There is no doubt that having the WDFW (or merged agency) director being appointed by the governor will further politicize the agency. The very proof is that both the Governor and the Legislature prefers the Gov.-appointed director agency model. Why? To make the shortest direct line of accountability from the Director to the Governor and from the Director to the Legislature, without having to go through citizen Commissioners, who as a well-informed group have the agency mandate and constituent interest first, whereas the Governor and the Legislature always have politics first, and resource and citizen interests second. The Governor and the legislators know that they serve politics first, because that's the only way they can get elected, but they wouldn't and couldn't publicly admit that.

Having a citizen Fish & Wildlife Commission that hires the Director is the mechanism by which the role of politics ruling the agency is reduced - never eliminated of course - but at least held to a lesser role than when the Director serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Just compare with any of the Governor's Cabinet agencies whose Directors are appointed by her.

Another reason I'm not keen on the proposed merger is that the economy of scale seems to work well, up to a point. Mergers that create "super-agencies" have invariably produced the least efficient agencies in terms of government services to the "people" per dollar spent. WDFW is large enough to benefit from its size without being so large that it's irretrievably inefficient.

Sg