Should Washington’s Fish and Wildlife Commission be dissolved?

It’s one of the possibilities raised in a new report that describes the citizen-led panel as “dysfunctional.” Lawmakers and commissioners are weighing next steps.

||| FROM WASHINGTON STATE STANDARD |||

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is under scrutiny after a report last month found the organization’s structure was “dysfunctional” and needed reforms.

The report by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center at Washington State University and the University of Washington is sparking conversation among lawmakers about the effectiveness of the commission’s structure and what can be done to improve it — including potentially dissolving the citizen-led panel altogether.

“I don’t think that we’ve settled on a path,” House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, said. “I don’t think it’s necessary that this be the year that we reform the governance structure of Fish and Wildlife, but I do think it is something our members are thinking about.”

Based on interviews with more than 100 people who have knowledge and experience with the commission, the report assessed the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s structure, funding, transparency, communication with the public, and ability to deal with climate change and biodiversity loss. 

The Fish and Wildlife Commission oversees the Department of Fish and Wildlife and helps establish policy for wildlife management. The commission consists of nine citizen members appointed by the governor to six-year terms. The members must include three west of the Cascades, three east of the Cascades, and three who can be from anywhere in the state.

The report found that there was significant confusion around the scope of the department’s work, its finances and how it communicates with tribes and the public. It also said there’s murkiness surrounding the department’s legal mandate.

When it came to the commission, many described it as “dysfunctional, politically polarized and caught up in conflict,” according to the report. The biggest concerns included the governor-led appointment process, the commission’s makeup, limited accountability, and a lack of clarity over the commission’s relationship with tribes.

Lawmakers taking a look

Many of the proposed fixes to the department would require legislative action.

READ FULL ARTICLE