WDFW Predator Lawsuit

[suga]

Tagging so action can be taken when the time comes

X2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WSU]

One thing I would like is WDFW to toss out any and all policy decisions based on Weilgus's study's while at WSU.   

He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators.   WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU. 

Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW. 

https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/

One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes. 
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/


I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.

The problem is a court likely isn't going to decide which scientific study it believes and which one it doesn't.  Courts don't substitute their judgment for that of the state agency tasked with management.  The law requires the court to defer to the expertise of the agency.  Basically, if the agency has a somewhat rational basis for their actions, the court will rule in their favor.

[WSU]

I'd like to add that your comments on the merits of WDFW's management and Weilgus' studies may very well be correct.  I'm just not sure a court is the place to successfully wage that battle.

[tlbradford]

The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature.  If it is not, then they will require corrective actions.  How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue.  Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.

The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling.  Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.

Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.

[grundy53]

Good deal, hoping it works out.

All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again 

except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.

So were $30 tabs. The state quickly found a  way around that referendum...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[bbarnes]

They should also be held accountable for mismanagement of our elk and deer herds.

[whacker1]

The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature.  If it is not, then they will require corrective actions.  How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue.  Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.

The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling.  Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.

Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.

I think this is pretty well said.  I don't see our WA judges taking a strong position to make dramatic change unless there is a boat load of good/defining evidence that shows that they are not doing what the WAC & RCW say they are supposed to be doing.  I don't know enough to weigh in on one direction or another, but I have watched the court be unwilling to weigh in on lots of other subjects.

[WSU]

The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature.  If it is not, then they will require corrective actions.  How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue.  Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.

The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling.  Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.

Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.

Exactly what is WDFW's legislative mandate for managing the predators?

[Bushcraft]

One thing I would like is WDFW to toss out any and all policy decisions based on Weilgus's study's while at WSU.   

He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators.   WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU. 

Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW. 

https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/

One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes. 
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/


I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.

The problem is a court likely isn't going to decide which scientific study it believes and which one it doesn't.  Courts don't substitute their judgment for that of the state agency tasked with management.  The law requires the court to defer to the expertise of the agency.  Basically, if the agency has a somewhat rational basis for their actions, the court will rule in their favor.

Court: "So, Mr. Fox, what is your professional opinion with regard to closing the chicken coop at night?  Is doing so an effective deterrent against predators that want to kill and eat chickens?"

Mr. Fox (speaking on behalf of Washington Department of Chicken Production): "If it please the court, we present a study written by Professor Wile E. Coyote and sponsored by The Northwest Center for Anti-Poultry Alliance that illustrates shutting chicken coop doors doesn't deter predation at night. Or ever really.  Shutting the chicken coop door actually increases predation.  Never mind that the study that we base our agency's Open Door Chicken Coop Protection Policy on was based on wildly gerrymandered data that has been proven demonstrably false by actual scientists, and that we threaten the employment and/or future careers of any agency employees that speak out against it."

 

[Special T]

 

[Humptulips]

Who is bringing the suit?

[jasnt]

Tagging

[RB]

Only thing I ask for here is how do we support it in social media (court of public opinion, the other branch of government) for those that want facts. I have friends on both sides of the isle and like to know where to get good reliable data to show either party they are right, or wrong. Thanks

[Special T]

Only thing I ask for here is how do we support it in social media (court of public opinion, the other branch of government) for those that want facts. I have friends on both sides of the isle and like to know where to get good reliable data to show either party they are right, or wrong. Thanks

Perhaps as this thing progresses we need to spread the word, and raise some funds. Im very curious to see how this works out. Im guessing some body must have some detailed compelling information to bother suing the department. 

[BNAElkhntr]

tag