Anyone experienced in hiring and evaluating employees knows well the saying, “The best indicator of future performance is past performance”. In this year’s gubernatorial race voters are in the unusual position of being able to evaluate one of the candidates based on his record of past performance. So it is important for us to review that record and see if we want to repeat it. As far as wildlife and resource management is concerned, here are a few issues where the record is clear.

Tony Knowles became governor in 1994 at a pivotal time in Alaska’s history, especially with regard to wildlife management and state sovereignty. At that time Alaska was pursuing two key court cases that sought to limit intrusion by the federal government into state management of wildlife and fisheries. These cases were the Babbitt Case and the Katie John Case.

In the Babbitt Case, previous state administrations had sought to challenge the constitutionality of the federally imposed “rural” subsistence preference and the creation of the Federal Subsistence Board. The “rural” preference had already been ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Within a few weeks of taking office, governor Knowles decided to drop the Babbitt Case with prejudice (meaning the state could never pursue it again).

Thus, the governor agreed to abide by a federal provision that was not only contrary to the state constitution but guaranteed the perpetuation of dual management of fish and game and the current hopelessly inefficient decision making system we all are forced to endure today. However, in early 1997, Knowles assured Alaskans that he would pursue the Katie John case and try to retain state management of fisheries. Seven years later, shortly before leaving office the governor changed his mind and dropped the case just as the U. S. Supreme Court was about to hear it.

Although it was a great personal victory for Katie John, the decision to drop the Katie John appeal was pure political expediency (Knowles was planning to run for the US Senate) and the long term damage to state management of fisheries in Alaska, and potentially in other states, will haunt us for years to come. Most legal scholars believed that Alaska could have prevailed in both cases and wins in either or both would have strengthened the traditional doctrine of state wildlife management as a public trust. So, in the upcoming campaign for governor, keep in mind that whatever Tony Knowles says about state management, by dropping these two key court cases he has already “sold the farm”.

Predator management has always been, and will always be, a thorny issue for any governor. Since 1970 all governors, except Jay Hammond, could not resist becoming directly involved in controversial wildlife management decisions. Other governors could have learned from Hammond, but most did not. Hammond appointed good, qualified people as Commissioners and Board members and gave them the support they needed to make difficult decisions based on science, public input, and reason. In that way, Hammond reduced the level of controversy and helped ensure professional management of fish and game.

Tony Knowles, on the other hand, took a very different approach. Although he generally appointed good, qualified people as Commissioners and Board members, he was seldom content to allow the process to work. The governor’s office frequently pressured the Commissioner of ADF&G, individual Board members and the entire Board of Game to change decisions and votes on controversial issues like predator management in Units 19 and 20A, the Denali wolf buffer, and McNeil/Paint River bear management. Knowles forced ADF&G to spend over $300,000 on a review of predator management by the National Research Council. Although the review had value, and contained valid criticisms of previous predator control programs, it largely confirmed conclusions already reached by ADF&G biologists. Knowles also used it for the larger political purpose of delaying any meaningful predator management for several years.

During the late 1990s, in meetings with people in the upper Kuskokwim villages of Nikolai and McGrath, governor Knowles and Commissioner Rue, promised help with chronically low moose harvests. However, they delayed action for several years by convening endless meetings of working groups including an “Adaptive Management Team”. After the team recommended aerial wolf hunting in a small area around McGrath, Knowles was apparently looking for excuses to cancel the program. A single moose survey that showed higher moose numbers than a previous survey done under poor conditions was the excuse used. In this way the governor used “science” for his own political agenda (no lethal wolf control) and left the people of McGrath and Nikolai hanging.

The issue of low moose harvests was never corrected until Frank Murkowski took over as governor. Ask people in McGrath what they think of wildlife management under Tony Knowles and stand back. You’ll either get an earful or a look of disbelief at the question. So, in the upcoming campaign, if you hear Tony Knowles talk about “good science” in wildlife management, think of how it was used on the people along the Kuskokwim.

One of the most unbelievable acts of direct political interference occurred during the governor’s first year in office. Because of controversy surrounding a Hickel administration wolf control program in Unit 20A (after a poorly snared wolf was filmed by Gordon Haber), governor Knowles ordered a review of the program and procedures by the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection (FWP). The investigator charged with the review found no wrongdoing by ADF&G technicians and biologists. However, the governor’s office forced FWP to change the original report to impugn those involved in ADF&G.

Because the original investigator refused to change his report, the governor’s office directed someone else to rewrite the report, and punished the original investigator by pressuring him to retire early. When asked to produce the original report, the governor’s office claimed that it had been deleted “by accident”. The controversy and probing questions by reporters finally led to meetings between ADF&G and FWP and a final, more objective analysis of the program was eventually produced. However, the original meddling and subsequent cover up should have been grounds for a criminal investigation. So, in the upcoming campaign, if you hear Tony Knowles talk about “integrity” or “open government” think about how he treated the professional state employees under him in this case.

Although we have no way of knowing yet how Sarah Palin will react to controversial issues once she becomes governor, so far, her answers to questions on state management of fish and game and predator management are encouraging. Sarah Palin has said that she will work to provide adequate funding for ADF&G, restore the Habitat division and the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, work to regain state management authority, and support professional management of fish and game. Those are encouraging words indeed.