Viewpoint: Grizzly science and keys to wildlife management
Alex Metcalf
As the debate over the future of grizzly bears rattles on across the Northern Rockies, there’s a common phrase invoked by advocates on both sides to advance their positions: “science-based management.” Sounds good, right? After all, science is objective. Science is based on evidence.
And while those things about science are largely true, there’s one problem with using “science” to settle policy debates: science, even the highest-quality science, can never tell us what should be done.
Consider that people advocating for or against delisting grizzly bears from the endangered species list use the same appeal to science to justify entirely contradictory positions. You’ll hear opponents of delisting say, “The science shows grizzly bears need continued protections to survive.” You’ll hear supporters respond, “The science shows grizzly bears are a success story and should be delisted.”
If science on its own could tell us what “should” be done, it wouldn’t be used by both sides to argue for opposite outcomes.
I am a social scientist who studies the human dimensions of wildlife issues – the complex interplay between scientific evidence and societal values. My research focuses on how communities can engage in meaningful dialogue to navigate the challenges of wildlife conservation and management.
To me, the phrase “science-based management” echoes a problem that Scottish philosopher David Hume flagged more than 250 years ago: facts can’t provide moral prescriptions. On a good day, science can tell us what was (e.g., historical distributions of bears), what is (e.g., current populations and levels of human interactions), and what might happen under various management options (e.g., grizzly bear expansion, decline, impacts on people). It can even quantify uncertainty and trade-offs. But science cannot, on any day, tell us which of these outcomes are ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ That requires human values.
Science can help us expand grizzly bear populations or shrink them — science doesn’t care which, only people can make that choice.
This is why we will never “get the politics out” of wildlife management decisions, and why we shouldn’t want to. In a democracy, value-based questions are answered through public deliberation. Politics is how societies negotiate competing values and make collective choices about the future. Science is an important tool for understanding consequences and for designing effective management once goals are set. But science is no substitute for social and political processes that help us decide which goals we’ll choose, and which means to achieve them are acceptable.
Deciding what “should” be done requires people to weigh facts, make value judgements, persuade their fellow citizens, and build collective will to see those goals pursued. Doing this well requires listening, empathy and democratic engagement. Using “science” as a cudgel to stifle dialogue is counterproductive, no matter what your values are.
This column first appeared in the Mountain Journal
Dr. Alex Metcalf is a full professor in the Wildlife Biology Program at the University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation, and is director of UM’s Human Dimensions Lab where he teaches and researches human relationships with wildlife and natural resources.