Fish and Wildlife mandate: ‘Culture war’

Re: “Refocus WA Fish and Wildlife mandate on conservation” [April 7, Opinion]:

Fred Koontz’s assertion that the mandate of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and its fee to maintain and shield wildlife though giving consumptive chance must refocus to reverse biodiversity decrease is incorrect.

Wildlife administration policy is knowledgeable by science that evolves with information development. Troubles to policymaking crop up from responding to various cultural values and methods. Koontz’s need that the preservationist precept dominate other cultural practices is culture war. For tradition warriors, not profitable the war appears a quagmire. Seem policymaking does not ban classic values and practices basically due to the fact of intolerance.

Also, preservationist coverage and observe add to biodiversity decline, exemplified by sage-steppe ecosystem destruction by overabundant feral horses, interference with salmon recovery by range-growing seals and sea lions, and misinformed initiatives banning essential equipment like hounds and traps. Washington’s and other states’ fish and wildlife agencies’ science-based mostly conservation and administration practices, which includes hunting, are vital to preserving biodiversity. The North American Design of Wildlife Conservation and hunter participation in conservation, this sort of as companies like Ducks Unlimited’s work to preserve waterfowl, have accomplished much more to maintain, secure and perpetuate wildlife than resource-diverting endangered species litigation defended by Koontz throughout his small commissioner time period.

Kim Thorburn, Spokane, WDFW commissioner (sights expressed are those people of the writer and do not symbolize the fee)