Probe of WA Fish and Wildlife Commission to stretch into 2026
Gov. Bob Ferguson hired an investigator in June, but they didn’t get started until the agency director requested an inquiry two months later.
By:
Jerry Cornfield
-
December 26, 2025
4:00 am

(National Park Service/Dixon)

In early August, the leader of Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife had become so concerned with alleged behaviors of the citizen panel that he answers to that he asked Gov. Bob Ferguson to investigate.

Kelly Susewind, the agency director, questioned whether conduct by members of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission complied with state laws after poring through a trove of their emails and texts obtained and shared publicly by an advocacy group for hunters and anglers.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance had argued that commissioners violated state requirements for open meetings and records disclosure, and that they disregarded mandates to maximize hunting and fishing. The group was pressing Ferguson to remove four commissioners.

Against this backdrop, Susewind made his extraordinary request for an inquiry into the commission, which oversees his department and has the power to remove a director should it choose.

“I know this is a big ask,” he wrote the governor Aug. 5. Susewind said an investigation could clear up a cloud of uncertainty shrouding the nine-person commission. If wrongdoing occurred, he said, the governor could remove members because each is appointed by the executive.

A few days later, it became public that Ferguson had ordered an investigation. “The governor takes concerns from an agency director very seriously,” Ferguson’s communications director, Brionna Aho, told the Standard.

Four months later, the investigation continues. It may be February before it is done.

And, it turns out, Ferguson set it in motion earlier than previously acknowledged.

On June 20, according to documents the Standard obtained through a public records request, the Office of Financial Management signed a $40,000 contract with Chiedza Nziramasanga of Transformative Workplace Investigations.

The firm was hired to “provide a comprehensive investigation of a reported experience in a work unit to allow leadership to determine if any discrimination, retaliation and/or other policy violations occurred as alleged.”

Although the commission and agency are not identified in the contract, the Office of Financial Management confirmed that the contract was for the Fish and Wildlife Commission investigation.

The hiring came weeks after Ferguson received a petition from the Sportsmen’s Alliance to remove the four commissioners. Susewind said he was not told a contract was issued.

“I wrote my (August) letter and I was informed they hired an investigator,” Susewind said. “I’ve not been privy to anything going on with that contract.”

It’s not clear how the scope of the investigation overlaps with or goes beyond the Sportsmen’s Alliance claims.

Ferguson has not publicly commented on the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition and Aho declined to answer questions on how it factored into the hiring of the investigator. That petition and supporting materials were the first documents provided to the investigator in mid-August, based on information the Standard obtained through a public records request.

The governor’s office “was aware of a possible need to investigate, based on a preliminary conversation” with the department, Aho wrote in an email. “After the governor received the letter from Director Susewind laying out his concerns, it was clear an investigation was needed.”

Originally, the investigator’s final report was to be turned in by Oct. 7, with the contract ending Nov. 11.

Earlier this month, the contract was extended and its cost increased. Transformative Investigations will now earn $64,000 and its findings are due by Feb. 13.

Commissioners who’ve repeatedly said there was no cause for an inquiry were further rankled upon learning the investigator won’t be done until next year.

“I’m very frustrated with the amount of time it’s taking to try and resolve the whole issue,” said Commissioner John Lehmkuhl, who the investigator interviewed in November.

‘It’ll yield what it yields”
Seeds of this investigation were planted in November 2022 when the commission voted to stop recreational hunting of black bears in the spring.

Sportsmen’s Alliance, an Ohio-based organization, opposed the decision.

The next year, it started requesting emails, texts and other communications of commissioners, convinced the correspondence would reveal violations of state laws requiring public meetings and preservation of public records. It took a lawsuit, but the group received thousands of records.

On May 16, the group filed the petition asking Ferguson to remove commissioners Barbara Baker, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland and Lehmkuhl, alleging misconduct and malfeasance.

Susewind, agency director for seven years, said he became concerned as he read some of the records produced in response to the alliance’s request. He shared his concerns with the governor’s office but said he was not asked directly by Ferguson’s staff to request some kind of action. He did that on his own.

“I just decided it was best for everybody to have an independent investigation to see what’s going on. It’ll yield what it yields,” he said.

Susewind, along with the commissioners named in the petition, are among those who’ve been interviewed by the investigator.

Alliance leaders have not received any response from the governor to their petition. Nor had anyone from the group been interviewed for the investigation as of early December.

“It is very surprising that this has not occurred as our inquiries and scrutiny are what precipitated the investigation,” said Michael Jean, Sportsmen’s Alliance attorney, in an email.

‘It’s very disruptive’
Commissioners targeted in the petition are frustrated. Some wrote letters to Ferguson to rebut claims in the petition and are disappointed at his lack of response. They feel the protracted inquiry is undermining the panel.

“This has been a pretty stressful, awful situation,” said Commissioner Lorna Smith. “It has had a chilling effect on everything this commission wants to be doing.”

Smith said she’s not sure the state’s ever carried out an investigation of a citizen commission in this manner.

“I do not see that they have any grounds for their claims. That’s how I think it will turn out,” she said. “If I or any other commissioners stepped over any lines, it was totally not on purpose.”

Lehmkuhl said, “It’s just sort of hanging over us. It’s very disruptive.”

Commissioner Jim Anderson said since becoming chair in August that he’s not felt the investigation has impeded the commission’s work.

“It is what it is. I don’t think we as a commission have gotten high-centered on this,” he said. “I would like to have it done yesterday because it would give us clarity of where things came out.”

Is change on the horizon?
The investigation is the latest flare-up for the panel. A report released last year included interviews with people who described the commission as “dysfunctional.” It also suggested that the commission’s structure might need to be overhauled.

And shortly after taking office, Ferguson halted two commissioner nominations former Gov. Jay Inslee made. He upset some wildlife conservationists by cutting a commissioner they supported and installing nominees with support from hunters, anglers, and a bloc of tribes.

A pending House bill would have the agency director appointed by the governor and the commission’s role shifted from oversight to advisory. There’s a Senate bill to retool the process for naming commissioners. Both face long odds in the upcoming session.

Sen. Mike Chapman, D-Port Angeles, chair of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, said at a hearing in early December that he’s not planning to advance either policy next year.

“If it were up to me and me alone, which it’ll never be nor should it be, but I believe that the department should be a cabinet-level position. But I have no intention of hearing a bill like that this session,” he said. He added that he also did not plan to hear the bill to change the makeup of the commission.

Chapman invited groups with concerns about how the department is being run to come together to find efficiencies and reforms so that the commission “is a state agency that we all can be, continue to be proud of.”

The agency has always had an issue with record-keeping and willingness to share required documents.

I had kinds believed that Suswind's request was an attempt to get fired before the whole agency imploded. Do know of a few folks actively working for his removal, and Cunningham too, I think.

I think the need better, more transparent, Commission and leadership. But they do have a serious problem when they are funded primarily by one minority stakeholder.

Prepare to be (once again) disappointed in the outcome of this so called "Investigation". Why? Because the questions don't address the issue!! The real issue is the secretive meetings and secret emails that are a clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, a Statute, not a policy. I'm guessing that the investigators won't find discrimination, reprisals, policy violations etc., because those aren't the real issue! Hell, Ruckleshaus (sp?) already found that the Commission is a mess.

We'll see how it goes. The department and Commision are corrupt.

Kinda like the auditor's office. They look to see if there are records for money being spent but not if it was actually spent as the Leg directed.

I don't trust this very much, either, Needs to be public outcry, but there won't be.

I've pretty much given up on WDFW.

De-fund WDFW.

Sounds like a plan.

I believe that governor bobby already agrees with you.

We get what we voted for, again...

WDFW will just hunker down and try to limit the damage. When the dust settles go on about their usual business. Done it a long time over and over.

Yes, they will try to limit the damage to WDFW management and even the agency to the extent they can, but no so for recreational angling.

I am thinking that the agency will be moving towards almost entirely "put and take" for fishing. Hatcheries, as much as funding and the courts will allow and the license holders will pay for. I can't see much future for hunting as most efforts as fewer and fewer voters participate and land gets tied up. Lots of effort on public land or pay as you go. I can see an expansion of "high fence" operations, even for deer and elk.

And, since staff have gotten away from consumptive use I select that the internal voice will be lost.

Maybe it won't be long that the river access and management "beat" system will be implemented. Christ, most of the places I used to fish are either closed or posted private any more anyway. Maybe that system could open more steelhead rivers back up? I would pay for local solitude and privacy, rather than traveling for it.

At one time, WDG had a very ambitious program that worked with landowners for walk-in access for river fishing. Last iteration that I recall was in the 70s/80s; the Citizens Wildlife Heritage Program that was actually self-funded by an employee as he really believed in the idea.

1/06/2026



I also remember having "long term" leases. WDFW, was the one that had that responsibility but that seemed to go away. Hence we have the current problem, to many people not enough area for enjoyable fishing.

As I recall, there were leases, easements, and such. They just dropped the ball. Maybe even pre-merger.

This just keeps getting better!


WA Fish and Wildlife saga deepens with claims of collusion

A previously undisclosed memo suggests two current commissioners were coordinating with a conservation group. Those named deny the allegations and say the document is defamatory and riddled with falsehoods
By: Jerry Cornfield
-

February 13, 2026
6:22 pm


Two members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission are pushing back on newly surfaced allegations that they shunned government transparency laws and appeared to have colluded with the leader of a wildlife advocacy group on policy matters.

A scathing 10-page memo says the behavior of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland posed “serious risks” to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, “especially when it comes to avoiding a conflict of interest and favoritism.” The report also scrutinizes a former commissioner Gov. Bob Ferguson chose to replace on the panel last year.

It is the latest twist in a multi-year drama involving the commission, which is often a battleground for groups fighting over how far the state should go in protecting wildlife or allowing for hunting or fishing of various species. A separate probe ordered by the governor, looking at whether commissioners violated open meetings and public records laws, remains underway.

Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind had a top staffer prepare the newly released memo in May 2025. It was shared that month with Ferguson’s chief of staff and only became public this week through a records request by the Standard. Susewind’s move was unusual, as the commissioners oversee his department and he answers to the panel.

The report flags concerns about the named commissioners’ “tight relationship” with attorney Claire Davis, the president and chief executive officer of Washington Wildlife First.

While there are no transcripts of their frequent private meetings, the memo’s author said it looks like they may have been “propagating an agenda” in line with the advocacy group’s policy priorities. Davis’ group, meanwhile, has been calling for Susewind to be removed from his job.

Rowland, Smith and Davis are blasting the memo, saying it is riddled with false and defamatory statements that harm their reputations. The commissioners worry it could unfairly influence the ongoing investigation.

Smith and Rowland each said they first saw the document Feb. 2 when told it would soon be released as part of a public records request.

It “is replete with assumptions, inferences, unsupported accusatory opinions, and incorrect conclusions,” Rowland wrote Susewind on Feb. 9.

Davis said Knoll “recklessly makes allegations of misconduct against me without any evidence of wrongdoing.”


Kelly Susewind, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Francisco Santiago-Ávila, Washington Wildlife First’s science and advocacy director, said they are poring through a trove of documents received from the department “that will help expose the selective, vindictive, and defamatory nature of this campaign to oust pro-wildlife commissioners. You will be hearing a lot more about this from us in the coming days and weeks.”

Smith said in a statement Friday that when she first read the memo, “I was shocked to see the false and outrageous claims it contained, and even more so when I found out that it was written by an attorney.”

“But after I reviewed it more carefully and compared it to other documents, the pieces began to fall together, and I realized that it reveals a lot about what department management has been doing behind closed doors over the past year,” she said. “I am not going to comment further until I consult with my attorneys and decide upon my next course of action.”

A serious soap opera
Much of the commission’s strife can be traced to its controversial decision in November 2022 to stop recreational hunting of black bears in the spring.

Sportsmen’s Alliance, an Ohio-based organization, opposed the decision. Convinced commissioners misbehaved throughout the process, it sought their emails, texts and other communications to figure out if, in fact, they had failed to follow state law concerning the conduct of public meetings and preserving public records.

It took a lawsuit, but the group eventually received thousands of records in 2025.

On May 16, 2025, the group filed a petition asking Ferguson to remove commissioners Smith, Rowland, Barbara Baker, and John Lehmkuhl, alleging misconduct and malfeasance. They included some of the obtained records. Ferguson has not commented or acted on the petition.

Ten days earlier, Susewind had two boxes of records generated from the hunters’ group’s request delivered to Thomas Knoll Jr., the agency’s criminal justice legal liaison for law enforcement.

“Initial review of these documents raises concern regarding potential inappropriate conduct by several Fish and Wildlife Commissioners,” Susewind wrote Knoll on May 8. “I would like your independent assessment of the materials provided including a written opinion on whether the records indicate inappropriate conduct.”

Knoll submitted his memo on May 16 and Susewind shared a copy with Ferguson’s staff.

On June 20, the Office of Financial Management signed a contract with Chiedza Nziramasanga of Transformative Workplace Investigations to “provide a comprehensive investigation of a reported experience in a work unit to allow leadership to determine if any discrimination, retaliation and/or other policy violations occurred as alleged.”

It would not be until mid-August before Ferguson publicly acknowledged this investigation into the commission. He waited to do so until after Susewind formally asked him to look into the situation on Aug. 5.

The Knoll memo, along with the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition, was in the initial batch of documents provided to the investigator.

“This can be a good starting point to understand the issues that DFW had flagged,” Franklin Plaistowe, chief operations officer for Ferguson, wrote in an email to Nziramasanga.

Transformative Workplace Investigations was to turn in its final report on Friday, Feb. 13, but has received a one-month extension.


Commissioners Lorna Smith (from left), Woody Myers and Melanie Rowland listen to public comments at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting on Feb. 13, 2026. (Photo by Jerry Cornfield/Washington State Standard)
Susewind said he didn’t make the memo public last year because he did not want to “inadvertently bias that investigation.” He said commissioners could have seen it and all the other records generated from the Sportsmen’s Alliance request if they wanted.

“We did offer to go over documents with all commissioners both before and after the Thomas Knoll memo,” he said this week.

Commission chair Jim Anderson agreed.

“I was aware of it. I think we all had an opportunity to know what’s there,” he said Thursday.

Rowland and Smith said they don’t recall such an offer.

“I most definitely did not see it,” Smith said.

‘Have each other on speed dial’
Soon after taking office, Ferguson withdrew two Inslee administration appointments to the commission. Materials obtained from the computer of one of those appointees, former commission vice chair Tim Ragen, steered Knoll’s attention to commissioners Smith and Rowland and Washington Wildlife First’s Davis.

Knoll contends the commissioners failed to recognize the importance of retaining records and did not promptly respond to records requests, including those involving commission-related communications made on personal devices.

Some of his sharpest critiques are directed at the relationship between Davis and Smith, Rowland and Ragen. He said they appeared to “have each other on speed dial.” They met regularly, often before commission meetings, and Davis corresponded directly with each, he noted, raising the spectre of potential conflicts of interest.

When Ferguson walked back Ragen’s appointment, Washington Wildlife First was among the groups that pressed the governor to keep him on the commission.

Knoll cited one email from 2023 where Davis invited commissioners to ask questions about a lawsuit she filed against the state agency on behalf of two clients.

“The record does not show what was discussed about the pending lawsuit, but this type of communication is clearly inconsistent,” with the commission rule to not engage in any activity which gives rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, he wrote.

Rowland, an attorney, flatly denied discussing litigation against the department with Davis “or any other attorney for a party in litigation” with the agency.

Davis, in her statement, said her discussions with commissioners were “an appropriate, ethical, and protected exercise of my First Amendment right to speak to government officials on matters of public importance.”

Creative Commons License
Republish
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-

Be interesting, and ugly, to see the results as well as just what was on the various documents saved.

I tend to think that there is a rather organized effort to eliminate consumptive use, like the initiative being spread around Oregon. I believe this was Inslee's aim in his appointments.

This all shows that what a mess WDFW is in several programs. The radical "Greeners" (for lack of a better term) are going all out to stop hunting for sure. Long ago the Commission worked fairly well. But back then it was made up of hunters and anglers, not attorneys and aloof urbanites) who brought personal agendas with them. Hasn't worked very well for quite some time. Get rid of the Commission if it's not working for hunting and fishing. If it were and the Director would answer directly to the governor, we would get a lot more attention if the party in power wants to be re-elected. Or, like i've said before make F&W director an elected position, like D&R. Without real change hunting will soon be circling the drain.

But if the Director was elected wouldn't that make the "greener" position easier as the urbanites would control the vote. I had an earlier suggestion that the commission be elected but one commissioner from each Region and they must live in the region. The Commission Chair would be elected statewide and the Commission would appoint the director.

I think WA's Commission model has generally worked pretty well. Going forward, the governor needs to be more careful about which organizations he accepts his Commission nominations from. Washington Wildlife First sounds legitimate by its title, but if they're promoting an anti science and or anti hunting agenda, then maybe stick to accepting nominations from the Washington Sportsman's Council, Trout Unlimited, and so forth.

C-man,

I would heartily support your Commission idea.

I really disagree that it's worked well. Our salmon crisis hasn't improved to any real extent the Columbia River fishing priorities haven't been followed,Puget Sound fishing harvest isn't apportioned according to Supreme Court decisions, the Columbia gillnet buy back turned out to be a mess, predation by seals and sea lions has basically been ignored, the pheasant farm has to close, fish hatcheries close and license fees rose while participation continues to shrink. Regulations hae gone wild (I counted more than two hundred separate regulations for the Columbia!) and emergency regulation continue to mess up people's plans. The whale regulation is not enforceable. The list could go on.

You got right Tug.

Tug,

I guess I meant that the Commission concept worked well from its inception in 1935 until, well, until the merger.

I think you're right

WDFW CONTINUES TO BE A ZERO.

We had more fish when most of our rivers were being used as splash dam log flow.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Organizations represented by sportsmen generally advocate for conservation and balancing the desires of sportsmen to recreate and maximize opportunities while also being mindful of sustainability and balance for the health of wildlife to ensure those opportunities can stay. Organizations such as Washington Wildlife First are extremists who advocate exclusively for preservation and eliminating sustainable usage of resources by sportsmen. Sportsmen are mindful of the needs of wildlife, but the extremists aren’t mindful of allowing sustainable usage.

The mission of WDFW is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. WDFW recently has catered to the wishes of extremists groups at the expense of science and recreational opportunities. Organizations favoring sportsmen more closely align with WDFW’s mission statement. WDFW is failing its mission and needs to rebalance.


Streamer

Well said. And now they are trying to push through a state wide income tax. Without a vote of the people.

"The people" voted for their representatives, they voted for their governor. We had our votes. Our government is based on sending people to represent us and not have every bill go before the electorate before passage. That would never work.

It’s important to note how influential our elected officials are in this process. Generally, Conservatives are more supportive of sportsmen and maximized opportunities than Democrats. If you want to see change, maybe consider voting for people who align with your interests instead of your party. This is another example of voting against your own interests as sportsmen and people in this forum that clam they are fiscally conservative but prioritize bizarre social issues above anything else. Stop shooting yourself in the foot and complaining about it.


Streamer

Insley was absolutely the worst governor for fish and wildlife that wev'e
EVER had, no doubt. Ferguson is well on his way to being just as bad. In the past few years it seems that Republicans in the house and senate have been better than the "D"s, but not in every instance. Most of our problems are of our own making. We don't speak in a loud enough voice! Plus we aren't unified in what we want. We absolutely need a powerful lobbying group to lobby both sides of the aisle. There are a hell of a lot more fishermen than there are fire fighters, and through lobbying they get what they want. If salmon fisherman donated just twenty bucks apiece, the cost of a good restaurant breakfast, the two hundred thousand of us would have a war chest of four million! We could change a lot. But which organization? Hell, PSA and CCA don't agree with each other. We need an independent lobbying group that all can contribute to. Trout Unlimited, NSIA, fly fishers, etc. It's doable.

Well said, Tug. Sportsmen are very splintered and easily dismissed as vary small and marginal. For example, I really don't care about the catchable trout program/lake planting. Not my game. But I support it for those who participate.

LATEST I COULD FIND.

WA Fish and Wildlife saga deepens with claims of collusion
A previously undisclosed memo suggests two current commissioners were coordinating with a conservation group. Those named deny the allegations and say the document is defamatory and riddled with falsehoods


By:
Jerry Cornfield
-
February 13, 2026
6:22 pm

(Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Two members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission are pushing back on newly surfaced allegations that they shunned government transparency laws and appeared to have colluded with the leader of a wildlife advocacy group on policy matters.

A scathing 10-page memo says the behavior of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland posed “serious risks” to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, “especially when it comes to avoiding a conflict of interest and favoritism.” The report also scrutinizes a former commissioner Gov. Bob Ferguson chose to replace on the panel last year.

It is the latest twist in a multi-year drama involving the commission, which is often a battleground for groups fighting over how far the state should go in protecting wildlife or allowing for hunting or fishing of various species. A separate probe ordered by the governor, looking at whether commissioners violated open meetings and public records laws, remains underway.

Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind had a top staffer prepare the newly released memo in May 2025. It was shared that month with Ferguson’s chief of staff and only became public this week through a records request by the Standard. Susewind’s move was unusual, as the commissioners oversee his department and he answers to the panel.

The report flags concerns about the named commissioners’ “tight relationship” with attorney Claire Davis, the president and chief executive officer of Washington Wildlife First.

While there are no transcripts of their frequent private meetings, the memo’s author said it looks like they may have been “propagating an agenda” in line with the advocacy group’s policy priorities. Davis’ group, meanwhile, has been calling for Susewind to be removed from his job.

Rowland, Smith and Davis are blasting the memo, saying it is riddled with false and defamatory statements that harm their reputations. The commissioners worry it could unfairly influence the ongoing investigation.

Smith and Rowland each said they first saw the document Feb. 2 when told it would soon be released as part of a public records request.

It “is replete with assumptions, inferences, unsupported accusatory opinions, and incorrect conclusions,” Rowland wrote Susewind on Feb. 9.

Davis said Knoll “recklessly makes allegations of misconduct against me without any evidence of wrongdoing.”


Kelly Susewind, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Courtesy photo) Francisco Santiago-Ávila, Washington Wildlife First’s science and advocacy director, said they are poring through a trove of documents received from the department “that will help expose the selective, vindictive, and defamatory nature of this campaign to oust pro-wildlife commissioners. You will be hearing a lot more about this from us in the coming days and weeks.”

Smith said in a statement Friday that when she first read the memo, “I was shocked to see the false and outrageous claims it contained, and even more so when I found out that it was written by an attorney.”

“But after I reviewed it more carefully and compared it to other documents, the pieces began to fall together, and I realized that it reveals a lot about what department management has been doing behind closed doors over the past year,” she said. “I am not going to comment further until I consult with my attorneys and decide upon my next course of action.”

A serious soap opera
Much of the commission’s strife can be traced to its controversial decision in November 2022 to stop recreational hunting of black bears in the spring.

Sportsmen’s Alliance, an Ohio-based organization, opposed the decision. Convinced commissioners misbehaved throughout the process, it sought their emails, texts and other communications to figure out if, in fact, they had failed to follow state law concerning the conduct of public meetings and preserving public records.

It took a lawsuit, but the group eventually received thousands of records in 2025.

On May 16, 2025, the group filed a petition asking Ferguson to remove commissioners Smith, Rowland, Barbara Baker, and John Lehmkuhl, alleging misconduct and malfeasance. They included some of the obtained records. Ferguson has not commented or acted on the petition.

Ten days earlier, Susewind had two boxes of records generated from the hunters’ group’s request delivered to Thomas Knoll Jr., the agency’s criminal justice legal liaison for law enforcement.

“Initial review of these documents raises concern regarding potential inappropriate conduct by several Fish and Wildlife Commissioners,” Susewind wrote Knoll on May 8. “I would like your independent assessment of the materials provided including a written opinion on whether the records indicate inappropriate conduct.”

Knoll submitted his memo on May 16 and Susewind shared a copy with Ferguson’s staff.

On June 20, the Office of Financial Management signed a contract with Chiedza Nziramasanga of Transformative Workplace Investigations to “provide a comprehensive investigation of a reported experience in a work unit to allow leadership to determine if any discrimination, retaliation and/or other policy violations occurred as alleged.”

It would not be until mid-August before Ferguson publicly acknowledged this investigation into the commission. He waited to do so until after Susewind formally asked him to look into the situation on Aug. 5.

The Knoll memo, along with the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition, was in the initial batch of documents provided to the investigator.

“This can be a good starting point to understand the issues that DFW had flagged,” Franklin Plaistowe, chief operations officer for Ferguson, wrote in an email to Nziramasanga.

Transformative Workplace Investigations was to turn in its final report on Friday, Feb. 13, but has received a one-month extension.


Commissioners Lorna Smith (from left), Woody Myers and Melanie Rowland listen to public comments at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting on Feb. 13, 2026. (Photo by Jerry Cornfield/Washington State Standard)
Susewind said he didn’t make the memo public last year because he did not want to “inadvertently bias that investigation.” He said commissioners could have seen it and all the other records generated from the Sportsmen’s Alliance request if they wanted.

“We did offer to go over documents with all commissioners both before and after the Thomas Knoll memo,” he said this week.

Commission chair Jim Anderson agreed.

“I was aware of it. I think we all had an opportunity to know what’s there,” he said Thursday.

Rowland and Smith said they don’t recall such an offer.

“I most definitely did not see it,” Smith said.

‘Have each other on speed dial’
Soon after taking office, Ferguson withdrew two Inslee administration appointments to the commission. Materials obtained from the computer of one of those appointees, former commission vice chair Tim Ragen, steered Knoll’s attention to commissioners Smith and Rowland and Washington Wildlife First’s Davis.

Knoll contends the commissioners failed to recognize the importance of retaining records and did not promptly respond to records requests, including those involving commission-related communications made on personal devices.

Some of his sharpest critiques are directed at the relationship between Davis and Smith, Rowland and Ragen. He said they appeared to “have each other on speed dial.” They met regularly, often before commission meetings, and Davis corresponded directly with each, he noted, raising the spectre of potential conflicts of interest.

When Ferguson walked back Ragen’s appointment, Washington Wildlife First was among the groups that pressed the governor to keep him on the commission.

Knoll cited one email from 2023 where Davis invited commissioners to ask questions about a lawsuit she filed against the state agency on behalf of two clients.

“The record does not show what was discussed about the pending lawsuit, but this type of communication is clearly inconsistent,” with the commission rule to not engage in any activity which gives rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, he wrote.

Rowland, an attorney, flatly denied discussing litigation against the department with Davis “or any other attorney for a party in litigation” with the agency.

Davis, in her statement, said her discussions with commissioners were “an appropriate, ethical, and protected exercise of my First Amendment right to speak to government officials on matters of public importance.”

Creative Commons License
Republish
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Jerry Cornfield
Jerry Cornfield
Jerry Cornfield joined the Standard after 20 years covering Olympia statehouse news for The Everett Herald. Earlier in his career, he worked for daily and weekly papers in Santa Barbara, California.

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

MORE FROM AUTHOR
More from our Newsroom

Probe of WA Fish and Wildlife Commission to stretch into 2026
by Jerry Cornfield
December 26, 2025

Ferguson orders investigation into conduct of WA Fish and Wildlife Commission members
by Emily Fitzgerald
August 15, 2025

Hunters, anglers and tribes see win in Ferguson’s Fish and Wildlife Commission picks
by Bill Lucia
April 10, 2025

Couple days ago the Knoll report was put out on Facebook by the groups going after the Commissioners. As I recall, the report found lots of issues and problems.

AND MORE


Knoll Memo Backs Claims of Collusion by WDFW Commissioners
March 30, 2026

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Legal liaison’s findings support assertions in Sportsmen’s Alliance petition for removal of commissioners for collusion, obstruction, and violations of Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act

Internal Investigation Confirms Illegal Behavior by Commissioners
The Sportsmen’s Alliance and Conservation Coalition of Washington have released the much-touted “Knoll Memo,” the findings of an internal investigation by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which fully support the claims of collusion and illegal behavior concerning the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act by members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.

“This is a damning condemnation of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland,” said Rob Sexton, Senior Vice President of the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “While Smith and Rowland, and as this internal investigation shows, their animal-rights co-conspirator Claire Davis, try to brush the findings aside, there’s no hiding from the truth we’ve exposed: collusion, corruption and violations of law have undoubtedly taken place.”

Public Records Request Uncovers Egregious Violations
On May 30, 2025, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fulfilled its final installment of records due to the Sportsmen’s Alliance from a September 2023 public records request concerning the communications of four state fish and wildlife commissioners, which came only after a lawsuit was filed against the department compelling the production of the records. Though the total number of records received was just a fraction of the 477,000 identified, the Sportsmen’s Alliance was astounded at what they uncovered and immediately launched a webpage to highlight examples of the egregious violations.

While the Sportsmen’s Alliance continued to dig through the tens of thousands of unearthed records, WDFW Director Kelly Susewind privately turned to Thomas Knoll, WDFW Criminal Justice Legal Liaison for Enforcement, to evaluate the evidence and provide a report of his conclusions.

Governor Ferguson Orders Independent Investigation
After the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition for removal of commissioners Barbara Baker, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland and John Lemkhul, and the internal investigation, Director Susewind formally requested Governor Ferguson to conduct an independent investigation of the claims, which began in June 2025.

The Knoll Memo itself was kept internal until a public records request by the Washington State Standard and subsequent story on Feb. 13, 2026, revealed portions of the memo.

Full Text of Knoll Memo Released to the Public
The Sportsmen’s Alliance and Conservation Coalition of Washington are now revealing the full text of the Knoll Memo so the public can read exactly what independent legal minds within WDFW found when reading the same evidence as the watchdog organizations.

After multiple extensions at taxpayers’ expense, the independent investigation ordered by Gov. Ferguson is finally due April 6.

“Governor Ferguson has taken the first step to investigate the biases of his predecessor and can now begin to restore lawful management of our wildlife and enforce the transparency and accountability within Washington government that is outlined in law,” said Sexton. “We look forward to reading the findings of the independent investigation, and we’re optimistic it will come to similar conclusions.”

Key Findings from the Knoll Memo
Rowland fails to appreciate the importance of record retention and properly providing responsive records to WDFW concerning pending public record requests.

Rowland purposely delayed providing the needed response.
Rowland was recorded as stating she would not respond to the record request unless forced.

The duty to respond is clearly outlined in statute and case law.
It appears that the Commissioners may have been colluding with the special interest groups

Claire Davis has a direct line of communication to those Commissioners that seem sympathetic to her causes.
The record is replete with examples where Ragen, Rowland, and Smith used personal emails and devices to conduct business for the Commission.

This continued to occur even after the Commissioners were instructed not to use such devices. It is not entirely clear that Rowland and/or Smith have been forthcoming This attitude regarding public records requests is simply inexcusable and flies in the face of the RCW 42.56 et seq.

To Smith, the end justified the means
I wonder in what other ways she has bent procedure and/or laws to fit her perception of justifiable conduct. There is no question in my mind that Commissioners Rowland and Smith present serious risks to WDFW

The Sportsmen’s Alliance guarantees hunting, fishing and trapping for the American sportsman now and forever. We’re there when sportsmen need us most. We are the only organization specifically created to protect the individual hunter, angler and trapper – no matter the threat. We will never compromise when it comes to defending our way of life in the courts, in the legislatures, in the public square and at the ballot box. We make this promise to the American sportsman: we will never give up and never give in while proudly securing our future against those seeking to destroy our values, beliefs, and traditions. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

That was what I saw.

Doen't read well for the Commissioners.

You know what gets me? I remember the Commissioners I worked with on the 1st GH policy and lord what a difference! Those guys you could have a real conversation with and note I did not say agreed with me. No BS just solid folk from all walks of life. My god we have went from class to trash!!!

I was thinking similar. I don't think this ends well for anyone.

Same here. In 00s there were a number of Commissioners who I simply enjoyed talking to about lots of stuff other than F&W.

Obviously this whole mess, now that Susewind is being sued by commisioners, points out what terrible selections many of them have been. We need people who value hunting and fishing, but have a reverence and a clear perspective of their traditions, but Not at the cost of the resource.

Sernate actually has to take its job of review seriously. As does the Governor.

Given the abject fiasco this has become I expect (no, I hope) that the Senate will see how they failed and mend their ways. In the appointment process they are the check and balance to the Governor.

Having any hope or faith in a for profit corporation registered at Dun & Bradstreet https://dunsnumberlookup.dnb.com/en-gb/home/search-company-result?searchType=name is a bad idea...


The Federal,, state and local governments,, that means cities and counties,, each is registered at Dun & Bradstreet as a for profit corporation...

You have rigged elections and a totally captured government,,, each branch obtained or stole office via a rigged process always controlling the outcome via vote rigging...

Not much hope of accountability or even dong the right thing...

Guess What? It's now April 8th and still no result on the Commission investigation! The counter suit by the crooked commissioners should not change the facts found by the independent investigators! Where is the transparency? There aint any in this corrupt agency!

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

Here ya go Tug!

WA Fish and Wildlife commissioner accuses agency director of retaliation

Jerry Cornfield

Washington State Standard

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday accuses the leaders of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife of attempting to silence a member of the citizen panel that oversees the agency in retaliation for her ongoing criticism of their administration.

Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope targeted Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith, manufacturing allegations about her conduct to incite an investigation by the governor’s office, according to the lawsuit. The complaint contends that the probe has harmed her reputation and could lead to her removal.

“I have been outspoken,” Smith said in a statement. “The Commission cannot operate effectively and wisely if commissioners feel bullied or are hesitant or afraid to speak or vote freely.”

The suit also accuses Susewind and Windrope of making defamatory statements and unfounded allegations against attorney Claire Davis and the wildlife advocacy group she leads, in an alleged rebuke for her critical comments and numerous lawsuits the group filed against the department “What happened here was about using the machinery of government to go after people engaging in protected speech,” said Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila, science and advocacy director for Washington Wildlife First, at a Thursday news conference. Washington Wildlife First wants to see Susewind removed from his leadership post.

Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, attorney for Davis and the wildlife group, described the actions to reporters as “statesanctioned repression.” The conduct should be concerning to Washington’s attorney general and governor because those offices are “being asked to give cover to the defendants’ unconstitutional retaliation,” she said.

Smith, Davis and Washington Wildlife First filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in western Washington.

Susewind, who has served as Department of Fish and Wildlife director since August 2018, and Windrope are the only named defendants.

“I am unaware of the litigation and we can’t comment on active litigation at this time,” Susewind said in a statement.

Old wounds, new chapter

Thursday’s lawsuit is the latest flashpoint in a multiyear drama involving the commission, which is often a battleground for groups fighting over how far the state should go in protecting wildlife or allowing for hunting or fishing of various species.

It arrives days before the expected completion of an investigation ordered by Gov. Bob Ferguson, looking at whether Smith and other commissioners violated open meetings and public records laws in the course of a monthslong debate ahead of a November 2021 vote to ban hunting of black bears the following spring.

Sportsmen’s Alliance, an Ohio-based organization, opposed the decision. Convinced commissioners misbehaved throughout the process, it sought their emails, texts and other communications to figure out if they failed to follow state law. The group went to court and eventually received thousands of records last year.

Susewind is a hunter, and Thursday’s lawsuit says he egged on those angered by the spring bear hunt decision. This resulted in ongoing verbal attacks at public meetings and online of Smith and other commissioners who voted for the ban.

The governor quietly hired an investigator in June 2025 to sort out if any government transparency laws were breached. This




Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind

report was expected last fall, but the contract has been extended three times. It is now due April 13.

Ferguson first acknowledged the investigation in August after Susewind asked for it. The lawsuit points to a May 2025 memo by a Fish and Wildlife Department lawyer as fueling the probe and the department leaders’ campaign to quell the voices of Smith and Davis.

Susewind had Thomas Knoll Jr., a criminal justice legal liaison, review public records generated from the hunters’ group’s request and provide an “independent assessment” of potential inappropriate conduct. Susewind’s move was unusual, as the commissioners oversee his department and he answers to the panel.

Knoll concluded the behavior of Smith and Commissioner Melanie Rowland posed “serious risks” to the department, “especially when it comes to avoiding a conflict of interest and favoritism.”

The report also scrutinizes a former commissioner, Tim Ragen, who Ferguson chose to replace on the panel last year. Washington Wildlife First wanted to see Ragen kept on the commission.

Knoll expressed concerns about Smith and Rowland’s “tight relationship” with Davis, at one point saying they appeared to “have each other on speed dial.” He hinted at collusion between them.

The lawsuit says the memo is “rife with false, misleading, inflammatory, and defamatory allegations.”

It accuses Susewind and Windrope of directing Knoll to produce a document that could serve as a vehicle to chill the plaintiffs’ speech and motivate the governor to get involved. The suit alleges that the agency leaders knew an investigation would cause reputational, financial, and emotional harm to the plaintiffs, especially if it became public.

In addition to seeking damages, the plaintiffs hope that the lawsuit spurs the full commission to exercise its authority to investigate Susewind and act.

“We’ve asked the commission to remove him based on this broader pattern of mismanagement and behavior, including this most recent effort to target certain commissioners based on their viewpoints or criticism of his administration,” Santiago-Ávila told reporters.


Copyright (c) 2026 Aberdeen Daily World, Editio

Thanks, but I was already there. Gosh, I'm just certain there will be a full, detailed report by the 13th, won't there? The investigation report, if we ever get to see it, will be the best cover-up since the Warren Commission with the JFK murder.

notice how Guv Bob is being sued because he didn't comply with state law and appoint folks to the Public Disclosure Commission? Washington sure loves transparent gubmint.

Little update :

wildlife commission investigation

Governor Bob Ferguson authorized an independent investigation into members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in June 2025 following allegations of collusion and violations of state transparency laws. The probe, conducted by Transformative Workplace Investigations, was extended into 2026 to review thousands of records.

Washington State Standard

Core Allegations
The investigation focuses on claims that several commissioners bypassed public meeting requirements and coordinated policy with outside advocacy groups.

Washington State Standard

Collusion Claims: A 10-page internal memo (the Knoll Memo) alleged that commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland appeared to collude with Washington Wildlife First on policy matters, posing "serious risks" of favoritism and conflict of interest.
Transparency Violations: The Sportsmen’s Alliance obtained records through a lawsuit suggesting commissioners violated state laws regarding open meetings and records preservation.
Targeted Members: The Sportsmen's Alliance filed a petition for the removal of four commissioners: Barbara Baker, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland, and John Lehmkuhl.

Washington State Standard

Key Developments
Director's Request: WDFW Director Kelly Susewind formally requested the inquiry in August 2025 to clear the "cloud of uncertainty" surrounding the commission.

Commissioners' Rebuttal: The targeted commissioners have denied the allegations, calling them "false and defamatory" and stating the inquiry has had a "chilling effect" on their work.
Recent Lawsuit: In April 2026, a commissioner filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Director Susewind, alleging retaliation for criticizing his leadership.

Tensions at Meetings: Recent Commission Meetings have seen public calls for both the resignation of commissioners and the firing of the agency director.

Washington State Standard

Timeline of Events

Date Event

Nov 2022 Commission votes to end spring black bear hunting, sparking the initial controversy.

May 2025 Sportsmen's Alliance receives thousands of public records following a lawsuit.

June 2025 Gov. Ferguson hires an independent investigator.
Aug 2025 Director Susewind formally requests the investigation; Ferguson publicly acknowledges it.

Feb 2026 The "Knoll Memo" detailing alleged collusion is made public.

April 2026 Commissioner files a retaliation lawsuit against the WDFW director.

Doncha' just luv this stuff? What a model for gobernment! Now I see that I better hurry to buy my licenses because WDFW didn't order enough license paper! "World Shortage" what BS! Idiots! The war just started. The license paper should have been ordered many months ago.

I'm a grouchy old timer that doesn't appreciate changes to things or systems that already work. I don't want my license on my phone. I want it in my truck. I use my phone to make calls, not as a file cabinet for my life.

If I can print my own tags, I can only imagine sopping wet Deer tags in Western Washington hunts. Catch record cards? Readable? Huh? What about my Disabled Companion tag?

I guess I'll know some answers when I get to Fred Meyer to buy paper licenses and tags. Also, the hunting permit applications are available, but correspondingly, the hunter prospects aren't, same as usual.

OOps! Put my remark in the wrong subject category! (First mistake I ever made in my life!) Lo siento mucho.

This is some more about the Commission and Director as they seem to be all tangled up together.

BY ANDY WALGAMOTT, NORTHWEST SPORTSMAN MAGAZINE

Updated 10:40 a.m., Friday, April 3, 2026, in the fourth paragraph with additional statements from WDFW.

A sitting Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission member and her environmental attorney ally have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against top WDFW brass, claiming they’re the targets of attacks meant to chill their determined bird-dogging of agency management.

Lorna Smith and Claire Loebs Davis allege that they’re the victims of “viewpoint discrimination and retaliation prohibited by the First Amendment” by Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope, and they’re asking a federal judge to declare that their rights have been violated, enjoin the WDFW duo from further actions against them, and award themselves and Davis’s organization compensatory and punitive damages, along with attorney’s fees.

In a Facebook reel posted Thursday evening, Davis colleague Francisco Santiago-Ávila also called on elected leaders “to investigate and to act.”

In an initial statement Friday morning, WDFW Communications and Engagement Director Sam Montgomery said the agency couldn’t comment on “active litigation.” Subsequent to that, Montgomery sent an updated statement that the lawsuit against Susewind and Windrope had been “announced” but “has not yet been served on the named defendants, so WDFW is not prepared to make any statements about this new litigation.”

“WDFW’s staff continue to operate under the Department’s core organizational values of Accountability, Service, Professionalism, Integrity, Respect, and Empathy,” Montgomery also said.

This is just the latest battle in a years-long war as preservationist interests have attempted to wrestle WDFW and critter management away from the heart of the legislative mandate through multiple means, and it comes just as a Governor’s Office investigation into Smith and another commissioner’s activities is scheduled to wrap up and even more questions are being raised out of it.

Indeed, it’s become existential for all parties.

That governor’s investigation was spurred by the so-called “Knoll Memo,” written by a WDFW legal liaison by the name of Thomas Knoll last May and ultimately forwarded to Governor Ferguson, who hired an outside investigator to look into it. It has also become the heart of the lawsuit.


LORNA SMITH, WASHINGTON WILDLIFE FIRST AND CLAIRE LOEBS DAVIS HAVE FILED A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST WDFW. (WDFW, WWF)
In their suit, which was filed in US District Court for Western Washington, Smith and Davis allege Susewind “carefully curated” a trove of public records for Knoll to go through to see if there was evidence in public records requests of inappropriate conduct by Smith, Commissioner Melanie Rowland and two others.

Knoll’s 10-page memo was first mentioned publicly in a Washington State Standard story in February, which termed it “scathing,” and it was posted in its entirety earlier this week by the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Conservation Coalition of Washington.

Not surprisingly, Smith and Davis’s lawsuit takes a very different view of the memo, saying it “consists of reckless speculation aimed at inflicting reputational harm” on themselves and Davis’s organization, Washington Wildlife First.

They say that Susewind and Windrope’s motives behind the memo were to “produce this document to convey their retaliatory allegations to the governor.”

The suit claims that Susewind has an “obsession” against Davis and her organization – who have sued him and his agency any number of times over the years over predator and hatchery management, put the responsibility of two employees’ deaths in the field on his shoulders, and have otherwise been a thorn in WDFW’s side – and he and Windrope directed agency staffers to pore through former Commissioner Tim Ragen’s laptop “for anything they could use to discredit Smith and unseat Rowland.”

According to the memo, Knoll found evidence of 20 private meetings between Smith, Rowland and Tim Ragen with Washington Wildlife First, Wild Fish Conservancy and other advocacy groups on Ragen’s laptop, as well as a curious group-curated spreadsheet grading potential future commissioners and identifying decoy candidates. Knoll labeled both as evidence of “possible collusion.”

In that Washington State Standard story, Davis parried the collusion allegation by saying her chats with the commissioners were “an appropriate, ethical, and protected exercise of my First Amendment right to speak to government officials on matters of public importance.”


WDFW DIRECTOR KELLY SUSEWIND AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR AMY WINDROPE. (WDFW)
Anybody who’s been reading this blog and Northwest Sportsman Magazine lo these past few years knows that the commission has been a hot mess since late 2019 when Davis and others began to challenge the limited entry spring black bear hunt, ultimately killing it off as it had existed for decades, and in doing so, they struck something of a blow against Susewind’s core hunting memory – his first kill five and a half decades back.

After failing to get any traction on WDFW-altering bills in the legislature, Davis and WWF inserted a proviso into the agency’s budget that ultimately led to the UW-WSU Ruckelhaus Center review, which also didn’t turn out with the recommendation they had hoped for –– folding WDFW under the governor’s thumb. Instead, the commission was called “dysfunctional” by observers, and no small part of that is the fault of Davis, WWF, Smith and Rowland.

Emblematic of that dysfunction, in the very last days of his administration, former Governor Jay Inslee attempted to stuff the commission with more preservationist-oriented members like Smith, Rowland, Ragen and former Commissioner Fred Koontz, but incoming Governor Bob Ferguson struck two from the board and appointed his own people.

That led to howls of protest from Davis and WWF, who have also been campaigning since then to have Susewind removed for a variety of reasons.

Back to the federal lawsuit for a moment.

It claims Susewind “boasts that all his decisions as director are framed by his perspective as a hunter, and he clings to the days when the state wildlife agency was operated by and for the benefit of hunters, anglers, and commercial consumptive-use stakeholders.”

Davis and WWF basically want a WDFW that “prioritizes the protection of fish and wildlife, respects the intrinsic value of wild animals” – it already does that, though not to their far extremes – and they frequently allude to the changing climate, both physical and among the makeup of state residents as the impetus. But they come up against the fundamental core of the agency’s mission, as prescribed by the state legislature: to provide fishing and hunting opportunities.

To tweak US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ phrase this week, “It’s a new world, it’s the same mandate.”

Along the way, the defense of the mandate was joined by the national Sportsmen’s Alliance, which has filed public records requests that have been slow to be fulfilled in part they say due to Smith and Rowland, and they’ve called on Governor Ferguson to remove the pair and two others. Meanwhile, the ending of the spring bear hunt energized a core of hunters to frequently speak before the commission during public comment.

And given the fears of what each side is really up to here, things have spilled well beyond the meetings. They’ve become especially heated online, where everybody’s 10 feet tall.

According to the federal lawsuit, Smith, who should not ever be confused for a meek old lady, has had to endure “a constant barrage of hostility and harassment, accompanied by heightened concerns for her personal safety,” and the allegedly coordinated campaign between WDFW and some hunters has caused her “substantial emotional distress and physical symptoms.”

And the suit adds that as a result of the current atmosphere around the commission, complaints have reportedly been filed against Davis with the Washington Bar Association so as to “damage (her) reputation and threaten her livelihood.”

But they level their most serious claims against Susewind and Windrope specifically:

“In doing the acts of which Smith complains, Defendants’ conduct was intentional, reckless, or callously indifferent to Smith’s federally protected right to be free from retaliation and discrimination for her engagement in activities protected under the First Amendment, and accordingly, Smith is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants Susewind and Windrope in their individual capacities,” reads the suit.

It repeats that language for Davis and WWF.

In a press release, their attorney, Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, said “People in power cannot weaponize the machinery of government to punish citizens for speaking out and advocating for policy change Our complaint alleges that state officials used public resources to target disfavored speakers and stigmatize protected advocacy simply because it did not align with their preferred views. That is not just improper – it is unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit demands a trial by jury.

Meanwhile, more questions from the Knoll Memo are being raised, including about Smith’s apparent filing of compensation claims for working nearly every day as a commissioner between January 2024 and February 2025, which Knoll found “unrealistic.”

The lawsuit denigrates Knoll’s knowledge of how the commission operates. It also claims that Commissioner John Lehmkuhl has “moderated his positions” since the spring bear debacle and that he and Commissioner Barbara Baker “did not pose the same threat to Susewind’s ideology” as Smith, Rowland and Ragen. Commissioners Molly Linville, Jim Anderson, Steven Parker and Woody Myers are mentioned in passing, though former Commissioners Kim Thorburn is called out for pro-hunting actions.

The commission next meets in-person and online in Olympia in mid-April. Things might be a bit awkward and tense the whole way around.

If the Commission does not like Suswind then it is their job to fire him. Not the Governor nor the Courts. They have that authority and responsibility so Smith should bring it up for a vote.

My thought is Smith doesn't have the votes.

I agree. With the recent changes she's kind of on an island.

Another option would be for the rest of the Commission to bring up either firing Suswind or offering him the Commission's support. That would probably be a fun meeting to be at.

Oh that meeting would be one for the ages!!!!!

Probably shouldn't be held on Zoom, either.

In the dim past I attended a number of Commission meetings and they were held in large rooms generally at hotels. Room for lots of folks.

I remember when the Commission did the first GH Policy and all the folks that made all the meetings. It was a bit messy but anything involving people always is. Fast forwad and how the present GH Policy was rail roaded through and it basically nothing just a bunch of words without meaning. WDFW avoids interaction with the public but loves ZOOM dog and pony shows that the virtual thug of an adminstrator limits any real interaction.

From my point of view both the department and commission are locked in down hill spiral or as a friend says " a race to the bottom ".

They probably recognize that the direction they are headed is a loser to the license-holding public. They probably see that the political leadership of the state is headed one way, the demographics of the state are pointed similarly, and they don't see a viable alternative to lots more people. Couple that with staff that are similarly disconnected from those same stakeholders. What surprises me is how they don't see the connection between consumptive use and the fund base for their jobs.

Back just after the Noah's Flood, one of the WDG bios suggested, at the annual Biologist Meeting, that all the bios should work a year in a hatchery to understand the basis for support for that program. He was probably right.

Plus, some guy named Tug has a nice article on this in The Reel News.

The brawl continues!!

WA Fish and Wildlife panel confronts high tensions and harsh testimony


An investigation and a lawsuit fueled sharper comments at a meeting last week. There were renewed calls for commissioners to resign and the agency director to be fired.


By:
Jerry Cornfield


Cory Maxwell of Kitsap County (left) called on some members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to step down in public comments on April 17, 2026. Rachel Bjork and Francisco Santiago-Avila look on. (Photo by Jerry Cornfield/ Washington State Standard)

Surly public comments are a staple of Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meetings, revealing the deeply personal stakes of those fighting over how far the state should go in protecting various species or allowing for hunting or fishing.

But last week’s session carried a slightly harsher tone, fueled by an investigation into whether commissioners violated open meetings and public records statutes ahead of a decision in 2022 to ban spring bear hunts, and a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the agency’s director by a commissioner targeted by the probe.

The meeting took place Thursday to Saturday in Olympia. Speakers vented grievances with decisions of the citizen panel, actions of individual members and leaders of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which the commission oversees. Some called for commissioners to resign, others for agency Director Kelly Susewind to be fired.


Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith speaking at the commission meeting on April 17, 2026 in Olympia. Carl Barner of King County, a lifelong outdoorsman, directed his comments Friday at the four sitting commissioners who voted to ban the bear hunt and whose compliance with state laws is under scrutiny.

“There are two words the four of you should never utter again. One is ethics, and the other is trust,” he said. “You have shown you have no ethics, and you have to tell the truth to have trust. The only way this commission can regain trust is to cut out the rot and rebuild anew. Once the four of you resign or are removed, then and only then can we trust and start to rebuild again.”

Francisco Santiago-Ávila, science and advocacy director for Washington Wildlife First, said the problem commissioners must address is removing Susewind. The organization is one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

The conflict at hand, he said, is not “the same old story” about hunters versus wildlife advocates.

“It’s about whether government officials should be able to use their authority to intimidate, punish and silence those who disagree with them,” he told the panel. “It is your duty to take action so either individually or as a group, ask the Governor to investigate this abuse of power and replace him without delay.”

On Friday, Dan Wilson of Spokane County, a hunter and active participant in policy debates for several years, urged all parties to take a deep breath and refocus on the commission’s work to better manage wildlife and fisheries, and their habitat.

“We can’t let the Legislature and the governor think that this entire agency is broken because we can’t figure out how to be adults in this room, and we all own that,” he said. “The road ahead is very hard, and it’s only going to get worse if we can’t figure out how to do this better together.”

‘Trust has been eroded’
The nine-member commission convened days after Gov. Bob Ferguson received an investigator’s final report into whether commissioners had violated state laws on preserving records and conducting public meetings. The report has not been released and the governor’s office has declined to say when it will be made public.

Ferguson greenlit the probe last August. It came after Susewind forwarded a department attorney’s scathing memo on two commissioners’ actions. Those findings were based on a review of records getting released to the Sportsmen’s Alliance, a national hunters’ group.

That memo concluded the behavior of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland presented “serious risks” to the department, “especially when it comes to avoiding a conflict of interest and favoritism.”

It also said the two appeared to have colluded with the leader of Washington Wildlife First on policy matters. It suggested the governor may want to consider pursuing their removal.

Then, earlier this month, Smith filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope, accusing them of manufacturing allegations of misconduct in retaliation for her criticism of them, and to incite the governor’s investigation.


Claire Loebs Davis, founder of Washington Wildlife First, speaks during the public comment period of the April 17, 2026 commission meeting. (Photo by Jerry Cornfield/ Washington State Standard)
The suit also accuses Susewind and Windrope of making defamatory statements and unfounded allegations against attorney Claire Davis, who leads Washington Wildlife First, in an alleged rebuke for her critical comments and the group’s numerous lawsuits against the department. Davis and Washington Wildlife First are plaintiffs alongside Smith in the suit.

Davis was among the nearly three dozen speakers Friday.

“Director Susewind’s use of the word collusion tells you a lot about the Trumpian way he views the world. In his mind, it seems anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of a crime,” she said. “Fortunately, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sees it differently.”

“This is about so much more than wildlife policy. It’s about fundamental freedoms, and who is willing to stand up for them. Are you?” she said.

Susewind, on Friday, said “I am not in a position to have a statement at this time. I look forward to the process.”

Many hunters voiced support for Susewind and blasted the lawsuit, saying it validates their concerns that some commissioners operated outside the lines.

“Over the last four years, trust has been eroded,” said Cory Maxwell of Kitsap County, a fourth-generation hunter. “You are sitting here based on the lobbyists that are sitting in this room. Everybody knows it.” On Friday, after 90 tense and passion-filled minutes, Commissioner Lorna Smith responded with a prepared statement explaining her reasons for suing.

“This was far from an easy decision for me to make,” began Smith, whose term runs through the end of the year. “I believe deeply that members of this commission must be able to speak openly about matters affecting wildlife management and the public trust without fear of retaliation from within.”

Continuing, she said her focus would remain on making decisions guided by “sound science and the public trust. I ask that we all respect the legal process as it moves forward, and that’s my final word on the subject.”

So she actually said that her focus would remain on making decisions guided by "sound science and the public trust?" I almost hurt myself laughing.

The lack of public trust is directly attributable to her abject failure to accept the science as provided by her professional biologists.

She clearly lives in a self-induced world of denial.

My interaction with the commission was mostly done 10 years ago but I have followed them. What I have trouble understanding is just how and the h--- they got where they are at. This is followed by what an idiot the governor was on resource issues to have appointed these folks. I mean it is liked being forced to watch the movie Dumb and Dumber every day every week. I mean like it is painful !!!!

I think the real decline started first with Boldt and then when we had the initiatives that banned traps, hounds, and so on.

The agency(s) did a really poor job of explaining why things were done. What the constraints were, what biology said, and so on. This was both internal external because I know (as doe Rivrguy) that internally there were staff who imitated 2x4s as well folks on the outside.

This was followed by continuing shift in folks with no actual hands-on contact with the resources and with the users and with the observers.

The Senate bears some of the blame because at times over the last 20-30 years they did not an actually confirm some nominees, they just punted. Couple that with an anti-use governor and it slides downhill.

Things will never go back to the "way they were" because we have many more people, much less accessible land, fewer resources, and escalating costs that folks are unwilling to pay.

But Dumber and Dumber is an apt description.