>>2254089Like all things with public policy, this is incredibly complex. Natural resource policy is somewhat unique in how prolific everyone seems to think they're an expert, and specific public stakeholders often drive policy, even when the science says otherwise.
I remember writing a paper in college about changing hunting policies in Alaska. Back in 2018ish, the feds started allowing people to poison bears, shoot swimming caribou from boats and airplanes, kill bears and wolves in their dens, etc. Really disgusting, unsportsmanlike stuff.
So as part of the research that went into that paper, I read a bunch of management reports from several state wildlife management areas in Alaska. Of course, all them had the management goal to increase the caribou and moose populations so they could be hunted. They'd list out potential management actions, like improving habitat or increasing hunting of predators. They always went with hunting predators. I remember a series of annual reports going like this:
>Year 1: We want more moose, and we think the wolf population suppressing it. We're going to kill more wolves.>Year 2: Well, we killed a lot of wolves, but the moose population is still low. We should kill more wolves.>Year 3: We killed even more wolves, but the moose population is /still/ too low. Maybe wolves aren't the problem, maybe it was brown bears. We should kill more brown bears.>Year 4: We killed more wolves and brown bears, but the moose population is still low.Meanwhile, moose in Alaska are heavily dependent on willows and other shrub cover, which is most prevalent in 10-30 year old burn scars. The way to increase moose populations is to have fire and wait 10 years. This is well known. Managers don't care. Hunters think predators are the problem, so predators get killed. Even if there aren't enough hunters, the state will send out biologists to kill predators.
It's awful and totally nonsensical.
