People working with the alternative philosophy of wildlife resource management have an alternative philosophy about research. It may be unusual and at odds with some people within the field of wildlife management but it is thought to be consistent with other aspects of the alternative. Sinclair (J. Wildlife Manage. 55:767-773) suggested that research and management are the same thing. Sinclair and Murphy and Noon (J. Wildlife Manage. 55:773-782) acknowledging that results from experimental studies are seldom available, that the scale of faunal systems work precludes well-controlled experiments, and that managerial decisions are made without complete information asserted the need for the using the old means for "producing solid, defendable science."

Science is good, but not all powerful. There are alternative ways to know anything. The study of how we "know" is called epistemology and there are many ways, at least nine major ways. Science or the combination of induction and deduction is only one such way to know. The overriding premise for the future is that we build a knowledge base. Science is one way to assist in doing so. There are others.

The following are developing notes on the topic of Wildland Studies, one of which is blasphemy. Since one major aspect of the new wildlife resource management will be entrepreneurial, then it will likely become competitive. Knowledge is power and power is the ability to do work and work brings recognition, rewards, and various measures of entrepreneurial success. Thus, my studies, of all types (not funded by the public) are private, part of the capital of a successful wildland resource management and development enterprise. I may pay a reviewer but I'll not share my findings as has been the intended and successful world-view of most wildlife research. If I have techniques and special knowledge, I shall keep it to use it and advance among my competitors. These are foreign sounds but I believe they are a legitimate part of the future of wildlife resource management. Using what I now know, what can be accessed from the public record, modern wildlife managers will move ahead in gaining knowledge of the wildlife resource and its management faster in the private pathway than in the costly, inefficient, duplicative, unplanned, and under-staffed studies in "wildlife" than in the past.

The studies, the efforts to build the knowledge base will rely upon some scientific patterns. These include collecting or making an initial observation, searching for patterns, guessing on truth statements or approximations, developing and using critical tests, performing the tests, weighing the evidence, and continuing with plausible reasoning and using logic. This mix of activities has been called science and research. Today, however, there is more to science than the good experiments. Science has become "real world"and now faces whether it will (or must) face ethical dilemas such as those of the atomic bomb, human population regulation, endangered species protection, proper planning horizons and discount rates, and intergenerational justice. Values have always had a role but few would acknowledge then in their struggle for "objectivity."

Few people take the negative in studies. The new aim is to falsify or invalidate. We cannot validate anything. Only invalidity holds the arguments. When decision making is the very nature of the work in which we engage, we need to continue to embrace all of the tools, techniques, and mental strategies available...simultaneously (most past work has been sequential). How can we falsify that all crows are black? How can we falsify that the temperature was 55 or less degrees?

Few people use formal deduction in studies. Induction is the experimental pathway and it has served well but not rapidly, not sufficiently to meet the daily looming crises, not sufficiently to meet the needs of endangered species. To use induction, deduction, or both is, itself, a value judgement. Induction is the ultraconservative pathway, but with high costs and minimum risks. It is good for the past. The new needs are for using computer models (aided deduction) that allow us to test and attempt to invalidate sets of premises, weed out unlikely events and conditions that cannot persist over the longrun, and make tentative assumptions that we can test in the models or in the field and then make changes. Dichotomous exclusion is one procedure, finding the plausible among millions of open pathways, moving toward an optimum.

We reject "chance" and use instead unexplained influence of other factors.

To know is the objective, not to do science.

Part of the work of the wildlife manager is to do studies. The wildlifer is not the student, the biologist, the big-animal zoologist. Some are needed, but the quest is for inputs to decisions that can payoff for a customer and inputs that can be used again in other situations. Use per dollar invested over a career (or a 20 year span) seems like a reasonable criterion of excellence whether in public research or private knowledge-base building.

The manager studies the space among:

• Modeling
• Describing distributions
• Testing hypotheses
• Describing, classifying, defining, and estimating parameters

If these elements are the vertices of a tetrahedron, perhaps knowledge is near the center? Whatever the end result of such a debate, the need for the resource manager is a practical model that produces optimum results. A system that yields an optimum is needed. Whether that decision will be used or implemented is not the question of research, or studies. Too often, good and true answers have been found but not used or improperly used. Confusions about the scientist, the meaning of studies, the nature of bias, and the many analytical pathways that are possible confound public and managerial concepts of science. No longer the promoter, even defender of science, the new world of work is merely knowledge base building -- gaining it, using it together, saving it, retrieving it, studying and cleaning and grooming it -- all necessary. The knowledge base needs to be built and used to make decisions ... then improved (for we know its limitations)...then readied for the future.

The medical doctor rarely does research but does studies. He or she is involved in the clinical milieu, the same that is appropriate for the manager. This includes having

• clarified objectives,
• decided actions,
• supervised implementation,
• monitored results,
• quality reporting,
• modifications and adaptations,
• results in a regional data base,
• working groups(reducing the arrogance that follows from not knowing the limits of science and thinking it can determine the public good), and
• continual sharing within an effective enterprise.

Is the medical doctor ascientific? I think not. They are users of science...and more...to make decisions, the diagnoses and prescriptions. The parallels with the wildlife resource worker are unmistakable.

Research, like the good doctor, has an aura about it of objectivity, formality, and rigor but it is not an aura needed in all fields. Research has solved some problems, given us some advances, and has given many people a useful pattern of thought for over a century. Increasingly, that pattern is being shown wanting. Research is said to answer questions, but it is also said that if you ask the wrong questions you will get wrong answers. Research is said to be descriptive, but of what? There are many "scientific questions" which cannot be answered by science. A few people say that research is predictive, but don't people have something to say about what happens in the future? There are many, many problems faced by people for which research has neither the answer nor an approach. A substitute is needed, at least an alternative. The needs are conspicuous in wild fauna resource management - throughout the world.

It is easy to be hypercritical about anything. I am not a devil's advocate, merely an observer with a little energy left over for suggestions.

One problem with research came upon me like a hawk over my tree stand: suppose there are about 300 important bird species in India. (For now, let us not quibble about the actual number or the meaning of "important"). There are needed about 200 observations about each bird to complete all entries in a wildlife information system. These 200 items are selected from a much longer list. It is a group of need to know vs. nice to know observations selected by a variety of wildlife workers. Many facts are known for deer but many are not; deer are one of the best known animals. Some take years of study, others only a brief period. I round off my estimate at a very conservative estimate of one year needed for each observation, then I suggest an even more conservative $50,000 required to pay and equip a scientist for a year. It includes all travel, rent, equipment, computers, support staff, and salaries but it has never been analyzed exclusively for wildlife research people. (Frankly, I think the amount exceeds $50,000.) While several observations will be made in a few days, I assume I can make one official entry in our database per year. The cost of doing all of this is $3,000,000,000! If there were 1000 scientific wildlife researchers, it would only take 60 years. We cannot meet the research needs of the birds of India alone, much less those of the world, by the conventional, accepted research pathways. We have not even mentioned the similar research needs of the mammals, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, oh yes, the fish and equally as important-the insects, whether we study them as disease vectors, critical food supply for some other animals, or object of specific management, such as the butterflies.

Once there was the notion of "do basic research" then publish it. It was a rule and the hidden assumption behind it was that one day your findings would be discovered and put into practical use. In wildlife systems, one day may never come. Irrelevant is the perfect word for a discovery made for a species that has just become extinct.

In the most logical of all areas, research, I now perceive an illogical underpinning. It is illogical for us to continue using the classical, experimental, inductive approach to gaining wildlife knowledge. Wildlife resource workers will never gain the budgets needed, the staffing and expertise, the time, or the requisite use rates of conclusions-reached. It is irrational for us to proceed in the current fashion.

I feel as though I have painted myself into a corner. How do I get out? I am not sure. I need help; I beg for it; I am confident that it is available. Perhaps I can build a bit of a structure from my little corner to help with a bridge (if that is what is seen as needed). I fear, not for myself, but for the wildlife resource, if I should be left in my gloomy, freshly-painted little corner. Only these changes are mentioned here, mostly to give the idea examples. More will be given in future Antler Points where I acknowledge the power of conventional research patterns but believe that, with such patterns, alternatives are needed. These might include:

1. A site on the internet where serial observations are recorded with time of occurrence, observer, time since the last observation, and emphasis on trying to gain the maximum and minimum possible values. Ranges, the outer limits, will be found to be as useful in many decision situations as the high cost, large-sample-size statistical struggles for an average or a mean value.
2. Rejecting the quaint phrase: we learn from history that we do not learn from history. History can be a wonderful teacher if we have the ability to hear. We get too much noise. We focus on details and miss the messages. "There will be a flood!" This is near calamity, yet we concentrate on depth, flow rates, dollars lost, and other details. We need to sort out the things we now know, like floods and fires do occur, trees grow, epidemics occur, people help each other. We know a lot! I remember well a skeptical student noting the impossibility of predicting the leader that emerged from a Vietnam village and turned the tide of the war in an area. He was right, but that leaders will emerge can be predicted. When generalized and modeled and retrieved in conjunction with other things we know, we will achieve our objective. Our objective is to know, not to do research.
3. A wildlife information system must eventually embrace plants as well as animals. There is no logical separation. Is a plant in the gut of a deer a part of the animal or exclusively a part of the plant world? I think that wildlife is all wild life. In order to manage plants well, a great amount of knowledge is needed. All factors about each plant cannot be learned in separate studies. The plants themselves remain enigmas. Where one species stops and another starts is debated. Mobile plants, such as the liverworts, have animal characteristics. Plant forms and their characteristics differ on different sites. A general knowledge base is needed, one rooted more in "expert systems" than in conventional taxonomic keys. So much has been learned of plants over time that many generalizations can be made, many fields of knowledge in a computer information base filled with an expressed high degree of confidence. The entry has to be general because we do not have the time or the money to continue our studies plant by plant.

   Not wishing to describe the system needed, at least I see its potential for providing relevant answers to questions, as shown here, of increasing complexity:

   1. What species occur in county X? What "threatened" species in area G?
   2. What species occur in county X, Y, and Z, but not Q?
   3. What species of genera f, g, and h occur where species p occurs?
   4. What is the similarity index for plants in wildlife area A and B?
   5. What is the seasonal total gross energy in plants eaten by creature C in area A assuming average density of plants and average size of each plant?
   6. What aquatic plant species are eaten by or used by species of fish that are eaten by furbearers that are in river reach R?
   7. What threatened plants in region T depend upon insects in any life stage and, of the insects listed, what positive management activities will ensure they are present every year, in sufficient numbers, to meet the plant requirements?

An interactive unit on research is available.

Assignment

1. Write 3-4 key concepts from the above that you plan to remember and attempt to use soon.
2. Write a brief hypothetical debate: The manager as scientist vs the scientist as manager.
3. In a paragraph, clarify how you now see the results of research being input to field decisions. Briefly note a good example.