Donlin Gold: Standing Firmly Against Free Speech for Iditarod Mushers

Civics, Clean Water, Donlin Gold Mine, Energy & Alaska, Healthy Habitat, Local Economies, Salmon

The Iditarod is truly the Last Great Race.  But it has also struggled for funding in recent years, and in 2016, it capitulated to major sponsors – including Donlin Gold – to […]

The Iditarod is truly the Last Great Race.  But it has also struggled for funding in recent years, and in 2016, it capitulated to major sponsors – including Donlin Gold – to install a “gag rule,” which prohibits mushers from criticizing race sponsors, among others.

Rule 53 of the Iditarod Official 2020 Rules states:

“All Iditarod mushers will be held to a high standard of personal and professional conduct. Musher conduct that is recklessly injurious to the Iditarod, Iditarod competitors, sponsors or anyone associated with the race is strictly prohibited.”

How will race officials define “recklessly injurious?” It’s hard to tell, but we do know one musher got in trouble for simply sharing and commenting on a couple anti-Donlin articles on social media. 

“I believe that the mushers should not be forced to jump on the “yay Donlin Mine train,” the musher wrote. “Donlin Gold is coercing Alaskans by paying Iditarod over a million dollars in exchange for muzzling the mushers, and winning the approval of Alaskans. This heavy-handed censorship is of course troubling.” 

We’ve heard stories how Donlin Gold officials work to curry favor in local villages by dropping-off pallets of bicycles or taking elders by helicopter on berry picking trips, and we’ve come to expect such corporate efforts to buy-off local residents. 

But it’s quite another thing for Donlin Gold to help stomp on the free speech rights of Iditarod mushers. These ham-fisted tactics, however, are not new.  In fact, Donlin was the second largest donor opposing the fish habitat protections found in the Stand for Salmon Ballot Measure 1 in 2018 – pumping in over $1.2 million to the effort. And that campaign produced a new low point in Alaska political dialogue, with Outside firms flooding Alaskans with a tsunami of lies, fear and misinformation.

But why would Donlin Gold fight so hard against sensible upgrades to Alaska’s one-sentence long, 60-year-old fish habitat protection law? Well, that’s easy. It’s all about the money, and if Donlin actually had to protect fish habitat, it couldn’t take nearly as much money out of Alaska to satisfy its Outside investors.

Now, Donlin is pressing the State of Alaska for a right-of-way permit to build a 315 mile-long gas pipeline from Cook Inlet to the Kuskokwim to power its giant gold mine.  The pipeline route will run next to the Historic Iditarod Trail through more than 50 miles of Rainy Pass.   Iditarod Trail advocate and musher Dan Seavey wrote a compelling piece about the significant impacts to the trail from the pipeline.

While Donlin has adjusted its pipeline route to try to reduce impacts to the Iditarod Trail, the fact remains, the Donlin pipeline will forever change The Last Great Race. 

But under the “Gag Rule,” Iditarod mushers who want to race will be mum about the Donlin Gold mine and similar projects when they get to Nome this week. And that’s downright un-Alaskan.

Similar Posts

What’s Next for Planned Offshore Lease Sales in Lower Cook Inlet

Last year, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) prematurely scrapped an offshore management plan that protected Alaskan coastal waters from oil and gas leasing. Now, the agency is planning multiple leases for Lower Cook Inlet in their new 5-year plan. It’s vital that we continue to speak up for our coastal ecosystems, sustainable fisheries, and what’s best for our local economies. Learn what happens next.

Offshore drilling is political theatre, not an energy solution

As the Cook Inlet gas we’ve historically relied on for heat and electricity becomes more expensive and precarious, the Trump administration is offering a golden chance to prolong our dependence, spend more on energy, and create a long-term drag on our economy by doubling down on what isn’t working. What’s the price of this opportunity? Only a 1-in-5 risk of major oil spills, which increases with each new piece of extraction infrastructure. The art of the deal!

Not interested? Well, it’s your lucky day. BOEM is signing you up anyway.

We can’t risk turning climate pollution into water pollution

Carbon capture has a host of uncertainties upstream of the injection well. But let’s set aside for now the unsolved technological question of how CO2 can be affordably captured at any significant scale. Likewise the economic and political questions of how to price and/or police carbon to make polluters capture it. What concerns do we have about pumping CO2 underground, and the vigilance needed to be sure it doesn’t harm the people and ecosystems above?