Managing American Wildlife: A History of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Dunlap, Thomas R.

doi:10.2307/1908080

Cited by 5 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 The eradication of wildlife, particularly large game species, raised concerns among government officials and an elite class that valued recreational hunting for sport (Cronon, 1996;Taylor, 2016). In an effort to restore the species of concern, many local and state governments restricted or completely prohibited hunting in many areas (Belanger, 1988;Foster et al, 2002). 2 By the late 19th century, every state had some form of hunting regulations in place, and game commissioners were common at the county or state level (Belanger, 1988).…”

Section: Reproducing Wildlife and Huntersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an effort to restore the species of concern, many local and state governments restricted or completely prohibited hunting in many areas (Belanger, 1988;Foster et al, 2002). 2 By the late 19th century, every state had some form of hunting regulations in place, and game commissioners were common at the county or state level (Belanger, 1988). Many states and the federal government also began to set aside land as game reserves to support growth of wildlife populations and to support recreational hunting, even when this involved forcible removal of human populations from these areas or alienated the poor from their livelihoods (Dowie, 2011;Jacoby, 2001;Spence, 2000;Taylor, 2016).…”

Section: Reproducing Wildlife and Huntersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pittman-Robertson is widely celebrated for stabilizing funds for wildlife agencies and supporting the recovery of numerous species across the United States (e.g. Arnett and Southwick, 2015;Belanger, 1988;Duda et al, 2010). These accomplishments are presented as a success of the users pay model (Arnett and Southwick, 2015;Geist et al, 2001;Organ et al, 2012), in which those that benefit from the use of a resource bear the primary costs of its management.…”

Section: Reproducing Firearms Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The eco-munitionary subject: Conservation with and of firearms

Connors

Carlino

Rea

2023

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 was a transformative piece of legislation for wildlife management and conservation in the United States, incentivizing the creation of state wildlife agencies and establishing funding mechanisms for these agencies. The legislation directs an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment to a fund to support wildlife restoration projects by state wildlife agencies. In 2021 alone, this generated more than $1 billion in project funds. Although commonly framed as a user pays model of conservation whereby hunters fund wildlife management, most of the excise taxes collected on firearms and ammunition are now associated with non-hunting uses. Despite this disconnect, many firearms industry groups continue to support and promote their relationship to Pittman-Robertson. Here, we examine the role of Pittman-Robertson in shaping the relationship between firearms and conservation and seek to understand how this relationship is reproduced. We examine this shifting relationship through an analysis of amendments to Pittman-Robertson since its creation and a discourse analysis of contemporary materials from web sites of firearms, hunting, shooting, and conservation organizations. Drawing on the concept of environmentality and diverse ecologies, we argue that Pittman-Robertson has contributed to the production of, and been re-shaped by, a distinct environmental actor: the eco-munitionary subject.

show abstract

Section: Reproducing Wildlife and Huntersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reproducing Wildlife and Huntersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reproducing Firearms Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The eco-munitionary subject: Conservation with and of firearms

Connors

Carlino

Rea

2023

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the roles, responsibilities and authorities of its member agencies as they strive to effectively manage fish and wildlife as public trust resources (The Wildlife Society 2010) for current and future generations (Belanger and Kinnane 2002). The Association's leadership is comprised of the directors of the 50 U.S. state fish and wildlife agencies, meeting as a body twice annually (Belanger and Kinnane 2002). The Association conducts much of its business through 34 committees, each of which may have affiliated subcommittees, working groups, or task forces (AFWA 2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Membership in committees and associated groups is generally open to any AFWA member, although committee leadership positions are generally vested in state agency representatives (AFWA 2022). Formal decision‐making by AFWA follows a standard set of procedures (Belanger and Kinnane 2002). Any committee may draft a resolution or position statement for review and consideration in advance of the AFWA Annual Meeting in September.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' perspectives on lead, alternative ammunition, and wildlife management

Mawdsley

Johansen

2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 1970 and 2010, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) approved 7 resolutions and one position statement related to lead, alternative ammunition, and wildlife management. The resolutions and statement address the following topics: transitioning from lead to nonlead shot for waterfowl hunting; addressing concerns relating to lead mobility at outdoor shooting ranges; and developing guiding principles for the future regulation of lead ammunition. We provide a brief overview of AFWA's committee structure and decision-making processes, and also note the presence of ongoing discussions about lead ammunition in the AFWA Fish and Wildlife Health Committee and the AFWA Lead and Fish and Wildlife Health Working Group.

show abstract

Policy comparison of lead hunting ammunition bans and voluntary nonlead programs for California condors

Schulz

Totoni

Stanis

et al. 2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The endangered California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) is negatively affected by lead poisoning from spent lead-based hunting ammunition. Because lead poisoning is the primary mortality factor affecting condors, the California Fish and Game Commission banned lead hunting ammunition during 2008 in the southern California condor range followed by a statewide ban implemented in 2019. In contrast, the Arizona Game and Fish Department instituted an outreach and awareness program encouraging voluntary use of nonlead hunting ammunition in the northern portion of the state during 2005 and a similar program was launched in Utah during 2012.The juxtaposition of policy tools provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the intended efforts to mitigate lead exposure in condors and their respective positive and negative effects.Herein we reflect upon the effectiveness of lead policy actions in the 3-state region on the basis of condor blood-lead levels, population status, and hunter awareness of the issue and use of nonlead hunting ammunition.

show abstract

Managing American Wildlife: A History of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The eco-munitionary subject: Conservation with and of firearms

The eco-munitionary subject: Conservation with and of firearms

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' perspectives on lead, alternative ammunition, and wildlife management

Policy comparison of lead hunting ammunition bans and voluntary nonlead programs for California condors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About