Whether we like it or not, mining and fishing are connected over and over again in Alaska. Between the proposed Pebble mine in Bristol Bay and the new mines coming online in British Columbia in watersheds that feed into Southeast Alaska streams and waters, it's hard to address one issue without the other.
While we agree with Alaska Miners Association Executive Director Deantha Crockett when she makes comments headlined, "Mining and fisheries industries have reason to make common cause," such friendly overtures seem rather hollow coming from an organization whose goal is to further the mining industry and which continually argues for making mining in Alaska easier (with less regulatory burden) than it is today. AMA has repeatedly railed against the Environmental Protection Agency's use of legal authority to ensure Bristol Bay fisheries are protected adequately. Just last week the organization hammered the Alaska Department of Natural Resources in an appeal of the state's recent decision to award a single in-stream flow reservation to a group of private citizens — including fishermen — instead of PacRim Coal.
On Monday, AMA hosted a meeting titled "Mining and Fishing 101." The gesture to create a forum for dialogue is appreciated, but the meeting left most of the fishermen in attendance feeling rather used. The whole thing felt like a shallow "greenwash" given the anti-fish rhetoric contained in Crockett's commentary published by Alaska Dispatch News the very same day.
The huge difference between fishing and mining that AMA representatives seem to miss is that when fishermen violate their regulations we hurt ourselves by overfishing or degrading the habitat upon which our target species depend. When large-scale mining projects violate their regulations or seek to weaken the standards under which they must operate, the industry that is harmed is fishing.
It is time to move beyond this rhetoric of victimization and have a real discussion about what it means when mining industry reps say "mining and fishing can coexist," and their claim to be able to develop with "no net-loss" to fisheries — and promise us face-to-face they will never ask Alaskans to trade our valuable salmon for a mining product.
Yes, mining has a place in Alaska. It plays an important role in our economy, and the state should ensure a stable and reasonable permitting process. And we like our metal boats and technological tools just as much as miners and industry executives enjoy eating fresh Alaska seafood.
But given the importance of our wild salmon and other seafood products to Alaskans statewide — from village subsistence fishermen whose culture and families depend on salmon, to commercial fishermen who support their families and community through fishing, to sportfishermen who value the recreation and patronize local lodges and provide an influx of visitor spending — Alaska needs to acknowledge that many planned mining projects ask us to trade one resource for the other. And the answer should be no, not in our lifetime.
Paul Mackie fishes commercially in Cook Inlet. Jon Flora has been involved in Bristol Bay driftnet fishing since the age of 5.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com