Community Perspective
Reliable knowledge should guide wildlife management decisions and policy
Published Sunday, June 29, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!There has been much discussion in Alaska about the need for sound science in managing wildlife. Alaskans have a right to demand that those entrusted with managing their wildlife resources use sound science to help guide decisions and public policy, whether it’s about predator-prey management or the status of polar bears.
With that demand must also come an understanding of the scientific process and how it forms the basis of sound science and how it should inform the decision-making process.
The scientific process seeks reliable knowledge by attempting to explain the natural world through observation and experimentation. Scientists propose hypotheses to explain their observations and design experiments to test those hypotheses. Reliable knowledge is produced when repeated experiments yield similar results. Such knowledge enables scientists to make reliable predictions, often in the form of mathematical models, of what would happen under events such as resource exploration and development or various wildlife management decisions.
Although models are a simplified and imperfect description of a complex system in the real world, they allow study of how a system works or prediction of how a system would respond to an environmental or management change.
Wildlife scientists, like all scientists, are skeptical of their own and others’ research data until they are convinced the conclusions drawn are correctly inferred from relevant observations, experiments and models. Papers published in scientific journals must pass review by at least two anonymous reviewers with knowledge and expertise on the subject, in addition to review by the journal’s editors. A crucial element of the scientific process is that other scientists test or attempt to invalidate one another’s data, models and predictions.
Gaining reliable knowledge is only a first step in science-based decision making.
Science does not tell us whether a decision is right or wrong — it merely informs us of the consequence of an action or what could happen if an action occurs. Wildlife management and policy decisions also depend on the social, economic, political, financial and ideological circumstances of the participants and the moment.
Whether and how to develop resources or manage wildlife involves value judgments made by elected and appointed officials and the public through a structured process. Wildlife scientists should advocate for the use of scientific reason and evidence to guide management decisions and policy.
Alaskans care deeply about sustaining the abundant wildlife resources in our state. To do so will require skilled scientific practice that produces reliable knowledge needed for sound wildlife management.
Howard Golden is president of the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society. The mission of The Wildlife Society is to enhance the ability of wildlife professionals to conserve biological diversity, sustain wildlife populations, and responsibly manage wildlife resources for the benefit of society.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I agree whole-heartedly with Howard. Unfortunately, the game limits and regulations are not made by scientifically-minded wildlife professionals, but by Board of Game members with their various agendas. If bag limits, area closures, etc. were made by true wildllife prefessionals, then we wouldn't need the maintain the option of voter initiatives. But for now, that's all we have to try to keep the BOG in line.
One of the biggest problems of solely relying on empirical data collection and analysis for biological management is that: THERE ARE TO MANY BLANKS AND BLACK BOXES IN THE INFORMATION GATHERING.
Local and traditional ecological knowledge "TEK" can help broaden the perspective, if the scientific community will reach out and recognize local resource users knowledge, also. While biological management will never be an exacting science, the wide range of possibilities can be narrowed with more "tools" for investigation and expanding the informational base.
Are we willing to spend the funds to collect biological data OR are we going to just guess and call it science?
There has been many, many studies done and the results published. There is a vast library of scientific information all ready gathered and being used, and I'm sure there are further ongoing studies. Those past scientists really did exist, as did their studies. Lets not just pretend they did'nt exist or the BOG hasn't utilized their published results.
Even with decades of studies, and not just in Alaska, the unpredictability of nature can rule to the extreme, and the moment, just ask the BOF about the King salmon run this year. No explanation from the Canadians either.
I don't think we will hear from the BOF that the mystery of this years poor King run are, at the moment, due to social, economic, political, financial and ideological circumstances.
ALL the best scientists availible alive do not have a correct explanation as to whats happening now. We will find that hindsight will prevail,,, in the scientific community too.........
Bottom line is, pandering to tourists requires that wolves be protected at the expense of moose, therefore no moose in my freezer. That's wildlife management?
There are many problems. First, there is the constitution that requires management for sustained yield - i.e., harvest by humans. That same bothersome constituiton limits allocation of state resources - including wildlife - to the legislature rather than by referendum or initiative. The legislature than assigns that task to the Boars of Fish and Game. Pesky little things that the anti-human groups conveniently seem to forget. But, if all else fails, that same elelment says: "We need more scientific research (20-30-40 or more years worth - of which there will never be enough) before we can make a decision. Delay! Delay! Delay any real management to meet constitutional requirements. Then predict we'll be sorry sometime down the road if we don't. And, the sad part is that a lot of well-meaning folks fall for this ivory tower babble. 10,000 to 15,000 wolves. 250,000 to 350,000 black bears. 35,000 to 50,000 or more grizzly bears. Add up that grocery list and see why Alaskans are required to have drawing hunts, tier II permits, limits on size of animals, to be harvested, antler restrictions etc., etc., etc.!!! Fish and Game has found it's far less stressful to just study away while limiting harvest by human hunters than to manage predator populations. Stay tuned to see what's next to keep you from harvesting for your family as the bureaucrats pander to the "more science" group. After all, it just means we need to hire more "scientists" so the state can rationalize why you can buy a license to help fund the "research" but you can't find anything to harvest.
No Joe, that's apparently poor hunting.
If you would all hunt the predators that would help. Where I hunt Moose we actively hunt bears and try and kill all wolves. I do not care for the meat but just like the pesky red squirrel that wreck the cabin they need to go.
Also attend the Advisory committee meetings and get the real scoop. Pay attention and contribute. It is a lot of work and time but if you really want to get it done you can.
Weekend warriors like to be armchair quarterbacks real well. Alaska has a good group and a good process. We do need to reign in commercial fisherman from Washington and Oregon but that has been happening since before statehood.
Cow hunts are imho neccesary and a good management tool. Fish and Game need to stay on top of things and fuel for the airplanes has gotten out of hand.
The money from the license fees needs to go to them and not wildlife viewing folks. We pay to hunt not subsidize photographers.
Pat
Good hit Pat!
Biggest problem is the animals forgot to read the rule book. Besides most Alaskans don't hunt with guns they hunt with Ford or Chevys or shovels. I don't know how many big splats I've seen on Chena Hot Springs this year but every day there's a new one.
storyteller, are you seriously comparing hitting a moose with your car to hunting? You aren't the moron who wrote in last year bleating about the bear shootings, are you? Actually, you can't be - you have a grasp on the English language. And what the hell do you mean by "hunting with shovels"? If you have evidence, please share - I must admit, the idea of a human being taking on a moose with only a shovel is pretty damned impressive. Crazy, but impressive. That would be something to talk about.
Pat, excellent post. I don't hunt personally, but I reap the benefits of knowing a lot of excellent hunters. It amazes me how many people are so anti-hunting (Art Greenwalt, for example) yet they choose to live in a place where hunting, fishing and trapping are not only traditional, but are part of everyday life to many. I think our legislature should pass a hunter's bill of rights to keep the animal rights idiots off the backs of law-abiding American citizens. And to those who are anti-hunting, California has some lovely weather....
The instructions on how to hunt with a shovel is as follows:
It actually takes a shovel and a can of spray paint.
On the way into town when you run across a roadkill you spray a circle around it.
On the way back any animal that doesn't have a circle is fresh.
This one you can shovel up and serve that night along with fresh greens and blueberry pie.
In the midwest you can actually keep the deer you accidentally hit with your car.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.