Dear Commissioner Baker,
The Sportsmen’s Alliance submits the following comments on the proposed draft Commission Conservation Policy, C-700X. As discussed below, this draft policy creates conflicts and cross-purposes to the Commission’s mandate as established by the legislature (RCW 77.04.012) and should be withdrawn.
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. For purposes of clarity, it is important that we review what RCW 77.04.012 does provide:
Mandate of department and commission
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner’s private property.
Notably, the mandate directs the Commission and Department to manage fish and wildlife, which of course may include management approaches that include broadly-based ecosystem considerations, but the mission of the draft Conservation Policy has the relationship between fish and wildlife and broader ecosystems reversed from the mandate. RCW 77.04.012 directs the Commission and Department to manage fish and wildlife species, but the draft Policy places ecosystems as the focus, and then provides that this focus may include fish and wildlife species and populations.
This is not merely an argument over semantics. The legislature, through RCW 77.04.012, established a clear mandate that the focus must be on fish and wildlife. The draft Conservation Policy drives the Commission and Department away from this focus to a new paradigm where fish and wildlife are only relevant as a component of broader-based considerations.
This is further illustrated through the redefinitions of what are otherwise common words that only need new definitions if the object of the draft Conservation Policy is to steer the Commission and Department to an entirely novel way of managing natural resources in the state. It goes without saying that every biologist within the Department has an expert knowledge of what the term “conservation” means. Of course, the draft Conservation Policy craters our shared and common understanding of “conservation” with:
Science informed actions to preserve the health and resilience of natural environments including fish, wildlife and humans, safeguard the intrinsic value of nature, and provide equitable benefits to current and future generations of human and non-human alike. These actions include protecting and restoring air, soil, water, biological diversity, ecosystem processes and evolutionary potential.
This incredible word jungle of subjective phrases and undefined words could be used to justify any policy action whatsoever. “Intrinsic value” is entirely unknown. “Equitable benefits” for “human and non-human alike” could mean anything and will likely be used to promote policies to cancel hunting seasons altogether. Instead of clarifying RCW 77.04.012 to promote the effective management of fish and wildlife resources, this ideologically based definition will be used to simply ignore state law and implement policies that are in clear violation of said law.
It is not the job of a wildlife Commission to creatively find ways around established law. But this definition alone establishes, without any doubt, that the draft Conservation Policy is exactly that, a crafty work-around to implement policies that violate RCW 77.04.012.
The definitions of “ecosystem” and “ecosystem-based management” are likewise intended to broaden the Commission’s authority to begin implementation of a “brand new way” of managing fish and wildlife in Washington. The definition of “ecosystem” is not based on an accepted definition in the scientific community, but rather, includes the “trophic” concept because this is the ideological polestar of anti-hunting, animal extremist organizations throughout Washington and the West. These advocacy groups obsess about “trophic cascades,” and it is extremely telling that this concept is utilized in the draft Conservation Policy.
All of the principles outlined in the draft Conservation Policy follow a very careful routine. Each deploys common language from RCW 77.04.012 so that a lazy reader remains unaware how dangerous each of these policies truly are.
In Policy 1, it is critical to note that “spectrum of values” is incorporated carefully, but then is followed by “hunting, fishing …” These “shiny object” words lull the reader into thinking everything is okay.
However, if Policy 1 is in place, a decision to cancel a hunting season simply has to be described as responding to the “spectrum of values” of Washington residents, a majority of which (maybe), oppose the hunting activity.
Policy #2 simply will mean that fish and game species that are hunted, fished, or otherwise consumed will be given no additional management attention, programs, or funding. This is highly problematic because through federal excise taxes on firearms, hunting and fishing equipment, and related items, Washington State receives tens of millions of dollars every year. But for many, this is unacceptable. The health and abundance of countless species in Washington has resulted from this largesse, but Policy #2 will ignore this reality altogether.
Policy #4 sounds great at the start, with science forming the backbone of decision-making. However, this policy actually requires the Commission and Department to go beyond the hard sciences and delve into the social sciences. This is where our earlier discussion of “spectrum of values” will prove critical, as the Commission and Department could very well decide that running public opinion polls is the way to manage fish and wildlife, not have biologists out gathering hard data.
Policy #5 is another that will have a profound and negative impact on the effective management of fish and wildlife on the landscape. This policy will require predictive modeling instead of hard data on phenomenon that may or may not be happening now or at any time in the future. Again, this policy standing alone could be utilized by the Commission and Department to make any decision about anything, and at any time. Anyone can build a model that shows an elk season must be stopped because of X, Y, or Z. This has no basis in reality, but according to Policy #5, must be the way the Commission and Department conduct business.
Policy #6 is very difficult to comprehend but appears to invite the Department to engage in failed policymaking from the outset. We remain unsure how this fits in the overall scheme developed in the broader draft but advise against suggesting that the Department fail in any attempt to establish policies for the good of all Washingtonians.
Policy #7 is simply the written version of hand waving to comfort the reader into believing that everything else they just read will, in fact, be in accordance with established law. As we’ve made clear, nothing could be further from the truth.
The collective and individual policies of the draft Conservation Policy represent a violation of RCW 77.04.012 and must be withdrawn. While agencies are accorded a great deal of discretion to carry out a legislative mandate established by the legislature, there are boundaries to that discretion, and this draft Policy clearly has gone well beyond what the legislature intended with passage of RCW 77.04.012.
About the Sportsmen’s Alliance: The Sportsmen’s Alliance protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
