Seeking Sound Science
 
 
December 2000
 
Published in Michigan Out of Doors magazine, Volume 54, Issue 12
 
By R. Ben Peyton
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
E. Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3236
Fax: 517-432-1699

"Hey, Doc! How's it going? I haven't seen you since the 96 ballot initiative against bear hunting!" I was in the mall and hurried to catch up to a bald guy with a permanent frown on his face.

Doc had been one of my wildlife professors at Michigan State. He isn't much for personality, but he always has an opinion about hunting issues, like the bear hunting initiative a few years ago (Our Own Worst Enemy, MOOD, December 1995).

"Doc, I'm glad I ran into you. What do you think we ought to do about the lack of sound scientific management in the DNR?"

"What makes you think it's lacking?" Doc stopped walking and looked me in the eye. Now that I had his attention, I wasn't sure I wanted it.

"Well, everybody says it is -- newspaper, TV outdoor show. A new deer hunting organization even started because of the lack of sound scientific management in managing our deer herd. That's what Proposal G back in 1996 was all about -- we said we wanted sound scientific management of our wildlife."

"And just what does that mean, 'sound scientific management'?" Doc pushed me over to a bench and we sat down.

"It means we ought to base our decisions on biology and not politics. We should regulate baiting and feeding and set antlerless quotas scientifically, not politically.

Doc's entire body shuddered. " Apparently you think science is some kind of magic with answers for everything. Well, it isn't. Science is the best process we have for getting information but it isn't a perfect process and the information it produces is rarely enough to suit us. But the bottom line is, not all of our questions can be answered by science!"

"You mean science doesn't always have all the answers when we need them, right?"

"No, I mean not all of our questions can be answered by science - we NEED politics in the process!"

My turn to shudder. I closed my mouth and waited for him to continue.

"Well, think about it a minute. The NRC struggles every year to set deer management goals in Michigan; in other words, 'how many deer should we have in Michigan?' Now, can science answer that question? Suppose we had all the answers science could provide. Suppose the wildlife biologists could tell the NRC how many deer we have in Michigan - right down to the number of fawns in your back forty. And, for any deer goal we could come up with - ˆ million, 2 million or 20 million -- this perfect science could even tell us the exact impacts on hunter harvest and satisfaction, car accidents, crop damage, disease or whatever. Social science could tell us how many deer the farmers, hunters and non-hunters want to have in Michigan. If science were perfect, it could tell us all of that. But what science could NEVER tell us is "how many deer we should have in the state.

"Science could tell us what is good or bad about having 2 million deer in Michigan but it can't tell us whether that is too many or too few or just the right number. That is a question of social values. Some people place a higher value on having a high population for viewing and hunting and others place more value on having a low car-deer collision rate or incident of crop damage. So we still have to negotiate the answer to the question 'how many deer should we have?'"

"Now wait a minute, Doc. You're making too much out of this. If scientists tell us that Michigan habitat can support 2 million deer, then that is how many we should have. Period. No politics needed."

"Oh, yeah? Suppose science told us Michigan could support 100,000 grizzly bears. Does that mean we should rush right out and get some?"

"You are being ridiculous, Doc!"

"I'm trying to point out that you can't just use science when it supports YOUR point of view and reject it when it supports somebody else's position. You want a lot of deer so you'd use science as a rationale for the 2 million deer goal. But not all Michigan citizens agree with you. People in some areas want fewer deer than the habitat can support because of the problems they have with deer. And then there are folks in Michigan who want to use winter feeding to produce more deer than science says their habitat can support. Nope, as long as we have people who think differently about the benefits and costs of deer, we will need politics to answer the question "how many deer should we have?" and that is the job Proposal G gave to the Natural Resource Commission in our state. They are supposed to get input, sort through the values and decide how best to represent all the different groups in the state when they manage deer. That is the political process I'm talking about.

This was NOT what I wanted to hear. " OK! If politics is the only way to do it and science is so worthless, why do we even need science? We might as well just get rid of the DNR biologists and let the NRC manage our deer!"

Doc shuddered again.  "I didn't say we needed politics INSTEAD of science, I said we need them both. Science helps us identify our options and predict their consequences. But we need politics to choose the consequences and select the options! Besides, we were talking about a perfect science but we're never going to have all of those answers. No matter how much we learn about bovine TB or any other wildlife topic, there will always be more scientific questions. Some uncertainty and risk will always be a part of most decisions. Politics has to decide what to do with that uncertainty; it has to decide what risks we will accept as a society.

"Proposal G said - and I quote - the Natural Resource Commission '...shall, to the greatest extent practicable, utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game...' Whoever wrote that understood that there is a limit to the application of sound science in making these decisions and that a political process is still going to be necessary. The NRC has to use science to predict the consequences of options and use political processes to decide which consequences we want to live with."

"I think the NRC just uses that as an excuse to practice sound scientific management when they feel like it. They sure didn't use sound scientific management when they ignored scientific evidence that deer baiting causes bovine TB and decided to allow deer baiting this year."

"I don't think they ignored it, I think ..."

"Doc! Don't tell me you agreed with their decision?!"

"No, as a matter of fact, I disagreed with it. As a scientist, I think science establishes a fairly high risk that TB could be spread if we continue to allow baiting and feeding. As a citizen, I would prefer to see an end to those practices because the risk of baiting isn't worth the benefits to me. But then, I don't have the responsibility of representing every interest in the state and trying to put priorities on them and balancing out all of those points of view. The NRC does, and, although I don't agree with their decision, I understand how they came up with it.

"So it wasn't science based management then! That's what I've been trying to say!"

"Being science based doesn't mean that science is all you use to make the decision. The NRC looked at the science, but decided it wasn't complete enough. You might say that scientists and managers looked at the cup and declared it two-thirds full, the NRC saw that it was a third empty. I believe the NRC weighed the uncertain risks of TB spread through limited baiting and decided to give more weight to the benefits of allowing restricted baiting and feeding. That was a political decision. That is exactly what it was supposed to be, only in this case, I think the political process under-rated the quality of the science. I think the NRC had more information than it realized. Was it science-based? Depends on your view of whether 2/3 makes a full cup."

The professor was waffling again. "You sound like that Patrick Henry guy, Doc. Although you disagree with their decision, you'll defend unto death their right to make it!"

"That is exactly what I am saying. Well, I don't know about the 'unto death' part. Proposal G set up a process for making these decisions and it potentially is a good one. Of course, it needs to be improved. We need more clarity on the role of science and the role of politics. We need better communication among the public, the scientists and the Commission. But I've seen improvements in Michigan already and they will continue if we give it time and don't destroy the system. Interest groups -- including hunters -- use bits and pieces of science to support their views, then attack science that opposes their views. That confuses and damages the system.

"Dale Rollins is a biologist in Texas who suggested this cynical definition of 'sound science' recently: "When science sounds like it defends your position, it is by definition sound science and anything else is just pure conjecture."

"We've got a lot of that going on in Michigan just like other states do. If we want sound scientific management, we're all going to have to become better scientists and that includes the public. But sound scientific management of wildlife resources will NEVER mean management without a political process!"

"Ok, Doc, maybe we need both politics and science in wildlife management. I'll have to think about it. But I've got some questions about deer numbers. How can the DNR say...?"

Doc's eyes glazed over and he shuddered again. "I've really got to be going. Maybe we can finish this discussion later. Say, do you ever go to the mall on the other end of town?"

"Naw, not often. I usually just shop..."

"Good. Well, I'll see you some time."

I watched Doc's bald head disappear in the crowd. Nice of him to remind me about that other mall.