Commission directs staff to begin rulemaking to clarify 'caught in the act' wolf WAC
Loading...
Summary
Following a gubernatorial letter and recent petitions, the commission directed staff to file a CR101 intent notice to begin rulemaking on WAC language about taking wolves attacking domestic animals (the "caught in the act" provision) and related definitions. Commissioners debated scope and sequencing with other livestock‑related rules.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Feb. 13 directed staff to initiate rulemaking to clarify WAC language about taking wolves attacking domestic animals, commonly described as the “caught in the act” provision.
Background: Staff summarized prior rule development, the department’s prior rulemaking in 2020–21, later petitions and an appeal to the governor. In January, the governor sent a letter asking the department to consider rulemaking that would clarify how and when lethal removal may occur and whether a removal protocol should be codified. Staff presented the existing WAC text and noted ambiguities (for example, who qualifies as an agent or family member, and what timing constitutes "attacking domestic animals").
Commission action: Commissioner Denise Smith moved and the commission approved filing a CR101 (notice of intent) to begin the rulemaking process for WAC 220‑240‑080 (killing wolves attacking domestic animals) and related definitions. The CR101 is a high‑level notice to the public that the department intends to begin work on the rule; staff will develop proposed language (CR102) and schedule public review and hearings.
Why it matters: The provision touches on private landowner responses, livestock protection, and protections for wolves; previous attempts at rulemaking were contentious. Commissioners and staff emphasized the procedural nature of the CR101 step: initiating the process does not predetermine any specific rule content.
Direct quotes: Dr. Subhadib Bhattacharjee, wolf and grizzly policy lead, said the current WAC has three sections and “Section 2 directs DFW to prosecute someone who kills a gray wolf, which is inconsistent with section 1 of this rule.” Commissioners noted the governor’s letter “recommended” but did not mandate specific text, and legal counsel advised that the commission has discretion over final rule content though the governor’s direction requires initiating rulemaking.
Next steps: Staff will draft proposed rule language and return with a CR102 (proposed rule) for public review. Commissioners noted the need to consider the livestock compensation protocol and whether that matter should be pursued in the same or a separate rulemaking track; staff said the CR101 will focus on the caught‑in‑the‑act WAC and definitions, with separate work on compensation subject to scheduling and WAC timing constraints.
