Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters propose rapid‑response volunteer corps and criticize WAC's vague 'attacking' standard
Summary
Two public commenters urged (1) a volunteer rapid‑response model to support coexistence and nonlethal response, and (2) stronger WAC language because the term "attacking" has been applied to wolves not biting or wounding livestock, per the Center for Biological Diversity.
During public comment, one speaker proposed a nonprofit, volunteer rapid‑response model to support producers and WDFW in remote depredation incidents; another speaker representing the Center for Biological Diversity criticized the WAC's vague "attacking" standard and cited law‑enforcement records to argue the rule is being applied to wolves not biting or wounding livestock.
Jennifer Clark described a proposed "Carnivore Livestock Intervention Support" model that would recruit and train volunteers, deploy with WDFW oversight, and provide logistics, carcass disposal and deterrence capacity. "The rapid deployment team...is scalable, practical, and a nonlethal tool to help solve or contribute to solving the persistent conservation challenge," she told the group.
Amaruq Weiss (Center for Biological Diversity) urged WAG to focus on the WAC's substantive ambiguity: he said the shift from the Wolf Plan's "caught in the act of attacking" standard to a broader "attacking" definition in WAC language has allowed killings where wolves were not biting, wounding or even chasing livestock and called for rule changes to restore clearer standards.
Chelsea Haney, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association, used the public comment period to ask that the WAC remain unchanged for producers' use.
