03-11-2014, 06:33 PM
I apologize in advance for the length of this post Its a slow work day due to the snow.......
Following this thread reminds me of a paper I read recently. The topic is about how the public refused to believe Colorado's mule deer counts provided by their Department of Wildlife. So the biologists took along a rep from the hunting groups with them to certify the counts. The study then found that the public still wouldn't believe the counts even with their own "guy" certifying them accurate. Here is the abstract;
"How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado
· Conflict resolution between stakeholder groups and management agencies is a problem in wildlife management. They evaluated their success in resolving a conflict between sportsmen and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer in Colorado and demanded validation surveys to verify numbers of deer.
· Some sportsmen believed mule deer in Colorado were in serious peril and alleged the CDOW was misleading the public and hunters on the status of deer by basing management actions on inflated estimates of deer population size (Freddy 2001).
· Sportsmen focused their concerns on the credibility of CDOW’s aerial-survey sampling methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer.
· Aerial counting of deer using random sample units provided estimates of deer population size that were suitably robust for herd management decisions, but costs prevented systems from being applied in most deer management units in western Colorado.
· Accordingly, intensive sample-based estimates of population size were limited to a few selected core populations representing ecologically distinct areas (White and Bartmann 1998, Bowden et al. 200). Trends of most deer populations were estimated yearly harvest and post-hunting-season herd sex and age ratios (Bartholow 2000, While and lubow 2002).
· Concerns of sportsmen regarding the validity of deer population estimates more accurately reflected issues with CDOW computer models than with aerial-survey estimates because only about 10% of Colorado’s deer populations were estimated using the aerial sampling system. Nevertheless, sportsmen focused on aerial sampling, and their inherent distrust of this system led them to request that CDOW use the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) mule deer sightability survey (Ackerman 1988, Unsworth et al. 1994) as an alternative estimation method on the premise that the Idaho system would provide more acceptable estimates of deer numbers.
Resolving differences in perceived deer population status is difficult from both social and scientific outlooks. Viewpoints of sportsmen may reflect entrenched values that remain unchanged even when confronted by reliable scientific information to the contrary (Patterson et al. 2000).
· In 2000 and 2001, sportsmen and CDOW embarked on a conflict resolution process that implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population. This process challenged the credibility of agencies, professional wildlife managers, and sportsmen; exposed contemporary issues of public acceptance of science in natural resource management; and revealed the importance of critically assessing the risks of potential outcomes as part of decision-making processes used by wildlife agencies.
Results:
· Vested stakeholders presented the best evidence supporting their respective viewpoints. The DW then facilitated compromises that were reasonably acceptable to vested stakeholders.
· Sportsmen and CDOW provided written tabulaton of estimated size for 32 populations of mule deer in Colorado west of the Continental Divide. This exercise revealed that CDOW estimates generally were 4 times greater than sportsmen estimates on statewide and individual herd scales. Sportsmen estimates were based on personal observations and casual surveys from horseback by outfitters and hunters while CDOW estimates primarily were based on existing computer-model simulations.
· CDOW personnel would conduct the survey with sportsmen consultants onboard helicopters to provide oversight. Survey data would be provided to vested stakeholders for independent analyses. IDFG personnel would use IDFG software to calculate sightability-corrected estimates of population size.
Estimates of mule deer population size derived from aerial-survey systems indicated that sportsmen estimates of deer numbers represented equal or less than 26% of the likely true population size. Aerial-survey estimates supported population estimates derived from computer models, strengthening the concept that models based on reliable data could adequately guide decisions for managing deer.
· As understood a priori, the CDOW survey system provided lower estimates of deer number (6,782) than counts adjusted with the IDFG sightability model (11,052).The IDFG model increased estimates by 1.63 times compared to a correction factor of 1.51 times developed for aerial counts of mule deer in Colorado.
· Sportsmen did not accept the estimates of deer population size, even though the conflict resolution process implemented a survey following most of the constraints desired by sportsmen. They propose that sportmen failed to accept the results because of their inherent mistrust of CDOW and IDFG experts. When sportsmen failed to support the results of the validation, their credibility with other vested stakeholders, the Colorado Wildlife Commission, and outside interests plummeted while credibility of CDOW managers rose. This mistrust likely was founded in their belief that only they were truly concered about the plight of mule deer wheras CDOW was concered only about maintaining agency image and status-quo deer management programs. (This kind of sounds like hunters in Utah).
· The credibility on social trust than academic discipline, and that trust is garnered when scientists presenting the data appear sympathetic to concerns of stakeholders (Weeks and Packard 1997).For the most part, this conflict process was an adversarial debate over techniques of animal enumeration between sportsmen and agency experts and not an empathetic discourse about the status of deer. Information presented by agency experts explaining the details of systems used to estimate deer population size, limitations of those systems, and data resulting from the validating survey were probably not viewed from the validating survey were probably not viewed as objective scientific facts by sportsmen but rather seen as advocacy statements designed to protect the credibility of the agency (Rykiel 2001). Fundamentally, if the messenger is not trusted, the message will not be heard by the resource user (Weeks and Packard 1997).
The survey was conducted in an area chosen by sportsmen where they were confident about their personal perceptions on numbers of deer present.
· When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts. This quandary was further demonstrated by their unwillingness to accept the opinions of their consultants, who did no reject the results of the survey.
· Citizens do not passively accept knowledge presented by scientific experts, and they tend to use of reconstruct science knowledge to fit their value system (Zimm 1991) within their social context, independently of the underlying science itself (Weber and Word 2001). Because of these personalized constraints, citizens can lose faith in science when scientific findings are perceived as being abused by advocacy groups (Pye-Smith 199). If sportsmen were indeed unwilling to alter their perceptions because they viewed agency scientists as biased advocates, then no amount of scientific facts demonstrating true numbers of deer likely would have altered sportsmen perceptions. If those facts supported the sportsmen viewpoint, then science would be good; otherwise, science would be inconclusive (Peyton 2000) and not worthy of acceptance.
Both CDOW and IDFG had major financial and personnel investments over many years in developing, evaluating, and implementing aerial-survey sampling protocols to estimate numbers of mule deer that had passed limus tests of scientific peer review. These systems were expected to perform correctly on a “one-time-chance” basis around which the credibility of both agencies pivoted. For any given survye, both systems could statistically fail, in that calculated confidence intervals would not include the true population size in10% of such surveys. This error rate could occur when all underlying assumptions of the techniques were satisfied, with the probability of error increasing if assumptions were violated.
· What was important to sportsmen was not process or better scientific measurements of deer numbers but rather imposing their values and goals and changing how mule deer should be managed.
· They agree with Diefenbach and Palmer (1997) that aggressively marketing the science of deer management to the general public, and especially hunters, may be a successful agency strategy to build public trust in the value of applying scientific methods to public resource management issues (Weeks and Packard 1997) and reduce the impacts of critics pushing personalized agendas. "
[#8000FF]The key point IMO is here.
[/#8000FF]
When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, [#BF0000]accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts. [/#BF0000]
[#8000FF]It seems that there are a lot of local experts around that are certain that the DWR is lazy or incompetent and they know far more than the so called pros.
Sorry for the ultra long post. [/#8000FF]
[signature]
Following this thread reminds me of a paper I read recently. The topic is about how the public refused to believe Colorado's mule deer counts provided by their Department of Wildlife. So the biologists took along a rep from the hunting groups with them to certify the counts. The study then found that the public still wouldn't believe the counts even with their own "guy" certifying them accurate. Here is the abstract;
"How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado
· Conflict resolution between stakeholder groups and management agencies is a problem in wildlife management. They evaluated their success in resolving a conflict between sportsmen and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer in Colorado and demanded validation surveys to verify numbers of deer.
· Some sportsmen believed mule deer in Colorado were in serious peril and alleged the CDOW was misleading the public and hunters on the status of deer by basing management actions on inflated estimates of deer population size (Freddy 2001).
· Sportsmen focused their concerns on the credibility of CDOW’s aerial-survey sampling methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer.
· Aerial counting of deer using random sample units provided estimates of deer population size that were suitably robust for herd management decisions, but costs prevented systems from being applied in most deer management units in western Colorado.
· Accordingly, intensive sample-based estimates of population size were limited to a few selected core populations representing ecologically distinct areas (White and Bartmann 1998, Bowden et al. 200). Trends of most deer populations were estimated yearly harvest and post-hunting-season herd sex and age ratios (Bartholow 2000, While and lubow 2002).
· Concerns of sportsmen regarding the validity of deer population estimates more accurately reflected issues with CDOW computer models than with aerial-survey estimates because only about 10% of Colorado’s deer populations were estimated using the aerial sampling system. Nevertheless, sportsmen focused on aerial sampling, and their inherent distrust of this system led them to request that CDOW use the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) mule deer sightability survey (Ackerman 1988, Unsworth et al. 1994) as an alternative estimation method on the premise that the Idaho system would provide more acceptable estimates of deer numbers.
Resolving differences in perceived deer population status is difficult from both social and scientific outlooks. Viewpoints of sportsmen may reflect entrenched values that remain unchanged even when confronted by reliable scientific information to the contrary (Patterson et al. 2000).
· In 2000 and 2001, sportsmen and CDOW embarked on a conflict resolution process that implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population. This process challenged the credibility of agencies, professional wildlife managers, and sportsmen; exposed contemporary issues of public acceptance of science in natural resource management; and revealed the importance of critically assessing the risks of potential outcomes as part of decision-making processes used by wildlife agencies.
Results:
· Vested stakeholders presented the best evidence supporting their respective viewpoints. The DW then facilitated compromises that were reasonably acceptable to vested stakeholders.
· Sportsmen and CDOW provided written tabulaton of estimated size for 32 populations of mule deer in Colorado west of the Continental Divide. This exercise revealed that CDOW estimates generally were 4 times greater than sportsmen estimates on statewide and individual herd scales. Sportsmen estimates were based on personal observations and casual surveys from horseback by outfitters and hunters while CDOW estimates primarily were based on existing computer-model simulations.
· CDOW personnel would conduct the survey with sportsmen consultants onboard helicopters to provide oversight. Survey data would be provided to vested stakeholders for independent analyses. IDFG personnel would use IDFG software to calculate sightability-corrected estimates of population size.
Estimates of mule deer population size derived from aerial-survey systems indicated that sportsmen estimates of deer numbers represented equal or less than 26% of the likely true population size. Aerial-survey estimates supported population estimates derived from computer models, strengthening the concept that models based on reliable data could adequately guide decisions for managing deer.
· As understood a priori, the CDOW survey system provided lower estimates of deer number (6,782) than counts adjusted with the IDFG sightability model (11,052).The IDFG model increased estimates by 1.63 times compared to a correction factor of 1.51 times developed for aerial counts of mule deer in Colorado.
· Sportsmen did not accept the estimates of deer population size, even though the conflict resolution process implemented a survey following most of the constraints desired by sportsmen. They propose that sportmen failed to accept the results because of their inherent mistrust of CDOW and IDFG experts. When sportsmen failed to support the results of the validation, their credibility with other vested stakeholders, the Colorado Wildlife Commission, and outside interests plummeted while credibility of CDOW managers rose. This mistrust likely was founded in their belief that only they were truly concered about the plight of mule deer wheras CDOW was concered only about maintaining agency image and status-quo deer management programs. (This kind of sounds like hunters in Utah).
· The credibility on social trust than academic discipline, and that trust is garnered when scientists presenting the data appear sympathetic to concerns of stakeholders (Weeks and Packard 1997).For the most part, this conflict process was an adversarial debate over techniques of animal enumeration between sportsmen and agency experts and not an empathetic discourse about the status of deer. Information presented by agency experts explaining the details of systems used to estimate deer population size, limitations of those systems, and data resulting from the validating survey were probably not viewed from the validating survey were probably not viewed as objective scientific facts by sportsmen but rather seen as advocacy statements designed to protect the credibility of the agency (Rykiel 2001). Fundamentally, if the messenger is not trusted, the message will not be heard by the resource user (Weeks and Packard 1997).
The survey was conducted in an area chosen by sportsmen where they were confident about their personal perceptions on numbers of deer present.
· When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts. This quandary was further demonstrated by their unwillingness to accept the opinions of their consultants, who did no reject the results of the survey.
· Citizens do not passively accept knowledge presented by scientific experts, and they tend to use of reconstruct science knowledge to fit their value system (Zimm 1991) within their social context, independently of the underlying science itself (Weber and Word 2001). Because of these personalized constraints, citizens can lose faith in science when scientific findings are perceived as being abused by advocacy groups (Pye-Smith 199). If sportsmen were indeed unwilling to alter their perceptions because they viewed agency scientists as biased advocates, then no amount of scientific facts demonstrating true numbers of deer likely would have altered sportsmen perceptions. If those facts supported the sportsmen viewpoint, then science would be good; otherwise, science would be inconclusive (Peyton 2000) and not worthy of acceptance.
Both CDOW and IDFG had major financial and personnel investments over many years in developing, evaluating, and implementing aerial-survey sampling protocols to estimate numbers of mule deer that had passed limus tests of scientific peer review. These systems were expected to perform correctly on a “one-time-chance” basis around which the credibility of both agencies pivoted. For any given survye, both systems could statistically fail, in that calculated confidence intervals would not include the true population size in10% of such surveys. This error rate could occur when all underlying assumptions of the techniques were satisfied, with the probability of error increasing if assumptions were violated.
· What was important to sportsmen was not process or better scientific measurements of deer numbers but rather imposing their values and goals and changing how mule deer should be managed.
· They agree with Diefenbach and Palmer (1997) that aggressively marketing the science of deer management to the general public, and especially hunters, may be a successful agency strategy to build public trust in the value of applying scientific methods to public resource management issues (Weeks and Packard 1997) and reduce the impacts of critics pushing personalized agendas. "
[#8000FF]The key point IMO is here.
[/#8000FF]
When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, [#BF0000]accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts. [/#BF0000]
[#8000FF]It seems that there are a lot of local experts around that are certain that the DWR is lazy or incompetent and they know far more than the so called pros.
Sorry for the ultra long post. [/#8000FF]
[signature]