I always thought Robb Miller had an interesting perspective on things when he served as the advisor for the Governor’s Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing and Conservation.
But that doesn’t mean I always agreed.
Miller, who recently retired from the post, aired a bit of dirty laundry in an essay highlighting what he perceives as problems with the way appointments are made to the Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission boards.
The appointment process is one that Miller oversaw through two administrations – Rendell and Wolf – so I find it odd that he’s just now making his concerns public.
Anyhow, according to his essay, Miller believes the appointment process for commissioners doesn’t work because it fails to produce boards that represent the changing demographic of hunters and anglers in the state. Specifically, Miller points out there has never been an African-American or Hispanic appointed to either board.
While Miller believes this is a problem, it’s one that’s impossible to quantify. First, we don’t know how many African-American or Hispanic candidates applied for vacant board seats over the years. There aren’t any minorities on either board, but how many have ever applied to fill past vacancies? If highly-qualified minorities were applying and they were ranked at the top after the interview process – yet weren’t nominated for appointment by the governor – then yes, that’s a problem. But I’m not aware of that happening and Miller, having served under Rendell and Wolf, never brought such an occurrence to light.
But what about Miller’s claim that past PGC and PFBC boards “didn’t properly represent a rapidly changing demographic?” The truth is, we don’t know what that demographic looks like or even if it’s changing. The Game Commission keeps track of license-buyers by gender, but not race. It’s the same with Fish and Boat. If the number of African-American and Hispanic hunters and anglers is unknown, there’s no way to accurately determine what the overall demographic is, and if the board makeup fails to represent it.
Miller also believes that the boards don’t reflect the number of women in the state who hunt or fish. He may have a point.
Two women have served on the PGC board, Miller wrote, and three women have been appointed to the PFBC board over time.
As a result, he alleges, both agencies suffered.
“Hunters were aging out, new recruits to the activity dried up, and while more single moms were taking up fishing with their kids, the board charged with representing anglers didn’t recognize the change in a timely manner,” Miller wrote.
But there’s a contradiction in that statement. If more single moms were taking up fishing with their kids, despite the fact the PFBC had very few female commissioners in its history, it tells me that women don’t care who is on the board. If they want to take up fishing, they’re going to do it regardless of who sits on the board.
The gender and race of commission members has little to no bearing on if women, African-Americans, Hispanics or anyone else is going to take up hunting or fishing. Most people don’t even know who their commissioner is, and to think the makeup of a board directly influences the demographics of hunters and anglers is a silly notion.
Still, there’s another contradiction in Miller’s essay that deflates his entire argument.
The old system of appointing commissioners was dictated by bartering between the Senate and the sitting governor as they lobbied for their preferred candidate, he suggested.
Miller said this process resulted in boards comprised of “older white men who weren’t necessarily appointed for their wildlife or aquatic resource science acumen.”
Not only is such an accusation insulting to past and present commissioners who volunteer an enormous amount of time to the boards, it also highlights the fallacy of Miller’s argument.
In essence, Miller is alleging that past boards were made up of commissioners who were white guys that knew someone, like a senator or even the governor. They got their seats based on who they knew, and not what they knew.
But Miller is pushing for the exact same approach by urging that race and gender be considered in future appointments. The very process that Miller is denouncing is the one he wants to see utilized today. What he’s saying is the appointments should be based on something other than merit and qualifications. While he contends that past board members got their seats because they knew someone, Miller is also suggesting that today’s candidates receive their appointments based on their race or gender.
What happened to “wildlife or aquatic resource science acumen?”
To stray from merit when it comes to filling vacant board seats can damage our game and fish agencies unlike anything else. We need candidates who are knowledgeable about the agency, the resource and the constituents.
Basing nominations on anything but merit sends a disheartening message to the minority candidates – there are six, according to Miller – who are currently in the running for a nomination. I’ve heard some of the names and they seem to be highly qualified. To make the appointment based not on their hard-earned qualifications but on their race or gender would be an insult.
The problem with Miller’s argument is he believes there’s a racial inequality issue, or a gender gap, when it comes to hunting and fishing. In reality, there’s nothing more inclusive than hunting and fishing. Deer perceive every hunter, regardless of skin color, as a threat and trout don’t care if it’s a man or woman casting a baited hook.
Race and gender aren’t an issue in the woods or on the water. We shouldn’t make it an issue on the PGC and PFBC boards, either.
- This column originally appeared in PA Outdoor News
