Our Next Big Fight – The Erosion of Alaska’s Wildlife Management Authority

While residents from across the state are cheering the approval of the Willow Project on Alaska’s North Slope, there is another important issue on the horizon that Alaskans from all walks of life should be prepared to rally behind. This issue–which has the potential to undermine the very foundation of our state–is the ongoing attempt by federal agencies to usurp Alaska’s long-established authority to manage fish and wildlife on lands within Alaska’s borders.

In the latest power grab by D.C.-based land managers, the National Park Service (NPS) is targeting Alaska’s wildlife management practices on preserves. In January, NPS unveiled a proposed rule prohibiting select hunting practices and management techniques on more than 20 million acres of national preserve lands in Alaska. This rule was created without consultation with the State of Alaska or affected stakeholders. It directly oversteps management authority guaranteed in the Statehood Act and reaffirmed by congress in 1980 with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

This is not the only recent action to limit the state’s ability to sustainably manage wildlife. In 2015, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) challenged Alaska’s management authority on federal refuge lands. Alaskans collectively responded—urban and rural, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—to defend Alaska’s management authority. These actions of federal overreach, which wiped out lawful state authority over millions of acres of land, were challenged in court with robust public comment and later restored through the collective work of Alaska’s congressional delegation. Congress took action, passing legislation to invalidate the rule, however, FWS continued to enforce a lawless ban on the use of bait to hunt brown bears on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The State of Alaska and conservation groups challenged these actions in court, but a U.S. District Court judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in 2020 which granted almost limitless power over Alaska’s wildlife refuges to the federal government, even though the Alaska Statehood Compact gives the state authority to manage its own game animals. Just last month, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal – effectively overturning years of rules-based precedent for state management.

So what does this mean to the average Alaskan? We understand that hunting is not only a means for filling the freezer, it is an essential part of our culture and heritage. The right to manage our wildlife resources was a critical component in the debate for statehood. Are we to return to the territorial days where geographically and culturally disconnected federal bureaucrats make decisions based on emotion rather than science? We fought for and won state management authority in 1959 and now we must protect that right. If we allow federal agencies like the National Park Service and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to undermine our ability to manage our resources under a comprehensive management framework, there is no telling where they will stop.

As an Alaskan by choice, I planted my roots deep in the Kenai Peninsula. I am proud to pass along the hunting tradition to the next generation, and I will defend Alaska’s sovereignty and ability to manage wildlife on all lands within the state’s borders. For this reason, I joined an overwhelming majority of state legislators in supporting HJR 10, “Disapproving the proposed rule by the National Park Service limiting non-subsistence hunting methods; and urging the National Park Service to withdraw the rule.” Lawmakers from all backgrounds and political affiliations stood united to challenge the Fed’s misguided overreach and affirm our longstanding management authority. These efforts stand in unity with Alaska’s Governor, the Department of Law, the Department of Fish and Game, and our unified congressional delegation.

Federal overreach against our state, our hunting heritage, and our access to public lands requires a unified response from a unified group of Alaskans. Regardless of your background, geographic location, or political affiliation, we cannot let the federal government erode our rights year after year. It is essential we advocate for the rights granted to us upon statehood, and I humbly ask that you stand with me on this most important issue.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman

Kenai Peninsula (Senate District D)

Alaska State Senate

Better Health Care, Fewer Headaches with Direct Primary Care

“So doctor, why did you decide to go into health care?”

“Oh, I don’t care for the health part. I just love all the paperwork.”

That’s a conversation that has likely never happened in the history of medicine—because for doctors, providers, patients, and caregivers alike, the “non-health” parts are the very worst parts of health care.

From unexpected costs, to confusion, to access challenges, to long wait times, the barriers to seeing a doctor are more than just annoying—they’re actually standing in the way of the health care we need.

In Alaska, two bills in the legislature are poised to make a major, fundamental change in the broken health care system. It’s a simple change known as direct health care, introduced this session as Senate Bill 45 and House Bill 47.

The idea is straightforward. With these bills, health care providers would be able to enter into service arrangements directly with patients, instead of only through a gatekeeping third party such as a health insurance company or government health care program.

This would allow patients to enroll in a “membership” with their health care provider of choice, including family doctors and primary and specialty care providers. In exchange for a fixed monthly fee (typically ranging from $50 to $100), patients get ‘round-the-clock access to their doctors, guaranteed appointments, and significantly shorter waiting times.

Best of all, because of the direct relationship between the provider and the patient, doctors are able to spend more time with their patients, answering questions and focusing on health, instead of filling out paperwork and fighting with insurance companies. One of the top frustrations felt by patients is not feeling heard by their doctor, which can happen when the doctor has to shuffle people in and out in order spend more time dealing with paperwork and insurance disputes instead of health care.

The current model squeezes out time for preventative checkups that can catch problems early and improve health overall, and confusion over networks and long wait times for initial visits can cause many people to avoid it all together.

Instead, the direct health care model has countless benefits for both the patient and the provider, including same-day appointments (instead of long waits), transparent pricing, and easier and more reliable preventative care.

Because this administrative change cuts out the middleman of the insurance or government, there’s more transparency for the real cost of the service, rather than complex billing agreements, in-network vs. out-of-network puzzles, and confusion over who to call to actually talk to someone.

This model of direct health care is already at work in 49 states, with 26 states passing legislation to codify that it’s not insurance, and shall not be regulated as insurance.

Alaska is a prime candidate to update its laws and follow in their footsteps. Alaska residents currently pay some of the highest health care costs in the country—one study found that Alaskans pay the most of any state for their health care, at more than $11,000 per person. We’ve all seen horror stories about unexpected medical bills destroying life savings—two-thirds of bankruptcies in America are tied to medical issues.

Up-front, transparent pricing also means fewer surprises when the bill comes, and fewer hidden costs that result from disagreements over what insurance decides to cover.

Unfortunately, this kind of direct model for health care is currently blocked by state law, which treats these provider-patient arrangements the same as health insurance policies. This requirement comes with prohibitive costs, regulations, and (you guessed it) piles of paperwork.

Alaska lawmakers can change that and offer a better way forward by passing the two bills under consideration right now, Senate Bill 45 and House Bill 47.

In 2021, Montana—another large rural state with similar health care challenges—signed direct patient care into law. In just a year, 16 providers decided to offer membership options, at an average membership cost of $77 per month, significantly below the cost of traditional employer-sponsored or individual insurance coverage.

It’s time for Alaska to follow the lead of other states by offering an option for lower costs, faster service, more time with your doctor, and fewer headaches from dealing with insurance.

That way, we can all spend less time on the paperwork, and more time on our health. 

Adam Habig, President and Co-founder

Freedom Healthworks

Example: 9075434113