Army Corps says no to massive gold mine proposed near Bristol Bay in Alaska

[AK Troutbum]

Oh wait, what's that I hear, crickets? Just what I expected.

 

[Bull_n_heat]

No no no. The last thing we need is more federal land in Alaska. Some moron from Ohio already gets more say what goes on here than a resident due to the extremely large portion of the state being owned by the Feds.
How about we kick the BLM out. All that land can become state public trust. Convert all National parks/monuments to state and completely eliminate the Department of the Interior from our state.
Next we kick the NOAA fisheries idiots out and have local control of all the halibut/cod so there's any left in 15 years.

As a "moron" from the southern landmass, I'll have to push back a little here. When Alaska is able to fully support itself without massive subsidies from the rest of the country, it can make decisions about which voices to have to listen to.

And I know a thing or two about states being heavily reliant upon federal subsidies and having to listen to the rest of country. I live in Wyoming after all.

 

[z987k]

As a "moron" from the southern landmass, I'll have to push back a little here. When Alaska is able to fully support itself without massive subsidies from the rest of the country, it can make decisions about which voices to have to listen too.

And I know a thing or two about states being heavily reliant upon federal subsidies and having to listen to the rest of country. I live in Wyoming after all.

I meant the politicians. And I used Ohio specifically because they got all butthurt when they changed Denali's name back to Denali.

But pretty much everything the feds touch up here they destroy. So from an environmental, fish and wildlife perspective they need to gtfo.

 

[Marbles]

As a "moron" from the southern landmass, I'll have to push back a little here. When Alaska is able to fully support itself without massive subsidies from the rest of the country, it can make decisions about which voices to have to listen too.

And I know a thing or two about states being heavily reliant upon federal subsidies and having to listen to the rest of country. I live in Wyoming after all.

When Alaska voted to become a state--rather than remaining a territory or to become its own country--it agreed to federal involvement in exchange for the benefits of being a state. That federal involvement can be frustrating, but it also brings protections and resources that the state alone could not.

The instate versus out of state argument is a mine field with elements that are valid and elements that a pure laziness. It really depends and how it is made and what the point of making it is. If the only point is tribalism and to shut down an otherwise valid argument, I have no use for it. If used to point out ignorance of facts on the ground it can carry validity. Many times the latter is used to lend validity to the former and the concepts are blurred.

 

[Nick Muche]

Make it a national park! Fixed!

Lord, I hope that doesn't happen... a Preserve, maybe... not a park. We don't need any more land tied up here in Alaska!

 

[z987k]

When Alaska voted to become a state--rather than remaining a territory or to become its own country--it agreed to federal involvement in exchange for the benefits of being a state. That federal involvement can be frustrating, but it also brings protections and resources that the state alone could not.

The instate versus out of state argument is a mine field with elements that are valid and elements that a pure laziness. It really depends and how it is made and what the point of making it is. If the only point is tribalism and to shut down an otherwise valid argument, I have no use for it. If used to point out ignorance of facts on the ground it can carry validity. Many times the latter is used to lend validity to the former and the concepts are blurred.

Becoming it's own country was never an option. Becoming a state actually significantly reduces the say the Federal government has. While you're a territory, they can do anything they want. A good lesson in that is how the Utah territory was carved up before their statehood.

Everywhere there's federal fishing regulations instead of state, it's over fished and the resource well on it's way to not existing.
Then the "environmentalists" from the feds come in an tell our state board that they're banning X huning in certain places because hunting is bad. And then there's massive population crashes shortly afterwards due to mismanagement.
From what I've seen they have no idea what they're doing and just blow with the political wind rather than what's best for the land.

 

[OXN939]

Oh wait, what's that I hear, crickets? Just what I expected.

I'm still waiting to see @dla's email to Northern Dynasty asking them to relocate the project to the Salmon River right by the Frank. Again, they're in the market for a new spot now, and it will create just an absolute *ton* of really awesome jobs.

Everywhere there's federal fishing regulations instead of state, it's over fished and the resource well on it's way to not existing.
Then the "environmentalists" from the feds come in an tell our state board that they're banning X huning in certain places because hunting is bad. And then there's massive population crashes shortly afterwards due to mismanagement.

I've heard the same from my buddies who live up there. Any specific examples of this you know of? Would be very interested to learn more about this.

 

[Marbles]

Becoming it's own country was never an option. Becoming a state actually significantly reduces the say the Federal government has. While you're a territory, they can do anything they want. A good lesson in that is how the Utah territory was carved up before their statehood.

Everywhere there's federal fishing regulations instead of state, it's over fished and the resource well on it's way to not existing.
Then the "environmentalists" from the feds come in an tell our state board that they're banning X huning in certain places because hunting is bad. And then there's massive population crashes shortly afterwards due to mismanagement.
From what I've seen they have no idea what they're doing and just blow with the political wind rather than what's best for the land.

Well, I would have sworn that in American history I learned that territories have a right to self determination. However, regardless of where I got that idea, it is wrong. So, I stand corrected.

However, that correction does not really alter my conclusions as I feel they can be supported with other arguments.

State management of fish populations has resulted in over fishing and population declines as well (king salmon). From casual observation I would say the halibut (federally managed) are doing better than the chinook. I would be interested in actual numbers and historic trends if someone wants to put that information together. Without that data, you are just expressing a casual opinion like me. I don't see federal management as perfect, but I also don't believe the state would inherently do a better job. Rather, I think people have a tendency to demonize whoever makes a rule they don't like rather than addressing the rule itself.

 

[Billinsd]

But, you were right about one thing, I had never googled them as I normally turn to the Oxford English Dictionary I keep around. Webster's would be more American, but too many of the words I look up are not in the unabridged edition. But, that is to distract from the point that you were right about something. My hat is off to you, sir; for being such an astute observer of humanity. Please excuse the cap hair.

You are quite verbose and articulate. I'd guess you are a lawyer or English Teacher, if not you'd be great at either.

 

[Clarktar]

Tempting to pipe up here, but I guess I will workout instead and wave a magical wand at the fisheries I manage.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

I gotta say, I find it interesting that you dla seem to have such a strong positive opinion about the Pebble mine, and yet criticize the "enviro-zealots out of state who lack skin in the game". I'm curious, where are you from, and how much skin in the game do you have? For that matter, have you or Billinsd ever even been to the area of the proposed mine site? I'm guessing not, but you've probably seen a picture of it, right? Are either one of you at all educated on the great track records that open pit mines have had all over the world, since open pit mining came into existence? Have either one of you educated yourselves about the major aspects of this mine and the environmental impacts it will have? Do you have any knowledge of the size of this mine, or how it is proposed to be built with the earthen damn, or any knowledge about seismic activity in the area of the proposed site? Oh, and when I say seismic activity, I'm talking about earthquakes. Have either one of you ever experienced a sizable earthquake, or witnessed first hand the damage a large earthquake can cause? Anyway, just curious as to how much experience, and or "skin in the game", you both have with these matters.

I'll say no to most everything, except yes I've witnessed what earthquakes can cause and experienced big tremors. My education is from my BS in Geology (specializing in hydro geology, geophysics), and MS in civil engineering. I live and practice engineering in California and know a lot about earthquakes. I don't know about the mine, it sounds like a bad idea, lots at stake. I haven't heard the other side, though. Seems like you think earthen dams are bad if there is possible seismic activity? Historically, yes. Earthen dams aren't like they used to be, just like with all new structures. I don't know any of the specifics of the mine. I just don't like most of the arguments against, they seem unfair and very biased. I don't like enviro wakkos and don't particularly like minning companies either. A cost benefit analysis I'd imagine has been done. How much benefit is there for the mine, versus the risk of destroying or hurting the Salmon. I'm pro mining and oil and gas. My skin is I need fuel and resources for me and my family to live, not for love of these companies. I'm old school, conservation. Conserve is my middle name. Cheers Bill

 

[Billinsd]

I meant the politicians. And I used Ohio specifically because they got all butthurt when they changed Denali's name back to Denali.

But pretty much everything the feds touch up here they destroy. So from an environmental, fish and wildlife perspective they need to gtfo.

Very interesting conversation. I agree that the feds tend to destroy everything they touch. How do you feel about the feds transferring fed lands to the states? Alaskans didn't change Mt. McKinley to Mt Denali, Obama made it happen via executive order. McKinley was a great man and great president. I was disgusted as far as we are forgetting our history and our heroes, who we are. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

Rather, I think people have a tendency to demonize whoever makes a rule they don't like rather than addressing the rule itself.

It's natural for folks to be angry with people that make rules they don't like. I don't know what the second part means? "Addressing the rule itself" What's that mean? To speak or write to the rule they don't like? Most people feel that would be wasting their time, which it can be.

 

[dla]

I gotta say, I find it interesting that you dla seem to have such a strong positive opinion about the Pebble mine, and yet criticize the "enviro-zealots out of state who lack skin in the game".

So this where the mental-midgets attack the messenger, instead of opening their tiny minds to differing ideas.
Sorry kiddy, I don't want to play. Have a nice day!

 

[AK Troutbum]

So this where the mental-midgets attack the messenger, instead of opening their tiny minds to differing ideas.
Sorry kiddy, I don't want to play. Have a nice day!

Oh, ok “messenger”, I really didn’t figure you’d want to play. You have a nice day as well, and hope you have a Merry Christmas too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[greywacke]

 

[Marbles]

It's natural for folks to be angry with people that make rules they don't like. I don't know what the second part means? "Addressing the rule itself" What's that mean? To speak or write to the rule they don't like? Most people feel that would be wasting their time, which it can be.

Yes. Addressing the rule itself would be trying to change it, or explaining why the rule does not work and needs to be changed. You are correct, sometimes it is a waste of time. Sometimes the entity that makes a rule is the problem too. However, most of the time I think it is just easier to follow what comes naturally.

You are quite verbose and articulate. I'd guess you are a lawyer or English Teacher, if not you'd be great at either.

Brevity is not one of my strong points. Though sometimes I feel that our society lacks an attention span longer than the 280 characters in a tweet.

 

[z987k]

Very interesting conversation. I agree that the feds tend to destroy everything they touch. How do you feel about the feds transferring fed lands to the states? Alaskans didn't change Mt. McKinley to Mt Denali, Obama made it happen via executive order. McKinley was a great man and great president. I was disgusted as far as we are forgetting our history and our heroes, who we are. Bill

I much prefer local control over most everything, I'd love to see our federal lands transfered to our state. Mostly because I don't like how the feds manage our land.. or water. It's also a lot easier to get involved and change things the more local they are.

I was so happy to see the Charlie River case won in the scotus. 9-0 twice.

On the name, you forgot that it was Denali before it was McKinley. The name change was honoring our past. The local past. One that other people have tried to erase.
Also I haven't heard it called McKinley except by a tourist maybe ever.

 

[Montana Slim]

"Progress of man"

 

[Troutnut]

Alaskans didn't change Mt. McKinley to Mt Denali, Obama made it happen via executive order. McKinley was a great man and great president.

Alaska didn't have the power to change the federally recognized name of the mountain, but the state requested that it be changed in 1975 and many times since. They've been blocked by congresspeople from Ohio, who wanted Alaska's iconic mountain to continue to be named after a man from their state who never even set foot in Alaska. It doesn't matter what kind of man or President he was; he had nothing to do with Alaska, and a 124-year-old act of political pandering is not a good basis for the name of something that grand.

Anyone who has lived in Alaska, like I did for ten years, will tell you it was already "Denali" to Alaskans, who would generally look at you funny if you ever called it Mt. McKinley. That name was mainly used by the cruise ship tourists who showed up in the airport dressed for a Florida golf course, overpaid for overcooked salmon at a cheesy tourist park, and then hopped on the train to Denali National Park, where they might--if they're adventurous--take their fanny packs for a short walk around the entrance using trekking poles on flat asphalt trails.

Obama's federal recognition of the mountain's real name was the right thing to do, and it should have been done 40 years earlier.

At this point Im still skeptical that this is the final death blow....but it is still good news for folks who value intact watersheds and the largest salmon fishery in the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/pebble-mine-alaska/2020/11/25/bc46575c-2f41-11eb-860d-f7999599cbc2_story.html

I'm thrilled to see the mine stopped, at least for now. Hopefully more can be done to put it permanently off-limits. I know we ultimately need to get metal out of the ground to build things, but there are gold and copper deposits all over the world, and this might be the single worst place to go after one of them.

It's difficult to overstate just what a uniquely bad idea it was to build this kind of mine in this location. Bristol Bay's sockeye fishery is a one-of-a-kind natural treasure, the most valuable of its kind, and the mainstay of the local economy. And the life history of sockeye, with many fish spending their juvenile stage in lakes rather than scattered through small tributaries, makes them especially vulnerable to anything that might pollute those lakes. This mine straddled the top of not one but two such critical drainages, with plans to separate a massive reservoir of deadly poison from this salmon fishery using the world's largest dirt tailings dam in one of the most seismically active regions on Earth.

The mule deer equivalent to this mine would be fencing off the Kaibab plateau and turning it into a big cat sanctuary, while also putting a few thousand whitetails with chronic wasting disease in a crappy wooden corral in one corner just to see what happens. The mine was always a comically stupid idea, made even worse by the fact that it put Alaska's treasures in jeopardy for the sake of a foreign-owned corporation's profits.