Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters

Again, you all are showing how little you know about this topic. Living in the area and working with the mines makes me way more in tune with the realities than those that don’t. I know many people that work at all the mines up here and it’s pretty unanimous among those folks that there is a lot of fear mongering and scare tactics being put out there by these extremist groups trying to shut them down.

Every single person working in the Environmental Dept at Polymet is from the area. Yes, the owners are big shots that live out of the country, no different than a lot of other big companies. Just because the funding is coming from them, doesn’t automatically mean every worker will be imported from out of the country.

As far as the tailings basin in Brazil goes, that was poorly designed and built long ago, foolishly above a community, and probably by someone unqualified. Tailings dam design has come a long way over the years and with the technology and additional scrutiny to maintain them, as well as, improved design, those type of disasters are highly unlikely. And the tailings basins for these mines will not be built anywhere near a community of people.

If you actually knew anything about these proposals, you’d understand that there is a large fund of money the state has forced them to set aside in the event of a cleanup or bankruptcy so it’s not a burden to the tax payers.

The mines are fickle and are at the mercy of of the markets. Shut downs happen, but the demand of these minerals should keep them chugging a long for many years. I believe they expect a 20 year life for Polymet. I bet you can double that. I’ve been hearing HibTac will shut down any day for 10 years and it’s still going.

Again, take some time and look at the other side of the coin with an open mind.

I see all of my questions to you all have been left unanswered…. no surprise there.

But, I’ll humor myself and ask them again.

As we as a society move closer to a “greener” energy grid, how do you suppose we build the infrastructure needed to get there? Each and every windmill, solar panel and battery will require mass quantities of the very metals Polymet and Twin Metals will be mining for. Do we just continue on mining them out of 3rd world countries where there are ZERO environmental regulations, just as long as it’s “not in our back yard”? Like Brazil!???

What could go ever go wrong with something designed by humans?

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

I see all of my questions to you all have been left unanswered…. no surprise there.

But, I’ll humor myself and ask them again.

As we as a society move closer to a “greener” energy grid, how do you suppose we build the infrastructure needed to get there? Each and every windmill, solar panel and battery will require mass quantities of the very metals Polymet and Twin Metals will be mining for. Do we just continue on mining them out of 3rd world countries where there are ZERO environmental regulations, just as long as it’s “not in our back yard”? Like Brazil!???

Don’t you know? Green technology has all green resources it’s just like grocery stores have food we don’t need cows or farmers. 😉

A lot of very ignorant people think our world can turn without any new raw materials being mined. That’s just completely absurd. With today’s regulations the new mines will be much safer and environmentally friendly than previous ones. The device you’re using to look at this probably has some of those very materials being mined. Same with the vehicle those tourists use to get to the boundary waters.

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Every single person working in the Environmental Dept at Polymet is from the area.

Ok,how big is this department? Did they grow up in the area and did their dodilaagence in years of extensive research on the subject?
Are they people that moved up here for a job?
Maybe, not using phrases such as special intrest groups and others
like ignorance to deflect may not come across as post-truth. FACTS go along way.

Just wading through the muck that’s thrown at us like the rest of us and the smell is getting bad.

Yeah I’m pretty bored of the “if you don’t live here you don’t understand” argument. Next please.

All of your arguments about needing minerals are great. You should go make them to some truly anti-mining people. I’m not anti-mining, I am for doing so responsibly and ethically and in areas with minimal possible impacts on fish and wildlife. This isn’t a nimby situation, it’s not my backyard anyway— but I believe we have a duty to protect the wilderness and its animals from the impacts of human greed.

1hl&sinker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>DeRangedFishinguy wrote:</div>
Every single person working in the Environmental Dept at Polymet is from the area.

Ok,how big is this department? Did they grow up in the area and did their dodilaagence in years of extensive research on the subject?
Are they people that moved up here for a job?
Maybe, not using phrases such as special intrest groups and others
like ignorance to deflect may not come across as post-truth. FACTS go along way.

Just wading through the muck that’s thrown at us like the rest of us and the smell is getting bad.

There has been 15 years, 15 YEARS! of Due Diligence done on this project so far! Each and every Govt agency (DNR, MPCA, Army Corp) has approved their permits time and time again. The Enviro Extremists continue to work the loopholes with the extremist judges to hold this project up (Polymet). If it’s taken this long to get Polymet off the ground, you can be assured TM will be a long way from operation if it even gets approved.

If you want to find out the backgrounds of the staff, why not give them a call and chat. To my knowledge, they are all locals from da’Range!

What smells bad is the endless lies and propaganda being spewed about the project and the doom and gloom mentality of it all.

Hi. My family is from Eveleth/Gilbert. Many members of my family were and are employed in the local mining industry. I still oppose mining in these areas after carefully considering your arguments in regards to the inevitable need for raw material, potential impact on the local economy for a few decades, and presumed better/safer designs. The Boundary Waters were set aside and protected for a reason. Agree to disagree I guess. It’s about priorities and mine are different from yours. Simple as that.

Calling for protection and appreciation of natural resources does not make an organization extremist. Here is the mission statement of the subject group: “Founded in 2015, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters was established as a hunting and angling voice for protecting the BWCA from proposed sulfide-ore copper mining in its watershed. Since its inception, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters has worked to protect the land, water and wildlife that makes the BWCA an iconic place to hunt, fish, camp and explore. In the future, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters will continue to lead a coalition of hunters, anglers and conservation groups dedicated to protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, as well as ensure hunters and anglers are at the forefront of any policies concerning hunting and fishing in the BWCA and surrounding areas.”

tangler wrote:

Yeah I’m pretty bored of the “if you don’t live here you don’t understand” argument. Next please.

All of your arguments about needing minerals are great. You should go make them to some truly anti-mining people. I’m not anti-mining, I am for doing so responsibly and ethically and in areas with minimal possible impacts on fish and wildlife. This isn’t a nimby situation, it’s not my backyard anyway— but I believe we have a duty to protect the wilderness and its animals from the impacts of human greed.

I’m originally from out of the area and felt the same as you. I was once 100% against these mines as well. But after immersing myself in the area, laying down roots and working as a contractor in most every mine up here I’ve learned a thing or 2. So, the argument of if you don’t live up here you don’t understand is actually very applicable. Come on up! Start a life. Work with the engineers that work in the area. Get some actual background in Environmental engineering/remediation (the very issues you are afraid of), I guarantee your perception will change. Take a step back and understand how we have the technologies we have now. Think of how it’s all made. How can we sustain it and grow it? We need to mine precious metals. We need to move to greener energy, these metals are needed to do that.

You are anti-mining! Precious metals need to come out of the ground somewhere and where it is found is in beautiful regions due to geography. If we can’t mine it here, then where? What about the environments of those places?If you are in MN, it is still your backyard. It is a NIMBY situation.

Polymet’s plan is responsible and ethical and accounting for minimal impacts to fish, water and wildlife. You are right, we have a duty to protect the environment and no one wants to do that more than the local people of the Iron Range that live, work and play up here.

moustachesteve wrote:

Hi. My family is from Eveleth/Gilbert. Many members of my family were and are employed in the local mining industry. I still oppose mining in these areas after carefully considering your arguments in regards to the inevitable need for raw material, potential impact on the local economy for a few decades, and presumed better/safer designs. The Boundary Waters were set aside and protected for a reason. Agree to disagree I guess. It’s about priorities and mine are different from yours. Simple as that.

Calling for protection and appreciation of natural resources does not make an organization extremist. Here is the mission statement of the subject group: “Founded in 2015, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters was established as a hunting and angling voice for protecting the BWCA from proposed sulfide-ore copper mining in its watershed. Since its inception, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters has worked to protect the land, water and wildlife that makes the BWCA an iconic place to hunt, fish, camp and explore. In the future, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters will continue to lead a coalition of hunters, anglers and conservation groups dedicated to protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, as well as ensure hunters and anglers are at the forefront of any policies concerning hunting and fishing in the BWCA and surrounding areas.”

I understand the concerns, I have them myself. But it’s extremely hypocritical to protest these mines when you look at the everyday things we use and can’t live without that these minerals are used for. It would be great if we didn’t have to mine for anything. But that’s not reality. Everything we do leaves an impact on the earth and we just have to make sure we do it right.

I’m not crazy about the TM mine by the BWCA, but I am confident that after the decade or more they will have to battle to operate, there will be even greater technological advances to make it even safer. But in reality, I don’t foresee TM ever being able to go, I think the push back will be too much for them. They are barely on my radar because it’s so far from a reality. Hence, why I want Polymet to succeed even more. This area needs these jobs.

What is Klobuchar’s position on these?

Deuces wrote:

What is Klobuchar’s position on these?

Back when she was actually working for Minnesotans, I believe she was for them. Now that she’s checked out and on the road campaigning, who knows. Like all politicians, I’m sure her stances flip-flop on everything depending on who’s filling her pockets.

Deuces wrote:

What is Klobuchar’s position on these?

more so yet….whats Stauber’s position…………………………

hes’ supposed to be the “MAN” up there!!!!!!!!

glenn57 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Mr.Beads wrote:</div>
What is Klobuchar’s position on these?

more so yet….whats Stauber’s position…………………………

hes’ supposed to be the “MAN” up there!!!!!!!!

He supports it.

moustachesteve wrote:

Hi. My family is from Eveleth/Gilbert. Many members of my family were and are employed in the local mining industry. I still oppose mining in these areas after carefully considering your arguments in regards to the inevitable need for raw material, potential impact on the local economy for a few decades, and presumed better/safer designs. The Boundary Waters were set aside and protected for a reason. Agree to disagree I guess. It’s about priorities and mine are different from yours. Simple as that.

Calling for protection and appreciation of natural resources does not make an organization extremist. Here is the mission statement of the subject group: “Founded in 2015, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters was established as a hunting and angling voice for protecting the BWCA from proposed sulfide-ore copper mining in its watershed. Since its inception, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters has worked to protect the land, water and wildlife that makes the BWCA an iconic place to hunt, fish, camp and explore. In the future, Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters will continue to lead a coalition of hunters, anglers and conservation groups dedicated to protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, as well as ensure hunters and anglers are at the forefront of any policies concerning hunting and fishing in the BWCA and surrounding areas.”

Okay, we need to define what we are talking about and opposing because there is some confusion going on here with people equivocating PolyMet’s project with Twin Metals’. PolyMet’s Northmet project is an open pit mine NOT IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS WATERSHED. If you oppose PolyMet’s project due to “protecting the boundary waters” you are misinformed.

I do understand that TM would be in the bwca watershed and that it poses risks, risks for which this advocacy group and forum topic began. I cannot speak as much on TM because I haven’t done as much research on it as PolyMet. Just make sure you aren’t falling for the lie that all the mining proposals up there are the same thing. Polymet is an open pit mine project NOT in the bwca watershed while TM is proposing an underground mine that will be in the bwca watershed.

Mustachesteve, do you specifically oppose PolyMet’s project? If so, why? Or do you generally oppose mining up in that area? If so, why?

^the Lake Superior watershed is worth protecting as well.

Still a lot of banter but yet no answers. Would be nice to see what you anti mining folks propose we do, or where we mine these minerals other than in MN.

Change my mind. Get me on your side again.

looks to be headed to the mn supreme court!!!!!!!!!

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Still a lot of banter but yet no answers. Would be nice to see what you anti mining folks propose we do, or where we mine these minerals other than in MN.

Change my mind. Get me on your side again.

I’ve seen few minds changed on this issue and I don’t see the point in banging heads together on a forum. We fundamentally disagree, I’m moving on.

So, in other words.. you got nothin’! LOL! Sounds good! Cheers!

Yes congrats, You exhausted me. My refusal to further engage confirms the superiority of your argument. Enjoy your big moment.

Greenhorn wrote:

Okay, we need to define what we are talking about and opposing because there is some confusion going on here with people equivocating PolyMet’s project with Twin Metals’. PolyMet’s Northmet project is an open pit mine NOT IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS WATERSHED. If you oppose PolyMet’s project due to “protecting the boundary waters” you are misinformed.

I was going to say the same thing. The goal for a lot of these groups has been to stop the TM mine. There are significant differences between them including how the tailings are handled. The TM plans to bury 1/2 of it while the other half will be dry stacked which has proven to be susceptible to runoff.

Derangedfishingguy talks about new technology being the answer but a lot of the “new tech” is unproven.

Greenhorn wrote:

Polymet is an open pit mine project NOT in the bwca watershed while TM is proposing an underground mine that will be in the bwca watershed.

Yeah, we’re on the same page. Any confusion wasn’t mine. The Polymet news got posted in here but not by me and nobody’s calling the situations equivalent.

tangler wrote:

^the Lake Superior watershed is worth protecting as well.

I agree.

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Change my mind. Get me on your side again.

Nobody is trying to change your mind. As I said before we have different priorities and we can leave it at that. You’re not “winning” anything by being a Richard on the internet. This thread began as a way to let people know about an event supporting a group that promotes the continued safety of natural resources specific to hunting and fishing in a forum devoted to hunting and fishing. I think you’re misunderstanding the point of IDO. This isn’t an op-ed.

Here’s an interesting read from 2018 on the topic.

Mount Polley and PolyMet: What happened in Canada must not happen here

“According to the U.S. Forest Service 2016 study, 100 percent of sulfide mines have had spills, and 28 percent have, like Mount Polley, had outright dam failures. A 2017 U.N. report shows that catastrophic spills are actually increasing, as mining companies seek to lower costs and increase profits.”

No Thank You. I have ZERO trust or interest in another company with no ties to the region coming in and mining Minnesota’s resources. We can import the metals from other countries who produce it cheaper and ruin their own environment and resources.

We actually throw away more copper in the United States in a year than we mine. Copper is one of the easier recycled metals out there as well. I’m a fairly conservative person, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think the focus needs to shift towards reusing resources that are finite or could degrade the environment to harvest. Continue to invest in the infrastructure to recycle it here in our own country once it is here. This creates higher paying jobs that last more than a decade without harming the environment. The money generated would also be a million times more likely to stay in Minnesota’s economy versus in the pocket of some global investor who won’t step foot in Minnesota.

buckybadger wrote:

We actually throw away more copper in the United States in a year than we mine.

And we recycle 1/3 of what we use.

moustachesteve wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hornster wrote:</div>
Polymet is an open pit mine project NOT in the bwca watershed while TM is proposing an underground mine that will be in the bwca watershed.

Yeah, we’re on the same page. Any confusion wasn’t mine. The Polymet news got posted in here but not by me and nobody’s calling the situations equivalent.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tangler wrote:</div>
^the Lake Superior watershed is worth protecting as well.

I agree.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>DeRangedFishinguy wrote:</div>
Change my mind. Get me on your side again.

Nobody is trying to change your mind. As I said before we have different priorities and we can leave it at that. You’re not “winning” anything by being a Richard on the internet. This thread began as a way to let people know about an event supporting a group that promotes the continued safety of natural resources specific to hunting and fishing in a forum devoted to hunting and fishing. I think you’re misunderstanding the point of IDO. This isn’t an op-ed.

because you and him disagree he’s a Richard………WOWZER. then i guess i am to because i support this mining based on the exact same things Derangedfishingguy does!!!!!!!

glenn57 wrote:

because you and him disagree he’s a Richard………WOWZER. then i guess i am to because i support this mining based on the exact same things Derangedfishingguy does!!!!!!!

No, Glenn. My exact words were:

moustachesteve wrote:

Agree to disagree I guess. It’s about priorities and mine are different from yours. Simple as that.

He’s being a Richard because:

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Again, you all are showing how little you know about this topic.

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

I see all of my questions to you all have been left unanswered…. no surprise there.

But, I’ll humor myself and ask them again.

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Still a lot of banter but yet no answers. Would be nice to see what you anti mining folks propose we do, or where we mine these minerals other than in MN.

Change my mind. Get me on your side again.

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

So, in other words.. you got nothin’! LOL! Sounds good! Cheers!

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

Still a lot of banter but yet no answers. Would be nice to see what you anti mining folks propose we do, or where we mine these minerals other than in MN.

I’m for less growth and less resource use. No growth would be even better. We have to learn to live within our means eventually, nows as good a time as any to start trimming back the fat and waste and learn some real lessons.

moustachesteve wrote:

Nobody is trying to change your mind. As I said before we have different priorities and we can leave it at that. You’re not “winning” anything by being a Richard on the internet. This thread began as a way to let people know about an event supporting a group that promotes the continued safety of natural resources specific to hunting and fishing in a forum devoted to hunting and fishing. I think you’re misunderstanding the point of IDO. This isn’t an op-ed.

I’ve been lurking on this forum for a while, I’m familiar with IDO.

I began posting in this topic because of the slew of miss-information and ignorance being thrown around. I felt that it needed a voice from “the other side” to try and balance it out. Maybe at least get someone to attempt to look at the other side of the coin for a change. This thread is about trying to tear down the future of Northern MN, a place I call home. Of course I’m going to chime in.

I wanted to have an honest discussion about it. I wanted to hear the Anti’s rebuttals. I was hoping to keep what I felt was a good discussion going about the topic, but per usual, as soon as someone falls on their face, they take their ball and go home. That’s fine. I get it. The internet is a tough place to debate. But if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

But no where have I ever felt like I was being a “Richard”. I’m not trying to win anything. This isn’t a contest. This is about people’s livelihoods and the future of Northern MN. I stood my ground. I spoke my peace. Tangler bowed out, and now you’re calling me a “Richard”? For what? Because I’m challenging the Echo Chamber?

buckybadger wrote:

No Thank You. I have ZERO trust or interest in another company with no ties to the region coming in and mining Minnesota’s resources. We can import the metals from other countries who produce it cheaper and ruin their own environment and resources.

Well at least you’re honest about being fine with trashing other countries environments. While that’s extremely hypocritical, I appreciate your honesty.