Call to Action - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting

[Gus Chiggins]

I’m not saying he didn’t, but if you look at permit numbers and harvest data it certainly doesn’t support “a handful”.

I’m not sure there is a western state where moose aren’t decreasing in numbers.

We should probably define “handful”

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Mr Lewis implies that predators are the only factor in the demise of the Boundary County Caribou and the Shiras moose. It's a LOT more nuanced than that.

Bart George probably knows more about Idaho caribou than anyone on earth and he says predators, yes, but other ungulates who out-competed them too, as well as changing climate.

Unfortunately WDFW says the forest caribou disappeared mainly due to predation.

Woodland caribou

wdfw.wa.gov

“The population declined from a recent high of 46 in 2009, mainly due to predation which had increased because past timber harvest had created habitat for deer, elk, and moose in their range. These animals attracted wolves, cougars, and bears that then occasionally killed caribou. Logging roads and snowmobile traffic likely facilitated greater access for predators to high elevation caribou habitat.”

 

[44hunter45]

Unfortunately WDFW says the forest caribou disappeared mainly due to predation.

Woodland caribou

wdfw.wa.gov

“The population declined from a recent high of 46 in 2009, mainly due to predation which had increased because past timber harvest had created habitat for deer, elk, and moose in their range. These animals attracted wolves, cougars, and bears that then occasionally killed caribou. Logging roads and snowmobile traffic likely facilitated greater access for predators to high elevation caribou habitat.”

We are arguing the same point.

MOSTLY predation, but other factors too. It is important to understand that timber management practices precipitated the changes that resulted in higher predation.

The sentence you chose to quote is the why to other ungulates out-competing the caribou.

To break down the quoted sentence:
- Timber Harvest (Habitat Change)
- Habitat change favors Deer, Elk, and Moose (out-competing other Caribou), which attract more predators.
- More access for predators due to skid and haul roads.

Which came first? Timber harvest or woofs?

To me it reads like "Logging, something, something, PREDATORS!!!"
There was an active predator management program to provide relief to the caribou, but WDFW outlawed hound harvest of lions. Thereafter, managers could haze cats, but not kill them.

To bring this back to the WDFW theme of this thread - Ending hound hunting can be directly attributed to the demise of the Caribou. This can be inferred from the "science" listed on the WDFW website. Why not ask the WDFW Commission to answer for it?

Is that cause and effect listed on this glossy web page? NO.

Then there is this paragraph:

 

[Irrelevant]

Bullseye!

I don’t think you need to relisten. You’ve nailed it.

If hunters and anglers cannot show a net benefit associated with their involvement, in the many ways they are involved, the Trustees could easily end hunting, fishing, trapping, distributing wildlife in any manner, antler picking, mountain biking, you name it.

And that’s the worry many have had for years. If hunters can’t demonstrate value to the big picture, we’re not gonna be around for too long. If the Public Trust Corpus of wildlife suffers rather than benefits from hunting and hunters, we aren’t giving a “reasonable and prudent” Trustee any option that favors hunting.

You’ve summarized the issue in one question better than I did in multiple paragraphs.

Q: Are hunters and hunting doing enough benefit to the Trust and Trust Corpus to continue our historical role as primary Stakeholders that a Trustee must consider?

I’d answer that as “YES.” But in some instances our apathy, our resistance to more funding, our use of selective science for confirmation (bias), our tone deaf response to some issues, and other actions/inaction measured unfavorably allows that a case can be made to the contrary by those opposed to hunting.

So, I left this discussion abruptly and spend the last week+ in central ID with the fam doing fun things (hiking, swimming, glassing, day drinking, getting my teeth jarred loose by endless miles of washboard...etc). During that time I caught up on many of your pertinent podcasts, including relistening to all 10+ (?) hrs of your series with Shane. Before I go further I'd like to thank you for what you do. Your conservation podcasts are excellent, truly something every sportsman needs to take the time to listen to. Treat it like a chore, like earning brownie points for your later hunts. If you don't come away with more knowledge and a fire to do something to support conservation and our hunting heritage then you had too many roadies.

...

My take away from all that listening and reflecting is that the NAM was a great, revolutionary, idea that has outlived it's usefulness to hunters, at least in many locations. I know, that's a bold statement, and possibly an incorrect statement, but if hunting is to remain a cultural practice, a family tradition that is passed from one generation to another, then we need something with more definition more structure, more "rights" than just this good idea, that is represented by the model.

To your point Randy, no, we can't show a net benefit, because "benefit" isn't an equally definable term. I can say we are a net benefit, you can say that, but for every one of us there are at least one on the other side that can show a net negative. We are actively killing wildlife and seeking to kill more, both now and in the future, and no amount of money is going to outweigh that in many people's eyes. And we can't deny there is a lot of logic in their defense. Science can't exclusively support us. What we provided in the NAM was better than what we had, better than what most/all other places have. But there's nothing to say it's the best. There are methods of management out there that can/could check all the boxes as NAM without this uncomfortable proposition of willing killing wildlife. If all we can hang our hat on is funding then we're #@)(*%*. WDFW already has a large slice the general fund, there's nothing overtly blocking more general funding- ALL general funding, except institutional inertia, which is slowing being shifted already.

I'm not sure where to go from here, at least here in WA. I don't see much hope. Even the portions of our state code that support hunting, which my reading aren't nearly as strong as many others seem to feel, can be easily changed now or in the future. For those who truly love hunting, I would push for a constitutional amendment. It's really the only thing that may endure. I used to thing those were BS and unnecessary. I no longer feel that way.

As many have pointed out, you get what you vote for. I'll admit that I had prioritized other aspects of life above this for a long time, thinking at the time, there was really no risk to my actual hunting opportunities. I'm not sure exactly how this will change for me in the future, but I can no longer take for granted my ability to hunt in WA.

 

[MtnElk]

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.

@Big Fin tagging you bc you have high level contacts at the large conservation orgs and might have some insight, but I’ve wondered this for quite some time: why aren’t RMEF, WSF, DU, etc pooling resources to hire state specific representatives (namely CO and WA) so that we are fighting the fight the same way the anti hunting crowd is.

Hell, they could even form a separate 501c3 to fund into and then hire these state reps and the board of said 501c3 would be made up of the contributing orgs. That way this person could lobby on behalf of hunting and not just elk, sheep, deer, etc.

Volunteers are a critical part of this fight, but if the anti hunting crew has specific employees to lobby and present, why aren’t we? This has to be just as valuable as acquiring lands, opening up habitat, etc - no?

I feel like this a great example of where we need to put our specific conservation missions aside and focus on the greater good. Unite everyone in a fight that is coming for all of us

 

[Hammsolo]

So, I left this discussion abruptly and spend the last week+ in central ID with the fam doing fun things (hiking, swimming, glassing, day drinking, getting my teeth jarred loose by endless miles of washboard...etc). During that time I caught up on many of your pertinent podcasts, including relistening to all 10+ (?) hrs of your series with Shane. Before I go further I'd like to thank you for what you do. Your conservation podcasts are excellent, truly something every sportsman needs to take the time to listen to. Treat it like a chore, like earning brownie points for your later hunts. If you don't come away with more knowledge and a fire to do something to support conservation and our hunting heritage then you had too many roadies.

...

My take away from all that listening and reflecting is that the NAM was a great, revolutionary, idea that has outlived it's usefulness to hunters, at least in many locations. I know, that's a bold statement, and possibly an incorrect statement, but if hunting is to remain a cultural practice, a family tradition that is passed from one generation to another, then we need something with more definition more structure, more "rights" than just this good idea, that is represented by the model.

To your point Randy, no, we can't show a net benefit, because "benefit" isn't an equally definable term. I can say we are a net benefit, you can say that, but for every one of us there are at least one on the other side that can show a net negative. We are actively killing wildlife and seeking to kill more, both now and in the future, and no amount of money is going to outweigh that in many people's eyes. And we can't deny there is a lot of logic in their defense. Science can't exclusively support us. What we provided in the NAM was better than what we had, better than what most/all other places have. But there's nothing to say it's the best. There are methods of management out there that can/could check all the boxes as NAM without this uncomfortable proposition of willing killing wildlife. If all we can hang our hat on is funding then we're #@)(*%*. WDFW already has a large slice the general fund, there's nothing overtly blocking more general funding- ALL general funding, except institutional inertia, which is slowing being shifted already.

I'm not sure where to go from here, at least here in WA. I don't see much hope. Even the portions of our state code that support hunting, which my reading aren't nearly as strong as many others seem to feel, can be easily changed now or in the future. For those who truly love hunting, I would push for a constitutional amendment. It's really the only thing that may endure. I used to thing those were BS and unnecessary. I no longer feel that way.

As many have pointed out, you get what you vote for. I'll admit that I had prioritized other aspects of life above this for a long time, thinking at the time, there was really no risk to my actual hunting opportunities. I'm not sure exactly how this will change for me in the future, but I can no longer take for granted my ability to hunt in WA.

I am in a similar boat. I suddenly now realize that there’s all sorts of holes punched in my boat. I’m not gonna sit and watch the water pour in. I’m going to plug holes, fix holes, pay people to repair holes and do whatever it takes to keep the boat afloat.

 

[Hammsolo]

@Big Fin tagging you bc you have high level contacts at the large conservation orgs and might have some insight, but I’ve wondered this for quite some time: why aren’t RMEF, WSF, DU, etc pooling resources to hire state specific representatives (namely CO and WA) so that we are fighting the fight the same way the anti hunting crowd is.

Hell, they could even form a separate 501c3 to fund into and then hire these state reps and the board of said 501c3 would be made up of the contributing orgs. That way this person could lobby on behalf of hunting and not just elk, sheep, deer, etc.

Volunteers are a critical part of this fight, but if the anti hunting crew has specific employees to lobby and present, why aren’t we? This has to be just as valuable as acquiring lands, opening up habitat, etc - no?

I feel like this a great example of where we need to put our specific conservation missions aside and focus on the greater good. Unite everyone in a fight that is coming for all of us

I have a pit in my stomach over this. It gnaws at me. I see my trail ahead of me, and I think I’m gonna have to find a future in fighting this battle on a higher level.

 

[SAJ-99]

If all we can hang our hat on is funding then we're #@)(*%*. WDFW already has a large slice the general fund, there's nothing overtly blocking more general funding- ALL general funding, except institutional inertia, which is slowing being shifted already.

Unfortunately this is true, at least in part. But I think it is temporary. At some point people will scream about why funds are being used for Pygmy rabbits when people are homeless and hungry, etc. the fact that we fund a significant portion of the department’s budget still has some weight. Agree that we need to consolidate around an argument that appeals to the masses who continue to support hunting even if they don’t do it themselves. But organization and cooperation has always been problem for us.

Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit

wdfw.wa.gov

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin tagging you bc you have high level contacts at the large conservation orgs and might have some insight, but I’ve wondered this for quite some time: why aren’t RMEF, WSF, DU, etc pooling resources to hire state specific representatives (namely CO and WA) so that we are fighting the fight the same way the anti hunting crowd is.

Hell, they could even form a separate 501c3 to fund into and then hire these state reps and the board of said 501c3 would be made up of the contributing orgs. That way this person could lobby on behalf of hunting and not just elk, sheep, deer, etc.

Volunteers are a critical part of this fight, but if the anti hunting crew has specific employees to lobby and present, why aren’t we? This has to be just as valuable as acquiring lands, opening up habitat, etc - no?

I feel like this a great example of where we need to put our specific conservation missions aside and focus on the greater good. Unite everyone in a fight that is coming for all of us

This is often discussed. From my experience, there are many reasons why it hasn't happened in a manner as you described.

First is that a lot of collaborative stuff has happened in DC, not at the state levels. The groups partner with Congressional Sportsmans Foundation and National Shooting Sports Foundation on a lot of the national stuff as their way of dealing with that. Same with these groups and their involvement in AWCP (American Wildlife Conservation Partners). But none of that collaboration is done in the ugly political brawling manner these opposing groups excel at.

Probably the biggest reason is resources (funding), followed by mission. If you think about what it would cost to put such a person in every state, say even a person to cover two states. It is 25 people, their salaries, salary burden, office space, travel, and the list of costs goes on to effectively lobby. Each of those positions and costs to engage is going to be a $200,000 per year cost, or $5,000,000 per year. That's not a small number, though I could easily make a case that it would be worth the investment for these groups.

I looked into doing it just for Montana. All the folks "in the know" told me that to be effective it would be a $300K, per year, just in Montana. I wish I had that kind of money, but I don't.

As for mission, the groups you mention are habitat focused. For example, RMEF is organized as a land trust, exempt under the tax code in that manner. If you look at the mission of these groups we talk about, they are all habitat-focused. Politics, as necessary we know it is to be involved with, takes away from the "on-the-ground" mission work.

Another reality is what I've often pointed out - We are behind the curve on the tactics and strategy to play political football. I think that is your point and I agree with it. We are getting our clocks cleaned in some states at the Legislative, and now Gubernatorial/Appointment, level. We are geared for boots on the ground volunteerism, with a lot of focus on volunteerism rather than paid staffs of attorneys and folks with poli-sci degrees.

Being tooled up in that manner as we are and without the professional infrastructure is not something changed quickly. I do know that the discussions are being had to address the issues and try to find what solutions could/would work.

I am advocating that we need new groups to do this stuff you mention. We have our habitat groups that need to do that need to keep doing the important habitat and access work. We can't give up on those efforts, either, as conservation, habitat, and access gets more expensive every year. We need to have a group(s) that know how the game gets played and that's often throwing a fastball high and inside. If that pisses off some people, so be it. That's a completely different approach than what approach accomplishes access and habitat work.

We need hunters and anglers to step up and fund groups that will be viable at the state level. It is going to take a ton of funding to get it launched and a consistent and committed level of funding to attracting people with the talent to be effective. To me, that is the solution I think is most effective in the long-run.

Another reality is how much funding there is in the hunting space/community, relative to the huge amount of work we need to do and the costs to address these new threats (and existing threats). Our community does not fund our interest to the level that opposing groups get funding. Yeah, we have some in our community with great resources who are truly altruistic and generous. But for the most part, the hunting community does not fund our groups to the degree that the opposition funds their groups. Nor does the hunting community fund their groups commensurate to the level of supposed passion and interest we have in the activity of hunting. I wish I could see that funding commitment increasing, but it isn't likely to increase.

I've probably traveled off the path of your original question. I'll try to summarize.

1) What you've mentioned is being discussed.
2) I've given my comments that I think it needs to be new a group(s), with new funding, and new approaches.
3) Without increased funding to the level of these opposing groups, neither #1 or #2 is going to happen without losing ground in the other areas where we need to keep working hard.

 

[Nicoli7153]

Money talks and ..... well we all know the rest!!!

 

[Irrelevant]

@Big Fin tagging you bc you have high level contacts at the large conservation orgs and might have some insight, but I’ve wondered this for quite some time: why aren’t RMEF, WSF, DU, etc pooling resources to hire state specific representatives (namely CO and WA) so that we are fighting the fight the same way the anti hunting crowd is.

Hell, they could even form a separate 501c3 to fund into and then hire these state reps and the board of said 501c3 would be made up of the contributing orgs. That way this person could lobby on behalf of hunting and not just elk, sheep, deer, etc.

Volunteers are a critical part of this fight, but if the anti hunting crew has specific employees to lobby and present, why aren’t we? This has to be just as valuable as acquiring lands, opening up habitat, etc - no?

I feel like this a great example of where we need to put our specific conservation missions aside and focus on the greater good. Unite everyone in a fight that is coming for all of us

I know WA BHA has looked into this, and is working on it (?), or was, not actually sure of the current situation. But it's a lot of money, at the time they were looking for partners to help with the funding.

 

[Irrelevant]

1) What you've mentioned is being discussed.
2) I've given my comments that I think it needs to be new a group(s), with new funding, and new approaches.
3) Without increased funding to the level of these opposing groups, neither #1 or #2 is going to happen without losing ground in the other areas where we need to keep working hard.

This isn't going to happen. I almost fundamentally CAN'T happen, not to the level of the opposition. There's only so many of us with only so much money. We are already funding science, habitat, land acquisition, etc., and will continue to do so because we know how important they are. The opposition isn't funding any of that at the same levels we are, all of their funds are going to lobbyist and lawyers. Hell, they ARE lawyers!

I thought that the organic food movement was going to save hunting. But that was fools gold, looked like a good idea but didn't amount to much, certainly not enough to shift the momentum. I have some hope that cultural preservation has merit with a community so supportive of minority rights. Unfortunately I feel like hunters will have to sell there soul's to utilize either of those potential strengths, from a crowding/access/opportunity stand point. But maybe in the end it is worth it.

Sorry, I'm stuck in the red on this topic, I hope everyone else keeps their chin up, and keeps fighting the good fight. I'll see you in Sept @Hammsolo if you're going to the next commission meeting.