18 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



I. FUNCTIONS OF THE DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME 



The work of the Division of Fish and Game falls into several major functions: 



A. Assistance in formulation and application of fish and game policies. 



B. Fish and same management and habitat conti'ol. 

 C Law enforcement. 



D. Propagation of fish and game. 



E. Fisli and game research. 



F. Conservation education and public information. 



G. Jjicense sales. 



H. Fiscal, budgetary and personnel controls. 



II. DEFICIENCIES IN THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION 



Several deficiencies in the present organization of the Division of Fish and Game 

 hinder the efficient accomplishment of the above functions. These can be listed as : 



A. An important shortcoming in the present organization is the fact that the 

 chiefs and intermediate staffs of the present bureaus have a dual capacity ; policy 

 making and interpretation, atid the problem of actually administering this policy in 

 the field. Most modern organizations of the size and complexity of the Division of 

 Fish and Game separate the functions of policy leadership and interpretation under 

 one category which is generally designated as staff, and the administrative responsi- 

 bilities generally known as line authority. It is felt that an over-all organization 

 within the division of the line and staff type would go a long way toward overcoming 

 this deficiency in our present organization. 



B. A second major deficiency in the present organization is the lack of coordi- 

 nation among the field personnel of the present bureaus. In general, coordination 

 among the functions of the present bureaus is fairly satisfactory at the bureau chief 

 level where constant contacts are made among the various chiefs in the San Francisco 

 ofiice. At the field level, however, there is in various areas of the State a lack of under- 

 standing of the problems that arise from the functions of the present bureaus. In 

 many cases staff and operating members of one bureau are fully aware of commission 

 policies and commission aims with respect to handling certain fish and game manage- 

 ment matters, whereas the personnel of another bureau lack such understanding, and 

 the resulting confusion, as far as statements to the public are concerned, puts the whole 

 division in a poor position. This is perhaps the greatest deficiency in our present 

 organization. Establishment of regional offices in which middle level personnel could 

 have daily contact and regional direction would aid materially in such coordination 

 and should be considered as a first step in any reorganization plan. 



C. The public is unable to obtain information or a clear statement of commission 

 policy and activities on the local level. Established commission policy and activities 

 should be readily available to the public locally. 



D. Many of the administrative difficulties of the Division of Fish and Game 

 result from the organizational set-up in Sacramento, both between the division and 

 the Department of Natural Resources, and between the division and the other agencies 

 of State Government through the department. Fiscal control and the processing of 

 personnel and other documents are unduly complicated and slow. Reorganization of 

 the Division of Fish and Game alone will not correct these shortcomings. It is, how- 

 ever, suggested that within the division itself many administrative procedures be 

 standardized and placed on a regional basis. 



III. PROPOSALS FOR AN IMPROVED ORGANIZATION 



It is proposed that the Division of Fish and Game be modified into a line and 

 staff type of organization together with the establishment of regional oflBces. 



A. Regions 



It is suggested that the State be divided into 11 administrative regions with 

 headquarters as follows : 



I. Eureka VI. Modesto 



II. Redding VII. Monterey 



III. Chico VIII. Fresno 



IV. Sacramento IX. Bishop 



V. San Francisco X. Los Angeles 



XI. San Diego 



