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.
19 thoughts on “Misfire: Alaska Democrats attack Alaska hunting legend who fought for access for all Alaskans”
“Misfire” is too kind of a word!
Imagine Alaska without any Democrats.
What a beautiful place it would be. Maybe some of us can still make THAT happen.
Hardware check in progress.
Sturgeon is a classic TAKER. A privileged white guy who thinks every animal should end up as a wall trophy.
And, why not? Almost all animal hides look very nice on a wall as a trophy.
Only trappers are more loathsome than trophy hunters. You are who you are and perhaps no further punishment is necessary.
You should spend more time preaching your anti trapping rhetoric in all native communities.
I am sure they will welcome your views and maybe decide to shop Amazon for their furs or start looking at other sources to stay warm during the winter months….. best to sleep with one eye open?
John Denver wasn’t very successful at convincing them of their caribou hunting tactics either.
Evan S Singh, Mr Sturgeon does not hunt humans so he doesn’t hunt every animal as you say.
Singh’s head would look good on the wall in the ladies bathroom at Chilioots.
Or his face on a urinal cake.
When a person’s every view is filtered through a race based lense that by definition makes that person a racist.
Evan, I get that you are only here to stir the pot.
Ironically aren’t you also always yelling about “federal overreach”? Here the feds asserted jurisdiction over an area where they had none and bar access for ALL. To my memory none of the native corporations filed suit with Mr. Sturgeon. They certainly benefit from his effort however, as does everyone else, when the supreme court affirmed the rights of the people and the state.
Evan.
You should know your facts before speaking out! John Sturgeon does not mount ANYTHING! He is a classic meat hunt, that enjoys the chase and the organic food! Check Your Facts Or Zip it!
John is a humble man who fights for what he believes in and fortunately we have all benefitted from his dedication to Alaskan Outdoors men and women.
Sturgeon is the president of the Safari Club Alaska for heck’s sake. It’s Alaska’s premier promoter a trophy animals like brown/grizzly bear, Dall sheep, moose, black bear, and caribou.
“Sturgeon is the president of the Safari Club Alaska for heck’s sake.”
And???
You clearly spent less than 5 seconds on the Safari Club Alaska website and are only regurgitating your preconceived notions. The safari club does a great deal for conservation efforts (supporting reintroduction of wood bison anyone), education and outreach. In a state where hunting and subsistence is a way of life, your characterization is sadly tone-deaf and erroneous.
the access to hunting grounds is a huge win for all, trophy hunter or meat hunter.
State regulations require salvage of all edible meat and proof of what is harvested.
trapping is another story, regulated harvests helps control predator and pray.
Alaska is a second class state and always has been. The federal government has made it that way mostly by big business interests.
As Hickel once said “You can’t just let nature run wild”
Sounds like a ready made defamation lawsuit against the Alaska Democrat Party. Sturgeon won his US Supreme Court appeal.
Sturgeon was party to two unanimous SCOTUS decisions, by any standard that is a remarkable achievement. He is not only a great Alaskan but a great American.
Sturgeon has consistently tried to destroy subsistence hunting and fishing rights enjoyed by all rural Alaskans under federal law. He is an enemy of the rural people who still depend on subsistence for their very survival and their way of life. He defies the promised Congress made to protect those rights when Alaska native people surrendered most of their land claims. It is anti-Alaskan, when you consider that 80% of ALL Alaskans support those subsistence hunting and fishing rights.