Eliason: From Public Trust to “Bulls for Billionaires”

In From a Public Trust to “Bulls for Billionaires”: The Collision of Wealth and Politics in Big Sky Country, Stephen Eliason (Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, Montana State University) evaluates changes in big game hunting access in Montana. As the economy and population of Montana shifts to include more wealthy private landowners, Eliason evaluates the impact of these changes on hunting and explores tools to preserve hunting opportunities for “people of ordinary means,” including middle and working-class hunters.

In the United States, state wildlife agencies generally manage wildlife resources according to the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine recognizes that some resources are so valuable to the public that they cannot be owned by any individual. Air, water, fish, and wildlife are common examples. However, despite this baseline of public management and shared access to wildlife, including for responsible hunting, Eliason identifies three main influences that may be narrowing actual opportunities for public access to big game hunting in Montana: (1) demographic change and technology, (2) land ownership and access, and (3) politics and license allocation.

For example, in terms of demographic change and technology, an increasing population and better technology (such as improved long-range rifle scopes) mean harvesting more big game animals than average. Overharvesting, of course, limits future access. Likewise, increasing private land ownership in Montana—perhaps especially by wealthy out-of-state owners—limits access to previously public or otherwise accessible hunting grounds. Eliason also found political influence in license allocation, with officials sometimes allowing only certain wealthy donors specific hunting licenses or relaxing certain legal restrictions in favor of commercial interests and wealthy landowners.

There are economics involved too, of course. In 2016, 9.2 million hunters spent an average of $4,000 per hunting season, resulting in a $14.9 billion industry. Nonresidents, on average, spend significantly more than residents. Nonresident deer hunters, for instance, spent an average of $483.55 per day, whereas residents only spent $72.48.

The author ultimately argues that while wildlife belongs to all citizens, management by state wildlife agencies is skewed toward the interest of hunters who provide the majority of funding for these agencies, particularly big spenders. Eliason unpacks this challenge as part of a complex political, economic, and ecological system. Some solutions exist. For example, Montana established a Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Block Management program to provide subsidies to private landowners to allow free public hunting access for hunters. However, Eliason believes this is not enough and argues that more research is needed to ensure a more equitable distribution of hunting access.