Salmon Aren’t Partisan: Voters Want to Protect the Rural Subsistence Priority
By Jason Katz-Brown
“I often feel like my job in D.C. is the Alaska-explainer-in-chief,” U.S. Representative Mary Peltola remarked Saturday at the Alaska Federation of Natives conference. “They don’t exactly know what being ‘pro-fish’ means. … It’s not a kitsch slogan. It’s literally our way of life. We’re all pro-fish here — we have been for 12,000 years and we intend to be for 12,000 more years.”
Fish are important to Alaska economically: Alaska harvests more seafood than all other U.S. states combined. But most crucially, fish, especially salmon, are the cornerstone of food security, culture, and community in many parts of Alaska.
Subsistence fishing constitutes about 60% of the diet of most rural residents, most of whom are Alaska Native. Salmon are essential to the cultural and spiritual well-being and survival of Alaska Native people. The collapse of salmon runs in Western Alaska in recent years has devastated many rural communities. As leaders address this crisis, there’s been disagreement and conflict between Tribal, state, regional, and federal fisheries managers.
New Data for Progress polling finds voters across the country and across the political spectrum consistently support protecting rural subsistence fishing in Alaska.
The typical member of Congress lives a long way from Alaska, but the intricacies of federal laws like ANILCA and Magnuson-Stevens are a matter of survival to Alaskans. We focused on two opportunities before U.S. lawmakers:
59% of voters say fishing should be limited to rural residents when salmon are scarce in a river
66% of voters say the North Pacific Fishery Management Council should be expanded to include two designated seats for Alaska Native Tribes
The Rural Subsistence Priority
Government officials all agree that in rivers where salmon are scarce, fishing should be limited to subsistence use. But there is disagreement about whether subsistence fishing should be limited to rural residents, or open to all residents.
Tribal and federal officials have pushed to limit fishing to rural residents. But the state of Alaska has argued that the state constitution requires opening subsistence fishing to all Alaska residents, not just rural ones.
While aspects of this conflict are playing out in a courtroom battle, there is also an opportunity to strengthen the law to clarify the rural subsistence priority. A resolution encouraging Congress to do so was at the top of the agenda of the Alaska Federation of Natives conference.
We find broad support for the rural subsistence priority: 59% of all likely voters agree fishing should be limited to rural residents when salmon are scarce, compared with only 30% who say fishing should be open to all residents. Support is consistent across party and geography: 56% of Republican voters and 58% of urban voters support the rural subsistence priority.
Uplifting Tribes and Subsistence in Fisheries Management
Another focus at the Alaska Federation of Natives conference was resolving to increase Tribes’ representation and power in state, regional, and national fisheries management, with the goal of elevating subsistence needs as they compete with commercial interests.
One goal of congressional lawmakers, including Peltola, has been to expand the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to include two designated seats for Alaska Native Tribes. The council manages commercial fishing rules in the seas around Alaska, including habitat protection and limits on discarding fish like salmon that are caught but unwanted.
We asked whether the North Pacific Fishery Management Council should be expanded with designated Alaska Native seats, with minimal context. In this low-context setting, we find consistent support for the proposal: 62% of all voters support adding two Alaska Native seats, compared with 24% who think the council should remain largely appointed by the governors of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon.
Next, we showed arguments for and against expanding the council. Support for adding Alaska Native seats grows to 66% of voters, compared with only 21% against. Even Republicans support the proposal by a 2-to-1 margin (59% for, 29% against). And we again find that bolstering rural subsistence finds support across geographies: urban, suburban, and rural voters all support by a wide margin expanding the North Pacific Fishery Management Council with designated Alaska Native seats.
Voters across the country and across party lines want to see their elected officials protect Alaska Native and rural subsistence fishing.
Jason Katz-Brown (@jasonkatzbrown) is a senior advisor at Data for Progress.
Survey Methodology
From October 20 to 21, 2023, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,222 likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.