Half of the time biologists don't even agree and when they do it still doesn't mean they're right. Commissioner's shouldn't have any input in the first place. They should simply be a board that decides whether or not the agfc personnel are following their intended mandate and if not, then remove them and replace then with those that can and will. Decision by committee is quite possibly the most paralyzingly ineffective way in the world for a business to operate. But the agfc isn't a business, so biologists should present proposals and then a board of agfc personnel should weigh that info and then look at it from a common sense and a public use perspective and then make decisions. The commission should only be there to regulate and ensure they are doing so and help keep them in check. The latest appointment is a bad joke which is par for the AGFC. That's nothing new, if you're not sure what a joke the agfc is by now then you have bigger problems than wildlife to worry about.... BUT the real point is HELL NO a biologist should not take their single minded focus into making decisions that are way above their training and pay grade. However, the decisions being made should be made based off of the information they provide and not what Fraud Bureau thinks.