I’ve lived and worked with wildlife in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez oil spill over 35 years ago. I’ve traveled to all corners of the state and coastal waters; hunted for caribou in the western Aleutian Islands; led fishery surveys on state and federal research vessels; driven the length of the Alaska Pipeline several dozen times to work in the oil fields; worked at the Red Dog Mine; and tracked wolverines through the foothills of the Brooks Range.
This place has woven itself into my identity: The interrelationship between land, wildlife and extractive industries are part of what makes Alaska unique. Recently, however, I’ve found myself worrying that the Trump administration’s push, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” as a report calls it, could have irreparable consequences for this place that I love.
To start, the phrase incorrectly suggests that resources are currently all held back. In fact, most of Alaska’s resources are naturally “off leash” and annually realize billions of dollars in economic revenue, benefit hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life, while providing myriad other less economically tangible, but essential, fulfillments.
By way of example, I recently dropped an entire paycheck to spend a week in Alaska’s McNeil River Game Sanctuary. I got to enjoy over 40 “unleashed” (aka wild) brown bears as they mingled, fished, ate, slept and squabbled over salmon. This bucket-list experience has consistently thrilled thousands of visitors for over half a century.
I left remembering the individual personalities of these charismatically named bears — the deep diving “Torpedo,” the dashingly svelte “Mumford” and the king of the river, “Chops.” At Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park, nearly 20,000 visitors come each year to marvel at bears.
Collectively, bear viewing generates a staggering $34.5 million in sales and directly covers approximately $10 million in wages and benefits. Add in the other wildlife that people can view around the state — particularly moose, sheep, caribou, birds and salmon — and revenues grow to over $2 billion annually.
Consumptive use of fish and wildlife also raises substantial revenue, with hunting estimated to produce $91 million in economic output annually. Over $57 million remains in Alaska. Alaska’s freshwater recreational fisheries generate another $905 million, and commercial wild salmon in Alaska’s Bristol Bay generates $1.23 billion per year for that fishery alone.
For Indigenous peoples and other rural residents, these lands and wildlife support hunting, fishing, and gathering that fulfill food and cultural security through an estimated 36.9 million pounds of wild-sourced foods. Not only remote communities benefit: 13.4 million pounds of wild food are harvested under subsistence, personal use and sport regulations by urban residents.
The billions of dollars being spent — together with the broader environmental, economic, social and cultural values — are premised on the high integrity of Alaska’s ecosystems. This is recognized in public land designations such as national parks, refuges and other forms of protection such as the Special Areas within the National Petroleum Reserve.
The matrix of protected and unprotected lands reflects a balance that allows a healthy ecosystem to function at a scale relevant to wildlife and opportunities for development. Wild lands and wildlife distinguish Alaska from the contiguous United States. Where else can so many people comprehensively nourish and sustain themselves from the land and waters?
While the economic windfall for developing areas of high ecological integrity may be large, benefits usually last just decades. Once profits are gone, who will pay for cleanup and restoration? Resource extraction typically enriches only a few owners, while subtracting livelihoods and opportunities from the millions of people who would otherwise benefit from intact landscapes and healthy wildlife.
Alaska is exceptional. Vast, unfenced ecosystems support iconic wildlife. Residents and nonresidents alike benefit through coexistence, experience and income. Those that seek to “unleash” Alaska’s resources are willing to incrementally jeopardize this exceptional place as they seek to fully co-opt resources for themselves.
While the need for resource extraction is a necessity for Alaska’s economy and is welcomed, the political hunger to tear up carefully developed legislation that seeks balance is misguided. A wild and free Alaska currently serves Alaskans and the American public and draws billions of dollars in revenue that benefits our state and the nation. Why do we want to change that?
