MO Betta
Well-known member
I think she ran LA out of drugs back in '17, just hope it doesn't happen again.
Modern Wildlife Management Decisions
- Thread starter VikingsGuy
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
It is a biological fact that my hunting preferences are the highest level of management success that can be achieved.
That’s why I have formed a hip, new, cutting edge conservation foundation devoted to that end.
I am calling it Moose, Sheep, and Goat for Me. MSGM for short. We are looking for well connected people to join our organization. It will work similar to multi- level marketing in that the second tier will receive their tags after the first tier does. Third level will receive theirs after the second tier receives their first and the first tier receives their second....
QuazyQuinton
Well-known member
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Here the use of social science is to move herd management objectives as low as possible to appease ranchers and the impact on "their grass".
Look at what has taken place in some of Idahos best elk areas.
46 was arguably one of our best trophy draws and now its a Joke. (Sorry BigFin I know you are excited about this one but it got shoot to s#$! Last year)
Weiser river 31 is pouring bull and cow tags into what was a great area.
SmokeyBennit 45, 52 went from an annual cow harvest of a few hundred to unit wide general rifle cow
Same with the pioneer zone.36a 50 ect.
Both zones now have 2000 cow tags unit wide to address "landowner issues"
Most of the negative impacts I see to elk herds in Idaho have been social science based and IDF&G has said so in meetings.
I have heard numerous statements from f&g employees indicating that the biological ability for these areas are not in line with what is socially tolerable.
Using anything other than biological science to manage herd numbers is going to bite hunters on the ass in a big way.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Thanks for having the guts to speak the truth.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I don't know who the ranchers are that have all the influence. I sure wish I was one of them. There would be some changes in the way Montana's FWP manages mule deer. Any time I have made suggestions like a shorter season or private land only doe tags I get some from of the Montana's Sportsman want opportunity response.
This is unfortunately very true in many areas across the west.
You bring up a very interesting dichotomy, but you're also approaching it from a unique angle. Many landowners hate elk, unless they are making 7k apiece for bulls. I've met very few ranchers over the years who actively campaigned for higher animal numbers. What you see with MT deer management in your neck of the woods is IMO a lazy way of making it look like damage issues are being addressed.
lpcoutdoors
Active member
I hope for the future that social sciences are actually what keeps hunting alive and causes the return of productive game management. I see alot inside the hunting community and outside that indicates it could head in that direction. There's alot that could be discussed on that concept, but to be brief the psychology and sociology of hunting, the science is clear that hunting benefits people, cultures, and the environment. I even hear on podcasts by New York psychologists, discussions that have nothing to do with hunting, these facts either being alluded to or outright stated. So there's hope. The recent Hunting Collective podcast with Valerius Giest discusses this some and I hope the book he's working on about this topic of combining the human mind and society sciences with the natural world sciences gets finished and published soon.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
My personal feeling is that Mt FWP sells licenses. Management is closer to the view at 40,000 ft and decisions are made on the basis of outfitters, sportsman groups, and bitching ranchers that don't allow hunting. It's a miracle the elk survive from year to year. It's almost better if you are from someplace that is unpopular where FWP is not really inclined to manage things to death. After the last shoulder season our local herd went from 120 to 32. We had been at about 120 for 30 years. Then they said the herd would recover in a couple years. Not likely! The deer population in the two units around me is less than 20. I have to carry a picture with me to remember what they look like.
i'm inclined to think if they sponsered a hydroplane it would be called Miss Management.
i'm inclined to think if they sponsered a hydroplane it would be called Miss Management.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
To be fair I believe IDF&G has resisted and fought for as long as they could the real problem in Idaho is the legislature. Politicians are now managing our wildlife and f&g is an enforcement agency.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Nothing specific about lpcourtdoors, just picked one of a number of posts citing “social science”.
I apologize in advance for the offense, but in my personal view, ”social science” is an oxymoron, since a rigorous scientific method can rarely if ever be applied. The current social “non-science” is which ever trendy social observation of the moment gets traction for the time being.
This is true everywhere, not just ID.
But apparently we're ok with that, because we keep sending the same people back to their respective state houses.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
One of the problems that arise when a states politics lean too far one way or the other.
Amen.
lpcoutdoors
Active member
No offense taken, and I agree that social science is a confusing terminology. Even as a practitioner of the science of psychology it took me a while to come to understand that social science (collective psychology) is absolutely a legitimate science that rigorous scientific method can absolutely and easily be applied. But as you are observing done so differently than say as compared to natural or medical sciences. And, as many have been posting here, can easily be misused, as can any other science.
In cases where it applies here to hunting management, and I should have quoted another poster who stated this well, social science has been misused to simply pick the opinions of one group over another. But that wasn't the fault of social science, it was the fault of the mis-applicator. Say similar to how things get misapplied in dietary science. I still don't know for sure if potatoes are a super food or super bad for me.
Another more close to home example of science being misapplied being the problem with the application, not with the legitimacy of it as a science, is the controversy with predator reintroductions and management, specifically wolves. As in confusions with social sciences, it is often that one side are the other is not wrong or has bad research, it is in the application of principles in a mix that works, depending on the goals.
Anyway, I'm not at all trying to teach or correct or pontificate, I'm glad to get to wrestle with what is to me a very thrilling topic. One of the things I get the blessing of seeing in my work as a counselor is that literally every client I have ever had connects positively with hunting, given that they understand what hunting truly is. That's just a small anecdote, but there's more and more being discussed out there about how social science can, is, and will be used to motivate good ecology and management of natural resources, to include hunting.
To again refer to the Hunting Collective episode with Valerius Giest, he said something towards the end, that I am trying to ultimately get at. He basically said that if the overall goal of society is more animals on the landscape, and that is a pretty clear and unifying goal of many seemingly disparate group, then he said the most effective way to get more animals on the landscape is the have more people who feel a sense of connection and ownership of stewarding the natural world, and that is done through them directly experiencing that world. My take on all of this is that social science and psychology actually at least strongly suggests, proves one could easily make a case for, that hunting and fishing create the most intense experience of that world and that intensity produces a chemical reaction in the brain we regular folks call love. And when more than one person loves something, that becomes part of that social science domain, and now we are loving this natural world together and more prone to work together rather than against each other.
I'm rambling and this is so complex and I'm so unable to communicate it well, I'm really doing it a disservice so I'll stop now. Thanks for indulging my wondering.
Or limit the # of bills people can introduce. It's not just the freshman though. It's established legislators who are the leaders of the gangs.
Freshmen tend to follow caucus positions and aren't allowed to think independently, until it comes time to introducing silly bills.
I thought you did very well. Great post.
