I spoke before the commission yesterday

[fishngamereaper]

Seems the hire a bio comment would be good ammunition in the lawsuit..
Does he not trust state bio's?
Is he promoting privatization of wildlife management..?.
Or was he just being a smart a...
None of them are good looks for an acting commission.

[ducks4days]

Seems the hire a bio comment would be good ammunition in the lawsuit..
Does he not trust state bio's?
Is he promoting privatization of wildlife management..?.
Or was he just being a smart a...
None of them are good looks for an acting commission.

WDFW has hired a legion of biologists. I have concerns over his ability to set budgets and allocate resources considering his current position and ignorance around the headcount in the department.

[baker5150]

Seems the hire a bio comment would be good ammunition in the lawsuit..
Does he not trust state bio's?
Is he promoting privatization of wildlife management..?.
Or was he just being a smart a...
None of them are good looks for an acting commission.

I emailed him to see if he'd clarify his statements....

Why he thinks his frustration is warranted but not hunters frustrations.

I'd like to know what his stance would be when a privately funded bio comes to the exact same conclusion as WFDFW's bio's.

Why he doesn't trust his own departments scientific conclusions.

I asked why his op-ed was published on a pay-to-view platform, and why he thinks that is a good source for open dialogue? (what an idiot)

[hunter399]

Just wanted to say THANK YOU!!! for you time,and speaking in front of the commission.


Ya I did email and tell them I did not support the new conservation policy.
I agree with all on this topic,we could hire 100 biologists and the commission wouldn't listen to a single one.
The fact that the commission disregards our state biologists is a crime.
And in my opinion tells me they are not in the best interest of Washington State resources .

[dwils233]

Seems the hire a bio comment would be good ammunition in the lawsuit..
Does he not trust state bio's?
Is he promoting privatization of wildlife management..?.
Or was he just being a smart a...
None of them are good looks for an acting commission.

I emailed him to see if he'd clarify his statements....

Why he thinks his frustration is warranted but not hunters frustrations.

I'd like to know what his stance would be when a privately funded bio comes to the exact same conclusion as WFDFW's bio's.

Why he doesn't trust his own departments scientific conclusions.

I asked why his op-ed was published on a pay-to-view platform, and why he thinks that is a good source for open dialogue? (what an idiot)

Let us know if he responds to you! He made a big holler about how no one engages with him from our community

[Fidelk]

Carl, thank you. I have zero patience for meetings. Especially, when the outcome has already been decided and you find yourself in a mandated dog and pony show.

[Special T]

Seems the hire a bio comment would be good ammunition in the lawsuit..
Does he not trust state bio's?
Is he promoting privatization of wildlife management..?.
Or was he just being a smart a...
None of them are good looks for an acting commission.

No they don't trust thier own bios. They went against them on spring bear. Stephanie Sefnic (sp?) Left this state, was lured  back and was so pissed at the disrespect they gave bios she transferred to the Wa State Parks.

It appears these Comissioners continue to give good ammo for the lawsuit! I'm excited about thier statements that go against thier mandate.

[whacker1]

Thank you Carl for participating.   Participation is what we largely struggle with in our circle, because most of us are either out in the outdoors or working to fund our time in the outdoors.   

I agree with him in that the next message has to be different.   We can't continue to share the same message and expect different results.   i think the next message is using the bio information wdfw has provided and put it in front of him.   We, as the taxpayers, have hired biologists.  Too hire an independent biologist would require a commitment on the commission's part for open dialogue. 

You are correct in that they as the commission don't want to be questioned.

The term is "decision architecture"     Make the decision desired, and then load the commission, in this case, with people that will find ways to support the decision.   Many of them are largely pawns in the architecture and don't even know it, because they participate as commissioners or advocates thinking as dogooders, but in reality the decision was made before they were even involved.   

but i do go back to that we as a group will have to continue to change the message, which is hard to do when we know that commissioners are insincere about their intentions.   Please remember that when we get to the general election.    It is likely to be Bob Ferguson, which is a smarter version of Jay Inslee, against either Hillary Franze or Mark Mullett.   i suspect that we will have a hard time getting a republican through the primary next year based on the number of candidates in the race.

[Special T]

I want to point out some time stamps for you all
3:14 RMEF made a great statement
3:24  a commenter called them  disingenuous and a lier
4:07 our own Doug Boze made a fantastic statement as did the following 4 or so commentors.
4:15 Kim Thorburn  spoke
4:30 Max Cole for the GMAC  read a letter they wrote pointing out that this policy is Illegal according to RCW 77.04.012
4:34 Ron Gardner spoke for the Pudget Sound Angler Association
 And at about 4:48 Baker responded to comments, and Lehmkuhl then made an amazing statement, about how sportsmen should hire thier own bio about Spring Bear and he is tired of hearing about it.

[salmosalar]

Thank you for going and commenting.

I have spoken before the commission on a number of occasions. I always felt like I could have done better. When I would listen after, I would realize that I had done quite well.

It does matter to show up. I have seen results before. Cynicism is the enemy of improvement.

I have been involved in a lot of public hearings due to my profession and passions, the key is to be professional and logic based and not to elicit negative emotional responses from the decision makers or call people names. Once that starts, the ears turn off.

[Rainier10]

Thank you for going and commenting.

I have spoken before the commission on a number of occasions. I always felt like I could have done better. When I would listen after, I would realize that I had done quite well.

It does matter to show up. I have seen results before. Cynicism is the enemy of improvement.

I have been involved in a lot of public hearings due to my profession and passions, the key is to be professional and logic based and not to elicit negative emotional responses from the decision makers or call people names. Once that starts, the ears turn off.

[GOcougsHunter]

I think the entire commission believes with a straight face that they are not anti hunting.  The concept they are not grasping is that severe reductions in populations of ungulates means less opportunity to harvest an animal in any given season.  We can still hunt all we want even if there are no elk in the Blue Mountains or deer in Stevens county.  Walking around in the woods with no animals with a firearm or bow is still hunting right?

[CarbonHunter]

Thank you Carl for participating and giving the hunting community a voice.  Thank you to anyone else who also participated.

[Special T]

I think the entire commission believes with a straight face that they are not anti hunting.  The concept they are not grasping is that severe reductions in populations of ungulates means less opportunity to harvest an animal in any given season.  We can still hunt all we want even if there are no elk in the Blue Mountains or deer in Stevens county.  Walking around in the woods with no animals with a firearm or bow is still hunting right?

5 of them are ideologues  and the verbal condemnation they received was nessary. They have proven they won't listen to reason.. so don't reason with them, condemn them in as polite stern way possible and give money to the WWC lawsuit to send them packing!

[kodiak10]

Thanks to Carl and anyone who showed up in person. Sorry if its already been posted, but here is a link  to comment on the new policy.

https://publicinput.com/draftconservationpolicy#0

Here is my person comment if anyone wants to see it, I completed an MS in Conservation Biology in 2021 but now work in agriculture haha.

I hold a masters degree in Conservation Biology from Macquarie University and feel qualified to comment on this Conservation Policy. This policy sets forth some goals that meet the needs of wildlife and the public, but falls short in some crucial areas.

The new policy fails to mention how these goals are to be accomplished. Is Washington's current wildlife plan, the SWAP going to be used to guide conservation action? The administration should be clear with the public on how they intend to acheive these goals rather than writing a blank check to do whatever they please in the name of saving wildlife. This sort of action could lead to maladaptation and more damage to our treasured resources down the road. We do not have the luxury of spending valuable time and money on actions that are not effective.
In addition, what sort of role will hunting and fishing play in the new commission's vision? At this point it seems that these valuable tools for generating income for conservation and public interest in protecting wildlife may be thrown at the wayside for emotional arguments. Sportsman lost the  spring bear season recently, due to emotional arguments that were not based in science.

Will the commission continue to consider its' legal obligation to allow for fishing and hunting for all people in WA under RCW 77.04.012?