Commission Votes Against WDFW Biologist Recommendation: Read and then comment!

[bearpaw]

The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.

Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar

Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact

[brew]

This state is full throttle and rapidly approaching the edge of the cliff

[HillHound]

I hope these five commissioners are one day personally touched by this piss poor strictly emotional decision. I hope them their loved ones or their animals meet their demise from our overpopulation of cougars which they are purposely creating and in the process putting us and all of our families at risk. Shame on them. They should be ashamed to show their face in public knowing what a horrible danger they are putting us all in. F them

[pianoman9701]

Posted in comments: Over the past 20 years, conflicts between humans and cougars have increased significantly. Here in Vancouver, there have been several incidents just within the last year. Biologists from the WDFW have identified that the cougar population in Washington is not only growing but reaching levels that are unhealthy for cougars, ungulates, and people alike. Despite recommendations from these trained professionals—who are employed to guide the Commission in policy and rule-making—five of you have chosen to disregard their advice, yielding to emotions and pressure from animal rights organizations. This approach is harming wildlife in Washington, not helping it. You are also restricting opportunities. The proposal you've put forward demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of wildlife management and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Furthermore, you are neglecting your mandates as outlined in RCW 77.04.012, which puts you in violation of Washington State statutes. The confidence that sportsmen and women have in your ability to fulfill your duties as our wildlife commissioners is at an all-time low. Through licensing, special hunts, and funding from Pittman Robertson, we contribute over 40% of WDFW’s revenue. It’s time to stop pandering to special interest groups that care more about donations and litigation than wildlife. Do your jobs!

[hughjorgan]

The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.

Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar

Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact

Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.

[pianoman9701]

There's no harm in continuing to hammer these extremists.

[Harleysboss]

I just sit here and shake my head in disbelief. It's ok for the State to kill as many as they feel is needed even after their quota is filled?  Restrict hunting but removal for "Safety" concerns/conflict is ok?  Killing is killing no matter who is doing it. Take the word Hunting out of the regulations and that will make the special interest groups feel better about themselves. Rename it couger conflict reduction season in the regs book and let us hunters hunt.  Cougars are going to do what cougars do no matter if they were lucky enough to get a multi season deer/elk tag (LOL) what a separate joke.  Everyday I ask/plead with my family to move out of HERE! 

[hughjorgan]

  Agreed Pianoman. Flood their emails with your comments. I believe two more commissioners are up this year so it is important to vote come this November. And if any sportsman are voting for Ferguson you are part of the problem here.

[bearpaw]

The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.

Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar

Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact

Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.

I am aware, but the only way to encourage change is to keep hammering away at the commission and legislators. Forget the governors office, he appointed these clowns.

[hughjorgan]

The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.

Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar

Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact

Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.

I am aware, but the only way to encourage change is to keep hammering away at the commission and legislators. Forget the governors office, he appointed these clowns.

  Agreed keep the pressure on and vote for the republican come November for governor!

[lewy]

Commented

[Skyvalhunter]

  2 weeks ago I emailed the commission and voiced my displeasure with their decision. I called them out for perusing their own personal agenda. I asked why do we even have WDFW biologists if they are not going to listen to their professional recommendations. I feel we need to continually flood them with emails, petitions to make our feelings heard.
  I even wrote both of the candidates for governor asking for their stand on the imbalance on the commission. Of coarse their was no reply that specifically addressed my question.
 When you have an over abundance of cougars in this state and they agreed to go with a petition that doesn't reduce the cougar numbers but essentially enhances it you know its not on the up and up. I also told them not if but when a cougar attack happens they will be getting an email from me as it falls on their conscience. This topic get's me fired up every time. 

[HillHound]

Yep, a vote for Ferguson is a vote for our current commission and a vote to end all hunting in Washington. Same with up the grove for land commissioner. He does not have hunters interest even on his radar. Democrat or Republican Trump fan or not. You cannot deny that. We need to get a Republican governor and a Republican land commissioner in there ASAP. If you enjoy the hunt, you cannot deny this. Presidential election aside, please do not vote to put another Democrat in one of these positions. If you are a Democrat, please try to talk to your friends and let them know. Hate Trump all you want or not. We still need Republicans in these two positions if they want to hunt or even be safe going in the woods in Washington going forward.

[bearpaw]

I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.

Dear Legislators,

The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.

Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.

I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.

Respectfully,

[greenhead_killer]

That’s a great proposal

[goldenhtr]

I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.

Dear Legislators,

The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.

Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.

I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.

Respectfully,

 

[GOcougsHunter]

I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions.  This is how it should be done.

The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands.  We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about.  Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington?  Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse.  Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.

In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas.  Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc.  Let the bios run the WDFW.  And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons.  I am sure there  may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.

[MADMAX]

Sent
Thanks

[Cougartail]

I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.

Dear Legislators,

The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.

Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.

I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.

Respectfully,

 

100% on the money!

[westsidehntr]

I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions.  This is how it should be done.

The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands.  We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about.  Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington?  Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse.  Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.

In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas.  Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc.  Let the bios run the WDFW.  And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons.  I am sure there  may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.

I agree with this. I’m not sure elected positions is the way to go on this type of a commission. The problem isn’t the commission itself, but the way the governor and legislature appointed and approved the commission.

In this state, an elected commission likely wouldn’t be any better than this commission. I’d listen to arguments for it though.

[bearpaw]

I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions.  This is how it should be done.

The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands.  We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about.  Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington?  Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse.  Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.

In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas.  Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc.  Let the bios run the WDFW.  And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons.  I am sure there  may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.

I'm open to supporting a better idea, I do know the current situation is not working and I don't see future governor appointments getting any better given the primary results? 

[ducks4days]

I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions.  This is how it should be done.

The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands.  We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about.  Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington?  Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse.  Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.

In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas.  Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc.  Let the bios run the WDFW.  And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons.  I am sure there  may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.

I agree with this. I’m not sure elected positions is the way to go on this type of a commission. The problem isn’t the commission itself, but the way the governor and legislature appointed and approved the commission.

In this state, an elected commission likely wouldn’t be any better than this commission. I’d listen to arguments for it though.

Appointments could come from the national resources committee instead of the governor. At least then if they make bad appointments the remedy is a local election 2 years away at most instead of the statewide popularity contest with a known outcome every 4.

[ghosthunter]

I think we should be careful what we wish for.

Elections at any level in this state are not going our way. Allowing the general public to vote in Commission members will not give you what you want in my opinion.

The current governor could care less. He is out of here. We need to hold future governor s and legislators feet to the fire somehow in a way to insure this crap ends.

[Mtnwalker]

How bad do things have to get before we quit doing the same thing just to hope for a different result? How do we hold their feet to the fire? We tried suing Inslee, his own planted judge blocked it. Go figure. Real, actual change is the only thing that will *possibly* affect the trajectory of hunting in WA state at this point. Or we can stay on this ship and keep bailing water with a pint glass in hopes that it quits sinking

[jstone]

All this state knows how to do. Same mistake over and over.

[bearpaw]

I'm all ears for a better plan than the current plan that is getting worse and worse every year?

[bearpaw]

The more people who keep pounding the commission and legislators with all sorts of ideas for change may eventually cause some sort of change, whatever that change may be, could it be any worse than the current situation?

[Skyvalhunter]

People actually need to participate to get anything moved in the right direction

[harveymarv]

register to vote.

vote for Dave Reichert.

get everyone you know to register to vote, and vote Republican.

if sideshow Bob is our next governor, hunting will continue to be eroded by anti-commmissioners.

[hunter399]

Same sad story.
Spring bear should tell us this is no surprise.
Nobody really should be shocked,they did it then,they just did it with cougar. "Best available Science" is a sham wow that is only used when it fits there agenda. It's feels like credit card fraud or something.

[MADMAX]

I got 2 replies
Not sure If I’ll call Lorna
But I’m thinking it over

As follows
Barbara Baker

“ Although I disagree with your opinions of the WDFW commission, I thought your proposal for reorganization was sincere and thoughtful.  For that reason, it seems important to let you know that the legislature has a similar interest with respect to our commission and its governance. For that reason, they commissioned the Ruckelshaus center to study the issue and make recommendations back to them . Their report is due to the legislature in December.

The Center’s contact information is easy to find online. Once you get to the their homepage, you can scroll down through their projects and will eventually find the one related to the fish and wildlife agency and commission. The person in charge of the project is Chris Smith. Seems to me that your comments might be more appropriate going to him.”

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or further comments.

Barbara Baker

………………………………………
Lorna Smith

“ I would like to discuss your recent communication regarding the cougar rule-making decision. If you are interested, please call me at 360-316-6897.”
 
Lorna Smith
WA F&W Commissioner

[pianoman9701]

Am I wrong or is Lorna Smith really Rachel Dratch from SNL

[MADMAX]

Could be sisters

I called Lorna and left a message. She didn’t pick up. I also sent an email.

“Cougars are elusive but again we have only minimal harvest already without use of dogs
Cats prey heavily along with wolves on our dwindling ungulate species

Id think you would concentrate your efforts on the Mountain Caribou recovery zone, since there seems to no longer be any caribou there from depredation

I hope it doesn't take more citizens and children being attacked and or killed to help you understand the need for predator control by licensed legal hunting

[GWP]

It seems they would rather pay ‘professional’ hunters rather than open up more season hunting to drop predator numbers. Not sure why that is.

[Tbar]

I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.

Dear Legislators,

The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.

Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.

I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.

Respectfully,

This is a very slippery slope. Scientific review board could load the commission with Ragen types.  Analysis paralysis. The other worry is the how language is crafted,  WFC, CBD and others exist on policy framework and their ability to attack any lack of clarity.

[bearpaw]

I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.

Dear Legislators,

The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.

Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.

I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.

Respectfully,

This is a very slippery slope. Scientific review board could load the commission with Ragen types.  Analysis paralysis. The other worry is the how language is crafted,  WFC, CBD and others exist on policy framework and their ability to attack any lack of clarity.

Yeah, I would have never suggested such a thing 20 years ago, but the WA Commission is beyond the point of return and the governor polls look even grimmer. I do believe the legislature might be more fair than and at least have more discussion on the matter than the current governor or the leading candidate to be the next governor!