Alaska needs to shore up salmon protection

Alaskans hear over and over that the state has a rigorous permitting system that will protect our salmon habitat and our fisheries.

Yet, I know from my 40 years of state, federal and private experience that this is simply not true. The state, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which runs fish habitat permitting, does not have clear and dependable standards for approving development. Approvals often hinge on strong-arming by political appointees inside Fish and Game who have little regard for biological concerns.

As a former Fish and Game habitat biologist of 20 years responsible for state permitting of development around salmon habitat, I can tell you we have long needed a strong course correction. We need updated development standards that balance the sustainability of our world-class salmon streams with responsible resource development.

[Mallott rejects ballot proposition to protect salmon habitat]

What we have seen thus far from the Walker-Mallott administration simply defends the status quo. In a clearly political move a few weeks ago, they let Alaskans down by blocking the Stand for Salmon ballot initiative from the 2018 ballot. It would have fixed many of the fundamental permitting problems on salmon streams.

When I started at Fish and Game as a young man just out of the Army in 1980, we were told "Go with God; Do the right thing; Go protect fish." We worked for the people, not for industry, and our supervisors insulated us from political pressure.

Many local Alaskans showed the same sense of responsibility. When I worked on permitting the trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the 1990s, everyone from equipment operators to midlevel supervisors would alert me to potential problems in salmon streams and help resolve them. These longtime Alaskans loved being out in the Bush. They knew we could protect fish as part of responsible development.

Then development on salmon streams got political. Political appointees within Fish and Game started putting pressure on biologists to "get to yes" on every project.

My former colleagues continued to be squeezed by targeted budget cuts — preventing them from putting boots on the ground and holding developers accountable.

[Savor salmon? Then we'd best protect their habitat]

From my later post as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist in Alaska, I watched local communities come to us time and again for help. Companies — many foreign — are trying to ram development through no matter the cost to local people. Without the state intervening, Alaska's way of life stands at risk.

We need to get back to a different attitude: growth and development that protects salmon.

Near the end of my career at Fish and Game, I called out the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. for numerous permit violations along stretches of pipeline and access roads that crossed salmon streams. But their compliance team and I worked together to assure safe fish passage, with Alyeska eventually following every one of my suggestions. What's more, the company promoted the work as a shining example of corporate responsibility on its website and in a television commercial.

A responsible company that prioritizes Alaskans and Alaska ways of life will have no trouble meeting the updated standards that were proposed by the ballot measure and a similar bill that will await action in the Legislature this winter.

Gov. Bill Walker needs to realize this and help codify the right way to do business.

He should not leave the future of our salmon rivers to chance.

Phil Brna is a retired wildlife biologist living in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.