Columnist shares experience at board meeting

We all make occasional mistakes at work, even when we are trying our best to do a good job. Most of us know a fair amount about our job related topics, but rarely does one know everything about every aspect of their work. These realities came into play for the members of the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game staff during their statewide meeting.

I spent several days in Fairbanks attending the recently completed BOG meeting. I had two proposals in front of the board and wanted to get my public testimony on the record as well as my written public comments. I was requesting the board add crossbows as allowable hunting tools in certain, specifically defined restricted weapons hunts. I was also asking that crossbows and specifically defined blackpowder cartridge rifles be allowed in bison hunts.

Most people have little knowledge or understanding of these two hunting tools and I wanted to be able to present information to the board to help them evaluate the practicality of allowing these two hunting tools in hunts where they are currently not allowed by regulation or, as it turned out, department discretion.

While neither proposal was passed, neither was voted down either. The crossbow proposal was deferred to future regional meetings where proper public notice could be given for discussion of hunt boundaries verses hunting areas. I didn’t really understand the distinction, but ADF&G’s regulations specialist and the lawyer advising the board drew the legal distinction. The blackpowder cartridge proposal, it turns out, fell under department discretionary authority, and with assurance from the Wildlife Conservation Division director that the requested action would be taken, the board took no regulatory action.

I had spent a fair amount of time talking with BOG members during breaks about my proposals, trying to explain why the two hunting tools should be allowed. Chairman Ted Spraker had the best grasp of what I was trying to do, I believe. I say that because twice, on both of my proposals, the department regulations specialist who presented the proposals for board deliberation made false and misleading statements about what my proposals were trying to do.

The crossbow proposal was intentionally written to prohibit crossbows during “bow-and-arrow” only hunts. My proposal asked that crossbows only be allowed in restricted weapons hunts when a firearm, in addition to “bow-and-arrow,” was also allowed. An earlier proposal asked to mix crossbows into the “bow-and-arrow” definition. That idea is not popular in the “vertical bow” crowd and that proposal failed. My proposal was next up for consideration and when asked if my proposal would do the same thing as the just failed proposal, the regulation specialist said “yes.” As I was coming unglued in the audience, the chairman brought up the firearms requirement in my proposal and the regulations person then reversed her statement.

When the blackpowder cartridge proposal came up, the regulations person stated that, if it passed, a whole class of other currently legal firearms would become illegal. Again, Chairman Spraker stated that he thought the proposal was only asking to add a class of firearms and not eliminate any from use. Again, the regulations person had to retract her statements.

During the blackpowder discussion, several points were made which I had already addressed in my written public comments. I had to wonder if anybody had either read or remembered that I had already addressed their concerns. Back during my time on the Board of Fisheries, all relevant comments or suggested wording changes to a proposal were in front of board members during deliberations on that specific proposal.

I guess the BOG deliberations format isn’t that well organized!

I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Spraker, member Hoffman, and member Brown for: 1) pointing out falsehoods and misconceptions in the department presentation of both my proposals, 2) for asking if a bison in one herd is tougher than bison in another herd as to why there was a difference in allowable hunting tools, and 3) for clarifying concerns within the archery community about mixing bow types, respectively. Those key points kept the discussions moving in the right direction.

I was quite frustrated and disappointed in aspects of how the department handled the meeting. So-called “department experts” provided some written proposal comments which were totally false and which were exactly opposite of other statements coming from other sections of ADF&G, where staff actually knows what they’re talking about!

I plan to follow-up with a letter to the Wildlife Conservation director expressing my concerns.

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.