Category: Alaska News

The Dunleavy administration has proposed a $523 million budget for the Alaska Department of Corrections for the next fiscal year, which House lawmakers with a finance subcommittee advanced without substantial changes last week. 

It’s the largest corrections budget proposal to date, according to state data. It includes just over $514 million requested in state funding, $475.5 million of which is unrestricted general funds for the agency’s 13 state prisons and jails and estimated 2,127 employees. DOC officials expect an additional $9.3 million in federal funding for inmates held on federal charges.

The Department of Corrections has become one of the state’s most expensive departments in recent years. This year the Department of Health, which has requested $1.1 billion in unrestricted general funds, and the Department of Education and Early Development, which has requested $1.4 billion, would spend more. The Permanent Fund dividend could also be a bigger expense — if the state pays out a $1,000 dividend like last year, it would cost the state $660 million. 

While the number of people in Alaska’s prisons and jails has remained relatively consistent, costs are soaring. Last year, DOC officials reported that state corrections booked nearly 26,000 people and just over 16,000 unique individuals, so roughly 9,000 people were repeat offenders. DOC also held nearly 450 people in involuntary commitments, which is for those who are deemed a danger to themself or others, or gravely disabled as a result of mental illness. The state cost for incarcerating an individual is an average of $223 per day. 

Initially, corrections officials submitted a $500 million budget request, but later added an additional request for $20 million for staffing and inmate transportation, and $3.3 million for healthcare and medical staffing. 

The proposed budget breaks down to roughly 60% for state prison institutions, lawmakers heard on Feb. 24. Roughly 20% is for health and rehabilitation, 10% for pretrial, probation and parole, 4% for administration, 3% for maintenance and operations and just 0.4% to administer the Board of Parole.  

Costs to staffing Alaska’s prisons have ballooned in recent years, along with healthcare costs for an aging inmate population and increasing health needs, DOC officials told members of a House finance subcommittee for corrections. 

“Staffing being the first, and then the second being our medical costs,” Jen Winkelman, corrections commissioner, told lawmakers. “The fees for medical in Alaska is through the roof, and every single individual that’s coming to us — that we don’t know we’re going to be getting — have significant medical issues.”

DOC has a 11.5% staff vacancy rate statewide, according to a spokesperson in February. DOC officials told lawmakers that recruitment and retention is an ongoing challenge, especially because prisons must be staffed 24/7.

DOC reports staffing and decade of ‘policy changes’ as major cost drivers

April Wilkerson, deputy commissioner for the department, told lawmakers in a presentation on Feb. 24 that DOC officials analyzed the budget over the last ten years, and saw a total increase of an estimated $182 million for operational costs in that time. She said roughly one third of cost increases since fiscal year 2016 were driven by employee contracts, salary and benefit increases.

“Collective bargaining agreements, salary adjustments and health insurance changes — that makes up over 30% of the growth of the general funds within the department’s budget, which is outside of the department’s control,” Wilkerson said. 

Wilkerson said an estimated 40% of cost increases have been due to “policy changes” from the Legislature. She pointed to the repeal of Senate Bill 91 enacted in 2020, when lawmakers increased prison sentences for most felonies and misdemeanors, and increased penalties for violating conditions of release. She also pointed to the state’s increased contributions to employees’ retirement benefits in 2022. 

Lawmakers asked DOC officials for policy recommendations to curb costs across the department. Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage, also asked the commissioner to address the problem of the department spending over its allocated budget. 

“Funds allocated to DOC last year included cuts that the department just said, ‘Nope, we can’t do that.’ I think on a larger basis, there needs to be more discussions about that,” Mears said. “There’s this tension between the executive branch and requests for the department to make cuts, and that’s not happening.”

DOC officials reported all 13 state prisons spending over budget for the fiscal year ending in June, resulting in the department requesting an additional $20 million from the legislature to cover personnel costs, plus an estimated $3 million to cover health care costs.

Winkelman said the department had to partially make up for legislative cuts in their budget last year. A department spokesperson confirmed the supplemental budget request makes up for a $13.8 million reduction made by lawmakers last year. 

Winkelman told lawmakers the department has not been able to fill its vacancies, which has resulted in high overtime costs. She said DOC has had to manage a legislative directive to cut costs by closing a housing unit at Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward. “We were tasked with closing a housing unit, and we did that, and it is not achieving the savings, and as a matter of fact, it’s bottlenecked some of our population management,” she said.  

Winkelman also pointed to unexpected health care costs for inmates as a driver of the department’s increased budget need. “We just recently had an inmate leave us that was with us for a year, that cost us over a million dollars in medical. We didn’t plan for that. We didn’t know that she was going to have that much of a cost associated. So going back to your question, and not being able to achieve some of these,” she said, referring to state budget allocations. “Because we don’t know what’s going to come through the back door.”

Winkelman recommended the creation of a new task force to tackle the question of how to curtail and manage the corrections budget.

“We were going to need some sort of a task force with other agencies, with the legislature, with law enforcement,” Winkelman said. “Some sort of a group to take a look at the broader system to figure out which policy changes are going to make that difference in order for us to be able to stay within our means.” 

Rep. Ky Holland, D-Anchorage, said he found the proposal concerning: “If a task force is needed, why aren’t all the folks that are doing these jobs coming together and doing the work of a task force? Why do we have to somehow create that and then fund it?” 

Holland said it was difficult for him to see that lawmakers are required to pay increasing budgets for DOC because of legal staffing requirements and said he wished the state’s education system had the same safeguards. “I wish we could tell our teachers that they had a maximum class size of the number of students that they had in a classroom because we had a standards council that had the force of law,” he said. 

Winkelman said DOC officials are trying to address the budget challenges. “We are constantly at the table trying to figure out how to solve this, if you will,” she said.

She then walked back the task force idea, and said hiring a consultant could be another option. “I think our recommendation is to maybe hire a consultant, hire an expert in this world, to kind of take all the pieces together,” she said.

Winkelman acknowledged Holland’s concerns about the state’s financial pressure with competing budget priorities, and said she understands the corrections budget is eating into funding for schools.

“Right now, above working for the Department of Corrections for 25 years and fighting this battle, I’m a mom with two kids in school, and that’s most important,” she said. “I’m fighting this battle every day of how expensive Corrections is, and I know it is taking from our school systems.” 

House members with the finance subcommittee for corrections heard several weeks of presentations about the department’s budget and asked questions of DOC officials. Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole, introduced several amendments to the budget, proposing millions in cuts until the department could provide further explanation on how the items would be spent and fulfill the department’s goals. But the committee voted them down before advancing the budget proposal without changes. 

The corrections budget now moves to the full House Finance Committee for further consideration.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The Haines Assembly is set to meet on Tuesday. The Chilkat Valley News’ Will Steinfeld joined KHNS’ Melinda Munson, to discuss what’s on the agenda.

Melinda Munson: “It is a dense agenda for the March 10 meeting. Let’s start by talking about the quote, “safety belt” ordinance.

Will Steinfeld: It’s something that was put together by assembly members Kevin Forster and Gabe Thomas, and for me, at least, it’s a little out of the blue. I hadn’t heard about this, but it’s seems related to the ore containerization ordinance that the two assembly members introduced last Assembly meeting. 

What this is, is it looks to be a really comprehensive, wide-ranging set of different proposals all packaged together towards one goal. The two assembly members say they’re trying to find a way to balance two competing issues in the borough. One is securing an economic future for the economy, and the other is also protecting the land, putting into place environmental protections for the community to be able to get value out of whatever economic activity is going on. And they say they want to do it in a way that is both effective and avoids litigation from firms, companies, anyone coming into the borough. 

It’s targeting large scale, what they call mega-industries. So it wouldn’t apply new regulations or payments or anything like that to small scale, local industries that are already here.

It looks to my first read to have two broad categories. One is codifying environmental protections and borough codes, so putting into place in writing things like spawning stream setbacks, or containerization that they brought up last meeting. 

And then the other half of this that I saw was ways to retain value for the borough. So that’s when companies are coming in for, let’s say, timber harvest or mining, that the borough finances see some measurable bump from that. 

So what we’re looking at is suggestions of a severance tax, which would tax goods that have been extracted in the borough, but are being exported and sold elsewhere. 

And so, there’s a lot going on here.

And so, while the Assembly is a nonpartisan body, where do Forster and Thomas generally sit politically?

They included this as part of their pitch for this legislation. They say, in their words, that often they’re on different sides of the so-called aisle. They don’t always agree on everything. And what they’re saying is the fact that they can come together and find common ground on this is a sign that it’s necessary and balanced. And so they’re hoping that’s the message that citizens residents take away from this.

Up again is cell tower regulations. This is the final vote. Tell us about that.

This could be the end of the road for now, at least for this legislation, that has been running back and forth and through and through the Assembly for months and months now. The main part of this would be a 1,500 foot setback for any proposed cell tower, setback from schools, daycares, youth centers. If it’s voted into place, which it seems like it has a lot of support from the Assembly, that’ll kind of close this chapter of cell tower regulations. 

But at the same time, it’s probably not gone for good. The Assembly said last meeting that they hope to send this to committee even after it passes, to keep trying to refine it, make edits and then maybe bring forth an amendment in the future.

Where did the borough land for conditional use permits on cell tower regulation?

If this passes, as it’s written right now, the commercial cell towers – the ones you’re thinking of, when you think of cell towers – would have to go through conditional use permitting process to to get built.

There’s an accessory dwelling unit ordinance on the agenda. We’ve seen this before. It’s come back.

This is something that the Assembly talked a lot about last year, accessory dwelling units. It’s pitched as a way to increase housing supply in the borough in a way that’s pretty low impact. That’s what the proponents of this would say. It was eventually just tabled by the Assembly last year. They said we’re going to put it aside, not vote on it. No one’s ready for that. No one wants to vote on it. Yet, it’s now come back after a few months with some changes, and so we’ll see if the Assembly chooses to take it up. And if so, that that debate will be revived again.

Let’s talk about what happened at planning and zoning with [George and Lynette] Campbell’s conditional use permit for their heliport.

If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it probably is. This is an issue about a proposed heliport at 26 Mile that has been in and out of litigation for three years. The borough has faced four different lawsuits over this heliport. And most recently, this was brought back to the Planning Commission. Last month, the Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit for the Campbell’s heliport, and it’s back to the Assembly now as an appeal of that decision. 

And something there’s been a lot of chatter about is the public hearing on taxability of mobile homes.

Based on public comment in recent weeks, I think this is something that at least some people will want to weigh in on. There’s a proposal to change how mobile homes are taxed.

In the past, mobile homes that were on the land connected to utilities, if they were in a designated trailer park, they  weren’t taxed as as property. And now, with this change, all mobile homes, whether they’re in a trailer park or not, would be taxable as an improvement on the parcel.”

The post Listen: Assembly to consider ‘Safety Belt’ ordinance, cell towers, mobile home taxes appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Microplastics are super small pieces of plastics that come from the breakdown of all kinds of larger plastic products. In 2025 Alaska Research Survey and AK Community Action on Toxics did a survey that showed that 75% of respondents see microplastics as a major or moderate threat to contaminating our drinking water and food, including fish and wildlife. 

It also showed that 68.7% of Alaskans say state legislation should be among the actions to prevent further health harms from microplastics and chemical exposure in Alaska. Recently proposed legislation would begin to address the microplastics issue in our state.

Microplastics expose consumers to additives and chemicals used to provide desired color, appearance, density and flexibility to products depending on their use. Some examples are single-use water bottles, cosmetics or Styrofoam products. For example, Styrofoam breaks down easily into microplastics and it is the least recyclable of single use plastics.

The chemical industry and plastic producers disregard their safety for human health. Science shows that microplastics have been found in human placentas, and that there is evidence of microplastics in our brains and reproductive tissues. Also, several studies have found microplastics in the blood, lungs and other internal organs. There is strong evidence that microplastics and their additives are linked to many of the major chronic diseases that we see in the U.S. and many other parts of the world, like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and chronic inflammation.

State legislatures like those in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, New York and New Jersey are leading the way by enacting protective policies on chemicals and plastics because people are deeply concerned about the health of their families and communities. More than 366 policies have been adopted in 40 states to protect people.

Alaskans are more concerned about microplastics than other well-known hazards like asbestos, lead, and second-hand smoke, according to our survey. Alaska can be part of the legislative movement that is leading the way to a safer environment and better health protection from harmful chemical exposures. This will have a significant positive impact on the health of Alaskans, especially children and the most vulnerable.

As a public health professional, environmental scientist, mother and grandmother, I strongly support House Bill 25, which aims to phase out polystyrene food packaging, also known as Styrofoam, and House Bill 332, which calls to establish a statewide strategy to address the huge microplastics issue. Prevention is the smartest way. Alaskans deserve a healthy and clean environment. We owe it to our children and future generations.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Billionaire investor John Paulson made a splash in Alaska’s mining industry last year when he paid $800 million for a 40% stake in the huge Donlin gold project.

But while working to advance Donlin, Paulson quietly sold his position in a separate Alaska-focused company that soared in value after the Trump administration approved the Ambler Road.

That’s according to a recent filing with federal securities regulators from Paulson’s investment office, Paulson & Co.

The disclosure, first reported by Bloomberg, indicates that Paulson sold all of his nearly 9% stake in Vancouver-based Trilogy Metals between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31.

It was a much smaller investment than Paulson’s ownership of Donlin and a separate gold and antimony project that he has been pushing in Idaho. But the transaction is notable given the investor’s significant role in Alaska’s mining industry and his relationship with President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration said in October that it would pay some $35 million for 10% of Trilogy and approve the Ambler Road — a controversial state-proposed mining haul route in northern Alaska that’s viewed as critical to Trilogy’s mining plans. (Those plans are being advanced in partnership with an Australian company, South32.)

The announcement boosted Trilogy’s stock by more than 200%. Paulson sold his entire stake in the company, more than 14 million shares, within a few months, though his disclosure does not specify the exact date.

The shares would have surged in value from about $30 million to more than $100 million in October, when the stock price briefly climbed past $10 per share. But it has since dropped to around $4.00.

Paulson has not publicly discussed his divestment, and a spokesperson declined to comment. A Trilogy spokesperson also declined to comment.

Investors buy and sell shares in companies for any number of reasons, and Paulson’s move is not necessarily a sign that he soured on Trilogy’s potential, according to Ian Lange, a professor of economics and business at Colorado School of Mines.

“Could it be a reason? Sure. It could. We don’t know. But there are many other [possible] reasons,” Lange said.

Paulson may have sold the shares simply so he could focus more on other priorities, like Donlin, Lange said.

Other Trilogy shareholders, including longtime Alaska Native leader Willie Hensley, who’s also a board member of the company, disclosed gains of hundreds of thousands of dollars following the news of the Ambler Road’s approval and the government’s own investment.

Paulson initially made a name for himself, and a fortune, by betting against the housing market before the 2008 financial crisis.

Since then, he’s become known as a leading investor in companies developing gold mines, and for his ties to Trump: He hosted a Florida campaign fundraiser in 2024 and reportedly was a candidate to be secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Donlin is Paulson’s biggest mining investment in Alaska. Beyond his direct stake in the project, he’s also a major investor in Novagold Resources, which owns the other 60% of Donlin and which Trilogy initially spun out from. And Paulson owns about 38% of another Alaska-focused company, International Tower Hill Mines, which aims to develop a gold deposit north of Fairbanks.

Meanwhile, another billionaire who’s heavily invested in Alaska’s mining industry, including in some of the same companies as Paulson, has kept his shares in Trilogy.

Investor Thomas Kaplan’s New York-based Electrum Group owns some 18.5% of the company — a stake worth more than $136 million, according to a recent securities filing by Kaplan’s firm.

Electrum also owns about $865 million in shares, or some 24%, of Novagold, the firm that’s pushing Donlin along with Paulson.

Both Donlin and the Ambler Road have generated vigorous debate locally and statewide. Supporters say the projects could create much-needed jobs and stimulate rural economies, while critics are concerned about impacts to the environment and traditional hunting and fishing.

Northern Journal contributor Max Graham can be reached at max@northernjournal.com. He’s interested in any and all mining related stories, as well as introductory meetings with people in and around the industry.

This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Nathaniel Herz. Subscribe at this link.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The Alaska Division of Banking and Securities is planning to approve the merger of Credit Union 1 and MAC Federal Credit Union, the agency said in a public notice this week.

The two credit unions announced their merger plans last year, but state law required a review. Credit Union 1 is Alaska’s only state-chartered credit union, which gives the state primary authority over its operations. All of Alaska’s other credit unions are federally chartered.

CU1 has almost 100,000 members and 16 branches — the newest slated to open in Homer this summer. 

MAC Federal Credit Union is based in the Fairbanks area and has about 20,000 members, according to figures provided with the merger announcement last year. 

It opened branches in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough starting five years ago, marking its first expansion outside the Fairbanks area.

Public comments on the merger can be submitted to the Division of Banking and Securities, which expects to make a final decision on the merger sometime after April 3. 

The Trump administration is seeking to open national preserves in Alaska to bear baiting by sport hunters.

The U.S. Department of the Interior on Friday announced that it will propose a new rule to overturn restrictions imposed by the Biden administration and prior to that, wider restrictions imposed by the Obama administration.

The proposed rule would allow for state regulations to apply in national preserves, which are part of the National Park System. Sport and subsistence hunting, trapping and fishing are allowed in national preserves in Alaska, under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game allows hunters to use bait to hunt bears in certain places and at certain times of the year. Baiting is the practice of setting up stations with food to attract bears so they can be targeted for hunting.

In a statement, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the proposed rule will restore the state’s previously established authority to manage sport hunting and trapping in Alaska’s national preserves.

“For decades, Alaska’s national preserves were managed under a framework that respected the State’s authority, protected subsistence uses and ensured conservation of wildlife resources,” Burgum said in the statement. “This proposed rule restores that balance. It reduces unnecessary federal overreach, aligns federal regulations with state law, and honors the commitments Congress made in ANILCA.”

The proposed Trump administration rule, like the Biden-era and Obama-era restrictions, applies only to sport harvesters. The federal government, not the state government, regulates subsistence harvesting on federal lands in Alaska, including national preserves.

Doug Vincent-Lang, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said he welcomed the new Department of the Interior plan.

“It is refreshing to see a federal agency recognize the State’s role as the primary manager of fish and wildlife within its borders and affirm the importance that federal actions not undermine that foundational responsibility,” Vincent-Lang said in a statement. “These changes support the cultural heritage and long-standing traditions of Alaskans who use these lands to fulfill their subsistence needs and continue to pass down a way of life to future generations of Alaskans.”

But conservation groups criticized the move.

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, said in a statement that the proposed rule should be rejected.

“This proposed rule, like so many before it from this Administration, will endanger our national parks, the millions of visitors that visit them every year, and the animals that inhabit them,” she said in the statement. “For years, bear baiting policy in Alaska’s national preserves has been treated like a political light switch in Washington — flipped on and off with each new administration. But the consequences are anything but political. Bear baiting disrupts natural wildlife behavior and creates dangerous conditions for people visiting these lands managed by the National Park Service.”

Nicole Schmitt, executive director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, said the proposed rule change is not justified, noting that current rules already protect subsistence users.

“The rule change we see today was championed by Safari Club International, who just last month petitioned the Department of Interior to dismantle the power and local representation on the Federal Subsistence Board. Now, this same outside group wants to unlock Alaska’s National Preserves for expansive sport hunting, opening cherish(ed) preserves like Denali to bear baiting,” Schmitt said in a statement.

The new Trump administration proposal will be detailed in an upcoming Federal Register notice that will kick off a public comment period, the Department of the Interior said.

The new proposal is the latest in a decade-long history of rule changes for sport hunting in Alaska national preserves.

In 2015, the Obama administration issued a rule barring bear-baiting and other controversial hunting practices like killing cubs in dens, using dogs to hunt bears and shooting swimming caribou, all practices that were allowed on state land.

The first Trump administration overturned those restrictions. The Biden administration in 2024 resurrected part of the Obama administration’s restrictions, specifically focusing on the bear-baiting ban. At the time, the National Park Service determined that bear baiting posed safety risks to people and animals because it could make bears habituated to human-provided food.

The debate over state regulation of sport hunting and trapping on federal lands in Alaska has also sparked litigation.

In 2020, conservation groups, including the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, notched a victory when a federal court struck down the first Trump administration’s plan to allow baiting of brown bears within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The state and the Safari Club International attempted to reverse that ruling, but the appeal was rejected by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined the state and Safari Club’s request to take up the case.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Regulations and policies governing hunting and fishing on federal lands will be on the table at the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council meeting in Juneau next week.

The council is one of 10 in Alaska that provide recommendations to the Federal Subsistence Board, which is the decision-making body for Alaska’s Federal Subsistence Management Program.

Council members and the public will be able to participate remotely in the four-day meeting, which starts at 9 a.m. Tuesday and continues through Friday.

The Southeast council met for two days in December, after their fall meeting was postponed because of the 43-day-long federal government shutdown.

During the December meeting a leader in the Office of Subsistence Management, which administers the federal subsistence program for Alaska, announced the review of the Federal Subsistence Management Program that the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior are currently conducting in Alaska.

The Agriculture and Interior departments initiated the review of the subsistence program on Dec. 15 in response to the Trump administration’s January 2025 executive order “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” as well as a petition that the Safari Club International filed with the federal government last year, which asks U.S. agencies to “rein in” the subsistence program.

The OSM official’s announcement sparked more than three hours of discussion among Southeast RAC members over ways that political influence could compromise the effectiveness of the Federal Subsistence Management Program.

After the meeting, Council members drafted and approved an eight-page letter detailing their concerns that the review may lead to regulatory changes that would undermine subsistence harvest rights in the state.

Upon announcing the federally-initiated subsistence review on Dec. 15, OSM opened a 60-day public comment period. OSM later extended the comment deadline by 45 days; and is now accepting comments through March 30.

Also during the December meeting of the Southeast subsistence Regional Advisory Council, officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture spoke about the Trump administration’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule, and the Agriculture department’s plans to change the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to make it align with the executive orders that President Trump issued when he took office last year.

A 30-day public comment period is open through March 20 to get Alaskans’ views on the administration’s update to the Tongass Land Management Plan, which is aimed at maximizing timber harvest and mineral extraction throughout the Tongass, and adjusting to increased cruise ship visitation.

The U.S. Forest Service announced today that it will be holding an in-person, community workshop at Harrigan Centennial Hall on April 17 to hear feedback on the preliminary materials it is drafting for the Tongass plan revision. Similar Forest Service workshops are scheduled this spring for more than a dozen Southeast communities.

The December meeting of the Southeast subsistence council also marked the close of Sitka representative Harvey Kitka’s long tenure as a council member. Since joining the council in 2003, Kitka has shared his insights on management of wildlife, fish and their habitats, and helped shape the federal subsistence program for Alaska.

Council members serve in three-year terms, and may apply for re-appointment at the end of each term. People can apply by April 2 to fill seats on the Southeast council that are opening up this year.

A panel of federal staff from several land management agencies review the applications, conduct interviews and rank applicants before the Federal Subsistence Board nominates individuals for appointment by the U.S. Secretary of Interior.

It’s up to the Interior secretary to issue appointment letters to new members. During Trump’s first term as president, the Interior secretary did not appoint Council members to fill vacant seats, leaving some regional councils unable to meet quorum.

Current members of the Southeast RAC are Patricia Phillips and James Slater of Pelican, Albert Howard of Angoon, Frank Wright Jr. of Hoonah, Larry Bemis of Yakutat, Calvin Casipit of Gustavus, John Smith III of Juneau, Theodore Sandhofer of Petersburg, Louie Wagner of Metlakatla, Michael Douville and Lewis Hiatt of Craig, and Donald Hernandez of Point Baker, who is chair of the RAC.

Wright and Hiatt represent commercial and sport users, while the remaining council members represent customary and traditional (subsistence) users of fish and wildlife species.

At next week’s meeting in Juneau the council will make a recommendation on a wildlife proposal that would prohibit people on federal lands throughout Southeast Alaska (Units 1-5) from hunting in the hours between civil sunset and civil sunrise.

The Alaska Board of Game voted 6-1 against a similar state regulatory proposal during its Southeast meeting in January.

Ten total wildlife proposals are on the RAC agenda for the meeting next week. Six proposals suggest cutbacks in deer harvest opportunities in the Prince of Wales Island-area Unit 2, in the interest of sustaining the area’s deer population.

Unit 2 could face additional subsistence deer hunting pressure this year after the Federal Subsistence Board voted 7-3 last February to designate the nearby Ketchikan area as “rural,” which qualifies all Ketchikan residents to hunt and fish as federally-qualified subsistence users throughout Southeast (Units 1-5).

The council also will hear two proposals that deal with season dates for wolf trapping on federal lands in Unit 2. The size of the wolf population in the Prince of Wales Island area is an important factor in the health of the deer population in Unit 2.

The Southeast RAC had planned to deliberate and make formal recommendations on all of those proposals this fall, but the abbreviated schedule for the December meeting forced the RAC to postpone action on the proposals.

The state Federal Subsistence Board is scheduled to decide on the federal regulatory proposals during its 2026 Wildlife Regulatory Meeting, April 20-24 in Anchorage.

How to tune in

Anyone can participate in the Southeast RAC meeting, beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday and continuing through Friday at the Elizabeth Peratrovich Hall in Juneau. Remote participation is available.

To participate by phone, people can call the toll free number: 1-833-436-1163, then when prompted enter the phone conference ID: 245 785 455#

To join on Microsoft Teams, people can enter the meeting ID: 220 150 997 463 and passcode: P5a8WU2L

All meeting materials are available at https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/regions/se_materials

This story was originally published by the Daily Sitka Sentinel.

The post Southeast subsistence council faces packed agenda appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

At the Alaska Beacon, we’re constantly trying to figure out where we should put our attention. There’s always more news than there are people to report it.

Every Thursday, the Alaska Legislature publishes its committee schedule for the coming week. Public notices alert us to meetings and events. The governor’s office occasionally lets us know ahead of time that something’s coming down the pike, too.

Here’s what we know about for the coming week. If you know of something that’s coming up that you should think we should pay attention to, email us at info@alaskabeacon.com.

We can’t cover everything on this list, but we’re interested in them and we think you should know about them in case you’re interested in them, too.

This list is ripped from our notebooks, and it is likely to change over the course of the week. We’ll update it when we can.

Are you trying to keep track of when to testify on a bill? The Legislature has a website for that.

Monday, March 9

• Bid opening for the new National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska lease sale. (This was moved to March 18 because of an error.)
• 8 a.m. – House Education Committee hears invited testimony on a bill that would raise per student state education funding by $630 and a resolution that would ask the Trump administration to waive visa fees for international teachers in Alaska
• 9 a.m. – Senate Finance looks at major maintenance projects for Alaska’s K-12 schools
• 10:30 a.m. – House floor session (citations only)
• 11 a.m. – Senate floor session, watch for supplemental budget vote
• 1:30 p.m. – Senate-passed elections reform bill gets a hearing in House Finance
• 1:30 p.m. – ISER and other invited testifiers talk about the pension bill in Senate Finance
• 3:30 p.m. – Bipartisan, bicameral education task force looks at major maintenance with representatives from the Department of Education and Early Development, the Legislative Finance Division and the Coalition for Education Equity.

Tuesday, March 10

• Mariculture Conference of Alaska opens in Anchorage (it runs through March 12)
• 9 a.m. – State school board meets to hear report on how well the Alaska Reads program is working
• 11 a.m. – U.S. Rep. Nick Begich gives his annual legislative speech
• 1 p.m. – Alaska Railroad CEO gives a status update to House Transportation
• 3:30 p.m. – Planned Parenthood talks to Senate Health and Social Services

Wednesday, March 11

• Morning House and Senate floor sessions
• 7:30 a.m. – Senate Finance Corrections Subcommittee considers the budget for the Department of Corrections
• 8 a.m. – Joint House and Senate Education Committee meeting for the 2026 State Board of Education Report to the Legislature
• 9 a.m. – Legislative Finance and Division of Retirement and Benefits talk about the pension revival bill with Senate Finance
• 9 a.m. – Cook Inlet LNG talks to Regulatory Commission of Alaska about their plans for a floating natural gas import terminal
• 12 p.m. – Lunch and Learn about Alaska’s role in international energy stability
• 1 p.m. – House Judiciary takes up an as-yet-unintroduced (as of Friday) resolution about voter privacy
• 1:30 p.m. – Public testimony on the operating budget in House Finance
• 1:30 p.m. – Where is state IT falling short? They’ll talk to Senate Finance
• 3:15 p.m. House Labor & Commerce Committee considers interstate health care licensing compacts that could unlock more federal money through the Rural Health Transformation Program
• 3:30 p.m. – Big new public education funding and policy bill gets a hearing in Senate Education
• 3:30 p.m. – Senate Resources gets an update on the Railbelt electric transmission upgrades and on the Port of Alaska
• 4:30 p.m. – Budget public testimony continues in House Finance until 6:30 p.m.
• 5 p.m. – House Education talks about their BSA increase bill

Thursday, March 12

• Public comments due on UAS plans for a shellfish seed farm in Sitka
• 9 a.m. – House Finance has a hearing devoted to the elections reform bill
• 9 a.m. – Real Estate Commission meeting
• 10:15 a.m. – House Military and Veterans Affairs talks about a bill allowing “patriotic organizations” to sell alcohol
• 12 p.m. – Lunch and Learn about efforts to track landslides in Southeast Alaska
• 1:30 p.m. – More public testimony on the budget in House Finance
• 1:30 p.m. – Senate Finance takes a first look at the new bill cutting the amount of money transferred from the Permanent Fund to the treasury each year
• 1:30 p.m. – Senate Transportation learns about a fancy new way to de-ice roads
• 3:15 p.m. – House State Affairs looks at an education tax
• 3:30 p.m. – NCSL talks about the rural health transformation program, giving a national perspective

Friday, March 13

• Morning House and Senate floor sessions
• Estimated date for spring revenue forecast
• Deadline for public comments on new mining road near Herbert Glacier trail in Juneau
• 8 a.m. – House Education talks about free school meals and a federal bill that would require ID for some internet use
• 1:30 p.m. – Still more public testimony about the budget in House Finance
• 2 p.m. – Federal court arguments in Metlakatla-state dispute over fishing
• 3:30 p.m. – Senate Resources talks about natural gas and an income tax

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

All three members of Alaska’s delegation to Congress showed their support for the new war with Iran this week, voting against resolutions intended to restrain President Donald Trump.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, voted against a measure in the Senate on Wednesday, and Rep. Nick Begich III, also a Republican, voted against a similar House resolution on Thursday.

Both resolutions failed to advance. 

The Alaska legislators’ votes were in line with their past actions. Last year, when Trump ordered a bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, all three said they supported the strikes.

The current war is significantly larger than last year’s attacks, and Trump has said he is seeking Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and wants to have a role in picking its next leader.

Neither he nor senior administration officials have given firm long-term plans, and they have not ruled out the deployment of soldiers on the ground in Iran. 

Begich issued a statement on Feb. 28 calling the war “a necessary and targeted response” and said he supports regime change in the country.

“The path forward cannot be centered on further appeasement but the removal of this corrupt, fanatical leadership that has brought suffering to the Iranian people and threatens our peace at home. In so doing, we can provide the people of Iran the opportunity to change leadership, reclaim their sovereignty, and chart a new course,” the statement said in part.

Begich is in the middle of a re-election campaign, and his two leading challengers issued statements opposing the war.

By email, Democratic U.S. House candidate Matt Schultz criticized Begich’s vote and suggested he would have chosen differently.

“Our tax dollars should build schools and hospitals here at home, not bankroll endless foreign wars. But Washington always seems to find billions for war while Alaskans pay the price with sky-high costs and watch investments in our future get delayed, downsized, or ignored,” he said.

“The cost of war isn’t just dollars and cents, it’s measured in human lives and suffering. As a pastor, I believe every life is sacred. That’s why the Constitution requires Congress to approve war: so no president can send Americans into conflict without a real plan and the support of the American people.”

A spokesperson for independent U.S. House candidate Bill Hill referenced that candidate’s posts on social media when asked about his position.

“Our leaders should be investing in lowering costs and making life better for working Americans, not putting American lives at risk in foreign wars without congressional approval,” Hill wrote in a Wednesday post on Facebook. 

“Six U.S. service members have died and billions of dollars have been spent in a matter of days.  Meanwhile here at home, our schools are in crisis, healthcare costs keep rising, veterans are at risk of losing benefits, and everyday costs are just too damn high,” he wrote. “We can’t afford a costly war with no end in sight.”

On the Senate side, Murkowski said the resolution presented to her this week would have required the removal of soldiers from hostilities, stopping military operations immediately.

“The abrupt cessation of all offensive operations would not leave any Americans — soldiers, diplomats, or civilians — in the Middle East in a safer position,” her statement said in part.

Murkowski said Trump has “committed U.S. troops to active engagement in combat with an enemy that has targeted and killed Americans for decades. We have lost six soldiers in this fight with the potential for more casualties. What our troops need now is for our Congress, and this country, to know that they are supported. It is for this reason that I oppose Senator Kaine’s War Powers Resolution — based on the practical implications of its passage.”

Sullivan has supported military action against Iran for years and told reporters on Feb. 28, “I’m not someone that, in general, would support kind of taking out world leaders,” he said. “But I think these guys, … my belief is that they’re less world leaders than terrorists, right?”

He reiterated his position during a Congressional hearing days later, alluding to Iranian support for anti-American insurgents during the Iraq War and in terrorist actions before that.

“This country’s been at war with us for almost a half century,” he said, referring to Iran, “and they’ve killed thousands and wounded thousands of our best and brightest.”

Sullivan is also facing a re-election campaign this year, but unlike on the House side, there isn’t a bright line between the incumbent and his leading opponent on this issue. 

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola hasn’t made any public statements about the Iran war, and her campaign social media accounts have been silent on the subject.

When contacted Thursday, her campaign spokesperson said she had no comment. 

That makes it unclear whether she supports or opposes the war.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

In Alaska, a suspended driver’s license will stay suspended unless a driver takes steps to reactivate it, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled this week.

In an opinion published Friday, the court upheld the conviction of a Southcentral Alaska woman for driving with a revoked license.

Attorneys representing Kasey Malay had argued that under the plain language of state law, a license revocation lasts only for the time prescribed by courts or the Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles. 

Not so, the court ruled this week. Writing for the court, Judge Marjorie Allard said, “we conclude that a revoked driver’s license remains in ‘revoked’ status for purposes of a (driving with a revoked license) prosecution until the person takes the affirmative steps necessary to have their license reinstated and their license is reinstated.”

That would involve reapplying to the DMV and getting a new license. 

Malay, who was convicted of DUI in 2010, was arrested three times for driving with a revoked license between 2012 and 2013, and had her license revoked for 90 days each time.

Malay never sought out the DMV for a new license, and in 2020 she was stopped by police three more times and thrice cited for driving with a revoked license.

She was convicted in jury trials on all three offenses and appealed those convictions. 

Allard’s opinion notes that there is an “inherent ambiguity” in the state law defining “revoke” and in the law describing how to restore a revoked license. Both laws mention a “period of revocation.”

“Thus, at first blush, Malay’s arguments at trial appear to have some potential merit,” Allard wrote. 

But that argument is defeated by a different law, she wrote. That statute, covering who is financially responsible in cases where a driver has a suspended license, says in part that “a period of suspension, revocation, or cancellation continues until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided. Upon expiration of a period of limitation, the license remains revoked until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided.”

Another statute, governing limited driver’s licenses, has similar language.

“We therefore conclude that, contrary to Malay’s arguments at trial and on appeal, a revoked license does not cease being ‘revoked’ for purposes of a DWLR prosecution when the period of revocation specifically ordered by the court ends or when proof of financial responsibility is provided,” Allard wrote. “Instead, the license remains ‘revoked’ until all the steps required for reinstatement have been taken and the license is reinstated.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX