Note: Northern Alaska Environmental Center does not endorse any candidate in this race. We send questionnaires to candidates so our members and the public can review their answers and decide for themselves.
This post does not include every person who has filed a letter of intent or has an active campaign; we are only publishing responses from candidates who completed and returned the questionnaire.
We will also be sending another survey in early June. If you would like to submit a question for consideration, please email it to klapp@northern.org.
Responses are presented as submitted.
Question #1
How would your administration approach balancing economic development with the long-term stewardship of Alaska’s lands, waters, and wildlife?
Tom Begich
Alaska’s constitution is clear: our resources belong to the people of Alaska and must be managed for maximum benefit across generations. This is the legal standard I will apply to every development decision my administration makes. While I have supported responsible resource development, I strongly believe we have been giving away our resources at a steep discount while asking Alaska families to absorb boom-and-bust budgets. For example, since SB21 passed, Alaska’s effective government take of oil revenue has dropped to roughly 11 to 16 percent, compared to 25 to 30 percent in Texas and North Dakota. That is not stewardship, it’s a giveaway. My administration will require that any development project demonstrate genuine long-term value to Alaskans, accounting for habitat, subsistence, water, and climate impacts alongside jobs and revenue, and be community-supported. On major projects like Alaska LNG, I agree with Senators Giessel and Stedman: we must see the updated cost estimate, independent financial analysis, and binding contracts before committing hundreds of millions in state equity. Economic development and environmental stewardship should not be opposites, but we must demand both from the start, and our communities must be meaningfully engaged in those conversations.
Gregg Brelsford
Recently, I drove to church on a deep-blue-sky day, the sun sparkling on the pure fresh snow on the grand Chugach Mountains. Traffic slowed as a young moose slowly and majestically crossed the road— one of those archetypal times in Alaska we all live for. We must work together to ensure that we all continue to enjoy these special moments and that our children do too.
I came of age working and living in Alaska’s villages, small towns, and urban centers, while spending as much time as possible outdoors—hiking, hunting, and exploring. I’ve seen the promise and the challenges of resource development from the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline to today’s complex legal and political landscape.
As governor, I will vigorously support responsible development of Alaska’s natural resources that is respectful of our environment, and fair to Alaska and investors. This means creating jobs and economic growth while listening closely to local villages and communities—especially those most directly affected—and ensuring that development is done right.
Meda DeWitt, MA
Alaska’s rich and pristine environment is our most precious asset. Competent direction of Alaska’s development recognizes that our economy and the stewardship of our lands are not in conflict; they are essential to one another. Article VIII of Alaska’s Constitution requires us to preserve our fish, wildlife, and waters for future generations. Alaskans demand an economy that can support our people. These priorities will not be compromised under a DeWitt administration.
In practice, that means three things. First, no major resource decision moves forward without meaningful Tribal and community consultation before permits are issued, not after. Second, the state enforces its own environmental standards rather than deferring to federal agencies or relying on industry self-reporting. Third, diversify Alaska’s economy so that stewardship and livelihoods reinforce each other: mariculture, renewable energy, sustainable tourism, and value-added seafood processing create jobs that depend on healthy ecosystems rather than depleting them. I would expand Guardians programs statewide, building on models such as the Seacoast Indigenous Guardians Network in the Southeast, Bristol Bay Guardians, and the Indigenous Sentinels Network, and create positions to monitor lands, waters, wildlife, and heritage sites. Guardian programs combine stewardship and employment into a single role and could save the state more money than they cost.
The salmon collapse is the clearest example of what happens when we abandon sustained yield. The directed subsistence Chinook harvest on the Yukon has been closed or severely restricted since 2020. Industrial pollock trawlers intercept salmon, herring, and halibut as bycatch at a scale that undermines both the constitutional priority of subsistence and the biological foundation of our fisheries
Henry Kroll
Article 8 of the State Constitution insists that the land should go to the people. Past administrations have neglected to open up areas for more farms and as a result, we are in danger of starving. If something should happen to the food supply in the lower 48 states like a war or if Yellowstone should erupt, or, an ENP from the sun that destroys the grid, we would be in trouble. We don’t have enough farms. I suggest we trade one dividend check for one acre of land so that residents would have something valuable instead of something that loses its value. The money would stay in the PFD to make it grow.
Three million tourists came here last year. Many of them come here to catch salmon. Four million people may come here this year. I suggest we limit the number of salmon non-residents take to two a day. I also suggest we stock thousands of lakes with native fish to take the pressure off the salmon stocks. We should allow people with lakes next to their land to build small docks and charge tourists to fish off their docks.
As a native-born Alaskan homesteader, I have witnessed the decimation of most wildlife due to pollution. There isn’t much we can do to reverse the problem, and not enough room on this page to elaborate. Read: MAKE ALASKA GREAT AGAIN WWW.HankKroll.com
James William Parkin IV
Alaska’s future shouldn’t be a choice between a paycheck and our heritage. Our administration will bridge this gap by prioritizing Alaskan sovereignty over outside interests. We believe that all the wealth in the world cannot replace the value of our fresh air, clean water, and unspoiled land—but we also recognize that Alaskans need jobs and economic stability now.
By leveraging cutting-edge heavy-lift technologies, we can access and develop our natural resources without the environmental scars of permanent roads or runways. This innovation allows us to bypass traditional infrastructure, reducing government permitting delays and speeding up the flow of vital funds into our state’s economy.
To ensure Alaskans remain in the driver’s seat, I will establish the Alaska Resource Development Cooperative Corporation (ARDCC). Owned entirely by Alaskans, the ARDCC gives us total control over production levels, environmental safeguards, and resident-only hiring. We will no longer be beholden to out-of-state corporations that export our profits while leaving Alaskans with the cleanup. Whether the ARDCC develops a project or simply sets a higher standard for others, we are reclaiming our power. We protect our wilderness, keep our wealth at home, and deliver direct shareholder checks to you.
Adam Crum
The premise of my campaign is that innovative development and genuine stewardship are not opposites. Alaska has managed oil production on the North Slope for more than 50 years while growing caribou herds,
functional fisheries, and a local population that still lives a subsistence lifestyle. That record is not an accident. It is the result of Alaskans who took seriously both the economic opportunity and the obligation to leave the land intact for those who come after.
My administration will approach development with two non-negotiable requirements: fast, functional permitting for projects that meet scientific and legal standards, and real enforcement of those standards once a project is underway. The DNR permitting process has to work. Right now, delays drive up project costs and push investment elsewhere. But speed without rigor is not a solution. We have to do both.
Alaska has 49 of the 50 critical minerals listed by the U.S. Geological Survey. We have some of the largest remaining gas reserves in North America. We also have coastline, salmon rivers, and wildlife habitat
that are irreplaceable. A governor who tells you those two realities are in permanent conflict is not being honest. Managing them together is exactly the job. I have done it. Alaskans must be in control for true conservation to succeed. As Commissioner of Revenue, I worked to grow Alaska’s investment story without compromising the underlying resource base that makes Alaska a credible long-term investment in the first
place.
Matt Claman
Responsible stewardship of our natural resources and sustainable economic development go hand in hand: a thriving economy conserves its resources. We must work together to diversify Alaska’s economy, invest in education, and support long-term economic development. I support energy diversification and independence, including cost-effective and reliable renewable energy where it makes economic sense.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Stewardship and development get framed as an either-or. They aren’t, and Alaskans know it. My approach is: defend science-driven processes to decide what makes sense for Alaskans, ensure local communities are informed and involved, and keep the governor’s thumb off the scale.
Question #2
What role do you believe Tribal governments, rural communities, and local stakeholders should play in shaping state decisions related to land and resource management?
Tom Begich
Tribal governments, rural communities, and local stakeholders who live with the impacts of development should have a real voice in how that development is managed. Tribal governments are sovereign governments – not just stakeholders to be consulted. They are nations to be negotiated with as equals, and my administration will govern that way from day one. Stakeholders get comment periods. Sovereign governments get seats at the table before proposals are finalized, binding co-management authority, and access to the same data the state uses to make decisions. I will pursue formal government-to-government agreements with Alaska Tribes on land and resource management, not consultation processes designed to satisfy legal minimums while ignoring indigenous knowledge. I will also back that principle with economic power. My energy plan calls for expanding tribal and village ownership of local energy generation, distribution, and storage. The Knik Tribe, Tanana Chiefs Conference villages, and communities across the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have been building and operating hybrid microgrids for years. This model – where communities own their infrastructure – has real leverage over decisions that affect them. The state should be capitalizing and scaling what already works, not designing solutions from Juneau and forcing them on communities that may not want them.
Gregg Brelsford
As noted above, I know firsthand that Tribal governments, rural communities, and local stakeholders have roots that collectively stretch back through time immemorial. We stand on the shoulders of elders and leaders that have durably brought us to where we are now. They have invaluable knowledge and experience that we should draw on in shaping state decisions related to land and resource management. We need them in the mix.
But this is also the 21 st century. Land and resource development is exponentially more challenging now than in the past. On substantive projects today there are thousands of economic, financial, legal, cultural, and political variables – and other cultural and professional expertise – that must be identified, synchronized and balanced.
Healthy decision-making requires integrating traditional knowledge with professional expertise across many fields. As governor, I will ensure that these groups are meaningfully engaged early and throughout the decision-making process.
Meda DeWitt, MA
Tribal governments are governments, and their sovereignty is distinct from state sovereignty. State sovereignty derives from the U.S. Constitution and the compact of statehood. Tribal sovereignty predates both. It is inherent, rooted in thousands of years of self-governance, law, and relationships to land and water that existed long before Alaska became a state. My administration would recognize that distinction with respect, not as a threat to state authority, but as a foundation for repairing relationships that have been neglected for too long.
Alaska has 229 federally recognized Tribes, over 200 communities, with more than 160 cities; 19 organized boroughs; 12 regional and nearly 200 village Alaska Native Corporations; and thousands of Alaska-owned businesses and hardworking Alaskans who show up every day to build this state. That is an extraordinary amount of knowledge, capacity, and commitment, yet the state largely works around it rather than with it. When the Governor’s office, Tribal governments, municipalities, boroughs, ANCSA corporations, local businesses, and Alaskans pull in the same direction, we can move faster and smarter on everything from disaster response to economic diversification. When we work in silos or in conflict, everyone loses, and nothing changes.
Henry Kroll
Tribal leaders know more about their land and resources than any government. I have advised tribal leaders about the pollution that killed off a billion dollars per year crab and shrimp fishery. From the 1960’s to 1990 two oil tankers a day each discharged 20-million gallons of ballast water taken from foreign ports like Korea, Japan, Honolulu, Long Beach, CA and other ports into Cook Inlet. We lost a billion dollars a year Kodiak and Cook Inlet crab fishery–money that went into the private sector. Ballast water taken from foreign ports contains algae that can double in numbers ever twelve hours. It also contains foreign bacteria with no natural enemies and nematodes that eat the crab and shrimp eggs. One of the algae they brought here killed off half the fish in the Mediterranean Sea.
Back in the early 1960’s you could dig a small hole on the beaches of Seldovia and fill a bucket with big, white, hard-shell, clams. The beaches were alive with worms, snails and centipedes. Now every beach is dead and covered with brown slime. All ships carry ballast water. Global shipping killed off trillions of dollars worth of natural resources worldwide!
James William Parkin IV
Decision-making in land and resource management must be rooted in a fundamental truth: those most impacted by development must have the loudest voice in shaping it. Having lived in the Native community of Angoon for over thirty years—adopted into the Demmert family and proudly identifying as Raven Beaver Deisheetaan—I have seen the cost of progress without partnership.
Too long, Tribal governments and rural communities have been treated as token requirements, with the “mighty dollar” serving as the sole motivation. However, I have also seen it done well. I have witnessed the power of genuine collaboration, where local stakeholders are treated as true partners. In those moments, we don’t just protect our heritage; we discover that working together provides the most profitable and sustainable solutions.
We can and must manage our natural resources without damaging nature or the people who call it home. It requires moving beyond checkboxes to a place of real listening. When we ask the right questions and respect the responses, we find the answers we are all looking for. Ensuring those who live on the land are the ones leading the conversation is not just the right way to lead; it is the only sustainable way forward. Gunalchéesh
Adam Crum
Tribal governments, rural communities, and local stakeholders are not interest groups to be managed. They are the people who live with the consequences of resource decisions every day. Their input has to be
front-loaded into the process, not offered as a comment period after a decision has effectively been made.
When I ran Alaska’s Department of Health, I led the largest reorganization of state government since 1983. It took a full year of public meetings. My goal was not unanimous enthusiasm. It was informed ambivalence. When people understand a policy well enough to say it will not hurt them, you can move it. I took that approach because durable policy requires durable process. Resource management decisions that skip that step tend to get litigated, reversed, or resented for decades. None of those outcomes serve Alaska.
The projects that have worked best in this state have had genuine community partnership built into their structure from the beginning. Projects with local workforces, meaningful revenue sharing, and real
consultation at the design stage tend to hold. As governor, I would require early, substantive engagement as a condition of moving forward on major resource decisions on state lands, not as a procedural box to
check.
Matt Claman
Government works best when it listens to and represents the people it serves. Tribal, rural, and local participation is essential to responsible land and resource management, and we should work to improve public participation in our state land and resource management decisions. We should continue to work with tribal governments, Native corporations, and Alaska Native leaders to strengthen the role of tribal governments in our communities.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Tribal governments are the original and continuing stewards of our lands and waters, and they belong at the table early on every major decision — not as a tick-box at the end. And for rural communities more broadly: the people closest to a land or resource decision bear the biggest share of the downside if it goes wrong. They should see the benefits, too. I’ll bring rural Alaskans and local knowledge to the table early to ensure honest engagement.
Question #3
How should the State of Alaska work with federal agencies, Tribal governments, and local communities to address ongoing challenges related to subsistence fisheries and wildlife management?
Tom Begich
Subsistence is the foundation of food security, cultural survival, and economic life for more than 100,000 Alaskans. The state’s decades-long failure to resolve federal-state subsistence conflict is one of the most consequential governance failures in our history. Any governor who promises a clean fix without acknowledging the constitutional and jurisdictional
Gregg Brelsford
Over almost 20 years, I have lived and worked in numerous communities where subsistence and near-shore commercial fishing are a foundational way of life. I viscerally understand how deeply rooted and essential this is for many Alaskans, including Alaska Native communities. This way of life must be protected and sustained.
As governor, I will work to strengthen meaningful coordination among the State of Alaska, federal agencies, Tribal governments, and local communities toward fair, meaningful and effective subsistence fishing and wildlife management strategies. That includes improving communication, reducing conflict, and ensuring that management decisions are grounded in both sound science and real-life on-the-ground experience.
Subsistence priorities must be respected while also addressing the broader challenges facing fisheries and wildlife management in the complex and competing interests of the 21 st century. My administration will focus on substantive collaboration, clarity in roles and responsibilities, and practical solutions that help preserve subsistence traditions for future generations.
Meda DeWitt, MA
Subsistence is a constitutionally protected way of life and food system, and the primary source of nutrition for tens of thousands of Rural Alaskans, regardless of ethnicity. Alaska’s Constitution is clear: Article VIII, Section 4 reserves fish and wildlife for the people under sustained-yield conditions, and the subsistence priority must be honored in practice, not just in statute. Federal law reinforces this. ANILCA Title VIII establishes a rural subsistence priority and defines subsistence as “the customary and traditional use of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption, for the making and selling of handicraft articles, for barter, and for customary trade. It recognizes that subsistence is an economic, nutritional, and cultural system, not a category of recreation.” When the state fails to implement a subsistence priority consistent with ANILCA, federal management expands, and state authority shrinks. Honoring our constitutional obligations is how we protect state management of our resources.
Poor regulations cost Alaskans their fish, wildlife, and food security. When harvest monitoring is underfunded, escapement goals are outdated, and industrial bycatch and ocean floor scraping go largely unmanaged, populations decline, and subsistence users bear the consequences first. We need higher standards. I would look to frameworks like the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance as a model for how Alaska can bring independent, transparent, science-based standards across sectors.
My administration would make a serious investment in the science needed to understand the health and population dynamics of Alaska’s fish, game, and plants that are food or medicine. That means funding stock assessments, habitat monitoring, and long-term ecological research, and integrating the best of Western science with Alaska Native science. Indigenous knowledge systems have tracked animal behavior, migration patterns, plant cycles, and ecosystem health across this landscape for thousands of years. Western science excels at quantitative modeling and large-scale data. When you bring both systems together with mutual respect, you get a more complete picture and better outcomes. Recovering salmon, rebuilding herring, sustaining caribou and moose, and protecting the berry grounds, roots, and greens that Alaska families depend on require both.
The state should work with federal agencies and Tribal governments through genuine co-management, with shared authority over harvest monitoring, escapement goals, and in-season management, rather than parallel systems that create conflicting regulations and confusion on the ground. I would appoint a Commissioner of Fish and Game and members of the Board of Fish and Game who recognize that subsistence is the prior and paramount use of Alaska’s fisheries and will defend that priority against industrial pressure. On the Yukon and Kuskokwim, that means treating the salmon collapse as the emergency it is: supporting Tribal-led harvest monitoring, investing in habitat restoration, mandating salmon-excluding devices on all trawl gear, and, through state NPFMC appointees, advocating for abundance-indexed bycatch limits that respond to stock declines in real time. I would establish an Alaska Food Sovereignty Task Force to coordinate emergency food reserves during fishery closures and to build long-term food-system resilience centered on traditional foods.
Henry Kroll
This state cannot afford to manage all the wildlife because of its vast land area. We need to work with tribal governments to manage wildlife on their own lands. I personally think that we need to cut back the number of subsistence salmon per day Alaska residents are allowed to take to four fish per day. I would consult with Fish and Wildlife and the Board of Fish to work out a solution so that all can be happy. Tribes domiciled along the Yukon and other large rivers using fish wheels and gill nets for subsistence should use common sense and be regulated by the Tribes with advisory input only from Fish and Game.
James William Parkin IV
Alaska’s ability to manage its own sustainable resources is being eroded by federal overreach. Nowhere is this more evident than in our fisheries, where federal regulations—specifically the Magnuson-Stevens Act—protect the profitability of outside trawling corporations at the expense of our subsistence way of life. The result is “willful waste”: unsustainable bycatch that threatens the very survival of the King salmon.
“Waste not, want not” was once a guiding principle; today, we are entering a period of “woeful want” because this waste has been allowed to persist. While we hold out hope that the federal government will recognize this crisis and work with us as a true partner, Alaska cannot afford to wait. We must act now.
The State must lead a unified front with Tribal governments and local communities to lobby for critical changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We need to remove provisions that prioritize industry profits over resource health and implement a policy of full retention. Every fish caught must be kept and sold, with the proceeds funding Alaska’s fisheries management and enforcement. This creates a powerful incentive for conservation while restoring control to our people. We must end wasteful bycatch once and for all, or risk a total fishery collapse.
Adam Crum
This is personal for me. Growing up at Anchor Point, the Anchor River was a world-class king salmon and steelhead fishery. My parents still live there. I have not been able to catch a king there in a long time.
What is happening to our subsistence resources is not a political talking point. It is a real loss felt by real Alaskans, particularly in rural and river communities where subsistence is not a lifestyle choice but a way of life.
Article 8 of Alaska’s constitution could not be more clear: our resources are to be managed for the maximum benefit of Alaskans under the principle of common use. That is not a bumper sticker. It is the governing mandate. Subsistence users, sport users, and commercial users all have a stake in healthy, abundant fisheries and wildlife populations. My goal is abundance, because abundance is the only condition under which all of those uses can coexist without users being pitted against each other.
The state has to fight for its right to manage its own resources. Too much of Alaska’s fish and game management has drifted toward federal control, and federal managers 3,000 miles away are not accountable to
the Alaskans who depend on these resources to eat, to live, and to pass their way of life to the next generation. I will use every available tool, regulatory, legal, and political, to assert state management authority and push back on federal overreach wherever it conflicts with our constitutional obligations.
On the federal side, where the state must engage, I will participate aggressively in every relevant rulemaking process. The governor’s nominations to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council are among
the most consequential decisions made in this space. I will vet those nominees against a clear standard: are they there to serve Alaskans, or to serve an industry? Science-based decision-making, a focus on
abundance, and an Alaska-first orientation are the criteria.
Matt Claman
I support science-based management of Alaska’s natural resources, including fisheries and wildlife, for the maximum benefit of our people as required by the Alaska Constitution. Science-based management should address the effects of climate change. Fish, game, and wildlife management boards should have balanced representation by commercial, sports, and subsistence interests.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
The state should be a constructive partner with federal agencies, Tribal governments, and local communities on subsistence. Too often it hasn’t been. My priorities: protect subsistence and small-boat commercial harvests. Rein in wasteful bottom-trawl bycatch. Get Seattle-based operations out of the driver’s seat on Alaska fisheries policy.
Question #4
What steps would your administration take to ensure transparency and meaningful public participation in major land, energy, or resource management decisions?
Tom Begich
Alaska has a structural transparency problem. State agencies like AIDEA and AEA have operated for years with limited independent oversight, high executive salaries, and a culture of responding to external project proposals rather than driving strategy on behalf of Alaskans. When the state is simultaneously an investor in oil and gas companies and the regulator of those same companies, we should not be surprised when the public interest gets blurry. I will require independent financial analysis, not developer-provided projections, before the state commits equity or resources to major energy or resource projects. I will make cost estimates and project terms public. On Alaska LNG specifically, I agree with Republican Senate leaders Senators Giessel and Stedman: Alaskans deserve to see the updated project cost before we commit $800 million in state equity. More broadly, I will build a new state energy department with in-house engineering and accounting staff — public employees whose job is to read the books and represent Alaskans, not to facilitate deals. Transparency is not just about publishing documents. It is about having people on the public payroll whose job is to ask hard questions.
Gregg Brelsford
I have managed the two largest municipalities in Bristol Bay (during covid) — home to the world’s largest red salmon fishery, a $2 billion per year industry — and led one of Alaska’s twelve regional Tribal organizations. I know firsthand how genuine transparency and public participation lead to better decisions and stronger communities because I did it. I have also seen what happens when transparency is sidelined—it discourages public trust and weakens outcomes. For these reasons, my values and my leadership philosophy vigorously employ transparency and public engagement. For example, on an issue of increasing local fisheries taxation in the Bristol Bay Borough, I convened a meeting in the Borough of the fish processors, fishermen, elected officials and residents to make sure everyone
could speak their minds. Did this eliminate the substantive differences of interests? No.
But it guaranteed that everyone could say their piece in a collective gathering.
Transparency is not just a procedural requirement—it is essential to good governance. As governor, I will prioritize clear, open, and accessible decision-making processes. This includes early public engagement, clear communication of proposals and impacts, and meaningful opportunities for input before decisions are made.
Meda DeWitt, MA
Transparency starts with access. Too many major decisions in Alaska happen behind closed doors or through processes designed to minimize public participation, with impossible timelines, technical documents written to exclude non-specialists, and decision-making bodies stacked with industry representatives.
My administration would take concrete steps to change that. First, require that all major land, energy, and resource management decisions include a plain-language public summary, adequate comment periods, and community meetings in affected regions, not just in Anchorage and Juneau. Second, publish all state resource management data, permits, and enforcement actions in an accessible online portal so any Alaskan can see what’s being permitted, where, and under what conditions. Third, reform the appointment process for boards and commissions, including the Board of Fish, Board of Game, and NPFMC nominees, to ensure geographic, cultural, and economic diversity rather than industry dominance.
I would also require the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation to publish a single, consolidated annual fee report that shows the total all-in cost of Fund management, including all performance fees and carried interest. Alaskans own the Fund. They deserve to see exactly what it costs to manage it.
Henry Kroll
There are 17,000 employees working for the Executive Branch. I recommend researching the possibility of consolidating some of these offices. I would appoint a spokesperson to email a daily newsletter to media outlets, including radio stations, TV newsrooms covering resource management, land, and energy decisions.
The State of Alaska owns 1,999 buildings. It has been deferring the maintenance on all those buildings with a current maintenance shortfall of $723,800,000.00. That is seven hundred twenty-three million eight hundred thousand dollars. That is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. I used AI to calculate the total yearly maintenance for 2000 office buildings in Alaska and it is approximately 200-million dollar a year. In a couple years the heating systems will fail, the roofs of fire stations, police stations office buildings will start leaking. The only solution is to sell half of the buildings to the private sector at cost. If we need office space, rent some offices at $1,500 per month and put the money in the General Fund.
Deed 380 of the buildings to the University of Alaska and let the University maintain their own buildings. Sell the 84 story Atwood Tower to Donald Trump for a hotel. If State offices are needed, rent whatever is necessary for $1,500 per month. The new owners should be happy to have guaranteed tenants.
James William Parkin IV
To ensure transparency and meaningful participation in resource management, my administration will execute “The Hard Reset,” a strategic transformation that replaces bureaucratic opacity with radical accountability. We will move away from the “Same-O, Same-O” approach by institutionalizing two core pillars of governance: One-page Accountability Reports (OARs) and Feedback Access Reports (FARs).
Transparency begins with the OAR. For every major land or energy decision, my administration will provide a single-page summary outlining the mission, specific goals, and measurable outcomes. These are designed for ease of understanding, requiring as little as one minute to read. No more “word salads” or administrative fluff—just the essential facts of the “What, Why, and How much.”
Meaningful public participation is secured through the FAR. These reports are delivered directly to Alaskans via text message or the medium of their choice, making engagement effortless. In sixty seconds, you can review a project and provide direct input that is documented and addressed. By utilizing these tools, we stop the cycle of fiscal volatility and ensure that our state’s resources are managed through a lens of total transparency. This approach turns public participation from a formal hurdle into a powerful, accessible “public checkbook,” guaranteeing that your voice is a mandatory part of Alaska’s future.
Adam Crum
I have seen what happens when the public is brought in early and treated as a genuine partner rather than a procedural requirement. The difference in outcomes is not subtle. When I led the reorganization of the Department of Health, the largest restructuring of Alaska state government since 1983, I spent a full year in public meetings before moving a single piece of the structure. My goal was not applause. It was informed ambivalence. When people understand a policy well enough to say it will not hurt them, you can move it and it stays moved. Decisions made without that process get litigated, reversed, or quietly ignored. I have seen that too.
That experience shapes how my administration will handle major land, energy, and resource decisions. The process will be visible before it is final. Public data released early, hearings with timelines long enough for genuine review, and plain-language explanations of how decisions were reached and why. Not a summary written by a communications office after the fact.
I also have a specific structural proposal: an Office of Special Audits under the Lieutenant Governor, with a protected budget, a citizen hotline, and the authority to audit program performance, financial compliance, and IT systems across state government. The goal is accountability that does not depend on a governor’s willingness to investigate their own administration. Over time, that office becomes a constitutional amendment put to the voters. I believe it would pass, because Alaskans understand that transparency is not a favor government does for the public. It is an obligation
Matt Claman
Open public processes that include notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard are the foundation for balanced and transparent natural resource management decisions. From my experience as a legislator, mayor, and attorney, I know the value of open public processes and will support and strengthen those processes as governor.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Article VIII enshrined stewardship into our state’s constitution, but some of the resource decisions made in Alaska today happen in ways that would embarrass its authors. There are plenty of things we need to do to get back on track. Hold hearings in affected regions. Make comment periods right-sized. Publish data underlying management decisions. Make a single, plain-English calendar of upcoming resource decisions so participation isn’t a privilege of the insiders who already know where to look.
Question #5
Alaska is experiencing significant environmental changes affecting ecosystems and communities. What role do you believe the state government should play in supporting community resilience and adaptation?
Tom Begich
Alaska is not preparing for climate change. Alaska is living it. In Newtok, Shishmaref, and Kivalina, coastal erosion has already forced or is forcing entire communities to relocate. Permafrost thaw is destabilizing roads, runways, and building foundations across the Interior and Western Alaska. Shifting salmon and caribou distributions are disrupting subsistence patterns that communities have relied on for thousands of years. The state’s role is to stop treating resilience as a one-time infrastructure grant and start treating it as a continuous governance responsibility embedded in every major investment we make. That means energy systems that do not fail at minus 40 degrees. It means replacing deep-cold village microgrids with proven hybrid systems that have been working in places like Kodiak and Kotzebue for years. It means geothermal investment, particularly in Southwest Alaska, where the resource is substantial and the need is urgent. More importantly, it means funding community-controlled planning processes rather than state-designed solutions. The communities facing these changes understand them better than anyone in Juneau. My administration will capitalize on that local knowledge through the Alaska Sustainable Energy Corporation and the new energy department, and get out of the way.
Gregg Brelsford
Environmental changes are currently affecting Alaskan ecosystems and communities with increasingly intense and frequent extreme weather events. This has been building for years. Since 2020, the state has declared nearly three dozen disasters related to weather or climate — about double the total between 2014 and 2019.
This includes wildfires, glacial outbursts, typhoons and landslides. Estimated damage includes $700+ million, 10+ fatalities, 100+ communities impacted, 5,000 people displaced and 800+ homes damaged. Recently Typhoon Halong caught the state flat footed – it didn’t take a NASA scientist to see the historical trajectory of increasingly extreme weather.
As Governor, I will focus on improving the state’s ability to anticipate and prepare for these challenges. I will make sure Alaska is proactively forecasting and monitoring extreme weather patterns and issuing appropriate warnings. This includes strengthening forecasting, investing in infrastructure resilience, and supporting communities with the tools and resources they need to adapt.
We cannot prevent extreme weather– we can’t stop the Bering Sea. But we can maximize short- and long-term preparation. I will create a DARPA-like agency to focus entirely on extreme weather threats – to reduce harm by planning ahead, improve coordination, and ensure communities are better prepared for both immediate impacts and long-term change.
Meda DeWitt, MA
Alaska is warming up to four times faster than the rest of the nation. Permafrost is buckling roads and damaging homes. Wildfire seasons are lengthening. Salmon runs that sustained communities for millennia are collapsing. Coastal communities face erosion and flooding that threaten their very existence. These are not projections; they are happening now, and the state government has a constitutional obligation under Article VII to protect public health and welfare.
My administration would lead adaptation efforts, not deny the need for it. That means investing in community-driven resilience planning, prioritizing the most vulnerable communities, many of them rural and Alaska Native, and integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into climate monitoring and response. Specifically, I would expand the land Guardians programs for environmental monitoring, fund community-controlled food-processing and cold-storage facilities in rural hub communities, invest in hazard-mitigation infrastructure, and support managed retreat or relocation for communities facing imminent threats from erosion and flooding.
Proactive investment saves money: every dollar spent on hazard mitigation saves about $6 in disaster recovery costs. The state should also lead by example in emissions reduction by expanding renewable energy in rural communities, building on proven successes in places like Kodiak, Shungnak, and Galena, and transitioning state facilities and fleets where feasible.
Henry Kroll
It is predicted that 4-million tourists will be coming to Alaska this year. Our total population is approximately 750,000. We are going to need more police to watch over this hoard of invaders. Many of them come here thinking that they are free from the laws and restrictions placed upon them from where they came from. They think they can crap in the woods, chop down trees, and shoot bears and other game on sight. We are going to need more roads, RV parks and especially more portable toilets. You have to read my book: MAKE ALASKA GREAT AGAIN. It is available on Amazon and other book sellers.
I used AI to determine the cost and environmental impact of constructing a 50-mile road from Skagway to Berners Bay that connects to Juneau so that people would have road access to their capitol. The road would open up recreational areas for prospecting, hunting and timber harvest. It would create more revenue for Skagway and Juneau and possibly take some of the pressure off South Central Alaska.
James William Parkin IV
Alaska stands at a critical crossroads. As our ecosystems shift, the state government must move beyond reactive disaster relief and embrace a mandate of bold, visionary resilience. We must “strive for the best and prepare for the worst” by championing a new era of Alaskan engineering that is fundamentally fitted to the environment it inhabits.
The devastation of Typhoon Halong in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta was a wake-up call, but it need not be our future. The state’s role is to ensure that when we rebuild, we rebuild for the reality of the elements. In the Delta, this means a shift toward amphibious architecture: structures designed to float with flexible utility connections and secure anchors. Across the state, “flat-roof” logic must be abandoned in rainforests and heavy snow belts in favor of pitched, smaller two-story designs that shed the weight of the sky.
Resilience is found in efficiency. By prioritizing vertical, energy-efficient development over expansive, single-story footprints, we protect our heat and our resources. Whether it is earthquake-appropriate engineering or flood-resistant foundations, the state must lead the charge in making our infrastructure as rugged as the people who rely on it. If we choose to be prepared, we will not be afraid.
Adam Crum
Alaska is experiencing real changes in its ecosystems, including ocean
temperature shifts, altered migration and spawning patterns, and
increased weather variability. These changes are creating hardship for
communities that depend on predictable resource availability,
particularly in coastal and river-dependent communities across Western
and Interior Alaska.
The most direct lever I can pull is energy. We have over 200 communities
off the road system, most of them dependent on diesel fuel that has to
be flown or barged in at significant cost. Sub-one-megawatt nuclear
reactors that fit inside a shipping container are becoming commercially
viable. Geothermal potential exists across the state. I am energy
agnostic. What I care about is getting reliable, affordable power to
communities that currently have neither.
Cheap energy changes everything for rural community resilience. It
changes the cost of heating, food preservation, and running essential
facilities. What we can control, we need to measure better and manage
more carefully. I support investment in the science and monitoring
infrastructure that gives us real data on what is changing and how fast.
Matt Claman
Like management of Alaska’s natural resources, we should make decisions about significant environmental changes affecting ecosystems and communities based on research and science. Responsible stewardship of our natural resources and sustainable economic development go hand in hand: a thriving economy is a resilient one. Evidence of environmental change includes storms and hurricanes, landslides and avalanches, flooding and forest fires, and warming air and ocean temperatures. Science-based decisions should address the effects of climate change. State government must work together with Alaskans, local governments, businesses, tribal groups, community organizations, and universities to address these challenges.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska is ground zero for climate change, and the state has to step up. That means helping communities prevent and respond to environmental change. What happened last year in Kipnuk and Kwigillingok was a preview, not an anomaly. Alaska can and should be a national leader in climate adaptation — by building climate-resilient communities, deploying next-generation energy technology, and managing our fish and game to help them adapt to a changing planet.
Question #6
Looking ahead 20–30 years, what is your vision for how Alaska’s lands, waters, and natural resources should be managed to support both communities and future generations?
Tom Begich
Twenty to thirty years from now, Alaska will be a place where the Permanent Fund is intact and growing, not drawn down to cover deficits created by undervaluing our resources. I want subsistence fisheries and wildlife systems that are healthy and support the communities that depend on them, because we managed habitat and harvest together rather than in separate bureaucratic silos. I want rural communities to own their energy systems, not communities permanently dependent on state fuel subsidies or diesel fuel barge contracts. That vision requires honesty about where we are. We have spent decades extracting wealth from Alaska’s lands and waters while deferring investments in people, infrastructure, and ecosystems that would make that wealth last. The war in Iran has temporarily pushed North Slope prices above $100 per barrel, but our own Department of Revenue forecasts a drop to $75 in FY2027. Senator Stedman said it plainly: when this ends, prices will reverse course quickly. We cannot build a 30-year vision on a wartime windfall. Alaska’s lands, waters, and resources should make Alaskans wealthy. Not just oil companies. Not just this generation. All Alaskans, permanently. That is the constitutional promise, and it is the one I intend to keep.
Gregg Brelsford
A vision for Alaska’s lands and waters requires an adequate long-term vision for Alaska in its entirety. The heart of this is education. Our children must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and problem-solving ability needed to lead, as adults, an increasingly complex world and responsibly manage Alaska’s natural and other resources.
For 8 years now the governor has massively underfunded K-12 education for our schoolchildren – including failing to retain teachers due to an unlivable retirement system. This is a massive failure to “see over the horizon.” How can Alaska thrive if it fails to build the cognitive and other skills in adults that Alaska needs for competency and success in the coming complexity of the 21 st century – in terms of Alaska’s lands and waters and other critical areas?
We need a governor fiercely committed to rebuilding our broken education system – one who will fight for our children and teachers, not against them. As governor, I will vigorously prioritize building a first-class education system, a strong and capable workforce and a leadership pipeline for the future. My vision is an Alaska that balances responsible resource development and excellent stewardship of Alaska’s lands and waters with strong communities, healthy ecosystems, and a well-prepared next generation.
Meda DeWitt, MA
In thirty years, I want Alaskans to be able to say that we honored our constitutional obligations: that we transmitted our natural heritage to succeeding generations, managed fish and wildlife for sustained yield, and protected the waters, lands, and ecosystems that define this place. This is what Alaska’s Constitution requires, and my administration would govern accordingly.
Alaska stands at a crossroads. The industrial age built this state, and that legacy is real. What comes next is ours to define. The technological age is arriving whether we prepare for it or not, and Alaska has a choice: let Outside interests and federal policy dictate the transition, or step into it on our own terms. I believe we can choose the best of everything, including the best science, energy systems, governance models, and land management practices from anywhere in the world, and build something that truly fits Alaska. No other state has our combination of diverse ecosystems, natural wealth, constitutional framework, rich cultures, and shear capacity for self-determination.
My long-term vision is for Alaska to be truly self-sufficient. Where the Permanent Fund is managed transparently, protected by a hard 4% POMV cap, and serves all Alaskans through a fair, formula-based dividend. Where subsistence is secure, salmon runs are recovering, and rural communities have the infrastructure to thrive. Where our economy runs on industries that depend on healthy ecosystems: mariculture, sustainable fisheries, renewable energy, technology, and value-added manufacturing, rather than on extraction that depletes them. Where Alaskans have real independence, real freedom, and real privacy because the state government protects those rights instead of trading them away for short-term revenue.
Alaska leads on the impacts of climate change, so we should also lead in adaptation because we are the state that feels them first and hardest. We will teach the rest of the country how to transition well. We lead on self-governance because our Constitution already demands it. And we will lead in building a peaceful, prosperous future because we have the land, the people, the knowledge, and the will to get it right.
Alaska is the best place in the world, and it’s time we start treating it like it i
Henry Kroll
We need to finish the road to Nome, which was surveyed in 1948. A ferry system to Russia would boost tourism. In the 1950’s the 76-foot tugboat, Mary M, that I owned later would travel to Nome every summer and salvage 130-foot landing craft that were upside down in 60 feet of water. The huge landing craft had new D-8 Cats and road graders chained to the deck. Rocky Roswell would cut the chains and salvage two of the barges some years. He’d sell the barges for $100,000. All that new equipment was intended to build the road to Nome, but the war ended so they scuttled the barges.
The road to Nome is partially constructed already as there is a nice road from McGrath on to Ophir and Ruby near the Yukon River.
D. The Pebble Mine could be in operation if Pebble Partners and other investors construct a railroad spur from the Usibelli Coal Mine to McGrath and another over toward the Pebble Mine. The railroad can be used to transport the mine tailings away from the headwaters of Bristol Bay. Instead of refining the ore in China, it should be done in Alaska, about fifty miles from McGrath, where it won’t pollute the water. The gold and copper could be shipped by railroad to Anchorage instead of China.
E. It looks like the gas pipeline will be constructed as a major corporation is funding half the cost. I was informed that a right-of-way parallel to the Alaska Pipeline is currently under construction. I am deeply concerned about this project’s viability. Instead of transporting the gas overseas in large tankers and depending on Oriental markets, maybe an additional pipeline could furnish gas to Canada? Maybe smaller gas lines could bring it to Montana and other states? We don’t know what China will do. Why give our precious resources away to foreign countries? Vote Kroll for Governor.
James William Parkin IV
Looking ahead thirty years, our vision for Alaska transcends mere survival; we seek a future where our children prosper in a state that is economically sovereign and environmentally pristine. What seems impossible today—total energy independence through our own fuel sources, roadless industrial access via heavy-lift technology and direct democratic governance—will be commonplace if we plan now.
Through a fundamental budget reset, we will ensure a sustainable government that protects and grows the Permanent Fund, delivering the large dividends Alaskans deserve. By evolving FARs (Feedback Access Reports) and OARs (One-page Accountability Reports) into digital tools, we will transition toward a near-direct democratic government with real-time public oversight.
We will entrust land stewardship to our own home-based corporation. By reclaiming land from federal oversight, we will provide homes for future generations and dignity for our homeless population. On our waters, we will end wasteful bycatch and mega-corporate dominance, favoring local, sustainable fishing. Combined with large PFD dividends and ARDCC shareholder distributions for all, we are building an Alaska where every citizen is a stakeholder in a clean, wealthy, and dignified future.
Adam Crum
Twenty to thirty years from now, I want Alaska to be a place where my
daughters can catch king salmon on the Anchor River the way I did, where
rural communities have affordable energy and economic opportunity, and
where the resource industries that built this state are still operating
and still accountable to the Alaskans who own those resources. I also
want Alaska’s mineral industry to be thriving, and innovatively
developing the critical minerals that the world needs. That is not a
vision of managed decline or locked-up wilderness. It is a vision of a
functioning economy and a functioning ecosystem, which I know are
compatible.
Alaska’s Permanent Fund now sits at roughly $88 billion and is projected
to generate approximately $5 billion annually in draws once it reaches
$100 billion around 2033. A significant portion of that fund was built
on oil revenue, which means future Alaskans will benefit from resource
development that happened decades ago. Growing the fund through
continued responsible development, with 25% of mineral royalties
deposited into the corpus, is how we extend that benefit to generations
who have not yet been born.
The obligation that comes with that is taking care of the land and water
that makes innovative development possible. That is not a constraint on
economic growth. It is a condition of it. A governor who treats Alaska’s
environment as a cost center rather than a capital asset does not
understand the balance sheet. I do.
Matt Claman
In 20-30 years, Alaska should be a shining example to the rest of the world of responsible natural resource management. Alaska should show a healthy balance of stewardship of our natural resources; conservation of land, water, and energy; and diverse economic opportunities for Alaskans.
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Twenty years from now, I want Alaska to be a dependable economic engine that has also safeguarded some of the world’s most precious natural resources. That means working to recover our salmon runs, responsible resource development that’s durable rather than boom-and-bust and conducted with meaningful community input, and a tourism and outdoor recreation economy that’s grown into a central pillar of our state’s economy. It also means continuing to strengthen our state’s partnership with Alaska Native governments.