Wildlife for All supports Washington Wildlife First’s lawsuit against WDFW leadership.
Washington Wildlife First Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against WDFW Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope
Seattle, WA – Washington Wildlife First (WW1), its Executive Director Claire Loebs Davis, and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope, challenging what plaintiffs describe as a coordinated campaign to silence dissent and undermine independent oversight of the agency.
Filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint alleges that Susewind and Windrope used state authority, staff, and public resources to target, investigate, and discredit Washington Wildlife First, Davis, and Smith, in violation of their rights to their protected speech, advocacy, and association. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The complaint describes a multi-year conflict between WDFW leadership and those calling for stronger wildlife protections, scientific integrity, transparency, and meaningful Commission oversight of the Department. Since 2021, WW1, Davis, and Smith have challenged numerous agency recommendations and pushed for greater accountability—efforts that increasingly influenced wildlife policy outcomes, most notably the Commission’s decision to halt the spring bear hunt after the Department failed to demonstrate a scientific management need.
According to the complaint, those policy disagreements—and the growing influence of independent commissioners and advocates—set the stage for the actions now at issue.
The complaint alleges that in early 2025, a convergence of events created an opening for retaliation: the new Governor declined to support commissioners who raised concerns about agency leadership, internal communications became available through public records, and agency leadership gained access to commissioner devices and records. According to the complaint, Susewind and Windrope used this moment to advance a targeted, internally directed effort to discredit and remove those commissioners and advocates who had most consistently called for oversight and reform.
That effort included directing staff to search and compile communications involving specific commissioners, diverting agency personnel and legal resources to construct allegations, and selectively curating materials—particularly involving Smith, Davis, WW1, and other wildlife advocates—while not undertaking comparable scrutiny of other commissioners despite evidence of similar behavior. The complaint alleges that this asymmetrical investigation was driven not by neutral enforcement, but by disagreement with the viewpoints expressed by those targeted.
This process culminated in the “Knoll Memo,” a document prepared at Susewind’s request that advanced unsupported, misleading, and inflammatory claims, and that was later used to support a formal investigation initiated by Governor Bob Ferguson. The lawsuit alleges that the memo—and the process used to produce it—was designed to manufacture the appearance of misconduct and justify retaliation.
At a press conference today, wildlife advocates and other experts concerned about a lack of government accountability, transparency and respect for public discourse and free speech explained why they support this legal action.
“This was never about enforcing rules—it was about removing dissent and oversight,” said Dr. Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila, WW1 Science & Advocacy Director. “Once that scrutiny began shaping decisions, instead of engaging with those concerns, Susewind and Windrope weaponized the department’s resources to go after the people responsible for it. That tells you everything you need to know.”
Civil rights attorney Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, who represents Washington Wildlife First and Davis, emphasized the constitutional stakes of the case:
“People in power cannot weaponize the machinery of government to punish citizens for speaking out and advocating for policy change,” said LeDuc Montgomery. “Our complaint alleges that state officials used public resources to target disfavored speakers and stigmatize protected advocacy simply because it did not align with their preferred views. That is not just improper—it is unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit argues that this selective targeting, investigation, and baseless accusations constitute unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. While WDFW leadership focused its internal investigative efforts on those calling for greater scrutiny and accountability, it did not pursue similar action against other commissioners or stakeholder groups—a disparity the complaint alleges is direct evidence of viewpoint-based enforcement.
The plaintiffs’ disagreements with WDFW leadership span major wildlife policy and governance issues, including opposing the return of recreational spring bear hunting, calling for reform of wolf management rules, opposing efforts to downlist wolves before recovery goals are met, raising concerns about hatchery policy and expansion, challenging the 2026 Game Management Plan and its lack of meaningful environmental review, and pressing for transparency, scientific integrity, and meaningful Commission oversight. Their advocacy has also highlighted broader agency failures, including workplace safety violations, employee deaths, and a documented culture of bullying and retaliation within the Department.
“What makes this especially troubling is who it’s coming from,” Santiago-Ávila said. “This is a Director who has presided over systemic mismanagement—an illegal wildlife-killing program, repeated violations of environmental law, a documented culture of retaliation, and serious workplace safety failures that have resulted in injuries and even deaths. These are the issues we’ve been raising. This lawsuit won’t address those, but we clearly need those with the authority to oversee this agency to take this seriously, investigate and to act.”
The lawsuit further alleges that WDFW leadership sought to undermine Commissioner Smith’s role by isolating her from staff, restricting communication, and discouraging engagement with her and with WW1—raising serious concerns about the integrity of independent oversight within the agency.
Commissioner Smith described the impact on the Commission’s ability to function:
“The commission cannot operate effectively and wisely if commissioners feel bullied or are hesitant or afraid to speak or vote freely,” said Smith. “Commissioners now fear that the director will turn the might of the department against us if he disagrees with an expressed point of view. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation is not in the public interest.”
Smith warned that the consequences extend beyond any individual dispute:
“If this behavior goes unchecked, it will lead to the paralysis of the Commission, a chilling of public advocacy, and a return to a system where there is only one ‘acceptable’ viewpoint and meaningful oversight disappears.”
The plaintiffs argue that allowing such conduct to stand would deter commissioners, advocates, scientists, and members of the public from participating in wildlife policy decisions—undermining not only agency accountability, but democratic governance more broadly.
“If this stands, it tells every commissioner and every member of the public the same thing: speak up, ask questions, push for reform—and you could be next.” Santiago-Ávila said. “But we’re still here. If anything, being met with this kind of response only reinforces our concerns and why our work is necessary.”
Independent scientists and national wildlife policy leaders also warned that the case reflects broader risks to scientific integrity and democratic accountability:
“Sound public policy depends on open, transparent debate and independent scientific input,” said Dr. Adrian Treves, professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab. “WDFW leadership has a record of elevating preferred evidence while sidelining independent science and pressuring those who sought a more complete record.”
“Our democracy depends on evidence-based science, truth, and the free flow of information in public decision-making,” said Prof. Richard Steiner, marine scientist and Board Chair of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). “Public institutions have an ethical obligation to protect that process—even when it challenges those in power.”
“This is not just a conservation dispute—it reflects a broader effort to sideline those working to improve wildlife policy,” said Dr. Michele Lute, Executive Director of Wildlife for All. “When citizens, scientists, and commissioners are targeted for advancing evidence-based policies, it chills participation, erodes accountability, and sets a dangerous precedent nationwide.”
###