Errors in regs must be fixed

Two weeks ago, this column mentioned the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting in New York from July 11-15. Last week’s column addressed the court ruling overturning recent Board of Fisheries changes to commercial fishing management plans in Cook Inlet.

First, about last week’s column. I received two widely divergent e-mails from friends about that column. The first was from a former high-ranking Alaska Department of Fish and Game retiree who thought I did a good job with the discussion of what happened with the court ruling. The second e-mail was from a friend and former Board of Fisheries member who thought I trashed Fish and Game as badly as the court ruling had done.

I have mentioned in previous columns about how, when errors in regulation do occur, they almost always seem to be in commercial fisheries regulations and the errors usually soften or even eliminate the impact of what the Board of Fisheries originally intended to change with that regulation. This current Cook Inlet situation follows that pattern. I’ve also mentioned how the commissioner of Fish and Game has the authority to correct errors in regulation when they are discovered. That policy was established several years ago in an attempt to minimize or eliminate the need for the Board of Fisheries to revisit erroneous regulations to correct them, as was done in this circumstance too.

The commissioner was aware that errors had been made in the regulations in question. The commissioner had been specifically asked to correct the disputed regulations, but, to date, has taken no action to do so. In my opinion, the commissioner has failed to implement the authority delegated to that office by the Board of Fisheries specifically to avoid the situation we now have.

Simply because of the volume of proposals and intensity of deliberation that occurs in Board of Fisheries meetings like the Upper Cook Inlet meeting, errors can occasionally be made in translating board intent into codified regulations. However, Fish and Game and, specifically, the commissioner’s office, has the duty and obligation to review the regulations prior to their formal implementation and make any corrections necessary. This was apparently not done with these disputed Cook Inlet regulations.

While one can speculate as to why that wasn’t done — deliberately or merely an unfortunate oversight — that’s a discussion for another time. The fact remains, the department failed to follow-up properly on the review of new regulations, which were flawed in conveying Board of Fisheries intent, prior to their implementation. That is why I am critical of the department’s actions here.

These flawed regulations are negatively impacting our northern district salmon stocks and I will continue to write about various facets of these negative impacts over the coming weeks. Feel free to disagree if you want, but please keep comments civil.

Second, what happened at the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting in New York? Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association addressed the U.N. on July 11. In his speech, he said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate United States civilian firearms ownership.

“The right to keep and bear arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth and self-destiny,” LaPierre said. “We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our founding fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen — not for the government.”

He gave several examples to illustrate how this U.N. treaty could impact U.S. gun owners. He talked about how the U.N. has said this treaty will not ban possession of any civilian firearms, yet proposals for the treaty to date call for just that and treaty negotiators have not rejected them. He said the U.N. states this treaty will only affect the illegal trade in firearms, yet in order to control the illegal trade, the U.N. argues that member states must control the legal trade in firearms.

LaPierre pointed out that the U.N. says the treaty will not require registration of civilian firearms, yet there are numerous proposals in the treaty calling for record-keeping and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction of the firearm.

Other provisions of the treaty would require a manufacturer of civilian shotguns, for instance, to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters. The U.N. says the treaty would not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter traveling internationally with firearms, but would require people to get a “transit permit” to change airports for a connecting flight.

LaPierre also said that the U.S. Senate is the treaty ratifying body in the U.S. and that body already strongly opposes the treaty. LaPierre concluded by saying the treaty will not pass the Senate by the two-thirds majority necessary for such ratification. Let’s hope he’s correct.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Leave him a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.