March/April 2024

Habitat loss. Climate change. Invasive species. As the director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), I certainly don’t see a shortage of threats that impact fish and wildlife resources and our ability to conserve them.

A cross-cutting issue that will affect our ability to be successful across these fronts (and more!) is whether we, as a state fish and wildlife agency, will be relevant to the people we serve.

If people don’t care about fish and wildlife conservation, then why fund and authorize an agency to lead these efforts? If there isn’t public support for species recovery, habitat protection, enforcement of fish and wildlife laws, wildlife area maintenance, or the furtherance of sustainable, science-based, and regulated hunting and fishing opportunities, the laws that direct these efforts could be altered, and the appropriations to do the work will dry up.

That is why, in this biennium, in addition to hiring experts to address the direct threats to fish and wildlife listed above, I have also significantly invested in resources to communicate and engage with the public about the importance of fish and wildlife, how these resources benefit our quality of life, and what we can all do to contribute to conservation.
Conservation typically doesn’t occur at a broad, landscape scale; it occurs at the local level—at specific points on a map. I have established communication specialists in each region. They will be conduits to the media and local communities about fish and wildlife challenges in their area. I have also hired subject matter expert communication specialists to convey fish and wildlife science and WDFW management decisions to the public we serve.

We know communication is a two-way street, so we’re ready to listen. We’re striving to be more visible and available at outreach events. We plan to not only increase our capacity at our traditional forums, but also be present and available in new community spaces to talk about fish and wildlife conservation and the work that we do. In this past year, we have attended 135 of outreach events, connecting with more than 32,000 residents—a staggering level of engagement that only has more room to grow. For most of our public meetings, we’ve adopted a hybrid approach to make it easier for residents statewide to engage in our planning efforts and Commission proceedings.

We are also investing in outreach and education. I have a small but mighty team that highlights wildlife viewing, how to do so responsibly, and how to develop and foster wildlife habitat in your home space and community areas. In addition, I have staff developing fish and wildlife curriculum that supports Washington state academic learning standards for students in grades K-12. We are working with regional educational partners to incorporate lessons about salmon habitat needs and threats, invasive species, and other relevant topics in schools across the state.

I’m looking at ways to enlist social science as part of our management toolbox to develop informed, durable decisions that account for the diverse values of the communities we serve. I have hired a natural resource economist to help us analyze the costs and benefits, including both financial and non-market values, of the choices and management options before us. I’ve hired an environmental justice coordinator to ensure that we’re considering how our actions impact underserved communities and how we can best engage all Washingtonians. We are expending resources to not only translate our final documents into the languages our communities speak, but also translating draft documents to be more inclusive in our decision-making processes.

Our hunter education, marketing, and recruitment/retention/reactivation (R3) teams are busy introducing people to hunting and fishing through classes, seminars, and monthly how-to content featured on myWDFW.com. In 2023, our dedicated hunter education coordinators worked with our 1050 volunteer instructors to certify almost 11,000 hunter education graduates in safe, ethical, and legal hunting practices. This past year, they also staffed 19 family fishing events that introduced fishing to over 5,000 youth.

We’re passionate about what we do, and we recognize we are not going to be successful without your engagement. Thus, I want to close with a request—come visit with us. Take a look at our event calendar and join us at a Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, engage in the discussion at a Department townhall or listening session, or stop by our booth at a community event. I invite you to review and participate in our planning efforts and comment periods. If you have a question, call our knowledgeable customer service staff, see us at a regional office, or visit with an officer in the field. Learn about our volunteering opportunities. We welcome you in this important work.
Sincerely,

Kelly Susewind, Director

You're off to a rough start, Director. One trip to Fred Meyers in Tumwater a couple days ago: No new hunting pamphlets. Two trips to old Game Dept. Bldg., including today. No hunting pamphlets. "You have to go to the NRB". (where there's almost no reasonable parking.) A couple days ago I checked for the 2024 "Hunting Prospects " section to see how some of the areas I'm interested in applying for special tags are faring. Nothing available EVEN THOUGH SPECIAL TAG APPLICATIONS ARE DUE SOON ! I need to hold the pamplet so I can make circles and marks in it! Internet doesn't work for most of us.

I agree, Tug. They really don't get the information out there.

The Director is a smart guy but he's full of BS. He'll never touch on overharvest as a problem. "sustainable, science-based, and regulated hunting and fishing opportunities, the laws that direct these efforts could be altered, and the appropriations to do the work will dry up." What a joke

This is consistent with my impression that Susewind wants to preside over a habitat conservation agency with petting zoos. He pays a slight lip service to the hook and bullet fraternity, but he knows we are no longer where the "big bucks" are. I think Mr. Susewind's desired future condition is for WDFW to be a "mini" DOE, since the General Fund is where the money is.

He's got a point about relevance. He's pretty much lost any relevance with respect to anadromous fish, having given all authority over to the treaty tribes. So he's going to try to gain relevance among the non-fishing and hunting community, which is roughly 90% of the state's population, so that those folks will be eager to pitch in their tax dollars to fund an agency that brings little home to the constituents who have been funding it via license and tax dollars.

If Susewind wishes to up the Department's relevance to the tax payers who fund him and his agency, he could begin with transparency. I see he's hired a natural resource economist. I hope to soon ask him or her for an analysis of how much it costs the Department to deliver a hatchery Chinook and hatchery coho salmon to the non-treaty recreational creel so that we may objectively assess the value to taxpayers of hatcheries that primarily raise salmon for Alaska, Canadian, U.S. non-treaty commercial, and treaty commercial fisheries, population segments who pay the least to fund the Department but benefit the most.

I need to resume attending Commission meetings now that we are post-Covid.

Pfffffttt...

Thank you SG for that succinct and spot-on review

We need the next governor to change the culture of the Commission and the leadeerrship.

Just saw an article that says the Legislature has directed the Ruckleshouse group to review WDFW over the aspects of whether or not it's doing its job for conservation, meeting state laws, complying with public disclosure, etc. Be interesting to see who they talk to.

I'm thinking that there are only a couple of things that will get WDFW's attention. One is losing enough license sales so that they can't fund some stuff. Along with that will be the loss of DJ and PR. When they have to publicly cut, they'll notice.

The second will be losing some of the ongoing lawsuits. Also, hoping that the suit against the AK Chinook trollers win, that WDFW was on the other side of that fight.

https://www.wafwp.org/docs/WDFW%20Organizational%20Review_Project%20(2).pdf

Would not hurt you all to get to know this ditty!

I agree with Mr. Susewind's claim that WDFW staff do a lot of good work. That said, we don't need another overpaid analyst to tell us why public interest in WDFW's work is at an all-time low. In case any of us didn't know, it's because WDFW leadership has pimped out our most precious natural resource to a select group of residents and processors that operate in Alaska (Sg's point) for decades, and local opportunity has steadily dwindled. Meanwhile, the Tribes are suing to protect whatever they can of their likewise diminished opportunity, and that's cutting into recreational opportunity here at home even further. I could go on and on (maybe get into how starving our nutrient-poor rivers of the same, precious resource for those same decades has reduced the potential of our already compromised habitats to sustain other species like steelhead, or how we could hire two enforcement officers for the cost of an analyst to tell the Legislature what we already know), but I'll stop here.

I bought my license again this year (and suppose I always will), so I get my share of the blame.

Hunting and fishing are doomed. Most people in the state do not care about hunting or fishing, yet Susewind appears most interested in the General Fund for agency funding. Most WA citizens don't even care if there is a WDFW, so why pay taxes to fund it?

The economics of recreation always seems to get lost in translation, and should play more of a role in WDFW priorities. Maybe it will get brought up in the review? Organizations have tried for years to educate the economic benefits of rec fishing, hunting, etc. to elected officials, but it never seems to influence decision making. SG mentions the cost of hatchery production which can't be denied. But what about the indirect $$$ generated from that production?

https://asafishing.org/advocacy/economic...ricts-released/

The economics and political support that come from the AK commercial Chinook and trawl fisheries, could be said is the reason they are still operating. As recs, we need to figure out a way to get a bigger piece of the pie based on our economic benefit to our local economies. How you do that is the question? Seems to fall on deaf ears in WDFW and our elected officials.

I'm cynical regarding WDFW. That letter, at least to me seems like it is setting the stage for some type of bigger move. We need to here from you, we need better communications blah blah blah.... while secretly negotiating away our opportunities to fish and hunt. Its coming, just a matter of when and what.
SF

The director of WDFW will always be able to make a justification to support commercial fishing for the masses over sport harvest with only .2 percent of the population who engage in it. Even more important is the fact that the majority party in the state are overwhelmingly in favor of conservation which does not include sport harvest. I have this information anecdotally from a friend who is a lobbyist and has much frustration with the young legislators that could care less about sport fishing.

A wise man once said. If state transparency is what you seek, dont mark Fergie on that sheet. That simple.

I think that the state government essentially realizes that consumptive harvest of natural resources is a fading practice. You all saw how popular the Makah whaling was, and most here in WA support the Tribal treaty rights and cultural practices.

The big push for them will be access to the General Fund. Since WA has a pretty good track record of underfund everything (infrastructure, education, police, prisons, mental health, ferries, and gawd knows what else) they will need to find some sort of dedicated fund to replace the lost license, DJ, and PR funds. It may also be more difficult to get large amounts for money for mitigation because, in the past, mitigation was for lost catch, not catch and escapement.

It's simple. We bring data; they bring money. Which one gets YOUR attention faster?

A point about economic impact is that Olympia's fly shop closed permanently due the lack of winter fishing, which would primarily be steelhead. Losing a business should be brought up to evaluators of WDFW.