Dear Commissioners,
Now that nearly two weeks have passed, I am reaching out to offer my sincere takeaway from the June 26-28 commission meeting. Both during the meeting itself and upon reflection over the many days since, I keep returning to one simple word: remarkable.
It is remarkable that save a pair of commissioners, a strongly defiant posture was the direction chosen by many in the face of undeniable evidence of various and sundry problems brought forward by the Sportsmen’s Alliance. For those who have not yet done so, I highly recommend that you carefully read the motion for summary judgement filed last week in our PRA case and decide for yourself. There is new evidence contained within that motion that we have not yet brought forward and, once again, should prove helpful as you make an overall assessment of the situation.
It is remarkable that the Sportsmen’s Alliance was blamed as the cause of the underlying problem(s) instead of any real direct response of substance on the evidence. I understand that you, as commissioners, have been placed under a gag order because of the ongoing litigation, but this order had no throttling effect on several allegations made to deflect blame away from your own behaviors to the “bad guy” Sportsmen’s Alliance. I have addressed these allegations and will not belabor the point here.
It is remarkable that commissioners implied that the Sportsmen’s Alliance and others want commissioners to never speak to certain anti-hunting groups or constituencies. This is nothing more than another diversionary tactic. For a check on reality, I encourage you to go to our website and listen to the many radio interviews and podcasts I’ve been on where I plainly state exactly the opposite. Of course you are supposed to talk, speak, interact with, etc. ALL of your constituencies in the state of Washington. I’ve said this time and again throughout my career.
What we’ve “called out” commissioners for, however, is something very different. We’ve pointed out that having an advocate call a Zoom meeting with four commissioners the day before a commission meeting and then calling together four commissioners immediately after another commission meeting, well, this takes things to a different level. I’ve never said that commissioners shouldn’t meet with advocates, but without belaboring the point, what’s been happening is on a different scale and intensity.
It is remarkable that some commissioners keep insisting that the reason we, as an organization, have uncovered and brought forward hard evidence of serious problems is because we are seeking vengeance for the vote to cancel spring bear hunting in 2022. This claim is not only a lazy attempt to diminish the reality of the evidence, but, sadly, misses the point entirely.
Allow me to explain. Nobody can seriously deny that Governor Jay Inslee appointed fish and wildlife commissioners with a particular ideology in mind. And please note, I didn’t say the “right” or “wrong” ideology. Different? Of course. This is what Governor Inslee wanted. I believe we can all agree on that.
For the hunting and fishing community then, fair warning was provided by Governor Inslee that things were going to change, or at least this was his intention. Our community wasn’t being paranoid in the least about this because the governor’s commission picks were not shy (for the most part) about who they were and what they stood for. Again, I hope we can at least agree on this obvious history.
This is about the broader context of the spring bear votes in 2021 and 2022. Thus, the November 2022 vote, offered and supported by commissioners as a means to prohibit spring bear hunting forever, was the first concrete example of the “new” way the Inslee commissioners would be conducting business going forward. In short, here was undeniable evidence of what many of us in the hunting and fishing community feared was a new approach to fish and wildlife decision-making in Olympia.
Our PRA request, which included many issues beyond spring bear hunting, brought forth evidence that confirmed our greatest fears, and a whole lot more. Even with our robust skepticism in hand, nobody has or can deny that we brought forward direct evidence of many problems. And more to the point, these behaviors (even those implicating state law directly) go well beyond the spring bear hunt issue. Next week, we start going public with evidence of problems associated with the conservation policy and then will move on to fisheries issues. We kept the conservation policy in abeyance only because the commission had tabled it and we thought it was to be killed, but it appears that policy remains on life support for unknown reasons.
As you know, because you provided the documents, there is a lot remaining to uncover. And yes, the behaviors we’ve brought forth previously are repeated in coming installments.
Seeking vengeance? I ask that you put aside your position on any given issue and simply see the evidence for what it shows. Get out of “blame the messenger” mode and actually ask yourself if this is the way you want things to be. Frankly, we’ve never thought once of vengeance, but rather, pushing for a better process that includes accountability, transparency, and playing by the rules.
One last thing, it is remarkable that the Sportsmen’s Alliance was described by some advocates as “out of state extremists” instead of as the membership organization we have been for nearly 50 years. In Washington, and every state in the nation, we work on our members’ behalf. It was our Washington members who called us asking for help with the commission and the agency, just as hundreds of membership groups do on behalf of their members in the state, even with headquarters somewhere else. We all have to be from somewhere, and our efforts to protect and defend our members is not more, and certainly not less legitimate, because of a corporate address in Ohio.
At the same time, however, I am very excited to share that we are in the initial stages of opening an office in Olympia along with full-time policy/legal staff. I will keep you apprised on our progress but look forward to seeing you in person on a more routine and recurrent basis in the future.
Finally, I fully embrace what we were told at the commission meeting that things have “gotten better” and I will remain hopeful that this is indeed the case. Unfortunately, if we issued a PRA request today to find out, it would be 2027, at the earliest, before we would know for sure.
Please let me know if you have any questions, thoughts, or concerns. I thank you for taking the time to read this material and look forward to speaking with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Todd Adkins, Ph.D.
