To be clear, we do not mean that we value wildlife over people. But state agencies are rarely in the position of deciding between the lives of wild animals and the lives of humans. Instead, they routinely weigh whether to value fish and wildlife species—and the wild spaces in which they live—over human convenience, special human economic interests, and idiosyncratic human demands. Wildlife inevitably loses.

This outdated, hierarchical system values fish, wildlife, and wild spaces only by reference to their usefulness to humans, seeking to “conserve” now only so we can exploit later. That approach ignores the intrinsic value of all life and the importance of preserving robust, intact ecosystems—and it is the same thinking that has brought humankind to the brink of ecological disaster. Washington Wildlife First seeks to reverse that thinking, so that our state environmental agencies prioritize the health of the environment, the integrity of natural ecosystems, and the welfare of fish and wildlife populations.

Washington Wildlife First is not anti-business, or anti-profit. To the contrary, our board includes a retired businessman, a retired financial advisor, and an attorney who represented corporations for much of her career. But we recognize that there must be a balance between the interests of business and the interests of our wildlife and wild spaces. Our state agencies fail to preserve that balance, and instead capitulate reflexively to the demands of powerful special interest groups.

Examples abound. The Department of Fish and Wildlife permits the timber industry to kill bears for eating the the bark off trees, rather than asking the industry to manage timber stands to make them less vulnerable, and to promote a balanced ecosystem so bears have other food sources in the spring. They also have approved unprecedented increases in hatchery production to meet the demands of the commercial fishing industry. The Department will even gun down endangered wolves for preying on cattle grazing on public lands.

Washingtonians do place a very high value on conservation, the health of the environment, and responsible wildlife management. Unfortunately, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has not evolved along with the values of the people of the state, and continues to manage wildlife based on a model that is more than a 100 years old. Washington Wildlife First aims to bring the Department in line with the values of the people it is supposed to represent.

Consider the following:

• A 2022 poll commissioned by Washington Wildlife First found that 80% of Washington voters oppose spring bear hunting. However, the state continued to have a recreational spring hunt until 2021, when the Commission temporarily suspended the hunt. After more than a year of controversy and debate, the Commission permanently discontinued the spring bear hunt in 2022. That decision was opposed by Department Director Kelly Susewind, who had vowed to extremist hunting groups to restore the hunt.
• Most Washingtonians support protecting beavers, because they provide ecosystem benefits that help other species survive climate change. Our poll found that only 12% of the public supports the Department’s rules on beavers, which classify them as “furbearers” to be “harvested,” allowing a general trapping season and letting landowners kill them year-round.
• Most Washingtonians oppose coyote hunting, saying coyote should only be killed if they pose an immediate danger to livestock, pets, or humans.
  In fact, only 16% support the Department’s regulations on coyote, which allow them to be hunted year-round with no limits and few restrictions.
• Only 25% of the public supports killing state endangered wolves for conflicts with livestock on public lands. Support is even lower if owners
  have failed to use reasonable non-lethal conflict deterrent measures or knowingly graze livestock near wolf dens. The Department has beaten back a proposed rule to limit its discretion to continue to kill wolves in these circumstances.

Governor Inslee has promoted an environmental agenda and is especially focused on the issue of climate change. However, he does not directly control the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Department is supervised by a nine-member citizen Commission, whose members are appointed by the Governor and approved by the state Senate. That Commission approves the state’s fish and wildlife rules and agency policies, and is the only entity with the authority to hire or fire the Department director. However, the Governor can exert significant influence  through the appointments he makes to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Absolutely not. To the contrary, we aim to support the work done by the scientists and other fine employees in the Department, many of whom are leaders in their fields. In particular, we know that many excellent biologists, enforcement officers, conflict specialists, and other employees are desperate to see change within their agency. They understand the Department’s dysfunction better than anyone, but they pay a price for speaking out, as Department management has taken aggressive actions to silence dissent. We stand behind those employees in calling for reform by agency leadership. We speak because they cannot.

No. We recognize that many of the people who are most devoted to conservation also hunt and fish, and we support ethical hunting and fishing. Ethical hunting and fishing is done for a legitimate purpose (such as for food), and with respect for the species that are killed—and concern for the health of the overall population. This means being selective about which species are hunted and avoiding overhunting and overfishing of any species. It also means the elimination of trophy hunting, banning hunting during springtime when populations are vulnerable and young will be orphaned, outlawing cruel hunting techniques that violate the principle of “fair chase” (such as the use of hounds, bait, and sophisticated tracking devices), and eliminating indiscriminate commercial fishing practices that kill endangered and threatened species.  Our goal is to transform our current system, which aims to “maximize” hunting and fishing, regardless of the ethical implications, into a system that maximizes the preservation of biodiversity, while continuing to provide sustainable and ethical opportunities to hunt and fish.

No. We all rely upon farmers and ranchers to help bring food to our table. We support regenerative farming and ranching practices that help sequester carbon and reestablish healthy soils. We are opposed to industrial farming techniques that pollute our soils and waterways, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that are inherently cruel to animals and produce vast amounts of waste and pollutants, and grazing on public lands at the expense of wildlife and ecosystem health.

No, although there is a lot to be said for bicycles, bamboo, and granola. But we need to bring an end to our unthinking exploitation of wildlife and wild spaces and become much more thoughtful about our consumption. We need to understand that the planet does not just belong to us, and the earth’s resources are not just for humans to use. Humans need to learn to share, before it is too late.