Telling our Story – Ensuring Conservation Remains Relevant in our Country

Jon Gassett Wildlife Management Institute

A Brief History Lesson…

Colonization & Early Attitudes 1500s – 1700s

• Frontier in America – Free of restraints – Self-determination – Personal freedoms – Sense of righteousness

Early Game Laws

• 1630 Massachusetts wolf bounty

• 1646 Rhode island deer hunting closure

• 1739 Massachusetts Deer Reeves

• Circa 1800 – restrictions on taking of white-tailed deer in all 13 original colonies

By the 1850s, large areas of North America had been colonized by Europeans who exhibited considerably resentment against

game laws.

Westward Expansion & Exploitation (1800s – 1930’s)

The Turning Point

• 1842 Supreme Court Decision (Martin v. Waddell). Wildlife in the U.S. belongs to all the people and stewardship is entrusted to the states. • Landowner was excluding others

from taking oysters from a mudflat in New Jersey.

• Basis of ruling was initially to guarantee a food supply for all.

• Continued to be applied as wildlife became valued for other reasons.

• Basis for the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The Conservation Movement

• Teddy Roosevelt • George B. Grinnell • Gifford Pinchot • John Muir

• American Sportsman (1871) • Forest and Stream (1873) • Field and Stream (1874) • American Angler (1881)

Rise of the Conservation Organizations • American Wildlife Institute (WMI) • Boone & Crockett Club • American Wild Fowlers (DU) • National Association of Game

Wardens and Commissioners (AFWA)

• North American Wildlife Federation (NWF)

• Audubon Society • Campfire Club

Public Trust Doctrine

• Common law base for state and federal wildlife laws – Wildlife cannot be privately owned – Held in trust by government for beneficiaries – Government is Trustee – Public are Shareholders

North American Model for Wildlife Conservation

1. Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust. 2. Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife. 3. Democratic Rule of Law. 4. Hunting Opportunity for All. 5. Non-frivolous Use. 6. International Resources. 7. Scientific Management.

Federal Protection and Funding

• 1894 “public policy demands that the traffic in game should be abolished” – G.B. Grinnell – Yellowstone Park Protection Act – Lacey Act – Weeks-McClean Act – Migratory Bird Treaty Act – MB Hunting Stamp Act – PR & DJ Acts

Formation of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Massachusetts – 1895 New Hampshire – 1878 Mississippi – 1932

American System of Conservation Funding (User pay - Public Benefit)

• License and Permit fees • Pittman-Robertson • Dingell-Johnson • Wallop-Breaux • State Wildlife Grants • NGO Partnerships

Advent of Licensing

• (1719) New Jersey law that prevented non-residents from taking oysters or putting them on board a vessel not owned by a resident.

• (1745) North Carolina law that required non-residents to prove they planted 5,000 hills of corn in the proceeding year in the county they wished to hunt.

• (1840) Virginia and (1854) North Carolina laws prohibiting non-residents from harvesting wild fowl.

Advent of Licensing • (1872) Maryland required residents hunting wild waterfowl from

sneak boats, sink boxes, or blinds to procure a license to do so.

• (1873) New Jersey issued the first non-resident hunting license in the U.S. Restricted non-residents from taking wildlife within the state without first procuring a “membership” – fee was $5 for first year and $2 each subsequent year.

• (1895) Michigan established a general hunting license system to

harvest deer. Fees were $0.50 for residents and $25 for non-residents.

Federal Funding

• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act • Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act • State Wildlife Grants

Funding for Wildlife Restoration Program (1937), Sport Fish Restoration Program (1950), and State Wildlife Grants (2001),

since inception

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,00019

3919

4219

4519

4819

5119

5419

5719

6019

6319

6619

6919

7219

7519

7819

8119

8419

8719

9019

9319

9619

9920

0220

0520

0820

1120

1420

17

Wildlife Restoration Funds Sport Fish Restoration Funds State Wildlife Grants

Successes in Game and Fish Recovery

• Deer • Turkey • Bear • Elk • Waterfowl • Game Birds • And many others

Conservation is big business License and Permit Sales - Hunting $853M

License and Permit Sales - Fishing $709M

Wildlife Restoration - States $797M

Wildlife Restoration - FWS $28M

Sport Fish Restoration - States $352M

Sport Fish Restoration - FWS $86M

State Wildlife Grants $50M

Total Direct ~ $2.9B

Economic Impact (Retail – Hunting) ~ $24B

Economic Impact (Retail – Fishing) ~ $36B

State and Local Taxes (Hunting) ~ $3.5B

State and Local Taxes ( Fishing) ~ $4.9B

Blue Ribbon Panel

Conserving America’s wildlife diversity would require: • Funding - $1.3B per year from off-shore gas/oil revenue

(with 25% match from states). • Relevancy – we must make conservation relevant to the

citizenry again.

So how do we tell this story…

Ensuring Fish & Wildlife Agency Relevancy

National Conservation Outreach Plan

Efforts Going On Nationwide

Nationally Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation State level Arizona Colorado

Multi State Conservation Grant

• Recommendation #2 of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources: Increasing Agency Relevancy (Telling the State Story).

• How: National Conservation Outreach Plan

• Get behind one consistent and universal message. • Increase awareness of state fish and wildlife

agencies and their role in protecting and conserving wildlife.

Project Goals

Gathering State Input Which of these resources would be useful to you in reaching a broader audience?

States Involved

Missouri Oklahoma

Nebraska Arizona

Colorado Hawaii

New Jersey Georgia

Wyoming Michigan

Montana Texas

Utah Idaho

North Carolina Virginia

Arkansas Kansas

Maine California

Future generations There are messages that resonate across state lines and populations.

Customizable and budget flexible A successful plan will account for different agencies’ resources and

priorities.

Metrics of success Showing value of messaging is crucial to long-term buy-in and support. Audience spectrum Each state has different view on priority audience for AFWA campaign. Messages should not be about us (agency); about them (customer) Impacts on what they love

Key considerations for the campaign

Audience Definition

Most avid about outdoor activities. Optimistic, like to

have fun, concerned about environment.

Participate in a number of activities. Tend to be married

with children and very family oriented.

Outdoorsy, adventure-seeking

and sociable. Thrive on being active. Enjoy

making memories with family and

friends.

Like to try many activities. Skew

young. Not motivated by relaxation – are on the move and have a competitive nature.

More likely than other segments to be single,

middle-aged men with no kids at home. Confident, optimistic

and enjoy a challenge.

Outdoor Enthusiasts

Family Outdoors

Affable Adventurers

Dabblers Outdoor Excitement

The pride people have in their state stems from the natural resources that surround them. Fish and wildlife agencies

make it their priority to ensure that these resources are around for future generations to enjoy.

Message to Convey

Outdoor Media

Store Kiosks

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Topic-based

Digital Advertising

Digital Content Marketing

Pandora - Podcasts

Agency Landing Pages

Agency Landing Pages

Facebook (Carousel)

Facebook (Timeline Events)

Print Media

So where are we now…

• Approval at the last National Fish and Wildlife Business Summit by partners (states, industry, NGO’s)

• Message Testing • Roll-out • Adopting by partners as our “Smokey Bear”

Campaign • Widespread distribution and use

Thank you!