Email the House Ag & Nat. Resources Committee Now!! Re: HB 2214

[JJB11B]

I got this from Ed Orcutt

Jonathan,

 

We just had a hearing on this bill in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (AGNR). I left with very mixed feelings on the bill. I feel for my colleagues in eastern Washington who are concerned that they will bear all of the weight of the recovery and that wolf recovery may be deemed achieved with all breeding pairs being located in Eastern Washington and none in Western Washington. That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved. This guarantees that my constituents will bear the burden of wolf recovery and suffer all of the consequences. I am not sure I can support that…

 

Ed

 

 

Representative Ed Orcutt

18th Legislative District

[NWBREW]

I got the same one back from ED. word for word. The only reply I have recieved.

[pianoman9701]

Yes, I would not be quick to label Ed Orcutt in a negative light. I think he needs more factual information to make an informed decision for the benefit of his constituents and the state. He's taken the time to let us know where he stands and I haven't received that information from any of the other committee members.

[pianoman9701]

Great job to all who testified on behalf of 2214. What struck me about the testimony was the lack of factual evidence produced by the "no" side, and the amount of knowledge that our side had in this debate.

For the purpose of clarification, I think it'll be important to address the Orca comments. It went unmentioned at the hearing yesterday that the Marine Mammal Protection Act would cover Orcas, as well as the ESA on a regional basis. There's no way that a marine apex predator would be included for hunting on a state level without the approval of the USFWS, related to extreme, isolated incidents. The only time we've seen exceptions to this is with the burgeoning population of sea lions threatening our salmon runs. Orca populations are far from burgeoning and would not lose federal protection in the foreseeable future. This argument is definitely smoke and mirrors.

Nice job, AL. I'm sorry that I couldn't be there with you.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I sent a similar reply that NWbowhunter did (well i changed his a little  )

Ed just got back to me:


I am getting clarification from WDFW on this. I will then determine my position following the meeting with WDFW.
 
Ed

 So did I.....I added this for one


Did you Idaho, Montana, and Wyomings "'plan" was to delist after 10 breeding pair? It WAS but the wolf advocates and their chosen judges Kept moving the golalposts and  upping the required BP numbers through litigation using OUR tax dollars,Creating the devastation of the ungulate herds of their states. They WILL attempt that again here if this bill is not passed.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 THIS Fast...... less than 5 minutes


James,

 

We received some conflicting testimony on the bill and wolf plan which I am trying to research to get clarification on the issue. Please know that I wish we could prevent wolves from coming into this state, but we have not been successful in doing so. I will work to make sure we put into the place the very best protection we can to minimize (I wish zero) the number of wolves in our state.

 

Ed

 

[KillBilly]

Let me clarify the conflicting testimony as my opinion and observation.There was at least one person there that was on the Wolf Working Group. She has some knowledge and made at least one statement about the flexibility of the current Wolf Plan. When the committeee asked questions, the questions were not necessarily answered by the actual expert that should have answered. Therefore the confusion. A couple of people offered answers that Nate Pamplim should have answered but he wasn't the one that was asked. In several instances I was actually thinking that the speakers were being tested to see how much they actually knew about the wolf plan.