Winning is a mindset. First, we cannot win off the field. Second, we need to know what positions the players are in and what plays are necessary to score. We have to take this same mindset and apply it to the November election. Winning starts with showing up. Then it requires perseverance and the understanding of how to defeat your opponent within the rules of the contest.
Conservatives need a winning strategy leading up to the November general election. The final slate of candidates worked hard to get to this point and if we are going to see conservatives win, they are going to need our help. 2022 saw a 5% drop from the 49% turnout in the 2018 midterm.
Turnout is the most important aspect of any election. If people cannot be bothered to show up and vote, then we get exactly what we deserve. We are a nation of political will and showing up to vote is exercising that will.
Being informed is your duty as a citizen to know how the candidates conduct themselves, what platform they are running on, and whether their values are rooted in morality and justice. Must Read Alaska is working on a unified conservative voter guide to help organize information so you can be confident going to the ballot box and have something to give your friends, neighbors, and family.
So how do we win with ranked-choice voting still in place?
Vote Yes on 2 to repeal ranked choice voting. The nature of this discussion alone is the reason why we need to get back to how we voted for 244 years: one round, whoever gets the most votes wins. However, that isn’t the game this season.
Rank the conservative candidates. You can and should mark your favorite candidate in each race #1, but don’t forget to rank the other conservatives. The order does not matter. What matters is that your ballot stays in play to the final round to give the conservative candidate a chance at the podium.
Exhausted ballots are disenfranchised voters. A bullet vote in a mixed field of conservative candidates will leave many voters out of the final tally because of the ballot exhaustion forced by the RCV system. Not only do exhausted conservative ballots silence conservative voters, but they actually bolster the Democrat candidate by lowering the total number of votes and removing conservatives votes from the final tally. Do not bullet vote if you want a conservative governor.
Vote for private property rights, affordability, reduced energy costs, natural resource development, secure borders, and American family values by voting for Sen. Dan Sullivan and Rep. Nick Begich III. You are not voting for the person but the policies these people are sent to advocate for on your behalf.
This is a simple strategy and one that everyone can get on board with. It focuses on outcomes and it gives conservatives a chance to work together to win. We won’t win every race, but we need a unified, clear strategy to motivate people to get to the polls and have confidence in the who and what they are voting on. Again, you cannot win the game off the field. Turnout is where winning begins.
The passion on display is encouraging but we cannot continue to cut each other down to the detriment of the other conservative candidates. Working together is more important today than it has ever been in the past. Every conservative candidate should embrace this strategy and encourage their conservative opponents to do the same. Every organization promoting conservative candidates should encourage this same message. Advocate for your favorite candidate— whether that is Wilson, Bronson, or Taylor— but use the winning strategy!
Yes on 2. Rank the conservatives. Reelect Dan Sullivan and Nick Begich.
“It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win,” famously said by Vince Lombardi. Let’s hope that whoever gets the Trump endorsement for Governor that it also comes with a list to rank so we can win in November.
Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
In a typical Republican Primary election, one candidate wins and people generally put aside their differences and stand with the Republican who garnered the most votes. However, this is not a typical election because we are in a ranked-choice system. And yes…as everything has played out, it has become painfully obvious how wrong and confusing and devious this system is.
In no uncertain terms, we need to vote YES to get rid of the mess that is ranked-choice voting. When Tom Begich bowed out to let Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins remain as the sole Democrat in the race, the architects of RCV made it obvious they don’t even believe in the very system of “more choices” that they advocated for when they pushed it on our State.
That being said, Alaska Family Action has determined we are not going to endorse a candidate for Alaska Governor. We will acknowledge that Bernadette Wilson received the greatest number of votes in the jungle Primary against all the other Republicans because that is factual.
At the same time, our calculus— and this was not easy— is that we have a greater chance to prevent a Democrat socialist from becoming our next Governor if we tell Alaskans to “rank the red.” Vote for Bernadette Wilson, Dave Bronson, or Treg Taylor first but make certain to rank the other two. If you do not, we are almost certain to lose.
Please know this was not an easy decision. Prayerfully, we will prevent the Governor from turning blue and we will end the RCV mess once and for all.
Speaking of prayer, Alaska Family Council is starting and hosting a prayer gathering on the second Thursday of each month to ask for forgiveness, wisdom and direction for our state.
Our first gathering, for those of you able to attend in Anchorage, is this Thursday, September 10th from 5:30pm to 6:30pm. If you are interested in joining, please send an email to [email protected] for details. For 2026, the dates are September 10th, October 8th, November 5th and December 10th. All gatherings will be 5:30pm to 6:30pm.
On Monday, November 2nd, we will be hosting a special prayer gathering and call to fast for the election. Again, email [email protected] for details.
For those of you unable to attend our in person prayer gatherings in Anchorage, we highly encourage you to start your own to lift up our state and nation.
“Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
I recently had the distinct honor of attending the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Holy Rosary Academy’s new campus on East 64th Avenue, and I left thoroughly enthralled by the beautiful, modern building this once-modest community has become.
Standing amid families, students, faculty, advisory board members, community leaders, and longtime supporters, it was impossible not to feel the weight of nearly four decades of faith, perseverance, and quiet determination that brought this independent classical school rooted in Catholic tradition to this moment.
The air carried a palpable sense of shared accomplishment as the ribbon was cut and the doors formally opened. Children in uniform pressed close to the front of the crowd for a photo op, while parents and grandparents traded quiet smiles over decades of memories now folded into a single afternoon.
The new facility—a ten-year-old, two-story, state-of-the-art building formerly home to the Rilke Schule—feels both spacious and purposeful. Bright hallways and thoughtfully designed classrooms buzzed with the excitement of students and parents exploring their new home.
The move marks a significant chapter for a school long ranked among Alaska’s top private institutions. Its classical curriculum emphasizes the Trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, paired with formation in faith, reason, and virtue—an approach that has drawn families seeking something more substantial than the standard educational fare, and that has only grown in demand as the school’s reputation has spread by word of mouth across Anchorage and surrounding communities.
Students will now learn, pray, and grow in spaces designed for the 21st century, yet the heart of the academy remains unchanged: an education that forms the whole person—mind, heart, and soul.
Opening remarks were given by Principal Mary Louise Schirda and current School Board President Jim Dixon, who were followed by Senator Dan Sullivan, whose remarks resonated deeply with the school’s foundational principle of forming the whole person in partnership with parents.
Drawing on his own experience as a Catholic-school student, and noting that all three of his daughters attended Catholic school, he underscored the value of institutions like Holy Rosary, which partner with parents to form young people academically, in character, and in faith.
Representatives from the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce were present, along with representatives from both the current and former mayor’s offices. Their collective presence signaled that the school’s contribution to Anchorage’s educational landscape is recognized well beyond its own walls, a recognition earned not through publicity but through decades of steady, faithful work.
At the center of the academy’s story stands the family of the late Vernon and Madeleine Hickel of Anchorage. I spoke with several members of the Hickel family in attendance, who shared their memories of Holy Rosary’s early, humble beginnings.
In 1987, Vernon Hickel opened the entire lower level of the family’s Westwood Drive home—where the family had lived since moving there after the 1964 earthquake from their first residence on 25th Avenue—to a small group of Catholic parents seeking a rigorous, faith-grounded education.
What began as a homeschool co-op, originally called Our Lady of the Rosary and using curriculum from Bardstown, Kentucky (operating under the DBA Holy Rosary Academy), quickly grew under the conviction that this formation belonged to every family who desired it, not merely an elite few.
Inspired by the post-Vatican II call to the laity, Vernon and his sons renovated a property on Lakeshore Drive donated by a man named Bob Betz, building classrooms and a playground; enrollment rose from about 11 to 50 students, and the property was later willed to the school.
When space ran short, the family renovated their original 25th Avenue home into a chapel that would soon be incorporated into the campus on Fireweed, which later acquired an adjacent high-school building.
Over four decades, the combined construction talents of the Hickel family have maintained and improved every facility. Most recently, Pete and Vern of Hickel Construction and Engineering once again brought their expertise to the school, working on the new campus’s lunchroom and upstairs chapel.
Several of Vernon Hickel’s adult children and other extended family members have served on the school board. Many of the family’s children and grandchildren have attended, continuing the family’s multi-generational commitment.
That same spirit of partnership and openness still defines the school. Students from many different backgrounds come because they love what Holy Rosary is and what it teaches.
The mission has always been solidly Catholic, offering truth, beauty, and a classical education so that every child can become whatever God calls them to be. It is not a prep school for the gifted or affluent, but a community that assists parents as the primary educators of their children.
What struck me most was the seamless continuity between humble beginnings and present reality. The same commitment to the great books, Latin, Greek, and the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty continues to shape every classroom.
As the new doors opened, gratitude and hope filled the afternoon. In an era when many institutions struggle to maintain a clear identity, Holy Rosary Academy stands as a quiet testament to what faith, family, and steady hard work can achieve.
The impressive new building is only the latest chapter; the true achievement is the living community—parents, alumni, grandparents, civic leaders, and students—whose lives have been shaped by an enduring vision.
Last week’s ribbon cutting was not merely the opening of a facility; it was the public affirmation of a tradition that continues to bear fruit in Anchorage’s Catholic and classical educational landscape.
For a community that began with eleven students in the lower level of a family’s home, the new campus is a striking measure of how far faithfulness to Christ can carry an idea—and a reminder that the schools shaping our children’s souls are often built not by institutions, but by families willing to give everything they have.
By George B. Hightower, M.D., USNR (retired), former 2026 candidate for Lt. Governor
In July, I penned an op-ed advocating the ideals our forefathers lived by in the fight for our nation’s freedoms. In Alaska, those freedoms are challenged today in a way I never imagined.
Our recent primary election, though convoluted, has eliminated all but four gubernatorial candidates. One Democrat and three Republicans remain. Alaska has not elected a Democratic governor in 25 years. That trend, in the opinion of many, is threatened like never before.
A review of Alaska’s election history reveals: In every election, the leading primary vote-getter generally prevails in the general election. More specifically, in the election for Alaska’s governor— except in the two cases outlined below— the winner of the primary election has gone on to serve as Governor!
The two exceptions are notable:
In 1990, Wally Hickel did not even run in the primary. As a former governor, he was inserted after John Lindauer— who won the Alaskan Independence Party primary— and his running mate withdrew. Wally Hickel then went on to win the general election.
In 2014, Bill Walker entered the Republican primary but withdrew and instead qualified for the general election as an independent. He never won the primary. After the primary, he formed a unity ticket with Byron Mallott, who had won the Democratic primary. The Walker/Mallott ticket then went on to win the general election.
In both the above examples, the eventual governor worked alongside the primary winner to optimize the team’s performance in the general election. But the above primary history only tells part of the story.
Prior to 2022, there was never more than one candidate from a major party on the November ballot.
2022 marked the first ranked-choice gubernatorial primary. Two Republicans, a Democrat and an Independent prevailed. The incumbent, Governor Dunleavy (REP), was challenged by Charlie Pierce (REP) and his running mate Edie Grunwald. Sexual harassment charges were brought against Charlie Pierce. Although he did not suspend his campaign, his running mate withdrew and endorsed Governor Dunleavy, effectively isolating Pierce. This cleared the way for Mike Dunleavy to win the election in the first round.
Again, after the primary, events occurred which consolidated the GOP in support of the top primary vote-getter.
Also, in 2022 we saw how ranked-choice voting works when party disunity prevails. After Rep. Don Young passed away, Alaska held a special House election. Sarah Palin (REP), Nick Begich (REP) and Mary Peltola (DEM) squared off against one another. The contest between Palin and Begich was very heated, turning off many voters.
In the first round of the general election, Palin/Begich received 60% of the vote. In the second round, Nick Begich came in last and was eliminated. Because of bad blood between the conservatives, 29% of Nick’s second-choice votes went to Peltola and not Palin. Those second-choice votes were enough to declare Peltola the winner.
Again, the winning team had only one strong candidate in the general election.
Fast forward to today. The recent primary election ended with JKT (Dem.) and Bernadette (Rep.) as the top performers for their respective parties. The Democrats have rallied the troops and removed all obstacles in support of their top vote-getter. Tom Begich, the second-place Democrat, though he trailed JKT by less than 1.8%, has withdrawn, “taking one for the team.”
It may appear the Democrats have surged ahead strategically. This is true only if Republicans continue to campaign as if ranked-choice voting does not exist. JKT received only 22.5% of the primary vote. That is less than the top Democrat in the 2022 primary election.
Looked at it from another perspective, in the 2026 primary election, 55+% of the Democrat-leaning electorate voted for someone other than JKT. Approximately 65% of the Alaskan electorate is not affiliated with either of the two major political parties.
To assume that all of Tom Begich and Click Bishop’s followers will move to a far-left candidate who received 80% of his funding from out-of-state political machines is not realistic. In addition, there are no Democratic second choice candidates. The Democrats appear to be betting the farm on a round one knockout. And most fights do not go as planned.
This is in contrast to the 2022 Gubernatorial race when Mike Dunleavy (REP,) received 92% of his campaign funding from Alaska and received over 40% of the in a crowded field with 4 other Republicans.
Currently, some Republican candidates continue in team destructive self-exaltation. Ranked choice voting, if nothing else, is a team sport. The divided team is the losing team. When leaders “drop the ball,” the team of the conservative electorate must rally around the team captain.
The conservatives of Alaska must realize that division is exactly what ranked choice voting was designed to exploit.
In the lead up to the American Revolution the American colonies were a divided group of individually governed settlements. In order to stand up to the British, our forefathers recognized that absent unity, the colonist were signing their own death warrant. Benjamin Franklin is credited with coining the cry for Patriot unity with the widely recognized cartoon slogan: “Unite or Die.”
Never more than today is this slogan apropos.
I don’t support ranked choice voting, and I pray it is repealed. But while this algorithm remains law, Alaska conservatives must awake to unite against a process designed to defeat selfish ambition. We must mirror the Democrats and coalesce around our top vote getter. In this case it is Bernadette Wilson.
At this stage, it is unlikely the primary candidates who finished below Bernadette will suspend their campaigns and endorse the team captain. But that is my point exactly. You the voter are the team, not a handful of legacy politicians.
So, the strategy becomes:
Rank the primary leader #1, Bernadette Wilson.
Do not just rank Bernadette #1 alone. Rank #2 and #3 candidates. Otherwise, you create exhausted ballots, which only support JKT.
Rank Bronson or Treg #2 and #3. Choose which order works for you.
Understand that because only 11% of the Alaskan electorate are registered Democrats, this general election will likely be decided in rounds 2-4. So, your #2-#4 choices really matter!!
Based on the way ranked-choice voting works and the current ballot alignment, if you rank JKT at any position, even #4, eventually, your vote may count toward him as governor.
So, this strategy becomes much more than “rank the red.” Ranked-choice voting forces the electorate to rank for policy. Unless you want far-left progressive, big government ideals in the Governor’s mansion, put Bernadette Wilson #1, then rank Bronson and Taylor #2 and #3 in your preferred order, and do not rank JKT.
George B. Hightower, M.D., is a retired Lieutenant Commander for the U.S. Navy Reserve and former 2026 candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
This op-ed expresses the opinion of the author. Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
Community members organized a renewed effort that became known as Eaglexit. More than 100 people reportedly attended an early public meeting in May 2019 to discuss forming a separate local government. Organizers described the effort in terms of community self-determination.
Unlike the 1974 effort, the modern movement could not rely upon special legislation. Unlike the 1975 effort, it would be required to address a mature, unified municipality with extensive assets, debts, employees, utilities, contracts, schools and regional responsibilities.
The modern undertaking therefore evolved slowly.
Public presentations and discussions occurred across the area’s community councils beginning in 2019. Meetings addressed historical experience, boundaries, financial feasibility, taxation, schools, public services, legal work and the proposed structure of a new borough. The record shows recurring presentations and updates before the Eagle River, Chugiak, and Eagle River Valley community councils from 2019 through 2026.
In March 2020, Northern Economics and Halcyon Consulting completed the first phase of a modern revenue analysis. The study used Anchorage’s Assembly District 2 (Eagle River–Chugiak) as its initial geographic framework and examined the revenues that could be generated under the existing 2019 tax structure. Importantly, the report openly acknowledged that its first phase addressed revenues, not the full costs, assets or liabilities of a new government.
That limitation reflected the gradual nature of the project. The modern effort did not begin with every answer. It began by determining which questions had to be answered and then building the evidentiary record required to answer them.
From “Eaglexit” to the Chugach Regional Borough
Over time, the proposal became more specific.
The territory was defined principally through Assembly District 2, including Eagle River, Chugiak, Birchwood, Peters Creek, Eklutna, the JBER area, and surrounding lands. The proposed successor government became the Chugach Regional Borough, envisioned as a non-unified home-rule borough with its own charter, assembly, school district, taxing authority and locally determined service structure.
This was a significant evolution in the movement’s language and purpose.
“Eaglexit” remained the recognizable name of the civic organization, but the legal proposal increasingly became one of comprehensive governmental replacement. The area would not simply detach and leave a governmental void. Detachment and incorporation would operate together: one borough boundary would be adjusted while another borough government assumed responsibility for the territory.
The petition materials accordingly describe detachment and incorporation as legally inseparable parts of a comprehensive boundary-change proposal.
This is the essence of realignment. It is not the rejection of government. It is the relocation of governmental responsibility.
The Petition Becomes a Governmental Blueprint
The modern effort also became more disciplined as it encountered the requirements of the Local Boundary Commission process.
The petition package expanded beyond a statement of reasons for separation. It came to include a proposed charter, metes-and-bounds description, boundary maps, legal brief, transition plan, transition organization plan, multiyear budget and supporting exhibits addressing schools, public safety, roads, utilities, assets, liabilities, debt, contracts, personnel and the continuing viability of the Municipality of Anchorage.
A draft package was submitted for informal technical review in 2023. LBC staff identified significant areas requiring further development, including the proposed school district and the treatment of assets and liabilities. A substantially expanded package was submitted for another informal review in November 2025. That submission included a charter, boundary map, implementation materials and legal analysis.
The continuing review produced additional work during 2026, particularly concerning departmental staffing, equipment, budgets, service-transition assumptions and the evidence supporting fiscal feasibility.
The petition’s transition framework reflects the lessons of the earlier history. It does not assume that a boundary can be changed overnight without consequence. It recognizes that services, assets, liabilities, personnel, contracts, roads, public safety, education, utilities and debt must be handled through phased assumption, service agreements, mutual aid, transition conditions, and intergovernmental cooperation.
By the summer of 2026, Eaglexit had entered the signature-gathering phase for the citizen-initiated petition seeking detachment of Assembly District 2 and incorporation of the new home-rule borough.
The significance of what comes next lies not simply in another attempt to change a boundary, but in whether more than fifty years of experience have finally changed the nature of the question itself. The 1974 borough demonstrated the depth of the community’s desire for self-government; Abrams demonstrated the necessity of using the proper constitutional process; the 1975 LBC decision exposed the standards a separate borough would have to meet; the 2007 fiscal inquiry identified the financial questions that could no longer be avoided; and the modern effort has attempted to turn those lessons into an actual plan of government.
By the summer of 2026, those separate chapters had converged into a single proposition placed once again before the community. Whether that proposition succeeds will depend not merely upon the persistence of the idea, but upon whether the Eagle River–Chugiak of today can answer questions that earlier generations either could not answer or never had the opportunity to confront.
By Samuel A. Schilling, President of the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance (AOAA)
The Alaska Outdoor Alliance recently published Nearly 8 Million Visits, highlighting new federal recreation-visitation data for Alaska. The article reports approximately 7.85 million visits to federally administered lands and waters during fiscal year 2024, along with approximately 16.7 million recorded activity participations.
The numbers are significant, and the article appropriately acknowledges several important limitations: visits are not unique individuals, activities can overlap, agency reporting methods vary, some activities are not recorded, and the figures are not an economic-impact analysis.
Those limitations matter.
At first glance, the activity totals can make motorized use appear to represent only a small portion of Alaska’s outdoor landscape. OHV use, for example, is shown at approximately 85,000 participations, or roughly 0.5 percent of reported activity. But the data do not establish that only 0.5 percent of recreation depends upon motorized access.
The federal report identifies broad activities. It does not fully identify the transportation that made those activities possible, nor does it show how much hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, sightseeing, gathering, and other activity may depend upon ATVs, snowmachines, motorboats, aircraft, four-wheel-drive vehicles, or other motorized means.
That missing context matters when recreation statistics begin influencing decisions about Alaska’s public lands.
The activity is not always the means of access
One of the biggest problems with broad recreation statistics is that they often tell us what activity a person was doing, but not how that person reached or carried out that activity.
An Alaska resident may be counted as hunting even though the trip depended on an ATV. A trapper may be counted under trapping while using a snowmachine. A fisherman may be counted under fishing while relying on a motorboat. A camper may be counted under camping even though a UTV or four-wheel-drive vehicle provided the practical access.
In those cases, the motorized vehicle is not necessarily the recreation itself. It is the transportation supporting another activity.
Our comprehensive assessment describes this as utilitarian motorized use—motorized transportation used for access, hauling, retrieval, safety, or support of another activity rather than operation of the machine being the primary recreation.
The current data do not connect the same outing to its primary activity, transportation mode, function of the machine, and land being used. As a result, someone can remain visible statistically as a hunter, fisherman, trapper, camper, or sightseer while the motorized transportation supporting that activity is not separately visible as motorized use.
That is why the reported 0.5 percent OHV share should not be interpreted to mean that only 0.5 percent of federal recreation depended upon motorized access. It shows only the share of reported activity participations specifically placed in the OHV use category. Those are two very different things.
Sightseeing is not a transportation classification
The same problem appears at the other end of the activity table. Sightseeing represents approximately 43.5 percent of reported activity participation, while hiking, walking, and running account for another 18.1 percent.
But sightseeing tells us what someone was doing, not how they got there. A person may view scenery or wildlife from a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, bus, developed facility, motorized route, or hiking trail. Camping, fishing, hunting, and nature study can likewise involve multiple forms of transportation.
Much of the activity table therefore cannot be cleanly divided into a large “nonmotorized” majority and a small “motorized” minority. The transportation component is simply unresolved.
There is also an important difference between statewide federal visitation and use of a particular land-management system. BLM accounted for approximately 809,910 of the nearly eight million reported federal visits, about 10.3 percent of the total. The statewide figures therefore cannot, by themselves, establish how people access BLM lands or whether a particular BLM route or area should be managed as motorized or nonmotorized.
The economic picture looks very different
Participation counts do not measure economic contribution. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that Alaska outdoor recreation generated approximately $3.8 billion in value added during 2024. That total extends well beyond the individual recreation activities shown in the chart below.
BEA separates the economy into conventional outdoor-recreation activities, other outdoor recreation, and a much larger supporting economy that includes travel, transportation, lodging, food, construction, and government activity.
Approximately $468.8 million of the total is attributed to BEA’s conventional outdoor-recreation activities. We focus first on this portion because it is where BEA identifies individual activities such as Motorcycling/ATVing, RVing, recreational flying, hunting, boating and fishing, hiking, and snow activities.
The remaining outdoor-recreation economy is not being excluded from consideration. It falls within BEA’s other and supporting outdoor-recreation categories, but the available data do not provide a reliable way to divide those dollars between motorized and nonmotorized users without introducing additional assumptions or risking double counting.
The first chart below shows the $468.8 million conventional-recreation portion using the activity categories published in BEA’s Alaska table.
Chart 1. BEA conventional outdoor-recreation value added by published activity category.
Viewed strictly by activity label, Motorcycling/ATVing accounts for $14.6 million, or about 3.1 percent of conventional outdoor-recreation value added.
Motorcycling/ATVing is not the only BEA category associated with motorized recreation. BEA separately reports $79.1 million for RVing and $8.6 million for recreational flying. For purposes of this assessment, those three published rows are grouped together as direct or primarily motorized, totaling approximately $102.3 million, or 21.8 percent of conventional outdoor recreation value added.
The underlying dollar values are published by BEA; the combined motorized grouping is an analytical classification used in this assessment.
The second chart reorganizes the same $468.8 million BEA total according to what the underlying activity categories actually tell us about transportation.
Chart 2. The same $468.8 million, regrouped by what the categories reveal about transportation.
This comparison reveals the larger issue. Under this assessment’s classification:
Approximately 21.8 percent is grouped as direct or primarily motorized.
Another 42.8 percent falls within mixed or mode-unresolved activities where motorized means may be embedded but cannot be isolated from the BEA table alone.
The remaining conventional value consists of activities classified as predominantly nonmotorized primary activities and multi-use equipment that cannot reasonably be assigned to either side.
The mixed portion should not be treated as entirely motorized. But it should not automatically be treated as nonmotorized either. BEA’s own table illustrates why:
Boating and fishing contain several different forms of activity, including canoeing and kayaking, fishing apart from boating, sailing, and other boating.
Snowmobiling is included within BEA’s broader “Other snow activities” category alongside dog mushing, sleighing, snowshoeing, and snow tubing.
Hunting, shooting, and trapping are reported economically, but the table does not identify what transportation was used to reach or conduct those activities.
That is the distinction these two charts are intended to show.
The $14.6 million Motorcycling/ATVing row is not a measure of Alaska’s entire motorized outdoor-recreation economy. For purposes of this assessment, the Motorcycling/ATVing, RVing, and recreational-flying rows are grouped as direct or primarily motorized, totaling approximately $102.3 million. Beyond that assessment-defined grouping lies a substantial portion of conventional economic activity for which the motorized component remains unresolved.
It would be incorrect to assign all of that unresolved value to motorized users. It would be equally incorrect to assign it all to the nonmotorized side. The BEA data do not support either extreme.
Estimating the unresolved motorized share
Because BEA does not publish a definitive motorized-versus-nonmotorized split within its conventional outdoor-recreation activities, our assessment tested how much of the unresolved portion could plausibly be connected to motorized means.
The analysis begins with the directly identifiable motorized categories and then applies disclosed low, central, and high assumptions to the mixed or mode-unresolved components within boating and fishing, hunting and trapping, shooting and archery, snow activities, other air and land activities, and other water activities.
That analysis produced a motorized-linked range of approximately 35.8 to 52.4 percent of BEA’s $468.8 million conventional outdoor-recreation value added, with a central scenario of approximately 44.3 percent.
That range is not an official BEA statistic. It does not mean that 44 percent of BLM visitors are motorized, nor does it mean that 44 percent of Alaska’s entire outdoor-recreation economy is motorized.
What it demonstrates is that the motorized component embedded within BEA’s mixed conventional-recreation categories may be substantial, and that looking only at the $14.6 million Motorcycling/ATVing row can materially understate the economic role of motorized means.
Just as importantly, this model does not attempt to divide Alaska’s much larger supporting outdoor-recreation economy between motorized and nonmotorized users. BEA reports approximately $2.73 billion in supporting outdoor-recreation value that includes travel, transportation, lodging, food, shopping, construction, and government activity. Motorized users clearly contribute to that supporting economy, but the available BEA data do not provide a reliable way to assign those dollars back to individual recreation modes without introducing additional assumptions or risking double counting.
For that reason, the 35.8 to 52.4 percent range should be understood only as an estimate within the conventional-recreation portion of the BEA data, not as a ceiling on the role motorized means may play across Alaska’s full $3.8 billion outdoor-recreation economy.
A smaller count can still represent a major economic interest
The purpose of this analysis is not to claim that one motorized user is more important than one nonmotorized user. Alaskans should not be valued according to the price of their equipment or the amount they spend during an outing. The point is that participation share and economic share are not the same thing.
A lower-volume activity may generate substantial spending on vehicles, fuel, trailers, repairs, maintenance, transportation, guides, lodging, food, equipment, and rural services. A higher-volume activity may involve far less spending per participation.
Therefore, a small-looking OHV percentage cannot be used as a proxy for the motorized community’s economic contribution. It also cannot be used as a proxy for cultural importance, transportation need, traditional access, or the number of other activities dependent upon motorized means.
The existing datasets do not support a precise statement that one motorized person equals a fixed number of nonmotorized people. They do not consistently identify unique individuals, repeat visits, complete trip spending, transportation modes, or the jurisdiction where the outing occurred.
What the evidence does establish is that participation counts and economic value measure fundamentally different things. The existing datasets therefore do not support using a small OHV activity-participation percentage as a proxy for the economic contribution associated with motorized recreation and access.
That is the perspective missing when recreation is presented primarily through headcounts.
Why the incomplete picture matters
The Alaska Outdoor Alliance article states that the federal data can help inform decisions involving trails, public access, transportation, maintenance, staffing, facilities, and stewardship. That is exactly why the limitations must be understood.
A statistic initially published as an activity estimate can later appear in agency presentations, planning documents, public comments, grant applications, and legislative discussions. As the number is repeated, its original limitations may be forgotten.
The reported 0.5 percent OHV figure could eventually be presented as evidence that motorized users are an insignificant minority. Large sightseeing and walking figures could be presented as evidence of overwhelming nonmotorized demand. Those impressions could influence which routes are maintained, which trail systems are funded, which activities are prioritized, and which lands are proposed for motorized restrictions or nonmotorized designations.
An incomplete statistical picture does not have to contain inaccurate numbers to influence public policy. A number may be technically accurate within its narrow definition while still being used to support a conclusion it was never designed to prove.
The result can be a public record in which the motorized community appears smaller, less economically significant, and less connected to other forms of recreation than the available data can actually establish. That is potentially detrimental not only to recreational riders but also to hunters, anglers, trappers, campers, gatherers, cabin users, and ordinary residents who rely on motorized transportation for practical access.
This is about balance, not opposition
This is not an argument against hiking, bicycling, skiing, paddling, walking, or other nonmotorized recreation. Alaska should provide meaningful opportunities for all of those activities.
The concern is that the growth of nonmotorized recreation should not require the motorized community’s cultural, economic, and practical role to be minimized.
Motorized transportation is part of Alaska’s identity because Alaska is different from most of the country. Vast areas have little or no ordinary road access. Travel and transportation are integral to a wide range of activities occurring on Alaska’s public lands.
In that setting, an ATV, snowmachine, boat, or aircraft is often not simply a recreational luxury. It is access infrastructure. It connects people to hunting areas, fishing waters, traplines, cabins, camps, remote property, gathering locations, and communities.
A statistical system that identifies the destination activity but does not identify the supporting transportation can obscure that relationship in the statistical record.
Alaska needs the full story
Before recreation statistics are used to support land designations, route restrictions, access changes, or major funding decisions, agencies should examine the complete outing. That means identifying:
the primary purpose of the trip
every transportation mode used
the function of each motorized vehicle
the land jurisdictions crossed
the frequency and distance of use
the economic activity associated with the trip
Those variables would distinguish an ATV ride taken purely for recreation from an ATV trip supporting a hunt. They would distinguish an activity reached entirely on foot from one made possible by a motorized route. They would also separate broad statewide tourism and visitation figures from the actual transportation needs of people using a particular BLM area.
The Alaska Outdoor Alliance article provides one part of Alaska’s recreation story. It shows that Alaska’s federally administered lands and waters receive millions of visits and support a wide range of activities. But it does not show the full extent to which those activities depend upon motorized transportation. It does not measure the economic importance of different users. It does not establish a motorized-versus-nonmotorized split. And it should not be treated as a management verdict on which forms of access Alaska should preserve.
Users whose activities depend on motorized access do not disappear simply because a statistical table records the activity without identifying the transportation that made it possible. The public record, and the public-land decisions built upon it, should reflect the complete reality.
Counting visits is not counting value. Counting the activity is not counting the access. And an incomplete count should never become the justification for restricting a use it did not fully measure.
Samuel A. Schilling is President of the Alaska Outdoor Access Association, a statewide coalition dedicated to protecting and preserving public access to Alaska’s lands and waters.
Anchorage residents have launched a recall effort to remove Mayor Suzanne LaFrance after she failed to present annual surveillance reports to the Assembly and make the reports publicly available on the municipal website according to Municipal Code.
A press release from the Recall LaFrance effort states that LaFrance “violated Anchorage Municipal Code by neglecting to perform her duties as required by Anchorage Municipal Code 3.102.040.”
Municipal Code requires the mayor or a designee to “transmit to the assembly and cause to be publicly posted on the municipal website an Annual Surveillance Report” with specific reporting requirements. However, the 2026 annual surveillance report did not reach the Assembly until the September 1 regular meeting— three months late. The 2024, 2025, and 2026 surveillance reports could not be located on the municipal website as of today, September 8.
The Anchorage Assembly discussed the reporting failure at the September 1 regular meeting but postponed further action to the next regular meeting on September 15. At the September 1 meeting, the Assembly approved approximately $600K for upgrades to the control room hosting APD’s surveillance technology. Last year, the Assembly approved $11.8 million to establish 750 surveillance feeds throughout the city.
At the next regular meeting, September 15, the public will have an opportunity to testify on an ordinance designed to protect public safety by limiting the use and retention of surveillance footage. Read the ordinance here: AO-2026-108. Learn more about testifying here:Assembly – Public Testimony.
Other Anchorage residents are raising concerns about the expansion of surveillance in the city. In an op-ed published on Must Read Alaska, Marcus Moore described the September 1 meeting as “Feelings up front. Trust me bro in the middle. Money at the end.” Referring to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote, he adds: “Franklin already settled this. People who give up essential liberty to buy a little temporary safety deserve neither. Anchorage is not special.”
According to the Recall LaFrance press release: “Mayor LaFrance has aggressively pursued the expansion of surveillance technology throughout the Municipality of Anchorage. She has repeatedly stated that the Anchorage Police Department’s current policies regarding drones, surveillance, and artificial intelligence sufficiently protect Alaskans’ right to privacy. Additionally, she has downplayed calls from the community to enact stricter safeguards in the municipal code to govern how surveillance technology is used in policing. Alaskans’ right to privacy is not negotiable. Protect your privacy: Recall LaFrance.”
Treg Taylor is back on the ballot, and for good reason—he has fully complied with the law. Alaskans should decide if he will make a good governor. I believe he will.
He has shown he wants the job and does not give up when things get rough. He fought APOC’s and Lt. Gov. Dahlstrom’s decision to nullify his candidacy with calm resolve. He demonstrated patience and grace during this debacle—even calling for unity among remaining Republican candidates. He did not turn negative but calmly went about proving his case according to historic precedent.
He has also picked a winner as a running mate, Candice English, a woman of immense accomplishments in engineering and business. As owner of Northern Solutions, she has proven herself a capable business leader in Alaska’s highly competitive oil and gas industry.
Alaskans need to get to know Candice and her strength of purpose, resilience, and kindness.
By contrast, Alaskans recall how the Taylor APOC issue broke a year ago, and it was not by Democrats. Conservatives need less caustic rivalry and more civility and team-building.
At this juncture, we need to ask this: Who among the conservative candidates is best equipped to unite us? What team has actually accomplished the most in their lifetime and has a record of tangible successes that carry lasting value?
Conservatives like me value the effort it takes to raise a large, tight-knit family. Treg has done that. His strong marriage and selection of a running mate demonstrate a patience and ability to work with women of immense talent and capability. Other candidates lack this track record.
If conservatives want to change the status quo in Alaska, a law degree will help. So will Treg’s connections in the Department of Justice.
As to the backbone of what makes this country’s economy great—free enterprise business—I am putting my money on Candice. She knows how to compete, operate a large manufacturing plant, and take care of her employees and customers!
My advice to fellow Republicans: If you cannot be convinced to vote for Taylor/English as your first choice, consider them as your best second choice—as the team who most closely aligns with the team you ranked as your first choice.
As to JKT, the Democrat’s single-candidate strategy asks moderates to vote for a candidate they do not want: an outside-funded leftist who will expand government, implement an income tax, kill the Permanent Fund, decrease flexibility with schools, invite more union meddling in Juneau, and support anti-development interests who kill projects. The rural vote, I hope, will not support JKT’s socialist agenda for Alaska, which impedes individual freedom and further drags Alaskans into dependence on the government.
This op-ed expresses the opinion of the author. Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
This article was first published by David Eastman on his campaign site, September 5, 2026, under the title “The Latest Attacks Against Former Attorney General Treg Taylor and his Wife are Blatantly Illegal and a Farce.”
On Tuesday, the Chairman of the Alaska House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Andrew Gray (D-Anchorage), outed himself once again as a pawn of the left by publicly attacking former attorney general Treg Taylor and his wife. I served on the House Judiciary with Andrew. In fact, we sat next to one another. For those unfamiliar, Andrew is the Planned Parenthood-endorsed Democrat who once went on the house floor and repeatedly extolled the virtues of PornHub, the same PornHub that last week agreed to pay $120 million for profiting from sex trafficking and child pornography—that Andrew Gray.
In a letter to Attorney General Cori Mills that Rep. Gray distributed to the press, Gray used his position as committee chairman to engage in electioneering (itself a violation of state law) by formally declaring that Treg Taylor and his wife have committed crimes and need to be brought to justice. He begins and ends the letter by requesting that they both be prosecuted. The penalty would involve removal from public office and a fine, or jail time, or both.
Aside from the obvious attempt to disparage a current Republican candidate for governor and his spouse, the letter actually invites an overt politically motivated prosecution from either the current administration or the one elected in November. Gray is supporting the Democrat candidate for governor. Let that sink in.
To trust a Marxist with political power is to trust them to abuse that power, and Andrew Gray’s abuse of political power is textbook. In his letter on Tuesday, Gray wants the former attorney general and his wife to be looking at jail time over the fact that they did not publicly name each of the more than 200 tenants in the apartments that they own together. This would be a weaponization of Alaska’s financial disclosure laws against conservatives to a degree that no Democrat politician has ever dared to advocate for in public. Of course, in the world of Andrew Gray, these financial disclosure laws are only to be followed when doing so furthers the left. When it doesn’t further the left, these same laws are to be completely ignored.
Treg Taylor and his wife both submitted their financial disclosures this year. A quick online search will show you that Taylor has submitted his financial disclosure every year since 2019. Members of the Legislative Ethics Committee are also required by state law to submit the same financial disclosure that Treg and his wife submitted. The chief justice appoints members of the public to the Ethics Committee, the House Judiciary Committee then holds confirmation hearings, and the full House of Representatives ultimately votes on whether or not to confirm their appointment.
Two years ago, we had a member appointed to the Ethics Committee, Rachel Kelly, who refused to submit her financial disclosure as required by law. This is especially notable since members of the Ethics Committee are the very ones responsible for enforcing Alaska’s financial disclosure laws on legislators.
Rachel Kelly was appointed on January 19th. She did not file a disclosure. Her confirmation hearing in the House Judiciary Committee took place on March 8th. At the time of her confirmation hearing she still had not filed her financials. In fact, the same online search that shows that Treg Taylor filed his disclosure will confirm that Rachel Kelly refused and never filed any portion of her disclosure.
On April 29th, more than 100 days after she was appointed and months after she was legally required to file her financial disclosure, the House of Representatives put her name forward for a vote of the full house. Note: the same statute that Andrew Gray cites in his letter specifically directs legislators to not confirm certain appointees who have not filed their financial disclosures. However, instead of delaying the vote until Kelly had filed her disclosures, the Ethics Committee wanted her on the committee so the vote took place anyway.
Andrew Gray voted, not just once but twice, to confirm Rachel Kelly’s appointment to the Ethics Committee, despite the fact that she had refused for more than 100 days to file any portion of her financial disclosure, and despite the fact that she was seeking appointment to the committee that enforces state financial disclosure laws on every member of the legislative branch of government.
Every single Democrat legislator voted to confirm her despite her steadfast refusal. In a public demonstration of just how hyper-partisan that agency has become, most members of the Ethics Committee voted to confirm her as well. In his request to the attorney general, Gray now wants Jodi Taylor to face jail time for filling out her financial disclosure on time and in its entirety (minus the full last name of her 221 tenants).
In writing his letter as the Judiciary Chairman and circulating it to reporters, Rep. Gray is engaging not just in an abuse of his office, but in electioneering and attempting to weaponize state law and law enforcement against current (and future) conservative candidates. In this, the playbook of the left is once again on public display. A political opponent is a threat to be destroyed, no matter how many laws you have to break to get there.
Let’s call Gray’s letter what it is—a public threat to weaponize financial disclosure laws against conservative candidates from the sitting chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the committee responsible for overseeing Alaska’s judges and all constitutional matters in the legislature. This is where we are at in 2026.
