What The Hell is Science-Based Management?

[VikingsGuy]

Social SCIENCE!
Montanans love wolves

I would guess the change in "tolerance for wolves" match changing resident demographics more than change of hearts.

 

[bmt99]

I would guess the change in "tolerance for wolves" match changing resident demographics more than change of hearts.

I am sure you are right.

 

[noharleyyet]

Science Based Management:

 

[Mtn Dawg]

Its basically kill or save as many animals for what is socially acceptable.

The fact that we try to "manage" wildlife is just weird. Other than not killing them, we believe we can play god and control species by killing this or that, manipulating populations, and habitat. While we succeed at times, we seem to fail at the long game, because ultimately we can't control the largest contributing factor, weather.

I have serious doubts that some animals will ever recover to population levels of even 20 or 30 years ago, let alone any sort of historic levels. IMO, wildlife management just slows the bleeding.

I’ve got to respond to this. The first 2 sentences are your take are not in any way related to science as we understand it. They are totally subjective. Why is the fact that we try to manage wildlife weird? Just for an example. It doesn’t seem weird at all to me. We as a species have a deeply seated need to interact with the natural world. It is in our genetic code. This is a basic impulse that drives wildlife watchers, nature lovers and hunters alike. In order to accommodate the hunter side of it we have to regulate it in some way, otherwise we would kill off all the wildlife. So we came up with a concept to ensure that we don’t in fact kill it off. Whether or not one can see that hunters can actually love something that they want to kill and eat , it exists nonetheless. I don’t think using buzzwords like playing god etc adds anything productive to the conversation- it’s another judgmental your take approach. It does more to incite emotional reaction rather than reasoned discourse.

Other than that I am afraid you may be right about recovering game populations. Too many people with too many different needs all vying for control to suit arguably selfish needs.

 

[Redman2216]

I did Google it. Just stream-of-consciousness while the kids eat breakfast this morning....

A discussion around wolf hunting the other day, and the fact that I purchase a wolf tag every year, brought forth a rejoinder from someone who doesn’t that they don’t do so because they believe in “Science-based” management. I mean, so do I, though I wonder how useful a tenant of the NAM it is given how broad a thing “science” is. Talking about Wolf Hunting on the internet is akin to starting a gun control thread on Hunt Talk, but when it comes to what I personally do or don’t do, I have often thought of something I heard the comedian Neal Brennan say the other day: “Sometimes my internal Supreme Court is a 4-3 Decision.” I’ve only ever been inside my own head, but the describes my decision making better than the absolutes we often speak in.

The internet philosopher in me thinks Science can inform us on how to get somewhere, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us where to go. That decision - the destination to which we want to head – is arguably the product of many things, a sort of Is-Ought Problem. I suppose we could resolve this problem by expanding what science includes. Wildlife Science? Social Science? Cultural Science?

For years I have played a game in my head. Read a position piece against the possibility of Grizzly Hunting or of Wolf Hunting. Every time you see the word grizzly or wolf, replace it with mule deer, or elk. More often than not the logic will hold just the same…“But there’s too many elk ( or mule deer) in Montana!” Not in most places. Not for most animals we hunt and fish.

In the same vein and often for the same reasons in opposition, the term “balanced-ecosystem” is used. Certainly not trying to straw-man, but to many, it seems that a balanced ecosystem is one that reaches and keeps a sort of sustainable undulating equilibrium sans any human interference or influence. A kind of model of the world as it was before westward expansion, and maybe well before that. I think there’s a flaw here. The difference between a native and non-native animal really is a difference revolving around human changes to a place, and is a useful distinction for a lot of things. That said, there’s something circular happening, and unresolvable as long as we breathe air here. Does scientific management include the science around the most influential animals on the landscape, or are we omitting those? How does the science of a culture interplay with the science of wildlife populations and how do we weigh each?

A culture belongs to those within it, and the world is changing damn fast, and though of course culture exists on a sort of 4D spectrum, there’s an undertone of self-flagellation in a lot of modern thinking as if we aren’t deserving of thinking of ourselves as critters , that I think sets us up for confusing conversations. I can think of nothing that we govern and manage solely through a science that omits human interest, though I do believe that is the destination many would like for wildlife as long as the interests omitted aren't theirs.

If we agree on the destination, science can guide us as well as anything. But in many conversations over the years, I think it’s in the destination that confusion and disagreement exists. My own destination being as much heritage – customs and traditions; what I feel like doing – as much as anything. And that is a very shallow thing to defend. Think of encountering some far away society, very different from yours, and asking them to defend their culture with logic against your own. How fruitful would that be?

We’re leveraging “science” differently to justify taking different trails because we’re hoping to head to different places. The internet has really coagulated the melting pot, and so I largely think that’s where we are at, and “science-based management” is often a concept without much utility.

The wolf population needs to be put in check

 

[BrentD]

The wolf population needs to be put in check

According to you.

It does not, however, "need" anything.

Some people see wildlife management as farming for targets. Others see it quite differently.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The wolf population needs to be put in check

MT is twice the size of MN but has less than one third of the wolves. On a wolves per acre basis MN has about 6 times as many wolves. MN also has far less “wilderness” as a portion of overall land so wolf density much higher in MN without causing big problems. We shouldn’t view wolves as competition for tags.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

You can keep Science Based Management that's filled with researcher conjecture along with political influence to achieve a political outcome.

So which political climate model do you want to use to portray whatever political position or policy you want?

This post isn't about climate but how science based management can be manipulated using "science based management tools". Pick the model that best supports the position.




No different than wildlife management when discussing wolf management. Wolves are science based managed like they exist in a glass aquarium and cannot leave the area they are "planted. Michigan has proven otherwise. A gray wolf was killed this year outside of Kalamazoo which is almost 300 miles to where Michigan "stocked" them.
I know it's hard to believe a wolf can swim across the narrow Mackinac Straits or even walk across the ice in winter. There is no doubt in my mind this is the ultimate unspoken goal to populate the lower Michigan peninsula through natural dispersion.

A Michigan collared gray wolf travels 4200 miles before being killed in Canada. Another gray wolf wanders into Canada and back when killed in MN. Over 1,000 miles.

Wildlife biologist absolutely know the wolf dispersion range is enormous but yet ignore the consequences. Why? This is NOT science based management. Its no doubt based upon a political agenda that is also not science based management.

If Wildlife Agencies used Evidence Based Management, IMO, far less wolves would be stocked and there would be a hunting season to manage populations based upon Evidence.




Let's make wildlife decisions based upon Evidence. In industry, this is also commonly referred to: Speak with Data. Something that is completely foreign to wildlife agencies.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You can keep Science Based Management that's filled with researcher conjecture along with political influence to achieve a political outcome.

So which political climate model do you want to use to portray whatever political position or policy you want?

This post isn't about climate but how science based management can be manipulated using "science based management tools". Pick the model that best supports the position.


View attachment 340305

No different than wildlife management when discussing wolf management. Wolves are science based managed like they exist in a glass aquarium and cannot leave the area they are "planted. Michigan has proven otherwise. A gray wolf was killed this year outside of Kalamazoo which is almost 300 miles to where Michigan "stocked" them.
I know it's hard to believe a wolf can swim across the narrow Mackinac Straits or even walk across the ice in winter. There is no doubt in my mind this is the ultimate unspoken goal to populate the lower Michigan peninsula through natural dispersion.

A Michigan collared gray wolf travels 4200 miles before being killed in Canada. Another gray wolf wanders into Canada and back when killed in MN. Over 1,000 miles.

Wildlife biologist absolutely know the wolf dispersion range is enormous but yet ignore the consequences. Why? This is NOT science based management. Its no doubt based upon a political agenda that is also not science based management.

If Wildlife Agencies used Evidence Based Management, IMO, far less wolves would be stocked and there would be a hunting season to manage populations based upon Evidence.

View attachment 340306
View attachment 340308

Let's make wildlife decisions based upon Evidence. In industry, this is also commonly referred to: Speak with Data. Something that is completely foreign to wildlife agencies.

The question is rarely the evidence, it is what to do about it. If you want more wolves and more range for them then the dispersement data is a win, if you want fewer and more constrained in locale then it is a concern. The data has nothing to do with it - the question that should be fought over is the goal.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

The problem is the public is never aware of what the true wolf goal is and is fed Disney PR the sound of wolves is breathtaking.

IMO, its simple propaganda PR, keep telling same lie and it becomes truth. Basic PR propaganda being used everywhere today.

 

[Forkyfinder]

MT is twice the size of MN but has less than one third of the wolves. On a wolves per acre basis MN has about 6 times as many wolves. MN also has far less “wilderness” as a portion of overall land so wolf density much higher in MN without causing big problems. We shouldn’t view wolves as competition for tags.

The population density of game is also much higher.

 

[Westelker]

If you read some of the documents from Colorado regarding "science based management", they include "social science" as one of the tenants. That makes me more than a little nervous.

I agree 100%!! Especially when 1/2 of the self described experts in CO have a hard time distinguishing an elk from a deer.

 

[Westelker]

Ain’t this the truth. Science for science sake has battled politics ever since Galileo was ex-communicated for heliocentrism, continuing through Darwin and the continued push for creationism to be taught still, and currently most obvious with Covid and climate change.

Can you please repeat that?

 

[Marshian]

Can you please repeat that?

not exactly sure what you mean here?

 

[BrentD]

The population density of game is also much higher.

I would not bet on that. Not at all. Not saying you are wrong, but that is no slam dunk.

 

[Carnage2011]

I would not bet on that. Not at all. Not saying you are wrong, but that is no slam dunk.

MN has 3x as many deer and about 350k more deer than MT has deer and elk combined.

 

[BrentD]

MN has 3x as many deer and about 350k more deer than MT has deer and elk combined.

The more I think about it the more I think this has to be right. Beyond that, there is a lot more wolf food than just big game. And Minnesota as MUCH more of that per km^2.

I think people tend to overestimate western wildlife because they are so incredibly more visible than wildlife in other parts of the country where there are no mountainside visas or viewing points, and open grasslands are 7 ft tall or more.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The more I think about it the more I think this has to be right. Beyond that, there is a lot more wolf food than just big game. And Minnesota as MUCH more of that per km^2.

I think people tend to overestimate western wildlife because they are so incredibly more visible than wildlife in other parts of the country where there are no mountainside visas or viewing points, and open grasslands are 7 ft tall or more.

Could be why folks from there love to come stack does here

 

[BrentD]

Could be why folks from there love to come stack does here

True. Western hunting is so much easier. Of course, sometimes we come just for the change of scenery.

 

[mtmuley]

Western hunting is so much easier.

Funny. mtmuley