Game management plan and envirnmental impact

[Kain]

Anyone thats interested can read up.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/index.htm

[Kain]

I dont know if the rest of you have been trying to read this thing but I have.  Not really coming across anything that is to concerning except for the amount of weight they are putting on these public surveys they are doing. 

This is in the cougar management section.

Objective 63:
Transition to a zone management approach for managing cougar by 2010.
Strategies:
a. Implement zones that correspond to each CMU or portions of CMUs.
b. Implement population objectives outlines in Table 1.
c. Collect public attitudes on cougar management issues for priority zones by 2012.
d. Implement hunting season options that correspond to management needs and local public
preferences for each zone.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/index.htm  page 88

And

Some hunters voiced concerns about the impacts
of cougar predation on deer and elk herds. The
primary prey species for cougars are deer and
elk, and in some cases cougar populations can
influence the growth rates of deer and elk
populations. Increased cougar harvest is a
management action that can be used to increase
deer or elk populations. When Washington
citizens were asked about their attitudes about
managing cougars to increase deer and elk
populations, support was low (Fig. 6).
Recognizing the role of cougars in the ecosystem
and public attitudes, WDFW manages for stable
cougar populations in most management units.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/index.htm  page 90

Now my concern is that public opinion is not part of their mandate.  So why are they paying for and using public opinion polls as part of their game management plan?

As mandated by the Washington State Legislature (RCW 77.04.012), “… the department shall
preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife…”; “the department shall conserve the
wildlife… in a manner that does not impair the resource…”; and “The commission shall attempt
to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile,
disabled, and senior citizens.” It is this mandate that sets the overall policy and direction for
managing hunted wildlife. Hunters and hunting will continue to play a significant role in the
conservation and management of Washington’s wildlife.

And

Public Involvement
Active public involvement is important for successful planning. In May 2001, WDFW asked the
public to identify the key game management issues that need to be addressed in the next five to
ten years. This was done using a series of questionnaires and by providing a page on the agency
website. Over 2,500 responses were received. Based on the issues identified during this process,
WDFW hired a consulting firm to conduct a telephone survey of both the hunting public and the
general public. This was used to get a more scientific sampling of the public. Responsive
Management conducted the surveys using randomly selected telephone numbers with a sample
of over 800 citizens for the general public survey and over 700 hunters for the hunter survey.
References to public opinion based on this survey are made throughout this plan. To further
refine the issues, WDFW consulted with the Game Management Advisory Council, the Wildlife
Diversity Advisory Council, and members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission. The advisory
councils include a cross section of interested citizens who provide feedback and advice to
WDFW on a variety of topics. The information from the surveys, polls, and consultations
identified the issues addressed in this plan. Finally, WDFW followed the Environmental Impact
2
Statement process (EIS) to facilitate public involvement in reviewing alternatives and setting
priorities.
The main issues identified by the public were categorized into several key areas:
• Scientific/professional management of hunted wildlife
• Public support for hunting as a management tool
• Hunter ethics and fair chase
• Private lands programs and hunter access
• Tribal hunting
• Predator management
• Hunting season regulations
• Game damage and nuisance
• Species-specific management issues

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/final_game_management_plan_2009-2015.pdf  page 1


Now I love government agencies that listen to the public and change bad policy based on complaints and suggestions.  Im just worried that they are putting more weight on the publics opinion of hunting than actually doing what their mandate is, and that is provide as much hunting and recreation while still maintaining healthy wildlife populations.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Implement hunting season options that correspond to management needs and local public
preferences for each zone.

I believe this one actually gives local residents more weight than just the dictates from the environmental activists in Pugetropolis.  I'm not sure this isn't a good thing.  Part of the reason the hound hunting ban was partially overturned in NE WA. 

[Kain]

Making time for public opinion during meeting is fine but hiring a firm to do phone polls?  I dont see anything that over rides science but you do end up with things like removing coyote hunting with dogs because it has become "socially unacceptable."  Just throwing it out there for your opinions.

[Kain]

I believe this one actually gives local residents more weight than just the dictates from the environmental activists in Pugetropolis.  I'm not sure this isn't a good thing.  Part of the reason the hound hunting ban was partially overturned in NE WA. 

Good point.  Like I said I do like it when government listens to the public on complaints and suggestions.  Im just worried that they are going out of their way to include these opinions in their management instead of just providing the most hunting and recreation and managing wildlife for healthy populations.

[Machias]

"Now it's my understanding that public opinion can not override science, and from what you've posted so far I don't see any indication that it has done so." 

You mean like the science they used to outlaw coyote hunting with dogs?   

"I believe this one actually gives local residents more weight than just the dictates from the environmental activists in Pugetropolis.  I'm not sure this isn't a good thing.  Part of the reason the hound hunting ban was partially overturned in NE WA." 

I could be off base here but it was my understanding the reason the Public Safety Cougar Removals were first authorized and then the "3" year study was not because the public swayed the Commission it was because the County Commisoners in the NE told the state to either start the PSCR program or they were going to deputize folks and start taking matters into their own hands.  I believe the WDFW only started the program to stop a pubil relations disaster in the NE.  At least that was my understanding back when it started.

[Kain]

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife are
responsible for the management and protection of fish and wildlife resources in Washington
State. The Legislative mandate (RCW 77.04.012) for the Commission and the Department
includes the following for wildlife:
• The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and
manage the wildlife…
• The department shall conserve the wildlife resources in a manner that does not impair the
resource. The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife 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 hunting opportunities
of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens (see Title 77 Revised Code
of Washington).

In addition, various policies and procedures guided the Commission and Department in
developing the plan. In particular, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hunting
Season Guideline (August 1999) provided further guidance for this plan:
“Hunting seasons and regulation recommendations should be based on good science. When
biological information is lacking or insufficient, management decisions should be conservative to
ensure protection of wildlife resources. At no time should decisions favor income to the agency
or recreation over protection of wildlife populations.

1. In general, hunting seasons and game management units should be easy to understand
while maintaining hunting opportunity and management options.
2. Continuity in hunting seasons over time is highly valued by the public, therefore
Department recommendations for significant changes to seasons should be based on
resource or management need.
3. Hunting season establishment shall be consistent with the Hunting Co-Management
Guidelines between WDFW and Tribes.
4. Hunting seasons should be consistent with species planning objectives and provide
maximum recreation days while achieving population goals.
5. A three year season setting process should be maintained which will provide consistent
general seasons from year to year with annual changes in permit levels to address
emergent resource concerns; natural disasters; and to meet requirements of federal
guideline changes; etc.
4
6. Substantial public involvement and timely opportunity to comment must be provided for
3-year season recommendations and must be in compliance with the state’s Regulatory
Reform Act.
7. Public involvement for annual permit season setting shall include at a minimum, a
standard written comment period and one public meeting where comments will be
considered.
8. Provide separate deer and elk general season recreational opportunities for archers,
muzzleloaders, and modern firearm hunters.
9. Special deer and elk permit hunt opportunities shall be allocated among three principal
user groups (archery, muzzleloader and modern firearm) using the approved formula of
success/participation rate.
10. Weapon and hunting equipment restrictions should be easy to understand and enforce,
maintain public safety, protect the resource, and allow wide latitude for individuals to
make equipment choices.
11. Enhanced general season considerations, special access opportunities, and other special
incentives should be developed for disabled, Master Hunter program graduates, youth,
and hunters 65 and older rather than special permit hunts. Master Hunter incentives
should return to the program’s original intent, which was to address private lands, and
associated hunter ethics issues. Disabled hunter opportunities should emphasize equal
access consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
12. Private landowner hunting issues such as season length, damage control, and trespass
should be given consideration when developing hunting season recommendations.
13. Standardize furbearer regulations that provide trapping opportunity and address damage
control.
14. Establish migratory bird and small game regulations to provide maximum hunting
opportunity considering federal guidelines, flyway management plan elements, and
Department management objectives.
15. Hunting season closures and firearm restrictions should be based on resource
conservation and public safety.
16. Maintain a high quality goat, sheep, and moose permit hunting opportunity consistent
with resource availability.“

I could argue that a few of these have not be adhered to.

[Machias]

Yes it was there in the small game section.  My mistake I thought you were saying that sound wildlife management wouldn't be swayed by public comments.  Because if it is allowed then really the antis can overwhelm the commission and all hunting will be socially unacceptable in this state.