Economic development in Western Alaska is among the most difficult challenges facing our state. Yet the potential gains from job creation, infrastructure and lifting people out of poverty are among the largest in Alaska, if not all of America. The Western Alaska Community Development Quota program has been addressing these issues quietly for more than 30 years, with real progress. For example, CDQ investments in Bering Sea fisheries support hundreds of jobs in villages where there are few other opportunities. The Bering Sea pollock fishery alone creates $60 million or more in CDQ revenue annually.
Throughout my career in rural economic development, I have reviewed many proposals promoting fisheries, community development, economic planning and infrastructure investments affecting the region. I’ve seen a lot of good ideas put on the table. But none go forward until proponents can answer a critical question: Will the proposed action meaningfully address the problem?
I find myself asking that question as Alaska’s salmon debate becomes increasingly focused on calls to restrict or eliminate trawling.
The hardship in Western Alaska is real. Yukon and Kuskokwim villages have endured years of poor salmon returns, fishing restrictions and uncertainty about the future. Families that once depended on salmon have watched those opportunities disappear. Anyone paying attention understands why people are frustrated and why they want action.
But not all actions lead to a positive result. Some even cause further harm. “Taking action” for the sake of doing something and pursuing a salmon recovery strategy are not the same thing. A viable recovery plan should be built around realistic outcomes, not empty promises that shutting down one fishery will bring back another. A recovery plan should address the needs of affected communities, not people whose goals lie elsewhere.
After asking whether a proposed action addresses the problem, the next questions are always the same. How much benefit do we expect? Over what period of time? What is the probable range of outcomes? And what happens if the results fall short?
Those aren’t political questions. They’re management questions.
They matter because the scale of the challenges facing Western Alaska salmon runs and the complexity of factors causing the declines are both larger than the public debate often suggests. Consider Yukon and Kuskokwim king salmon. In many years, the number of fish from those river systems intercepted in the pollock fishery is measured in the dozens. Even if every one of those fish returned to spawn, they would not come close to rebuilding the abundance levels Alaskans once knew.
That doesn’t mean those fish are unimportant. It means we should be honest about what any single management action can realistically accomplish within a complex system.
The reality is that scientists continue to study a range of factors affecting salmon survival and abundance. Ocean conditions, in-river water quality and habitat, changing food availability, predator-prey relationships, climate variability and harvest impacts all play a role. Some factors are better understood than others, but no serious scientist argues that Western Alaska’s salmon challenges can be explained by a single cause.
That raises another question: If the goal is recovery, are we focusing enough attention on the factors most likely to influence recovery?
The current debate often ignores work that is already underway. Some of the largest nonstate investments in fisheries research in Alaska have been made by organizations connected to Alaska’s working fisheries and the CDQ program. Research involving salmon genetics, stock identification, marine survival and ecosystem conditions is funded and supported by organizations that understand healthy salmon runs are critical to the future of Western Alaska communities.
This work rarely attracts much attention. Science is complicated, and it often doesn’t mesh well with campaign messages. But these projects are evidence that a real recovery strategy is possible: People are committing resources to understanding the problem rather than simply assigning blame.
Which leads to another question: What happens if the pollock fishery is dramatically reduced?
What happens to the revenue streams supporting salmon research? What happens to the hundreds of jobs in Western Alaska villages? What happens to infrastructure projects — particularly water and sewer improvements — that often depend on sustained economic activity? And if those revenues disappear, who replaces the more than $60 million generated annually for these communities? The state of Alaska? Congress? Outside advocacy organizations?
The people advocating for major changes to Alaska’s fisheries should answer these questions. They should have a plan, including a realistic assessment of both expected benefits and potential consequences.
That’s not an argument against change. It’s an argument for diligence and a focus on meaningful recovery.
Throughout my career, I’ve learned that complex problems rarely respond to simple solutions. The most successful long-term strategies are usually the ones willing to acknowledge uncertainty, follow the evidence wherever it leads and adjust when new information becomes available.
Western Alaska communities deserve a real plan, not empty promises.
Eric Deakin recently retired after a 25-year executive career focused on resource development opportunities in rural Alaska. He now serves as a senior adviser to The Truth. Contact him at eric@ak.fish and follow The Truth at thetruthak.com.
The Anchorage Daily News 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.