For US Wildlife Management, Social Science Needed Now More Than Ever
For US Wildlife Management, Social Science Needed Now More Than Ever
复制标题
美国野生动物管理现在比以往任何时候都更需要社会科学
DOI：
10.1093/biosci/biz122
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
10.1
通讯作者：
J. Berger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Manfredo;J. Salerno;L. Sullivan;J. Berger
2019年1月，蒙大拿州众议院提出了一项法案（HB 161），规定“主任、部门和委员会在做出决定时只能使用事实和科学”，但“不得使用社会科学、人文因素或人们的态度、意见或偏好在与鱼类和野生动物有关的决策过程中。最终提交的法案强调了野生动物管理中一个响亮的哲学，即拥抱“科学”，同时使社会科学作为其合法形式无效。追溯到伍德罗·威尔逊时代，这种虚假的二元性在今天的公共价值观多样化和对自然资源管理透明度和问责制的需求增加的情况下非常明显。为了美国的生物多样性和野生动物机构的持续成功，有必要接受更广泛的科学观点，并认识到生物学在回答社会根源问题方面的局限性。生物学在野生动物决策中的卓越地位深深植根于美国野生动物保护的基础（Organ等人，2012年）。在成立之初，国家机构的任务是最大限度地增加游戏物种，并考虑到广泛接受的野生动物的功利目的，管理人员部署生物学来实现这一目标。受过生物学训练的科学家在决策过程中发挥了精英作用，生物科学成为大学野生动物培训计划和专业协会的核心。与此同时，通过法律将机构资金与狩猎和捕鱼许可证的销售联系起来，并建立一个
In January 2019, a bill was introduced to the Montana House of Representatives (HB 161) stating that “the director, department, and commission may only use facts and science when making decisions” but “may not use social science, human dimensions, or people’s attitudes, opinions, or preferences in decision-making processes related to fish and wildlife.” The bill, which was ultimately tabled, highlights a resounding philosophy in wildlife management that embraces “science” while simultaneously invalidating social science as a legitimate form thereof. Stemming back to the days of Woodrow Wilson, this false duality is glaring today amid diversifying public values and increased demand for transparency and accountability in natural resource management. For the sake of America’s biodiversity and the continued success of wildlife agencies, there is a need to embrace a broader view of science and to recognize the limitations of biology in answering socially rooted questions.The preeminent position of biology in wildlife decision-making has deep roots in the foundations of wildlife conservation in the United States (Organ et al., 2012). At their inception, state agencies were tasked with maximizing game species and, given the widely accepted utilitarian purpose of wildlife, managers deployed biology in achieving this objective. Biology-trained scientists took on an elite role in the decisionmaking process, and biological sciences served as the core of university wildlife-training programs and professional societies. Meanwhile, utilitarian values were imbedded in wildlife management institutions through laws linking agency funding to the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and creating an