Here is a sampling of editorial opinions from Alaska newspapers:
April 16, 2016
Peninsula Clarion: Balancing the fish board scales
How is it that a nominee to the Board of Fisheries can be the subject of outspoken opposition and fail to be confirmed one year, then be confirmed by without so much as a peep of opposition the next?
We're thrilled to see Robert Ruffner of Soldotna confirmed to a seat on the Board of Fisheries. Ruffner, the former longtime executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum, brings not just his extensive fish habitat experience to the board, but also an uncanny ability to bring groups with far different interests together to work toward a common goal. We're hoping he can continue to do just that with the often contentious fish board process.
But why is it that half the Legislature thought he was the wrong person for the job last year, but had no objections this year? According to comments by some of those legislators, it all has to do with which seat he'll be sitting in. Last year, the rationale goes, Ruffner was being appointed to a "sport fishing" seat, whereas this year, it's a "commercial fishing" seat.
That line of reasoning, quite frankly, makes us cringe. Lawmakers are essentially telling nominees that in order to be considered, they need to be beholden to a specific interest group. Indeed, during a Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Bill Wielechowski told the nominees as much when it comes to personal-use and sport fishing.
"I just really urge you all to consider that — consider the needs of hundreds of thousands of Alaskans who like to live that lifestyle," Wielechowski said. "That's an important issue. You're our proxy when you go to vote. I urge you to strongly consider the needs of my constituents and the needs of Southcentral when you go to vote."
Certainly, all three nominees, and the fish board as a whole, should consider the needs of personal-use and sport fishers with each proposal. But the board also should consider commercial fishing, and above all, should consider the fish. After all, without healthy runs, no one will be fishing.
We're hopeful that moving forward, balance on the fish board will no longer be defined by two firmly entrenched sides on every issue, but rather by a group of policy makers who will each consider all aspects of an issue and come to a decision that provides a reasonable solution for all stakeholders.
We realize that's a lofty goal, but for the long term sustainability of Alaska's fisheries, we need to start thinking that way.
April 15, 2016
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Critical neglect in the Arctic
There aren't very many areas of national defense or homeland security where the U.S. lags. America's military power is second to none and great emphasis has been placed on securing airports, borders and shipping lanes. But there's an aspect of the U.S. strategic posture in which the nation is lagging far behind its neighbors, leading to vulnerability with regard to defense, security, shipping and trade. At issue is the lack of U.S. icebreaker capacity, about which Alaska's delegation in Washington, D.C. has been fighting a long, lonely battle to get their fellow lawmakers and the Pentagon to recognize and correct. Finally, that recognition may be coming — but there is much more work to be done before the U.S. catches up.
The U.S. has a grand total of two icebreakers, operated by the Coast Guard: The heavy icebreaker Polar Star and the medium-duty icebreaker Healy. They have served the country long and well, with the Polar Star now a decade past its scheduled decommissioning date and lacking in important features that would help it complete Arctic missions. The nation's third icebreaker, the Polar Sea, was the sister ship to the Polar Star, but suffered catastrophic engine failure in 2010 and now appears permanently out of commission, having been stripped of many of its parts.
If you think this is an odd state of affairs for the most powerful country in the world — one medium-duty icebreaker, one heavy icebreaker past the end of its design life and a third that has been effectively junked — you're right. There's no way the U.S. would permit this lack of capacity with regard to air superiority or safeguards for soldiers. But when it comes to influence and operating capability in Arctic regions, which are poised to become economically and strategically crucial to geopolitics as sea ice diminishes in coming decades, lawmakers from the Lower 48 turn a blind eye. For Alaskans and the state's delegation in Washington, D.C., it's maddening.
Not all nations are similarly behind in developing the necessary means to explore, operate and secure the territory off their Arctic coasts. Russia has 40 operating icebreakers and 11 in production. Given that nation's tendency to aggressively operate in its own territory and adjacent territory that it seeks to control, the stakes for the U.S. in securing its Arctic waters are high. In fact, the situation has already become so critical that it was necessary for a Russian ship to deliver fuel to Nome during a fuel crisis in 2012, because no American ships had the capacity to reach the icebound community.
Alaska's senators have long carried the torch for making icebreakers a priority for the U.S., to little avail. Former Sen. Ted Stevens championed the cause, as did his successor, Sen. Mark Begich. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has herself been fighting for more icebreakers for more than a decade, and now Sen. Dan Sullivan has joined her. A bill he's co-sponsoring with Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the Coast Guard Icebreaker Recapitalization Act, calls for $150 million to refurbish the Polar Sea. This would provide at least some capacity for the U.S. if the Polar Star's end of life comes before a new icebreaker can be built, as the Coast Guard expects will be the case.
President Barack Obama has included $150 million in his proposed budget to begin the construction of a new icebreaker, but the Republican leadership in the House and Senate has already expressed skepticism about paying that budget much mind. Even in the best case, if that funding is retained in the budget that passes out of Congress, it will be an estimated 10 years and $1 billion before the U.S. gets its new icebreaker.
Sen. Sullivan's bill is crucial for the U.S., as is the lease or purchase of an icebreaker from the private sector or a friendly nation (the latter option would require a waiver of the Jones Act requiring all U.S. ships be U.S.-built). The U.S. lack of operational ability in Arctic waters is at crisis levels, and it shouldn't take a disaster to wake the rest of the country up to a situation Alaskans have been warning about for years.