NOTE: SEE MY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AT END OF POSTING

Kneeland Taylor is among the many people appalled by last week’s Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee elections. Not simply because he didn’t get elected or because he’s a liberal greenie, all of which are true. Taylor, like many of those in attendance (including me), has been dismayed that an election could go so wrong in so many ways.

Several accounts have been written about the election debacle, from local media reports (including a story published on the Daily News website Jan. 6, “Gun-rights advocates dominate Fish and Game advisory election”) to blog commentaries. I’ve mostly seen the liberal blog posts, but I’m sure there were some celebratory commentaries by conservative, God-gun-and-country Alaskans too, given that local conservative talk-radio jocks and a website called AmmoLand.com (“The Shooting Sports News source”) rallied the pro-hunting, pro-gun, pro-life troops (isn’t there something oxymoronic about that mix?) to get out and vote so that radical extremist environmentalists with their un-American and un-Alaskan agenda wouldn’t take over the Anchorage committee. (Can you imagine: the “twisted agenda” of those damn greenies includes their support of an endangered status for beluga whales. What that has to do with state management of Alaska’s fish and wildlife I have no idea, since those equally damnable feds are responsible for managing whales.)

Besides the many voting irregularities, several people were disturbed by rude, bullying behavior and occasional racist comments made by some of the gunslingers at the meeting.

For those who want a leftist recap of the meeting, one of the best was “Defending Ourselves against the Radicals” posted on the Alaska Commons website.

If you don’t want to wade through that entire commentary, Taylor has succinctly summarized many of the problems with last week’s elections. But before I turn to those, I want to get to the heart of this posting, namely that Taylor, an attorney, (I guess that’s the third strike against him, eh? Liberal, greenie, and a lawyer; now there’s a triple threat to true Alaska patriots) has filed a petition to the Joint Board of Fish and Game, asking it to remove the eight people who were elected at last week’s AAC meeting and, furthermore, to require that the AAC include representatives of six distinct user groups that reflect Anchorage’s diverse population. Taylor offers these six groups as a suggestion and says he wouldn’t mind if his list were tweaked a little bit. They include:

Sport hunters and trappers (holding current hunting or trapping licenses).
Sport fishermen and women (not currently holding hunting/trapping licenses).
Commercial fishermen and women.
Wildlife viewers (not holding current hunting or trapping licenses).
Subsistence users.
Biologists or others in the scientific community.

I’m sure that some of you are thinking: OK, this is just another attempt by those radical environmentalists to end Alaskans’ right to bear arms and kill animals. Well, in fact Kneeland Taylor has submitted his petition on behalf of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, thought in some circles to be a radical animal-rights group with ties to outside extremists. But in fact Taylor’s petition, and his reasoning behind it, appear to have a great deal of merit. He really seems to have thought this out, even for a bunny- and tree-hugging liberal. (I should probably also mention here that Kneely is a longtime veteran of Alaska’s wildlife-management battles. He ran for the AAC in the late 1990s, beaten then as now, and has been involved in statewide initiatives and testified at many Board of Game meetings over the years. He understands the system and its pitfalls.)

And you have to wonder: is an Anchorage advisory group loaded with hunters and pro-gun-rights activists truly representative of our community? Doesn’t it make sense that Alaska’s urban center includes a fair number of people who prefer to watch and photograph wildlife, or simply catch fish, rather than go around shooting or trapping mammals? And isn’t it possible that some of these people might have worthwhile and reasonable ideas to share when it comes to the management of Alaska’s wildlife, especially in places close to Anchorage, for instance Chugach State Park?

Yet each of the eight people elected last week (besides being white and male) was a self-professed gun enthusiast who loves to hunt or whose kids love to hunt. Oh yeah, and most have lived in Alaska a long time. You have to wonder how much eight guys with a passion for guns and hunting are going to add to a committee that advises the Alaska Boards of Fish and Game on sometimes complex and controversial fisheries and wildlife management issues.

In making his case to the Joint Board of Fish and Game, Taylor points to Alaska statute AS 16.05.260, which directs that Fish and Game advisory committees “be composed of persons well informed on the fish or game resources of the locality.” Many of the two-minute nomination “speeches” given by last week’s winners gave no hint that they were well informed. In fact most of the voting occurred before anyone was nominated, one of the big problems with the process.

Taylor also refers to state regulation 5 AAC 96.060(e)(1), which states in part, “The members must be representative of fish and game user groups in the area served by the committee. To the extent possible, at least three user groups must be represented on each committee . . . To ensure full representation of an area, the joint board will, in its discretion, assign a seat on the committee to represent a specific user group or specific community.”

Taylor’s petition continues, “Another regulation adopted by the Boards of Fish and Game is 5AAC 96.060(e)(3). It provides for the direct election of advisory committee members by simple majority vote of those present and voting at the election meeting. As is starkly evident from past and current experience, a simple majority vote of those present has not, and CANNOT, assure that ‘at least three user groups’ are represented, or that ‘full representation of the area’ will occur.”

His point, I think, is that the eight guys who were winners in last week’s election were all from the same narrow group of hunters and pro-gun activists. That hardly ensures “full representation” of Anchorage residents with a great interest in fish and wildlife and their management.

Taylor then goes on to list several problems with last week’s election. Though mentioned in earlier reports and commentaries, several merit repeating here, in some instances summarized in my own words.

• The room used for the election could accommodate no more than 200 people, yet more than 500 voted. Because many more people voted than anticipated, the meeting started more than one hour late. Many people cast their votes before anyone had been nominated, then left before the nominees made their speeches. So much for an informed electorate.

• No one’s identification was verified. Whether or not it happened, it was possible for people to vote early, return to the end of the line and vote a second time, using a different name and address. Or to be an ineligible voter and make up a name and local address (or borrow someone else’s.)

• Both sides – the pro-gun, pro-hunting side and the wildlife conservationists/environmentalist side – had a slate of preferred candidates. Most people present simply voted their favored “party line” and ignored the qualifications of other candidates. (I have to admit I voted the “green ticket” and yes, I did so before anyone was nominated. So I too was part of the problem. But I absolutely agree there is a problem with this crazy system and now would like to be part of a solution.)

• “No consideration was given to the regulatory mandate that all affected user groups must be fairly represented on this advisory committee. As a practical matter, the seven individuals elected to seats, and the individual elected as an alternate, were all elected because they were named on a particular slate of candidates widely circulated before the meeting. This slate was circulated by activists for two organizations: namely a group calling itself the ‘Anchorage 2nd Amendment Task Force’ and a group calling itself ‘Conservative Patriots Group, Inc.’ These activists worked the long line outside the meeting room, handing out a slate of candidates.”

And I thought that sort of electioneering was banned from America’s polling places. How patriotic is that, to ignore election protocols and rules? But that too is part of the problem: there seem to be few, if any, consistent – or rational – rules governing how Fish and Game advisory committee elections should be staged.

As Taylor notes, “All persons appearing on the slate of candidates promoted by the 2nd Amendment Task Force were elected. . . . The slate represents just one user group: sport hunters and sport trappers.

“Further compounding the irregularities,” he writes, is that a sizeable minority of the voters present – 13 percent according to the Daily News – gave the Mat-Su Valleys as their residence. “This group of non-resident voters is exploiting an existing loophole that allows individuals to vote twice, or three or four times, for committee members in different advisory committees . . . In effect, these advisory committees influenced by organized ‘bloc voting’ by persons who live in an area represented by another advisory committee have become captives of these narrow interests, and cannot reflect the wide interests of their own community.”

Taylor goes on to argue that “the election of [advisory committee] members by simple majority vote of those present at the election meeting is inherently in conflict with the regulatory mandate that various user groups MUST be represented.”

For that reason, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance asks the Joint Board of Fish and Game to instate a new regulation that requires AC members to be appointed by the commissioner of Fish and Game, perhaps preceded by advisory elections.

Realizing that such a dramatic revamping of the system is a long shot, the petition requests that new election procedures be adopted if the current system is kept in place, among them:

• New regulations should require that membership on all of Alaska’s advisory committees truly represent the variety of fish and wildlife user groups in any given community.

• Individuals can vote in only one advisory committee election. If a Mat-Su resident votes in Anchorage, he forfeits his right to vote in a Mat-Su election.

On this point I would actually recommend that residents be allowed to vote in only their own communities. If Mat-Su residents are represented by a Fish and Game advisory committee, why the heck should they be allowed to influence Anchorage’s committee? It makes no sense.

• Committee nominations should be closed at least 15 days before voting, so those who do vote will have the opportunity to learn more about the candidates’ qualifications and interests before the election.

• Voting prior to the close of nominations should be prohibited.

• Seats for distinct user groups (such as those suggested by Taylor) should be designated and each candidate should run for only one designated seat, after providing evidence of his or her qualifications.

• Basic pre-requisites for each seat on a committee should be established, to include demonstrated interest and past involvement with wildlife-related issues and clear qualifications for any particular designated seat.

All of these suggestions make great sense, if in fact advisory committees are to truly represent the interests of an entire community, particularly such a diverse city as Anchorage. It’s ridiculous that our community’s advisory committee is so heavily loaded with hunting and trapping participants and advocates, when they represent such a small proportion of our population.

In closing, Taylor comments, “This petition raises procedural points, but it cannot be forgotten that Alaska’s fish and wildlife are public resources, BELONGING IN COMMON TO ALL ALASKANS [my emphasis]. Fish and wildlife should be managed in accordance with good science. The current system, where advisory committee members are elected at meetings jammed with people rounded up by political activists, does not comport with scientifically based management, and cannot yield good advice from a broad cross-section of the community. What you have now is pure power politics, that’s all. You, the members of the Joint Board, should do what’s right; right for Alaska’s fish and wildlife, and for all of its citizens.”

Amen to that. Stay tuned to see how the Joint Board of Fish and Game responds and where things go from here.

* * *

ADD COMMENTS:
I don’t often address comments made in response to my blog postings, but it seems worthwhile to do so in this case, both to clarify some points and to speak in more detail to a number of issues raised by me and those who’ve commented on the piece.

First, to The SDog, Brian Sweeney: you suggest that the solution to these issues is to leave them to “our truly elected officials.” In my experience, those elected officials – and their appointments, for instance to the Board of Game – are a big part of the problem. For many years now, the management of Alaska’s wildlife has been biased toward a very small slice of Alaska’s population, because of Alaska’s politics. Many of us believe that the current system is broken precisely because it ignores the desires and values of many Alaskans, who oppose practices like the ever-expanding predator control program that sometimes – and arguably far too often – is not based in science but the prejudices of those in power. That both the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee and the Alaska Board of Game represent a narrow “wild game farming” kind of mentality or approach to wildlife management is indeed problematical. I’ve addressed these issues in many previous commentaries, but will be happy to do so again in a future Alaska Voices blog.

As for Sweeney’s comments about my “playing the race card”: there was no blanket accusation that “the other side” is racist. I simply reported something that happened. Is it better to ignore the reality that some bullying occurred and racist comments were made? I think silence on such matters is a bigger problem.

A couple of people have raised the question of how I would have responded if some or all of “green” candidates had prevailed in the election. It’s a good question. In a way, it may be better in the long run that the AmmoLand and Conservative Patriots candidates won the day – but only if the system is ultimately repaired. Whichever “side” won the election, there’s a problem with the system itself, as Kneeland Taylor documents in his petition. That people can vote before candidates are nominated, that there are no ID checks, people can vote in more than one place, on and on – all of those are problems. The fact that the green candidates lost spurred both Taylor and me to address what is a broken system. And human nature being what it is, the problem was easier to address while licking wounds after the election defeat. That doesn’t change the fact that there are BIG problems with the system. (I would add that the conservation community attempted to play by the system’s current rules, but the pro-gun, pro-hunting side proved better at the game as it is played under current rules. That doesn’t mean the rules are good ones.)

On the matter of committees whose members are chosen by election: there’s an inherent problem with that, especially when voters are given “slates” to choose from and don’t have to consider a person’s qualifications. As a contrasting system, I would point to Alaska State Parks’ citizen advisory boards, whose members must apply for a spot on the board, go through a sort of vetting process, and are ultimately appointed by the director of parks. I served on the Chugach State Park Citizens Advisory Board for a few years and know from experience that the board includes a wide array of interests. In fact, there’s a strong emphasis on getting a diversity of opinions, perspectives, and experiences on the board. That makes great sense to me. Why have an advisory committee whose members represent an extremely limited perspective?

As for the people elected to the board earlier this month: I certainly believe that many and perhaps most hunters are true conservationists. I also believe – and know – that many hunters and gun enthusiasts have other interests, as willpfish4food points out. But you have to wonder about a candidate who is touted by AmmoLand and the Conservative Patriot bunch. There’s a reason people were on that list and I’d argue it’s because they are the most likely to help preserve the status quo. I do indeed hope that willpfish4food and others elected to the committee will bring an open mind and a willingness to consider a diversity of perspectives. At the same times, those who are seen as conservationists or environmentalists are too frequently branded as extremists whose only interest is to deny “real” Alaskans their rights to the state’s resources, whether oil or gas or moose; they’re not seen as well-rounded individuals with diverse interests. Some of the “green” candidates in the recent election were also longtime hunters and fishers. In fact one of the most qualified people had a strong hunting background, but his name unfortunately appeared on the conservation slate and so he lost out.

Sometimes I try to make certain points with tongue-in-cheek stereotyping, but I realize that can also escalate the tensions, so I apologize for that.

Finally, I never suggested that the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, or any AC, should be dominated by conservationist/environmentalist types. All that I and Kneely Taylor and many others upset with the current system are seeking is more balance, a greater voice for the many of us who have little say, right now (and for far too long) in how Alaska’s wildlife is managed. There are indeed many problems with Alaska’s archaic and arguably unconstitutional system. So many of us will keep working for change, one step at a time.