Report raises possibility of doing away with Wash. Fish and Wildlife Commission

The UW study calls the state’s fish and wildlife decision-makers “dysfunctional” and recommends major reforms

Where to now? After a critical report, Washington’s Fish and Wildlife Commission couild move forward in any number of directions. Photo: WDFW

By K.C. Mehaffey. January 2, 2025. Conservation groups and hunters and anglers in Washington want the same things for the state’s fish and wildlife populations: health, stability and abundance.

But anyone who’s attended a Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting over the last few years wouldn’t know it.

The division between environmentalists and sportsmen—and the inability of the commission to deal with it—has become so intense that a University of Washington research center is calling for an overhaul of the commission, or even eliminating it altogether and replacing it with an agency overseen by the state’s governor.

After interviewing more than 100 people closely involved with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Fish and Wildlife Commission, UW’s William D. Ruckelshaus Center released a report on the state of the agency on Dec. 19.

The report was prepared as a $300,000 budget proviso request from the Washington Legislature.

The report says WDFW’s current structure—particularly the commission—“has dysfunctional elements.”

It notes that many of those interviewed see the commission as being “dysfunctional, politically polarized and caught up in conflict.”

“If there is not sufficient political will or interest in making comprehensive, simultaneous reforms,” the report says, the commission should be eliminated and replaced by a cabinet agency with a governor-appointed WDFW director. (The commission is currently responsible for selecting WDFW directors.)

“If this change occurred, it would support the important work needed to build strong relationships among the state’s natural resource agencies and to establish specific mechanisms for those agencies to align and collaborate on natural resource management strategies and policies,” the report reads.

Kim Thorburn, who served as a WDFW commissioner for eight years, has already written an opinion piece endorsing the report’s preferred option to fix, rather than dissolve, the commission.

“I am a strong believer in the commission,” Thorburn told Columbia Insight. “It’s traditional. It was put in place by the people’s initiative in Washington State.”

Meanwhile, Claire Loebs Davis, founder and board president of Washington Wildlife First, says there are a lot of advantages to turning the commission into an advisory board and handing over its job to a state agency.

“I would recommend a direct cabinet as the best way to make the department accountable to the people, and more effective,” she said. “It’s frankly more realistic.”

Davis added that the huge changes called for in the Ruckelshaus report may not be possible to implement.

Report highlights

The Ruckelshaus report provides a dozen recommendations for commission reforms. These include changing the commissioner appointment process, enforcing criteria for removing commissioners, using a third party to facilitate meetings, honing the commission’s role, being accountable to the co-managing Tribes in the state, providing training on collaboration and other skills, and establishing an independent board for reviewing decisions involving science.

The recommendations come as terms for three commissioners expired on Dec. 31, 2024, and the Washington legislature is facing a budget deficit of more than $10 billion. (Outgoing commissioners typically remain on the commission until their successors are appointed, a process that sometimes takes several months.)

Before making recommendations, the Ruckelshaus Center conducted 90-minute interviews with interest groups that actively engage with the agency, along with current and former commissioners, WDFW employees and Tribes.

“Not surprisingly, interviewees voiced passion for sustaining fish, wildlife, and their habitats, even when there were strong disagreements about how best to achieve sustainability and resilience,” the report says.

Key themes include having healthy and thriving fish and wildlife populations, opportunities for future generations to hunt and fish, a prioritization of biodiversity and whole-ecosystem management, effective leadership and reduced conflict among user groups.

This vision is similar to priorities laid out in WDFW’s 2020-2045 strategic plan, the report notes.

Elusive consensus: In 2024, WDFW approved new cougar hunting rules after pressure from conservation groups who wanted stricter limits on hunts. Photo: WDFW

But conflicts arise when people talk about how the agency and commission should achieve this vision, the report says.

“The changing environmental and social landscape increases the challenges faced by any natural resource management entity,” reads the report. “For example, population growth, environmental degradation, siloed resource management strategies, growing uncertainty related to climate change, forest fires, and the financial cost of implementation of management strategies all contribute to the complexities of sustaining healthy ecosystems.”

Many of the people interviewed see a competitive dichotomy within core elements of WDFW’s mandate to “preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife” while also attempting to “maximize hunting and fishing opportunities.”

Although this dichotomy is one of the major sources of conflict, the report does not recommend changing the mandate.

“The present intensity and polarized nature of the public discourse related to fish and wildlife would make any effort to update the mandate politically contentious and would likely exacerbate current tensions among interested parties,” reads the report.

However, it says one element that should be considered is a discussion with Tribes on whether revisions are needed to include tribal-state co-management and an acknowledgement of traditional ecological knowledge in the mandate.

The report offers no suggestions for dealing with problems within the agency other than “creating new strategies to adapt to changing conditions.”

The report does offer some suggestions for the legislature to explore with respect to funding the growing needs of WDFW, including a dedicated sales tax, biodiversity credits that could be purchased by real estate developers, a dedicated general fund for natural resource agencies and across-the-board increases in user fees.

Report requested by enviro groups

The proviso that launched the Ruckelshaus report came at the request of 50 environmental organizations.

The request was sent to the chairs of the Washington Senate Ways & Means Committee and House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on letterhead from Washington Wildlife First. That organization was formed in 2021 to “transform wildlife management to reflect the values of people of the state, respect the intrinsic worth of wildlife, and prioritize the preservation of healthy ecosystems.”

In its April 2023 request to lawmakers, the groups said they believe that “agency change is needed to meet the existential threats posed by habitat loss and degradation, climate change, and the global biodiversity crisis. We fear that even with the increased funding included in your current proposed budgets, the Department’s ability to meet these challenges will be hindered by fundamental structural flaws, and reform may be necessary to meet the goals represented by your proposed budgets.”

The report is part of an $8 million appropriation for fiscal year 2024, and a $15 million appropriation in 2025.

The legislature directed the Ruckelshaus Center to focus on WDFW’s efforts to fulfill its mandate, asking it to look at several issues.

At the top of the list was exploring “the department’s ability to meet threats created by climate change and biodiversity loss.”

Claire Loebs Davis. Photo: Washington Wildlife First

Davis, the Washington Wildlife First founder who supports turning the commission into an advisory body, said she recognizes that the Ruckelshaus Center was given a huge job.

However, she told Columbia Insight, “I’m disappointed by many aspects of the report. I think there’s very limited value in a report that merely reflects opinions.”

Recognizing that the Ruckelshaus Center has no expertise in climate change, she said the recommendations surrounding the climate and biodiversity crises are of limited use.

“This was a chance for there to be some insights to how the department is developing, [and] how the commission is evolving,” she said. “I don’t believe we got that from the report.”

She said the report focuses heavily on the commission—which does its work in the public eye—and offers no insight into how well the department itself is functioning.

“I think what it labels as dysfunction within the commission is actually a good faith attempt to try to accomplish the impossible task that’s been laid before it,” she said. “What we’re seeing now is a commission that has different perspectives, that is not controlled by traditional stakeholders of the department’s hunting, fishing and commercial interests, which has typically been the case.”

Still, even with a more balanced commission, Davis thinks establishing WDFW as a cabinet agency would be more responsive to the democratic process.

“One thing the report didn’t talk about, which is a shame really, is the degree to which the department has become distant from the values of the people of Washington,” she said.

Objectivity in retreat

Kim Thorburn, who served on the commission from 2015 to 2023, says she enjoyed the experience—until the last couple of years, which she described as “miserable.”

From her perspective, the change in the commission was the result of an intentional effort by “animal rights preservationists to try and take over commissions.”

“I’m a birder, not a hunter or angler,” she told Columbia Insight.

Kim Thorburn. Photo: WDFW

Thorburn said that while she’s interested in honoring the diversity of values across the state, during her last couple of years on the commission that fellow commissioners increasingly began injecting their own values into debates.

“That’s never how I saw my role. I’m supposed to be valuing the fact that there’s diversity out there, and I’m trying to be fair and equitable about distributing it,” she said.

One of Thorburn’s biggest concerns is the appointment process, which she said lacks transparency.

“I think the frustration of almost all the stakeholders—whether they’re landowners, rural communities, hunters, recreational anglers or commercial fisheries—is that their values are just not being included” in the appointment process, she said.

Thorburn acknowledged that commissioners listen to hours of public testimony.

“But they don’t hear,” she said.

As an example of how things have changed, she said that until a few years ago, the method for writing policies was transparent and inclusive. The commission directed staff to work on a new policy, which often included putting together advisory groups with various stakeholders. After numerous meetings the staff would come back to the commission with a draft.

“That’s gone by the wayside,” said Thorburn. “Their idea [now] is, all we have to do is come up with a 5-4 vote. It doesn’t matter what stakeholders are telling us. Sadly, they have an agenda.”

But Commissioner Melanie Rowland, who has served on the commission for three years, said her only agenda is to carry out the commission’s mandate.

She said she’s trying to take a big-picture view of the situation.

She understands that hunters and anglers are fearful of losing their ability to hunt and fish as they once did.

But that’s because climate change and habitat loss from human development are taking a toll on fish and wildlife populations, and the commission is trying to uphold its primary duty, which is to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage fish and wildlife.

“We are part of the ecosystem, and we can’t stand apart and say, ‘humans will be fine no matter what happens to fish and wildlife.’ Clearly, we are simply shortsighted not to preserve the ecosystems of which we are a part,” she said.

Commissioners respond

WDFW commissioners discussed the Ruckelshaus report at the Dec. 13-14 commission meeting in Cle Elum, when the report was still a draft that had not yet been released to the public.

Commissioner Molly Linville said the job has changed since she accepted the position in 2019.

“The difference, I think, is we used to just work on policy, and now I have to be a subject-matter expert in everything so I can keep up with the conversations,” she said.

To her, the Ruckelshaus report indicates that it’s time to reevaluate what’s being asked of the commission.

Commissioner Lorna Smith said she’s worried that the job is time consuming, which inhibits opportunities for younger people to serve on the commission.

“It does impact our entire lives—what we can do with our families, and our outside activities,” she said.

She asked those critical of the commission to recognize that its members are all dedicated volunteers.

Commissioner John Lehmkuhl pointed out that the report itself notes that it’s not a performance review.

Barbara Baker. Photo: WDFW

“It is simply an opinion survey,” he said. “It’s an opinion. … When you read the report, just remember that.”

Commissioner Jim Anderson said he sees the report as an assessment of what people think about the commission and the department and raises issues and provides pathways for resolving them.

“I do think there’s serious information that has been generated and crystalized and brought forth that moves us to take it very seriously,” he said.

Commission Chair Barbara Baker reminded everyone that the commission has always been steeped in controversy.

“What bothers me about the comments we get from all sides is there’s this embedded nostalgia about the good old days,” she said.

But in her time on the commission, she said there have always been disputes.

“We had to abolish advisory groups for the Willapa because we didn’t have the enforcement to control the fights—literal fights. We had people wearing bulletproof vests to commission meetings,” she said, referring to tensions around policies governing the salmon fishery in Willapa Bay.

Before that, said Baker, there were disputes over wolves, and before that, over hound hunting.

She concluded her remarks with an allusion to recent public rancor that has contributed to the idea that the commission is a dysfunctional entity in need of major changes.

“Tell us about what’s wrong with the science or what’s wrong with the policy we developed,” she said. “Don’t tell us what’s wrong with each of us individually. That is completely disrespectful.”