For sure, the commission is ineffective. I think that's baked in, because they are a body of people who represent different interests trying to balance the needs and wants of user groups that are in direct competition with one another for whatever scraps are left of our harvestable wildlife species. There is very little common ground to be shared that benefits all the consumers of fish and wildlife resources, so anything the commission does leaves someone out in the cold.

The root of the problem is that we (that's all of us) have collectively depleted our precious wildlife resources to the point where there is some flavor of endangered or threatened species limiting all foraging and other use types, be it recreational or commercial. Better management several decades ago could have had positive effects, but we're at a point now where most wildlife-related activities are severely restricted, and that puts us in the unfortunate situation of fighting amongst ourselves for our part of the remaining scraps. It's become impossible for commissioners (or any other body) to equally and positively represent more than one or two interests at a time. Different leadership won't solve that problem.

One thing we should all hope does not happen is a decision to leave the appointment of a single director up to governors. That creates a scenario where the governor's personal or political interests rule, and that's rarely a good way to arrive at solutions that benefit multiple user groups. Indeed, recent governors have shown a tendency to hand over fish and wildlife management to the treaty tribes. That might or might not benefit wildlife in the long term, but in the immediate term, it will mean further reductions to non-tribal recreational opportunities. I don't think many of us here want that.