There are some big challenges looming for fish and wildlife management here in Washington state. The Commission is supposed to provide guidance and side boards for the Director and staff. The Commission selection is the responsibility of the Governor's office and the legislature. This article from Outdoor Life is an interesting and concerning read for all of us who enjoy and pay for our fish and wildlife experiences.


https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation...rce=msnarticles

Well, we do know that animals survived well in the absence of humans and achieved a balance with their habitat. We know that humans, as predators within that same ecosystem, achieved a different but reasonably sustainable balance with harvests for subsistence.

At the same time, there is quite a bit of evidence that subsistence use coupled with climate change resulted in lots of megafauna extinctions.

In a reasonably wild and undeveloped ecosystem containing the original suite of species hunting might be needed, in a broad-brush sense. But, in reasonably developed areas there will be a lack of major predators and a need for removals by hunting.

There needs to be, in my mind, a lot of education on all sides to achieve good outcomes. Also, here in WA given the manner in which we (we are the government) fund education, homelessness, mental health, crime, infrastructure, etc. I fully believe that elimination of licensed hunters and anglers will doom the resources as there will be no management agency.

As with most major sweeping systemic changes, this appears to be driven by a smaller vocal minority who are opposed to hunting. If you take the time to speak with these people, they clearly do not understand anything about most things, yet society continues to give them a platform and voice. They don’t understand (and don’t care) that hunting is used as a wildlife management tool AND that many people enjoy the recreational opportunity. They also do not have the ability to reflect on situations or discuss unintended consequences of change. They just want changes for what they want without any thought.

They are collective narcissists and believe in their elitism and superior opinions to be held in higher regard than the differing opinions of others. They are so full of themselves that they expect others to adopt their opinions and often times through force will make sure it happens. Stop giving people like this a voice as they aren’t reasonable enough to be at the table.

I am afraid that name-calling will not serve us well. Keeping people away from the table is a way to guarantee poor results. Our whole society seems to be setting up echo chambers where only "my" views can be expressed. We see that in Congress and the Leg where R and D will not work together because the other side is composed of elites with superior opinions.

At the same time, "true believes" and either end of discussion don't seem to play well with others.

Streamer, well said and spot on. And of course this applies to other forms of government. Public schools come to mind. And of course trying to dismantle Law Enforcement.

Not name calling at all. Simply labeling them based upon many of their observed behaviors. I agree with your statement on echo chambers, and dialogue should always be welcomed as long as it is reasonable and civil. Unfortunately, many “stakeholders” have thrown reason out the window and aren’t able to be civil. When that is the case they should not be included.


Streamer

well friends in the circle would call them "GREEN PEACERS". good point made streamer.

Who decides what is "reasonable and civil" and why do they decide? The very people you are talking about may say that you aren't "reasonable and civil" and should have no voice. You see, it's not that easy and you are really playing the same game they are.

Ted

Well, how is the current system working for you? You enjoying your decreased fishing and hunting opportunities every year?

We’ve reached a point as society that reasonableness has become a lost virtue. Point being, many things are changing, a lot for the worse, and nothing ever seems to get better. Some lines need to be drawn in the sand or you cannot expect anything to improve.



Streamer

"A lot for the worse and nothing ever seems to get better". From one point of view. There are many who think the return of the wolves to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is a fine thing. They go there and spend their money to see them. At the same time, there are many that see that same action as a disaster. Same action, two very different views.

Over the course of my life, and participation in many withers wildlife, I have seen many species that were rare as a kid are much more abundant now. I thinks that's better. I know others don't.

Carcassman,


I understand your point (perspective), but I think your analogy is terrible. There isn’t much of a downside (IMO) of having wolves return to the Yellowstone area as it is a national park. Parks should be left as a stronghold for completely wild ecosystems free of the involvement or management of man. That is starkly different than sweeping regulations or changes encompassing larger areas that are also National Forest, State, Timber, or private lands that are specific for hunting/recreating. Predator control is important in areas of human development not only to allow humans an opportunity to recreate, hunt over decent numbers of game, but also for safety. Humans are also predators and a part of the ecosystem. That seems to be an often forgotten piece of wildlife management.



Streamer

Streamer

I see where you're coming from. I see National Forest lands as being an extension of Parks; public lands with a mandate to meet national goals for both recreation and preservation. It is where some aspect of "wise use" comes in.

Private land, including industrial forestland, is different. The job there is to grow a "crop" and while resource needs must be considered they are not drivers.

I don't see the need to promote safety should hold on reasonably undeveloped lands; those are the animals homes and humans are visitors. That does become a conundrum as to how one effectively controls animals in a developed environment. I have lots of deer around our place and we built a high fence to protect our vegetables and fruit trees. I don't see how I could safely harvest one on my 0.9 acres without the risk of it's going to a neighbor's property who might not like my killing of it.

As to safety, back a few decades ago there was a proposal to restore Grizzly to the High Cascades, as is being developed again. The Spring brothers, who wrote a lot of hiking books, were very opposed because the Cascades were safe. Above a certain elevation you had no rattlesnakes, no Griz, no wolves, nothing for the hiker to be concerned about. Personally, I don't see it as a problem.

“ Humans are also predators and a part of the ecosystem. That seems to be an often forgotten piece of wildlife management. “
,
Unless of course the terms FN, Tribe, or Native is used to qualify and describe the term Human...

There are likely more wild Elk, Deer, Black Bears, Mt. Lions, and Coyotes today, then we’re here at the turn of the century. All somewhat managed by hunters /humans here in North America without all the heartfelt help of our future wild life managers that we see coming down the pipeline.

I'll add a question that came out of the Yellowstone wolves. I don't know if what follows is still the case but it raises a question. The wolves certainly ate elk. The elk's response was to make smaller herds and moved more into the woods where they felt safer. For hunters, this meant that the elk were harder to hunt; still there, still available, but in rougher country. So, is it reasonable to still have huntable populations but they are just harder to get to?

So what happens when an animal group, like deer, elk, and others that have never had a predator like wolves introduced to their environment ?

It’s not like they have a “run to the woods “ defense built into their brains when first confronted. Rocky Mountain elk were a plains animal, not forrest dwellers. It’s been over a hundred years and generations of no wolves to fear, and defend against.

So you throw them to the wolves...

And they learn. They obviously learned how to adapt to fewer predators. They learned to adapt to human predation and then the lack of predation in many areas.

Yes.

Yellowstone is a national park and should be left pristine and with as minimal of impact from humans as possible. Of course animals that live within the park will expand beyond the borders, but that is a reasonable to anticipate if you choose to hunt or recreate in the areas bordering the park. It could at times be more or less filled with game or predators depending on how the populations are swinging at the time.

National forests. State lands, timer lands, private, etc that are much closer to urban/suburban areas should allow for hunting as a tool for wildlife management, particularly for predators. Not only because it allows humans (also predators and a part of the ecosystem) to hunt and recreate but to also create safer areas for people to live and not have predators encroach on populated areas. This is a reasonable balance.

But that isn’t what this is about. This is more about catering to one vocal minority group that doesn’t like hunters or hunting by taking away opportunities. This is not reasonable. These people are enamored by the romanticized idea of all animals being cute, cuddly and loving, which is obviously not true. A lot of these people know very little about animals at all. They are political idealists and can’t see anything outside of their views. Yet, policies and regulations always seem to swing in their favor.

Hunting is being taken away as a management tool under the guise of “alternative strategies” that are proposed as being better while forgetting that hunting also serves a purpose of recreation for humans and not being just a wildlife management tool.



Streamer

Streamer

We are in quite close agreement. I agree, too, that the closed-minded no hunting folks probably don't deserve a seat a the grown-ups table. But, also excluded are "kill all the predators" end of the spectrum.

I believe that we need to work with reasonable folks across the spectrum of ideas to arrive at workable solutions. If enough of the folks in the middle will work together I believe we can isolate the closed-minded ones on both sides.