adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Ad Dollars, disclosed

The Pebble Blog

The gigantic Pebble copper and gold prospect in Southwest Alaska is one of the touchiest topics in Alaska today.

In this blog, I'll track news that is significant or interesting about the Pebble project. I'll also try to generate discussion and information sharing about some of the claims and counterclaims about the project, and mining in general.

Please keep your comments courteous and on topic. If you violate the ADN comment policy, your posts will be deleted.

------------------------------------------------

About Elizabeth Bluemink ebluemink@adn.com

I've been writing about mining in Alaska since 2004 and without a doubt, it is one of the most interesting topics that I cover at the Daily News. I've been a newspaper reporter for the past 10 years. In the Deep South, I specialized in reporting about environmental conflicts and pollution cleanups. For two years, I covered commercial fishing, mining and logging in Southeast Alaska. In my current job as a Daily News business reporter, I write about mining, tourism, Native corporations and other businesses.

Ad Dollars, disclosed

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: July 23, 2008 - 6:48 pm

Here's a story I wrote that is running in Thursday's paper. I'll possibly end up doing some additional reporting on this same subject very soon.

---------------

Alaskans are being deluged with TV, print and radio ads asking them to vote for or against Ballot Measure 4, which seeks voter approval for more water quality regulations for large mines.
The two factions in the ad war — the state’s mining industry and foes of the controversial Pebble copper and gold project in Southwest Alaska — are also reaching out to Alaska voters by snail mail. In recent weeks, the groups have mailed large brochures asking voters to fill out surveys on mining and absentee ballot applications, so they can vote early.
There’s even a pro-mining movie playing on local cable stations and the Internet.
The huge amount of advertising on the proposed law, set for statewide vote on Aug. 26, is creating one of the state’s costliest political battles in years.
Preliminary disclosures to the Alaska Public Offices Commission show that supporters and foes of Measure 4 have raised at least $3.6 million so far for their ad campaigns.
That’s more than groups raised for all four of the statewide ballot measures in 2006, which included two multi-million dollar fights over natural gas and cruise ship taxation.
It’s also significantly more than the amount all candidates spent in the state’s 2006 gubernatorial campaigns — including the contentious Palin-Binkley-Murkowski Republican primary.
So far, the mining industry is outspending the anti-Pebble forces, state records show.
INDUSTRY SPENDING
The ballot measure’s foes have raised nearly $2.7 million to convince voters to reject it, according to disclosures to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
Most of the donations are coming from the state’s large mining companies, who have the most to lose if the proposed law passes, said Willis Lyford, the executive director of the anti-Measure 4 group, Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown.
His group has received nearly all of its big-dollar contributions from the Council of Alaska Producers, a group of mining companies. Council members include the state’s large metal mines and the Pebble Partnership, the joint venture exploring the Pebble prospect, he said.
So far, Pebble has contributed $800,000 to the council for its primary election activities this year, state records show.
The pro-mining group and the council claim the initiative — which seeks to block new, large metal mines from discharging harmful amounts of certain pollutants — could also prevent existing mines from renewing their permits.
The sponsors of Measure 4 say they are only trying to block future mines that have the potential to hurt salmon or drinking water supplies. They say their proposed law doesn’t target the industry at large — only the massive Pebble project located in the headwaters of two rivers that feed Bristol Bay’s world-class salmon fisheries.
“What (the mining companies) are doing is classic how-you-kill-an-initiative. You want to confuse the public,” said Art Hackney, an Anchorage political consultant and co-sponsor of Measure 4.
SPONSOR SPENDING
The supporters of the initiative have raised just under $1 million so far.
Their group, called Alaskans for Clean Water, has received large donations from a couple of Anchorage residents, such as Bob Gillam, a financial manager and long-time Pebble opponent, and Bernard Klouda, a pharmacist. Both have donated at least $10,000, according to their disclosures to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
The anti-Pebble advocacy group, Renewable Resources Coalition, chipped in $150,000.
But the group’s biggest contributor disclosed so far is the Americans for Job Security, an Alexandria, Va.-based anti-tax trade association that produces political ads all over the country during election campaigns. For example, the group produced ads attacking former Gov. Tony Knowles and gubernatorial candidate Fran Ulmer during previous state election cycles.
The jobs the group says it wants to protect are Bristol Bay fishing jobs.
The national group, which does not discloses its donors, provided $750,000 to the Alaskans for Clean Water in June, according to state records.
Hackney is a board member and said he was pleased that it agreed to join the fight for Measure 4.
DEADLINES
Next Monday, both ballot groups face their first major deadline for disclosing their fundraising and spending.
The $3.6 million they’ve reported so far may end up being a just a portion of their total spending.
That figure only includes donors who complied with state law by filing a disclosure within 30 days of contributing $500 or more.
Some contributors may have missed the deadline, and others who contributed less haven’t been counted, according to APOC officials.

login or register to post comments

9 July 27, 2008 - 1:29am | Sockeyemark

Miners were right all along

The heck with clean water and salmon, I'm joining the Pebble Partnership. I want all the great things that come with Pebble, the list is endless.
All you fishermen and fisherwomen, sell your boats and get in on the free ride. I'm told there is a pot of gold at the end of the Pebble Rainbow. Count me in, salmon and clean water is overrated anyway.
Make sure and vote No and say I want Pebble. Come on Alaska, PFD will be over 2 grand just think what we can have if Pebble gets going.....the world is your oyster. Get on the Pebble band wagon what are you waiting for, 10 thousand miners can't be wrong!!

July 27, 2008 - 10:49am | rfn

This is about SAVING the salmon!

Salmon need clean water.

No need to sell boats; just do the respectable thing and take tourists out of salmon-watching adventures. Many true believers in preserving whales have made an excellent living in the same way. Learn from them and prosper.

There's no need to kill fish in order to earn an honest living.

But we must all join in cleaning up the water. Pull your boats up on shore and into a carefully constructed area where you can hose them down safely and filter the runoff to meet clean water standards. Before taking tourists aboard serve them lots of wine and cheese. Especially the cheese. That way you won't have to keep scurrying back to port so they may safely answer the call of nature. It would be environmental suicide to have tanks of sewage on board! They might leak and do far more damage than The Exxon Valdez on Skipper Joe's worst day.

Clean water is a good thing! So sad that a few recalcitrant individuals refuse to recognize that and curb their murderous (today the fish, tomorrow those who drink the water) ways.

Get on the Clean Water bandwagon and dump (you should pardon the expression) that savage exemption.

8 July 24, 2008 - 4:06pm | ahnamarlene

outside money-needed in alaska TIMES LIKE THIS!!!

washington area,oregon,california,canadians and beyond has been benefitting big time from alaska all along,and its still happening,alaskan economy has pumped more money to them,than any other state,THINK about it..now than they need to pay these-newspaper adds,tv and internet adds,yet theres QUESTION,these people making money lets see how generous how they get off of these big bucks,theres still villages throughout the state still waiting to get water-sewer,new homes,even roads and bridges...times like this money being spend like tis won't have no home,and it won't let them look any gooder RIGHT!!!

7 July 24, 2008 - 2:18pm | asrcp9

It’s the #1 Rule in politics folks, follow the money$$$.

The DC lobbying group Americans for Job Security paid $750,000 to Alaskans Clean Water. This is the same group cited by APOC in 2002 for breaking campaign finance laws. They blasted Tony Knowles out of nowhere – well, out of Alexandria, VA to be precise.

Why are they here now? Same reason. It’s because they and their friends are writing AND cashing the checks. They’re still playing the same tune – no disclosure, same close ties to Gillam/Hackney/Carney.

This is OUTSIDE money spent to determine OUR future. It’s not right.

July 24, 2008 - 11:25pm | PuckFebble

Outside Money

Make all the bold print things you want. The very same can and is applied to the money spent by the other side. Where does the money from the "Alaska Producers" come from. Where does the Pebble money come from? That is the real question here. Why are two foreign mineral companies willing to promise the world to Alaska and Bristol Bay specifically, but when it comes time to make those promises legal, they spend 10 million of thier OUTSIDE Loonies and Sterling to fight that effort?
Certainly WE Alaskans are either not that niave or that short on a buck to put at tremendous risk, the two most economically important river systems in the state.

July 25, 2008 - 10:40am | NoBob

Outside money and laundered money are not the same

You can try all you want to say they are the same, but they are not. Bob Gillam is using the AFJS money laundering outfit to evade the APOC disclosure rules. People go to jail for doing things that are not too different than this--just ask Jim Clark. Perhaps that's were Bob Gillam should be headed.

And the idea that the Producers' Council is anonymous is ludicrous. Their members--the state's mines--are well known and documented in the state's public records and the news media. And the idea that companies that have invested billions in businesses in Alaska should somehow be branded "outsiders" is stupid. (And at the same time fishermen who live in Seattle and come up here for a month or two to fish are locals.) Get real.

July 25, 2008 - 12:05pm | PuckFebble

A noun, A verb, & Bob Gillam...

You see, you can continue to focus on Bob Gillam all you want, I have never met the man, never been in the same room to my knowledge. I dont own stock in Pebble either. My point being, is that a great number of those who are opposed to Pebble, myself included are not anti-mining, or anti development in general. I say open ANWR, but I have a vested interest in maintaining the current health of the Nushagak/Kvichak River systems.
Certainly you cant tell me with a straight face that putting a mining development of the size, scope, and type at that location will not cause considerable harm. Are you willing to provide evidence otherwise?
So, continuing to publicly air your dirty laundry with Mr. Gillam is shallow and counter productive to moving forward with Pebble which I believe to be your secondary purpose here.
As I said before, Ive never met the man, hadnt heard of him until a year ago. But I do know that without him and the well heeled financing he has been able to provide to fight Pebble, well the residents of Bristol Bay would have this exploitation project shoved down our throats and be marginalized even more than already is happening.
I think you are failing to realize that on the west side of BB, that the Nushagak River is the absolute lifeblood. Pebble can kill it, but it cant replace it. The Nushagak River communities are being told to trust a process that is stacked against us, and dont worry about the amount of water being held back by earthen dams at the very headwaters of the river. All at the same time, having zero local tax revenue from it.
Pebble on the Nushagak, all the risks and none of the collective rewards.

July 29, 2008 - 6:45am | jokeener

"Are you willing to provide evidence otherwise?"

Here ya go:

Fort Knox
Red Dog
Greens Creek
Nixon Fork
Usibelli
Kennicot

July 25, 2008 - 2:17pm | NoBob

No noun, no verb, just NO PEBBLE

Talk about shallow arguments. I have discussed legal and technical issues at length on this blog. From the anti-Pebble crowd, all we hear is 'no, it's impossible'. No reason why. They do deny that the state has water quality regulations that apply to mines--but that's just a demonstration of ignorance or dishonesty.

The state has a process in place to determine if mines can be built without harming other resources. Bob Gillam decided he didn't like that process so over the past several years he has spent millions in the Legislature and in advertising to go around the process. In doing this he has put out a huge amount of misinformation that has been lapped up by people who should know better . . . and he has poisoned the well of reasoned discourse. Gillam is the issue.

But the issue of this blog topic is fund raising disclosure. I take it that your position is that Bob Gillam is above the disclosure laws--he shouldn't be called out. Bob Gillam is right and, as The Prince would say, the end justifies the means.

July 25, 2008 - 10:55pm | PuckFebble

Hi NoBob,

Firstly, I never intended to suggest nor do I believe Bob Gillam, or anyone else is above campaign financing laws.
So any assumption that I believe that in any way, is totally false. It is your accusations here, not mine. I honestly wouldnt know the first thing about trying to launder money.

The problem with the process, is that going along further, ensures Pebble will happen. There is not a way to say "NO" without direct intervention. The process is based on promises and assurances that dont seem to have much enforcement of them. As past incidents have indicated.

Lastly, I will just say, that Pebble is proud to say and spend a considerable amount of money to preach how they "Will go beyond compliance" but when it comes to putting teeth into "complaince" they are willing to spend even more $$$ on fighting it. Am I not the only one who sees something disengenious and untrustworthy in that?

July 26, 2008 - 12:23pm | NoBob

There is an existing process to stop Pebble

It is just that Bob Gillam and other Pebble opponents don't want to use it. They think it's a loser for them and they're right. Here is the process. The government, by an act of the Legislature, may extinguish property rights for a public purpose. They can simply say no to Pebble. When they do, they will incur a liability for the value of that property. This happens all the time. It's called eminent domain.

The issue here is paying the bill. Some people think the bill will be too high and the legislature won't want to incur it. Probably so. But is the answer to just not pay? If the state wants to make a park out of the property you bought for your dream home, is it okay for them to just say you can't build? Do they owe you anything? I would say yes. What would your answer be?

I think there is a significant chance that all the petty harassment and cost-raising tactics of Pebble opponents will kill the project. But the damage will be far more widespread. When we as a society allow nit-picking and subterfuge to dictate outcomes, we are all poorer.

So come on Pebble opponents. Be up front and use the existing process to stop Pebble. If it is as bad as you say, the process will work for you. If what you say isn't right, it won't.

July 29, 2008 - 6:46am | jokeener

That would be the honourable way

Something that the Green Fedayeen know nothing about.

July 26, 2008 - 12:31pm | rfn

Isn't this sort of

like Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy blocking building of windmills to provide power to the people. Because they might be unsightly, harming the "viewshed" from his Hyannisport mansion?

No eminent domain there. No payments to anyone. Just a looming electricity shortage because the same mindset won't allow construction of new conventional or nuclear power plants. And, oh yeah, is waging total war to shut down old ones.

Won't they be surprised if they have to ration the hours of available power as in Baghdad!

July 25, 2008 - 10:12pm | pmjusa

Yes, State's Process is Proper and Needed

Gillam probably has nothing against the process, he just doesn't want the mine in his backyard, 25 miles from his property. Getting around the disclosure issue by using a corporate structure that allows individuals to do that helps him hide the investment that he has in this financially, and as a personal issue. Getting morally supreme environmentalists to join in his effort "against the process" is just how he's getting his sportfishing grounds to himself and friends. Morally supreme environmentalists don't need to have reasons, that would be beneath them. That's my take on this. The area that the mine would use is actually very lightly used for either fishing or other subsistence activities.

As far as the tax issue goes, Dillingham and Aleknagik both have 7% sales and service tax rates, not to mention personal property taxes for everyone. Then there are the hidden taxes like those included in the high cost fuel. Residents that are mine employees would all be paying those taxes.

July 26, 2008 - 12:09am | PuckFebble

A few things,

Firstly, Hi there PMJ, I hope all is well with you. I have been busy lately, but hey, we have about a month to go until the election. Imagine if we could write off our collective internet connection bills as campaign donations!

Either way, I think what your failing to make an argument for is the people who dont even know Bob Gillam, or are environazis, etc etc. There are plenty of people who are not anti development, but against Pebble itself. That sort of development at that critical of habitat is simply negligent considering the location, the scale and methods of mining, and the companies involved.

July 26, 2008 - 9:51am | pmjusa

There you go again..

"That sort of development" you mention is anyone's guess, since a mine plan has not been submitted to State regulators yet. So your accusation of negligence is pure insinuation at this point, since Ballot measure 4 that you support removes any chance that a viable mine plan can be submitted to the State. Bad move. Only dirty money could support Measure 4.

I also know good people that work for the companies involved and your painting them all with a black brush is misleading at best.

Your screen-name continues to validate your comments and salutations succinctly.

July 25, 2008 - 4:18am | getridofthefish

Easy Answer to that question

The answer to that one is easy - they are spending millions now to fight the initiative so they can take even more money out of the state later. If they have to try and operate at the highest possible level in regards to protecting the water, it will cut into their bottom line.

That's the way I see it - pretty simple I know.

My advice to everyone is don't believe ads from either side and read the initiative for yourself. Then make up your mind whether it will harm existing mines.

I don't think it will myself.

And hey all you folks with jobs in the mining industry - Don't let this goliath of a project called Pebble bring your whole industry to its knees. Alaskans aren't anti-mining. But that project scares everyone except for people getting paychecks from it.

6 July 24, 2008 - 1:20pm | ahnamarlene

are we goners/

i'm also a nana shareholder,and probably only one who is convinced by my own self observing how i grew up side by side within old gold mines.born in candle raised in deering,both historical gold mines,dosen't make any BIG mine look any gooder,deering-candle natives have no bragging rights about the history,only ones are the outsiders,in the END nana and others or wasting their time and money on these advertisements,because down the road legally this issue will not go away it'll get stronger,money isn't everything,but what keep our hearts ticking off the land worldwide is, i hope theres even one more nana shareholder that will VOTE yes with me on august 26th,nana cancelled their board meeting set for today and tommorow..due to weather,WE got the most beautiful weather today in the entire state,they must be angry with me,and thats not right

5 July 24, 2008 - 11:21am | whataboutmyjob

Ok Twelk

If you read the story above it says that they do this sort of thing all around the country and are a well known anti-tax group.

What is amazing is to what extent the mining companies will go to to buy this election.

July 24, 2008 - 11:39am | NoBob

The mining companies are being honest. Gillam isn't.

And that includes you. You didn't Google your group did you? The companies have a big interest at stake here. It would be unreasonable for them to sit on the sidelines. Come on whataboutmyjob, why don't you want your side's funding sources to be disclosed?

And what is your job anyway? Do you work for Gillam too?

July 24, 2008 - 12:51pm | whataboutmyjob

I work in processing and if

I work in processing and if the fisherman dont have any fish to catch I am out of a job. Aren't you a sketchy lawyer NoBob?

I knew nothing about this group other than whats mentioned above. But since you asked I did google them and found their website and its all about fighting for legislation which creates jobs.

July 24, 2008 - 1:06pm | NoBob

Sorry . . .

I imagined you were some sort of toady baiting hooks and lighting cigars at Bob Gillam's lodge.

July 25, 2008 - 2:52pm | rfn

The lodge that,

if Mr. Gillam had any respect for fish and nature, he would tear down immediately and restore the pristine beauty of the land.

4 July 24, 2008 - 9:36am | NoBob

Bob Gillam's laundered money is here big time.

Americans for Job Security? Of Virginia? The main "supporter" of Prop 4? Try Googling that all you "highly principled" Pebble opponents. You will find that AJS is merely a means to hide big money donors' identity from public disclosure laws. They register as 501(c)(6) non-profits rather than 527 organizations so they don't have to say who gave to them. The legality of this is highly questionable, to say the least, and is being challenged in a number of places.

Bottom line: AJS is just a money laundering outfit. The "clean water" people are fighting industry with Bob Gillam's laundered money but want to hide that fact. I wonder why.

Hey, Sockeyemark, minewatcher, Puckfebble, doesn't the stink bother you?

July 24, 2008 - 12:25pm | PuckFebble

The whole show stinks...

From both sides. Regardless of how the vote turns out, I will be glad when the election this time around is over. Just about a month to go. I have said before and again the first casualty at Pebble is the human relations. This certainly has become true.
So you can point to a single line item about being from Virginia, I am not thrilled about it personally, but the same could be said from the Pebble money which comes out of London and Vancouver. I wonder how many Anglo American plc miners had to die to continue the resource rape that Anglo and Rio have on thier hands throughout the world.

July 24, 2008 - 12:55pm | NoBob

For the record . . .

I don't think for a minute that this money comes from Virginia--the article says that Americans for Job Security is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. This is Bob Gillam's money, without a doubt in my mind. I expect that much of the RRC money is his too. It would just look a little too slimy to have a whole initiative from start to finish paid for (more or less) by one rich man.

And, by the way, I appreciate your thoughts on human relations. This is very true.

3 July 24, 2008 - 6:20am | whataboutmyjob

Buy an Election

It seems like the miners are trying to buy this election. They have spent $3.6 million and that doesn't even disclose the amount they have funneled through Pebble Partnership or NANA. Hopefully the ADN starts reporting on this better- the story on the Chamber was garbage.

2 July 23, 2008 - 11:13pm | PuckFebble

A few questions...

Ill ask of anyone who might know the answers

Is the NANA spending going to be a part of the numbers released Monday? Id be awfully curious to see those numbers. NANA advertising has probably kept Alaska Newspapers Inc. afloat for the last few months.
What are the implications for missing the filing deadline?

July 24, 2008 - 9:13am | ebluemink

I spent

about 45 minutes last night looking for any kind of report filed so far w/ APOC by NANA. I found nothing.

A communications coordinator from NANA called me (after hours) to tell me that the company had been filing disclosures with APOC. So, I was planning to check in with APOC today about it.

July 24, 2008 - 11:49am | ebluemink

I got reports....

Form 15-6 filings were made by NANA this Tuesday, June 26, June 9. As of Tuesday, NANA reports spending $94,822.75.

July 24, 2008 - 4:17pm | ebluemink

and I did find

those filings on the APOC web site, today...under independent expenditures.

July 24, 2008 - 12:18pm | PuckFebble

Missing Zero?

Firstly, thanks a bunch Miss Bluemink. I appreciate the update, and the reporting the last few days has been very good.
I just wonder if there isnt a zero missing in the roughly $95000 number. Certainly all the print and TV media that has been paid for by NANA costs well over 95,000.

July 24, 2008 - 12:44pm | ebluemink

the NANA filings are the

the NANA filings are the most detailed I've seen. They list invoices for ad orders, payroll costs, payees, etc.
fyi, I just noticed that the June filing was late. "There was initial confusion as to whether the activities reported herein required reporting..." due to the focus on Red Dog, according to the NANA memo.
Ok, I already hear the next question ...

July 24, 2008 - 12:47pm | ebluemink

to clarify ....

they are the most detailed I've seen because, in this case, I'm looking at copies of the actual forms, rather than just querying the APOC web site.

July 24, 2008 - 11:16pm | PuckFebble

Last Question:

Well probably...
Is there a distinction spending for these purposes in mentioning Prop 4 specifically? For instance, would the NANA ones that only say; Hey look how great Red Dog is? be exempt versus the ones that say; Hey look how great Red Dog is, vote no on 4!?

Also, before anyone wants to respond with a nitpicky thing about Bob Gillam, blah blah blah. The same thing could be applied, I am aware and honestly I dont care. My point in asking is trying to make sense of how this whole thing has turned into the dog and pony show it has, and what politics in Alaska has turned to...but still it remains the same.
NANA was the source of my original questions which is why I used them as the example. The way the media is purchased and used is the real issue here.

July 24, 2008 - 12:04pm | asrcp9

too bad we can't see how

too bad we can't see how much RRC spent over the past three years from all of their newspaper, tv, and radio ads. That would be interesting to see how much they spent.

1 July 23, 2008 - 9:44pm | Sockeyemark

What is the industry trying to hide!!!!!

If they were such a clean run industry it wouldn't
matter. But the fact is they are not and we need
the clean water act to guard against an industry
that has a track record of leaving a mess and making
a mess.
Nothing wrong with some rules for these folks to follow,
August 26th, Vote yes on 4

July 24, 2008 - 10:15am | njalo99

wrong

we already have enough rules and regs there Mark. This will only add more unneeded legislation and time consuming lawsuits.

July 25, 2008 - 2:54pm | rfn

The only rule we need

in order to save fish is one outlawing fishing. Commercial and sport. Entirely. There were plenty of fish when it was subsistence ONLY. It needs to become subsistence ONLY once more.

Quickly, too! The runs are shrinking every year.

July 24, 2008 - 1:03am | knittininak

Make up your mind Mark...

You and the CW Initiative sponsors are for mining, you're against mining, you're for other mining but not Pebble, you just want clean water, you want to protect fish etc, etc... Make up your mind about this poorly written initiative.

You (a sponsor) blast the mining industry leaving a track record of a mess yet your hands are soiled by Big Oil (for whom you work for), which is the biggest polluter & violators in this State. If you are so concerned about the quality of water & fish stock this initiative proposes: Why didn't you target the oil industry? If this initiative isn't about shutting the mining industry but rather cleaning them up: Apply this initiative to all industries. To use your argument, we all want clean water and fish swimming in our streams don't we? We all do, but the real reason is: If this was applied to other industries you'd be unemployed. This initiative was written solely to close down large scale mining in Alaska.

Next you've blasted foreign outside mining companies and and their non-Alaskan employment, yet again you work for British Petroleum a foreign Company. And it's well know fact that BP employees over 30% non-residents. The fact of the matter is mining hires and has always hired more Alaskan's than the fishing and lodging industry. Folks, look it up for yourself at the State's website:http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/reshire/nonres.pdf

Furthermore, you blast Ken Taylor for being a buy-out when he accepted his position with The Partnership, when yourself are sponsored by Gilliam for your Irondog event. Are you not a buy-out?

As disturbing as all the above mentioned is, I have one bit of advice to give you: remember to point your finger at yourself before pointing your finger at others.

July 24, 2008 - 11:01am | itsapayo

The Real Issue

You are just like the rest of the Pebble supporters throwing in distractions to keep the real issue on the backburner. The list of water pollutants can go on and on and the oil industry will have it’s turn, but the issue presently at hand is the Pebble Mine and the devastation it would cause to our salmon fishery and our lifestyles here in the bush. Supporting the Clean Water Initiative sets a standard for other states to follow. The industrial revolution is over and mass production and consumption needs to be limited. We can’t afford to say yes to every mining proposal that surfaces as our mistakes and consumption habits are catching up quickly! You must keep up on the world’s status on clean drinking water. Why would you support this mine when you know that the world’s supply of clean water is definitely not at a surplus? Not to mention the fragile habitat we would be setting up for another human dumpsite. We need to protect our renewable resources and support ballot measure 4.

July 25, 2008 - 1:33am | knittininak

The Real Issue

is I question the sponsors and their credibility. A similar analogy would be: Joe Hazelwood lecturing us about the dangers of mining and how dirty their profession is, while having no expertise or knowledge about the mining industry. To boot, Joe then writes a poorly written & vague initiative which clearly targets closing large scale mining in Alaska, because he and his Exxon Exec buddies like to fish Talarik Creek. Finally Joe's states 'we're for clean water and protecting salmon' and continues lining his pockets with oil dollars and polluting away, while insulting other industries for not being 'green'.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the Exxon execs, they have a couple mill in mining stock options in their back pocket. Hey...you can't say no to a good investment (so much for principals =-/

As for Pebble, they will contribute to the quality of life in the bush, much more so than fishing or the lodging industry has ever had. Year round local employment, self dependency, high quality schools, education, training, build strong (sustained) communities, health care, retirement...etc, etc...

July 24, 2008 - 9:25am | Sockeyemark

Mind is made up

The clean water Initiative will go to the voters on August 26th, I hope that the folks in Alaska see this as
a start to protecting the Bristol Bay Water Shed that houses the Worlds Largest Salmon Run.
The good folks in Alaska have seen this summers ruin of the salmon runs on the west coast. This is something we all do not want to happen here in Alaska.
The sky is not falling, mining will continue with this initiative. It will just be done cleaner....
No need to spin a web of personal interests into the initiative. Just vote Yes on Prop 4#

July 24, 2008 - 10:47am | njalo99

honestly

tell you what Mark, you apply this Initiative to your area of expertise, whether your fishing now or in the oil field and tell me truthfully whether or not you would support this???

July 24, 2008 - 6:25pm | Sockeyemark

Honestly, I want Bristol Bay watershed left alone.

And clean water from all who discharge into the environment.
The people of Alaska, myself,Bob Gillam,Art Hackney who ever else you want to point out want the Bristol Bay sockeye run left alone. And if business wants to operate there it must be clean.
The oil industry does a fine job but all could use a little clean up.
The mining industry is fighting this mainly because their business is very messy at best. They pay virtualy nothing to the state for what they leave behind, and it will add cost to their business. But it won't shut it down.
This all boils down to clean water for our fish or loosely written water laws for the mining industry to keep operating under.
August 26th folks, be there and vote YES on prop 4#.

July 25, 2008 - 2:56pm | rfn

"Left Alone" indeed!

Then there are but two things to do:

1. Eliminate all commercial and sport fishing and return to subsistence fishing ONLY.

2. Tear down that lodge.

July 24, 2008 - 9:52pm | njalo99

sooooo

that was a yes?? K I'll start gathering signature's to have this initiative, if passed, go across the board for everyone

July 25, 2008 - 10:21am | NoBob

That'd kill it for sure

But look at this http://www.sitnews.us/0708news/072208/072208_fishingvessels.html What a hoot. The fishing industry is going to Congress to ask for special laws to allow them to pollute MORE. I guess the mining industry has to pollute less so the fishermen can pollute more? Go figure.

July 26, 2008 - 12:52am | CingRed

Do fisherman not care about clean water?!

Miners need to stand up for clean water and our fish! Stop commercial fisherman from polluting our waterways and killing our fish. I say we put a new ballot to the voters next election. We can call it something flashy that no one can possibly disagree with. Something like: "No Dumping In Our Oceans". Begin by writing an initiative which bypasses all governing processes and ignores input from fisherman and the Alaskan citizens. Next we create standards no fisherman can meet, which include:

1) " Any fishing activity that directly or indirectly discharges into water a toxic pollutant or pollutants in a measurable amount that will adversely affect human health or the life cycle of salmon into surface, non-surface or tributary thereto or that:
2) Any boat which stores or disposes human waste or oily discharge including gas, diesel, propane, petroleum products, urine, body acid, toxic pollutants, or other compounds thereof that will effect, directly or indirectly, surface or subsurface water or tributary thereto used for human consumption or salmon spawning, rearing, migration, or propagation."

To sell our initiative we will mobilize our PR team by stating we are not against fishing we just want them to clean up their act by not dumping their filthy bilge water, human waste, and plastic netting into our oceans.

We can show their poor safety records, alcoholism abuse rates, illegal drug use, criminal records, drop-out rates, high unemployment, suicide, so on and so forth...

Also, we can show how their industry is dominated by outside interests and how these huge conglomerates just take the money and run, just leaving Alaskans with their environmental disasters.

By not all hope is lost, fisherman can clean up their act, they just need to spend a little more dollars in order to do so.

July 26, 2008 - 6:53pm | pmjusa

Good Idea!

Keep in mind that we don't want to shut down fishing everywhere in Alaska, just in Bristol Bay. Bristol Bay is in the headwaters of the world's greatest oceans and it would be negligent and criminal to fish there. Wrong fishery, wrong bay. One accident could wipe out ocean life worldwide. Is taking that chance worth the potential disaster?

But yes, if the fishermen are willing to spend the money to comply with the "clean water" initiative and do what they say they are already desiring, then fine. Until then, fishing will probably have to wait another 20 years until they can clean up thier act.

Reality check - Measure 4 is deceptive and deserves a resounding No on Aug. 26th.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Ad Dollars, disclosed