Conservation management has always been difficult. Managing wildlife, ecosystems, people, budgets, politics, and competing land-use expectations, has never been an exercise for the faint-hearted. Recently, what has changed dramatically is not necessarily the complexity of the ecological problems, but the environment in which conservation decisions are now made.

In this modern era, anyone can publish an opinion, represent themselves as an authority on the subject, selectively quote scientific literature, mobilise an audience, and create the impression that a particular management decision is either enlightened or reprehensible. As a result, an audience does not necessarily need to understand the ecology, the management context, or the practical constraints before forming an opinion. It only wants to be persuaded.

For the Conservation Manager positioned in the centre of this storm, this creates a profound problem.

The manager must make decisions based on knowledge, experience, and conditions on the ground. Yet these decisions are increasingly judged by people who may never have visited the landscape, understood its ecological characteristics, and experienced its seasonal dynamics, spoken to the communities living there, or carried responsibility for the consequences of an incorrect decision.

The result can be a dangerous inversion of conservation governance: those carrying responsibility for outcomes become increasingly influenced by those carrying no responsibility for the consequences.

The Rise of the Conservation Commentator

The current digital era has democratised communication. This, in many respects, is a progressive step. Conservation should be transparent and subject to public scrutiny, open debate, and legitimate criticism where justified. Conservation should not submit to blatant capture amidst this democracy.

Intellectual competence in an audience is not automatic. An individual may have thousands of followers without any of them understanding ecological processes. A commentator can produce convincing narratives around wildlife without ever having been exposed to managing wildlife. Additionally, an influencer can create enormous public pressure without ever having to account for what happens after the cameras, computers, and phones are switched off.

This is an essential distinction in a functional ecological landscape. A Conservation Manager does not manage a concept, but rather a tangible and living biological system.

This system has boundaries, it has carrying capacities influenced by land use, rainfall patterns, soils, fire regimes, herbivore densities, predator-prey relationships, invasive species, disease threats, fences, neighbouring land uses, communities, budgets, staff limitations, regulating policies, and a multitude of influencing variables. The contributors are almost infinite. 

The manager must make decisions within this living reality and be accountable for those decisions. The commentator and his audience enjoy the opposite. Their opinions can be expressed without consequence or accountability.

This is new reality is a major challenge confronting conservation management today.

When Science Becomes a Weapon

Science is indispensable to conservation. However, science itself is not immune to the influences and subjectiveness of human behaviour.

Scientific information can be interpreted, communicated, and applied selectively. A thesis or study may be presented as providing a definitive answer to an ecological question, while it addresses only a narrow issue under specific circumstances. A statistical observation may be portrayed as causation. Findings from one ecosystem may be proposed as universally applicable. Uncertainty can disappear between the scientific publication and subsequent social-media post.

This social media weaponization of science is particularly problematic. It is not science itself that is the problem.

The problem is the use of scientific authority as a rhetorical weapon rather than as a tool for understanding. Scientific observations are also not static – current available knowledge is continually evolving.

A commentator can select the scientific literature that supports a predetermined position and narrative, while ignoring literature that expresses uncertainty, contradiction, or disagreement. A scientist may, consciously or otherwise, become an advocate for a particular conservation management philosophy, rather than maintaining the distinction between evidence and preference. The public is then presented with the simple proposition – Science says this. 

But science rarely speaks with one voice. Ecological systems are complex, context-dependent, and dynamic. Scientific evidence informs management; it does not remove the need for analysis and judgement.

There is a significant difference between saying: “The available evidence suggests that this intervention may produce these outcomes under these circumstances.” and saying: “Science proves that this is the only acceptable management response.”

The former invites responsible decision-making. The latter can shut it down.

The Problem with Scientific Absolutism

There is a growing tendency in some conservation debates to elevate scientific opinion into an unquestionable moral authority. This is dangerous.

Science should be challenged by evidence, scrutinised through peer review, and continually refined as knowledge improves. Conservation management should be no different.

The uncomfortable reality is that good management requires action before scientific certainty exists.

A manager cannot always wait for a decade-long research programme to determine whether a population is becoming ecologically problematic. One cannot wait for the conclusion of perfect data to be logged while erosion accelerates, vegetation changes, water resources deteriorate, animals disperse into neighbouring agricultural areas, or communities become increasingly intolerant of wildlife.

Management is not conducted in a laboratory. It is conducted in landscapes with continuous ecological feedback. This distinction between research and management is important.

A researcher may appropriately ask: What does the evidence tell us about this phenomenon? A manager must ask: Given everything we know, what should we do now? These are related questions, but they are not the same question.

Best Available Knowledge is Larger than a Spreadsheet.

Responsible management should unquestionably be informed by empirical evidence.

Population counts, vegetation surveys, rainfall records, telemetry, disease surveillance, soil measurements, ecological monitoring, and other quantitative information are enormously valuable.

But the idea that only formally quantified information constitutes knowledge is equally problematic.

Conservation Managers operate with the best available knowledge. This knowledge can include empirical evidence, carefully considered anecdotal evidence and field-based observations.

A Field Ranger, repeatedly observing a particular movement pattern, may identify an emerging problem before it appears in a formal dataset. A long-serving Field Officer may understand the historical behaviour of a wildlife population because they have observed it develop over decades. Such observations should not automatically be treated as scientific fact. Neither should they automatically be dismissed as irrelevant.

The responsible manager’s task is to distinguish between useful observation, anecdote, assumption, and evidence – and then determine how much weight each component deserves. That discernment is part of professional competence.

The Manager’s Greatest Advantage is Context

This is perhaps the most important distinction between a Conservation Manager and the casual observer. The manager has context. The manager understands the area for which they are responsible.

They know what happened last year. They know what happened during the drought. They know which intervention worked previously. They know where the fence fails. They know which community is supportive and which is becoming frustrated. They know staff availability. They know what their budget permits. They know which ecological intervention is theoretically desirable, and which can be implemented. They know, from experience, which successes to embellish, and which failures to avoid. 

Most importantly, they are accountable for the outcome. That does not mean that every management decision is correct. It means that the decision is being made within a completely different information context from that perceived by the external commentator.

The casual observer sees the decision. The manager sees the decision and its consequences. That distinction deserves greater respect in conservation discourse.

Piet Nel is the Senior Trainer in the Southern African Wildlife College’s Nature Based Economy Department. He has held this position since 2013. Prior to this he worked as the Conservation Manager of Ingwelala in the Umbabat Private Nature Reserve, adjoining the Kruger National Park. He has 24 years’ experience of conservation management in open conservation systems.