WA 2022 Spring Bear Hunting Suspended. Is it Lost for Good?

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

I love bear hunting. As a person that tries to derive their protien primarily from game meat, the animal and the hunt has a cultural and nutritional value that is hard to find elsewhere. For this reason and many others, I am saddened the Special Fish and Wildlife Commission's recent decision to suspend the spring 2022 season despite the overwhelming public comment in support of the hunt, and more importantly the scientific recommendations of WDFW staff.

Rather than take my word for what happened in that meeting, here are links to read the minutes, or watch the meeting. It is clear to me that the commissioners that voted against this hunt did so because they felt that the hunt was not popular.

Meeting Notes

Watch the Meeting

Now what? I for one will be writing each of the commitee members, thanking the ones that listened to reason and chastizing the ones that listened to the mob in an earlier Zoom meeting while ignoring science and a vastly better argued hunter opinion. Stuff like this is why we can't be reactive in protecting hunter rights and heritage. Every time an animal rights group goes on the offensive, they get to set the tone for the debate and set the opinion of those who matter from the start. For this reason any push to amend the state constitution to protect hunting rights has to also protect science based conservation management practices. Conservation should never be a popularity contest. How can we achieve that?

EDIT as of 11/23/2021

How the vote went
Commissioners Barbara Baker, Fred Koontz and Lorna Smith also voted no to the spring hunt.

Voting yes were Commissioners Kim Thorburn, Molly Linville, Jim Anderson and Don McIsaac.

I want to be very clear that WDFW is not to blame for this decision. Their recommendation was in the scientific defense of the hunt, and the ethical defense of hunters. The commisioners and those who appoint them are the place that pressure needs to be applied.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Someone mentioned lawsuits regarding spring bear in another thread, but I didn't expect the commissioners would just vote it out. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Letthemgrow]

but I didn't expect the commissioners would just vote it out. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

How the vote went

Commissioners Barbara Baker, Fred Koontz and Lorna Smith also voted no.

Voting yes were Commissioners Kim Thorburn, Molly Linville, Jim Anderson and Don McIsaac.

Who to thank and who to chastise. Molly Linville was particularly forceful in defending WDFW science and Fred Koontz was very insistent on trying to hide it. The other 'no's are the ones that need convincing.

 

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

[email protected]

Here is the email you can use to contact the records division of the committee. I had a constructive conversation with them today at 509-892-1001, please call and respectfully push back on this decision.

After my conversation today I sent the following letter.

My name is Ryan Garrett; I hunt bears to provide better nutrition for my family than can be found at the local grocery store. I started with that sentence because it is of key importance. Bear hunting is easily and incorrectly vilified as a “trophy hunt”. Bear meat is highly valued among its hunters for its unique flavor and fat content. If that is not enough, RCW 77.08.010 makes it quite clear that it would be illegal for hunters to recklessly render that meat unfit for human consumption. To put it bluntly, calling bear hunting a “trophy hunt” is incorrect. Such terminology is meant to manipulate and should be regarded with skepticism.

I am dismayed that 4 members of the Fish and Wildlife Special Commission listened to such emotional rhetoric as opposed to the science-based approach recommended by WDFW staff. To each emotional point brought up in the special commission meeting there was a scientific response in support of the hunt. Some of the answers could have been clearer, or more forceful, which is why I am writing in today. While I would love to keep my comments strictly data-based, it’s impossible to do so while addressing what Fred Koontz framed as a “societal [acceptance] issue”.

The Humane Society has been one of the most vocal opponents of the spring bear hunt. In a press release after the vote they titled “Washington wildlife commissioners vote against spring 2022 trophy hunt of black bears and their cubs” they reiterated a number of their arguments against the “trophy” hunt. Since we keep records on this sort of thing, I wanted to rebut a few of their “facts”:

• “Fact” No 1. “Spring bear hunts are especially cruel because trophy hunters often kill mother bears with newborn cubs.”…” During the 2021 Washington spring bear hunt, trophy hunters killed 45 female bears, likely resulting in the orphaning and death of numerous cubs.”
• This statement is both mathematically and emotionally misleading. Of the animals inspected last year, only 1 out of the 124 inspected animals was a lactating female. Given what we know about the bi-annual reproduction of female bears, this number would likely be much higher if hunters were firing at the first bear they saw. Also, a quick glance at harvest reporting shows that significantly more males are killed than females. A reasonable scientific conclusion here is that hunters are being selective. For a fun thought exercise put yourself in the shoes of a bear hunter. If you are looking for a “trophy,” or for meat, would you rather target a 75lb sow, or a 500lb boar?
• “Fact” No 2. “Mother bears may forage at long distances from their cubs, resulting in hunters often killing lactating female bears. Hunters have difficulty determining the sex and nursing status of black bears.”
• Difficulty in determining sex does not equal randomized harvest as the harvest reporting I mentioned above demonstrates. It’s pretty difficult to identify sex and species of ducks while they are flying at high speed, but hunters legally have to do it every year. Mistakes can happen, but by and large hunters want healthy supplies of animals. Following our game laws and being conscientious about what we target (as the data shows is happening) allows us to achieve that goal. This statement by the humane society is laughably false because of the word “often” - one lactating female out of last years’ sample group does not meet that criteria.
• “Fact” No 3. “Bears are highly intelligent, and provide specific benefits to the ecosystem, spreading more seeds than birds, opening up forest canopies allowing sunlight to filter to the forest floor and enhancing biological diversity, and their feeding habits near riparian corridors help to fertilize trees with fish carcasses and their own nitrogen-rich urine. New research also finds that bears act as shields for gray foxes from other larger carnivores.”
• This is another emotionally misleading argument. It’s aimed to answer the question “Should we have bears?” This never should be a question any sane person would answer “No” to. It doesn’t answer a more complicated question of how we manage bear populations within a heavily managed ecosystem. Like it or not, human impact requires us to manage wildlife and wildland. Removing management tools based on popularity is not a good idea.

It was distressing to hear Mr. Koontz disparaging the science that that WDFW came up with in support of the hunt. The data captured by WDFW and its interpretation thereof IS science. To qualify it as not being such showed a callous disregard for countless officials collecting and working with this data for the aim of conservation. His halfhearted apology for disparaging this science as not being science was not adequate in my opinion. What would be adequate is for Mr. Koontz to clearly admit that this is an issue of public outcry and nothing more. Then we could at least proceed with our discussion on the subject in good faith.

A large number of vociferous folks have spoken out against the spring bear hunt. I would suspect you might have heard from more hunters in the public comment session had the issue been framed as an ethical debate on bear hunting (which it absolutely was not) and had the meeting not been scheduled in the middle of deer season. Sentiment does not always set good policy. Taxes are not popular, but we do need them. If the decision to suspend the bear hunt was purely to promote wildlife well-being, hunters would be the first in line to thank the committee for their sound judgement.

I’d like a chance to talk to the committee members for a brief time, if only to better understand what reasoning was applied. My hope is that I can better frame the argument that hunting as a way of life should not be dismantled one piece at a time. It is my way of taking direct responsibility for how my life is sustained. I’d be willing to argue the ethics of that any day.

Thank you for your time,



Ryan Garrett
Bear Hunter
Colville, WA 99114

 

[Irrelevant]

Spring Bear Hunts Cancelled in Washington State

Bear hunting opportunities in the Pacific Northwest will be a little scarcer after Washington state’s permit-only spring black bear hunt was suspended amid public outcry fueled by anti-hunting advocacy groups. The suspension came about after the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's...

www.themeateater.com

 

[HighDesertSage]

Co never got it back.

 

[Irrelevant]

This Friday Dec 3 @ 9m at the next commission meeting, there is a section setup to take general public comment. I encourage those to attend and comment on the loss.

 

[Irrelevant]

I logged in for the entire 1 hr and 20 minutes (20 minutes over time) and never got an opportunity to talk.

In regard to the OP Thread title question. Yes. It is lost for good. All hunting is lost for good in time. That was the most depressing thing I've witnessed in years.

The commission has a very educated bear ecologist as one of the anti-hunters.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I logged in for the entire 1 hr and 20 minutes (20 minutes over time) and never got an opportunity to talk.

In regard to the OP Thread title question. Yes. It is lost for good. All hunting is lost for good in time. That was the most depressing thing I've witnessed in years.

The commission has a very educated bear ecologist as one of the anti-hunters.

I don't even know what to say. It's hard to comprehend. But this will no doubt come up in Oregon before too long, and it's best to be prepared.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I logged in for the entire 1 hr and 20 minutes (20 minutes over time) and never got an opportunity to talk.

In regard to the OP Thread title question. Yes. It is lost for good. All hunting is lost for good in time. That was the most depressing thing I've witnessed in years.

The commission has a very educated bear ecologist as one of the anti-hunters.

Any insight on how this is being advanced if as I understand it there was a 4-4 split vote? @RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter

 

[Irrelevant]

Any insight on how this is being advanced if as I understand it there was a 4-4 split vote? @RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter

Yes, it was a tie, but it needed a majority to be approved as seasons are finalized in the WAC. So if you can't approve a change to the dates and year references, then you don't have a season.

There were several anti-hunters that got to speak in support of the vote, echoing the same sentiments as those of us opposed, that the other side doesn't use science. It is clear that you can find science to say anything, hell you can still find science to to deny climate change, it will always be flawed simply because the IS part of the scientific process. Those against it, simply pick and choose their science and rank uncertainty equal to traditional practices. Like many trends in our society, the weaponization of "science" is a double edged sword that cuts all.

 

[Irrelevant]

I doubt anyone cares but these were my comments.

Good morning Commissioners.

I joined you this morning to express my surprise and disappointment at the Commission’s vote against the spring bear season. Never did I think that in Washington State, no matter where politics went, that the department’s own Commission would vote against majority science in favor of ballot box biology. As anyone even remotely familiar with the scientific process knows, science is not perfect, and you can always find “conflicting” science should you choose to seek it. However, allowing perfect to be the enemy of good is anti-science, and should not be a foundation for decision making.

The spring bear hunt is no less ethical than a fall hunt when the bears are in hyperphagia, spending enormous amounts of time in easily identifiable small areas that offer high caloric foods. There is no difference between this spring bear hunt and a fall archery elk hunt during the rut or a migratory mule deer rifle hunt when animals are following the same paths that they have for eons, or any other hunt offered in this state. Should we do away with hunting migratory birds in corn fields? Turkey’s in oak stands? If the Commission is going to vote simply based on the “will of the people”, a statement made by multiple commissioners, multiple times, then why have a commission at all? Or even a Department of Fish and Wildlife? We won’t need experts or science or most importantly leaders; we can simply put it to a vote.

I find this vote particularly disheartening in our current political climate where we as a State and Nation are making valiant strides towards supporting minority rights. But at the same time this very Commission is going to opposite direction, ignoring considerations of the minority, which we bear hunters clearly are. Spring bear hunting does not harm those that are opposed to it, and there is no evidence it is harming the bear populations. The opposition must simply be that an individual bears life is more important that a traditional cultural practice. Let me remind you, that ALL of us came from hunting backgrounds, it is ALL of our heritage. Commissioner Smith may never choose to harvest a bear, but her ancestors at some point certainly did. Why are those of us that seek to uphold our traditions being denied that opportunity? I would also like to point out, this is the same logic, that the majority opinion rules the day, is the same one that has MT and ID pushing the opposite direction, to completely eliminate predators from their landscape, which is an equally terrible and unscientific idea.

And lastly let’s not forget that this also removes an opportunity for Washingtonians to fill their freezer with some of the best organic, free-range, ethically harvested meat on the planet. The single best meal I’ve had all year was a smoked bear roast. My family looks forward to every meal of bear we cook.

In the future I ask that the Commission put politics aside take into account the interests of all Washingtonians while maintaining the directives and mandates of the Dept.

Thank you.

 

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

Thanks to all that commented in the public forum today. I was among them.

We need to also put pressure on Jay Inslee to fill that 9th position (an eastern Washington seat) on the commission. That seat would likely have favorable views to the hunting community as it will come from a rural area. That is an important part about how we fix this. The issue will be brought back up in September-November of 2022 in order to set the season for 2023.

Also on the docket next year is the entire Game Management Plan. Jim Anderson (the only commissioner who took the time to call me back) mentioned that the GMP is what sets the scope of the rulemaking process for the next 6 years. Rules must be set within the scope of the GMP so we need to be vocal this year or lose our opportunities in a lot of areas. He mentioned that they are kicking around a 4pt minimum (that's on one antler) for whitetail in the Northeast Washington area. That is a trophy hunting management strategy and I am opposed to it especially in the context of how much anti-trophy hunting sentiment can be drummed up against us (even when we are not trophy hunters). It also removed tools from the management toolkit should CWD cross the border from Idaho.

A lot of ire has been directed to Lorna Smith which I do understand, but I think Fred Koontz also needs to be held accountable for the way he denigrated WDFW staff science.

Keep reaching out and make yourself heard, and keep pushing on these issues. It does make a difference.

 

[FI460]

Not exactly on the bear topic, but this article has a few quotes in the commissioners dismissal of biologists concerns:

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/blues-elk-in-crisis-but-not-for-some-fwc-members/?fbclid=IwAR1IyrE49N56R0gWNb9QnFvPfBjLxOgUayMw0BUjHaTPxda5Wwh7BjnW-TE

 

[Irrelevant]

Not exactly on the bar topic, but this article has a few quotes in the commissioners dismissal of biologists concerns:

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/blues-elk-in-crisis-but-not-for-some-fwc-members/?fbclid=IwAR1IyrE49N56R0gWNb9QnFvPfBjLxOgUayMw0BUjHaTPxda5Wwh7BjnW-TE

Yes, this issue was brought up several times as well. One astute commenter pointed out that hunters aren't killing calves, and with the calf recruitment at unsustainable levels for all population sizes, reducing hunter harvest will do nothing to address the problem.

 

[softtail103]

This is why some of us close to the Idaho border have now moved our hunting across the state line. It is crazy how many cougars live in the Colville National Forest. Bears are everywhere. The forest are completely unmanaged. For those of you close enough to drive over the mountain into Idaho from any of the forest roads will immediately know when you get into Idaho. Land is clean, roads are in excellent condition compared to Wa state. You can walk though them instead of climbing through them. Worth the extra cost. State income tax is the only thing that holds us back in retirement from moving to Idaho.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Man, I feel for u guys. Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Irrelevant]

Man, watching this appeal commission meeting is difficult.

 

[Irrelevant]

Holy cow, we're actually going to get our season back! At least for one more year...