Saving Seafood

Pebble launches post-election outreach campaign in Alaska

November 20, 2018 — The proposed Pebble Mine in Southwest Alaska has been back in the news after this month’s elections, and now it’s also back in Alaskans’ mailboxes.

The Pebble Limited Partnership, the company behind the project, has launched a new marketing campaign following Alaska voters’ defeat of salmon-habitat preservation initiative Ballot Measure 1 and Republican Mike Dunleavy’s victory in the race for governor.

As a candidate, Dunleavy said he’s in favor of allowing the proposed mega-mine to work through the federal permitting process. Ballot Measure 1, the “Stand for Salmon” initiative, was largely seen as an anti-development initiative by the resource development industry.

“We’re very encouraged by the election of the governor-elect and of the results from the ballot measure campaign, really as a validation that Alaska has process, a fair process for reviewing projects,” Mike Heatwole, a spokesperson for the partnership, said Monday.

Read the full story at KTVA

 

Why did Ballot Measure 1 get crushed? Opponents outspent backers – by a lot – but other factors were also at play.

November 14, 2018 — The business-backed group Stand for Alaska poured more than $10 million into the campaign against Ballot Measure 1, eclipsing spending by the competition in one of the costliest campaigns ever seen in Alaska.

The Stand for Salmon forces, which raised less than $3 million to support the measure, pointed to the financial disadvantage as a key reason their side lost heavily Tuesday.

“We couldn’t overcome their messaging and misinformation,” said Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, a measure sponsor, as election results streamed in Tuesday night.

But campaign observers said the defeat didn’t necessarily turn on money, a view shared by Stand for Alaska’s political consultant, who said the opposition group didn’t spread lies.

The eight-page measure would have rewritten state law, setting new regulations for activity affecting salmon habitat.

The measure won in just six of 40 House districts — downtowns Juneau and Anchorage, and Southwest Alaska. It lost by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, receiving 85,553 yes votes, and 148,130 no votes, as of Friday.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

 

ALASKA: Salmon measure suffers resounding defeat. What happened?

November 9, 2018 — A ballot measure aimed at protecting salmon habitat received a resounding defeat in the statewide general election Tuesday.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday afternoon, Ballot Measure 1, commonly known as Stand for Salmon, held only 35.2 percent of Alaska’s vote, with 61.6 percent voting against.

In a state where everyone loves salmon, why did voters reject Ballot Measure 1 by such a large margin?

Measure co-sponsor Mike Wood, a Mat-Su carpenter and set net fisherman, was in good spirits when reached by phone Wednesday. The measure started a conversation, Wood said. Alaskans now talk about updating fish habitat permitting law. The existence of that discourse means that, though the measure fell, it “fell forward,” Wood said.

“Salmon now have a seat at the table, instead of just being on the platter,” as Wood put it.

Money played a big factor in the loss, Wood said.

The coffers behind the principal group supporting the measure, Yes for Salmon — Yes on 1, paled in comparison to that of industry-led opposition group Stand for Alaska — Vote No on One. Measure opponents raised $12 million in cash and in-kind contributions, according to the latest report from the Alaska Public Offices Commission. About half of that money came from a group of six oil and mining companies, which donated $1 million each. Stand for Salmon proponents had only $1.7 million to work with, according to the last APOC report before the election.

Read the full story at the Juneau Empire

ALASKA: With salmon ballot measure’s defeat, Pebble celebrates

November 8, 2018 — By a significant margin, Alaska voters defeated Ballot Measure 1, commonly known as the Stand for Salmon initiative.

The controversial measure was aimed at increasing protections for Alaska’s most iconic fish. It would have significantly toughened the environmental permitting process for large developments impacting salmon habitat.

The outcome was celebrated by a key figure pressing ahead on another controversial issue: the CEO of the Pebble Limited Partnership.

Pebble CEO Tom Collier said even though his company’s mine proposal wasn’t always at the forefront of the debate, the salmon habitat initiative was, in some ways, all about Pebble.

“It was clear that this initiative was aimed at trying to stop Pebble and to stop any other major significant resource development project in Alaska,” Collier said in an interview Wednesday.

Pebble’s push to develop a copper mine in the Bristol Bay region faces fierce resistance from groups who say it endangers the salmon fishery there, and many of those same groups supported Ballot Measure 1. But Pebble kept a relatively low profile leading up to the election. Although it contributed money to Stand for Alaska – Vote No on 1, the campaign against the initiative, it didn’t play much of a role in the opposition’s messaging.

But Collier said had Ballot Measure 1 passed, it would have posed hurdles for Pebble, both in getting permits and in seeking a new financial partner (the company lost a potential major investor earlier this year.) Collier said with the initiative’s defeat, he’s more confident about the Pebble’s prospects.

Read the full story at KTOO

Ballot measure meant to boost salmon protections loses decisively in Alaska

November 7, 2018 — A ballot measure designed to boost protections for salmon and other fish failed by a large margin Tuesday night amid an onslaught of heavy opposition spending by powerful oil and mining interests.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting by 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, Ballot Measure 1 received 145,997 votes against, and 83,479 votes in favor, a 64-to-36 margin.

Supporters conceded defeat early in the night.

“We had an uphill battle the entire way,” said Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, a measure sponsor and former state fisheries biologist, noting the overwhelming spending by the opposition. “But this effort was unprecedented and we will continue to move this forward.”

Commonly called Stand for Salmon, the controversial measure generated more than $12 million in spending. At least $10.2 million of that was spent by industry-led opposition group Stand for Alaska — Vote No on One.

Opponents had contended the measure would create project delays and costs, halting some development.

Read the full story at Anchorage Daily News

 

ALASKA: Salmon stakeholders split over ballot initiative

October 18, 2018 — Opinions on the salmon habitat initiative officially dubbed Ballot Measure 1 are about as diverse as Alaska’s fisheries.

About the only thing uniform in the environmental policy debate is the resource development industry’s collective opposition to it.

Nearly, but not all, of the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations oppose it; Bristol Bay Native Corp. has maintained a neutral position on the voter initiative for most of 2018 after CEO Jason Metrokin originally said the company was against it.

Commonly known as the Stand for Salmon initiative, Ballot Measure 1 is seen by many as a way to stop the controversial Pebble mine in Western Alaska, which BBNC has long and vigorously opposed.

The initiative seeks to overhaul Title 16, the Department of Fish and Game’s statutory directive on how to evaluate development projects in salmon habitat.

Current law directs the Fish and Game commissioner to issue a development permit as long as a project provides “proper protection of fish and game.”

The sponsors contend that is far too vague and an update is needed to just define what “proper protection” means.

The initiative would, among other things, establish two tiers of development permits that could be issued by the Department of Fish and Game.

“Minor” habitat permits could be issued quickly and generally for projects deemed to have an insignificant impact on salmon waters.

“Major” permits would be required for larger projects such as mines, dams and anything determined to potentially have a significant impact on salmon-bearing water.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

Why a Boston billionaire and global resource companies are fueling Alaska’s salmon-initiative debate

October 2, 2018 — A billionaire East Coast investor and six-figure donations from corporate giants are helping fuel assertions from both sides in the Stand for Salmon debate that out-of-state money and motivations are driving opponents’ campaigns.

The industry-led opposition to the ballot measure says large corporate contributors, such as ConocoPhillips, are rooted in Alaska and have the state’s best interest at heart. They charge that Outside nonprofits with questionable intentions have played a key role in the measure, which seeks to strengthen fish protections in Alaska.

“I think this is an anti-resource-development agenda” from Lower 48 groups with national ambitions, said Willis Lyford, a Stand for Alaska consultant.

The measure’s supporters, meanwhile, say the multinational giants are more interested in global profits than protecting Alaska’s environment.

The fight over Outside contributions is coming “from people who want to drill for oil, mine, do all these activities in Alaska that will irreparably harm our salmon,” said Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, a measure sponsor and former state biologist.

One measure supporter is John Childs, a billionaire investor from Boston with a luxury fishing lodge in the Bristol Bay region, where the Pebble mine prospect would be developed.

Read the full story at Anchorage Daily News

ALASKA: Hundreds of Commercial Fishermen ask Legislators to Pass Stand for Salmon Bill

February 6, 2018 — JUNEAU, Alaska — Thursday, commercial fishermen in the Stand for Salmon coalition delivered nearly 200 letters from their colleagues to the State Legislature in support of House Bill 199, the Stand for Salmon Bill. The bill, sponsored by House Fisheries Committee Chair Rep. Louise Stutes (R-Kodiak), was reintroduced to the Legislature last week at a hearing that drew a standing-room-only audience.

“Salmon are the icons of Alaska and we are renowned globally for sustainable management of the resource. Fishermen make sacrifices every year to ensure harvesting protects the fish first, and it’s not too much to ask that extractive industries are held to the same standards,” said Art Bloom of Tenakee Springs who will fish his 25th season in Bristol Bay this summer.

HB 199 updates state law governing development in salmon habitat, bolstering protections for salmon – a key player in Alaska’s seafood industry, the largest private-sector employer in the state. Salmon fishing creates more than 32,900 full-time jobs every year in the state, with the seafood industry earning $1.6 billion in annual labor income based on 2013 and 2014 averages, $2.1 billion in total labor income and $5.9 billion in total economic activity.

Read the full story at Alaska Native News

 

Will the fish habitat ballot proposal prod Alaska lawmakers to pass a similar bill? Don’t count on it.

January 30, 2018 — JUNEAU, Ala. — Opponents of a citizens initiative to boost protections for salmon habitat have a path to adapt the proposal to better suit them: helping pass a similar bill through the Alaska Legislature, which would render the initiative void.

The largely Democratic House majority last week introduced a new version of its legislation, House Bill 199, that could serve as that vehicle. Both proposals would create new permitting systems for projects that would affect fish habitat.

But the initiative’s pro-development opponents say they’re not exactly thrilled by HB 199 either.

And they’re making no promises to try to transform it into a compromise measure that could permit resource-development projects while still achieving some of the habitat protections that supporters want.

“These solutions have to be to problems that actually exist,” said Soldotna Republican Sen. Peter Micciche, a Cook Inlet commercial salmon fisherman who also works for ConocoPhillips. “The Senate majority doesn’t recognize, at this point, that there’s a gap.”

The state elections division has not yet placed the initiative on the ballot. Yet it’s already proven polarizing, and its legality is also being challenged in the Alaska Supreme Court.

The initiative is backed by an array of conservation groups that have teamed with three sponsors: Mike Wood, a Cook Inlet commercial setnet fisherman; Gayla Hoseth, a tribal chief from the Bristol Bay region; and Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, an Anchorage ecologist and fisheries advocate.

The supporters say Alaska’s permitting standards are outdated and wouldn’t provide adequate fish protections if proposed megaprojects such as dams, coal export projects, and the Pebble mine near Bristol Bay are ultimately built. The eight-page initiative would create a two-level permitting system with more stringent rules, like requiring that developers avoid or minimize damage to fish habitat or promise to clean up damage caused by projects.

The initiative has raised $300,000, with support from conservation groups like Homer-based Cook Inletkeeper, Virginia-based Trout Unlimited, the Oregon-based Wild Salmon Center and New Venture Fund, a left-leaning nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., according to filings with state campaign finance regulators.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News