Hunting and fishing could suffer if politics supersedes science
Half a century ago, an American icon almost vanished. Fewer than 1,000 bald eagles soared the skies above the lower 48 states.
Americans rallied to save our national symbol. Scientists documented eagles’ decline and investigated the effectiveness of measures to bring back the birds.
It was a triumph of wildlife policy and management. The eagle was removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened species more than a decade ago. Evidence-based strategies ultimately served a democratic ideal of giving all present and future Americans the opportunity to experience the awe of witnessing an eagle in flight.
The grizzly bear, caribou, Florida panther, Steller sea lion, and a thousand others need the attention the eagle received a generation ago. One of the most credible and cost-effective ways to produce speciessaving science is the Cooperative Research Unit program of the Department of the Interior.
Much of this work is done in partnership with land-grant institutions across the nation such as the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
The CRU program was established in 1935 on the premise that science, not politics, should guide management of national treasures such as eagles, bison and moose. An administration proposal to de-fund the CRU program does away with that premise.
Hundreds of research projects on elk, Chinook salmon, sea turtles, mule deer and eagles would stop. The House of Representatives has proposed a $1.9 million increase to the CRU budget that would help fill at least one-third of the long-standing vacant scientist positions nationwide. But the Senate’s proposed $250,000 increase is essentially a cost-of-living allowance.
If the House version passes, we hope to
LOCAL VIEWPOINT fill a longtime vacancy in Florida, where the manatee came off the endangered species list this year. Again, wildlife science served as the basis for a recovery plan to limit collisions with boats and to conserve manatee habitat.
I don’t seek to save species solely for species’ sake. I like to fish. I like to hunt.
Hunting and fishing groups are among the CRU program’s biggest supporters. Consumers spend $887 billion a year on outdoor recreation. That colossal contribution to our nation’s economy relies in part on management of our great outdoor spaces.
I fear that politics supersedes science in the proposal to eliminate the CRU program and even to grant it the modest increase in the Senate’s CRU budget. On the other hand, I’m encouraged by Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke’s February order directing his agency to work with officials in 11 states to ensure that migration science is considered in federal land-use plans.
In announcing his order, Zinke specifically mentioned the importance of migration corridors. Those corridors are a focus of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit’s Wyoming Migration Initiative.
Wyoming scientists recently discovered that mule deer, for example, travel more than 300 miles annually, crossing highways and more than 100 fences.
To keep hunting and fishing sustainable, we’d do better to expand the CRU program instead of dismantling it. There are dozens of vacancies in scientist jobs among the 38 states with units. Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and Nevada each seek to establish a unit.
Laying off all current federal wildlife and fisheries unit scientists would forfeit matching commitments. States provide equipment, boats, vehicles and funding for graduate student research. In our state, that commitment comes from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Universities supply office and lab space, administrative support and graduate students who do much of the field work.
Those students become the professionals in government agencies, nonprofits and companies with wildlife-focused missions. They also become fish and wildlife faculty at universities. My experience managing a research project as a CRU student decades ago led to a career in public science as a university administrator.
CRU science helps determine how to manage ranges, forests and fisheries so we can continue loving our wild spaces without loving them to death.
Most states have three or fewer unit employees. The entire national budget for the CRU program is a little more than $17 million — far less than we pay for a single hour’s interest on the national debt.
Many of the 1,000 people who move to Florida every day and the 100 million people who visit annually are drawn by its natural beauty. That headlong rush into Florida increases the urgency of researching human-wildlife interactions.
Abandoning this science puts wildlife at risk and threatens to undermine the industry that has grown up around humans’ enjoyment of it.
Our grandchildren will more likely have a chance to hunt pronghorn, hook grouper and admire eagles if researchers, regulators and political leaders work from the same set of facts.
Research on endangered species is itself threatened by proposals to eliminate CRUs or to slowly starve them of the ability to replace retirees and scientists who change jobs. We have the chance to reaffirm our commitment to evidence-based strategies for protecting national treasures by expanding, not eliminating, this important wildlife science.