Indeed. Remember that WDFW Director is an appointed position, which means cronyism will always be at play. The current makeup of the Commission seems to be largely neutral (which should be a good thing). I think the reason we get the shaft from WDFW, time and time again, is the language in their current legislative mandate:

* Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats.
* Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.

The first point is pretty neutral, even if it is next to unattainable. The second point appears neutral, but the reality is that there is no requirement implied that the opportunities be EQUAL. There is also no requirement to manage opportunities according to what will provide maximum benefit to State and local economies, which is why our arguments about economics (frankly, our strongest argument) fall flat, time and time again. Those who were present at the Commission meeting to discuss Willapa/GH may recall Commissioner Schmitten (on whom I'm none too smitten) vocally reinforcing that fact, essentially dismissing any further economic arguments as a "waste of time."

The thing is that "opportunity" just doesn't cut it as a meaningful mandate. As long as there is water open to fishing somewhere, an opportunity exists. Pretty low bar right there (although I will admit even that's getting difficult for the Department to provide, considering the ever-growing list of ESA protections they must consider). It's clear that the Puget Sound hatchery debacle will lead to significant losses of opportunity, but as long as other opportunities exist, WDFW's mandate is met.

Sport advocacy groups are lobbying the Legislature to get economic considerations factored into the mandate, but it's going to be tough to out-spend the deep-pocketed commercial lobby. Seems to me this is what needs to change if we're to get a fair shake at NOF or something better than a deaf ear to which to express our concerns over the PS lawsuits.