Alaska's fish
Published Monday, August 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Aug. 13, 2008
To the editor:
Sadness washes over me as I think of Ted Stevens and Don Young. A lot of the sadness has to do with what could have been. By this, I mean the people of Alaska moving out of the different small towns of Alaska because of the lack of a way to make a living. (“Leaving the village,” Anchorage Daily News, May 14).
Go right down the line of people with political influence, and most of them must not understand Alaska. If they did, Alaska would control its fishing resources. Alaska is not Alaska without its fishing resources, which Seattle and the rest of the Puget Sound area have a stranglehold on.
The laws are there for Alaska to control this most important resource. And if the laws are not there, they can be implemented.
Bruce Lemke
Anchorage
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Vote "Yes" on Ballot Measure 4.
For fish.
you can vote no on measure 4 and avoid shutting down all alaska mines and still be against the pebble mine. be smart, vote no.... or we'll all be sorry.
Here's another yes on 4, fishing goes away, so do many businesses and tourism will also. Not to mention all the people who depend on fish to get them through the tough times. I think more jobs will be lost there that will affect the state than the mining industry. Mining only makes a few people rich, others get nothing.
How exactly is fishing going away because of this mine? Prop 4 doesn't "END" fishing. That's just trading 1 scare tactic for another.
Besides, the idea that more people get rich fishing than mining is not realistic.
Where does this stuff come from?
Vote NO on 4
I agree with polarmark and oldakcuss. Vote NO on 4. Mining is important to the state's economy and miners families. Just as fishing is important to the economy and to fishermens (and subsistence) familys. It is not my intention to devalue either sides points. My view is this....if we vote NO then MAYBE fish will suffer. If we vote yes, then MAYBE mines will be shut down. It's waaaaayyyy too vague, and gives special interest groups an unfair chance to seize even more power and crush our rights. No one group or side ought to have any more chance or advantage than another. I'd rather let this initiative fail and then have somebody draft a measure that is concrete and finite that leaves very few questions. That way, nobody can twist it's words later on. We'll all know what we're voting for right up front. None of this, "author it so it's vague then scare the people into passing it, then use it to further our agenda and snag more power." Vote no on 4 to protect your rights. That's my take.
i'm voting NO on 4. I'm sorry to say but fishing is three months long.Mining is year round better jobs means more work for the people of alaska.
We need those jobs.
Pragmatist,
Where does it come from? Lies and ignorance from the "yes on 4" proponents.
LIE: It is only about Pebble. It does not even mention Pebble! How is it possible that it would not affect the Donlin Creek project on Calista property?
LIE: It is to protect clean water. If the intent were to protect clean water it would include the oil industry, tourism, commercial fishing, fish processing, state and local government, all types and sizes of mines. In fact the commercial fishermen got themselves EXEMPTED from the latest clean water requirements.
LIE: It WILL destroy the fishery. Name a fishery that has been destroyed by a large mine in Alaska.
LIE: The mining industry gives nothing back to Alaska. The industry pays state and local governments almost 190 million dollars. It paid Native Corporations some 170 million. This is without the Donlin Creek, Rock Creek, Ambler, or Pebble mines. The ENTIRE value of Bristol Bay fish is 116 million for the latest period.
Lie: It will cost Alaskan jobs. Truth is, mining provides thousands of well paying jobs with benefits in the state, all at potential risk from passing 4. Fishing and processing provides low paying jobs without benefits for a very short time period. 75% of those jobs go to out of staters.
LIE: It does not affect existing mines. It says nothing about when those mines have to renew their permits. It gives NO PROTECTION when existing permits expire, which they do every 3-5 years.
LIES and counting on the ignorance of a lot of people not to see the TRUTH.
Steven Phipps
THANK YOU, oldakcuss, polarmark, pragmatist, DonB90755 and silverwindrune!
KenWoods and jroosterdude, I hope they never come to take your jobs based on some one wanting to protect their 10000 sq ft second home.
no on 4 for families.
Have any of you actually read ballot measure 4?
It simply (and elegantly) states that new mines, larger than a certain size, CANNOT release any measurable amount of chemical which are reasonable deemed harmful to salmon OR humans into Alaskan waters.
The rhetoric on this issue is CRAZY!
At issue is the fact that the mines know that they cannot economically operate without releasing some known toxins into the environment. The mines know they will have to pollute to operate in an economical manner.
Also at issue is the fact that this measure restricts any MEASURABLE amount of release. Many would argue that small amounts of pollutants can be safely released with no adverse affects (anyone drink thier arsnic laced well water... I do).
Can Pebble mine operate safely and economically... Yes!
Will they?... history tells us "probably not"
Is measure 4 unreasonably restrictive.... probably.
Will the salmon spawning waters be better protected with ballot measure 4?.... definately.
Will the Bristol Bay salmon fishery be destroyed by Pebble?... probably not, but maybe.
What we need is better regulations to ensure that Pebble does not operate in traditional ways (for that type of mine), and is carefully engineered for environmental safety for Alaska's peotential hazards.
Now that I've said this, I am voting YES on 4. The mineral resources will be saved for a later date when the economics will work to allow no pollutants to be reseased.
BillyG
WHY?
WHY only large mines? If it is so important WHY not every industry? WHY make it a level that is IMPOSSIBLE to meet? Your drinking water can not meet this standard. Your car can not meet this standard. Triple distilled water can not meet this standard. Apples and chokecherries can not meet this standard.
It is your right to vote as you please but do not fool yourself. This is not about clean water, it is about stopping one mine by destroying an entire industry. Destroying an entire industry is just what Gillam said he would do if he did not get his way. That is the message he sent his lackey Jay Ramas to deliver to the industry.
Why? Because I don't think we need to rape all of our resources right now. We can save these minerals for a future date, when technology is better, or when we need these resources more.
The point of my first post is that BOTH sides are mis-leading the public with propaganda. The issue is NOT as cut and dry as "Pebble will destroy our fish", nor "Measure 4 will destroy mining in Alaska".
It's just that, in my opinion, ballot measure 4 is the best option right now. (let's save those resorces for a date when we need them more, and will extract them in a more responsible way)
Okay...polarmark, AKcuss...all you folks so willing to believe that the mining industry has only your best interests at heart and would never cut corners to make a profit, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Make a public delcaration that should Pebble pollute any streams, destroy any fisheries you will immediately liquidate all your assets and send the resulting funds to the fishery families detrimentally affected.
Oh? Why should you put all your life savings and such on the line? Why not? You're asking families who have been fishing these drainages to do just that.
Heck, you cowards won't ante up a single penny in this regard. Cheeesh....
In my comment the word "delcaration" is a misstype and should be "declaration". Either way, I'm quite sure the rape-Alaska bunch won't put up a penny of their own in assurance against toxic spills.
No on 4!
I'm truly torn on this measure.
I don't think the wording is clear enough, nor does it target all business that would pollute the waters for the fish. But I also feel we've gotta do something. I began this world in a state that thrives on coal mining, but if you read the fishing regs today, its suggested that you only eat one serving of 8 OUNCES of fish per month, due to the PCB, mercury, arsenic etc etc...gee, you think we're going to be able to prevent that? Don't know 'bout you but I sure do love my salmon bbq!!
Dobieman
Are you willing to put up the same to compensate people who lose THEIR jobs due to the passage of 4?
NO ON 4
NO ON 4
NO ON 4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
There, I beat you
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.