"F&G Weakening ...... " AK Dispatch, Sinnott

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    When the administrative train leaves the track and irresponsibly serves special interests time again, you bet some folks are gonna stand up.
    That's total bunk. The anti-development crowd won't EVER support any shape or form of development. Unless of course, development includes shutting down economic activity.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
      "....We'll make it just like L.A., but we'll take exception if you try to stop us, or call it a "wasteland"".
      Nobody wants this place to become LA. Not even the lame-ass liberals that fled that s*ithole.

      Jobs people, jobs. We all can't be on welfare and I doubt we'll be moving back into caves anytime soon. What are we going to do for jobs in this state? Shut it all down so we can all be vegan tree farmers? Tell me all about your green energy, utopian economy. I'm literally ALL EARS!!

      Comment


      • #18

        Tim, as usual you conflate positions on the Sinnott article and what is happening to ADFGs habitat division and try to label all who disagree as strictly anti-development. Then you get all partisan and toss out something about lame-ass liberals. Should I be offended cuz I came from L.A. area? <grin>

        Sigh, like I always tell you, at least you're consistent! Have a good one,
        Mark Richards
        www.residenthuntersofalaska.org

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mike Echo View Post
          The state of Alaska is not going to become a wasteland, with or without you. If you define "stand up" as trying to stop any development before it reaches the public comment stage - Yes, sorry to inform you that you are indeed a "bully"
          Mike
          This is just nonsense. I worked as an environmental consultant for 8 years, 4 in Alaska for the major oil companies on large projects. Trust me if there are any bullies in the mix it is the large corporations. They say wait for the permit process but believe me they have the political approval well in advance of the permit process. Just one example, in the late 70's the Waterflood Project on the North Slope was being designed. I was very involved with that and worked on a plan for an offshore intake island, not on the end of the east dock. We had a presentation for the State agencies prepared. Oil company representatives from outside stopped in Juneau and got approval from the Gov for the dock option which environmentally was not as sound. They went that route and knew they had the permits secured so the permit process part was all show.

          So please do not talk about something most people do not know anything about. Unless you are on the inside of these corporation discussion you have no idea what goes on. I could list a number of other examples from working with DuPont, BP, ARCO, Exxon, GPU (remember 3 mile island), and other businesses. They do not play fair in the permit process and yet ignorance and stupidity call those who stand up against that bullies and other demeaning terms.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bushrat View Post

            Should I be offended cuz I came from L.A. area? <grin>
            Funny, but I don't believe I had any say on where my mom decided to give birth to me.....I was raised in Tahoe....the CA. side. When I told a "buddy" of mine that I was moving to Alaska he said Alaska would chew me up and spit me out and I'd come back with my tail between my legs. Well after 31 years I'm still here and he's still there. Now because I came from CA. as well, SO I SURE AS HELL COULD BE WRONG, but I'm pretty sure you qualify as not only an Alaskan, but a real, bonifide sourdough as well.....roud:
            Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Nerka, one question on your example above - "Oil company representatives from outside stopped in Juneau and got approval from the Gov for the dock option which environmentally was not as sound" - did the "dock option" meet the criteria to allow issuing a permit?
              Mike
              Mike
              www.alaskaatvclub.org
              There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.:eek:

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
                "....We'll make it just like L.A., but we'll take exception if you try to stop us, or call it a "wasteland"".
                Sorry you feel that way IO!
                Mike
                Mike
                www.alaskaatvclub.org
                There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.:eek:

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mike Echo View Post
                  Nerka, one question on your example above - "Oil company representatives from outside stopped in Juneau and got approval from the Gov for the dock option which environmentally was not as sound" - did the "dock option" meet the criteria to allow issuing a permit?
                  Mike
                  These large projects have no set criteria. They are to look at options and then balance all the interests or if that is not possible have the no build option.

                  Having worked on the waterflood development options that the various oil companies and our consulting firm worked on they choose a balanced one that was going to be presented to the agencies at a meeting in Anchorage. I was part of that presentation. We walked in with maps and data to present to the agencies on behalf of the corporations and were told to sit down things had changed. The local corporation representatives never thought the dock option would be permitted.

                  The actual presentation given was made the night before by the corporation staff and everyone in the room was shocked as at the time it was not even close to balancing all the interest. It was the cheapest and environmentally the most risky. What had happened we found out latter was the State made the decision that the oil companies would get the permits in a meeting with corporate leaders from the Major players - no review happened - it was a political decision pure and simple. It reflected an attitude of development at any cost which is where we are right now in this State. So when someone says let the process go forth what it really means is " Let the corporations keep buying political influence until they have the State political system under control". I have seen this time and again in my 8 years as a Project Manager for major projects.

                  Here is another one - different country. DuPont wanted to build a textile plant in Iran. I went over to do the environmental studies. In the pre-meeting someone asked what was being discharged into the river. A representative from DuPont mentioned a chemical and in the process of answering said the discharge of this cancer producing chemical would never be allowed in the United States. But in Iran they were discharging it into a river used by the local villages as a drinking water source. As luck would have it the plant was never built because of the over-throw of the government. I think you know DuPont's history of being less than responsible in India and agent Orange.

                  Final example, just for fun. I worked on a nuclear power plant project near New Orleans as a lead scientist in 1972. The plant was a once through cooling system which put large amounts of heated water into a shallow bay. We started work and it was apparent that the temperatures were going to be a serious issues. However, before we even go started we had to stand down and do no more work while engineering issues were resolved. Long and short of it the cost of the plant went from a few hundred million to over 1 billion as the bedrock was too deep to reach without removing hundreds of feet of peat. So a bad location from a engineering and cost viewpoint caused the project to be cancelled. Funny thing happened. The press release for the cancelled project said it was cancelled for environmental reasons because of the temperature issues. Not a word about the cost issue.

                  I have numerous examples of projects being cancelled in my 8 years that were blamed on environmental reasons when in point of fact they were cancelled for bad decisions relative engineering and cost issues. The press release always pointed fingers at the environmental representatives or issues as causing the cancelled project even if the other issues were the primary cause. People who stand up and queston projects have been labeled anti-development or worse and corporations have used that label over and over again to make the word a negative in most people's mind. It is the same tactic used by the tobacco industry - how many people died before the truth got out on what they were doing?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mike Echo View Post
                    The state of Alaska is not going to become a wasteland, with or without you. If you define "stand up" as trying to stop any development before it reaches the public comment stage - Yes, sorry to inform you that you are indeed a "bully"
                    Mike
                    Below is one link demonstrating evidence of very poor results when 'processes' are led far astray by political maneuverings (in this case, effecting the important Jim Swan Wetlands habitats) and blatant misinformation campaigns - "Bully" better fits such unethical, documented tactics IMO.
                    Identifiable special interests and enabling errant State processes managed to put even F&G on the back burner in this instance.

                    http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/...s/d_2014_1.pdf

                    Both the funding for the F&G rewrite and funding for restoration work in the above example are deserving of investigation. They appear as abuses with traits in common.
                    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Interesting read. Nice to see FWS say there were no salmon in Jim Creek above the lake. That is the only new item there that I see.
                      Mike
                      Mike
                      www.alaskaatvclub.org
                      There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.:eek:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mike Echo View Post
                        Interesting read. Nice to see FWS say there were no salmon in Jim Creek above the lake. That is the only new item there that I see.
                        Mike
                        You are correct in the respect that habitat degradation in that area is 'old hat'.

                        The dates/timing on this study did not coincide with the well known and documented later run in Upper Jim Creek.
                        I'll post some photos with dates for you if you wish - and of of course you can check the Catalog of Anadromous Fish Waters online or speak with F&G Habitat and Sport Fish for confirmation.

                        It is odd to hear someone say "Nice..." to finding no salmon as opposed to asking why.

                        The study does show overall what is going on in the Jim Swan area quite clearly - diverted streams, degraded crossings, etc.
                        (pg. 38 is right above Jim Lk. and there is little wonder that fish passage is hindered most years.) Crossing regulations are sparsely attended in the Knik due to the weak enforcement/legislation, even with violators posting videos of themselves in these very forums (removed) and subsequently in news sources.

                        Also, it may be of interest to readers that Upper Jim Creek's outlet does not feed Jim lake, but does exit into the middle of the wetlands proper.

                        Pertinent to the topic of this thread, is that F&G's effectiveness is severely hampered in the Knik watershed already, with statements from Wildlife Troopers, Habitat personnel, Sport Fish biologists and Waterfowl biologists (past and present) expressing their exasperations. This, in the face of the heavily documented values of a very important, and heavily accessed, wetlands.
                        DNR has set up 'regulations' for this experiment (KRPUA) in their first foray into 'enforcement' while stating that the template could be used for similar publicly owned lands.

                        One thing that is also crystal clear here is that registration numbers on ORV's are past due...

                        Studies from other states were turned into DNR during the KRPUA process that show that 'bad apples' will leave the trails, destroy habitat, and not respond effectively to being simply asked to kindly turn around at certain points. This harms all responsible users - abusers of regs protecting sensitive habitats should be readily identifiable, especially where LE cannot possibly respond in a timely fashion.

                        Weakening F&G, already ineffective in ways, is the wrong direction. An example: DNR controls the land/trail: F&G controls the stream crossings - guess what happens to the anadromous stream. This formula need abridged, as does the overly liberal 'established use' criteria.
                        "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

                        Comment

                        Footer Ad Module 300 x 300

                        Collapse

                        Footer Adsense

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X