#carnivore conservation act of massachusetts

[easterncoyoteenthusiast]

Conservation

*To preface this post, I will say that this is in no way a comprehensive discussion of conservation practices. This is merely a preview of what I was able to gather and understand during my limited time researching.

Conservation is a nuanced issue. Rutherford [1] brings up the point that coywolf conservation discourse tends to revolve around fear, be it from the uncertainty elicited by their hybrid nature or from their status as carnivores in general. These discussions can quickly descend into an argument based on the reconstruction of the past by questioning which species "belong" in the area. With this criterion as one of the most important, it is easy to see why some may protest the active protection of the coywolf as a (variant) species.

It is vital, however, that we recognize our role in the creation of these animals in the first place: in letting fear drive us to extirpate wolf populations, we paved the way for a species much more adapted to humans [1]. The “question, then, is if we made it, what is our responsibility to it” [1, p. 216]? Rutherford issues a call to arms, saying “the choice to encounter requires something of us; apathy becomes an unacceptable response” [1, p. 219] and suggesting that we attempt “a productive and generative attention to difference and livability in the context of” the differences between us and them [1, p. 218]. This may take the form, at the very least, of an acknowledgment of either (1) the inevitability of interspecific encounters, which begs for the adoption of conservation strategies with that in mind; or (2) the fact that humans can have a significant impact on the world’s biodiversity and can both drastically increase and decrease it, allowing for different types of species to emerge in response.

In line with Rutherford [1]’s arguments, others [2-5] have called for a new method of conservation—one that takes into account the degree to which anthropogenic activity has changed Earth systems (for related information, see my post on the Anthropocene), as well as the “failure of traditional conservation practices to halt defaunation” [2, p. 691]. Jackman and Way, in particular, have questioned the effectiveness of the outright hunting of carnivores, saying that it can both exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts and negatively impact various species’ social structures and behaviors [3, p. 187]. Their solution is the adoption of the compassionate conservation paradigm, which incorporates ethics and majority public opinion as well as recognizes the ecological importance of large carnivores. The overarching goal of this paradigm “is to first do no harm and to consider the intrinsic worth of individual animals in management practices” [3, p. 192].

The proposed Carnivore Conservation Act of Massachusetts, which aims to better adhere carnivore management practices (e.g., hunting seasons) to “the North American Model of Wildlife Management’s principle that wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose” [4, p. 2; original emphasis removed], would fall under this paradigm. The executive summary on the first page outlines the argument for such an Act’s implementation:

"1. Promote the welfare of carnivores by prohibiting cruel and inhumane hunting

2. Promote a fair-chase hunting ethic of carnivores

3. Require scientifically valid carnivore management practices that serve a legitimate management purpose/objective/goal

4. Require the use of current and best available science in wildlife management decisions of carnivores. This involves abandoning principles that support the maximum utilization or killing of carnivores and requires accounting for the ecological importance of carnivores in fully functioning and robust ecosystems and recognizing their innate social and family structures" [4].

“The Act would shorten hunting seasons, institute bag limits, eliminate unpopular hunting practices…and provide refuges from hunting, yet permit limited hunting for the small minority of people that participate in that activity” [3, pp. 192-193; see also 4-5].

References:

[1] Rutherford, S. (2018). The Anthropocene’s animal? Coywolves as feral cotravelers. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618763250

[2] Fredriksen, A. (2016). Of wildcats and wild cats: Troubling species-based conservation in the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(4), 689-705. doi.org/10.1177/0263775815623539

[3] Jackman, J.L. & Way, J.G. (2017). Once I found out: Awareness of and attitudes toward coyote hunting policies in Massachusetts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1397824

[4] Kane, L. & Way, J.G. (2014). Revised Carnivore Conservation Act of Massachusetts [PDF]. www.EasternCoyoteResearch.com/downloads/MACarnivoreConservationActJune2014.pdf[5] Way, J.G. (2021). Coywolf: Eastern coyote genetics, ecology, management, and politics. Eastern Coyote/Coywolf Research, Barnstable, Massachusetts. www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/Coywolf/

TL;DR:

It is vital that we recognize humanity's role in changing biodiversity

The suggested course of action moving forward is "compassionate conservation"

An example of compassionate conservation would be the (proposed) Carnivore Conservation Act of Massachusetts, which would still allow hunting(!) but implement restrictions

Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | The Anthropocene

[plethoraworldatlas]

More than 16 members of the House of Representatives introduced legislation today that would prohibit organizing, sponsoring, conducting or participating in wildlife killing contests on more than 500 million acres of U.S. public lands.

Wildlife killing contests are organized events during which participants compete for cash or prizes by killing the most, the largest or the smallest animals over a certain period of time. Each year thousands of native carnivores and other wildlife — including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, raccoons, rabbits, prairie dogs, mountain lions and wolves — are killed during these cruel, senseless competitions.

The Prohibit Wildlife Killing Contests Act of 2024, introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and other congressional leaders, would require the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service to enact regulations banning wildlife killing contests within one year of enactment of the law.

“It’s shocking that these cruel and reckless contests are still allowed on our public lands,” said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “America’s wild carnivores are so important to maintaining healthy ecosystems. They deserve better than to be targeted in these thrill-kill slaughter fests.”

Ten states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — have already outlawed wildlife killing contests within their borders. The Humane Society of the United States conducted undercover investigations into these competitions in more than a dozen states, spurring significant public outrage against the events.

“Wildlife killing contests are cruel events that have no place in modern civil society,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute’s Terrestrial Wildlife Program. “Participants frequently violate the fundamental hunting principle of fair chase by using bait and electronic calling devices to maximize the likelihood of winning, and animal carcasses are usually dumped once the contest is over.”

“Most people are shocked to learn that wildlife killing contests are even legal on our public lands,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. “Killing animals for prizes and entertainment is ethically indefensible, ecologically reckless, and anathema to sound wildlife conservation and management.”

“In addition to being unethical and unsportsmanlike, wildlife killing contests run counter to science-based wildlife management policy,” said Jennifer Eskra, director of legislative affairs of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “This bill would end this execrable practice and protect wildlife at a national level, something that 10 states have already done.”

“Wildlife killing contests have absolutely no place in our country, including on our public lands,” said Katie Stennes, senior program manager for wildlife protection at the Humane Society of the United States. “These ‘cash for wildlife’ competitions, where native species are targeted, killed and then piled up for photos and bragging rights, is unacceptable. These animals should be respected for their intrinsic value and their key role in healthy ecosystems. We urge Congress to end senseless, wasteful wildlife killing competitions once and for all.”

Additional cosponsors of today’s legislation are Reps. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Cori Bush (MO-01), Gerald Connolly (VA-11), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Lloyd Dogget (TX-35), Adriano Espaillat (NY-06), Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Grace Meng (NY-06), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Katie Porter (CA-45), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Dina Titus (NV-01).