Agency heads and state commission members in Washington state are gubernatorial appointees and are expected to toe the administration’s line.

So, we were surprised when the director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recently made it known that he wasn’t happy with a decision by Gov. Jay Inslee forcing the department to begin the rulemaking procedure to formalize a policy on when the department can kill problem wolves.

In deciding when to kill problem wolves, the department employs a set of nonbinding guidelines worked out by the department’s Wolf Advisory Group, a panel of wolf advocates and livestock interests.

State wildlife managers say the guidance has served Washington well, balancing as much as possible intense feelings about wolves.

A separate group of advocates doesn’t like the guidance, and argues that the department is too quick to kill wolves that attack livestock. The guidance, they say, gives the department too much discretion. They petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt a binding rule.

Environmental groups want codified rules that include prohibiting the department from killing wolves on public land and barring ranchers from shooting wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock.

The commission voted 6-3 in October to not adopt a rule. The wolf advocates then appealed to Inslee.

While Inslee can’t dictate a specific policy, he can order the department to develop a rule for killing wolves to protect livestock. And he has.

Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind says the guidance offers flexibility in making decisions in cases that often occur under unique circumstances. He isn’t happy.

“I hate that decision with all my mind,” Susewind told the commission last month. “I don’t get to choose whether I like it or not. My job is to implement it, so I don’t think there’s a ‘don’t do it’ option here.”

The guidance, which has withstood court challenges, was the product of an arduous, and at times hostile, series of meetings over several years between ranching interests and conservationists.

The commission gave due consideration to the petition submitted by wildlife advocates.

No one is looking forward to the fight that this new rulemaking will undoubtedly start anew.

Commissioners are also reluctant to replow old ground. Inslee instituted similar rule making in 2020, and the proposed rule was voted down by the commission in 2022.

Susewind is a good soldier and has no choice but to start the mandated rulemaking. Nonetheless, we commend the guts it takes to publicly disagree with the boss’s decision.

We hope that the commission remains resolute and once again votes to retain the current policy.