A real Fish and Game story

My time as a participating member of the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) is coming to an end. I will hold a seat until June 30, but the regular meeting cycle is over. Unless emergency petitions or agenda change requests come forth between now and then, the board will not meet in any capacity. Now might be an appropriate time to comment on some behind-the-scenes things most people are unaware of regarding holding a seat on the BOF.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) requires a financial statement be filed by every Board of Fisheries (BOF) member every year or partial year when they have served on the board. This public information document requires you to say how much money you and your spouse earn each year, where the money comes from, who your business dealings are with, what properties you own, what types of saving and/or retirement accounts you have, what types of loans you are carrying and with whom, etc.

I didn’t know about this prior to accepting the nomination three years ago. Had I known, I might have said no when offered the position. I have nothing to hide, but the level of information required seemed like a huge intrusion into my personal life. My wife was quite upset to learn all her dealings had to be disclosed as well. She has nothing to hide either, but questioned why her financial situation was anybody’s business given that I was the one serving on the board. I understand why the information is required, but my wife makes a good point too.

For purposes of communication and travel, each board member is issued both a state phone calling card and a state credit card. There are several specific rules that must be followed when using these cards and any violations, even unintentionally, carry consequences like possible fines and loss of card privileges. The loss of card use can really hurt if you have to front all your travel, hotel and meal costs to attend a board meeting and then wait possibly four to five weeks before being reimbursed the money. My personal finances couldn’t handle that.

The BOF is supposed to be non-political, but given the fisheries politics in this state, that is an unrealistic expectation. Except for the Board of Game (BOG), I’m not sure there are any other boards where politics have as great an influence. The most recent board confirmation hearings and legislative vote confirms that. Learning how to navigate the world of fisheries politics in Alaska takes some time if you have no previous experience. That’s just one of the many steep learning curves you will have to master during your term. Learning about the various fisheries is another.

The time commitment for the BOF runs an average of around 36 to 38 days per year for actual meetings, including weekends. Add travel days, committee work, teleconferences, interactions with other regulatory agencies, and time spent reading reports and public comments in preparation for each meeting, and you are looking at a potential of 100 to 120 days per year committed to your responsibilities as a board member. If you hold an officer’s position, especially Chairman, you can view the situation as essentially a full-time job. Don’t apply unless you can commit the time.

People have occasionally asked if I had a “favorite” staffer or industry representative whom I particularly enjoyed working with. While I had pleasant dealings with the overwhelming majority of department staff, I did not like a few individuals — call it a personality clash because they probably didn’t like me either. The same holds for fisheries industry representatives.

When I think back over my three years and all the ADF&G management or research staff I had dealings with statewide, the one individual who immediately comes to mind is Forrest Bowers, the Commercial Fisheries Division area management biologist for crab and groundfish in Dutch Harbor. Bowers has developed a great working relationship with the crab and groundfish industry folks to the point where there is virtually no contention between the industry and Fish and Game at board meetings. They don’t always agree on solutions to various issues, but they work together to find a consensus, if one exists.

Bowers also takes the complex management scenarios and linguistics of the fisheries he manages and makes things understandable to the layperson in his presentations to the board. A lot of his work involves interactions with federally managed fisheries as well, so you can get an idea of the complexities of the fisheries he deals with. Plus, Forrest is a genuinely nice guy as well.

The person I think of first when asked about fishing industry representatives who are easy to work with is Jim Stone, who runs the Alaska scallop fisherman’s association. He was such a pleasant individual — no arguing, no manipulation, no name calling, no greed, just a willingness to work with the board to protect the resource while using the harvestable surplus. If all the fishing industry representatives, whether commercial or sport, were like him, serving on the BOF would be a pleasant experience rather than an often thankless endeavor.

I’ll comment on some other aspects of BOF life in future columns.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. You can leave him a message by e-mailing sports@frontiersman.com.