Ryan Garrett: Washington’s wildlife policy increasingly anti-hunting
By Ryan Garrett
As a hunter and regenerative farmer, I’m deeply concerned about the direction of wildlife policy in Washington.
Groups such as Washington Wildlife First, NARN, the Center for Biological Diversity, and even the Humane Society, have exerted undue influence over the recent policies, language and appointments of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. This represents one minority group’s attempt to destroy another minority’s way of life.
Even more galling, they are doing this in the name of “equality,” trying to make the case that hunters have received preferential treatment from the commission in the past and that everyone deserves an equal seat at the table. At face value, that argument may seem fair. In reality, it’s an incredibly inequitable viewpoint that is not only damaging to a culture’s traditional method of obtaining food but also to conservation.
These groups argue that they have an equal stake in wildlife because they hike, birdwatch or camp. The commission does not regulate these activities, but it does regulate hunting.
The state doesn’t collect taxes and fees from these nonhunting activities the way it does from hunters.
What these groups want is a seat at the table without having to foot the bill or worry about the burden of regulation. For those of you unfamiliar with the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission, here is a crash course: The commission is appointed by the governor and functions like the Supreme Court for wildlife management, as well as regulations pertaining to hunting and angling. Per RCW 77.04.012, they have the mandate to “preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife” as well as to “attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens.”
Sadly, the commission seems to have become apathetic or even hostile to the second half of their mandate. In the now infamous words of Commissioner Melanie Rowland, “… (hunters) should be getting nervous.”
With comments like that, it should come as little surprise that hunters crowded the commission meeting in Olympia this October and expressed their concerns for the future of their lifestyle.
While there are several issues that hunters are concerned about, key among them is the draft of the conservation policy. This policy mimics language used by the groups mentioned earlier and is not supported by a single hunting advocacy organization.
The last draft of the policy has plenty to say about the importance of preservation (which I should mention that hunters have no issue with), but barely pays lip service to consumptive use (i.e., hunting). Because the policy contains several vague and unscientific terms such as the “intrinsic value” of wildlife, it can and will be used by anti-hunting groups to erode hunter rights.
These groups are quick to state that they are not anti-hunting, but are pro-wildlife, trying to paint the inaccurate picture that hunters are out to kill everything in the woods. It’s an emotionally effective argument that lacks intellectual credibility. These groups have spread false or misleading information about hunter harvest, animal behavior, and the cost/benefit of hunting programs to conservation funding. Why do this if their aim isn’t to dismantle hunting?
Sadly, hunters find themselves on the wrong side of Brandolini’s Law, having to take the time to fact-check everything we say and provide supporting documentation, while these organizations get to lie to the heart of the public. Hunters are a valuable revenue source for conservation, and hunting represents an ethical way to source food. Please don’t allow one minority’s viewpoint to destroy a way of life and a key funding mechanism for wildlife conservation.
Ryan Garrett is a hunter, farmer, and gunsmith living in Colville. He hosts the Hunter Farmer Artisan Podcast focusing on hunting as a conservation tool in Washington.