Study: ‘Science-based’ Hunting Practices are Hardly Scientific

by Jared Kukura | Aug 17, 2020 | 0 comments

Trophy hunting advocates are once again in the media glamorizing hunting practices in North America and complaining about misinformation spouted by opponents. It is not surprising trophy hunting advocates laud North American hunting practices, often depicting them as science-based management tools necessary for wildlife conservation.

But, ironically, there is little evidence to support the claim that hunting in North America is science-based. In fact, a study found that most hunting management plans in the United States and Canada failed to meet meaningful scientific criterion.

The researchers of the study argue that many hunting proponents fail to properly define ‘science-based’ and that there has not been an assessment to determine if the claims of science-based hunting are supported. They note this 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.”

As well, the researchers point to an unfortunate side-effect of hunting, noting that adult mortality from human hunters exceeds that from all other predators combined. And yet the hunting industry likes to tell the public that the way humans hunt wildlife is natural.
In determining the validity of science-based hunting, the researchers looked at a set of factors in 667 management plans including measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. Overall, 60% of the plans contained fewer than half of the pre-determined scientific factors.

Detailed analysis of the scientific factors showed that were significant failures in management plans concerning measurable objectives and independent review.

• Measurable objectives were found only in 26% of management plans.
• Evidence for hunting rates were present in 79% of management plans but only 52% contained quantitative information about wildlife populations.
• 89% of management plans had some publicly available information, 76% explained how hunting rates were estimated, 55% described how population parameters were estimated. But only 11% of plans described how hunting quotas were set.
• Only 9% of management plans reported any form of review with 6% involving external review.

Interestingly, the study “found positive associations between the number of criteria present in a management system and the system pertaining to big game species.” This finding supports the criticism that many of North America’s management plans tend to focus on the species prized by hunters. The information also contradicts the claim that hunting is responsible for protecting all species, even the ones that are not hunted.

The researchers note that science alone should not drive conservation policies, and that science may not always be readily available due to unavoidable constraints. However, they argue that science “ought to be present when it is expected by the public or claimed by agencies.”

And this is one of the failings of the trophy hunting propaganda. There is a strong sentiment that trophy hunting’s opponents lack scientific evidence to back up their claims and, thus, spout pseudo-science in to influence public opinion. In contrast, trophy hunting advocates hold tight to the idea that they are pragmatists relying on the highest quality scientific evidence.

But the reality is that it is painfully obvious trophy hunting advocates are guilty of doing exactly what they accuse opponents of doing, relying on pseudo-science to influence public opinion. Feel free to add this to the extensive list of examples of hypocrisy in the hunting industry.

Victor the polar bear was an amazing 22 years old when he died in late August, 2020 after living a happy life and fathering 13 cubs. But Victor’s contribution to the vulnerable state of the polar bear population is far from enough. Scientists are now saying that by the end of this century, in less than 80 years, the polar bear could completely vanish from the earth due to climate change. But at the same time when one of the world’s most iconic species is on the brink of extinction, Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are fast tracking rollback after rollback of important environmental protections in order to benefit the fossil fuel and construction industries.

It’s hard to even keep up, with a new rollback announced almost daily. By the time of
Victor’s death, Trump had successfully taken away 68 regulations, and still has his sights on eliminating 32 more. With these rollbacks, he is increasing the amount of permissible emissions from power plants and vehicles at a time when we know emissions need to shrink. He is also opening up vital wildlife habitat, some of which is the very habitat polar bears rely on, for oil and gas drilling. Do not let Victor’s life have been in vain!
Sign the petition to tell Trump and the EPA to halt their relentless attack on legislation that was put in place to curb climate change!
Thank you

Lauren W.
The Care2 Petitions Team

P.S. Victor the polar bear had 13 children, but this generation of polar bears might be the earth’s last. Sign the petition to save the polar bears!