44hunter45
Well-known member
One of the Montana universities has a "Sociology of Hunting" research department?
I heard them on a podcast once. Details are fuzzy now.
Call to Action - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting
- Thread starter Hammsolo
- Start date
I heard them on a podcast once. Details are fuzzy now.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,661
Our current culture wants data when it fits their narrative, but will search for more data when it doesn’t. Scientific unbiased objective data is what we need. We have to disconnect goals from the data. We need to collect all the data we can, as accurately as we can, and then draw conclusions from there.
It seems like they’re looking for data to back their opinions. My wife is a whip smart mental health counselor, that is always studying current neurology. Currently, the belief is that the average human‘s choice model goes like this. Identify the question, select an answer based on emotion, and then look for data to justify the answer. This seems to be what is happening here.
Again, if data is collected objectively without any prerogatives it can lead to effective choices. If data is collected with ill conceived intentions, or it is mined with intent the conclusions become flawed.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Confirmation bias is part of it. What I have seen over the last 10yrs, in a variety of topics, is questions are asked that can't be answered. This is one.
"Is the hunting of bears and cougars having a negative impact on the ecosystem?"
How would even go about coming up with an answer? You statistically can't prove a negative. You can't recreate the past and put all the bears killed the last 5 yrs back in the woods and measure whatever you think are the relevant metrics of the ecosystem. Hell, it is hard enough to even come up with an estimated count of bears, cougars, and wolves. And the unanswerable question approach isn't just this topic. It can be seen with the ND deer baiting-CWD thread or even in some of the MD management threads. If you want to be conspiratorial, you can believe the people who ask the questions know that there is no way to answer it. In this case I feel strongly they do given the backgrounds of the Commissioners. They aren't average dolts. This is why the Precautionary Principal get slapped on everything. Ironically, collecting data they seek is expensive task and a large part of that money comes from hunters.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Credit where it is due, the Commission has been called out on this by the department.
www.spokesman.com
Washington wildlife manager says black bear data requested by Fish and Wildlife commissioner doesn’t exist and isn’t needed; group to vote Saturday on spring hunt
A top Washington wildlife manager said the detailed level of biological data requested by one of the state’s new Fish and Wildlife commissioners doesn’t exist for many hunted species in the Evergreen State.
www.spokesman.com
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,661
M
Do we need to deeply research mosquitos? The wonton killing of mosquitos without knowing the data is out of control. What if!?!
I especially do not like the abuse of the precautionary principle. The principle basically says to not make uninformed changes. You basically keep doing what you’re doing until there is more information. There is no data, or any data, saying we should, halt the spring bear hunt. The precautionary principle would actually tell us to keep hunting bear in the spring how we have until we have data telling us otherwise. It is what we’ve done. Keep doing it.
So, I drink water from my tap routinely. It tastes good, and it has never made me sick. I hear a story about the water in Michigan. Do I stop drinking my water? No, the data doesn’t tell me to stop. I keep drinking it, even if I‘m nervous. If I’m nervous enough I get more data before making any changes. I order a water quality testing kit or something.
Credit where it is due, the Commission has been called out on this by the department.
Washington wildlife manager says black bear data requested by Fish and Wildlife commissioner doesn’t exist and isn’t needed; group to vote Saturday on spring hunt
A top Washington wildlife manager said the detailed level of biological data requested by one of the state’s new Fish and Wildlife commissioners doesn’t exist for many hunted species in the Evergreen State.
Do we need to deeply research mosquitos? The wonton killing of mosquitos without knowing the data is out of control. What if!?!
I especially do not like the abuse of the precautionary principle. The principle basically says to not make uninformed changes. You basically keep doing what you’re doing until there is more information. There is no data, or any data, saying we should, halt the spring bear hunt. The precautionary principle would actually tell us to keep hunting bear in the spring how we have until we have data telling us otherwise. It is what we’ve done. Keep doing it.
So, I drink water from my tap routinely. It tastes good, and it has never made me sick. I hear a story about the water in Michigan. Do I stop drinking my water? No, the data doesn’t tell me to stop. I keep drinking it, even if I‘m nervous. If I’m nervous enough I get more data before making any changes. I order a water quality testing kit or something.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
So if we don't hunt and the dept has no revenue do these clowns eventually become unemployed?
It's gov't so I understand it's hard to get canned unless you say something mean about the alphabet people.
It's gov't so I understand it's hard to get canned unless you say something mean about the alphabet people.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
note that article came out over a year and a half ago. They have consistently voted against our own scientists since then.Credit where it is due, the Commission has been called out on this by the department.
Washington wildlife manager says black bear data requested by Fish and Wildlife commissioner doesn’t exist and isn’t needed; group to vote Saturday on spring hunt
A top Washington wildlife manager said the detailed level of biological data requested by one of the state’s new Fish and Wildlife commissioners doesn’t exist for many hunted species in the Evergreen State.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
No, much of WDFW budget is from the gen fund.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
I'll take "Things I forgot" for 1000 Alex. Thanks for the correction
Are the commissioners using their pronouns?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The Commission, agree. From what I see, I like where the F&W stands on this. Odd that those two are pointing in different directions.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,661
We had a solid turnout during public comments. I really was impressed with many of the commenters. I switched mine up due what I heard. I hope it went well. I tried to counterpoint and hit different points. We, hunters and anglers, came across as educated, calm, united, and uniting. A few of the people, especially one “woof person,” came across as interesting.
Letthemgrow
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2017
- Messages
- 422
. . . wooves . . .
Irrelevant
Well-known member
it was good. But it's falling a deaf ears, blind eyes, and a political cleaver.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,661
As they say, shit in one hand and bitch in the other. Which fills up first? Let’s keep shitting and make some fertilizer.
It does sound like we are moving to sending wooves to Colorado… Not sure what to say about that.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Has anyone actually heard the newest commissioner, Woody Myers, say anything? Is he mute?
So painful to watch. And so similar to many other outcomes, just with greater consequences than most of these skirmishes.
Similar in that paid employees of many groups show up, have a rehearsed presentation among them all, and have been lobbying decision makers prior to the hearing.
On the other side a small and committed group of amazing volunteers show up, give a great message, but are more like a "Lonely Voice in the Wilderness" when compared to the opponents.
The stakes in Washington could not be higher. This process is serving as a big lesson for me. The hurdles to get people to engage and speak up are even higher than I imagined. With all that is at risk, I expected Washington hunters/anglers to turn out in greater numbers. For a variety of reasons, it is less than I expected, albeit better than some of the prior turnouts.
When the stakes are this high and the hunter/angler community still can't more of our members to rally to the cause has to be demoralizing to those of you fighting the good fight in Washington.
For those of you in Washington, use these platforms for anything you find useful to your efforts.
Similar in that paid employees of many groups show up, have a rehearsed presentation among them all, and have been lobbying decision makers prior to the hearing.
On the other side a small and committed group of amazing volunteers show up, give a great message, but are more like a "Lonely Voice in the Wilderness" when compared to the opponents.
The stakes in Washington could not be higher. This process is serving as a big lesson for me. The hurdles to get people to engage and speak up are even higher than I imagined. With all that is at risk, I expected Washington hunters/anglers to turn out in greater numbers. For a variety of reasons, it is less than I expected, albeit better than some of the prior turnouts.
When the stakes are this high and the hunter/angler community still can't more of our members to rally to the cause has to be demoralizing to those of you fighting the good fight in Washington.
For those of you in Washington, use these platforms for anything you find useful to your efforts.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Sorry, but this statement specific to the situation is ignorant and inaccurate. You clearly don’t understand the nuance of the political climate.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Nah, it's easier to view everything through a black and white lens, then lob statements loaded with every logical fallacy named thus far while wrapped in the safety blanket of anonymity afforded by the internet, than to actually engage and use coherent thought to discuss and attempt to understand the other side.
*grammatical mistakes left in tact as proof it's me and not ChatGPT
Irrelevant
Well-known member
IMO the lack of support is multipronged.
1. When do you actually need hunters to show up? Commission meetings are 2-3 days long, they occur multiple times a year, and with regard to the loss of our spring bear, they have discussed it for over two years. There's not one rally point, even if we did rally, they'd just punt to the next meeting.
2. A large majority of the hunting population is already resigned to the eventual outcome based on what they've seen of politics at the State level. They've tried to be hear before, on other topics, and their voice is always drowned out by the will of King County. It's not hard to blame them for rolling over without a fight.
3. There is no actual hope in stopping or reversing the current trend that is pushing our State towards reduced hunting opportunities. We will still get to hunt this fall and we will get to hunt next fall and the fall after and so on and so forth, at least for a while, but it is absolutely going to be less and less every year and eventually it'll functionally go away even if there is always some small legacy hunting that is allowed.
For example, I have tried to reach out to my local commissioner, who's happily toted the anti-spring bear narrative. He lives here in Wenatchee. He claims to be a hunter and to represent the hunting culture. I have tried numerous times to contact him to arrange either a 1 on 1 meeting, or to come and present to the local sportsman's assoc or just invite him to our meetings. Crickets. He's on the local land trust board, I've tried to contact him through those channels, nothing. When we can't even get the hunting representatives to interact with his own local hunting club... that's failure on a systematic level that, again IMO, simply can't be over come. I'm sure some of the issue is due to the shear size of WA's population. He probably gets bombarded with messages and requests, but that's still a pretty ridiculous cop out.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
He talked yesterday. 11:40ish mark on wildlife committee. He seemed to be having a few problems with his computer. The end of that video, there seemed to be a push to speed up cougar and bear season setting.
I understand your point, but these meetings are painful to listen to. Most of it is debating process rather than policy. If i can stay awake, after about 40min I want to jab a sharp pencil in my eye. I also need a glossary for terms. It is hard to expect average people to get actively involved other than comments on ultimate policy. Groups that pay people to attend and comment have a huge advantage because money motivates. There have been two days of meetings. Someone just doing highlights would require watching all the video and a half day of summarizing. A am grateful for people that do that but can’t image it being done by someone for nothing.
