February 2024

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments for overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine, one of the most important principles guiding federal regulation for the past 40 years. The doctrine, named for a 1984 court case involving Environmental Protection Agency air pollution rules, holds that when the meaning of a law is disputed, the federal agency’s interpretation should be given deference as long as it is reasonable. The current Supreme Court case is about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee they consider unreasonable. The fee deals with payment of observers from the National Marine Fisheries Service that travel with fishermen during their outings, which under the Service's rules, must be paid by the fishermen.

Admittedly, the idea of a monthly President’s Message for the Outdoor News Bulletin, like a vast number of things, was much easier to conceive than I’m finding it is to complete. The notion that this feature would be a simple and concise effort to emphasize and highlight relevant conservation information, invite thought and reflection on various conservation issues, and offer opportunities for engagement and professional development related to conservation actions seems straight forward enough. Bringing that vision to fruition, I’m finding, will be more challenging than simply conceiving the idea. Going forward, I may take some liberties and editorial license to wander and muse freely regarding relevant (hopefully) ongoings in the conservation arena. Please bear with me.

The Wildlife Management Institute is working with partners through the Outdoor Industry Communications Council to share information about hunting and fishing in America. Following is a story produced by the OICC and ONB readers are encouraged to share the information with their networks.

The USGS Wisconsin Wildlife Research Unit and the USGS Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit carried out a comprehensive survey of nine states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) to evaluate the effect of differing harvest regulations on realized harvest, the actual number of deer harvested by hunters, with a particular focus on regulatory changes employed after local chronic wasting disease detections in the Midwest.