Focusing on Values is Key for Transforming Wildlife Management

Debates over biological science and population data can only get us so far

When watching wildlife commission meetings or reading the news about wildlife protection initiatives, I keep seeing the same pattern play out. Agency staff and traditional stakeholders (i.e., hunters and trappers) will share the data they collect to estimate populations of species, and they will use this to argue that the way they manage that species (which usually involves significant hunting and/or trapping) is sufficient at protecting populations. Wildlife advocates, on the other hand, will argue that the agency’s methods for population monitoring are insufficient at determining populations of a species, and that better data is needed. In the absence of better data, they argue that the precautionary principle should be used- that is, we should ere on the side of caution and reduce hunting or trapping as much as possible.

When discussing bear management in Colorado, for example, agency staff and hunters will often argue that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) uses a strict adaptive management framework that implements harvest limits, quotas, and monitors sex ratios to ensure the overall population remains stable. Wildlife advocates, on the other hand, will argue that no statewide population surveys have been conducted despite increased bear hunting, heavy hunting pressure disrupts the reproductive cycle of bears, and that there have been population declines in areas like Durango where bears have been more carefully monitored.

This pattern plays out, time and time again: agency staff and hunters and trappers share what they think is sufficient evidence to indicate that wildlife populations are not threatened by current levels of hunting and/or trapping. Advocates share studies indicating that populations may not be fine or that current monitoring approaches are insufficient at determining true population sizes. Both sides say we need to use more science-based management. But the conflict over how we manage wildlife never seems to subside.

This conflict continues because the two sides are arguing about biological science, but biological science (i.e. population data) can’t tell us what we want to achieve through wildlife management. What the two sides are really in conflict about is what objectives we should have for wildlife management, which is a value-based question. For example, is the primary objective of wildlife management to maximize hunting opportunities while maintaining a minimum sustainable population? Or should the objective be to maximize wildlife populations and minimize human-caused animal suffering and death when possible?

State wildlife agencies are often managing wildlife primarily to serve the domination values of traditional stakeholders, like hunters and trappers, who view wildlife as a resource for human benefit and consumption. The implicit management objectives in a domination-oriented framework include: 1) maintaining sustainable populations of a species, 2) representing the interests of traditional, consumptive stakeholders by ensuring hunting and (depending on the species) trapping opportunities, and 3) reducing human-wildlife conflict.

However, a growing portion of the public in the United States holds mutualist values, which emphasize the importance of wildlife for ecological, ethical, aesthetic, and/or relational reasons. In fact, social science studies show that in the United States, more of the public has mutualist values than traditional domination values. Mutualists- and the wildlife advocates that represent them- want to see more than the three domination-oriented management objectives. They want to see wildlife managed in a way that represents their interests, which includes: 1) benefiting the broader ecosystem and the environment, 2) representing the interests of non-consumptive publics (e.g., those who enjoy wildlife for its existence and for wildlife viewing), and 3) reducing unnecessary individual animal suffering. These three mutualist-oriented management objectives should be just as legitimate as the three domination-oriented objectives that agencies currently manage for, especially since a greater portion of the public holds these mutualist values.

The constant debates over the science of population monitoring that I’ve observed fit within the status quo by only focusing on one objective of wildlife management. Wildlife advocates are having to justify their own mutualist interests within the narrow domination-oriented framework that agencies currently use. There is only so much change wildlife advocates can make when trying to be heard in a decision-making framework that doesn’t consider many of their values.

If we are going to make wildlife management more inclusive, we must shift the Overton window. Rather than just debating population data, we must demand that agencies manage wildlife to accommodate a plurality of values. Through legislation or rulemaking, we must mandate that every species management plan not only focus on how management will maintain wildlife populations, benefit consumptive users, and reduce human-wildlife conflict, but also on how it will improve the ecosystem and environment, reflect the interests of non-consumptive publics, and help reduce unnecessary individual animal suffering. Such a change would enable progress beyond the never-ending debates over biological science and population data by ensuring both domination and mutualist values are considered. Because at the end of day, wildlife management is guided by values, not just biological science. Those who say values have no place in management are doing so because their values are currently being privileged in decision-making. Progress will be stalled if we continue to work within a framework where only a portion of the public’s values are perceived by agencies as legitimate.