Science and the North American Model

[IlliniFIre]

I ran across this article on another forum and wondered what the thoughts around here would be.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaao0167.full

I'd have to say that the conclusions hit me rather uncomfortably. I'm hoping that there maybe some folks that are more knowledgeable to help square this up. I'm skeptical that the authors did not start from a conclusion and work backwards. I also took issue with the nearly 10% correction rate on their data, but that could be attributed to the relatively small sample size.

 

[elkduds]

No surprise. Research is expensive. State game management agencies cannot afford to manage game today and invest in research projects broad enough to be valid. Landscape-scale research can't happen in a lab, variables cannot be controlled. So we are left w "its the predators," habitat loss, development as assumed but poorly-tested conclusions.

 

[beginnerhunter]

The authors admit that policy is and should be influenced by many variables and cannot be purely science based. I always assumed "science based" was more of a soft guiding principle valuing data collection over anecdotal reports. I guess what I'm saying is the authors' standard is too high for state game management departments.

OTOH, I would imagine state wildlife biologists are often ignored due to political forces. Even though AR isn't perfect, Im glad our constitution calls for the AGFC to be run independent of political influences.

 

[BuzzH]

The other dead elephant in the room, is that managing game and managing the land (habitat) are often independent of one another. To clarify, Game Managers/Game Agencies can have the best science in the world, telling them that XYZ habitat treatment is needed for XYZ result as it relates to the scientific management of wildlife. Trouble is, they cant compel the land management agency, or private land owner, to take a single step to assist, aid, or comply with their "science based wildlife management".

I also think the authors of that article are a little bit insincere in the area of Game Management Agencies being transparent. For hells sake, they publish regulations, harvest stats, drawing odds on their websites and yet, there is thread after thread on every hunting board asking questions related to all of that. Is there really a transparency problem? Or is it a comprehension problem on the part of the users/public? IME, its a comprehension problem as I have had great success in obtaining any data I've asked for with various GF agencies across the West. The problem could also be that most people don't realize all they have to do is ask for the data, make a phone call, or send an email. Worst case scenario, maybe have to file a FOIA request.

I don't know, I'm not overly impressed with the article...sounds like it was written by people that really haven't been in the arena much.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I don’t see anything shocking in there. Politics, economics and social pressures trump science in policy and management decisions all the time. There isn’t enough funding or staffing to do elaborate research projects and surveys. You do the best you can with what you’ve got, but it certainly means you have to use incomplete science to make recommendations. That’s the reality of the world...what are you going to do?

Like Buzz, I’m not convinced they knew what they were doing when it came to evaluating transparency. I see one of their methods was to send emails describing their project and requesting data or review of their reports and documentation with a deadline of end of October, and dinged agencies on transparency when they didn’t get a response. Uh, yeah? You send me a request like that in the middle of hunting season, it’s going to the bottom of my pile of things to do. Poor methodology on their part.

 

[idahohuntr]

The article seemed most appropriate for ivory tower discussions...I wasn't all that impressed. As others have said, science based game management is collecting and using data to inform decisions and management actions, as opposed to relying on anecdotal information.

The management and allocation of limited public resources (e.g., wildlife) can be improved by science, but ultimately it is guided by public policy. Furthermore, the bedrock principle of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is that the wildlife are owned by the people...which is why game management is messy and difficult at times...its not just a model of using science to produce maximum numbers of animals like a game farm...its a conglomeration of people weighing in on how they want their wildlife and hunting managed.