 121–9. treatment of animals. Avon Books, New York, USA. Haber G and Holleman M (2013) Among Wolves: Gordon Smith ME and DA Molde (2014) Wildlife Conservation Haber’s insights of Alaska’s most misunderstood & Management Funding in the U.S. Nevadans for animal. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK, USA. Responsible Wildlife Management, NV, USA. Available IPBES (2019) Introducing IPBES’ 2019 Global Assessment at https://is.gd/TuQdU5 (accessed July 2019). Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. Available at Sólon P (2018) The rights of mother earth. In: https://is.gd/65QxsE (accessed July 2019). Satgar V, ed. The Climate Crisis: South African and global International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies democratic eco-socialist alternatives. Wits University (2005) Trapper Educational Manual. Available at Press, Johannesburg, South Africa: 107–30. https://is.gd/giz6YJ (accessed July 2019). Teel TL and Manfredo MJ (2010) Understanding the Kheel M (2008) Nature Ethics: An ecofeminist perspective. diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, USA. Conservation Biology 24: 128–39. Kymlicka W and Donaldson S (2014) Animal rights, The Wildlife Society and the Boone and Crockett multiculturalism, and the Left. Journal of Social Club (2012)The North American Model of Wildlife Philosophy 54: 116–18. Conservation (Technical Review 12-4). The Wildlife Mahoney S and Jackson J (2013) Enshrining hunting as Society, Bethesda, MA, USA. a foundation for conservation—the North American United States Department of Agriculture (2019) Program Model. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70: Data Reports. Available at https://is.gd/Jt8RWe 448–59. (accessed July 2019) Mallory C (2001) Acts of objectification, ecofeminism, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2016) National Survey of the ecological narrative. Ethics and the Environment 6: Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 59–89. Available at https://is.gd/ZzrkdZ (accessed July 2019). Manfredo MJ, Sullivan L, Don Carlos AW et al. (2018) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2019) Environmental America’s Wildlife Values: The social context of wildlife Conservation Online System: Listed animals. Available at management in the U.S. Colorado State University, Fort https://is.gd/KxvzdA (accessed July 2019). Collins, CO, USA. Available at https://is.gd/7VjKgz Wallach AD, Bekoff M, Batavia C et al. (2018) (accessed July 2019). Summoning compassion to address the challenges of Meine C (1988) Aldo Leopold: His life and work. University of conservation. Conservation Biology 32: 1255-65. Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA. White BH, Brown C and Decker T (2010) New guidelines Midgley M (1979) Beast and Man: The roots of human nature. for furbearer trapping: Science improves an age-old Harvester Press, Brighton, UK. pursuit. The Wildlife Professional 32: 6 6-7 1 .

74 The Ecological Citizen Vol 3 Suppl A 2019