
The Canadian Federation of Outfitter Associations is a national organization that aims to unite the voice of guide outfitters to help lobby for resource-based tourism – hunting and fishing. Unfortunately, at this stage, Nature Labs is a unilingual project and we were unable to speak with the Federation’s president, Dominic Dugré, in his preferred language of French. But Dominic, with the help of his team, was kind enough to provide written answers to our questions, articulating why he believes wildlife – like forests or oil – are a resource for human use and why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is still best positioned to manage animal populations responsibly.

What is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is arguably the most successful initiative that anyone has taken to protect, recover and grow healthy wildlife populations. In the early 1900s, wildlife was not valued as it is today and unsustainable market hunting contributed to many species facing the risk of extinction. Once the model was introduced, many species were recovered, making the North American Model the current gold standard. It is comprised of seven major tenants that guide wildlife management and conversation decisions in Canada.
- Pillar one: Wildlife is a public resource. In Canada, wildlife is held in the public trust and managed by government for the benefit of all people.
- Pillar two: Eliminate the market for wildlife. Strong laws and enforcement in Canada and the United States make it illegal to sell the meat or parts of any wild animal in North America.
- Pillar three: Manage wildlife through law. Hunters are only allowed to harvest if there is a surplus of wildlife.
- Pillar four: Hunting should be democratic. Every citizen has an opportunity to hunt and fish in compliance with the law. Hunting is not limited by private landowners or special privilege.
- Pillar five: Wildlife should only be killed for legitimate reasons. Canada has many laws that protect against the waste of wildlife. Wildlife may only be killed for food, fur and predator control.
- Pillar six: Wildlife species are an international resource. Canada and the United States work collaboratively to manage land and wildlife to ensure that no country takes more than its fair share of the common resource.
- Pillar seven: Use science to guide wildlife management decisions. Population estimates and habitat research helps ensure stewardship and prudent decision making.
It’s an older concept. Does it merit updating, or is it a case of ‘it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’? Make the case for why it should continue to be the guiding light in conservation policy.
For over 100 years, the North American Model has been the guiding light in conservation. You need to look no further than our current burgeoning populations of elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, wild turkey, wood duck and Canada duck populations to see the benefit. As with all models of this nature, it should be challenged by experts and scientists and evolve over time, based upon new information and the current environment. In September 2019 John Hopkins Press published The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, edited by Shane P. Mahoney and Valerius Geist. This book brings together experts to provide a comprehensive overview of the origins, achievements, and shortcomings of this highly successful conservation approach. If you care about wildlife, this would be an important book to read.

Society is changing. Hunting has seen a decline. Is that indicative of changing ethics, or more due to the fact we’re losing our connection to the outdoors?
While hunting has seen a decline in some jurisdictions, it really is a matter of human migration to urban centres as well as the fact the largest cohort of hunters (baby boomers) are aging out of the activity. Yet, people are now realizing the importance of having a connection to nature, spending time outdoors, and knowing where their food comes from.
Why does hunting make you appreciate the outdoors? Why do you love nature?
Any activity that connects us to nature makes us feel good. In Japan, the practice is called forest bathing, or shinrin-yoku, where the act of being in nature is considered to be like a bridge, connecting us with the natural world. In a study cited on PubMed.gov, forest bathing is shown to significantly reduce pulse rate and significantly increase the score for vigor and decrease the scores for depression, fatigue, anxiety, and confusion. Numerous other health benefits have also been documented. Being out in nature hunting is not only good for our minds, hearts and souls, it also sharpens our senses and reminds us that we are part of nature, not outside or above it. As an increasing percentage of the population is less and less in contact with nature, hunting outfitters represent a unique access opportunity to remote areas and a gateway to true wilderness. Outfitters take great pride in sharing their knowledge about the land, the forest and its wildlife and in teaching natures ways to people who don’t have the time or opportunity to spend a lot of time in our country’s wild spaces.
If you’re killing an animal, can you still love it?
Taking a life is no easy task. Most hunters feel a deep sense of responsibility for the life that must end in order to nourish theirs. They have a reverence for the animal and the habitat in which it lives. They work hard to be proficient in ending the animal’s life in a swift, ethical and humane manner. Many feel that a free animal harvested from the wild with a clean kill is exponentially healthier and happier than an animal raised within the confines and stresses of captivity. Hunters rationalize their harvest with the understanding of the overall benefit to the herd. Just like a farmer who understands that some of his cattle must go to slaughter so that he can provide for his family and manage a healthy herd that is the right size for the capacity of the land.

Sustenance hunting never receives the kind of blowback that trophy hunting does, according to a pollster we spoke with. Is trophy hunting a problem? Should organizations, such as yours, support a ban on, say, grizzly trophy hunting? Or is it a slippery slope?
The term ‘trophy hunting’ is often misunderstood and abused. Different people hunt for different reasons, and not all animals are harvested for meat. Despite the motivation, a successful hunt equates to an animal dying. Trophy means different things to different people. For most hunters, the ‘trophy’ is having meat to bring home to provide and to share, and the memory of an experience with family or friends, and in some cases, a personal challenge faced and conquered. The photos taken, and the heads, horns and capes mounted, serve as a token of a battle hard fought and fairly won. Those who do not hunt need to understand that under today’s tightly controlled hunting regulations, anytime there is a hunt it is a recognition of a healthy herd that can sustain it. We support hunting only when the population justifies a harvest. Hunting is a management tool – where the population can sustain a harvest, it provides economic benefits, population control, predator/prey balance, and puts people on the land and in the back country where they can further develop an appreciation for wildlife and their habitat.
How important is hunting to rural economies?
Hunting is extremely important to rural economies. The activity typically takes place well off the beaten path. As a result, the industry draws visitors into rural and remote areas throughout the entire province, many of which would otherwise have few visitors. This disperses tourism dollars across a broad range of communities, regions and sectors province-wide while increasing revenue to small, family-run outfitting businesses and supporting strong job markets in rural communities. Outfitters are often a significant employer, and purchaser of groceries, mechanical and air transportation services. Their clients often heavily support local restaurants, hotels, shops and conveniences. Hunters spend more per day per capita than any other visitor and have a high probability of returning, often multiple times and with additional family members and friends, for a variety of types of trips. The hunting seasons are “shoulder” seasons which further help rural communities extend their opportunity to generate revenue. Tourism injects new money into Canada’s economy. Unlike many other businesses and industries that attract primarily local dollars, hunting attracts guests from all around the world. A recent study shows that fishing/hunting outfitters represent an asset for the Canadian Tourism industry and are an important economic force, particularly for rural and remote regions: more than 4,000 businesses; total annual economic effect higher than $5.5B; and over 37,000 jobs supported. Outfitters yearly welcome over 300,000 clients from outside of Canada. Canadian outfitters also donated an estimated 16 million$ to habitat/wildlife conservation groups and another 7 million$ to other charitable organizations. Reference: Canada’s Outfitting Industry is a Major Economic Asset

Eco-tourism is exploding, and it seems like the two industries are in competition. Can the two exist in harmony?
Eco-tourism and hunting have more in common than they have in competition. In fact, eco-tourism is another activity that generates revenue, puts a value on wildlife, and gets people outdoors and into nature where they can learn to value the natural world. Both industries are concerned with healthy wildlife populations and the habitat that sustains them. Eco-tourism typically operates in areas where hunting does not. While the eco-tourism operator needs a highly replicable product with easy access and significant infrastructure, hunting prefers a unique, remote and raw experience.
Some say the answer lies in finding balance – not blanket policies. One suggestion we heard was carving out areas where animals get to come first and other places where people come first, carrying forward their culture and traditions. Might this be a reasonable compromise to what increasingly looks like a culture war?
Rather than having blocks where only animals live or where only humans live, we believe that it is important to find a way that we can live together in balance. In British Columbia for instance, we are seeing a growing human population with more access to the backcountry where there is a growing bear population. We have a growing grizzly bear population, in both density and range. All of this translates into more human/wildlife conflict! This is an important issue that needs more work.
Does the hunting community, as a whole, support park creation?
The hunting community supports sanctuaries, effective wildlife management, and the use of hunting as a tool to manage wildlife populations. Today’s hunting regulations are highly prescriptive, and hunting is of no threat to wildlife populations. Any time you have a population that grows beyond the carrying capacity of the land, it will be a problem for all species in the area, animal and human. There needs to be a way for National Parks to handle their wildlife. For example, the elk populations in Jasper have exploded beyond what the region can accommodate, resulting in habitat destruction and dangerous encounters for humans.
What’s your vision for better balancing the needs of people and nature?
With a population of 7 billion people – and growing exponentially – there is an increasing demand for resources all over the world. Therefore, we need to find a way to protect nature and find a balance. We need to be working together towards a solution. Right now, it’s nature that is paying the greatest price.
Is there room within that for creating newer hunting guidelines, better practices? Allowing ethics and values – from both sides – to be part of the equation?
Hunting regulations, best practices and the tenants of fair chase should be the criteria we measure hunting against. Fair Chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. Wildlife acts and regulations hold hunters accountable by law.
How can one young person help your vision?
Get outside and become invested in the wilderness! Those who spend time in nature come to understand the issues, and are inclined to advocate for its wellbeing. Seek to really understand the issues. Many who do not are simply killing with their well-intentioned ‘kindness.’
What is the one thing you know now that you wish you knew at 15?
The planet is not invincible. The decisions we make and the actions we take matter. What we do today impacts the world around us.
What do you think?
Even if you disagree with Dominic Dugré’s views, you have to appreciate that he is a passionate nature lover and a strong champion of the rights of Canadian outfitters, and hunters and anglers everywhere. Though his organization has succeeded in having governments of all levels uphold the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, it is a framework that remains under scrutiny by some. And that debate – whether wildlife should be viewed and managed as a resource or recognized and protected as sentient beings – has led to a divisiveness that often leads policy makers to avoiding the issues entirely, for fear of alienating one side or the other. And that’s the problem: those who care, on both sides, often care so much that they find it hard to find the middle ground.
• Do you believe wildlife should be managed as a resource, with predators, like grizzly bears, controlled or killed to reduce conflict with human needs, ranging from removing threats to livestock, to ensuring sufficient prey for hunters?
• Should science drive our wildlife management decisions, or should we weigh ethics and culture in this debate? Ethics and culture might come into conflict in this debate, but it’s hard to argue one perspective without hearing the other, isn’t it?
• Are individual animals important to populations and how humans learn to care for the natural world? Or, given that we’re facing a biodiversity crisis, is caring what happens to individuals wrong, given entire populations are in decline?
• Is there a middle ground to be found? If balancing people and nature requires building support in urban and rural communities, how can solutions be proposed that don’t a) take away rural economic and cultural mainstays, like guide outfitting, and b) don’t suggest that all parks and sanctuaries should be open to hunting?
• And what might make you rethink what you already know? What common ground can you find with those you disagree with?
It’s a complex, often emotional issue. It’s up to you to determine your ethics and figure out how to make them work with those who have a different worldview. After all, as Dominic said, the actions we take matter and we must all work together to find that better balance.
Over to you.