I was bemused to read the opinion by Vivian Danielson entitled “Yukon miners cry ‘foul’ over Tombstone park process” (T.N.M., March 6/00). Perhaps a better title would have been “Crusading Toronto publication serves as mouthpiece for a few disaffected Yukon miners.”
The piece is riddled with transparent inaccuracies and caustic innuendos, some of which were repeated and expanded in a CBC interview that aired on March 13. I will address only a few points.
Had the writer done proper research, she would be aware that:
nationally accepted scientific standards underpin the selection of candidate protected areas in the Yukon;
addressing Yukon First Nations interests in a condescending tone is inappropriate;
only someone completely cut off from the Yukon political currents would be unaware of the implications of staking in the Tombstones at the time that the claims were staked by Canadian United Minerals;
inasmuch as CPAWS has participated in the public debate concerning the intentions of Canadian United Minerals, the company has had ample opportunity to express its views, both rational and emotional, in the territorial and the national media;
CPAWS issued a national news release announcing that CPAWS had succeeded in earning a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts to support its autonomous local conservation work;
Shawn Ryan, co-owner of Canadian United Minerals, received a $10,000 grant from the Yukon Mining Incentives Program in 1999 to support his exploration work;
the Whitehorse Mining Initiative explicitly urges governments to develop concrete compensation policies and to compensate mining companies when their claims are cancelled.
While she speaks as if she were at the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy negotiating table, Ms. Danielson fails to understand the Tombstone and the Fishing Branch protected areas planning processes. The article also manifests a telling ignorance of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon conservation initiative and fosters unabashed fear mongering. But that is a whole different issue.
The Miner piece articulates an anti-CPAWS conspiracy theory that borders on the absurd. If only we were so powerful that, like the mining industry of Canada, we too could have our own journalists muckrake with the best of them. Unfortunately, out here in the real world, far away from Toronto, things are different.
Ms. Danielson made a number of interesting claims, particularly in a CBC interview on her story. One worthy of special note is that she believes Yukoners have a problem with “American interests” funding projects in the Yukon. Considering that American and other outside interests have played, and continue to play, a pivotal role in financing Yukon mining projects, investment of American and “outside” funds for conservation projects is reasonable. In fact, “outside” conservation funding provides a tiny amount of the “balance” that industry speaks of so sincerely.
Moreover, since when have Yukoners been squeamish about accepting the investment dollars of Abermin, Anvil Range, Asarco, Atna, Barramundi, Boliden, BYG, Cash, Chevron, Cominco, Curragh, Eagle Plains, Expatriate, Fairfield, HBED, HBMS, Manson Creek, Minto, New Millennium, Northern Platinum, Omni, Pacific Ridge, Placer Dome, Redstar, Teck, United Keno Hill, Western Copper, YGC, Viceroy, or any other “outside” company?
Likewise, American and other foreign firms have both funded and played an important role in the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada and the Yukon Chamber of Mines. If these industry organizations are not special interest groups, I’ll eat my rock hammer. To follow the logic of Ms. Danielson’s arguments, it would appear that it is inappropriate for Canadians to support conservation and environmental concerns outside our borders. Therein, Canadian efforts to conserve the Amazon rainforest or to hold mining companies accountable for toxic spills in Guyana, Spain and Romania are inappropriate.
The writer’s effort to link CPAWS with environmental organizations with differing agenda was as dubious as would be linking responsible Canadian mining companies with Bre-X.
Contrary to Ms. Danielson’s interpretation, CPAWS has been a consistent advocate of responsible development. CPAWS can live with responsible mining. The question is, Can mining coexist with responsible conservation? I would like to think that the answer is yes.
Be the first to comment on "Tombstone Park article fear-mongering"