Looking at the AFGAC exodus

We’ll make a couple of quick mentions before venturing into the main subject matter. First, I tied for third place, out of five shooters, shooting a blackpowder revolver at the monthly blackpowder handgun shoot held at the Noel Woods indoor shooting range in Palmer earlier this week. Like I said, Mike, I do shoot for real, but my best shooting is always with the computer — first place every time!

Second, the Alaska Gun Collectors Association (AGCA) will be holding a gun show at Raven Hall, on the State Fairgrounds, tomorrow and Sunday. This is usually a good show and if you’re not all “gun-showed out,” stop by and check it out.

A media article last week went into detail about why one-third of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee (AFGAC) members have resigned their seats. According to the report, the stated reason for the exodus was that neither the Board of Fisheries (BOF) nor the Board of Game gave credence to the AFGAC recommendations on proposals coming before either board. The resigning members felt that, since the AFGAC represented the “largest population of outdoor enthusiasts” in the state, their recommendations should be accepted by both boards.

In my opinion, if these individuals truly feel business should be handled as such, then I’m glad they’re gone and no longer part of the system! If they think what they say should prevail, then why do we need either existing board? Apparently they have forgotten the name of their committee — advisory!

There are, quite frankly, many reasons why either or both boards make decisions that agree or disagree with the AFGAC or any AC’s recommendations. I’ve sat in both chairs. I was a member of and ultimately chairman of the Matanuska Valley AC prior to my appointment to the BOF. I’ve seen from both sides of the table how the process works. Here’s a short synopsis: an AC develops proposals, reviews others, and makes recommendations for or against proposals they feel are relevant to their constituents.

When board meeting time arrives, a previously selected AC member, usually the chair, attends the meeting and presents the AC’s recommendations and the reasoning why the committee voted the way they did. This information has also been previously submitted in writing to the respective board for their information prior to the actual meeting. Board members read these submissions and note support or objection by the AC for each proposal.

Board meetings usually cover several different hunts or fisheries over a fairly broad chunk of Alaska. Generally, more than one AC resides in the area being reviewed and all have submitted their recommendations. Very rarely do all the affected ACs agree to support or reject any given proposal. The usual breakdown is closer to a 50-50 split in support or objection. With just that bit of knowledge, it becomes readily apparent that any given AC has only a 1 in 2 chance of having the respective boards agree with them.

Another piece which a lot of AC members are unaware of is the amount and detail of information submitted to a board member about any given proposal. For instance, the international treaties with Canada covering the required numbers of Chinook salmon which must reach Canadian waters is a major factor is both Southeast and Yukon River Chinook salmon proposals.

Various written agreements with agencies of the federal government about authority to manage various fisheries or wildlife resources, and whether these resources are on federal or state lands also has a bearing on the fate of certain proposed actions. Most of these things are unknown to ACs as they discuss and vote to support or reject various proposals.

Oftentimes, a proposal that sounds really good and is widely supported by the local ACs fails to pass based on comments from law enforcement about how the proposal is unenforceable. The Department of Law also issues opinions about the feasibility of certain proposals or points out that the respective board has no authority under Alaska law to regulate whatever the proposal wants done.

The advisory committees are, except for a couple of very specific situations, exactly that — advisory committees. Their purpose is to inform the respective board about social or economic impact issues which might not be readily apparent, and to advise, allegorically, about the status of fish or game populations in their area.

Just because a board decision doesn’t agree with an AC recommendation doesn’t mean the board didn’t listen and take the ACs advice into consideration!