The politics behind BOF

This is not a column topic I particularly wanted to write about. However, I think you should know some behind-the-scenes actions by people and organizations that claim to represent you in outdoor matters and will be looking for your support and/or membership in the future.

Before I launch into why I believe I was not renominated to the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), I want to establish some sideboards. First, I accept some of the responsibility for the outcome. Second, I do not have any political agenda here, so don’t try to read anything more into what I say. And third, I am telling you this not to be vindictive, but to let you know the real situation with fisheries politics in Alaska.

Regarding the first point, I am partly responsible for not being renominated because I could have approached some of the situations you will read about in a different and, perhaps, more diplomatic manner. However, I am who I am and I am still learning about the ways of the world. The second point will become self-explanatory as this narrative unfolds. The individuals and groups I will mention probably will claim I am going out as a “sour-grapes” former board member, but that is not true. These entities said and did what you will read. If you approve of their actions, that’s fine with me.

I really wanted a second term on the BOF. First, because I felt that after one three-year term I now understood not only the process better and could be more functional within it, but also much more about all the various fisheries the board deals with in its three-year cycle. Second, I wanted a chance to be a better advocate for the fisheries resources in Cook Inlet than I felt I had been during my first term. Having the Upper Cook Inlet meeting as only the fourth regulatory meeting in my term didn’t allow much time to learn and become comfortable with the myriad of things a board member must handle efficiently to be really effective. And third, I also wanted to correct a few things I felt I had voted incorrectly on over the course of the three-year term as well.

I say the following with a humble voice and without bragging to establish my point of view, which was my guiding light in my votes over the course of my time on the board. Everybody claims to be concerned about the resource first and foremost. For the majority of participants in this fisheries regulatory process, that is a meaningless statement. For many, their concern for the resource is only voiced after they feel assured of their part of it first. Some have no concern at all.

There are a select few who truly place the resource first, even to their own financial detriment. These folks and/or groups are a distinct minority of the participants and are to be commended for their principles. I tried to always put the good of the resource first in my deliberations and voting. As I see it, that is the main duty of a BOF member. I didn’t always succeed, but I did try. I was pleased to see many of the stakeholders noticed this and thanked me for doing it, as well as for trying to be fair in allocative decisions, in their notes and letters wishing me well after my term was up. One board member mentioned on more than one occasion that, in his opinion, I was the most resource-oriented board member voting. He, too, thanked me for my position and for the fact that it reminded the other members why they were there. I was humbled by the acknowledgement of what I was trying to do.

Putting the resource first will earn you a lot of potential enemies from all sides of the spectrum — commercial, sport, sport guided, personal use and subsistence. You are taking away something somebody wants, without compensation, and placing it in a situation that, hopefully, will eventually improve the resource. The improvement benefits all concerned. Some folks don’t want the short-term restrictions for the long-term improvements.

From the beginning, I was seen as “the enemy” by the commercial fishing interests of Cook Inlet. I was from the Northern District and, obviously, was a “sport fish guy,” therefore I was to be opposed in every way possible. That attitude made it tough to try and build a working relationship to see if some common grounds could be established and common goals developed.

To be fair, one person from this group always treated me fairly and he always acted in a professional manner toward me. Paul Shadura, executive director of the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association and I usually didn’t agree on issues, but Paul was always ready to talk and offer his perspective with data to support it.

My “normal” treatment by commercial-fisheries-oriented folks from the Central District was to be lied about in letters to the governor and legislators. In one circumstance, I was verbally threatened by one of these folks for introducing a board proposal to correct an error in regulation. When I wrote about this whole situation in very general terms and called these folks “bullies,” I managed to anger the governor’s fisheries advisor. I was informed by her that, being a “public figure,” I was to expect these sorts of attacks and take no actions to rebut or correct them, period. I saw myself as a citizen first and a board member second. I had not given up any of my citizen’s rights by being appointed to the board. We obviously disagreed here.

I also took the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to task on occasion in this column if it was failing to do what any prudent individual would do, made a poor showing in a public meeting or if they just pulled some bonehead stunt. Here is an instance where I could have done things differently. The commissioner was not happy I said things publically, even if they were true, before talking with the department. He called me one time to chew me out about a column concerning a public meeting with ADF&G. When I started to tell him what his staff had actually said at that meeting, which he was unaware of, he backed off some. When he saw a transcript of the meeting in question, I hope he realized how nice I had actually been to the staff concerned in my column.

Did these two individuals try to influence my removal from the board? I would like to think they did not, but I don’t know.

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. See next Friday’s Outdoors section for part 2 of his accounting of the politics of the Alaska Board of Fisheries.