Between March 21 and 28, 2025, the Statewide Board of Game Meeting will be held in Anchorage at the Egan Center. While the main public comment period for proposals has already passed, there is a public comment period in the first few days of the meeting, where oral testimonies and written comments may be given. Public comments are then closed and the BOG deliberates on all proposals.
This is an excellent opportunity to speak up for Alaska’s wildlife in person!
Head to the Board of Game Meeting website for all meeting documents, proposals, department comments, and the agenda. This website will be updated regularly throughout this week and next. We understand that many of you are new to the Board of Game process, and we hope the information below provides the information you need to get involved. Check out the video below for more information on the BOG process!
How to Give Public Testimony
On Friday, March 21, the Board will receive region and research-related reports presented by the Department of Fish and Game and then it will begin in-person, oral testimony. Public testimony will continue through March 22 and 23, until everyone who has signed up has been given the opportunity to be heard.
Anyone wishing to testify before the Board must sign up at the Egan Center in Anchorage before 10:00 AM on Saturday, March 22. You can also deliver a card or have someone submit a card for you to testify. Unfortunately, there is no remote testimony option— you must be in the room to speak.
If you want to only come one day, we recommend attending Friday morning and signing up ASAP to testify.
If you sign up to give public testimony, be ready to be at the meeting all day, as there is normally a long queue to speak. If you sign up towards the deadline on Saturday, you may not get called until Sunday morning. If you only can come to the meeting on one day, we recommend you attend Friday morning and submit your sign up card ASAP, as there is a good chance you’ll testify on Friday.
Oral testimony is usually limited to 3 minutes; we recommend having your remarks prepared or at least outlined, as the time moves quicker than most people realize. The Board seems to respond to testimony based on lived experiences, and we encourage folks to be respectful and speak from their hearts— this is the time to be a voice for wildlife.
Deliberations on the proposals will begin following public testimony and continue through the remainder of the meeting.
How to Submit a Public WRITTEN Comment
The general written comment deadline passed on March 7.
Written comments can also be submitted in person at the meeting, or via fax to 907-465-6098. Comments submitted during the meeting are limited to ten single-sided or five double-sided pages in length from any one individual or group. Comment submissions during the meeting will be logged with a record copy (“RC”) number, distributed to the board, and posted on the meeting page.
WHAT TO COMMENT ON
The most impactful comments are those that speak in favor of or opposition to specific proposals. Below are the top three proposals that AWA is keeping an eye on. For a full rundown of the proposals AWA is keeping an eye on, as well as speaking points on each for your comment, head to our Board of Game Proposals Action Alert.
Proposal 101: Add Dall sheep as a prey species under the Intensive Management statute: OPPOSE
This would include Dall sheep to the list of prey species on the Intensive Management statute, which already includes caribou, moose, and deer. This wouldn’t guarantee that sheep would be intensively managed, but recent BOG meetings and working groups record Department interest in enacting predator control on wolves and Golden eagles.
If Proposal 101 passes, the next steps would be for BOG to evaluate sheep populations to determine if there is a positive IM finding for a given population. If there is a positive IM finding, BOG would establish population and harvest objectives. Many of these objectives are best guesses about population “norms” and are often regarded as somewhat arbitrary.
Why we oppose:
We don’t think sheep qualify as a species that provides “high levels of human consumptive use”, and should not be in the same category as moose, deer, and caribou.
On average, hunters take 25,000 caribou, 10,000 deer, and 7,000 moose per year. Division of Subsistence surveys of harvest records show that the total sheep harvest, across 36 communities, is 266 per year. While sheep are important to some communities, the meat sheep hunting provides pales in comparison to the species originally identified in the statue: moose, deer, and caribou.
While Dall sheep produce great meat, they’re small and are often in areas that are difficult to get to. As ADFG notes: “these factors have limited sheep hunting to a relatively few, hardy individuals whose interest is more in the challenge and satisfaction of mountain hunting and the alpine experience than in getting food.”
Intensive Management has recently become synonymous with Predator Control, but predators aren’t the cause of sheep decline.
In management reports, the most frequent cause of sheep population decline is a loss of winter habitat and climate change, and weather. No research has indicated that Alaska’s sheep are declining because of predation.
This proposal would set a dangerous precedent if any hunted big game species can be characterized as providing “high levels of human consumptive use”. Mountain goats, musk ox, and bison could also be added, and the scope of IM was kept narrow on purpos3.
If BOG adopts this proposal, population objectives must be realistic for current and future conditions. The State and BOG have to recognize that sheep habitat is changing with the climate, and past objectives may not be attainable. BOG must wrestle with the costs to Alaskans and the State of enacting IM in areas where non-resident hunters account for a significant percentage of the sheep harvest. Is it ethical or sustainable management to enact IM so non-residents can have access to trophy sheep hunts?
Proposals 126, 127, and 128: Night Vision and Thermal Optic Use - OPPOSE
Proposals 126, 127, and 128 would allow the use of electronically enhanced night vision and forward-looking infrared devices (FLIR) for taking furbearers statewide.
Night vision goggles and FLIR devices allow trappers to more easily ID and locate animals through barriers such as snow and darkness. FLIR in particular detects infrared radiation emitted from a heat source and creates a picture instead of amplifying visible light. FLIR devices make it possible to detect the heat of animals against cooler backgrounds and are available in handheld cameras and cameras that can be attached to a smartphone, goggles, and rifle scopes.
At the 2016 Statewide Meeting, BOG adopted a proposal submitted by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers that prohibited the use of forward-looking infrared devices (FLIRs) for taking wildlife. Prior to the board adopting the proposal, only night vision scopes were prohibited.
Then, at the 2024 Interior Meeting, BOG adopted a proposal to allow the use of electronically enhanced night vision devices (not just goggles) and forward-looking infrared devices (FLIR) for taking furbearers in the Interior.
Surprisingly, ADFG supports this proposal, even though they’re normally neutral on methods and means and have had previous concerns about increased harvest with these technologies.
Why we oppose:
BOG previously proposed to prohibit the use of night vision and FLIR devices because of concerns about increased harvest. So, what changed?
The Interior proposal for FLIR was only passed in 2024, so we don’t have one full season’s worth of data to understand the impacts before it is proposed Statewide
AWA supports fair chase hunting principles. These technologies are not commonly allowed in hunting states, and when they are they rarely apply to all furbearers. This would be a massive change for Alaska, and an unusual one for the United States on the whole.
Proposal 147: The Department of Fish and Game proposes to have the BOG delegate its authors to manage 5 AAC 92.029, commonly referred to as the clean list, to the Commissioner - OPPOSE
This proposal is the second attempt at Governor Dunleavy’s 2024 Executive Order 124. The Executive Order faced broad opposition and was opposed by the legislature.
This proposal would allow the Commissioner of ADFG to manage the “clean list”, which contains all the mammal, bird, and reptile species that have been specifically approved for entry or possession in Alaska.
Why we oppose: Our position echoes what we submitted in comments against the Executive Order. Proposal 147 would have a substantial effect on the public process, and not a positive one.
Currently, the Board of Game puts out a call for proposals, ADFG analyzes and gives recommendations, there are public comments, and then BOG deliberations with all 7 members. The Commissioner simply drafts regulations, posts them on a system with an automated notice sent out to a list of recipients, and allows 30 days for public comment on the proposed regulations.
We understand the desire to streamline permitting for more responsive action on requests to import exotic species as potential food sources, particularly in remote communities, however:
Importing species not listed on the clean list carries an unknown but potentially substantial risk of disease or parasite transmission to native wildlife and domestic livestock
The risks are too important to bypass the more deliberative and open process of the BOG.
BOG may choose to delegate regulation of the live capture, possession, transport, or release of native or exotic game or their eggs to the commissioner to streamline individual permits (on a case-by-case basis) where disease risk and mitigation measures are clearly understood.
Other species (e.g., carnivores) should remain in the BOG process, particularly those posing a risk to public safety.
NEED SUPPORT?
AWA staff will be attending the meeting. Please reach out to nicole@akwildlife.org with any additional questions.
