There’s Something Fishy About Newsom’s New Commissioner
Of the many agencies that make up California’s law enforcement, one agency stands out for its multi-faceted role in protecting the state’s natural resources and wildlife: the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). Charged with enforcing fishing and hunting regulations, combating poaching activities, addressing environmental pollution, and even tackling the illicit growth of marijuana, the DFW operates as a the guardian of California’s ecological integrity.
I grew up fishing and camping with my dad, later watched the “Wild Justice” episodes on National Geographic, as poachers were caught and brought to justice for decimating wildlife, and thought about what a great job that would be. Throughout my career, I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with the dedicated officers of Fish and Game through a few different operations as a fugitive recovery agent, and have seen them go to work firsthand. These peace officers, much like their counterparts in other agencies, undergo rigorous training, including the standard California POST training and then an additional specialized education, at an academy in Northern California. Notably, applicants seeking to join this force are required to possess a degree in either science or criminal justice, demonstrating the DFW’s commitment to expertise and professionalism.
Much like other state law enforcement bodies, such as the California State Highway Patrol, the DFW operates under a structured command hierarchy, with a commissioner at its helm. A county Sheriff has the unique trait of being elected by the people, but most other leadership roles in law enforcement such as chief or commissioner are appointed. These appointees typically bring with them extensive law enforcement backgrounds and legal knowledge, ensuring they are well-versed in the practicalities and nuances of the policies they enforce or create within their departments. I would imagine it would be hard to write a policy on using a Taser if you have never held one, or how to safely engage in a vehicle pursuit having never done EVOC training.
So you can imagine my surprise when Darius W. Anderson was appointed by California Governor Gavin Newsome as the Fish and Game Commissioner, in January 2024. Anderson hails from Kenwood, California, in Sonoma County, where I lived for 6 years. His experience? Anderson is the Founder and CEO of Platinum Advisors, a government affairs firm that ranks among the top five California-based lobbyists, and he owns Sonoma Media Investments, which includes the newspaper The Press Democrat. But wait, there’s more. Anderson also founded the Rebuild North Bay Foundation in response to the devastating fires in Sonoma County, which were proven to be attributed to the negligence of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The foundation, notably, has received a substantial $2 million from PG&E. What’s more, Anderson is a registered lobbyist for PG&E. Anderson and has a membership in a hunt club, Wing & Barrel Ranch, for winemakers, as his only visible connection to nature.
The puzzle becomes intriguingly complex when one considers Anderson’s ties to the energy sector and real estate, industries often under scrutiny for their environmental impact. It raises a poignant question: Should someone so entrenched in spheres known for their ecological footprint be entrusted with overseeing an agency mandated to protect the environment from such corporate excesses?
Adding a layer of concern is Anderson’s lack of law enforcement experience or a background in biology or environmental science. As the commissioner, he is set to earn a modest $100 a day, significantly less than the officers under his purview, and nothing compared to the money he brings in as an investor. This begs the question: What motivates such an appointment?
The answer, upon scrutiny, reveals itself in the form of potential conflicts of interest and the all-too-familiar specter of backdoor dealings. For a position that is meant to dedicate itself to environmental consciousness and commitment to wildlife preservation, Anderson’s profile appears incongruous with the responsibilities of his new role.
What transpires in this appointment is not an isolated incident but a glaring example of nepotism, time and time again, that threatens the public interest and the welfare of California’s people, and now apparently its wild inhabitants. It underscores a troubling trend where conflicts of interest are normalized, perpetuating a system that seemingly puts profit over people and nature’s preservation.
As someone who cherishes California’s natural wonders and the diversity of its wildlife, I find myself deeply troubled by this turn of events. It prompts a necessary reflection on when we, as a society, will draw the line.
The appointment of individuals with strong ties to industries known for their environmental impact, such as energy and real estate, to positions within agencies tasked with wildlife protection can have profound implications on hunting and fishing laws. Appointees with close ties to industries like energy and real estate are historically less inclined to prioritize the interests of these industries over strict enforcement of hunting and fishing regulations. Individuals lacking a background in biology or environmental science may not fully appreciate the need for conservation measures to protect wildlife populations, and conservation efforts, such as habitat restoration, species protection, and sustainable hunting quotas, might take a back seat to industry interests.
When the public perceives that regulatory bodies are influenced by industry insiders, it erodes trust in the fairness and integrity of environmental, hunting and fishing laws. Input from stakeholders such as conservation groups, wildlife biologists, and outdoor enthusiasts is sidelined in favor of industry perspectives. In the battle to protect our natural resources, the guardians must be beyond reproach. The appointment of Anderson casts a long shadow over this principle, serving as a stark reminder of the vigilance needed to safeguard our planet against those who would prioritize personal gain over the collective good. The message is clear: the stakes are too high, and the consequences too dire, to allow such compromises to go unchecked. The ball is in Anderson’s court now. What will he do with it?
