Lorna Smith

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Going to put this up here as a ponderance. The Sportsmen’s Alliance has filed suit against (Western) Washington Game Commissioner Smith. Smith has voted against Spring black bear hunting and opined for more predators in WA as sportsmen don’t do enough to manage herd health.
Sportsmen’s Alliance suit does not list these issues, but that Smith is also serving a volunteer role in the Jefferson County Planning Commission. WA statute states that a wildlife commissioner may not serve in any other State/County/City elective or appointed position.

So let’s ponder this:

Hypothetically, Smith instead of County Commissioner is the on the Board for the County animal shelter. Does Sportsman’s Alliance still file suit?

Would Sportsman’s Alliance file suit alleging violation of statute had Smith not been outspoken with opinions of efficacy through hunting in managing herd health?

And lastly, is Smith the only current or former member of the WA Game Commission to hold another State/County/City office simultaneously with the Game Commission position?

Lawsuit Seeks to Bar Controversial Washington Wildlife Commissioner from Service

The Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation's suit is aimed at Lorna Smith, who has de-emphasized the role of hunters in wildlife management.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Dakotakid]

Not generally elected or appointed to a volunteer fore department.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Not generally elected or appointed to a volunteer fore department.

I fear my point was missed though I have now changed that to avoid outrage in the semantics.

 

[44hunter45]

@neffa3 - Jump in here. I want to hear your perspective.

 

[Derek44]

Being from WA, I’m not confident this lawsuit will make it far. Definitely appreciate the effort, but it seems anything that the governor pushes for stands, regardless of merit or legality. And our attorney general is is a mastermind at twisting and skewing constitutional interpretation just enough to continue the administrations status quo. While hopeful, I’m not very confident.

 

[FairWeather]

I’m not familiar with the specifics of this issue. I assume when they say sportsmen aren’t doing enough to manage herds, these are OTC hunts then?

Else, why would they advocate for more predators rather than more tags? The state makes money off the tags, predators eat for free.

 

[Derek44]

I’m not familiar with the specifics of this issue. I assume when they say sportsmen aren’t doing enough to manage herds, these are OTC hunts then?

Else, why would they advocate for more predators rather than more tags? The state makes money off the tags, predators eat for free.

I’m not very educated in the specifics, but it has a gloomy feeling of a sad end for hunting in WA. Seems they are using that angle as just another way to chip away at the hunting tradition as a whole. IMHO… end game is complete end to hunting in the state of WA.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Lorna Smith is just executing the playbook that will slowly eradicate hunting in western blue states. With one party completing dominating state politics, GOVs appoint anti-hunting advocates to the commissions. Hunters maintain a few seats but make up the voting minority and are unable to defend the NAM. These commissioners slowly eliminate hunt seasons and method of take and choose predators as a more “compassionate” tool for wildlife management. Pretty scary stuff. It’s beginning to taking shape in Colorado also.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The only realistic move for hunters is to become such a vocal, well organized bipartisan minority that hunting becomes a political third rail, no politician wants to touch it in fear of a major negative reaction across the state.

 

[44hunter45]

RCW 77.04.012

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.
[ 2000 c 107 § 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 183 § 1; 1949 c 112 § 3, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-201, part. Formerly RCW 75.08.012, 43.25.020.]
----------------------------------------


Not even going to ask how the current anadromous fishing regs fit into this...

 

[more_cowbell]

end game is complete end to hunting in the state of WA

True

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Objectively, I get both points here. Smith can make utterances about plausibilities. Sportsman’s Alliance is correct that Smith’s dual Board positions are contrary to WA Statute.

The horseshit gets thick though as we peel this onion. @Derek44, @bayoublaster7527, @FairWeather all ask why not more tags? It is undeniable that predators target the vulnerable of the herd. Yet more tags would also help to reduce herd size if populations are too thick and spreading disease.

And otherwise, the plaintiff makes a valid point. I bet Smith also speeds recklessly in her car sometimes too or lies on taxes (moral turpitudes) which I’m sure violates some statute. Case is DOA because Plaintiff did not establish standing in this case.

 

[more_cowbell]

RCW 77.04.012

Mandate of department and commission.​

There are some good "shall"s in there. Should created duties for the agency to fulfill. I'm not into "administrative law", and none of this is off the cuff or any other type of legal advice but looks like Revised Code of Washington 34.05.570 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.570 sets out when and how certain agency actions can be challenged.

Subsection (b) says "A person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to this subsection requiring performance. Within twenty days after service of the petition for review, the agency shall file and serve an answer to the petition, made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. The court may hear evidence, pursuant to RCW 34.05.562, on material issues of fact raised by the petition and answer."

One way anti-hunting groups and states can get around some of this stuff, is letting anti-hunting [initiatives] get put on a ballot. Then if "the people" (who bother to vote) pass it, then the agency says they are required to follow "the will of the people" (who voted). Majority rule has its drawbacks

 

[SAJ-99]

Hypothetically, Smith instead of County Commissioner is the on the Board for the County animal shelter. Does Sportsman’s Alliance still file suit?

Would Sportsman’s Alliance file suit alleging violation of statute had Smith not been outspoken with opinions of efficacy through hunting in managing herd health?

And lastly, is Smith the only current or former member of the WA Game Commission to hold another State/County/City office simultaneously with the Game Commission position?

Tough questions.
1) I think the lawsuit was a reaction to what they felt was a wrong. The justification of the lawsuit is just the legal standing they chose.

2) probably not. People and orgs don’t typically file lawsuits if they are getting what they want and aren’t wronged in some way.

3) I have no idea.

The potential good news is that 2 news commissioners were recently named to fill openings. It is possible they swing the vote the other way. Smith is definitely an “outlier”. I don’t mind the questions she asks but she certainly can’t drive the bus. The funny part in the article is that even those that support Smith argue that G&F does a bad job. It’s just another example of politics making decisions that should be based on science, and G&F is just the punching bag.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

RCW 77.04.012

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.
[ 2000 c 107 § 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 183 § 1; 1949 c 112 § 3, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-201, part. Formerly RCW 75.08.012, 43.25.020.]
----------------------------------------


Not even going to ask how the current anadromous fishing regs fit into this...

This is a great point, maybe a better angle would be to file suit that the commission is not attempting to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens by cancelling a spring black bear season based on social and/or moral concerns. Thereby not fulfilling their mandate. Probably lots of legal wiggle room in there though…..

 

[Watts307]

I’m not familiar with the specifics of this issue. I assume when they say sportsmen aren’t doing enough to manage herds, these are OTC hunts then?

Else, why would they advocate for more predators rather than more tags? The state makes money off the tags, predators eat for free.

As resident you can do Bear Cougar Elk Deer OTC every year. Plus other smaller stuff.

You cant manage the herds when it takes a decade to draw a bull tag in alot of areas and most central or eastern areas are spike only are going that way. Hard to manage the herd when you cant shoot bulls or cows. I spent 30 years in WA, public land is great but that is where it stops. Hunters are the minority and will never win in that state. The goal is to have zero hunting. They dont want hunters, they wanna flood areas with wolves, grizzly bears and cougars and then say, well the herds are damn near destroyed so we need to stop hunting, then when that's done it will become more of a gun control issue. Governor Inslee watches CA then gets what he wants because of Seattle. Last election he lost 27 out of 39 counties. There's only like 2-4 counties with any real population in WA. If you win Seattle, you win the State unfortunately.

WA doesn't need the money from hunters, and they would rather have no hunting. I truly believe that's the goal. Doesn't matter if they add thousands of more tags, its useless if were all chasing the same spike.

CA ruined WA first, and its been so long now people hate people from WA. lol. Without Salmon the PNW is just another place, and they cant really even manage fishing right. It is because they dont care IMO.

The state wants you to work for Amazon or Microsoft and shut the hell up in your condo in Bellevue for $3000 a month with your LGBTQIAGHJLU+- bumper sticker.

Thats my rant.....

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

but she certainly can’t drive the bus.

That’s how she blows sometimes on a bus, got to manage multiple stakeholders.

 

[Derek44]

Objectively, I get both points here. Smith can make utterances about plausibilities. Sportsman’s Alliance is correct that Smith’s dual Board positions are contrary to WA Statute.

The horseshit gets thick though as we peel this onion. @Derek44, @bayoublaster7527, @FairWeather all ask why not more tags? It is undeniable that predators target the vulnerable of the herd. Yet more tags would also help to reduce herd size if populations are too thick and spreading disease.

And otherwise, the plaintiff makes a valid point. I bet Smith also speeds recklessly in her car sometimes too or lies on taxes (moral turpitudes) which I’m sure violates some statute. Case is DOA because Plaintiff did not establish standing in this case.

Not sure what you mean 100%. I actually have never wondered why there isn’t more tags. I am curious of the angle that is being proposed that sportsman are no longer a necessary or objective means to manage populations and opportunities

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Not sure what you mean 100%. I actually have never wondered why there isn’t more tags. I am curious of the angle that is being proposed that sportsman are no longer a necessary or objective means to manage populations and opportunities

Oh! Sorry, I thought you agreed with the other guy who asked that question. The thought about more predators to control herd health is that predators eat sick animals and do that all year whereas hunters go for healthy critters just part of the year. I think it’s worth a study considering where and how disease has spread amongst wild ungulates in states with known predators.
But EHD, CWD, whatever else is out there spreads quicker amongst denser population ungulates than sparsely populated. So a valid point would also be to increase tag allocation.

 

[Irrelevant]

@neffa3 - Jump in here. I want to hear your perspective.

Super dumb move by a group that just wants to do "something" even if it's shooting holes in the boat.

Hunting group files lawsuit against Washington wildlife commissioner, says more legal actions to come

A nationwide hunting advocacy group is attempting to give the boot to a Washington wildlife commissioner for serving on another volunteer board.

www.spokesman.com