WDFW Predator Lawsuit

[Caseyd]

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?

Opposite
If they aren’t controlling them aggressively then it makes it hard to do their mandated jobs:

Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife

Provide sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-related recreational and commercial experiences

Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service

Build an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce, improving business processes, and investing in technology



I’m not privy to any information regarding the lawsuit but i imagine there are plenty of past and a few current bio’s who would link our current state of  habitat to the WDFW not doing their part

[idahohuntr]

This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring.   

What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this?  I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators". 

I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators".  As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.   

There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category. 

[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.

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

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

WDFW Game Management Plan is attached  Read introduction and page 101 starts black bear management and leads into cougars

[Twispriver]

If a tribe or multiple tribes bring a lawsuit showing loss of resource due to predator overpopulation, with the science to back it up, then maybe I could see something like this gaining traction. Otherwise I'll believe it when I see it.

[bearpaw]

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?

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

WDFW Game Management Plan is attached  Read introduction and page 101 starts black bear management and leads into cougars

Thanks for posting that, I do not feel like WDFW is fulfilling the stipulations of the RCW. I think reasonable arguments can be made in a lawsuit based on this RCW and other actions by WDFW.

Another questionable action, the commission approved an increase in cougar permits, that was vetoed by Governor Inslee, didn't that veto and failure to increase cougar quotas comply with the RCW?

Moose populations are plummeting, does the failure of WDFW to monitor moose numbers and wolf impacts follow the language of the RCW?

Does allowing predators to decimate the last remaining caribou herd in the lower 48, an endangered specie, fullfill the intent of the RCW?

I think these and probably numerous other issues could be valid points in a lawsuit.

[bearpaw]

Sorry about the misspelling and grammar, I'm posting from my phone as I wait for one of my hounds to come off the mountain. (Lion hunting in Idaho)

[bearpaw]

I'm told that the lawsuit will need support from hunters, the idea is to start building support now. I am not at liberty to disclose any specifics, but was asked to share this with the HW community so we can start building support. I saw the mention of a "Go Fund Me", that might be a good idea, there are p probably many other good ideas just waiting to be mentioned.

[bowhunterforever]

Tagging

[Bigshooter]

I hope something good comes of this but my gut says it will be thrown out of court or dismissed.

[wolfbait]

I'm told that the lawsuit will need support from hunters, the idea is to start building support now. I am not at liberty to disclose any specifics, but was asked to share this with the HW community so we can start building support. I saw the mention of a "Go Fund Me", that might be a good idea, there are p probably many other good ideas just waiting to be mentioned.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Dale. 

This should be shared with ranchers, and general public as many feel the same about the over population of cougars, bears and wolves.

Where they can donate to support this lawsuit etc..


Talking to people from eight years ago, their attitudes have changed 180, many in rural communities and those who visit don't go hiking etc. without packing. Their concern of wolf and cougar dangers have been realized.

WDFW lack of predator management has many thinking the agency is broken, and needs a fix.


WDFW have made it perfectly clear they have no intentions of managing the ungulates for hunter harvest, predation on livestock show this as they try their hardest to slow walk any true wolf control actions.

Like wolves, cougars were once a rare sighting, now cougar sightings are talked about on a regular basis, in peoples yards, at the outskirts of town, etc., this should not be happening. Every year the prey base for these predators gets smaller, and as the herds drop into the lower elevations come snow time so do the predators. It would be a shame to have to wait until several people are mauled by the assortment of over populated predators before something is done.


At what point do the people who have to deal with uncontrolled predators have a say?

[singleshot12]

If a tribe or multiple tribes bring a lawsuit showing loss of resource due to predator overpopulation, with the science to back it up, then maybe I could see something like this gaining traction. Otherwise I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[bearpaw]

This may be the last best chance of saving some of our moose, deer, and elk herds, too late for the caribou herd, but my fingers are crossed.

[Romeo 2-6]

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 

Requires a legislative change. Citizen initiatives banned those activities. WDFW has NO authority to repeal an initiative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tbar]

This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring.   

What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this?  I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators". 

I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators".  As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.   

There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.

This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition. 

[Limhangerslayer]

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.

kinda how the department allows us to take 5-6 cats out of an almost 1000sq. Mile area.  About one for every 100,000 acres!