Stevens County speaks out against WDFW Commission Draft

[actionshooter]

 This is really great to see!

Wes McCart Jonnie R. Brown
District No. 1 Clerk of the Board
Mark Burrows Tammi Renfro
District No. 2 Deputy Clerk of the Board
Greg Young Tonya Schuerman
District No. 3 Administrative Assistant
Mailing Address: 215 South Oak St., Colville, WA 99114-2861
Location Address: 230 East Birch, Colville
Phone: 509-684-3751 Fax: 509-684-8310 TTY 800-833-6388
Email: commissioners@stevenscountywa.gov
January 12, 2024
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
PO Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Draft Conservation Policy C-700X (Draft Version 12/15/23)
Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Stevens County Board of County Commissioners
and the over 43,000 citizens we represent.
We OPPOSE this policy and ask that you reject adoption. Below are just a few of our objections to this
draft policy.
Words matter when making or adopting policy, and we find that your proposed policy is contrary to law,
especially the wording and intent of RCW 77.04.012 which you cite in your purpose statement. For
example, your policy states “As trustees tasked with managing fish and wildlife resources in the public
trust, conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitat is the paramount responsibility of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). RCW 77.04.012 in part states “The department shall conserve
the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the
resource.” These last few words are left off your policy draft and are highly important. The current
actions of the Commission are impairing the resource and ignoring science and the public. The law goes
on to say, “The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting
opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.” Conservation by itself does
not eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities, yet this policy is attempting to do just that.
Further in your draft purpose statement you go on to say, “We recognize that humankind is in the midst
of a biodiversity extinction crisis and we must continue to act while we still have the building blocks for
success.” We take that to mean “Humans” as the cause for animal lose and destruction and habitat loss.
We would remind the commission that humans are as much a part of the natural ecosystem as are all
other animals. We will also state that some of the current actions or inactions of the commission has
made this situation more pronounced. The ratio of predators to prey while favoring predator
management has grossly impacted the prey species population. Science and the public have both been
point out this mismanagement in vast areas throughout the state, yet the commission ignores this.
This policy must be consistent with the law, and we believe you have missed the mark in the purpose
section, let alone other points we will draw to your attention.
2
Your definition of conservation is most troubling. You state “Conservation – Science-informed actions to
perpetuate the health, resilience, and intrinsic value of native species and natural ecosystems.” We
have underlined the parts that are most inaccurate or troubling. First, “science informed actions.” We
agree with this part of the definition but call your attention to the inaction of the current commission to
follow current policy and law that requires you to follow the science. The commission was told
repeatedly by the scientist and wildlife specialist within the department and outside of WDFW that a
Spring black bear hunt was beneficial, yet the commission has eliminated the season. We simply ask
that you follow the science as pointed out in existing policy and law. Now we move on to the part of the
definition which should be eliminated. “Native species and natural ecosystems” are not part of any
definition I could find in several dictionaries, or part of the law which the commission is bound to follow.
Further, we do not believe it is possible for the commission to have the knowledge to know what is
“native” or “natural” in the state of Washington. There are many species that the commission currently
manages for which there is no record they existed in Washington. Moose in Northeastern Washington
is but one example. They were introduced into this area by WDFW years ago. We would hate to see
this species eliminated, but according to this policy, the commission would need to search all historical
records and prove by science they were here naturally or natively. This is not the commissions duty
under the law and seems to be part of an agenda that is not the commissions job. We simply ask that IF
a policy is to be adopted on this subject, that you use a common or science-based definition and not an
agenda driven definition.
Principle number 2 “Conservation of all species, habitat, and ecosystems” needs to be reworked. We do
not dispute that the department and hence the commission have a role to play in “habitat”
management, but the commission is not the sole entity that has “land-use” decision making authority.
Nor does the commission’s decision on land use trump local elected officials authority delegated by the
legislature. The principle goes on further to state that the commission is to manage through
“ecosystem-based” management. This would mean that rather than maintaining numbers of particular
animals for the benefit of recreational hunting and fishing, the ecosystem comes first. This directly
contradicts the mandate in RCW 77.04.012 that the commission must follow. In other words, we
recognize this language to mean that all hunting and trapping must stop. This principle is wrong and
must be eliminated from any policy.
We could go on further, but there is just more of the same agenda driven language that is divisive and
contrary to law.
We believe we have made our point that this policy should be rejected.
Respectfully,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
_________________________________
Wes McCart, Vice-Chair
Cc: Senator Short, Representative Kretz, Representative Maycumbe

[vandeman17]

It would be awesome if other counties could either send some kind of agreement with this or draft their own letter with similar tone to send in. That was one of the more clear and decisive messages I have seen composed. Kudos to them

[hunter399]

Sounds good to me.

[Threewolves]

Wow!

[wolfbait]

Great Job!

[HUNTIN4SIX]

Proud to live in this county!

[ASHQUACK]

We should all approach our county commissions on this and ask them to do the same.

[KNOPHISH]

Commission

[hunter399]

Proud to live in this county!

Same here.

[Southpole]

Excellent!

[Wsucoug]

Probably a good idea to forward this onto all the county commissioners in Washington. They now have a temple that they can follow. Be sure to tell them that you support what Stevens county did and that you would like them to take a stance.

[Mtnwalker]

Probably a good idea to forward this onto all the county commissioners in Washington. They now have a temple that they can follow. Be sure to tell them that you support what Stevens county did and that you would like them to take a stance.

Not a bad idea. Sent to mine with a request to follow suit

https://wsac.org/member-directory/

[brokentrail]

I sent it to the Pierce County Council requesting they respond in a similar manner.

[ducks4days]

Just sent this to King County commission requesting the same. Slim chance they do anything with a positive impact, but at least they have the chance.

[hunter399]

It would be nice to see some other county's jump on the wagon.
Not sure they will though.