Date: 10/6/26 8:44 am From: Ronda Stark via Tweeters <tweeters...> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] WDFW seeks public comments on recommendation to list burrowing owl as endangered
Hello Blythe,
Thank you for a wonderful response. As a retired attorney, I think your
points are well taken. Further, individual experiences do have a place in
public comments. For example, if you watched a pair of burrowing owls and
they are no longer in that location, that is valuable first hand knowledge.
Or, if a photographer frequently went to an area just north of Quincy where
there were a number of burrowing owls in that area that all but
disappeared, that is an important comment. It demonstrates that the loss of
burrowing owl habitat effects the individual living in Washington and can
be just as powerful as scientific evidence. In fact, during in person
testimony, these are some of the most important types of comments.
Finally, it can also help to mention economic benefits to the state for
granting protected status. If hundreds of birders travel to Eastern
Washington every year to see burrowing owls and spend a night or two in
rural communities, this is economically helpful to the local community. We
used this very effectively to advocate for preservation of wild and scenic
rivers. Fortunately, we had data to back up these claims with dollars spent
per recreation user days. Admittedly, this data is probably lacking for the
burrowing owl, but I have spoken with small businesses and motel operators
who definitely benefitted from the presence of burrowing owls that
attracted birders to their areas.
Ronda
Ronda
On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 8:02 AM Blythe Horman via Tweeters <
<tweeters...> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> Kim Marie Thorburn, MD, MPH
>
> Spokane, WA
>
> (509) 465-3025 home
>
> (509) 599-6721 cell-please use for texting
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> <Tweeters...>
> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters >
