Fish and Wildlife Commission adopts amended livestock-compensation rules
Loading...
Summary
The commission voted to adopt four amended Washington Administrative Code sections to clarify compensation for commercial livestock and working dogs, add 'increased stress' to indirect-loss language and revise the definition of 'attack.' Staff committed to internal guidance on timelines.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to adopt four amended administrative rules to clarify how the department compensates commercial livestock and working-dog losses and to tighten definitions that guide direct and indirect claim processing. Commissioner Christopher Linville moved for adoption; the motion was seconded and the chair announced the motion carries.
Staff presentations framed the filing (CR-102) as a culmination of months of public comment and edits. Jim Brown, the department's Wildlife Conflict Section manager, summarized the proposal and said the packet contains the formal edits in track changes. He told commissioners the amendments align several code sections and fix cross-references that previously could be read to allow payments the RCW does not authorize.
Why it matters: staff added the phrase "increased stress" in the indirect-loss (harassment) definition to make clear what behavioral effect on livestock triggers non-direct compensation claims such as reduced weight gain or lower pregnancy rates. Brown said the change was driven by commenters who found the word "harassment" too vague and requested language tying the effect to stress in the animals.
Commission discussion focused on the proposed new definition of "attack." Several commissioners asked whether the attack definition could be interpreted to expand or limit coverage and whether it would overlap with indirect claims. Brown and other staff said indirect claims exclude attacks and that the revised attack definition lists demonstrable behaviors (including chasing or imminent physical contact) to reduce ambiguity. Staff also committed to correcting drafting errors flagged during the meeting (for example, changing a misspelling of "pursuing").
Commissioner Linville, who moved adoption, said the rule changes apply to compensation only and are not the department's livestock-interaction protocol for making site-specific management decisions. Commissioner Parker acknowledged lingering ambiguity in language but supported adopting the package and returning later if operational experience shows a need for further edits.
What was decided and next steps: the commission adopted the four amended WACs as presented by staff. Brown said that if the commission's decision stands, the department will proceed with CR filing steps and that the rules would take effect according to the standard CR filing timeline. Staff also said they will produce an internal, shareable guidance document that sets staff timelines and claimant-notification expectations; that guidance will not be part of today's rule text but will be incorporated administratively into processes.
The packet and on-line agenda contain the specific track-change edits and the full text of the proposed WAC amendments for public review.
