Conservation policy comment period open Dec. 18th - Jan 12th

[Skyvalhunter]

Its time to make your concerns on the conservation policy heard.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/fish-and-wildlife-commission-seeks-public-input-updated-draft-conservation-policy

[fireweed]

Looking at the wording and how it could be used as a cudgel, I see major problems with the definitions.  It seems they are operating on some utopian idea that we can put the genie back in the bottle and create a pre-1492 "natural ecosystem" of "native" species.  Ain't happening.  Starlings, Norway rats, scotch broom, Himalaya blackberries, canary grass, walleye, brook trout, pheasants, nutria and dandelions aren't going anywhere.  These species are here to stay.  We need a plan that acknowledges the realities of today. Not every ecosystem that had wolves and grizzlies in the past can have them now.  There will never be "natural" ecosystems again, but that is their goal. It would be helpful to see the old goals and the draft goals side by side to see the changes.

[Skyvalhunter]

Well its time for you to voice your opinion via e-mail

[Jlittlebear31]

Could someone more educated (than me) on this help with some wording on what should be pointed out and listed?  I'd love to get some language that others could plagiarize.

[fireweed]

I have compared the previous version, with this new draft side-by-side.  The most glaring change has been in the definition of conservation:
Version 1 Conservation--Science informed actions to preserve the health and resilience of natural environments including fish, wildlife and humans, safeguard the intrinsic value of nature, and provide equitable benefits to current and future generations of human and non-human life.  These actions include protecting and restoring air, soil, water, biological diversity, ecosystem processes and evolutionary potential. 
 
New Version: Conservation--Science-informed actions to perpetuate the health, resilience, and intrinsic value of native species and natural ecosystems.

My take. Version 1 is too wordy and unwieldly so simplification was good BUT the removal of people/humans element from the definition is BAD as is the inclusion of the word NATIVE before species and NATURAL before ecosystems.  The new definition completely removes many popular game and fish species from the definition of conservation.  These species could be removed completely from the state under this paradigm. 
The term Intrinsic value must also be expanded to include extrinsic value (economic, cultural, recreational etc)  Later in the document, the word conservation is used over and over so it needs to include all the species we currently want and manage, native or non-native.  Secondly, the term "natural ecosytems" is never defined, only ecosystem and ecosystem management. The human element needs to be returned.  Conservation, historically as a word, has always had an element of human use. 

I also strongly believe that a principle that includes the realities of the 21st century should be added.  This additional wording should acknowledge that the goal of recreating  "natural" ecosystems composed of only native species is aspirational, but not practical or even possible in most (if not all) places.  Not many ecosystems that had grizzly bears or wolves in 1700 can support them now, so re-making intact ecosystems is impossible.  The realities and limitations of today need to be incorporated, along with a stronger human element that reflects the guidelines in the RCW.   

[hunter399]

I have compared the previous version, with this new draft side-by-side.  The most glaring change has been in the definition of conservation:
Version 1 Conservation--Science informed actions to preserve the health and resilience of natural environments including fish, wildlife and humans, safeguard the intrinsic value of nature, and provide equitable benefits to current and future generations of human and non-human life.  These actions include protecting and restoring air, soil, water, biological diversity, ecosystem processes and evolutionary potential. 
 
New Version: Conservation--Science-informed actions to perpetuate the health, resilience, and intrinsic value of native species and natural ecosystems.

My take. Version 1 is too wordy and unwieldly so simplification was good BUT the removal of people/humans element from the definition is BAD as is the inclusion of the word NATIVE before species and NATURAL before ecosystems.  The new definition completely removes many popular game and fish species from the definition of conservation.  These species could be removed completely from the state under this paradigm. 
The term Intrinsic value must also be expanded to include extrinsic value (economic, cultural, recreational etc)  Later in the document, the word conservation is used over and over so it needs to include all the species we currently want and manage, native or non-native.  Secondly, the term "natural ecosytems" is never defined, only ecosystem and ecosystem management. The human element needs to be returned.  Conservation, historically as a word, has always had an element of human use. 

I also strongly believe that a principle that includes the realities of the 21st century should be added.  This additional wording should acknowledge that the goal of recreating  "natural" ecosystems composed of only native species is aspirational, but not practical or even possible in most (if not all) places.  Not many ecosystems that had grizzly bears or wolves in 1700 can support them now, so re-making intact ecosystems is impossible.  The realities and limitations of today need to be incorporated, along with a stronger human element that reflects the guidelines in the RCW.

Natural ecosystem.
Doesn't exist.
It only exists if you set aside millions of acres ,never touch it, don't even look at it. No recreational at all.
Never inhabit it EVER.

The problem with the anti-hunting types.
Is you manage it and play god.
Or you leave it ,and never touch it.

There is no in-between.

[Slamadoo]

This is all part of the playbook with these liberal extremist groups. They just redefine the words and control the direction of debate/conversation/policy in that manner.

In this instance, they don't like what conservation is and the vital role hunters play in it so they will just change the definition of the word conservation so that it's a definition they want.

IMO we should be 100% pushing back on this. Words have meaning and those meanings are important. There is also no reason for this policy change. The department already has guidance and state laws to follow. Again, they don't like that, so they will just change it.

If you've been paying attention at all for the last 30 years you can think of many examples of this same strategy. "Woman" and "Marriage" are two.

[Skyvalhunter]

Time for inputs to be sent

[fireweed]

This is all part of the playbook with these liberal extremist groups. They just redefine the words and control the direction of debate/conversation/policy in that manner.

In this instance, they don't like what conservation is and the vital role hunters play in it so they will just change the definition of the word conservation so that it's a definition they want.

IMO we should be 100% pushing back on this. Words have meaning and those meanings are important. There is also no reason for this policy change. The department already has guidance and state laws to follow. Again, they don't like that, so they will just change it.

If you've been paying attention at all for the last 30 years you can think of many examples of this same strategy. "Woman" and "Marriage" are two.

Exactly! Redefine conservation to mean recreate what was here in before Columbus.  Impossible.   And now people are removed from any consideration,  except perhaps tribal use.

[high_hunter]

Bringing this back to the top as I'd forgot to email comments since first seeing with all the holiday chaos.

Note the updated submittal email in the link from the OP.  I'll send to this along with my usual wdfw cc. 

Thanks for posting @Skyvalhunter hopefully it helps get constructive hunter input infront of the Commission to continue refining or drop this policy rewrite.

hh

[Skyvalhunter]

We can only hope some constructive criticism is given to WDFW without personal attacks. Things can't be changed if input is not given.

[GASoline71]

Could someone more educated (than me) on this help with some wording on what should be pointed out and listed?  I'd love to get some language that others could plagiarize.

Don't worry about making sure that others can plagiarize.  The main thing is that comments need to be made.  Don't get hung up on specifics.  Just make good, thought out comments and tell them how you personally feel about the conservation policy.  Trust me, there are lots of people sending in comments right now picking it apart piece by piece.  We need people to get comments in... now.

IMO we should be 100% pushing back on this. Words have meaning and those meanings are important. There is also no reason for this policy change. The department already has guidance and state laws to follow. Again, they don't like that, so they will just change it.

No time like the present to start that push.  WE need to keep pushing, and not stop.  Get comments in and spread the word.

Gary

[Skyvalhunter]

Bump

[KNOPHISH]

Part of what I wrote, bring back spring bear then we’ll talk about a new science based conservation policy. Your own biologists say there are plenty of bears so what science are you following.

[GOcougsHunter]

My comments were focused on the need to maximize the entire resource for consumptive uses.  Many families in our state utilize wild game and fish to have a healthy protein source.  Not everyone has a Safeway down the street.  Increasing one population niche (predators) severely degrades the ability of families to obtain this resource.