University of Alaska researchers presented findings Tuesday showing how the state's limited entry fishing permit system has contributed to the economic and cultural decline of rural fishing communities over the past 50 years.

The presentation at a legislative lunch and learn session detailed how permits originally issued to Alaska residents dependent on fishing have migrated to non-residents and urban areas, leaving villages with shrinking populations and closing schools. The researchers said the 1973 Limited Entry Act, while designed to prevent economic distress among fishermen, has instead created barriers that rural communities cannot overcome.

Dr. Rachel Donkersloot and Dr. Courtney Caruthers, both fisheries researchers at the University of Alaska, presented data showing Bristol Bay has lost permits in all but four of the past 46 years. The region now loses an average of eight permits annually, down from 18 per year in the 1980s but still a net decline.

"We are still, despite everything going on, no amount of research is going to solve this problem," Donkersloot said. "We really need some policy considerations to addressing this problem."

The researchers presented survey results from shareholders in the Koniag and Sealaska regions showing 98 percent of respondents consider fishing fundamental to traditional culture and village economies. Only 12 percent currently participate in fishing, compared to 70 to 80 percent a generation ago. Just 11 percent expressed hope for their villages' futures.

"People do not agree on much these days, but we do agree on this," Caruthers said. "Over 80 percent think of their village economies in crisis because of lost access to fishing."

The presentation included analysis showing non-resident permit holders have taken $7.5 billion in salmon earnings out of Alaska between 1975 and 2023. Bristol Bay accounted for $3.9 billion of that total.

Joe Nelson, co-chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives, framed the issue as a shift from community-based fishing rights to individual commodities traded on the open market. He compared the permit system to the original Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which would have made corporation shares freely tradable after 20 years until Alaska Natives successfully amended the law.

"This individual versus community issue creates a lot of chaos," Nelson said. "It pushes the gap between the well-to-do and the so-so farther and farther apart."

The researchers contrasted Alaska villages with Metlakatla, which retained reservation status and operates a tribal fishery. Metlakatla's economy remains based on fishing while other Southeast communities have seen their fishing economies disappear.

"Where there is access, there are people fishing," Caruthers said.

The presentation outlined potential policy solutions including new non-transferable permits, youth permits, changes to transfer provisions, and entities authorized to hold permits for community use in perpetuity. The researchers noted similar models exist on both U.S. coasts.

Nelson acknowledged the political difficulty of changing a system that has been in place for five decades. He said the Alaska Federation of Natives passed a resolution at its most recent convention making permit reform a policy priority.

"This is not a partisan thing," Nelson said. "It is an all-Alaska thing because we are a seafood state and we all care about all the Alaskans continuing to be able to live our way of life in all of our communities."

The researchers said the limited entry system was created during a crisis of poor salmon returns, declining prices, and rising numbers of non-residents entering Alaska fisheries. The state constitution required a specific amendment to allow the program, which was designed to keep fishing rights in the hands of Alaskans dependent on fisheries with limited economic alternatives.

Original permit holders had to demonstrate economic dependency on fishing and lack of other opportunities. Those permits became freely transferable and now sell for six figures in some fisheries, creating what the researchers described as insurmountable barriers for rural residents.

A 1984 state report showed a 21 percent decline in Alaska Native permit holdings in Bristol Bay salmon fisheries and a 60 percent decline in Cook Inlet drift fisheries. The state has not conducted a similar analysis since.

The researchers also documented a gender dimension to permit loss. In 1980, 57 percent of Bristol Bay setnet permits were held by women. That figure has fallen to 35 percent. Two-thirds of women permit holders in 1980 were Bristol Bay Native Corporation shareholders. That proportion has been cut in half.

"There are implications for the gendered loss of permit holdings, in part because it impacts the local reproduction of fishing livelihoods," Donkersloot said. "A lot of the people we sit with and interview, they got their start in fishing by starting at the setnet sites with their mothers and their grandmothers."

The presentation drew questions about potential legislative solutions. Staff members noted they could not advocate for specific bills but would use the information for research on rural Alaska issues.