What The Hell is Science-Based Management?

[gouch]

The problem with scientific wildlife management is that it is only a good thing as long it agrees with our agenda. The vast majority of hunters do not want to manage wildlife for the sake of the wildlife. We want to manage wildlife to give us the best chance of filling our tags. There are many people who would like to manage wildlife for the sake of wildlife but will reject any scientific evidence that might support hunting as part of that management because they don't like hunting. We don't necessarily want to know the truth.

I was listening to a discussion on AI. One of the "experts" said that AI could be used to give us the solution many of our problems, but we don't want to give AI the power to implement those solutions. His example was global warming. AI might conclude that global warming is caused by human activity so the solution would be to eliminate human activity. A valid scientific conclusion but a no starter. There are "no starters" in almost any scientific conclusions.

 

[DFS]

Science based management is the deer are going to die anyway so we might as well shoot them.

Too many elk, issue more tags and run them off accessible lands where they could actually get killed.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The problem with scientific wildlife management is that it is only a good thing as long it agrees with our agenda. The vast majority of hunters do not want to manage wildlife for the sake of the wildlife. We want to manage wildlife to give us the best chance of filling our tags. There are many people who would like to manage wildlife for the sake of wildlife but will reject any scientific evidence that might support hunting as part of that management because they don't like hunting. We don't necessarily want to know the truth.

I was listening to a discussion on AI. One of the "experts" said that AI could be used to give us the solution many of our problems, but we don't want to give AI the power to implement those solutions. His example was global warming. AI might conclude that global warming is caused by human activity so the solution would be to eliminate human activity. A valid scientific conclusion but a no starter. There are "no starters" in almost any scientific conclusions.

Managing wildlife for the sake of wildlife in and of itself isn’t science based management. Science doesn’t care who or what benefits. A management strategy biased to benefit one segment of society over another or one that benefits one organism over another is largely a values based decision.
Science is beneficial in determining how to achieve values based goals but isn’t necessarily effective at informing us what those goals should be.

I could use science to determine the most effective way to eliminate elk or the most effective management strategy to grow an elk herd to maximum carrying capacity in an individual locale.

It’s the folks who assert their values when policy is determined who dictate to what end goal the science is applied.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Science can begin to explain how things work and how certain actions might expect to turn out - nothing more, nothing less. Our values and preferences decide what we choose to do with that knowledge.

Science does not provide any guidance on what we care about or how to choose between competing wishes of a diverse population. Pretending it does is the hubris of many.

 

[gouch]

Managing wildlife for the sake of wildlife in and of itself isn’t science based management. Science doesn’t care who or what benefits. A management strategy biased to benefit one segment of society over another or one that benefits one organism over another is largely a values based decision.
Science is beneficial in determining how to achieve values based goals but isn’t necessarily effective at informing us what those goals should be.

I could use science to determine the most effective way to eliminate elk or the most effective management strategy to grow an elk herd to maximum carrying capacity in an individual locale.

It’s the folks who assert their values when policy is determined who dictate to what end goal the science is applied.

Managing wildlife for the sake of wildlife could very well be a science-based form of management. Yes, it is value based just as any current management is value based. Just different values.

It’s the folks who assert their values when policy is determined who dictate to what end goal the science is applied or discarded. Say the goal is to discover the most effective way to grow the elk herd to maximum carrying capacity in the state of Montana. Then all the scientific research determined that the most effective way to achieve that goal is to eliminate hunting and maximize natural predation. That would be rejected off hand, science be damned because even though the stated goal is to maximize the elk herd the real goal would be to maximize hunting opportunity. Because of course the majority of funds for wildlife management is generated by hunting.

 

[SAJ-99]

Science can begin to explain how things work and how certain actions might expect to turn out - nothing more, nothing less. Our values and preferences decide what we choose to do with that knowledge.

Science does not provide any guidance on what we care about or how to choose between competing wishes of a diverse population. Pretending it does is the hubris of many.

A lot of responses have followed the path of incorporating social science with science, which is where a lot of the debate is. What we “want” is an aspect of social science. I think the original point is clearer- science is about learning how things work. Nothing more or less. Management is about our wants and needs. These are self imposed. The natural world doesn’t care.

IMO, social science isn’t true science (I’m sure purity my test could be debated) It is an oxymoron. Studying the social behavior of humans is hard when we know once we stupid apes know we are being study we will change behavior just to f-k up the study. Even then, we could ask what constitutes “we”. Just hunters? The overall majority? Defining these simple words sort of matters.

 

[VikingsGuy]

A lot of responses have followed the path of incorporating social science with science, which is where a lot of the debate is. What we “want” is an aspect of social science. I think the original point is clearer- science is about learning how things work. Nothing more or less. Management is about our wants and needs. These are self imposed. The natural world doesn’t care.

IMO, social science isn’t true science (I’m sure purity my test could be debated) It is an oxymoron. Studying the social behavior of humans is hard when we know once we stupid apes know we are being study we will change behavior just to f-k up the study. Even then, we could ask what constitutes “we”. Just hunters? The overall majority? Defining these simple words sort of matters.

The term social science is a term loaded with hubris. An area of knowledge is either subject to the scientific method or it is not. The term social science is a phony label sought to create relevance for a portion of the liberal arts that wants to be a science but is not.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Science-based management: Human decisions with an undefined level of basis in science. I think most wildlife management is fairly well science-based on the fine scale, and the notion that most biologists don't understand the scientific method is false. However, biologists are rarely (or maybe never?) the actual decision makers when it comes to higher scale management. Probably for the better. Good management requires a blend of science and social decision making. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. If you want only answers you like, science is not for you.

 

[Sytes]

Here is one person's perspective...

What Does it Mean to ‘Follow the Science’ with Wildlife Management?

For better or worse, the coronavirus pandemic has brought science to the forefront of our political discourse. Phrases such as “follow the science” have become mainstream terms to describe someone’s commitment, or perceived lack thereof, to science-based decision making. These recent debates beg...

www.themeateater.com

 

[QuazyQuinton]

The term social science is a term loaded with hubris. An area of knowledge is either subject to the scientific method or it is not. The term social science is a phony label sought to create relevance for a portion of the liberal arts that wants to be a science but is not.

Where do you place the biological sciences (including wildlife management)? Living organisms can have variable responses. Game animals can make choices, including social choices.

QQ

 

[VikingsGuy]

Where do you place the biological sciences (including wildlife management)? Living organisms can have variable responses. Game animals can make choices, including social choices.

QQ

Biology is a science. I have never heard it classified otherwise.

Wildlife biology would presumably be a science.

Wildlife management is the management of wildlife by applying an understanding of the science towards achieving goals defined by our values and preferences- not science.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Fields like sociology, history, political studies, etc are not sciences and adding the word science to the end of them adds no rigor and only obscures their true nature.

I find these fields of inquiry very interesting and when done well add much to society, but they aren’t science as they cannot and/or do not apply the scientific method. It’s just that simple.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Biology is a science. I have never heard it classified otherwise.

Wildlife biology would presumably be a science.

Wildlife management is the management of wildlife by applying an understanding of the science towards achieving goals defined by our values and preferences- not science.

Agreed. I'm only observing that biology, including wildlife science, actually sits somewhere intermediate between sociology and physics.

QQ

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agreed. I'm only observing that biology, including wildlife science, actually sits somewhere intermediate between sociology and physics.

QQ

I prefer not to view a sliding scale of science - either the knowledge in the field is derived by scientific method or it isn’t. Sure a squirrel population study presents different experimental challenges than a chemical catalysis experiment will, but if the methods of both use the scientific method rigorously they are both equally “science”.

 

[Eric Albus]

Biology is a science. I have never heard it classified otherwise.

Wildlife biology would presumably be a science.

Wildlife management is the management of wildlife by applying an understanding of the science towards achieving goals defined by our values and preferences- not science.

The definitions we now need is one of “our values”….who is “our” and what are their “values?”

 

[Dougfirtree]

I prefer not to view a sliding scale of science - either the knowledge in the field is derived by scientific method or it isn’t. Sure a squirrel population study presents different experimental challenges than a chemical catalysis experiment will, but if the methods of both use the scientific method rigorously they are both equally “science”.

Respectfully, I don't think it can be quite that black and white (and I'm referring also to your earlier statement on social sciences not really being science). Sociologists can make scientific inquiries, that follow the scientific method. And biologists and other scientists do blur the lines of "good" science. What about psychology? I would consider that a social science and there's plenty of research going on there, that follows the scientific method.
I think your point is valid, but reality likely rebels against those neat boxes. Repeatability, peer review, etc. are valuable tools, in my opinion, both for scientists and for those of us who must evaluate their work. @noharleyyet brought up the issue of unscrupulous scientists espousing bad science for idealogical reasons, or to be paid by the idealogues and he's not wrong. But, I think that point is hugely overstated these days and is being exploited by those same idealogues, who want to ignore science, to chip away at people's trust in the very idea of science.
I think we have a better methodology for evaluating any science than many of us would like to admit. And if you vet the science and it holds up, and you don't like what it says... that's where the real work begins.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Respectfully, I don't think it can be quite that black and white (and I'm referring also to your earlier statement on social sciences not really being science). Sociologists can make scientific inquiries, that follow the scientific method. And biologists and other scientists do blur the lines of "good" science. What about psychology? I would consider that a social science and there's plenty of research going on there, that follows the scientific method.
I think your point is valid, but reality likely rebels against those neat boxes. Repeatability, peer review, etc. are valuable tools, in my opinion, both for scientists and for those of us who must evaluate their work. @noharleyyet brought up the issue of unscrupulous scientists espousing bad science for idealogical reasons, or to be paid by the idealogues and he's not wrong. But, I think that point is hugely overstated these days and is being exploited by those same idealogues, who want to ignore science, to chip away at people's trust in the very idea of science.
I think we have a better methodology for evaluating any science than many of us would like to admit. And if you vet the science and it holds up, and you don't like what it says... that's where the real work begins.

I agree that some things that might end up in a university “social science” catalog could meet the standard of “science”. For me it is about the scientific method or not.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I believe the phraseology has gone from
"Trust the science" to
"Science denier" to
"Follow the science" and now to
"Science-based"

Any bets on the next phraseology?

“Not yet scientifically invalidated data”. Oh, that would make me so happy.

 

[VikingsGuy]

We make a huge mistake as a society if we throw out science with the political bath water. Is there sloppy work done in the sciences by some? Yes. Does academic science risk at times risk being caught up in political ideologies? Yes. Does corporate sponsored research risk the same? Yes. But in the end, with all of its potential flaws it is still our only real chance to understand the physical world with anything more than religious-like systems of dogma.

We can work on fixing the above risks. We can evaluate the data we have more rigorously. We can unwind the misuse of science by non-scientists. But it is impossible (by definition) to fix “facts” generated by mere personal belief or perosnal anecdote.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's a good science story that was told by a researcher at the Fire Science Labratory in Missoula. One of the serial litigants said to them that there is no proof that dead brown conifer needles are more combustible than green live needles. They laughed at first, but then found out the statement was 100% true. No one had ever conducted a study to determine what temperature either branch ignited at. So they did an experiment that concluded dry dead needle branches ignite at so many degrees lower than live green needle branches.

So now that science has been "settled", the litigants have moved on to other issues to sue over!