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

[Hammsolo]

Hey All, Click the link and do something quick. Our system is in trouble, and this will eventually affect you no matter where you live. There are multiple ways to get involved. Simply send a quick email. If they can’t hear us they assume we don’t exist. I know it’s short notice, and the clock is running down. We don’t have any timeouts left though. Keep Grinding, Nick

Get Engaged!!!

 

[COEngineer]

CO is going down the same path as WA. If hunters don't get involved and show up, hunting will be reduced to something like it is in Europe - a few wealthy people on private land. Public wildlife will be dealt with by paid sharpshooters or birth control.

 

[Hammsolo]

Well, I sat through the some of the Commission Meeting today. I’ve sent another message and will be making a comment tomorrow.

Today’s section on Wildlife was interesting. Trying to just observe and infer was interesting. The jostling and political dancing was tangible. The commission definitely seems to have been put on notice by the public.

Long story short, bear and cougar were the hot topic. There was wrangling around what comes first, science or new regulations. Scientists are pushing to be able to finish research before there are any changes to the Bear and Cougar Regulations. Some wanted the Game Management Plan completed before decisions were made. They said that the current rules will not “sunset,” and should remain. Some commissioners want to wait, while Commissioner Roland actually stated that they she was unwilling to wait. Commissioner Meyer’s brought up that there is data out there for use on bear.

There is a “Predator/Prey Project” being completed by the Department. What is Washington's Predator-Prey Project Aimed at Achieving? Assessing the effects of predation on ungulate populations in managed landscapes with wolves. Determining the degree of influence wolves have on cougar space use, foraging ecology, and population dynamics. This is incomplete at this time. Again, some want to wait on this research while others don’t in order to form new regulations. The regulations are on a 3 year cycle, but can be reviewed at any time.

One commissioner near the end went back to the “Precautionary Principal.” This is the principal that ended spring bear hunting. It basically states that if you don’t have enough data, a pretty damn grey term, you stick to a baseline harvest in this case. It doesn’t make sense that they moved the harvest to zero for the spring based on her explanation, in my opinion. It sounds like this may be used again.

Tomorrow should be interesting.

 

[Irrelevant]

Thanks for pulling those. I'd meant to listen in and just couldn't today. I will try to tomorrow. That last question in that last slide needs a swift kick to the nuts.

 

[Hammsolo]

Thanks for pulling those. I'd meant to listen in and just couldn't today. I will try to tomorrow. That last question in that last slide needs a swift kick to the nuts.

yep!

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks for pulling those. I'd meant to listen in and just couldn't today. I will try to tomorrow. That last question in that last slide needs a swift kick to the nuts.

@neffa3 or @Hammsolo, either of you clarify who are they asking the questions? Is it WDFW bios?
Thanks for the insight. It seems like a subject for a high school debate team. Every item can be flipped with a nonsensical counter.

 

[Hammsolo]

@neffa3 or @Hammsolo, either of you clarify who are they asking the questions? Is it WDFW bios?
Thanks for the insight. It seems like a subject for a high school debate team. Every item can be flipped with a nonsensical counter.

The questions are from the Commission to the Department. The questions/requests was super confusing to everyone. It sounded like it was also from Commission to Department. The wording is terrible. They seemed very personal and feelings driven.

 

[Hammsolo]

I forgot to mention earlier the mention of shifting from an over the counter tag program primarily to all application hunting…

 

[Irrelevant]

It was a really good meeting. I was thankful that some of the commissioners such as commissioner Smith were there to ask important questions. It became apparent at several points that some of the participants want to proceed without the appropriate data for a spring bear season. Understanding the role of these carnivores in Washington's ecosystem is important. As hunters and conservationists, we can understand the impact that these carnivore have on the ecosystem and even the most basic questions remain unanswered.

I am looking forward to Dr. Trimbach providing some important information to the community tomorrow. It should be very educational. Dr. Trimbach is an expert in how hunting these species may impact the community and that simply biological and ecological analysis is not sufficent when a body like the commission is tasked with hard choices. As Washington's Fish and Game website points out, we lead the nation in incorporating social sciences into conservation.

What important data is that? What questions remain unanswered? I sure hope that social science incorporates the minority opinion. Because the anti hunting majority is absolutely willing to proceed with tyrannical rule.

I am one of those who believes we should continue with spring bear as there is zero truly ZERO evidence to refute it.

 

[SAJ-99]

It was a really good meeting. I was thankful that some of the commissioners such as commissioner Smith were there to ask important questions. It became apparent at several points that some of the participants want to proceed without the appropriate data for a spring bear season. Understanding the role of these carnivores in Washington's ecosystem is important. As hunters and conservationists, we can understand the impact that these carnivore have on the ecosystem and even the most basic questions remain unanswered.

I am looking forward to Dr. Trimbach providing some important information to the community tomorrow. It should be very educational. Dr. Trimbach is an expert in how hunting these species may impact the community and that simply biological and ecological analysis is not sufficent when a body like the commission is tasked with hard choices. As Washington's Fish and Game website points out, we lead the nation in incorporating social sciences into conservation.

Social science has no place in this topic. Humans are varied, opinions are malleable. Once you try to manage to social whims, you will end up with a broken system. Then every just looks to blame someone else.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

When I hear folks on the WA and CO wildlife commissions talk about “social science”, I get really worried. For me “social science” in wildlife management is like “Hey I don’t like hunting, if I can convince enough people to not like hunting too (through emotional pleas and misinformation) I can get rid of hunting”.

 

[kwyeewyk]

It was a really good meeting. I was thankful that some of the commissioners such as commissioner Smith were there to ask important questions. It became apparent at several points that some of the participants want to proceed without the appropriate data for a spring bear season. Understanding the role of these carnivores in Washington's ecosystem is important. As hunters and conservationists, we can understand the impact that these carnivore have on the ecosystem and even the most basic questions remain unanswered.

I am looking forward to Dr. Trimbach providing some important information to the community tomorrow. It should be very educational. Dr. Trimbach is an expert in how hunting these species may impact the community and that simply biological and ecological analysis is not sufficent when a body like the commission is tasked with hard choices. As Washington's Fish and Game website points out, we lead the nation in incorporating social sciences into conservation.

Welcome to HuntTalk, so what brings you to the forum? Most people do an introduction in the "who am I" category. Are you a commissioner?

 

[SAJ-99]

I think it is easy to wait 1 more day to hear from the experts at Washington Fish and Wildlife before making such comments. The presentation that has been scheduled will provide information relevant to this controversy.

As much as I and many others would simply like to move forward with a decision, the State of Washington, the Federal Government of the United States, and many non government entities such as corporations like Sitka, Sitka's parent company WL Gore, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and even the owner of this site have indicated that considering the social impacts of their actions and decisions are important. As far as I know, most of these entities have some type of social or equity action plan in place to help understand how their decisions will affect the community. I am sorry we disagree on this but we will see what is presented at the commission meeting tomorrow.

That is a well thought out response. Clearly you have done this before. Lol. I stand by my comments. Once you manage any system to some perceived social science, it breaks down. It doesn’t matter if it NAM and hunting or economic models. It breaks simply because people are unpredictable creatures with every changing opinions, which are often contradictory.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I think it is easy to wait 1 more day to hear from the experts at Washington Fish and Wildlife before making such comments. The presentation that has been scheduled will provide information relevant to this controversy.

As much as I and many others would simply like to move forward with a decision, the State of Washington, the Federal Government of the United States, and many non government entities such as corporations like Sitka, Sitka's parent company WL Gore, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and even the owner of this site have indicated that considering the social impacts of their actions and decisions are important. As far as I know, most of these entities have some type of social or equity action plan in place to help understand how their decisions will affect the community. I am sorry we disagree on this but we will see what is presented at the commission meeting tomorrow.

Can you provide some examples of the types of social impacts you are referring to?

 

[Irrelevant]

I think it is easy to wait 1 more day to hear from the experts at Washington Fish and Wildlife before making such comments. The presentation that has been scheduled will provide information relevant to this controversy.

As much as I and many others would simply like to move forward with a decision, the State of Washington, the Federal Government of the United States, and many non government entities such as corporations like Sitka, Sitka's parent company WL Gore, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and even the owner of this site have indicated that considering the social impacts of their actions and decisions are important. As far as I know, most of these entities have some type of social or equity action plan in place to help understand how their decisions will affect the community. I am sorry we disagree on this but we will see what is presented at the commission meeting tomorrow.

That is the absolute least genuine comment I've ever read that wasn't from a bot, and the surety of which you refer to an up coming presentation, and the implied outcome of said presentation, already has me on guard, formulating rebuttals.

 

[antlerradar]

Welcome to HuntTalk, so what brings you to the forum? Most people do an introduction in the "who am I" category. Are you a commissioner?

I am just wondering who set up the burner membership just to mess with the Washington members.

 

[Big Fin]

I am just wondering who set up the burner membership just to mess with the Washington members.

Agree. I checked the registration. Full on troll.

 

[Letthemgrow]

"As Washington's Fish and Game website points out, we lead the nation in incorporating social sciences into conservation."

They lead the nation in stupidity in a lot of cases as well but you don't see us going on to forums and bragging about it.

 

[Beignet]

I was going to make a snarky comment about how banning black bear hunting in NJ didn’t really work out and the state had to backpedal and allow a season once the animals got out of control.

That led me to an academic article about the whole affair in a journal called Society and Animals. Same journal has also published (and I requested) an piece called “Agression and Hunting Attitudes.”

Anyone on here with a good JStore account that wants to make a little academic bibliography of this so-called Social Sciences in Conservation movement. I’d be very curious to read some of the peer reviewed literature on the subject to help better understand what informs some of these folks.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

You get what you vote for and plenty of people on here vote to support those who do these types of things to hunting.

It's mind boggling.