Saving Seafood

ALASKA: Salmon measure suffers resounding defeat. What happened?

November 9, 2018 — A ballot measure aimed at protecting salmon habitat received a resounding defeat in the statewide general election Tuesday.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday afternoon, Ballot Measure 1, commonly known as Stand for Salmon, held only 35.2 percent of Alaska’s vote, with 61.6 percent voting against.

In a state where everyone loves salmon, why did voters reject Ballot Measure 1 by such a large margin?

Measure co-sponsor Mike Wood, a Mat-Su carpenter and set net fisherman, was in good spirits when reached by phone Wednesday. The measure started a conversation, Wood said. Alaskans now talk about updating fish habitat permitting law. The existence of that discourse means that, though the measure fell, it “fell forward,” Wood said.

“Salmon now have a seat at the table, instead of just being on the platter,” as Wood put it.

Money played a big factor in the loss, Wood said.

The coffers behind the principal group supporting the measure, Yes for Salmon — Yes on 1, paled in comparison to that of industry-led opposition group Stand for Alaska — Vote No on One. Measure opponents raised $12 million in cash and in-kind contributions, according to the latest report from the Alaska Public Offices Commission. About half of that money came from a group of six oil and mining companies, which donated $1 million each. Stand for Salmon proponents had only $1.7 million to work with, according to the last APOC report before the election.

Read the full story at the Juneau Empire

Alaska: Salmon ballot measure proponents fight back after legislative hearing

July 26, 2018 — Proponents of the pro-fisheries Ballot Measure 1 are fighting back after a Friday legislative hearing that saw state officials discuss the costs and consequences of the proposal.

“It was just a way for industry and for a state government that doesn’t approve of this initiative to kind of torpedo it,” sponsor Mike Wood said by phone about the hearing. “That kind of bums me out.”

Wood, who was filleting salmon strips, spoke three days after the Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee held a four-hour meeting discussing the measure. During the presentation, state officials said Ballot Measure 1 would cost millions of dollars, lengthen the permitting process for some construction projects, and make larger projects impossible.

The measure would “make it nearly impossible to permit the Alaska LNG project,” Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Andy Mack told the Senate State Affairs Committee, referring to the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.

“That is total bull—-,” Wood said.

Asked whether he thought the presentations were overly pessimistic, he said, “absolutely, without a doubt.”

Lindsey Bloom, a Juneau-based commercial fisherwoman and state policy director for SalmonState (a group supporting the intiative), said by email that Alaska’s seafood industry, particularly the salmon industry, is a multibillion-dollar per-year industry worthy of protection and preservation.

Read the full story at the Juneau Empire

 

Will the fish habitat ballot proposal prod Alaska lawmakers to pass a similar bill? Don’t count on it.

January 30, 2018 — JUNEAU, Ala. — Opponents of a citizens initiative to boost protections for salmon habitat have a path to adapt the proposal to better suit them: helping pass a similar bill through the Alaska Legislature, which would render the initiative void.

The largely Democratic House majority last week introduced a new version of its legislation, House Bill 199, that could serve as that vehicle. Both proposals would create new permitting systems for projects that would affect fish habitat.

But the initiative’s pro-development opponents say they’re not exactly thrilled by HB 199 either.

And they’re making no promises to try to transform it into a compromise measure that could permit resource-development projects while still achieving some of the habitat protections that supporters want.

“These solutions have to be to problems that actually exist,” said Soldotna Republican Sen. Peter Micciche, a Cook Inlet commercial salmon fisherman who also works for ConocoPhillips. “The Senate majority doesn’t recognize, at this point, that there’s a gap.”

The state elections division has not yet placed the initiative on the ballot. Yet it’s already proven polarizing, and its legality is also being challenged in the Alaska Supreme Court.

The initiative is backed by an array of conservation groups that have teamed with three sponsors: Mike Wood, a Cook Inlet commercial setnet fisherman; Gayla Hoseth, a tribal chief from the Bristol Bay region; and Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, an Anchorage ecologist and fisheries advocate.

The supporters say Alaska’s permitting standards are outdated and wouldn’t provide adequate fish protections if proposed megaprojects such as dams, coal export projects, and the Pebble mine near Bristol Bay are ultimately built. The eight-page initiative would create a two-level permitting system with more stringent rules, like requiring that developers avoid or minimize damage to fish habitat or promise to clean up damage caused by projects.

The initiative has raised $300,000, with support from conservation groups like Homer-based Cook Inletkeeper, Virginia-based Trout Unlimited, the Oregon-based Wild Salmon Center and New Venture Fund, a left-leaning nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., according to filings with state campaign finance regulators.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News