Two wildlife ballot initiatives focus of debate

MAT-SU - Wolves will make their perennial appearance on the ballot in November, but for the last time if the state Legislature has its way.

The Nov. 7 general election ballot will include two wildlife measures.

Ballot Measure No. 6, similar to one passed by voters in 1996 and repealed by the Legislature this past session, would ban same-day airborne hunting of wolves.

This will be the third wolf issue put to voters in the past six years; the other was a ban on wolf snaring that failed in 1998.

In direct response to these wolf initiatives, the state Legislature drafted a measure of its own, asking voters to end what some call "ballot-box biology." Ballot Measure No. 1 would amend the Alaska Constitution to prohibit voters from using the initiative process to make wildlife management laws.

On either side of the measures, there are claims of misleading advertising and unfair financial support from nationwide campaigns. In the meantime, both sides fear voters will be confused by the issues.

"It's just so complex," said Rod Arno, spokesman for the Alaska Outdoor Council. "It just shows how poor the initiative process is." He said despite all the educating and campaigning his group has done, he is trying to simplify it to "Vote Yes on Ballot Measure No. 1."

But the opponents say this is a deceptive approach, not telling Alaskans that the measure would take away their right to vote on wildlife issues.

"I think there is a lot of misunderstanding. People are being bombarded with propaganda," said Vic Fischer, a framer of the Alaska Constitution and former senator who has come out against Ballot Measure No. 1.

But he, too, said the measure can be simplified to one simple statement: "They want to amend the constitution to cut people out of the process."

Supporters of the measure, though, say Alaskans already have a democratic and fair way to participate in wildlife management. Through Fish and Game advisory committees, which present local viewpoints to the Alaska Board of Game, people can have their say while still allowing science to play a key role in the decisions.

With the ballot initiative process, Alaskans wanting to maintain hunting and trapping as lifestyles are having to fight huge campaigns, funded by nationwide animal rights' groups, according to the Alaska Outdoor Council.

"That is exactly what happened in '96," Arno said. "The Defenders of Wildlife brought in $150,000. We raised $15,000 and thought we were doing something."

However, the problem doesn't demand a constitutional amendment, Fischer said. He agrees "Outside" interests are using money to sway voters on Alaska issues.

He argues that Ballot Measure No. 1 is part of just such a nationwide campaign, this one backed by big-game guides and other powerful lobbying groups that are working for similar measures in Midwest states.

"All we need is campaign finance reform," Fischer told the Frontiersman. "Then we don't have to allow all this big money to come into the state and affect Alaskan law."

While wolf initiatives have attracted money from nationwide animal rights' groups, Fischer said he and other opponents of Ballot Measure No. 1 are refusing to accept such assistance.

"We won't take animal rights' money. This is an Alaskan issue," Fischer said.

Longtime Alaskans top the list of those opposing the measure, including former Gov. Wally Hickel and former Sen. Arliss Sturgulewski.

Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Frank Rue is also publicly opposing the constitutional amendment, saying that unlike the sponsors of the measure, he believes Alaskans are able to make intelligent decisions on wildlife issues.

Fischer agrees.

"The voters of Alaska are not dumb," he said. "They understand exactly what they are voting for. Two years ago when the snare prohibition was defeated, voters knew exactly what they were doing."

But the backers of the measure have their own list of supporters.

"This was the biggest consensus-builder between rural and urban lawmakers," Rep. Scott Ogan said. In the House, Ballot Measure No. 1 passed 27 to 11 and in the Senate, 14 to 6. Ogan said the issue brought together legislators who in the past had been on opposite sides of the table.

Ogan said the lawmakers were particularly swayed by the testimony of residents from McGrath and other rural areas, who say wolves are decimating their moose populations.

"They want to starve rural Alaskans because they revere the wolf," Ogan said of those working to ban same-day-airborne hunting of wolves.

Ogan and other proponents of Ballot Measure No. 1 say while voters may try to educate themselves on issues, advertising by anti-hunting and anti-trapping groups is deceptive.

Ogan pointed to 1996 TV commercials he says led many voters to believe the issue was about shooting wolves directly from airplanes.

"That is illegal. That will always be illegal," Ogan said. Instead, the measure was about being able to land an airplane and shoot wolves the same day. Under the law passed this last legislative session, hunters and trappers are allowed to shoot wolves the same day they have flown, but only in those areas designated by the Board of Game as being in need of predator control.

"We want to take it off the emotional level," Ogan said.

He said wildlife management should use good scientific information and a strong public process, through the Board of Game, to make laws.

Advertising on the two measures is expected to heat up during the next few weeks. In the end, the fate of both measures will be left to Alaska voters on Nov. 7.