Aug/Sept, 2005

The Real Story Part 2

Return to Think Like A Beast Home

Wow!

The results of a federal—that’s right, do you think the Wildlife division in Colorado would do anything besides cater to hunters?—study of Colorado residents says that an overwhelming 91% want a reduction in the number of elk and the protection of vegetation in visibly affected areas.  The Colorado Division of Wildlife will not do either one.

The 2003 mail/telephone study among 538 Colorado residents is the most recent and most comprehensive survey dealing with attitudes on areas ravaged by elk.

Unfortunately the survey deals only with elk.  Given the much wider distribution of deer in the U.S. (e.g., the conflicts studied here) it is logical to view the problem in terms of “deer and elk.”

The survey’s report, issued by the Department of the Interior in June, 2004, spells out the crux of the problem when governmental responsibilities either overlap or fail entirely to deal with local and regional problems.  The management at Rocky Mountain National Park are trying to look out for the long term and the bigger picture but they don’t have local knowledge or power; in contrast, the puppets (STRAW DOGS) and bureaucrats who have the local know-how and clout can’t see beyond their own noses.

When governments collide like this it is hard not to consider it beyond intransigence to a level only describable as “corruption.”  Officials and special interest groups who cannot understand the facts and plan responsibly for the future need to be removed and replaced.  In this case it is even simpler than that:  politicians who don’t listen to the majority will be voted out.

The proportion of Coloradans favoring management of the elk situation in elk-problem areas is eye-popping.  It is as clear and as lopsided a finding as anyone is ever likely to see in a survey.  Typically when attitudes or opinions are 90-to-10 there is no need to perform a scientific survey because the outcome is already known.  In a consumer marketing research study a preference of 9-to-1 or a 90% intention to buy would be astronomical and almost unprecedented.  Any business would proceed head-over-heels given such a reception by the market.  But again, it would cast aspersions on the entire process because why would anyone trying to sell such a product not already know that?

It is an issue of a geographically-confined problem that requires planning beyond the capacity of local administrators.

 *               *               *

Picking apart a survey is like performing psychoanalysis—you pry away at the cracks to reveal the roots of the problem.

The methodology suffers from a potentially catastrophic error in asking for opinions on something that “would be expected to occur in approximately 50 to 100 years.”  No one, especially some off-the-street survey respondent, can be expected to do that.  One has to look past that and hope the strength of the results hold up.  This restriction on the survey’s validity is especially onerous given the fact that the clear, widespread effect of deer and elk on vegetative regeneration is already evident in Colorado.

In addition there are many specific, character-revealing flaws in the study and the report. 

Overall the study shows a tacit, barely visible lack of understanding.  Maybe it is the de facto but ephemeral notion of a National Park trying to influence the incredibly intransigent forces of local and state governments.  The study screams out for some sort of respondent-provided management plan for what is actually a very simple problem.

In elk (and deer) affected habitat the people want reductions of wildlife populations and protection of new growth and foliage.  How to do this is the responsibility of the local administrators.  There has to be science and management applied to it and they're the ones who have to do it.  If they don't, who else will?  Rocky National Park management or even the Secretary of the Interior cannot do it.

*               *               *

The methodology both in the questions and in the weighting (an undesirable attribute in a survey) relies on whether respondents agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or DON"T KNOW to the following two statements:

• Humans should manage wild animal populations so that humans benefit; and

• Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans.

In a situation such as this I am tempted to ring up not Vern but his elusive, inquisitive friend.  "Hey Vern, whoever heard of culling a population of humans?"  Or, the other extreme is to say in an interview that every animal everywhere is here just for the benefit of humans.  They are theoretical, amorphous, ambiguous questions.  Again, there is no way that people off the street can answer them.  And survey response categories are not that accurate or discriminating.  Personally, my answers to both would have to be DON'T KNOW and that is a bad way to design questions.

*               *               *

Therein lies the problem:  the report is flawed and complicated beyond the need for further description.  No wonder the head of the Human Dimensions unit at Colorado State, the authors of the study, suggested I contact some guy in Alaska for a copy.  This particular survey suffers from trying to address and find a solution to every question and problem out there.  It is good-intentioned but desperate act by an agency that cannot do anything else.

This is not about whether or not deer and elk are really "pigs" in terms of their eating behavior; they are.  What we have here is a "human dimensions" problem.