HB 2261 - dealing with Department of Fish and Wildlife and peer review science

[KFhunter]

H-2961.3 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2261
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representatives Short, Fagan, and Magendanz
Read first time 01/15/14. Referred to Committee on Agriculture &
Natural Resources.
1 AN ACT Relating to the use of science to support significant agency
2 actions; and amending RCW 34.05.271.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 34.05.271 and 2013 c 68 s 2 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1)(a) Before taking a significant agency action, the department of
7 fish and wildlife must identify the sources of information reviewed and
8 relied upon by the agency in the course of preparing to take
9 significant agency action. Peer-reviewed literature, if applicable,
10 must be identified, as well as any scientific literature or other
11 sources of information used. The department of fish and wildlife shall
12 make available on the agency's web site the index of records required
13 under RCW 42.56.070(((6))) that are relied upon, or invoked, in support
14 of a proposal for significant agency action.
15 (b) On the agency's web site, the department of fish and wildlife
16 must identify and categorize each source of information that is relied
17 upon in the form of a bibliography, citation list, or similar list of
18 sources. The categories in (c) of this subsection do not imply or
19 infer any hierarchy or level of quality.
p. 1 HB 2261
1 (c) The bibliography, citation list, or similar list of sources
2 must categorize the sources of information as belonging to one or more
3 of the following categories:
4 (i) Independent peer review: Review is overseen by an independent
5 third party;
6 (ii) Internal peer review: Review by staff internal to the
7 department of fish and wildlife;
8 (iii) External peer review: Review by persons that are external to
9 and selected by the department of fish and wildlife;
10 (iv) Open review: Documented open public review process that is
11 not limited to invited organizations or individuals;
12 (v) Legal and policy document: Documents related to the legal
13 framework for the significant agency action including but not limited
14 to:
15 (A) Federal and state statutes;
16 (B) Court and hearings board decisions;
17 (C) Federal and state administrative rules and regulations; and
18 (D) Policy and regulatory documents adopted by local governments;
19 (vi) Data from primary research, monitoring activities, or other
20 sources, but that has not been incorporated as part of documents
21 reviewed under the processes described in (c)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)
22 of this subsection;
23 (vii) Records of the professional opinion of department of fish and
24 wildlife employees or other individuals; or
25 (viii) Other: Sources of information that do not fit into one of
26 the categories identified in this subsection (1)(c).
27 (2)(a) For the purposes of this section, "significant agency
28 action" means an act of the department of fish and wildlife that:
29 (i) Results in the development of a significant legislative rule as
30 defined in RCW 34.05.328;
31 (ii) Results in the development of technical guidance, technical
32 assessments, or technical documents that are used to directly support
33 implementation of a state rule or state statute; or
34 (iii) Results in the development of fish and wildlife recovery
35 plans.
36 (b) "Significant agency action" does not include rule making by the
37 department of fish and wildlife associated with fishing and hunting
38 rules.
HB 2261 p. 2
1 (3) This section is not intended to affect agency action regarding
2 individual permitting, compliance and enforcement decisions, or
3 guidance provided by an agency to a local government on a case-by-case
4 basis.
--- END ---

[bearpaw]

Representatives Short's comments about this bill:

House Bill 2261 and House Bill 2262 – I call these the “show your work” bills.  We all remember having to show our work during math class in elementary school.  These bills require the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Department of Ecology (DOE) to “show their work” by categorizing on their websites the sources of information relied upon in support of significant agency actions.  This is a further way to hold unelected bureaucrats accountable for their actions.

[KFhunter]

accountability and transparency in government - what a concept

[buckfvr]

accountability and transparency in government - what a concept

    the avoid at all cost concept.............

[Curly]

Wonder why they have this part in there:

36 (b) "Significant agency action" does not include rule making by the
37 department of fish and wildlife associated with fishing and hunting
38 rules.

 

Wouldn't it be good to have fishing and hunting rules included?

[KFhunter]

Wonder why they have this part in there:

36 (b) "Significant agency action" does not include rule making by the
37 department of fish and wildlife associated with fishing and hunting
38 rules.

 

Wouldn't it be good to have fishing and hunting rules included?

I think this thing is squarely aimed at various significant action plans,  IE:  "The Washington Wolf Plan" and the newly implemented "Cougar Plan".

It's an effort to hold WDFW to task when it brings in a new plan based on emotion or politics rather than science.

[dreamunelk]

Really does not make any sense since most actions by the WDFW are backed by peer reviewed science.   The only recent action that may not pass the peer review test is the removal of the wedge pack.  So be careful what you ask for.  I can see this as being used to limit hunting.  Say for example some antis decide we are over harvesting in a GMU that is impossible to survey.  Because this survey has not been done they could force it's closure. Even when those that hunt it know that there is no shortage of elk.  Just saying, we need to think critically.  That means leave you emotions out of the process.  Only consider what is proven.

Another more scary thought.  Say in a few years the goal of however many wolf packs is reached with several extra.  WDFW as per the plan decides that some wolf harvest can occur.  Very easy for the wolf huggers to stop it because a peer reviewed study has not been down.  So  add another 5-10 years before it is settled.

This law can be used against us very easily.

[npaull]

Hard to argue with the concept, potentially not as hard to find ways to weasel out/around it.

Still, hard to argue with the concept or using the best available science to back up decisions. That does mean, however, that we as sportsmen DO NOT get to choose which science we're going to agree with. That's just not how it works..

[npaull]

Really does not make any sense since most actions by the WDFW are backed by peer reviewed science.   The only recent action that may not pass the peer review test is the removal of the wedge pack.  So be careful what you ask for.  I can see this as being used to limit hunting.  Say for example some antis decide we are over harvesting in a GMU that is impossible to survey.  Because this survey has not been done they could force it's closure. Even when those that hunt it know that there is no shortage of elk.  Just saying, we need to think critically.  That means leave you emotions out of the process.  Only consider what is proven.

Another more scary thought.  Say in a few years the goal of however many wolf packs is reached with several extra.  WDFW as per the plan decides that some wolf harvest can occur.  Very easy for the wolf huggers to stop it because a peer reviewed study has not been down.  So  add another 5-10 years before it is settled.

This law can be used against us very easily.

I agree this could happen in theory, but I think it's more likely a TRUE conclusion could be reached that we would not necessarily like.

There's only one reality, and when we're talking about that one reality using logic, reason and the best available evidence, we're being scientific. We as hunters should not fear scientific evidence as it relates to our activity, inso far as we believe these statements to be SCIENTIFICALLY true:

1) Regulated hunting is good for wildlife
2) Dollars spent on licenses etc comprise a majority of conservation $ in the country
3) Hunters care more about the success of wildlife than other people

If we believe we're right about something, and we believe we have good evidence for that belief, then science can do nothing but affirm that position. And by this I mean the actual, true endeavor of science, not the perchance results of any one specific study.

[buckfvr]

wdfw has a long history of agenda driven studies...........always predictable.