Performance Details

Department of Fish and Game - Boards of Fisheries and Game

• Return to Departments
• Department of Fish and Game website

Mission

The Boards Support Section facilitates an effective board and public process for the state's fish and wildlife regulatory system.

Core Services

• Ensure citizens participating in the fish and game regulatory process have clear and helpful information in advance to engage effectively.
• Provide and support an environment for board members to make effective decisions.

Mission Results

Core Services

A: The State's fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations are developed through a high level of effective citizen participation.  Details > TARGET #1: Increase the percent of adopted proposals by the boards.

A1: Ensure citizens participating in the fish and game regulatory process have clear and helpful information in advance to engage effectively.  Details > TARGET #1: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle. A2: Provide and support an environment for board members to make effective decisions.  Details > TARGET #1: Provide a sufficient amount of time for board members to address proposals.

Performance Detail

Target #1: Increase the percent of adopted proposals by the boards. Boards Proposals Fiscal Year BOF Total Proposals BOG Total Proposals BOF Adopted Proposals BOG Adopted Proposals FY 2018 242 166 096 96 FY 2017 282 204 102 68 FY 2016 225 143 84 39 FY 2015 278 214 90 70 FY 2014 394 196 145 82 FY 2013 244 196 84 62 FY 2012 377 278 113 104 Analysis of results and challenges: Boards Support Section sets a goal of increasing the rate of proposal adoption by both boards. Over the past five fiscal years, the Board of Fisheries adopted an average 37 percent of its proposals, while the Board of Game averaged 33 percent. This includes proposals submitted by state and federal agencies, board generated proposals, and annual reauthorization proposals for the Board of Game. During FY2011-FY2015, the Board of Game was on a two year cycle, reviewing the same region, species, and uses every other year, three meetings per year In FY2016, the board transitioned into a three year cycle. FY2017 is the first meeting cycle with two regularly scheduled meetings per year – the Arctic/Western Region and the Interior-Northeast Arctic Region. Therefore, there are no previous meeting cycles exactly the same to compare with.. The Board of Game’s adoption rate or FY2018 is 28%. The Board of Fisheries takes up the same region, species, and uses on a three year cycle. In comparing like years of the meeting cycles, the total number of proposals for FY2018 decreased by 36 from FY2015, while the proposal adoption rate increased six percent to 39.6 percent. The topics of Board of Fisheries meetings in FY2015 and FY2018 were finfish for Prince William Sound Finfish, Southeast and Yakutat Shellfish and finfish, and Statewide Dungeness Crab, Shrimp, and Other Miscellaneous Shellfish. While it is a goal to increase the rate of proposal adoption, there are other important factors lending some uncertainty to an ideal “target” adoption rate. Agency proposals tend to be perfunctory in nature, ranging from clarifying management or enforcement language to improving the ability to manage within the plans. These proposals sustain a high adoption rate. Public proposals do not achieve nearly as high an adoption rate. Many proposals are duplicative or very similar. In these instances, board action on one proposal will lead to “no action” on other similar proposals. There are many other public proposals which express an opinion the board ultimately finds not in the best interest of the State. In these instances, although the proposal is not adopted, the individual or group had an important venue to further an idea and have it vetted in a public setting.

Target #1: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle. Public Comments Submitted to Boards Fiscal Year BOF Total Comments BOG Total Comments BOF per Proposals BOG per Proposals FY 2018 1685 +60.48% 1315 +72.57% 7 +89.19% 07.9 +113.51% FY 2017 1050 -13.22% 762 -0.52% 3.7 -31.48% 3.7 -31.48% FY 2016 1210 +24.87% 766 -7.04% 5.4 +54.29% 5.4 +42.11% FY 2015 969 -36.46% 824 +88.56% 3.5 -10.26% 3.8 +52% FY 2014 1525 +43.06% 437 -17.86% 3.9 -11.36% 2.5 -7.41% FY 2013 1066 +35.97% 532 -56% 4.4 +109.52% 2.7 -37.21% FY 2012 784 1209 2.1 4.3 Analysis of results and challenges: A goal of Boards Support Section is to continue to improve the channels of communication by the public to the boards. This has been achieved to some degree by improvements in an on-line comment system that has seen rapid growth in usage in the last few years. With each meeting cycle, the number of public comments is dependent on the status of the resources and its value to users, and the more contentious issues that occur with certain subjects. The Board of Game received 1,315 total comments for the FY2018 regulatory meetings and work session, with a comment to proposal ratio of 7.9 The number of comments submitted in FY2018 nearly doubled compared to the previous two fiscal years. During FY2018, the Board of Game’s meeting cycle included regulatory changes to statewide provisions. Some of the proposals considered during that meeting concerned some unusual topics such as possession of feral cats, removing domestic sheep and goats from the category of animals allowed to be owned in Alaska, and falconry regulations. These topics generated a significant number of comments from the public. The prior statewide regulatory provisions meeting in FY2016 had some of the same topics plus a proposal to modify the boundary for taking wolves near Denali National Park. The public comments for that meeting was close to half the number received for FY2018. The Board of Fisheries received a significant number of comments in FY2018, 60% more than FY2017. The Southeast and Yakutat Shellfish and Finfish meetings were heavily attended by stakeholders with several organized write-in efforts. There was also a special meeting called for a single issue for the Yakutat area that brought forward additional comments.

Target #1: Provide a sufficient amount of time for board members to address proposals. Methodology: Methodology: * Includes two days for the BOF work session and one teleconference, which are excluded in the number of proposals per day and included in the number of comments per day. ** Includes one day for the BOG work session and two teleconferences, which are excluded in the number of proposals per day and included in the number of comments per day. Number of Proposals and Comments per Board Meeting Day Fiscal Year BOF Meeting Days BOG Meeting Days BOF Comments/Mtg Day BOG Comments/Mtg Day BOF Proposals/Mtg Day BOG Proposals/Mtg Day FY 2018 26 -13.33% 19 +5.56% 65 +85.71% 69 +64.29% 10 0% 11 0% FY 2017 30 +11.11% 18 +63.64% 35 -22.22% 42 -40% 10 +11.11% 11 -21.43% FY 2016 27 +22.73% 11 -72.5% 45 +2.27% 70 +483.33% 9 -25% 14 +16.67% FY 2015 22 -35.29% 40 +122.22% 44 -2.22% 12 -50% 12 0% 12 +20% FY 2014 34 +30.77% 18 -5.26% 45 +9.76% 24 -20% 12 +33.33% 10 -9.09% FY 2013 26 -21.21% 19 0% 41 +70.83% 30 -53.13% 9 -18.18% 11 -26.67% FY 2012 33 19 24 64 11 15 Analysis of results and challenges: A final goal for Boards Support is to create an environment where board members have adequate time to review proposals, public input, and staff reports, and make informed and reasoned decisions. The trend over the past five meeting cycles shows the Board of Fisheries addressed 9 to 12 proposals per meeting day and the Board of Game addressed 9-14 proposals per meeting day. This held true in FY2018. In regards to public comments, the Board of Fisheries considered a range of 24-65 comments per meeting day, while the Board of Game considered a range of 24-77 comments per meeting day. The range of proposals is somewhat consistent while the range of comments can vary significantly which is attributed to the types of issues considered by the boards. FY2018’s level of public comment was considerably higher for both boards. The amount of days provided for the boards to complete their work is sufficient, yet intense. Both boards have large workloads during meetings. Meeting days last as long as 8 to 10 hours. The boards set their schedules prior to knowing the number of proposals before them. If the number of proposals increases over time, more meeting days will be needed in order for the boards to be able to make effective decisions. Continued budget reductions lead to a more demanding workload for board members, impacting their ability to carefully review comments and proposals prior to decisions.

Current as of October 23, 2018