A rule sought by wolf advocates would invite lawsuits over the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s use of lethal control, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chairwoman Barbara Baker warned Friday.

The department should continue reviewing case-by-case whether a rancher has done enough to prevent wolf attacks, rather than adopting regulations open to court challenges, Baker said at a commission meeting.

“I don’t think that we need to craft a rule that would be enforceable. And ‘enforceable’ is code for being able to go to court and litigate these issues,” said Baker, who referred to her past practice as a lawyer.

“What I did was sue the state, all the time,” she said.

Commissioners plan to decide in July whether to replace non-binding guidance with a rule dictating when Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind authorizes lethal control to protect livestock in “chronic-conflict areas.”

At the request of wolf advocates, Gov. Jay Inslee in 2020 ordered Fish and Wildlife to develop a rule. The department’s staff has proposed enshrining in law current practices. As is the case now, ranchers plagued by wolves would have to cooperate with the department for the department to shoot wolves as a last resort.

The commission could amend the proposal, adding regulations proposed by wolf advocates, such as requiring ranchers in some cases to electronically track or move cattle. The commission also could decline to adopt any rule.

A rule would make the department more accountable, said Commissioner Melanie Rowland, a retired environmental attorney appointed by Inslee to the commission in January.

“I believe that we owe that to the public. They are much larger players if there is a rule that, as Barbara said, they can go to court to enforce,” Rowland said.

“The people who are saying, ‘We don’t need a rule,’ are saying, ‘Go away, governor,’” she said.

Environmental groups have gone to court to stop Fish and Wildlife from shooting wolves. In its defense, Fish and Wildlife has relied on its duty to manage dangerous wildlife, rather than trying to defend its application of a wolf-livestock conflict rule.

The defense has been effective. In the most high-profile case, a King County judge said lethal removal was squarely within the department’s expertise and was due deference.

Fish and Wildlife wolf policy coordinator Julia Smith told commissioners that she was worried about “very specific laws” that prevent wildlife managers from using their expertise.

“It may end up with your trained, professional staff making decisions that they feel are not the right decisions, whether that means to kill wolves, or not to kill wolves,” Smith said.

Commissioners plan to discuss the rule in late June and may vote July 8. The department said it received more than 10,000 comments on the proposal.

When some commissioners talked about amending the rule at the meeting it was adopted, Susewind, the director, intervened, expressing alarm at “commissioners writing rule language and putting it on the table.”

“We are getting into a really weird place right here, folks,” he said. “Tell us what you want. Let us write it. We will do that.”