More politics behind BOF

In this week’s column, I continue with my thoughts on the politics of the Board of Fisheries. Check out last week’s installment, then read this one.

In discussions with legislative sources after the fact, I heard three different scenarios on why I was not renominated. The first involved the Pebble Mine and the board’s request to the Legislature to review regulations and standards governing mining permits and operation. The second involved the governor’s view of life and my reputation on the board. The third involved the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) and the Chitna personal use fishery.

The Pebble Mine issue came up during the Bristol Bay meeting and the specific proposal asked the board to recommend to the Legislature it create a refuge in the proposed mining area to, essentially, kill the mine. The BOF took a bunch of testimony, for and against, at this meeting and stated that a letter would be forthcoming before meeting’s end. That was wishful thinking by the board chair.

That letter ended up taking about two months to complete and involved a dozen different drafts — I know because I sort of inherited the drafting job after the first draft made its rounds. There was significant disagreement on the board about what to do. There were three pretty firm votes to create a refuge, one firm vote against a refuge and three of us undecided because no mining plan had yet been put forth. The letter ultimately did exactly what the board said it would do at the Bristol Bay meeting — ask the Legislature to review the regulations and standards with an eye toward the potential size of the mine.

When the letter was finally out, both pro- and anti-Pebble supporters hailed it as a good thing. I don’t think many people know how close the board came to recommending a refuge — just one vote shy. I thought the letter was a good compromise between the two positions.

I was told by a legislative source that the governor thought the board had overstepped its authority by writing the letter. I also know I was seen as the drafter of the letter, even though it reflected the views and contained wording supplied by almost all the board members. I also know that state statutes directed the BOF to make these types of decisions, so I was surprised to hear the governor’s position. Apparently, folks in Juneau, including advisors, don’t read the state statutes they are charged with enforcing.

The second scenario mentioned above was presented to me this way. The governor is a very nice person who does not believe in making waves which, at times, can involve making tough political decisions. He also tends to dislike those who do make waves. I was seen as probably the most outspoken “wave maker” on the board and, coupled with the Pebble Mine letter … well, you can see where this combination can lead.

The third scenario involved the AOC and the Chitna dipnet fishery. The last meeting of my three-year term was a statewide finfish meeting in Anchorage. One of the items the board was tasked to deal with involved a review of the Chitna dipnet fishery and the potential reclassification of it from a personal use to a subsistence fishery. This situation resulted from a lawsuit against the board by the AOC. The presiding judge sided with the state in all aspects of the case except for the lack of a definition of “the subsistence way of life.” The board was ordered to come up with a definition of that phrase and, using that newly adopted definition, review the Chitna dipnet fishery and make a determination.

Some background here is in order. First, sheer numbers of folks taking a position on a proposal before the board and attending the meeting can and do have influence. The AOC only sent a handful of folks to this meeting to lobby for their position. The “other side” had well over a hundred folks present arguing why the fishery should stay personal use. And second, no AOC person ever discussed their position on Chitna with me. They never laid out their arguments and data for me – I guess they just assumed I would automatically do their bidding, whether I agreed with them or not.

The state developed a fairly strict definition of “the subsistence way of life” based on the judge’s own written directions to the board. The AOC presented a definition that would make virtually any use of a fish and game resource subsistence. After some good deliberations, the board adopted the state recommended definition.

I was the only board member who had ever participated in the Chitna dipnet fishery and during deliberations of the classification of the fishery, I was the only board member to offer some discussion as to why the fishery might be seen as subsistence. However, I did not support reclassifying the fishery and voted to keep it a personal use fishery. The board vote was unanimous to maintain Chitna as a personal use fishery.

In my mind, the fishery did not rise to the level of a subsistence fishery as the new definition now specified. Also, the only time when a subsistence designation would affect that fishery would be in times of resource shortage. Since it is virtually impossible to close a subsistence fishery but easy to regulate a personal use fishery, I felt giving the department the maximum ability to manage in times of shortage was vital.

I was personally told later by an AOC board member that they were “appalled” at my actions regarding the Chitna fishery. My legislative sources told me that, as a result of that one vote, the AOC made it clearly known to the governor they did not support me for renomination. I suspect there was a hint of how the AOC represents some 10,000 voters included somewhere in their outcry against me to the governor and his advisors. This is an election year, after all!

Those are the main factors of which I am aware as to why I wasn’t renominated. I was a resource-first, outspoken, not-afraid-to-criticize if warranted board member. I also tried to be fair to all user groups in allocation decisions, something else that galled some special-interest stakeholders. I’m proud of my service and accomplishments during my time and I sleep very well at night knowing I tried to do the right thing. I am now a bystander, because I had no special agenda except looking out for the resource first, because I did not do the bidding of any special interest group and, unfortunately, because I was somewhat naïve in exactly how cut-throat fisheries politics are in Alaska.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. You can leave him a message by e-mailing sports@frontiersman.com.