Would anything be different with all the problems facing sportsmen if the WDF director was an elected official rather than appointed by the governor? Would this help to separate politics and good decision making? How much of a role does politics really play in the agency? Any thoughts?

I think your problems might get worse if you elect a guy that just panders to what people scream about. If they gave in easy to you, they would cave to others too. Look at Clinton/Gore, try to make everyone happy. Doesn't work, and I wouldn't want someone who cares more about getting elected than doing good work managing my fish.

Washington's director isn't appointed by the governor any more, but by the F&W Commission. We voted for that change, hoping it would solve our problems. Obviously it hasn't! Seems it's just made the FWC more political.

BW,

Have you been out of town awhile? The governor doesn't appoint the WDFW director. It's true that the governor did appoint the director of the WDF, which ceased to exist in 1995 or 96, when WDF and WDG merged into a single agency. And the governor did appoint the director of WDG briefly, as in once, when Governor Gardner made appointing the director of WDG a condition for that agency to receive money from the state general fund. But that only lasted until the merger. A statewide initiative of the people restored the appointment of the director of the merged agency - WDFW - to the state fish and wildlife commission.

Now, the commissioners are appointed to staggered six year terms by the governor. He appoints commissioners from nominations by citizens and organizations. Political connections probably help, since my nomination wasn't selected. However, I know that at least some of the commissioners do not have strong political ties, so they seem to be selected based on the strength of their qualifications and support from various interest groups associated with hunting and fishing, and more recently, commercial fishing.

As for whether the agency would be more or less political if the director was elected, I think that's doubtful. Elective politics is just that, political. Also look at other state directors that are elected, DNR's Lands Commissioner, the Insurance Commissioner, and the state Attorney General. Politics is ever present in all those agencies.

Another way that politics affects and influences agencies like WDFW is through the legislature and the budget process. If certain legislators dislike the WDFW director (remember Bern Shanks?) or certain policies or regulations, then they get at the agency through its budget. An agency that is unaffected by politics is probably impossible. It's probably something we wouldn't really want, either.

Politics is the instrument that creates an agency like WDFW and gives it its mission: preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife; and allow for its utilization by citizens. Politics then determines what protect means, perpetuate means (hatcheries?), and utilization (MSH?) means.

I don't think it is the presence of politics in WDFW that adversely affects fish and wildlife outcomes. The problem occurs when one set of values and goals dominates the agency decision making. It is the over and under-representation of groups and interests, in relation to their respective proportions of the population, that renders some sets of constituents overly powerful and others as relatively powerless. It is the disproportionate distribution of politcal power that leaves many constituents feeling disenfranchised from the political process.

The key is to ensure the full and fair representation of all interests in setting and implementing policy, not whether the director is elected or appointed by the governor. In my opinion, naturally.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.