Just a note to check some of the misapprehension above...

Commissioner Richards is still on the Fish and Game Commission, he is just no longer the President. He wasn't "fired" from anything, and while he hasn't made a definitive statment, it looks like he'll stay out the remainder of his tenure, which runs out at the end of this year I believe. He agreed with the concensus that his effectiveness as President (and probably with the Commission) was over, and he voted to replace himself with the only other Commissioner who has shown himself to give a damn about California hunters and fishermen.

As someone pointed out, Richards did cross a legal line by accepting the hunt without charge, although I honestly believe there are mitigating circumstances there that simply aren't convenient to his detractors. The facts are the facts, and he faced up the charge and paid the money back without legal penalty. I can guarantee that, under any other circumstances, this legality would never have come up. Richards has been in the crosshairs of the anti-hunting and animal rights groups for quite some time because of his habit of calling them on their B.S.

Nevertheless, Richards' biggest crime, in the eyes of the Sacramento set, was refusal to be contrite in the face of his criticism... and his completely unprofessional and very public response to the folks who were gunning for him. He demonstrated clearly that he doesn't have the diplomatic skills for the B.S. that passes for politics in Sacramento these days, and that doomed him.

As far as financial loss, the Fish and Game Commission don't get much in the way of a paycheck for their service. You can look up what they get paid, but it isn't much compared to their "day jobs". They're not elected, but are appointed by the Governor every six years. Personally, given the inundation of animal rights voices in California government, I'm surprised he hasn't bailed out anyway.

Dan Richards may have had his warts, but I can guarantee that his voice will be a net loss to California sportsmen, especially with the current administration in Sacramento. It's hard to say who will replace him, but that decision is largely up to Governor Gerry Brown and a cast of characters that represents a rogues gallery of San Francisco politics, including Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome, and Attorney General Kamala Harris... along with a cast of anti-hunting state representatives. It doesn't look promising, but Governor Brown has surprised folks before. CA hunters should hope for the best, but should be actively involved in the discussion leading up to Dan Richards's replacement. You have that right, and if you value your sport, I'd say you have that obligation.

To you guys in other states, dig this. California may be FUBAR, but the reality is that other states are only a couple of votes away from the same condition. You need to recognize that an attack on hunters in any state, for any reason (even if it's something you don't hunt or a practice you don't participate in) is an attack on all hunters. Every political and legal victory of the animal rights groups gives them power and precedent for battles in other states. That is how this works. These guys are serious, and they're in it for the long haul... and that doesn't mean stopping at the California state line.

It's a shame how intolerant the people of California have been toward Richards.

California is under attack from all sides.

The state legislature tries to ban guns of all kinds every spring. Today, after ousting Richards, they environmental groups tried to extend the lead ban, to all ammunition, statewide.

HSUS is gaining traction, they've managed to change the name of the State Fish & Game to Fish and Wildlife and our currently pushing a ban on the use of dogs for hunting.

They are hitting us from all sides, the hunting, the guns and the ammo.

When they're through with us, they're coming to your state.

I was unanimous and Richards agreed. Maybe Richards felt it was time to move on.

I'm not one to voice my opinion on politics. But I must admit that this seems a little ridiculous. For him to be ousted for legally hunting doesn't make sense. However, I think that it was bold and perhaps respectable for Richards to recognize that he was possibly tarnishing the name of hunters (as many seem to see it) and stepped down to preserve the name of the being he works to protect.

I agree with rock rat someone needs to step up and start PETW 2.0 (Please eat the Wildlife)

I bet he got a fat check. Money talks and BS walks

Another Cali-fornication.

Did anyone notice that the SF Chronicle call these groups "conservationist"?!?! Gimme a break. They should properly be called preservationist. Conservation calls for the wise management of game animals. I'll bet ol' TR is rolling in his grave.