• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

ALASKA: Fish or Gold -a fight for survival or co-existence?

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
This is really an interesting story, not sure what to think about it. Below is just the first few paragraphs of a 2 page article from the NY Times. I'd encourage you to read the whole article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/23alaska.html?ref=science?_r=1&oref=slogin


Vote in Alaska Puts Question: Gold or Fish?
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: August 22, 2008
DILLINGHAM, Alaska — Just up the fish-rich rivers that surround this tiny bush town on Bristol Bay is a discovery of copper and gold so vast and valuable that no one seems able to measure it all. Then again, no one really knows the value of the rivers, either. They are the priceless headwaters of one of the world’s last great runs of Pacific salmon.

“Perhaps it was God who put these two great resources right next to each other,” said John T. Shively, the chief executive of a foreign consortium that wants to mine the copper and gold deposit. “Just to see what people would do with them.”

What people are doing is fighting as Alaskans hardly have before. While experts say the mine could yield more than $300 billion in metals and hundreds of jobs for struggling rural Alaska, unearthing the metals could mean releasing chemicals that are toxic to the salmon that are central to a fishing industry worth at least $300 million each year. And while the metals are a finite discovery, the fish have replenished themselves for millenniums.

“If they have one spill up there, what’s going to happen?” said Steve Shade, 50, an Alaska Native who has fished on Bristol Bay all his life, for dinner and for a living. “This is our livelihood. They’re going to ruin it for everybody.”

Rarely are Alaskans at odds over which of their natural resources they want to exploit. Oil? Timber? Minerals? Fish? While outsiders and some state residents may urge restraint, most people here typically just select all.

Yet the fight over what is known as the Pebble Mine is playing out as a war between economies and cultures, between copper and clean water, gold and wild salmon. Strange alliances and divisions have developed. Miners have been pitted against fishermen, as have Yupik Eskimos, Aleuts and Athabascan Indians and other Alaska Native people who want the jobs the new mine could bring versus those who fear it threatens thousands of years of culture.

Now the fight is expanding, from the bush to the ballot.

On Tuesday, Alaskans will vote on Measure 4, an initiative intended to increase protections for streams where salmon live. Over just a few months, the measure has become one of the most expensively fought campaigns in state history, with the two sides expected to spend a total of more than $10 million. Opponents of the measure have outraised supporters by more than two to one.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
A similar battle was lost here.

The Sacramento Bee reported that a middle-level water specialist received a phone call direct from Dick Cheney ordering the water specialist to open (or close?) the dams up at the headwaters of the Klamath River, to give disputed irrigation water to the farmers. He checked with his bosses and word came back down, just do it.

That was the end of a farmers vs commercial salmon fishermen argument, that was partly environmentalist but was also a competition between two groups that were water users and heavy political contributors. The farmers had contributed more than the fishermen and environmentalist groups, so they won.

As a consequence and as the environmentalists and fishermen had predicted, the salmon runs up the Klamath nearly ended. Then similar decisions of water for the developers vs the fish have been made in the Sacramento River basin, and now the salmon are nearly gone. All the fishermen along the coast are out of work. The number of fish going up the Sacramento to spawn the next generation (in the headwaters) dropped down to I think a few hundred, from previous averages of many thousands.

There is serious concern now that the salmon species was hit so hard that we have lost this major resource entirely.

Simply to preserve Cheney's lobbyist-driven version of 'free enterprise', ie raising taxpayer-subsidized crops on taxpayer-subsidized water.

More details


I hope we don't sacrifice the Alaskan salmon too.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting that you view the Alaska situation as only FISH -or- GOLD and see no option to have environmentally responsible mining so there could be both FISH -and- GOLD.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Bob, the history of mining doesn't persuade many that 'this time will be better'. There's always somebody who screws up, like that 'salvage mining' company who suffered the collapse in Idaho. They went in after the responsible miners considered the mine too unsafe to continue. That's just how the mining industry works.

I just illustrated that these very recent water decisons were fish vs agriculture and the fish lost, badly.

I don't see a reason to be more optimistic about Alaskan Salmon than we were about the salmon here. The salmon don't vote.

They would probably be fine until something unexpected, outside the box, happened. Then the extraordinary cost of saving them would be a cited as a reason to abandon them. There may be a way to extract those resources without impacting the natural habitat but it would drive up the cost of extraction far above competitor's costs who operate in less restricted areas.

Remember the Exon Valdez? Those tankers were proposed as double hull construction during the time the project was being debated. Then somehow the standards were lowered to single thickness hull when it came time to build the ships; somebody changed the cost/benefit calculations. I don't think anything has changed today.
 

Ceiling Cat

New member
We vote on Tuesday. I'm pretty sure I know how I'm gonna vote... but it's almost like both a yes and a no vote are wrong. There needs to be a 3rd option. :hide:
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Ceiling Cat, hello and welcome!

What does the discussion on this look like, from your closer perspective?

I'm not asking how you will vote, rather, what are the different outcomes that people are discussing?
 

Ceiling Cat

New member
Well both sides are dropping a lot of money on ads.

The vote no people say it will shut down mines and hurt everyone in the state living in a town near a mine. Also most of the regulations haven't been written yet, so there maybe some harsh regs coming up that we know nothing about. Also Alaska's mining laws are the most strick in the world and don't need to be overhauled. The mines will kill no fish and this is all hype.

The vote yes people interview fishermen in Bristel Bay. And claim that mines release large amouts of heavy metels. The yes people claim that not one mine will be shut down if this passes, it will just make it so that mines will have to be responcable to clean up after themselves.

My favorite political ad this season:
.There was a large ad in our local news paper the other day that showed two cartoons. It said prop. 4 and had a box that said yes and a box that said no. The yes box had a smiling fish, the no box had a floating dead fish.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Do you guys already have the same problem with toxic mercury in the streams that we do? (From the gold mining). We have public health recommendations specifying a maximum exposure of only one river fish portion per week and none at all for pregnant women, or something like that. I think the bottomfeeders, catfish and maybe bass, have the highest concentrations.

Is there a concern that this mining could end up causing damage like that after the mines are abandoned?
 

Ceiling Cat

New member
An old halibut that lays on the bottom for a few decades can have trace amounts of mercury. I don't live near any major mines so the fresh water fish is not a problem... as far as I know. :bonk: It is however a big state and I can't say that every stream is clean.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting issue. Not sure where I fall on it because I know so little about it. Seems to me that, in the interest of the fishing and wildlife preservation, the state could impose some extra-strict regulations and then issue a mining license. If the mine can figure out how to economically remove the copper and gold, despite the extra-strict pollution controls, then I can't imagine I could oppose it. On the other hand, if the mine is going to destroy the salmon habitat then I probably would oppose the mining. There has to be some sort of balance, both sides need to make a living, both sides need to support families and if it can be done without destroying the waters of the river then the mine should find that solution.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
I hope you guys in Alaska can avoid what we've done to ourselves:

MercuryFish.gif

Google: mercury fish sacramento river

Other areas: EPA Advisory Letter

 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
I was looking for something else, and just found this.

Can you imagine large scale drainage from abandoned mines, that is 10,000 times more acidic than battery acid? This is killing the headwaters of the Sacramento River including killing the salmon. The Wild West is now too heavily built up to tolerate this stuff destroying the water supply that serves the entire state.

Congressional Testimony on Mining Law Update
 
Top