Date: 10/6/26 8:12 am From: Blythe Horman via Tweeters <tweeters...> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] WDFW seeks public comments on recommendation to list burrowing owl as endangered
Thank you for the clarification, Kim.
My intention in requesting 'talking points' was precisely to locate
synthesized summaries of the current peer-reviewed data—such as specific
localized population trends, documented habitat fragmentation rates, and
nesting success metrics—so that any submitted public comments can be
grounded as rigorously in the relevant science as possible.
Given your eight years of service as a Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commissioner, I can understand how this process looks from an internal
administrative lens. However, viewing public advocacy and scientific data
as mutually exclusive can create an unfortunate institutional barrier. If
citizen input 'bears little weight,' it raises the question of why a
statutory public comment window is built into the legal framework at all.
Providing accessible data templates simply allows constituents to
communicate their support for these urgent listing recommendations using
the exact scientific metrics the Commission is legally required to weigh.
With fewer than 100 breeding pairs of burrowing owls remaining in our
state, the public deserves a transparent path to participate meaningfully
in their protection.
Best regards,
Blythe
Blythe Horman, Lynnwood
On Sun, Oct 4, 2026 at 2:54 PM Kim Thorburn <kthorburn...> wrote:
WDFW status determinations are a legal process that considers the current
science, such as facts about population changes, habitat status,
reproductive results, etc. Advocacy talking points are included in the
record but bear little weight in the process.
