season , and have ever since by denying multiple petitions and crafting a policy cancelling it forever .
It has been clear from the beginning that this was never actually about the spring season — that was just low-hanging fruit . The real aim was to justify carving up and restricting all bear seasons . If you can cancel a season without the scientific evidence to back such a move , you can do anything , at any time , and for ideology alone . This is what hunters in the state now find themselves facing .
Predator Petitions Accepted and Pushed When hunters brought multiple petitions to reinstate the spring season , they were summarily dismissed . However , when national and state animal-rights organizations petitioned the commission for changes to mountain lion hunting and the fall bear season , their requests were eagerly considered , forced through the process and could go into effect this year .
The Center for Biological Diversity , Humane Society of the United States and Mountain Lion Foundation , among others have requested that the fall bear season start Sept . 1 , a full a month later than normal and after most bears have historically been killed , as well as reducing the bag limit from two bears to just one per hunter .
But the radical activists didn ’ t stop there . No , they requested multiple changes to mountain lion hunting , too . Paramount among those is including all independent-age cougars toward the mortality cap and lumping all human-caused mortality ( depredation removals , hunting or even those killed by cars ) toward a unit ’ s quota , and closing the unit to hunting when that cap is reached , regardless of the number taken by hunters .
The department ’ s wildlife biologists roundly recommended that the commission deny the petitions . “ Although they speak about reversing the decisions made , the rule language they propose goes far beyond reversing the changes ,” said Game Division Manager Anis Aoude .
Indeed , even Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind spoke up , defending his biologists and staff , at a heated commission meeting that saw Commission Chair Barbara Baker ramrod her substitute motion through the process despite calls from several commissioners to table the matter for a year to align it with the Game Management Plan update . According to Northwest Sportsman Magazine , he stated that he was “ in a bit of disbelief ” about the discussion and said it was the first time a commission had dictated a rulemaking CR-102 with such specificity and “ on the fly ,” switching elements around . “ This needs better airing ,” he added .
Despite the protest and bitter back and forth between activistcommissioner Baker and rancher-commissioner Molly Linville and some others , including the fact that many commissioners only received the substitute motion the night before , and more than one clarification by the state ’ s attorney on Roberts Rules of Order and confusion over what exactly commissioners were voting on , the mountain lion motion passed on a 5-3-1 vote .
For now , Washington hunters must wait for the changes to mountain lion and fall bear seasons to be finalized as both seasons quickly approach ( bear was supposed to open Aug . 1 ) and watch as the state ’ s fish and wildlife commission and governor continue to do the bidding of radical animal-activists determined to destroy hunting at all costs in the state .
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT HEARS LORNA SMITH CASE
By Michael Jean , Litigation Counsel , Sportsmen ’ s Alliance Foundation
On May 30 , the Sportsmen ’ s Alliance Foundation ( SAF ) presented oral argument to the Washington Supreme Court in our lawsuit against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ( WDFW ) Commissioner Lorna Smith for simultaneously holding two appointive offices in blatant violation of state law .
This case has far-reaching implications for all sportsmen and whether or not we hold government officials accountable for following the law . The plain letter of the law is clear : a fish and wildlife commissioner cannot hold another appointive office . We brought the suit and argued before the state ’ s highest court to enforce that plain language standard .
At question is Commissioner Smith ’ s simultaneous holding of two appointed positions , a direct violation of state statute RCW 77.04.040 , which holds that “ persons eligible for appointment as members of the commission … shall not hold another state , county , or municipal elective or appointive office .”
At trial , the judge agreed with our position . That judge read the statute by its plain words . Smith resigned her other office , but then the Washington Attorney General appealed , seeking to protect ideological nominees like Smith going forward . The state ’ s argument relies on an activist theory that the plain language of the statute should be discarded in favor of a reading that allows the governor maximum flexibility . Whether Smith holds another appointive office is largely irrelevant , says the state .
For the Sportsmen ’ s Alliance Foundation , this is a straightforward case about the rule of law and separation of powers . We were encouraged by many of the thoughtful questions posed by several of the Justices during the hearing and look forward to the final decision . We remain confident that the Smith case , and others we are currently putting together , will help get Washington back on track with sportsmen once again listened to and respected .
SUMMER 2024 13