Corn, wildlife management science is very politically motivated and I learned that straight from the horses mouth. In the deer hunting zone where I live, there is a 3% success rate on 8000 tags issued. This is basically one county in California. Year after year 8000 tags are issued yet the success rate stays the same or goes plus or minus 1%.
About a year ago I was able to speak to a DFW biologist and I asked him why if the success rate is so low that so many tags are still issued. He informed me (off the record of course) that his job is basically bullshit because he studies the health of the herd and makes recommendations to the F&G commission about tag numbers, seasons, etc.
The F&G commission is a group of 5 people that are appointed by the Governor and are tasked with many things but most importantly regulating seasons, bag limits, etc. The biologist told me that he has repeatedly recommended lower tag numbers for this zone but it falls on deaf ears because the money generated by the tags does not go directly back into the DFW, it goes into the general fund first.
He also disagrees with the ban on mountain lion hunting and also more recently the ban on using dogs to hunt bears. He says that we are helping to ensure a robust predator population which will have an impact on our deer herds.
We can't have a forest full of Hmongs, lions and bears and expect the deer herds to increase or even stay the same for that matter. So the bottom line is that in California, there is no science in wildlife management, it's all about the money.
The ultimate goal however is to eliminate hunting altogether but for something like this to happen you have to take baby steps. The baby steps are:
1) Make hunting more expensive through regulation (lead bullet ban, tag/license fee increases every year, etc.)
2) Make hunting more difficult by increasing the competition for the prey. (increase predators, reduce access, make zones that are more populated with deer a lottery, etc.)
3) Get to the point that tag/license fees aren't worth the 1% - 2% success rate and/or declare the herds endangered and bye bye deer hunting.
Now 2 of these 3 have already happened and number 3 is happening slowly but surely with tag/license fee increases every year and 3% success rates. None of this is based on science whatsoever so the answer to your question is no, wildlife management is not based on science it is based on politics. What's really crazy is that the biologist that I spoke to wasn't willing to speak out about how his "science" isn't used by the F&G Commission because he really likes his job. So he does everything his job description tells him to do and then sends along a recommendation to a group of libtards of changes that should be made and his work is done.
When scientists have a fear of losing money, they will either have findings that agree with the agenda or they will not stir the pot if they don't.
