Governor and Lieutenant Governor Candidates
Fish come first, because without sustainable runs there is no commercial, sport, or subsistence fishery left to manage. I will direct the state to take firm, coordinated positions at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council instead of showing up as a passive participant, push for real accountability and enforceable reduction strategies on bycatch, and increase investment in stock assessment so decisions on stocks like Chinook are based on the best data, not politics.
I will build a formal state-tribal fisheries consultation structure, so community-based users have a real seat before decisions are made, not just a chance to comment after. I will make allocation decisions more transparent so data drives outcomes instead of whoever has the loudest lobbyist in Juneau, and I will enforce the bottom-trawling restrictions we already have on the books.
I also support science-based harvest thresholds at Area M in False Pass, tied directly to how the Yukon and Kuskokwim runs are actually doing. When those rivers are struggling, Area M gets restricted first, not last. Managing our fisheries well means Alaska showing up with a strong voice, not waiting on Washington or a federal court to force our hand.
Alaska’s fisheries have earned a global reputation because they’re managed using science and sustainability. We should preserve that foundation while investing in better research, improving responsiveness to changing conditions and ensuring every user group has confidence in the process. Good fisheries management should remain science-based, transparent and focused on protecting the resource for future generations.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Our fisheries our going downhill. Should we change how manage it? Yes!
Alaska is known for salmon and halibut, not fish sticks, and our management has not kept pace with the threat to that legacy.
I grew up at Anchor Point and worked charter boats on the Homer Spit. I have not caught a king on the Anchor River in years. That is not nostalgia. That is data with a fishing rod attached.
Restrict trawling in state waters inside the three-mile limit. Returning salmon travel close to shore, and that is ground we actually govern. If we will not protect the water we control, we have no standing to ask a federal council to protect the rest.
Hard bycatch caps, real observer coverage backed by camera technology, if midwater trawl then then prove it using technology. As a hunter, fisherman and a Christian, I believe we are stewards of the earth, and bycatch is wanton waste. Grinding up chum by the hundred thousand and shoveling it over the side is not management. It is waste, and Alaskans know it.
Yes, absolutely change. Change out some appointments to boards and commissions, listen to those involved in the industry and the science.
Yes. Alaska needs fisheries management that is more precautionary, transparent and responsive to ecosystem change and community needs. Fisheries are food security, culture, jobs and the foundation of many local economies.
I support stronger habitat protection, meaningful bycatch reduction, better in-season science, improved escapement monitoring and greater use of Indigenous and local knowledge. Alaska also needs more research into warming waters, ocean conditions, hatchery interactions, changing migration patterns and predator-prey relationships.
A governor shapes fisheries policy through appointments. I would appoint people who understand conservation, subsistence, commercial and personal-use fisheries, community economies and the obligation to protect abundance across generations.
The state should elevate subsistence and food security, support small-boat and community-based fisheries, reduce waste and advocate more forcefully when federal management decisions harm Alaska communities.
Management must protect long-term abundance first. Allocation decisions matter, but no allocation fight matters if the fish are gone.
Yes, more fish breeding programs are needed, take the excess fish and release them to rural communities as requested by tribal councils, therefore increasing fish populations for rural Alaskans and helping Native populations in need.
Yes, with a focus on science-based, sustainable management that prioritizes long-term stock health and maximum benefit to Alaskans. We must strengthen state influence where possible, reduce federal overreach, and ensure management supports Alaska jobs and communities without unnecessary restrictions. I will appoint Board of Fish members that are science based and disciplined to avoid the political whim of the day. Management must be impact based and not on the politics of allocation to help ensure sustainability and abundance. The current fever pitch of politics in this process will END with me.
Yes. Alaska should change the way it manages fisheries by placing a much greater emphasis on rebuilding abundance. For too long, state and federal managers have reacted too slowly to the decline of king and silver salmon runs, leaving families, subsistence users, sport anglers, and commercial fishermen with fewer opportunities year after year.
We need management that is proactive rather than reactive, with stronger action on bycatch reduction, habitat protection, stock monitoring, and rebuilding depleted runs. I support science-based, abundance-driven management that prioritizes healthy fish populations first because abundance benefits every user group.
Alaska should also have a stronger voice in federal fisheries decisions to ensure our resources are managed for the long-term benefit of Alaska’s communities, economy and way of life.
Yes. Many of the most important decisions affecting our fisheries are made by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. For too long, that council has been controlled by Seattle-based trawl interests, and Alaskans’ voices have been sidelined. As governor, I will flip that dynamic, and nominate North Pacific council members who will advance Alaska’s interests.
I was one of very few legislators who took the time to testify and advocate in the North Pacific council process, largely to support reductions in chinook, chum, and halibut bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. As governor, I’d nominate members to the council to make sure our interests — not Seattle’s — are represented.
The idea is simple: Alaska fisheries should benefit Alaskans and Alaska communities.
Alaska allowed the destruction of most of its fisheries with oil tanker ballast water and allowing NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to take over management of cod and halibut. Whatever the feds manage, they destroy. If it isn’t NMFS, it’s the U.S. military doing naval exercises in the month of May dropping bombs and depth charges in the Gulf of Alaska. This is right where the king salmon are feeding and migrating. The state needs to get NMFS along with their federal officers wearing bulletproof vests, carrying .357-caliber pistols out of Alaska.
Alaska fisheries are the foundation of coastal communities, subsistence life, commercial harvest, sport industry and one of our most durable economic engines. Alaska should be proud of a management system among the most sustainable in the world.
That said, our system faces real strain. Yukon and Kuskokwim salmon returns have collapsed. Coastal residents watch fish that fed their families for generations no longer show up. Board of Fisheries meetings have become adversarial. Federal-state management conflicts continue.
I would improve the system in three ways.
First, restore science as the driver of allocation decisions. Board of Fisheries membership should be professionally qualified, geographically balanced, and confirmed with real vetting.
Second, expand tribal, subsistence, and rural community input. My administration will convene an annual state-federal-tribal fisheries summit to align management before crises reach the board.
Third, invest in stock assessment, run counting, and habitat science by funding the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, UAF fisheries programs, and cooperative research with regional stakeholders.
Alaska’s fisheries debate deserves science and solutions, not slogans.
Yes, currently we use wild production methods and commercial harvesting. The two concepts are incompatible. It’s like expecting a commercial harvest of apples from wild apple trees. We wouldn’t even think of doing that, yet we do it with our fisheries. I am the only candidate with a degree in biology. I understand the risks, however, continuing to do what we are doing has more risk. I believe we must stop trawler bycatch and realistically redesign our production methods. I am hopeful that we can stop the bycatch without shutting them down, but if we have to shut down the trawler industry, we must provide protections and opportunities for Alaskans who are impacted by the shutdown. This is a difficult situation for all of us. I believe I have a solution for whichever way we choose to proceed.
No permits issued to non-Alaskans
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Alaska’s constitutional commitment to sustained yield has served us well as our overriding management principle. But the specifics of the management system should always be subject to review as circumstances change.
Before we do anything, I believe we need to make sure that we have a strong science-based Department of Fish and Game. Good management of our fisheries requires attracting and retaining qualified scientists, funding research, conducting surveys, listening to people with local knowledge as well as outreach to communities and organizations throughout Alaska.
I would propose extending Alaska jurisdiction beyond the current 3-mile line. This would give Alaskan better control over the fisheries of most importance to Alaska.
We need to address the bycatch issues from good science not bad politics. There are many reasons why some salmon stocks are at historic low levels. Bycatch is one of those reasons and one of the few we have control over. So we must do a better job of crafting controls that really work.
Finally, when we aren’t certain of the best approach we should always err on the side of the resource and prioritize the interests of Alaskans to the extent it can be done legally.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
This is one of the oldest broken promises in Alaska law, and I intend to fix the foundation of it. When Congress passed ANCSA, it eliminated the Alaska Native subsistence preference with a promise that Congress would address it. ANILCA’s Title VIII only partially kept that promise, landing as a rural preference instead of an Alaska Native preference, and that gap has never been resolved.
I support a constitutional amendment that aligns Alaska with Title VIII of ANILCA. The political timing is right, bipartisan majorities exist, and I am ready to work on it now. That amendment is step one. The longer arc is restoring meaningful Alaska Native access to the resources people here have depended on for thousands of years, and I’m committed to that full arc, not just the first step.
This has to be built in true partnership with rural communities, tribes, and Alaska Native corporations, because the people who have waited longest for this to be made right should shape how it gets done. I’ll bring the political will from the governor’s office. They bring the knowledge, the standing, and the deepest stake in getting it right. That’s what’s at stake for me: whether families can still feed themselves from these rivers and this land, and whether that way of life gets passed to the next generation.
This issue has challenged governors for decades, and no one benefits from continued conflict. I will work with Alaska Native leaders, local communities, stakeholders, the Legislature and the federal government to pursue practical, durable solutions that respect both federal law and our state constitution while protecting the subsistence way of life that is so important to many Alaskans.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Subsistence is not merely a lifestyle. It is how families eat. I will not treat it as a bargaining chip.
The conflict is real and I will not pretend it away. ANILCA requires a rural priority. Article VIII of our constitution forbids that kind of preference. That standoff has cost Alaska management authority over its own land and waters for decades, and every year we leave it unresolved, Washington decides more of it for us.
So I will attack the cause instead of relitigating the symptom. Most of this fight is a fight over scarcity. When the runs and game numbers are healthy, the conflict cools. When they collapse, every user group turns on the others. That is why bycatch reform, hatchery scrutiny, and honest science are subsistence policy, not merely fish policy.
Abundance is the only durable answer. Everything else is rationing the decline.
Uphold the Alaska Constitution on state lands and waters. On state-managed lands and waters, the Alaska Constitution is clear: No exclusive rights of fishery. No residency-based preference.
My administration will honor that. ANILCA is the law of the land on federal territory. Rural Alaskans who rely on wild food for survival must have meaningful access, and my administration will work constructively with federal partners to ensure that happens.
But respecting federal law does not mean allowing federal agencies to erode state authority over navigable waters, access, or wildlife management. I will defend Alaska’s constitutional powers every time they are challenged — firmly, professionally, and with the full weight of the state behind us.
Subsistence is a fundamental matter of food security, culture, continuity and Tribal sovereignty. It is how many Alaskans feed their families, teach younger generations and maintain relationships with the lands and waters that have sustained their communities for thousands of years.
The state-federal conflict has produced decades of divided management without resolving the underlying issue. My administration would work with Tribal governments, subsistence users, rural communities, constitutional experts, the Legislature and federal agencies to develop a durable legal solution.
Tribal governments should not be invited into the process only after the state has designed a proposal. They should be partners in defining the problem, drafting the solution, and managing the resources on which their citizens depend.
I would support placing a carefully drafted constitutional amendment before Alaska voters if that is necessary to protect meaningful subsistence access and restore responsible state management. Any proposal must be developed with tribal and rural communities, not imposed on them.
Equal language on paper is not enough when communities face profoundly different costs, access, and dependence on wild foods.
These terms and ANY permits should be negotiated with the Native tribal councils, which may help bring revenue to the tribes as well.
We must balance federal requirements for rural access with the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection principles through practical, collaborative solutions. Seek legislative or other lawful avenues to provide for traditional subsistence uses while maintaining fairness and constitutionality for all Alaskans. We must push back on federal overreach where we can and pursue our own RS 2477 and 17(B) initiatives that were promised at statehood, while working in good faith with stakeholders. We will always be cognizant of statutory and constitutional obligations and agreements that must be honored and kept.
My administration will focus on abundance, not division. I do not believe we should continue re-litigating decades of court decisions. Instead, we should work within existing law while reclaiming a stronger state role in managing fish and wildlife populations. The core conflict is not over management of resources, but overallocation. Alaska should be allowed to manage for maximum sustained yield and healthy, abundant populations while respecting federal requirements regarding rural preferences.
I will work closely with boroughs, local communities, tribes, Native corporations and federal partners to rebuild abundance through active, science-based management, habitat enhancement, predator management where appropriate, and stronger conservation measures when stocks decline. When fish and game populations are thriving, allocation disputes become far less significant because there is enough resource for subsistence users, personal-use users, sport users and commercial interests. My goal is simple: more fish, more game, more opportunity and a management system that brings Alaskans together around abundance rather than scarcity. Abundance is the solution to scarcity-driven conflicts. Alaska should focus on restoring management authority while allowing federal partners to continue their role in allocation where required by law.
Title VIII of ANILCA is clear: Rural and subsistence users should receive priority access to fish and wildlife. But this tension has gone unresolved for forty years, and rural Alaskans — especially in Native communities — deserve better. My administration would start from a clear principle: Subsistence is a way of life, and protecting rural Alaskans’ access to it is a priority.
I support the rural preference and would defend it — and stop the state’s expensive litigation that seeks to undermine subsistence. We should respect settled federal law, and we should protect subsistence because it’s the right thing to do.
I see no reason to change the current hunting regulations. However, we may have to put a smaller limit on the number of salmon an individual can harvest per day.
Alaska has lived with the tension between the federal ANILCA rural preference and the Alaska Constitution’s equal access requirement since the 1989 McDowell decision. We have run a dual management system since. The result is confusion, litigation and a persistent sense in rural and Alaska Native communities that the state does not fully value the subsistence way of life.
My administration will approach this issue with the humility the history demands.
First, state agencies will work far more closely with federal subsistence managers, the Federal Subsistence Board, and tribal governments to reduce conflict and duplication. Alaska Native users should not navigate a bureaucratic maze to feed their families.
Second, my administration will prioritize customary and traditional use determinations and fund the science, harvest monitoring and regional advisory processes that make sustainable management possible.
Third, I will engage tribes, the Alaska Federation of Natives, rural communities and legislators in serious dialogue about durable long-term solutions, including whether a constitutional path can succeed.
The subsistence way of life is who Alaska is. My administration will treat it that way.
Living in rural Alaska for the last 30-plus years, I can assure you that rural Alaskans need that subsistence access. Without subsistence many Alaskans would be forced from their homes into the big cities. Don’t we have enough homelessness? Some changes could be made if coordinated with rural Alaskans to make the system more efficient. I would be in support of all of us working together to find better solutions.
10th Amendment, federal Constitution. The state does not delegate the powers to the federal level. McIlvaine vs. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held: the only federal jurisdiction within a state is forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Randy lived in Utqiagvik/Barrow for eight years and watched firsthand the importance of subsistence for food security and cultural identity in rural Alaska. In addition, he was a member of the United States delegation to the 2012 International Whaling Commission meeting in Panama, where he worked alongside Alaska Native leaders to help secure the continuation of internationally recognized subsistence whaling.
His experiences, as well as my own, reinforce our belief that Alaska’s subsistence traditions deserve both respect and strong advocacy. At the same time, Alaska’s Constitution contains important principles of common use and equal access that can’t be ignored.
Subsistence rights have been framed as a battle between federal law and the state constitution for many years. And because of that, we have spent decades fighting legal turf battles while management has become increasingly fragmented and our resources have suffered. That needs to end.
We need to approach the subsistence debate, not as a binary issue, but as an issue of providing a sustained yield that will address the needs of both subsistence and sport users. It’s an issue of prioritizing science based proactive fish and game management over political ideology.
I believe that if we all put our legal swords down and work together, we can find a resolution that can actually pass constitutional challenges and get the Feds to stand down.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Across more than 200 communities off the Railbelt, electricity runs $0.50 to $1.00 per kilowatt-hour, against a national average of $0.17. Power Cost Equalization is a lifeline, but it only subsidizes prices instead of lowering them. We must do more.
On the Railbelt, the urgent crisis is Cook Inlet gas. Production is declining, Hilcorp’s firm contracts start phasing out in 2028, and Enstar’s consultants say it’s risky to count on Cook Inlet gas past 2026. Homer Electric couldn’t find a supplier willing to sign a binding contract. This could cost ratepayers $150 million to $600 million a year, with imported LNG tripling today’s price. Harvest’s Kenai LNG terminal and Glenfarne’s Cook Inlet Gateway propose separate import terminals, and legislators question why ratepayers should fund both.
This crisis proves that relying on one source for most of our power isn’t reliable or cheap. We should keep expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar, and build out storage and batteries.
I’ll use the new Alaska Department of Energy that I have proposed to lead that coordination, combine scattered energy functions, and push incentives for in-state Cook Inlet exploration to buy time, treating imports as a bridge, not the answer. I support economic dispatch on the Railbelt and rural microgrids pairing wind, solar, hydro, and storage so villages aren’t exposed to diesel prices, and all would be built by Alaska’s workforce under prevailing wage standards.
Affordable energy will be my administration’s top priority. Lower energy costs benefit every Alaska family and every Alaska business.
First, now is the time for us to prioritize and continue to responsibly develop Alaska’s abundant energy resources.
We need to increase Cook Inlet natural gas supply and invest in critical infrastructure to improve the reliability of the Railbelt electric system.
Statewide, regional energy solutions that provide for local communities.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Build the Beluga-to-Healy transmission line. It is the first power redundancy in state history. It lets the cheapest generation on the system serve the whole Railbelt instead of stranding it, and it opens the grid to new supply. Interior Alaska pays some of the highest energy costs in the nation, and this can lower them.
This is the defining issue, and Alaska’s failure on it is close to absurd. We sit on 35 trillion cubic feet of gas and we are preparing to import LNG to heat our most populous region.
Cook Inlet production is declining and Southcentral utilities are already planning around a shortfall. There is no version of this where we wait it out. The gas is there. What has been missing is a state that treats a permit deadline as a deadline. I will hold agencies to defined timelines.
Advance Alaska LNG. It is closer to a final investment decision than it has ever been and it needs a governor who will personally manage permitting and tax stabilization instead of giving speeches about it.
Get rural Alaska additional options. Small hydro projects and power storage.
Energy is the price of everything else.
Develop our resources.
Alaska needs a practical energy strategy focused on affordability, reliability and local control. The state should invest in weatherization, transmission, grid reliability, energy storage, renewable generation and community-scale projects designed for local conditions.
For the Railbelt, we need an honest and coordinated plan for natural gas supply, transmission upgrades, renewable integration and protection against sudden rate increases. In rural Alaska, we should reduce diesel dependence through microgrids, renewable generation, bulk fuel improvements, efficiency upgrades and local workers trained to operate and repair community systems.
The test for any project should be straightforward: Does it lower costs, improve reliability, create local jobs and protect families from price shocks?
I would strengthen the Alaska Energy Authority, aggressively pursue federal matching funds, and coordinate energy, housing and infrastructure investments so that families see real savings. Alaska should build an energy system that keeps more money in local economies rather than exporting household dollars through imported fuel costs.
Seek clean nuclear energy and maybe carbon offsets to appease both sides of this issue, maybe seek investment to build a highway to the Lower 48 and an oil refinery here in Alaska.
Pursue an “all-of-the-above” energy policy: aggressively develop Alaska’s oil, gas, and other resources to increase supply, lower costs and generate revenue. Reduce regulatory barriers, promote competition and focus on practical projects that deliver affordable, reliable energy to households and businesses. We must get ourselves from a culture of “no” to a culture of “yes” regarding energy projects such as the Alaska LNG project, Susitna Dam Hydroelectric and multiple geothermal and other projects statewide.
Alaska is one of the most energy-rich places on earth, yet our families pay some of the highest energy costs. We need to stop studying the problem and start building solutions.
My administration will aggressively pursue low-cost, reliable energy through a portfolio of natural gas, hydroelectric power, geothermal, clean coal technologies, and future technologies such as small modular reactors. We will streamline permitting, advance key energy projects, and promote competition and investment. Lower energy costs reduce the price of housing, groceries, healthcare, and transportation while creating jobs and growing Alaska’s economy.
Lowering energy costs is one of simplest ways to make life in Alaska more affordable.
Our energy is expensive because we’ve under-invested and under-coordinated for decades. We need to take an all-of-the-above approach to building new, cheap energy sources. In many cases, the cheapest kilowatt will be renewable energy: wind, solar, hydro or battery storage. Other times, it will be natural gas. The state should protect ratepayers while also making sure our air, water and land are safe from unnecessary pollution.
On the Railbelt, I’d aggressively push the four utilities to cooperate — shared transmission, joint dispatch, a unified grid — which would lower bills without building a single new power plant. I’d fast-track permitting for renewable and storage projects, and keep working toward affordable natural gas for the Railbelt as Cook Inlet supplies tighten. In rural Alaska, I’d protect the Power Cost Equalization program and invest in the local wind, solar and microhydro projects already cutting diesel dependence.
The Flint Hills North Pole refinery was torn down and sold to Russia in 2017. We need to build another refinery near Glennallen or near the Railbelt. Most Native villages should have their own natural gas wells. I am completely on solar power with 6,500 watts and two banks of lead-acid batteries. Other people can do the same as I if they want. One person I know near Fairbanks invested $12,000 for 12 KW of power. Solar cells are mounted vertically to catch light reflected off the snow.
I authored the Renewable Energy Grant Fund and the Emerging Energy Technology Fund during my time in the Legislature. Those laws still work for Alaska. As governor, I will apply the same approach at scale through a three-tier strategy.
Tier one: no-regret investments that lower costs regardless of megaproject outcomes. Residential weatherization, commercial efficiency, transmission upgrades, and near-term diversification through hydro, wind, solar, and small-scale rural generation.
Tier two: regional energy investment. Bradley Lake’s Dixon Diversion could add capacity for 30,000 homes at $400 million to $600 million. Railbelt grid modernization reduces losses and improves reliability.
Tier three: strategic megaprojects. Alaska LNG and Susitna-Watana matter long term, but affordability cannot depend on any single one.
Power Cost Equalization stays. Rural Alaska will not carry the fiscal cost of Railbelt policy choices.
We have the resources. The difficulty is finding a way to get those resources to communities. The Alaska LNG project has possibilities. However, given the amount of work and money that Alaskans have and would have to continue to put into the project, a 30% share in the company is unacceptable. This is why we need ARDCC when negotiating with outside companies. If they don’t want to give us a fair share, we tell them to hit the road and we develop it ourselves. I also believe hydrogen power is a good option for Alaska. Especially remote Alaska that currently runs on diesel generators. These generators could be refitted or replaced to run on hydrogen. Hydrogen is clean-burning, can be generated in-state, is easy to ship and much less expensive than diesel.
Remove the Jones Act, rework existing refineries and build new refineries for fuels to the Alaskan people at cost from the well to gas stations. Sell excess fuels from our ports to foreign nations. Build the Alaska LNG pipeline.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
There is no single Alaska energy solution. What works in Southcentral may make no sense in Kotzebue, Kodiak or Southeast.
In rural Alaska, where families pay some of the highest energy costs in the country, renewables may be a part of the answer. If renewable technologies can lower costs and reduce dependence on diesel, we should be pursuing them aggressively. We already see the benefits of this in places like Kodiak, Kotzebue and much of Southeast Alaska. But even then, a base load from diesel is necessary when renewables are not enough. To that end we are exploring options for possibly leveraging royalty oil sales to in state refineries to bring down the cost of refined fuels to Alaskan customers.
For the Railbelt the answer is different. With today’s technology, renewables cannot remotely carry the energy load of the Railbelt through an Alaska winter. Our homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses depend largely on the availability of natural gas. For the Railbelt we need to first remove regulatory barriers to suppliers and utilities to help bridge the gap in short-term supply issues. Then do our part as the sovereign to assure the completion of both phase 1 and phase 2 of the gas pipeline; ensuring an affordable, dependable supply of natural gas for now and the future.
Alaska is an energy state. Reliable energy should not be one of the main reasons families and businesses cannot afford to stay here.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Rural Alaska is on the front lines of climate change, and typhoons Merbok and Halong showed both the strength of these communities and where the state is failing them. Right now, the State Emergency Operations Center has run out of money because no federal disaster declaration has been made, and Alaskans hit by Halong face enormous rebuilding costs with no clear path to funding. That’s unacceptable.
I will establish a state bridge loan fund, modeled on programs in New Mexico and Tennessee, so local governments can access help immediately after a disaster instead of waiting months for FEMA. I will give the State Emergency Operations Center stable, dedicated funding so it’s never left empty during an active crisis again. I will build regional response hubs with pre-positioned equipment and trained local responders, and put clear coordination protocols in place across state agencies, tribes, and local governments before the next storm, not after.
For communities facing long-term relocation, I’ll support the model used in Kivalina, where, working with the community, the new school was built away from the threatened shoreline to serve as a hub while the community determines how it relocates on its own timeline. Each threatened community should be able to work with the state to identify a site it chooses and to plan over time how to succeed at that transition.
Every community faces different challenges, and solutions should be locally driven. The state should partner with local governments, tribal organizations, Alaska Native corporations and the federal government to strengthen infrastructure, improve emergency preparedness and help communities adapt where necessary. We must respect local knowledge while making smart investments that improve resilience.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
These are not hypotheticals. Newtok has already moved. Kivalina, Shishmaref and Napakiak are watching the ground go. Villages on the Yukon and the Kuskokwim are flooding, and the river ice is not what it was.
The state’s job is to be honest and to be early. Resilience is far cheaper than recovery, and the bill grows every year we wait.
Few things.
Where relocation is the only honest answer, help the community plan it rather than showing up after the disaster with a press conference. Acquire the land, sequence the utilities, and do not make a village of 350 people negotiate with fourteen federal agencies alone.
Extend the tribal compacting model I built at Health and Social Services. I gave tribes direct authority and resources because they know their people and their ground better than any agency in Juneau. That logic applies to a village that has watched its riverbank for four generations.
Alaskans do not need to be told what is happening to their ground. They need a state that shows up before it is gone.
Every Alaska community is different, and the people who live there understand their needs better than anyone in Juneau. The state’s job is to be a partner.
We should invest in practical infrastructure, improve emergency preparedness, and make sure communities can access disaster assistance quickly when it is needed. We also need to support projects that strengthen roads, utilities, and public safety so communities are better prepared before disasters happen.
I believe we can responsibly develop Alaska’s natural resources while also being good stewards of the land God has blessed us with. My focus will always be on protecting people, respecting local communities, and making wise investments that strengthen Alaska for generations to come.
The state must treat environmental change as an immediate public safety and infrastructure issue. Communities are already facing erosion, flooding, thawing permafrost, wildfire, storm surge, changing ice conditions and damage to homes, water systems, roads, airports, clinics and subsistence access.
I would establish a coordinated statewide resilience and relocation program developed in partnership with affected communities, tribal governments and ANTHC. Communities need planning staff, technical assistance, hazard mapping, grant-writing support, emergency preparation, and capital funding that moves faster than the current fragmented process.
Where protection is possible, we should invest early. Where relocation is necessary, the community must lead the decision, and the state must take responsibility for coordinating agencies and funding.
Relocation cannot be treated as simply moving buildings from one site to another. A community is made of relationships, language, history, burial places, food systems, and connection to land and water. Those realities must be part of the plan from the beginning.
Waiting does not save money. It increases costs and places lives, infrastructure and entire communities at greater risk.
Simple, create a emergency and/or relocation budget activated only during a community emergency.
Prioritize practical infrastructure resilience, local decision-making and targeted investments in hardening communities and emergency preparedness. I will work with federal partners where beneficial to assist in relocation efforts to mitigate the potential for repeat events. Focus on real practical solutions that protect lives and property while supporting and expanding Alaska’s rural economies.
Communities should be empowered to determine their own future. Many Alaska communities were historically forced or strongly encouraged by government policies to build in vulnerable locations, such as Shishmaref on a narrow barrier island long threatened by storms and erosion. The state should develop a practical strategy that prioritizes community choice and safety.
Where a community determines relocation is necessary and desired for long-term resilience, the state should assist with planning, suitable site selection, infrastructure and federal coordination while protecting culture and subsistence access. Communities that choose to remain should be supported through targeted engineering solutions and economic diversification.
Alaskans across the state, and particularly in the communities hit by typhoons Merbok and Halong, have watched the ground literally give way beneath them. Climate change is rapidly increasing the rates of erosion and flooding across our state, and we can’t abandon families and villages to face these threats alone.
The state’s job is to be a reliable partner instead of an absentee one. That means coordinating emergency response so communities aren’t navigating a dozen federal agencies on their own. It means making sure Alaska receives our fair share of funding for resilience and adaptation. And it means planning protection — and, where necessary, relocation — with the people who live there. That also means partnering with critical groups across our state, like Association of Village Council Presidents and others, who understand the needs of local communities best. Finally, we have to make sure critical infrastructure — water systems, tank farms, airstrips — is up to spec so it can withstand the next record-breaking storm.
The state and feds are already supporting many Alaskan communities with new housing, boat harbors and generator facilities. The state needs to allow Native communities to drill natural gas wells on their land for winter heat, electric power and transportation.
The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta villages hit by Typhoon Halong’s remnants in 2025 are living the reality Alaska now faces. Roughly 90% of Kipnuk’s structures were destroyed and Kwigillingok was nearly emptied. This is happening now.
My administration will focus on three priorities.
First, capture every federal dollar Alaska is entitled to. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act’s three-year CDBG Disaster Recovery authorization and new Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund both apply directly to Halong recovery.
Second, partner directly with affected communities: the Association of Village Council Presidents, regional tribal health organizations, and tribal governments. Where communities choose to rebuild we support that. Where they choose relocation, as Kipnuk is considering, we support that too. Top-down state solutions imposed on people who know the land better than anyone do not work.
Third, invest in the expertise Alaska already has at UAF, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center and Alaska Native institutions. Preparation costs less than response.
In general, we need to stop building infrastructure like we are living in California. Everywhere I see flat roofs! Could there be a more costly kind of construction for Alaska weather conditions? Maintenance costs are through the roof! Pun intended. Let’s build for Alaska. This is not the first time in Alaska’s history where destructive, weather, earthquakes and water have destroyed infrastructure. Still, we rebuild with the same old California crap! If we build smarter, we won’t have to replace it, and it will cost much less to maintain it. I say we use local architects and construction works to do the job right!
Community education
Candidate declined to answer questions.
There is nothing we can do to stop destructive storms from occurring. And in most cases, little that can be done to prevent severe storm damage when they do occur. That being said some communities may see some benefit from shoreline/infrastructure protection. In others, relocation of homes or public facilities may be the only practical answer.
Unfortunately, there are limited resources available within the state to support major armoring or relocation. That’s why the state needs to be aggressive about pursuing federal hazard mitigation, shoreline protection, relocation, and infrastructure funds. While simultaneously helping communities navigate the complexities of federal funding programs.
We can no longer afford to lose federal money because we failed to plan, apply, or provide a reasonable match.
We can also be better prepared to deal with the consequences of the next major storm. Using local and agency knowledge, we need to develop a clear statewide picture of the most vulnerable infrastructure. With that information in hand, we then need to develop a plan for a coordinated response between communities, tribal governments, state agencies, and federal partners. Making sure everyone knows in advance each party’s response, responsibility and authority.
One thing is certain, waiting for the next storm and then declaring an emergency is usually the most expensive approach.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Yes. Alaska’s per-student funding, the Base Student Allocation, didn’t keep pace with inflation for nearly two decades, and it shows in class sizes, school closures, and a teacher exodus. I helped negotiate last year’s $700 increase, and as governor, I will bring it to $7,860, as a floor, not a ceiling, an increase Legislative Finance says is necessary just to cover the inflation erosion of the last 20 years.
Just as important as the amount is how we fund it. I will forward fund education with a statutory February deadline, ahead of when districts set their own budgets, so schools stop sending layoff notices to good teachers every spring based on guesswork. I will inflation-index the formula going forward so we never fall this far behind again. I will pay for it by adopting the internet fee this administration vetoed, closing the Hilcorp S-corp loophole, and eliminating tax credits on our three legacy oil fields. Alaska’s kids should not be a rounding error in a budget fight.
Yes. Schools need more predictable funding, but accountability has to be part of the conversation. I support investments that improve student outcomes, expand career and technical education, recruit and retain quality teachers, and give local districts the flexibility to meet their students’ needs. Funding should support measurable results and prepare students for success after graduation.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Yes. How we allocate matters as much as how much we spend.
Too little of every education dollar reaches a classroom or a teacher. Three changes.
Make career and technical education a dedicated line item, with funding tied to measurable outcomes. I have watched a kid who was told he was not “college material” earn a CDL or welding certificate and then stay in Alaska and raise a family here, making great pay and with little school debt. That is a retention policy wearing an education policy’s clothes.
Tie funding to results in reading and math. We spend near the top nationally per student and we rank near the bottom in outcomes. We cannot keep funding a system and refusing to measure it.
Give parents real choice, particularly the families whose kids are not being served by the school they were assigned.
I am less interested in the annual fight over the size of the check than in whether an Alaskan kid can read, and whether they have a reason to stay.
Yes — the complete Department of Education and Early Development, DEED, needs to be reorganized to address the current needs and standards of today’s education needs.
Yes. Alaska’s current school funding system is inadequate, outdated and unpredictable. The Base Student Allocation has not kept pace with inflation or the actual costs of transportation, energy, special education, mental health services and the operation of small and rural schools.
I support a significant and durable BSA increase, forward funding and multi-year negotiations so districts can plan responsibly, and targeted support for special education, reading, career and technical education, school meals and educator recruitment and retention.
The state should also address teacher housing, school construction, major maintenance and the distinct needs of rural and culturally diverse communities. In many places, the school is not only a place of instruction. It is a major employer, a gathering place, an emergency shelter and one of the institutions holding the community together.
Accountability matters, but underfunding schools and then blaming educators is not accountability. We should set clear expectations, measure student success and give communities the resources and flexibility to meet their students’ needs.
Yes, the schools need more funding and teachers need higher pay, we should incentivize higher education, an early learning regimen of higher standards pays dividends later in life!
Yes. Current spending levels are already high; we need better allocation focused on outcomes, accountability, performance incentives, and expanded school choice (charters, homeschooling and options) alongside strong support for neighborhood public schools. Promoting failing students to the next grade level to appease political whim and secure dollars is not in the best interest of Alaskan families or our students. This perverse incentive must end.
Yes. Alaska spends among the highest amounts per student in the nation while educational outcomes remain extremely disappointing. We’re failing our children at present. Let’s work on the core problem, which is a mismatch in values between what families want and what education bureaucracies are delivering — or not delivering.
We must focus on learning and achievement for all our students rather than spending alone. Resources should move toward students, classrooms, educators, career and technical education, proven instructional strategies, and parental choice. Don’t fear that last one like the National Education Association does. Data shows where there is choice, neighborhood public schools improve. Choice lifts all boats. Outcomes for the child choosing an alternative approach as well as outcomes for the child who stays in the traditional classroom improve when choice increases. Besides, no one should deprive a child of the learning environment best suited for that child.
Administrative spending should be controlled and districts encouraged to find efficiencies.
Every Alaska child has a right to learn. Our education system should reward achievement, effective teaching and academic proficiency. Let’s direct taxpayer dollars where they make the greatest difference: helping students succeed.
Alaska should modernize the way it funds K-12 education so the formula better reflects the real cost of educating students today. The current system relies on outdated assumptions and hasn’t kept pace with inflation, rising energy and insurance costs, or the unique challenges facing rural communities. That has left school districts making repeated cuts that hurt students and make it harder to recruit and retain great teachers.
The BSA is only one part of the formula (and it should be fully funded and inflation adjusted each year!). We should also take a fresh look at components like the district cost factors, which haven’t been comprehensively updated in years, and the special needs multiplier, which should accurately reflect the costs of serving students who need additional support. A modern funding formula should be responsive to actual costs while maintaining accountability for student outcomes. Every Alaska student, whether they ride a bus or plane to school, deserves access to a high-quality public education.
Finally, it is crucial that Alaska forward funds education. Right now, districts learn how many teachers they can keep only after the annual budget fight is over, which is part of why we keep losing great educators to the Lower 48 while class sizes climb. I support a constitutional amendment to forward-fund education so districts can plan more than one year at a time, and a Base Student Allocation that actually keeps pace with the cost of running a school in Alaska.
The state needs to fix the schools because Alaska ranks 48th of all other states in academic achievement. I asked artificial intelligence to list the eight top schools in the United States and why they are so successful. I would send the document to all the registered borough mayors with instructions to distribute to all their school principals to implement those solutions.
As the only all-female ticket and as mothers, we believe K-12 programs are essential. The current funding formula must be revisited. Elementary classrooms are seeing student-to-teacher ratios exceeding 30-to-1, and the outdated formula does not anticipate the behavioral health resources students now need. Our outcomes have declined to near the bottom of the nation.
Missouri has updated its funding formula alongside policy changes with real success. We propose: capping administrative costs at the national average of 4%; increasing the state minimum baseline teacher salary to attract top talent; fully funding gifted and CTE programs; establishing small school and innovation grants; and fully funding transportation.
The state needs to change the way it allocates funds to all departments. Currently, we give all departments their money on July 1 and tell them “spend it all by June 30th or we will punish you by reducing your budget next year.” Could there possibly be a worse system for wasteful spending and poor decision making? Ladies and gentleman, if I am governor that directive will be replaced with ones that make sense. I can’t believe we have had 12 governors and none of them has come up with better direction for spending! Heavens yes! I will!
Cannot answer until we can investigate what has been done up to current time under a DOGE investigation
Candidate declined to answer questions.
Alaska is too diverse for a one-size-fits-all answer to school funding. A school in Anchorage and a small rural school face very different need profiles.
What they do have in common is a need for predictable funding so districts can plan, hire teachers, and stop going through annual cycles of pink slips and uncertainty. But simply arguing each year over the size of the Base Student Allocation doesn’t solve the problem of education delivery. We also need to look at transportation costs, special education program availability, small-school adjustments, regional cost differences, correspondence programs, maintenance issues, and whether the current allocation formula is getting resources where students need them most.
For that reason, I would support a review of how the state allocates education resources. But understanding that there will always be more demands than resources available, this would have to come from a collaborative effort of educators, parents, school boards, administrators, legislators and fiscal experts.
The goal being a real plan for adequately funding education statewide and providing better opportunities for all students — not just another lever in the annual political fight over who gets the money.
Candidate declined to answer questions.
U.S. SENATE CANDIDATES
Do you support or oppose granting federal permits for a road to connect the Ambler Mining District to the Dalton Highway?
I stand with the 88 Tribes who oppose the Ambler Road, as the supplemental environmental impact statement recommended no action due to irreversible damage. It will endanger salmon, caribou, waterfowl and too many other ecological harms.
I am also deeply concerned about the federal government buying a 10% share in Trilogy Metals, which creates a clear conflict of interest in the permitting process. Any and all development must have Tribal consent and go through ethical processes.
No two resource development projects are the same, and it’s critical that projects have social licensure to operate, but I will always defend the right of Alaskans to develop our own resources so that we can lower costs and create good paying jobs that support Alaska families.
Alaska communities need to be in the driver’s seat when it comes to critical decisions about big projects like Ambler Road. I will continue to fight for the right of Alaskans to make their voices heard and the right of Alaska communities to have the final say on this project, not DC politicians or ultra-wealthy corporations.
What policy changes or government actions would you support, if any, to improve ailing salmon runs in Alaska’s rivers?
We must commit to limiting climate change on a global scale by reducing fossil fuel use and increasing green energy sources in order to protect salmon.
We must also limit trawling by clearly defining mid-water trawling, imposing reliable bycatch reporting systems, creating no-trawling sanctuary areas, and adding more Tribal, Indigenous and rural seats to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
As someone who grew up salmon fishing on the Kuskokwim River with my father, I know firsthand that fish is more than food — it’s central to our Alaska way of life. But that way of life is under attack, and the fish that fill our freezers are becoming harder to find thanks to out-of-state factory trawlers and excessive bycatch. I will fight for practical, Alaska-first solutions to save our fish so the next generation can experience the same abundance Alaskans have enjoyed for generations.
I’ll fight to ban factory trawling and keep mid-water trawlers off the ocean floor. I’ll work to secure real fishery disaster funding and get it to Alaska fishermen immediately. I’ll demand that NOAA enforce the rules on bycatch reduction. And I will fight tooth and nail to get survey dollars back to Alaska so our managers aren’t flying blind. I’ll push for federal investment to help Alaska build a fish by-product economy and strengthen our mariculture industry, so we can keep leading the blue economy like we always have. I’ll fight to create Tribal seats on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, lock in the composition of the federal subsistence board, and ensure our communities have a voice in managing the resources we depend on to live.
There is no Alaska way of life without our fisheries. And that’s why I’m in this fight — to restore our fisheries, bring back abundance, and stand up to the rigged DC system that’s failing Alaska.
Do you like Alaska’s nonpartisan primary and ranked choice voting system? Why or why not?
US HOUSE CANDIDATES
How would you work with Alaska Native Tribes and organizations to shape federal policy?
I would work to bring back control over Alaskan lands to the state and people who live here from federal overreach in particular Native tribes, and support the widespread relinquishment of federal claims over lands other than bare minimum requirements. I support the widespread transfer of federal lands in Alaska to the state for redistribution and reconsideration within the state legislature of Native land allocation in massively increased numbers, leftover from territory days. Although I also support a massive infrastructure/jobs programs and coastal development village interconnection project with roads connecting to Anchorage extending all the way to Nome, Barrow, and elsewhere either through an underground road network or on the surface.
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
Seek investors and develop programs to support Native Alaskan businesses. There are other important issues that boil down to giving control for self-governance, not interfering with their rights to hunt and fish, improving village infrastructure, and providing better health care and housing.
I would expand the implementation of the United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples and respect Native Sovereignty.
I’m Dena’ina Athabascan, and I served on my village corporation’s board for 15 years, 10 of them as president, so I understand the importance of tribal representation. I’d start with this North Star: federal policy works best when it is shaped with Alaska Native Tribes and organizations, not for them.
I will engage Tribal leaders early. I will listen before decisions are made. And I will ensure Alaska Native people have a meaningful seat at the table on issues most important to our communities, like subsistence, public safety, fisheries, health care, education, and infrastructure.
As someone who grew up in the Bush, I understand that one-size-fits-all policies created in Washington often fail on the ground in Bush and Native communities. I will respect Tribal sovereignty and support strong government-to-government relationships. I will fight to ensure federal decisions reflect the knowledge and lived experience of Alaska Native communities.
I’m a big fan of building strong relationships and simply listening can be a great place to start.
Candidate did not answer
Think it’s important to recognize, when running for federal office, that the challenges of meeting the moment for Alaskan Native Tribes and organizations is different than that required on the state level due to the large disparity in jurisdictional authority (and recognition) between federal legislation and its (often contentious) funding versus state-chartered corporations and state legislation. Given that, think it’s important to listen and act with the guiding principle that sovereignty and rights of Native self-determination are paramount in federal legislation.
How can we further respect indigenous sovereignty by working alongside tribal leaders? Is there any way to work towards Land Back?
Tribes shouldn’t learn about federal decisions after they’re made. If elected, I’ll hire a tribal liaison, and build in regular, real consultation with Tribes and Native organizations at the beginning of the process, when it can still change the outcome.
Alaska Native communities are an essential part of our state’s history, culture, and future. I believe in meeting with tribal leaders, listening before making decisions, and treating them as partners rather than an afterthought. I want to work together to create jobs, improve infrastructure, strengthen public safety, expand responsible resource development where communities support it, protect subsistence opportunities, and ensure that federal policies reflect the unique needs of rural Alaska. We may not always agree, but we can always work together with honesty and respect.
Alaska’s territorial history is a reminder that self-government is not something Washington grants as a courtesy; it is something communities have a right to help shape.
I would work with Alaska Native Tribes and organizations through early, regular, and meaningful consultation — not after decisions have already been made, but while federal policy is being shaped.
Alaska Native Tribes are governments, not just stakeholders. That means federal policy should respect tribal sovereignty, the federal trust responsibility, self-determination, and the right of communities to help shape decisions that affect their lands, waters, resources, families, and future. Alaska’s own history as a former territory reminds us that self-government and local participation are not abstract ideas here; they are part of the foundation of Alaska’s political identity.
In Alaska, that also means understanding the important roles played by regional Native organizations, village corporations, ANCs, health organizations, and nonprofit service providers.
My approach would be practical. On issues like subsistence, fisheries, energy, housing, transportation, public safety, education, health care, and community relocation, I would ask: who is affected, who has local knowledge, and who needs to be at the table before the decision is made?
This fits my broader filter. Federal policy should help communities become more self-sufficient, participate in decisions that affect them, and build a future for the next generation. For Alaska, that cannot happen without Alaska Native Tribes and organizations helping shape the policy from the start.
I would work alongside them, consult with them on any issue that affected them or affected their Lands. I think a lot of what’s been missing with Alaska’s representation is actual representation, and that applies to all Alaskans of course, but it especially applies to Alaska Native Tribes. We need to do more to listen and be considerate of everyone who lives here.
What policy changes or government actions would you support, if any, to improve ailing salmon runs in Alaska’s rivers?
I am a huge supporter of sustainable game and fish harvesting, and am in general confident in the ability of Fish and Game to accurately restrict harvests where needed within the state to support salmon recovery, I see the problem more so in the oceans. I support increased ocean environmental pollution monitoring for things like plastics, other contamination, biologics/parasites, or over-catching in Alaskan waters that may be contributing to the situation. At the federal level, I will push for increased fisheries monitoring through a national aquaculture health program. I also think there may be other ways of supporting spawning through creative solutions like creating new spawning grounds in rivers they currently don’t occupy while the state manages an egg fertilization plan as opposed to farming salmon.
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
I defer to the previous question – call in experts and implement accordingly.
I support increasing environmental regulations to stop overfishing and pollution.
I’m a lifelong subsistence fisherman, and I’ve been commercial fishing every summer since I was eight. It’s a huge priority for me to protect salmon and the long-term sustainability of Alaska fisheries. Many Alaskans are facing salmon runs that are a fraction of what they once were. Understanding those declines has to be a top research priority. Healthy runs are the backbone of many of our communities and are crucial to local economies. To maintain them, it’s important we invest in good science, robust habitat protection, and responsible management decisions that put conservation first. This means opposing harmful projects like the Pebble Mine. And it means doing more to support the fishing industry that sustains jobs, families, and communities across our state.
Out-of-state factory trawlers are catching and discarding tens of thousands of salmon a year. Protecting healthy salmon runs means taking on bycatch. As a lifelong subsistence and commercial salmon fisherman, I’m concerned about the effects of factory trawlers on our salmon runs and I will take action in Congress. We need strict bycatch limits and strong monitoring requirements. And when trawl fisheries exceed bycatch limits, we need meaningful accountability. These decisions should be guided by science and the goal of protecting healthy fish populations in the long term.
The one idea that jumps to my mind is to reduce the overfishing by individual sports fishing by men and women and also reduce the fishing industry from also overfishing the salmon. Additionally, reviewing the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policies while working with our Alaska community leaders.
Candidate did not answer
Ban all factory trawling from Alaskan waters. Open up economic opportunity to Alaskan fishermen by supplanting trawling with a pot fishery that, while admittedly incapable of matching the immense volume produced by trawlers, improves the quality of the fish produced exponentially and eliminates virtually all of the trawl industry’s obscene by-catch and provides economic opportunity for Alaskans.
If you want to see evidence of how money corrupts politics and directly opposes the overwhelming will of the people, there is no better example that is more easily understood than the existence of trawling in Alaska, an industry owned and run by a very small group of people from states not named Alaska, who buy the support and/or silence of our elected officials (like Nick Begich, who played kissy-face with Alaska”s commercial and sport anglers BEFORE he got elected, only to abandon them once he was in a position to do anything about it). Then consider: 74% of Alaskan residents support an end to factory trawling.
Also: Fund habitat restoration statewide. Give young kids a job that’s actually meaningful and rewarding and can, you know, pay the rent and help them work toward buying a home and committing to living in our great state.
Cleaner water, cleaner shores, respecting the land.
Alaska’s salmon belong to Alaskans. I’d reform the North Pacific Fishery Management Council so industry interests don’t dominate the table. Subsistence users, small-boat fishermen, and science need real weight in those decisions. Alaskans who have fished these rivers for generations shouldn’t be the last ones consulted. I would ban bottom trawling and increase oversight and restrictions on pelagic trawling.
Healthy salmon runs are critical to Alaska’s economy, culture, and way of life. I support science based fisheries management, improving habitat where it has been damaged, strengthening research into changing ocean conditions, and ensuring decisions are based on reliable data. I also support taking a hard look at interception fisheries and large scale commercial harvests outside Alaska that may affect our salmon. We owe it to future generations to protect this resource while supporting commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence fishermen.
Salmon are not just another resource in Alaska. They are food security, culture, jobs, subsistence, commercial fishing, and the foundation of many river communities. I would support a whole-life-cycle salmon strategy that protects the resource first.
That means stronger investment in salmon science, better run monitoring, improved genetic stock identification, and faster data sharing so managers know which stocks are being affected and where. It also means protecting freshwater habitat, improving fish passage, addressing culverts and erosion, and planning for the effects of warming rivers, permafrost thaw, and changing ocean conditions.
I would also support stronger bycatch accountability in federal fisheries, including enforceable caps, real-time avoidance, better observer coverage, and management that shares the burden of conservation. River communities should not be the only ones asked to sacrifice when salmon runs fail.
Finally, Alaska Native Tribes, subsistence users, commercial fishermen, and local communities need to be part of shaping policy from the beginning. My view is simple: the salmon are the principal; harvest is the interest. If we damage the principal, we are not managing a resource — we are cashing out Alaska’s future.
The government, both state and federal, should be doing more to protect habitats and rivers, and I plan to do that by introducing and supporting legislation that helps their populations. Regulating fisheries, and especially keeping big corporate fisheries, trawlers, and outside corporations in check.
What specific federal actions would you support to address environmental and climate-related risks facing Alaska communities, including coastal erosion, permafrost thaw, flooding, wildfires, landslides, ocean acidification and extreme storms?
Coastal erosion is inevitable. I recommend people diversify their land holdings and expect shifting, I don’t know that any program would prevent that as is the case in other states. A physical insurance policy is likely in order along with mutual hardened location evacuation plans for local communities. The problem in Alaska is a possibility of major disasters across wide distances. The National Guard, Coast Guard, fire, and emergency services responses need better coordination, planning, integration, and training for major disaster events along with temporary housing assets and a willingness to use them by the governor. I think the federal or state government along with private companies should start a glacial meltwater recovery program or a temporary nuclear freezing stabilization plan. This all contributes to the salinity or acidity of the oceans especially around Alaska and needs further monitoring. Planning and disaster preparedness is important and should be the focus in situations like these.
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
Candidate did not answer
I would have to call in environmental experts in these fields and implement actions accordingly.
Fine and tax the polluters, implement the Green New Deal & stand up to the fossil fuel industries.
Alaska is on the front lines of climate change, and for many communities, this is not theoretical. It is flooding, erosion, wildfires, landslides, and more. We saw this in the devastating impact of the remnants of Typhoon Halong last year in Southwest Alaska. Kipnuk and Kwigillingok suffered devastating damage. Hundreds of residents remain displaced.
Instead of reacting in the wake of disasters, we need to better prepare for them.
I’d support stronger mapping and early-warning systems and more investment in the forecasting systems of agencies like NOAA. We also need better emergency communications and more local response capacity so decisions can be made quickly. I would fight for a dedicated federal resilience package for Alaska. We should accelerate the approval and delivery of federal funding for village relocation, seawalls, elevated infrastructure, landslide monitoring, and flood-control projects. And unlike Nick Begich, I would vote to protect Alaska’s public radio stations, which are crucial lifelines during emergencies.
Most importantly, affected communities must lead these plans. Whether we’re talking about coastal communities threatened by erosion and flooding in Southwest Alaska, landslide-prone communities in Southeast Alaska, or communities facing wildfires in the Interior, I firmly believe that local people know what they need. Congress needs to listen.
Planning for emergencies worst and having policies ready to be employed in a moment’s notice. Building strong relationships with our SOA and federal Emergency Management (EM) teams. Bring to the table EM leaders from our SOA communities to listen to their thoughts and identified needs; and then as a team prioritize how we will use best our material, financial, human, and information resources.
Candidate did not answer
Restore FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (Everyone hates the gubmint till their house gets flooded, whereupon we all rediscover the reason we all agree to fund the fire department — there but for the grace of God go I.) Fund legislation to protect and restore Alaskan communities when and where practicable, understanding that some issues, like extreme storms, can only be mitigated upon the effects, not the causes.
Declare a climate emergency. See about ceasing oil.
Alaska is warming faster than anywhere in the country, and communities facing erosion, permafrost thaw, flooding, and wildfire are left chasing a patchwork of grants across a dozen agencies. I’d push for a robust, well-funded federal strategy backed with federal funding and communities in the driver’s seat.
I’d also invest in clean energy here at home in order to work against climate change. It lowers energy bills for Alaskans and means more of our oil and gas goes to export, which means more revenue for the state.
Alaska faces real challenges from coastal erosion, flooding, wildfires, thawing permafrost, and severe storms. My priority is helping communities adapt and become more resilient. I support investing in stronger roads, ports, bridges, flood protection, wildfire prevention, emergency response, and research that helps communities prepare for changing conditions. I also believe we can responsibly develop Alaska’s natural resources while using sound science and practical stewardship. We don’t have to choose between protecting our environment and creating good-paying jobs, we can and should do both.
For Alaska, climate policy is not abstract. It is roads, homes, water systems, fisheries, energy costs, and whether communities can stay where they are.
I believe federal action on climate-related risks in Alaska should be practical, science-based, and community-led. Alaska is already facing coastal erosion, permafrost thaw, flooding, wildfires, landslides, ocean acidification, and stronger storms. For many communities, this is not a future debate; it is a current infrastructure, public safety, housing, food security, and subsistence issue.
I would support federal action in four areas.
First, we need stable funding for adaptation and mitigation, not just disaster response after damage is done. That means investing in erosion control, flood protection, wildfire prevention, permafrost-resilient roads and buildings, water and sewer systems, ports, power systems, and emergency shelters.
Second, when a community determines that protection is no longer realistic, the federal government should support voluntary, community-led relocation with one clear federal lead agency, not force small communities to navigate a maze of disconnected programs.
Third, Alaska needs better mapping, monitoring, and early-warning systems for permafrost thaw, landslides, wildfire risk, storm surge, coastal erosion, and ocean acidification. Good science should be available to local governments, Tribes, fishermen, builders, and emergency managers before decisions are made.
Fourth, federal policy should help lower energy costs and strengthen local resilience. Reliable local energy, stronger infrastructure, and better transportation make communities safer and more self-sufficient.
This fits my broader filter. Does the policy help Alaskans become more self-sufficient, participate in decisions that affect them, and build a future for the next generation? Climate resilience in Alaska must do all three.
These environmental and climate-related risks, while varied in their effects and their devastations, and while different in how they affect each Alaskan community that they face, are each rooted in the same base cause: rising temperatures.
I know that sounds dumb and dodgy but let me cook for a minute here. Temperatures are rising. Globally. Both in the air and in the oceans. These rising temperatures are causing glaciers to melt and permafrost to thaw, which in turn increase flooding, increase ocean acidity, and leave the coasts and shorelines (formerly protected by the aforementioned permafrost and stuff) vulnerable to erosion and landslides. This havoc also leads to climate disasters such as intense storms and wildfires, which can further threaten communities. What we need to do is pass legislation and take actions to solve the myriad of problems we face but also take action to fix the issues causing those problems.
SOURCE: ADN.COM