Inland Northwest Wildlife Council

A LOT of people are asking, “What can we actually do now that the WDFW commissioner investigation report is out?”
We know many of you feel frustrated, helpless, and really just DONE. You want to see accountability, and you want to know where your voice can actually make a difference.
Our recommendation is NOT to flood the Governor’s Office with thousands of individual emails.
Anti-hunting organizations have used that tactic heavily, and it has clearly frustrated the Governor’s Office. We do not want sportsmen to follow the same approach and risk making our advocacy less effective going forward.
This is the time to apply pressure strategically.
Organizations and elected representatives should be filling the role of communicating directly with the Governor’s Office. The Sportsmen’s Alliance has already requested action, and CCW is submitting our formal request yesterday. We also expect other organizations to be doing the same.
So what should YOU do?
Contact your state representatives and senators. Contact your county commissioners. Contact other elected officials who represent you.
Give them the information they need.
You can download the full investigation report from our website at ccofwashington.com and send it to them. You can also provide reputable news articles covering the findings.
Then ask them to request that Governor Ferguson remove the four commissioners identified in the investigation for confirmed misconduct.
We understand the feeling that nothing is going to change. We understand the frustration of watching this process drag on.
But the answer is not to give up- and it is not to overwhelm the Governor’s Office with thousands of individual messages.
The answer is to apply pressure through the right channels, in a way that is organized, credible, and difficult to ignore.
Sportsmen have a voice.
Let’s make sure we use it effectively.
Find your legislators here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder

WDFW 3 YEAR SEASON SETTING HUNTING RULE MEETINGS BEGIN TONIGHT

Washington hunters: WDFW is beginning a series of virtual meetings to discuss potential hunting rule changes for the 2027–2029 seasons.

After reviewing more than 1,000 comments from an earlier public feedback period, WDFW has narrowed the list to approximately 60 potential proposals.

Three informational meetings are scheduled:

August 11 — Ungulates
6–8 PM
Zoom Meeting ID: 831 3013 3384
Passcode: 189749

August 12 — Waterfowl
6–8 PM
Zoom Meeting ID: 850 6133 4781
Passcode: 825046

August 17 — Turkey, Small Game, Upland Birds, Carnivores & Furbearers
6–8 PM
Zoom Meeting ID: 857 2754 6773
Passcode: 077770

These meetings are informational only. WDFW will explain the proposals and answer questions, but formal public comments will not be collected during the Zoom meetings.

Here’s why hunters need to pay attention:

Groups and individuals opposed to hunting are already sharing information about this process and looking at these proposals through the lens of how they can be used to restrict or reduce hunting opportunities.

If hunters sit this one out, other voices will still be participating.

Take the time to listen. Learn what WDFW is considering. Ask questions. And then make sure you submit your feedback through the public surveys.

Don’t let other people decide the future of your hunting opportunities for you.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development/2026-3-year-season-setting-rule-project

🔥 EMERGENCY GRAZING OPPORTUNITIES 🔥

WDFW is working to assist ranchers impacted by recent wildfires by identifying emergency grazing opportunities on select lands.

They are currently building a list of producers who may be interested. If you or someone you know could benefit, please reach out:

📞 Brandon Troyer: 509-429-2624
📧 [email protected]

Please share and help us get this information into the hands of producers who need it. ❤️🐂

Hunting organizations demand removal of state game commissioners

The fallout from the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission investigation is already escalating. The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation⁠ is now demanding that Gov. Bob Ferguson remove Barbara Baker, John Lehmkuhl, Melanie Rowland, and Lorna Smith from the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission. SAF says the independent investigation vindicated the core claims behind its 2025 petition seeking their removal.

SAF is also taking the fight to court. The organization filed a motion seeking sanctions against the department over what it describes as false declarations concerning a public-records request. The most serious allegation involves Commissioner Melanie Rowland. SAF claims the investigation found she intentionally failed to respond to its records request even though she had previously signed a court declaration stating that she had searched for and produced all responsive records. SAF is now alleging that the circumstances raise concerns about possible felony perjury.

An independent investigation has already substantiated violations involving public records, open meetings, and the Commission’s own disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules. Now a major hunting organization is asking the governor to remove four sitting commissioners and asking a court to impose sanctions. The investigation may be finished, but the fallout is just beginning.

Aaron B. Futrell, Author | Owner, Delong Lures

What is a “serial meeting,” and why did an independent investigator conclude Washington’s Fish & Wildlife Commission violated the Open Public Meetings Act?

Washington has nine Fish & Wildlife Commissioners, meaning five commissioners make up a majority. According to the independent investigation, four commissioners privately discussed issues including the spring bear hunt, conservation policy, motion drafting, and leadership elections. The report says those four commissioners reached agreement on the language of the spring bear motion before sending it to the commission chair, extending the discussion to a fifth commissioner before the issue reached a public meeting. Investigators concluded those overlapping communications collectively involved a majority of the commission discussing and shaping agency business outside publicly noticed meetings—a practice known as a serial meeting.

The report also found documentary evidence of coordination on votes, policy drafting, and leadership elections through these private communications. While investigators did not conclude the commissioners knowingly violated the law, they found this pattern violated the Open Public Meetings Act because official business was being shaped outside the public process.

Next, we’ll examine the “Gang of Four,” their meetings with advocacy groups, and why the investigator concluded those meetings created appearance concerns and institutional risk.

Aaron B. Futrell, Author | Owner, Delong Lures

After more than a year of waiting, we are thankful to finally have this report in our hands.

This report confirms many of the concerns our organization and countless others have raised regarding Public Records Act compliance, Open Public Meetings Act issues, conflicts of interest, and the overall governance of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission. It substantiates multiple allegations, at least in part, and documents significant governance failures.

We also do not believe this report represents everything known by the Governor’s Office. During the 2025 reappointment process, the Governor’s Office interviewed WDFW employees, and received additional information from numerous individuals, tribes, and organizations, including Conservation Coalition of Washington. We believe the Governor has a broader understanding of these issues than what is reflected in this report.

Many have focused on the report’s conclusion and assumed retraining is the only outcome. We disagree. The investigator’s report does not determine what action the Governor must take. It is ultimately the Governor’s responsibility—not the investigator’s—to decide what accountability looks like.

Based on the findings in this report, Conservation Coalition of Washington believes the Governor should remove the commissioners whose conduct was substantiated. Simply allowing commissioners to serve out the remainder of their terms is not meaningful accountability. Doing so sends the message that documented governance failures carry little consequence and risks encouraging similar conduct by future commissioners.

Meaningful reform cannot occur without meaningful accountability. This report validates serious concerns that many people spent years raising. Now it is up to the Governor to decide whether those findings will result in meaningful action.