Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management

Worldwide, unsustainable use of nature threatens many ecosystems and the services they provide for a broad diversity life, including humans. Yet, governments commonly claim that best available science supports their policies governing extraction natural resources. We confront this apparent paradox by assessing complexity intersections among value judgments, fact claims, scientifically verified facts. Science can only describe how works predict likely outcomes our actions, whereas values influence which actions or objectives society ought to pursue. In context resource management, particularly fisheries wildlife, typically set population targets quotas. Although these are fundamentally judgments about much group people extract, quotas often justified as numerical guidance derived from abstracted, mathematical, theoretical models extraction. such justifications examining failures in transparency may accompany unsupported assertions articulated factual claims. illustrate with two examples. Our first case concerns protection human habitats harboring northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ), revealing biologists policy scholars have argued divergent roles scientists within debates, debates between engaged policy-relevant research reveal undisclosed communication beyond its role source description (observation, measurement, analysis, inference). second endangered gray wolves Canis lupus ) shows distorted behind government policy. Finally, we draw literature multiple disciplines wildlife systems recommend several improvements standards applied management. These recommendations will help prevent value-based distortions result uses eventual extinctions populations. methods communicating avoid commingling claims discuss approaches do not perpetuate misconception alone dictate without consideration values. remedies improve both expert public debate preserving using resources, thereby non-human declines worldwide.