The Alaska Board of Fisheries needs to change its policy of meeting only in the state's largest cities and reconsider its decision to hold its January meeting on upper Cook Inlet issues in Anchorage, not Soldotna.
While it's true Cook Inlet issues and user groups extend far beyond the boundaries of the Kenai Peninsula, it is peninsula communities, residents and economies that will be most affected by the board's decisions in January. These decisions aren't just about fish ‹ they are about lives and livelihoods. They affect the quality of life of people who have never picked up a rod and reel, of people who don't know the difference between a silver and a king.
No matter where the board meets, it is difficult for most people to take off work to sit through almost two weeks of meetings. That's why the meetings should be held where the decisions will have the broadest reach. In this case, that's the Kenai Peninsula.
The majority of board members failed to recognize there is a compelling reason to stray from the board's policy of not meeting outside the state's largest cities. That compelling reason is the contentious nature of the longstanding conflicts between the various user groups. The board needs to meet where those groups are. When it comes to Cook Inlet issues that means the central peninsula.
Unfortunately, the Kenai River Sportfishing Association inflamed the conflicts by throwing a red herring to the board and calling it a concern for security.
"After what happened in the 2000 meeting in Soldotna, several members of our organization who live outside of Soldotna question whether or not their physical security can be guaranteed if the 2005 meeting once again happens in Soldotna," wrote the executive director of the sportfishing association in an Aug. 11 letter to fish board members.
That's a slap in the face to the entire community. One of the best things about living on the peninsula is how safe and secure it is. Visitors comment on residents' hospitality. Surely no one thinks Anchorage is a safer place to live or hold a meeting. Can the Board of Fisheries guarantee the safety and security of all members of the public whether the board meets in Soldotna or Anchorage? Of course not.
The irony is no one, including KRSA, seems very concerned about the security of thousands of anglers who come to Soldotna to fish every summer. No one seems overly worried about the security of the rich, famous and powerful who descend on the Kenai River every July at the behest of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association to take part in the group's Kenai River Classic. How does KRSA guarantee the safety and security of its Classic participants? Maybe they could offer the Board of Fisheries a few pointers.
Our recollection of the 1999 fish board meeting in Soldotna (we don't recall a 2000 meeting) doesn't include people's lives being put in jeopardy. After all, the meetings were held almost directly across from the Soldotna detachment of the Alaska State Troopers
That's not to say the meetings didn't and won't get heated. It's also not to excuse any inappropriate behavior. All user groups need to put their best diplomatic skills to good use during these meetings.
Having said that, the fish board should make it a policy to meet in the hot spots of controversy. The process may not always be pretty, but it certainly isn't dangerous. On the contrary, it's the healthiest ‹ make that, safest ‹ way we know to get the best decisions possible.
It's too bad that too many players in the Cook Inlet fisheries seem to have a win-lose mentality. As long as their side "wins," life is good. Let their side "lose," and everyone is to blame.
The focus needs always to be on the best way to ensure sustainable runs of all the fish and to protect fish habitat.
The Board of Fisheries will get a clearer picture of upper Cook Inlet issues by meeting in Soldotna. At the very least, the board should arrange to take public testimony on the central Kenai Peninsula. The board has nothing to fear ‹ except excluding people from the public process.
