On a rainy October morning, a conference room at the state Capitol in Olympia was packed with people sporting camouflage and hunting orange. The mood was tense as the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission heard nearly four hours of public comment, largely in response to a draft conservation policy released in April.<\/p>\n
The three-page document, a distillation of a strategic plan from 2020, enumerates seven guiding principles for Washington\u2019s Department of Fish and Wildlife, the agency responsible for protecting the state\u2019s ecosystems and managing its hunting and fishing. They include \u201cconservation first\u201d \u2014 conservation is, by mandate, the department\u2019s primary purpose \u2014 the conservation of all species whether rare or common, and an emphasis on partnerships with local and tribal governments.<\/p>\n
The 2020 strategic plan, which set similar goals, drew little attention. The draft policy, though, attracted more than 2,200 public comments, mostly negative. At the October meeting, hunters and anglers feared that their activities would be eliminated, despite assurances to the contrary, while tribal representatives expressed concern that treaty rights would be compromised.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Steven Parker, a retired biologist who spent his career working for Yakama Nation Fisheries, said he was \u201cfrankly astounded\u201d by the opposition\u2019s intensity. To some commissioners, the policy reflects a gradual evolution within the department that\u2019s been underway for over a decade. But its release \u2014 and the communication missteps that accompanied it \u2014 ignited simmering tensions over exactly what conservation means and what it should accomplish.<\/p>\n
In 2020, the Fish and Wildlife Commission worked with tribes and interest groups to create a 26-page strategic plan outlining the wildlife department\u2019s priorities. Previous strategic plans highlighted the work long associated with wildlife departments: maintaining fish and game populations, improving fish hatcheries and expanding hunting access. (Revenue from hunting and fishing licenses and taxes on some outdoor equipment have historically supported state wildlife departments, and still represent about 15% of the Washington department\u2019s budget.) During the lean years after the 2007 economic downturn, plans focused on stabilizing budgets and increasing revenue through recreation access fees and, in 2011, by raising the cost of hunting and fishing licenses. The 2008 strategic plan departed from its predecessors by including climate change; at around the same time, the department became one of the first state wildlife agencies to hire a climate change coordinator.<\/p>\n
Nate Pamplin, the department\u2019s executive director of external affairs, said that funding boosts from the state Legislature in 2018 and 2023 enabled it to prioritize goals such as biodiversity conservation and salmon and orca recovery. (Some goals had appeared in previous plans but may have lacked funding; several remain partially funded or unfunded.)<\/p>\n
The 2020 plan differs from its predecessors in emphasis and tone. While its introductory pages are careful to acknowledge the department\u2019s ongoing efforts to sustain hunting and fishing opportunities, the remainder focuses on new priorities, including \u201cproactively addressing conservation challenges,\u201d developing and implementing a climate resilience plan and bringing more Washingtonians to the table.<\/p>\n
Commission Chair Barbara Baker, an attorney and former chief clerk of the state House of Representatives, suspects that the 2020 plan simply flew under the radar. \u201cI don\u2019t think very many people read the strategic plan,\u201d Baker said during an interview, speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the commission. \u201cIt\u2019s a strategic plan. How boring is that?\u201d<\/p>\n
The draft conservation policy was another story. After its release, hunters and anglers rallied to ensure that despite their dwindling numbers, they were heard. During the October meeting, some objected to the policy\u2019s definition of conservation: \u201c[preserving] the health and resilience of natural environments including fish, wildlife and humans\u201d while safeguarding \u201cthe intrinsic value of nature.\u201d How, they asked, could hunting and fishing coexist with those values?<\/p>\n
\u201cThe plan is terrible,\u201d Mark Pidgeon, a lifelong hunter who serves on the boards of the Hunters\u2019 Heritage Council and the Washington Waterfowl Association, said in an interview. \u201cIt\u2019s a preservation plan, not a conservation plan.\u201d<\/p>\n
Opponents see the policy as a departure from the usual wildlife department playbook \u2014 one shaped by the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which describes practices established in the 1900s. That model, which focuses on species that can be hunted or fished, stipulates that wildlife belongs to the public and is managed by public agencies.<\/p>\n
Clare Loebs Davis, president of Washington Wildlife First and a policy supporter, argued that the policy fits \u201csquarely within the North American model,\u201d given its aim to \u201cprotect, perpetuate and preserve wildlife.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the commission does not put preserving wildlife first, there is not going to be wildlife left for people to hunt,\u201d she said. \u201cThat\u2019s it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Supporters also say the policy\u2019s priorities and language simply recognize the reality of today\u2019s environmental pressures. Ron Regan, executive director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, said that while \u201cthere are certainly states that are trying to contextualize the [North American Model] against the backdrop of climate change \u2026 and make it more contemporary,\u201d he expects it to continue to shape wildlife management in the United States. \u201cI don\u2019t know that there\u2019s any kind of national movement among mainstream entities or organizations to do away with it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Still, Baker acknowledged that some residents \u2014 shaken by recent commission decisions, such as a 2022 vote to end the spring bear hunt \u2014 were likely primed to see red flags in the policy. And despite assurances that hunting and angling were protected, the policy\u2019s highlighting of new priorities clearly unsettled sportsmen used to thinking of the wildlife department as \u201ctheir\u201d department. \u201cThey\u2019re scared of what the intent of this document is and what its effects might be,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Beyond concerns about the policy\u2019s priorities, commenters at the October meeting complained that it was developed too secretively. The commission involves tribes and interest groups early on when drafting formal policies for game or hatchery management. But because this policy was intended as a clarifying addendum to the strategic plan, the commission developed it on its own over several years.<\/p>\n
Tribal representatives say they should have been involved from the beginning, given tribes\u2019 treaty right to steward natural resources as governments of equal standing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis draft policy falls in an unfortunate pattern of the commission failing to engage with us properly, as co-managers,\u201d said Ed Johnstone (Quinault), chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Arguing that the draft\u2019s ambiguity could \u201cadd layers of complexity and confusion\u201d to interactions between the commission and tribes and possibly threaten tribal hunting and fishing rights, he suggested that the commissioners rebrand the document as a statement of values rather than a \u201cpolicy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Since the October meeting, commissioners have continued to talk with concerned parties and have reached out to tribes to revise the policy collaboratively.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re hopeful,\u201d Johnstone said. \u201cI think when we put our collective forces together, we can agree on what those principles, goals and objectives are. Let\u2019s work on it.\u201d<\/p>\n
A vote on a revised policy is expected in January 2024.<\/p>\n
This story was originally published Dec. 7, 2023, by High Country News. This story is part of High Country News\u2019 Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, funded by the BAND Foundation.<\/p>\n