House Bill 13 11 would require WDFW to reclassify gray wolves as 'sensitive'; supporters and opponents clash

House staff briefed the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Feb. 5 on House Bill 13 11, which would require the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to implement its periodic status review recommendation to reclassify the gray wolf as "sensitive" under state law and to prevent reverting to state endangered status unless the population declines below the population as of the bill’s effective date.

Representative Joel Engel (prime sponsor) told the committee he brought the bill after the department’s periodic status review and related analyses showed wolves have met recovery objectives in parts of the state and that down‑listing to sensitive would give managers more tools to address conflicts while maintaining protections in the western two‑thirds of the state where wolves remain federally listed. “Down listing doesn’t give the public the ability to hunt or harvest wolves,” Engel said; he added the change would give the department more flexibility to address conflict and that he was discussing proposed amendments to increase penalties for illegal take.

WDFW staff described current population data and monitoring approaches. Dr. Shubhadeep Bhattacharjee, WDFW’s wolf and grizzly bear policy lead, said the department’s published minimums for 2023 showed roughly 260 wolves in 42 packs with 25 successful breeding pairs, and that monitoring uses aerial surveys, radio collars, trail cameras, DNA and on‑the‑ground surveys; he noted the department’s conservation and management plan (2011) sets recovery goals by zone. Julia Smith, WDFW’s endangered species recovery section manager, explained the policy consequences: reclassification to sensitive would change what actions managers could authorize (for example, some lethal removals in narrowly defined conflict circumstances) but would not automatically authorize public harvest; actual allowable actions would depend on the rules or classifications set by the commission and agency after any reclassification.

Several witnesses described mitigation and compensation programs. WDFW staff said the agency has historically appropriated about $50,000 per fiscal year for livestock compensation and that the department provides direct-compensation payments for confirmed depredations; the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) testified that its Northeast Washington Wolf Livestock Grant Program, authorized in statute (RCW 16.76.020), administers nearly $1 million in sustained biennial funding for nonlethal measures and contracts with local groups (conservation districts, range riders and nonprofits) to deploy deterrents.

Public testimony again split. County officials, sheriffs, many ranchers and statewide agricultural organizations urged passage of HB 13 11, arguing WDFW’s science supports sensitive listing for parts of the state and that sensitive status would give local managers and the department more tools to reduce livestock losses and costs. Several speakers asked for stronger anti‑poaching enforcement. Conservation organizations, wildlife advocates and legal-interest groups urged caution or opposition—saying regionally reducing protections risks slowing wolf recolonization of the South Cascades and Northwest Coast recovery region and that lethal removals and regional delisting could reduce connectivity and genetic viability.

No committee vote was taken; the bill record and a Department fiscal note were available to members at the hearing.