Anti-hunting groups are lying. WA Fish & Wildlife commissioners are taking the bait | Opinion
On Dec. 15, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted 7-2 to begin rulemaking on cougar and bear hunting at the behest of special interest groups whose primary aim is to dismantle hunting piece by piece.
The day after the vote, citizens voiced their frustrations to the commission. Mandy Carlstrom summed things up: “It is no longer fair to ask why the public does not trust you.”
In response to the outcry, Commissioner Steve Parker stated, ”…it seems that many of the commenters this morning are reacting more to the source of the petition than to the substance of petition.”
This flippant dismissal deserves a direct response. As hunters, we have legitimate issues with both.
Prior to the vote, I testified to the commission about statistical flaws contained within one of the main studies cited in the petition, which is popular with anti-hunting campaigns nationwide.
The Peebles study, as it’s called, claims to provide evidence that more cougar hunting increases the frequency of cougars killing livestock, the opposite of what a reasonable person would expect.
The study is deeply flawed, and the commission has been told this repeatedly. A review panel composed of nearly a dozen wildlife scientists from throughout the Northwest pointed out basic methodological errors that make the conclusion unreliable.
As recently as Dec. 7, carnivore research scientist Brian Kertson, Ph.D., discussing the study with the commission, stated that the idea that more hunting spurs more wildlife conflict is “just a theory,” and even suggested that the current data state biologists have on cougars paint an entirely different picture. This did not serve to dissuade the commission from taking the petition at face value.
The source of the data is questionable as well. These organizations have demonstrated their willingness to lie about material facts.
Currently in Colorado, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, and an activist group called Cats Aren’t Trophies (whose leadership has been present at several commission meetings), have it in their campaign material that cougars are not edible and are only hunted for trophies. Cougars taste like pork, and in Colorado it would be a criminal offense to kill a cougar without harvesting its meat.
These are the same people who presented the Washington petition. If they are so emotionally invested in the outcome that they are willing to lie about something this basic, what else are they willing to obfuscate? The commission was swayed by the 50 scientists signing the petition, disregarding the cherry-picked nature of those signatures. They also ignored our state staff (and scientists) who manage these populations directly. In fact, most state-level biologists in charge of wildlife management would be prohibited from signing such a letter because it would be considered lobbying.
By accepting this petition, the commission has given credibility to its lies and the liars behind it. What is worse is that in doing so the commission has knowingly diverted staff from completing a multi-year study on cougars and bears which would have been completed this April. Instead, staff will commence rulemaking.
Framed this way, the decision made clear the mockery of the commission’s commitment to “using the best available science.”
That commitment seems about as good as the “science” in the petition they accepted.
Ryan Garrett is a farmer and hunting mentor living in Northeast Washington state. He hosts the Hunter Farmer Artisan Podcast examining WDFW policy issues.
This story was originally published February 8, 2024 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Anti-hunting groups are lying. WA Fish & Wildlife commissioners are taking the bait | Opinion."