Take at the precedent set down South. It is as clear as day, if you'd care to look into it. Most salmon in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho are gone. Extinct. The reasons? You listed several of them in your comment. Why do you think so many fishermen from down South come to Alaska every year? Just for the pretty scenery?

The reason why people are up in arms about salmon in Alaska is because we have a very clear history to learn from down South. Historically, it has not been salmon and coal, or salmon and gold. I'm unaware of any success stories down South where the two have thrived side by side. If there are any, I'd be interested in learning more about them.

Please provide one example from down South where a coal or precious metals mine has existed side by side with a healthy, robust salmonid fishery without killing the fishery.

Liberals don't need actual evidence. Their method of argument is to pose a result, then force everyone else to prove that it DIDN'T happen that way. The Harry Reid argument, for example. Mitt's a tax cheat, didn't pay any taxes. Now Mitt has to prove that he did. Shameful stupidity, but basic math for a liberal.

I have spent a lot of time in Eastern Kentucky over decades and have been on-site at a couple of strip mines. If you think they've enhanced fishing opportunities in Kentucky, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wiping out a bunch of streams and then leaving a little pothole stocked with crappies and catfish isn't an increased fishing opportunity by AK standards.

"Liberals don't need actual evidence. Their method of argument is to pose a result, then force everyone else to prove that it DIDN'T happen that way. The Harry Reid argument, for example. Mitt's a tax cheat, didn't pay any taxes. Now Mitt has to prove that he did. Shameful stupidity, but basic math for a liberal."

jim, it's one thing to pose an outrageous claim, like an existence of the tooth fairy, or a flying sky creature, then suggest the naysayers prove them wrong.

It's entirely different to make a hypothesis based on evidence, like the earth is round, then setting out to prove this hypothesis is correct. Whether the hypothesis is disproven or not, it still benefits society to find out the truth.

That's where the reasonable and unreasonable claims come into play. If there is evidence to support a theory, then it should be analyzed, tested, and proven/disproven. This a scientific process in determining the authenticity of a claim. Evidence must be available in order to do so.

Obviously evidence exists that strip-mining is bad for the environment. Obviously salmon habitat is part of the environment. This isn't rocket science.

@snagger: don't be obtuse. You know damn well that there is a difference between adverse environmental phenomena that we have control over, and those we don't. Furthermore, at least in the case of more common and cyclical events like forest fires (not so much with volcanoes, though), ecosystems adapt to those events in such a way as to not only tolerate them, but REQUIRE them.

When something is "bad" for the environment, it almost always means it's bad for the health of an ecosystem, and by extension, our own interests. It's the height of arrogance to think we exist separate from our environment, and it's the height of irresponsibility to sacrifice our long-term survivability and prosperity for short-term monetary gain.

@snagger: yeah, once again, you miss the point. It's not about the environment itself. The earth, as a whole, is much hardier than we are, and will rebound from any environmental disaster short of complete annihilation. We are not so lucky. Regardless of whether or not we're "trying" to make species extinct, we do, and at an alarming rate.

We have the technology to move away from harmful energy sources like coal and oil. We don't utilize it to its fullest potential because of greed. What a wonderful species we are to act in such a reckless and short-sighted way.

Not that it matters, or will change anyone's mind here, but this is an excerpt from the Oregonian regarding the abundant return of Columbia River salmon as noted by Snagger

"Record numbers of coho have returned to the Columbia River in recent years, and this year forecasters predict the same for spring chinook. But it's not time to pop the champagne corks and declare victory in the nation's most expensive wildlife restoration venture.

The reason: Most scientists agree much of the thanks for the recent runs, in addition to improved river conditions and more hatchery fish, goes to favorable circumstances in the ocean where the salmon mature after being born in fresh water."

The words that really pop out at me while reading that were "the nation's most expensive". Something to keep in mind, yes?

I am from Tyonek and we do not want the Coal Mine. We have been told that after 20 years of strip mining the stock will take 10 years to recover. Most of the Tyonek population rely on the salmon to sustain us year round. In the last decade I have seen salmon as more of a supplement to our diet rather than a main staple. When will people understand that this is our lifestyle. When I was in school we were told that this country was built on freedom, I believed in that, but I grew up with others outside our community deciding how we should live. A recent study was done on the salmon stocks in the Chuitna area and the Governor was told that it was a bad Idea and that the Salmon stocks would not recover. The Governor signed off anyway. I've watched as people fought over wheather or not a wind farm should be built. That arguement should have been a no brainer. With the cost of fuel going up, limited resources and constant pollution why not use cleaner solutions.