Comment period on WFWD Conservation Policy

[SAJ-99]

WFWD is seeking public comments on the new conservation policy. RMEF has some issues with the word 'preservation', but we should all send input if you can. I recommend keeping your comments respectful and highlighting the importance sportsmen and women have played in conservation over the last 150 years. Given the budgetary constraints facing WFWD, alienating hunters and fisherman will not benefit the long-term goals of the department.

Follow the links here to post comments

Fish and Wildlife Commission seeks public input on draft Conservation Policy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is opening a public comment period on its draft Conservation Policy through June 30, 2023. The draft Conservation Policy directs the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to preserve and protect Washington’s fish and wildlife and their...

wdfw.wa.gov

Conservation policy here

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/conservation-policy-draft-15-publicreview-final.pdf

 

[marshman]

Thanks for the post, I am not up to speed on this.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm still working on my draft comments, once done, I'll try to post them.

 

[Irrelevant]

Public comments were received on this draft policy last night at a meeting in Seattle. You might be surprised to hear than comments were > 50% pro hunting.

Self-proclaimed hunter and commissioner Luemkuhl offered a rather scathing rebuttal to many of the pro-hunting comments and commenters, he was angered and offended at the notion that there is a conspiracy to eliminate hunting in WA and that the existing board members have been lying to the hunting public, a claim more than one commenter made. It reminded me that we need more @Ben Lamb in the world. Someone who can very politely disagree with his opponents in such a way as to not piss them off.

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[Irrelevant]

Comments are due today. You have an hour, get them in. Here was mine.
To Whom it May Concern,
I have read the draft policy and listened to the public comments during the live meeting in Seattle last week. Below are my public comments on this draft policy.

Introduction
1. I support a conservation policy, but you already have one; Policy 5004. You also have your strategic plans. Both provide everything the commission and the department should need to administer a conservation ethic in WA.
2. We are not in a biodiversity "crisis". What percent of Washington species have been extirpated in the last 100 years? During a time when our population grew 700%. I'd say we're doing pretty well considering all things.

Definitions
3. You're changing the definition of conservation. Conservation is the management of something, in this case our wildlife natural resource, for sustainable use. Plus the definition is full of buzzwords and eco-jargon that mean both nothing, often aren't legally definable, yet could be used to achieve almost any means desired. "Equitable benefits to current and future humans and non-human life", what does that even mean? No more homes? Bull dozing the existing ones? Non-human life, does that mean the individual or the species? Are we not killing anything again because a non-human life must be equal to a human life? Please remove such language.
4. The definition for sustainability isn't even a complete sentence. Could it not be claimed that in order to manage an ecosystem for resilience we'd want to stock water water species in currently cold water environments; those fish would be more resilient to future climate change conditions? It just seems contrary to many actual goals of WDFW.

Principles
5. "Conservation first" could easily be interpreted to outlaw hunting, fishing, and any development. That majority rules and the eastside doesn't matter. That an increasingly disconnected society could ban any activity they don't see value in.
6. The Conservation of all species absolutely isn't true. Do we really want to preserve cheatgrass? Northern Pike?
7. Only making decisions based on science sounds good, but has it flaws. Sometimes it is good to make decisions based on, at least in part, ethics, morality, and culture. Those don't always jive with peer-reviewed research. Social science is a science that could say anything you wanted it to.
8. Innovation topic. I would like to hear when and where the authors think a failure is warranted, and who would deem something a failure, and what would happen as the result. Typically Trusts are managed to not fail, risk is something to be minimized as Trust managers.
9. Aligning... I would be careful with how much alignment you seek. Diversity of thought should not be looked down upon. If I was a WDFW staffer, that point would make me very nervous that it's going to be a "my-way or the highway" type of management.

Lastly, I just can't help but feel this draft policy was written in an echo chamber. It does not address a lot of very well known principles and processes that are already in place to protect and promote conservation. It deviates quite strongly from the WAC mandate. Which, I think, is really the intent of this policy, to create something to circumvent the existing mandates already codified in State law, something I don't support. We have a lot of struggles in WA with regard to our wildlife management. I'm not sure how this helps them.

 

[Letthemgrow]

water water species

?
warm water species?

 

[Irrelevant]

?
warm water species?

Crap... yeah. Dyslexia strikes again

 

[kwyeewyk]

It was interesting to see all the comments online, curious how they review and utilize them for something like this, seems like a mess.

 

[Irrelevant]

It was interesting to see all the comments online, curious how they review and utilize them for something like this, seems like a mess.

Yes, it does seem like a mess

 

[Irrelevant]

They've put out an "Updated" Conservation Policy for public input.

Fish and Wildlife Commission seeks public input on updated draft Conservation Policy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is opening a public comment period on its updated draft Conservation Policy through Jan. 12, 2024. The draft Conservation Policy directs the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to preserve and protect Washington’s fish and...

wdfw.wa.gov

 

[SAJ-99]

They've put out an "Updated" Conservation Policy for public input.

Fish and Wildlife Commission seeks public input on updated draft Conservation Policy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is opening a public comment period on its updated draft Conservation Policy through Jan. 12, 2024. The draft Conservation Policy directs the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to preserve and protect Washington’s fish and...

wdfw.wa.gov

I feel like an idiot for not saving the orginal. Any input from anyone on what was "updated" would be very helpful.

 

[Irrelevant]

I feel like an idiot for not saving the orginal. Any input from anyone on what was "updated" would be very helpful.

The OG attached.

They simplified some of the definitions, which was really just sending it to proofing, and added a blub on tribal partnerships. They also added this language to Principal #3 Conservation Partnerships:
Therefore, the Commission’s outreach and resultant policies need to be inclusive of both traditional stakeholders and the broader public in order to foster the necessary partnerships to accomplish its mission.
It's the only reference to hunting/fishing.

 

[Irrelevant]

6 Tribes Request Gov-to-gov Consultations On WDFW Commission's Conservation Policy -

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission's push to approve a new Conservation Policy for itself and WDFW appears to be going on pause after six tribes formally asked to consult with the state on the far-reaching guidance document.

nwsportsmanmag.com

Tribes killed the policy, at least for now.

I find there to be a fair amount of tension between us non-tribal hunters and anglers and the tribes. From a top down policy standpoint, we could hardly find a better partner and teammate to help support out interests. But from a local on the ground perspective there are just so many bad actors and lack of accountability that it's really hard to support (see Herrera SCOTUS decision).

 

[Matthew57]

That’s positive news, and I agree with your assessment about the on the ground perspective.

 

[SAJ-99]

6 Tribes Request Gov-to-gov Consultations On WDFW Commission's Conservation Policy -

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission's push to approve a new Conservation Policy for itself and WDFW appears to be going on pause after six tribes formally asked to consult with the state on the far-reaching guidance document.

nwsportsmanmag.com

Tribes killed the policy, at least for now.

I find there to be a fair amount of tension between us non-tribal hunters and anglers and the tribes. From a top down policy standpoint, we could hardly find a better partner and teammate to help support out interests. But from a local on the ground perspective there are just so many bad actors and lack of accountability that it's really hard to support (see Herrera SCOTUS decision).

Politics makes strange bedfellows.