Appointed vs Elected DNR Secretary

[Fish]

I would like to know the hunters opinion on if our DNR Sec. should be appointed by the Gov or elected by the NRB.  I'll keep my opinion to myself til later.....

[mtnman]

Count me in for ELECTED! Appointees, usually have no background in the agency they are heading, and are political in nature. Since the DNR secretary was made an appointed position, especially under Doyle, this could not be more true.

It should be a representative elected by those who have the experience of the natural resources we so much care. Not a political hack.

Sorry, I just call the present situation as I see it.

[buckhunter21]

Definately have to go with elected.  You can just take a quick look at how things are done now to go with that decision!

[Goose]

elected

[Fish]

I used to be one to believe an elected Secretary was the right way to go.  But I'm not sure if I would answer that question today.  Here's one thought to consider:
 
If we allow the NRB to elect the Sec., what type of "check and balances" are available?  Seven members of the NRB will make this decision.  I'm not sure these 7 have the best interest of the hunter in mind.  So in other words, if this board elects the Secretary wouldn't it be far to say the Secretary would go along with the NRB?  Whereas, with an appointed Sec at least an official, elected by the people, will appoint the Secretary.  This individual is more like to have to answer to the public than one that has the protection of the people who hired him/her.
 
I'm not sure what the right answer is.  We can only look at the current structure as it is today.  Will it change with the next Gov election?  Will the current board change?  Is there a better way?