Misfire: Alaska Democrats attack Alaska hunting legend who fought for access for all Alaskans

By SUZANNE DOWNING

May 5, 2026 – A private fundraiser for US Sen. Dan Sullivan at Anchorage’s Petroleum Club this week has drawn unexpected political fire, not for what happened at the event, but for who hosted it.

The Alaska Democratic Party circulated what it described as a “leaked invitation” to the May 4 event, criticizing one of the listed hosts, longtime Alaskan outdoorsman John Sturgeon. In a social media post, the party claimed Sturgeon “paved the way to threaten rural Alaskans’ subsistence fishing rights” and accused Sullivan of “selling out Alaska fishermen for campaign cash.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan campaign event draws enthusiastic crowd

The attack raised hackles of Alaskans because Sturgeon is widely known not as a threat to access, but as a central figure in one of the most consequential access cases in state history, and it had nothing to do with fish.

It’s especially ironic since Mary Peltola, the Democrat, has raised between $8.9 million in out-of-state campaign contributions for her US Senate campaign against Sullivan, and yet the Democrats were firing on Sullivan for coming to Alaskans for support of his reelection.

Sturgeon’s legal battle began nearly two decades ago, in 2007, when the National Park Service told him he could not use his hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve. Alaska law allowed hovercraft use on navigable waters, but the Park Service claimed it had federal authority that extended across those waters inside conservation system units.

What followed was a years-long legal fight that reached the US Supreme Court twice. In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ultimately sided with Sturgeon, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of federal authority as, in Roberts’ words, a “topsy-turvy approach.”

The ruling clarified that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) draws a clear distinction between “public” and “non-public” lands within conservation system units, limiting federal overreach on navigable waters controlled by the state. The decision was seen as a major win for Alaska sovereignty and access rights, not just for one hunter, but for anyone relying on rivers to reach hunting and fishing grounds.

Sturgeon was backed by the State of Alaska in the case, precisely because the outcome would determine how much control federal agencies could exert over state-managed waters.

In 2017, Sturgeon was awarded the Governor’s Conservationist of the Year for his efforts to preserve access to Alaska’s river. Every year he guides wounded warriors on huts in Alaska; this past fall, Gov. Mike Dunleavy assisted, as he often does.

Quiet company: Dunleavy joins Sturgeon, Wounded Warriors for an under-the-radar deer hunt on Afognak Island

That history is what makes the Democratic Party’s messaging such a misfire. Rather than seeing Sturgeon’s case as a landmark victory for access, including for rural Alaskans who depend on river systems, the party thinks access to hunting grounds is bad.

The fundraiser itself, by contrast, appears to have been a fairly standard campaign event, drawing roughly 75 supporters, including a number of well-known Alaska figures. It was not broadly advertised, typical of smaller donor gatherings, and attendees described the atmosphere as upbeat and energetic.

In a state where hunting, fishing, and access are more than politics, but are a way of life, taking aim at John Sturgeon may prove to be a misfire. If Democrats thought this was a clean shot, they may find they’ve wandered off trail and by making John Sturgeon a target have spooked voters from their party.