A cursory review of the sockeye salmon ex-vessel prices for various regions of Alaska reveal a consistent trend of fisheries with better prices than others.
Prince William Sound produces the highest price per pound for sockeye salmon, with the Copper River Reds fetching upwards in excess of $12 per pound for the early run.
The bottom of the sockeye value per pound comes from Bristol Bay.
While there are experts who can explain all of the variations for market access, quality, availability and a myriad of other factors, I want to raise the question of how salmon prices may be affected by oil, gas, mining, industrialization and urban sprawl.
There has been fear cast on fishermen that development will be the death knell for all Bristol Bay fisheries. While we must be extremely careful and be most diligent in our application of the best science to protect and enhance opportunities for subsistence, sport and commercial fisher people, we need not paralyze our economy by precluding responsible development.
Such development is threatened by legislation that would preempt the stringent and rigorous environmental impact statement process, as well as state and federal water quality laws, in favor of a political solution to a perceived problem, which may not be one at all. Let me digress.
The prized and valuable Copper River Reds gather back to the Copper River. At its headwaters is the famed Kennecott Copper Mine. The mine produced copper and other minerals for 27 years, ending in 1938.
Additionally, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled crude oil in Prince William Sound. It was the largest spill in Alaska history. Oil still remains buried beneath some beaches.
Yet in spite of an old mine at its headwaters and the oil spill in the Sound, Copper River Reds remain at the top of the value totem pole for Alaskan sockeye.
Cook Inlet holds the number two spot on the value per pound list. Over half the population in Alaska is centered in the Cook Inlet watershed, home of 16 active oil and gas platforms operating in waters where the salmon migrate. This is not to mention all the potential for pollution from the 350,000 or more people living there.
Where’s Bristol Bay’s spot? It is last in value of sockeye per pound.
But how can this be? Bristol Bay is the last pristine place on earth! It represents all that wild, pure, untarnished, natural, organic, delicious sockeye salmon stand for.
Before jumping to the erroneous conclusion that all Bristol Bay needs is a large mine at its headwaters and vigorous oil development to bolster its value of sockeyes, let me say that what these prices demonstrate is the “headwater” and “no development” arguments are perhaps a little overstated.
People making these arguments claim it would be devastating to our region and fisheries to even consider the development of our other resources. However, reality indicates that our resources, like minerals, can be utilized in cooperation with the enhancement of our fishing economies: subsistence, sport and commercial.
It’s a small world after all
Climate change and soaring energy costs are frequent subjects of no little debate these days. Trying to establish who to blame is easy. It is obviously everyone else except me. If these issues were viewed as assets instead of liabilities, there probably would be no end to the individuals and entities lining up to take credit for their creation. Since that is not the case, I offer a few thoughts on who actually are the most environmentally-conscious folks on this planet.
Although some people seem to have all of the answers, I may have the most questions.
• Will humankind likely consume more or less in the coming years?
• Comparing environmental standards in the U.S. to other countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and China, are our standards (more) or (less) stringent?
• Assuming environmental requirements for development are the same worldwide, are enforcement procedures and recourses (more) or (less) assured in the U.S.?
• In many countries, the government itself is the developer of resources. If resources are developed by the government, the enforcer of environmental policies, where are the restraints and the citizen’s forums to insure proper evaluation, review and protection of the environment?
China alone is home to more than 20 percent of the earth’s population. As an emerging country, with an insatiable appetite for resources, its demands for energy, raw materials and other resources could grow exponentially. The law of supply and demand will find ready producers to meet their needs, as well as the rest of the world’s consumers. Before you conclude that China is our problem, I neither advocate unmitigated development nor careless extraction of our resources to meet worldwide demands.
What I am implying is that our country, with strict regulations, and a people’s forum for input through the environmental impact statement process, is less likely to do global harm in the extraction of our resources, than those countries either devoid of such constraints, or lacking effective enforcement mechanisms. I would even suggest that those who, under the guise of being “green,” imply that we cannot develop responsibly, and are, in reality promoting unmitigated pollution and global environmental harm, by pushing the supply machine into areas without restraint, regulation or review.
Let us diligently, carefully and wisely develop our own resources, when that development can meet our permitting standards, and not, by default, cause careless regimes to further pollute our planet by irresponsible resource extraction.
Perhaps the “greenest” person of all is the one who demands thorough science, provides for full accountability, and insists on responsible development in a country where there is a rule of law.
If this is true, then paint me “green!”
This planet is so small, if anyone pollutes, we all pay!
Editor's note: Glen Alsworth, Sr. is Mayor of the Lake and Peninsula Borough.
Return to newsletter headlines
