% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Taseko Mines Ltd. Message Board

  • what2buytoday what2buytoday Oct 21, 2010 10:51 PM Flag

    take this with a grain of salt

    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?


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Good information, you clarified a few things that I believed to accurate as well, but apparently not.

      Good information is always appreciated! Sounds the the commenter had some of the facts, but not all of the facts.

    • May well be a great reply but fails the fact based test.

      1. Author says Fish Lake is lost to to access deposit and for use as waste rock storage. This is correct. She further states Little Fish Lake and Creek lost to tailings facility. Correct again. Seems reply was based on a misreading of article.

      2. Reply states water quality in area won't be affected. This is wrong, water quality will obviously be affected. The hope is it will be contained. What studies "have" shown is there is no proof at this time that water quality "outside of this drainage" will be affected to an unacceptable level.

      3. Reply states, >>>Eighty five thousand trout has also been shown to be a :somewhat generous estimate.<<< The figure of 85,000 comes from study done by professionals hired by TGB. Might add it doesn't include fish from the creek and Little Fish Lake. (estimated at 80,000 as per fisheries)

      4. Reply states TGB owns land, not factual. It's crown land at this time. Goes on to interpret a demand for input in design and development of a project as a grab for cash. I believe that it could just as well be taken at face value.

      5. Gives opinion

      6. See four.

      7.Properity is not a "much larger lake". Why would anyone build a lodge next to a tailings pond? According to DFO Prosperity lake would not be as productive as lake replaced, nor would it be self-sustaining.

      8. Reply finds fault with the article for presenting only part of the picture.

      As opposed to his reply?

      Just because it seems positive doesn't make it factual. Emotional, irrational baloney come from all sides.

    • 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.

    • It's fine to have an opinion on something, but please, don't distort the facts or slant the news to make your point. If it can't stand on it's own, maybe it doesn't deserve to stand.

      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:

      There is only one problem with that. According to this press release the Canadian courts have ALREADY ruled on that issue.
      "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."

    • Excellent and reasonable response posted at the end of the article.

    • It makes sense that the PM would want to craft a communications strategy if approval is the decision.

      There has been so much mis-information about the project, that if asked, the average person would say that the mine would leave some kind of oozing, brown sludge that would kill all the fish! Nonsense of course!

      I guess the PM realizes that he has to educate the uninformed masses that have been brainwashed by the tree huggers and the FN.

      Maybe the PM will delegate the actual communication strategy to Jim Prentice, Minister of the Enviroment...

    • One cannot expect Sierra Club to be in favor of mining.

0.4996+0.0285(+6.05%)Oct 6 4:00 PMEDT