How about better recycling. Only about 1/2 of aluminum cans are recycled and we need to import bauxite to make new aluminum.

Is it the Crawford Nickel mine you're talking about?

The amount of land to be opened up on Anwr is like comparing a postage stamp on a 100 yard football field from what I've read. The people of AK should have a voice in this decision.

There are still bauxite deposits in and around Bauxite, AR. Instead of mining it, they import bauxite for producing aluminum. The closing of mines in the U.S., often due to production cost associated with .gov regulations, is great for employment as a miner in foreign countries.

The penalties for violations are too cheap

They can mine up and around the boundary waters. All they want as far as I'm concerned going into it. I don't think so. But mining on private land yes

Public land, private land - are not the real issue (s) when it comes to land use ; agriculture, mining, etc.

It boils down to negative environmental impacts, both real and potential. Continuing on this premise with agricultural and mining practices, not everyone lives upstream !
We have seen, experienced and documented significant toxic impacts to both surface waters and groundwater aquifers by these land uses.
I'm fine with responsible & accountable land use, but unfortunately I've seen enough failures of regulatory and voluntary approaches by different layers of government and private industry, that I can only hope any mineral mining near the BWCA is done in a responsible manner.

Well said.

Mining has impact. How do we live without minerals?

For all you that don't like mines start living like Amish.

The Amish cannot live without minerals. They use plenty of metal, timber, and fossil fuels.

There needs to be some sort of government agency that oversees stuff like that......................

So if you use minerals or for instance eat food any type of mining or farming or logging should be permitted or you're a hypocrite is what you’re saying? It’s not all black or white despite what our politicians tell us . I’m basically in favor of the mining and the hundreds of thousands tree huggers infesting the boundary waters are more of a blight. LOL

Someone was concerned about the hole in the ground created by mining. You may have just stumbled across a way to fill that hole.

Interesting suggestion ; FWIW, there is > it's known as EPA , "Environmental Protection Agency"

Pretty much ALL (most, if not all) Federal Regulations that cover both surface and groundwater oversight fall under this agency and The Clean Water Act (1968 ?).

You don't say? So if it is regulated and protected both surface and groundwater what is the concern?

Well, if some powers that be had their way right now, the EPA would be reduced by about 99%, essentially to non-existence and rely upon private “contractors”(aka pocket liners”) to regulate such projects and mines. Similar to how these picket lining developers are working on a long range plan to privatize most public land by small moves like relocating the main office to Mike Lee and company’s home
State!

I’m NOT anti-mining, but I am very for heavily regulated and monitored mining, especially when it comes to sulfide mining etc where the companies are long dissolved and milliner in existence when holding ponds and such start to fail. I have lived and recreated in close proximity to many different mines from strip surface coal to taconite, etc.

Somewhere…..somewhere…..I pray there has to be a happy medium. And no, I’m not an expert on all of this nor do I have the perfect answers for all of this! :-) Happy trapping! ScottW

My two cents. I spent most of my working career with the BLM and USFS. This land is currently National Forest. The environmental analysis done by the Forest Service showed there would be substantial pollution from a mining operation to public lands. During my time with the BLM I had a highly respected geologist tell me that 95% of mining on Federal lands are nothing but scams. Most people aren't aware that congress under both major parties have chosen not to replace the 1872 Mining Law which still governs mining on federal public lands. Having had to permit mining claims myself I can tell you most are not legitimate and the bonds required under current law are insufficient to remediate the damage when the operation is complete. The public is left holding the bag and has to pay the price to clean up the left-over mess. There is also the continuing and increasing failure of public officials and government agencies (and employees) to do their jobs in enforcing current laws and regulations in all aspects of our society. Responsible mining absolutely has its place in our world. The professionals in the US Forest Service evaluated the risks and impacts of this proposal and found it detrimental to the environment and the public interest. Bought and paid for politicians of both major parties overruled them. Another example of why term limits are needed so we have people representing the public interest in congress and not the agenda of their corporate masters. We are destroying our nation for a dollar and the very resources we as trappers and hunters depend on. Drinking water is the most critical resource we have in this country and it's becoming scarcer every year. No project negatively affecting this basic human need should ever be approved.

What land is currently National Forest?

The headlines are working! Like I said before, the whole reason for mentioning mining in the Boundary Waters or the Superior National Forest is to invoke a sympathetic response from the public. If the headline read "Mining near Babbitt, MN" no one would care.

Babbitt would have no bearing on this subject