Muskrat411 is Canadian. No need for him to read The Ballot Measure 1. I Think. Maybe he has duel citizenship!

I'm a NO!

We will be voting a big NO!

Yeah Im part of the problem.

No Here. Comerical salmon fisherman.

Haha I missed that. Just so long as he doesn’t negatively affect any Alaskans...

Nobody on this forum lives closer to the Pebble Mine than I do. This ballot measure is aimed at the PM and everything else is considered collateral damage,, how could even an iota of the proposal be policed or even addressed? We around Lake Iliamna have been subjected to the stupidity of the mine for years and the groupies of the mine who sing praise and reap a huge harvest for trivial input. I don't believe ballot 1 would be a very far reaching happening and hopefully it would keep the mine hawkers at bay. I voted yes!!

watarrat,
It looks like enough others here cancelled out your yes vote, so I won't hold it against you.
If the Initiative passes it won't stop the PM it will just make them jump through more hoops costing them more money, they will probably be able to afford it, as will other big companies. The problem is it will cause all kinds of headaches and increased costs for individuals and small companies .

Waggler
I know I cast a losing vote! I just have the Pebble rammed down my throat way to long. This summer a contractor chartered my landing craft (me) to map the bottom on the proposed gasline and year round icebreaker route. After a stormy 40 days and night it was evedi
nt that Iliamna is a mountain range with numerous shouls lurking under the surface,, the newest scheme was deemed unfeasible! I'm happy to have been a player in a negative roll and made a couple of machines and the material for a new shop in the process. I admit my hatred for Pebble has jaded my values at times.

Well said Waggler. Even if this proposal passes I don't believe it will stop pebble if they decide to go with it. In the meantime, it would be a major headache and/or make outlaws out of the rest of us .

Waggler hits on a great point. The environmental laws in Alaska are ALREADY so stringent that most Mom and Pop operations (mining, logging, etc) cannot afford to comply.

The result is that only the huge companies get to work on resource extraction projects. They have the staff and the staff attorneys to keep up with the bureaucrats. Which in turn means that the projects themselves must be larger and larger.

How ironic that in the attempt to "save" our state, we end up putting the small entrepeneurs out of business and the process CATERS to large corporations and large projects. Seems like the opposite of what we really need.

And BM-1 would just make this situation worse...

Pete

Watarrat,
I assume where you are you didn't need a building permit for your new shop. Measures like ballot 1 will lead directly to building permits being required for projects like your shop.

Questions like this will appear on your building permit application:

(1) Is your project within a riparian zone (within 100 feet of the high water line)?

(a) If yes, has the waterway been inventoried and certified as containing anadromous fish? If yes, continue to question (2).

If the answer to question (1) is NO, a determination will need to be made by a qualified biologist to determine whether or not
anadromous fish are present. Please contact the Department for a list of qualified consultants you may hire to perform the
required anaylasis.

(2) An environmental analysis will need to be performed by a qualified biologist before this application can be submitted for
review.

And it just gets worse from here. Is this really the way you want to see things go in Alaska?

Wattarat already voted. Shut up! I understand his position. I got gas lines, coal mines, gold mines dancing around out here effecting my business.

The way it's worded it does not have to be an actual anadromous fish stream to fall under the regulations. The flow just has to be "connected" somewhere to a fish stream. Which would be every trickle of water or wet area anywhere in the state. Any trickle of water runs down hill until it becomes a stream, which farther along becomes a creek, which becomes a river which runs into the ocean which has Salmon in it!! So that wet spot in your wheeler trail is connected to salmon habitat, and so you have to have a permit to cross it.

Yeah... and I have ignorant people with a pen dancing all around threatening my business.

I respect Wattarat and your concerns but I do not believe this all encompassing ballot
measure is the answer.

I agree mob rule is bad. However, it is pointless to try to convince somebody that already voted that he voted wrong.

I understand and respect Watarrat's reasoning and his vote. I'll admit that my opposition to Pebble made me think along those same lines. But I was more persuaded by Confucius' old saying. " Don't use a canon to kill a mosquito."

I must have hit a nerve, sorry.
I know Watarrat already voted, I'm not trying to change his mind. Just trying to point out that the effects of Measure 1 are much more far reaching than just the Pebble Mine. A lot of people think of ballot measure 1 as a way to shut down Pebble's efforts. I don't think the drafters of the measure really had that as their primary motive, but it sure provides them a lot of ammunition to snare voters.

No nerve. All good. You can lobby me. How do I spell McGruskie when I vote.

Spek makes the very best point about why to vote AGAINST Ballot Measure 1...

The (very complicated) measure, as written, means that every single trickle of water or damp spot in the entire state would be subject to the onerous statutes and regulations, simply because they are CONNECTED to actual anadromous waterways.

Title 16 laws/regs in regard to anadromous fish streams are already overbearing and ridiculous. To extend this lunacy to every single waterway in the state is unnecessary overkill.

It really would not help salmon much, but it sure would cripple any sort of project or development that was proposed.

And frankly, anyone (even my friend Waterrat!) who doesn't see stifling development as the REAL objective of the big environmental groups who brought this ballot measure to bear, probably isn't seeing the bigger picture.

Pete