I was reading about Ballot Measure 4, which would require "legislative approval" of any large-scale metallic sulfide mine (apparently in order to protect salmon), and it got me wondering how our anti-gillnet Kenai Sportfishing Syndicate feels about this issue, seeing as many of them are deeply vested in and have been lobbying for Pebble for many years. How does this Ballot measure make them feel about resource allocation/management by ballot initiative?
It is one thing to support responsible resource development and the ballot initiative process. It is another thing entirely to support public resource management/allocation/(anti)development BY ballot initiative. In my opinion kind of like letting your kids choose their own bedtime if that makes sense...
What an interesting ideology, anyhow. On one side of the Cook Inlet, arguing for "conservation" of the mighty King by eliminating perfectly sustainable and historic user groups, and on the other side of the Inlet, arguing against virtually the same user group in order to advance resource development which may, if not done responsibly, endanger the very fish they claim to want to conserve...
It is one thing to support responsible resource development and the ballot initiative process. It is another thing entirely to support public resource management/allocation/(anti)development BY ballot initiative. In my opinion kind of like letting your kids choose their own bedtime if that makes sense...
What an interesting ideology, anyhow. On one side of the Cook Inlet, arguing for "conservation" of the mighty King by eliminating perfectly sustainable and historic user groups, and on the other side of the Inlet, arguing against virtually the same user group in order to advance resource development which may, if not done responsibly, endanger the very fish they claim to want to conserve...
