Connect with us

Alaska

As the commercial salmon season opens, some Alaska fishermen fear for their futures

Published

on

As the commercial salmon season opens, some Alaska fishermen fear for their futures


HOMER — On a brilliant spring morning, Buck Laukitis, a longtime fisherman from this Kenai Peninsula town, stood at the city dock watching his catch come ashore.

Crew members aboard Laukitis’ boat, the Oracle, filled bags with dozens of halibut — some of the fatter ones worth $200 or more — which a crane would lift to the dock. There, processing workers on a small slime line weighed the fish, tossed crushed ice into the gills and slid them into boxes for shipment to Canada.

Harvest, unload, sell, repeat — exactly how the iconic Alaska commercial fishing industry is supposed to work. Until you ask Laukitis about the Oracle’s sister vessel, the Halcyon.

Advertisement

Instead of fishing for another species, black cod, like it’s built for, the Halcyon is tied up at the dock.

For Laukitis to make money, processing companies would need to pay $2.50 for each pound of black cod delivered to a plant. But right now, buyers aren’t paying much more than $1.50, he said.

With Laukitis on the dock last month were his young grandkids and adult daughters — fishermen who run a popular brand called the Salmon Sisters.

Those generations, he said, were on his mind as a sharp downturn in Alaska’s fishing industry continues looming over his livelihood. Some say that the crisis, driven by an array of market forces and economic factors outside fishermen’s control, is the biggest for the industry since statehood.

“We’re trying to do multi-generation fishing,” Laukitis said. “But believe me: It keeps me up at night, wondering about the future.”

Advertisement

Roughly a year into the downturn, with the major summer harvest of salmon just starting, there are some signs of recovery. Some fishermen say they managed to turn profits even after last year’s plunge in prices. And startup businesses are launching new models for processing that they say could help boost the quality and value of Alaska’s catch.

But major threats persist, many of which fishermen feel powerless to affect — posing existential risks to a $6 billion industry that employs more than 15,000 Alaskans.

Industry and state elected leaders say they expect Russia to continue selling huge quantities of fish into global markets, undercutting the prices of Alaska’s harvests — which also have to compete with farmed fish.

Inflation and high borrowing costs are hammering processing companies, which typically take out huge loans to buy supplies and stage workers and equipment at the start of each summer salmon season. Plants and whole processing businesses have shuttered around the state, while others are putting assets up for sale.

Then there’s the long-term uncertainty that comes with global warming, which appears to be boosting some fish populations but disrupting others.

Advertisement

Fishermen who have made big investments in recent years now own permits that could be worth a fraction of the purchase price.

Permits to participate in the typically lucrative Bristol Bay salmon fishery were going for $260,000 two years ago; now they’re selling for $140,000.

Many skippers face steep startup costs for the summer season without much confidence that their harvest will pay off. Some who are nearing retirement are having to postpone those plans until they can sell their boats and permits at higher prices.

“There are people who literally cannot afford to go fishing. They’re going to be paying money out of their own pocket to deliver their fish pretty soon,” said Maddie Lightsey, who brokers sales of permits and boats at her family business in Homer. “But they also can’t afford to sell, because the market has crashed and come down so far that they’re dramatically upside down on their loans.”

Most Alaska fishermen are in the business for the long haul, not for short-term investment returns. But some, like 41-year-old Erik Velsko, are starting to hedge their bets.

Advertisement

Velsko, another longtime Homer fisherman, is training to be a ship’s pilot, in case his chosen career doesn’t work out. Others said they’re looking at jobs in health care and aboard state ferries.

“That’s how much faith I have in, at least, the fisheries we’re doing,” Velsko said. “It was pretty good, for quite a while.”

‘Nothing to fall back on’

The industry turmoil first started generating big headlines after last summer’s Bristol Bay salmon harvest, when processing companies announced they would pay fishermen per-pound prices that were roughly half of the previous year’s.

The prices, which prompted vehement protests from fishermen, were the lowest in two decades, and they could end up being the lowest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

But the focus on salmon has, to a degree, overshadowed that the crisis is broader, covering an array of other species.

Advertisement

Among the biggest problems is pollock — a whitefish harvested in huge quantities in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. It’s sold into markets in Asia, Europe and the U.S. to make products like fish sticks, fried fish sandwiches and imitation crab.

Many of Alaska’s big processing companies depend on revenue from consistent, multi-season harvests of pollock to smooth out the short, frenetic summer salmon season.

But processors say that huge increases in aggressively low-priced sales of pollock products from Russia — particularly of surimi, the fish paste used to make fake crab — are crowding them out of the market, especially in Asia and Europe.

Processors say they’re also facing increased competition from Russia-caught salmon, and from farm-raised fish. Other species, like black cod, are also fetching rock-bottom prices — meaning that even fishermen who have diversified into multiple species aren’t insulated from the chaos.

“There’s nothing to fall back on. Everything, across the board, is in trouble,” Lightsey said. “This is different from other downturns in that way.”

Advertisement

Other dynamics that processors say are limiting the prices they can pay for fish include a historically low value of the Japanese yen against the U.S. dollar. That’s limited the demand for Alaska products in a country that’s often been a huge market.

Inflation and sharply rising borrowing costs in the past two years are also big problems.

Processing companies often take out loans of tens of millions of dollars at the start of each salmon season — money for buying empty cans and plastic, flying workers to remote plants and funding preseason boat upgrades, insurance policies and other necessities for the skippers who sell them fish.

“You had interest rates go up by three times,” said Rob Gillam, whose McKinley financial and research businesses have studied and invested in the Alaska seafood industry in recent years. “At the same time, what we can sell the fish for is going down, not up.”

Wages for processing workers, like for those in other industries, have also spiked. At a news conference last month, Joe Bundrant, the chief executive of the huge processing company Trident Seafoods, said labor costs have risen by 240% in the past five years, with diesel fuel prices also rising sharply in the same period.

Advertisement

“All the while that the Russians were weaponizing their seafood industry against us, we’ve seen unprecedented cost increases,” said Bundrant. His company is based in Seattle but has operated 11 plants in Alaska — four of which Trident put up for sale last year.

Deferred loans and deepening debts

Processing companies’ woes trickle down to skippers and crew, since fishermen depend on the prices those businesses can pay for their catch. Some of the same trends hitting the processing companies, like inflation, are also affecting fishermen directly.

In interviews, numerous Homer fishermen said they’re facing steep increases in the cost of insuring their boats for the summer salmon season. Jennifer Hakala, whose husband runs a boat in Bristol Bay, said the price of insurance for this year’s six-week fishery spiked to $8,000 from $5,000 in 2023.

To survive, some fishermen are deferring loan payments or taking on more debt. Others, like Hakala, are getting creative.

Typically, her husband hires two deckhands to help on the boat, but this year, they’re depending on their 16-year-old son, and Hakala, who manages a Homer marine supply store, will help out, too.

Advertisement

“I’m going to fly in on the peak and help them finish off the year — and hopefully we make our boat payment,” she said, referring to the yearly amount that’s due on the loan the family took out to buy their vessel.

Most fishermen in Kodiak have been able to get through the past year without contemplating difficult decisions like bankruptcy, according to Danielle Ringer, a fisherman and fisheries scholar from Homer who’s now based on Kodiak Island.

She’s heard of some skippers who have been working as crew members in fisheries they don’t normally participate in. Others are thinking about working construction instead of taking the risk of gearing up their boat for this coming summer.

“It could be OK,” Ringer said. “But not if it’s a couple more seasons like last year.”

Ringer said she’s seen support coming from the state and federal governments for large and small seafood processing companies.

Advertisement

Those programs are legitimate, Ringer said, but she’d also like to see more support for individual fishermen, too — ideas like direct aid, or loan forbearance. She endorsed concepts being discussed by policymakers to create new programs modeled on federal supports for agriculture.

“For healthy fisheries and healthy communities, you need all of these different aspects,” she said. “Even if government folks and others are interested in supporting fishermen, I think there are still questions about how to do that the right way.”

Not all bad news

While many Alaska fishermen are struggling, others say they have managed to stay profitable — and that they see bright spots ahead.

Last year, Homer resident Scotty Switzer and his three crew members all made money fishing off Kodiak Island, where big runs of salmon made up for the low price they were paid.

“I’m just grateful to have made something,” said Switzer, 36. “Getting into this industry, I knew there were going to be ups and downs.”

Advertisement

Switzer took on hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to acquire his permit, boat and other assets, and he’s still deeply in debt. But, like other fishermen working on their boats in the Homer harbor, he said he’s not feeling too anxious about his future.

“Probably should, could,” he said. “But, I’m in it now.”

For the upcoming season, one processing company, seeking to reassure fishermen, has already announced its minimum price for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon. Silver Bay Seafoods, one of the biggest Alaska processing companies, says it will pay a minimum of 80 cents a pound, a significant bump from the 50-cent minimum it paid last year.

Meanwhile, two startup companies, Northline Seafoods and Circle Seafoods, are hoping to revolutionize the industry’s traditional freezing and salmon processing methods — thereby fetching higher prices from consumers.

Typically, processors send big boats known as tenders to collect salmon from fishermen, then motor the catch back to plants on shore, where workers are flown each summer to handle the fish and operate equipment. Delays in pickup and delivery — and sometimes less-than-meticulous handling and chilling by fishermen — can translate into lower-quality fillets.

Advertisement

The two companies will park new, floating factory barges directly on or near the fishing grounds, reducing the amount of transit time once salmon are caught.

Once full of whole, frozen fish, the barges will be taken back to Washington state, where the salmon will be processed throughout the offseason without requiring workers to take expensive flights to rural Alaska plants.

“We’re trying to turn it into a manufactured good, as opposed to this seasonal rush of production that’s cut by temporary seasonal workers who have never seen a fish before,” said Charlie Campbell, Circle Seafoods’ co-founder. His company has raised $36 million from investors, loans and federal tax credits, he said.

A ‘bigger, more systematic downturn’

Alaska’s congressional delegation, led by Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, has also been chipping away at the problems of Russian pollock and salmon exports.

While the U.S. banned imports of Russian seafood in 2022, a loophole allowed those harvests to continue entering America if they’d been processed in China or other countries.

Advertisement

Sullivan and other Alaska elected officials successfully pressured the Biden administration to fix that problem in December; he’s also appealed directly to European Union and Asian allies to consider tighter Russian import restrictions of their own.

“When the U.S. government moves in a coordinated fashion, it can get things done,” Sullivan said. “If we got international cooperation from the EU and Japan, there’s no doubt it would stabilize prices.”

Beyond pollock and salmon, there are reasons to be hopeful about the medium- and long-term prospects for two other key Alaska species, halibut and black cod, said Norm Pillen, president of the fishermen-owned Seafood Producers Cooperative, a small processor based in Sitka.

But the near-term is less promising, with continuing low prices and high borrowing and shipping costs, he added. Sitka fishermen are also nervous about a conservation group’s request to have the federal government list Gulf of Alaska king salmon under the Endangered Species Act.

“We’re going to have another tough year to get through,” Pillen said.

Advertisement

Back on the Homer dock, Laukitis, the boat owner, said that last year, he thought the turmoil in the Alaska fishing industry would be short-lived, like other dips that participants have had to periodically endure over the years.

Now, he sees it differently — as a “bigger, more systematic downturn” that’s landing directly on fishermen. Processing companies may not be able to control the prices they pay for fuel or packaging, but they can reduce the price they pay for fish.

“There’s a disequilibrium,” Laukitis said. “And we’re the ones getting squeezed the hardest.”

Nathaniel Herz is an Anchorage-based reporter. Subscribe to his newsletter, Northern Journal, at northernjournal.com. Reach him at natherz@gmail.com.





Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Murkowski, Sullivan Announce $629 Million Funding to Boost Alaska’s Internet Connectivity

Published

on

Murkowski, Sullivan Announce 9 Million Funding to Boost Alaska’s Internet Connectivity


 

Washington, DC—Tuesday, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (both R-AK) welcomed the approval of Alaska’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Final Proposal by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), including more than $629 million in initial deployment awards to expand broadband access across the state. These investments will help narrow the digital divide in unserved and underserved communities and expand the economic opportunities that reliable internet connectivity brings to Alaskans.

The funding will support 29 broadband deployment projects carried out by 15 providers across Alaska. These projects—utilizing fiber, wireless, satellite, and hybrid technologies—are expected to bring high-speed internet service to more than 46,000 homes and small businesses across the state.

“For a state as vast and geographically diverse as Alaska, broadband access is not a luxury—it’s essential infrastructure,” said Senator Murkowski. “This investment will help connect more of our rural and remote communities to reliable, high-speed internet, opening the door to expanded economic opportunities, improved access to telehealth and education, and stronger connections between families and communities. I appreciate NTIA’s recognition of the importance of the BEAD program to our state and its efforts to ensure that we are able to maximize this initiative so that every Alaskan is connected.”

Advertisement

“As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, the lack of Internet access in so many Alaskan communities was a driving force behind my work to ensure that the broadband provisions of the bipartisan infrastructure bill focused on the truly unserved, my work on improving Alaska’s broadband maps, and my relentless advocacy for Alaska with various federal officials who I have brought to see Alaska’s unique challenges,” said Senator Sullivan. “These funds will go a long way toward the goal of connecting every Alaskan, which will unlock possibilities of expanded telehealth, education and small business opportunities. Importantly, it will better allow Alaskans to connect with one another. I thank NTIA for working closely with Senator Murkowski and me to ensure that our unique geography was taken into account when determining this award.”

“Congratulations to the State of Alaska on the approval of its BEAD Final Proposal, which will enable universal broadband availability across the state while safeguarding taxpayer dollars,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth.“The Benefit of the Bargain rules ensured that each state and territory’s unique geography, terrain, and topography are accounted for when determining which technology solutions make the most sense to provide connectivity. No state presents more unique and formidable connectivity challenges than Alaska, and I commend the state broadband office for its tremendous work in bringing this Final Proposal over the finish line.”

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) established the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program to fund broadband expansion in unserved and underserved areas across the country. Alaska received a total BEAD allocation of more than $1.017 billion to support broadband infrastructure investments across the state.

Under the program, funding is first directed toward deploying broadband infrastructure to unserved locations, followed by underserved areas and eligible community anchor institutions. The initial $629 million in deployment awards announced today will fund broadband deployment projects across Alaska using a mix of fiber, wireless, satellite, and hybrid technologies.

After funding deployment projects, remaining BEAD funds may be used for additional eligible purposes that support broadband connectivity and digital access. NTIA is expected to provide additional guidance on the use of remaining funds later this month. Senators Murkowski and Sullivan are actively working with NTIA as they craft revised guidance, with the intent of ensuring that Alaska maintains the ability to use its entire allocation to continue modernizing the state’s telecommunications infrastructure.

Advertisement

###



Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Recognizing Southeast Alaska as a mining district – Homer News

Published

on

Recognizing Southeast Alaska as a mining district – Homer News


Recognizing Southeast Alaska as a mining district

Published 1:30 am Thursday, March 12, 2026

Many Alaskans and folks Outside, including in Congress, do not realize that the Tongass National Forest is a Volcanic Mass Sulfide area the size of West Virginia and, accordingly, a major Alaska mining district. Patricia Roppel’s 1991 book, “Fortunes from the Earth,” catalogues over 120 legacy non-gold mines (copper, zinc, barite) throughout Southeast Alaska that were mined from the 1890s forward. The legacy gold mines throughout the Region (like the AJ and Treadwell mines) increase that number.

The Forest Service’s 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment estimated the values of discovered and undiscovered minerals on the Tongass as follows: discovered minerals: $37.1 billion (expressed as 1988 dollars) in the 1990 U.S. Bureau of Mines study, and undiscovered minerals: $28.3 billion (expressed as 1988 dollars).

I applaud Randy Ruaro, executive director of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, for organizing and holding a meeting on Dec. 19 to take a hard look at the Tongass as a mining district. The meeting participants heard from multiple technical experts about new technologies for extracting minerals from ore. These technologies hold the potential of being less expensive and more environmentally friendly than current extraction techniques. The speakers discussed applying these technologies to legacy mines in the Tongass as a means of cleaning them up and obtaining value by processing the ore at a central site. AIDEA’s plan should be aggressively executed because it will result in increased mining in Southeast Alaska.

Advertisement

AIDEA’s plan works hand in glove with the Dunleavy administration’s equally important efforts to obtain a legislative exemption for the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule. In an Oct. 27 letter to the president, the governor correctly pointed out that the Roadless Rule remains in effect on the Tongass today due to a stay of the state’s litigation against Biden’s 2023 reimposition while the current administration’s 2025 nationwide rulemaking goes forward. The nationwide rulemaking is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2026. The governor is rightly concerned that the litigation and appeals that will follow completion of the rulemaking could last beyond the Trump administration’s term and be rescinded again.

The governor explained: “We have water access to the archipelago of islands that make up the Tongass. We just need the certainty of road access to move drills and heavy equipment across the beach into the interior of those islands to access the mineral deposits. Legislation to make that happen would provide the certainty that investors need to fund the access to critical and rare earth minerals so important to America’s national security.”

On Dec. 19 the Resource Development Corporation sent a letter to Alaska’s Congressional delegation asking its members to support the governor’s request for a legislative exemption from the rule.

The governor and RDC are right. It takes 15 to 20 years to explore and develop a mine. A legislative exemption is needed to provide investors with confidence that the rules will not be constantly changing depending upon which administration holds office.

The ping-pong effect of attempting to exempt the Tongass through rulemaking has created uncertainty in the investment community. For example, the first Trump administration exempted the Tongass from the Roadless Rule through rulemaking on October 29, 2020. The Biden administration signed Executive Order 13990 on January 20, 2021, directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review the Trump I Exemption. On June 11, 2021, USDA announced that it would repeal the Trump I Exemption through rulemaking, which it completed in January 2023. President Trump returned the favor on January 21, 2025, in paragraph 3(c) of Executive Order 14153, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential.”

Advertisement

The AIDEA and Dunleavy initiatives should be aggressively followed up by the state and governor with the president and with the delegation because the Tongass National Forest is the most accessible of the mining districts in Alaska and could support exploration and development the soonest. We just need to obtain a more permanent exemption from the Roadless Rule than can be obtained from rulemaking. More mines in Southeast could help offset the anticipated decline in the state’s revenue. It could also help offset the decline in working age adults and their families in Southeast Alaska.

Frank H. Murkowski is a former U.S. senator and Alaska governor.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska accuses crowdfunding websites of violating law, using charities’ names without their consent

Published

on

Alaska accuses crowdfunding websites of violating law, using charities’ names without their consent


The home page for the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe is shown on a device in New York, Oct. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Morgan, File)

The state of Alaska filed civil lawsuits Tuesday against six crowdfunding websites, accusing them of illegally soliciting donations for thousands of Alaska charities without consent.

In complaints filed at Anchorage Superior Court, the consumer protection unit of the Alaska Department of Law said GoFundMe, PayPal, Charity Navigator, Pledgling Technologies, JustGiving and Network For Good each violated the Alaska Charitable Solicitations Act thousands of times.

That act, in place since 1993, requires state registration for anyone who seeks donations on behalf of a charity.

The suits ask a judge to order the sites shut down the pages devoted to Alaska nonprofits and immediately disburse any donations to those nonprofits. It also asks for “separate civil penalties … of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000 per violation.”

Advertisement

According to the complaints, the six crowdfunding sites scraped IRS data to obtain the information of thousands of Alaska nonprofits, then set up donation pages for each of those nonprofits without their consent.

That scraping was part of a nationwide campaign that encompassed almost a million and a half federally registered organizations.

In some cases, the sites charged fees or encouraged “tips” to themselves during the donation process. In many cases, they poured donations into a third-party account and only released donations to charities who stepped forward to claim them, according to the complaints.

Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox said the state became aware of the issue after California reporters and state officials began investigating why GoFundMe created donation pages for 1.4 million nonprofits without their consent or knowledge.

GoFundMe later took down pages created without consent, but other crowdfunding websites did not. On Tuesday morning, donation pages were still visible on Charity Navigator, one of the defendants named in the new Alaska lawsuits. GoFundMe has kept some pages created with the consent of charities.

Advertisement

Earlier this week, almost two dozen state attorney generals sent a letter to GoFundMe, demanding answers to questions about its policies.

Alaska did not sign that letter, in part because officials here believed the response was too weak.

In a prepared statement, Cox said, “Alaska law is clear: if you’re going to raise money in a charity’s name, you must first get the charity’s consent. These lawsuits are about protecting donors, protecting nonprofits, and preserving the public trust that makes charitable giving possible.”

Laurie Wolf is President and CEO of the Foraker Group, which advises Alaska nonprofits and provides them with administrative support.

The Foraker Group has been issuing warnings about the issue for months, and Wolf filed an affidavit in support of the lawsuit, as did a representative of the Bethel Community Services Foundation and Bread Line Inc., which operates a food bank in Fairbanks.

Advertisement

By phone on Tuesday, Wolf said the issue is a matter of consent: “They are impersonating 1.2 million nonprofits across this country, they’re impersonating them without their consent or even their knowledge.”

She said the issue became particularly important last fall, when people across the United States and the world became aware of the devastation caused by ex-Typhoon Halong in Western Alaska.

Many people, not knowing local Alaska charities, simply donated via links they found on internet searches. Some of those donations may have never reached their intended recipients.

If a crowdfunding website operates independently of the charity it intends to benefit, it might interfere with the charity’s own fundraising, she explained.

Someone might never be recognized for their gift and become angry, hurting the charity’s long-term relationship with their community.

Advertisement

“They take away the ability for the organization to make choices for itself about how it wants to build trust and relationships with its donors, and how it wants to put its brand and its mission out in the public sphere. They’ve taken away all of our choices about that,” she said.

In addition, donations may be subject to fees or never reach a charity at all, particularly if the charity is unaware that a crowdfunding website is holding money for it to collect.

The Foraker Group went so far as to conduct an experiment and had an employee donate to the group through several of the defendants’ platforms. In multiple cases, it took weeks before the donation reached its intended recipient, and in some cases, the donor’s identity was concealed, making it impossible for the charity to properly thank them.

GoFundMe was the only defendant to respond to emailed inquiries before the Beacon’s reporting deadline on Tuesday.

“GoFundMe’s mission is to help people help each other by making it easier for donors to discover and support the causes they care about. We are committed to helping nonprofits reach new supporters by connecting them with the millions of people on our platform who want to make a difference. Nonprofit Pages were created using publicly available information to help people support nonprofit organizations, with donations going to the intended nonprofit,” said Jeff Platt, communications manager for GoFundMe.

Advertisement

“After hearing feedback from nonprofit leaders in October, we acted quickly to make Nonprofit Pages fully opt-in, removed and de-indexed unclaimed pages, and turned off search engine optimization by default. The immediate changes we made directly addressed the concerns of the nonprofit community, and reflect our continued commitment to transparency, accountability, and partnership with the nonprofit sector,” he said.

This week’s lawsuits in state court rely in large part on the 1993 Alaska Charitable Solicitations Act.

That bill passed the Alaska Legislature amid a surge of concern about telemarketers soliciting donations by phone.

Then-Rep. Ron Larson, a Democrat from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, sponsored the act and told fellow lawmakers at the time that “lookalike organizations” were “ripping off” legitimate charities.

The act made no mention of donations by internet, and in state law, it’s still labeled as “Telephonic solicitations,” but it goes on to state that under any circumstances it is unlawful to use a charity’s name or symbol without their permission.

Advertisement

“Alaskans are generous people. But generosity depends on trust,” Cox said in his prepared statements. “GoFundMe and similar platforms used nonprofits’ good names to solicit donations without coordinating with the organizations actually doing the charitable work. That means some Alaskans may have donated thinking they were supporting a specific charity, when the charity never authorized the page and may never have received the donation — or may have received less than donors intended because of fees.”

Originally published by the Alaska Beacon, an independent, nonpartisan news organization that covers Alaska state government.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending