No doubt a very, very complex issue. The rabbit hole is deep and the deeper you look, the farther it goes. I don't have experience with how things like budgets and staffing go on a state level, but I am learning a bit about that whole process in the federal system. Through my work,I interact with folks from a few different agencies from time to time.

As has been said, all of this "it would be great if" or "why don't they" stuff seems to come down to a case of the right people in the right place. I have a simple mind and so it is helpful for me to boil complex issues down to simple concepts. The WDFW has many challenges laid out before it, no question. Most great things don't come without a fight and without toil. The right people don't offer excuses, they offer solutions. They don't throw up their hands in despair and give up, they keep working and eventually succeed.

Effecting change in a multi-layered, multi-faceted beaurocratic machine like most State and Fed run organizations has to start at or near the top. Change chan't usually take place quickly in these beasts either. Even with the right people in positions of power, it can be years, even decades before the fruits of labor are seen, if they ever are.

With smaller budgets, less money, less manpower, the WDFW will certainly have it's work cut out if anyone there really cares about and hopes to achieve their stated mission. Even with the right person calling the shots, it is likely not possible in their current state. Things like budgets, staffing levels, resources, levels and types of training, diversity in the workforce, etc. all come about (or should) in support of the greater mission, the big picture. With a leadership team in place that not only understands the broad scope, but more importanly how to get there, it is possible.

Budgets can be fought for, policies can be changed, training and job descriptions can be improved. But not easily.

I listened to a talk given by the superintendent of a prominent national park earlier this year. When questioned about how he was going to handle a particular issue with one group of user withing the Park he responded by saying "our responsibility includes the visitors, but first and foremost it is to the resource." That is to say he understood the mission of the Park Service, that these lands were set aside for the people, but more importantly they were set aside to preserve their natural state. He went on to provide a well thought out solution that catered to the majority of the group of users, leaving the folks at either end of the spectrum a little restless, but the majority was pleased. No matter how hard you try, you will never please the world.

Balancing the concepts of "user enjoyment" and "resource conservation" is like trying to find the perfect mix of oil and water. Personally, I, as a user, wouldn't mind if folks like the WDFW put more emphasis in the resource.