Standing our ground and recognizing a broader horizon
Rising to the challenge of criticism and new scientific information
Applied science in its most productive form requires a commitment to acknowledging – and communicating – difficult realities about contentious and complex conservation issues. Doing so is the right thing to do, even when risking criticism.
At times, members of the Raincoast Applied Conservation Science Lab at the University of Victoria must rise to this challenge. We did so twice this year, and will continue to honour this important commitment.
In one case, we faced criticism from some operators of bear-focused ecotourism, an industry we support enthusiastically. We love the idea that this non-consumptive activity brings people close to nature, and – often – revenue into local communities.
We had studied the influence of ecotourism on grizzly bears in a key watershed, finding that ecotourists can elicit strong and multi-day effects, as reported in the journal, Ecology. While most operators were grateful for this information and viewed it as helpful to their goal of continually improving practices, others publicly declared that our work was flawed.
We stood our ground. The data were clear, and peer-reviewers agreed. We also noted that the effects were limited to the handful of watersheds where ecotourism occurred, and the impact was less among females with cubs. We also illustrated how modest changes to management could mitigate the impacts we had documented.
In another case, high-profile media approached us for comment on a study showing how endangered caribou populations can benefit, in the short-term, from wolf control. Although our earlier work, which drew upon a more limited data set, showed no efficacy of wolf control, this study offered some new evidence. We issued a statement to that effect. Facing blowback from some wolf advocates, we again stood our ground. Critically we also noted that, despite the findings of this study, wolf control is not the right thing to do from either a conservation or ethical perspective.
Both cases illustrate that scientific knowledge is always provisional at some level and that we must update our knowledge with new information, even when conflicting with our worldviews and previously held theories. Simultaneously, we must recognize that science is not the only dimension to consider in the realm of policy debate. Into 2025 and beyond, we commit to both.
You can help
Raincoast’s in-house scientists, collaborating graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors make us unique among conservation groups. We work with First Nations, academic institutions, government, and other NGOs to build support and inform decisions that protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and the wildlife that depend on them. We conduct ethically applied, process-oriented, and hypothesis-driven research that has immediate and relevant utility for conservation deliberations and the collective body of scientific knowledge.
We investigate to understand coastal species and processes. We inform by bringing science to decision-makers and communities. We inspire action to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats.
