​By James L. Cummins, President, Boone and Crockett Club

Interfacing Science and Policy to Advance Conservation
October 20, 2024, Baltimore, Maryland 

It is exciting to have such a large group of students who are eager to learn how to integrate science and policy to advance conservation, as it is so important to the future of our nation. I really appreciate President (Bob) Lanka placing such a large emphasis on the intersection of policy and science at this year’s annual conference.

First, let me provide you with a short history of the Boone and Crockett Club. It was founded in 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt; it is North America’s oldest conservation organization. The Club has established a legacy of historic achievements in shaping the conservation policies of the United States. The legacy of the Club was built upon the following cornerstones: the creation and establishment of the National Forest System, National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and the federal agencies to oversee those systems; the establishment of modern-day game laws; and promoting ethical hunting of wildlife. In the past 20 years, the Club has worked to create a system for the conservation of private lands.

Conservation goes well beyond knowing what Odocoileus virginianus or Ictalurus punctatus means. Understanding policy and how to influence it will be one of the most important skills you can have in your career. People in the policy world say, “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Well, I don’t ever want to be on the menu. Unfortunately, we have been there a lot in the past.

For example, the portion of the federal budget that includes all natural resource funding is termed Function 300; it covers water resources, conservation and land management, recreational resources, pollution control and abatement, and other natural resources. As recently as the Reagan Administration, specifically 1982, the portion of the federal budget that went to these programs was almost 4%. Today, the amount of funding in Function 300 is less than 1%.

I became interested in policy because I wanted to make a difference in conservation. I have also been around it all my life and around policymakers. For example, my uncle, Jack Herring, is a fisheries biologist and the former Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. I worked for U.S. Senator Thad Cochran in his Washington, D.C. office. Two of my mentors are Jim Range, a fisheries biologist and the former Chief of Staff for the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and Clarke Reed, a major political operative and my boss.

I have two quotes for you…G. Van der Wink said:

“Our greatest threat may not be the scientific illiteracy of the public, but the political illiteracy of scientists.”

And Plato said,

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

Doesn’t that sound familiar? If we want funding for conservation to grow, we need to be relevant to society. There will be more people, perhaps as many as 40 million in Canada, 450 million in the United States, and 150 million in Mexico by 2050. This growing population will place significant additional pressures on the wildlife resources of the continent. These people will be more urbanized and older. There will be more ethnic and cultural diversity, including people from places with no experience with North American conservation.

If we expect our interests to be relevant to society, we MUST communicate to the public the reasons why conservation benefits the common good. For example, why is managing a forest based on scientific forest management principles good for deer, deer hunting, deer habitat, neotropical migratory birds, carbon sequestration, a source of organic food, and clean drinking water? This type of argument makes the conservation community relevant to society. And in doing so, we have a seat at the table when decisions about resource utilization are being made.

With 80 percent of Americans now living in cities, our challenge is to help society maintain enough of a connection to the land and the natural world to care about it and see the importance of taking care of it. Thankfully, most Americans value outdoor experiences. In fact, more people are concerned about the environment than ever before. People want to do what is best, yet they are not necessarily familiar with what that is. We need to help them see that conservation helps our economy, retains jobs, preserves property values, and promotes a healthy lifestyle, all while increasing the sustainability of natural resources. The future of conservation depends upon this— to help others see how what we do benefits them. Enlightened self-interest is the greatest of all human motivations.

Historically, biologists are NOT involved in the decision-making process. I hear biologists complain a lot that politicians don’t pay them any attention. Politicians pay attention to people. Biologists mostly pay attention to science. However, we live in a democracy where power is vested in the people—and those same people own our nation’s wildlife—in trust.

The terms "policy" and "politics" are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinct concepts that we must understand to effectively influence change. Policy is a set of rules or principles that guide cooperative behavior within groups, organizations, or societies. It serves as a blueprint for how activities are conducted or how problems and opportunities are addressed.

In contrast, politics refers to the activities involved in making decisions within groups that affect the distribution of resources. While policy provides the framework for action, politics is the process through which these frameworks are shaped, negotiated, and implemented. For biologists, learning to participate in both policy-making and the political process is essential to advocate for science-based wildlife management and ensure that it is translated into actions that benefit ecosystems and communities.

Having more biologists understand and be trained in the policy-making and political process will prepare the next generation of conservation advocates with tools to engage effectively in the policy process. We don’t have nearly enough professional wildlife biologists in D.C. or state capitals carrying our flag. We can’t expect our elected officials to pay attention to science when we refuse to work with them because that is not how or where we want to work. Shame on us!

I am of the opinion that more wildlife degree programs should include courses on policy. Sure, understanding how ecosystems work is very important, but knowing how to shape the rules and policies that protect these ecosystems is just as critical. When biologists understand policy, they can better advocate for wildlife, work across different fields, and put science into action to keep our ecosystems healthy. The Demmer Scholars Program serves as a prime example of integrating policy and science, offering students invaluable hands-on experience in Washington, D.C., where so many important conservation decisions are made. By combining policy know-how with wildlife, we’re setting up the next generation to make a real difference for conservation. And we are ensuring funding for what we love is north of 1%!

However, beyond each and every one of you taking a policy course, I’d like for you to have the opportunity to take one that prepares you to deal with the issues you’ll face on a daily basis.

When I was in school, and even today, many policy courses consist of overviews of case law, statutes, and regulatory structures by which wildlife in this country are governed. Or, they’re made up of a series of war stories from old dogs like me who have been on this hunt for a long time. Both can be useful and valuable, but they’d be more useful and more valuable if they were better organized and presented by current practitioners in our field and focused on the tactics and strategies of making policy—the sausage making. The Boone and Crockett Club and the National Wild Turkey Federation are working with experts in the field of wildlife policy to develop and deploy curriculum to achieve just this.

Like many of you, I am a member of our professional societies—the American Fisheries Society and The Wildlife Society, to name a few. But you have to do more than that. I am also a member of North America’s oldest conservation organization, the Boone and Crockett Club, and serve on the board of one of Congress’s most powerful organizations, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

As I mentioned earlier, the building blocks of success in wildlife conservation go beyond just having biological-based technical skills. You need to understand how the American system of conservation funding works, understand the state and federal policies affecting sportsmen and women and conservation and understand the importance of the economic impact of hunting, angling, and wildlife viewing to our nation’s economy and to our quality of life. And more importantly, how to make the system work for our collective interests. Doing so will help you be a more well-informed employee and give you the skills to continue to make sure science-based wildlife management is the bedrock of natural resource policy.

You also must understand not only the biological principles, but the social, economic, and political sciences as well. Notice I said sciences. That means law, mass communication, journalism, leadership, adaptive and crisis management, team building, energy, agriculture, forestry, mining, administration, sociology, psychology, and economics.

I spend a lot of time working to balance the environment with economics. A thriving economy is not sustainable if it undermines conservation, just as effective conservation is more likely to last if it makes economic sense. Conservation cannot simply preserve our environment but must take into account the needs of the people and communities who live and work there—the voters who elect our policy officials.

Most of us in this room chose to pursue a career in natural resources because of our love for the outdoors, and many of us would be happy to hang out in the woods or prairies or wetlands—just us and the animals—and never deal with people. However, while we often like to believe that wildlife management is just about critters, effective wildlife management is 90% people management. We back ourselves into a corner by not improving our people skills. If you are not growing, you are dying, and the fate of the world cannot afford for us to die. Aldo Leopold once said, “One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.” We do not have to live alone in a world full of wounds. I believe there are two things we need to work on in the people department.

First, networking with other wildlife professionals is one of the best things we can do for our community. When we connect with others who share our passion, we’re not just trading business cards—we’re sharing knowledge, sparking new ideas, and building partnerships that can lead to amazing conservation work. The more we reach out and learn from each other, the stronger our efforts become, whether it’s finding solutions to common challenges or discovering new opportunities for collaboration. Plus, connecting with like-minded people helps us feel supported and inspired in our work. Together, we can do so much more for wildlife and the natural world than any of us could achieve alone. So, don’t just go to the presentations at this meeting, go to the receptions, too!

Second, network with the outside world. Continuing that same quote from Leopold: “Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.” Whether you like it or not, it is not only what you know, it is who you know AND who you get to know. Combined, they are a powerful combination.

Scientists need to do a better job of connecting with “lay people,” also known as the public, and that starts with learning to speak in a way people can easily understand. It’s not just about sharing facts or throwing out big words—it’s about telling the story behind the science, making it relevant to everyday lives, and showing why it matters. When we take the time to break things down and communicate clearly, we help others appreciate the importance of what we’re doing and why it deserves their attention. By meeting people where they are and speaking in ways that resonate with them, we can inspire action, build support for conservation efforts, and make sure that science has a real impact beyond just the lab or the field. We cannot carry the wounds of ecology alone. For those wounds to ever heal, it is going to take all of us learning how to speak and collaborate with each other AND the public.

Today, challenges to wildlife and natural resources are expanding rapidly. Many factors, including urbanization, demographic changes, economic demands, and our fast-paced lives, among other things, are distorting America’s land management and resource use traditions. I believe we’re at a turning point for conservation. We’ve reached a moment where biologists, hunters, hikers, anglers, and all-natural resource enthusiasts must come together with local, state, and federal entities, as well as industry and nonprofit leaders, to create a system that future generations can depend on. We must be agile and adapt to the problems that we face and bring groups to the table that we don’t often work with—and some we don’t even like to work with.

We must unify our collective strengths and apply them to common challenges and opportunities. Sound science should continue to be the backbone of professional wildlife management. In addition, we must get more people to feel a stake in our success and encourage them to invest in conservation. And, with so many demands on public and private funds, we must constantly develop tools and resources for conservation that are cost effective. After all, it is cheaper to prevent habitat destruction or pollution than to repair it or clean it up. George Washington said it best in 1836, “Timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.”

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Wildlife Mississippi works with agricultural producers to improve farm profitability. There are 36,000 farms in Mississippi, covering over 10 million acres of farmland. We use strategic conservation tools, such as our Conservation Finance Center, to target lands with the highest ecological value and marginal areas that are not economically efficient crop producers. These marginal lands often have soils and hydrologic characteristics that have higher risks due to poor drainage or frequent flooding from poor soil quality or are subject to crop loss from flooding. Yet these same lands can be some of the most productive for clean, abundant water and wildlife. By having strong, incentive-based conservation tools, like the Wetlands Reserve Easement, which pays agricultural producers an easement payment for marginal land retirement, we can restore and protect vital wetlands while protecting the family farm’s economic viability. Farmers have an economic option for these lands for purposes besides crop production. Taxpayers are relieved of crop insurance costs and off-site environmental degradation while receiving better conservation results on their investment. I played a large role in writing the legislation for this program in 1992, and to date, it has restored over 1 million acres of wetlands in the Lower Mississippi River Valley at the cost of approximately $4 billion.

I have also played a major role in creating the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Healthy Forests Reserve Program, Emergency Forest Restoration Program, and the Endangered Species Recovery Program. I am currently working on a new Forest Conservation Easement Program.

As the debt of the nation increases, there is intense pressure to reduce spending, resulting in maintaining funding for wildlife conservation being more of a challenge than normal. To do so, there will be cuts in appropriations, such as defense and domestic spending, mandatory or entitlement programs, and tax reforms. Unfortunately, much of the focus on reducing spending is often on domestic programs, such as that for wildlife conservation, and not on the larger mandatory spending programs, which represent 63 percent of the federal budget.

While many Americans, including myself, are concerned about our nation’s fiscal health, we face unsustainable future fiscal deficits, which must be addressed. Conservation programs should not be exempt from scrutiny. However, budgets should not be balanced disproportionately on the backs of wildlife conservation. Further savings in spending should be achieved while understanding the economic benefits of conservation and utilizing nature as a solution to many of society’s problems, such as utilizing forests and grasslands to address climate change or conserving watersheds to protect drinking water and reduce water treatment costs—things that many Americans can also relate too.

There is also room for improving efficiency in delivering conservation and broadening the base of financial support to address these challenges. There are new partnerships and opportunities to increase sources of funding. To protect and enhance funding for conservation, innovation is needed in finance and the tax code. We need to develop long-term strategies to increase and broaden conservation funding. There have been no major innovations in wildlife conservation funding during the past 35 years. You in this room need to work on that issue.

Before I close, let me share with you a few battle tactics. Get to know elected officials and their staff. If they like to hunt, take them hunting. What are their needs? Politicians help you because they have needs; they are not that worried about your needs. Figure out how what you want helps them achieve a need. For example, if the official is lacking support from hunters, and you are working on Restoring America’s Wildlife Act, show that person how co-sponsoring it will help them with a component of the voting population that doesn’t traditionally support him or her. If you know what they want, you can get what you want. Make it local—show them how a piece of national legislation benefits their constituents. We tend to want to talk a lot. Listen. Listen a lot. Ask the right questions. Do what you say. If you are asked something you don’t know, say, “I’ll get back to you on that.” And do it. A lack of follow-up will destroy your reputation. Be a resource for them— one they can call on regularly for advice. We in the conservation community are all too eager to have all or nothing. In other words, we will not support a good piece of legislation trying to get a great one. Remember, 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

In closing, I want to leave you with this: My wife’s family has had a summer home in Monteagle, Tennessee, since 1873. Their next-door neighbor was Frank Waldrup. He was executive editor of the Washington Times-Hearld, which later merged with the Washington Post. "Cissy" Patterson was its legendary owner-publisher. She had a long-time feud-friendship with TR’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Ms. Patterson shot a Mannlicher rifle, was excellent on a horse, and like TR, loved the chase. Upon her death, she left the paper, including part of the Chicago Tribune, to several people, of which Mr. Waldrop was one. As I was rambling through some of my father-in-law’s papers not long ago, I found a letter Mr. Waldrop sent to him and four other close friends. The letter was about the land between the rivers, then and now. That land encompassed Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown, Virginia—the same land my ancestors settled in the 1600s.

He said,

"It is simply this: there is no free lunch. You never get something for nothing. In the end, all bills are paid. The American nation started as certainly on that finger of land between the rivers as it started anywhere. It started in danger and in fear. Peace, sunshine, beauty, do not come on the cheap, and they are fragile as all imagining. Remember this: it cost something to achieve America. You are inheritors. What will you do?"

​