Connect with us

Alaska

Opinion: Big-game guiding bill in the Alaska Legislature had problems last year — and has problems now

Published

on

Opinion: Big-game guiding bill in the Alaska Legislature had problems last year — and has problems now


The Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

In the 2024 Alaska legislative session, there were companion bills in the Senate and House to create a big game guide concession pilot program on state lands that would have a startup cost of half a million dollars. The organization I represent — Resident Hunters of Alaska — opposed the bills, for reasons I’ll explain later.

The ostensible rationale of these bills was that there were no limits on the number of hunting guides who could operate on state lands, and this was causing all kinds of problems — from conflicts in the field to overharvests of our wildlife. Exclusive guide concessions in certain areas, limiting the number of guides who could operate there, would fix the problems.

The Senate version of the guide concession program bill (Senate Bill 253) was heard in the Senate Resources Committee last session but never moved out of committee. The House version (House Bill 396) was heard in House Resources and passed out of that committee and was awaiting a hearing in House Finance. It was clear that House Finance, with our continuing budget crisis, was not going to pass the bill with a $500,000 fiscal note. It was never heard in House Finance.

In the final hours of the 2024 session, the language of HB 396 – along with other bills that had not passed – was inserted into another bill by Sen. Scott Kawasaki (SB 189) to extend the Alaska Commission on Aging. Legislators well understood that attaching all these other bills to Sen. Kawasaki’s bill to extend the Alaska Commission on Aging did not comply with the “single subject” rule, which was specifically written to prevent these kinds of shenanigans.

Advertisement

Sen. Kawasaki knew, too, that his bill—with all the other legislation now contained in it—didn’t comply with the single subject rule, but he wanted his bill to pass and voted for it, along with most legislators. So, SB 189 to extend the Commission on Aging, along with the guide concession program bill and others, passed the legislature and was sent to the Governor for his signature. You can read the final bill here.

SB 189 was not signed by the governor because he was advised that the way it passed wasn’t legal. However, everything within the final bill — including a guide concession pilot program — did become law, though the guide concession program wasn’t funded.

Subsequently, former Rep. David Eastman sued the legislature over the single subject rule violation. The case is currently awaiting judgment.

Fast forward to the current 2025 legislative session. Legislators were told that to resolve the Eastman lawsuit, everything within SB 189 that violated the single subject rule — including the guide concession program — had to be re-submitted exactly as written the previous session and pass this session.

The current guide concession program bill is Senate Bill 97, sponsored by the Senate Resources Committee. We again recommended some amendments to the bill. If this was going to pass, at least make it so the state was paid back by the guide industry, along with some other fixes to the bill. Some of those amendments were offered in the Senate Resources Committee and had majority support, but the legislative attorney told the committee that any amendments to the bill would not moot the Eastman challenge. The bill needed to pass exactly as written, including with any appropriations.

Advertisement

So, the bill wasn’t amended and SB 97 passed out of Senate Resources and will now go to Senate Finance, where members of that committee won’t question the half-million-dollar fiscal note as they would have under normal circumstances. They will vote to spend money we don’t have, pass the bill, and move it out of committee because they’ve been told that’s the only way to stifle the Eastman lawsuit. The final bill will pass both houses for the same reason.

The situation we are in now is one in which legislators knowingly violated the law the previous session, were called on it by a former legislator they don’t particularly like, and now, in order to fix their mistake, are going to double down on it so that former legislator doesn’t make them look bad. That isn’t the way bills are supposed to become law. You aren’t supposed to violate the law and then fix the mistake by doing an end-run around the process.

The main reason we oppose a guide concession program is that the problem was never “too many guides.” The problem is too many nonresident hunters who are required to hire a guide being given unlimited hunting opportunity by the Board of Game! Limit the number of nonresident sheep hunters, for example, that take 60-90% of the sheep harvested in some areas, and you thereby limit the number of guides they are required to hire. But the Board of Game refuses to limit nonresident sheep hunters, saying they only support a costly guide concession program as a solution.

The Big Game Commercial Services Board is the body that regulates the guide industry and has been saying for nearly twenty years that there are too many guides. They have the duty and authority to limit guides, yet have done nothing to check their own. They also only support a guide concession program as a fix.

Read our letter of opposition to a guide concession program here.

Advertisement

Either board could fix the known problems without such a high cost to the state. The reason they have refused to do so for so long is because a guide concession program is the guide industry’s preferred solution. Unlike other states, in Alaska we don’t look at things from the point of view of what’s best for resident hunters and our wildlife; we look at it from the point of view of what’s best for the guide industry.

Mark Richards is the executive director of Resident Hunters of Alaska.

• • •

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.





Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Peltola challenges Sullivan in Alaska

Published

on

Peltola challenges Sullivan in Alaska


Democrats are going after Alaska’s Senate race this year, and they’ve landed probably the only candidate that can make it competitive: Mary Peltola.

The former congresswoman on Monday jumped into the race against GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan, adding yet another hard-fought campaign to what Democrats hope is shaping up to be a wave year that could carry them in red states like Alaska.

Peltola certainly doesn’t sound like a typical Democratic candidate as she starts her bid: She’s proposing term limits, is campaigning on “fish, family and freedom,” and has already name-dropped former Republican officials in her state multiple times.

“Ted Stevens and Don Young ignored lower 48 partisanship to fight for things like public media and disaster relief because Alaska depends on them,” Peltola says in her launch video, referencing the former GOP senator and House member, respectively.

Advertisement

“DC people will be pissed that I’m focusing on their self-dealing, and sharing what I’ve seen firsthand. They’re going to complain that I’m proposing term limits. But it’s time,” she says.

Peltola is clearly appealing to the state’s ranked choice voting system and its unique electorate, which elevated moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, over a candidate supported by President Donald Trump. The last Democrat to win an Alaska Senate race was Mark Begich in 2008, though Peltola won the state’s at-large seat twice — even defeating former Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sullivan defeated Begich in 2014, followed by independent Al Gross in 2020; Sullivan also recently voted to extend expired health care subsidies, a sign of the state’s independent streak.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Wayne and Wanda: I love Alaska winters, but my wife has grown weary and wants to move

Published

on

Wayne and Wanda: I love Alaska winters, but my wife has grown weary and wants to move


Wanda and Wayne,

My wife and I moved to Alaska four years ago for work and adventure, thinking we’d stay a couple of years and see how it felt. We fell hard for it almost immediately. But by our second winter, my wife started talking about how hard the cold and dark were on her, and every winter since that feeling has grown heavier.

This recent cold snap and snow dump really pushed things over the edge. She’s deeply unhappy right now, withdrawn, sad and openly talking about how depressing it feels to live here, especially being so far from family and old friends. She tries to manage it with running, yoga, the gym, but even those things she often does alone. She hasn’t really built a community here, partly because she’s introverted and partly because she sticks closely to her routines and her co-workers aren’t the very social. Meanwhile, I’ve found connections through work and the outdoors, especially skiing in the winter (cross country and touring, downhill, backcountry, all of it!), and Alaska still feels full of possibilities to me.

But now she’s done. She wants to move back “home” soon. She wants to start trying for kids within the next year and doesn’t feel like Alaska is the right place to raise a family. She worries about schools, politics, the economy and being so far from family support. We both have careers that could take us almost anywhere, as well as savings, and a house we could sell quickly, and many of the Alaska toys we could also sell. Logistically, it would be easy. Emotionally, I feel like I’m being told to leave after I just got settled.

Advertisement

There are places I still want to explore, trips I’ve been planning, seasons I want to experience differently now that we’re more established. I keep thinking: If we can just get through to summer, maybe she’ll feel better. But I don’t know if that’s hope or denial, and yeah, summer feels a long ways away and goes by pretty quickly. Honestly, now I’m starting to get bummed about the idea of leaving.

I love my wife and I don’t want her to be miserable. But I’m scared that if we leave now, I’ll resent her, and if we stay she’ll resent me. Is there a way to buy time without dragging this out painfully? Or is this one of those moments where love means choosing between two incompatible futures?

Wanda says:

If this was your first Cheechako winter here, or your second, I could write off your wife’s apprehension to culture shock or a sophomore slump. But this is year four, which means she’s endured winters of record snowfalls, weird snow shortfalls, terrible windstorms, bleak darkness and desolate below-zero temps. Sorry to say, but it’s likely there’s no number of laps at the Dome or downward dogs on the mat that will make her find the special beauty of an Alaska winter.

This place is tough. For every old-timer who jokes, “I came for two years and I’m still here,” there are plenty who maybe made it that long and bailed. While the state shines with possibilities, rugged beauty, unique traits and cool people, it’s also far from basically everything, pretty expensive and definitely extreme. Some people will thrive here. Some people won’t. No one’s better or worse, or wins or loses. Were you on your own, at a different point in life, you may have made your forever home here. But instead you pledged forever to your wife, and I’m afraid it’s time to start out on your next adventure — in the Lower 48.

Advertisement

Your wife gave this a real shot. She’s stayed four years. That’s four long — and for her, miserable — winters. It was also four seasons of no doubt incredible summers, full of fresh halibut and farmers markets and quirky festivals and blue skies at 11 p.m. If these special aspects of Alaska haven’t yet been enough to convince her the winters are worth it, they won’t ever be.

Wayne says:

Sure, your Alaska bucket list is still growing faster than you can check things off, but take it from a lifelong Alaskan: You’ll never do it all. People fall in love with this place in a million different ways. You and I? We believe there’s always another season of adventures ahead, another trail and another corner of the state to explore, and we’ll always feel some serious AK FOMO when we’re stuck at the office working while everyone else is ice skating on a perfect winter day or dipnetting during a hot salmon run.

Here’s the perspective shift you need. You love your wife. You’re committed to a happy life together. And by any reasonable measure, you’ve made the most of your four years here. So ask yourself this honestly: Is another spring of shredding pow in the Chugach more important than her mental health and your marriage? And why resent her for being ready for a new chapter after she showed up and gave Alaska a chance? When you frame it that way, “incompatible futures” sounds dramatic and “buying time” sounds selfish.

And Alaska isn’t going anywhere. You know that. It’s a flight or two away no matter where you end up Outside. Maintain your friendships, stay on the airline alerts, narrow your must-do list to the Alaska all-timers, and plan to come back regularly. And imagine this: years from now, bringing your kids here after years of telling them stories about the winters you survived and the mountains you climbed. That’s not losing Alaska, that’s carrying it with you wherever you go, along with your wife and your marriage.

Advertisement

[Wayne and Wanda: How can I support my partner’s hardcore New Year’s reset, even if it’s not for me?]

[Wayne and Wanda: I kissed my high school crush during a holiday trip home. Now I’m questioning everything]

[Wayne and Wanda: My girlfriend’s dog fostering has consumed her life and derailed our relationship]

[Wayne & Wanda: My husband has been having a secret, yearslong emotional affair]





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

The Alarming Prices Of Groceries In Rural Alaska — And Why They’re So Expensive – Tasting Table

Published

on

The Alarming Prices Of Groceries In Rural Alaska — And Why They’re So Expensive – Tasting Table






Many households across America have been struggling with their grocery bills due to inflation that hit the global markets after the COVID-19 pandemic, but for families in Alaska, especially in rural communities, the prices of basic goods have reached alarming heights. Alongside inflation, the main issue for the climbing prices is Alaska’s distance from the rest of the U.S., which influences the cost of transport that’s required to deliver the supplies.

Given that Alaska is a non-contiguous state, any trucks delivering grocery stock have to first cross Canada before reaching Alaska, which requires a very valuable resource: time. According to Alaska Beacon, “It takes around 40 hours of nonstop driving to cover the more than 2,200 highway miles from Seattle to Fairbanks” on the Alaska Highway. That’s why a fairly small percentage of the state’s food comes in on the road. For the most part, groceries are shipped in on barges and are then flown to more remote areas, since “82% of the state’s communities are not reachable by road,” per Alaska Beacon. As such, even takeout in Alaska is sometimes delivered by plane.

Advertisement

Planes, trucks, and boats all cost money, but they are also all vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, which are not uncommon in Alaska. Sometimes local stores are unable to restock basic staples like bread and milk for several weeks, so Alaskans struggle with high food insecurity.

How much do groceries cost in Alaska?

Groceries in Alaska cost significantly more than in the rest of the U.S., but even within the state itself, the prices vary based on remoteness. You’ll find that prices of the same items can double or even triple, depending on how inaccessible a certain area is. The New Republic reported that prices in Unalakleet, a remote village that’s only accessible by plane, can be up to 80% higher than in Anchorage, Alaska’s most populated city. For example, the outlet cited Campbell’s Tomato Soup costing $1.69 in Anchorage and $4.25 in Unalakleet. Even more staggering is the price of apple juice: $3.29 in the city, $10.65 in the village. Such prices might make our jaw drop, but they’re a daily reality for many Alaskans.

As one resident shared on TikTok, butter in his local store costs $8 per pound — almost twice the national average. Fresh produce is even more expensive, with bananas going for $3 a pound, approximately five times the national average. It’s therefore not surprising that most of the people who live in Alaska have learned to rely on nature to survive.

Advertisement

Subsistence living has great importance for many communities. They hunt their own meat, forage for plants, and nurture their deep cultural connection to sourdough. For rural Alaskans, living off the land is a deep philosophy that embraces connection with nature and hones the survival knowledge that’s passed down through generations — including how to make Alaska’s traditional akutaq ice cream.







Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending