Is hunting policy science based?

[Curmudgeon]

According to this biologist, no.

Wildlife conservation in North America may not be science-based after all

March 07, 2018

By Justin Wong

A study led by recent SFU PhD alumnus Kyle Artelle has unveiled new findings that challenge the widespread assumption that wildlife management in North America is science-based. He conducted the study with SFU researchers John Reynolds and Jessica Walsh, as well as researchers from other institutions.

In the study, published by AAAS Open Access journal Science Advances, the researchers compiled and analyzed all of the publicly available documents describing 667 hunt management systems. These included 27 species groups across 62 U.S. states and Canadian provinces. They also identified four hallmarks that provide rigour to science-based management: clear objectives, use of evidence, transparency and external review.

After applying these hallmarks to the hunt management systems, they found that 60 per cent of them featured fewer than half of the indicator criteria. In addition, some of the most basic assumptions of scientific management were almost entirely absent.

For example, only nine per cent of management systems had an explanation for how quotas were set.  Similarly, less than 10 per cent of management systems underwent any form of review, including internal reviews, with fewer than six per cent subjected to external review.

These and other findings in the study raised doubts for the researchers about whether North American wildlife management can accurately be described as science-based.

“The key to honest discussions about wildlife management and conservation is clarity about where the science begins and ends,” says Artelle, who is now a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Victoria.

“Our approach provides a straightforward litmus test for science-based claims.”

These findings come at a time of heightened controversy in wildlife management, where contentious policy is often defended by agencies claiming adherence to science-based approaches.

“We are not saying that wildlife hunting decisions should be based only on science, as there can be important social and economic considerations,” says SFU biological sciences professor John Reynolds. “But the extent to which these dimensions influence management decisions should be clearly articulated alongside claims of scientific rigour.”

The researchers note that claims of science-based management would, however, be supported if management defined clear objectives, used evidence to inform decisions, was transparent with the public about all factors contributing to decisions, and subjected plans and approaches to external review.

[Robhuntandfish]

I think you could almost replace the word "hunting" with anything.  Is any policy science based these days?  Seems more based on public opinion.

[NFA-ADK]

NO...

[Doc]

Look, we can argue all day long about whether we agree with the science used, but there is no doubt that science and statistics and studies and procedures are the backbone of management principles. I guess I really don't understand this article. Are they implying that seasons and bag limits and such are simply drawn out of a hat or established with a dart board and a handful of darts? Come-on, I have as many complaints about goof-ups and mis-calculations and items that I think seem a bit off the wall and off target as anyone, but I do believe in the studies and text books and the general principles behind the management practices that the DEC uses. Any scientific system can always use improvement but that does not mean that they are not scientific systems.

There is damn little examples or proof of the claims provided in this article and I guess we are just supposed to take this guys word for all of his claims. But it is a lot easier to take exception with this poorly written article than it would be to believe that wildlife management is just a series of arbitrary guesses.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Take a gander at "Raincoast Conservation Foundation" and that should tell you all you need to know. 

[Hunter007]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

Look, we can argue all day long about whether we agree with the science used, but there is no doubt that science and statistics and studies and procedures are the backbone of management principles. I guess I really don't understand this article. Are they implying that seasons and bag limits and such are simply drawn out of a hat or established with a dart board and a handful of darts? Come-on, I have as many complaints about goof-ups and mis-calculations and items that I think seem a bit off the wall and off target as anyone, but I do believe in the studies and text books and the general principles behind the management practices that the DEC uses. Any scientific system can always use improvement but that does not mean that they are not scientific systems.

There is damn little examples or proof of the claims provided in this article and I guess we are just supposed to take this guys word for all of his claims. But it is a lot easier to take exception with this poorly written article than it would be to believe that wildlife management is just a series of arbitrary guesses.

If they were not more or less science based the deer populations would have gone virtually extinct long ago from over hunting .

The fact that we still have plenty of deer around year after year shows in part it is based on data .

Of course no system is % 100

Accurate.

But for the most part they work 

[Doewhacker]

Well golly gee we live in a state that makes decisions through legislation and not science or even letting those that have the science to even have an impact on passing laws (DEC). Yea politicians always know what’s best on any subject. (Eye roll)

[Rattler]

Just because the politicians overrule the wildlife biologists doesn't mean we don't have the science.  It just means politicians don't adhere to it.

[Curmudgeon]

Politics sets the goals. Science is supposed to then make the goals reality.

[NFA-ADK]

5 hours ago, Doewhacker said:

Well golly gee we live in a state that makes decisions through legislation and not science or even letting those that have the science to even have an impact on passing laws (DEC). Yea politicians always know what’s best on any subject. (Eye roll)

Bingo, we have a winner!