New policy in the works worries WA sportsmen

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is in the midst of crafting a new policy that could influence work to conserve the state’s game and nongame species as well as the habitats they depend on for years to come.

But some hunters and anglers, who fear there may be a hidden agenda in the conservation policy, are feeling uneasy.

A draft of the policy, released for public comment in April, defines conservation and names it as the top priority of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. It directs the agency to base its work on science, to seek partners, to use adaptive management and to identify risks to fish, wildlife and ecosystems while making decisions.

Its lead proponent says the effort is a big deal and the policy, if adopted, will serve as an overarching guidance for the department. But she said it won’t induce sweeping changes. Critics, namely hunters, fear the wording may include a Trojan horse, or even a stable of them, that will ultimately threaten opportunities to harvest fish and wildlife.

Barbara Baker of Olympia is heading the work to establish the policy. The chairperson of the commission notes the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 25-year strategic plan contains the word “conservation” 44 times but fails to define it. She also says the state’s fish and wildlife face threats like never before. The human population has doubled over the past four decades and is ever expanding its footprint. The climate is changing before our eyes and already affecting some species.

She also says there is wide support, across a broad spectrum of stakeholders, for work to ensure wildlife remains a vital part of the state.

“They know that we have to have good policies that keep our lands and wildlife vibrant and robust so that they can do whatever the opportunity is they want to do now and in the future,” she said during a phone interview. “If we don’t conserve, we won’t have elk to hunt or fish to fish or land to walk on. So that’s what this policy is.”

Baker insists there are no hidden agendas.

“We are not anti-hunting or anti-fishing and this policy doesn’t have anything to do with that as far as I’m concerned,” she said.

So why is it causing such angst? It follows the two-year, emotional process that ultimately resulted in the end of spring black bear hunting in the state. The controversial move was discussed and debated for hours at a time, across dozens of meetings. Justifications for keeping and ending the hunt shifted based on who was making the argument. Some said it was unethical, some said the department doesn’t know enough about the black bear population to justify taking animals in the spring. Some said the reasons for the hunt — to protect seedlings on industrial forest land, to reduce predation on newborn elk or to provide recreation — have evolved over time and were unclear.

People on both sides of the issue claimed those on the other were acting on emotion and ignoring science. Both sides turned to the department’s various mandates and documents like its Game Management Plan to moor their arguments.

Because of that, hunters say the draft conservation policy is toting baggage as heavy as an elk quarter. They worry some of its phrasing, such as its call to protect “the intrinsic value of nature,” parallels anti-hunting rhetoric and will be used to further curtail their opportunities. And they say it is full of foggy language that is ripe for future arguments.

“I would say it’s reasonable to see where most hunters in Washington State could view something that might seem innocuous as insidious,” said Dan Wilson, co-chairperson of the Washington chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

He agrees there is a need for the agency to double down on its efforts to protect wildlife and not just those species that are hunted and fished. Hunters are a natural ally in that effort, he said. But they remain skeptical.

“I think this commission has a long way to go in earning back the trust of the hunting community and right now might not be the best time to advance an abstract conservation policy that doesn’t seem to recognize its traditional stakeholders and existing partners,” said Wilson.

James Anderson, a commissioner from Buckley in Pierce County, said it is unclear to him what the draft policy is trying to accomplish. The department already has a mission, mandate, strategic plan and an existing conservation policy. Its managers and biologists already work to protect game and nongame species, and to preserve wildlife habitat and ecosystems.

“It doesn’t provide clarity. It only provides almost fuzzy language or language that doesn’t help with clarity,” he said. “To me it defeats the purpose of what is trying to be done.”

He rejects the notion that the department only pays attention to species that are hunted and fished while ignoring others.

“Historically there was more attention paid to game species, that is true. But we have evolved over time. A lot of critics seem to be stuck in the past and not looking at what we are doing now. There is a lot of activity going on for nongame species and habitat protection and land management that wasn’t there five years ago or 10 years ago.”

Baker sees the policy as additive and one that will help guide the millions of dollars the state legislature recently allocated for the protection of nongame species. She hears the criticism and says she is continuing to both listen and to meet with groups who have expressed concerns. Baker noted regulated hunting, according to public opinion polls, is broadly supported in Washington. She also said the agency is already engaged in the hard work of conservation and the new policy won’t change either of those.

“ (The) Fish and Wildlife (department), at least in our state, is growing and taking on more responsibility rather than taking a big lurch and saying we don’t value traditional activities,” she said. “That’s not what this is. It’s a big deal to have it validated and to have the discussion. But it’s not going to result in a lot of difference in the on-the-ground functioning of the agency, in my opinion, because they’re ahead of us.”

The commission is scheduled to discuss and take public comment on the draft policy at its meeting in Seattle on Thursday afternoon. A full agenda on the meeting and information about remote participation is available at bit.ly/3NCiIwK. More information about the draft policy and how to submit written comments is available at bit.ly/3NlCYBt. The deadline is June 30.

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273. Follow him on Twitter @ezebarker.