Just curious what my fellow FISHERMAN think of this…

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/09/06/boundary-waters-mining

Oops. Guess the link didn’t work. Guess I’ll do this…

“The Trump administration has canceled a study of a proposed 20-year mining ban within the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, clearing the way for renewed mineral leasing within about 365 square miles of the Superior National Forest.” -MPR, Dan Kraker

This is bigger than any petty political differences. I mean… wtf.

I am fine with it I live in northern Minnesota and good jobs are hard to come by. There is no reason for a twenty years ban on mining. There is lots of woods in northern mn, but the jobs are limited. Drill baby drill !

Have at it. about time!

Boy lets think about this one.How many jobs in local area?? 100? But if stuff goes south ruins it for millions for years. Go to any superfund site were mining failed and you will have a different thought for sure!They dont make anymore wilderness.

Totally against this. I don’t know if many realize that a lot of the mining now days is robotic. The job numbers are being totally inflated. Also the FACT that copper sulfide mining has never been done anywhere in the world without massive consequential pollution is more than concerning.

The pollution will end up in two different places…lake Superior or through the BWCA, into the Rainy River and then onto Lake of the Woods.

I see both sides to the argument. This type of mining doesn’t have a good past but the technology that will be used to treat the water is much improved from years past but that doesn’t mean it will be a no fail system either. It will provide jobs and already has provided jobs to an area that could use it but is it worth the risk for what I am hearing is a 20+25 year life before it is tapped out? I really don’t know which way I swing in this one.

Plain and simple “NO” for me.

Before I make my decision I’d need to know whether the owners of these mining companies own any Nike shoes.

Gino wrote:

I am fine with it I live in northern Minnesota and good jobs are hard to come by. There is no reason for a twenty years ban on mining. There is lots of woods in northern mn, but the jobs are limited. Drill baby drill !

So move.

Against it. We have very limited untouched land in this world and the greedy and rich just see it as a money pit and not as a prestine beautiful thing. Some how something will happen and it’ll be real bad for nature and a huge fine will be written but they won’t care because it doesn’t affect them and where they live. Yes it creates jobs but if you can’t find work then relocate.

In one word………..NO! It’s wrong in so many ways. Greed and money has ruined enough of our world already hasn’t it?

In other words, risk anything for a buck. From what I’ve read, every one of this type of mining has had an environmental disaster. Why would we risk the BWCA??

Jonesy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gino deguiseppi wrote:</div>
I am fine with it I live in northern Minnesota and good jobs are hard to come by. There is no reason for a twenty years ban on mining. There is lots of woods in northern mn, but the jobs are limited. Drill baby drill !

So move.

And take that “administration” with you.

mnice….there’s no risk for anyone who has no sense of decency and respect for anything but his investments.

Totally against it. Northern MN needs to move past mining as the only way to create jobs.

This goes hand-in-hand with the “how to change behavior” thread. Most people can’t stand seeing beer cans and cigarette butts at the fishing spot but don’t seem to mind actually mining operations? That doesn’t make much sense to me. Oh yeah, all the cash to be made……

Mans greed is not nature’s friend. If people hate picking up after slobs how do you think picking up after pillaging corporations is going to be? If you’re even allowed on the property.

I’m glad most of the people on here actually give a crap about the planet. Always nice to see

If the government and their agencies take the time and spend the money to do the research and all the studies involved. Then write up rules for minors to follow and if the miners follow the rules I see no issues.

Seems minnesota was built on ag & mining.

Charlie Vaughan wrote:

canceled a study

What does that mean? Canceled a study or cancelled a ban?

Canceling a study is utterly careless.

I’m not smart enough to comment on whether cancelling a ban is good because I haven’t seen a study.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Charlie Vaughan wrote:</div>
canceled a study

What does that mean? Canceled a study or cancelled a ban?

Canceling a study is utterly careless.

I’m not smart enough to comment on whether cancelling a ban is good because I haven’t seen a study.

That’s true that the study has just been cancelled so far, but why even do that? It’s also true that the administration that is pushing this has an end goal of opening a 365 square mile area to mining that is right next to the Boundary Waters. Why be ok with or “not care” about anything aiding them in this?

How big is the Boundary Waters WATERSHED? I assuming it is anything north of the Laurentian Divide, that is a huge chunk area of land, the whole arrowhead, no?

Cant keep increasing our population and not expect to decrease wild spaces.

DaveB wrote:

How big is the Boundary Waters WATERSHED? I assuming it is anything north of the Laurentian Divide, that is a huge chunk area of land, the whole arrowhead, no?

Take a look at the map in the link I posted. For some reason it started working.

I agree with @eelpoutguy I am all for jobs up in Northern MN, on the otherhand I do not want to see the boundary waters or any other waters contaminated by carelessness. If there is a safe way to do this by all means go for it as long as those imposing the regulations do their research and the companies extracting the material agree to follow those rules set by the ones imposing the regulations to a tee. With that I would also want to see some numbers on how much money would be brought into the local economies, not the gross of what the mining company will make but how much money will actually flow through the local economies, how many jobs would be created and the quality of life increase to those locals that would benefit from such an undertaking.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

If the government and their agencies take the time and spend the money to do the research and all the studies involved. Then write up rules for minors to follow and if the miners follow the rules I see no issues.

sounds good but does the government or the mining companies have a long history of being responsible for their actions and sticking with their word? Not sure about mining companies but I have an idea about the government. I’m sure the oil companies felt they were following the rules when the spills have taken place

Aaron Kalberer wrote:

I agree with @eelpoutguy I am all for jobs up in Northern MN, on the otherhand I do not want to see the boundary waters or any other waters contaminated by carelessness. If there is a safe way to do this by all means go for it as long as those imposing the regulations do their research and the companies extracting the material agree to follow those rules set by the ones imposing the regulations to a tee. With that I would also want to see some numbers on how much money would be brought into the local economies, not the gross of what the mining company will make but how much money will actually flow through the local economies, how many jobs would be created and the quality of life increase to those locals that would benefit from such an undertaking.

I might be with you guys IF I had a single reason to believe that the mining co would abide by all regulations and pay for the longterm impacts. And IF I believed they weren’t juicing the job and economic impact numbers. It takes a lot of trust to turn those IFS into a balance of shared wealth and environmental safety. Why trust them?

Ryan Wilson wrote:

Mans greed is not nature’s friend. If people hate picking up after slobs how do you think picking up after pillaging corporations is going to be? If you’re even allowed on the property.

Well said Ryan.

I have no issues with this move. What has happened is the ban has been lifted. Companies will still have to go through rigorous environmental impact studies that span years, if not decades, before they will ever get close to mining anything.

Aaron Kalberer wrote:

I do not want to see the boundary waters or any other waters contaminated by carelessness. If there is a safe way to do this by all means go for it as long as those imposing the regulations do their research and the companies extracting the material agree to follow those rules set by the ones imposing the regulations to a tee.

My thoughts exactly. The lifting of the mining ban is not going to trigger some gold rush approach to mining. Companies are now able to submit plans for extensive review. Doesn’t mean anything is going to be approved and certainly nothing that poses any significant amount of risk to the immediate environment would ever gain any traction.

Sorry James, but you are wrong. The current administration essentially cancelled any current studies and has disregarded previous ones.