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.

I find it interesting that Susswind would act as he did knowing that he works at the pleasure of the Commission. If he's going after 5 of them, that's a majority.....

I've served on a lot of commissions, Parks, Civil Service, and boards in Tumwater. What I know for crtain is that ALL business conducted by these influential groups decisions that have the effect of rules and application of laws affecting the public MUST be available to the public. Emails, snail mails, minutes of meetings, and videos. All decisions must involve a quorum, and fractious groups cannot caucus and form plans without the other members or availability to the public. There are minor exceptions as in sensitive personnel decisions and real estate transactions, that can be discussed in Executive Sessions, but after any decisions in these special sessions the boards or commissions must report the decisions made in thos sessions. The Commission is way, way out of line. Baker is an attorney, and she knows all of this. Her deletion of emails is a crime. Is she any relation to Hillary?

Wonder if this might also the an exit strategy for Suswind. Get out before a very major and public collapse and maybe wholesale reordering of WDFW.

Very astute theory. Stranger things have happened, and the timing is good (for him and many of us) for him to leave without the door hitting his backside. I can't say he didn't do some good. I really liked the land acquisition, but I'm a fish guy. My favorite fish, the O.P. steelhead is done done done. I'm guilty of some of that, but I've caught and released for more than thirty years.

Bottom line: There is no trust of WDFW. And it's not only the fish issues for me. I've spent a lot of time on the Eastside and the grizzzly bear and wolf expansion is not popular with the large land owners where these "new" critters live. The toothy fuzzy critters are being brought back so that someone living in a condo in Belview can drive to Winthrop in hopes to see them. (Good Gawd, I'm getting cynical in my old age).

There is a real change coming within Natural Resource Management and I think the changeover will be very ugly.

I think that the majority of voters in the state lean more towards conservation and appreciation more than harvest. They may not oppose consumption, but that will gain a higher profile.

At the same time, it is the consumers who pay the freight and this year's Leg exacerbated it. Washington is seriously underfunding and seriously underperforming in a myriad of arenas from mental health to education to housing to infrastructure to fire protection and the list goes on. There is not GF money to support F&W and everybody is gonna have to give and take if we f=depend on the users for the money.

Yeah, the Director would be smart to leave.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/aug/15/governor-orders-fish-and-wildlife-commission-inves/

So now the corrupt Commission are turning their minions on WDFW Director Susewind, saying he's the problem. That's politics these days.

Here's my 2cents:

I know it's cool these days to hate all WDFW and their policies, but sometimes that resulting frustration should be traced upstream to the Commission. I've dealt with some management WDFW staff that seem to have been there too long and are ineffective. I dealt with Director Kelly Susewind directly too, both in small group meetings and also directly, 1:1 and on the phone. He is an overworked, normal and nice guy, and I'm damn glad he's the Director. This position, as well as the Regional Managers, are often forced to be "puppets on a string" as far as what they can do under the chain of command, with the Commission and then the Gov's office at the top. This attack on Susewind came from him voicing his observations (which happen to coincide with the sportsfishing complaints) about some Commission members conduct, with those same members working under the guise of being self-appointed royalty.
So Kelly Susewind saw a chance for change and took it. Immediately following, those under scrutiny fired back with immediate counter-accusations against Susewind. How low and predictable.

I back Kelly. He's a good guy, he does as much as he can in a disfunctional agency (which is not his fault.) But he's trying to change it, and he's stepped up and put his job on the line with a call to investigate the Commission's conduct. I hope you guys agree, and take a minute to participate and back this opportunity for change at the top, where it matters most. I think we're lucky to have him onboard at WDFW.

I've emailed the Gov, the Chair, and will email Kelly directly to voice support, and to back his initiative. He's earned at least that much.

Agreed.

He’s done what he can for sportsmen at the expense of putting a target on his back. Hopefully, an investigation identifies the misconduct and it forces change in the best interest of sportsmen and wildlife.



Streamer

The first Director I met was Bill Wilkerson and every Director has been different and my least favorite was Mr. Anderson nicest guy Bern Shanks. All that said the current Director has taken the agency into the basement. Public involvement slid into ZOOM dog and pony shows all show and no go. Now lets be honest dealing with the public is like herding cats and your on crutches but that is how you build public support. The manner in which the agency currently interacts with the public does not do that rather it creates distrust no matter how good a job he and staff does. Now budget problems are coming and he has not cultivated the good will with the public needed to deal with the issue. Hiding from the public makes life easier until it hits the fan then realy not so much. The load of crap coming the agencies way is of thier own making.

I was around WDG, WDF, and WDFW between '76 and '10. Had something like eleven different directors. Mt favorite, by far, was Rollie Schmitten. In my view, and the world in which I worked, each Director after that was worse. It was like, it can't get any worse and it did. There just can't be more worse folks out there, can there?

That said, Director of WDFW has to be a shithole. First, you're underfunded. Even if you cut all the fat that so many think is there, there isn't enough money to do the job right.

You are funded by users, which should make you responsive them. Except that your mandate is conservation and wise use of all animals resources. Even those not hunted or fished and the ecosystems they need. Plus, politically, you have the majority in the state who don't consumptively use resources and if you want their money and support they must be listened to.

We also recognize the legal and political power wielded by the Tribes.

All of which combine to make the Director's job a lose-lose.

Given the legal and fiscal realities in WA, how would one logically change things?

The Commission is top heavy. One commisioner per region and one "At Large" commissioner is a better range I think. I think it would be interesting (but a big gamble) to put F&Wr under DNR so that we would have a director (Secretary of Public Lands) that likely could manage total ecosystems, including saltwater property both above and below the surface. Might we have a better chance for boating access and launches? Not sure here, but there's potential for that. What I do know is that I'm not satisfied with a lot of the management decisions at WDFW, but some I am. We need liberalizing angling limits for salmon, especially in hatchery streams that sell too many surplus fish, and too many other changes to list here. (Why do I need a grizzly identification class to hunt grouse at Kettle Falls?) The Commission doesn't respond very well to testimony/suggestions.

You could get rid of about 1/3 of the staff and never notice it most certainly in Olympia.

Tug, I've said before that I think we should elect Commisioners by Region. Must live in the Region and be elected by voters in said Region. Might be good to have them in DNR, with the elected Head and that person would be F&W Commission Chair who, like the VP, could only vote to break a tie.

I seem to remember that previous iterations of staff accomplished more per person than now but there are extra layers of administrivia required of them.

One aspect to remember is the huge change in work rules. When I started, in WDG, we were expected to work as long as it took to do the job. With no OT, Exchange Time, etc. My first boss, because he was a go-getter, took something like 5 days off his first two years, weekend included. Heck, in WDG we were expected to work Federal Holidays with no extra pay or credit.

WDF was better, early on, but now work time is very constrained so you do need more people to accomplish the same amount of work.

I'm surprised the Commissioners in question just don't resign? Why put up with the controversy, having to defend themselves in public. I sure would'n't. Not worth it.

I absolutely agree that the commissioners should be elected, each in a region.

I should add that the Director should be chosen by the Commission, so that their performance would be part of election campaigns.

Legally, that might get somewhat tricky in having the DNR head over the Agency. Guess the DNR head could remove the Director "for cause".

Or, the elected DNR leader could have separate divisions: Fisheries, Wildlife, DNR (land use/logging) and Parks. I think it could pool resources, but it could also stack problems. I don't think that combining wildlife with fish has worked very well.

By Wildilife, Tug, do you mean Wildife the resource or Wildlife the Agency? The resources should be separate but then you cross the habitat needs.

Combining them all, and maybe even DOE, into a Resources Agency might break down some silos as the tree growers see habitat a lot diofferjtly that do the fish or wildlife folks.

Senator Synder once told me the combining the two agencies was the worse decision he ever supported. Sounded good but the results said otherwise. I think the issue was as a former WDG bio said in an open forum about the joining of the two was WDF ate WDG. The WDG focus on community involvement both users and conservation left the building with Elvis!

Having been in the fish part of both agencies I have a little different take but it was decades ago.

At that time, conservation took a backseat to fishing in Game. There was a recognized need to sell licenses and this meant go fish. WDF, at that time, and in salmon, generally put escapement first. As some new directors game in and co-management became stronger, that weakened.

While it is true that WDF "ate" WDW at least part of the reason was that segments of WDF planned how to merge. WDW didn't.

But, certainly for our fish resources, the new agency worships Chrome Cod above all other fish.

Based on mergers of other agencies, conventional wisdom was that actual merger would not occur until all the pre-merger employees were gone. Problem is that a new resource oriented culture did not take.