I believe I've read in local papers about similar political fights playing out in some of the Mid-Atlantic between commercial fishing/shellfishing/aquaculture interests and (to a small extent) tourism interests over seaside development and (to a larger extent) farmers over run-off regulations. Apparently former participants in a no-longer-so-lucrative Chesapeake Bay harvesting industry blame some land-based industries (at least in part) for a steep reduction in harvestable invertebrates.

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
CEO Nwabudike Morgan

Then again, this is a choice Alaskans need to make for themselves.

I agree that Alaskans should be able to make the choice for themselves. However, with that being said, a comprehensive environmental study should be done to determine the impact on the effect on the area's wildlife, natural resources, and indigenous people. Once that study is completed, Congress should review the study to determine if a ban on any type of mineral exploitation is warranted. And, even if it should be allowed, under strict federal regulation, we should impose a windfall profits tax in order to keep companies from exploiting the beauty of Alaska too much. It's all about fairness.

[With that type of thinking, I could be an Obama speechwriter!]

Pebble is not on Bristol Bay, but is near headwaters of rivers that flow into Bristol Bay. Existing regulations and permitting requirements are stringent and would prevent any significant risk to fish, and anyway nobody now has a clue whether the mine would actually pose any risk to the salmon runs. There is no plan yet for the mine, and environmental assessment is still in process.

The anti mine initiative (which would probably clobber mining all over Alaska) is being financed by a rich fishing lodge owner whose lodge is not in Bristol Bay, but is located near the proposed mine. It is supported by environmentalists whose actual agenda is simply to end mining and all other uses of the outdoors other than backpacking and the like.

Well, y'all Alaskans could come down here to Arizona to see the pristine results of strip and pit copper mining. You might then be able to visualize how the acid leaching ponds will really help the environment and how the mountains of pulverized rock will just get put back into a nice earth-like simulation of natural form, after the leaching and extraction, and everything will be as good as new again, give or take a few super-fund clean up sites, like the town of Hayden a few miles outside of Phoenix. Of course, these mining folk have such control over their activities that they easily contain the heavy metal sludge and acid washes from ever contaminating the ground water. They are very good at moving visqueen around. These days there's nothing to worry about, as long as the down stream folks get a share in making the decisions.

Is it common for governors to take a personal stand to influence voters on things like this?

Some people would look at an action like this and call it, oh I don't know, "leadership", but hey, YMMV.

I can't think of a single high-profile initiative in California that the incumbent governor (on either side) didn't voice an opinion on. Maybe Alaska is different, but I doubt it.

Duncan: "If you want gorgeous wilderness, pay for it. If you pay enough it will be supplied."

Actually, nature has already supplied the gorgeous wildneress, and did so for free.

Actually, less than free, if you consider the fact that this has supplied many generations with food at no cost whatsoever. What could be a better deal than that?

Can we just drill the wildlife for oil? They probably have some inside them somewhere...

Snarky, Alpha Centaurian, Brian G.

Thank you all for your profoundly insightful concepts on that vulgarian concept, democracy. I only wish my detractors had, like you, seen the light and realized that the common people's impulses need to be curbed by the thoughtful guidance of enlightened leaders. -- Louis XVIII (Channeling thru Norman Bates)

Can we just drill the wildlife for oil? They probably have some inside them somewhere...

The Onion has already proposed this once.

a knight,

I've seen the study you mention. I don't think it covers everything. Alaska gets more money from feds, but we are much more restricted in our ability to make money from the resources in our state due to federal control of State lands. I'll note that Nevada gets the shaft even more than Alaska, so unfortunately I cannot "beat you" at this argument!

Touche. I'll send some guys with pickup trucks to get it!

@ kiniyakki - in all fairness, I'll proffer a bit of analysis as disclosure, that most out of staters haven't an effin' clue about. It's a long, and wandering ravening.

Nevadans have a big political advantage over Alaskans in that our bringin' home the bacon Senator, Reid, actually wins his games of wits played against fence-posts as opponents, unlike your Tubular-Stevens, who tries to build unnecessary bridges. Reid pulled-off a coup in the late '90s that honest libertarians should not be offended with. The Las Vegas Valley was about to hit the wall in its growth due to land tract ownership by the BLM. It was a checkerboard straight outta' hell, probably originating from early homesteading acts in which chunks of land were never grabbed up. In the south-end of the valley it had become nearly impossible for a developer to acquire enough contiguous parcels of land to develop on profitably. The land in the middle of the Vegas valley has very little "green" worth in comparison to some of the privately held land up near the western mountains. Most of that privately held land dates back to early settlers, and comes with grandfathered water rights (read property rights). Water rights are longer given out as property in Nevada, instead are tightly held as state resources, and licensed on a time basis. Throughout Nevada, this is a common occurrence. Early settlers weren't stupid, and they homesteaded on top of easily accessible water, while the government kept what was left.

Reid worked out legislation that allowed for the BLM to swap out and/or auction off the patchwork holdings, which were prime for development, giving Nevada the vast majority of the revenue from it. The auctions brought in a tremendous amount of revenue for the counties, and the state, while the BLM was allowed to purchase and swap developable land for the privately held land which was identified as being prime environmentally sensitive land, and create larger protected areas with it (again, think water rights and natural springs-that's pretty much what it is all about in Nevada).

This worked out well for almost everybody in Nevada, excepting for some long-time Vegas residents who were opposed to all growth in the valley. Environmentally sensitive land got protected, and the previous landholders were given land that was or would in the near-future become extremely liquid assets. The individual counties' property tax rates did not need to be increased because the revenue gained from both the BLM monies poured into the public coffers, and the increased property valuations of developable land paid for the essential public utility build-out necessary for the land to be developed. While Reid did this, he was given awards from environmental groups for his work on securing worthy land for protection.

I doubt that this was factored into the Tax Foundation's figures, which I previously cited.

The loudest protestations over Reid's work on this revolved around a son being retained by a multi-generation Nevadan, who is also a major lobbyist power player in the State legislature, representing the real state power players in the past, Casinos, Harvey Whittemore. Whittmore swapped out some very nice old family estate ranch land for a big parcel of land in the NW part of the Vegas valley, which will, if Vegas continues to grow, become prime real estate in a little less than a decade. Whether you believe Whittmore got over on the deal rests entirely on how you personally value environmentally sensitive land in Nevada. As one who grew up in this state, and has spent a great deal of recreational time traveling around parts of it, I understand the worth of natural springs. There are many little runs of flowing water in which a whole species of fish lives. (see SCOTUS case: Cappaert v. United States) All over Nevada can be found small bits of flowing water, that create mini-ecosystems in which entire species of flora/fauna exists. This water is also the lifeblood of all wildlife that lives for miles around it. Whittmore made out well financially, but the state made-out like a bandit on the other-side in my book.

A example of contemporary conservatism's moral relativism can be found at Judicial Watch. They listed Reid as number 10 in their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2007, because of his and his son's dealings with Whittmore. Yet travel back in time a bit to Case No. 2:97cv610B in the United States District Court Central Division for the district of Utah. Here one finds that a contracctor for Judicial Watch, Richard Viguerie's American Target Advertising, was opposing a Utah State regulation of contribution canvassers as a violation of the 1st Amendment. I am not questioning the outcome of the case, only wanting to point out who one of the main Utah attorney's retained was, Brent O. Hatch, son of the then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contemporary Conservation's dissolute hypocrisy is repugnant. I go hot and cold with Reid, but this complaint was lame and politically motivated.

truth in advertising;
You may have a point with the difference between federal land and state land. But each state was promised land when they got in the union. Alaska has never gotten their promised share.

I do not agree with your analogy to public and privately owned. If land is owned by the public, it gives the public the ability to make that land profitable (either by selling, leasing, or something else). Other states have been able to do that and have made a lot of money by land within their state boundaries. The chart I linked to earlier shows that in Alaska, over 2/3 of the land is federally controlled, and so the people in Alaska are not able to make that choice. In short, Alaska does not have the choice to make the public land private. If it did, then your argument might be worth more. But, because it does not, pointing to the similarity between private and federal land makes little sense.

As to the argument that the lands just aren't state lands, they are federal, that is kind of the exact point I want to make. Why is the land in Alaska being held in trust for people in New York, but very little New York land is being held in trust for me? Or land in any other state with a low percentage of federal land holdings in the state?

Is it that difficult to find a cite for the claim that every state was promised some amount of land?

"Other states have been able to do that and have made a lot of money by land within their state boundaries."

Again, how about some examples of this? Most land that is controlled by the federal government in Alaska and elsewhere is under government control because there's very little economic value to it.

As for the argument that Alaskans are being deprived of the use of the land - there's only 600,000+ people living in Alaska. How much land does each person need? As for the argument that Alaska is being deprived of the use of the resources - doesn't every Alaskan get a dividend of over $1000 per person from oil and gas revenues? I can't think of any other state that gets that kind of benefit. It's seems like a whole lot of crying from people who are getting a whole lot of subsidies to live where they live.