What’s the future of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission? A new report published by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center at Washington State University and the University of Washington recently assessed the organization, evaluating its “structure, funding, transparency, communication with the public, and ability to deal with climate change and biodiversity loss,” resulting in a call for “needed reforms” for the “dysfunctional” commission, according to The Chronicle.

Conversation has begun among lawmakers whether to improve the commission as it stands or dissolve it all together.

“I don’t think that we’ve settled on a path,” said House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle. “I don’t think it’s necessary that this be the year that we reform the governance structure of Fish and Wildlife, but I do think it is something our members are thinking about.”

The commission, which is comprised of nine governor-appointed citizens who serve six year terms, currently oversees the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and helps establish wildlife management policy. Some concerns uncovered included “governor-led appointment process, the commission’s makeup, limited accountability, and a lack of clarity over the commission’s relationship with tribes” as well as a “murkiness surrounding the department’s legal mandate,” according to The Chronicle.

Recommendations include keeping the commission after a full overhaul, adding more support staff for increased transparency, giving the state Senate more of a role in appointing commission members and/or creating a bipartisan panel to fill open seats after a period of time. Also on the table? The possibility of dissolving the commission completely and turning it into a cabinet agency that would be directly connected to the governor.

“If the Legislature wants to improve the governing structure without all the reforms to the Commission, then the optimum choice, even considering potential tradeoffs, would be to establish WDFW as a cabinet agency,” the report read.

A bill would need to be introduced to turn the commission into a cabinet, but the “odds of it passing aren’t clear yet,” according to Fitzgibbon.

“There was substantial interest in having a commission, but overwhelmingly interviewees stated that there were significant issues with the structure, if it were to continue,” said Phyllis Shulman, senior facilitator of the report and assistant professor at the Washington State University Extension.

Members of the commission mentioned that the report shared insight into issues most were already aware of.

“I think it behooves us to step back and take a look at it,” Vice Chair Tim Ragen told commissioners at a recent meeting. “It is an opportunity to do a check on ourselves and I think nothing more.”

However, Commissioner Melanie Rowland didn’t agree to calling the group dysfunctional, saying that “What might appear as dysfunction is actually members grappling with how to make decisions that are consistent with what’s been done in the past but reflect a desire to modernize the state’s approach to wildlife management.”

“We do need to make significant changes to adapt to the world in which we are now living in,” Rowland added.

The commission will discuss the report at its February meeting and anticipates drafting a letter to the Legislature to address concerns.