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.