<\/p>\n
The ongoing fight over Washington wildlife management has moved from combative commission meetings into federal court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
On April 2, Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith, along with Washington Wildlife First (WW1) and its Executive Director, Claire Loebs Davis, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope. The sharply-worded, 82-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges bullying, retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and a broader effort by Susewind and Windrope to discredit critics of their management decisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cDefendant Susewind has twisted facts, ignored science, and suppressed expert dissenting viewpoints in order to serve his agenda,\u201d wrote attorneys for Smith, Davis, and WW1.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A sitting fish and wildlife commissioner suing their agency\u2019s director in partnership with a wildlife activist organization is highly unusual. But for Washington hunters and anglers, it’s the latest red flag that some members of the commission want to nix hunter influence throughout the agency and policy drafting process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Accusations go as far as blaming Susewind for the deaths of two WDFW employees due to \u201cwillful failure to meet state safety standards.\u201d In 2023, fisheries biologist Erin Peterson drowned while conducting snorkeling surveys. Less than four months later, seasonal scientific technician Mary Valentine drowned while working on a smolt trap. Both women were working alone on remote river stretches and neither were wearing life jackets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The suit claims that safety training was not provided in either case, resulting in \u201cmultiple citations from the state Department of Labor and Industries for \u2018willful serious\u2019 violations of workplace safety laws, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and two wrongful death lawsuits.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Davis and WW1\u2019s science and advocacy director, Francisco J. Santiago-\u00c1vila, are looking to take it further and strip Susewind of his duties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cWashington\u2019s wildlife needs leadership grounded in ethics, science, and public values,\u201d said Santiago-\u00c1vila during an August 15 commission meeting. \u201cInstead, the director repeatedly shows contempt for the law, disdain for Washington values, disregard for employee safety, disrespect for the commission that oversees him, and indifference to the plight of wildlife he is sworn to protect. Washington Wildlife First is calling for Director Susewind\u2019s removal and asking the people of Washington to join us.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
WDFW did not respond to MeatEater\u2019s request for comment. But in an April 3 statement, the department said the lawsuit had not yet been served on the named defendants.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The current firestorm ignited in 2021 when the WDFW Commission released the first public draft of the Conservation Policy. The policy was designed as a guiding framework for WDFW and the commission to make decisions affecting fish, wildlife, and habitat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
But parts of the draft echoed animal rights language used by orginizations like Wildlife for All. The draft referred to the \u201cintrinsic values of non-human nature,\u201d said \u201ceach living individual\u201d contributes to ecosystem health, and argued that \u201cstatus quo wildlife management has not kept pace with a rapidly changing world.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cWe had commissioners citing skewed surveys from WW1 as if they were scientific evidence, and public records revealed troubling behind-the-scenes coordination, exclusion of the tribes and other behaviors,\u201d Kelsey Ross, founder of Conservation Coalition of Washington, told MeatEater. \u201cThat decision was the clearest early sign that ideology was beginning to outweigh science.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Along with her role at WW1, Davis is also a current board member of Wildlife for All. The organization\u2019s mission is to reform game commissions nationwide. Former WDFW Commissioner Fred Koontz also sat on the Wildlife for All advisory board during his short commission tenure. Koontz was a key architect of the commission\u2019s early Conservation Policy work, which included the divisive language that raised eyebrows in the hunting community.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Two months after the Conservation Policy surfaced, the commission paused and then outright banned spring black bear hunting, disregarding data collected by WDFW\u2019s own biologists that support the hunt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Backlash from Washington sportsmen and women was swift and fierce. It drew in record numbers of camo-clad hunters and groups like RMEF, Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, HOWL for Wildlife, and the Conservation Coalition of Washington, who tore into the accused commissioners during public meetings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cThe decision to take away the spring bear hunt for 2022 has put our struggling ungulate population in specific areas under unnecessary pressure due to the increased predator population,\u201d Washington bear hunter and author Douglas Boze told commissioners at the time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In 2023, the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance filed suit against Commissioner Smith for simultaneously holding a position with the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. As a direct violation of RCW 77.04.040, the Washington State Supreme Court sided with Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance resulting in Smith resigning from the JCPC.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Two years later, WW1 turned the tables and sued over Commissioner Molly Linville\u2019s reappointment to the WDFW citizen panel while she was also serving on a local school board. She has since resigned from that position.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance then sued WDFW under the state Public Records Act, arguing the department had failed to produce documents it first requested in September 2023. Once in hand, those records fueled two tracks: an internal WDFW review and a Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance petition asking Gov. Ferguson to remove four commissioners.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
On May 6, 2025 WDFW criminal justice legal liaison Thomas R. Knoll Jr. received two partial boxes of records containing commissioner communications with outside groups. Two days later, Susewind asked him to review the materials and provide an independent assessment of whether they showed inappropriate conduct.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In what is now known as the \u201cKnoll Memo,\u201d Knoll concluded that Smith and Rowland posed \u201cserious risks\u201d to WDFW, especially with regards to conflicts of interest and public-records compliance. He also raised concerns about their relationship with Davis, saying they appeared to \u201chave each other on speed dial.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cThis is a damning condemnation of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland,\u201d said Rob Sexton, Senior Vice President of the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance, in a statement on their website. \u201cWhile Smith and Rowland, and as this internal investigation shows, their animal-rights co-conspirator Claire Davis, try to brush the findings aside, there\u2019s no hiding from the truth we\u2019ve exposed: collusion, corruption, and violations of law have undoubtedly taken place.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
That same day, the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance petitioned Gov. Bob Ferguson to remove Smith, Baker, Rowland, and Lehmkuhl from the commission. The petition alleged the commissioners had violated public-meeting and public-records laws and accused them of \u201cincompetence, misconduct, and malfeasance in office.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Sportsman\u2019s Alliance argued that commission decisions were already \u201cpreordained\u201d before hunters, anglers, and other members of the public ever had a meaningful chance to weigh in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Less than a week later, Susewind forwarded the Knoll Memo to Ferguson\u2019s office. Susewind formally asked Ferguson to investigate commission conduct in an Aug. 5 letter. The director wrote that records produced through public-disclosure requests \u201ccall the conduct of several commissioners into question.\u201d He said an independent investigation would give the governor the information needed to decide whether removal was warranted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The Smith-Davis-WW1 lawsuit landed April 2, 2026, just days before the outside investigation was expected to be completed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
As heated as Washington\u2019s wildlife fight has become, the state isn\u2019t operating in a vacuum. Across the U.S., game commissions are becoming front lines in a larger battle over wildlife activists gaining too much influence on state wildlife policy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Two years ago, Colorado voters rejected Proposition 127, a ballot initiative that would have banned hunting and trapping mountain lions and bobcats. Lynx were also named, which are already federally protected. The measure failed, with about 55% voting no.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
It didn\u2019t end there. In an April 2026 letter opposing two Polis appointees, the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project argued the administration had shifted CPW\u2019s \u201cculture and values\u201d by appointing commissioners with \u201cextreme animal-rights and anti-hunting agendas.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
New Mexico rewrote its wildlife-governance structure in 2025. Under Senate Bill 5, wildlife is to be managed as a public trust resource with ecological, economic, and intrinsic value, as well as for use, food supply, and nonconsumptive enjoyment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In Oregon, sportsmen are fighting a proposed radical ballot measure that would criminalize hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, breeding, and more. Vermont has been battling over trapping, coyote hounding, and nonhunting influence on wildlife policy. Alaska remains locked in court battles over predator control for caribou recovery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
WW1 and Wildlife for All describe their mission as making state wildlife management more \u201cdemocratic, just, compassionate, and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems.\u201d To many hunters, however, that movement looks like a coordinated effort to supplant the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cWhether someone hunts or not, this issue should concern anyone who values transparent government, ethical conduct, and decisions rooted in science rather than ideology,\u201d Ross said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cAt its core, this is about preserving a wildlife management system that serves all Washingtonians and protects the hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage that has been the greatest funder and mechanism of conservation for the wildlife in our state for generations.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n