Updated: 1 hour ago Published: 1 hour ago

It’s the time of year again when the northern reaches of our state are starting the transition to winter, while the southern reaches of Alaska are just starting to feel the crispness of fall. It’s also the time of year when freezers and smoking racks across Alaska should be packed with a supply of salmon to last through the coming winter — serving as a vital source of protein for tens of thousands of Alaskans.

Alaska’s summer salmon harvest is a tradition that has been practiced in nearly every corner of the state for thousands of years by Alaska Native people and has been adopted by countless newcomers as well. However, it has become far too commonplace in recent years for fish freezers to stay empty all summer across vast swaths of our state, as emergency total fishing closures issued by both federal and state regulatory agencies to protect salmon stocks in years of extremely low returns impact subsistence, personal use and sport fishing user groups. At the same time, almost no action is taken by these same entities to protect the salmon from the ocean fishing fleet before they enter Alaska’s rivers.

While there have always been ups, downs and even severe crashes in salmon runs, historically these sharp swings have been short-lived and limited to individual stocks. What’s particularly disturbing about this downturn in salmon production is just how widespread it is. The king salmon decline that started in the Yukon more than a decade ago has spread to virtually every large river system in Alaska, with some seeing returns of late that are less than 10 percent of historical averages. The disaster has also impacted chum salmon populations in Western Alaska and this year state Fish and Game officials were forced to restrict sport and commercial coho salmon harvests across Southcentral. It is a situation that is becoming more dire with each summer the fish don’t return.

What’s even more disheartening is the overwhelming inaction from so many of Alaska’s statewide leaders toward the situation. Far too often, the lip service paid when asked about struggling fisheries is just that; and disaster aid only papers over the real problems. The lack of direct action to solve Alaska’s rapidly growing salmon problem among our most important political leaders is surprising on several levels. Ignoring the fact that these fish are ecologically and culturally vital in every area they inhabit, Alaska’s salmon, when healthy, support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity in small communities across our state. Taken as a whole, the commercial fishing sector still provides more jobs in Alaska than any other industry. Why so many of our leaders continue to ignore an obvious action — to reduce the number of salmon caught before they enter our rivers by the factory fishing fleet — is a mystery.

This is where Rep. Mary Peltola has already set herself apart. In just two short years in Congress, Rep. Peltola has authored and submitted more legislation to substantively address one of the most direct threats to Alaska salmon — being caught as bycatch in large, “factory” trawl fisheries targeting other species — than the rest of our current political leaders have in their careers. The Bycatch Reduction and Mitigation Act and Bottom Trawl Clarity Act confront the impacts of factory fishing from both ends, with authorizations to fund better gear to reduce bycatch and potentially limit the vast areas offshore of Alaska that are open to trawling.

According to reporting earlier this summer by a major seafood industry publication, the large, Lower 48-based corporations that dominate Alaska offshore federal fisheries are dead-set against Rep. Peltola’s trawl legislation. That means it has teeth.

There are undoubtedly numerous complex reasons why Alaska’s essential and iconic salmon are struggling to the degree they are today, and being caught as bycatch is just one of them.  But reducing/eliminating bycatch is an important step in the right direction.

I certainly don’t agree with Rep. Peltola on every issue, but on this issue we need every Alaska politician to follow her lead and do what it takes to restore the salmon we love and need. Please join me in telling Rep. Peltola to keep up the good work and urge the rest of our elected officials to join her.

Bob Shefchik was born and raised in Fairbanks. He has harvested salmon in the Yukon with his grandfather in Eagle, as well as with his wife, children and grandchildren in the Gulkana, Copper and Kenai rivers. He is retired from a 35-year career in Alaska as a financial administrator at the local, state and university levels. Bob resides in Fairbanks, serves on the Alaska Jobs Coalition board, and still values the importance of salmon fisheries to the State of Alaska and its residents.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Major Alaska resource projects, and the land they could be built on, may be at stake in the presidential election.

They include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and elsewhere in Alaska, logging in the Tongass National Forest, and cutting a 200-mile road through Alaska wilderness to access the Ambler mining district.

President Joe Biden’s administration has put the brakes on those and other major Alaska resource development projects, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to advance those initiatives.

Trump, with his aggressive focus on resource extraction, can be expected to renew his efforts in Alaska if he wins office, former officials say. But they add that it won’t be easy to reverse many of Biden’s actions, especially if Trump overhauls the federal workforce needed to properly make changes, they say.

If Vice President Kamala Harris wins, she’ll likely retain many of Biden’s actions in Alaska, they say. But her administration could still be dealing with major Alaska issues, such as a second oil and gas lease sale in the 19.6-million-acre Arctic refuge, they say.

The election also raises questions about the fate of other perennial Alaska projects, such as the Pebble mineral prospect that was stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency last year, or the giant Willow oil field that was approved by the Biden administration.

For years, Alaska’s big projects and land battles have been subject to shifting politics, depending on which party’s candidate occupies the White House. The back-and-forth has a chilling effect on investment in the state, making it difficult for companies to know whether a prospect has any chance of winning federal approval, resource advocates say.

Andrew Mergen, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and retired Justice Department attorney who has handled litigation on major Alaska land issues, said the state plays an important political role in presidential elections because it captures the American imagination.

“For people who are Democrats, it’s the incredible natural value and parks and animals, and people love that,” he said. “And for people on the Republican bench, it looks like there’s a lot of resources and a lot of ways to make money.”

“But I do think that a lot of these disputes are maybe targeted about getting the base up, and whether that base is motivating environmental groups or motivating red-state voters, that’s part of what’s going on,” he said.

More Arctic drilling under Trump?

Trump has promised to “drill, baby, drill” on Day One of a second term.

He likes to tout the oil and gas potential in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though with extreme exaggeration. He has said he would restart drilling there.

The former Trump administration in its closing days issued the first-ever oil and gas leases in the refuge, after a lease sale there generated little interest.

Biden, on his first day as president, began taking steps that later led to the cancellation of the leases in 2023.

William Perry Pendley, former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management under Trump, said he thinks Trump should lift the suspension of those leases and also renew his previous efforts to develop Alaska’s resources.

“He’s promised the American people that he’d cut the cost of living and transportation,” Pendley said. “One of the ways to decrease those costs is develop American energy. There’s a tremendous amount of not just energy, but minerals available in Alaska.”’

Pendley helped write a special section calling for “immediate action” on Alaska issues in Project 2025, a transition document designed to aid Trump if he returns to the White House.

Pendley said in a recent phone interview that Trump had “nothing do with Project 2025,” which was written by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Trump has disavowed the document.

Pendley’s section on Alaska calls on Trump to reinstate his plan for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which opened millions of acres to potential oil leasing. Biden reversed that effort and has implemented strict limits in the reserve.

“What that chapter lays out regarding Alaska is to continue doing what we tried to do with Alaska in the Trump administration, which will make it possible for Alaska to benefit from the natural resources that are available there, and for Alaska to finally get what was promised to it when it came into the Union,” Pendley said.

What about Ambler Road and Pebble?

Pendley in Project 2025 also calls on Trump to again permit construction of the 200-mile Ambler Road to a mineral district in Northwest Alaska. The Biden administration rejected a permit, reversing a decision under Trump approving the permit.

Brett Hartl, with the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said Trump could attempt to reissue the Ambler Road permit.

But it wouldn’t be easy.

“It would take several years,” he said. “And they would be vulnerable to court challenge if they attempted to rush it.”

Mergen, the visiting professor with Harvard Law, said any major reversals Trump might pursue in Alaska could take so long they may not be completed in a single term.

It’s “infinitely harder” to achieve permitting for ground-disturbing activities like drilling or mining than to stop those activities, he said.

“The rulemaking and administrative processes that govern extractive use, whether it’s drilling or mining, they take a lot of time,” he said. “So I think it’s going to be a bit difficult to unwind these things in a meaningful way in four years.”

As for the Pebble copper and gold project in Southwest Alaska, it likely will not be developed, said Matthew Berman, a professor of economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska.

“It just has too many strikes against it,” Berman said.

The Environmental Protection Agency halted Pebble last year. Project developer Pebble Partnership and the state of Alaska are suing to overturn the decision.

Pebble’s chief executive said that if a court ruling is in Pebble’s favor, the company is more likely to find an opening to advance the mine under Trump than Harris.

“I have a positive feeling about the court cases and if we get a positive decision, I think it’s more likely we could sit down with the Trump administration and say, ‘OK, the government exceeded its authority, what can we do to make this project work?’ ” said John Shively, chief executive of Pebble Partnership.

Logging in the Tongass?

Berman also said Trump will face challenges pushing Alaska projects forward because of regulatory and legal hurdles.

Trump could attempt to again repeal the Roadless Rule in Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to open up logging potential, undoing Biden’s reversal.

But procedures and timelines may not leave much time for timber sales, Berman said.

“The ship of state is a big ship and it takes a while to turn it around,” he said. “There’s only so much that can be accomplished with a leadership change, and they take a lot more time in Alaska and especially in the Arctic.”

Trump has promised to gut the federal workforce, which has a large presence in Alaska.

Trump will likely need many federal workers to remain in place if he wants to quickly pursue changes, Berman said.

“If inexperienced people are trying to write permits, it will take longer,” Berman said.

Renewables at risk?

More consequential for Alaska will be the next president’s position on climate change, Berman said.

Trump has vowed to repeal key parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s 2022 climate law. Harris provided the tie-breaking vote for the law.

If Trump wins, “I see absolutely nothing happening on climate policy for another four years, and that has worldwide consequences,” Berman said.

If Harris wins, she’s expected to build on Biden policies that in Alaska support renewable energy and related efforts such as transmission improvements, said Isaac Vanderburg, chief executive of Launch Alaska, a nonprofit focused on accelerating Alaska’s energy transition.

The climate law has brought large sums of money into the state, he said.

Agencies have committed to spending much of the money in the law, he said, but Trump could attempt to delay or halt future spending commitments.

“It’s concerning to me from a renewable energy perspective,” he said of Trump’s plans.

Sustained policies under Harris?

If Harris wins, there may be holdover items for her administration to work on in Alaska.

It’s possible a Harris administration will get the chance to weigh a lease sale in the refuge, said Hartl with the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund.

Congress has set a deadline for a lease sale before the end of this year.

But that could be delayed, Hartl said. Agencies frequently miss congressional deadlines, he said.

“I think if anything, it would probably get punted into next year,” Hartl said. “It just seems like there’s a ton of work that they still have to do because they were in a pretty significant legal deficiency from the first sale.”

ConocoPhillips’ controversial Alaska oil field, Willow, likely won’t be affected if Harris wins, Hartl said.

It’s been approved under Biden, he said. ConocoPhillips has started construction at the field. Oil is expected to begin flowing in four years.

Conservation groups like his had a chance to stop Willow, he said. The Biden administration chose not to, he said.

“So I would suspect that Willow will continue,” he said.

Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.

When phone numbers first proliferated, some Americans were concerned that aspects of their existence had been reduced to a series of digits. When Social Security numbers were first issued in 1936, some Americans believed a numerical identity was dehumanizing. People complained about the transition to area codes for phone numbers in 1947, though not Alaskans. The future 49th state did not receive its area code, the familiar 907, until a decade later. But in 1963, Alaskans were a party to the national mockery of ZIP codes, the newest number to remember.

The concept of ZIP codes, from the acronym Zone Improvement Plan, originated in the 1940s. Beginning in 1943, the Postal Service divided larger cities into two-digit postal zones. The following year, a postal inspector in Philadelphia, Robert Moon, proposed a national coding system. After years of delays, partially prompted by hesitant public adoption of area codes, the ZIP code program was publicly unveiled at a postmasters’ convention in October 1962.

Today, ZIP codes are just one tiny aspect of modern life, five numbers to remember whenever you mail a letter or package. Maybe you’ve written it on an envelope. Or, more likely, you’ve entered it into an online form, ensuring you get that package you ordered from outside Alaska. You’ve probably given those numbers little thought. Americans were less accepting back when ZIP codes were first introduced.

The Postal Service claimed ZIP codes would streamline its operation and potentially speed deliveries. Mail delivery a day sooner, they said. Yet, Americans struggled to accept the new system. An early Postal Service poll found only 25% of respondents supported ZIP codes.

Resistance to ZIP codes came in a variety of flavors. Amid the Cold War and rampant Communism fears, some Americans believed the codes were, like Social Security numbers, dehumanizing and erasing individuality. Others thought it was too complicated, that Americans would never endure the hassle of remembering five-digit codes every time they mailed something. And others thought it was just a waste of money, a government spending boondoggle. Many postal workers also opposed ZIP codes as the system was a step toward mechanical mail processing, thus threatening their jobs.

The Peanuts comic strip creator Charles Schulz was one of the many ZIP code opponents. He introduced a character into the strip solely to express his irritation with ZIP codes. The spiky-haired boy was named 5, short for 555 95472. From his 1963 debut, 5 said, “My dad says we have so many numbers these days we’re all losing our identity. He’s decided that everyone in our family should have a number instead of a name.” If you’ve ever watched “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or seen the GIF of the kids dancing from it, you’ve seen 5. He’s the dancing kid in the front, in a yellow shirt and bobbing his head to the music.

Mockery was perhaps the most common active response to ZIP codes. Countless comics and cartoons ran variations of a “name, rank, and ZIP code” gag. Others suggested Christmas was threatened, as letters to Santa would fail to be delivered without a correct ZIP code. In a 1963 letter to advice columnist Ann Landers, a father tries to run off his daughter’s date because the young man did not know his ZIP code. “I don’t think you ought to go out with a fellow who is too lazy to memorize his ZIP code number.”

The reaction was no different in Alaska. One of the early letters delivered to the Anchorage Daily News after ZIP codes were implemented was marked “zip” before the number and “unzip” after. Most notably, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner opined, “We’ll wager it will be abandoned in a few months as someone’s highly expensive bright idea. It won’t work because people are tired of living in a numerical society. The long numbers are also contrary to human nature. Most folks are just too lazy to write out a zip code number let alone try to remember them. Business may use them, but as long as they are given a choice, John Q. Public won’t.”

In Fairbanks, two brothers tested the system. As they saw it, either the town name or ZIP code was superfluous. One of them mailed two postcards to the other from Seattle. One was addressed with “Fairbanks, Alaska,” but no ZIP code. The other was sent with the appropriate ZIP code but no “Fairbanks, Alaska.” Both postcards were dutifully delivered. The first postcard arrived unaltered. On the second postcard, some postal employee had handwritten “Fairbanks.” As one of the brothers declared, “Our conclusion — the name of the town is necessary, therefore how does the addition of a number speed the delivery of the mail.”

The program was implemented on July 1, 1963. The Anchorage Bowl was initially divided into six ZIP codes. Downtown and Government Hill was 99501. Everything south of International Airport Road was 99502. Everything between Chester Creek and International Airport Road, and west of the Seward Highway, was Spenard, 99503. Definitions of what is and is not Spenard have varied over the years. In my experience, no two people agree on Spenard’s borders. The rest of the Anchorage Bowl east of downtown and the Seward Highway, between Fort Richardson and Tudor Road, was 99504. Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base were 99505 and 99506, respectively.

The quantity of the ZIP code debate likely influenced its eventual success. Indeed, it was almost impossible for anyone in the 1960s to miss the innumerable editorials, comic strips, crossword puzzles, television references and other media devoted to the issue, very much including the U.S. Postal Service’s own prolific advertising campaign featuring Mr. Zip. People knew that ZIP codes existed, the most challenging step toward acceptance. Within two to three years, the complaints faded and there were the occasional declarations of “ZIP codes really work.” In 1983, the Postal Service announced nearly 100% compliance. And Santa had his own code, originally 99701, before the 1963 Christmas season began.

Today, it seems almost quaint that Americans once worried about remembering a five-digit number, particularly after the codependent rises in the internet and passwords. There’s no special characters or varying capitalizations to a ZIP code, just five numbers. That’s it.

• • •

• • •

Key sources:

Cronin, Brian. “Which Peanuts Character Was Invented as a Protest . . . Zip Codes?!” CBR, July 30, 2024.

Henderson, Jonathan. Letter to editor. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, September 11, 1963, 6.

Landers, Ann. “Ann Landers . . . Answers Your Problems.” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, December 30, 1963, 5.

“On the Inside.” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, July 26, 1963, 4.

“The Echo Chamber.” Anchorage Daily News, July 15, 1963, 1.

“The Zip Code Challenge: Response of the American Public.” National Postal Museum, undated.

United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. The Untold Story of the ZIP Code. United States Postal Service, 2013.