| WE NEED TO REPLACE ALASKA'S "BOARD OF GAME" WITH A "BOARD OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION" Part 2 |
POSSIBLE MODEL FOR DEVELOPING A BOARD OF WILDLIFE
Forestry
Board: Board of Forestry
Board identification number: 039
Department: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Authority: AS 41.17.041
Status: Active
Sunset date:
Requirements: No Legislative Confirmation or Financial Disclosure
required
Prohibitions: None
Term: 3 years
Description: 9 members appointed by Governor: 1 commercial fishermen's organization representative; 1 representative of a
Native corporation established under 43 U.S.C. 1601-1628, ANCSA; 1 environmental organization representative; 1 forest
industry trade association representative; 1 professional fish or wildlife biologist who is not employed in that capacity by a
state, municipal, or federal government agency, except for university employment; 1 professional forester who is not employed
in that capacity by a state, municipal, or federal government agency, except for university employment; 1 mining organization
representative; 1 recreational organization representative; and the state forester, who serves ex officio and without a vote.
Function: Reviews and comments to the Commissioner on regulations proposed for adoption under AS 41.17. Provides a
forum for representatives of affected interests to discuss and attempt to resolve relevant issues concerning Alaska's forest
resources. Conducts an annual survey of research needs related to forest practices. Reviews research proposals related to
forest practices and makes recommendations to promote research projects that would address these needs to the governor
and legislature. Annually reports to the legislature and the governor on the effectiveness of AS 41.17 and regulations adopted
under it, with its recommendations for changes and needed research monitoring.
Chair: State Forester.
Special facts: May be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, of misconduct in office. State Forester serves at pleasure of
Governor. Seven voting members constitute a quorum. Each decision requires the affirmative vote of each voting member
present less one.
Compensation: Standard Travel and Per Diem. No additional compensation.
Meetings: Meets as needed; holds public hearings at least once/year in southeast, southcentral, & interior AK.
For further information contact:
mailto:%20marty_welbourn@dnr.state.ak.us Ms. Marty Freeman
Division of Forestry
550 W 7th Ave, Suite 1450
Anchorage, AK 99501-3566
Phone: (907) 269-8473, FAX: (907) 269-8931
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/boards/factsheet.php?i=039
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/boards/factsheet.php?i=039
NevadaBoardofWildlifeCommissioners.doc
AlaskaBoardofForestry.doc
WildliferelatedboardsandcommissionsintheUS.doc
************************
*******************************
ALASKANS FOR A REPRESENTATIVE BOARD OF WILDLIFE
Second Meeting, May 3, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction …….……………………………………………………….… 1
Choosing a Name ……….………………………………………………… 1
When to formally announce the group’s existence in the media …..……… 2
A political solution ……….………………………………………………. 3
An economic solution ………..……………………………………………. 4
Stakeholder committee ……..……………………………………………... 4
A voter initiative …………..………………………………………………. 4
Science committee ………..…….…………………………………………. 5
Should Board of Wildlife members be elected ………..…………………... 6
Spreading the message ……..……………………………………………… 7
APPENDIX
Ellis introduces bill to bring balance to Game Board………………………. 8
Senate Bill 343 ……..…………………………………………………….… 9
Tom Meacham’s suggested initiative language February, 2004 ………........ 12
Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commission …………………………………. 13
States with either a commission, council or a board ………………………. 13
States with advisory bodies lacking regulatory authority ……….………..... 14
INTRODUCTION
Attending the May 3rd, 2005 meeting were Eric Downey, Jack Hession, Paul Joslin, Diane Maloney, Mark Miller, Ron Peck,
Richard Schanche, Jeff Schively, Tina Sellers, Toni Stark, Rick Steiner, Jane & Greg Tibbetts, Vic Van Ballenberghe and Bill
Watkins. This brings to 32 the number of people that have participated in these meetings. All have been touched by the
failure of the Board of Game, the body responsible for making all wildlife regulatory decisions on state land, to represent the
wildlife values shared by most Alaskans. The group sees as its purpose to instigate much needed reform through the creation
of a Board of Wildlife, a Policy Board or some similar such structure. Recognizing that having diversity on boards is the basis
for making good decisions, this new entity would be required under law to be representative and balanced in terms of its
composition.
CHOOSING A NAME
The group made a first attempt at arriving at a name that they felt would both capture their sense of the group’s mission and
serve to garner a broad base of public support. Two ends of a spectrum were recognized: At one end was the recognition
that the issue was about creating fairness in the decision making process. At the other end was the feeling that it was about
finding a way to stop an extremist Board of Game from making one bad decision after another. Most of the discussion focused
on which values to incorporate in the name and deciding whether or not to include wildlife in the title.
Here is a sampling of the comments that were made:
Rick Steiner: “(The issue) is bigger than a Board of Wildlife”.
Paul Joslin: “It is important to focus on core values like fairness, balance and equal representation as a winning strategy. We
used this approach several years ago when an attempt was made by outside hunting interests to ban all future wildlife
initiatives in Alaska. Against considerable financial odds we defeated the initiative not by treating it as a wildlife issue, but by
focusing on the message, “Stand up for your right to vote.” It meant that everyone who voted could see that their rights were
being affected; not just those of us who were more intimately involved in trying to stop a major wildlife decision making tool from
being lost.”
Greg Tibbetts: “I think that it is crucial that we stress fair and equal representation on the board.”
Bill Watkins: “Equal representation affects a lot of different groups. It is relatively precise and to the point.”
Tina Sellers: “I think I tend towards (the inclusion of) wildlife (in the name). Alaskans for a balanced Board of Wildlife.”
Eric Downey: “The name needs to include wildlife.”
Rick Steiner “I am learning towards Alaskans for a balanced board of wildlife.”
Jane Tibbits: “A balanced board of wildlife is why I am here. We need to be focused.”
The group reviewed about 20 names and came up with some variations of their own. In the end they selected four, then voted
on them. The tally was as follows.
Alaskans for a Representative Board of Wildlife 8
Alaskans for a Balanced Board of Wildlife 4
Alaskans for Equal Representation 1
Alaska’s Wildlife For All 0
(Editorial note: Delighted about the outcome? Concerned? Everyone is invited to mull over the above names as well as to
submit others they would like considered. Nothing is yet cast in stone, and the opportunity is there for everyone on the email
list to express their opinions.)
WHEN TO FORMALLY ANNOUNCE THE GROUP’S EXISTENCE IN THE MEDIA
Bill Watkins: “It should be announced the day that Murkowski buys his jet.”
Bill Watkins again on a more cautionary note: “If we do not have our educational campaign underway at a high enough level,
the AOC has a lot more resources than we do. It has the state government supporting them. I can see them snuffing out this
effort before we get underway. Maybe it should take some affiliation with the tourism industry and other groups first to get this
educational effort underway before formally announcing what we are trying to do.”
Rick Steiner: “There may be some political benefit in doing it sooner rather than later.”
Jane Tibbetts: “It should be sooner rather than later. Get the sister organizations going.”
Eric Downey: “The AOC is the best PR tool that we can have. Once they turn up the heat on us, instantly the media smells it,
and starts writing articles and provides the best power tool for fund raising.”
Rick Steiner: “My sense is to do it sooner, take the hit, we know we are going to get it. It will get some media play I think fairly
quickly. The other thing is that there is a lot of anger in this state. I am one of them. There are a lot of people not in this room
that want a place to call home on this issue.”
Toni Stark: “There are a lot of groups that are unhappy with this administration. They are all looking for reform. This is a
good time for us to do this, and to educate the public.”
Jane Tibbetts: “We need not fear the hit if we are in this for the long term. I like to think that we will grow stronger. Get it
done, if not for us, then for future generations.”
Jack Hession “There is another reason for announcing sooner rather than later. This could rise to be on the platforms of the
political parties during the election year.”
A POLITICAL SOLUTION
Rick Schanche recommended that we consider becoming a lobbyist group. “We could support those candidates that support
our mission. Then we have a voice.”
It was his impression that Governor Murkowski and Lt. Governor Loren Leman might consider running again. He also thought
that there was a serious possibility that Representative Andrew Halcro, another Republican, would run for Governor, in which
case there might be a rift. It was Schanche’s view that Rep. Halcro would be a semi-moderate. It was also his impression that
Representative Eric Croft, a Democrat, might also run. He recommended that both Rep. Halcro and Rep. Croft be approached
regarding the Board of Wildlife issue.
Greg Tibbetts saw the issue as difficult to oppose politically. He noted that to do so would mean having to answer to, “What
you don’t like fair and equal representation? Do you not like balance?” Polling among voters has indicated that between 81
and 83 percent of them would rather have a Board of Wildlife composed of hunters, trappers AND wildlife viewing, wildlife
tourism and wildlife photography interests making the decisions than a Board of Game doing so. These results would be
important to politicians interested in getting re-elected if the issue were to become part of the political platform.
AN ECONOMIC SOLUTION
Eric Downey elaborated on his viewable wildlife Economic Zones suggestion put forward in the In Search of Solutions report.
“Overall wildlife viewing is a tremendously valuable tool to wildlife management.” If the most important viewable wildlife sites
such as “the whales of Fredrick Sound, Pack Creek bears, McNeil River bears, Katmai bears, Toklat wolves, (and the)
Porcupine caribou” were to be considered as Economic Zones of Special Importance support for their protection might be
achievable. Such an approach “would take the management responsibility of those animals and remove it from the Board of
Game. It doesn’t solve the whole problem, but it solves a highly visible and highly valuable part of the problem.”
STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE
Former Board of Game member Vic Van Ballenberghe was asked to elaborate on the stakeholder group that Peg Tileston had
referred to during the April 4th meeting. A Citizen’s Wolf Management Team, was established by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game at the end of the 1980’s specifically to work out a solution to the wolf control issues of the day which were just
as controversial then as they are now. The team was composed of 15 to 18 individuals representing all sides of the issue. A
professional facilitator was hired to work with the group. After about two years they put together a strategic wolf management
plan that was published in 1991.
“When Eric was talking about economic zones it reminded me that that group came up with a zoned approach to wolf control
whereby there would be some zones where there was no wolf control and there were others where there was a lot of wolf
control,” Ballenberghe said. “I think that Peg was right,” he went on to say. “There was a lot of give and take, and nobody was
entirely happy, but everybody could live with the final result.”
“What happened was that shortly after the team’s recommendations were finalized, Governor Hickel was elected Governor, and
he appointed a Commissioner and a Board that, much like now, wanted lots of wolf control. They felt they couldn’t live with this
zoned approach. So it all came to naught. I try to tell people that we have tried pretty much everything with regards to wolf
control. We had a Citizen’s Wolf Management Team. We had a Wolf Summit in Fairbanks that Wally Hickel convened. We
had a National Research Council review of problems and recommendations. And here we are now. None of it really worked. I
guess that is why we are here.”
A VOTER INITIATIVE
Ron Peck: “I looked down the list of possible options (discussed by the group at the April 4th meeting). I crossed out the ones
that involve the legislature taking much action. I pretty much ended up with the initiative as the only way to seriously bring
about reform.”
The group discussed briefly what language might be contained in a Board of Wildlife initiative (see Appendix I).
Ron Peck stressed that however an initiative is worded it is important to be sure that the allocation of seats is sufficiently clear
as “to make sure that you get a balanced variety of different interests.”
Some people liked the Nevada system that defined to a person how the seats should be allocated.
Tom Meacham has indicated that the initiative process could also be used to retain the existing Board of Game, and create a
Policy Board or equivalent with a diversified membership that would make decisions on the major controversial issues such as
viewable wildlife protection, and predator control. John Schoen has suggested that such a board be created.
SCIENCE COMMITTEE
Rick Steiner: “I would like to suggest that a scientific committee be established to advise the Board (of Wildlife). That is what
the North Pacific Management Council does. It is a huge council, and it operates a billion dollar fishery. They have a separate
scientific and statistical committee.
The scientific committee would have a number of august scientists on it that are not talking politics or making decisions. They
are just advising on the number, and ecological science that is involved.”
Bill Watkins: “To prevent people like Governor Murkowski from controlling it you (would) need to define how they are going to
be selected and who these people are going to be.”
Rick Steiner: “There could be two state biologists, two federal biologists, and two nongovernmental biologists. The North
Pacific Council does not do that. They have scientists in biology, economics and the social sciences. I think (in the wildlife
committee equivalent) there should be a social scientist in there.”
Editorial note: Under the existing system the Board of Game receives testimony from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) agency heads, biologists, and subsistence personnel, as well as from the Department of Law, and federal agencies
including their biologists. It also adopts most but by no means all of the recommendations made by ADF&G. Supporters of the
current system would likely claim that the ADF&G staff reports and presence at Board of Game meetings negates the need for
a separate scientific committee.
To be sure science is coming up short under the existing system. ADF&G’s entire budget including that supporting research
has been repeatedly slashed under the Governor Murkowski administration. The Board of Game meanwhile has insisted on
forging ahead with sweeping changes in predator management involving radical manipulation of populations while
simultaneously claiming that it doesn’t need more science.
SHOULD BOARD OF WILDLIFE MEMBERS BE ELECTED?
Rick Steiner: “One solution would be to have the members elected rather than appointed either regionally or statewide. There
is an argument to be made that if the (Fish and Game) Advisory Committees are elected locally then why not (have Alaskan
voters) elect the board. That would change the dynamic dramatically.”
Ron Peck: “If your goal is to create a balanced board why (let) the Governor do the choosing? I would submit to you that no
matter if it is Rick Halcro or Eric Croft (who is elected Governor) there are folks that are not going to be happy with the
selection (of board members) by the Governor. It needs to be done in a fair and balanced fashion by the citizenry of the state.”
Rick Schanche: “If the board is elected would you divide the board up by region?”
Rick Steiner: “Half could be geographic and half could be thematic.”
The group took a vote on the issue. Eleven thought that electing members to the board was a good idea, and three abstained.
Tina Sellers followed her abstention with a caution that there might be some unintended consequences if the members were
elected.
Vic Van Ballenberghe followed up later with an email that pointed out what some of those unintended consequences might be.
He said, “If the quality of our state legislators is any indication, the democratic process of electing officials has some real
problems. In order to win elections one needs name recognition and advertising money. I don't think it would be any different
for wildlife board candidates. I can see the hunting interests putting a bunch of money into the elections to be sure the "right"
people get elected. As you know, they can back someone who is supposed to be a "non-consumptive user" who in reality is
not. Also, I know several past board members who were very good but would not have run for election. It wasn't in their
personality to do so. Also, it would get pretty complicated deciding how to structure elections for board members. There might
be legal problems. It's a major change to go from appointed to elected members--maybe too much of a change for most folks
to accept? I'm just not convinced that elections are the way to go. I think the present method of appointing members could
work if the legislative confirmation process was improved. The legislature should not have complete authority to not confirm
members lacking good reasons.”
It should be noted that in none of the other 49 states does the public elect people specifically to serve on a wildlife related
board (see appendix).
SPREADING THE MESSAGE
Paul Joslin suggested that sister groups along the lines that were being organized in Anchorage be set up in Juneau, Homer,
Haines, Fairbanks, and other places. Many of those currently on the email list that receive updates on what is happening with
the Anchorage based group live in these places, and are not able to participate in the Anchorage discussions. Having sister
groups would also help expand the groundswell of interest and ideas.
Toni Stark strongly urged that we pay close attention to educating the youth when spreading our message. She felt that we
should also recognize that they are tomorrow’s voters.
Geran Tarr, Chief of Staff for Senator Minority Leader Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, sent an email suggesting that we might
consider some sort of educational programs for visitors this summer.
In February, 2004 Senator Ellis introduced Senate Bill 343 calling for the creation of a Board of Wildlife composed of a diversity
of interests that reflected all the different uses of game "in a comprehensive and fair manner," including "sport and subsistence
hunting, trapping, non-consumptive uses, tourism and scientific study" (see appendix). Senator Ellis’ action was in response to
the game board’s total domination by hunters and trappers. "Wildlife belongs to us all, as a common property resource, just
like the oil, and it's very valuable for tourism and our Alaskan quality of life and that should be recognized," Ellis said.
Paul Joslin
5/16/05
Forestry
Board: Board of Forestry
Board identification number: 039
Department: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Authority: AS 41.17.041
Status: Active
Sunset date:
Requirements: No Legislative Confirmation or Financial Disclosure
required
Prohibitions: None
Term: 3 years
Description: 9 members appointed by Governor: 1 commercial fishermen's organization representative; 1 representative of a
Native corporation established under 43 U.S.C. 1601-1628, ANCSA; 1 environmental organization representative; 1 forest
industry trade association representative; 1 professional fish or wildlife biologist who is not employed in that capacity by a
state, municipal, or federal government agency, except for university employment; 1 professional forester who is not employed
in that capacity by a state, municipal, or federal government agency, except for university employment; 1 mining organization
representative; 1 recreational organization representative; and the state forester, who serves ex officio and without a vote.
Function: Reviews and comments to the Commissioner on regulations proposed for adoption under AS 41.17. Provides a
forum for representatives of affected interests to discuss and attempt to resolve relevant issues concerning Alaska's forest
resources. Conducts an annual survey of research needs related to forest practices. Reviews research proposals related to
forest practices and makes recommendations to promote research projects that would address these needs to the governor
and legislature. Annually reports to the legislature and the governor on the effectiveness of AS 41.17 and regulations adopted
under it, with its recommendations for changes and needed research monitoring.
Chair: State Forester.
Special facts: May be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, of misconduct in office. State Forester serves at pleasure of
Governor. Seven voting members constitute a quorum. Each decision requires the affirmative vote of each voting member
present less one.
Compensation: Standard Travel and Per Diem. No additional compensation.
Meetings: Meets as needed; holds public hearings at least once/year in southeast, southcentral, & interior AK.
For further information contact:
mailto:%20marty_welbourn@dnr.state.ak.us Ms. Marty Freeman
Division of Forestry
550 W 7th Ave, Suite 1450
Anchorage, AK 99501-3566
Phone: (907) 269-8473, FAX: (907) 269-8931
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/boards/factsheet.php?i=039
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/boards/factsheet.php?i=039
NevadaBoardofWildlifeCommissioners.doc
AlaskaBoardofForestry.doc
WildliferelatedboardsandcommissionsintheUS.doc
************************
*******************************
ALASKANS FOR A REPRESENTATIVE BOARD OF WILDLIFE
Second Meeting, May 3, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction …….……………………………………………………….… 1
Choosing a Name ……….………………………………………………… 1
When to formally announce the group’s existence in the media …..……… 2
A political solution ……….………………………………………………. 3
An economic solution ………..……………………………………………. 4
Stakeholder committee ……..……………………………………………... 4
A voter initiative …………..………………………………………………. 4
Science committee ………..…….…………………………………………. 5
Should Board of Wildlife members be elected ………..…………………... 6
Spreading the message ……..……………………………………………… 7
APPENDIX
Ellis introduces bill to bring balance to Game Board………………………. 8
Senate Bill 343 ……..…………………………………………………….… 9
Tom Meacham’s suggested initiative language February, 2004 ………........ 12
Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commission …………………………………. 13
States with either a commission, council or a board ………………………. 13
States with advisory bodies lacking regulatory authority ……….………..... 14
INTRODUCTION
Attending the May 3rd, 2005 meeting were Eric Downey, Jack Hession, Paul Joslin, Diane Maloney, Mark Miller, Ron Peck,
Richard Schanche, Jeff Schively, Tina Sellers, Toni Stark, Rick Steiner, Jane & Greg Tibbetts, Vic Van Ballenberghe and Bill
Watkins. This brings to 32 the number of people that have participated in these meetings. All have been touched by the
failure of the Board of Game, the body responsible for making all wildlife regulatory decisions on state land, to represent the
wildlife values shared by most Alaskans. The group sees as its purpose to instigate much needed reform through the creation
of a Board of Wildlife, a Policy Board or some similar such structure. Recognizing that having diversity on boards is the basis
for making good decisions, this new entity would be required under law to be representative and balanced in terms of its
composition.
CHOOSING A NAME
The group made a first attempt at arriving at a name that they felt would both capture their sense of the group’s mission and
serve to garner a broad base of public support. Two ends of a spectrum were recognized: At one end was the recognition
that the issue was about creating fairness in the decision making process. At the other end was the feeling that it was about
finding a way to stop an extremist Board of Game from making one bad decision after another. Most of the discussion focused
on which values to incorporate in the name and deciding whether or not to include wildlife in the title.
Here is a sampling of the comments that were made:
Rick Steiner: “(The issue) is bigger than a Board of Wildlife”.
Paul Joslin: “It is important to focus on core values like fairness, balance and equal representation as a winning strategy. We
used this approach several years ago when an attempt was made by outside hunting interests to ban all future wildlife
initiatives in Alaska. Against considerable financial odds we defeated the initiative not by treating it as a wildlife issue, but by
focusing on the message, “Stand up for your right to vote.” It meant that everyone who voted could see that their rights were
being affected; not just those of us who were more intimately involved in trying to stop a major wildlife decision making tool from
being lost.”
Greg Tibbetts: “I think that it is crucial that we stress fair and equal representation on the board.”
Bill Watkins: “Equal representation affects a lot of different groups. It is relatively precise and to the point.”
Tina Sellers: “I think I tend towards (the inclusion of) wildlife (in the name). Alaskans for a balanced Board of Wildlife.”
Eric Downey: “The name needs to include wildlife.”
Rick Steiner “I am learning towards Alaskans for a balanced board of wildlife.”
Jane Tibbits: “A balanced board of wildlife is why I am here. We need to be focused.”
The group reviewed about 20 names and came up with some variations of their own. In the end they selected four, then voted
on them. The tally was as follows.
Alaskans for a Representative Board of Wildlife 8
Alaskans for a Balanced Board of Wildlife 4
Alaskans for Equal Representation 1
Alaska’s Wildlife For All 0
(Editorial note: Delighted about the outcome? Concerned? Everyone is invited to mull over the above names as well as to
submit others they would like considered. Nothing is yet cast in stone, and the opportunity is there for everyone on the email
list to express their opinions.)
WHEN TO FORMALLY ANNOUNCE THE GROUP’S EXISTENCE IN THE MEDIA
Bill Watkins: “It should be announced the day that Murkowski buys his jet.”
Bill Watkins again on a more cautionary note: “If we do not have our educational campaign underway at a high enough level,
the AOC has a lot more resources than we do. It has the state government supporting them. I can see them snuffing out this
effort before we get underway. Maybe it should take some affiliation with the tourism industry and other groups first to get this
educational effort underway before formally announcing what we are trying to do.”
Rick Steiner: “There may be some political benefit in doing it sooner rather than later.”
Jane Tibbetts: “It should be sooner rather than later. Get the sister organizations going.”
Eric Downey: “The AOC is the best PR tool that we can have. Once they turn up the heat on us, instantly the media smells it,
and starts writing articles and provides the best power tool for fund raising.”
Rick Steiner: “My sense is to do it sooner, take the hit, we know we are going to get it. It will get some media play I think fairly
quickly. The other thing is that there is a lot of anger in this state. I am one of them. There are a lot of people not in this room
that want a place to call home on this issue.”
Toni Stark: “There are a lot of groups that are unhappy with this administration. They are all looking for reform. This is a
good time for us to do this, and to educate the public.”
Jane Tibbetts: “We need not fear the hit if we are in this for the long term. I like to think that we will grow stronger. Get it
done, if not for us, then for future generations.”
Jack Hession “There is another reason for announcing sooner rather than later. This could rise to be on the platforms of the
political parties during the election year.”
A POLITICAL SOLUTION
Rick Schanche recommended that we consider becoming a lobbyist group. “We could support those candidates that support
our mission. Then we have a voice.”
It was his impression that Governor Murkowski and Lt. Governor Loren Leman might consider running again. He also thought
that there was a serious possibility that Representative Andrew Halcro, another Republican, would run for Governor, in which
case there might be a rift. It was Schanche’s view that Rep. Halcro would be a semi-moderate. It was also his impression that
Representative Eric Croft, a Democrat, might also run. He recommended that both Rep. Halcro and Rep. Croft be approached
regarding the Board of Wildlife issue.
Greg Tibbetts saw the issue as difficult to oppose politically. He noted that to do so would mean having to answer to, “What
you don’t like fair and equal representation? Do you not like balance?” Polling among voters has indicated that between 81
and 83 percent of them would rather have a Board of Wildlife composed of hunters, trappers AND wildlife viewing, wildlife
tourism and wildlife photography interests making the decisions than a Board of Game doing so. These results would be
important to politicians interested in getting re-elected if the issue were to become part of the political platform.
AN ECONOMIC SOLUTION
Eric Downey elaborated on his viewable wildlife Economic Zones suggestion put forward in the In Search of Solutions report.
“Overall wildlife viewing is a tremendously valuable tool to wildlife management.” If the most important viewable wildlife sites
such as “the whales of Fredrick Sound, Pack Creek bears, McNeil River bears, Katmai bears, Toklat wolves, (and the)
Porcupine caribou” were to be considered as Economic Zones of Special Importance support for their protection might be
achievable. Such an approach “would take the management responsibility of those animals and remove it from the Board of
Game. It doesn’t solve the whole problem, but it solves a highly visible and highly valuable part of the problem.”
STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE
Former Board of Game member Vic Van Ballenberghe was asked to elaborate on the stakeholder group that Peg Tileston had
referred to during the April 4th meeting. A Citizen’s Wolf Management Team, was established by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game at the end of the 1980’s specifically to work out a solution to the wolf control issues of the day which were just
as controversial then as they are now. The team was composed of 15 to 18 individuals representing all sides of the issue. A
professional facilitator was hired to work with the group. After about two years they put together a strategic wolf management
plan that was published in 1991.
“When Eric was talking about economic zones it reminded me that that group came up with a zoned approach to wolf control
whereby there would be some zones where there was no wolf control and there were others where there was a lot of wolf
control,” Ballenberghe said. “I think that Peg was right,” he went on to say. “There was a lot of give and take, and nobody was
entirely happy, but everybody could live with the final result.”
“What happened was that shortly after the team’s recommendations were finalized, Governor Hickel was elected Governor, and
he appointed a Commissioner and a Board that, much like now, wanted lots of wolf control. They felt they couldn’t live with this
zoned approach. So it all came to naught. I try to tell people that we have tried pretty much everything with regards to wolf
control. We had a Citizen’s Wolf Management Team. We had a Wolf Summit in Fairbanks that Wally Hickel convened. We
had a National Research Council review of problems and recommendations. And here we are now. None of it really worked. I
guess that is why we are here.”
A VOTER INITIATIVE
Ron Peck: “I looked down the list of possible options (discussed by the group at the April 4th meeting). I crossed out the ones
that involve the legislature taking much action. I pretty much ended up with the initiative as the only way to seriously bring
about reform.”
The group discussed briefly what language might be contained in a Board of Wildlife initiative (see Appendix I).
Ron Peck stressed that however an initiative is worded it is important to be sure that the allocation of seats is sufficiently clear
as “to make sure that you get a balanced variety of different interests.”
Some people liked the Nevada system that defined to a person how the seats should be allocated.
Tom Meacham has indicated that the initiative process could also be used to retain the existing Board of Game, and create a
Policy Board or equivalent with a diversified membership that would make decisions on the major controversial issues such as
viewable wildlife protection, and predator control. John Schoen has suggested that such a board be created.
SCIENCE COMMITTEE
Rick Steiner: “I would like to suggest that a scientific committee be established to advise the Board (of Wildlife). That is what
the North Pacific Management Council does. It is a huge council, and it operates a billion dollar fishery. They have a separate
scientific and statistical committee.
The scientific committee would have a number of august scientists on it that are not talking politics or making decisions. They
are just advising on the number, and ecological science that is involved.”
Bill Watkins: “To prevent people like Governor Murkowski from controlling it you (would) need to define how they are going to
be selected and who these people are going to be.”
Rick Steiner: “There could be two state biologists, two federal biologists, and two nongovernmental biologists. The North
Pacific Council does not do that. They have scientists in biology, economics and the social sciences. I think (in the wildlife
committee equivalent) there should be a social scientist in there.”
Editorial note: Under the existing system the Board of Game receives testimony from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) agency heads, biologists, and subsistence personnel, as well as from the Department of Law, and federal agencies
including their biologists. It also adopts most but by no means all of the recommendations made by ADF&G. Supporters of the
current system would likely claim that the ADF&G staff reports and presence at Board of Game meetings negates the need for
a separate scientific committee.
To be sure science is coming up short under the existing system. ADF&G’s entire budget including that supporting research
has been repeatedly slashed under the Governor Murkowski administration. The Board of Game meanwhile has insisted on
forging ahead with sweeping changes in predator management involving radical manipulation of populations while
simultaneously claiming that it doesn’t need more science.
SHOULD BOARD OF WILDLIFE MEMBERS BE ELECTED?
Rick Steiner: “One solution would be to have the members elected rather than appointed either regionally or statewide. There
is an argument to be made that if the (Fish and Game) Advisory Committees are elected locally then why not (have Alaskan
voters) elect the board. That would change the dynamic dramatically.”
Ron Peck: “If your goal is to create a balanced board why (let) the Governor do the choosing? I would submit to you that no
matter if it is Rick Halcro or Eric Croft (who is elected Governor) there are folks that are not going to be happy with the
selection (of board members) by the Governor. It needs to be done in a fair and balanced fashion by the citizenry of the state.”
Rick Schanche: “If the board is elected would you divide the board up by region?”
Rick Steiner: “Half could be geographic and half could be thematic.”
The group took a vote on the issue. Eleven thought that electing members to the board was a good idea, and three abstained.
Tina Sellers followed her abstention with a caution that there might be some unintended consequences if the members were
elected.
Vic Van Ballenberghe followed up later with an email that pointed out what some of those unintended consequences might be.
He said, “If the quality of our state legislators is any indication, the democratic process of electing officials has some real
problems. In order to win elections one needs name recognition and advertising money. I don't think it would be any different
for wildlife board candidates. I can see the hunting interests putting a bunch of money into the elections to be sure the "right"
people get elected. As you know, they can back someone who is supposed to be a "non-consumptive user" who in reality is
not. Also, I know several past board members who were very good but would not have run for election. It wasn't in their
personality to do so. Also, it would get pretty complicated deciding how to structure elections for board members. There might
be legal problems. It's a major change to go from appointed to elected members--maybe too much of a change for most folks
to accept? I'm just not convinced that elections are the way to go. I think the present method of appointing members could
work if the legislative confirmation process was improved. The legislature should not have complete authority to not confirm
members lacking good reasons.”
It should be noted that in none of the other 49 states does the public elect people specifically to serve on a wildlife related
board (see appendix).
SPREADING THE MESSAGE
Paul Joslin suggested that sister groups along the lines that were being organized in Anchorage be set up in Juneau, Homer,
Haines, Fairbanks, and other places. Many of those currently on the email list that receive updates on what is happening with
the Anchorage based group live in these places, and are not able to participate in the Anchorage discussions. Having sister
groups would also help expand the groundswell of interest and ideas.
Toni Stark strongly urged that we pay close attention to educating the youth when spreading our message. She felt that we
should also recognize that they are tomorrow’s voters.
Geran Tarr, Chief of Staff for Senator Minority Leader Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, sent an email suggesting that we might
consider some sort of educational programs for visitors this summer.
In February, 2004 Senator Ellis introduced Senate Bill 343 calling for the creation of a Board of Wildlife composed of a diversity
of interests that reflected all the different uses of game "in a comprehensive and fair manner," including "sport and subsistence
hunting, trapping, non-consumptive uses, tourism and scientific study" (see appendix). Senator Ellis’ action was in response to
the game board’s total domination by hunters and trappers. "Wildlife belongs to us all, as a common property resource, just
like the oil, and it's very valuable for tourism and our Alaskan quality of life and that should be recognized," Ellis said.
Paul Joslin
5/16/05
Appendix
Senate Bill 343 Text
Sponsored by Senator Johnny Ellis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL ID: SB 343
00 SENATE BILL NO. 343
01 "An Act changing the name of the Board of Game to the Board of Wildlife and relating
02 to the purposes and membership of the Board of Wildlife; and providing for an effective
03 date."
04 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
05 * Section 1. AS 16.05.221(b) is amended to read:
06 (b) For purposes of the multiple use, conservation, and development of all
07 [THE] game resources of the state, there is created a Board of Wildlife [GAME]
08 composed of nine [SEVEN] members appointed by the governor, subject to
09 confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The
10 membership of the board, taken as a whole, shall directly reflect all of the
11 citizens' various uses of game for sport and subsistence hunting, trapping,
12 nonconsumptive uses, tourism, and scientific study in a comprehensive and fair
13 manner. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of [INTEREST IN
14 PUBLIC AFFAIRS,] good judgment, interest in game, and predominant
01 involvement with an aspect of game resources, to ensure that each of the specified
02 diverse interests is represented [KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITY IN THE FIELD
03 OF ACTION OF THE BOARD, AND WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDING
04 DIVERSITY OF INTEREST AND POINTS OF VIEW] in the membership. The
05 appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without
06 regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence. The commissioner
07 is not a member of the Board of Wildlife [GAME], but shall be ex officio secretary.
08 * Sec. 2. AS 16.05.221(c) is amended to read:
09 (c) Members of the Board of Wildlife [GAME] serve staggered terms of three
10 years and, except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4), each member serves until a
11 successor is appointed. An appointment to fill a vacancy in the membership of the
12 Board of Wildlife [GAME] shall be made in the same manner as the original
13 appointment and, except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4), an appointment to fill a
14 vacancy is for the balance of the unexpired term.
15 * Sec. 3. AS 16.05.320 is amended to read:
16 Sec. 16.05.320. Quorum. A majority of the members of a board constitutes a
17 quorum for the transaction of business, for the performance of any duty, and for the
18 exercise of any power. However, a majority of the full board membership is required
19 to carry all motions, regulations, and resolutions. A majority of the members of the
20 boards of fisheries and wildlife [GAME] constitute a quorum for the transaction of
21 business in a joint board meeting. A majority of the membership of the boards is
22 required to carry all joint motions, regulations, and resolutions of the boards.
23 * Sec. 4. AS 16.05.940(11) is amended to read:
24 (11) "domicile" means the true and permanent home of a person from
25 which the person has no present intention of moving and to which the person intends
26 to return whenever the person is away; domicile may be proved by presenting
27 evidence acceptable to the boards of fisheries and wildlife [GAME];
28 * Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
29 read:
30 REGULATIONS. The Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game may
31 proceed to adopt regulations to implement this Act. The regulations take effect under
01 AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act) but not before the effective date of the
02 corresponding enabling statute.
03 * Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
04 read:
05 INSTRUCTION REGARDING BOARD OF GAME. Wherever in the Alaska
06 Statutes and the Alaska Administrative Code the term "Board of Game" is used it shall be
07 read as "Board of Wildlife" when to do so would be consistent with the changes made by this
08 Act.
09 * Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
10 read:
11 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO REVISOR OF STATUTES CONCERNING
12 SPECIFIC REFERENCES. (a) The revisor of statutes shall change references to "Board of
13 Game" to read "Board of Wildlife" in the following statutes:
14 (1) AS 08.54.790(6);
15 (2) AS 16.05.050(b), 16.05.094, 16.05.255, 16.05.256, 16.05.258(a),
16 16.05.260, 16.05.305, 16.05.315, 16.05.330(c), 16.05.340, 16.05.346(a), 16.05.405,
17 16.05.408(a), 16.05.783, 16.05.930(d), 16.05.940;
18 (3) AS 16.20.033(f), 16.20.041(c), 16.20.080, 16.20.510, 16.20.610(c);
19 (4) AS 39.50.200(b)(41);
20 (5) AS 39.52.120(c);
21 (6) AS 41.21.022, 41.21.174(b), 41.21.176(c), 41.21.183(b), 41.21.187,
22 41.21.188(c), 41.21.302(d), 41.21.492(b), 41.21.504(b), 41.21.616;
23 (7) AS 41.23.030(c), 41.23.110, 41.23.120(c), 41.23.160(c), 41.23.420(d);
24 (8) AS 41.99.010;
25 (9) AS 44.39.030, 44.39.050;
26 (10) AS 44.62.330(a)(41).
27 (b) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "game" to read "wildlife" in
28 the catch line of AS 16.05.221.
29 (c) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "Board of Game" to read
30 "Board of Wildlife" in the catch line of AS 16.05.255.
31 (d) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "game board" to read "Board
01 of Wildlife" in AS 16.05.780(b).
02 * Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
03 read:
04 IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 6 and 7 OF THIS ACT. Under AS 01.05.031,
05 the revisor of statutes shall implement secs. 6 and 7 of this Act in the Alaska Statutes, and,
06 under AS 44.62.125(b)(6), the regulations attorney shall implement sec. 6 of this Act in the
07 administrative code.
08 * Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
09 read:
10 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF WILDLIFE. (a) The
11 governor shall appoint two additional members to the Board of Wildlife to fill the two
12 positions added to the board by sec. 1 of this Act. Subject to AS 39.05.080, the governor
13 shall appoint one member to an initial term that expires March 1, 2007, and one member to an
14 initial term that expires March 1, 2006.
15 (b) Each member of the Board of Game who is serving on the effective date of sec. 1
16 of this Act shall continue to serve on the Board of Wildlife for the term to which the member
17 was appointed, if the member has been confirmed by the legislature or is subject to
18 confirmation by the legislature in accordance with AS 39.05.080.
19 * Sec. 10. Section 5 of this Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
20 * Sec. 11. Except as provided in sec. 10 of this Act, this Act takes effect July 1, 2004.
Tom Meacham’s suggested initiative language February, 2004
“An Act Re-naming the Board of Game, Enlarging the Board, and Making its Membership Comprehensive"
Alaska Statutes 16.05.221(b) is repealed and is re-enacted as AS16.05.221(b) and (c) to read as follows:
(b) The Alaska Constitution at Article VIII, Section 2 reserves ownership of Alaska’s wildlife to all of the people of Alaska, for
common use. Article VIII, Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees equal application of Alaska’s natural resource
disposal laws, including the statute that establishes the Board responsible for adopting wildlife management regulations, to all
of the owners in common of Alaska’s wildlife resources. In view of the fact that fewer than 25 percent of Alaska’s people hold
hunting licenses permitting the consumptive use of Alaska’s wildlife, it is constitutionally required that this Board directly and
fairly reflect the ownership interests of all of Alaska’s people, including both the consumptive and non-consumptive users of
Alaska’s wildlife.
(c) For purposes of the multiple use, conservation and development of all wildlife resources of the state, there is created a
Board of Wildlife composed of nine members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members
of the legislature in joint session. The composition of the board shall, taken as a whole, directly reflect all of the citizens'
various uses of wildlife for sport and subsistence hunting, trapping, non-consumptive uses, tourism and scientific research in a
comprehensive and fair manner. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of good judgment, interest in wildlife,
and predominant involvement with some aspect of wildlife resources and their use, to ensure that each of the specified diverse
interests is represented in the board's membership. The appointed members shall be residents of the state, and shall be
appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence.
Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners
The 9-member, governor-appointed Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners is responsible for establishing broad policy,
setting annual and permanent regulations, reviewing budgets, and receiving input on wildlife and boating matters from entities
such as the 17 county advisory boards to manage wildlife.
The composition is apportioned by law in the following manner: “After consideration of the written nominations submitted by a
county advisory board to manage wildlife and any additional candidates for appointment to the commission, the governor shall
appoint to the commission:
P One member who is actively engaged in the conservation of wildlife;
P One member who is actively engaged in farming;
P One member who is actively engaged in ranching;
P Four members who represent the interests of sportsmen; and
P Two members who represent the interests of the general public.”
d) States with either a commission, council or a board
Forty-three states have a commission, council or board to monitor and oversee the state wildlife agency's activities, the
expenditure of funds, and the establishment of wildlife management policies and regulations. These bodies generally consist of
4 to 11 members that are appointed by the governor. None are elected by the public specifically to fill these positions although
some of the people who serve on them may have been elected.
1. Alaska Board of Game
2. Arizona Game and Fish Commission
3. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
4. California Fish and Game Commission
5. Colorado Wildlife Commission
6. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
7. Georgia Board of Natural Resources
8. Hawaii Board of Natural Resources
9. Idaho Fish and Game Commission
10. Indiana Natural Resources Commission
11. Iowa Fish and Game Commission
12. Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission
13. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission
14. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
15. Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council. (Even though it is called an advisory council “The Council has
authority to approve or deny rules regulating fish, wildlife, and various recreational activities”).
16. Maryland Game and Fish Commission
17. Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board
18. Michigan Natural Resources Commission
19. Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
20. Missouri Conservation Commission
21. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission
22. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
23. Nevada Board of Wildlife
24. New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission
25. New Jersey Fish and Game Council
26. New Mexico State Game Commission
27. State of New York. Forest, Fish and Game Commission
28. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
29. Ohio Wildlife Council
30. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
31. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
32. Pennsylvania Game Commission
33. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Board
34. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission
35. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Commission
36. Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
37. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board
38. Utah Wildlife Board
39. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Board of Directors
40. Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
41. West Virginia Natural Resources Commission
42. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board
43. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
States with advisory bodies lacking regulatory authority
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois and North Dakota have governor appointed advisory bodies that serve only in an
advisory capacity. Illinois also has a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules composed entirely of legislators that does review
proposed rule changes at a fairly micro level including seasons and bag limits.
Minnesota and Rhode Island have no commission, council or board that advises or regulates on wildlife matters. In Minnesota
the Commissioner of Natural Resources approves seasons and bag limits. In Rhode Island the Chief of the Department of
Environmental Management Division of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for making regulatory decisions after holding public
hearings.
1. Alabama Conservation Advisory Board
2. Connecticut Citizens Advisory Council
3. Delaware Advisory Council for Wildlife and Freshwater Fish
4. Illinois Natural Resources Advisory Council.
5. Minnesota Natural Resources Commissioner
6. North Dakota Game and Fish Advisory Board
7. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife Chief
Senate Bill 343 Text
Sponsored by Senator Johnny Ellis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL ID: SB 343
00 SENATE BILL NO. 343
01 "An Act changing the name of the Board of Game to the Board of Wildlife and relating
02 to the purposes and membership of the Board of Wildlife; and providing for an effective
03 date."
04 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
05 * Section 1. AS 16.05.221(b) is amended to read:
06 (b) For purposes of the multiple use, conservation, and development of all
07 [THE] game resources of the state, there is created a Board of Wildlife [GAME]
08 composed of nine [SEVEN] members appointed by the governor, subject to
09 confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The
10 membership of the board, taken as a whole, shall directly reflect all of the
11 citizens' various uses of game for sport and subsistence hunting, trapping,
12 nonconsumptive uses, tourism, and scientific study in a comprehensive and fair
13 manner. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of [INTEREST IN
14 PUBLIC AFFAIRS,] good judgment, interest in game, and predominant
01 involvement with an aspect of game resources, to ensure that each of the specified
02 diverse interests is represented [KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITY IN THE FIELD
03 OF ACTION OF THE BOARD, AND WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDING
04 DIVERSITY OF INTEREST AND POINTS OF VIEW] in the membership. The
05 appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without
06 regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence. The commissioner
07 is not a member of the Board of Wildlife [GAME], but shall be ex officio secretary.
08 * Sec. 2. AS 16.05.221(c) is amended to read:
09 (c) Members of the Board of Wildlife [GAME] serve staggered terms of three
10 years and, except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4), each member serves until a
11 successor is appointed. An appointment to fill a vacancy in the membership of the
12 Board of Wildlife [GAME] shall be made in the same manner as the original
13 appointment and, except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4), an appointment to fill a
14 vacancy is for the balance of the unexpired term.
15 * Sec. 3. AS 16.05.320 is amended to read:
16 Sec. 16.05.320. Quorum. A majority of the members of a board constitutes a
17 quorum for the transaction of business, for the performance of any duty, and for the
18 exercise of any power. However, a majority of the full board membership is required
19 to carry all motions, regulations, and resolutions. A majority of the members of the
20 boards of fisheries and wildlife [GAME] constitute a quorum for the transaction of
21 business in a joint board meeting. A majority of the membership of the boards is
22 required to carry all joint motions, regulations, and resolutions of the boards.
23 * Sec. 4. AS 16.05.940(11) is amended to read:
24 (11) "domicile" means the true and permanent home of a person from
25 which the person has no present intention of moving and to which the person intends
26 to return whenever the person is away; domicile may be proved by presenting
27 evidence acceptable to the boards of fisheries and wildlife [GAME];
28 * Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
29 read:
30 REGULATIONS. The Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game may
31 proceed to adopt regulations to implement this Act. The regulations take effect under
01 AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act) but not before the effective date of the
02 corresponding enabling statute.
03 * Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
04 read:
05 INSTRUCTION REGARDING BOARD OF GAME. Wherever in the Alaska
06 Statutes and the Alaska Administrative Code the term "Board of Game" is used it shall be
07 read as "Board of Wildlife" when to do so would be consistent with the changes made by this
08 Act.
09 * Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
10 read:
11 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO REVISOR OF STATUTES CONCERNING
12 SPECIFIC REFERENCES. (a) The revisor of statutes shall change references to "Board of
13 Game" to read "Board of Wildlife" in the following statutes:
14 (1) AS 08.54.790(6);
15 (2) AS 16.05.050(b), 16.05.094, 16.05.255, 16.05.256, 16.05.258(a),
16 16.05.260, 16.05.305, 16.05.315, 16.05.330(c), 16.05.340, 16.05.346(a), 16.05.405,
17 16.05.408(a), 16.05.783, 16.05.930(d), 16.05.940;
18 (3) AS 16.20.033(f), 16.20.041(c), 16.20.080, 16.20.510, 16.20.610(c);
19 (4) AS 39.50.200(b)(41);
20 (5) AS 39.52.120(c);
21 (6) AS 41.21.022, 41.21.174(b), 41.21.176(c), 41.21.183(b), 41.21.187,
22 41.21.188(c), 41.21.302(d), 41.21.492(b), 41.21.504(b), 41.21.616;
23 (7) AS 41.23.030(c), 41.23.110, 41.23.120(c), 41.23.160(c), 41.23.420(d);
24 (8) AS 41.99.010;
25 (9) AS 44.39.030, 44.39.050;
26 (10) AS 44.62.330(a)(41).
27 (b) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "game" to read "wildlife" in
28 the catch line of AS 16.05.221.
29 (c) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "Board of Game" to read
30 "Board of Wildlife" in the catch line of AS 16.05.255.
31 (d) The revisor of statutes shall change the reference to "game board" to read "Board
01 of Wildlife" in AS 16.05.780(b).
02 * Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
03 read:
04 IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 6 and 7 OF THIS ACT. Under AS 01.05.031,
05 the revisor of statutes shall implement secs. 6 and 7 of this Act in the Alaska Statutes, and,
06 under AS 44.62.125(b)(6), the regulations attorney shall implement sec. 6 of this Act in the
07 administrative code.
08 * Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
09 read:
10 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF WILDLIFE. (a) The
11 governor shall appoint two additional members to the Board of Wildlife to fill the two
12 positions added to the board by sec. 1 of this Act. Subject to AS 39.05.080, the governor
13 shall appoint one member to an initial term that expires March 1, 2007, and one member to an
14 initial term that expires March 1, 2006.
15 (b) Each member of the Board of Game who is serving on the effective date of sec. 1
16 of this Act shall continue to serve on the Board of Wildlife for the term to which the member
17 was appointed, if the member has been confirmed by the legislature or is subject to
18 confirmation by the legislature in accordance with AS 39.05.080.
19 * Sec. 10. Section 5 of this Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
20 * Sec. 11. Except as provided in sec. 10 of this Act, this Act takes effect July 1, 2004.
Tom Meacham’s suggested initiative language February, 2004
“An Act Re-naming the Board of Game, Enlarging the Board, and Making its Membership Comprehensive"
Alaska Statutes 16.05.221(b) is repealed and is re-enacted as AS16.05.221(b) and (c) to read as follows:
(b) The Alaska Constitution at Article VIII, Section 2 reserves ownership of Alaska’s wildlife to all of the people of Alaska, for
common use. Article VIII, Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees equal application of Alaska’s natural resource
disposal laws, including the statute that establishes the Board responsible for adopting wildlife management regulations, to all
of the owners in common of Alaska’s wildlife resources. In view of the fact that fewer than 25 percent of Alaska’s people hold
hunting licenses permitting the consumptive use of Alaska’s wildlife, it is constitutionally required that this Board directly and
fairly reflect the ownership interests of all of Alaska’s people, including both the consumptive and non-consumptive users of
Alaska’s wildlife.
(c) For purposes of the multiple use, conservation and development of all wildlife resources of the state, there is created a
Board of Wildlife composed of nine members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members
of the legislature in joint session. The composition of the board shall, taken as a whole, directly reflect all of the citizens'
various uses of wildlife for sport and subsistence hunting, trapping, non-consumptive uses, tourism and scientific research in a
comprehensive and fair manner. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of good judgment, interest in wildlife,
and predominant involvement with some aspect of wildlife resources and their use, to ensure that each of the specified diverse
interests is represented in the board's membership. The appointed members shall be residents of the state, and shall be
appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence.
Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners
The 9-member, governor-appointed Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners is responsible for establishing broad policy,
setting annual and permanent regulations, reviewing budgets, and receiving input on wildlife and boating matters from entities
such as the 17 county advisory boards to manage wildlife.
The composition is apportioned by law in the following manner: “After consideration of the written nominations submitted by a
county advisory board to manage wildlife and any additional candidates for appointment to the commission, the governor shall
appoint to the commission:
P One member who is actively engaged in the conservation of wildlife;
P One member who is actively engaged in farming;
P One member who is actively engaged in ranching;
P Four members who represent the interests of sportsmen; and
P Two members who represent the interests of the general public.”
d) States with either a commission, council or a board
Forty-three states have a commission, council or board to monitor and oversee the state wildlife agency's activities, the
expenditure of funds, and the establishment of wildlife management policies and regulations. These bodies generally consist of
4 to 11 members that are appointed by the governor. None are elected by the public specifically to fill these positions although
some of the people who serve on them may have been elected.
1. Alaska Board of Game
2. Arizona Game and Fish Commission
3. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
4. California Fish and Game Commission
5. Colorado Wildlife Commission
6. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
7. Georgia Board of Natural Resources
8. Hawaii Board of Natural Resources
9. Idaho Fish and Game Commission
10. Indiana Natural Resources Commission
11. Iowa Fish and Game Commission
12. Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission
13. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission
14. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
15. Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council. (Even though it is called an advisory council “The Council has
authority to approve or deny rules regulating fish, wildlife, and various recreational activities”).
16. Maryland Game and Fish Commission
17. Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board
18. Michigan Natural Resources Commission
19. Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
20. Missouri Conservation Commission
21. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission
22. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
23. Nevada Board of Wildlife
24. New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission
25. New Jersey Fish and Game Council
26. New Mexico State Game Commission
27. State of New York. Forest, Fish and Game Commission
28. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
29. Ohio Wildlife Council
30. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
31. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
32. Pennsylvania Game Commission
33. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Board
34. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission
35. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Commission
36. Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
37. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board
38. Utah Wildlife Board
39. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Board of Directors
40. Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
41. West Virginia Natural Resources Commission
42. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board
43. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
States with advisory bodies lacking regulatory authority
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois and North Dakota have governor appointed advisory bodies that serve only in an
advisory capacity. Illinois also has a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules composed entirely of legislators that does review
proposed rule changes at a fairly micro level including seasons and bag limits.
Minnesota and Rhode Island have no commission, council or board that advises or regulates on wildlife matters. In Minnesota
the Commissioner of Natural Resources approves seasons and bag limits. In Rhode Island the Chief of the Department of
Environmental Management Division of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for making regulatory decisions after holding public
hearings.
1. Alabama Conservation Advisory Board
2. Connecticut Citizens Advisory Council
3. Delaware Advisory Council for Wildlife and Freshwater Fish
4. Illinois Natural Resources Advisory Council.
5. Minnesota Natural Resources Commissioner
6. North Dakota Game and Fish Advisory Board
7. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife Chief
| Welcome to WildWatch "Re-discovering the adventure of discovery." |
 |  |
