Why Returning to the Ballot Isn’t “Ballot Box Biology” but a Necessary Correction

Opposing ballot box biology means advocating for wildlife management decisions to be made by trained professionals—biologists, wildlife managers, and conservationists—rather than through emotional or politically motivated public votes. However, once a ballot initiative has already removed scientific management and replaced it with public opinion, the only way to restore expert-driven decisions is to return to the same system that took it away: the ballot.

Some claim that using a ballot initiative to overturn a previous vote is hypocritical, but that argument is shallow and ignores a key reality—once science-based management has been stripped away by popular vote, the democratic process offers no alternative but to use the same mechanism to reinstate it.

This isn’t about advocating for wildlife management via ballot measures as a principle. It’s about correcting the damage already done by a system that should never have been used in the first place. If an anti-hunting initiative passes, bypassing scientific expertise, and the legislature fails to act (or is prevented from doing so), hunters and conservationists have no choice but to fight fire with fire. That isn’t hypocrisy—it’s using the only tool left to fix a mistake.

Think of it like a property boundary that was incorrectly redrawn by someone with no expertise—your land has effectively been “taken” from you. You don’t just accept the incorrect boundaries. You go through the same official channels that were used to file the new boundary lines in order to correct the record and reclaim your property. Once wildlife management has been hijacked by emotion-driven public votes, the only way to restore it to the hands of professionals is to go back to the people and undo the damage. That’s not ballot box biology—it’s a necessary correction.