Bruising board battles ultimately prove bloodless

We often hear the term “blood sport” used to describe recreational hunting and fishing activities. There is no such thing as “catch and release” in the hunting field and many anglers, myself included, don’t practice catch and release when fishing, unless it is to return an unwanted and non-targeted fish species to the water. If I’m going out to hunt or fish for something, my intention is to eat whatever the animal is that I harvest and bring home.

Over the years, it has become quite apparent to me that the true “blood sport” activities in the world of outdoor politics are reserved for the vetting process and confirmation hearings involved in persons attempting to achieve a position on either our Alaska Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game.

My master’s degree is in Wildlife Management but my working experience has been all fisheries oriented. I was considered a “fisheries guy” when I served on the local Fish and Game Advisory Committee. A term on the Alaska Board of Fisheries has cemented the public perception of where my main interest lies. As a result, I tend to follow the fisheries situations in Alaska closer than the wildlife, but I try to pay attention to both arenas of activity.

The recent nomination and vetting process for three seats on the BOF and two seats on the BOG has been interesting, to say the least. The BOF nominations were a little surprising to me. I strongly backed Israel Payton’s nomination, but Al Cain and Robert Ruffner both caught me a little off guard.

I’ve known Cain for many years and have only the utmost respect for his experience and expertise. I figured, since his retirement, he was done with the blood-sport of the BOF. If anybody knows what that’s like, he would!

Ruffner had gone through the nomination and vetting process once before and was not confirmed because of the politics at the time. I thought he would have made a good addition to the BOF then and I still do now. Politics have changed regarding the seat he was nominated to fill, so there was nowhere near the controversy this time that surfaced last year.

I was very happy to see that all three BOF nominees were confirmed with little controversy regarding the perceived positions any of them are thought to have. Personally, I don’t think any of the three can be “pigeon-holed” as to supporting any particular user group. They all are “resource first” type thinkers.

The Board of Game nominations were a little less well known to me. I’ve interacted with Nate Turner at BOG meetings through the last several years and my impression was that he knew his material, was very active in working with various groups, and took the time to listen to folks. I was a little surprised to hear the personal attack leveled against him during the March BOG meeting in Fairbanks.

Mark Richards, the executive director of some group that calls itself Resident Hunters of Alaska, chastised Turner during public testimony for supposedly favoring guides/nonresidents over resident Alaskans since Turner is a registered guide. This RHAK group has maybe 50 individual members and they are all worked up about how they believe nonresident hunters are taking too many Dall sheep.

Personally, I thought their whole approach criticizing Turner amounted to nothing more than a cheap shot and attempted character assassination. I was glad to see Turner confirmed by a 45 to 13 vote.

The other BOG nominee was a total unknown to me. Guy Trimmingham lives in Hope and has been a licensed hunting guide and is currently a hunter. He has been portrayed in the vetting process and through legislative confirmation hearings as wanting to bring “balance” to the BOG between consumptive and non-consumptive users of our state’s wildlife resources. Many people feel that, since hunters pay the overwhelming majority of the funding to manage wildlife that consumptive users should be the driving force in deciding wildlife management activities.

I agree but will hasten to add that non-consumptive users bring a lot of money into the state’s economy that doesn’t necessarily contribute directly to wildlife management but does help spur the state’s overall economy. Also, since the majority of Alaskans are not hunters, it only makes sense to give consideration to the non-consumptive point of view in various wildlife management discussions. Science should be the driving force in making these decisions, but economic impact must be considered as well.

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.