Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pebble Mine
Collapse
X
-
Thanks for Update, GU
If anyone here thinks I have a "negative attitude" about poachers, ask me what I think of mines like this one ............
Conservation, like democracy, requires constant a constant vigil and preparedness for action. These mining companies will continue the assault by any means at their disposal. The State of Alaska does not want this mine, the native peoples and other residents of the Bristol Bay area do not want it. So who wants it? A corporation not even based in Alaska and all they care about is extracting mineral wealth and then closing down in bankruptcy leaving us with the clean up. Same pattern has been repeated hundreds of times over and over again and still some people will not listen.
Again, thanks for this ray of sunshine and we will all keep our eyes open! --johnkies--
Comment
-
Great news.
I wonder if those (not talking about anyone here) who were constantly bashing Scott Pruitt and the current Admin about this will now back off a bit, say something positive, or even just not compare him to Satan. The level of hyperbole in some of the articles is crazy. Hatch Magazine comes to mind, and I have engaged a couple of their contributors in discussion on FB after an article is posted, and they are way out there in their thinking.
FMThe tug is the drug!
"Grow a pear!" - Groundpounder
Comment
-
Originally posted by fishmonger View PostGreat news.
I wonder if those (not talking about anyone here) who were constantly bashing Scott Pruitt and the current Admin about this will now back off a bit, say something positive, or even just not compare him to Satan. The level of hyperbole in some of the articles is crazy. Hatch Magazine comes to mind, and I have engaged a couple of their contributors in discussion on FB after an article is posted, and they are way out there in their thinking.
FM
Comment
-
My understanding was that the EPA prior to Pruitt would not allow the company to go through the proper permitting process. All Pruitt had done was allow the company to submit its proposal for review, which was later rejected after the review. I don't think the mine makes sense economically and environmentally based off what I've read about it, but from the start it should have been allowed to go through the proper steps before being rejected."The quintessence of learning is doing"-Mel Krieger
Comment
-
Pruitt
I will say nothing positive about Pruitt, nor will I say anything negative ... at this time. But with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do. The EPA is a key component at the federal level in keeping our waters clean enough for trout to live in. Remember Pruitt came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to environmental rules and regulations as obstructions to business.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EN 787 View PostMy understanding was that the EPA prior to Pruitt would not allow the company to go through the proper permitting process. All Pruitt had done was allow the company to submit its proposal for review, which was later rejected after the review. I don't think the mine makes sense economically and environmentally based off what I've read about it, but from the start it should have been allowed to go through the proper steps before being rejected.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JOHNKIES View PostBut with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do.
I will add that the EPA over the past few years has relied on sue and settle as a way of regulation. One story that was not covered by many fishing/outdoor blogs was this story about a guy who owned a small ranch and stocked a man-made watering hole with trout. He got state and local approval but was later fine nearly $40,000 per day by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. He sued and the EPA settled by telling him he had to plant willow trees and limit livestock access to one part of the pond...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/u...ilys-pond.html"The quintessence of learning is doing"-Mel Krieger
Comment
-
Originally posted by JOHNKIES View PostI will say nothing positive about Pruitt, nor will I say anything negative ... at this time. But with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do. The EPA is a key component at the federal level in keeping our waters clean enough for trout to live in. Remember Pruitt came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to environmental rules and regulations as obstructions to business.
FMThe tug is the drug!
"Grow a pear!" - Groundpounder
Comment
-
Originally posted by fishmonger View PostI would say he came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to UNREASONABLE rules and regulations as obstructions to business.
FM
As Johnkies said judging him now is not the path. We need to see some time pass to get data but we also have data from previous governmental changes and with the nature of either being blue or red to build off of as well.#JBNavy
"Everyday is a new life to a wise man."
-Chinese Proverb
“At sunrise everything is luminous but not clear.”
-Norman Maclean
"We are what we hunt."
-PH
Comment
-
Originally posted by fishmonger View PostI would say he came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to UNREASONABLE rules and regulations as obstructions to business.
FM
Also, it's not a good look when you have zero transparency (this very topic being a prime a example) no matter what you're trying to do. I didn't follow closely, but I don't recall the same lack of transparency in Obama's EPA and they were also doing controversial things. Also, despite constantly falling back on the rule of law (it's practically their only defense) he's been slapped for not even following the proper rule of law procedures. Oh and by the way, under the "rule of law" he is allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. Wonder why he doesn't.
There are many things to suggest that Pruitt is not merely rolling back that which he sees as unlawful.
Comment
Comment