Recent article on WDFW

[Roper]

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.

www.spokesman.com

 

[Flymph]

Science from the viewpoint of conservationists might be the last hope to save what is left! Just a thought.

 

[DimeBrite]

The science supports the election of a new governor in WA.

 

[Rob Allen]

The science supports the election of a new governor in WA.

The science supports everything the exact opposite of what we have done the last 70 years.

 

[Ron McNeal]

The science supports the election of a new governor in WA.

So does Common Sense....... And ........... have a nice day.

 

[Salmo_g]

I disagree that science should dictate hunting and wildlife policies. Policies are adopted for several reasons, usually for their beneficial aspects to humans. We might like to think we are, but we are not altruists. That is, we don't adopt wildlife policies based on what is best for wildlife necessarily, but on what is most beneficial to society overall. And society overall isn't the same as the sub-segment of the population who are hunters and fishers.

In the end I think we adopt hunting and wildlife policies based on our collective social interest(s) in hunting and wildlife, the economics of hunting and wildlife, and hopefully, what science can tell us about hunting and wildlife. I think science should inform hunting and wildlife policies, but should not dictate them. Just like I don't think hunting interests should dictate those policies, but can contribute to informing them. And surely I don't want the economics of hunting to dictate hunting and wildlife policies. However, economics is one additional useful tool, or bit of information useful in setting hunting and wildlife policies. I guess I'm saying that we're better off being well informed about all salient aspects that might affect hunting and wildlife when we decide to make policies that affect them.

 

[Rob Allen]

I disagree that science should dictate hunting and wildlife policies. Policies are adopted for several reasons, usually for their beneficial aspects to humans. We might like to think we are, but we are not altruists. That is, we don't adopt wildlife policies based on what is best for wildlife necessarily, but on what is most beneficial to society overall. And society overall isn't the same as the sub-segment of the population who are hunters and fishers.

In the end I think we adopt hunting and wildlife policies based on our collective social interest(s) in hunting and wildlife, the economics of hunting and wildlife, and hopefully, what science can tell us about hunting and wildlife. I think science should inform hunting and wildlife policies, but should not dictate them. Just like I don't think hunting interests should dictate those policies, but can contribute to informing them. And surely I don't want the economics of hunting to dictate hunting and wildlife policies. However, economics is one additional useful tool, or bit of information useful in setting hunting and wildlife policies. I guess I'm saying that we're better off being well informed about all salient aspects that might affect hunting and wildlife when we decide to make policies that affect them.

I agree with most of that. However I do believe that people whoes interests are to destroy fishing and hunting should be completely ignored and that the right to fish, hunt and trap should be enshrined in the states constitution. In short animal rights activists should very thoughtfully, intentionally given the middle finger.