State hasn't diluted efforts to protect wildlife

Spectrum, by Bill Tandeske

I am writing in response to an article by Howard Delo that was published in the Frontiersman on Jan. 26. The article, entitled "Fish and Wildlife Protection changes are hurting Alaska," was disappointing because of the significant inaccuracies it contained. I take this opportunity to clarify a number of the issues raised.

The article implies that Fish and Wildlife Protection Troopers were issued blue uniforms as part of their merger with the Alaska State Troopers. That is not correct. The plan to transition Wildlife troopers to blue uniforms was in place well before a merger was discussed. In fact, the change to the blue uniform came from within the ranks of the former Fish and Wildlife Division and was a goal they had been working toward for at least two years. Although it is certainly logical for all troopers to wear the same color uniform, the transition of uniform color was not a part of the merger of the two divisions.

The assertion that academy-based wildlife training is being eliminated as a cost-cutting measure is also inaccurate. Instead of providing general training at the academy, specialized "wildlife related training" will be provided as troopers enter this career specialty. This is consistent with how we train for specialties in investigations, accident reconstruction and polygraph operations, to name a few.

The article states that Public Safety has been seriously discussing elimination of all state owned and operated aircraft as a cost savings measure. That is a surprise to me! At no time have we discussed any such plan. Mr. Delo also says the department has turned over four large, commercial fishery patrol vessels to the Department of Fish and Game. That is also not true. Although the latter has been discussed, at this point, no changes have been made. More importantly, however, is the question of how service is provided -- whether housed in Fish and Game or Public Safety, those vessels would still be available to DPS.

Particularly troublesome was the statement that seven of Mr. Delo's unnamed sources could not think of a single time that Alaska State Troopers had responded to assist Wildlife troopers in a wildlife-related case. My guess is that I am not the only career state trooper who takes exception to that ludicrous suggestion. I recall a significant event that occurred last August when a Wildlife trooper had to withdraw from a village in western Alaska as the residents of the village, who greatly outnumbered the trooper, were resisting his investigative efforts. The next day, the Wildlife trooper returned with five state troopers and the wildlife case was resolved without incident.

These misstatements aside, to my thinking, the real issue for consideration is whether Wildlife Protection can operate effectively as a statewide bureau within the Division of Alaska State Troopers as opposed to an autonomous division with the Department of Public Safety. Clearly it can. Upon review, I believe it is also clear that I and other managers in the department are working to maintain or increase our funding levels and to maximize the service to our constituents with public money appropriated to accomplish the department's mission. As a result of the reorganization, we have fewer management positions, more trooper positions, and no additional cost.

Case load, citation, and contact data kept by the department for our wildlife functions simply do not support the notion that no time periods exist when the workload for wildlife specific enforcement are reduced. Rather, it is clear that focused duties can be added to various regions of the state at different times of the year. For example, with the targeted use of Wildlife troopers, we have been successful in conducting sex offender compliance checks not previously possible. Additionally, Wildlife troopers have also served a number of arrest warrants that might otherwise not been served. These services were accomplished without diluting their primary duties.

The Division of Alaska State Troopers has five articulated core missions: Major Crime Investigation, Drug and Alcohol Investigation, Rural Public Safety Services, Wildlife Law Enforcement and Highway Safety. As a core mission of the Alaska State Troopers, Wildlife Law Enforcement is a discipline that we intend to perform well both now and in the future. In these very challenging budget times, wildlife enforcement remains fully staffed and retains the tools necessary to accomplish their mission.

The Department of Public Safety is committed to providing as many professional services to our constituents as our resources will allow. I believe the public expects and deserves nothing less. I believe that Fish and Wildlife Protection State Troopers are currently positioned to best serve all Alaskans.

Implementing major change is rarely without controversy. These changes were done thoughtfully and will ultimately best serve the public interest.

Bill Tandeske is the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety.