I think that both are essential elements. It really worries me that the new provision requires proof. If you read old HADD decisions, there's a whole discussion in the court about the fact that you don't need to prove that you are harming fish. That's an integral piece of why prosecutions were successful, because it's really hard to do.
Maybe that is the reason that no prosecutions have been brought. Prosecutors simply think that they can't meet the standard, that there's no way they can prove it within the time they have under the act to bring a prosecution. At the same time, it could be equally true that there's nobody in the office and therefore no prosecutions are filed. Unquestionably, you have to deal with both, but if you just restore personnel, I don't think you're going to see a lot more enforcement of the act until you create a threshold that is both enforceable in a meaningful sense and also works to protect fish.