A lack of science?

[Irrelevant]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo.../study-questions-science-behind-hunting-plans

I can see a bit of both sides. We definitely don't have enough resources for great data, and what is science without data. And we all can point to management decisions that reek of politics that clearing don't jive with the science (both to hunt/fish more and to hunt/fish less). But in general I would like to think that substantially more than 60% are trying to do the best they can with what tools they have.

 

[walking buffalo]

For one of the main contributors to this article, Raincoast, using science is only proper when it suites their agenda, the elimination of hunting.

Science shows that the BC Grizzly hunt is sustainable.

So Raincoast promoted a campaign to have the hunt abolished through Social Licence, damn the science....


Don't be fooled by the "study" discussed in this article, it is simply part of a anti-hunting lobby group that will use any means available to achieve their goal.
Raincoat and like groups will use "science" when it fits their desire, discount science that doesn't, and demand change by other reasonings even when it opposes scientific wildlife management.

 

[BrentD]

Science is that it is. Management uses science - and a bunch of other stuff. Management has never had the best data possible, and rarely is it even close to that. But management rarely ignores science, however the "other stuff" (usually $ and politics), may overwhelm the science angle entirely. However, no management is done w/o science and no management is done w/o politics.

The last two sentences of that article are spot on.

 

[JDMickTX]

This is how it always goes. If you meet resistance when pushing your agenda, attack the foundations in a stealth campaign that doesn't get as much publicity. Whether it's attacking the underlying science behind the American conservation model, or publicly stating your support of public land while quietly slashing the funding required to support it, it's just two sides of the same coin.

People can attack or cherry-pick the science all they want, but the facts on the ground don't lie; American conservation has been a resounding success for over 100 years. We're at the point where we've reintroduced several species that were extinct or nearly extinct in many areas of the lower 48, some of which are already being hunted again to keep numbers manageable. There's no questioning that.

 

[bmt99]

Is anyone else getting tired of the term "science" being thrown around? These people that report it don't even know what the scientific method is in order to properly apply "science". I agree with walking buffalo's post. But my real question is this: how do we as hunters and conservationist minded people combat these types of reports? Politicians make the rules and will use the best written article or study to influence their decision. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not. To prove theories based in these articles, the people need to try to disprove their theory and see if it withstands those tests first. Just irritated I guess. I am certainly not doing enough so I can't stand on my soapbox. I want my children to have opportunities I had growing up without having to be upper middle class+ incomes. It is why I support RMEF and Pheasants Forever. I agree with what they do. What else? Just giving money to these groups enough? Anti-hunting groups seem to be incredibly motivated and it easy for them to influence public.

 

[widnert]

Is anyone else getting tired of the term "science" being thrown around? These people that report it don't even know what the scientific method is in order to properly apply "science". I agree with walking buffalo's post. But my real question is this: how do we as hunters and conservationist minded people combat these types of reports? Politicians make the rules and will use the best written article or study to influence their decision. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not. To prove theories based in these articles, the people need to try to disprove their theory and see if it withstands those tests first.

^^^^ In Bold above. This is exactly right. If the so called scientists would simply apply this very basic principle, most of the "theories" out there would be dropped in very short order. I'm not a "scientist" but I know at least this about "science". First propose a theory then, do everything you can to disprove it. If you can't, then put it out for others in your field to disprove. If they all can't, then you can consider publishing it for general consumption but, you still call it a theory. Only if it can be proven with utmost certainty can it become a "fact" or a "Law of Science". Pretty basic stuff.

 

[BrentD]

The way science works is a good bit more complicated than most folks seem to think. And the term "theory" is used in many different ways. I think what widnert is referring to, most of us would call hypotheses, not theories. For example, there is a general theory of density-dependent population regulation, including subtheories of additive and and compensatory processes (among others) that combine to produce it. Within each population, one or many hypotheses may be tested to shed light on the various mechanisms by which these processes may apply in a specific situation. But the broader way in which these mechanisms function is the "theory" of population regulation.

That was the the long way around the mountain to say, "Pragmatically, the scientific process is a bit more complex than the "scientific method" that you learned in high school or as an undergrad."

This gives one perspective, but there are a number of good books by philosophers of science that describe how science works and how it has evolved, if anyone is interested.

 

[Irrelevant]

For a long time I've struggled with the varying forms of "facts" based on "science". I don't think we "combat" these reports as much as we hold the line on actual good science, peer-reviewed, and continue to advocate for more and better data. I think too often we allow societal pressures have undo influence due to lack of actual data in management decisions. One improvement I've thought about is making all publicly funded research available to the public for free. Often the actual research papers are published behind a paywall and very few people get to read it which creates a bigger void for pseudo science to fill.

 

[Nameless Range]

Folks are getting hung up on the word science.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"): is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Here's one of the tenets of the NAM:

The North American Model recognizes science as a basis for informed management and decision-making processes. This tenet draws from the writings of Aldo Leopold, who in the 1930s called for a wildlife conservation movement facilitated by trained wildlife biologists that made decisions based on facts, professional experience, and commitment to shared underlying principles, rather than strictly interests of hunting, stocking, or culling of predators. Science in wildlife policy includes studies of population dynamics, behavior, habitat, adaptive management, and national surveys of hunting and fishing.

Though a dangerous path potentially, I don't see anywhere where the NAM demands ignoring one of the most complex branches of science - that being the Social Sciences.

 

[propane_cooker]

I had run across this, read the article with the intention of going back and hadn't until I saw this post. I read the study, and I would encourage everyone to. I also looked at the supplemental information which included a spreadsheet of all the collected data. If someone has a lot of time on their hands I think some good rebuttals/discussion points might come from that information.

The study and article seemed to place a fair bit of weight on having a measurable objective. I have to say I agree that having an objective is a good idea, whether it is to increase the population, maintain the population, not exceed 5% harvest of a population or whatever. With the time that I spent looking at it I came up with 23 "hunt" species that the study said did not "provide manageable objectives" but also had no reason to require measurable objectives. This included things like burmese python in Florida, feral hogs in a number of states, all of the feral/non natives of Hawaii like goat, sheep, axis deer, turkey in Alaska (the study did specifically disclose that they had included non-native species). Excluding these alone would increase that portion of the study to 30%. This increased number does not include the "Furbearers" and "Small Game" were also included in a lot of states with varying species falling under those categories including opossum, skunks, and nutria. Which raises the question if one of these didn't have "measurable objectives" was the whole category considered not to have? Is it really a huge crime that North Dakota doesn't have measurable objectives for Small Game (Tree Squirrel, Prairie Dog, Skunk, Porcupine and Rabbit)?

There are also some other questionable things like Montana did not provide "measurable objectives" on wolves which I find hard to believe as they are probably one of the most heavily monitored species in Montana. Also sage grouse and bison in Wyoming were categorized as not providing "measurable objectives". I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about each species in their states could come up with a lot of good points to discuss about this study.

I found it kind of surprising at how many species weren't monitored to the intensity that I expected. This surprise could easily be tempered by some additional information by more educated people. I was not surprised, but still disappointed by the fact that my country Canada basically failed in this study. We do not have any where near as robust wildlife monitoring and "scientific" approach to management as the U.S. My own province of Manitoba provided no "measurable objectives" for any species. Although I'm not sure how this study can say Manitoba does not "Estimate realized hunting rates" when there is a hunter survey that has a 50% response rate (which is really quite good) and the study states that we do "explain how realized hunting rates are estimated" in the data right beside that (the more a person looks at some of the data the more some of it seems wonky). In Canada we do not have as much funding from hunters for wildlife as there are no excise taxes like Pittman Robertson. I heard the number for BC in a podcast and they basically get 14 million from license sales and I believe only a portion of that goes to wildlife and the agency with the rest going to general revenue. This is a woefully inadequate number and I'm thinking it's time for hunters in Canada to step up in a bigger way to protect and improve wildlife through some sort of additional funding. My surprise at the lack of "scientific approach" is also tempered by the fact that lack of funding is probably the main reason. A "scientific approach" as set out by this study would be astronomically expensive. I think americans have the ability to say that the only reason that there is ANY data on some of these species is because of hunters and their funding. I'm not sure that that could disarm the question that might come up of "Shouldn't you know the exact impact of hunting on these animal populations?"

I think there is some validity to some of this study, some questionable data and some good discussion that can occur around it. I keep hearing that engagement is a better approach than confrontation and I think this article could provide an avenue.

 

[Irrelevant]

Good thought Cooker, thanks

 

[BrentD]

C3H8 cooker, That's a pretty good post that hits most of the high spots. You are right about expenses being out of sight to accomplish what critics claim they must do. The censusing (nevermind experimentation) of wildlife is enormously expensive and produces, at best, estimates with large to gigantic error bars. Sometimes, the best surveying can be Fords and Chevy bumpers, sometimes it is hunter success rates (per season, or per hunter-day, or some combination thereof). For small game, generally there simply is no censusing at all. Squirrels and rabbits generally don't get counted except if it is convenient to do while counting something else that matters (e.g., roadside surveys for pheasants in Iowa include rabbit counts).

For all the doom, gloom and negativity dumped on modern management methods, just turn around and look at the success rates of game management. It is, frankly, astounding! To steal a phrase, that so much has been done to bring back game and nongame animals from exceedingly low numbers in the early and mid 20th century to what they are today is beyond words incredible. Deer were absent in much of the Midwest, they are now a nuisance. Canada geese are much the same. Turkeys are not far behind. Furbearers like otters, fishers, martens, bobcats are being re-introduced over much of their range with very good to excellent success. Alligators, grizzly bears, wolves were endangered species and now have become huntable game animals.

Personally, I would love to see the days when herds of squirrels roamed Middle and Eastern USA, but that may take a while. In the meantime, we have a lot to thank game managers for. And everyday they do it while being beat up on all sides and with about 3 nickels in their expense accounts.

There are some big concerns to be aware of for wildlife, but they are not caused by or being ignored by wildlife managers, so much as they may finally succeed in overwhelming managers who are basically being disarmed everyday in on form or another.

Say what you want about them, but if every other profession could do as much with as little financial, public, and political support, this would be one heck of a lot better world.

 

[CampRipleyLF]

As a scientist, much of the problem underlining these findings are directly driven by politics. Your political leaders decide the fate of many fish, wildlife, and conservation agencies. It is relatively expensive and hard to set objectives, provide evidence, transparency and independent review when their is a overall lack of funding. This doesn't just mean studies or goods (products) but personnel to create and carry out all of these four aspects. Natural Resource professionals are continued to be asked to do more with less. When you have multiple species (game and nongame) to manage, your budget needs can become very large in a very short time. Unfortunately, it is difficult to provide all these goods and services that the public and as a professional that I would like but can't do, do to limited time and budget. There is great work being done by many agencies to achieve these goals but its not always attainable for many reasons.

 

[BrentD]

As a scientist, much of the problem underlining these findings are directly driven by politics. Your political leaders decide the fate of many fish, wildlife, and conservation agencies. It is relatively expensive and hard to set objectives, provide evidence, transparency and independent review when their is a overall lack of funding. This doesn't just mean studies or goods (products) but personnel to create and carry out all of these four aspects.

Historically, most wildlife research is done not directly by state agencies but usually through cooperative research agreements with state universities using their faculty and graduate students and labs. There are quite a few different ways in which this happens, but excise taxes on guns, ammunition and some fishing equipment is part of those funds. The cooperative arrangements go back to the 1930s when the first 3 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units were formed in land-grant universities (one of which was Iowa State U., my institution). Now there are about 30ish of these at land-grant universities around the country. They are rarely fully staffed anymore but they formally work with the the state Fish and Game Department (or equivalent), the USFWS or USGS now, and the university (that provides support staff, space and graduate student access).

I could go on and on about the Co-op system but suffice it to day, we owe an enormous portion of our fishing and hunting research to this program. Started by Ding Darling (the political cartoonist (two-time Pulitzer winner), creator of the federal Migratory Bird Stamp, and first head of the US National Biological Survey (which became USFWS).

 

[propane_cooker]

Heh heh I had to look up C3H8... been awhile since university chemistry. Lots of good points and discussion in this thread.

 

[COEngineer]

Quick google search shows that the "researcher" is from a group that is anti-hunting, so hardly unbiased. They looked for four "hallmarks" of scientific management including "independent review." Where's the independent review of their "research?" Something smells funny about this article.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Historically, most wildlife research is done not directly by state agencies but usually through cooperative research agreements with state universities using their faculty and graduate students and labs. There are quite a few different ways in which this happens, but excise taxes on guns, ammunition and some fishing equipment is part of those funds. The cooperative arrangements go back to the 1930s when the first 3 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units were formed in land-grant universities (one of which was Iowa State U., my institution). Now there are about 30ish of these at land-grant universities around the country. They are rarely fully staffed anymore but they formally work with the the state Fish and Game Department (or equivalent), the USFWS or USGS now, and the university (that provides support staff, space and graduate student access).

I could go on and on about the Co-op system but suffice it to day, we owe an enormous portion of our fishing and hunting research to this program. Started by Ding Darling (the political cartoonist (two-time Pulitzer winner), creator of the federal Migratory Bird Stamp, and first head of the US National Biological Survey (which became USFWS).

The Coop research units do a lot of the wildlife research used by managers today. Unfortunately, the Coop Research units are completely defunded in the proposed FY19 federal budget if I remember correctly.

 

[BrentD]

The Coop research units do a lot of the wildlife research used by managers today. Unfortunately, the Coop Research units are completely defunded in the proposed FY19 federal budget if I remember correctly.

I'm not surprised. They have been fighting to stay alive since Gingrich's Contract On America back in the 90s. I would guess right now that about a third of their research positions are unfilled with no likelihood for change on the horizon.

Game management is pretty interesting in a historical sense. Few professions do more with less, and I don't mean just fiscal and physical resources but with less knowledge of what they are trying to manage. They have to adapt on the fly and continually make decisions with only very poor information available. That they are successful as much as they are is astounding. It doesn't help, of course, that the goalposts are constantly changing position as well.

I am always astounded that anyone is willing to take on those professions since they instantly become everyone's football to kick around and they don't even get paid very well in most instances. But they do a heck of job in general.

 

[walking buffalo]

While there are several thoughtful posts above, they all are missing a critical component of this issue.

The authors ALL use social licence and discrediting of science in efforts to achieve their personal agendas.
For these people, Science will be Damned when they want something else!

This article, disguised under the veil of research, is nothing more than the whittling of a new club to bash management practices and objectives that they are opposed to, most specifically hunting.

 

[1_pointer]

While there are several thoughtful posts above, they all are missing a critical component of this issue.

The authors ALL use social licence and discrediting of science in efforts to achieve their personal agendas.
For these people, Science will be Damned when they want something else!

This article, disguised under the veil of research, is nothing more than the whittling of a new club to bash management practices and objectives that they are opposed to, most specifically hunting.

I like this guy!!

I also agree that the general public, and that includes the hunting public, has a weak understanding of science. And an even weaker understanding of statistics used in the science.