Selective Science: When Hunters Ignore the Evidence they Claim to Follow

Randy Newberg

by David Stalling

I recently listened to a clip of a celebrity “hunter” named Randy Newberg discussing the “science” behind modern game management — science, in this context, largely aimed at producing older, larger trophy mule deer for hunters to kill.

That is the kind of “science” many hunters readily support. In the same breath, he criticized other hunters for not supporting science, arguing that such resistance makes hunting harder to defend publicly.

The irony and hypocrisy is difficult to ignore.

Newberg’s commentary highlights a broader pattern within hunting culture: an embrace of science when it aligns with desired outcomes, and a dismissal of it when it does not, particularly in the realm of predator management, especially wolves.

While presenting himself as an advocate for fair chase hunting ethics and science-based management, his messaging often reflects a selective application of both.

For context, Newberg is a well-known television personality, best recognized as the host of Fresh Tracks. His platform is built on hunting as both recreation and livelihood — killing animals for entertainment, content, and profit — while framing those activities as conservation-driven and scientifically-grounded. That framing deserves scrutiny.

Take, for example, the widely repeated claim that “hunters pay for conservation.” It is true that hunters contribute significantly to state wildlife agency budgets through license fees and excise taxes on equipment. But the narrative often stops there, and that omission matters.

A substantial portion of those funds does not go toward ecosystem restoration or biodiversity protection in the broader sense. Instead, it is frequently directed toward “game management” priorities: stocking animals such as non-native Chinese ringneck pheasants for hunters to shoot; maintaining high elk and deer populations for hunting; killing animals like prairie dogs with long-range rifles (like the M40 sniper rifle I used in the Marine Corps) for amusement; controlling predators like wolves based on fear-mongering lies (lies that people like Randy Newberg perpetuate) that go against science; building infrastructure such as shooting ranges, and recruiting new hunters.

Meanwhile, when you consider other costs such as managing our public lands, such as our national forests (where much hunting occurs), which are funded by all American taxpayers, the claim that hunters are the primary financial drivers of conservation becomes far less convincing.

Several studies have shown that, when all costs are considered, hunters contribute about six-percent to conservation in the United States. Six percent! And yet hunters have most of the influence and control over state wildlife agencies. This results in wildlife management that favors hunted species over non-hunted species, often to the detriment of other species, particularly predators such as wolves, grizzly bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and black bears.

Yet figures like Newberg continue to present the “hunters pay for conservation” myth as a simple, unqualified truth.

He has also argued that those who do not hunt have no place in wildlife management decisions, while dismissing critics of wolf hunting (people who understand and support science ) as “screwballs” and “wing nuts.”

In one of his wolf-hunting videos — in which Newberg perpetuates common myths, lies and misconceptions about wolves that are easily refuted by science — Newberg unethically sights in his rifle on a coyote, and after killing the coyote (his rifle was sighted in or else he would’ve wounded the coyote, not that he would’ve cared) he says, “ I just saved some deer.”

(Read Killing Wolves with Randy Newberg for Fun, Entertainment and Profit )

Newberg’s rhetoric is not only exclusionary; it undermines the very idea of science-based management, which depends on open inquiry, diverse perspectives, and evidence — not gatekeeping or insult.

At the core of Newberg’s argument is the claim that modern hunting is grounded in science. In principle, that argument has some merit. Scientific wildlife management has played a real role in the recovery of certain species across North America, and regulated hunting has, at times, contributed to those successes.

But the credibility of that claim depends entirely on consistency.

If science is the standard, it must be applied across all species and situations — including those that challenge traditional hunting narratives.

Predator management, particularly involving wolves, exposes this inconsistency.

Ecological research shows that wolf populations are shaped not just by numbers, but by social structures — pack cohesion, breeding hierarchies, and territorial stability. Disrupting these systems through selective killing can produce unintended consequences: increased breeding pairs, fractured packs, and, in some cases, more conflict with livestock.

These findings complicate the simplistic narrative that killing wolves benefits ecosystems or prey populations like deer and elk. Yet hunting media often presents precisely that narrative — clear, decisive, and convenient.

This is where the contradiction becomes most visible. The rhetoric invokes complexity and scientific authority, while the messaging reduces that complexity to justify predetermined outcomes. Science becomes less a guiding principle and more a tool used when it supports the argument, ignored when it does not.

This issue extends beyond any one individual. It reflects a structural problem within the hunting community itself (including state wildlife agencies) and in hunting media: Content designed for broad audiences favors clarity, certainty, and resolution. Ecology offers none of those things. It deals in trade-offs, uncertainty, and long-term system dynamics that resist simple storytelling. As a result, even those who claim to champion science — such as Randy Newberg — can end up reinforcing narratives that conflict with it.

And again, ironically and hypocritically, when people like Randy Newberg claim that hunters who ignore science are hurting hunting, he seems either unwilling or incapable of looking in the mirror and recognizing that he is among the worst of the worst, reaching a very large audience with his cherry-picking and lies.

If hunting advocates want to maintain credibility in conversations about conservation, the standard cannot be selective. A genuinely science-based approach requires engaging with the full body of evidence, including research that challenges deeply held assumptions about predators, ecosystem balance, and human intervention.

Without that consistency, the claim that hunting is “science-based” loses its meaning. It stops being a principle and becomes a slogan — one that is repeated often, but applied only when convenient.