Committee hears bill to let counties convene local wolf-management work groups

House members and stakeholders opened public hearings Feb. 5 on House Bill 14 42, a proposal that would let counties where gray wolves meet specific population thresholds prompt the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to treat wolves as if they were removed from the state endangered list in that area and to convene locally led, facilitated work groups to develop management plans.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Hunter Abel, said the measure reflects conditions in northeastern Washington and is intended to give local governments and affected parties more control over management. “This bill…is an effort to work hand in glove with a bill introduced by my seatmate,” Abel said, arguing the measure responds to “reality on the ground” in the Seventh Legislative District.

Rebecca Lewis, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s requirements for members: the department would manage wolves as if delisted in any county or portion of a county where (1) there are at least three documented breeding pairs and (2) the statewide recovery objective of 15 breeding pairs over three years has been met. After a county legislative body notifies the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the department that those criteria are present, the department director must evaluate the claim and convene a work group with a third-party neutral facilitator to develop a local management plan. The work group must include representatives from county cattleperson organizations, county governments, a conservation nonprofit and a regional nonprofit that operates range riders and other year-round conflict-avoidance tactics; affected tribes must be invited. The department is required to complete and implement the plan within six months; if the work group does not reach agreement within six months, the plan must include a minority report.

Colville Confederated Tribes representatives, including Jared Michael Erickson (chairman) and Cody DeSautal (executive director), told the committee the tribe has used integrated, landscape-level management and local co-management to track and respond to wolf populations on the Colville Reservation. Erickson said the reservation currently hosts nine packs and that tribal monitoring (GPS collars, trail cameras, aerial surveys and DNA) shows continued expansion; the tribe described its approach as emphasizing prey–predator balance and active habitat management.

Mick Cope, wildlife program director for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), told the committee the department values local partnerships but raised concerns about the bill’s timeline and logistics. “Logistically developing…management plans in six months is extremely difficult and probably not possible to get that done in six months. We aren't currently staffed to do that,” Cope said, noting the statute requires a neutral facilitator and additional staff if multiple county plans are convened simultaneously.

Public comment showed a clear split: local county officials, sheriffs and livestock groups argued for more local control and management flexibility and backed HB 14 42; conservation groups, wildlife advocates and legal-interest groups urged caution or opposed the bill, saying statewide protections and science-based recovery benchmarks should remain in place. Remote and in-person testimony included concerns about poaching in western counties, the role of nonlethal deterrents, and whether county-level work groups would be sufficiently balanced and resourced to manage biological recovery goals.

No formal committee action or vote on HB 14 42 occurred at the hearing; the bill was the subject of staff briefing, sponsor testimony and numerous stakeholder presentations on both sides.

Ending: If advanced, HB 14 42 would require WDFW to convene local, facilitated work groups and produce management plans on a county-by-county basis where the bill’s population thresholds are met; proponents said that would enable locally tailored response, while agency staff and some conservation witnesses warned the statute’s six-month planning window and potential for uneven membership could hinder consistent, science-based management.