JOHN E. McDONALD, JR.

DIVISION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

300 WESTGATE CENTER DRIVE

HADLEY, MA 01035

P: 413.253-8675

F: 413.253.8487

E:john_e_mcdonald@fws.gov

EFFECTS OF BALLOT INITIATIVES ON WILDLIFE AND DAMAGE MANAGEMENT

Ballot initiatives designed to change the way in which wild species are managed with hunting and trapping have affected wildlife populations, citizens, and the relationship between the two. At the core of this issue is the difference between managing wildlife at the population level vs the individual level. Typical examples are initiatives aimed at restricting certain forms of hunting (e.g., use of hounds and bait for black bears) or trapping. The political campaigns on the pro and con sides of the ballot initiatives can also have the effect of confusing basic wildlife concepts by comparing situations in states with vastly different habitat types, hunting and trapping cultures, and wildlife populations. On the ground, this can translate into a reactionary form of wildlife management where populations grow and expand until conflicts with people develop. Lethal control methods may then be applied as a last resort or in ways that are less likely to result in conflict resolution than if they had been used earlier. As the example of beavers in Massachusetts illustrates, this can lead to less protection for the species in question than prior to the ballot initiative and a devaluing of wildlife.