What The Hell is Science-Based Management?

[BrentD]

Funny. mtmuley

And true too. Especially in these modern days.

 

[mtmuley]

And true too. Especially in these modern days.

I suppose you have had many easy hunting adventures in the Western part of the country. Again. FUNNY. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

I suppose you have had many easy hunting adventures in the Western part of the country. Again. FUNNY. mtmuley

Absolutely. I've posted many here.

 

[Pucky Freak]

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.

Unless I am mistaken, the same folks who promote “self-balancing ecosystems” much more often than not are also OK with unlimited free-range feral equids, oppose mitigation logging of fire-suppressed forests, and want to delete hundreds of square miles of wildlife habitat with solar farms.

If your thumb is on the ecological scales, a ban on managing predators is a dishonest position. Sure, there are plenty of examples of certain predator species in certain locations that self-regulate just fine, but it can never be all, with our insatiable thirst for development of wildlife habitat and natural resource extraction.

 

[Bonasababy]

Science ends where the decision on how to apply the data begins.

Science tells us when abc are the factors, xyz is the observed result. There’s nothing scientific that determines what we should do with the data. That is a values based decision on the part of managers.

And attacking the science when it doesn't fit a desired result or belief says something about values.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And attacking the science when it doesn't fit a desired result or belief says something about values.

I would put a twist on this. Attacking or supporting the science without rigorous reasons is just politics, but attacking science with rigorous rationale is exactly how science works - ideas are put out there and rigorous challenges over a significant period of time identify what ideas work and what ideas are wrong.

 

[Nicoli7153]

I would put a twist on this. Attacking or supporting the science without rigorous reasons is just politics, but attacking science with rigorous rationale is exactly how science works - ideas are put out there and rigorous challenges over a significant period of time identify what ideas work and what ideas are wrong.

Well said

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well said

And to flog the equine -- one study by one person is not "science". Science happens over time and with much repetition, many contributions, and frequent critiques/challenges. Basing a public policy on one study is of little probative value and is often just pretty packaging on a preferred position.

 

[Rie Bread]

Science based management is management strategy based on how I twist the numbers to support my theory

 

[Bonasababy]

Science based management is management strategy based on how I twist the numbers to support my theory

Back to post 145

 

[BJankovich12]

A term for something that might not be science based management.

 

[Eric Albus]

Science ends where the decision on how to apply the data begins.

Science tells us when abc are the factors, xyz is the observed result. There’s nothing scientific that determines what we should do with the data. That is a values based decision on the part of managers.

Science, SMIENCE.
When factors x and y are the problem, and A & B the solution, solve the fricking problem. We proved this point a while ago in Billings .

This is cowboy for what Gerald so eloquently pontificated.

 

[sclancy27]

Science based Management, to me, is using the Scientific Method and statistics to have reasonable expectations we are stewarding our wildlife resources in a sustainable fashion.

The problem is if you asked 1000 random people to explain the Scientific Method I bet less than 10 would do it accurately. Same with how statistics and probabilities work

 

[BrentD]

Science based Management, to me, is using the Scientific Method and statistics to have reasonable expectations we are stewarding our wildlife resources in a sustainable fashion.

The problem is if you asked 1000 random people to explain the Scientific Method I bet less than 10 would do it accurately. Same with how statistics and probabilities work

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... )

 

[44hunter45]

Observations on science:
1)Science can be bought.
2)Science is a fine servant, but a poor master.
3)When science replaces religion, it becomes religion.
4)Science never lies, but liars use science.
5)When you do not agree with the science, you are labelled a "science denier". Maybe it is not the science you lack faith in, but the people touting it.

 

[BrentD]

Observations on science:
1)Science can be bought.
2)Science is a fine servant, but a poor master.
3)When science replaces religion, it becomes religion.
4)Science never lies, but liars use science.
5)When you do not agree with the science, you are labelled a "science denier". Maybe it is not the science you lack faith in, but the people touting it.

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

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

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

@sclancy27 brought up a great point about statistics. I’m a moron at ciphering. Please quantify “pretty much”.

 

[BrentD]

@sclancy27 brought up a great point about statistics. I’m a moron at ciphering. Please quantify “pretty much”.

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.

 

[Bonasababy]

Observations on science:
1)Science can be bought.
2)Science is a fine servant, but a poor master.
3)When science replaces religion, it becomes religion.
4)Science never lies, but liars use science.
5)When you do not agree with the science, you are labelled a "science denier". Maybe it is not the science you lack faith in, but the people touting it.

No tin foil and/or black helicopters?

 

[ismith]

No tin foil and/or black helicopters?

We shall see, right?