Just curious what my fellow FISHERMAN think of this…

walleyevision wrote:

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

You’re incorrect. Go back and read the entire article posted. The study that was cancelled was taking a look at the ban.

“In a statement announcing the decision, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said after 15 months of review, that analysis did not reveal any new scientific information.

The USDA can both “protect the integrity of the watershed and contribute to economic growth and stronger communities,” he said.”

And the final paragraph….

“Mining advocates argued the proposed mining moratorium was unnecessary and redundant, since mining projects already have to go through an extensive environmental review process before they’re approved.”

Possibly, but I’m fairly certain that the safeguards and study requirements from the Forest Service put forth by the Obama administration have been cancelled by Trump.

James Holst wrote:

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.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture canceled a study on the potential environmental impact of mining in the region, which wiped out the ban in the process. The US Forest Service will now not be allowed to even conduct the study. I guessI don’t trust Sonny Perdue that they figured out the risks are minimal.

If you look at the series of recent decisions our current administration has made regarding our region’s natural resources — from the Kawishiwi River to the Great Lakes — it doesn’t take a giant leap to see a pattern emerging.

What we’re seeing right now is the erosion of protections. What some call “redundant” others see as an safeguard or an additional check on power.

Thanks pool2

This is the mining for minerals used in cell phones & computors?

walleyevision wrote:

Possibly, but I’m fairly certain that the safeguards and study requirements from the Forest Service put forth by the Obama administration have been cancelled by Trump.

The permitting process involves state and federal review and I’m not seeing anywhere that has been altered or made more lax by this decision. If it does, please show me where. I’ll be adamantly opposed to any relaxation of review or requirements that would push a permit through.

The removal of the ban… I’ve got no problem with that. We need to be adult enough to at the very least consider mining proposals. If they’re risky, tell the companies to hit the bricks. If they’re well thought out and provide a very high level of certainty that the surrounding environment will not be negatively impacted I have no issues with utilizing the resource.

I feel like there is not a clear understanding of what Obama actually did, and what Trump did, bans, studies, etc. Here’s what I believe to be true:

1.) In late 2016 the Obama administration made 234,000 acres of the Rainy River watershed near Ely ineligible for mineral leasing pending a two-year study which was to be conducted by the US Forest Service.

2.) That study could have led to a 20-year mining ban.

3.) What just happened is that the USDA cancelled the study.

There never was a ban. We never even got that far.

As long as it’s done right, I’m alright with it. There isn’t a single thing that humans do that doesn’t impact wildlife and wilderness. Some more than others, but they all have an impact.

The point I’m trying to make is everything is a give and take. Some actions give more than they take and some actions take more than they give…If we don’t do this here, then somewhere else will be impacted by it, as we as a civilization need these resources to continue our lives. Don’t like it? Stop reproducing and growing populations and stop using items that require this type of harvest of resources.

It all comes back to someone complaining about pointless things like shoes or sports…yet they sit in their home with commercially harvested goods, sitting on their synthetic material couch, drinking their slave labor coffee while looking at their wives shiny conflict diamond on her finger and wonder where it all went wrong?…newsflash…

Not informed on the topic enough to have a solid opinion, but as a person who really enjoys the area it does make me nervous.

Some questions I have is how many jobs will it create, and how long will these jobs last? How close are things going to be monitored. The mining companies will have one priority and I’d imagine the only recourse would be to fine them for not complying. How do you repair it once damage occurs.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

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

Couldn’t this statement be (wrongfully) applied to any company, manufacturer, service provider, farmer?? How is the mining company any more greedy than the corner coffee shop looking to make a profit by providing and selling a product? Entities looking to make money does not necessarily make them greedy. Without that, what incentive would there be for any products, services, or goods to be produced unless you favor socialism or communism as apposed to capitalism.

Another hypocrisy I see here (sort of) is that the very devices we’re using to post on this forum are dependent on copper materials. Do any of us know or care whether the sourced copper may have been mined from another environmentally sensitive area or worse yet polluted region half way around the world? In other words, it’s okay if it’s “over there” and not affecting my back yard as long as my copper needs are met.

Personally, I’m not a big proponent of the mining in that sensitive region here in MN. But also recognize that while there are those reacting so negatively before its’ even occurring (copper mining), meanwhile there are elevated concentrations of phosphorus originating here in MN finding its way down to the Gulf of Mexico and creating huge “dead” zones.

Anyone crying about that?

The information put out by the mining companies states roughly 300 jobs. They do not state how many of those jobs will be temporary however. Personally, I don’t think 300 jobs is worth the risk. The profits will not stay in Minnesota either. One of the mining companies is based in Chille, the other in the U.K.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
In one word………..NO! It’s wrong in so many ways. Greed and money has ruined enough of our world already hasn’t it?

Personally, I’m not a big proponent of the mining in that sensitive region here in MN. But also recognize that while there are those reacting so negatively before its’ even occurring (copper mining), meanwhile there are elevated concentrations of phosphorus originating here in MN finding its way down to the Gulf of Mexico and creating huge “dead” zones.

Anyone crying about that?

YES…

Charlie Vaughan wrote:

Anyone crying about that?

YES…

And what are we doing to stop it?

I feel like there will be much less of a local benefit than anticipated. How many of these jobs will go to Minnesotans.

again just questions I am not that up to speed on the topic. seems like if you look at it black and white with no emotion it makes it a tougher decision. risk verse reward wise would like to see real numbers and see who benefits.

James Holst wrote:

We need to be adult enough to at the very least consider mining proposals. If they’re risky, tell the companies to hit the bricks. If they’re well thought out and provide a very high level of certainty that the surrounding environment will not be negatively impacted I have no issues with utilizing the resource.

Agreed.

We have land by the whiteface river ne of Meadowlands and although I love the idea of wilderness areas and national forests, I’m also an avid grouse/woodcock hunter. The complete lack of forest management and the ideal that logging is evil, drives me bat crap crazy. Aldo Leopold liked chainsaws, yet forest’s are left to age, rot and die with forest fire suppression. If we like nature so much, fire suppression should be halted to leave things to mother nature. But that’s not realistically plausible. So the forest should be managed and utilized sustainably vs an unhealthy aging forest, left to create a monoculture of fuel.

I don’t like the idea of mining in a perfect world, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Have driven through Hibbing and the surrounding areas and have seen the scars on the land. But the wife has family in the ne part of the state and knows what mining could do for the economy. Not really for mining, but also realize that there’s a reality to all the items we as a nation and world consume. Am an avid waterfowl hunter and if you really want to look at an ecological disaster, look into the destruction of the prairie pot hole region and tell me how many people defend big ag to a degree that’s cultish, and I come from farmers in southern Minnesota. Also am for public lands and hate how access and public lands are being manipulated. All you can do is vote, get involved and become educated on issues. I see both sides and it’s annoying, but without mining in ne Minnesota, world war II could have turned out very different. There’s a reality that mining will have issues, but if those are minimized and the most modern technology is used and there’s a process of safe guards in place and enforced to some degree, hopefully the risk is to a tolerable level, whatever that is.

pool2fool wrote:

I feel like there is not a clear understanding of what Obama actually did, and what Trump did, bans, studies, etc. Here’s what I believe to be true:

1.) In late 2016 the Obama administration made 234,000 acres of the Rainy River watershed near Ely ineligible for mineral leasing pending a two-year study which was to be conducted by the US Forest Service.

2.) That study could have led to a 20-year mining ban.

3.) What just happened is that the USDA cancelled the study.

There never was a ban. We never even got that far.

I also believe this to be correct regarding the situation.

Regardless of the politics, it’s also been shown that if the mining were to take place, the mining company would need to have a mitigation plan for 300+ years. Do you really believe any company is going to be around that long to take care of their promises?

http://www.brainerddispatch.com/sports/outdoors/3162922-getting-details-behind-copper-nickel-mining-minnesota

Good points basseyes, I agree with you 100 percent on the destruction of the pairie pothole region and that NE MN helped us win WWII. However, that was a totally different type of mining. Ore/taconite mining does not polute watersheds. Copper sulfide mining has NEVER in the history of mankind been done without massive water/environmental pollution.

I can’t stand the argument that others put forth that “there’s pollution happening everywhere else, why don’t you complain about that?”
How do you know I don’t? I’m pretty sure we are all a lot more protective of our environment than we used to be. We recycle, we don’t dump our motor oil in the sewer, we don’t use lead shot at the duck marsh etc etc etc.

If anyone is truly concerned about this type of mining, please contact your US Senators and Congressman. They need to hear from their constituents. It really does work. Send a quick email or call them. Eric Paulson broke party lines and has voted against legislation that would allow easier accesss from international mining companies to the area around the BWCA. Because he heard from the people.

A lot of good discussion and points being brought up. To me it all comes down to risk vs reward. The risk needs to be non existent in my eyes. I want a booming economy but these natural places are becoming fewer and fewer. Merican Eagle I agree with you that everything we do is impacting our world. As we progress and learn from our past we can use the knowledge we have gained to make the best and most informed decision possible. Like asbestos insulation, lead paint and mercury tooth fillings, we made bad decisions, learned and went on. If the ability is there to do a mine in this region with no adverse affects I do not see a problem with this. These materials are needed, but to me not at the cost of our wild places.

Basseyes you have great points on this and I feel very much the same.

And yes, basseyes has a real point about current regional economic conditions vs long term environmental needs – I’m from western MN and absolutely hate the high input, ditch to ditch farming that takes place for the same reason I’m fearful about the copper nickel mine proposals but people are just trying to earn money the way they’re being told they should.

I’m just really concerned that in 40-50 years our grand kids will really regret these choices. I hope I’m wrong.

Dutchboy wrote:

This is the mining for minerals used in cell phones & computors?

YES!!!!and a whole lot more. only so many things you can make back outta recycled beer cans.

I always laugh when I see these anti against everything. but yet don’t realise where these materails come from. like there electricity comes from the outlet in the all!!!!

and yes I have a vested interest in this!!!!!!

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Charlie Vaughan wrote:</div>
Anyone crying about that?

YES…

And what are we doing to stop it?

I’m trying by Majoring in fisheries and water resources. I’m only a week in though so no, unfortunately I can’t say much. Possibly changing a few minds on here is still worth while.

walleyevision wrote:

Copper sulfide mining has NEVER in the history of mankind been done without massive water/environmental pollution.

I can’t stand the argument that others put forth that “there’s pollution happening everywhere else, why don’t you complain about that?”
How do you know I don’t?

And these are the kind of views that I can’t stand. Someone who clearly despises the consequences of how something is produced while all the while using or depending on it as a vehicle to deliver their message on how evil it is. Why not boycott copper or all products that contain copper?

I’m not pro-pollution or anti-earth. However there have always been some risk or potential consequence to everything we depend on in today’s world. Even today’s modern industrial or agricultural practices inflict some harm on the environment. What are we willing to give up?

I respect your opinion Andy. My issue is that we are not experiencing a world wide copper shortage. Copper prices have been much higher in the past. We don’t need to do this.

It’s not a matter of do we need to do this.

It’s a matter of are we allowed to do this.

We elect people to represent us and they make these decisions for us.

Then it is up to us to abide by their decisions.

If a person was diligent and studied where all our food, clothes, vehicles, fuel, phones, computers, electronics and everything else we consume came from and was hyper active about supporting non polluting methods of production across a broad spectrum, we’d all be horrified by how poisonous our lifestyles are and what they’ve created. We all use products with copper in them daily, but we really don’t understand we are part of the process for higher demand by buying products. Who has 10 hours a day to fact check and police products we use? It seems like it’s more acceptable if it’s not in our backyard or in our state or country’s borders. Ethanol seems a grand idea in theory, but in practice it’s ridiculously inefficient with the fuel and water needed to produce it. For or against any issue, both sides are blinded by their own ideals and expectations. There will be some level of pollution no matter the safe guards, companies will spin it to their benefit, hence the distrust by the concerned public and I’m one of them with skin in the game with hunting property that will be affected by it. Maybe not in my lifetime, but probably in my 2 grandkids lifetime for sure. But it might not be as horrifying as the do nothing ever to anything community. Like I said, love to wander around wild places following my dogs and hunt grouse/woodcock. Luckily there’s still some logging going on for succession for edges outside the superior national forest and we have some great people in the dnr that hate the stance of not logging a very renewable resource in the SNF. Copper mining spooks us all and it should. That being said at least we are aware of the risks and like Aaron K said we are still learning and hopefully when it’s done, which personally I think is a given, can be done somewhat effectively and efficiently to reduce risk.

The areas out west we’ve hunted in have been utterly pounded, drilled, tapped, roaded, ect and it’s sad to see. But as I heat my home with natural gas, my icehouse and camper with LP, put fuel in my vehicles and eat food from the ditched areas of farm land that drive me nuts, it’s hard not to feel a touch hypocritical, with a double jointed opinion on it.

I’ll start off by saying, I have very little confidence in any one that has been or is currently in charge of our water quality.

walleyevision wrote:

Copper prices have been much higher in the past. We don’t need to do this.

We also don’t need to drain every pot hole and duck pond to plant more crops that no one wants or needs but we allow that!

Farmers have destroyed millions of acres of land. Some of my family are farmer as well, so I’m pointing the finger at most farmers including my own family. My brother lives on a small creek and when it rains any minnows he has in the river die. The pesticides washing into rivers as we speak are a huge concern yet legal.

It’s all about the money and to me that’s the scary part!

Joe Scegura wrote:

I’ll start off by saying, I have very little confidence in any one that has been or is currently in charge of our water quality.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>walleyevision wrote:</div>
Copper prices have been much higher in the past. We don’t need to do this.

We also don’t need to drain every pot hole and duck pond to plant more crops that no one wants or needs but we allow that!

Farmers have destroyed millions of acres of land. Some of my family are farmer as well, so I’m pointing the finger at most farmers including my own family. My brother lives on a small creek and when it rains any minnows he has in the river die. The pesticides washing into rivers as we speak are a huge concern yet legal.

It’s all about the money and to me that’s the scary part!

I agree. So let’s put a stop to at least one of those things. We have to start somewhere. Better to try than to sit by with out doing or saying anything.

basseyes wrote:

We have land by the whiteface river ne of Meadowlands and although I love the idea of wilderness areas and national forests, I’m also an avid grouse/woodcock hunter. The complete lack of forest management and the ideal that logging is evil, drives me bat crap crazy. Aldo Leopold liked chainsaws, yet forest’s are left to age, rot and die with forest fire suppression. If we like nature so much, fire suppression should be halted to leave things to mother nature. But that’s not realistically plausible. So the forest should be managed and utilized sustainably vs an unhealthy aging forest, left to create a monoculture of fuel.

Not sure I follow the idea here. There are obviously citizen groups that are proponents of old growth forest to a point of nothing else. My understanding of the issue with fire suppression had to do with a decent percentage of the USFS budget for managing forests was going towards fighting wildfires. The reason for focusing on wildfires had more to do with minimizing impact on human development than not wanting to manage forests (i.e. protecting people’s properties). I believe they simply haven’t had sufficient funds left over to manage forests consistent with their management goals.

tegg wrote:

I believe they simply haven’t had sufficient funds left over to manage forests consistent with their management goals.

I could be wrong but I thought the arrangement would be they’d open up the land to private logging companies. Perhaps the cost of the management alone is too much?

Joe Scegura wrote:

Farmers have destroyed millions of acres of land. Some of my family are farmer as well, so I’m pointing the finger at most farmers including my own family. My brother lives on a small creek and when it rains any minnows he has in the river die. The pesticides washing into rivers as we speak are a huge concern yet legal.

It’s all about the money and to me that’s the scary part!

What Joe is saying here concerns me more as I mentioned in a previous post about the runoff having negative consequences 2,000 miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the damage done locally.

I applauded when Dayton proposed the expanded buffer zones a few years ago. Then I heard the ag interests claiming it was too much and government overreach, while environmentalists were saying it wasn’t enough. Seems like that and almost all these conflicts are who do you believe?

I Support the mining, and the people of northern MN who will benefit from the increased jobs that will be produced along new buisness ventures that will come with it.
It seems reasonable to assume mining operations will open sooner rather than later. 2-5 YEARS.

Here is some information on the project,

http://polymetmining.com/