Washington Fish & Wildlife Digest: October 26-November 1, 2023

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Digest is a weekly summary prepared by Washington Wildlife First to notify our supporters about urgent action alerts and upcoming events, apprise them of important issues and recent developments with Washington fish and wildlife management, and provide a recap of relevant news items.

Index

What You Need to Know and Do This Week

Upcoming Events

Action Items

Recap: Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission Meeting, October 26-28, 2023

Washington Fish & Wildlife News

National Fish & Wildlife News

On the Lighter Side

What You Need to Know and Do

This is just a quick summary; find more details about each item in the sections below.

Actions

  • Please support the rulemaking petition that Washington Wildlife First and seven other wildlife advocacy groups submitted to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, asking it to reverse several decisions in the past few years that have led to dangerous levels of overhunting of the bear and cougar populations. See “Action Items” for more.

 News

  • The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission met from October 26-28 (agenda here). The Commission voted to approve the Co-Manager Hatchery Policy and deny the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition. It also voted 7 to 2 to delegate most three-year season setting to WDFW Director Kelly Susewind. Read the “Recap” section for more.
  • The recording of the seminar The Science of Coexisting with Carnivores is now available. Hear from large carnivore experts Drs. Adrian Treves, Brigitte vonHoldt, Jeremy P. Bruskotter, Naomi X. Louchouarn, Mark Elbroch, on aspects of the latest science of coexistence, with Dr. Michael P. Nelson moderating. The website also contains a Q&A with questions by seminar attendees.

Upcoming Events

Fish and Wildlife Commission Meetings

  • The Fish and Wildlife Commission will meet on Friday, November 17 over Zoom. The agenda indicates that the Commission will vote on the western gray squirrel uplisting from threatened to endangered. It will also hear a briefing, take public comment, and vote on staff’s recommendation to maintain the mardon skipper’s endangered status. The black bear timber damage rule is no longer on the agenda and will be voted on in December. There will be no public comment on the timber damage rule; if you wish to provide written comment, you can write to commission@dfw.wa.gov.
  • The Commission’s Fish Committee will meet on Thursday, November 30 (agenda here) to discuss coastal steelhead planning and aquatic invasive species.

Other

  • NatureServe’s Biodiversity Without Boundaries Conference, co-sponsored by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, will take place from April 8-11 at Hyatt at Olive 8 in Seattle. According to NatureServe, “BWB puts some of the most important scientific breakthroughs on display to an audience that includes scientists from our network of more than 60 programs in North America, plus scores of government agencies, leading academic institutions, and fellow conservation organizations.” As yet, there is no sign-up link, but the site promises more details to come.

Action Items

Washington

  • Please support the petition to the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission to reverse several decisions in the past few years that have led to dangerous levels of overhunting of the bear and cougar populations. The petition, submitted by Washington Wildlife First and seven other conservation groups, explains: “In 2019, [WDFW] increased bear hunting…even though it had just learned that bear densities were much lower in many areas than previously believed, and that the statewide population was about 30% smaller than long assumed. In 2020, WDFW increased cougar hunting…even though the number of cougars being killed in many GMUs already exceeded the population’s growth rate. And it took the unprecedented step of making both rules permanent, so they would not be revisited during the three-year season-setting process.” The Commission must vote on the petition by December 24. We will be posting an action page on our website shortly.
  • WDFW has filed a rulemaking proposal to establish standards for beaver capture and relocation. The rule seeks to set certifications ensuring that permitted beaver relocators have the expertise “to ensure humane and safe treatment of beavers during capture, handling, and release,” to find suitable relocation sites, and to prevent any disease transmission. Submit comments on the CR-102 at WDFW’s public input page. You can also leave comments by emailing beaver@publicinput.com or by calling 855-925-2801 and entering project code 2514. WDFW has not provided a deadline but notes that there will be a public hearing during the December 14-16 Commission meeting.

National

  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is inviting public comment on the draft environmental impact statement for its alternate plans to reintroduce grizzly bears in the North Cascades. You may comment until November 13, 2023. See here for a sample comment from the Sierra Club and here for a Zoom recording of Mount Baker Sierra Club and Endangered Species Coalition’s presentation on the proposed reintroduction.
  • The Center for Biological Diversity is collecting signatures to send to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, asking agency director Martha Williams to reform the “convoluted, slow process for deciding whether to protect species.”

Recap: Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission Meeting of October 26-28, 2023

Here is WDFW’s summary of the three-day meeting.

Thursday Committee Meetings: October 26

Big Tent Committee. The Big Tent Committee (Committee Chair Barbara Baker and Commissioners John Lehmkuhl, Steven Parker, and Lorna Smith) discussed the draft Best Available Science Policy the commission is developing. In a striking statement, WDFW Deputy Director Amy Windrope claimed that science at the agency has a special status compared to science at other institutions and that it is less biased that science from the universities:

Our intention is to ensure that when we have science information, that it has integrity and is as unbiased as we can manage internally. You know, we are a state agency that regulates, we are a regulator, we have authority over people’s properties. We influence the lives of the citizens of Washington, and we have controlling powers because of our regulatory powers. So the integrity of our science is paramount. It’s different than a university. A university doesn’t have the same standard of unbiased… [pause] of the call to unbias.

Commissioner Smith objected, pointing out that universities are not subjected to the same social and political pressures as state agencies, and therefore are somewhat insulated from the pressure to distort science. See video here.

The committee discussed draft Conservation Policy revisions, which include language giving “credit” for wildlife conservation to various consumptive and non-consumptive stakeholders. The committee also discussed the timeline for completing revisions and approving the policy. Staff recommended sending the draft to multiple tribes and submitting it for further public comment. Upon hearing that the policy might not receive a vote until June 2024, Chair Baker clarified that she had asked Nate Pamplin to “shave down” the timeline and asked Senior Counsel Joe Panesko whether there is a way for the Big Tent Committee to work on the document together outside of a meeting without violating the Open Public Meetings Act. Commissioner Smith and Rowland expressed frustration over the delays: “This is absolutely absurd,” said Rowland. “This agency cannot govern what it needs to govern by taking so long to do everything.”

Habitat Committee. The Habitat Committee (Committee Chair Molly Linville and Commissioners Lehmkuhl, Woody Myers, and Tim Ragen) watched presentations on lands grazing and habitat connectivity. You can watch the meeting here.

Fish Committee. The Fish Committee (Committee Chair Jim Anderson and Commissioners Ragen, Parker, and Linville), discussed coastal steelhead preseason planning, the Conservation Angler and Wild Fish Conservancy’s petition for federal protections for coastal steelhead (presentation here), North of Falcon season planning, and a petition from the Wild Steelhead Coalition for statewide protections of coastal spring Chinook in all stages of their life cycle. You can watch the video here.

Wildlife Committee. Thursday’s meetings ended with the Wildlife Committee (Committee Chair Smith and Commissioners Melanie Rowland, Myers, and Anderson), which discussed the Game Management Plan and WDFW’s three-year season-setting recommendations. Game Division Manager Anis Aoude explained past developments in the timeline of the Game Management Plan, including management’s recommendation to pull out the “more controversial” elements for potential policy changes. Aoude blamed the delay partly on the shake-up of the Wildlife Committee in January 2023 following the change in the composition of the Commission. Responding to Commissioner Anderson’s concerns about new policies triggering extensive State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, Commissioner Smith responded that she did not believe “saying a little bit more about the science of carnivores and how they fit into the ecosystem…is really going to trigger that additional review in and of itself.” Aoude also said management would share completed chapters of the plan with the committee in November, but that it would not be available to the public until summer 2024.

At management’s suggestion, the committee voted unanimously to recommend that the full Commission delegate season setting for waterfowl, migratory game birds, “furbearers,” deer and elk, and small game to WDFW Director Kelly Susewind. Management couched the delegation as merely giving Susewind authority to make the minor changes listed in the first table in this document, although it will also delegate the authority to continue prior levels of hunting for the dozens of species encompassed within these categories. You can watch the Wildlife Committee meeting here.

Full Commission Meeting on Friday, October 27 (video here)

The Commission began the meeting with public comment, which it expanded to three hours to allow all the people who had signed up to speak (see details below).

Black Bear Timber Damage Rule. The Commission heard a presentation on WDFW’s proposed black bear timber damage rule, which would allow landowners to request permits allowing hunters to conduct spring hunts to kill black bears on commercial timberlands, purportedly to prevent hungry bears from “peeling” trees to eat the sapwood underneath the bark. WDFW Landowner Services Manager Fenner Yarbrough admitted that the agency would never be sure that hunters have “killed the right bear” and that it will have no way of tracking whether the program is effective at reducing tree damage. (See Washington Wildlife First’s talking points on the bear timber damage rule.)

During public comment on the item, advocates questioned the purpose and timing of the proposed rule and expressed strong opposition:

  • Ann Prezyna and Claire Davis of Animal & Earth Advocates and Washington Wildlife First explained that they had brought litigation on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity that led the Washington Court of Appeals to invalidate the prior rule, which illegally allowed hunters to pursue bears with hounds and killed roughly 100 bears per year. Davis also contended that the rule illustrated the agency’s double standard, pointing out that during Wildlife Committee meetings, management had told the Commission that it should not reconsider bear and cougar hunting until the Department completes the carnivore policy for the long-awaited Game Management Plan, while at the same time, management  had no problem asking the Commission to approve an expansion of bear hunting through the new bear timber rule.
  • Susan Kane-Ronning of the Sierra Club argued that the proposed rule removed any incentive for timber companies to change their silviculture practices, which could be much more effective at preventing bears from peeling trees.
  • Several commenters expressed concern that, like the spring bear hunt, this new timber hunt would inevitably kill mother bears and orphan their cubs. Julia Zelman of Washington Wildlife First noted that the rule is inherently contradictory, because it purportedly banned hunters from killing mother bears with cubs, even though those are the bears that cause most timber damage.
  • Others, including Martha Hall and Rachel Bjork and Hannah Thompson-Garner of Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN), pointed out other problems with the rule, including the fact that there is no evidence to support the idea that killing bears will reduce timber damage, and that WDFW conceded that it had no way of evaluating the effectiveness of the rule.
  • Along with other members of the public, Kriss Kevorkian of Legal Rights of the Salish Sea discussed the importance of bears to the ecosystem.
  • Some hunters commented in favor of the bear timber hunt, with several applauding the Department for bringing a proposal to that would effectively revive spring bear hunting. After public comment, Commissioner Molly Linville said the rule might present “a good opportunity for carrots rather than sticks.”

The Commission is expected to vote on the proposed rule at its December meeting.

Co-Manager Hatchery Policy. The Commission voted to approve the Co-Manager Hatchery Policy by a margin of 6-3, despite grave reservations expressed by dissenting Commissioners Ragen, Rowland, and Smith. All three said they would like to vote for the policy but had lingering questions about its legal and environmental implications. Ragen, while praising the tribes’ “moral authority” and leadership in salmon recovery, expressed concern about the “denigration” of conservation-first language and the lack of clarity regarding levels of transparency under the policy. the new policy’s lack of provisions for transparency to the public. Senior Counsel Panesko denied that the policy would affect transparency. Although Panesko acknowledged that negotiations with the tribes are not public meetings, he said they are “not something the public would really care to sit through.” Ragen ultimately voted against the policy, saying, “My primary concern is….understanding what the full implications are for recovery, and I don’t have that yet. And when information or perspectives are withheld, I’m left without that kind of information that would give me a sense of freedom to make that vote in favor.”

Commissioner Rowland affirmed her sympathy with tribal goals but expressed concern that the policy would no longer prioritize the conservation of wild salmon but instead indicated that “hatchery programs should strive to balance” ecological concerns with harvest levels. Rowland asked whether this reflected a real difference in priorities between co-managers and WDFW, but Chair Baker chided her that “this is not the right time to ask co-managers” questions.Rowland questioned when the right time was, because Fish Committee Chair Jim Anderson had told her at a large, non-public meeting with the tribes that she could not ask the question at that point either. Chair Baker shut down the discussion, saying that it was “not appropriate” for commissioners to engage in back-and-forth during the discussion before the vote.

Hearings and Votes on Fish Rules. The Commission heard a presentation on a draft fish passage and screen rule to “codify standards and practices already used by WDFW for fishways and water diversions, improving the design and installation of long-lasting and environmentally safe culverts that supporting fish passage and protection.”

The Commission approved a rule to codify measures to protect endangered marine species from entanglements in coastal crab fishing gear. It then unanimously denied the Wild Steelhead Coalition’s petition and directed staff to develop policy on native trout, a solution on which the petitioners and staff had agreed.

Finally, the Commission conducted a hearing on changes to the North of Falcon Policy, which regulates recreational, tribal, and commercial salmon fishing seasons in the Pacific Northwest, which are set in a series of meetings with the tribes in Washington, Oregon, and California. During public comment, David Moskowitz of The Conservation Angler asked for clarity on the status of the stocks concerned, the specific recovery goals, and the calculation of environmental impacts. He also expressed concern over the impacts of catch-and-release fishing. He praised WDFW’s management of the public input process on North-of-Falcon rulemaking.

Full Commission Meeting on Saturday, October 28 (video here)

Best Available Science. Following another lengthy public comment session (discussed below), staff gave a presentation on science at WDFW, emphasizing the importance of objectivity. Commissioner Smith asked staff to “schedule out phase two” of the draft best available science policy, which will be “very important” for the carnivore policy talks planned for the near future. Commissioner Parker pronounced himself “intrigued” by a flowchart on the relationship between science and decision-making presented by Chief Fish Program Scientist Kenneth Warheit, saying:

“It is exactly how I envision the process working. I would like to say I don’t see it working that way well enough, often enough, in our deliberations here, and I would certainly encourage the Department to try to formalize that a little bit more as a process for bringing issues and information to the Commission.” (See page 14 of the presentation for the flowchart.)

He also wondered “how credible science is when it is presented in support of an advocacy piece”—an apparent reference to the two rulemaking petitions brought this fall.

Western Gray Squirrel. The Commission then a hearing on WDFW’s recommendation to uplist the western gray squirrel from threatened to endangered on the state endangered species list, due to increasing threats including habitat loss and competition from invasive eastern gray squirrels. During public comment, many advocates, including Patricia Arnold of Friends of the White Salmon River, praised the scientists in charge of the draft periodic status review for bringing this proposal, cautioned against the influence of the timber lobby, and supported WDFW’s recommendation.

  • Arnold explained that Klickitat County’s comprehensive plan has not been revised since 1976, so its environmental provisions for new development is severely out of date, and SEPA evaluation of new developments are “always inadequate.” This has resulted in a lack of protection for the western gray squirrel as its habitat is lost and fragmented. Uplisting would give “tools to those on the ground” who are working to save the species. (See Friends of the White Salmon River’s letters concerning the uplisting.)
  • Julia Zelman echoed Dan Wilson of Conservation Northwest, who also commented in favor of the uplisting, that WDFW’s new biodiversity funding should support projects such as evaluating the effectiveness of voluntary conservation members.

Wolf Protection Rule. Prior to the commission meeting, several petitioners, as well as scientists from outside the agency, attempted to inform the debate over the Wolf Protection Rule.  Ones of the nation’s foremost carnivore experts, Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, submitted a letter to the Commission (also published on his website) expressing dismay that Commissioners had been advised not to listen to a panel organized by his university’s Carnivore Coexistence Lab. The Center for Biological Diversity responded to misleading arguments in former WDFW Wolf Policy Lead  and current Endangered Species Recovery Section Manager Julia Smith’s presentation opposing the petition—which was then adjusted before the meeting to dodge some of these criticisms. Meanwhile, WDFW’s Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) submitted a letter  opposing the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition and calling its contentions “unfounded.” Only two members of the WAG, including wolf advocate Lynn Okita, refused to sign onto the letter.

During Saturday’s meeting, Julia Smith presented WDFW’s recommendation to deny the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition submitted by 11 groups. Smith said the agency’s current process is working, claiming that it was developed by the WAG through a consensus of stakeholders on all sides of the issue. She also asserted that agency killings of wolves are not affecting wolf dispersal or recovery; implied that Washington is doing a better job managing wolves than any other western state, and said that the record of Oregon, which has rules governing lethal removal, indicates that rules do not make a difference in levels of killing. She suggested, without evidence, that tightening rules on “caught-in-the-act” wolf killings would result in a rise in cryptic poaching. “Social science says people respond more favorably to conservation initiatives when the systems in which they operate recognize their autonomy, enhance and affirm their competencies, and create mutual respect and trust,” she said, going on to argue that imposing regulations on WDFW would undermine relationships between staff and ranchers.

Smith conceded that there is “room to clarify language” in the relevant WAC and suggested some possible areas for rulemaking, but she insisted that WDFW would need to conduct more analysis before developing any amendments. Among the suggestions she had for improving wolf management: carcass composting, “pay for presence incentives,” new partnerships to find range riders, increased penalties for poaching (which would require working with the legislature), and modifications in the WAC concerning compensation programs for livestock producers.

Commissioner Ragen asked how well WDFW’s wolf management is documented to enable adaptive management. Smith referred to the annual Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Report, but added, “What’s not super well documented is relationships. That’s best documented through storytelling.” She also admitted that range riding and other nonlethal measures are not systematically documented, but are primarily elements of a checklist that is consulted when making lethal removal decisions. In response to a question from Commissioner Parker, Smith said that she would support “tightening up” language on the WAC allowing so-called “caught-in-the-act” killings, which allow landowners to shoot wolves with little accountability. Smith said she would, “once the commission has fully placed [modifying the WAC] in its full slate of priorities.”

The commissioners briefly debated the rule before taking a final vote. Commissioner Rowland emphasized that a decision to open rulemaking was not a decision to adopt the rule proposed by petitioners, and that the end result might be no rule at all, or a very different rule than the one proposed, such as the codification of the existing Wolf-Livestock Interaction Protocol. Smith did not respond directly to questions about why it would be a bad idea to codify the current protocol, sidestepping them to return to her earlier assertion that regulation would not allow for flexibility concerning “real-world circumstances.” Commissioner Smith contended that the Commission should open rulemaking simply to get the process started, also emphasizing that opening rulemaking would not equate to an endorsement of petitioner’s proposed language. Commissioner Ragen, more equivocal, commented on the importance of continued discussion on the issue: “How do we move forward from here?… If it takes a petition or a rule making process to do that, okay, then I would say, let’s do that. If it doesn’t take a rulemaking process to do that, and we can still have that conversation, then I could do that.”

Commissioner Parker said he would vote “no” for fear that a vote to initiate rulemaking would send the wrong message to staff, indicating that he considered wolf recovery to be successful as long as the population was on an upward trajectory. Commissioner Lehmkuhl opined that the Commission should discuss wolf management further, but he would vote “no” as WDFW’s program is “very successful.”

While insisting that she “came to this commission as a wolf advocate,” Chair Baker said she opposed creating an enforceable rule, because  “to me [that] means court.” She went on to say that she “worried about violating trust of people we’ve worked with…What would happen to that trust, if we promulgated a rule…which would be interpreted as violating agreements and promises that we’ve made in the past?” However, Baker also acknowledged that the commission had broken the promise it made to wolf advocates last year, when it said it was going to continue the conversation about potential changes to agency wolf management, but then dropped the issue entirely. She proposed the Commission “get a little group of people together, look at these petitions, do outreach, talk to everybody and write ourselves up a position statement or a commission policy.”

Only Commissioners Ragen, Rowland, and Smith voted in favor of Smith’s motion to accept the petition and open the rulemaking process. Commissioners discussed the formation of an ad hoc committee to discuss wolf policy and further explore the potential need for a rule, but at Baker’s urging, ultimately referred the question of whether to set up such a committee to  the Commission’s executive committee. Three of the four members of the executive committee voted against opening rulemaking, and its meetings are not open to the public, so it is possible that this is the last the public will hear about the proposal.

Earlier, during open public comment, many people testified about the Wolf Protection Rule:

  • Eric Lagally, a volunteer with several environmental groups, pointed out that wolf killings have not solved livestock-wolf conflict and said that “strong binding rules to regulate when and how the Department can kill gray wolves are in my opinion the necessary next step in helping these wolves achieve a stale stable population statewide.” He also spoke against the bear timber damage rule and in support of the draft Conservation policy.
  • John Rosapepe of the Endangered Species Coalition drew attention to the “systematic problems” with wolf management, including the Department’s 2021 decision to kill wolves in Columbia County, even though livestock owners had refused to properly implement nonlethal measures including range riding, and the decision in 2022 to kill members of the Leadpoint pack, despite the presence of unburied carcasses near where predations occurred.
  • Ann Prezyna of Washington Wildlife First raised alarm over that fact that, on spurious legal grounds, WDFW discouraged Commission members from attending the University of Wisconsin’s seminar on the science of carnivore coexistence. She objected to Chair Baker’s assertion that granting time for an expert panel regarding issues raised by the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition would obligate the Commission to treat all petitioners the same way.
  • Susan Kane-Ronning of the Washington Sierra Club asserted that the “lack of a wolf rule allows the director and Department to make arbitrary decisions.”
  • Josh Rosenau of the Mountain Lion Foundation questioned WDFW’s contention that killing wolves changes pack behavior, saying there is no science to support this assertion and that  “long-delayed lethal responses against random carnivores” do not send any message to remaining pack members.
  • Peter Hapke of Washington Wildlife First stressed the importance of wolves to sustaining biodiversity and called the petition a “compromise” between current wolf management and California’s policy not to kill wolves except in cases of safety threats to humans.
  • Claire Loebs Davis of Washington Wildlife First challenged the contention that the current system was working well, highlighting the role that past litigation—and the threat of future litigation—has had in constraining agency decisions to kill wolves. She quoted from internal WDFW documents in which agency biologists said that the Attorney General’s office drove the decision-making process on lethal control, and that biologists were often forced to justify decisions Director Susewind made to kill wolves that were  “more political than biological.”
  • Alex Baier, a member of the WAG, urged the Commission to deny the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition, emphasizing the success of the WAG’s “stakeholder process” and reading from the WAG letter urging the Commission to vote against the rule.
  • Paula Swedeen of Conservation Northwest, another member of the WAG, claimed that the petition would risk the “good work we have already done.”
  • Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity outlined the long history of attempts by wolf advocates to get the Commission to consider a wolf rule, and the fact that the Commission has never considered these arguments on their merits. She emphasized the need for the Commission to establish trust with wildlife advocacy groups by showing that they take their concerns seriously and recognize that most Washingtonians share those concerns.

Delegation of Open Season Setting. The Commission had delayed committee reports from Friday morning to the end of the meeting on Saturday, when the Commission was already three hours over the scheduled time for adjournment. Following Thursday’s discussion at the Wildlife Committee, advocates had exhorted the Commission by email and during public comment (see below), to vote against delegating any of the season setting to Director Susewind other than deer and elk. Wildlife advocates pointed out that this delegation was unusual, as the Commission had decided the three-year season setting in the past, and that it would be a default endorsement of continuing to hunt all furbearers, small “game,” migratory “game” birds, and waterfowl just as they had been hunted in the prior three years. These categories of wildlife include dozens of different species, including many species on Washington’s list of “species of concern,” such as Barrow’s goldeneye, American badgers, and band-tailed pigeons. They also include many species that play a large role in a functioning ecosystem, such as snowshoe hares, beavers, and bobcats.

Having received this feedback since her vote on Thursday, Commissioner Smith attempted to withdraw the committee’s recommendation or delay the vote on delegation This led to a prolonged, agitated, and confused discussion regarding the meaning of a vote to delegate the season setting and whether the decision should be postponed. Chair Baker and Commissioner Linville claimed that withdrawing the recommendation would discourage public trust, while Commissioners Ragen, Smith, and Rowland insisted that there should be more time to hear from the public before the delegation vote.

WDFW attempted to allay reservations about relinquishing authority over season-setting for species of concern and of public interest. Assistant Director of the Wildlife Program Eric Gardner told the Commission it could reopen rulemaking for any species of concern at any time. At Commissioner Smith’s request, Director Susewind verbally assured the Commission that he would stick to the minor changes that WDFW had proposed, ducking the fact that it would simply renew all the other rules to maintain hunting at current levels. Several commissioners insisted that the Commission did not have the time to look at the hunting rules or that the three-year season setting process was not “the right time” to do so. Ultimately, Chair Baker dismissed Commissioner Smith’s request to delay the decision and forced a vote on the delegation question, indicating that she did not understand what the fuss was about because she believed “we have done this in the past, and it was no big deal.” (Editor’s note: Although the Commission often delegates the small adjustments made to hunting seasons in off years, it is extremely unusual for it to delegate the three-year, season-setting process, which is supposed to be the time for it to reevaluate hunting levels to decide if they are sustainable.)

As some commissioners were literally perched on the edge of their seats trying to leave, the Commission voted 7-2 to delegate rulemaking on the three-year, season-setting process for deer and elk, furbearers, small game, migratory game birds, and waterfowl, with Commissioners Ragen and Rowland dissenting.

Earlier, some public commenters had addressed delegation:

  • Davis asked the Commission not to delegate season setting until the public had a chance to comment: “There are lots of individual species encompassed within the rules that you’re contemplating delegating, none of which have gotten any individual consideration, none of which the public has had any opportunity to talk to you about. And the public, most importantly, hasn’t had an opportunity to talk to you about the delegation decision. It wasn’t noticed as a part of this meeting.”
  • Julia Zelman of Washington Wildlife First emphasized the compatibility of the Conservation Policy with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. She also asked the Commission not to delegate rulemaking on three-year season setting to Director Susewind, naming many of the species included in the categories that would be delegated, such as snowshoe hares (essential to the recovery of endangered lynxes and wolverines), bobcats (whose population in Washington is unknown), and keystone species such as beavers, as well as many species identified as of “greatest conservation need” by the State Wildlife Action Plan.

Friday and Saturday Public Comment: October 27-28

Wildlife advocates showed up in person to testify:

  • In addition to voicing support for the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition, David Linn expressed concern over the denigration of fish conservation advocates who have opposed the Co-Manager Hatchery Policy. He also cautioned the Commission against encouraging to “bullying” by giving disproportionate attention to hostile commenters.
  • Patricia Arnold of Friends of the White Salmon River addressed the hunters who had denigrated non-hunters during the previous public comment session: “I don’t trust hunters, because I’ve never heard hunters acknowledge that non-hunters have the same intense relationships with the natural world.” She urged the Commission not to water down the Conservation Policy and to pass the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition.
  • Hannah Thompson-Garner of NARN asked the Commission to keep the reference to the intrinsic value of nature in the Conservation Policy, evoking the tragic story of the killer whale Tahlequah and her grief for her lost calf to illustrate the fact that people understand that wildlife is not just a  “resource.”
  • Bob McCoy, a board member for the Mountain Lion Foundation speaking on his own behalf, criticized trophy hunters for dismissing the “science-based, peer-review research” provided by wildlife advocates as “emotion.” He decried Commission votes that have compromised science in favor of “appeasement” of hunters.
  • David Moskowitz of The Conservation Angler expressed concerns over the implications of the Co-Manager Hatchery Policy for transparency to the public on hatchery and fishery matters. Even without this policy, he said, he has waited nearly a year for public information on steelhead fishing seasons.
  • Judith Akins of the Washington Sierra Club urged passage of the Conservation Policy, asked for three-year season setting delegation to be put on hold, and spoke in support of the bear and cougar petition.

Wildlife Advocates also spoke over Zoom:

  • Tim Coleman of the Kettle Range Conservation Group urged the Commission to approve the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition and highlighted the interest of the public in the welfare of wolves. He also said that the Wolf Advisory Group has “failed miserably” on preventing wolf-killing. (The WAG.) He expressed his concern that “hunters are being led down the path of conspiracy.”
  • Emma Helverson of Wild Fish Conservancy voiced her concern over the Co-Manager Hatchery Policy’s removal of state environmental oversight of hatcheries and the omission of language placing conservation first. She also brought up legal concerns: “How will this policy affect public transparency and accountability laws?..WDFW is a public agency. Will the public have access to information about co-manager decisions? Will the Department have the ability and authority to comply with the Endangered Species Act or other state and federal laws?” Read more about these concerns in a letter from Wild Fish Conservancy, The Conservation Angler, and Washington Wildlife First.
  • Martha Hall criticized “misleading presentations from staff” on the bear timber damage rule and asked why WDFW had not implemented the recommendation in the last Game Management Plan to “develop a black bear timber depredation program that includes proactive nonlethal prevention measures.”
  • Rachel Bjork of NARN agreed with other commenters in asking the Commission not to delegate three-year season setting. She also cautioned against watering down the Conservation Policy.
  • Maia Manning of Washington Wildlife First and the Citizens Climate Lobby spoke in support of the uplisting of the western gray squirrel and stressed the importance of protecting keystone species like squirrels and wolves from climate change and habitat loss. She also asked the Commission to pass the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition.

Hunters turned out in force in response to calls from national hunting organizations for them to attend the meeting to oppose passage of the conservation policy. Most returned to familiar themes, such as the Commission’s “theft” of the spring bear hunt, their anger at the draft Conservation Policy, their belief that predators are destroying ungulate populations and “doing the job of hunters” in killing deer and elk, and their emotional attachment to hunting. Several scoffed at the idea that wildlife has intrinsic value, saying that “Without use, preservation is pointless” and “fish and wildlife are resources, not beneficiaries.” Charles Whitwam, founder of HOWL for Wildlife, joined the meeting over Zoom from his home in San Francisco, accusing commissioners who voted to ban the spring bear hunt of being “swayed by sentiment rather than data.”

Other hunters, including one of the rare female hunters to testify, struck a more positive note, raising the subject of habitat as an area where wildlife advocates and hunters might find common ground.

State Senator Shelly Short (R-7th District) spoke at length against the precautionary principle: “When I hear words like ‘precautionary principle,’ and I hear words like ‘absolute science’ and that we need to separate people or the policy from the science…When I think about those things together, it’s kind of, ‘Until we know absolutely what we’re doing, we’re going to do nothing.’ And I think that that is a big frustration.” She also claimed that her part of the state is overrun with predators.

Washington Fish & Wildlife News

Wolves

Denial of the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition. There were several stories about the Commission’s decision to deny the Wolf Protection Rulemaking Petition (see the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting recap above for more details).

  • Don Jenkins of The Capital Press quotes Chair Baker during the Commission’s discussion on the petition: “If it was like everybody was screwing this up, there’s a bunch of wolves dying and the producers are being terrible, then [a rule] would be worth it, but we don’t have that.” He also writes that according to Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity, petitioners are considering asking Governor Inslee to intervene.
  • Laurel Demkovich of Idaho Capital Sun gives context for the history of failed wolf protection petitions to the Commission and lets Weiss have the last word: “The status quo will continue to fail Washington’s cherished and ecologically important wolves and all of us who care about them…We need enforceable rules that require accountability and transparency before the state resorts to killing wolves.”

Bears

Newhouse: Keep Grizzly Bears Out of Our Backyards (guest opinion). Dan Newhouse, Source One. October 31, 2023.

  • Representative Newhouse (R-4th District), who has introduced a bill to stop grizzly reintroduction in the North Cascades, casts the proposed reintroduction as “a case of federal agencies bending to the will of out-of-state activists.”

‘Fat’ black bear caught on camera snacking from apple tree near Pierce County school. Aspen Shumpert, The News Tribune. October 31, 2023.

  • A sighting of a bear eating apples not far from a school prompted this article, which summarizes Peninsula School District protocols around bears.

Fish, Shellfish & Marine Mammals

Federal funds boost tribal-led revival efforts for salmon in upper Columbia River Basin. Mia Maldonado, Idaho Capital Sun (via The Spokesman-Review). October 29, 2023.

  • Gives context for the federal government’s negotiations with tribes over Columbia River dams and their decimation of salmon populations. The federal government has signed an agreement pledging $200 million in aid to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians to mitigate the effects of violations against tribal treaties relating to fish.

As Skagit Valley waterways get warmer, the Swinomish push to save fish. Isabella Breda, The Seattle Times. October 30, 2023.

  • Covers state and tribal efforts to restore the Skagit watershed, including $50 million provided by the legislature for a riverside voluntary replanting program and $20 million in federal funding for restoring areas around streams. Data from the Swinomish tribe and the state show that tributaries of the Skagit River are reaching temperatures that are harmful or fatal to fish.

Snake R. Litigation Parties Ask Judge For Another Stay For More Talks. Andy Walgamott, Northwest Sportsman. October 31, 2023.

  • Federal, tribal, and state agencies have asked for more time to negotiate Snake River dam operations, including potential removal to benefit native fish populations on which tribes like the Nez Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, and Warm Springs depend.

WhatsApp Group Helps Seattle Residents Spot Killer Whales. TerraceStandard (via Head Topics Canada). October 28, 2023.

  • Marine life appreciators are using a WhatsApp group for alerts for killer whale sightings off Seattle shores.

Salmon Limit Reduced On 6 Forks-area Rivers (rule change notice). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (via Northwest Sportsman). October 30, 2023.

  • Lowers the allowed catch on the Olympia Peninsula to a single salmon due to “Chinook and coho salmon…returning to the Quillayute watershed and Hoh River below pre-season forecast.”

Elk

Elk calf survival rebounds in second year of Washington study. Eric Barker, The Lewiston Review (via The Billings Gazette). October 31, 2023.

  • Reports on the second-year findings of a three-year study by WDFW scientists on elk calf survival in the Blue Mountains. The study has found that 47.5% of elk calves survived this year, as opposed to only 13.6% in 2021.

Other Wildlife

Beaver family that moved into Seattle’s Carkeek Park may complicate salmon-spawning journey. Amanda Zhou, The Seattle Times (via phys.org). October 30, 2023.

  • A beaver dam in Carkeek Park may affect the chum salmon return, according to Carkeek Watershed Community Action Project Salmon Program Director David Koon. However, Koon assures, “I don’t think there’s going to be anything so dire from this, that we’re like ‘we’ve got to get rid of these beaver right now’ … I think it’s kind of like ‘let’s wait, watch, learn and adapt.’”

Oregon Spotted Frog Gets a Lifeline as Court Questions Grazing Practices (press release). Oregon Wild. October 27, 2023.

  • The Western Watersheds Project, joined by other western wildlife advocacy groups, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to consider impacts of grazing on the Oregon spotted frog. The Ninth Circuit Court found in favor of the advocates, ruling that FWS failed “to consider whether the small frog population could sustain grazing-related impacts on top of potential climate change effects” and that the mitigation measures FWS considered were inadequate.

National & International Fish & Wildlife News

State Wildlife Reform

Who Really Is Footing the Tab for Wildlife Conservation in the West? Todd Wilkinson, Mountain Journal. July 25, 2023.

  • This article, rich in statistics and facts, highlights the “veritable juggernaut of public investment” that belies consumptive users’ frequent claim that they alone pay for conservation. The article quotes Dan Ashe, former FWS director and lifelong angler and hunter: “Hunters and anglers have more than paid their share and their contributions have been momentous…But there’s more to the story.”

New Report Shows Urgent Need for Reforms to Protect Science at State Agencies from Political Interference (press release). The Brennan Center for Justice. September 27, 2023.

  • The Brennan Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists have published a report finding widespread abuse of science in state agencies, including “the suppression of important data, like climate change impacts or COVID-19 infection rates; political officials intimidating or censoring scientists, or pressuring them to alter or remove findings; [and] ignoring scientific data, or relying on junk science, to make regulatory and policy decisions.” See the “Recap” section of the digest for WDFW Deputy Director Amy Windrope’s contradictory statement on the special status of science at the agency.

General Wildlife & Management Issues

Flame retardant pollution threatens wildlife on all continents, research finds. Tom Perkins, The Guardian. October 18, 2023.

  • An analysis of published research has found that flame retardants, even newer and allegedly safer chlorinated paraffins and organophosphates, pose threats to endangered species such as “red pandas, chimpanzees and killer whales.” The highest levels of these chemicals have been found in “large marine mammals and birds of prey.”
  • The Green Science Policy Institute tracks pollutants around the world.

Survey: Outdoor recreation generated $400 billion last year in the U.S. Eric Barker, The Lewiston Tribune (via The Spokesman-Review). October 27, 2023.

  • According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “anglers spent $100 billion last year, hunters $45.2 billion and wildlife watchers $250.2 billion.” Nationwide, most people who engaged in activities related to wildlife “did so by viewing birds and animals.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Promotes Public Access to Hunting and Fishing (press release). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). October 27, 2023.

  • FWS is announcing hunting and fishing opportunities in three national wildlife refuges: Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota. The press release quotes FWS Director Martha Williams: “Offering hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges is a priority in our efforts to offer wildlife-related recreation for all Americans on Service lands.”

Carnivores

The Science of Coexisting with Carnivores (recorded seminar). University of Wisconsin-Madison Carnivore Coexistence Lab. October 18, 2023.

  • The recording of this seminar is now available. Hear from large carnivore experts Drs. Adrian Treves, Brigitte vonHoldt, Jeremy P. Bruskotter, Naomi X. Louchouarn, Mark Elbroch, on aspects of the latest science of coexistence, with Dr. Michael P. Nelson moderating The website also contains a Q&A with questions by seminar attendees.

Wolves

Tension between lethal control and coexistence plays out in wolf-reintroduction efforts. Amy Hadden Marsh, Aspen Journalism (via Steamboat Pilot & Today). October 31, 2023.

  • Ranchers and conservationists are already clashing over Colorado’s wolf reintroduction plan, with conservationists criticizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS)’s draft 10(j) rule, under which “the FWS may designate a population of a listed species as experimental if it is released into suitable natural habitat outside the species’ current range but inside the species’ historic range.” Colorado Parks & Wildlife has requested that FWS designate its wolves as a “non-essential,” experimental population, in which case the wolves would have no protections from agency killing, and ranchers would have no obligation to use nonlethal deterrents. The article quotes Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The [Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan] and [draft 10(j) rule] have no limits on killing wolves on public lands…What that means is the same level of negligence that is permitted throughout the state also applies to public lands. If wolves kill livestock on public lands, wolves will get killed also.”

Idaho wolf board contracts with ranchers for control work. Brad Carlson, The Capital Press. October 31, 2023.

  • Five “ranch groups” will receive contracts from Idaho Fish & Game to help “control” wolves that prey on cattle. The initiative will cost “$156,250, more than three times the amount the [wolf] board envisioned when it approved the pilot program.”

Humans have substantially altered the relationship between wolves and deer, finds study. Lori Fligge, Phys.org. October 30, 2023.

  • A University of Minnesota study published in Ecological Applications found that logging and other human activities alter wolf behavior, with increased wolf predation on fawns and deer in recently logged areas and near human structures such as cabins, “likely in part due to the fact that supplemental feeding of deer by people is common in the region.” Wolves also killed more deer near “roads, powerlines, ATV/UTV trails…hunting lanes” and other linear features.

Fish

Struggling Salmon Fishermen Getting Federal Help in Oregon And Along West Coast, But It May Be Too Late. Grant Stringer, Oregon Capital Chronicle. October 23, 2023.

  • The federal government is granting aid to Chinook salmon fishers after federal regulators closed the entirety of California and most of the Oregon coast due to “near-historic” lows.

Beavers

The keystone species: New Cody Region beaver holding facility will help in building much needed wetlands. Mark Davis, The Powell Tribune. October 19, 2023.

  • Wyoming Fish and Game now has a holding facility to keep “problem” beavers safe before they can be translocated from complaining landowners’ properties. The article emphasizes the importance of beavers for preventing erosion and improving ecosystems for animals such as moose.

On the Lighter Side

What Kind of Owl Are You? Audubon Society. October 2023.

  • Are you a spooky, memorable, or introverted owl? Find out your species!