Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Game Management Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff briefs commission on draft Game Management Plan, notes 65 SEPA comments and living‑document approach
Summary
Agency staff presented a final draft of the 17‑chapter Game Management Plan on Jan. 9, describing it as a guidance document (not a rule) that will guide future rulemaking. Staff said the SEPA comment period was extended to 60 days, produced 65 distinct comments, and that adoption is expected to be considered in February.
Agency game-division staff presented the draft Game Management Plan (GMP) to the commission on Jan. 9, describing a multi-year drafting process, the public engagement record and next procedural steps ahead of a potential February adoption vote.
"This is a guidance document for management of hunted species," said Anis Ade, game division manager, during a presentation that summarized the plan’s history, structure and public comments. Ade said the draft contains 17 chapters and is roughly 275 pages, and that it does not itself set seasons, bag limits or methods — those remain the subject of rulemaking and season-setting processes.
Ade said staff completed an internal draft in December 2024, circulated it to tribes and advisory groups, and proceeded through a SEPA checklist process. The public comment period was opened July 7, extended from 30 to 60 days at commenters’ request, and closed Sept. 5. Staff compiled what they counted as 65 distinct comment submissions; supporting materials included multi‑hundred‑page attachments in some cases.
Major themes from public comments included disagreement over predator and harvest management, requests to integrate the GMP with the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) status-and-trend reporting, concerns about non‑toxic (non‑lead) ammunition uptake, and calls for better monitoring and data quality. Ade said staff responded to comments in a consolidated document and incorporated some language changes, including clarifying how tribal harvest information is considered in management.
Commissioners pressed several technical points. Commissioner Rowland asked whether unclassified species (examples cited in the draft include coyote, gopher, ground squirrel and several small mammals) will be dealt with in the GMP; Ade said species classification is a separate rulemaking process and that the GMP will provide guidance once classification decisions are made.
Ade described the GMP as a "living document": chapter‑level changes could be made in response to new science or public input, but individual amendments would still be evaluated under SEPA to determine whether environmental review is required.
The agency also described how the GMP will be integrated with the annual status-and-trend report so the department can track progress on issue statements and objectives. Ade said scoping for the three‑year season‑setting cycle already produced roughly 800 respondents and more than 8,000 comments; staff expect to assemble a rulemaking package for three‑year seasons in 2027.
The presentation acknowledged that many public comments were outside the GMP’s scope (statutory fee changes, immediate management actions, or items requiring separate rulemaking), but staff said those comments will inform future planning and rulemaking timelines.
Chair Jim Anderson closed the briefing by noting the item was informational; the commission will consider adoption at its February meeting. Staff reiterated that while the SEPA comment record for this draft is closed, members of the public can still use the department’s public portal and the February meeting public comment period to provide input.
Next steps outlined in the meeting: staff will finalize the public‑record responses, continue integration work with the status-and-trend report, and bring the GMP forward for a formal adoption vote in February if commissioners are ready.
