logo
Hunting advocates petition for removal of four Washington Fish and Wildlife commissioners

Hunting advocates petition for removal of four Washington Fish and Wildlife commissioners

Yahoo17-05-2025

May 16—A national hunting advocacy group wants four Washington Fish and Wildlife commissioners gone, citing a trove of internal documents that the group says shows the commissioners acted improperly.
The Sportsman's Alliance Foundation petitioned Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson asking him to remove commissioners Barbara Baker, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland and John Lehmkuhl from the nine-member panel that oversees the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In its 25-page petition, the group argues that thousands of pages of internal correspondence it obtained through a public records request show the four commissioners "violating numerous norms, expectations and requirements of the law" while discussing upcoming votes and other issues via email.
Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen's Alliance, said in a statement that the commissioners' behavior amounts to "bad government on steroids."
"Secret meetings, exclusion of tribes and others from public meetings, an obvious and open contempt for the public, and a total disregard of the law — it's all there, and it's obvious that this is simply the way these four commissioners do business," Heusinkveld said.
Commissioners are appointed by the governor. The governor also has the power to remove them.
The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment before deadline Friday.
The four commissioners targeted in the petition were appointed by former Gov. Jay Inslee. Baker, who is from Thurston County and serves as commission chair, has been on the panel since 2017. Smith, of Jefferson County, has been on the panel since 2021. Lehmkuhl, of Chelan County, and Rowland, of Okanogan County, were first appointed in 2022.
The Sportsmen's Alliance requested public records including correspondence from the four commissioners in September 2023 following the vote earlier that year to end spring bear hunting in Washington.
WDFW's public records analyst found more than 470,000 records that were responsive to their request. After filing a lawsuit in January over a delayed response to its request, the alliance has now received 17,000 records as of this month, according to the petition.
A WDFW spokesperson confirmed the timeline of the alliance's records request but declined to comment further.
The alliance has specific grievances with each commissioner, and it airs some of them in the petition, but it maintains the documents show a consistent pattern among the group of flouting open meeting requirements, disregarding the interests of Native American tribes and showing disdain for public involvement in wildlife management.
The petition says there's ample grounds for removing the commissioners, and that the alliance has "hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of additional examples to support their removal, and we are ready, willing to be able to share these with the Governor, if needed, to ensure a swift and just response to this petition."
The petition is the latest in a string of controversies to come for the commission, which has the final say on wildlife management and things like hunting and fishing regulations.
Hunters have been critical of the panel over the past several years, arguing that decisions like ending spring bear hunting and changing cougar regulations are an attack on hunters. Meanwhile, environmentalists have argued that the commission is too friendly to hunters and anglers at the expense of wildlife.
People on both sides of that debate, however, have been frustrated with how the commission operates. A December report from the William D. Ruckelshaus Center found that many observers see the commission as "dysfunctional."
The past five months have been marked by conflicts over who should sit on the commission. Inslee named commissioners for two of three open commission seats just before leaving office, only to have those appointments rescinded by Ferguson. Ferguson named three commissioners to fill those seats in April.
Then, Washington Wildlife First, an environmental group, sued over Ferguson's reappointment of commissioner Molly Linville, arguing she couldn't be appointed to the panel because she simultaneously held a seat on a local school board. Linville has since resigned from the school board.
The suit echoed one filed by the Sportsman's Alliance Foundation two years earlier over Smith's commission seat — Smith had been serving on a local planning board. That case ended up before the state Supreme Court, which sided with the alliance.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says
North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says

Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness talk to reporters June 11, 2025, about an opinion related to Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota's attorney general said Wednesday Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto was 'sound,' dismissing a differing conclusion by legislative staff that his intent was unclear and the Legislature should hold a special session to fix the error. The opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley means $35 million for housing programs Armstrong's office unintentionally crossed out in a May line-item veto can move forward unless the matter is challenged in court or the Legislature reconvenes. Armstrong's veto message for the Industrial Commission budget described cutting $150,000 set aside for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But a markup of the bill also crossed out a $35 million appropriation for affordable housing and homelessness — funding Armstrong had intended to leave intact. His office later said there had been a 'staff markup error.' 'Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises Since then, the Legislature has been trying to figure out what actions, if any, must be taken to address the veto — including the possibility of calling a special session. Wrigley found that the unintentional markup does not change the substance of the veto because Armstrong's written veto message was 'clear and unambiguous' about what parts of Senate Bill 2014 he intended to cut. He said in a Wednesday press conference that a 'visual image' should not 'take precedence over the written orders, the detailed description offered by the one person with the power to veto.' Attorneys for North Dakota's legislative branch in a Friday memo took a very different position, advising the Legislature that calling a special session would be the 'prudent remedy' for the mistake. In its memo, Legislative Council said legal precedent suggests the marked-up bill is part of the official veto document. 'It would not be appropriate to allow the Governor and Attorney General to resolve the ambiguity by agreement,' the memo states. Doing so could have unintended consequences for how ambiguous vetoes are handled in the future, Legislative Council said. Wrigley called the Legislative Council memo a 'political document' and said the Attorney General's Office has the final say on the matter unless the issue is challenged in court. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' he told the North Dakota Monitor last week. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong, whose office requested the opinion, in a statement agreed with Wrigley's findings. 'We appreciate the Attorney General's determination, which clarifies the matter, avoids the cost of a special session and nullifies the flawed interpretation that initially blew this up into something much bigger than it needed to be,' he said. A special session is estimated to cost $65,000 per day, Legislative Council has said. The Legislature could still decide to reconvene for a special session to override the veto if it chooses to, Wrigley said. Legislative Council Director John Bjornson said the office did not immediately have a statement on the opinion. This story was updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Attorney General Opinion

DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents

President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them. 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states. While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future. The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region. The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.' President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated. 'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.' Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion. 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments
DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments

The Justice Department says President Donald Trump has the right to abolish national monuments established by former President Joe Biden at the request of Native American tribes. In the final days of his presidency, Biden established the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of land in California. According to Reuters, the Chuckwalla National Monument protects over 624,000 acres, while the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument protects 224,000 acres. Trump Doj Investigating Biden-era Pardons Amid Concerns Over State Of Mind The monuments could lose their status after a Trump DOJ legal opinion reversed a 1938 determination that presidents did not have the power to abolish monuments designated by previous presidents under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit argued in the opinion that "for the Antiquities Act, the power to declare carries with it the power to revoke." In his first term, Trump reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments in Utah, according to the Associated Press. The outlet noted that Trump claimed the monuments were a "massive land grab." However, Biden later restored them during his term in office. Read On The Fox News App Biden Says He's Been Carrying Out 'Most Aggressive Climate Agenda' In History As He Designates Ca Monuments The DOJ's opinion, which was released on Tuesday, has already drawn backlash as Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., slammed the Trump administration. "At Donald Trump's order, his Justice Department is attempting to clear a path to erase national monuments," said Heinrich, who serves as the ranking member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "Here's what they don't understand: Our national monuments are about who we are. They tell the story of our ancestors, support jobs and our rural economies, and connect Americans to our history and the land itself. No president can erase that." Heinrich also vowed to oppose Republican efforts "to rip away our national monuments." In the legal opinion, Pettit wrote that Biden's designation of the new monuments was part of a larger effort to create an environmental legacy for himself. She also appeared to discredit Biden's reasons for designating the sites as national monuments, including the creation of more places for outdoor recreational activities, like biking, hiking, hunting and camping. "Such activities are entirely expected in a park, but they are wholly unrelated to (if not outright incompatible with) the protection of scientific or historical monuments," Pettit wrote. There is no clear indication if or when Trump would revoke the status of the two sites established by Biden—or the status of any other monuments. However, according to Reuters, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields spoke about the need to "liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing" when asked about the article source: DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store