Post by: Firstgenhunter on August 21, 2025, 06:41:16 PM
“WE HAVE MOBILIZED OUR COALITION AND GRASSROOTS SUPPORTERS IN A NUMBER OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS, INCLUDING ONE THAT BROUGHT A PERMANENT END TO WASHINGTONS INHUMANE AND DEEPLY UNPOPULAR RECREATIONAL SPRING BEAR HUNT. “
“WE ALSO CAMPAIGNED SUCCESSFULLY AGAINST MULTIPLE EFFORTS TO WEAKEN PROTECTIONS FOR WASHINGTONS GRAY WOLVES, INCLUDING A PROPOSAL TO REMOVAL ALL PROTECTIONS FROM MOST OF THE STATE WOLF POPULATION AND ANOTHER TO DOWNLIST WOLVES FROM ENDANGERED TO SENSITIVE ON THE STATE ENDANGERED”
“THROUGH OUR LEGAL PROGRAM, WE USED A VARIETY OF TACTICS TO HOLD THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LAW AND TO ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AS A PUBLIC TRUSTEE. WE DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED A RULEMAKING PETITION TO END THE OVERHUNTING OF BEARS AND COUGARS, WHICH HAS ENDANGERED THE BEAR AND COUGAR POPULATIONS AND INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFLICTS WITH HUMANS. “
“IN ADDITION, WE FILED LITIGATION TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENTS VIOLATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT WHEN IT BEGAN TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE STATE HATCHERY PRODUCTION WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, EVEN THOUGH ITS OWN SCIENTISTS HAD SAID THE EXPANSION WAS LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE WILD SALMON.”
“OUR STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS HAVE FACILITATED SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON MANY FRONTS. WE HELPED TRANSFORM THE NINE-MEMBER STATE COMMISSION THAT CONTROLS ALL STATE WILDLIFE POLICY FROM A GROUP DOMINATED BY HUNTING, FISHING, AND COMMERCIAL INTERESTS TO ONE PRIMARILY COMPOSED OF SCIENTISTS, LAWYERS, AND OTHER EXPERTS WHOSE FIRST PRIORITY IS CONSERVATION.“
“THANKS TO THIS COALITION, WE OBTAINED PASSAGE OF LANDMARK LEGISLATION PROVIDING FUNDING FOR A YEAR-LONG INDEPENDENT STUDY INTO THE REFORMS THAT MUST BE MADE TO THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE”
This group largely credits themselves for the removal of the WA spring black bear hunt, the recent petitions to further remove cougar and black bear hunting, the current composition of the WDFW commission and the legislative rider that led to the (backfired) Ruckelshaus Study.
Post by: storyteller on August 21, 2025, 07:23:23 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on August 21, 2025, 08:07:09 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on August 21, 2025, 08:17:55 PM
I may be missing it. But I don't see anything about Jody Allen.
In tax form from WA Wildlife First listed Jody Allen as a donor. Released last week. It’s some where on the forum posted.
Here ya go.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,293256.0.html
Post by: EnglishSetter on August 21, 2025, 09:36:22 PM
$cientist$ and lawyers. :pee:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 22, 2025, 07:42:29 AM
I'm curious. How do you reduce bear/cougar vs. human conflicts by (supposedly) increasing the numbers of bears and cougars?
$cientist$ and lawyers. :pee:
My favorite is over hunting of predators causes them to have more conflicts with humans .bash:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 22, 2025, 07:49:21 AM
We have to call them out at every turn.
Post by: EnglishSetter on August 22, 2025, 11:56:47 AM
The one thing that comes clear, is that they will lie, cheat, and buy just to get the outcome they want. And a good part of the population will believe ..
We have to call them out at every turn.
The $cientist$ are no different. When we were fighting MPA's in CA, $cientist$ would go on and on about the bycatch of rockfish while salmon trolling. Have I caught a couple rockfish while salmon trolling in the mud? Yes, but it's quite rare and undesirable. By and large, different habitat. Basically, they are ill-informed, NOT sciencey or out right lie. The agencies have plenty of bios with their ear to the ground. There's no value PhD's from some disconnected doctrine.
Post by: Longfield1 on August 22, 2025, 12:36:09 PM
I'm curious. How do you reduce bear/cougar vs. human conflicts by (supposedly) increasing the numbers of bears and cougars?
$cientist$ and lawyers. :pee:
My favorite is over hunting of predators causes them to have more conflicts with humans .bash:
What there saying is true but its a play on words and dishonest.
If people are out hunting predators and harvesting predators there will be more "conflicts" with humans and predators. Basically they consider hunting itself a conflict event. There not talking about some hikers out and about getting into an interaction with a bear or cougar when they don't intend to.
If no ones out hunting or harvesting predators there will be less "conflicts" because no ones harvesting/interacting with them.
Post by: hunter399 on August 22, 2025, 12:47:13 PM
I'm curious. How do you reduce bear/cougar vs. human conflicts by (supposedly) increasing the numbers of bears and cougars?
$cientist$ and lawyers. :pee:
My favorite is over hunting of predators causes them to have more conflicts with humans .bash:
What there saying is true but its a play on words and dishonest.
If people are out hunting predators and harvesting predators there will be more "conflicts" with humans and predators. Basically they consider hunting itself a conflict event. There not talking about some hikers out and about getting into an interaction with a bear or cougar when they don't intend to.
If no ones out hunting or harvesting predators there will be less "conflicts" because no ones harvesting/interacting with them.
That seems like they are changing the definition of conflict to hunting. Kinda like trying to change the definition of conservation.
Hunting has a definition in the regulation,pretty sure it doesn't involve the word conflict.
With that said it doesn't surprise me,they always try to change definition of words to fit the agenda.
They could use some of those money bags,and buy a dictionary.
Or better yet , Google for free...... 😂