Washington finalizes game management plan

Washington has a new management plan for species that are hunted and trapped throughout the state, and nobody’s entirely happy with it.

The state Fish and Wildlife Commission last week unanimously approved a new Game Management Plan, capping a yearslong rewrite process.

The document, which runs more than 200 pages, sets the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s management objectives for game species like deer, elk, bears, game birds and more. It replaces a previous version of the plan that expired in 2023.

It stops short of setting hunting rules or ordering any other specific regulatory changes – those are handled through a separate process.

Anis Aoude, WDFW’s game division manager, said in a statement that the plan is focused on the science and management of the state’s game species, and ensuring their populations stay healthy.

“The GMP identifies factors that may be affecting Washington’s game populations and helps wildlfie managers identify research, monitoring, and funding needs to address those factors so we can maintain sustainable wildlife populations in perpetuity,” Aoude said.

The final plan has critics on all sides.

Sportsmen’s groups have cried foul over a provision that suggests WDFW consider delaying fall black bear hunting season “in areas where black bear viewing is popular and conflict between user groups is likely to occur to balance competing uses.”

Hunters still smarting from the commission’s 2022 decision to nix spring bear hunting see the language as a threat to the future of the fall bear season.

Kelsey Ross, of the Conservation Coalition of Washington, told commissioners on Saturday during public comment that the provision was “not only ridiculous, but signals to many that traditional uses of our public lands are being weighed against a likely made up recreational preference and treats legal hunting as conflict instead of a normal use of public land.”

Meanwhile, the environmental group Washington Wildlife First bashed the plan for what it sees as a lack of “meaningful” environmental review of the plan’s broader impacts. In a news release, the group argued that the plan should have gone through a full environmental impact statement under state law, and that the group is considering legal action.

Francisco Santiago-Avila, the science and advocacy director for the group, said in a statement that the nine-member commission “abrogated its responsibility, plain and simple. This was a clear governance failure.”

Dan Wilson, of the Washington chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said he was glad to see the plan completed, and that it seemed like it had gone through robust public review. But he also said it wasn’t perfect.

“I’m concerned in some places that some specific language might seem really proscriptive, or obligates behaviors that are ones better served through voluntary measures and collaborative action,” Wilson said.

In particular, he mentioned the chapter on nontoxic ammunition. Washington has been working with a nationwide partnership aimed at reducing the use of lead ammunition through voluntary measures, and the plan calls for continuing that work. But it also calls for gauging hunter interest in regulations to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and for working with hunters to “develop restrictions that are supported and effective at reducing wildlife lead poisoning.”

That aside, Wilson said it’s important for people to recognize the plan for what it is.

“This is a guidance document,” he said. “It’s not policy.”