Date: 10/6/26 9:49 am From: Kim Thorburn via Tweeters <tweeters...> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] WDFW seeks public comments on recommendation to list burrowing owl as endangered
Hi Tweets.
Thank you for the discussion. Certainly, the comment examples of factual observations by Blythe and Rhonda would contribute to the scientific framework that will support the burrowing owl status decision. As noted in the WDFW press release, staff recommends listing the species as endangered and Blythe's and Rhonda's examples support the information put forward by the department. Observations about habitat loss would also be instructive.
Ultimately, science policy decisions incorporate social and cultural values within the framework of science. During my tenure as a fish and wildlife commissioner, much testimony was expression of values, which is entirely relevant. Social and cultural values related to wildlife are numerous and diverse and ideally, all are respected and considered in wildlife policy unless they are contrary to conservation and management. It was my experience that constituents often thought that the values expressed by a "majority" should be the ones captured in a decision. However, durable policy captures values diversity rather than considering values as a political either/or.
I realize my initial email did not acknowledge the value of expressing beliefs and perspectives in policy advocacy. It is that multiple expressions of the same or similar values are generally weighted as one in decision making.
Good birding (and policy advocacy),
Kim
Kim Marie Thorburn, MD, MPH
Spokane, WA
(509) 465-3025 home
(509) 599-6721 cell-please use for texting
________________________________
From: Tweeters <tweeters-bounces...> on behalf of Ronda Stark via Tweeters <tweeters...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 8:33 AM
To: Blythe Horman <blythe.horman...>
Cc: TWEETERS 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...><mailto:<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...><mailto:<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<tel:(509)%20465-3025> home
(509) 599-6721<tel:(509)%20599-6721> cell-please use for texting
