Roadless Rule
Dear Editor: In a short-sighted decision designed to benefit only one S.E. Alaska industry, the State of Alaska is attempting to overturn the Tongass Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule is currently protecting some of our most valuable watersheds from clearcuts, such as Ushk Bay, Poison Cove and Northern Kruzof, while allowing for development of dams and other necessary infrastructure.
The State of Alaska and the U.S. Forest Service held a hastily convened meeting on the proposed changes to the Roadless Rule last month, and the room was packed with concerned Sitkans. The State of Alaska is attempting to push through their timber agenda with the Citizens Advisory Committee which is largely comprised of industry representatives. Supposedly, this industry stacked committee can develop their recommendations in a mere two months. State of Alaska representative Kyle Moselle could not answer a question about how many tribes had been contacted to join in the process or even which staff person was responsible for contacting them.
The Forest Service public comment process is more inclusive and deliberative, although also rushed. The public must submit their comments by Oct. 15 in order to have their concerns considered in developing the alternatives. The Sitka Conservation Society will be hosting a Roadless Rule Comment Writing Night at Sitka Public Library on Thursday, Oct. 11, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. There will be comment-writing tips, resources, and people available to answer questions and help you craft an effective statement. See you there!
Clarice Johnson, Sitka
Yes on Ballot Measure 1
Dear Editor: As a commercial fisherman and Alaska resident, I believe that it is my responsibility to vote in the upcoming general election, and to make the most informed vote possible. The results of this election will have direct effects on my livelihood and long-lasting implications for my two teenage boys who have been commercial fishing since they were infants. What sort of future and opportunities do I want to pass on to them? What do I want their Alaska to look like? That is why I took the time to understand Ballot Measure 1/Yes for Salmon, and why I would like to take this opportunity to share with you what I have learned.
First, I’ll start with what Ballot Measure 1 does:
Ballot Measure 1 shifts the burden of proof to developers to make sure salmon in streams are considered during the permitting process. Right now anyone who wants to ensure that anadromous fish are considered in the permitting process have to prove, mile by mile, that fish are present in the stream. This places the financial burden on Alaskans who care about salmon and our state agencies.
Ballot Measure 1 establishes, for the first time, the standards on which to judge the presence or absence of adverse impacts to anadromous fish associated with a proposed project. At present, those standards do not exist. In the absence of standards, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s Commissioner faces the very real possibility of a judge considering a decision against issuing a permit to be arbitrary and capricious—a risk that Commissioners are generally and understandably not willing to take. So the developers — not Alaskan salmon and all of us who depend on them — are the ones who always get the benefit of the doubt.
Now for what Ballot Measure 1 DOES NOT do:
Ballot Measure 1 does not “manage fisheries or natural resources by initiative.” Rather, it strengthens protection for anadromous fish habitat in Alaska. Managing fisheries and protecting habitat are fundamentally different, which Alaska state law makes clear. Ballot Measure 1 does not touch the more than 400 pages of world-renowned fisheries management law that governs fisheries harvest in Alaska.
Ballot Measure 1 DOES NOT have the potential to close down fisheries near the mouths of anadromous fish streams. Again, Ballot measure 1 DOES NOT impact fish harvesting; it protects habitat.
My vote YES on Ballot Measure 1 will be a vote for science-based decision-making, a vote for salmon, and a vote for the Alaska I want to pass on to my boys. I will Vote Yes for Salmon on November 6 and urge other Alaskans to do the same.
Linda Behnken
Executive Director,
Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Assn.,
Board member of the Alaska
Sustainable Fisheries Trust and
the Halibut Coalition
Re-Elect Walker, Mallott
Dear Editor: First of all, I would like to thank the outgoing mayor and Assembly members for their service. It isn’t an easy job, and they did it well.
I would like to see more of their kind of politics at the state level also: not branded, divisive identity politics, but politics built from compromise and mindful of the long-term impacts on people, the budget, and the structure of the community.
Walker and Mallott have been providing us with just that kind of political leadership: a Republican and a Democrat, both of them dedicated independent Alaskans, have come together to give us a welcome respite from partisan fireworks during this time of unprecedented budgetary challenges.
Are you tired of Democrats and Republicans? So am I. Do you want some good old-fashioned, somewhat boring, no-nonsense leadership? I agree. Let’s re-elect Bill Walker and Byron Mallott.
Paul Norwood, Sitka
