Current law is inadequate to protect salmon

Every Alaskan takes pride in our world-class salmon runs. We are the stewards of a true wonder of nature.

Before statehood, Outside corporations controlled Alaska's salmon fisheries and exploited them relentlessly. Corporate fish traps robbed Alaskans of the extraordinary bounty of our rivers and streams and threatened to strangle our fledgling state.

It was ordinary people who took the initiative to protect those fish for future generations — for our generation. They had to because lobbyists from Seattle, San Francisco and New England fish companies made sure state and federal bureaucrats put their profits first.

That went on until, finally, Alaskans had had enough. We outlawed fish traps and got rid of most Outside control of our salmon. It's a big reason we became the 49th state.

Alaskans understand that salmon, perhaps more than any other thing, defines our unique way of life. Salmon shape our culture. They support our economy. And they fill our freezers.

And that can continue forever, if we take responsibility for protecting it.

Instead of fish traps, salmon today are at risk from relentless, incremental destruction of their spawning habitat.

An Outside coal company proposed to turn one salmon river across Cook Inlet into a 100-foot-deep crater, with a promise to somehow recreate the spawning grounds decades in the future.

A Canadian copper company wants to impound a giant lake of poison water behind a man-made dam at the headwaters of the biggest salmon runs in Alaska — and keep it that way forever.

The federal government just approved permits for a giant gold mine — Donlin Gold — that will impact thousands of acres of wetlands and destroy nearly 30 stream miles in the Kuskokwim River watershed.

Now consider an endless stream of these projects, each one doing "just a little" damage to salmon.

When it comes to habitat protection, we are living on the thin protections of the past. Federal and state laws deal with water flow, water quality and wetlands, but only one law in Alaska specifically protects salmon habitat from total, permanent, irreversible destruction.

That law is the Alaska Anadromous Fish Act, also referred to as Title 16. The Alaska Legislature adopted Title 16 at the time of statehood. In those days, relatively few people lived here — about a third of the population we have now — and many fewer tourists came to visit. Large oil, gas and mining projects had yet to materialize across the state, and fish habitat remained largely intact.

But times have changed. Our population, development and tourism have grown, so too have the impacts and threats to salmon habitat. Yet despite very different circumstances, the law that protects salmon habitat hasn't changed for more than 50 years.

Fifty years!

The key provision of Alaska's fish habitat law is exactly one sentence long. It says:

"The commissioner shall approve the proposed construction, work, or use in writing unless the (Fish and Game) commissioner finds the plans and specifications insufficient for the proper protection of fish and game."

That law is inadequate in several important ways.

First, it doesn't define "proper protection" of fish and game. What's "proper" can vary wildly from one commissioner to another. Administrations change and so do their commitments to protecting salmon. Once habitat is lost, it won't be back. Not in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children.

That's why the Stand for Salmon ballot initiative is necessary and justified. It creates a two-tier process, in which smaller projects that will not cause "significant adverse effects" to fish habitat – such as home sites, docks or bridges – get light scrutiny.

But mega-projects like Pebble and Donlin would have to meet higher standards because their potential harm to salmon habitat is so vastly greater. If Canadian mining corporations want to profit from our resources, the law must require them to do so without destroying salmon habitat.

A change in the law will create a balance of interests that we now lack.

There's another problem. Current law completely shuts ordinary Alaskans out of the permitting process. Under today's Title 16, there's no requirement of public notice of salmon habitat destruction, and no opportunity for Alaskans to voice their opinions in the permitting process.

Under the Alaska Constitution, our streams and salmon are public resources. If a project threatens to permanently destroy public property, Alaskans should be entitled to participate in the process.

The state today could issue a fish habitat permit to mine the middle of the Kenai River without giving residents a chance to participate in and try to affect that decision. That is unacceptable.

Clear and predictable standards for habitat protection are late, but not too late. Alaskans should recognize that we still can, by failing to act, lose our wild salmon resource, just as California, Washington, Oregon and Idaho have.

There's a lot at stake. Alaska is one of the precious few wild salmon strongholds in the world. But we are capable of the same policy failures that destroyed salmon runs from Europe to New England to the Pacific Northwest. We must not allow that to happen.

Opponents of the Stand for Salmon initiative call themselves "Stand for Alaska." A more accurate name would be "Our Profits Before Your Salmon." Stand for Alaska, a coalition of multinational corporations, is pouring millions of dollars into TV commercials to oppose protection for salmon.

Alaskans before us really did stand for salmon. Now the question is: Will you?

Please vote yes for salmon on the general election ballot this Nov. 6.

Patrick Dougherty is a longtime Alaska journalist, sportfisherman and board member of Cook Inletkeeper, a nonprofit organization active in researching and protecting the natural resources of Cook Inlet.

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.