Alejandro Lozano May 29, 2014

SPEA-E482

Who Owns the Wildlife?

Introduction

The United States and South Africa have proven to, and remain to be, global leaders in

environmental policy because of both countries vast resources and environmental diversity. This

enhanced leadership in environmental policy has led to an excelled model, in both the United

States and South Africa, for the management, conservation, and ownership of wildlife. While

both countries differ in who actually ‘owns’ wildlife, they have both created benefits for the

country as a whole and the wildlife as well.

United States Management Philosophy

In the mid-19th century the United States began to undergo a great deal of stress on its

natural resources. More specifically, the industrial revolution led to an increase in the population,

which created a larger demand for market hunting. This surge in population created an

unsustainable demand for food and began to notably interfere with sport hunting. Conflict

between these two parties, sport hunters and market hunters, caused both entities to seek

governmental refuge to protect their respective interests.

The 1842 Supreme Court ruling in Martin v. Waddell set out to establish that any one

individual did not own natural resources or wildlife, but rather it was to be held in public trust. A

trust consists of three main components: the assets (wildlife), the trustees (the United States

government), and the beneficiaries (the citizens of the United States). Further support by many

conservationists led to the inception of the Public Trust Doctrine. This doctrine set out to solidify

the regulatory authority over wildlife by the government. Without the decision of Chief Justice

Roger Taney, and his interpretation of the Magna Carta, the Public Trust Doctrine may have

never been drafted. The Doctrine establishes the right of the United States government and its

entities (the states) to manage, regulate, and preserve all wildlife in order to ensure the resources

for present and future generations to come. In essence, it protects natural resources such as air,

water, land, fish, and wildlife. For instance, an individual may own the land upon which wildlife

resides, but that individual is not said to own that specific wildlife. Overall, the Public Trust

Doctrine is one of the cornerstones when it comes to environmental and wildlife conservation in

the United States.

The Public Trust Doctrine opened the door for future progressive environmental

movements and regulation by not only the United States, but Canada as well. Improved

environmental management tactics and technological advances gave way to the realization that

the location of some wildlife was not static, but rather, migratory. This information encouraged

Canada to proactively create a variety of domestic environmental policies and an international

treaty with the United States to protect their shared wildlife before either country’s population

and/or industrialization had any further negative externalities on the shared environment and

wildlife. Once President Theodore Roosevelt took office, the United States political

environmental movement kicked into gear. Roosevelt spent a fair amount of time in Africa

admiring the environment and hunting its wildlife. These somewhat spiritual outings led him to

shift his political agenda in favor of environmental regulation, and he made it his mission to

preserve what still remained of America’s wildlife. Roosevelt once stated, “there can be no

greater issue than that of conservation in this country.” The United States and Canada developed

what is now called The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The model consists of

seven themes:

1. Wildlife as a Public Trust Resources – natural resources and wildlife are managed by

governmental agencies if they reside on public land, to ensure proper management and

preservation of the wildlife.

2. Elimination of Markets for Game – sale of wildlife is prohibited in efforts to protect

species population.

3. Allocation of Wildlife by Law – regulatory laws are created through the democratic

process to ensure that everyone has a voice.

4. Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose – individuals may only kill

certain wildlife under strict regulations for food, fur, self-defense, and property

protection.

5. Wildlife are Considered an International Resource – wildlife migrates freely across

many borders, making it essential for foreign nations and states to work together to

manage the wildlife.

6. Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy – scientific research and

findings are a fundamental pillar of environmental management decisions.

7. Democracy of Hunting – every citizen has the right, under the law, to hunt and fish in

the United States and Canada.

In whole, the United States has become, and remained, an international leader in

environmental management and wildlife preservation. It is with the Public Trust Doctrine and

The North American Wildlife Conservation Model that we will be able to continue to protect our

environment and precious wildlife for present and future generations to come.

South African Management Philosophies

The South African environment and wildlife have been exploited since the inception of

our species, and undoubtedly prior to our existence. The precious wildlife and rich resources the

landscape has to offer has made it a place of interest for many of history’s most influential

leaders. It has been noted in past decades that the decrease in the amount of abundant wildlife

and precious resources has led to a reason for concern. For years, the South African government

and their environmental policies have acted as a model for other nations. Overall, the South

African model of conservation, although maybe not best for every nation, is well respected by

many of the leaders in the field.

Due to the lack of federal funding, the South African model of wildlife management

relies heavily on the economic component associated with environmental tourism. As a result,

while the United States has determined the ownership of wildlife to be a part of a public trust,

South Africa’s approach to wildlife management, instead, “centers on the privatization and

commercialization of wildlife resources, with devolution of rights over wildlife to private

landowners and local communities” (Pack, 2014). Thus, in place of all citizens of South Africa

having rights, with limits, to the country’s wildlife, only certain communities and persons have

ownership over certain wildlife. This management philosophy allows concurrent benefits for the

animals and their preservation, as well as the communities that own them. However, according to

Pack, the economic benefits do outweigh the benefits received by the wildlife itself. Over 34% of

mammal species in South Africa are in decline, resulting in the question of whether these private

management philosophies are truly the best choice.

Today, South Africa allocates a fairly large amount of power to the national government

for the purpose of drafting legislation to protect the wildlife and their respective habitats. Though

the power of the national government is slightly larger than that of the provincial governments, it

is solely to ensure uniformity and legislative oversight. In 2004, The National Environmental

Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) was enacted to protect the endangered species that

were in need (Library of Congress, 2014). Most importantly, NEMBA established a stronger

definition for several environmental terms and national wildlife laws, based around a new set of

norms, and or, standards. For instance, the National Norms and Standards for the Management of

Elephants in South Africa (NNSMESA) is an example of the way in which NEMBA protects

endangered species specifically in South America. NNSMESA enacts additional rules and

restrictions to the hunting and poaching of elephants in South Africa, helping the elephant

population remain stable. The NNSEMA is just one example of an over-arching legislative

policy the government places on private and commercialized owners of South African wildlife in

hopes of increased preservation and stability.

Conclusion

In terms of wildlife ownership, it remains clear that the United States and South Africa

have differing views on not only who owns the wildlife, but also the ways in which said wildlife

should be managed. Through the creation of the Public Trust Doctrine, the United States has

established regulatory authority over wildlife by the government, allowing the government to

manage, regulate, and preserve all wildlife in order to ensure their preservation into the future.

South Africa, on the other hand, has spread wildlife rights down from the central government

into the hands of private landowners and communities. While the government in South Africa

does enforce key pieces of legislation to help with the overall conservation and protection of

wildlife, the management philosophy is focused not on a Public Trust for the benefit of all, but

rather a privatized and commercialized system from which only some benefit.

In further comparing the two countries national wildlife management practices, it is clear

from Pack’s findings that the United States method exceeds the methods of South Africa in terms

of both wildlife and social benefits. Lack of as many wildlife benefits (namely the number of

mammals declining in South Africa versus the number declining in the United States) may be

generally attributed to the value of the various wild animals to poachers, as well as the tourism

these animals bring to South Africa. The United States also leads South Africa in the benefits the

country’s wildlife ownership policies bring to the local people, mainly because not everyone who

wishes to benefit from wildlife conservation can. Since ownership in South Africa has been

privatized, the conservation of wildlife remains much less consistent across the country as the

Public Trust Doctrine allows in the United States. Overall, however, both countries have

remained leaders in the world’s efforts to conserve and preserve wildlife. Although ownership

may be different in these countries, both the United Stated and South Africa continue to make

strides in ensuring their resources for present and future generations to come.

Bibliography

Batcheller, Gordon R., 2010, The Public Trust Doctrine: Implications for Wildlife Management

and Conservation in the United States and Canada, The Wildlife Society,

http://www.fw.msu.edu/documents/ptd_10-1.pdf, May 29, 2014.

Library of Congress, 2014, Wildlife Tracking and Poaching: South Africa, Library of Congress,

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/wildlife-poaching/southafrica.php, May 29, 2014.

Pack, Shalynn , 2014, Comparison of National Wildlife Management Strategies: What Works

Where, and Why?, Acedemia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/4059587/Comparison_of_

national_wildlife_management_strategies_what_works_where_and_why, May 29, 2014.