A king salmon during the 67th annual Golden North Salmon Derby at the Don D. Statter Memorial Boat Harbor in August 2013. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire)

A king salmon during the 67th annual Golden North Salmon Derby at the Don D. Statter Memorial Boat Harbor in August 2013. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire)

Opinion: The unintended consequences of Ballot Measure 1

Ballot Measure 1 is a solution looking for a problem.

I am a proud conservationist. Living in this beautiful place at the edge of the wilderness demands that we conserve and protect it for future generations. Yet, I am voting no on Ballot Measure 1. How do I reconcile those two viewpoints?

The meaning of the word “conservation” has been morphed over the years. Merriam-Webster defines conservation as the “planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.” In simpler terms, it means the sustainable use of natural resources.

Notice the word “use.” In Alaska, we use our resources. We catch and sell fish to world markets. Same with oil, minerals, and timber. Our state is famous for an abundance of resources, and Alaska has accumulated wealth because of them.

We need to keep it that way. Voluntarily locking up our resources is a bad idea, especially when doing so would create serious unintended consequences. Ballot Measure 1 elevates the protection of one resource (fish) over all others. Here in Southeast, we love our salmon almost to the point of reverence, which is not a bad thing. It is an incredible, world-class resource about which we are rightfully proud. But we must also be practical. We can’t prevent communities from building safe and reliable roads and airstrips because they might run alongside fish habitat. That approach makes no sense, but it is exactly what the Outside proponents of Ballot Measure 1 are asking us to do.

It can be hard to discern who is telling the truth when campaigns on both sides present contradicting “facts.” This is why I base my decision on what state government officials have to say about how Ballot Measure 1 will impact their operations. Alaska Department of Fish & Game habitat permit division’s largest client is Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. DOT&PF develops the infrastructure that serves all Alaskans and provides us with efficient and safe access to goods and services.

In public comments DOT&PF has stated, “This proposal will have a direct impact in the time and cost it takes a project to be developed and put into construction.”

“The proposed language in the initiative limits the structural options available for ADOT engineers.” Off-site mitigation is also prohibited even in portions of the same water body.

This could result in designs that are less safe and less resilient. In layman’s terms, that means any project in or near water (read: all of Southeast Alaska) just became significantly more expensive and time-consuming with increased maintenance needs. Why would we add more impediments to our communities when we already have so many unmet infrastructure needs?

Perhaps the most convincing argument to vote no on Ballot Measure 1 is that, “The ADF&G believes the current permitting process effectively protects anadromous fish habitat.” Fish and Game already takes a science-based approach to permitting, with stellar results.

Our fisheries need help. Research shows that mortality is occurring in the marine environment with changing ocean conditions (acidification, warming and illegal fishing) not because of disregard or neglect of our freshwater habitat. Yet Ballot Measure 1 does nothing to address the problems in the ocean.

In summary, Ballot Measure 1 is a solution looking for a problem. My love and dedication to our wonderful communities and my belief that we must protect our resources for sustainable use compels me to vote no, for all the reasons outlined above, and because we need to keep our communities moving forward.

• Haines resident Brenda Josephson recently retired from her position as a controller and compliance officer for Southeast Road Builders, Inc. She has served on the Haines Borough Planning Commission and as a member of the Haines Borough School Board. She currently holds a seat on the Haines Borough Assembly. My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire.

More in Opinion

Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

Opinion: The dangerous combination of guns and conspiracies

The hatred that’s crept its way into American politics is new. The violence it’s spawned is newer yet.

Web tease
Opinion: Momentum builds to place mandatory real estate disclosure on October ballot

Voters should have the opportunity to decide on an issue.

Former state lawmaker from Fairbanks John Coghill was in Juneau on Friday, April 22, 2022, and is running for Alaska’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, vacated recently by the death of Don Young. Coghill faces a crowded field but says he has the experience and pragmatism to get the job done. (Peter Segall / Juneau Empire File)
Here’s why I’m supporting John Coghill for Congress

By Jim Clark Alaska is fortunate to have so many folks willing… Continue reading

Opinion: Zoning is the answer

Cruise-related problems are the question.

Opinion: The ‘Southern Strategy’ runs amok

Money — not the Dems — is calling the shots.

Opinion: Good news for Alaska journalism

We need to ability to get more in-depth news about our government’s decision making.

Opinion: Setting things straight

Wednesdays’ Empire had a My Turn by Judy Crondahl making numerous assumptions… Continue reading

Opinion: It’s time for bold action to protect our fisheries

Our fisheries feed the world and sustain our unique cultures and communities.

Most Read