Newsletter Site Index Contact Us
Big Bucks Now!
Fish Float Tubes
Bear Spray Test
Hot Muskie Lures
Make Fish Jerky
Gun Case Test
Photo Contest
Where to Buy
Subscribe Today!
Digital Edition
Salmon Paradise Under Fire
previous   1 of 21   next>>
photo: Hal Herring
Salmon Paradise Under Fire by Hal Herring

There are places in this world, if you are a hunter and a fisherman, that own a kind of mythical power, places where every one of the basic elements of what drives us are intact, and present. If we are lucky, some of those places are close to home. But most exist far away, in the vibrating silences of unbroken wilderness. One of these is the Mulchatna River in southern Alaska, where giant salmon, predatory veterans of lives spent in the far blue reaches of the oceans, roll in the shallows. These are fish that answer a call to come home to reproduce, to leave the oceanic vastness for the narrowing of fast Arctic waters, exchanging the threat of bluefin tuna and great white shark for sure death, after the spawn, in the jaws of bears and eagles. It is truly a passage between worlds, one only the strongest and luckiest fish ever complete.

Fishermen come to the Mulchatna to tap into this, to experience the adventure of being in a place where the old powers - fish, bears, wolverine, caribou, wolves, rain, and wind - still own it all.
previous   1 of 21   next>>
Comment on This Article

At 5:36 PM, 2008-12-24, AK Gomer said:
In my mind as a user of wilderness and as a man that uses resources we have been given, discussion on these issues is good. We need to continue to find a balence in using the resources, whether it be fish, minerals, or the view. True this would be a large mine, but what most don't understand is mine may be a few square miles in area, but compare that to the thousands of square miles in which it is located. There are plenty of streams that feed Bristol Bay even is there is a catrastrophy on these two creeks. Mark comment offensive

At 6:26 PM, 2008-12-06, Jeff said:
Enjoy it while you can. Like most of the other truly untouched places on earth, we'll have it destroyed soon. Mark comment offensive

At 1:01 PM, 2008-11-04, Orkydorky said:
i too,have looked at the issues and still believe that the project should go forward with safeguards that insure that the area is maintained in a natural state as much as possible, but as you said the land is owned by the people, not just some of the people. Mark comment offensive

At 12:53 AM, 2008-11-03, Hal Herring said:
i do listen carefully to other opnions. but i ask that you check this project out very carefully before you offer your opinion. look at the maps, look at the plans, look into the laws that you believe, now, will protect these rivers. look into the history of these kinds of mines- recent history, not long ago. do the research, and then decide what you think. please do not embrace a sweeping pro- or anti development, polarized, opinion regarding this project. polarization is ruining us as a nation right now. let's get back to looking closely at issues, judging them on their own merits, or lack thereof. thank you for your interest. hal Mark comment offensive

At 2:50 PM, 2008-10-24, Orkydorky said:
i appreciate your views on this subject, but technology of modern mining and the fact that many environmental safe guards are in place to prevent environmentally unsound practices. thus being the case i'm just trying to encourage environmentalists to back off a bit and let us develop our natural resources for the benefit of all the people. what was experienced under no controls years ago just isn't the reality of today! i'm not against controls to leave the land the way it was, but being a disabled person i feel very strongly that more access to areas that i might enjoy be of more interest to all the people. a new road wouldn't spoil the land and would certainly open it to those like me or those that can't afford guides and the expense of flying. can you understand that, or are you one who believes that those who disagree with you are all idiots? it's to bad that intelligent people can't put their heads together and work out their differences, but it seems to be the way things are now days! Mark comment offensive

At 1:44 PM, 2008-10-20, Hal Herring said:
the lands are owned by the people, orkydorky, and that's why i wrote this story, so that the people will know what is being planned for their lands. and what is there now. just so we are clear about it. i notice that folks who don't like to talk about the environmental costs of unregulated mining and drilling and water pollution get very angry whenever some one points these costs out, or tries to show what is at stake. there are profits, and there are losses, in any big extractive industry project like the pebble. at some point, when the losses may be larger than the profits- or especially when the profits are limited to a few, while the losses are shared by the many (this is what we have just seen happen on wall street), people have every right to question the project, and want to know more about it. there is an economic model called privatization of profit and socialization of loss. the bailout comes to mind. so does the cuyahoga river of the 1960's. perhaps you would prefer it if no one ever asked questions, or reported on these issues, but if so, you are living in the wrong country. Mark comment offensive

At 3:53 PM, 2008-10-18, Orkydorky said:
come on, quit painting this dismal picture that all the fish, all the animals will just disappear if this mine is allowed. it's about time that you environmentalists realize that there are other people in this country besides you. of coarse your not going to mention that this will create jobs and give access to an area that only a few are enjoying. the last time i heard, government lands are still owned by the people, not just the elite few! Mark comment offensive

At 12:54 PM, 2008-10-02, gunther said:
daryl- you are making a joke, right? have you ever seen a cyanide heap leach mine? the taxpayers are still paying millions to try to clean up abandoned gold and copper mines, from montana to south dakota to colorado and california. look into a little bit- leadville, colorado, whitehall or basin creek or zortman, montana, berkeley pit, butte, montana. the costs to clean these disasters up after the companies had defaulted on the reclamamtion bonds got so bad that in montana the citizens voted to ban cyanide heap leach mining. the salmon fishery, as it is, one of the last truly healthy ones left anywhere, is worth billions, if it is just left alone, and people just keep harvesting fish and protecting the headwaters. build this mine, you lose the fish, and the money and jobs from them, and your great granchildren will still be paying just to try and clean up the mess so it doesn't take out one of the last clean freshwater supplies, if it has not already poisoned lake iliamna by that time. Mark comment offensive

At 12:00 PM, 2008-10-02, DaryL said:
this is another example of the media misleading everyone. history has shown us that we need to advance, and that always interfers with our own beliefs about our land. the gold that we need and use for computors and more has to come from the land. this company is not intending to destroy the land. why would anyone think that? Mark comment offensive

At 10:08 AM, 2008-10-02, Mark said:
the mine exploration project has probably caused irreversable damage already. this is public land. it is way past time to keep letting big money get it's way. big money has taken away over 11,000 acres of public hunting land in my home state. don't let it happen there. i would love to visit there to see mother earth as she should be experienced. and fish too. Mark comment offensive

At 12:29 AM, 2008-10-01, Travis said:
i have visited the bristol bay on occasional and fly fished there. it is truly a masterpiece, and most spectularly salmon fishery. the proposed gold mine will ruin the most beautiful watershed in the alaska. the watershed is my top fly fishing destination. i plan on taking trips repeatedly annually for the most beautiful king salmon fishery and majestic wilderness. if it is gone, it will be really gone, nothing can replace that! there is nothing like the bristol bay watershed. Mark comment offensive

At 5:00 PM, 2008-10-01, adrew is a redneck said:
andrew you flaming idiot... if that mine goes in ..what will be left when the gold is gone Mark comment offensive

At 4:58 PM, 2008-10-01, MIKE said:
where does sarah palin stand on this mine??? Mark comment offensive

At 12:25 PM, 2008-10-01, Dillan said:
i am only 16 and have fihed almost everywere from alaska to florida, an alaska by far has been my favorite Mark comment offensive

At 9:15 PM, 2008-09-30, Joe said:
it is not only the pebble mine that threatens a rare alaskan salmon fishery. the little known and proposed donlin creek gold mine on the kuskokwim river system is threatening a world renowned wild salmon fishery. Mark comment offensive

At 6:28 PM, 2008-09-30, KingFisher907 said:
as an alaskan, i personally voted against pebble mine...not because im anti-mining but because im pro-fishing...from this perspective, i think we can all agree that constructing this mine in this location is not only dangerous, its just plain stupid...i hoped for better from my fellow alaskans who were subjected to a barrage of misleading and confusing political adds in the weeks leading up to the vote...these are the very same voters who consistently vote against aerial predator control! and yet, the salmon stock and the families that depend upon them apparently mean nothing...it makes no sense on the face of it... Mark comment offensive

At 6:14 PM, 2008-09-30, Burt Grayfish said:
putting a huge cyanide gold mine at the headwaters of one of the worlds most productive fisheries is stupid and oh so alaskan. hey pro-mine alaskans, you know who is going to be benefiting from that mine? answer: the same rich multi-national foreign executive snobs that succesfully bribe you every year. Mark comment offensive

At 5:59 PM, 2008-09-30, Sabrina said:
all you need to do in order to understand the real issues here is to experience the mulchatna river in person like i have. some people don't think its important to care about fish. what about the americans, hundreds of alaskans losing jobs when the mine comes in and eventually destroys the salmon runs. what about the true alaskans trying to make a living fishing. what about bristol bay, the worlds largest salmon run. how do we alaskans benefit from this? this is an foreign company coming in using and abusing our state resources like no other mine in the world for their own profit. how will alaskans be compensated for this huge loss? how will we ever replace the rest of the natural resources lost in the mining venture? we do have a voice! Mark comment offensive

At 3:00 PM, 2008-09-30, Mark said:
a gold mine is not vital to the survival of our country. don't mix the issue with energy exploration. this is a private organization wanting to use public land to make money. Mark comment offensive

At 10:01 AM, 2008-09-30, Inga said:
sure we all need jobs there is not question about that. but those jobs will dry up as the mine will some day and the wilderness will be gone. Mark comment offensive

At 8:51 AM, 2008-09-30, Travis said:
great job guys, you wont forget this fishing trip. Mark comment offensive

At 10:37 PM, 2008-09-29, Scott said:
it's greed vs. the future that drives this debate. we should always be aware that those which truly want a mine are a minority of true profiteers. there are benefits to some community members, and it would create a community, but the negative impact always trumps the short-term positive economic impacts. remember, the living and our future citizens would be dealing with the mess of a few. it is never worth it. there has never been a mine that did not negatively impact its surroundings. Mark comment offensive

At 10:01 PM, 2008-09-29, anonymous said:
for some reason people seem to think that there is magic line that will stop all development of our natural resources. to bad there isn't one, then we might know where to halt because we sure won't once get a taste of it and it props up our lifestyles. care to talk about how well the oil pipeline is holding up? i'm sure anwr utilization would meet with similar results. accordingly, i'm sure that everyone who has commented about the environmental impact assessment about anwr is a phd geologist or biologist right? those would be the only people we should trust right? who would go to a witch doctor over a licensend md? Mark comment offensive

At 7:39 PM, 2008-09-29, Orkydorky said:
it seems that mining and alaska go hand and hand; it does have a history. can we agree that it's still a wild and remote place after all these years. there's still fish and bears and other wildlife, and it would really be nice to have another road to an area where one could see it. the sky isn't falling and the world won't end if this project continues. Mark comment offensive

At 3:19 PM, 2008-09-29, Kay said:
i first visited this beautiful part of alaska 23 years ago and was struck with the true purity of the wilderness there, it is simply majestic. i won't ever forget the 70+inch moose in a misty slough and the giant brown bear pawing at the sky like he could swat our plane. more and more people have come to enjoy this natural paradise. how many little kids are reading this article and dreaming of a trip just like andy's? now, answer me why that kid's mom will have to remind him/her that the place may or may not exist in it's true form in a few short years. sure we need a few thousand more jobs, sure the canandien mining company wants billions of dollars, and sure now more than ever we seem to need the gold out the hills. lordy be, mine it elsewhere, please!! Mark comment offensive

At 1:23 PM, 2008-09-29, Andrew said:
it's great that the people of alaska saw through the propaganda and voted against a measure that would have crippled mining state-wide. america needs to develop our own resources, or continue to run huge deficits with countries that support terrorism and oppose our interests world wide. i understand why some fisherman don't want this mine in their back yard, but just like anwr- the environmental impact was greatly exaggerated. "maybe god put the new york times so far from middle america just to see how far they could keep their heads up their asses." Mark comment offensive

At 1:03 PM, 2008-09-29, Sam said:
i think most alaskans are like most of us. we need jobs more than we need the wilderness. it truly is sad to see such great places touched by man. asking a man if he would rather put food on the table for his family or have an untouched resource will result in mines going in. Mark comment offensive


Your Name:

Your Comments:
Please keep comments focused on the subject (and profanity-free) or we may delete your post. Do not enter more than 10 lines. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us.

We require all participants in interactive areas to accept the terms of the Bonnier Corporation subscriber agreement. Please read the agreement before making comments. When you click on the button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to adhere to the terms of the subscriber agreement.

Alaska is one of the few remaining places in the U.S. that offers anglers true seclusion from the modern world on rivers touched only by lucky visitors, wolves and bears. Hal Herring's slide show chronicling a recent trip to one such place will have you ready to book a trip, but the Alaskan Pebble Mine might change your plans. Story by Hal Herring

» See all Photo Galleries

Copyright © 2007 Bonnier Corporation.