Board Members  Member Addresses  Resumes/Bios  Meeting Photos  Former Members  Become a member   Meeting Information  Meeting Calendar  Long-Term Cycle  Proposal Book  Call for Proposals  Legal Notices  Future Schedule  Joint Boards Page  BOG Committees   Meeting Summaries  Summary of Actions Document Archive   Regulations, Policies & Info  Link to Regulations  Policies and Findings  Frequently Used Policies News Archives   Board of Game Forms  Proposal Form  ACR Form  Petition the Board

Questions and Answers about Potential Changes to the
Alaska Board of Game Proposal Deadline and Meeting Cycle
October, 2009

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is developing recommendations for consideration by the Board of Game to address a number of workload and public process issues. The large number of proposals and the complexity of issues addressed by the board each year warrants changes that will improve the process to benefit the public, advisory committees, board members, and department staff. Specifically under discussion are ideas for changing the timing of proposal deadlines and shifting to a three-year meeting cycle. The board currently uses a separate proposal deadline for each meeting and operates on a two-year meeting cycle.
The following information is presented in a question and answer format. Comments from the public on the potential changes are welcome and will benefit the department and the board as they work through this process.

Q: First off, where is the board in the decision making process?
A: It is early in the discussion stage and no decisions have been made.  During the Board of Game's November 13-16, 2009 meeting, the board will have a discussion about the changes and further examine the topic.  The board is expected to review more information including public comments and possibly take action during its January 29-February 1, 2010 statewide meeting. 

Q: Why is the board considering changes now? 
A: Recent board meetings have highlighted problems with the short time periods for public and staff review of regulatory proposals.  For example, proposal books were received in the mail just 30 days before the February 2009 Board of Game meeting and advisory committee members were frustrated with the lack of time for an adequate review.

Q: What are some of the other issues?
A: Some other issues include the heavy workloads that advisory committees and other board participants including the Department of Fish and Game are faced with during years when both the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries address the same region; the proposal deadline for the Fall regional meeting occurs in August when committees have difficulty meeting because of the hunting and fishing seasons; and many committees have only two meetings due to large travel expenses causing them be less involved with both boards.

Q: Are the short public review periods also a problem for department staff?
A: Yes.  Staff members have little flexibility in carving out time for proposal review and developing department comments.  This has often resulted in delays in making the department recommendations available in advance of written comment deadlines and board meetings.  The workload is especially problematic in years when both the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries address the same region.

Q: Is this the only problem for department staff?
A: No, regional department staff now must commit significant time in the board regulatory process every other year.  Allowing this major investment of personnel resources every third year, similar to the fisheries staff, would alleviate this workload and allow for more efficient use of staff resources.  Demands of the current schedules are impacting the ability of wildlife staff to address core research and management responsibilities for monitoring wildlife populations.

Q: What are the advantages of an annual proposal deadline?
A: It provides a longer timeframe for evaluating regulatory changes and allows for much greater scheduling flexibility for all phases of the meeting preparation.  Specifically, it allows time for staff to categorize proposals and place into roadmap order well in advance of board meetings.  This will result in efficiencies and save money for the public and staff when the meeting structure is known well in advance.

Another significant cost savings can be realized by including all proposals into a single proposal book each year.  Currently, up to three separate proposal books are published each year.  Printing and mailing a single book will result in considerable time and budget savings. 

In terms of public participation in the board process, a single proposal deadline would improve timeliness of department recommendations which will benefit the public and advisory committee review prior to meetings. 

Q: Are there disadvantages to an annual proposal deadline?
A: One of the trade-offs is that for the Interior Region (Region III) and Southcentral/Southwest Region (Region II), proposals would have to be submitted prior to the fall hunting season and prior to late fall game population surveys.  Proposals for Southeast Region (Region I) and Arctic Region (Region V) have been due prior to fall hunts, so this is not a significant change for those regions.  Statewide regulations (Chapter 92) are not tied to population changes.  There are several administrative remedies available to address any biological concerns that may come up on shorter notice, including the use of “placeholder” proposals, board generated proposals, agenda change requests, and emergency petitions.  Conservation concerns would not be left unaddressed. 

Q: When would the proposal deadline be set?
A: May 10 of each year is a suggested date.  It allows time for advisory committees to meet over the winter and develop proposals.  Proposal books can be compiled over the early summer months and be distributed in July to insure an ample public review period.  Note that proposals to the Board of Fisheries are due on April 10 of each year, or the preceding Friday if the April 10 falls on the weekend.

Q: What are the advantages of shifting to a three-year cycle?
A: Dividing the board’s work load into three divisions allows for the following groups: 

• Southcentral/Southwest (Region II)
• Interior (Region III)
• Southeast (Region I), Arctic (Region V), and “Statewide” (Chapter 92)

Each large region would become the main focus in a single year.  This opens the possibility of grouping proposals for more cohesive and shorter meetings during winter months which promotes a more deliberate board process and prevents hurried decisions at the end of long meetings.  For example, during years when the Southcentral/Southwest (Region II) and Interior (Region III) meetings occur, issues could be broken into two separate components.  This would help to reduce the marathon meetings that currently last 10+ days.  Breaking the larger regions into multiple segments may also reduce the frequency of having to defer proposals to meetings outside that meeting cycle.  It would provide time between meetings to address the needs that cause proposals to be unresolved.  Shorter meeting segments and scheduling specific elements in each component would also result in more efficient public participation at meetings and more efficient use of staff time.

Q: Are there other advantages of a three-year cycle?
A: Yes.  A three-year cycle would eliminate those years of regional overlap between the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game which will improve the involvement by the advisory committees.  This is helpful especially for those advisory committees that are limited to one or two meetings each year.

Overall, it would reduce and refocus the regional staff involvement with the board meetings from the current two-year period to a three-year period, with resulting cost efficiencies. 

Q: Would a three-year cycle allow enough responsiveness to public concerns and allow the board to respond to rapidly changing resource issues?

A: Yes.  The use of agenda change requests and board generated proposals would allow the board to respond more quickly as needed.  Moreover, the department always has the authority to address conservation concerns.  A three-year cycle would result in longer timeframes for evaluating regulatory changes on wildlife populations and give the department the ability to manage species with a management plan system over a longer time period.  It would also favor the board’s role in providing a more comprehensive regulatory direction, and promote more strategic changes (proactive) rather than having to adjust season dates every other year in response to public reaction to the previous season (reactive).

Q: Could the board consider an annual proposal deadline and a three-year meeting cycle as separate actions?
A: Yes, it could take either action independently, but there are advantages of implementing both changes at the same time. 

Q: How would a three-year cycle for the Board of Game mesh with the three-year cycle for the Board of Fisheries? 
A: Quite well if implemented correctly to avoid overlap in major regional meetings.  For example, Southcentral game topics could easily be scheduled to avoid years when the Board of Fisheries is scheduled to address Cook Inlet fishery topics.  Currently with the two-year game cycle and three-year fishery cycle, half the years result in this “double whammy” of board meetings causing heavy workloads and increased participation at board meetings for the local fish and game advisory committees.  This is also difficult for department staff that covers both meetings. 

Q: How will the proposed changes affect the state’s participation in the federal subsistence board process?
A: The federal subsistence board and regional councils rely on active state participation by the local fish and game advisory committees and Department of Fish and Game staff. The increased review period will allow for improved coordination between the two regulatory systems and allow for more effective participation by advisory committees and by the department.

Q: Would delaying action improve the coordination between the game and fishery cycles?
A: No, it would not.  Approving these two board process actions early in 2010 allows time to set the first annual proposal deadline for the spring of 2011 and have the "transition year" be the 2011/2012 cycle year.  This schedule avoids having more than three years between any regional or statewide meeting during the transition and allow for the game cycle and fisheries to synchronize in a pattern with the least conflict.

Q: What would a transition period look like?
A: The next two meeting cycles (2009/2010 and 2010/2011) have already been set based on the two-year cycle.  The following cycle (2011/2012) begins the transition to the three-year cycle by including the Statewide Cycle B meeting and the Region V meeting to avoid gaps of more than three years between regional meetings.  Beginning in 2012/2013, the transition to a three-year cycle will be complete and the smaller regions (I and V) and statewide meeting will all occur in the same year and Region II and Region III will occur alone within an annual cycle.

Transition Period for the Board of Game Schedule

Q: Does the board have to take regulatory action to implement these changes?
A: No, the board schedule is a policy of the board and is not a regulatory action.  Proposal deadlines are selected by the board's executive director after soliciting input from the board. 

Q: What is the role of the advisory committees and the public in commenting on these ideas?
A: Department and board actions are always informed by public input.  The schedule of holding an initial discussion with the board during its November 2009 meeting and distributing information on the topic this fall allows for public discussion prior to and during the board's January 2010 meeting. 

Q: Where can I find more information?
A: Staff from the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Division of Subsistence, and the Boards Support Section are aware of these potential changes to the Board of Game's public input process.  Also, more information will be available on the Board of Game website at www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us.  Please feel free to contact: 
Kristy Tibbles, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Game (465-4110), or
Suzan Bowen, Regulatory Program Coordinator, Division of Wildlife (244-6475)

COMPARISON OF CURRENT TWO-YEAR CYCLE* AND PROPOSED THREE-YEAR CYCLE

*Statewide topics are currently on a four-year cycle. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------