I hate to say it, but I voted for the director being hired by the commission who in turn were appointed by the govenor. Since the change, I've been very disappointed in the outcome and think we'd be much better off going back to the govenor appointing the director. My reasoning is that since we made the change, the commission is full of competing interests and they tend to micro manage the agency. As far as I'm concerned, the commission is just one more layer in the way of improving our fish and wildlife resources. At least when the govenor appoints the director, we have good years mixed in with the bad. The govenor also has a major stake in determining budget. A govenor that is pro fish and wildlife will obviously make sure his people have what they need to make things happen. Obviously the problem would be if the govenor was a little less sympathetic to the cause. Then again, I may be all wet. Too bad managing fish and wildlife isn't about managing fish and wildlife, but managing people.

PS. I believe Koenings recently got his 5 yr pin at a staff meeting.