Idaho Bringing Politics To Game Management

Since 1938, Idaho has had the same system in place for appointing the Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  Since then, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission appointed the Fish and Game Director.  There are seven members of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission.  There is one representative for each of the seven Regions.  Each of these Commission members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.  

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission was formed in 1938 to help combat the politicization of Idaho’s wildlife policies.  The Commission members serve staggering four-year terms and no more than four of the seven Commissioners can be from the same political party.  With the bipartisan Commission, it takes a lot of the politics out of decision making.  

Now, with Idaho Senate Bill 1300, the Idaho State Legislature is trying to change that process.  Looking through the bill, the Idaho Fish and Game Director appointment isn’t the only thing they are trying to change.  This bill will amend the current Idaho State Code 59-904(c) among other things.  

As it stands, 59-904 gives the Governor the power to fill vacancies in any state office and supreme/district courts.  Subsection “C” lists all the appointed positions that the governor already has the authority to appoint.  To name a few: Director of the Idaho State Police, Director of the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Director of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission.  With the passage of SB1300, the Director of Idaho Fish and Game will be added to that list.  If you would like to see all the powers that the Director of Fish and Game has, I urge you to read Idaho Code 36-106.

Is it really that bad of a thing to have the Director appointed by the Governor?  Many argue that it will undermine science-based management by politicizing the position of Director.  Some say it will erode decades of positive conservation.  But will it?  

That is definitely a possibility.  But is the system that Idaho has right now immune from that fate?  Let’s look at some of the surrounding states and see what systems they use, and you can look at how their wildlife management is going.  

Washington state appoints its Director through the Fish and Wildlife Commission similar to Idaho.  The difference being their commission is not a bipartisan one.  Oregon and Colorado also share the system like Washington and are not bipartisan.  In these states, along with Idaho, the Commissioner will serve term limits but also are serving at the pleasure of the Governor.  That means they can be replaced at any time by the Governor.  

California has a Director appointed by the Governor, along with Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, and Arizona.  This is a mixed bag of systems as results.  You can’t really say that a Commission appointed Director has worked better than a Governor one with Oregon, Washington and Colorado being on that list as well.  I think the best thing that Idaho has done is that the Commission is a bipartisan one.  The other states that have Commission appointed Directors have that. But it’s just as easy for politics to creep into wildlife management regardless of how the Director is appointed. 

The moral of the story is no matter what system is going on in your state, Hunters and Anglers need to stay united on all issues, because politics is coming to your state game management one way or another.