There exists a divide between the “educated” wildlife biologist and the hunter, fisherman, trapper and outdoors person. It is unfortunate that this divide prohibits better wildlife management. Let’s call the divide what it is. On the one side you have the college educated intellectual who can prove most anything he or she wants to using data and computer modeling. Generally speaking, these intellectuals look down their noses at the average “Joe” who spends far more time in the field than the biologist. And of course on the other side of the divide, is the outdoor sportsmen, some of whom have spent countless hours and years witnessing first hand what’s going on in the woods. One would think putting the two together would be like dipping your chocolate into the jar of peanut butter. Such is not the case.
Today, Thomas Sowell writes:
Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.
Sowell’s article of course is about the impact that intellectuals have had on the world’s societies – good and bad. Ideas are great and God only knows where we would be without those who can produce ideas. But as Sowell points out, only time can tell whether those ideas are for the better or the worse.
Wildlife management these days is born in the field of academia, where once it seemed more important to rely on the experience of the man in the field. With an ever shifting to the left within our educational industry, wildlife biologists are coming fresh out of school indoctrinated with a host of ideas, many of them idealistic and not grounded in sound scientific facts or matching what exists on the ground. With the passing of each successive generation it seems we are witness to snotty-nosed graduates bucking up against seasoned outdoorsmen. Instead of the forces working against each other, they should be working together as both sides can contribute valuable resources.
There is an organization in Idaho that has a website called Save Our Elk. Their mission is to educate and draw attention to the facts of what is really taking place in the field. Their goal is simple – saving elk. As part of their strategy, they send out emails containing news, stories, studies and just about anything to inform and educate. I am privileged to receive those emails.
It seems that one of the leaders of Save Our Elk, Tony Mayer, received an email from a professor at the University of Idaho, who works for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, requesting that Mr. Mayer remove her from his “repulsive email campaign”. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, sometimes the truth is hard to take.
What is most disturbing and yet telltale about this action/reaction is that an academic of fish and wildlife, would be so close-minded to other thoughts and information being collected from those who spend so much time in the outdoors. Bear in mind that this person is responsible for some of the education and teaching that our young wildlife biologists are getting. Dare we question why these young biologists choose not listen to the crusty old veterans of the woods?
One gentleman responded to the professor’s lack of interest in “repulsive” facts this way:
Even if you don’t like, or disagree with, the message in the article, I would think that a mature, curious scientist, who had an interest in the “interface” between science and policy – particularly in the very area of her expertise -, would actively seek communication with an existing, robust, substantial community of interest, such as Idaho hunters. The opposite appears to be the case.
Steve Alder, President of Idaho for Wildlife, reminded his members that it took two years from the time that a seasoned outdoorsmen began informing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that the severe winter of 1996-1997 had destroyed the state’s elk herd in the Lolo Region, until they were willing to admit he was right.
This same man informed the IDFG in the Spring of 1997 that they had lost over 50%,(Approximately 10,000) of the elk in the Lolo zone alone due to the horrible winter of 96-97 and he was quickly enlighten how wrong he was and that the elk had suffered an average winter kill and a warm thaw had saved the elk that year. This man was led to the computer where he was shown in the monitor that the elk were doing just fine.
The same has held true in reports of elk and mule deer being destroyed by wolves and other large predators. These people are valuable eyes on the front of where it all happens. This divide between idealistic computer modeling and true to life events in the field needs to disappear before more damage is done.
Alder also quotes one of those experienced outdoor sportsmen and what he had to say about wildlife management.
The late legendary Montana and Idaho Cowboy, outfitter, Outdoor writer and gun expert Elmer Keith, (1899-1984), in his biography, “Hell I was there”, (1979), wrote, “Here in this Country, (Salmon, ID region), Our biologists labor under the delusion that the predators kill off the old, crippled and sick game which could never be farther from the truth.” “These ecologist have never seen a mule deer out in the crusted deep snow up to its belly as it floundered along and a pack of coyotes or wolves crowding along beside eating the poor animal alive.” “First the guts hurtle out and they eat them up and pull them out.” “Finally the poor thing goes down and they literally eat him alive with no attempt to kill him clean first.” “With proper management, game can be brought back but it requires proper management by men who have lived with the game and understand it and not by some biologist with a four-year degree from college alone.”
Idaho is not alone when it comes to problems with wildlife management. Maine is currently in the midst of a major whitetail deer problem. Hunters have been complaining for several years that portions of the state didn’t have any deer. I think the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) agreed that in the northern, eastern and portions of western Maine, the deer herd was struggling. What I think they didn’t realize is just how bad it was. But those in the field knew. Is this a case of this same divide causing the demise of Maine’s deer herd because the “intellectuals” didn’t want to listen?
I remember that it was right after the deer hunting season in Maine, December 2006, when I first was notified by some disgruntled hunters in Northern Maine. They wanted to start a petition drive asking MDIFW to close down the deer hunting season until the herd had been rebuilt. Whether that would work is really immaterial. This issue is that the hunters already knew there was a problem and MDIFW hadn’t admitted it.
As a matter of fact, MDIFW wants to lay the biggest part of the blame for the decimation of the herd on the two back-to-back severe winters – the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As you can see, the complaints I began receiving from unhappy hunters was prior to those two severe winters.
We can point fingers and spread the blame everywhere but it won’t do much good until we can shrink the divide. I have written about this before. The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen and everyone who ventures afield have to be the eyes and ears of the fish and game. Fish and game has to be accepting of this.
We can’t have academia refusing to consider facts because they find them “repulsive”, or probably more accurately defined as in disagreement with one’s ideals.
Intellectuals float ideas, some good and some bad. Those in the field come armed with what they see. Meshing these two together could be quite productive.
Tom Remington
