Net-Gunning for Big Mule Deer

[dwils233]

This is sounding A LOT like the same institutional capture that’s been happening in our society for the last many years.

One side brings data driven solutions to the table in good faith because they believe things like objective reality and honest discourse are sound principles from which to derive policy. The other side believes a certain outcome is the only moral path, and therefore the ends justify the means. They have no qualms about using the honest conversation, forthright, “good faith” nature of the other side agains them. No need to provide logical counter arguments or present stats that supports their views. Vilify, outright lie, deny the data, propagandize, and win public support. The ends justify the means…

Meanwhile, the folks who are trying to have an honest conversation and discussion about what might be the best path forwards are getting railroaded. We’ve been real good at standing on principles and LOSING for a long time. We need to figure out how to WIN. We finally got a win in CO…the guys who organized that need to get going on a national scale so we can get into the arena in ALL states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just as an example in WA: You could file a public records request in WA and find hunting nonprofits stating they would support spring bear restrictions- like shutting down seasons if sow harvest reached a very low allotment, offering money to incentivize tooth submission, willingness to negotiate and promote solutions that responded to the Commission's concerns about the spring bear hunt without shutting it down completely.

Those messages went unanswered, even as commissioners responded to almost every other email from those same orgs. It's a three year old example at this point, but it holds true today.

 

[Alpine4x4]

All good points and accurate characterizations. So the question is, given the reality of all this, and the politics of the state we’re discussing, how do we effect the change we want to see? That’s what I want to get to, and I don’t have a roadmap.

A change at the top, which we just got. Not sure how Ferguson will play out as pro hunting or not, but in that realm he seems to be a bit more moderate than Inslee. So long as the governor is appointing commissioners and the governor is siding with environmentalists and anti-hunting groups there is not much we can do.

I'd like to see a 4th option added to the report on dissolving the commission and make it a vote of the people. The commission is making decisions that are affecting the people of the state so why should the people have no say outside of easily ignored public comments? I say each of the six regions elect a commissioner with the three largest regions electing two for a total of 9. That gives every region the ability to have a voice for issues in their region. Its about the wildlife and the land mass, not population, so leave it to region size to determine the three extra commissioners. This would be a 4yr elected position made at the same time as the Governors election on the ballots of everyone within the region and non partisan. Let the people elect them based on their merits and qualifications.

 

[dwils233]

All good points and accurate characterizations. So the question is, given the reality of all this, and the politics of the state we’re discussing, how do we effect the change we want to see? That’s what I want to get to, and I don’t have a roadmap.

What we need is a pretty drastic overhaul of the Commission, one that either creates new sideboards or replaces most commissioners...if not both.

I actually think the number of scientists on the Commission isn't beneficial- it's not a peer review board for the department staff. I also don't think it should just be a bunch of hunters and anglers either. It needs to be people who care about the resource and process as equally important things to protect.

This, along with enforceable sideboards and a cultural change of focusing on high-level policy setting and prioritization, can greatly help the Commission. Additionally, we need to see the extreme voices knocked off their perch a bit. They've gotten very comfortable having a direct line to decisionmakers in the Gov's office, leg, and the Commission- one they haven't earned in seeking shared outcomes/mutual benefit. Those voices need to be the most impactful, and that's who the commission should look towards to see if they've been successful- not just people advocating for a single value set or perspective

 

[Sundodger]

This is one of those issues where it is important to be able to keep multiple ideas in your head at once.

For example:
-It is a fact WDFW needs more and better data on many topics.
-It is also a fact that people/groups with nefarious intentions will demand more data as an obstruction tactic.

 

[dwils233]

See, now that's we've gotten to talking about it, I can't stop.

A highly credible report comes out identifying the problems with the commission, with pretty broad agreement that there is dysfunction at the top and it's not good for wildlife management. But at least one commissioner, and the most influential leader of the fringe element have the exact same response to all that noise.

The founder of WWF in outdoor life: What some people label ‘dysfunction,’ we see as a product of the commissioners doing their best to fulfill this challenging role, by digging into difficult issues, asking hard questions, and publicly debating topics about which both the commission and the public are divided,”

Commissioner Melanie Rowland in the Washington State Standard: What might appear as dysfunction, she said, is actually members grappling with how to make decisions that are consistent with what’s been done in the past but reflect a desire to modernize the state’s approach to wildlife management.

The house is on fire, but some folks don't seem to care or mind. Those folks are either in collusion or share the same delusion.

 

[Jake Larsen]

To that end we need to think really hard about how the non-hunting public perceives us, and look for the opportunities to move that needle in a positive direction. I think that's already happening, but we need to put hunting on an unassailable social and political footing, and we have a long way to go. Any average non-hunting member of the public should look at the hunters they know and say "wow, these are an impressive set of guys and gals, committed stewards of natural resources, pillars of their communities, emminently reasonable human beings - I wish I could be like them". Once we get to that point we have nothing to fear from ballot measures like Colorado just faced.
.

I’m in full agreement with the “perception issue” and believe in the concept of these values impacting the community in a positive and meaningful way. My personal feeling is there’s a long way to go in terms of the hunting community as a whole being true stewards of the land and animals.

However, I do think it’s worth pointing out that the “other side” doesn’t seem to need that sort of public perception in order to win. People don’t think of the anti activists as pillars of the community, role models ect, and yet they have been winning for a long time. How? They understand how to play the game - they’re very adept at institutional capture. We need to get in the arena on that level, or we’re going to keep on losing, no matter how ardently we stand on good values, principles, and reasonable arguments. The good guys don’t always win, just because they’re “good”. We didnt win in CO because all the hunters in CO suddenly became really good people…we won because we started fighting in the right places and ways.

If we keep doing what we’ve always done, we’ll keep getting what we’ve always gotten..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk