Wait a second, I've seen you constantly post that the decisions are currently influence by those with the most lobby $$...but the solution you are suggesting means now those same groups would be able to get their lackey's in these spots through the electoral process! How does that jive with your other posts? It seems to pose an even bigger problem, as the current population of WA is 7.5 million. The last WDFW license sales report shows ~394,000 freshwater fishing licenses and 48,000 saltwater licenses, and 171,000 combo licenses. That is ~613,000 licenses which equals 8% of the WA population and this assumes people who buy a license to fish for trout/crab/razor clam/groundfish/etc. all also fish for salmon & steelhead and care about the politics of them. They likely don't. The ability to influence elections in metropolitan areas will be 0-null and so the rural districts will have the opportunity to decide on WA commissioners that may be more fishing/hunting friendly vs. other interests friendly, but then you have to consider if the economies of rural areas (logging/agriculture interests) would also not put lobbying $$ to elect their own lackey's. I don't see this as a solution.... let alone the general nature of this thread assuming that this case will do anything about the structure of the commission. It will either by a slap on the wrist to WDFW to do things in the way the judge interprets them, or the judge will decide they are doing enough in the way of crafting rules. Electing the commissioners will end up mean the commission gets stacked with professional lobbyists from interests with deep pockets.