Some additional food for thought-

Someone (sorry, forgot who) mentioned that there are about 175 wildlife officers statewide. From what I remember that is probably in the ball park, but realize that many of those aren't field staff. The actual number of those working the field is probably closer to 120 give or take a few. Now factor in off duty time, and there's probably fewer than 40 officers working in the field at a given time. That's not a lot of officers for a state the size of washington.

The other important issue to note is that there seems to be a trend where fish and wildlife officers are getting caught up in enforcing non-fish and wildlife offenses. It's not unusual for an officer to check someone fishing and have to transport them to the county jail for multiple warrants involving drugs or other offenses. It's also not unusual for a fish and wildlife officer to back up a county officer on a domestic or other serious call. I think this trend will likely continue as more law enforcement agencies become strapped for cash and officers. Right or wrong, I doubt it's going to change. If you were to decide if a fish and wildlife officer responds to a possible poaching in progress or assisting a deputy with a meth lab bust, which would you choose? This is also the reason I'd hate to see washington's fish and wildlife officers become part of WSP.

My personal feeling is that we'd have to double the number of fish and wildlife officers to make an actual difference.