No on Ballot Measure 1By Chelsea GoucherOctober 23, 2018
Several months ago, the Ketchikan Chamber Board voted to oppose Ballot Measure 1 and tasked me with writing an op-ed in order to share our thoughts and inform those who may still be unsure about this issue. Knowing intuitively that Ballot Measure 1 would be contentious on its face for fish-centric communities like Ketchikan, I did not take this task lightly; I wanted to be absolutely sure that the opinion of the Ketchikan Chamber reflects accurately our community’s maritime values and history. After considerable research, numerous conversations, and careful reflection, I can say with certainty that the Chamber did not get this wrong. Ballot Measure 1, if passed, will place undue regulatory pressure on numerous industries and do nothing to stop the environmental factors that are hurting our salmon runs. To begin with, Ballot Measure 1 is unclear law and in many places completely redundant. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the law was written without any public input. Groups and individuals interested in affecting change wrote the law behind closed doors and without giving the public any opportunity to provide testimony. The only form of public input offered up was in the way of the signatures gathered to support placing the measure on the November ballot. There was no opportunity for those opposed to this measure to have their voices heard. None. The best one could do was refuse to sign the petition and say, “No, I don’t stand for salmon.” What a disingenuous position to be put in! At the end of the day, I am not comfortable with the process by which this measure may become law. If Alaska statutes regarding fish habitat protections need to be rewritten, that should be done through a fair and open public process that encourages the participation of all stakeholders. Law is incredibly complicated, nuanced, and—if written poorly—subject to misinterpretation. I am not comfortable with this “baby and bathwater” approach; if existing law needs to be updated, let’s do better as Alaskans and dive into things—not just settle for a “yes” or “no” vote. I am concerned, too, with the idea that this measure—if passed—would somehow enhance our salmon runs by providing better protections than those already in place. This is simply not true. Under current law, any and all major projects have to be permitted through a stringent permitting process that involves numerous agencies and which might include the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or, more likely than not, all three. Additionally, there are Federal permits that usually must be obtained for a project to proceed; those required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Forest Service come to mind most readily. Are we to believe that nowhere in any of these processes are wildlife habitats addressed? Are we to believe that environmental impact statements do not consider salmon? My point is that here in Alaska we have, without doubt, some of the best environmental regulations on the planet. I am proud of that fact. I believe that the motivating factor here is fear: fear that declining salmon runs will not return to historic numbers and fear that major controversial projects will be allowed to operate without proper environmental oversight. I’ll treat each of these fears in turn and begin by first agreeing that, yes, something detrimental is happening to our salmon populations—particularly here in the waters adjunct to the Gulf of Alaska. However, the science has shown us that where this harm is occurring is out in the ocean—not in Alaska’s salmon streams. I am very concerned about this harm. Seafood is my primary protein, I fish for recreation whenever I am able, I have dear friends making a living in the fishing industry, and I work for a transportation company whose business model relies heavily on shipping fish southbound out of Alaska. My concern that some of our salmon runs are declining is real. Despite that, I don’t believe in creating solutions for problems that do not exist; if the problem with our salmon population is in the ocean, let’s figure out how to address that. Hint: it’s not Ballot Measure 1. Secondly, I have heard it speculated that Ballot Measure 1 is an “anti-Pebble Mine” measure in disguise. Opposed to the Pebble Mine? Afraid that the potential costs of this mine, given its proximity to Bristol Bay, might outweigh the economic benefits? Fine. But please conduct your opposition responsibly so as to not endanger numerous other projects on the table that create jobs and quality of life for Alaskans. Again, Ballot Measure 1 falls short of the mark. If passed, Ballot Measure 1 will add an additional and undue layer of redundant regulation to the already incredibly complex laws that govern the numerous permitting processes overseen by State of Alaska agencies. There is a cost to this. Businesses will have to invest more time and money into getting even basic projects permitted; many will give up or go elsewhere. And when I say businesses, I do not just mean mining or oil and gas companies. Every industry will be negatively impacted by this law, if passed: tourism, construction, roadbuilding, quarrying, agriculture, fish processing, and even the activity of municipal governments will be detrimentally impacted by the passage of Ballot Measure 1. There will be a real cost, too, to the State of Alaska’s various permitting agencies who, by the way, have already been reduced in size dramatically due to the fiscal crisis. Where will these additional monies come from? Ultimately, the largest cost may come in the way of a slower than necessary recovery from Alaska’s fiscal crisis and economic recession; is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” the way to diversify an economy? I did not write this letter using talking points because they don’t appeal to me and I believe Ketchikan deserves an honest and straightforward treatment of this topic. Before writing this, I talked to a lot of people (including fish processors, fishermen, fishing industry organizations, and hatchery groups—many of whom oppose this measure, by the way) until I felt I had done my due diligence in trying to understand the other side. What I found is that, really and truly, there are no “sides” here, at least not amongst Alaskans. We all want a robust fishing industry, and we all want a bright future for our children and our children’s children. Considering what I have written here today, ask yourself if you believe Ballot Measure 1 will responsibly address any of the obstacles facing us. It will not. It creates challenges to our goal of economic diversification while providing solutions to problems that do not exist in Alaska’s world-class regulatory system. Meanwhile, real challenges facing our salmon runs continue to lie unaddressed. As Alaskans, we are pioneers. We are creative and resilient and free-thinking. Please do not give into fear. Please ask yourself who will benefit from the passage of Ballot Measure 1. Will it be litigators and NGOs using this political football to drive fundraising efforts? Or will it be fish? Fishermen? Alaskans? Our children? I hope you come to the same conclusion that I have. I stand for Alaska, and I stand for salmon. Real problems need real solutions—preferably ones that don’t produce negative externalities for our society. This is not the right solution to our problem of declining salmon runs. This is not any solution, period. The Ketchikan Chamber got this right. Please join me in voting “no” on Ballot Measure 1. Chelsea Goucher
Editor's Note:
Received October 23, 2018 - Published October 23, 2018 Related Viewpoint: Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
E-mail your letters
& opinions to editor@sitnews.us Published letters become the property of SitNews.
|
||
