By Dan Russell
A guest column featured in the June 6 issue presented a justification for why the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission might move forward with making changes to the current rules for cougar hunting in Washington. As with so many things there is more than one side to this story. I’ve followed the issue pretty closely, and in the spirit of open public discourse would like to offer the other side as I understand it.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has a process for establishing hunting regulations. Department staff produce a document titled the Game Management Plan (GMP) which identifies among other things management priorities and population objectives. This document provides sideboards for establishing hunting seasons, and informs the three-year season setting process. The GMP is currently under revision with completion expected in December of 2024. WDFW staff have recommended awaiting the completion of the GMP before making changes to the rules for cougar hunting. I think there are good reasons to support that course of action.
In December 2023 the Fish and Wildlife Commission, against the official recommendation of the department, accepted a petition from eight nonprofit wildlife advocacy groups to revise the rules governing bear and cougar hunting. This petition asserted, wrongly in my opinion, that WDFW had intentionally mismanaged these species.
Its logic, as indicated by the following quote from that document, was predicated on the notion that immediate action is required to prevent a population level crisis for bears and cougars: “The state’s cougars and bears cannot afford to wait any longer for the Commission to change these unscientific, destructive, and dangerous rules.”
This, and much of the rest of the petition, is gross hyperbole. The petitioning groups do their membership and the world a disservice by encouraging such errant beliefs. By accepting this petition the commission made itself complicit in that deceit.
Upsetting the process
Accepting this petition created a “winners and losers” dynamic, and unnecessarily politicized the question of whether to make changes to the hunting regulations for these species. By issuing specific directions on what rules to enact, the commission, by the slimmest of majorities, stepped out of a policy role and upset the normal rule-making process. This process exists to protect against arbitrary, capricious or uninformed rule-making. If enacted these rules will carry the force of law; the public has a right to expect such rules to be the result of a process that is thorough, deliberative, predictable, professional and fair.
I feel justified in insisting on a fair and transparent rule making process. I feel compelled to resist the politicization of wildlife management. Other states have seen questions of wildlife management devolve into the sort of partisan blood feud that already characterizes far too much of our public discourse. By accepting this petition and initiating rule-making the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has taken a step down that path. We in Washington owe it to both ourselves and the fish and wildlife of this state to do better.
The most constructive way to address natural resource challenges is to build the broadest coalition of natural resource advocates. A deeply divided public constitutes a clear and present threat to wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has a role to play in influencing the tone of public discourse on these matters.
I suggest that it is their clear imperative to adhere to a measured, inclusive and predictable process, fostering unity between stakeholder groups where possible and seeking always to avoid and diffuse unnecessary acrimony. Fish and Wildlife commissioners are citizens appointed to a public policy body invested with statutory rule making authority. They must never be reckless with the public trust.
I perceive no active crisis regarding cougars in Washington. This view is congruent with the entirety of the science presented by WDFW staff. I trust the department on this matter. Changes to the harvest guidelines may be warranted, and if so should come through due process and in due time. Urgent action that alienates a broad swath of stakeholders is unjustified and counterproductive.
We can expect a decision from the commission on this matter later this month. I respect the commissioners and their judgement. I know they each bring to the role a bedrock commitment to sound environmental stewardship. I hope they’ll weigh all sides of this matter fully, and that whatever decision they arrive at is made with the intent to serve the greatest good.
Dan Russell lives in Carlton and is passionate about issues affecting rural communities.
