Commission Should Go Fishing

Fish and game commissions are revered institutions in the West. By tradition, sportsmen are named to these bodies primarily to set hunting and fishing seasons that accommodate the desires of fellow hunters and anglers. In California in the 1990s, however, such a body is an anachronism. The responsibilities of the state Fish and Game Department, and of its supposed overseer, the Fish and Game Commission, have been expanded well beyond the narrow old concept of wildlife management--the simple notion of allowing the maximum number of game-hunting kills as long as the species are not wiped out.

The duties now extend to the conservation of wetlands and habitat, the purchase of land and water rights, monitoring water quality and the protection of endangered species. This is a broad environmental mandate that demands a modern, far-sighted agency with the best managerial and scientific personnel. But, as the state’s Little Hoover Commission has concluded, the Fish and Game Commission is composed of five men appointed by the governor mostly because they know something about hunting and fishing.

Following a yearlong study, the Little Hoover group proposed that the Legislature establish criteria for a broader range of representation on the commission, including the environmental sciences and non-game, wildlife interests. If necessary, membership could be expanded to accommodate the broader representation.

Well, it’s a good idea as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. The Legislature should not stop there, but should consider amending the state Constitution to abolish the commission altogether. While the commission is supposed to set broad policy, it really doesn’t control the Fish and Game Department, which is run by a director also appointed by the governor. Nor is the commission accountable to the secretary of the Resources Agency, the Cabinet-level official who supposedly oversees all resource-related decisions.

The present commission deserves credit for broadening its outlook in recent months. But the commission, as an institution, has outlasted its real usefulness. California would be better off with a department that makes decisions based primarily on scientific evidence and environmental good sense and that is less susceptible to direct pressure from hunting and fishing groups.