Alaska’s four candidates for governor faced off over fisheries policy in Kodiak Wednesday night, offering commercial fishermen their clearest look yet at how the next administration could reshape fisheries management in the state.

For fishermen, the differences went beyond campaign politics. Depending on who wins, Alaska could see changes to who represents the commercial fleet on the Board of Fisheries, how conservation restrictions are shared among user groups, who is nominated to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC), and even how fisheries leadership is structured within state government.

Republicans Dave Bronson, Treg Taylor and Bernadette Wilson joined Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins for the Sept. 9 gubernatorial fisheries debate at Kodiak’s Gerald C. Wilson Auditorium. Hosted by the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce and KMXT Public Radio, the event is Alaska’s only gubernatorial debate devoted exclusively to fisheries. Questions were submitted by members of the public and the seafood industry and vetted by a committee representing different sectors of the fishing industry.

Will commercial fishermen have a seat at the Board of Fisheries?

One of the clearest differences emerged over who should serve on the seven-member Alaska Board of Fisheries, where the governor nominates all members.

Kreiss-Tomkins, a former state representative who grew up in Sitka and crewed aboard a commercial salmon power troller, said commercial fishing experience should be represented.

“Absolutely,” Kreiss-Tomkins said. “One of the three key user groups you want to have at the table at the Board of Fisheries is the commercial sector.”

He said the board should maintain balance among commercial, sport, and subsistence interests while also considering geographic representation.

“It’s really important when the Board of Fish is deliberating that you have individuals on the board who have firsthand knowledge of the fisheries that they are managing and regulating,” he said.

Taylor, Alaska’s former attorney general, took a different position. While he said the board needs people with knowledge of fisheries and industry, he drew a distinction between commercial fishing experience and active participation.

“I don’t think I would put someone that’s actively involved in the commercial fishing industry on the board,” Taylor said. “Now, if you’re retired, if you’re no longer working in that industry, I think that they bring a lot of expertise.”

Taylor said his priority would be appointing members who could remain fair and open-minded toward all users of the resource.

Wilson said she had no problem with someone who has commercial fishing experience serving on the board but emphasized avoiding conflicts of interest and political appointments. She also floated structural changes, including expanding the board from seven to nine members and considering regional representation.

Bronson also supported commercial fishing experience on the board but argued seven seats are not enough to adequately represent the range of gear types, regions, and commercial, sport, and subsistence interests. He said he would be open to expanding the board to about 11 members.

“There’s not enough seats on the board to do all that,” Bronson said. “It’s just mathematically not possible.”

Who bears the burden when fish stocks decline?

The candidates agreed that science should guide fisheries management, but their answers differed on how conservation measures should affect different fishing sectors.

Kreiss-Tomkins called science and data the “north star” for fisheries management and advocated a conservation-based approach when stocks are struggling.

“The resource comes first,” he said, acknowledging that could mean short-term pain and foregone harvest.

But Kreiss-Tomkins also said fishermen and other users need to see conservation restrictions distributed fairly, particularly as salmon declines continue to affect communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. “I think it’s very important that that conservation burden is shared,” he said.

Bronson questioned whether the current approach is working, pointing to longstanding declines in king salmon and arguing that managers need more data to understand what is happening. “We’ve been following the science for 50 years plus. Where’s the salmon? Where’s the kings?” Bronson said.

He also questioned why subsistence, sport, and personal-use fishermen have faced reductions while, he said, some commercial fisheries have not experienced comparable impacts.

“Something’s got to be done because what we’re doing under this science isn’t working,” Bronson said.

Wilson agreed that fisheries decisions should rely on science but said managers need to ensure that science is thorough, accurate, and unbiased. She pointed to depleted fisheries as reason to question whether existing information is telling managers the full story.

Taylor similarly emphasized data, drawing on his experience as attorney general, and said managers should follow science while considering what is best for the state and the resource rather than allowing politics to drive decisions.

What could change at the NPFMC?

The next governor will also influence federal fisheries management through nominations to the NPFMC, and the candidates offered notably different ideas about who should represent Alaska.

Kreiss-Tomkins said Alaska should make full use of its influence in the council process. He identified three priorities for nominees: reducing bycatch and protecting habitat, supporting science and data-based management, and ensuring Alaska and its coastal communities benefit from fisheries resources.

“I think it’s really important that Alaska’s council delegation continue to take strides to make progress on those incredibly important issues,” Kreiss-Tomkins said.

Bronson took aim at the current balance of interests on the council, arguing commercial interests have too much representation compared with sport, subsistence, and personal use fishermen. “The industry is overly represented,” Bronson said. “And the other users are grossly underrepresented. That has got to change.”

Taylor emphasized that Alaska should present a unified voice on the council. He said nominees should “put Alaska first,” consider all users of the resource, and prevent representatives from Washington and Oregon from dictating what happens in Alaska waters.

Wilson focused heavily on conflicts of interest, saying council members should come to the process without an agenda and prioritize the resource rather than allocation. She also said Alaska’s council representatives need to understand the federal side of fisheries management and work with the state’s congressional delegation.

Who would have fishermen’s ear in the administration?

The candidates also proposed different ways of structuring fisheries leadership within the governor’s office and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).

Kreiss-Tomkins committed to restoring a dedicated fisheries advisor in the governor’s office, saying the position is needed to coordinate between state and federal management systems and give the industry a direct point of communication. “I think it’s essential to the industry that there’s that direct point of communication coordination," he said.

For ADF&G commissioner, Kreiss-Tomkins said he would seek someone with a background in science-based management, institutional knowledge of the department, and a commitment to putting conservation of the resource first.

Wilson also called for a fisheries advisor to work alongside the ADF&G commissioner. She said the commissioner should understand the department, have strong leadership and communication skills, and be willing to meet with fishing groups around the state.

Bronson proposed a different structure, calling for separate deputy commissioners focused on fisheries and game because of the complexity of the department’s responsibilities.

“You have to look for someone who is an absolute expert in the field of fisheries,” Bronson said of selecting an ADF&G commissioner, while arguing that fisheries expertise must also be paired with the ability to implement policy within state government.

Taylor also backed a deputy commissioner focused on fisheries. He pledged to consult fishing interests before making major appointments, including nominations to NPFMC and appointments to the Board of Fisheries. “I think it’s so important that we listen to the people that are actually on the ground, or in this case, in the water, doing the job,” Taylor said.

For the state’s commercial fleet, those appointments could ultimately prove as consequential as many of the broader campaign promises made Wednesday night. The next governor will have a direct hand in selecting Board of Fisheries members, choosing ADF&G leadership, and nominating state representatives to the NPFMC, putting decisions about representation, conservation, and access squarely within the reach of the next administration.

The Kodiak fisheries debate series continues Saturday, Sept. 12, with debates featuring the state’s U.S. House and Senate candidates. Those debates are set to focus on federal issues including fisheries funding, disaster relief, the Jones Act, seafood policy, and the role of Congress in fisheries management.