Post by: actionshooter on January 14, 2024, 11:31:15 AM
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
Post by: vandeman17 on January 14, 2024, 11:39:52 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 14, 2024, 11:54:44 AM
Post by: Threewolves on January 14, 2024, 04:21:07 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2024, 09:29:12 PM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 14, 2024, 10:40:22 PM
Post by: ASHQUACK on January 15, 2024, 06:00:17 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on January 15, 2024, 09:35:53 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 15, 2024, 09:41:05 AM
Proud to live in this county!:yeah:
Same here.
Post by: Southpole on January 15, 2024, 09:44:00 AM
Post by: Wsucoug on January 17, 2024, 09:37:56 PM
Post by: Mtnwalker on January 18, 2024, 08:59:32 AM
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/
Post by: brokentrail on January 18, 2024, 09:38:38 AM
Post by: ducks4days on January 18, 2024, 10:52:54 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 18, 2024, 11:35:32 AM
Not sure they will though. :dunno:
Post by: brokentrail on January 18, 2024, 01:30:41 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 18, 2024, 02:52:49 PM
Post by: actionshooter on January 19, 2024, 10:39:52 PM
I'm also proud to be a Steven's County resident. With that said.....you know this will go in one ear and out of the other of the commission. They have proven time and again that they don't care about the will of the people or sportsman that make it possible for them to even have this job.
Doesn't matter... keep in mind that when this goes to court, it shows they didn't listen to the public and just followed their own agenda... the comments help!
Post by: brokentrail on January 19, 2024, 10:53:38 PM
Yesterday, I received an alert from an observant constituent about a policy drafted by the WDFW Conservation Commission to set conservation policy guidance that will dramatically affect how we recreate and use our natural resources. This information will be of great interest to outdoor sports enthusiasts, particularly in Pierce County. The Commission establishes policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreation and commercial opportunities compatible with healthy and diverse fish and wildlife populations.
The deadline for comments has passed, but you may want to try and send your comments anyway. The commissioners from Stevens County did send in their comments, with interesting points such as:
…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.
“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.
Principle #2 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.
The Sportsman’s Alliance was also very succinct in their comments to the Commission. They wrote: RCW 77.04.012 establishes a very clear mandate for the Department and Commission. Instead of recognizing the clarity of this language, the draft Conservation Policy promotes a new “mission” that broadens the scope well beyond what the legislature intended. “Protecting and restoring ecosystems” is not included in RCW 77.04.012. To read their comments, click here.
Have you ever imagined earth without people? Picture your garden the day it’s freshly prepped and planted, and then again in six weeks with no weeding. Then again in six plus years with no maintenance. To me, it’s not a pretty picture. Grizzly bears can probably cut through the brush. The ungulates will be mostly gone, and probably all the bunnies. I’m reminded of the Wildlands Project, a dream of Dave Foreman and Reed Noss. I found a report about the Wildlands Project that was filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on Sept. 1, 2022, in opposition to the proposed carbon pipelines by Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO2 Ventures, as well as the anticipated ADM/Wolf Pipeline (I still care about my home state).
I appreciate her support and letting everyone know what the commission is trying to.do.
Post by: Southpole on January 20, 2024, 07:43:25 AM
Post by: actionshooter on January 20, 2024, 10:02:51 AM
Post by: dwils233 on January 20, 2024, 11:05:23 AM
Comment period for the draft ended on January 12th, 2024, unfortunately.
Hasn't stopped Washington Wildlife First from setting up an action alert to email commissioners directly until January 23rd
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Ask-the-WA-Fish---Wildlife-Commission-to-Adopt-a-Strong-Policy-Placing-Conservation-First-.html?soid=1138445563807&aid=4LomNQLhXcA
Shouldn't stop us either