Net-Gunning for Big Mule Deer

[robby denning]

Net-Gunning for Big Mule Deer

Robby hosts Woodrow Myers on today's episode. Woodrow was a wildlife biologist for the state of Washington for 40 years before joining the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. They talk net-gunning for big mule deer and more.

www.rokslide.com

 

[Sundodger]

Thank you Robby for this episode, not only highlighting the mule deer I love so much here in Washington, but the anti battle we are in.

Since 2020 we are quite literally in the fight for our lives to just be able to hunt/fish/crab/etc. and we get much less attention nationally than other places like CO, so it means a lot for you to give us the spotlight.

I know we don't have as impressive hunting as places like CO, but it's my home and I love fishing and hunting here.

When they are done with us they will be coming for the rest of you.

 

[jazzturkey]

Great episode! I love to see more exposure of the issues we are facing here in Washington!

 

[robby denning]

Thank you Robby for this episode, not only highlighting the mule deer I love so much here in Washington, but the anti battle we are in.

Since 2020 we are quite literally in the fight for our lives to just be able to hunt/fish/crab/etc. and we get much less attention nationally than other places like CO, so it means a lot for you to give us the spotlight.

I know we don't have as impressive hunting as places like CO, but it's my home and I love fishing and hunting here.

When they are done with us they will be coming for the rest of you.

Great episode! I love to see more exposure of the issues we are facing here in Washington!

sure thing guys, we wanna help Washington too. More to come hopefully.

 

[Bachto]

Thank you Robby for this episode, not only highlighting the mule deer I love so much here in Washington, but the anti battle we are in.

Since 2020 we are quite literally in the fight for our lives to just be able to hunt/fish/crab/etc. and we get much less attention nationally than other places like CO, so it means a lot for you to give us the spotlight.

I know we don't have as impressive hunting as places like CO, but it's my home and I love fishing and hunting here.

When they are done with us they will be coming for the rest of you.

I feel the same, it makes me really sad. I have had some amazing adventures in this state and I love hunting and fishing here.

I think the title of this podcast needs to be changed as at first I didn't even really care to listen to it. Just my opinion.

 

[Alpine4x4]

I didnt care to listen to it until I saw this post actually. Very glad I did. The Mule Deer portion was very informative.

The back end with the commission was interesting. I'd like to agree with Woody that the commission isnt anti-hunting, but their actions have spoken otherwise. If the information was not presentable as he said to make an informed decision, but yet was still available, decision making needed to be tabled until data was brought forward. If they felt they needed to take immediate action to save the species fine, but to then say the commission isnt ready to tackle the spring bear issue because of how much of an issue its become? Isn't that the whole point of the commission? Thats a cop out IMO. Get the data and make an informed decision.

He highlighted one of the major reasons the people feel WDFW has failed them. They have all this data collected by the department, funded by the tax payers (hunters), and the department cant even present it in a form that the commission making decisions can use it. What a waste. I'd love for my tax payer money to fund more studies with usable data to manage our wildlife.

We have watched as WDFW has waged war on Bass, Walleye, and Catfish under the guise of saving Salmon, yet there has been little to show in any available study that points to them as culprits in smolt loss. Some studies even refute that fact. Other studies are showing precipitous losses due to birds, mainly gulls, terns, cormorants, and pelicans. All species that are thriving due to man made islands on the Columbia River, but no action has been taken to curb the predation. Its stuff like this that paints the commission and the department in a bad light as a whole.

Then when your Governor does stuff like this it even further paints the commission in a bad light

WA BHA: 'Last-minute' Inslee Commission Appointments 'Undermine Public Trust' -

Governor Jay Inslee's waning-hours appointments to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission are blasted by the state chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as undermining public trust, abandoning stakeholder input and transparency, contradicting recommendations in the recent Ruckelshaus...

nwsportsmanmag.com

Then the WA state legislature earmarks $300,000 for an independant study that finds the commission is dysfunctional and now total reform is being proposed with no input from the people at large. Some of the reform options would be a final nail in the coffin for WA sportsman. The commission needs reform, but not at the hands of the governors office which got us in this bad spot to begin with by making poor appointments. We need more guys like Woody who follow the science, good or bad for the sportsman, while maximizing opportunity for the sportsman.

https://columbiainsight.org/new-report-raises-possibility-of-doing-away-with-washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission/

Former Commissioner Suggests Legislative Fixes For 'Dysfunctional' Panel Overseeing WDFW -

Following the release of a draft report on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and its future, former member Kim Thorburn calls for three legislative fixes rather than moving WDFW under governor.

nwsportsmanmag.com

 

[Jake Larsen]

I didnt care to listen to it until I saw this post actually. Very glad I did. The Mule Deer portion was very informative.

The back end with the commission was interesting. I'd like to agree with Woody that the commission isnt anti-hunting, but their actions have spoken otherwise. If the information was not presentable as he said to make an informed decision, but yet was still available, decision making needed to be tabled until data was brought forward. If they felt they needed to take immediate action to save the species fine, but to then say the commission isnt ready to tackle the spring bear issue because of how much of an issue its become? Isn't that the whole point of the commission? Thats a cop out IMO. Get the data and make an informed decision.

He highlighted one of the major reasons the people feel WDFW has failed them. They have all this data collected by the department, funded by the tax payers (hunters), and the department cant even present it in a form that the commission making decisions can use it. What a waste. I'd love for my tax payer money to fund more studies with usable data to manage our wildlife.

We have watched as WDFW has waged war on Bass, Walleye, and Catfish under the guise of saving Salmon, yet there has been little to show in any available study that points to them as culprits in smolt loss. Some studies even refute that fact. Other studies are showing precipitous losses due to birds, mainly gulls, terns, cormorants, and pelicans. All species that are thriving due to man made islands on the Columbia River, but no action has been taken to curb the predation. Its stuff like this that paints the commission and the department in a bad light as a whole.

Then when your Governor does stuff like this it even further paints the commission in a bad light

WA BHA: 'Last-minute' Inslee Commission Appointments 'Undermine Public Trust' -

Governor Jay Inslee's waning-hours appointments to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission are blasted by the state chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as undermining public trust, abandoning stakeholder input and transparency, contradicting recommendations in the recent Ruckelshaus...

nwsportsmanmag.com

Then the WA state legislature earmarks $300,000 for an independant study that finds the commission is dysfunctional and now total reform is being proposed with no input from the people at large. Some of the reform options would be a final nail in the coffin for WA sportsman. The commission needs reform, but not at the hands of the governors office which got us in this bad spot to begin with by making poor appointments. We need more guys like Woody who follow the science, good or bad for the sportsman, while maximizing opportunity for the sportsman.

https://columbiainsight.org/new-report-raises-possibility-of-doing-away-with-washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission/

Former Commissioner Suggests Legislative Fixes For 'Dysfunctional' Panel Overseeing WDFW -

Following the release of a draft report on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and its future, former member Kim Thorburn calls for three legislative fixes rather than moving WDFW under governor.

nwsportsmanmag.com

Thanks for these examples. There’s another thread started on the topic, specifically addressing the Commission issue. Glad you gave some specifics of what’s been going on.

Washington Fish and wildlife commission

Washington Fish and wildlife commission

I know most people view Washington as a lost cause, as a resident it's very discouraging. We really need to make our voices heard to take action on the stupidity happening in the commission. You can read more about it and take action at these HOWL links...

r.tapatalk.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dwils233]

As someone who has followed the Commission in WA pretty closely, I jumped towards the end and will have to go back and listen to the rest.

I agree that part of a debate, or collaboration is that you need to be willing to concede- but we need to acknowledge what/who is on the opposite side of the table. And maybe not about Commissioners, but about the other people trying to specific agenda's and values. I think many hunter-based organizations have actually done that: come to the table and tried to have productive conversations with the Commissioners and environmentalists...and those conversations have been productive.

Where this whole thing falls apart in Washington is that the emerging voices, the newer groups coming into this space and advocating (successfully) to the Commission don't share those values. They don't compromise; they will not yield. They are radical hardliners. I'm sorry but the Northwest Animal Rights Network isn't interested in caring about why hunters do what they do- they just want it to stop. And they see a commission, that if they frame their arguments in specific ways, will move the ball in favor of their desired outcomes.

So even if the Commission, or Commissioners aren't themselves anti-hunting, they are agents in anti-hunting agendas. And they tell us to all get along. Sitting down with extremists unwilling to concede or negotiate, legitimizes their views and values, at the detriment of everyone else. They don't want to sit at the big table, they want to claim it for themselves and burn everything they don't love out of the room. The Commission in WA is either complicit or ignorant of this, and the result is absolutely losses of opportunity, but also ruinous to wildlife management overall.

Hunters in WA have been forced to concede, even as they show up ready to negotiate on plenty things and reach into the middle with environmental orgs. Show me one time where the emerging fundamentalist stakeholders have either not gotten exactly what they wanted from the Commission, or negotiated an outcome in good faith for the other parties involved.

If the Commission isn't anti-consumptive use, fine. But then they need to admit they are getting played and outclassed constantly.

 

[Dan Russell]

dwils and Alpine 4x4, I don't disagree with any of that. Gov. Inslee put his hand on the scale in a big way in his last term both in some of the appointments he made and also by inserting himself into specific issues (especially wolves). That said I believe it's a dangerous pitfall for us to assume that commission decisions are agenda driven or that the ranting and raving of the extreme environmentalist and animal rights groups is getting through to the commissioners and driving their decision making. Everyone should make up their own mind about this, but I've spoken face to face with each of the commissioners and I don't believe any of them have a vendetta against us. What several of them do have are serious misconceptions about hunting and hunters, a general lack of subject matter expertise, and an extremely low tolerance for risk when it comes to harvest rates (especially of predators).

These are problems for us, but also areas of opportunity. It's possible to dispell misconceptions by presenting the truth, but only when we give our counterparts the benefit of the doubt regarding their willingness to have an open mind and consider our arguments in good faith. We also need to extend the same grace to them. At the end of the day these people are the decision makers, and our strategy needs to be tailored to produce the best possible results in that context. I'm not talking about conceding anything, just that we need to keep a seat at the table and keep our eye on big picture goals. I also don't mean to imply that the threats to hunting in this state are not real, they're very real. But I believe those questions will be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, not by the current commission.

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.

We also need the data. And we need to press WDFW for it. Funding is such a huge issue, but in the case of both Spring Bear and Cougars the available data were not sufficient to overcome the risk aversion of the majority of commissioners, and in that context their conclusions were not illogical. I suspect the current cougar estimates are low for many parts of the state, and that in actuality we could safely be harvesting many more cats, but we need the data to show it, and that's not an unreasonable ask. The recent report on bear numbers and harvest rates is promising, and if we can keep the spring bear issue salient I believe there is absolutely a path to reviving a spring bear hunting opportunity, but it's going to take patience, and a good strategy to overcome the social obstacles. It's absolutely worth doing.

 

[Harvey_NW]

dwils and Alpine 4x4, I don't disagree with any of that. Gov. Inslee put his hand on the scale in a big way in his last term both in some of the appointments he made and also by inserting himself into specific issues (especially wolves). That said I believe it's a dangerous pitfall for us to assume that commission decisions are agenda driven or that the ranting and raving of the extreme environmentalist and animal rights groups is getting through to the commissioners and driving their decision making. Everyone should make up their own mind about this, but I've spoken face to face with each of the commissioners and I don't believe any of them have a vendetta against us. What several of them do have are serious misconceptions about hunting and hunters, a general lack of subject matter expertise, and an extremely low tolerance for risk when it comes to harvest rates (especially of predators).

These are problems for us, but also areas of opportunity. It's possible to dispell misconceptions by presenting the truth, but only when we give our counterparts the benefit of the doubt regarding their willingness to have an open mind and consider our arguments in good faith. We also need to extend the same grace to them. At the end of the day these people are the decision makers, and our strategy needs to be tailored to produce the best possible results in that context. I'm not talking about conceding anything, just that we need to keep a seat at the table and keep our eye on big picture goals. I also don't mean to imply that the threats to hunting in this state are not real, they're very real. But I believe those questions will be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, not by the current commission.

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.

We also need the data. And we need to press WDFW for it. Funding is such a huge issue, but in the case of both Spring Bear and Cougars the available data were not sufficient to overcome the risk aversion of the majority of commissioners, and in that context their conclusions were not illogical. I suspect the current cougar estimates are low for many parts of the state, and that in actuality we could safely be harvesting many more cats, but we need the data to show it, and that's not an unreasonable ask. The recent report on bear numbers and harvest rates is promising, and if we can keep the spring bear issue salient I believe there is absolutely a path to reviving a spring bear hunting opportunity, but it's going to take patience, and a good strategy to overcome the social obstacles. It's absolutely worth doing.

I appreciate the concise explanation, but based on what I've seen I respectfully disagree with a couple of your points. I think you might be being deceived by the commissioners putting on their political personality to not be confrontational. In the meetings, it was not uncommon to see biologists present data to support a management decision, only to have the commissioners retort "we need to see more data", because what was being presented was essentially in favor of hunting. They only seem to key in and be attentive to data that supports further restriction, from my personal observation.

It's also not hard to find the statistics showing WA is top 10 for black bear density per capita, request the human/livestock conflict reports, look at the harvest statistics from the now dwindling whitetail population in the NE corner, or the find the data that cougar predation is the reason for ~75% of the mortality rate on collared elk calves in the Blue Mountains. There are so many established Tom's in the mountain range above where I live that the juveniles are moving down into rural farm land on the valley floor where they've never resided in the past, and the game dept is constantly reporting to nuisance calls and dispatching problem cats. I know this because my friend is the owner of the hounds they frequently use to tree them when they do authorize a dispatch. The data is clearly available, it's just not acknowledged.

I agree that we need to be collected and professional with our approach, hopefully the decisions made this legislative session will fall in favor of hunting and we will see progressive management strategy.

 

[Bachto]

I appreciate the concise explanation, but based on what I've seen I respectfully disagree with a couple of your points. I think you might be being deceived by the commissioners putting on their political personality to not be confrontational. In the meetings, it was not uncommon to see biologists present data to support a management decision, only to have the commissioners retort "we need to see more data", because what was being presented was essentially in favor of hunting. They only seem to key in and be attentive to data that supports further restriction, from my personal observation.

It's also not hard to find the statistics showing WA is top 10 for black bear density per capita, request the human/livestock conflict reports, look at the harvest statistics from the now dwindling whitetail population in the NE corner, or the find the data that cougar predation is the reason for ~75% of the mortality rate on collared elk calves in the Blue Mountains. There are so many established Tom's in the mountain range above where I live that the juveniles are moving down into rural farm land on the valley floor where they've never resided in the past, and the game dept is constantly reporting to nuisance calls and dispatching problem cats. I know this because my friend is the owner of the hounds they frequently use to tree them when they do authorize a dispatch. The data is clearly available, it's just not acknowledged.

I agree that we need to be collected and professional with our approach, hopefully the decisions made this legislative session will fall in favor of hunting and we will see progressive management strategy.

I agree with this and I was trying to find a way to say it and you did it so much better. so I will just say "ditto". I will add that there have been comments during meetings from commissioners that seem threatening towards hunting. Like when spring turkey was brought up I believe it was commissioner Smith that said something a long on the lines of " We will have to look into that one as well" eluding to the fact they might get rid of that season like spring bear. I might add that I agree that maybe many of the commissioners aren't anti-hunting but they sure do seem pro to very limited hunting. So when they say "I'm not anti-hunting" that may be true but their demeanor and actions show that they want to limit us greatly.

 

[idelkslayer]

Doesn't it seems like this should be a disqualifier from being on a a state wildlife commission?

What several of them do have are serious misconceptions about hunting and hunters, a general lack of subject matter expertise,

 

[Dan Russell]

Doesn't it seems like this should be a disqualifier from being on a a state wildlife commission?

In a perfect world, yes.

All good. I've seen and heard what you guys have, the decisions have upset me enough that I've made getting involved in this a big part of my life, and I'm not condoning or supporting any of it. I am suggesting that opportunity exists in the nuance of these things.

I don't think there's a one size fits all solution, and we each need to fight our own fight. It's just hard to get anywhere if we're talking past each other.

 

[dwils233]

We also need the data. And we need to press WDFW for it. Funding is such a huge issue, but in the case of both Spring Bear and Cougars the available data were not sufficient to overcome the risk aversion of the majority of commissioners, and in that context their conclusions were not illogical.

I would argue that it is illogical when the department methodology, data collection, and practices are within widely accepted norms and standards within the industry. I had an explicit conversation on this with two Commission members when they said the data wasn't good enough. They conceded that the data was appropriate and in line with wildlife management across the country, but it didn't meet their personal standards, and they also couldn't clearly elucidate what their desired modeling would be- they didn't like what we had, but they had no idea what an improvement would look like functionally. That is illogical. It is also illogical for a marine mammal biologist to think that population data collection techniques and tracking are similarly applicable for wildlife species. I don't the precautionary principle, when properly applied is irrational, but I think that taking it to the most conservative extreme (as some commissioners have advocated) is illogical and can absolutely result in adverse impacts to wildlife in the cry for "more data"

That said I believe it's a dangerous pitfall for us to assume that commission decisions are agenda driven or that the ranting and raving of the extreme environmentalist and animal rights groups is getting through to the commissioners and driving their decision making.

What if that is explicitly what a ringleader has said? "We've got the commission exactly where we want them for our agenda" We know they have access in appointments, we know they have long connections to some of the commissioners, and we know they have found the buttons to push to get outcomes they want even with commissioners they don't have that direct interaction with.

When it comes to the Commission, I often think Hanlon's Razor is pretty applicable, but either way, the outcome has not been beneficial to wildlife management overall. There are also clearly big egos in that room, which also doesn't help us

I have spent an absurd amount of time trying to navigate the middle ground in good faith. There's been some great work done there and pillars of the consumptive and non-consumptive communities working together on conservation...so it's deeply frustrating when the Commission ignores that work and input. To directly tell commissioners, individually or writ large, that they are going to fall into a trap and then watch them proceed to do it anyway- is incredibly disheartening, undermines trust and relationship, and forces people to consider that it was willful. It doesn't help with the Commissioners broadcast their pettiness on a regular basis.

---

I appreciate your efforts deeply Dan, and I agree with many of your points around how we must engage externally, present ourselves, and think critically about wildlife management as a community. I don't hold malice to the commissioners, I just struggle to extend grace to the Commission or commissioners based on my own experiences and information, even while holding a much more centrist value set than many folks I see in the consumptive community. I'm also confident that this Commission is delivering on the agenda of the most narrow subset of extreme environmentalists, in a way that strengthens their political power and influence in shaping wildlife management and policy in Washington state- something that makes even other environmentalists uncomfortable.

 

[Sundodger]

Woodrow was being diplomatic, because he must. If he put his colleagues on blast at best they would stop working with him, worst he would be removed from the commission. All of those are losses for us and wildlife. See what happened to Kim Thorburn.

I would urge all of you to watch some of the meetings, and develop an opinion, here is mine.

There are some commissioners that clearly show signs of narcissistic personality disorder.


There are several commissioners that don’t understand how to act professionally and were never taught Roberts rules of order. It is embarrassing, unprofessional, and needs to be delt with, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean they are against us. I think their unprofessionalism really hurts their public image.


What they say and their actions does carry that weight though, and that’s where it gets so messy. When I am watching a commissioner do/say something crazy (which is frightfully common) I am always trying to figure out if it’s ignorance or malevolence. There are times where they quite literally quote propaganda line tropes word for word from anti groups, but there are also times they just don’t understand how wildlife science/management works or even the current rules in place. I have even seen that in the span of a single sentence they can run this full spectrum, so it turns into a complete incoherent mess of ignorance and malevolence where you can’t tell where one starts and the other ends.


If I aggregate all their actions it is clear that some commissioners if not anti hunting are brainwashed by anti hunting groups, because ignorance can’t make up for everything they do.


Make no mistake about it, we are in the fight of our lives here in Washington and I am very concerned about the future.

 

[Alpine4x4]

dwils and Alpine 4x4, I don't disagree with any of that. Gov. Inslee put his hand on the scale in a big way in his last term both in some of the appointments he made and also by inserting himself into specific issues (especially wolves). That said I believe it's a dangerous pitfall for us to assume that commission decisions are agenda driven or that the ranting and raving of the extreme environmentalist and animal rights groups is getting through to the commissioners and driving their decision making. Everyone should make up their own mind about this, but I've spoken face to face with each of the commissioners and I don't believe any of them have a vendetta against us. What several of them do have are serious misconceptions about hunting and hunters, a general lack of subject matter expertise, and an extremely low tolerance for risk when it comes to harvest rates (especially of predators).

These are problems for us, but also areas of opportunity. It's possible to dispell misconceptions by presenting the truth, but only when we give our counterparts the benefit of the doubt regarding their willingness to have an open mind and consider our arguments in good faith. We also need to extend the same grace to them. At the end of the day these people are the decision makers, and our strategy needs to be tailored to produce the best possible results in that context. I'm not talking about conceding anything, just that we need to keep a seat at the table and keep our eye on big picture goals. I also don't mean to imply that the threats to hunting in this state are not real, they're very real. But I believe those questions will be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, not by the current commission.

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.

We also need the data. And we need to press WDFW for it. Funding is such a huge issue, but in the case of both Spring Bear and Cougars the available data were not sufficient to overcome the risk aversion of the majority of commissioners, and in that context their conclusions were not illogical. I suspect the current cougar estimates are low for many parts of the state, and that in actuality we could safely be harvesting many more cats, but we need the data to show it, and that's not an unreasonable ask. The recent report on bear numbers and harvest rates is promising, and if we can keep the spring bear issue salient I believe there is absolutely a path to reviving a spring bear hunting opportunity, but it's going to take patience, and a good strategy to overcome the social obstacles. It's absolutely worth doing.

I guess the initial question I'd like to ask is why are the commissioners making decisions if there is insufficient data to begin with? Why are issues being brought forth for judgement to be made without a study done to present data? Why do we have commissioners sitting on a commission who lack subject matter expertise that are then making non data backed decisions?

Like Harvey pointed out, we have all seen time and time again the commission make decisions on an emotional platform while ignoring data. I fought hard against WDFW, Inslees Orca Task Force, and the Commission with data backed talking points to keep Bass, Walleye, and Catfish from being persecuted as the end all to salmon smolts. In the end a decision was made with little scientific backing that is detrimental to a lot of the states Warmwater fisheries. USFWS, BPA, WDFW, and multiple tribes have all done studies on smolt predation and yet there is no concise evidence outside of specific cases on the Yakima River in which warmwaters are a major player in smolt escapement. They were targeted because they were the easy scape goat. It costs $0 to change the regulation and make it look like they are doing something instead of attacking habitat restoration or federally protected species like Terns, Gulls, Pelicans, and the Sea Lions. It would not surprise me one bit to see politicians like the Governor receiving kick backs from the environmental groups they are appointing to make all these decisions.

We do need data. Thats what WDFW's job is. They are supposed to provide the data. Thats where our license dollars are supposed to go. Instead they get lumped into the general fund, the state budget for the department is low, and nothing happens. If theres one major criticism of WDFW its that they make decisions without showing data. As a sportsman its hard not to feel like they are making emotional decisions based on information from anti's and environmentalists when they cannot provide sound reasonable data. Then you exacerbate it with the wolf issue and the continually moving goal posts for restoration. Cool, we got wolves back, we've also lost a lot of ungulates the sportsman has paid to restore over the years and extirpated the only Caribou species to be found in the lower 48. Sometimes, the data is meaningless though.

The current cougar estimates are absolutely ridiculous and a clear sign of how the commission is either out of touch with the wildlife or anti hunter. A direct quote from a meeting in December 2023

Commissioner Tim Ragen: Can you definitively say we are not over-harvesting cougars? I have not heard a clear response to that

Biologist: Yes, we can definitively say we are not, including depredation

Commissioner Tim Ragen: Let me change my question...

The commissioners will change direction as they see fit to circumvent the presented data and make emotional decisions. Its happened over and over again. Its very hard as a sportsman to have any respect for the commission when they do things like the above.

An excerpt from:

Two cougars on Olympic Peninsula die from bird flu

PORT ANGELES — Two wild cougars on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula have died from avian influenza, signaling a concerning spread of the virus. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the conservation group Panthera confirmed the cases.

www.myclallamcounty.com

"It’s unknown how many cougars live on the peninsula. They’re notoriously difficult to track and study. But as of this time last year, there were over 90 collared cougars on the Olympic Peninsula thanks to the Olympic Cougar Project, a collaboration between Panthera"

The OP is roughly 3600 square miles. Assuming WDFW has captured and collared every single last cougar on the OP (we all know that isnt the case) thats one cougar for every 40 sq/mi. I'm not a cat biologist, but the information is readily available, females need 50-150 sq/mi and toms 150+ sq/mi. They are GROSSLY over populated and yet here we are getting paltry quotas throughout the state. Wouldnt the humane thing to do be to reduce the population so the current living cats dont starve? Thats not fuzzy and warm and why the commission has gone the opposite direction. Its a racket. Its Anti-Hunting and a slap in the face to all sportsman in the state, there is no defending that.

 

[Dan Russell]

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.

 

[Jake Larsen]

I would argue that it is illogical when the department methodology, data collection, and practices are within widely accepted norms and standards within the industry. I had an explicit conversation on this with two Commission members when they said the data wasn't good enough. They conceded that the data was appropriate and in line with wildlife management across the country, but it didn't meet their personal standards, and they also couldn't clearly elucidate what their desired modeling would be- they didn't like what we had, but they had no idea what an improvement would look like functionally. That is illogical. It is also illogical for a marine mammal biologist to think that population data collection techniques and tracking are similarly applicable for wildlife species. I don't the precautionary principle, when properly applied is irrational, but I think that taking it to the most conservative extreme (as some commissioners have advocated) is illogical and can absolutely result in adverse impacts to wildlife in the cry for "more data"



What if that is explicitly what a ringleader has said? "We've got the commission exactly where we want them for our agenda" We know they have access in appointments, we know they have long connections to some of the commissioners, and we know they have found the buttons to push to get outcomes they want even with commissioners they don't have that direct interaction with.

When it comes to the Commission, I often think Hanlon's Razor is pretty applicable, but either way, the outcome has not been beneficial to wildlife management overall. There are also clearly big egos in that room, which also doesn't help us

I have spent an absurd amount of time trying to navigate the middle ground in good faith. There's been some great work done there and pillars of the consumptive and non-consumptive communities working together on conservation...so it's deeply frustrating when the Commission ignores that work and input. To directly tell commissioners, individually or writ large, that they are going to fall into a trap and then watch them proceed to do it anyway- is incredibly disheartening, undermines trust and relationship, and forces people to consider that it was willful. It doesn't help with the Commissioners broadcast their pettiness on a regular basis.

---

I appreciate your efforts deeply Dan, and I agree with many of your points around how we must engage externally, present ourselves, and think critically about wildlife management as a community. I don't hold malice to the commissioners, I just struggle to extend grace to the Commission or commissioners based on my own experiences and information, even while holding a much more centrist value set than many folks I see in the consumptive community. I'm also confident that this Commission is delivering on the agenda of the most narrow subset of extreme environmentalists, in a way that strengthens their political power and influence in shaping wildlife management and policy in Washington state- something that makes even other environmentalists uncomfortable.

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

 

[Bachto]

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.

The only thing I can think of at this moment is getting an almost all new commission. But we know the chances of that happening. I am at loss right now on how to work with the current commission effectively.

 

[Jake Larsen]

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.

Have you been in touch with Dan Gates? Those guys put together the first big win we’ve seen in a Looong time…different specifics, but the tactics they used clearly worked, and probably could be evolved for the specifics of WA. We need to learn HOW to fight from people who have proven they can win these fights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk