Bear hunt non-decision

According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife scientists, the black bear population is sufficiently robust to warrant a “small” hunt in spring 2022, including females with their cubs. The WDFW Commission however voted 4-4 — essentially a “no” vote for now.

The hubris from the non-hunting voices at the meeting to protect “wildlife and ecosystems” argued the hunt is unnecessary. It also seems unlikely that killing 145 bears will significantly abate predation on fawn natural mortality, even in areas of low neonatal deer and elk production, to assist prey available to hunters; damage forest timber, even locally; or, minimize human-bear conflicts.

A few commissioners had doubts about the WDFW research although the scientists’ conclusions were compelling. Being concerned about data is a legitimate issue. Yet, not all policy decisions have to support science, but if they do, the science must be defensible. So, what are we left with – violating the “ethics” of the commission’s mandate by not holding a hunt (see Eli Francovich, “With tie vote, Washington commissioners suspend controversial spring bear hunt,” Eli Francovich, Nov. 21)?

Generally, a “no” vote by the commission does not necessarily mean they ignore science. Whether science suggests it’s alright to kill bears may have little impact on policy in a majority-rule world. I don’t have an iron in this fire, but just because science says it’s fine to have a hunt does not mean it should be “mandated.” Perhaps the vote was simply a reaffirmation that the hunt is not essential for bears, undulates, ecosystems or eager hunters.

Howard W. Braham

Spokane Valley