Science and Advocacy Are Different - And We Need to Keep Them That Way

An Analysis of Advocacy Within the Wildlife Profession

“…(pp. xiii-xiv) Rather than debate advocacy and deny our biases, perhaps wildlife professionals should concentrate on being open-minded and carefully analyze our role (e.g., Gill, 2001;Nielsen, 2001;and Sweeney & Stangel, 1995). As Gill (2000) discusses, there are consequences of advocating, but there are also consequences of not advocating.…”

“…Gill (2001) summarizes arguments in support of and opposition to advocacy and provides an advocacy framework based on findings in other sciences. DeStefano and Steidl (2001) and Nielsen (2001) contend that conservation biology is a value-laden science in which advocacy is inherent. Rutberg (2001) believes that wildlife professionals in state agencies are already advocates, although they may not recognize what they are advocating and its impact on agency image.…”

“…Rutberg (2001) believes that wildlife professionals in state agencies are already advocates, although they may not recognize what they are advocating and its impact on agency image. Nielsen (2001) argues that as wildlife professionals we are all advocates because of our inherent interest in wildlife; knowing this, we can be open about our values in response to situations where advocacy is appropriate or necessary. To achieve clarity about advocacy and the wildlife professional, we summarize several questions presented in the authors' papers and analyze contextual commonalities of advocacy.…”

“…Articles in this special section by Bruce Gill (2001), Stephen DeStefano and Robert Steidl (2001), Allen Rutberg (2001), and Larry Nielsen (2001) were part of the symposium. These authors address what advocacy is and how wildlife professionals should respond to situations where advocacy may be an option.…”

“…Whether the message is relayed overtly or covertly affects perceptions. Nielsen (2001) proposes that wildlife professionals should consider overtly proclaiming their opinions and biases in cases where interpretation of scientific information is required. Wildlife professionals may choose to advocate covertly such as by remaining anonymous to remove the risk of retribution from an employer, the community, or others affected by their stance.…”