Unreal !!

......the greed and selfishness continues to grow

We have great technologies that allow us to develop and utilize our natural resources without causing much impact on the environment. I think opening up these opportunities to do so are positive steps in strengthening this country. The more we produce within our own nation the better off we are. We have lost so much of our industry that its going to have negative impacts in the future.

No protected land is safe Anwr is getting opened up so may as well open up drilling both the east and west cost The U.S. oil producers sell more of the oil produced here than we keep here and use As Trump said on the tv come buy here we have more than we need.

By removing restrictions on private land?

Is exporting American products a bad thing? Ive always understood it to be a good thing.

Restrict everything and strangle our own selves sure doesn't make alot of sense unless the weakening of the USA is your goal

I suppose we should just keep all that light crude that we have no way to refine and therefore no use for, lol.

Everyone on here howls about AMERICA FIRST and how we need to produce and manufacture things here again, right up UNTIL we take the steps required to do so, and then it's Not in MY Backyard.

Which is it, folks? Should we mine and utilize the natural resources available in our country, or would you prefer we remain reliant on foreign imports?

Capitalism bad..... Biden-enacted laws good.... you people are crazy LOL.

Drill baby drill
Back to filthy environments of the 70s with rivers on fire,and a love canal in everyones neighborhood.
A boom for the big money pharmaceutical companys hawking cancer drugs,and a bonus for govt to get rid of old age drain on society.

Do u think things are still done the way it was in the 70s

MAFA

This is a mine….i do understand that refining operations produce waste.

The 70s were a results from the refining of crude oil into consumer products.

Well said

16% of Canada's gdp comes from developing their natural resources yet boco gets on here and acts like its a bad thing. I dont understand it..

Maybe both of us dont get it

FWIW, The BWCAW is NOT private land.
Are you familiar with mining enterprises, on site AND offsite environmental issues ??
Too many "living room/armchair" pro mining people talking smart until it's in their neighborhood.

Mining is huge in this area.My son is a miner.Lots of good from mining.Also a few nightmares.
Lots of places need to be set aside from hard industry like mining and clearcut logging.I would say boundary water area is one of them,also wildlife refuges(where hunting and trapping are compatible,no need to restrict that,in fact wildlife management is essential to the health of such areas),there are more important things than money.
That fact is lost (or to use your own vernacular, over your head) on a lot of people who are slaves to the dollar.

I’ve actually always been a proponent of hoarding and not using as much non-renewable resources as possible! Enough to appease and aid the rest of the world to a point but keep as much as possible home. I really think transporting product back and forth across the globe when the destination area also produces the same product…..is just goofy. I know….im just goofy!

It’s a tough balance to figure out who to trust to procure mostly necessary resources. We all know, many of these companies and the employees DO NOT really give a darn about ANYTHING except……profits.

Happy trapping! ScottW

Only know about gravel mining with a little bit of gold experience around Victor.
Please educate me.

The mine is not in the park according to the article. Possible ,,,I read it wrong

Dont talk behind peoples back,like a gossiping old woman,say it straight.

From what I heard, it's on private land, near the park....so unless someone wants to buy it and restrict any other activities..they're welcome to do so.

[/quote]

FWIW, The BWCAW is NOT private land.

You are correct, it WAS private land until the Govt seized it and took it away….

My point from the beginning.
No one read the article,,,only the headlines

Chile owned operation, maybe we can trade for coffee and coca

Yes it's a terrible idea. And it's not even an American company.

NOT American company,,,,, BINGO! But we perform operations in foreign countries?

These technologies exist, but the problem lies in getting companies and industry to use them. They're usually very expensive and time consuming, so they won't do it on their own.

As trappers are we for or against the use of natural resources?

Probably generally yes, but it depends for me and many others. And there’s a difference in renewable resources like beavers versus non-renewables like oil and copper. Happy trapping! ScottW

At it's root, trapping itself is taking of natural resources and every set we make is altering nature. So which is for these tree huggers? No extraction of any resource whatsoever or just those that aren't their's?

The land that the mines are on may be private. The concern is that the watershed that the property is a part of drains into the Boundary Waters. Thus, any pollution/contaminates from the mine will be drained into the Boundary Waters. For those that haven't educated themselves on the history of the Boundary Waters, the historical fights to keep it pristine, and what the Boundary Waters actually are, you should educate yourselves. The Boundary Waters isn't just a few hundred acre lake that prohibits the use of motorboats.

The key to understanding Boco and his type is to ask, is it good for the advancement of human society. If the answer is in the affirmative then they are opposed to it.

Another Auto-pen going to happen....great

Exactly. You nailed it, Scott. I'd be a hypocrite to be against the taking of our resources. But renewable and sustainable is much different than nonrenewable and permanent environmental damages. As trappers, hunters, fisherman, isn't it also part of our duty to protect and advocate for the resources that provide us with our bounty? Is it alright to pillage and devastate our resources and walk away? It would be a hypocrite that would say they love the hunting, trapping, the outdoors but think it's alright to destroy a resource and then shrug and walk away for future generations to rectify.

Until we are ready to accept a drastic decline in lifestyle there has to be mines to provide those goods and services.

The mines have to be where the minerals are.

Don't like it give us a list of what your ready to give up.

No more Aluminum boats, outboard motors, snow machines, 4 wheelers just to name a few things that need mining to exist.

There is middle ground. Ive hunted and fish some open pit mines that closed . To say they destroy a resource and cause a problem that takes generations to rectify might be taking it to an extreme. And usually the foot print in thr big picture is a very small one. How many acres of this boundary waters are we talking. 10%, 5% or less that 1%? Or does it matter? I don't see nature as a whole being as delicate as some seem to think it is.

In my neck of the woods mining created fishing holes and habitat for fur bearers that live in or frequent water. It did destroy habitat for rabbits, squirrels, woodpeckers and such. Produced aluminum for beer cans and such. Employed a bunch of folk too. However, because of folks who are against the use of non renewable resources and the regulations they support, that aluminum is produced in other countries. So now the residents of other countries receive the benefits of employment and new fishing holes.

I wonder which destroys more habitat a year, mining or or folks building homes out in the country just because they want to be in the country.

Home building I would imagine. With the influx of California's I've lost several pieces of trapping ground over the last 10 years.

I’d bet almost for sure residential development, especially on the outskirts of cities. Nary an original wetland to be found in a city or suburb nowadays. Residential and other development in areas of migratory game can and do have massive impacts on long and short term. Happy trapping! ScottW

And all those new houses need mining and logging to get built.

If it's not grown it's mined.
All metals comes out of the ground from a mine.
From your wife's wedding ring to your steel traps to that pickup truck you drive to the copper wiring in your house, it came out of the ground. From a mine.

The vast majority of metalic mineral deposits are found on public land, that's because by the early 1900's all the tillable and grazing land in the USA had been either homesteaded or appropriated by other methods. That left the rest of the mountainous and rocky lands still in the public domain. These lands were then divided up into Military lands, National Parks, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, Forest Service, and BLM lands.

For the most part mineral entry was only allowed on Forest Servive and BLM land, and even large parts of these two land bases have been withdrawn from mineral entry for various reasons.

These lands are where this Country's mineral resources are located. These mineralized areas in the Superior National Forest were available for mineral development when the exploration companies discovered the minerals. They then spent millions of dollars defining the deposits. Now the anti mining enviroment extremists want the government to pull the rug out from under them.

There would be zero mines developed in this Country if these whackos got their way.

So you think it's greedy for those people living in an economically depressed part of the Country to want good high paying jobs that the mines would bring? But it's not greedy for a few yuppies from the Twin Cities to want the whole place for their playground?

And in the long run, so it will not mater that unspoiled parts of the USA be opened up to drilling,mining and who knows what else. why not look to make sure these areas are protected and can not be spoiled. How many here will be on their ear when the damage is at the point of no return in Anwr and it so screwed up no fix to it. How long before the water runs to low on the Colorado and cant generate power. As far as America first that all changed with NAFTA when it was signed it signaled nothing more than opening the doors to take as much production out of the USA as possible,maybe some body can come up with a number. Just how many companies have relocated back here no huge number I bet. Take a hard look at the things we all use each day look and see where it is made, just how many of the things we all wear are made here the good old USA, Just how dependent are we on those huge cargo ships that line up at the ports each and every day. Pretty good for the powerful USA And as far as habitat, I have watched for years the clearing of many ,many small woodlots fence removal clearing of the trees and brush from what is poorer land clearing all the trees from along creeks filling in and covering the sink holes, all for a few more rows of crop. And down here they farm out into the state highway right of way NOT their land. Mull it over.

This is a very confused post. On one hand, you're lamenting the fact that so much manufacturing has gone overseas and so few companies are coming back.... while on the other hand, you're supporting the overregulation that has caused manufacturing to flee the country. Everyone seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want manufacturing in the U.S., you need to support true free market capitalism without government interference. Otherwise, you can continue to expect this country to import most of its goods from countries that impose less burdensome regulations. It's not rocket science.



No, the BWCAW is not private land, nor is it the site of the future mine. The mine IS located on private land, not on BWCAW land. It seems a lot of people are confused about this. I am sure most of you are not okay with the government telling you what you can and can't do on your own private land, but yet you're fine with the government doing just that, so long as it is NOT your land.

The Boundary Waters bring in over $1 billion in annual revenues and support roughly 17,000 jobs. All of that revenue comes from people visiting one of the last true wildnerness areas in the country. What about those jobs? That's more than the mine is proposing. And it don't run out when the copper runs dry.

How much of that is the mine going to take away

Just a couple of points as it seems some never bothered to read the article.
+This proposal has been going on for years. This is private land somewhat near the Boundary Waters. The BWCAW is only mentioned to invoke a response from the public. Mines already exist and operate in this same general area. There are several old mines within the BWCAW as well as railroad grades. After the Pagami fire they were quite obvious. The Environmental groups will give these mines a Colonoscopy over every drop of water that leaves the property.
++ The BWCAW is the most heavily used wilderness in the US and has been for many years. The impacts or man are everywhere there. The numbers of permits that are issued is restricted to LIMIT the resource damage done by the visitors and can never be eliminated.

AND..............how many second, third and fourth level jobs are created using the copper etc that those mines will produce ?

I would like the source of this information. I find it very hard to believe. The BW is a seasonal affair and seeing very, very few people in the Winter. The outfitter season is roughly Memorial Day through Labor Day. Ely and Grand Marais are the main hubs with Cook, Isabella and Tofte also contributing. The year around population of these 5 towns doesn't total 17,000 people. Lake and Cook county are two of the poorest counties in the state, mainly due to low tax base because the bulk of the land is held in public ownership.

There's things more important than money. We don't have to develop every wilderness area or cut down all old growth timber. Trappers and fisherman of all people should be for conserving the remaining wilderness. It doesn't take much pollution to change the ecosystem and ruin it for fish.

This type of mining is not like iron mining. It has never been done successfully without polluting the surrounding waters. Massive amounts of rock need to be crushed since it only contains about 1% copper. Exposed to air the sulfides from the crushed rock form sulfuric acid which leaches out heavy metals like mercury, lead arsenic etc. The BWCA supports many businesses and jobs that will always be there as long it's not destroyed. What you do on private land should not harm the surrounding land.

I know a bunch of the preliminary work has already been done on this mine, but you have to wonder how much they would want to invest moving forward when there is a good chance this decision is reversed by the next administration that caters to the losing side.
Same thing is happening with logging projects in the west or oil pipelines, companies don’t want to start ramping up only to be shut down in a few years.

Exactly right Tray.

The last auction for oil leases in ANWR had exactly ZERO bidders.

Prior to 1978 much of this was private land with resorts and businesses within it. After the USFS took control of it, the buildings were either torn down or burned in place. All of these sites were simply "hidden" from the public. They still exist today along with cars and trucks as well as one below ground "visible" gas pump and tanks as of the last time I was there about 5 years ago. The bulk of the BW that is seen is from the water and very little of the ground is actually seen by man.

If it could safely be done without polluting the surrounding water would that be acceptable?

Sure, as far as I'm concerned.

I really think we need to find middle ground between developing natural resources and protecting some natural wilderness and with today's knowledge we are better equipped to do both. No one wants to destroy it all but in recent time we have tended to lean to far towards none at all. Money isn't everything until we end up in a depression and or economy is severely hurt for generations, and we migh already be there. We have been spoiled in this nation because of our financial success but its not a given if we dont continue to grow and lately we've been shrinking.

I believe the trans-alaska pipeline is a good example of what can be done in a responsible manner

Answer; none.

If the federal and state environmental agencies monitor and regulate the mine half as much as they do large cattle feeding operations and the gas and oil industry id bet there won't be any large scale or environmental changing pollution happening.

He just did a quick Google search and basically copied the first paragraph. Dig deeper it isn't quite just what it says.

When there is no place left with clean water you,your children and grandchildren can drink out of the mine arsenic slime dams.

Pillage other country's resources first

Is safe clean drinking water becoming an increasing problem? I know some dryer regions suffer because of overall availability but im not sure polluted water is really much of an issue here in the USA. Has mining ruined the drinking water in your area?

We will just pipe clean water in from the Great Mother Canada.

Mines are known to pollute water.
Big nickle mine opening up in the next few years at the headwaters of a drainage on one of my traplines.
They have already informed all the stakeholders the river will be polluted with heavy metal.
Mines are important as I said my son is a miner,but there are certain places where they dont need to be.
The nickle mine is not polluting a source of any town drinking water,but I wont be eating fish out of that particular river in a few years when the mine starts producing.

So, either you go fish somewhere else or they try to mine nickel somewhere else? Tis a quandary. Do you, typically, fish where there are no fish?

What company is opening the mine, Boco?

Canada Nickle.

Yes, safe drinking water is definitely becoming a problem. Des Moines has the largest nitrate removal system in the world, and has to run the system more every year.

Another bad water polluter is agriculture.
A bunch of people were killed in a small southern Ontario town a few years ago from e-coli that got into the town drinking water from cattle.
Papermills also bad polluters.
In north western Ontario a bunch of people were poisoned from mercury in the river systems.
That was back in the 70s and fish are still loaded with mercury in NW Ontario in those systems.

Agriculture is responsible for Iowa's nitrate problem.

So MNR sent out a letter stating they were going to pollute the water with heavy metals? Can you post a copy of the letter or email?

I think he was saying the company, Canada Nickel, did. Which also seems quite unlikely to me.

They had to disclose everything in their impact benefit agreement with the FN,or they would not have been able to proceed.FN is a major shareholder/owner of the mine.

For those who don't like mines,start living with the Amish.

^^^^^
Or if you're really serious about saving the planet; the bushmen of sub sahara Africa.

But we need to mine these metals so we can go all electric and save the planet from climate change.

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

This is some of your best work.

Not a very high standard at that !

Many Federal Regulations enacted at the national level are carried out in each state by the responsible agency ; some examples are ; your respective state DOT carries out federal DOT highway requirements for roads, bridges, etc., construction and maintenance ; the federal DE (Dept of Education) enacts education requirements and your respective state DE sees that they're applied in your public schools, etc, etc.
The EPA, as well as Congress, develop policies, guidelines and requirements for many environmental areas, Clean Water, Clean Air.....are two examples.
Here in WI, the federal (and state) policies are typically instituted by WDNR amd DATCP (Dept of Ag, Trade and Consumer Protection) and primarily enforced by WIDNR (because DNR has legislative authority and DATCP typically does not.
In Minnesota, the state enforcement agency for soil & water, air, etc is MPCA (MN Pollution Control Agency).

Ok, so there is oversight, however there's several things that influence how well (or not) our natural resources are managed and protected ; politics and consistent funding, as you all know, both can and do change intermittently.

Anyway.......it's not as easy and straight up as one might think. I worked 32 years as a Soil and Water Conservationist for USDA. I started with SCS (Soil Conservation Service, now known as NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]) in 1979. I have a pretty good idea how the Feds (and some state agencies) work, and so I always have concerns....

Regards, Vic

That is quality! Sadly, only a small percentage of people will get it.

It's better to rely on communist China and 3rd world countries to procure our necessary minerals.

Well played, sir.

Maybe if we quit depending on fancy fishing electronics we wouldn’t be so dependent on them? LOL

I can live without it.

Can you live without your car?

Phone?

Anything electrical?