It took a while after I started covering the state Game, Fish & Parks Commission back in the late 1970s for me to appreciate its wisely designed balance.
But I soon came to understand and admire the commission design: No more than four of the eight members could be of the same political party. At least four had to be actual farmers who made the bulk of their livings off crop and livestock production. And five had to be from the more populated East River while three came from West River.
Beyond the stated requirements, it was presumed and generally followed closely by previous governors in their appointments to the commission that the four non-farm-ranch members would represent the urban perspective. It doesn’t say that in law. And I guess a governor could simply ignore tradition and appoint more than the minimum of four farm-ranch representatives. But so far, governors have maintained the balanced pretty well. I hope that continues.
And it’s not just a rural-urban balance. It has long been presumed that the urban commissioners will an urban sportsman’s perspective. And as more and more women joined the hunting and fishing community, that also included the sportswoman’s perspective.
The people who pay the bills at GF&P, basically.
From the urban point of view
It didn’t say “sportsman” in the law, but it was obvious in practice and presumed in intent. And in my experience through more than 40 years of covering the commission, dedicated sportsmen were carefully chosen for those spots, with a few exceptions.
Jeremiah Murphy was one of those. He hunted some in group events, but it would have been a stretch to call him a sportsman. And when he was appointed by Gov. Bill Janklow back in the 1980s, it caused a bit of a fuss.
Murphy was a smart and savvy lawyer from Sioux Falls and an influential lobbyist in Pierre. He was also a good friend and political supporter of Janklow. So there were plenty of skeptics when he joined the board. I had some questions myself, and I knew and liked Murphy.
But over time, the wealthy lawyer from the city with the impeccable attire and impressive portfolio proved to be an able student of wildlife conservation who learned fast, listened close, and developed a sportsmen’s perspective through commission experience that he might not have otherwise had.
He never forgot where he lived, or the thousands of Sioux Falls sportsmen and sportswomen who loved to hunt and fish. They had his ear. And Murphy sought to honor his responsibility to provide a non-farm voice and perspective to GF&P issues. And I think he did.
But he would have been one of the few “urban” commission members back in the day who had a steep learning curve in hunting and fishing. Most were well versed and well experienced in the hook-and-bullet sports.
A diverse blend of opinions and experiences
Put them in with four landowners — farmers and/or ranchers — many of whom also liked to hunt and fish, throw politics out the window and you had a commission set up to make good decisions for the right reasons.
It didn’t always do that. But it was set up to do it. And it did more than it didn’t.
A rancher from Cedar Butte has a different perspective and experiences outdoors than a lawyer from Sioux Falls, and a dentist from Rapid City has a different perspective than a farmer from Cavour.
And any of them might have a slightly different perspective depending on their political affiliation.
So it worked and works. Really quite well.
This brings us to the 2021 South Dakota Legislature, HB 1115, and an apparent effort to dismantle the wisely constructed balance of the commission.
It’s a pretty simple bill, with pretty obvious intent and likely results. In removes this part of existing law: “No more than four of the game, fish and parks commissioners may be members of the same political party…”
It has been a long time here in South Dakota since “members of the same party” in law has meant anything but “members of the Republican Party” in practice with gubernatorial appointments. Not since the mid-1970s has there been a Democrat in the governor’s chair to make an appointment to the GF&P commission.
And who knows how long it will be until there is again?
It complicates appointments but benefits the outdoors
So I suppose some Republicans, perhaps including the one in the governor’s office right now, might see the need for a change. The Democratic Party in South Dakota is badly depleted in power — just 11 of 105 state legislators are Democrats — and shrinking in registered voters, so why give the party more standing in commission appointments than its numbers deserve?
And supporters of the bill can argue that all these stipulations in law make it difficult to select the best appointees when geography, occupation, and political party all have to fit.
Add to that the reality that in the last 30 years or so there has been increased emphasis on assuring at least a couple of commissioners are women, as they should be, and it can be a challenge to fill spots. I suppose.
But the challenge is worth it.
Taking away the political limitation would make selecting commissioners easier. It would also give the governor more opportunities to repay campaign donors and friends with a spot on one of the most coveted boards or commissions in state government.
I can see why Gov. Kristi Noem might be interested in doing that. And I can see why Republican legislators might agree. I just don’t think it’s a good idea, beyond GOP political calculus.
There’s more to political balance than two parties
It’s not just a Republican-Democrat thing. Yes, the Republican Party in South Dakota is the super, supermajority of the two major parties. The GOP had 279,923 registered voters in the state on Feb. 1, while the Democratic Party had just 158,698.
But there were also 140,272 South Dakotans registered on Feb. 1 as either independent or having no party preference. Together with Democrats, that’s more than the registered Republican total.
There doesn’t have to be four Republicans and four Democrats on the commission. There can be four Republicans, two Democrats, and two independents, or whatever other combination works.
Of course, that doesn’t solve the issue of paying back friends and donors with a sweet GF&P appointment. But it does keep diversity on the commission, and maintain a practical tradition that has served the state and especially the outdoors very well over generations.
It works. It doesn’t need to be changed. I hope it won’t be.
