Preservation of America's Wildlife

Tag: biodiversity

  • Conflicts with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

    John Cox – M.A. C/M

    North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, when studies, and references perused and checked, has no science nor statistics based within any reality complex in our Wilderness and Forests — a very shallow document, commercialized rather than reality management = more Advertising types of Propaganda.

    Certainly, more of a pretend piece of rhetoric, that conflicts with common humane ethics, as well as responsible conduct, which neglects, abusively in many instances, Wildlife and Lands Management to be accomplished within a positive process.

    The model over-emphasizes game species and fails to adequately address non-game species conservation, though it technically covers them, falsely, as their science does not, nor ever has backed the conclusions of the model.

    They like to say a decline in the number of hunters threatens the primary funding mechanism, but we can find no evidence of such — and the rhetoric about Hunter / Trapper situations funding, in totality, simply a lie. We find through perusing Fish and Wildlife State Budgets, and the Federal Budgets, and the government Lands and Wild Agencies Budget, to have little to no funding from Hunters / Trappers, et al. directly.

    While wildlife is held in trust, the public has limited input compared to special interest groups (e.g., hunting lobbies, ranching lobbies, fishing lobbies, trapper lobbies). Here, we see the inequity of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation model itself, generally protects the very-people that it was designed to protect Wildlife and Lands Management from. Lobby interests do not serve America, nor the general population of Taxpayers — but rather, a select few situations of Profit-Based lobby efforts, that conflicts with the majority of American Rights.

    The seven pillars (sometimes called “seven sisters”) are not as deeply rooted in history as proponents claim, and the model is actually more of a 20th-century creation — That myth and heritage is nothing more than rhetoric, to excuse those who commit atrocities upon our Public Lands, and forced upon Wildlife, as well. It is where Heritage and myth, conclusively combine into a conflicting tale of lies, innuendo, and abusive actions toward Wildlife, in reality, nothing more than mental-dysfunction, or Psychotic Behaviors unacceptable within a Humane Society.


    Privileging Game Hunting: The model serves to justify hunting, with management agencies prioritizing game animals (deer, elk) and predator control to enhance hunting opportunities, rather than, ecosystem health.

    Marginalizing Non-Hunters: It fails to include non-hunting conservationists, indigenous groups, and minority voices, focusing largely on the history of sportsman-led conservation (this type of conservation questionable, at best).

    Inadequate Predator Management: It supports the elimination of predators to increase game populations. This is in direct conflict with credible science, and Predators being a significant part of Ecological Habitat Health and Sustainability.

    Neglecting Non-Game Species: Agencies often focus disproportionately on taxa valued by hunters and pay less attention to threatened, endangered, or non-game wildlife.

    Questionable “Legitimate” Killing: The tenet “wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purposes” is contentious, with critics saying it allows for trophy hunting and the killing of predators as “vermin”.

    Limited Scientific Scope: Awkwardly, science is not always the primary driver in setting policies, which can be heavily influenced by political agendas or hunting lobbies.

    Neglect of Modern Biodiversity Issues: One direct circumstance, very negative to both Wildlife and Lands Management, is the fact it does not adapt to 21st-century issues like climate change, biodiversity loss, and invasive species, focusing instead on traditional game management . . . Avoidance of these issues, ignorance, bigotry, and hate, combined with psychotic behaviors, are not tools for science, but rather, to be avoided.

    We find the Paradigm of The American Model of Wildlife Conservation to be flawed, and nothing more than common rhetoric. Fortunately, Conservation is much more than this model can provide, in truth. We find the Desertification of Lands toward positive growth, as well as much of our Nations Wildlife that is sacrificed, all the while promoting this dysfunctional model of Conservation, to be distasteful, and simply common and shallow words. . .

    (Filed 3-27-2026)

    1. Finding Nature — Co-Existing — With Nature About Nature

      Article by
      John Cox, M.A. C/M

      “Years ago I read about a tribe in South America, who defined the difference between tree species, by tasting the bark.  A Botanist later, doing research there (years earlier in the Congo as well) tested himself, and his wife (also a Botanist) tested themselves on whether they could establish identity from the taste of the tree bark.  Neither could tell the difference in taste test; which, when testing tribal members from each location, they tested 100% in identifying the species by tasting the bark.

      It’s the Nature of the tree, or the plants, or the wildlife — the plant or animal that contains the sign, not the terms or words we attach to them, which are often superficial, or, refer to decorative or other perspectives we have planted into our minds since birth.  Some plants I can identify as coming near a swamp, the Meadow Cranesbill or the Meadow Sage for example, often with the plush meadow in eyesight, sometimes not and yet I know it is coming up soon.  But then — the “pretense” is Latin for “Meadow” – yet, my experience tells me far more than what the term, scientifically, has given it.  We obtain much deeper meaning when experiencing Nature, openly, not contrived perceptively.  Compared to, when academics use their terminology to define the “wisdom about nature” or to re-connect to Nature, being largely by identification – a hold-over from Natural History, and often left non-advanced, or antiquated, to maintain its heritage or myth.

      To believe identification is the point, when being in Nature, is never more than half-the-challenge, if that – and never on its own represents wisdom or insight, at all.  When I speak of those who lack experience, for example, with Horses or Wild Horses, or the Redwood Tree out back — this is the point I am attempting to achieve.  Often, education from a book, and identification the point most often (handy to have yet most often only half-useful), in reality leads to nowhere when out and within Nature.  Little to no insight takes place, wisdom and value often ignored, due to not being achieved. 

      Perhaps why so many never see any wildlife while visiting our Natural Environment. . .  As our current view is that Habitat can help us identify a species, yet the reality of Wildlife combined with a Terrestrial Environment, and the Diversity that exists, becomes ignored, or never was in sight of those simply seeking identification – after all, it was identified.

      In ancient times, less population of humans and the Landscape was vast, identification was limited, because getting lost in wilderness could mean death.  Suddenly, identification of Wildlife or Trees et al., becomes “not” a priority, but how to use the things they seen, and knowledgeable about, would keep them alive for another day – another adventure.  The knowledge then, and obtained from childhood, was far more significant.  Danger, Use, or Habitat.  Interesting here is that Anthropologists had found the way of tribes that established Danger, Use, and Habitat, to be more conformed, to communing with Nature – when compared today, by how we, as humans destroy Nature –

      BUT WE SURE AS HELL CAN IDENTIFY WHAT WAS BEING DESTROYED – EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE CONNECTION WE COULD HAVE HAD, WITH NATURE, BY FIGURING OUT HOW TO CO-EXIST WITH NATURE.  LEARNING ABOUT HOW NATURE CO-EXISTS, WITHOUT ALL OF OUR OWN BUILT-IN PERCEPTIONS, WOULD BE A GOOD START IN COEXISTING WITH NATURE.

      This short article is merely the tip of the ice-berg of information we should be discussing, and why.  We see science over-taken by commercialism, as well as salesmanship, lies, and disinformation campaigns.  Very destructive to our environment, as the evidence shows us Loud – n – Clear.  It is simply time to set aside the superficial, the Identification process can be used well, but it is not the end-all, to true Conservation – which is Co-Existent with Nature = Precisely.”  — John Cox, M.A. C/M, Cascade Mountains