Monitoring of hunting resources: population-based approach

It is recognized that the objects of the hunting economy are populations of game animals. However, there is no term “population” in current Russian legislation, the undefined expression “hunting resources” is used instead. The monitoring of the hunting resources status is currently limited by regulatory documents only to the analysis of materials based on the winter route census (WRC). This is insufficient to establish the nature of population dynamics, acquire knowledge about population cycles in different populations, and collect the data on the qualitative composition of populations and their changes over time. For hunting providers, simple methods of collecting and processing material on the qualitative composition of populations are offered. They can be carried out both during the hunting season and during the purchase of products from hunters. Systematic observations and analysis of the obtained materials will allow accumulating knowledge about a specific exploited population. Hunting providers should use different methods of registration of hunting animals to monitor exploited populations. To control registration, state game wardens can use the WRC. The state control should proceed from the confidence in the results of the registration work of hunting providers since they are those interested in the long-term use of hunting resources.

Policing the Poachers in a Western State: Game Wardens and the Use of Discretion

Game wardens are specialized law enforcement officers responsible for enforcing hunting and fishing laws designed to protect wildlife resources. While performing their duties they encounter a variety of wrongdoers that range from first time offenders to those who are chronic violators of the law. Little research exists on the use of discretion by wildlife law enforcement officers, or their attitudes toward offenders. This study took a qualitative approach to data collection and examined the use of discretion by game wardens in Montana and their perceptions of habitual poachers. Factors that were associated with the use of discretion included intent of the violator, seriousness of the offense, and age of the violator. The majority of wardens in the study expressed negative opinions toward violators that were chronic offenders. Findings contribute to our understanding of law enforcement attitudes and decision making.

“Indians on White Lines”: Bureaucracy, Race, and Power on Northern British Columbian Traplines, 1925–1950

After British Columbia imposed universal mandatory trapline registration in 1925, game wardens, Department of Indian Affairs officials, and Indigenous people in the provincial north quickly came into conflict over the place of Indigenous trappers, Indigenous claims to trapping territory, and the applicability of colonial game regulations to Indigenous communities. Although some scholars have suggested that the primary result was the large-scale dispossession of Indigenous communities, roughly half of the province’s registered traplines remained officially in “Indian” hands, raising questions about how bureaucrats recognized, classified, and sought to administer such lines. In practice, game law enforcement was often uncertain, arbitrary, and frequently governed by informal arrangements that existed alongside the official regulations. By the 1930s, trappers with Indian status had gained some measure of protection and exemption from the game laws, in part due to an energetic campaign by the federal Indian Department. To bureaucrats, however, the never-completed quest to define and solidify a racialized boundary between “Indian” and “white” trappers, trapping, and traplines often became as important as — or even more important than — the ostensible provincial goal of game conservation and the federal goal of Indigenous economic prosperity.