‘Time has come’ say supporters for a constitutional amendment to protect hunting, fishing in Washington

Hunting and fishing have been part of Northwest culture for over a 150 years. However, the rights to take part in these activities are under attack.

Well-funded anti-hunting and animal rights organizations are trying to pass initiatives to ban these sports here in the Northwest and across the entire country.

This has led to an effort in many states, through initiatives and legislative efforts, to pass constitutional amendments that protect a citizen’s right to hunt and fish.

In Washington, the recent investigation into the actions of four members of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife commission who side-stepped the state’s open meetings laws, as well as using prohibited unofficial communications to attack hunting rights, were recently exposed.

The group, known as the “Gang of Four,” includes four sitting commissioners Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland, John Lehmkuhl, and Barbara Baker.

An investigation, commissioned in June 2025 following the Knoll Memo initiated by WDFW director Kelly Susewind, and completed recently by Chiedza Nziramasanga of Transformative Workplace Investigations, revealed that most of the charges made by the Sportsmen’s Alliance, which pushed for the investigation against the four commissioners involved, were justified.

Four of the five allegations were found to be substantiated in part.

Also, in Oregon, a recent attempt to pass an incredibly forceful attack not only on fishing and hunting, but on any kind of livestock raising, was attempted. Initiative Proposal 28 would have even outlawed backyard chicken flocks.

The effort failed to make the ballot, but is another example of attacks on the rights of citizens to engage in many outdoor pursuits.

Oregon gubernatorial candidate and Republican state Sen. Christine Drazan has recently gone on record as being in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect hunters and angler’s rights in the Beaver State.

In Colorado, hunter’s organizations have tried to get ahead of the anti-hunting groups by pushing to pass a state amendment that would permanently protect the rights of hunters and anglers.

This constitutional amendment — the Colorado Right to Hunt and Fish Initiative — may appear on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment on Nov. 3. The initiative would add a new section to the Colorado constitution that would establish a right to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife.

It does provide exemptions for protected species.

The matter in Colorado also exposes another problem with anti-hunting endeavors. Colorado has the largest population of elk in the country, and the hunters that come from other states to hunt them leave a lot of their money in the Centennial State.

It is a powerful economic boost for Colorado, and groups other than hunters have joined the effort for that reason.

In Washington, many sportsmen, including local hunters, believe this is an idea whose time has come.

Chuck Cheshire, president of the Vancouver Wildlife League, feels the need for a constitutional amendment. The club is instrumental in the organizing and implementing of the planted pheasant hunts in WDFW’s Region 5 — which includes six counties in Southwest Washington — as well as countless other volunteer projects.

“I think it’s a good thing, anything to shore up hunting and fishing in the state,” Cheshire said. “The whole club is with me on this. We think this a good idea. Anything that makes it harder to attack hunting and fishing we are for.”

He added that it is hunters and anglers that pay up, while often getting short shrift.

Iconic Washington outdoorsman Buzz Ramsey, who calls Lyle his home, and a member of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, is also in favor of it.

“I don’t think it’s going to stop this big money from those organizations, but it maybe takes the biggest threat away from us,” Ramsey said. “It would at least help us fend off these attacks.”

Fishing guide Bob Rees is also a member of the NSIA, and he also believes it may be time for such an effort in both Washington, and Oregon.

In fact, he thinks it should be part of a broad, comprehensive package that would include the way commissioners are selected. Rees thinks the way they are currently vetted has led to the unethical actions taken recently among the commission in Washington.

“The governors do tend to select people that have given them favors,” Rees said. “Sportsmen need a say on the commission. After all, we are the ones paying for all this through our license sales and fees. I think (commissioners) should have to have a license to hunt or fish. Or, even better, they should have a history of having a license.”

These constitutional amendments are being favored over legislative laws, which are easier to overturn. An amendment would be much more difficult to alter.

However, constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. Some hunters believe that bar may be too high to overcome.

Bob Taylor of the Washington Waterfowl Association is very much in favor of the idea, but is skeptical it could pass in Washington.

“I’d love to see it, but I have my doubts that it’s going to happen,” he said.

He believes that voters in the urban population of Seattle might not go for it.

Taylor offered that the anti-hunting groups are badly misinformed, pointing out that the National Audubon Society has recently reported bird populations across the country have fallen by 50 percent since the 1970’s, with one exception — waterfowl.

Taylor said waterfowl continue to prosper because of all the conservation efforts of hunters. They are the ones who have pushed for the vast refuge networks, and the practical laws that allow harvest at levels that do not decimate the flocks.

Those waterfowl refuges also offer safe havens for bird populations other than waterfowl. The habitat being protected is a boost for multiple songbird species, deer, reptiles, and other animals.

In spite of his reservations, Taylor would love to see an amendment passed.

“I’m all for it,” he added.

There is as yet no formal effort to further an amendment in Washington, but the idea is percolating, and could lead to action. That would give hope to many local outdoorsmen and women who enjoy what southwest Washington has to offer them. They also believe it could cement the right to hunt and fish for future generations to enjoy.

WDFW commission report findings

Allegation 1: Violations of the Public Records Act: Allegations substantiated in part.

Allegation 2: Violations of the Open Public Meetings Act: Allegations substantiated in part.

Allegation 3: Violations of the WDFW Commission Rules of Procedure — Ethical Conduct and Conflicts of Interest: Allegations substantiated in part.

Allegation 4: Staff Mistreatment and Alleged Retaliation Against the Director: Allegations substantiated in part.

Allegation 5: Improper Timekeeping and Compensation Claims: Unsubstantiated.