What’s Brewing for Fish Lake?
The Red Rose tea company used to run a television commercial with the catchphrase “Only in Canada, you say?” After a prim lady sampled the tea, she paused and added “Pity.”
The same catchphrase could be applied to a loophole in Canadian law, which now allows freshwater bodies of water--including B.C.’s Fish Lake--to be “reclassified” as waste rock dumps and toxic tailings ponds for mines. In this case, the “pity” is that Canada allows this shortsighted practice at all.
European countries do not permit bodies of fresh water to be converted into tailings ponds. This questionable practice has only been approved once in the United States, at the Kensington gold mine in southeast Alaska. Ironically, given Canada’s promotion during the Winter Olympic Games of our striking scenery, sparkling lakes and First Nations culture, there are four pristine Canadian natural water bodies that have already been authorized for destruction under this loophole in our federal Fisheries Act. Fish Lake would be the fifth.
Fish Lake is a rainbow-trout filled lake in central B.C., 125 kilometers southwest of Williams Lake. Taseko Mines Ltd. proposes to drain Fish Lake in order to access gold and copper deposits and make room for a waste rock dump. The company also plans to destroy upper Fish Creek and Little Fish Lake for the disposal of toxic tailings. In return, Taseko says it will dig a new lake to compensate for the loss of the natural water bodies and Fish Lake’s genetically unique species of 85,000 rainbow trout. It will call the man-made lake “Prosperity Lake.” Environmental considerations aside -- and there are plenty -- the trouble for Taseko is that Fish Lake is sacred to the Tsilhqot-in First Nations, who are staunchly opposed to this Orwellian madness.
Fish Lake, Fish Creek and Little Fish Lake are on the traditional lands of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, a member of the Tsilhqot’in National Government, which won a court case recognizing its rights to the area. The Tsilhqot’in call Fish Lake “Teztan Biny”. Teztan Biny is surrounded by cultural sites, including burial grounds. When Xeni Gwet’in chief Marilyn Baptiste speaks about Teztan Biny, it is with reverence, pride and great determination. Baptiste belongs to a group called “First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining.” Last year, frustrated by dealings with Taseko, the group placed an ad in the Globe and Mail and Financial Post: “Are you a Prince Charming? First Nations women seek sensitive mining companies for meaningful long-term relationships. Must be good listeners; willing to share decision making; and environmentally, socially and culturally responsible. Must clean up after themselves. Money-grubbing gold-diggers need not apply.”
The B.C. government recognized the importance of Teztan Biny to the Tsilhqot’in in 2004 when it turned down an application for a 35-hectare lodge expansion, on the grounds that it would impinge on First Nations “traditional and cultural use” and harm fish-habitat. Yet the footprint of Taseko’s 35-square kilometer “Prosperity” proposal—100 times larger--dwarfs the comparatively mouse-sized print of the rejected lodge expansion. And that’s not the only inconsistency in the B.C. government’s stance on Fish Lake.
Fish Lake is one of B.C.’s top 10 catch-and-release fishing lakes, and its stark beauty and still waters were featured on a B.C. tourism brochure. Despite the lake’s appeal, in July, B.C. Mining Minister Bill Bennett-- previously B.C.’s Minister of Tourism -- publicly referred to Fish Lake as “a tiny little pothole of a lake...a shallow, mucky lake with too many small rainbows in it.”
- Photo: Lee-Anne Stack, www.oceans-and-above.com
Compare Bennett’s depiction of Fish Lake with the findings of the B.C. Environmental Assessment of Taseko’s proposal, which concluded that the “significant adverse effect” to fish habitat in Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake was the only serious negative impact posed by the project. The loss of the lakes, said the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, would be offset by the “compensatory values” of the new Prosperity Lake. In June, the B.C. government granted Taseko a 25-year renewable lease, claiming that the mine’s economic benefits would outweigh any environmental impact.
Over to the federal environmental assessment process. Completed in July, the federal assessment found that Taseko’s mine project would result in “high-magnitude, long-term and irreversible impacts on fish and fish habitat”, and significant adverse effects on "the Tsilhqot'in Nation" and "established Tsilhqot'in aboriginal rights". The panel also noted the "significant adverse cumulative effect" on grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region.
The decision about whether to approve or nix Taseko’s proposal was then turned over to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, where it sits. If federal cabinet approves the mine, it will be the first time the government has ever overruled negative findings from a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review.
Chances are that Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet have already made a decision about the fate of Fish Lake, but are keeping mum until a communications strategy is in place. The word is that a decision will be announced as early as next week.
Only in Canada?
Pity.
1) Fish lake is not being used for a "tailings pond". Go to Teseko corporations website and read the proposal. It has to be drained as the main ore body lies under it.
2) This goes along with #1. The environemtal study found that water quality in the area will not be adversly affected. The habitat will be changed and disturbed. It could also be changed and disturbed by a natural event, such as a Forest fire. The difference is that Nature is not going to replace it with a bigger, better impound lake. (If you've never fished an impound lake, I can tell you that they can be some of the most impressive and productive lakes in a given region, if done properly.
3) At least one independent study has definitely proven that the trout in Fish Lake are not "genitically unique". That fallacy has been disproven for some time now. Eighty five thousand trout has also been shown to be a :somewhat generous estimate.
4) Fish lake is sacred to the local tribe? Maybe for their great grandfathers. You know what is sacred to the modern tribal leaders? Cash. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo was just quoted yesterday in the Williams Lake Tribune as saying "projects such as the mine should be, at the minimum, jointly designed and developed". Yunesit’in (Stone) Chief Ivor Myers was quoted as saying "We’re a governing body ourselves and when the federal and provincial governments allow other interest parties to extract our resources, that’s stolen property" and in the same article Toosey Chief Francis Laceese was quoted as saying "the courts will eventually have to admit that the Tsilhqot’in own the land".
So, you see, it;s all about the land, the cash, and who owns it.
See the actual article here: http://www.bclocalnews.com/[…]/105416353.html
There is only one problem with that. According to this press release the Canadian courts have ALREADY ruled on that issue. http://www.marketwire.com/p[…]al-Title-TSX-TKO-796857.htm
"The William decision, released by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on November 21, 2007"...held that..the Tsilhqot'in people have an aboriginal right to hunt and trap birds and animals throughout the 4,381 square kilometers, including the land affected by the Prosperity project. However, on the matter of aboriginal title, independent legal counsel to the Company has confirmed that the Court, after very careful deliberation, expressed an opinion on what area of the 4,381 square kilometers is aboriginal title land, and the proposed Prosperity mine is not in that area."
4) The above point illustrates your fourth error, yes, the mine is on "historic" triballands and the tribe does have the right to hunt and fish on it, but it does not belong to them and Taseko clearly and legally owns the land and mineral rights.
It's amusing that you use this quote "Money-grubbing gold-diggers need not apply", becuase isn't that exactly how the local tribes are acting?
5) Taseko has proven to be a good corporate citizen in every other projectthey have been involved with. They demonstrated this again in their proposal to build a new habitat to replace the Fish Lake habitat. If the tribes are reasonable and recognizes the companies legal rights, what makes you think that Taseko won't do the same?
6) Legal ownership of the land trumps "traditional and cultural use" of the land. In every free country. Legally.
7) It is a lovely little lake. However, we have no reason to believe that a well stocked, well concieved impound lake wouldn't be even better for both sport fishing, and food fishing, and might actually increase the economic activity in the area. It is purported to much larger than Tiny fish Lake, which is really more like a very large ond than a lake. Maybe a lodge could be built at the new site?
8) The environmental panel only found TWO negative impacts on the out of a total of TWENTY FOUR that were studied and included in the proposal. That is about 10% negative, right? And with the bear issue, it was found the increased presence of humans in the area might disrupt the habitat of a very tiny bear population. It also did not take into account the effect of the construction of a new, larger lake and habitat on the tribal lands to replace the lost habitat, so in this case, once again only part of the picture is presented.
I am as pro environemt as anyone. I am for sustainable logging, saving as many species as possible, renewable energy, recycling, keeping natural areas like national parks as pristine as possible, and doing everything we can do to mitigate the footprint of man on this planet while trying to raise the living conditions of our fellow human beings. Humans need base metals such as copper for our society (plenty ofcopper in your PC) and we need the leveraged economic impact that responsible industry provides. There are currently at least 100 times more humans on this planet than could be supported by "living off the land in the ancient ways" as nice as that sounds.
So you see, we are on the same side. But please, next time just stick to the facts. And the main fact is that Taseko legally owns the land and the mineral rights under it, and they should be allowed to do as they wish, in the most reasonably environmentally responsible way possible. Also, that this project will be of great and substatial value to the majority of the people of B.C., the local B.C. government, the federal government, the hundreds of thousands of small investors in the company, (including Canadian Teacher Pension Funds), and the millions of people that wil use products made from the copper that is mined there. And yes, even the local tribes stand to benefit both economically and materially. Even though they would prefer to control the entire project. But who wouldn't. That's just greed and human nature. And that's why they are manipulating the emotions of well meaning people like yourself. There is a staggering amount of wealth at stake. That's what this is really about. Not trout.
-originally posted Oct. 22, 2010