During his 20 years as a member of the Alaska Board of Fisheries, Petersburg commercial fisherman John Jensen relied on a lifetime of experience harvesting salmon, crab and other shellfish as he voted on statewide fisheries regulations.
But he couldn’t always weigh in with his wisdom. Jensen couldn’t participate in the board’s deliberations on state management of fisheries in which he’d declared a conflict of interest.
A Kodiak legislator is looking to change that this year.
“I can’t begin to explain how frustrating it was to sit on the board when you have 150 proposals and you’re out of the discussion for 50 of them,” Jensen said during an interview with the Daily Sitka Sentinel on Feb. 17.
A bill pending in the Alaska Legislature would allow fishermen who serve on the Board of Fisheries to take part in board deliberations on regulations that may affect their fishing operations.
The bill would allow those members, as well as Alaska Board of Game members, to deliberate, debate and discuss with their colleagues at the table — but not vote — on proposals that could affect them personally or financially.
Members would continue to be prohibited from voting on proposals in which they have declared a conflict of interest, which would be a personal decision based on each board member’s financial or family interests.
Lawmakers supporting the bill say it would encourage more meaningful, informed participation by members of the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game.
The measure, House Bill 33, won approval in the House of Representatives last year on a 28-12 vote and is awaiting action by its final committee in the Senate.
A version of the bill has existed since 2008 but never passed. It came after the Legislature in 2007 passed a law prohibiting all public officers — including Board of Fisheries and Board of Game members — from giving “advice, participation or assistance” in instances when they have a conflict of interest.
Both boards consist of seven Alaskans appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. Each meets about five times a year to consider regulatory changes and make allocative decisions about Alaska’s fish and wildlife populations.
Jensen served on the Board of Fisheries from 2003 to 2023.
He recalls that in his first few years on the board he could ask questions about proposals to change regulations for fisheries he participated in. He also could share his ideas about those proposals. He would voluntarily abstain from voting in those instances.
“Now you just have to sit on your thumb during the meeting,” Jensen said of the changes that came after 2007.
For most of his time on the board, Jensen was the only member from Southeast. He said the other Alaska members may have benefited from his informed opinions.
“They’d be confused, asking questions of (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) staff, and I’d just be sitting there, not allowed to say anything,” Jensen said. “It was horrible. … It went away from what the board book says, to provide your expertise.”
Kodiak Rep. Louise Stutes, who sponsored HB33, said during a Senate committee hearing on Feb. 17 that HB33 would allow board members to best utilize their expertise in developing fishing and hunting regulations.
“Allowing members with the expertise to deliberate will make the boards more informed, lead to stronger resource management statewide and align the process with intent, as far as the boards benefiting from the members’ knowledge and diversity of viewpoints,” Stutes said.
“It will also encourage more qualified applicants to put their name forward (for board appointment) if they know they can contribute in conversation and not be conflicted out,” she said.
Jensen noted that in recent years, fewer commercial fishermen have served on the Board of Fisheries.
“When I first got on there, there were three commercial, three sport fishermen and one from a mixed background,” Jensen said. “They don’t have the broad representation anymore.”
Sportfishing organizations are the main opponents of the bill.
The bill passed out of the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee on Feb. 17, moving to the Senate Resources Committee. A vote by the full Senate could come next.
“We’ve gotten it further this year than we’ve ever gotten it, so there’s potential,” Stutes said.
This story was originally published by the Daily Sitka Sentinel.