WDFW Commission Set To End All Work On Controversial Draft Conservation Policy

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is preparing to walk away from its controversial draft Conservation Policy.

It appears a final decision will come in late June, but during this morning’s meeting, the chair of a subcommittee of the citizen panel that oversees WDFW said he and fellow members have recommended ending all work on the policy and shifting their attention to other high-level work.

Commissioner John Lehmkuhl, who chairs the Executive Committee, said that the Conservation Policy, which first surfaced in September 2021, was meant to “highlight the importance and urgency of the agency’s conservation work, clarify the legal mandate, describe foundational principles, and reiterate the intent of the 25-year strategic plan,” but acknowledged that its perception once in front of the public and the comanagers led to “unintended negative effects on our relationships with tribes and stakeholders.”

“Ultimately, those relationships are more important to the agency’s mission than words on paper. The commission has listened sincerely to the tribal and public input during the last several years, and the Big Tent Committee has worked for the past year and more to resolve issues arising from the tribal and public comments on the draft policy,” stated Lehmkuhl as he read from a prepared statement from his committee.

“So, considering all this, the committee met on May 5th with senior [WDFW] staff to discuss how we should move forward with this. So as a result of that meeting, the Big Tent Committee unanimously recommends that the commission discontinue work on the draft Conservation Policy and end any further discussion of a conservation policy with the tribes and the public,” he added.

Lehmkuhl said the committee will instead focus on improved decision-making processes, highlighting successful partnerships, and addressing emerging funding and biodiversity issues.

“Given all that, we still believe that the commission and the department have always had and will continue to have a strong conservation ethic and a program to preserve, protect, enhance and manage Washington’s fish and wildlife as directed in our mandate and is embodied in our 25-year strategic plan,” he added.

“Ultimately, those relationships are more important to the agency’s mission than words on paper.” 

–Commissioner John lehmkuhl on wdfw’s stakeholders and tribal comanagers

As recently as March 20, the policy – which excited a number of articles on this blog over the years (and those hyperlinks aren’t even all the werds I wrote on the subject) – was described as “not dead” by Lehmkuhl, who reported ongoing discussions with tribes. At that time, as the truest believer, Commissioner Melanie Rowland continued her push for a timeline leading to adoption of the policy.

But fast forward two months and pending a likely vote by the full commission on the committee recommendation in late June in Olympia, it now appears to be almost all dead. Two other longtime policy supporters – Chair Barbara Baker and Commissioner Lorna Smith – were among the four Big Tent Committee members who unanimously recommended ending in that closed-door May 5 meeting. Also in favor, Commissioner Steven Parker.

That said, commissioners do still want to talk directly with the tribes that in early 2024 expressed “severe concern” about the policy and brought it to a screeching halt on the eve of its likely approval by the panel.

A late March letter from Baker to one of those tribes, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, asked if they would be interested in a “more open dialogue … for the commission to listen, understand, and incorporate tribal insight into our own thinking and identify opportunities for collaborative action.”

And today Baker said that she and Lisa Wilson of the Lummi Nation and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission have agreed to meet at some point on how to go forward.

Baker also stated that she thought that discussions around the ill-fated policy over the years had born fruit.

“I think that the agency has listened to us, and in the middle of all of this we developed, along with the agency, a very good 25-year strategic plan, most of which is reiterated in the conservation policy,” she said.

Along with former WDFW Conservation Director Jeff Davis and former Commissioner Fred Koontz, Baker was one of the authors of the policy. She repeatedly said it was meant to define the word “conservation” in that strategic plan.

Initial drafts included nebulous concepts like “precautionary approach” and until very late in the process it failed to recognize the role the state’s comanagers have in ensuring abundant, harvestable fish and wildlife in perpetuity. It was unnecessary overreach and while perhaps misunderstood, also a major misstep that never needed to be taken, given the preexisting strategic plan.

Look, conservation is a pretty wide concept, one that’s hard to nail down with any specific language. It might not work for some, but there’s probably value in that nebulousness. It allows WDFW and the commission to not only maximize fishing and hunting opportunities but protect fish and wildlife, to manage while preserving, to enhance while restoring.

It’s a big tent, conservation is. With all the groups interested in fish, wildlife, wildlands and more, inside it might be kinda like a Venn diagram, but there’s room for everyone, except those who would harm the whole.

Having covered the draft Conservation Policy since its public reveal in September 2021, I’d reaaaaaaaaaally like to drone on here, give a little more context about how this also marks another moment in which the commission is now yawing back away from the preservationist bent former Governor Inslee and allies tried to stamp it with, but alas, the $%@$@ deadline calls me back to my day job, so that’s all the time I’m going to have for this.

The end.