Science Based or Science Fiction

Separating fact from fiction can be daunting when it comes to wildlife conservation

When I was in university working towards my bachelor of science degree, I was eager to learn everything I could about the scientific method and how to conduct scientific studies. I wanted to understand the entire process from hypothesis to results. I went full nerd immersing myself in the learning process taking courses in wildlife biology, plant biology, microbiology, pathophysiology, chemistry, anatomy and physiology, genetics and more. My only goal was to learn, and in the process, I fell in love with science. For me, science was a way to make sense of the world by furthering my knowledge and understanding. Back then, I believed science was one of the best forms of study, and I still believe that today, but with some caveats.

The United States Health and Human Services Department (USHHS), led by Robert Kennedy Jr., has become notorious for claiming that science informs their policy decision-making, while at the same time, rolling back vaccine recommendations that were entirely based on science, questioning their safety and efficacy without providing science-based evidence of their own. A similar phenomenon is happening in the domain of wildlife conservation. The phrase ‘science based’ has become politicized, constantly being bandied about by the trophy-hunting, commercial trapping industries, and even government agencies throughout numerous North American jurisdictions. It’s being deliberately misused to give credence to exaggerated claims that predators are under managed, wreaking havoc with the eco-systems they inhabit and causing increased human-predator conflict .

This phrase is being used so frequently and erroneously that it is losing its veracity. But what does ‘science based’ actually mean? The short answer is that a study must be grounded in science resulting from empirical research backed by scientific evidence. In order to meet the threshold to be considered science based, certain criteria must be met, the main ones being evidence based, objective, measurable, and repeatable. These criteria are crucial for scientific studies to be considered valid. But in recent years, objectivity has become a casualty, leading to questionable results.

The frequent use of the phrase ‘science based’ in the hunting and trapping world is a direct reference to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM), a wildlife management model made up of seven guiding tenets. Trophy hunters, guide/outfitters, and commercial fur trappers refer to NAM as the standard that should inform wildlife management in North America, which makes perfect sense if you have a stake in hunting or trapping wildlife. However, the NAM philosophy is really no different than that of the domestic livestock industry in that it’s exploitive and harvest based, ignoring all other interests, not the least of which is wildlife’s right to exist in the first place.

In an article appearing in the Medium entitled, Beyond the Numbers: The Hidden Fragility of Animal Societies, Dr. Gosia Bryja, Environmental & wildlife conservation scientist, speaks to the notion of wild animals having agency highlighting their individuality and complex social structures, explaining:

Predators are not clusters of interchangeable items that can be reduced, increased, or reshuffled at will. They constitute complex societies composed of individuals who cooperate, transmit knowledge, and learn behaviours from one another that enable them to adapt to ongoing environmental pressures. Conservation efforts, therefore, are not only about managing numbers but also about protecting the social structures of wild animals. Their social groups form the foundation of populations, and their resilience and relationships are the cornerstone of species survival.

Dr. Bryja maintains the harvest-based model of NAM is flawed in that regard describing it as an “inherently arrogant approach,” writing:

The model sanctioned wildlife as “public trust resources” that are considered “renewable” if managed “wisely.” It thus legitimized lethal management practices, including hunting and trapping, under the assumption that populations remain stable as long as overall numbers are maintained.

Kevin Bixby explained in his September 2020 article entitled, Why Hunting Isn’t Conservation, and Why It Matters, that hunters and trappers cling to the idea of NAM being scientifically based because it suits their purposes:

(NAM is) something of a sacred doctrine in wildlife management circles, widely heralded as the premier model of wildlife conservation in the world. The problem is that it is both an incomplete framing of history which downplays the contributions of non-hunters, and it is an inadequate set of guidelines for preserving species and ecosystems in the face of the current mass extinction crisis. Nonetheless, its unchallenged acceptance within the wildlife management community has helped fuel the narrative that hunting is indispensable to conservation.

Later in the article, Bixby speaks to the ongoing effort to make hunting synonymous with conservation, describing that:

The assertion that hunting is conservation has unmistakable meaning in the culture wars. It has become a rallying cry in the battle over America’s wildlife, part of a narrative employed to defend a system of wildlife management built around values of domination and exploitation of wild “other” lives, controlled by hunters and their allies, that seems increasingly out of step with modern ecological understanding, changing public attitudes and a global extinction crisis.

Supporters of NAM continually laud it as being a science-based conceptual framework, but rarely if ever, do they point to any specific studies other than NAM itself. An example of this coming from a recent Facebook post by Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife, states, “Our heritage, our traditions, and our science-based wildlife management are under relentless attack,” referring to a citizen’s petition against the commercial fur trapping industry. “These aren’t isolated incidents - they’re coordinated attacks supported by animal rights extremists and enabled by the Governor’s office, directly targeting the CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that has successfully managed our wildlife for over a century.”

Okay, so ignoring the use of the loaded term ‘extremists’ (more on that later), they claim Colorado’s wildlife management regulations are science based without providing any evidence. They also point to NAM as having been a model for success for over a century. But by whose standard is that success measured? Saying something is successful doesn’t make it so, although that is the go-to strategy in the United States (US) of late. A 2018 study conducted by Artelle et al. titled, Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management, comprehensively examined North American Wildlife Management, which is predominantly derived from the 7 tenets of NAM, to determine whether it reaches the threshold to be considered science based. The short answer - It does not:

Despite widespread use and endorsement of the North American Model, however, its proponents and practitioners rarely articulate what science-based management entails. In addition, no one has comprehensively assessed whether assumptions or claims of science-based management are supported. That knowledge gap is troubling given the “science-based” justifications for policy decisions commonly offered by agencies, the substantial public investments that support these agencies, and the considerable influence that hunting can have on otherwise self-regulating wildlife populations. In many taxa, adult mortality from hunting exceeds mortality from all other predators combined.

Artelle et al. used a set of four criteria to determine if NAM holds up as a science-based template for wildlife management, which included measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. They go into greater detail, much more than this article will cover, but their conclusions were very telling. “Our results provide limited support for the assumption that wildlife management in North America is guided by science.”

The study was comprehensive and far-reaching spanning 667 management systems, “using hunt management plans (produced by agencies to describe how hunted species are managed) for 27 species (or groups of species) across 62 states, provinces, and territories in the United States and Canada.” The study debunks the numerous assertions claiming North American wildlife management is science based revealing they are both overblown and lack merit.

Our findings suggest that the assumed scientific basis of wildlife management across much of the United States and Canada might warrant reconsideration. More broadly, our results highlight the importance of disclosing the relative contribution of science compared with other considerations [for example, political and economic] in management decision-making and disclosing the limitations, uncertainties, and related risks inherent in the data and approaches used.

Curiously, in a subsequent post by Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management in which they discuss the second Tenet of NAM (elimination of markets for game), they again, refer to it being rooted in science, stating, “Trappers purchase licenses, operate under science-based season and harvest regulations set by wildlife agencies, and sell fur as a byproduct of a legally managed harvest-not as a commercial commodity outside of oversight.”

It’s interesting how they deftly sidestep this second tenet portraying the sale of furs from trapping as incidental, and as a “byproduct of a legally managed harvest-not as a commercial commodity outside of oversight.” Umm okay, so the commercial sale of furs from trapping is somehow not a “market for game” because it has oversight? That’s like saying alcohol consumption is not harmful because it is legal and regulated. It would appear that, in this instance, they are at odds with NAM, the very doctrine they covet as their wildlife conservation bible.

Even so, as Artelle et al. revealed in their study, North American wildlife conservation policy is hardly a science-based framework as it is heavily influenced by political and socio-economic factors. The post concludes with the slogan, “Know the Model. Know the History.” While an in-depth look into NAM is beyond the scope of this article, for those readers wanting to know more about the model and the history, Wildlife Conservation - A Dichotomy delves into NAM and how it went on to become the template for North American wildlife management.

Myth-information as a strategy

The myth-information regarding science-based wildlife management claims on social media platforms is vast and seemingly endless. The Kyri Ranch Facebook page is littered with posts about the need to recruit hunters and trappers to kill as many wolves and coyotes as possible making numerous exaggerated claims about the impacts they are having on livestock and wild ungulates. “Scientifically, wolves kill and overkill just for the sake of it, especially in the winter months and when they have pups,” details one post. The author goes on to claim that:

Attacks on humans are happening more often than what is admitted, from Oregon, on elk hunters to Wisconsin, duck hunters, and hikers, from Washington State to New Mexico, and of course in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and everywhere there are wolves. In Alaska, every year, an average of 500 people go missing in the wilderness and are never found; how many of the disappearances are attributed to predators, and especially to wolves?”

Posts such as these are designed to instil fear and garner support for their quest to eliminate as many predators as possible. The author of this post is fond of the word ‘science,’ yet includes no scientific evidence or basis for his assertions. These intentionally exaggerated and outright false claims are irresponsible and unfairly vilify wolves and other predators. To suggest they are based on science, is ridiculous.

Again, in the same post, the author refers to a “study commissioned by wolf advocates” that allegedly concluded, “every wolf costs a rancher $163,000 - not only what they kill, but also the stress the cattle are under, the loss of weight, miscarriages, and fewer pregnancies, to name a few.” Unsurprisingly, the so-called study is not cited leaving the reader to just take him at his word.

But what do the numbers actually tell us about depredation by wolves, and other predators, on livestock? In the delusion-free world where most of us reside, recent data determined that predators account for well under one per cent of livestock mortality in the US, with a much greater percentage of mortality being attributed to disease, birthing issues and weather. In fact, a paper published by the The Humane Society of the United States, entitled Government data confirm that wolves have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries, revealed that, “farmers, ranchers and wildlife managers should most fear maladies-especially respiratory and birthing problems-that kill nine times more cattle and sheep than all predators (wild, mammalian and avian carnivores and domestic dogs) combined.” The findings from this paper, using the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) data which is already demonstrably inflated, indicated “native carnivores and domestic dogs allegedly killed 0.4 per cent of the 119 million cattle and sheep inventoried in the U.S. in 2014 and 2015.” However, livestock mortality that does not result from depredation, disease, birthing problems or weather, can be 100 per cent attributed to humans.

The goal of the Humane Society’s study was “to make data publicly decipherable, and more importantly, unmask the fraction of losses that livestock operators experience with wolves, other native carnivores and domestic dogs.” Conversely, the purpose of the Kyri Ranch’s post is to spread myth-information and demonize wolves and other predators in order to justify slaughtering them, much like they would the cattle they raise.

The irony of ranchers hand wringing as they vilify wolves, coyotes and other predators for killing less than one half of one per cent of their livestock, while claiming to care deeply for their livestock. Many ranchers decry that predators should be eliminated because they kill vulnerable calves and cause them pain and suffering. These same ranchers raise their cattle for the purpose of either producing beef for market or milk for the dairy industry. A cow’s normal lifespan is anywhere from fifteen to twenty years, with some living well into their twenties. Cattle raised for the beef industry live an average of eighteen to twenty-four months, dairy cows fare slightly better being allowed to exist three to six years while calves slaughtered for the veal market live a meagre four to six months. And when sent to slaughter, the process is anything but humane as the animals are stressed and often subject to abuse before being killed.

Most people are unaware of the collateral deaths that occur in order to raise cattle to the tender age of 18 months. Wolves, coyotes, bears, and cougars are routinely killed by ranchers, trophy hunters and trappers claiming to protect young calves that only a few months later, will end up on someone’s dinner plate. Attempting to tug at the public’s heartstrings by portraying these predators as ‘calf killers’ when ranchers send them to slaughter at such a young age, seems insincere to say the least. Perhaps they have forgotten which animal is the invasive species.

The myth-information on various social media platforms being pushed by ranchers, trophy hunters, and commercial fur trappers is prolific and unyielding. The Hunting Report recently posted:

The best bobcat is a dead bobcat. . . They don’t worry about turkey nests, fawn survival, or the long-term health of the woods. That responsibility falls on us.

In a photo with a hunter proudly posing with a dead cougar slung over his back, KILLSHOT Life posted:

In this valley of British Columbia, biologists identified a single tom that was hammering a fragile sheep population they were working to protect, and help grow. This wasn’t about a tag. It was about responsibility and exploring both sides of the story.

Here’s one from Canadian Wildlife Adventures with an accompanying photo of what has become known as the “wolf hug” pose in hunting circles. It shows the hunter hugging the dead wolf from behind in a childish display of dominance:

Predator management isn’t just adventure, it’s necessary. Strong wolf numbers mean pressure on caribou and other wildlife. Days like today matter.

A post from Deep South Trapping illustrates the profound lack of empathy for the animals they trap and kill:

The Duke 450 OS Pro Series is specifically designed for the humane capture of coyotes and other predators, using features like offset jaws to reduce potential injuries. These traps act as restraining devices, holding the animal by the foot or paw rather than killing it.

Okay, so the trap keeps the animal restrained but alive and uninjured (allegedly) until the trapper finally arrives on scene to kill it. Just because a trap is less injurious, does not make it humane. Numerous scientific studies have revealed that being restrained in a leg-hold trap is anything but humane and causes an incredible amount of stress and fear to the animal before it is ultimately killed. (See links at the end of this article)

This post by Jesse Paradis suggests killing wildlife is a divine calling:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on earth (Genesis 1:26). . . This hits home for me today after God blessed me with one of the best days on the trapline. . . Greatful (Grateful) to be able to help manage these predators for no prey or predator should not be managed at all.

Speaking of creepy. . . Using religion to justify killing wildlife as if it was ordained by ‘God,’ is a pretty distorted and loathsome interpretation. So which is it - is killing predators rooted in science or is it something that ‘God’ intended?

This post from Western Justice is an excerpt from an article by Marjorie Haun that was published in Range Magazine entitled, SPECIAL REPORT: WOLVES -STATE OF EMERGENCY. This one just might be my favourite:

Show me a self-replicating biological weapon that is intelligent, highly adaptable, stealthy, vicious and effective at killing. Show me a biological weapon that was nearly eradicated from the landscape but has been brought back by a pseudo-religious movement that worships its “beauty” and “wildness.”
Show me a biological weapon with a federal “endangered” status.
Show me a biological weapon with legal protections in many states where, if one attempts to defend life or property against it, they may be persecuted, prosecuted and imprisoned.
Show me a biological weapon wiping put wild game species, large and small, which stalks and kills livestock in increasing numbers, and has grown bold in the presence of human habitations.
Show me a biological introduced into settled landscapes for the unspoken purpose of driving ranchers and big game hunters off public land, and I will show you a wolf.

Such a profound statement. Too bad it’s complete bullshit. If it weren’t for the few obvious hints, one would think the author was describing humans.

A common thread among many of these posts, is the need to justify the reasons for killing wildlife, especially predators. Rarely, do trophy hunters, commercial fur trappers, and ranchers admit they enjoy hunting and killing animals. Instead, they frame their arguments as killing for the greater good as if they’re performing a public service, but their accompanying photos reveal their true motives. It’s the moral equivalency of a drug dealer declaring to a police officer, “I sold him fentanyl to prevent him from going into withdrawal.”

It’s really not that complicated. Human predators are competing with wild predators, no different than lions competing with hyenas for the same resources, except in the case of humans, the food isn’t required for survival, but remains the justification for killing.

Revered as trophies, reviled as predators

On a similar note, ranchers, trappers and trophy hunters frequently anthropomorphize wolves, describing them as intentionally cruel and torturous to the ungulates they target. Assigning human characteristics to wildlife is not only absurd, it can negatively impact wildlife and should remain in the domain of Disney, Pixar and other animated film companies for the purpose of entertaining children.

So what are the repercussions of portraying wolves and other predators as possessing the human capacity to be intentionally cruel? Anthropomorphism: What is it and can it benefit conservation, a 2018 article by Paul McCarney published in Landscapes & Letters, looked into this tendency to assign human traits to wildlife and determined that it can be beneficial for some species and detrimental to others. In the case of wolves, he wrote:

On the flip side, how might the public treat a species when it’s given negative human traits? We almost lost all wolves in North America from that kind of Anthropomorphism.

The strategy of the trophy hunting, commercial fur trapping, and ranching industries has been to revive this historical campaign of demonizing wolves by assigning them the worst of human traits and initiating a far-reaching propaganda campaign to sway public opinion. Reviving these myths does a disservice, not only to wolves, but wildlife conservation as a whole as McCarney writes, “Misrepresentations of nature can make it difficult to filter and evaluate conservation options based on the realities of wildlife and their ecosystems.”

A recent post by Paul Antczak, a Montana trapper, illustrates this point. “Every year they are getting more intelligent and harder to capture,” he writes. “There’s a huge difference from the 2018 wolf to the wolf of today. It’s not the same, they have evolved!” By claiming wolves’ intellect is evolving at a wildly accelerated rate, is intended to create a sense of urgency to eradicate them before they learn how to evade traps altogether. If Antczak honestly believes they have measurably evolved in just a seven-year span, he likely should have paid more attention to his high-school science teacher. Sure, it’s possible they have learned to evade traps, but that’s a far cry from intellectual evolution that takes place over thousands of years, not seven.

The Hunting Report in a much less subtle manner, with a couple of intentionally graphic photos, posted that, “Coyotes are some of the cruelest animals on the planet. They will literally eat coyotes (meant to say deer) alive! What do you think, when you see one?”

The Kyri Ranch didn’t hold back in what can only be described as a bizarre rant, writing:

People keep coming back, stating the same thing, and digging deep into the devil’s pocket to find excuses for their beloved, savage serial killers, the wolves. No matter the scientific reports and biologists’ statements (none cited in his post), they focus on what’s derived from their favourite Disney movies.

The post above really encapsulates the degree to which hunters, ranchers, and trappers gaslight the public. To describe wolves as savage serial killers, a label traditionally used to characterize human sociopaths, is a deliberate attempt to foment hatred towards these predators. Accompanying the post is a photo of several dead elk leaving readers to assume wolves were responsible, but he doesn’t actually say that. The photo is eerily similar to the numerous photos of dead coyotes and wolves plastered all over hunting and trapping social media platforms. I think it’s safe to assume the author of this post has no issues with those mass killings.

With the understanding that the concept of cruelty is a human construct, suggesting wolves have the ability to act with malice and intentional cruelty is laughable and not supported in any scientific literature. Hunters and trappers, however, often do act with malice and intentional cruelty towards wolves, coyotes and other predators, and likely project those characteristics onto these predators to justify the brutality they visit upon them.

The Cody Roberts case in Wyoming is a prime example of deliberate cruelty and brutality. Intentionally running over a young female wolf with his snowmobile and injuring it, he chose to keep it alive and parade it around a local bar, taking numerous selfies with the terrified animal before finally killing it later that day.

A post by Colorado Wolf & Wildlife Center addresses this tendency to describe wolves as intentionally cruel, writing:

When people describe wolves as sadistic or bloodthirsty, they’re assigning human emotions and intent to a wild animal. Wolves don’t feel malice or hatred. They aren’t making moral choices. They are doing what evolution has shaped them to do: hunt in order to live.
What’s especially telling is that many of the same voices who argue that “emotions have no place in wolf management” are relying almost entirely on their own emotional fear and hatred of wolves, rather than science, ecology, or evidence.

Ad hominem ad nauseam

It’s often been said that when someone resorts to personal attacks to prove a point, they have already lost the argument. That may be so, but using highly-charged labels to describe individuals or groups of people still remains a popular strategy in some circles. Trophy-hunting and trapping organizations have embraced this strategy labelling those opposed to what they do with pejorative descriptors. Anti’s, wildlife extremists, tree huggers, wolf lovers, domestic terrorists, radicals are just some of the adjectives they use to describe people opposed to what they do. Conversely, negative labels are unnecessary to describe trophy hunters and commercial fur trappers because their current labels sufficiently describe the brutal nature of what they do. There is no need to label someone as an ‘extreme trophy hunter’ or ‘radical trapper,’ as it is already implied by what they do. That isn’t to say there aren’t some people opposed to these practices that take their vitriol too far, sometimes referring to them as psychopaths and murderers. However, that kind of rhetoric does a disservice to those who are truly serious about wildlife conservation and let the facts speak for themselves having no need to resort to malicious labeling.

The field of social science sheds some light on what it means to resort to personal attacks to argue a point. Known as ad hominem attacks (to the person), it’s when someone verbally attacks the person rather than arguing based on the merits of their position. “The (ad hominem) fallacy attacks people making arguments rather than attacking the arguments themselves,” writes Ruth Michael in a 2023 article in Ebsco Knowledge Advantage, titled, Ad hominem. “People who employ this fallacy in argumentation try to persuade their audience to disbelieve the claims of their opponents based on some real or exaggerated character flaw in the opponent.”

This form of arguing often speaks to the lack of knowledge by the person resorting to ad hominem attacks as they are unable to defend their position based on facts and reason. “These Tactics divert attention from the actual issues and are considered poor forms of argumentations,” explains Ruth.

There is no shortage of ad hominem attacks on the various hunting and trapping social media platforms. The Kyri Ranch is one of the more prolific ad hominem attackers using disparaging labels to make his points. “The wolf lovers and advocates have stupidity levels beyond any idiot has ever set foot before,” he writes in one of his many posts. I mean, is it even possible for an idiot to set foot on stupidity levels? Here is another gem:

The so-called wolf lovers and advocates should stop making themselves look stupid and idiotic by bringing us the same nonsense all the time, with their ridiculous, childish propaganda based on completely false facts derived from Disney movies.

Referring to people as stupid and idiotic while using the phrase “completely false facts” might warrant some inner reflection. And not to put too fine a point on his vitriol, he went on to say in yet another post:

The wolf lovers and advocates are bloodthirsty savages with a very dark agenda. They will not be stopped until hunting is banned and our gun rights are taken from us. In this photo, a wolf with its kill, a bear cub. The wolves are digging out the bear cubs from their dens and just killing them. Even a grizzly is no match for them. Natural-born serial killers.

Ignoring the utter nonsense above, is seems almost comical that the author of this post, while eagerly campaigning for the deaths of as many wolves and coyotes as possible, accuses those who want to save them as being bloodthirsty savages. Umm okay, that tracks. . . right?

Baffle them with bullshit

Admittedly, the ad hominem attacks above are not very sophisticated, but there are those in the trophy-hunting and commercial fur-trapping communities who are more savvy. Mark Hall, executive director of Blood Origins Canada, is one such person who speaks eloquently, writes relatively well and in a way that can be quite convincing, but with little in the way of substance. In an article entitled, Should Non-hunters Have a Say in Setting New Hunting Regulations, Hall writes in a manner that is meant to appear balanced, but is clearly designed to deliver the message that ‘hunters know best.’ It begins with a great deal of background describing what hunting regulations are and how hunting regulations are passed, perhaps to give the reader a sense that he is an expert on the subject. Here’s where the savvy part comes in to play; he sets himself up as an impartial reporter and rather than taking ownership of his own views, he states:

. . . opponents argue that non-hunters do not have the ecological knowledge, practical experience, and cultural understanding required to make informed decisions regarding hunting seasons and quotas, especially where options reflect hunter preferences (whatever that means). They also express concern that urban populations that are often far removed from the areas where wildlife lives can unduly influence hunting policies, potentially ignoring long-standing traditional practices. Finally, some perceive increasing participation by anti-hunting groups in the regulation development process as a growing threat to hunting rights and traditions, including hunting with dogs and hunting bears, wolves and cougars.

That is a lot to unpack (apologies for the cliché), but let’s start with the notion that he isn’t quoting or paraphrasing anyone in particular, so it’s safe to assume these are his own ideas. With regard to urbanites “being far removed from the areas where wildlife lives,” cannot the same argument can be made for non-resident hunters from out-of-province or country? Every hunting season, there is a deluge of non-resident hunters coming to BC to hunt various wildlife species. Are they considered resident experts? How about his deliberate use of the phrase ‘anti-hunting groups?’ This is a much more covert ad hominem attack as most of conservation organizations are not so much anti-hunting as they are, more accurately, anti trophy hunting and/or anti trapping (commercial fur), which is a very important distinction. By describing these organizations as opposed to all hunting makes them seem less reasonable and more extreme, and that is by design.

To be clear, Hall is very much in favour of hunting practices that include hunting with dogs and hunting bears, wolves and cougars as he has defended that position in other articles, but for this article, appearing to be impartial is more impactful.

Near the end of his article, Hall finally weighs in on his position, stating:

My view is that everyone should contribute to wildlife plans, as these plans affect both conservation and societal values. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (yep, there it is again) treats wildlife as a public trust. Everyone should be able to provide input on wildlife management goals and conservation strategies. If there are no clear objectives or management plans, stakeholders must first insist on their development to ensure that both wildlife objectives and hunting regulations are logical.

But hold on, I saved the best bit for last. Keeping the above quote in mind, this is what Hall finishes with:

In recent years I notice that public input opportunities on specific hunting regulations often becomes a platform for anti-sustainable use campaigns. Therefore, I believe that licensed hunters should primarily provide feedback on detailed hunting regulations, since they are directly invested in these traditions, practices and values.

Sorry for yet another cliche, but you really can’t make this shit up. In one paragraph he writes that “everyone should contribute to wildlife plans” and in the next he declares, “I believe that licensed hunters should primarily provide feedback on detailed hunting plans.” What a duplicitous way of appearing to support a diverse range of voices participating in drafting hunting regulations, when he really only supports hunter input. Again, this is a slick ad hominem attack because how could anyone be opposed to ‘sustainable use?’ What he’s really opposed to are campaigns against hunting grizzlies and other apex predators, which is antithetical to what trophy hunters, like Hall, want as they continually campaign for increased predator harvests. How are these other voices less important than those of hunters? For casual readers, he likely sounds logical and believable, which is entirely the goal.

Political science over wildlife science

One would expect hunting and trapping organizations to claim they follow the latest wildlife conservation science, while still clinging to the outdated philosophy of NAM, but what may be surprising is that provincial and federal government agencies in Canada also subscribe to NAM and often acquiesce to the aspirations of the hunting and trapping lobbyists when drafting wildlife management policies and regulations. An example of this was the implementation of the “short-term” wolf cull in British Columbia which began in 2015 as a stop-gap measure to protect the woodland caribou whose population had decreased substantially to the point that recovery was in question. It was hypothesized that if wolves were culled in areas where these vulnerable caribou populations live, it would give the few surviving caribou a better chance at recovery. Well sure, it is certainly not a stretch to conclude that having less predators around will lead to less mortality from predation. But even the BC government acknowledges that the wolves are not the primary reason for the low caribou numbers. “The ultimate reason that caribou have declined is likely habitat fragmentation and loss.” That is a direct quote from the BC government’s April 2014 management plan for the grey wolf. And because of this habitat loss and fragmentation, the document points to the grey wolf as impeding the woodland caribou’s ability to recover because of their ease of accessibility (ie. roads and clearcuts from logging) to these ungulates.

The Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Program (MCRIP) made several recommendations which the BC government adopted to guide their wolf culling program.

To support predator control a well-designed, science-based analysis of predation pressure should be completed (Peek et al. 2012). The Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Program (MCRIP) provides numerous information sources that summarize the predator–prey planning component for Mountain Caribou recovery. The MCRIP has also funded both wolf inventory and radio-telemetry studies to provide more precise information on wolf numbers within mountain caribou recovery areas (e.g., studies indicated there were approximately 260 wolves occupying the range of Mountain Caribou in 2008).

That last line is very telling where they estimate that 260 wolves occupy the range of the mountain caribou in question. Since the wolf cull began in 2015, more than 2500 wolves have been slaughtered, a 10-fold increase from that original estimate of the wolf population inhabiting the caribou’s range, which suggests the program is anything but short-term. These numbers do not include the countless other wolves killed through hunting and trapping in the province. And without addressing the underlying causes of the low caribou numbers, it seems the BC government’s overall strategy is to slaughter wolves in perpetuity in order to save the few remaining caribou whose range remains largely fragmented or destroyed. In fact, the BC government is still allowing old-growth logging to continue in sensitive caribou territory. According to Stand.earth, “Old growth logging is continuing in endangered southern mountain caribou habitat, with logging and road building documented as recently as May 2025.” The June 2025 article, titled Old Growth Logging in Endangered Habitat details how three of the southernmost herds are at risk of losing even more of their sensitive habitat.

Thousands of hectares of old-growth and primary forests are currently pending approval for new logging, or have been approved for logging that has not yet taken place. Proposed and approved logging totals 5,713 hectares across the habitat of the Columbia North, Groundhog, and Wells grey South herds.

Yet, In a March 18, 2026 article entitled, Prescribed Fire and Partnerships Help Restore Wildlife Habitat Throughout BC, published by The Forest Enhancement Society of BC, Randene Neill, Minister of Water, Land & Resource Stewardship, declared that, “Restoring degraded habitats and reducing wildfire risk are critical priorities for our government.” There are few habitats more degraded than the woodland caribou’s so it seems disingenuous to claim habitat restoration is a top priority while still allowing logging in that very habitat.

Before logging and other industrial incursions into their territory, wolves and caribou had balanced populations with no need for any human intervention. Instead of focusing on habitat restoration, the BC government has opted for an easier and cheaper path that scapegoats wolves as responsible for population declines and lets industries responsible for habitat destruction, off the hook. This approach by the BC government is purely economic and it is both the woodland caribou herds as well as the wolves that ultimately pay for ongoing government mismanagement.

If this were really about using science to guide decision making, the focus of the recovery program would have been to put an immediate end to all logging, and other industrial incursions, in the ranges that the caribou require for long-term survival. Blaming wolves for a problem created entirely by humans, and endlessly persecuting them, is cruel and definitely not rooted in sound science. It is likely a safe bet to conclude that the BC government’s approach to woodland caribou recovery is much less about science and more about optics appearing to be proactive while still capitulating to the logging, and other resource extraction industries.

Not only is this an inhumane, unethical, and immoral course of action based on economics and political expediency, it also contravenes the BC Wildlife Act - an act that all individual citizens must abide by. The BC government continually refers to its hunting and trapping regulations as being in line with the most current scientific research and data. Yet, this same government that drafts these regulations, exempts itself from its own laws and openly breaks them. Through aerial hunting and the use of Judas wolves (radio-collared wolves), hunters on the government payroll, use radio telemetry to follow the Judas wolf who leads them right to the pack where they are shot from above by hunters in helicopters. The goal is to shoot the entire pack except the Judas wolf so it can, unknowingly, lead them to other wolf packs sealing their fate as well. If regular citizens hunted in this manner, they would be immediately prosecuted.

The failure of the BC government to address the root problem of caribou decline is likely due to what’s known as agency capture, which is defined as undue influence on agency decision-making by special interest groups - in this instance, it is the resource extraction industry, particularly logging.

It’s even more pervasive in Alberta where the Ministry of Forestry and Parks has been entirely captured by the trophy-hunting industry. With Minister Todd Loewen in charge, he has taken wildlife conservation policy in a direction that openly favours trophy hunting and trapping. It’s unsurprising knowing that Loewen is the former owner of Red Willow Outfitters (now owned by his wife and son), a trophy-hunting business that caters to high-brow clients from around the world, giving them the opportunity to come to Alberta to kill apex predators and big-game ungulates for a hefty price tag. This is literally agency capture from the inside as he is little more than an operative for the trophy-hunting industry, yet this glaring conflict of interest is allowed to continue. Having Loewen in charge of the Ministry of Forestry and Parks makes about as much sense as having former BC Conservative leader, John Rustad, leading the fight against climate change.

During his tenure so far, Loewen has increased quotas for cougar harvests, permitted members of the public to hunt ‘problem’ grizzly bears (leaving it up to the hunter to determine what constitutes a problem bear), loosened trapping regulations on sensitive furbearer species, such as wolverines, and expanded the hunting areas in Alberta where cougars were once protected. While he often maintains that his policy decisions are science based, he rarely if ever, points to any scientific studies to back his claims.

The Alberta Wilderness Association wrote an open letter to the ministry requesting scientific evidence to support the policy changes regarding cougar quotas, grizzly bears, and fur-bearer trapping. The September 2025 letter titled, Unanswered question & letters on wildlife management, sought clarity and evidence-based reasoning for the changes, but have so far been stymied:

We previously wrote to inquire about the evidence supporting these changes and have not received a satisfactory response to these letters. Albertans have a right to transparency and accountability in government decisions. We demand that this right is respected. Any data, research, evidence, or consultations that informed these decisions must be released to the public.
We ask that wildlife management decisions are science-based and allow for sustainable populations levels consistent with achieving conservation goals. Where evidence fails to support these decisions, they must be rescinded.

That noise you are hearing is the sound of crickets coming from the Ministry of Forestry and Parks.

The limitations of science

“Science provides data and methods, but decisions ultimately depend on values and policy choices,” explains Dr. Bryja, after I asked for her take on the phrase ‘science based.’ “In wildlife management, presenting decisions as ‘science based’ can sometimes create the illusion that they are value neutral, when in reality, they always involve ethical judgments and societal priorities.”

I posed the same question to Dr. Gilbert Proulx, editor in chief of Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management, and he also expressed concern about its misuse stating, “Basically, these words are currently used by people who are not wildlife professionals or who have an agenda different from that of ‘conservation’.” Dr. Proulx and his team recently critiqued a paper by White et al. (2021) published in The Wildlife Society, that he believes misused the word “science” in their study regarding best management practices in the trapping industry. The critique entitled, Best Management Practices for Furbearer Trapping Derived from Poor and Misleading Science, uncovered a number of significant flaws in the methodology of the paper pointing out that:

In this evaluation of White et al. (2021), we demonstrate that 1) trap assessments did not properly use ISO standards and definitions of trap evaluation metrics, and failed to implement the most recent standards accepted by the U.S., and 2) researchers followed a research protocol that was incomplete, inadequate, and non-replicable. When sound policy depends on a solid base of evidence, then too science should be held to the highest standards of the open science movement that prioritizes transparency, reproducibility, and research integrity. We conclude that White et al.’s (2021) study should be redone with a comprehensive, standardized approach and new parameters to arrive at better best management practices for capturing furbearers.

The critique also revealed the authors’ lack of objectivity as most are associated either directly or indirectly with the trapping industry:

12 of the 14 authors on White et al. (2021) are employees of agencies that are members of the AFWA and therefore associated, either directly through the Furbearer Conservation Technical Working Group (at least 2 authors on White et al. 2021) or indirectly, with the promotion of trapping.

One can’t help but marvel over the irony of a ‘scientific’ paper focused on determining best management practices in the fur-trapping industry when the authors, themselves, failed to follow best practices in their methodologies and lacked objectivity leading to inaccurate results.

There is an argument to be made that some forms of predator management are based on science, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to humane or even effective wildlife conservation policy. Science does not take into account ethics or morals with its findings; it just seeks to provide answers based on the hypothesis or study question it began with. That isn’t to say that the study of science isn’t ethical, as it is supposed to follow a set of ethical guidelines to conduct studies. However, if a study was conducted to determine if poison is an effective predator-control measure, the answer is almost certainly, yes. But is that an ethical or moral way to manage predators and what are the unintended effects on non-targeted species? The same argument can be made for neck snares and yet they continue to be legal despite being ethically and morally reprehensible. What about shooting wolves from helicopters or running them over with snowmobiles? The former is allowed in BC since 2015 while the latter is legal in some US jurisdictions. Predator-killing contests are also legal in Canada and the US, where prizes are awarded to hunters and trappers for killing as many predators as possible. Sure, these methods can be proven effective on a scientific basis if the question is narrowly focused on effective methods of killing predators, but they are cruel, inhumane and certainly run afoul with the majority of people’s morals and ethics. And in most cases, they are ineffective as long-term management strategies.

Another limiting aspect of science is that it is often utilized selectively as Dr. Bryja notes:

. . . whose science is recognized and whose is ignored. For example, there is extensive research on animal cognition, individuality, and social complexity that never enters wildlife policy discussions. And that’s, exactly as you mention, damaging to conservation science itself.

The accidental truth bomb

Every once in a while, some unintentional honesty slips out from hunters and trappers. Antczak, the Montana trapper who was quoted earlier in the article, recently opined about the effectiveness of killing coyotes as a management strategy:

So you removed a bunch of coyotes off of your hunting lease last Fall and winter to help with the deer and turkey population. December you hung those traps figuring you made a difference in the predator population.
Whelp you created a void and coyotes love a void. Vacuum effect has happened and a new pair of coyotes settled in ready to raise a litter of fawn eaters.

Antczak is saying the quiet part out loud confirming that hunting and trapping coyotes is an ineffective way of managing these predators. Science backs his assessment as Robert Crabtree, a biologist renowned for his coyote research in Yellowstone National Park and Washington State, determined that coyote ‘management’ or ‘control,’ measures would have to cull north of 70 per cent of a population to make a difference, which he says rarely, if ever, happens. In a 2018 article by Ted Williams published in Yale Environment 360 entitled, Coyote Carnage: The Gruesome Truth about Wildlife Killing Contests, more often than not, coyote culling produces the exact opposite of what was intended. Paraphrasing Crabtree, Williams explains that:

. . . virtually all coyote “control” results in more, not fewer, coyotes. Crabtree reports that where coyotes are left alone, the average litter size at birth is five or six, but because of all the competition in summer only 1.5 to 2.5 pups survive. Where coyotes are killed by humans (never resulting in a population reduction approaching 70 percent), less competition results in significantly higher survival.
And Crabtree has determined that because coyote “control” reduces the number of adults able to feed the young, packs tend to abandon their normal diet of rabbits and rodents and turn to larger prey like livestock, antelope, and deer.

Conservationists’ thoughts about ‘science based’

The words ‘science based’ were once synonymous with ‘evidence based’ but today it seems more a cliché than a credible scientific phrase. I decided to ask artificial intelligence (something I was loathed to do) if the phrase ‘evidence based’ has lost its meaning and it came back with:

Yes, many commentators, researchers, and critics consider the phrase “science-based” (along with “science-led” or “backed by science”) to have become a cliché and, in some contexts, a marketing buzzword or a “weasel term.” While it often refers to genuine evidence, it is frequently used to provide an aura of authority to products, policies, or opinions that may have weak or contested scientific support.

The phrase has morphed into something of a paradox frequently being used to advance partisan policies rather than anything related to furthering scientific knowledge or understanding. Kim Odland, co-founder of Exposed Wildlife Conservancy, had this to say about the phrase ‘science-based’:

Generally, we think the term has become meaningless, as it is so often used for political/special interest purposes without any real “science” behind it. I rarely see any reference to an actual peer reviewed published scientific study to show the actual findings.
I would also say that hunting groups feel the same way about it as we do when referencing conservation groups. Both sides feel that the other, when referencing science, is biased. The difficulty is finding research that really digs into all sides of a situation and presents well rounded solutions that everyone can be on board with. Everything is very polarizing and no one is really talking to all groups authentically. My personal perspective is to “follow the money”, as my own biases lean to special interest groups like guide outfitters, hunting associations and trappers using “science based” as way to deflect their true intention of killing animals for profit.

If both sides of this debate believe the other is irresponsibly using the phrase “science based,” it’s hardly surprising that the average person has a difficult time figuring out what information is credible and what is propaganda. An important distinction between the two opposing views is that one seeks to preserve wild lives while the other wants to end them. Another, as Odland alluded to, is that one side financially benefits from killing wildlife, while the other derives no financial gain from protecting them.

John E. Marriott, the other co-founder of Exposed Wildlife Conservancy, pointed out another important distinction, writing:

I think there is a key difference in how the two sides look at it. The hunting side believes that everything they do is science based, whereas the conservation organizations like ours point to a need to use more science in wildlife management decisions. That’s a big and important distinction between the two. A great example would be the use of science in wolverine management in Alberta and British Columbia. There is zero science out there that indicates trapping or hunting wolverine is good for the species. Yet every trapper in British Columbia or Alberta and every organization on the hunting and trapping side will tell you that wolverine trapping is science based. By contrast, conservation organizations point out the need for using science in wildlife management decisions related to wolverines. This would involve a moratorium and a ban on trapping and hunting wolverine based on the science available.

Another example of this is the renewed call by hunters to re-open the grizzly bear hunt in BC and Alberta. As Marriott goes on to explain:

I think much of that stems from the ban on the grizzly hunt in both Alberta and British Columbia, but particularly in British Columbia, where there is conflicting science on the sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt. The hunt was never science based; there was never any evidence to support any biological benefits of a grizzly bear hunt to grizzly bears. There is no science to support that.

This writer’s take

Hate and willful ignorance are a potent combination that have fuelled the racist immigration agenda in the US with some of that malicious sentiment spilling over into Canada, albeit to a lesser extent. It is not so different when it comes to predator management in North America where lack of understanding fuels fear and hatred towards predators leading to their unrelenting persecution. There is no word for this type of wildlife bigotry, but perhaps ‘predatorism’ should become that word. To discriminate against various species of wildlife because they happen to be predators, makes about as much sense as hating groups of people because of their skin colour. Maligning predators for following their survival instincts should not become the reason they do not.

I believe science should inform wildlife conservation in North America and globally, but it has to remain objective, free from bias and political influence. The studies that trophy hunters and commercial trappers often reference to legitimize what they do, are more often than not, conducted by biologists who participate in either one or the other wildlife harvesting activities. Indeed, the men who drafted the seven tenets of NAM, Valerius Geist, Shane Mahoney and John Organ, were avid hunters as well as biologists. How can there be objectivity when the authors have a vested interest in the results? In order for wildlife conservation to be objective and unbiased, there must be a balanced input that prioritizes wildlife welfare over industry and special interest groups. For every participating biologist who hunts or traps, there must be another who does neither. It must take into consideration more than just the interests of hunters and trappers, it must include input from indigenous communities, non-hunters, animal rights advocates, regular citizens and other stakeholders. Only then can wildlife conservation policy be seen as objective and representative.

Guide/outfitters, trophy-hunting organizations and commercial fur trappers have maintained a disproportionate amount of influence in shaping government policy and that needs to change. They have, to a great extent, been able to convince governments that NAM is a science-based wildlife conservation model that should inform wildlife conservation policy in North America. By the very nature of what they do and profit from, these organizations are not conservation focused in the sense of maintaining balanced predator-prey ratios. Their mandate is to keep predator numbers artificially low in order for ungulate species to thrive which increases their bottom line. Apex predators such as wolves, cougars, and grizzly bears are also coveted by trophy hunters, but rather than own that, they frame it as predator management or control.

So many trophy hunters and trappers refer to themselves as conservationists who care deeply for the wildlife they kill. It’s difficult to square that contradiction for the simple reason that it makes no sense. They also toss around the phrase “science based” to justify what they do as if the phrase itself is proof.

It feels fitting to conclude with a poignant example of an American self-proclaimed conservationist who is both a prolific trophy hunter and commercial fur trapper. Tom Miranda travels the world documenting his big-game animal hunts. With every dead animal he proudly poses with, he can’t help but caption it with how killing these animals makes him an altruist. Whether it’s feeding locals, saving crops, or ‘science-based’ conservation, there is always justification for his love of killing wildlife. One of his most recent Facebook posts shows him posing with a dead muskox he killed in Nunavut, Canada with the accompanying caption reading:

When an international hunter speaks of conservation, we are referring to buying licenses and tags, supporting the local economy, feeding local peoples, supporting local wildlife management, understanding lifestyles, making friends, growing our own knowledge base, becoming more familiar with this small planet we live in. If all you wanna talk about is the meat. . and did you eat it? Well the meat from this beast cost more than $100 a pound. And none of it went to waste. Muskox is actually excellent table fare and a staple of the Inuit culture. Don’t be a naive spectator of life and look at this photo as another hunter with a dead animal. Understand the full impact of true conservation. . the grass roots of wildlife management, wise use of natural resources and man taking an active role in the proliferation of wild animal species worldwide. ‘Cause that’s what it is.

Translation: “ I love to kill all manner of wildlife and it makes me feel good to give the meat away.” Somehow Miranda has figured out a way to proliferate “wild animal species” by killing them. All joking aside, this man has trapped and killed thousands of animals worldwide and claims to be a conservationist who is guided by wildlife science. However, his ego reveals his true nature as evidenced from another recent post showing off his trophy room. The photos speak for themselves.

Tom Miranda's idea of wildlife conservation

Hmm, well he does conserve their likeness forever, so maybe that’s what he means by conservation. I feel a mixture of pity and disdain for this man who sees his own worth in terms of his dominance over big-game animals. It seems the only way for him to feel alive is to kill. It’s because of him and countless other trophy hunters that I believe the trophy-hunting industry as a whole, should have no voice in wildlife conservation discussions. The science of psychology delves into the mindset, or perhaps more fittingly, the pathology of trophy hunters and points to the dark triad, a combination of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, as a possible reason for their desire to kill wildlife (see the links at the end of the article). Whatever the reason that motivates them to kill big-game animals and apex predators, it’s certainly not driven by science and has nothing to do with wildlife conservation.

What seems clear to me is that trophy hunters, commercial fur trappers and ranchers almost always advocate for lethal means of management, whereas non-profit conservation organizations support non-lethal strategies first and only lethal means as the very last resort after having exhausted all other management methods. The other stark difference is that true conservationists strive to protect all wildlife species and do not discriminate based on which species is best for the bottom line. Surprisingly, there is one aspect of NAM I do agree with and that is “Science is the proper tool to discharge policy,” if, and only if, it remains impartial, objective and non-selective while meeting all other aspects of the scientific method.

Wildlife species do not exist as isolated individuals; they live in complex social groups, teach their young, and pass down survival strategies accumulated over generations. The stability of these social groups and populations is directly tied to the balance of entire ecosystems.
Therefore, hunting and trapping do not merely “sustainably” reduce population numbers — they unravel the very fabric of animal societies.

Dr. Bryja 2025.