I received an interesting piece of mail the other day, as did many voters of District 35. This mailer was put out by the Alaska Democratic Party and proclaimed in a bold headline that I support Canadian interests over Alaskan interests. As a fourth generation, lifelong Alaskan, I take issue with such a claim and will explain my vote on SCR 7. But the mailer serves as a clear signal that the Democrats are going to jump on any perceived weakness of Republicans to campaign against.

The mailer discusses my vote on SCR 7, a resolution relating to the Tulsequah Chief mine, which is undergoing the environmental permitting process. This mine is about 18 miles inside British Columbia, up the Taku River drainage south of Juneau. The resolution says that the legislature supports the ongoing government-to-government cooperation between Alaska and BC in the effort to ensure the mine will be developed in an environmentally sensitive way, which I strongly support. This has been a three-year process, involving participants from both the US and Canada.

The second thing it does is to ask Governor Tony Knowles to withdraw his request to have the mine project referred to an International Joint Commission that manages trans-boundary water issues. This is the part of the resolution that has the Democrats upset. But it is really a moot point because both governments have to request IJC involvement, and the BC government has made it clear that they are not interested.

Radical environmentalists discovered some time ago two strategies critical to their success in stopping things from happening, both of which are at work in their attack on the Tulsequah. First, development delayed is development denied. As we have seen in many cases where radical environmentalists use the public process to drag out every stage of approval of a project, they are often able to kill it completely. Second, if an existing international agreement can be brought in to overwhelm and smother a project, it will never see the light of day.

This second tactic was used most recently in stopping a Canadian mine near the Alsek-Tatshenshini river drainage, where opponents were able to get the mine area included in a world heritage site.

Some of the criticism I have been hit with runs along the line that BC Prime Minister Glen Clark wanted SCR 7 and he "is the same person who supported the blockade of Alaska ferries by Canadian fishermen." Has Clark taken extreme stands in his defense of Canadian fishing interests? Yes, he has. But what does it gain Alaska to return blow for blow on every issue that comes to the forefront? I believe we Alaskans and our Canadian neighbors are infinitely better off to seek cooperation at every opportunity, rather than trying to pick a fight.

I had the privilege of sitting through many hours of committee hearings on SCR 7, in the Special Committee on Fisheries and the Resources Committee. In addition, I followed the debate on the House floor when the resolution was passed. I understand and agree with the legitimate concerns of the fishermen and would not have supported SCR 7 if I believed the mine development posed a serious threat to the fisheries.

I continue to be a strong advocate for commercial and sport fishing interests and do not believe development of the mine under current and future environmental restrictions would be a hazard to the river and its natural salmon producing capabilities. And I believe it is important to maintain cooperative relations with our neighbors in Canada.

Now, if the Alaska Democratic Party has a problem with my vote, that's their problem. I expect a continuing onslaught of half-truths and outright disinformation from them until at least the next election. For my part, I welcome any opportunity to explain the issues to the voters, and would encourage any recipient of the mailer who wants to know more about this issue to contact my office.