Somewhere in another thread we were all following the Commission issues but this is good enough that it needs its own thread.


Gov. Ferguson orders investigation of WDFW commissioners

K.C. Mehaffey

Columbia Insight

If Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson wanted to end the drama at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission by ousting two of former Gov. Jay Inslee’s appointments and bringing on members friendly to hunters and anglers, his plan hasn’t exactly panned out.

In May, the Columbus, Ohio-basedSportsmen’sAlliance petitioned the governor to remove four more members of the commission, claiming they violated statelawsand“demonstrated incompetence, misconduct, and malfeasance in office.” The saga continues, according to four letters leaked this week to Columbia Insight.

Last week, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind sent a letter to Ferguson asking him to investigate the matter. “[T]he documents produced pursuant to recent public disclosure requests call the conduct of several Commissioners into question. I have reviewed a sufficient number of these documents to believe further investigation is warranted,” Susewind wrote in his Aug. 9 letter.

Yesterday, Melanie RowlandandLornaSmith— two of the four commissioners implicated by the petition — sent a letter to Ferguson calling Susewind’s request “highly inappropriate.” They denied any misconduct or malfeasance, and asked the governor to review the record and issue a statement supporting all nine commission members. “The ‘petition’ is filled with innuendo, out of context quotes from highly redacted documents, and claims not supported by those documents,” wrote Rowland and Smith in their letter to the governor.


Their letter follows separate letters that Commission Chair Barbara Baker and member John Lehmkuhl sent to Ferguson in May and early June, each defending themselves against the allegations made by the alliance. “The petition cites and attaches ‘documents’ that, rather than supporting their arguments, draw the opposite conclusions,” Baker wrote, adding, “Petitioners certainly qualify as an interest group. A large, out of state interest group involved here because they disagree with a decision this commission made almost 3 years ago. They set up a litigation team to fight against anything or anyone who would ‘stifle their way of life.’”


Hunters argue for right to kill mothers with cubs

With the growing voice of conservationists appointed to the nine-member body, theWDFWCommissionhas been embroiled in controversy. Commissionmeetings are fraught with derogatory remarks from the public, many of them aimed at commission members. Last year, using a Washington Legislature budget proviso, a University of Washington research center concluded that many of the people connected to the WDFW Commission see the commission as “dysfunctional, politically polarized and caught up in conflict.”


The tension has worsened since the commission’s 5-4 vote in November 2022 to stop the recreational hunting of black bears in the spring. The rule was adopted by the four members implicated in the Sportsmen’s Alliance claims, along with a fifth favorable vote cast by Tim Regan, whose reappointment to the commission was rescinded by Ferguson earlier this year.

Critics oppose spring bear hunts on ethical grounds, saying bears are woozy, lethargic and malnourished when emerging from winter dens. They also worry about bear cubs becoming orphaned. In 2025, the WDFW Commission proposed making it illegal to shoot bear sows with cubs. In a March 2025 post on its website, the Sportsmen’s Alliance wrote, “We also opposetheproposaltomake it unlawful to kill or possess a cub or a female bear accompanied by a cub.”

Sportsmen’s Alliance complaints

After the cancelled spring bear hunt, the Sportsmen’s Alliance filed a public records request with WDFW in September 2023 asking for emails, texts and other communications that commissioners had among themselves and with others. According to the group, WDFW identified some 471,000 records relevant to its request. In May 2025—after filing a lawsuit against WDFW for failing to comply with the request in a timely fashion— the alliance said it received roughly 17,000 records.

The group claims these communications demonstrate how the four commissioners violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act leading up to and after their vote to cancel recreational bear hunting in the spring. Among the documents that the Sportsmen’s Alliance received was a draft policy for the spring bear hunt, which—theallianceclaims— is part of the record showing a “routine disregard” for the commission’s mandate to maximize fishing and hunting opportunities.

“The issue is not simply hunting vs. not hunting. It reflects a conflict between the traditional view of sustainable hunting impacts on a population, vs. a sociological consideration of animal welfare and hunting ethics by hunters and nonhunters alike,” the commission’s draft policy stated.

The draft policy noted that of 42 states with black bears, only eight allow the hunting of black bears in spring for recreation. In his letter to Gov. Ferguson, Commissioner Lehmkuhl called it “ludicrous” to claim collusion on the spring bear hunting decision. “The Commission had three votes and two discussions aboutspringbearhunting during open meetings fromNovember2021(whenI wasnotontheCommission) through October 2022,” he wrote, adding that all of the commissioners knew how each commissioner would vote.

Lehmkuhl told the governor that his voting record over the last three-and-ahalf years shows he’s strongly supported the mandate to maximize fishing and hunting opportunities when they’re consistent with the mandate for conservation and good management. A total of 35 documents are linked to the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition, most of them meant to demonstrate the four commissioners’ failure to produce emails and texts, or alleged violations concerningcommunications


Motherless cubs are just one concern surrounding spring bear hunts. COURTNEY CELLEY / USFWS

outside of public meetings.

UnderWashington’sOpen Public Meeting Act, a majority— in this case five or more commissioners—constitutes a quorum, requiring a public meeting and public notification. The petition claims that the emails show the four commissioners routinely met behind-the-scenes to “discuss, deliberate, propose, plan, and count votes” on issues, and then passed the information on to other commissioners. “[T]hree or four Commissioners hold a private meeting onanissueandthensend oneortwoofthatgrouptogo lobby other Commissioners to ‘create’ a majority of five or more … technically skirting the legal requirement,” the petition states. “The result, unfortunately, is that the actual Commission meetings are clearly nothing more than a sham, with a preordained decision well in hand before the public is invited or allowed to participate in any meaningful way.”

For example, the petition notes, less than three weeks before the vote ending the spring bear hunt, Lehmkuhl shared a draft policy with former commissioner Tim Ragen. It says that Baker reviewed the draft and provided comments, and also asked Lehmkuhl to speak on the phone. A few days later, Smith sent an email to Rowland, Lehmkuhl and Ragen with a motion she planned to offer at the next commission meeting. “I fully suspect that in the end it will come down to a 5-4 vote. For so many reasons, we cannot afford to lose on this one. Feedback?” Smith said in her email.

“What this string of communications clearly shows is that a majority of Commissioners (five) were involved from the outset with a daisy-chain technique to form a majority voting bloc,” the petition states. But in her letter to Ferguson, Commissioner Chair Baker—who is an attorney— asserted that it’s legal for one to four commissioners to have private conversations about issues. “[I]t is expected and routine,” she wrote, adding, “The petitioner may not know that the commission has a ‘no surprises’ agreement that requires any commissioner who intends to make a motion at a decision point to not surprise the rest of us.”

She wrote that the commissionmemberusually calls her to let her know about the motion so votes can be sequenced in a way that all sides are heard. The Sportsmen’s Alliance petition states that the governor may remove any state officer “for incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office.”

WDFW Director Kelly Susewind referenced the samestatelawwhenmaking the case that the governor’s authoritytoremovecommissioners is ultimately what makes the WDFW Commission accountable to the public. Susewind asked for an independent investigation thatwouldprovidethegovernor with the necessary information to decide whether to remove members of the commission. “We’re going to keep exposing the rampant corruptionofcommissioners serving on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,” said Washington, D.C.based Todd Adkins, lobbyist and senior vice president for the Sportsmen’s Alliance in a June 18 post that also accused the commission of “politicking,” “backroom dealing” and other illegitimate behavior. “We will continue bringing forward evidence until the governor steps in and does the right thing.”

Commissioners defend themselves

Commissioners Rowland andSmithtoldFergusonthat they’re “quite disappointed” by Susewind’s request for an investigation, noting his letter “appears to be aligned with the allegations of the Sportsmen’s Alliance.” All four commissioners attempted to explain the controversy surrounding the commission.

Rowland and Smith wrote, “Hunters and fishers have long dominated the Commission and the Department’s work, despite the agency’s primary statutory mandate to ‘preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage’ the state’s wildlife and fish.” But the hunting public has steeply declined, they wrote, and the broader public is concerned about the threats of human development and climate change on wildlife and their habitat. “Huntingandfishingoften addpressuretotheconservation of these species. Accordingly, with the Department’s secondarymandatetomaximize hunting and fishing opportunities, it has become more difficult for managers to satisfy both consumptive and nonconsumptive user groups,” wrote Rowland and Smith.

“Our commission is likely the most controversial governing body in the state. We deal with extremely tough issues—issues which attempt to deal with accelerating losses of wildlife and ruined ecosystems as a result of huge population growth and the negative effects of climate change,” wrote Baker. “But despite discussions and entreaties at every meeting to sit down and listen to each other to understand and then resolve differences, we have (obviously as evidenced by this petition) been unsuccessful in this effort,” continued Baker.

Baker asked for the governor’s help in leading a broad-based conversation with several state agencies to re-examine the role of the state in natural resource management.