Hunters’ demands for spring bear kills led to dubious reprimand, tarnished reputations, say commissioners
Ed.: This article was originally published in Columbia Insight on Sept. 14, 2026.
Disappointing. That’s the general sentiment surrounding the Aug. 31 letters from Gov. Bob Ferguson’s office to Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland, following a months-long independent investigation into their conduct.
Disappointing to the hunting groups that petitioned the governor to dismiss Smith and Rowland from the commission, because the letters do not dismiss them.
Disappointing to the conservation groups that support Smith and Rowland because, even though the governor decided not to remove them, the tone and language in the letters accept the premise of wrongdoing.
And disappointing to Smith and Rowland because, after long careers working to protect natural resources, the final years of their service are culminating not with recognition for their contributions, but with warning letters that come with no documentation backing up the allegations that they violated the state’s open public meetings or public records acts.
Smith and Rowland were the only two commissioners to receive letters from the governor’s office following the $80,000 probe into their conduct, and the conduct of commissioners John Lehmkuhl, Barbara Baker and Woody Myers, and former commissioner Tim Regan. The investigation’s final report was released in August.
The investigation was launched in August 2025 after the Sportsmen’s Alliance, an Ohio-based advocacy group for hunters, trappers and fishers, expressed dismay at a WDFW commission decision to end the recreational hunting of black bears in spring. After seeking the commissioners’ emails, texts and other communications, the group petitioned Ferguson to remove four commissioners — Smith, Rowland, Baker and Lehmkuhl — alleging misconduct and malfeasance.
Smith, Rowland and Lehmkuhl are all serving or finishing six-year terms that expire at the end of this year.
In separate interviews with Columbia Insight, Rowland said she would not ask to serve another term on the commission; Smith said it’s unlikely she will throw her hat into the ring but reserves the right to change her mind; and Lehmkuhl said he hasn’t decided what to do once his term expires.
All three commissioners told Columbia Insight that since their vote in 2022 to end spring hunting for black bears they’ve endured personal attacks at commission meetings and on social media as part of a coordinated campaign to remove them from the commission.
“It is a witch hunt. There’s no better name for it,” Smith said of the organized effort to remove them from the commission. “Melanie and I both have long histories of activism in the state of Washington. We’re the only two commissioners who have that record, so we do feel very targeted.”
“What people should know is that these charges were drummed up. Lorna and I were selected because of our votes and our views. They want us off the commission. That’s what this has all been about,” said Rowland.
Lehmkuhl said the governor’s office never contacted him, but the letters appear to be Ferguson’s response to the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition to remove them from serving on the commission.
“The way I look at it is, it’s sort of the closeout to the investigation and the petition to the governor,” he said. “I wasn’t mentioned. Barbara Baker wasn’t mentioned. We never got letters, so I’m just assuming everything’s closed.”
Hunting for evidence
Ferguson agreed to investigate the commissioners at the request of Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind, who raised concerns about possible misconduct after his office reviewed some of the 17,000 public records gathered from the commissioners’ personal computers, cell phones and other sources.
Those files were made available after multiple public records requests from the Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Claiming the emails showed collusion, perjury and other illegal activities, the hunting group also petitioned Ferguson to remove Smith, Rowland, Lehmkuhl and Baker from the commission.
The investigator did not find collusion or perjury, although she did find that commissioners did not consistently comply with Public Records Act obligations and discussed agency business outside of public meetings in violation of the Open Public Record Act.
She also found “a significant breakdown in trust between certain commissioners and department leadership.”
Signed by Franklin Plaistowe, Ferguson’s chief operations officer, the Aug. 31 letters to Smith and Rowland say their purpose is to “memorialize concerns regarding your conduct” as commissioners. They summarize the allegations and point out “problematic behavior” surrounding their failure to provide records for 18 months in response to a “broad” public records request.
But they also state that the investigator found no evidence of collusion, of violating compensation rules or of a pattern of harassment, mistreatment or retaliation toward WDFW staff.
They warn Smith and Rowland to promptly comply with public records requests; align with requirements of open public meetings; strictly observe conflict-of-interest rules; professionally engage with WDFW staff and other commissioners; and refrain from retaliating for the remainder of their terms.
Smith and Rowland both said the letters are confusing.
For example, Smith noted, the letters mention submitting a “voting form,” apparently referring to the filings of a declaration that they searched personal devices for public records.
“It was bizarre. It didn’t even make sense. It conflated what the report had said about Melanie with what the report said about me,” said Smith.
In addition, both commissioners say they never received any documentation supporting the allegations.
“I have no idea what they’re talking about when they say I took a certain period of time (to produce public records). I don’t recall that ever happening,” said Smith.
The letter includes neither dates nor specifics documenting the allegations.
Rowland said she had no idea how to turn over records from her personal devices.
“We were never told how to answer these things, all these technical searches and uploading and transferring,” she said.
Both Smith and Rowland said they turned to their husbands and to the WDFW’s internet technology department for help, which sometimes became another source of frustration.
Smith estimated that she was required to respond to upward of 130 public records requests.
She said that when she was first appointed, she was given only “soft advice” to “preferably” use her work devices, but since she is familiar with Mac and has everything connected she relied mostly on her personal phone and computer.
Reputations tarnished
After long professional careers, all three commissioners said they believe their reputations have been tarnished by what has happened on the Fish and Wildlife Commission, even though the investigation found no serious violations.
An attorney, Rowland said one of the handful of people filing public records requests also filed a complaint against her with the Washington State Bar Association. She said she was unaware of this until she received notification that the complaint had been dismissed.
Rowland said after working on spotted owls and other contentious issues, she was surprised by the viciousness of the attacks against her, and their personal nature.
“I can’t tell whether this is just the way our society is now, or if for some reason these people are just more aggressive. I don’t have a clue, but I’ve never been subjected to anything like this,” she said.
Smith said she spent more than 20 years in Snohomish County government, where she supervised a staff of 25 people and never had a grievance filed against her.
“I was the only supervisor at the county who had that record, and I’m proud of that,” she said.
But in trying to figure out WDFW’s “byzantine” system for responding to public records, she said that she expressed frustrations to a public records staff member, who interpreted the interaction as mistreatment.
The investigation, however, found no pattern of harassment, mistreatment or retaliation, and chalked up the incident to a “significant breakdown of trust.”
Lehmkuhl said he bristled at the allegations by hunting groups that he was “unfit” to serve because of his vote on the spring bear hunt.
A wildlife biologist for more than 50 years, Lehmkuhl said he’s voted many times to support hunting and fishing.
“Everything they said about me was unfounded,” he said.
But the investigation didn’t address many of the statements that hunting groups made in news releases and social media posts.
Lehmkuhl said he hopes his actions speak for themselves.
Lehmkuhl also said he’s compelled to defend the reputation of the commission, which — despite all the controversy — has addressed most of the issues raised in the Ruckleshaus Report — another investigation that grew out of the hunting-versus-conservation controversy.
“I think we have a lot of accountability,” he said. “I personally think that the commission has done good work.”
‘Dangerous game’
Washington Wildlife First — a nonprofit organization involved in the controversy — said it’s concerned about the “chilling effect” that the ordeal has had on free speech, and on the potential for other wildlife advocates to serve on the commission.
Along with Smith, the group and its executive director, Claire Davis, filed a civil rights lawsuit in April against WDFW, Susewind and WDFW Deputy Director Amy Windrope, claiming they used public resources to investigate and discredit them.
While the governor did not oust Smith or Rowland, the governor’s letters appear to accept the premise that their actions warranted a reprimand, Washington Wildlife First Science and Policy Director Francisco Santiago-Ávila told Columbia Insight.
“We think Susewind, Windrope and to an extent the governor’s office are playing a very dangerous game here,” he said, pointing to social media rhetoric from hunting rights groups that could incite violence.
Santiago-Ávila provided documentation that his organization gathered from social media blogs, posts and comments in response to the investigation. It includes dozens of obscene, misogynistic, homophobic or threatening posts, including a photo of a noose, requests for the commissioners’ addresses and references to hunting, such as, “When is it commissioner season again? I got 4 tags.”
Santiago-Ávila said that during the timeframe of the public records requests, nearly every commissioner used private emails and text accounts.
“This selective scrutiny is especially glaring because many of the allegations appear to apply equally or with greater force to other commissioners,” he said. “We are seeing treatment here that amounts to … illegal discrimination.”
Santiago-Ávila said the ordeal could have a chilling effect on both the governor’s willingness to appoint strong wildlife advocates, and on the willingness of those advocates — especially women — to serve.
Hunters want pelts
Dissatisfied with the governor’s decision, the Sportsmen’s Alliance isn’t giving up its quest, as the group instructed its members on Sept. 10, to lobby the state of Washington to “terminate Rowland and Smith immediately!”
The nonprofit’s extremist attacks on commissioners in a state more than 2,000 miles from its headquarters have often cherry-picked arguments, distorted facts and come across more as personal grudge than an effort to serve member or public interests.
In one of many inflammatory posts, the Sportsmen’s Alliance expressed outrage that Smith claimed reimbursement of over $40,000 for work on the commission over a 14-month period beginning in January 2024, neglecting to mention that all commissioners receive a $100-per-day work stipend.
Smith told Columbia Insight that a fair portion of her reported work time went to responding to public records requests, in addition to heading the commission’s work to revise its game management plan. The investigator found “the allegation that Smith engaged in improper timekeeping and compensation practices is unsubstantiated.”
According to a ProPublica report, in 2024 Sportsmen’s Alliance President and CEO Evan Heusinkveld received $283,340 in salary and related and other compensation, or just over 22% of the organization’s revenue for the year.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance and the Conservation Coalition of Washington — the two hunting rights groups at the center of the controversy — emailed statements to Columbia Insight about the governor’s decision not to remove Smith and Rowland.
“Public disclosure laws were written to ensure citizens have transparent access to the decisions made by the government. The lack of real consequences when those laws are violated, as they have been here, means more corruption in the future. Governor Ferguson had a chance to send a message to all public officials that compliance with the law matters. Instead, he delivered a slap in the wrist,” wrote Brian Lynn, vice president of marketing and communications for the Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Lynn added that while his organization is based in Ohio, he was born and raised in Washington and lives in the Spokane area.
“Although we had hoped the Governor would take further action following the investigation, we understand that this was not simple, particularly following the loss of Commissioner Victor Garcia and with only four months remaining in the current commissioners’ terms,” wrote Kelsey Ross, president of the Conservation Coalition of Washington.
Garcia, a hunter and fisherman who was appointed to the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2025, died in late August.
Ross said the issue is over good government and accountability.
“We do not want the outcome of this situation to create the impression that these standards are optional for current or future commissioners. We have faith that Governor Ferguson’s office will be rigorous in the upcoming appointment process, as we believe they were with the 2025 appointments.”
Whose accountability?
Hunting groups aren’t the only ones calling for accountability.
Ronald Reed, founder and director of the Spokane-based group Seven Generations Innovation and co-founder of Washington Wildlife First, has been following and writing about the WDFW saga.
In a January opinion piece published in the Washington State Standard, Reed questioned the value of the investigation, given its limited scope, and the fact that much more serious problems at WDFW have not received similar scrutiny.
Specifically, he dove into a 2018 legislature-funded examination of WDFW that found “deep structural dysfunction, a toxic workplace culture, weak accountability, and leadership failures that put employees and the agency’s mission at risk.”
Two years later, two WDFW employees drowned while working, resulting in multiple citations by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries and more than $230,000 in penalties, but not nearly the amount of press that the commission investigation received.
Reed has since penned an open letter to Ferguson about the investigation of commissioners, and the governor’s response.
In it, he addresses the letters to Smith and Rowland, saying first that he is not asking the governor to ignore legitimate findings against them.
“Public-records requirements, open-meetings laws and appropriate standards of conduct matter, and commissioners should be held accountable when those standards are not met,” he wrote. “Whatever mistakes they may have made — and no public official should be immune from legitimate criticism — they did not deserve to have their reputations subjected to years of insinuations about corruption, dishonesty and conspiracy that the investigation itself does not substantiate.”
He leaves the governor with several questions:
“If citizen commissioners can face removal petitions, a yearlong gubernatorial investigation, formal warning letters and intense public scrutiny over records, meetings and communications with advocacy organizations, why have documented failures involving workplace culture, management accountability, employee deaths and serious state safety citations not produced an equally searching independent examination of WDFW executive leadership?”
—By K.C. Mehaffey
Columbia Insight is a nonprofit environmental news website covering the Pacific Northwest, based in Hood River, Oregon.