Alaskans should not let rhetoric dictate state's wildlife policy

George Pollard's Oct. 17 piece in the statewide newspaper took some careless shots at the Alaska Outdoor Council in an attempt to label an enemy and convince voters Ballot Measure I is a bad idea and Ballot Measure 6 is a good idea.

That's precisely the problem with "ballot-box biology." By its very nature of 30-second television ads and rhetorical campaign slogans, it tends to focus more on the enemy instead of the solution. It tends to oversimplify a very serious issue and unfortunately, often leaves the voter with more questions than answers.

Ballot Measures 1 and 6 are not about the Alaska Outdoor Council nor the animal-rights groups. They are about Alaska's wildlife and how Alaskans want to manage that wildlife for generations to come.

As a retired commissioner of Fish and Game, an Alaskan biologist for over 25 years, and current president of the Alaska Outdoor Council, I can say Ballot Measures I and 6 are perhaps the most important wildlife issues Alaska have faced since statehood.

I can also say that wildlife management by the "ballot box" will continue to exacerbate our differences, create confusion, and do little to find common solutions our wildlife and all Alaskans deserve.

It's impossible to narrow consideration of predator-prey relationships, fluctuating habitat conditions, disease, natural events, calving ratios, birth rates, diverse rural and urban values and management objectives into a "Yes" or "No" vote. It's just as impossible to educate folks about these factors and have an honest discussion by exchanging 30-second TV ads.

Wildlife initiatives lock changing biological conditions into a long-term law that leaves biologists, the general public, and our wildlife grasping for straws when a problem arises. The only constant in wildlife management is change.

That's why the Alaska Chapter of the Wildlife Society, composed of over 300 biologists, many who work for ADF&G, is opposed to using the initiative process for managing wildlife. It's also why the Alaska Board of Game is opposed to using the initiative process for managing wildlife.

To ensure the viability of our wildlife, Alaska needs a management system that responds effectively to changing biological conditions. The good news is, we already have one. In fact, the ADF&G termed it a "model process" for the nation.

You've heard Ballot Measure I takes away your right to vote. Let's be clear.

Does it remove issues from the initiative process? Yes. Does it remove them from the referendum process? No. Does it preclude meaningful public input? No. If the Legislature makes a law you disagree with, you still have the right to gather signatures, put the issue on the ballot, and let the public vote to support or overturn the Legislature's law.

You still have the right to appeal to your local advisory committees. If that doesn't work, you can appeal to the Board of Game. Their committees have access to the latest studies, latest changes, and best recommendations of trained professionals.

These 80-plus advisory committees aren't somebody else - they are you. You elect them, recommend them, serve on them, and work your differences out on a local level through debate and handshakes - not TV ads.

They encourage deliberation and take steps away from divisiveness and polarization. That's why local and public advisory committees overwhelmingly support Ballot Measure 1.

The process may not be perfect, but it's better than more rhetoric, more money, and more TV ads. Let's strengthen the public system designed by the drafters of our state constitution and put wildlife management where it belongs - with Alaskans - not special-interest groups. Please join me in voting "Yes" on Ballot Measure I and "No" on Ballot Measure 6.

Carl Rosier is the president of the Alaska Outdoor Council.