By Dave Workman A member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission and an environmental attorney who also heads an environmental group have filed a federal lawsuit against the director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, and his deputy, alleging civil rights violations.
Commissioner Lorna Smith and attorney Claire Loebs Davis filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington. Defendants are WDFW Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope. At issue are allegations that Susewind and Windrope are guilty of “viewpoint discrimination and retaliation prohibited by the First Amendment.”
In their lawsuit, Washington Wildlife First is described as “a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Washington with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. WW1 is dedicated to using the power of the law, informed advocacy, and strategic partnerships to transform Washington’s relationship with its fish and wildlife from an approach centered around consumptive use to a more democratic paradigm that values science, recognizes the intrinsic value of individual animals, and prioritizes protecting, preserving, and perpetuating wild lives.”
They contend that Susewind “boasts that all his decisions as director are framed by his perspective as a hunter, and he clings to the days when the state wildlife agency was operated by and for the benefit of hunters, anglers, and commercial consumptive-use stakeholders. In his view, those are the primary interests and values the agency should consider, and the main constituents with whom it should consult.”
Yet, ten pages into the lawsuit, the document notes:
“The primary mandate of the Commission and the director is to ‘preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage’ the state’s fish and wildlife.
“The mandate also requires the Commission and the director to:
• “conserve. . fish and wildlife…in a manner that does not impair the resource”;
• “seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state”;
• “authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources”; and
• “attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.”
Writing at Northwest Sportsman, a publication covering consumptive fishing and hunting opportunities in Washington and Oregon, editor Andy Walgamott notes in the middle of his 1,491-word report on this controversy, “the commission has been a hot mess since late 2019 when Davis and others began to challenge the limited entry spring black bear hunt, ultimately killing it off as it had existed for decades, and in doing so, they struck something of a blow against Susewind’s core hunting memory – his first kill five and a half decades back.”
Into this philosophical fray has stepped the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, a national pro-hunting and angling organization, which sued the agency in 2025 for failure to provide public records in violation of the state’s Public Records Act. As noted in a press release announcing the lawsuit, “The Sportsmen’s Alliance initially sought public records in September 2023 pertaining to the business of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.”
There have been concerns going back at least that far about the alleged activities of Commissioner Smith and some of her commission colleagues. Cancellation of the spring black bear hunt, which had been going on for decades, appears to have been the kindling which ignited the firestorm.
At the time the Alliance filed its lawsuit, it explained, “The surprise vote (cancelling the bear hunt) raised concerns that members of the commission had routinely engaged in private communications among themselves concerning commission activities, meetings and votes. In order to investigate the activities of the commission leading up to the meeting and vote, the Sportsmen’s Alliance sought public records under the PRA.”
As explained by Walgamott at the outdoors magazine, “This is just the latest battle in a years-long war as preservationist interests have attempted to wrestle WDFW and critter management away from the heart of the legislative mandate through multiple means, and it comes just as a Governor’s Office investigation into Smith and another commissioner’s activities is scheduled to wrap up and even more questions are being raised out of it.”
Perhaps surprisingly to many in the Evergreen State firearms community, Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson ordered an investigation into commission activities based on a report known as the “Knoll Memo,” authored by “a WDFW legal liaison” identified as Thomas Knoll. The memo was sent to Gov. Ferguson, who launched an investigation, conducted by an outside investigator.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance obtained a copy of the memo and published it. Among the revelations was that Davis, the attorney, has represented several “private interest groups” including “groups (Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC), Washington Wildlife First (WWF), and The Conservation Angler (TCA)), against the WDFW. In total, she has brought 12 lawsuits against WDFW. In 2023, Ms. Davis had five pending lawsuits against WDFW.”
The ongoing battle over fish and, especially, wildlife management in the Evergreen State has also touched on predator management to reduce predation on game herds, loss of two weeks of hunting opportunity for grouse, which for years had opened on Sept. 1 but now is delayed until the 15th, ostensibly to protect hens, and expanding populations of mountain lions, wolves, black bears and coyotes.
Now both sides are waiting for the Governor Office investigation to wrap up, and the battle appears far from over. It represents a microcosm of a “bigger picture” conflict between sportsmen and women, wildlife agencies and organizations determined to reduce, if not eliminate, consumptive wildlife traditions, and it could also be argued that it touches on the battle between gun owners and the gun prohibition lobby.
In neighboring Oregon, for example, hunters and anglers, ranchers and others are in a heated fight over a citizen initiative—IP 28 (the ‘PEACE’) initiative which, if passed, will literally outlaw hunting, fishing and ranching, as explained by the Oregon Hunters Association.
It’s a fight which the Northwest’s “hook-and-bullet” crowd cannot afford to lose. Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
