Sean V. O’Brien: Science, not emotion, should dictate state hunting and wildlife policies

High tensions and controversy surrounding our state’s wildlife management policies are nothing new. One need to only watch a few minutes of a Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting from the past several years to see this firsthand.

But as appointed commissioners bicker and take focus away from sound policymaking, our state’s conservation efforts are being harmed – and community members committed to healthy wildlife populations are being driven away from contributing their time, energy and expertise.

In a public letter to Gov. Jay Inslee late last year, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Master Hunter John Wallace publicly resigned after more than two dozen years of service educating hundreds of new hunters and conservationists.

“Your appointments of five animal rights activists for a majority to the Wildlife Commission has had an immediate negative effect and will continue to hurt our hunters’ massive contributions to wildlife conservation as hunter numbers dwindle out of sheer frustration,” his letter stated.

In recent years, there has been a concerted effort by preservationist groups to “reform” state fish and wildlife commissions by gaining control of commission seats and installing anti-hunting policies.

During tense Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission proceedings on wolf management – long a bitter debate in the state – one commissioner verbally attacked WDFW Director Kelly Susewind in an emotional diatribe, accusing him of promoting the “Big Bad Wolf” theory to purportedly vilify the species and further fears of the apex predator. Susewind calmly explained how seriously he took predator management, but the commissioner continued on with their theatrics.

During another contentious debate over whether to approve this year’s spring bear hunt, WDFW’s carnivore section manager stated that Washington’s bear population was healthy and urged the commission to approve the hunt. Nevertheless, in an unsound and unscientific decision, the commission voted to cancel the hunt. That WDFW scientist has since left their job.

As Wallace stated in his resignation letter to Gov. Inslee, his passion for volunteering as a Hunter Education Instructor was “to improve my ethics, my knowledge about the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (the envy of the entire world in wildlife conservation), and to be able to communicate effectively with non-hunters about our heritage, our impact, and why we do what we do.” We’ve now lost this volunteer because of the lopsided, emotional approach being taken by state leaders.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is a guiding set of seven tenets supporting the notion that wildlife is a public trust, an American birthright, and that wildlife species need to be managed in a way that their populations will be sustained forever. It was adopted by the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies more than 20 years ago and is considered the world’s most successful system of policies to restore and safeguard species and their habitats through sound science and active management.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington received more than $21 million for wildlife restoration, conservation efforts, and hunter education and safety programs from revenue taken in by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. Under this bedrock conservation law, excise taxes paid by hunters and sportsmen on the sale of firearms, archery equipment, and ammunition go right back into these programs supporting wildlife conservation.

In fact, fees paid by hunters account for nearly half of WDFW’s budget.

But as fish and wildlife commissioners continue to attack the heritage and contributions of our state’s hunters, those revenues – and the conservation work they support – will likely dwindle.

A Washington state Superior Court judge recently issued a judgment finding Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith was in violation of state law, perhaps the first sign of the pendulum beginning to move back toward rational proceedings at the Washington Commission.

“We’re very pleased with today’s decision that affirms Ms. Smith has been violating state law for more than two years while crafting policy that undermines scientific wildlife management and damages the state’s traditions of hunting and fishing,” said Todd Adkins, vice president of government affairs for the Sportsmen’s Alliance. The Alliance is a national coalition that defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and brought the lawsuit alongside two of its Washington state members.

Too many commissioners in state fish and wildlife commissions are pushing extremist views and unfounded opposition to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Perhaps if their voices are replaced with less emotion and more science, we can once again benefit from effective wildlife and conservation efforts.

Sean V. O’Brien is the Eastern Washington director for Washington Policy Center. He is the former executive director of the Congressional Western Caucus and is based in the Tri-Cities.