One of the great pleasures of working in the outdoors-journalism field is the sense of kinship that editors and writers can come to develop with their reading public, as the passion for the outdoors that is shared by both quite often leads to open, honest dialogue. For us, this holds even more weight. We are primarily concerned with two things here at Fish Alaska. One is the state itself. The second is the state’s gamefish. Naturally, our readers tend to be of like mind and conversations can only lead to good.

That’s why it’s somewhat disconcerting for me to receive a letter like the one below. I do think the author brings to light a few strong points, issues we deal with at Fish Alaska every day, but there is also a refrain here that’s unfortunately familiar and in this case, undeniably false.

As outdoor writers, we’re used to hearing such things, of course, so used to it fact that many have just decided to nod and go on about their business rather than spark yet another debate that cannot be won. But, as we’re all concerned about the state of Alaska’s remaining wilderness and its world-renowned fisheries, I think the least this letter deserves is a response.

To Whom it may concern,

I read this month’s publication of Fish Alaska magazine and find myself repeatedly mortified at the complete lack of moral ethics practiced by the editors and writers month after month. Billed as an Alaskan Magazine, owned and produced by Alaskans, one would think that you would realize that when you write about one fishery or another and publish it in your magazine, it is logically going to increase pressure on that fishery as customers are provided with the knowledge about where the fish are and how to get there. It's a decent way to make a living without extreme effect to the environment as long as discretion is used, but when you decide to publish an article about an eight-foot wide creek with a very fragile run of a couple hundred fish and gift-wrap it by explaining how to get there, what tackle to use, and what techniques work best, you effectively doom the fish population in the creek by assuring over-fishing. This is a reoccurring and highly destructive practice by your magazine. For the benefit of the fishing community as well as the fish themselves, I would ask Fish Alaska to consider the effect of their articles before publishing them. Act responsible and maybe there will be something to write about in five years.

Sincerely,

Daniel Rauchenstein

Well, to start with, it’s hard to say what prompted this particular letter, but indications are that an article we published in a previous issue at least touched upon a stream the writer has a vested interest in. To my knowledge, we’ve never published a story that solely highlighted an accessible, eight-foot-wide creek with a run of only a few hundred fish, but in some of our comprehensive destination articles, these types of tributaries and feeder streams are mentioned in addition to the mainstream, and featured river. But at any rate, there are several points here worth addressing.

To dispense with the absurd first, I’d like to once again shatter the myth that outdoor journalists are in any way raking in bundles of cash by doing what they do. In fact, I know of only a handful of writers and editors and even publishers across the country who don’t have to do their writing or produce their magazines on the side, holding down a “regular job” as a way to continue with their passion. And largely, it is a passion. The professionals I know—including all those who write and work for Fish Alaska—are doing so more out of love for the fish and the fisheries than out of a desire to fatten the portfolio. Make no mistake, the people involved in this magazine are just as concerned about maintaining the state of Alaska’s wild and scenic waters as anyone else; probably more than most, if simply because we’ve had the unique chance to see much of the state’s wonderful diversity firsthand.

Still, Mr. Rauchenstein is entirely correct in suggesting it’s a fine line we must walk, and I think we struggle with these issues each and every month. We are interested in promoting Alaska, certainly, but in promoting it responsibly first. In every editorial meeting at Fish Alaska, in every proofing session and article review, we try to find a balance between providing the information our readers want and deserve on one hand and protecting the state’s more fragile watersheds on the other. We speak with fisheries biologists, with lodge owners and guides, with residents, and we listen to our readers, and even after that, we always try to err on the side of caution. Actually, the nice thing about this is that, like I mentioned before, each one of those different groups is ultimately concerned with the same thing—making sure Alaska’s fisheries look tomorrow like they did today.

Despite the fact the phrase has become quite popular recently, I actually don’t think this has anything to do with matters of “moral ethics,” but in any case, I’d like to assure Mr. Rauchenstein and the rest of our readers that we’ll continue to spend our time considering the effect our articles will have on the fisheries in question. While like anyone else we are capable of making a mistake, you can be sure it won’t be made out of a desire for money or fame, but out of love for this land and its waters.

—Troy Letherman, editor