​Ch. 2 Discussion Questions:  Science and the Protection of Wildlife
  1. How would you define “science” as it relates to wildlife research?  What role do you think that personal experiences such as the perceptions of non-scientists such as hunters and anglers should play in decision-making concerning threats to wildlife?  How much faith would you place in these perceptions versus those of scientists? 
  2. Having read about the dispute between researchers who believe that wolves are harmful to prey such as caribou and those that believe that they perform a useful biological function in regard to their prey, which position do you side with? Why?  Can you cite disagreements among researchers concerning some wildlife species or issue? 
  3. In the Alaskan wolves case, what role do you believe science should play compared with the preferences of the Alaskan wildlife agency and its policymakers who place the top priority on assuring an abundance of game species?  That is, when should science predominate and when should the value preferences of policymakers decide the issue?
  4. After reading about the dispute between “new” and traditional conservationists, which group do you side with concerning their dispute over various issues such as the value of invasive species?  Why? 
  5. There is a dispute over how widely a species like wolves should be restored to their “historical range.” What definition of historical range do you prefer?  How widely do you believe they should be restored?  Why? 
  6. There is a dispute over what time interval should be used in calculating the minimum number of a species like wolves or grizzlies that should be sustained in order to ensure their long-term survival.  What do you believe should be the time interval?  For example, 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years? Why?
  7. Similarly, what probability value would you choose if you were in charge of assuring that a species does not go extinct?  90 percent? 95 percent? 99 percent? Why?
  8. What are the major factors that determine the “carrying capacity” for a species like grizzlies or wolves?  Which do you think are most important?  Why?
  9. If you were in charge of making policy concerning bison leaving Yellowstone Park, what policy would you follow?  Why? 
  10. If you were in charge of setting policy concerning mule deer in Utah, what policies would you follow to ensure the population of mule deer?  What factors would you focus on? Why?
  11. Having read about “the trophic cascade” and other theories concerning the interrelationship of species, how much credibility would you put in these theories as a justification for preserving predators such as wolves?  Why? 
  12. What would be your level of tolerance for living near predators such as wolves or grizzlies?  What, if any, factors would increase or decrease your tolerance for the predator? 
  13. Pick out some species that has been designated (or could be) as endangered. Read research literature on this species.  What does this research have to say about the threatened species? How adequate does this research seem to you? Why?
  14. Find and study some project that employs Payments for Environmental Services approach to preserving wildlife.  What incentives are offered to those living with the species? What performance measures or data are gathered to determine whether they have fulfilled the contract? Who are the major “beneficiaries” of this PES project?  Overall, how effective do you believe the PES approach is to preserving species? Why?
  15. Many conservationists believe that when adequate data are not available concerning some possibly threatened species that the “precautionary approach” dictates that protective measures for the species should not be delayed due to inadequate data. Discuss what the "precautionary principles" means. Do you agree with it? Why or why not? 
  16. After reading the case about wolverines, do you believe they should have been listed? Why or why not?
  17. The Endangered Species Act allows lawsuits by groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity on behalf of wildlife species.  Critics charge that these lawsuits consume too much of the time and budget of wildlife professionals and thus harm the agency’s attempt to protect species. Defenders argue that the science employed in these lawsuits has been shown to be good and the lawsuits are often concern areas that are subject of interest of developers and thus may not be challenged by the government agency.  Which side do you believe has the stronger argument? Why?
  18. After reading the case about the first wildlife corridor established for pronghorn in Wyoming, what do you believe this says about the role of scientists in preserving wildlife? What major lessons would you draw from this case if you were a wildlife researcher?
  19. Overall, after reading this chapter, how would you characterize the role of science in protecting wildlife and particularly, endangered species?