Comments on: VIDEO: Everett Thompson Reacts to Anglo American AGM http://ourbristolbay.com/blog/?p=158 Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:58:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Rhonda Wayner http://ourbristolbay.com/blog/?p=158&cpage=1#comment-51 Rhonda Wayner Sat, 23 May 2009 00:49:26 +0000 http://ak2uk.com/blog/?p=158#comment-51 Good job Everett! We are so thankful that there are people who are willing to speak up for the fisherman/women of Bristol Bay as well as for those of us who rely on subsistence foods for survival throughout the long winter months. This resource is truly irreplaceable. Keep up the good work! Good job Everett! We are so thankful that there are people who are willing to speak up for the fisherman/women of Bristol Bay as well as for those of us who rely on subsistence foods for survival throughout the long winter months. This resource is truly irreplaceable. Keep up the good work!

]]> By: Jeff Parker http://ourbristolbay.com/blog/?p=158&cpage=1#comment-4 Jeff Parker Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:22:03 +0000 http://ak2uk.com/blog/?p=158#comment-4 I completely agree with Everett and others that the Bristol Bay drainages must be protected. The mining claims are on state land. The State of Alaska has two land management agencies: the Alaska Department of Naturual Resources, which manages most state lands, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which manages state fish and game refuges. The statutory mission of the Department of Natural Resources includes developing the state's mineral resources. The statutory mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to conserve the state's fish and wildlife. The Bristol Bay drainges produce more economic production, about $400 million per year, from fish and wildlife than any federal or state refuge in the United States. Therefore, the land should be transferred from management by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to management by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as a fish and game refuge, for purposes of protecting fish, wildllife, habitat, and commercial, subsistence and recreation uses of them. Other uses, such as mining, could be permitted ONLY IF COMPATIBLE with those refuge purposes. We talk a lot about fish, because they are so important, but there is more. Even if the state and federal goverment could protect fish and wildlife from Pebble, the population increase necessary and incidental to building and operating the mime will make it very difficult to protect subsistence, recreational use, and commercial fishing for some species (such as Chinook slamon bound for the Nushagak River). The incrase in population and access incidental to Pebble will create huge disputes over who gets to harvest fish and wildlife. The same is true with respect to recreational use of world class trout in a remote uncrowded wilderness setting that sustain a wilderness based lodge industry. The same is true with respect to hunting for moose and caribou. In my view, the only solution is a state fish and game refuge. All other proposals leave the land management with the Alaksa Department of Natural Resources. That amounts to putting the proverbial "fox in charge of the hen-house." Thanks for your work in London. Jeff I completely agree with Everett and others that the Bristol Bay drainages must be protected.

The mining claims are on state land. The State of Alaska has two land management agencies: the Alaska Department of Naturual Resources, which manages most state lands, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which manages state fish and game refuges. The statutory mission of the Department of Natural Resources includes developing the state’s mineral resources. The statutory mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to conserve the state’s fish and wildlife.

The Bristol Bay drainges produce more economic production, about $400 million per year, from fish and wildlife than any federal or state refuge in the United States. Therefore, the land should be transferred from management by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to management by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as a fish and game refuge, for purposes of protecting fish, wildllife, habitat, and commercial, subsistence and recreation uses of them. Other uses, such as mining, could be permitted ONLY IF COMPATIBLE with those refuge purposes.

We talk a lot about fish, because they are so important, but there is more. Even if the state and federal goverment could protect fish and wildlife from Pebble, the population increase necessary and incidental to building and operating the mime will make it very difficult to protect subsistence, recreational use, and commercial fishing for some species (such as Chinook slamon bound for the Nushagak River). The incrase in population and access incidental to Pebble will create huge disputes over who gets to harvest fish and wildlife. The same is true with respect to recreational use of world class trout in a remote uncrowded wilderness setting that sustain a wilderness based lodge industry. The same is true with respect to hunting for moose and caribou.

In my view, the only solution is a state fish and game refuge. All other proposals leave the land management with the Alaksa Department of Natural Resources. That amounts to putting the proverbial “fox in charge of the hen-house.”

Thanks for your work in London.

Jeff

]]>