Report cites dysfunction of Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission

Observers of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission see it as a body hampered by polarization, dysfunction and conflict, according to a draft report produced by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center.

The report, which analyzed the entire Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, is based on more than 100 interviews with people deeply familiar with the agency and the commission.

Interviewees were asked about a broad set of topics, including the department’s funding structure, the agency’s efforts to deal with climate change and its mandate to preserve fish and wildlife while maximizing hunting and fishing opportunities.

But in response to questions about its governing structure, interviewees consistently raised concerns about the nine-member commission that oversees the department.

Many interviewees told researchers the panel is “dysfunctional, politically polarized and caught up in conflict.” They also raised concerns about the governor’s process for appointing members and a lack of accountability.

The report suggests lawmakers should consider eliminating the commission or implementing a broad suite of reforms, such as simplifying the body’s “rules of procedure,” clarifying its role in dealing with tribal governments and changing the appointment process.

The draft document, first reported on by the Capital Press, contains few surprises for those who follow the commission and the department closely. For those who are less familiar, it provides a crash course in the tensions and criticisms commissioners and the department staff have dealt with over the past several years, particularly when it comes to policies on animals like bears, wolves and cougars.

Woody Myers, the Fish and Wildlife commissioner representing eastern Washington, said he understands why people might see the commission as dysfunctional as it debates tough issues. That’s a reflection of the variety of perspectives on the panel, he said, and their attempt to balance competing interests when making decisions.

“There isn’t always agreement,” Myers said. “Occasionally, there is, but more often than not there’s a diversity of opinions on whatever topic we’re faced with.”

Kim Thorburn, a former commissioner from Spokane, said the panel is broken, and that the report flagged several of its issues.

“It currently is really dysfunctional,” Thorburn said. “They spend a bunch of time bickering over process and arguing over science.”

The Washington State Legislature requested the report from the Ruckelshaus Center in a budget proviso during the 2023 session. The measure allocated $300,000 for the study, and directed the center — a collaboration between Washington State University and the University of Washington — to conduct a broad review of the agency and to offer recommendations for improving the agency by Dec. 1.

A draft report, dated Nov. 27, was provided to those who were interviewed for the study to review for factual errors. The Capital Press obtained a copy and published an article about it last week.

A copy of the draft was provided to The Spokesman-Review by the Ruckelshaus Center on Monday. Chris Page, the center’s senior facilitator for projects and strategic initiatives, said in an email that the final report is expected to be made public next week.

Page said the report is unlikely to change significantly.

People interviewed for the study run the gamut of those interested in wildlife management. Hunters, anglers, environmentalists, wildlife biologists, tribal representatives and lawmakers are all among the 113 people interviewed. Current and former commissioners were interviewed — including Thorburn and Myers — as were several members of the department’s staff.

Interviewees did identify some things they thought were working well within the department, particularly the agency’s 25-year strategic plan and programs that prioritize biodiversity and conservation.

When asked what about the agency’s governing structure was not working well, the report says, “nearly all interviewees talked about the Commission.”

The panel’s nine members are appointed by the governor. They serve six year terms. The commission meets monthly — the December meeting begins Thursday in Cle Elum — and gets the final say on things like species protections, hunting and fishing seasons and land acquisitions. They also have the authority to hire and fire the agency director.

Over the past few years, the commission has taken controversial votes on predator management, including ending the state’s spring black bear hunt and rewriting rules for cougar hunting, that pitted hunters against predator advocates.

It has also stumbled into controversy in other ways, such as with its attempt to craft a conservation policy. The brief document was meant to set the top priorities for the panel, but it drew criticism from people who felt it was setting the stage for further limitations on hunting and from conservationists worried the policy didn’t go far enough.

A final vote on the policy was canceled last January after tribes requested formal consultation on the policy, raising concerns that it could affect their treaty rights.

People told the center that the commission’s group dynamics are dysfunctional, that the panel has trouble following rules of procedure, and that both factors result in wasted time and significant stress on commissioners. They said the commission’s role in working with tribal governments is unclear, and that there are few ways to hold the panel and its members accountable.

Many mentioned the governor’s appointment process as something that wasn’t working well. People told researchers there was “a lack of, or unclear selection criteria and qualifications.”

Francisco Santiago-Avila, science and advocacy director for Washington Wildlife First, said that’s one area of the report with which his group agrees. He also said they agree with the part of the report that showed people aren’t sure how to hold the commission accountable, and that the commission has recently made decisions that run afoul of requests from the governor and the legislature.

He also said they were disappointed in some parts of the report, particularly perspectives he feels have no factual basis — such as the claim from some that animal rights groups have an outsized influence on the commission.

But he said the big takeaway is that the agency can be improved.

“The most important message that we get from it is there’s a need to make the department more effective,” Santiago-Avila said.

The report didn’t make a strong recommendation for which path lawmakers should take on fixing WDFW’s governing structure, but it provided some detail on how each option could look.

Eliminating the commission would mean making the department a cabinet agency, giving the governor the power to appoint its director. Under that option, the commission could remain as an advisory board.

For fixing the panel, the report provided a dozen recommendations, including changing the appointment process and creating new accountability mechanisms for commissioners.

Dan Wilson, co-chair of the Washington chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the report made good recommendations, but that any changes are going to depend on political will in the Legislature.

If that will exists, he said, the public should be involved.

“It can’t be closed-door, high-level conversations,” Wilson said. “There needs to be a really robust dialogue and invitation from all citizens to provide input.”