Fully agree, but also for thousands of years humans have been trying to control each others lives and tell other folks what to do esp. with regard to sex, procreation, and food.
Sure. But the reason we have states is that not everyone thought alike on a national level. The reason we have Counties is because not every thinks the same across the State. Our Federal representation in the House is based on like minded people getting to vote for some who represents them and their communities. We can/have divided ourselves into various group sizes throughout our history to meet our needs. Much of our political strife comes from majority rule not acknowledging minority opinion. I'm not saying that WDFW commission can't make broad decisions across the state, but maybe that that isn't the responsible decision. I mean we have game units for a reason, we have different management plans for different populations for a reason, it is not scientifically appropriate to manage all deer the same. I would say the same is true for predators in the Blues, but it's not social scientifically appropriate to manage them the same as predators in King County.
Maybe you aren’t familiar with all the groups or the issue bud, see all the LOCAL and National Organizations that supported RAWA and updating PR to make it more inclusive... and you think more hunters oppose this or they only oppose it at the state level? Riiiiight….
You may also be able to make the point that specifically in terms of predatory management the commission should consider the public welfare, not just public opinion. If we consider that most people did not support mandatory seatbelts when it was passed into law, an action viewed as a betterment to the public good, despite their opinion. We could make a similar argument that even if the majority of people don't want predator hunting, we still need to keep some level of separation between the people and predators for public safety reasons.
Agreed, I’m just saying we have to be very careful that opinions aren’t invalidated because you don’t live i the county of issue. A guy living in the Palouse has every bit as much of a voice in coastal steelhead management because of public trust.
Yes, that sword can cut both ways.
Yes and no. I think without context it’s hard to say definitively.
Totally agree with your point of view, but state boundaries are completely arbitrary human constructs.
I agree in the near term, not so sure in the long run.
Clap, clap, clap.
And you keep avoiding the fact that they are legally allowed to be a voice in wildlife management, which directly includes hunting regulation, setting processes, because they are part of the public trust.
T minus 4 posts till Ben get's called a commie
fr
The two groups cited in the article, Washington Wildlife First, and Wildlife For All, are absolutely extremeists groups who are 100% anti-hunting. They are selling themselves in their slogans as if they are there to represent all these purportodly aggreived outdoor users in wildlife matters, which is a complete hustle. Their agenda is to stop hunting. It is crystal clear on their websites which more or less mirror each other in their goals. Though Washington Wildlife First also mentions plans to go after the state DNR for destruction of their forests… ya, that is after they ban hunting. There is no working with groups that absolutely oppose hunting.
