What The Hell is Science-Based Management?

[Justabirdwatcher]

As an emeritus career scientist, there are more methods to doing science than "the method". What we teach is a very simplified means of conducting excruciatingly simple experiments. If that was the only way science could progress, we would be quickly stuck. The Philosophy of Science is both a great study of the history of doing science and the methodologies, which vary extremely across fields. I am happy to recommend authors and titles for anyone that wants to tread in the deep end for a little while. It can be cool stuff.

I will add that, in my personal perspective, wildlife management is more like wildlife engineering rather than science. (There, that should get me in deep trouble... )

Wildlife management, in the most common sense, is really nothing more than meddling with nature to prefer one suite of species over another. Funny how the preferred species usually have seasons and bag limits. (there, I'll be in trouble with you)

 

[mtmuley]

Wildlife management, in the most common sense, is really nothing more than meddling with nature to prefer one suite of species over another. Funny how the preferred species usually have seasons and bag limits. (there, I'll be in trouble with you)

The preferred species with bag limits and seasons need to be managed. Seems obvious. mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

That is pretty much 100% bullshit, but you already knew that.

Respectfully Brent, what part of that do you specifically disagree with?

I personally think he was right on the money, I’m surprised to see someone take issue with any of it. I didn’t take it as “anti-science” at all, more of a truthful commentary on the industry of science.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I was referring to the post I quoted, not sclancy27. As for sclancy27's comments about statistics, I agree with them to the extent that they are tools in tool box that you need to understand. They are damn useful when developing a load for your rifle, or making lots of other decisions, but they are a tool, like a screwdriver, with many applications. Probability theory is a good place to start. Anyway, if you have a more specific question about statistics, I can try to answer it.

I think 1, 4 track well so 60% bullshit.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Wildlife management is people management. We could all die today and the wildlife would be fine.

 

[Bonasababy]

Wildlife management is people management. We could all day today and the wildlife would be fine.

This is the first lesson in any WM 101 class. Takes a while for it to sink in for students though...once they start working it can be a shock the first time they run into resistance to plans that are well supported by the science...

Unless they have already been a reader of posts on forums like this one, of course....

 

[NR_Hunter]

This is the first lesson in any WM 101 class. Takes a while for it to sink in for students though...once they start working it can be a shock the first time they run into resistance to plans that are well supported by the science...

Unless they have already been a reader of posts on forums like this one, of course....

I did do wildlife management/ecology classes in college, and honestly it’s probably the only thing I remember.

 

[BrentD]

I did do wildlife management/ecology classes in college, and honestly it’s probably the only thing I remember.

It is not remembering the details that is important, it is how you think that matters.

Anyway, I digress. I once had an intro course where I invited the head of the IDNR Wildlife section to give a lecture on anything he wanted. He chose to start his lecture with a Venn Diagram (remember those? ) with three overlapping circles. One he labeled Science. The other two were Public and Politics. Where the three circles overlapped, there was only a very tiny sliver of the Science circle, a moderate portion of the Public circle and 85% the Politics circle was included. His point was that Wildlife Biology, as a science, was pretty damn unimportant, and politics rule the roost. And this was 1992. Think about those proportions today.

 

[kwyeewyk]

It is not remembering the details that is important, it is how you think that matters.

Anyway, I digress. I once had an intro course where I invited the head of the IDNR Wildlife section to give a lecture on anything he wanted. He chose to start his lecture with a Venn Diagram (remember those? ) with three overlapping circles. One he labeled Science. The other two were Public and Politics. Where the three circles overlapped, there was only a very tiny sliver of the Science circle, a moderate portion of the Public circle and 85% the Politics circle was included. His point was that Wildlife Biology, as a science, was pretty damn unimportant, and politics rule the roost. And this was 1992. Think about those proportions today.

And politics is charading as science more and more, those who believe science is an opinion are mostly confusing it with politics. When someone disagrees with the conclusions drawn by scientific studies, I rarely hear a rebuttal that uses a scientific response, i.e. identifying a flaw in the design or interpretation of results, a specific type of bias that could be reduced, etc. Instead, people disagree because they don't like the answer, without any actual support for their conclusions other than their gut or whatever the media is feeding them. Redesign the study and find support to show they're wrong, or STFU honestly.

 

[Bonasababy]

It is not remembering the details that is important, it is how you think that matters.

Anyway, I digress. I once had an intro course where I invited the head of the IDNR Wildlife section to give a lecture on anything he wanted. He chose to start his lecture with a Venn Diagram (remember those? ) with three overlapping circles. One he labeled Science. The other two were Public and Politics. Where the three circles overlapped, there was only a very tiny sliver of the Science circle, a moderate portion of the Public circle and 85% the Politics circle was included. His point was that Wildlife Biology, as a science, was pretty damn unimportant, and politics rule the roost. And this was 1992. Think about those proportions today.

I distinctly recall one NR agency I am familiar with using a similar three circle approach, except the three were fish and wildlife biodiversity, economics, and politics. The lesson was supposed to be that all three play a role in decisions, and all three should be respected.

Guess which one has been nearly totally eliminated in most all decisions today.

 

[jimss]

I've spent a lifetime working on invasive range weed research and management. Here is my take on science-based management scheme. There is a lot involved with sound wildlife and habit management; politics, predators, disease, biology, ecology....the list goes on and on. These all are inter-twined. There are experts available with decades of first-hand knowledge in each of these fields. The more politics that are involved, the further the truth is stretched from reality.

Those that actually spend time on their hands and knees in the field on a daily basis generally have a larger and more realistic glimpse of the entire picture of sound science-based management than those sitting behind a desk or computer that often formulate poor predictions.

Education plus years of practical field experience go a heck of a long ways! Hopefully the youth of tomorrow grow up and learn these practical skills.

 

[Nicoli7153]

We manage how people interact with wildlife and each other.