Preservation of America's Wildlife

Tag: conservation

  • Forests Managed for Production – Wildlife & Terrestrial Secondary

    We Need Sustainability of Wildlife and Our Terrestrial Environments for Lands and Human Health – Priorities Need Changed

    John Cox, M.A. C/M

    Forestry Management Paradigms, despite the Wild Fires, remain favoring (yes – the Special Interest Lobby) logging and industry within our Forests. We often refer to it as Intensive Timber Management or Industrial Forestry; which, prioritizes high-yield wood production, timber stand uniformity, and rapid economic returns.

    This approach fundamentally shapes the forest ecosystem by favoring commercialized-returns by volume over biodiversity. Co-existence, between our Natural Environment and Human’s non-existence, or a very low priority, and Wildlife sustainability even lower.

    Clearly Observed Priorities Unfavorable to Co-Existence

    Aged & antiquated Cultural Heritage once again a fact; whereas, Industrial managers often clear-cut existing diverse forests and replant with a single, highly speculated profitable commercial species (e.g., Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest). This creates uniform, single-age stands. Yet, Old-Growth Timber Stands, at times nearby, keep sustainability possible, yet ignored, and often left out of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) when considering the Clear-Cut, and potential damages to surrounding areas – inclusive of the Old Growth Stands.

    The Short Rotation Cycles of a Reforested-Zone is normal management procedure, in operational aspects of trees that are harvested as soon as they reach commercial maturity. The problem quite obvious, yet ignored — The Clear-Cut done, logs hauled away to the mill, typically long before the biological age when trees would naturally hollow out, fall, and provide diverse habitats.

    Afterwards the Vegetation Habitats,profoundly, are sprayed with Herbicides are often heavily utilized to eliminate broadleaf “weeds” and understory brush that compete with the commercial trees for nutrients and sunlight, directly reducing food and cover for native species.

    For better Reforestation, commercially that is, the Standing dead trees (snags) and large downed logs are frequently removed or burned. In nature, these are essential homes and foraging grounds for birds, amphibians, and small mammals

    When management is stripped of wildlife consideration, the ecosystem shifts in several distinct ways compared to ecological forestry:

    Feature Industrial / Timber-Focused ManagementEcological / Wildlife-Focused Management
    Tree DiversityMonoculture (one or two species planted).Diverse mix of native hardwoods and conifers.
    Dead/Downed WoodCleared out to prevent fire and make logging easier.Preserved on purpose to provide critical habitat.
    StructureUniform, even-aged stands.Varied ages, canopy layers, and open spaces.
    UnderstorySuppressed with herbicides to favor crop trees.Allowed to grow to provide forage and cover.
    Primary GoalMaximize timber board-feet and financial ROI.Enhance ecosystem health and biodiversity.

    While intensive industrial logging is heavily regulated by state and federal forest practices acts to prevent topsoil erosion and massive waterway damage, its core aim remains resource extraction rather than wildlife support.

    Conclusively, the conflicts we do see, easily observed by the way, is the outstanding conflicts in arbitrary logging operations, that damage the surrounding areas, as well as the Logged-Off areas. Something quite a bit more than resolving the issues by Select-Cuts Management. Not only Wildlife ignored in the EIS, but the issue of Sustainable-Forests also in competition with the rush for Dollars and Profits.

    The ultimate results? We see Wildlife coming into areas near homes, or ranches, near suburbs, and supposedly violating some people’s images of where Wildlife has to live, and they have to live — All the While taking away, irresponsibly and unnecessarily, the very Homes where Wildlife live – daily.

    We then move on to Wildfires, and Record Breaking Years for Wildfires, and come up with decisions based upon Profits for Industry, rather than, to conclude, or even resolve the Wildfire problem.

    Do we have a problem with this Cultural Heritage Problem? Absolutely! We seem to invoke, whenever issues develop, and questions asked as to why we have to sacrifice so much, in Our Nation’s Lands and Wildlife. Are Profits for a few, in industry-only, and the hell with Wildlife or the remaining Terrestrial Environment, a fair-bargain for America and American’s? Many American’s will say NO!

  • 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)