A look at the Board of Fisheries nominations

Last week, I mentioned that three things were happening in the fisheries world but only briefly discussed two of them in the column. Let’s look at that third item now.

The seven-member Alaska Board of Fisheries has historically been composed of three members with a strong commercial fisheries industry background, three members with strong ties to the sports and personal use fishing industries, and one member who brings knowledge and experience in dealing with subsistence fisheries.

The term for one sports-oriented member and the subsistence person are both ending on June 30. The subsistence member has reapplied and has already been nominated by the governor for another term. The problem is that Gov. Bill Walker has nominated a person with a strong commercial fishing background to replace the sports person.

To further complicate things, the sports guy is from Anchorage while the commercial guy is from Kodiak. Traditionally, there has been a member from Anchorage on the board to represent the concerns and viewpoints of an area which holds about half of the state’s population. If this nomination is confirmed by the legislature, then Anchorage will not be represented in actions the BOF will be making.

Duncan Fields is the nominee from Kodiak and is a commercial set-netter, an attorney, and has been active in fisheries issues such as being a former member of the federal North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. He brings a wealth of experience with him.

When I was on the BOF, I worked some with Fields when we had joint meetings with the NPFMC. I found him to be a good listener with an open mind and willing to work toward a compromise, if such was needed for the benefit of the fisheries resource. In fact, our Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission supported the appointment of Fields to the BOF if a commercial seat came open in the near future.

We promoted Ben Mulligan, a sports-oriented person from Anchorage, as our first choice to replace the retiring Alan Cain.

Sixteen different outdoor groups have sent a letter to all legislators opposing the confirmation of Mr. Fields to the BOF. Let me be quite clear on this next statement. The objection to Mr. Fields has nothing to do with him personally. The objection centers around the imbalance that would be created on the board. Instead of the 3-3-1 membership mix, it would become 4-2-1, tipped in favor of commercial interests.

In theory, the BOF is nonpolitical and every member believes in looking out for the best interests of the fisheries resource as their first priority in deliberating proposals to change regulations. The recent meddling by the governor regarding where a major regulatory meeting will be held shoots down the nonpolitical aspects I mentioned.

As far as looking out for the fisheries resource first, that all depends on what is meant by looking out for the resource. During my time on the board, I watched one member vote in favor of probably 90 percent of every commercially beneficial proposal, even if that proposal was harmful to the resource.

This current board has members who, at least in appearance, seem to be strongly biased toward anything benefiting the commercial fishing industry. The sharing of “the burden of conservation in times of resource shortage” seems to always fall on the in river users in the form of methods and means, bag limit, or other types of restrictions. Rarely does “sharing the burden” regulation changes seem to touch the commercial folks. And that’s with a relatively balanced board!

I shudder, figuratively, at what might happen in allocation proposals if the board is suddenly loaded with commercially oriented points of view. Even if folks are trying to be fair in allocative discussions, oftentimes, unless the person lives in the area being discussed, there’s a strong chance they won’t understand the full impact of an allocation shift or the economic consequences of one user group being restricted more than another.

That’s where the geographic representation of board members has an impact. When a sitting member from Kenai was nominated to replace a retiring member from Kodiak, you would have thought the world was ending. Both folks were commercially oriented folks, so the problem of imbalance between sport and commercial wasn’t even a factor. The argument was strictly about area representation.

None of these area representation and sport verses commercial arguments are set in regulation and can be changed. However, the smooth functioning of the BOF is what’s at stake here.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This column is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman or its parent company, Wick Communications. You can leave Delo a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.