Measuring wildlife not as scientific as thought
Study author says findings are concerning ‘on a couple of levels’
A new study of more than 650 wildlife management systems in Canada and the United States concluded that most of them lack “fundamental hallmarks of science,” a finding that the study’s lead author said raises doubts about hunting regulations and animal protection in North America.
Using a framework of 11 criteria to determine scientific rigour, biologist Kyle Artelle and his co-authors found only 26 per cent of the wildlife management systems include benchmarks to measure performance, while almost half — 48 per cent — do not publish information about the size of animal populations or how they are changing over time.
The study also found that just 11 per cent of the systems publicly report how hunting quotas are set, while only 9 per cent of the systems are subject to “any form” of independent review.
Artelle, a biologist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria, said the findings mean it is difficult to assess how governments choose to manage animal populations that are hunted in Canada and the U.S.
“It can be concerning on a couple of levels. Science is a really great tool … In the absence of it, it’s hard to say how credible management is,” he said. The study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.
While Artelle said that decisions around wildlife management shouldn’t be solely based on science — social and economic considerations are important too, he said — he argued that it should be emphasized when the public expects it, or when governments justify policies by appealing to “evidencebased” decisions.
“Agencies will often defend a particular policy using the words ‘science-based,’ ” Artelle said.
“It has a lot of weight to it, but if it turns out that this isn’t as science-based as it’s being sold, then I think that’s just concerning in terms of good governance, in terms of having honest discussions with the public.”