The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is widely seen as “dysfunctional” and needs to be reformed, according to a report by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center.

The center, run by the University of Washington and Washington State University, interviewed 113 people to evaluate the commission and Fish and Wildlife Department. State legislators asked for the $300,000 study.

Many said the nine-member commission was politically polarized and caught up in conflict, according to a draft of the report. A final report is due out in mid-December.

The report suggests lawmakers could eliminate the commission or reduce its role. “Without these reforms, the embedded dysfunctions and issues that interviewees raised would likely continue,” the report states.

The governor appoints commissioners, who hire the Fish and Wildlife director and approve regulations. The commission has made several high-profile decisions recently, including ending spring bear hunts, keeping wolves on the state’s endangered species list and reducing cougar hunting.

Sportsmen and tribal officials endorsed legislation last year to eliminate the commission. Wildlife advocates praised the commission’s attention to conservation.

Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Chairwoman Barbara Baker said the commission isn’t dysfunctional, but it is struggling with allocating resources as the population grows and more people recreate on state lands.

“I believe this is not really dysfunction. All this unrest is a natural consequence of change,” she said. “Dysfunction is in the eye of the beholder, and if the beholder doesn’t get what he wants, it’s dysfunction.”

The Ruckelshaus report does not cite any example of commission dysfunction. Some people interviewed said the commission was too swayed by sportsmen, while others said the commission favored animal-rights groups.

“Nearly everyone agreed that the governance structure, particularly regarding the commission, needs reform,” the report states.

One option, according to the report, is to eliminate the commission. The governor would appoint the Fish and Wildlife director, who would be a member of the governor’s cabinet.

Former Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Kim Thorburn, who served from 2015 to 2023, said the commission is “terribly dysfunctional,” but shouldn’t be eliminated. “I think it should be fixed,” she said.

Commissioners are meddling in management and scientific affairs and changing the department’s mandate, she said. “They’re changing it into the department of animal rights and predator protection.”

Eliminating the commission would eliminate commission meetings. At meetings, members of the public comment and commissioners debate and vote.

“I think what I’m hearing (in the report) is that we disagree with each other, and we disagree with each other in public,” Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith said.

“I don’t think an agency in the governor’s cabinet is going to follow our model and let everybody say their piece,” she said.

Another option, according to the report, is to limit the commission to “high-level policy.” The commission would not set regulations or engage in day-to-day operations.

Other proposed reforms include having a “third-party facilitator” at meetings to maintain “behavior protocols” and a bipartisan legislative committee to vet candidates for the commission.

Rep. Tom Dent, R-Moses, one of the legislators interviewed by the Ruckelshaus center, said he would like for groups to participate in screening candidates. Not many legislators are in step with rural issues, he said. “I’m afraid you would run into the same problem,” he said.