Salmo, I read your post and I here what you say in regards to us howling at the WFDW on fishing issues but at the fishing level it is much much more politcial!!In the fishing industry we are competing with commercials, natives, sportfishers and several states and acouple of countries. We are all after the same thing;fish.. On the Game level it is a localized problem. We are not competing against commercial hunters nor do we worry about other countries sneaking in and "harvesting" to many elk. The majority of our elk herds are in good shape. Our biggest disapointment right now is the mule deer.. DanS, I wouldn't consider yourself a big fat hypocrite at all.. If I was a commercial hunter with an investment less than a $1000(excluding nets and boat) and was able to indiscrimantly shoot 100 elk and sell them on the open market you would be real pissed that for a few less dollars you only get to shoot one a year and have a short time to do it!!The two issues cannot be compared. Anyhow, those of you who realize what the Peta's and Human Societies ultimate goal is please try an educate a few friends!!

I agree with steelyhorn.. Apples and Oranges Salmo G. I would rather a person with a knowledge base in the area is making decisions affecting the resources. But these people need to be independent of the state/federal government. I wonder if it would be better for the director (WDF) was an elected position? How would this change things? I will start a new thread on this and see what turns up...

BW01, How would an elected WDFW director be independent of state government? That's an oxymoron. For that matter, how could an appointed director be politically independent, assuming he/she was appointed by an elected official?