Just curious what my fellow FISHERMAN think of this…

If it gets opened to mining then i should at least be able to use a boat motor in. Bwca.

I’d like to know “who” in Washington that’s making these, in my opinion, poor decisions regarding our wild areas, has a vested interest in the business seeking to do the mining. Those, if any persons, should be excluded from any decision making. Right now I absolutely have zero trust in the top layer of our current administration.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

I’d like to know “who” in Washington that’s making these, in my opinion, poor decisions regarding our wild areas, has a vested interest in the business seeking to do the mining. Those, if any persons, should be excluded from any decision making. Right now I absolutely have zero trust in the top layer of our current administration.

Well, here’s an interesting tidbit: Evanka Trump and her husband are living in a house in D.C. that is owned by the Chillean owners of Twin Metals Mining. Is that vested enough for you?

Well, here’s an interesting tidbit: Evanka Trump and her husband are living in a house in D.C. that is owned by the Chillean owners of Twin Metals Mining. Is that vested enough for you?
[/quote]

Interesting tidbit, INHO not really. Is that illegal?

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Well, here’s an interesting tidbit: Evanka Trump and her husband are living in a house in D.C. that is owned by the Chillean owners of Twin Metals Mining. Is that vested enough for you?

Interesting tidbit, INHO not really. Is that illegal?

[/quote]

INHO? I’m sure they get around it by “renting” the house to them.

Interesting tidbit, INHO not really. Is that illegal?

[/quote]

INHO? I’m sure they get around it by “renting” the house to them.
[/quote]

You’re sure?
You do have proof of that or is it pure speculation?

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Interesting tidbit, INHO not really. Is that illegal?

INHO? I’m sure they get around it by “renting” the house to them.
[/quote]

You’re sure?
You do have proof of that or is it pure speculation?
[/quote]

This has been out in the open for a while. Wall Street journal

Well , that’s proof that they rent a house. Nothin else.

Also found this interesting piece from quetico superior wilderness news.

That’s from March 2017. Check out the final paragraph: “Antofagasta is currently suing the federal government over former President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw federal mineral leases the company needs to operate the proposed mine.”

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Well , that’s proof that they rent a house. Nothin else.

Doh Kay…your right, it’s not weird that a billion dollar, foriegn mining company that wants the government to clear the way for them to mine is “renting” a house to the president’s daughter and one of his advisors. Nothing to see here, move along.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/684821/ivanka-trump-renting-dc-home-from-chilean-billionaire-dispute-government

Hey, I get it.
There are people for mining and people against mining.

I have a more philosophic view.

If the rule Toady is that you can mine, well then mine. If tomorrow the rule is you can’t mine well then you can’t.

In my mind it cannot get any simpler than that.

Some rules I like and work in my favor. Some rules I find absurd and don’t work so well for me.

Mining in N. MN, I don’t have a horse in the race and could give a rats ass either way.

My point is follow the rules that apply whether you like them or not.

and remember we do not draft rules to “what ifs” the what ifs are debated prior to the rules. We have repercussions for when/if the what ifs happen.

Example: People want to drive vehicles. There are laws drafted for people that want to get licensed.
What if someone speeds, drives threw an intersection and kills a person?
Heck, we know that is going to happen. Right?

Do we not allow driving? No, we have repercussions if you break the rules so people that don’t break the rules can keep driving.

I could go on forever with the what ifs.

walleyevision wrote:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/684821/ivanka-trump-renting-dc-home-from-chilean-billionaire-dispute-government

This is an interesting tid bit. I wasn’t far off with my question.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

There appears to be no connection between the couple and the Chilean billionaire, and both Terré and a White House spokeswoman said the couple is paying “market value” for the house. If that’s the case, an ethics lawyer told The Wall Street Journal there “might not be an ethics problem” — though there’s still a “political-appearance question.” Read more at The Wall Street Journal. Becca

So you basically protect land for many years and then when the right amount of money gets offered you give it up as if it were never protected. Look at all the man made mistakes that effect every one. Like the BP oil spill. Then the government just fines them and makes more from it

walleyevision wrote:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/684821/ivanka-trump-renting-dc-home-from-chilean-billionaire-dispute-government

Renting a 5.5 mil house to the Trump family is like me renting a room at the super 8 for a night. That’s why it’s not a story.

Lots of irony here. It would seem that most opposed at least here in this form are the ones that live surrounded by urban sprawl. In places that just 1 or 200 years ago were wilderness themselves. Surrounded by oversized houses built with materials taken from the land. In this day in age a nation that is successful has to have exports as well as receive Imports. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Our economy is what it is. I’m not saying it’s right to ruin the environment but the whole picture needs to be looked at. It can be done environmentally clean however we know there are going to be mishaps unfortunately. Anybody recall when the Alaskan Pipeline was going to ruin everything in its path?

Bearcat89 wrote:

So you basically protect land for many years and then when the right amount of money gets offered you give it up as if it were never protected. Look at all the man made mistakes that effect every one. Like the BP oil spill. Then the government just fines them and makes more from it

Well Yes, that’s the way it works. Like it or not.

Not quite sure there is proof about “the right amount of money” part.
It could be a correct statement, but we don’t know.
Let me ask the question. Where do you live? on land formerly taken away from the indigenous people? How far back do you want to go? Just your lifetime? Parents lifetime? Grandparents?
Seems hypocritical to me. NIMBY drives me nuts because who’s backyard is it? Originally speaking

Man made mistakes = What ifs.
Once again, solidifying my argument.

Mr. Derek wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>walleyevision wrote:</div>
http://theweek.com/speedreads/684821/ivanka-trump-renting-dc-home-from-chilean-billionaire-dispute-government

Renting a 5.5 mil house to the Trump family is like me renting a room at the super 8 for a night. That’s why it’s not a story.

Gives that billionaire unusual access to the president, and that is a story.

Walleyvision –
Not quite sure I read in the article that the billionaire had unusual access to the President.
I’ll have to read the article again.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
So you basically protect land for many years and then when the right amount of money gets offered you give it up as if it were never protected. Look at all the man made mistakes that effect every one. Like the BP oil spill. Then the government just fines them and makes more from it

Well Yes, that’s the way it works. Like it or not.

Not quite sure there is proof about “the right amount of money” part.
It could be a correct statement, but we don’t know.
Let me ask the question. Where do you live? on land formerly taken away from the indigenous people? How far back do you want to go? Just your lifetime? Parents lifetime? Grandparents?
Seems hypocritical to me. NIMBY drives me nuts because who’s backyard is it? Originally speaking

Man made mistakes = What ifs.
Once again, solidifying my argument.

So along your line of thinking, we shouldn’t care about anything because we weren’t here first. Is it wrong to preserve what we currently have? Would the natives welcome mining? Don’t think so. Would you not care if Mille Lacs was netted until is was devoid of all fish?

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Walleyvision –
Not quite sure I read in the article that the billionaire had unusual access to the President.
I’ll have to read the article again.

:Bangs head against wall:

walleyevision wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
So you basically protect land for many years and then when the right amount of money gets offered you give it up as if it were never protected. Look at all the man made mistakes that effect every one. Like the BP oil spill. Then the government just fines them and makes more from it

Well Yes, that’s the way it works. Like it or not.

Not quite sure there is proof about “the right amount of money” part.
It could be a correct statement, but we don’t know.
Let me ask the question. Where do you live? on land formerly taken away from the indigenous people? How far back do you want to go? Just your lifetime? Parents lifetime? Grandparents?
Seems hypocritical to me. NIMBY drives me nuts because who’s backyard is it? Originally speaking

Man made mistakes = What ifs.
Once again, solidifying my argument.

So along your line of thinking, we shouldn’t care about anything because we weren’t here first. Is it wrong to preserve what we currently have? Would the natives welcome mining? Don’t think so. Would you not care if Mille Lacs was netted until is was devoid of all fish?

Good one – throw in Mille Lacs. How about referencing Global warming and God?

Once again, mining does not mean catastrophic disaster. That would be a what if.

And please don’t but words into my mouth. I care! and as an American I vote. That is my best tool for changing things I disagree with. Doesn’t always work in my favor, but it’s what I do.

Just referencing your comment about how NIMBY is hypocritical and it drives you nuts because it isn’t really our backyard. Mille Lacs is a good rebuttal to your NIMBY stance, not trying to get political, just proving a point.

Anyway, it’s been fun going back n forth with you. Debating the issue at least brings attention to it and can hopefully help people form an opinion one way or another. Have a good night.

This whole thread is a backhanded slap at the President. It drives people nuts whatever he says or does.

Seems everybody has a problem with him having money. Heres a news flash for ya. The Clintons barely had a pot to pi$$ in when Bill got out of school. He was a multi millionaire by the time he reached Washington. Law business that good in Arkansaw?

As far as Trump goes……..ANYBODY with money can get a meeting with him and his people. It’s not a crime nor illegal.

Want to fight the mines? Plenty of groups out there fighting them, put your money or time in and join the fight. Otherwise your arguements have as much validity as the guys complaining about all the plastic in the enviroment while drinking a bottled water or soda, lugging their groceries in the house in a plastic bag.

If you think it’s just the boundary waters their after, think again ! Little bit I know about mines ,I worked in one of the largest hard rock quarry’s in Wis,it employed about 20 people. At this moment all of the National Parks and lands are in their sights !

Anyway, it’s been fun going back n forth with you. Debating the issue at least brings attention to it and can hopefully help people form an opinion one way or another. Have a good night.
[/quote]

Thanks Walleyevision, have a nice weekend.