Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Has TWS become anti-hunting?

TWS, The Wildlife Society,is the professional organization for wildlife biologists, but their newest "professional" publication looks more like something from the Audubon Society, at best.

I am a game biologist. I am not ashamed of being a game biologist. It is true that my degrees don't say "game biologist." Instead they say the degree is in "Wildlife Biology" or "Wildlife Science" or Wildlife Ecology." My job title isn�t "Game Biologist" either, but that doesn't disguise or obscure the fact that I am a game biologist. I am not ashamed of this.

I am the wildlife biologist for my federal agency in Alaska, and my primary job duties fall under the realm of game biology. I examine the science as reported in the refereed literature such as that in the Canadian Journal of Zoology or the Journal of Wildlife Management , and the unrefereed science-based assertions made in the gray literature such as the Pittman-Robertson reports, and the statements from rural Alaskans who have lived among the wildlife species for an indeterminate, but very long, time. From that I try to provide regulations for the hunting of wildlife that are science based, but yet are artful enough to meet the needs of people who depend upon hunting for their subsistence.

I expect, and usually receive, verbal bashing from such organizations as the Defenders of Wildlife, or the Friends of Animals, or the Humane Society, who are opposed to any and all hunting. This bothers me not at all.

These people get their views of ecological reality from Walt Disney or the TV's Animal Planet, and then they parrot what they've heard: that all hunting is evil. They must suppose that rural Alaskans can wander down to the local Winn-Dixie, Kroger's, Albertson's, or other grocery store and buy their groceries. That the equivalent such store might be several hundred miles away across roadless terrain never enters their mind. It doesn't matter to me that they denounce hunting and my efforts to preserve it. All Americans have the right to state their views, just as all Americans have the right to ignore such ignorant drivel. If rural Alaskans do not have the ability to hunt and to kill, they will not have the ability to eat. Hunt. Kill. Eat. It is simple, and it my job and my joy to enable the continuance of such a simple lifeway of cause and effect.

At times, it I also recommend that certain game populations be managed for trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is one form of wildlife management that is firmly rooted in solid science and that benefits the hunted population. Simply: for the males to produce trophies, they must have excellent nutrition, so the population must be kept below K so that each individual is at the highest possible nutritional plane. This also has the added benefit of ensuring that the maximum percentage of that population survives extreme weather events that are only too common in Alaska.

When I recommend trophy hunting, I can be assured that I will be bashed by the usual anti-hunting crowd, but also some of the subsistence hunters. The anti-hunters will bad mouth me merely because I recognize that hunting is an integral part of the activities of a portion of American society today, and some subsistence hunters will condemn me because they are unable to understand that not all hunters simply take the first animal they find. I listen to them, and in turn they listen to me as I try and explain the science behind the management actions I propose. It doesn�t bother me (too much) that few of them will understand my way of thinking.

What does bother me is when my own professional society, one that is supposedly based upon the scientific principles of wildlife management, starts to incorporate anti-hunting attitudes into the things that it publishes in its official publications. Imagine the complete shock I experienced when I perused the Wildlife Professionalfor the Fall of 2007. In an article, Cristina Mittlemeier makes the statement that an amateur's photograph is a trophy. But wait; there's more: "wildlife photography allows one to become the fable African hunter of days gone by. The trophy will be just as cherished, except for the happy fact that no creature will have to die to obtain it.(emphasis mine)� Any game biologist, any hunter, will immediately see the anti-hunting bias that such words display. I quickly checked the cover to make sure that I hadn't accidentally ended up with a magazine from one of the Disneyite groups. Alas, it wasn't so. I was reading something produced by The Wildlife Society. If the wording had merely been �no animal dies in getting the trophy,� I might only have wondered what the relevance was, but the wording reeked of a hatred of hunting, especially trophy hunting.

I can only conclude that perhaps the professional society that once represented the scientifically based principles of wildlife management has stepped out into Disneyworld, and perhaps I am no longer suitable as a member.

Great text for a letter to the editor of the journal.

Were I you, I would also call or email the author of the piece and inquire as to her intent. It may have been simply sloppy writing; it may have been youthful exuberance; it may have been simple ignorance; or it may have been malicious.

There is no way to know without asking, and you will know which it is within seconds. It may well be that a discussion along the lines you have eloquently stated will prevent such an error in the future, and be a significant learning experience.

At a minimum, she will understand that accountability exists in the universe, at least for what she writes in that particular journal.

DN

I second muledeer on all counts, but especially the included quote. Very nice.

Thank you for the doing the job you do.....and the views you hold.

JCM

It should come as no surprise that TWS and other traditional "scientific" publications have become invaded by anti-hunters. After many years of universities brain washing their graduates, I can easily see that "biologists" are produced that are avowed anti's. This puts them in position of authority and policy making that they can impact hunting by their "data" and decision making.
The anti's and greenies have invaded the National Forest Service and other major player agencies. Case in point, a guide I have used for years was approached by the area Forest Service manager and asked him point blank - do you really have to use this National Forest to bring in hunters to kill animals? He was speechless and dumbfounded!
Face it folks, we are slowly being surrounded. I feel sorry for the next generation of hunters.

Sounds like something that would be published in Conservation Biology. Really, TWS is a pretty solid organization. Google Pleistocene Rewilding for a look at something truly ugly.

It most certainly does sound more like ConsBiol, but that is part of what worries me. TWS was once a solid, scientifically based society and the universities produced some solid biologists with a firm understanding of conservation and the degree to which it is so intertwined with hunting opportunities for "average" Americans.

As a lot of hunting folk have complained over the past few decades, a lot of the management biologists are not hunters any more. Has the source of so much science that game biologists relied on become so wishy-washy about hunting and the valuable conservation aspects of hunting that such blatant anti-hunting wording slips into their Professional Wildlifer publication without the editor and reviewers even seeing it?

If this stuff is accepted as the norm, how much longer do you figure you can trust the articles that appear in the Journal of Wildlife Management?

Rupert,

You and I agree on a lot. More and more "biologists" that I run into lately are really not much more than schills for some green orginization or another. Understand here that I hold a Masters Degree in Biology. It pretty nuch sickens me to see the low levels to which "science" is falling. It is not just the conservation biology bias of the natural sciences, but other science fields as well. Just look at the Global Warming mess. It is my fear that the current crop of "scientists" stand on the verge of destroying the credibility and usefulness of any science discipline.

Steve

It's the new religion for the nutjobs.

I find the Wildlife Professional to be a weird publication. It's a mixture of opinion and reviews of a articles and reports. With respect to membership in TWS, I used to post quite a bit on their board before it was discontinued due to the rancor injected by one or two confrontational individuals, one of whom was definitely an anti-hunter. It was clear that many of the younger posters were not hunters nor did they fish, but rather viewed themselves as advocates for the animals themselves. I was taken to task several times for allegedly non-PC remarks--mostly related to my experiences with wildlife conservation efforts on a couple of the Native American reservations.

I have worked for quite a few years as a citizen member of a jaguar conservation team here in the southwest, and virtually all of the students that have been regular attendees at meetings are clearly anti-hunters. This bias endures despite the fact that the only hard evidence of jaguars moving back and forth into the U.S. comes from encounters with lion hunters who photograph jaguars that they encounter, and trip cameras that are bought and serviced by hunters.

I am acquainted with many of the faculty members at several of the top wildlife schools in the west, and know a fair number at schools in the east and southeast, and am aware of only a handful that don't hunt. I can think of only two that could be classified as anti-hunters and they aren't evangelical about it. However, I don't know many of the younger profs and have no idea what their views may be. I suspect that many of the under 40 crowd do not hunt and probably view hunters as anachronistic dinosaurs that will soon go extinct.

Science is a method of discovering facts concerning the natural world. Science has nothing to do with values, politics, or religion; however, the facts discovered by science are used to make/support political decisions or positions.

The ones you have to watch out for are:

1) Biologists/Scientists that are biased by their political beliefs

2) Politicians that distort scientific findings for political gain.

Some of these same thoughts that are being stated here can also be true for college trained foresters. Many greenies gravitated to that field in recent years.

All these true sciences have been adversely effected by the college professors that have injected their personal philosophies into the curriculum.

You reference politicians who distort science for political gain. Politicians are a pretty seedy bunch, but there are times when "political changes" in the science are completely justified, necessary, and needed. When that happens whoops of dismay, doom and gloom resound through the media. All the same old green talking heads get their space and everybody thinks some poor sicentist and his work just got dissed. The problem is that many (by no means all) of those scientists work was/is a sham which was influenced by the "scientists" view of what should have happened before the work was done. This is the conservation biology bias referenced by Rupert Bear in his original post. These guys are the original "green jesuits", in that the end they seek is so noble that any means necessary are therefore justified. The media has largely bought into this sort of tripe, so the general public continues to get bad information upon which they then use to make bad decisions.

Steve

Politics should never be allowed to impact the results of ongoing research; however, the results of sound research can simply be ignored when they do not fit in with the value system of a political group.

Ongoing research should be left alone, on that I agree. However there is too little real peer review going on out there in the world to sort good from bad research. Believe me when I say that all biological research is not necessarily good, and when the bad stuff gets published, the smell can last a long time. That may be due to the source of the funding for the work, those sources may be biased most of all. It may be that we do not know enough to ask the right questions. There is also the problem of controlling variables in outdoor research as well. Seems that too much is being asked of science and too many scientists are trying to deliver what cannot be delivered. There is a problem with the asked questions that is evident when multiple sides in a dispute all have science which says different things. It is the same issue, the questions asked are different. Too often the decision on which is best too often turns out to be political through legislation or bureaucratic decree, or legal when some judge bangs a gavel in a lawsuit. At least we can vote (or not) for a politician.

Steve

I think we are pretty much in agreement with each other. I cringe when junk gets published in the big journals. This is the reason I posted the Pleistocene Rewilding link earlier in the thread.

Yes, ecology is a very complex science and real experimental type research may not be feasible in many cases; however, that does not mean that real and usefull information can be gained thru observational or correlation type studies.

I hunt and kill because I am a natural predator. My status is moral in the eyes of God and nature. I owe apology to no one. EOM

To that I say man made global warming. Lots of scientific facts discovered there.

See wolves in Yellowstone.

exactly