Merger messed up a lot of things but so did ESA and continued population growth. A problem with splitting the agency would be habitat. Right now I see lots of times when (and it is because of the way the law is written) if an aquatic species like a frog needs habitat help it can't get it because the rules only protect fish. There are too many overlaps, where the line between fish and wildlife needs are not clear and having separate agencies would exacerbate the difference. "That's not our problem" would be heard even more then than it is now.

Heck, when the Fish side was looking at regs to protect Loons from lead poisoning the Wildlife side did not want to help and it was a "fish problem".

As cumbersome as it is the current set up could work with a good Commission and good leadership. But I dream....