Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meet My Staff:
Dear District C Constituents,
Thank you for all of your emails, phone calls and
visits this session. Your input is immensely valua-
ble and I appreciate all the contact that you have
with me. Your opinions sit highly with me and help
me in my decision-making. As always, this past ses-
sion was extremely busy, however the amount of
emails received was unprecedented. I may not have
been able to respond to each email and I apologize
for that, but please know that each email was read.
Please keep informing me of your concerns and
opinions. And please don’t hesitate to call or visit
my office in Fairbanks.
Thank you,
Inside: Senator Bishop’s Budget
Position
“Smartest Kids”
Results of “District C”
Survey
Waters of the United States
Rule
Special Session
Brief Fishing Report
Federal Overreach
ANWR
Summer Fires 2015
Interim Office Address:
1292 Sadler Way
Suite 310
Fairbanks, AK
99701
Phone:
907-456-8161
Email:
S E P T EMBER 2 015 N EWS L E T T E R
From Left to Right
Pete Fellman, Chief of Staff
Brittany Hutchison, Legislative Staff
Senator Click Bishop
Mike Smith, Finance Staff
John Manly, Legislative Staff
Alaska is currently experiencing a budget cri-
sis. We are spending more than we are mak-
ing. Revenue is declining due to low oil prices
and our spending is slowly being cut. As of
May this year, oil prices were hovering
around $60/barrel (currently, they are in the
low to mid $40s), that brings the state’s reve-
nue down to $2.2billion/year. Just three fiscal
years ago, when oil prices were hovering
around $110, the state’s oil revenue was over
$9 billion. In the past three fiscal years, our
revenue has dropped by roughly $7.2 billion.
And yet, in those same three years, our state
operating budget has remained, on average, at
$5.7 billion. Even though cuts are being made,
(including agency cuts of 10% this year) our
level of expenses versus our level of revenue
are not sustainable. The budget gap is too big. The budget that just passed this year, for Fiscal
year 2016 (FY16) was just over $5 billion.
You may be wondering, “How were we able to
pay over $5 billion with only $2.2 billion in rev-
enue? How do we fill that gap?” Here is how:
The state of Alaska has three different savings
accounts:
The Permanent Fund: $52.8 billion (as of
6/30/2015)
The Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund
(CBRF) : approximately $7 billion (after
FY16 budget passed the legislature)
The Statutory Budget Reserve Fund
(SBRF): $1.65 billion (as of 7/31/2015)
When our expenses exceed our revenue, the leg-
islature must take three-fourths vote to approve
spending out of our CBR. This year, we ap-
proved a CBR withdrawal of just over $3 bil-
lion. That is how we were able to fund our state
budget; or “close that gap”. That withdrawal
took the total of the CBR from approximately
$10 billion to approximately $7 billion. As you
“fill the gap”, our savings diminish. The prob-
lem with funding state government services this
way is that Alaska will very quickly run out of
money. When I say “quickly”, I mean potential-
ly within the next 3 years.
How can we address this fiscal crisis? The same
way Alaskans have always attempted to solve
budget crises: 1) Reduce Expenditures, 2) Tradi-
tional Taxes and 3) other options (i.e. PFD).
Reduce Expenditures
Some folks say Alaska needs to “right size”
government before we start to discuss the possi-
bility of additional state revenue. I don’t agree:
it is our responsibility to find government effi-
ciencies just as it is also our responsibility to
consider new revenue sources when facing defi-
cits of such magnitude. The Legislature will
need to prioritize what state services we can and
should provide, and stop paying for programs
that we cannot afford.
What is the “right size” of government? Our
Constitution says the Legislature must pass an
operating budget to fulfill all the “shall provide
for” clauses throughout the constitution. It is
traditionally understood that the “operating
budget” is the only bill we are required by the
constitution to pass, and that it has to be
“balanced” because we, unlike the federal gov-
ernment, don’t have the ability to print our own
money. We have one-time savings that can be
drawn down to meet spending requirements and,
unless oil prices rise dramatically, those savings
will likely be used in the near term to make up
the budget shortfalls.
It is very difficult to cut your way to a sustaina-
ble budget. In fact, I believe it is impossible to
cut our budget to meet our revenue. Here’s why.
If we cut everything in state government except
what our constitutional mandates require of us,
our $2.2 billion in revenue could fund education
at $1.3 billion, current Medicaid at $700 million
and $230 million in debt service. That is ALL.
After we fund our requirements, we have no
more money. There would be no corrections, no
troopers, no department of safety, no depart-
ment of transportation, etc. That is not realistic.
We simply cannot cut our way to a sustainable
budget. Certainly not quick enough without
causing the economy to suffer. These massive
reductions that are required for sustainability,
would severely hurt our Alaskan economy.
Traditional Taxes and Other Options
It would be irresponsible for Alaska’s elected
leaders to wait until our savings are drained be-
fore we put new revenue-generating programs
on the books. We cannot count on the price of
oil to save us. It’s dropped from over $110 to
under $50 in the last six months. It could rise to
$60-65 by the end of the year, or go to $10-20
and stay there awhile. Clearly, we do not know
the future price of oil with any certainty.
We need to diversify our revenue stream during
the coming years. Yet, in today’s oil price envi-
ronment, even if we had an Alaska LNG export
gas pipeline in place and producing the revenue
optimistically projected to be $2 billion per
year, we would still be in deficit spending. Also,
the current world oversupply of oil and natural
gas do not argue for counting on gas line reve-
nue to begin for a very long time.
Continue on to page 3
Senator Click Bishop’s Budget Position
On a flight from Seattle to D.C. I read
a “page-turner”. I couldn’t put this book
down. The book was, “The Smartest Kids in
the World, and How They Got That Way” by
Amanda Ripley.
This book follows three American stu-
dents who, through the Foreign Exchange Pro-
gram, went to school in Finland, South Korea
and Poland. These three countries were cho-
sen because they scored the highest on the
Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) test. The PISA is used to test critical
thinking skills in students, and as we all know,
critical thinking is a “critical skill”. Because
of these countries’ high scores on the PISA
test, the book delves into each of their educa-
tion programs.
Now, I am not advocating for all the
ways that these countries educate their stu-
dents, because, for example, South Korean
students go to school 18 hours a day and are
under extreme pressure to perform. However,
I am advocating for one thing that all three
countries share and that is: education is a cul-
ture, a respected culture.
Students in these three countries value
education and know the importance of getting
a good education. They do not value sports
much at all. Sports are not part of the school
program, but rather they are extracurricular
activities outside of the school. Even the
“stoners”, as the book refers to them, value
school and stay involved. School is a priority
for the students in these countries.
The book also does some “myth-
busting” as I like to call it. It points out that:
Kids who live in wealthy zip codes aren’t
necessarily the smartest ones. It doesn’t
matter where you live, which zip code,
wealthy or poor. What matters is that all
kids “work hard and learn well”.
One of my favorite quotes from the book
is, “I didn’t give you an ‘F’, you earned
it”. This shows that a grade is reflective of
the student’s results, not their effort. This
teacher didn’t believe in setting kids up for
failure, but rather, telling them the truth.
Failure is okay, kids must learn it some-
times.
Finland funds their students 30% less, per
pupil, than the U.S. does, so the money put
into schools is not an indicator of success
for students.
In these countries, only the top 1/3 of the
graduating class becomes teachers. Only
the best of the best become teachers.
After reading this book, I am motivated to
work on making a culture change in educa-
tion. Why can’t Alaska lead the rest of the
country?
Article Continues on Page 4
Smartest Kids
...The Budget Continued
Going forward, we should consider the fol-
lowing:
Utilizing the income of the Permanent
Fund, through a percent-of-market-value
(POMV) or endowment management, with a
portion dedicated to dividends and a portion
dedicated to state government operations.
An increase in the motor fuel tax, which,
at 8 cents per gallon, has not been increased
in 50 years. At the current level, the tax rais-
es just under $40 million annually.
A flat education tax similar to one Alaska
had until the 1980s, which could raise $40-
160 million, depending on the rate, which
could be directed to K-12 costs.
A statewide sales tax, which could raise
$300-400 million, with provisions to accom-
modate local governments that already have
a sales tax.
An income tax, which could also raise
$300-400 million, but punishes production
and entrepreneurship, so this should be a last
option.
Any new source of revenue should be de-
signed with a trigger that turns it on or turns
it off, based on the balance in the SBR and
the CBR. It should also be designed to allow
the maximum of net revenue collected rela-
tive to the cost of collecting it. In this regard,
a POMV formula that simply moves money
from Permanent Fund earnings to the general
fund would not require the state to hire hun-
dreds of new employees, as a new statewide
tax would do.
One danger we have to be careful to avoid at
all costs is the injection of fear into Alaska’s
economy. We must avoid triggering an exo-
dus of people moving out of state, like we
saw in the mid- to late-1980s. An important
part of the discussion of right-sizing state
government should include looking at how
necessary a certain level of state spending is
to maintaining a viable economy.
Along with the element of fear to be avoided
is the need for Alaska to continue to attract
investment. If we are perceived as an econo-
my in steep decline, investors will go else-
where to find more positive opportunities.
The State of Alaska currently enjoys a triple-
A credit rating, and I want to maintain that
rating, especially as the state and its produc-
er/partners move forward toward construc-
tion of a gas pipeline. This will be the largest
civil construction project to date, and will
require a lot of debt. If we do not maintain
our triple-A rating, we will be forced to pay a
premium for debt, thereby lowering our net
return to the state on the project. And, drain-
ing our savings accounts without a discussion
of revenue is not a positive sign to the credit
rating agencies.
As a wrap-up, let’s suppose the price of oil
goes lower or simply does not rebound to a
level that supports our current level of state
spending. What do we do? The answer will
not be easy on Alaska’s residents. But right
now is the time to start that conversation.
We need to carry this conversation into the
interim with a task force made up of legisla-
tive, administrative and public members to
hold a frank discussion of where we are with
our budget and revenue picture, what is the
right size of government, and how we get to
a sustainable level of revenue that matches
Alaska’s basic needs. Answers we need be-
fore the start of the next session.
To paraphrase the late Sen. Ted Stevens, let’s
not worry so much about getting re-elected
and do what’s right for Alaska. Because, let’s
be realistic – the oil fairy may not show up to
bail us out this time!
Smartest Kids
Continued...
In my opinion, the best way to im-
prove education and to give it a high lev-
el of respect is to start with the teachers.
Teachers in Finland, Poland, and South
Korea are treated and respected with
the same regard as doctors, lawyers, en-
gineers, etc. In order to do this in the
US, the book suggests that we start with
increasing the rigors of becoming a
teacher. Teachers are churned out in
our country at a very high rate every
year. However, in those three countries,
only the top third of those who try to be-
come teachers, actually become teachers.
One teacher from Finland, who was
mentioned in the book, attempted to be-
come a teacher three times before suc-
ceeding.
Perhaps, if becoming a teacher
becomes more difficult and more rigor-
ous, the more respect the profession will
have. Ripley states, “The laws of human
nature applied: Once it becomes harder
to be a teacher, it could also become
more attractive (p. 91). Given that col-
leges already prepare far more teachers
than schools need, this change would not
necessarily lead to a teacher shortage.
Over time it might actually increase the
popularity of the profession by making it
more prestigious” (91).
To create a respected culture of
education, we need to start with bring-
ing all stakeholders together and giving
our teachers the tools they need to be-
come the best they can be. Stakeholders
should include: teachers, school board
members, the Commissioner of Educa-
tion, the Governor, the University, etc.
This should be a grassroots effort where
there is no legislation involved, but ra-
ther a group of stakeholders figuring out
the best path for teachers. Some ideas
are: teachers must get a master’s degree
in the field in which they choose to
teach; require an apprenticeship or
mentorship with a veteran teacher for 12
months; require more continuing educa-
tion courses every year (i.e. 9-12 credit
hours per year), etc.
This change will not happen over-
night, it may take ten or more years, but
as Ripley stated, “Since 1.6 million US
teachers are due to retire between 2011
and 2021, a revolution in recruitment
and training could change the entire
profession in a short period of
time” (97).
I could talk about this book all
day, but instead I will highly recom-
mend it to you. Consider reading it and
let me know what you think!
1. Reinstituting the [Education] “Head Tax”. Before oil taxes and
royalties began paying the bills for the State, workers throughout
Alaska paid a once-annual “head” tax of $10 for education. Would
you support bringing back a form of this modest tax as a way to fill
some of the budget deficit the state faces, with the full intent of fund-
ing our constitutionally mandated education requirement?
Strongly Support 41.8% Strongly Oppose 23.4%
Somewhat Support 24.2% Somewhat Oppose 10.6%
2. Defend the State Compact. Alaska’s statehood compact is an
agreement with the federal government that, among other things, rec-
ognized that the state would need a way to generate enough revenue to
support a viable self-government. Toward that end, the federal gov-
ernment granted the state 104 million acres of land, the natural re-
sources on which were to be developed for the purpose of generating
state revenue. Prudhoe Bay is an example of how that provision was
supposed to work. However, over the past 35-40 years, numerous fed-
eral and congressional withdrawals, regulations and policies have
made it more difficult for Alaska to develop its resources. Do you sup-
port or oppose re-asserting Alaska’s rights under the statehood com-
pact?
Strongly Support 70.8% Strongly Oppose 7.1%
Somewhat Support 8.8% Somewhat Oppose 13.4%
3. ANWR Designation. The Obama administr ation, through Sec-
retary of the Interior Jewell, recently announced it would seek con-
gressional designation of virtually all of the 19 million acres of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, effectively ending any
possibility of future oil and gas exploration of the coastal plain, or
1002 Area. Do you support or oppose this action?
Strongly Support 20.7% Strongly Oppose 65.7%
Somewhat Support 7.3% Somewhat Oppose 6.3%
4. Other Land Designations. Do you suppor t or oppose recent an-
nouncements by President Obama to designate other regions of Alas-
ka, besides ANWR, as off-limits for resource development?
Strongly Support 14.6% Strongly Oppose 63.4%
Somewhat Support 11.4% Somewhat Oppose 10.6%
5. Manage PFD as Endowment. Most large endowment funds or
“sovereign” funds are managed differently than the Permanent Fund
currently is managed. Under a classic endowment, a certain percent-
age of the entire value of all the fund’s assets is spun off each year to
be used for the purposes for which the fund was established. Typical-
ly, fund managers expect to realize a 7 percent gain on their invest-
ments, spinning off 5 percent, and keeping 2 percent in the fund to
“inflation-proof” the fund. This would be simpler than the fairly con-
voluted state formula currently used. Would you support or oppose
managing the Permanent Fund as an endowment?
Strongly Support 18.9% Strongly Oppose 22.4%
Somewhat Support 41.1% Somewhat Oppose 17.6%
6. Purpose of the Permanent Fund. When the Permanent Fund
was approved by the voters in 1976, it was sold as a rainy day fund
and a way to save some of the non-renewable oil wealth for future
generations. It was not until the early 1980s that the idea of an annual
dividend was enacted by the Legislature, as a way to have Alaska resi-
dents “invested” in protecting the Permanent Fund. In the past, the
legislature has discussed the idea of putting some of the income of the
fund to work paying for state government services: 50 percent to divi-
dends, 45 percent to state government programs, and 5 percent to mu-
nicipal revenue sharing. Would you support or oppose this concept?
Strongly Support 23.4% Strongly Oppose 38.4%
Somewhat Support 24.1% Somewhat Oppose 14.1%
Results of the 2015 “District C” Survey
Back in March I was asked by Senator Dan
Sullivan to comment on the EPA’s Waters of
the United States (WOTUS) rule. What fol-
lows is my testimony:
I am Click Bishop, currently an Alaska State
Senator, representing West Fairbanks and a
broad sweep of rural Alaska, including 63
small villages situated in the Yukon, Tanana
and Copper River valleys.
As a former commissioner of labor and work-
force development, I am intimately familiar
with the impacts of government decisions on
our economy – and on working families –
through delay or outright denial of resource
development projects.
My previous career was as a heavy equipment
operator, working on the Trans Alaska Pipe-
line construction, and other heavy construc-
tion projects throughout Alaska.
In my younger adult life, I spent quite a few
enjoyable hours racing high speed outboard-
powered boats on Interior rivers.
So, it is safe to say that everything I have
been involved with since I got out of high
school, and quite a bit of what I did before,
has taken place on or near “waters of the
United States,” especially under these new
definitions.
In speaking to you today, it is not my inten-
tion to regurgitate a long list of facts and
counterarguments showing how and where
the federal agencies have overstepped their
boundaries in this action. Those have been
entered into the record hundreds of times after
the proposed rule was published in the Feder-
al Record a year ago.
Instead, I want to sound a warning that there
will be huge negative impacts on the nation’s
and Alaska’s economy if the EPA and the
Corps adopt these definitional changes, which
it appears they are proceeding to do.
I fear the impacts of the EPA’s new, enhanced
and onerous powers generated by these pro-
posed changes – impacts on small, family-
owned and operated businesses, as well as
large projects proposed in Alaska.
It’s interesting to note that whenever a gov-
ernment agency like the EPA or the Corps of
Engineers seeks to “clarify” the meaning or
definition of a term or phrase, it very seldom
narrows its definition, but rather broadens it to
areas never envisioned by those who passed
the Clean Water Act in 1972. Wouldn’t it be
more honest to look at a program’s enabling
legislation and keep any “clarifications” as
true to the original intent of Congress as pos-
sible?
As so often happens, we also see that words
the Agencies are proposing to use to clarify
and better define their regulations only further
muddy the water, so to speak. How will they
determine what is a “significant” connection
to downstream water quality? What is a
“significant nexus?”
I note, also, that the Agencies are in a head-
long rush to impose this rule, ignoring the
public process and, in the case of their Con-
nectivity Report, getting the decision done
before the so-called science, upon which the
decision is supposed to be made, is available.
While stakeholders - from state agencies to
local governments - expressed their concern
about this “cart-before-the-horse” process, the
EPA and Corps moved forward regardless.
The Agencies have moved forward their pro-
posed changes without consultation with state
and local agencies that will be required to im-
plement and enforce the changes. In addition,
they have moved forward with no regard or
meaningful analysis of the fiscal impact to
state and local agencies.
It is clear to me that the EPA, in lock-step
with the Corps of Engineers, view it as their
mission to control every human activity with-
in the water column, from the moment the
raindrop hits the earth until it diffuses into the
ocean.
We in Alaska take great pride in our state’s
superlatives, which set us apart from our sister
states. Little things like our millions of acres
of wetlands… millions of lakes… 30,000
miles of shoreline… it’s cold and dark here in
the winter… there’s midnight sun in the sum-
mer…
I see no evidence that the Agencies will ac-
commodate our unique features, such as per-
mafrost, a pervasive feature found in 63 per-
cent of the state, yet unacknowledged in the
proposed new regulatory scheme. Permafrost
is an inhibitor of water flow – it is a “sink” for
the storage of water. It should be specifically
excluded from these regulations. Again, we
are not sure how the Agencies will determine
what is a “significant nexus,” but there is
simply no nexus between cryogenically isolat-
ed permafrost and “waters of the United
States.”
Unique as we may be in Alaska, in regard to
this new definition of “waters of the United
States,” we are truly in the same boat as all
our sister states and territories. With this defi-
nition change, we will see projects shut down
in Anchorage, Alaska, as well as Sheridan,
Wyoming… Seattle, Washington… Topeka,
Kansas… etc.
It is my understanding that the EPA and the
Corps will adopt these changes by the end of
this month, and in substantially the same form
as they have been presented to the public. In
other words, the thousands of comments and
reams of paper submitted to the federal agen-
cies by concerned citizens who will be nega-
tively impacted have been, apparently, win-
dow dressing.
This attempted rule-making by the EPA and
Corps of Engineers is beyond “clarification;”
it is, rather, a flagrant assault on the intent and
plain language of the Clean Water Act, a law
that was passed by your predecessors in Con-
gress. It represents a power grab by those two
Agencies, at a high cost to the freedoms of the
people of the U.S.
The US Senate has the power to stop imple-
mentation of these onerous definition chang-
es. I strongly encourage you and your col-
leagues to do so.
In summary, this whole “wetlands-adjacent-to
-adjacent-wetlands regulation” is the EPA’s
attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court. I
don’t know if the EPA knows this or not, but
the Supreme Court is “Supreme” they get the
last word, and they have spoken. Implement-
ing this adjacent regulation would overturn
the Great Northwest decision and that has ter-
rible implications for Alaskans.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Update: On August 27th, 2015, a Federal
Judge in North Dakota issued a temporary in-
junction against the implementation of
WOTUS for the 13 states (of which Alaska
was one of) that filed suit. This is great news,
for Alaska, however, it is only the first of
many steps to fully stopping the WOTUS law
from negatively impacting Alaskans.
Senator Click Bishop’s
Comments on EPA/Corps of Engineers
Proposed Rule Defining “Waters of the United States”
Special Sessions Were All
About Safe Kids and the
Budget
After the legislature gaveled out of the 29th
regular session, Governor Bill Walker called a
special session, based in Juneau, to address
the Budget, Medicaid expansion, and HB 44
(the Alaska Safe Children’s Act, or “Erin’s
Law”) .
The legislature began holding committee
meetings in Anchorage and flying back to Ju-
neau for floor sessions. The main reason they
opted to meet in Anchorage was because the
Capitol building in Juneau was, and is, under
major renovation, with most of the offices un-
usable.
During this first special session, members of
the Legislature considered all three of the
items in the Governor’s special session proc-
lamation, and decided that a new bill was
needed to address the budget and that HB44
needed to be rewritten. So, on the 24th day of
the first special session called by Gov. Walk-
er, the legislature adjourned and immediately
gaveled in Day 1 of a second special session
of their own, this time based in Anchorage.
This second special session was focused on
the new budget bill and the rewrite of HB44.
It quickly became apparent that meeting in the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office
(LIO) building would be a slow process.
Here’s why:
The Anchorage LIO is not equipped with
voting machines or permanent micro-
phones, so every vote taken during the
special session was a “roll call” voice
vote.
Microphones needed to be handed out
each time a member wanted to speak.
And seating in the Anchorage LIO audito-
rium had to be changed every time
the other legislative body needed
to meet.
As legislators settled into the new sur-
roundings and the new routine, bal-
ancing the budget remained this
year’s big task.
To balance the budget, a three-
quarters vote was needed to draw the
money from the Constitutional Budg-
et Reserve or (CBR). The CBR is a
state savings account used to fund
state government, in times when
Alaska struggles with low oil prices. Passing
HB44 would help garner enough votes in the
House to access the CBR.
Enough votes finally came a day after law-
makers reached a tentative agreement on a
state operating budget. The agreement, which
reduced overall government spending by near-
ly $800 million in unrestricted general funds,
and allowed for a fully funded budget utiliz-
ing the CBR, was a hard fought battle. The
agreement was an increase of less than one
percent from a preliminary spending plan
passed in late April, which did not have sup-
port from the House Democratic minority.
Members of the Republican-led Senate major-
ity caucus initially said they wouldn’t support
the House budget because it contained the
scheduled pay raises for state workers. Those
raises, however were balanced by a $30 mil-
lion cut in other areas of state government. I
believe that the State of Alaska should keep
its promises to the people first and then go to
the table to try and negotiate new agreements
and contracts with state employees.
The House-compromised-budget, agreed to by
the Senate, does just that. It includes unallo-
cated reductions to offset the cost of living
increases for covered and non-covered state
employees. The House also agreed to include
nonbinding language in the budget deal ask-
ing the administration to hold future contracts
flat, with clauses to reopen negotiations if the
price of oil goes above or below key thresh-
olds. This plan finally gained enough votes in
the Senate to pass during the second special
session. The plan allowed funding for: state
workers’ pay raises, that are contractually
guaranteed, cash for Pre-K grants and K-12
schools, and covered other budget items that
had slowed the legislative process.
Also during the second special session, House
Bill 44 was rewritten in the Senate. The bill
will help protect children and require schools
to provide abuse prevention training and
guidelines. This bill was the final bill ap-
proved by the Legislature this session. The
House adjourned following concurrence to the
Senate changes to HB44
After weeks of work and negotiations, the
Legislature passed a funded budget with the
Senate voting 16-3 and the House voting 32-7
in favor of a $5.1 billion budget. This marked
the end of a debate that pushed the Legislature
into seven weeks of overtime, and Alaska to-
ward a potential government shutdown.
Brief Fishing Report
As spring arrived, people along the rivers of Interior Alaska pre-
pared to undertake the age old tradition of salmon fishing. This
year, same as last, there was no directed King Salmon fishing al-
lowed on the Yukon River and its tributaries for subsistence pur-
poses. These heavy restrictions have been put in place to assure
limited impact on King Salmon.
King Salmon Subsistence Restrictions have been put in place and
were applied aggressively as the run migrated up river. Projec-
tions by the Department of Fish and Game indicated that the run
would be somewhere between “poor to average” with it anticipat-
ed to be toward the lower end. However, early indications from
the Test Fisheries and Pilot Station seem to project there might
be a stronger return than anticipated, with CPUE (Catch Per
Unit Effort) numbers higher than historical averages and cumu-
lative counts slightly higher than averages early in the season. We
won’t have the final numbers until this winter.
I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Fish and Game urging
him to allow limited King Salmon subsistence openings, as soon
as possible, once Escapement Goal numbers have been assured.
I am pleased to report that escapement was made into Canada
and limited openings were allowed in the Fort Yukon area.
I hope King Salmon numbers continue to improve in the future
and that regular fishing schedules can be re-instated. I am en-
couraged to see that Chum numbers are doing well and continue
to provide more than enough fish for subsistence opportunity.
As the season progresses, the Department of Fish and Game re-
leases on a daily basis the “Yukon River Daily Update” you can
sign up for the daily updates at the attached hyperlink: http://
list.state.ak.us/soalists/yukonriverdailyupdate/jl.htm.
Allow me to explain my “Click on Uncle
Sam” poem that I read on the Senate Floor
this session.
After President Obama announced he would
be trying to get the Congress to declare 98
percent of ANWR wilderness, the Senate Ma-
jority decided we should respond by giving
special order comments discussing how feder-
al over-reach is impacting Alaskans, especial-
ly working Alaskans.
The Senate President asked me to discuss the
impacts of federal over-reach on miners and
the mineral industry. Rather than stand up and
rant and rave as others might be tempted to
do, I chose to read a poem – a take-off on Dr.
Seuss that we thought would make the point
in a more light-hearted way.
After the poem was posted on social media
and reported on TV and in the newspapers, I
got quite a few very positive comments. It was
one of the most viewed postings ever to come
out of the Legislature. On the downside, I also
got a few negative comments, mainly related
to the inclusion of a line about “packin’ heat.”
I think many Alaskans might also be “packin’
heat,” so there might could be a connection
there.
Anyhow, the most interesting response we got
was an op-ed published in the Alaska Dis-
patch News from a school teacher constituent
of mine in Ft. Yukon. While I might take ex-
ception to his characterization of the Legisla-
ture as a “clown car,” he did make some valid
and thoughtful points about the need for lead-
ership at the state level on problems impacting
Alaskans on a daily basis. So, even though we
are clearly on opposite sides of the question of
whether ANWR ought to be 98 percent wil-
derness, I appreciate the feedback.
I, for one, will continue to express my opposi-
tion to a wide range of bad decisions being
made by the Obama administration. And I
encourage my constituents to do the same,
if they agree that over-reach by the feder-
al government has simply gone too far.
What do we mean by federal over-reach?
Mainly, that the federal government has
gone back on the promises it made to
Alaska at the time of statehood, or in oth-
er subsequent federal laws. These include
such things as making ANWR a federal
wilderness area, even though the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980 (ANILCA) specifically excluded
the 1002 Area of ANWR from wilderness
because it holds great potential for oil and
gas. In addition, ANILCA included a “no
more takings” clause, basically saying the
Congress had taken enough land in Alas-
ka out of the potential for natural resource
development.
Another example is the over-zealous reg-
ulation of the activities of Alaskans by the
EPA, the USF&WS, the BLM, the NPS,
and other regulatory agencies. Many of
these are bureaus of the Department of
Interior, the biggest landowner in Alaska. Out
of the 365 million acres of land in Alaska,
about 200 million are set aside and managed
by the federal government, mainly the Depart-
ment of Interior. So, when the Secretary of the
Interior, Sally Jewell, makes announcements
that are contrary to federal promises, and will
hurt Alaskans, we must push back.
Federal Overreach
The last week of January, President Barack
Obama and Secretary of the Interior Sally
Jewell announced several initiatives his ad-
ministration would take on that will have a
devastating impact on Alaska, if they are suc-
cessful.
First, Jewell announced they would ask the
Congress to designate virtually all of the Arc-
tic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as wil-
derness. I do not support this decision and I’ll
tell you why.
I have always believed we in Alaska do not
have to trade one resource for another in order
to both utilize and responsibly develop those
resources. In order to do so, however, we need
to make those decisions based on facts, not
superlatives or suppositions.
Currently, about one-half of the 19 million
acres of ANWR is wilderness. Other areas are
managed as “wilderness study areas.” Jewell
said she would manage these areas as wilder-
ness, in anticipation that Congress would
grant the administration’s wish (which is not
likely with a Republican-controlled House
and Senate).
This is a clear violation of our rights as a
state, which supposedly entered the Union on
an equal footing with 49 other states. On the
other hand, if you look at a map of the U.S.
showing the amount of federal lands in each
state, the vast majority of it is west of the Mis-
sissippi River. Where Alaska has more than
55 percent of its land mass in federal owner-
ship, some states, such as Nevada, are even
higher, hard as that is to believe!
The primary stated opposition to exploring for
oil and gas in the 1002 Area, and developing
any fields that might be found there, is that the
Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates be-
tween the U.S. and Canada, uses the 1002 Ar-
ea as a calving ground. This herd is important
to the Athabascan people of Northern Alaska
and the Yukon, and rightfully so. The indige-
nous people have utilized the Porcupine herd
for thousands of years, harvesting between
2000 and 4500 animals per year. This histori-
cal harvest should not be disrupted.
Since ANILCA was passed, and the debate
over oil and gas development in the 1002 Ar-
ea ramped up, the Porcupine herd has become
the most researched and monitored herd in the
country, and probably the world, by both
American and Canadian researchers.
The Porcupine herd averaged about 100,000
animals throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but
increased by about five percent each year after
then, growing to about 178,000 animals by the
end of the 1980s. After a dip to around
123,000 in the 1990s, the herd is once again
approaching 200,000.
Most recent research indicates the caribou are
not using the 1002 Area for calving as much
as in the past, tending now to concentrate
closer to the Canadian border. They also
spend their summers in the southern portion
of ANWR, in the foothills of the Brooks
Range, and a fair distance from the 1002 Ar-
ea.
I would also note the dramatic rise in numbers
of the Central Arctic caribou herd over the
past 30 years, co-existing with oil and gas de-
velopment in the Prudhoe Bay area. The Cen-
tral Arctic herd grew from an estimated
13,000 in 1983 to 31,800 in 2002. This herd is
similarly situated to the Porcupine herd, yet
grew at the same rate, in spite of having oil
and gas handling facilities, drill rigs, pipes
and roads all around them. In fact, my obser-
vation from having worked on the North
Slope for a couple of decades, is that the ele-
vated roads and the shade provided by the
pipelines benefits the caribou, giving them
some relief from the warble flies.
So, it has become more difficult to make a co-
gent, fact-based argument that oil and gas ex-
ploration and development in the 1002 Area
would have any significant negative impact on
the caribou.
More on Federal Overreach…
Summer Fires 2015
In 2004, Alaska suffered its worst wildfire season on record. Heat, dry conditions and lightning strikes combined to produce 701 fires and a
staggering 6,590,140 acres burned — “more than 8 times the 10 year acreage average,” according to the state’s Division of Air Quality.
Newly released data from the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center shows that wildfires in the state, this year, have consumed 4.7 million
acres. The Alaska Division of Forestry has said that “the amount of acreage burned in Alaska during June of 2015 shattered the previous
acreage record set in June of 2004 by more than 700,000 acres.” The division reports:
June of 2004 saw 216 fires, scorching 1,153,258 acres;
June of 2015 saw 404 fires and 1,875,984 acres consumed.
It’s too early to say whether this will be Alaska’s worst wildfire season on record, but the current signs are very worrisome. With nearly five
million acres burned from almost 700 fires, this summer is currently considered the fourth worst fire season in Alaska’s recorded history.
With wildfires also raging in the lower 48, resources may be stretched too thin to properly combat fires in Alaska and elsewhere. Throughout
this fire season, more than 5,500 firefighters and personnel have helped battle Alaska’s wildfires. Among the firefighters are: 2,035 Alaskans,
nearly 3,500 individuals from 44 other states, and 54 Canadians.
I have been busy this summer working on our mining claims in the Tofty Mining District, near the Tanana fire zone. The Tanana zone fires
have totaled 2.3 million acres and the Galena zone fires have consumed nearly 1 million acres. I have been making sure camps and equip-
ment were in a good defensive position to protect friends’ and neighbors’ assets. I have also helped coordinate with the Department of For-
estry on a daily basis, working with them on fire movement updates and coordinating with other property owners in the area. Needless to say,
this fire season (aka Summer) has been a tough one.
Below are a few of the pictures I took while at my mine.
