Alaskans to Choose Between Salmon Habitat Protections and Resource Extraction

"The ballot measure pits the state's love for salmon against its need for oil and mining revenue," states the NPR Morning Edition host.

The controversial measure has drawn more money than all three gubernatorial candidates combined. It's also a hot-button topic in this gubernatorial race.

Elizabeth Harball, Alaska Public Media's energy desk reporter, talks to the proponents and opponents of Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018) in the source article [audio-only as of Tuesday evening].

"The measure looks to establish new [anadromous] fish habitat guidelines for permitting large-scale projects like mining, or oil and gas," notes a KTVA broadcast of an Oct. 4 debate hosted by Alaska Common Ground exploring the pros and cons of the salmon habitat ballot initiative. The measure was placed on the ballot by a petition drive sponsored by a coalition, Save the Salmon, which includes The Alaska Center and Cook Inletkeeper, affiliated with Waterkeeper Alliance.

According to the proponents, "salmon populations across Alaska have been declining in recent years, and our 60-year-old laws, intended to protect Alaska salmon habitat for future generations, have become outdated and ineffective."

Parts of the initiative was successfully contested by the state attorney general's office, but the remainder could go forward, reported Harball.

Lawyers for the state, who challenged the initiative in court, are also counting the outcome as a win. That's because they weren't arguing whether Yes for Salmon is good policy or not — they just said it violated a specific part of the Alaska constitution. Now that the Supreme Court took out the unconstitutional provisions, the state's narrow legal challenge ends.