Alaska Politics Blog : APOC: State not trying to sway predator vote

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

APOC: State not trying to sway predator vote

Posted by The Highliner

Posted: August 21, 2008 - 10:37 am

By Wesley Loy in Anchorage –

Did state officials improperly try to influence an election by airing radio ads and distributing a brochure explaining the state’s predator control program?

That’s what the Alaska Wildlife Alliance charged in an Aug. 14 complaint against Gov. Sarah Palin, Fish and Game Commissioner Denby Lloyd and the state Board of Game.

The complaint accused state officials of trying to sway the outcome of Tuesday’s vote on Ballot Measure 2, which would ban same-day airborne shooting of wolves and grizzly bears that prey on young moose and caribou.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission has investigated the complaint and yesterday rendered the verdict: The state is not guilty of trying to influence the election.

The commission was concerned the ads and brochure came so close to Tuesday’s vote, but found that state officials were just carrying out a legislative directive, the ruling says.

“The facts show that money was appropriated for the purpose of educating the public about Board of Game programs, including predator management,” it says.

It adds: “The educational program began in 2007 and continues. Only about $150,000 of the funding has been spent out of the $400,000 appropriated.”

login or register to post comments

6 August 21, 2008 - 8:28pm | auroragrl

Fair and balanced

I have received several brochures in the mail from proponents on either side of the issue, and I'm glad that I was able to read the arguments from both camps. As a voter, I feel that I can't make a fair and balanced decision unless I hear the arguments on both sides of the equation.

August 22, 2008 - 2:37am | Gus_Davis

Fair and Balanced

Like FOX news? Or like the people that cannot travel to publicly participate like the bigwigs.I know people that block that fair and balanced channel so their friend doesn't make them sick with it.

For things like fishery there are a few [not AST] troopers that try to help keep some things in line by attending but The average guy has to land in some Organization, not afford the travel, and that asociation sells him out. How fair and balanced is that?

IFQ's went to record when everyone was out fishing.

Once anyone, someone like Murkowski or Young, Stevens makes their decision on a donation, it's a done deal. Sell out Oil or Fishery to the DC "Local Lobbyst" he's owing a favor already.

And a road to the casino or nowhere, whatever , or slipping it in under Congress' Nose not included in a vote. This is at best wrongish for you fair and balance types.

But is your point, "Sure Sure DY has a million point three to give back to his friends..."

5 August 21, 2008 - 7:22pm | Emperor

Predator Control

If left to their own devices, predators manage their population by devouring their prey. When they cut down their food source sufficiently, the number of predators are reduced due to the lack of prey. That is how nature handles the balance between predator and prey.

Now, insert humans into the equation as an additional predator then we put more pressure on the amount of prey available.

So the choices are:

1) Let nature take it's course, reducing the amount of prey to the level that there is little left over for humans as the other predators are left unchecked

2) Control the number of competing predators for the prey, to keep a healthy number of both predator and prey.

We regulate ourselves with limits on who, when, where humans can take prey. Other predators don't seem to care about seasons, areas, sex, age or size of their prey. They just eat what they can when they can as much as they can, because that's the way they are hard wired for existence.

This doesn't have anything to do with "fair chase". It's not about "hunting" in the sense most of us think of hunting. This is just maintaining a healthy balance between predator and prey, for the benefit of both.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many Alaskans to understand.

Vote NO on 2

August 22, 2008 - 9:39am | rayrocks

Only half right

Once predators whittle down the number of prey, larger predator populations are unsustainable. So prey population rises again.

It's called the cycle of nature, and it's been going on for millennia just fine without the heavy, audacious hand of man attempting to manipulate the process.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for some Alaskans to understand.

Vote YES on 2.

August 22, 2008 - 9:45am | akmooster

the reason it worked so well....

is because man was not one of the predators. Now he is and he is damn good at it. So good it has ended the cycle of nature. Therefore game animals must be managed.

That management should be done by professional scientists NOT rookie voters.

All the voters should do is make sure the right people are in place to do the job, not play biologist.

August 22, 2008 - 11:15pm | Gus_Davis

Evolution

I understand those salmon are trying to evolve where they can outswim a football field sized net scooping by at 20 knts.

Most aren't selected for.

August 22, 2008 - 9:49am | rayrocks

But voters have

nothing to do with making sure the right people are in place. Policy-makers are all political appointees.

I think we've seen consistently that this hardly guarantees the best or the right people get chosen.

August 22, 2008 - 9:04am | akmooster

Well said, emp...

The reason it is such a difficult concept for so many Alaskans to understand is this.

The percentage of Alaskans who do not hunt grows every day. Meat comes from the plastic tray in Carrs.

Outside money comes in and floods the airways with showing how beautiful the 'families' of wolves are in the wild, and how ugly shooting them is. Then they call it hunting and put guys on tv who look like and claim to be hunters saying this isn't right. This hunting isn't fair chase.

The anti-hunters and no-concepters buy into it and vote for the warm and fuzzy and stick it to the rest of Alaska.

As it continues to work it will only get worse. Prop 4 is the same thing.

4 August 21, 2008 - 11:52am | LilysDaddy

Instead

of getting wrapped around the axle on the APOC decision, isolate and consider this statement:

"The facts show that money was appropriated for the purpose of educating the public about Board of Game programs, including predator management.... The educational program began in 2007 and continues. Only about $150,000 of the funding has been spent out of the $400,000 appropriated."

"Educate" the public? Can you think of another state entity spending this much in public funds to "educate" us?

Especially spending public money in the months and weeks leading up to a vote on a ballot measure that could impact the entity's existence?

Back to APOC: they're a joke.

August 21, 2008 - 1:22pm | skinny_gal

where to start...

The Dept. of Commerce gives out tens of millions of dollars in grants each year that educate people on a wide array of subjects. $400,000 is nothing. APOC is much better staffed than it use to be.

August 21, 2008 - 6:04pm | LilysDaddy

Thanks, skinny_gal,

would you link us to these "grants" that are being offered by CC&E? And are any of these "grants" designed to educate us on matters directly related to ballot measures or issues (or candidates, for that matter) that we may have reason to vote on within the next year?

Thanks.

August 21, 2008 - 11:57am | akmooster

yes i can...

Back to APOC: they ARE a joke.

3 August 21, 2008 - 11:07am | lecjb

Does anyone trust any ruling from APOC?

I am skeptical of anything that comes out of that commission. They can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

August 21, 2008 - 1:17pm | rayrocks

APOC is as effective as

the legislature has made it.

If you don't like what APOC does, you can thank such illustrious former elected officials as Norm Rokeberg, Ben Stevens, Ralph Seekins and Frank Murkowski for their efforts to defang the agency.

August 21, 2008 - 12:36pm | Gus_Davis

I don't trust any APOC

I don't trust any APOC ruling.

August 21, 2008 - 1:01pm | AK_Lady

Me neither.

August 21, 2008 - 1:19pm | rayrocks

Of course you don't.

You Ruedrich-ites want to be able to take any amount of cash from anyone without having to be accountable to the public for it. It stands to reason that you would be opposed to the agency that wants to keep you honest.

August 21, 2008 - 1:23pm | AK_Lady

What does that mean, "Ruedrich-ites"?

August 21, 2008 - 10:16pm | Cartman3_15

Look in

the mirror.

Then look at your bff _Syrin.

Then look at the elected officials -- present and former, free and incarcerated -- the two of you think are just swell.

August 21, 2008 - 5:13pm | Gus_Davis

People that get into shoving

People that get into shoving matches on the sidewalks, many others remaining of the last administration. Extermists that campaign out of theie offices, Kind of like the Dems in the Knowles Admin.

August 21, 2008 - 6:03pm | AK_Lady

Oh, I see.

Like what Palin did when she ran for Lt. Gov out of Wasilla City Hall.

Thanks for the explanation.

August 22, 2008 - 1:12am | Gus_Davis

At first I was opposed to

At first I was opposed to the big brother aspect of Cell Cameras, but things like that on video record could be very damning evidence.

But, my refrence was concerning a complaint by candidate Cathy Munoz I think her name is.

Another one of those pat on the back deals.

It w's all friendly until the raids. My how things change.

August 21, 2008 - 1:22pm | rfn

I have often wondered

whether a particular group seeks out the corrupt to support or whether their support tends to corrupt.

August 21, 2008 - 1:08pm | rfn

Those doggone

federal courts, too.

Always taking away those so dearly beloved by the constantly complaining coven!

They's so mean!

2 August 21, 2008 - 11:06am | Thomas_in_Alaska

I Voted

NO!

L48 interests will not dictate to Alaskans on their state resource!

August 21, 2008 - 12:06pm | ak_iceman2003

What a crock. Outside

What a crock. Outside interests? We've (the PEOPLE of ALASKA) have voted twice on this... but the NRA and the Safari Club have successfully lobbied the state to overrule it twice.

August 21, 2008 - 12:12pm | akmooster

what do you say...

about the Native's support of control of wolves and bears in their subsistence areas? To hell with them? The people voting against it were those who knew the least and were persuaded by outside money - and those who think meat comes from little plastic trays.

August 21, 2008 - 12:22pm | rayrocks

Elitist argument

I often agree with you, moo, but I think you're wrong here.

No one's vote should count for more than someone else's. According to the Alaska Constitution, the state's fish and game resources belong to everyone, not just the people who eat them.

The "will of the people" is unmistakable on this issue. Although the legislature sure hasn't seemed to care.

August 21, 2008 - 12:33pm | akmooster

rox....

that is why, thank God, we live in a republic not a democracy.

When you conduct 'ballot-box-biology' you choose the stupidest person you know who votes, and put them in charge of our wildlife.

The legislature (in theory) should have the smarts and time to educate themselves and do what is good for the masses.

On the other hand, I think airborne hunting is a waste of money, it can never work. They should pay the Natives and others in the bush a bounty.

In the meantime, I will continue to HATE those outsiders, telling lies, and trying to wrongfully influence the voters and stand adamantly against ballot box biology.

August 21, 2008 - 12:45pm | rayrocks

Ballot-box biology

The alternative is trusting legislators to do the right thing and represent all Alaskans, not just the 14 percent who have a hunting license. On this issue, they have failed miserably and repeatedly, catering instead to moneyed special interests like the Alaska Outdoor Council.

Given this alternative, and armed with the knowledge that lies and misinformation are not perpetuated only by outsiders, I'll leave it up to regular Alaskans every time and take my chances with "ballot-box biology."

August 21, 2008 - 6:16pm | LilysDaddy

Agree: I think most Alaskans

will opt for "ballot-box biology" when faced with leaving matters to the likes of Lyda Green and Jaybird Ramras.

1 August 21, 2008 - 10:58am | akmooster

yes... the state is guilty....

of trying to help us see through the cloud of BS that AWA is spewing in their attempt to confuse the voter.
Why don't they quit referring to this as hunting? It isn't, they know that. There is a big difference between hunting and predator control.

Maybe they would understand it better if they were living in the bush depending on moose and caribou to survive instead of in their law offices.

Do they consider shooting the bad bear in the park hunting, or predator control?
If all these out of state initiative promoters would kindly go back to california and screw with their own back yard we would be better off.

Same with #4. If the water is already protected why do we need this new law? Because it will stop mining and they like that. They claim no mine like pebble has ever been operated safely. Really? Name them.

Too bad we can't ban outside money being spent on inside issues.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad