DVD Talk
Welcome to 1873 (Proposal would force miners to replace machines with mules) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Welcome to 1873 (Proposal would force miners to replace machines with mules)


grundle
10-31-11, 01:25 PM
Attitudes like this are one of the reasons why our economy is doing so horribly. Modern technology makes us more productive, and gives us all better lives. Abandoning that technology is a step backwards.


http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/246

Welcome to 1873

by Marita K. Noon - Jul 22, 2010

The World Championship of Cowboy Action Shooting is held each year in New Mexico. The event, incorporating a Wild West Jubilee, is a multi-day costume party where participants stay in character while competing in the old west town that has been created in the dust east of Albuquerque. I was there as Cookie Krumm. I even won two awards for my costume and character.

Having had fun there all weekend, it was difficult to go back to the “real world” of problems and politics when it was over. Little did I expect the real world would include visions of miners with picks, pans and mules.

I received an e-mail containing the approval for the “Plan of Operations” for exploration of minerals such as tungsten, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The Finley Basin Exploration Project is in Montana in the Flint Range Inventoried Roadless Area.

Back in the 70’s Union Carbide had drilled 10 exploration holes on the site “which is rated as having moderate to high mineral potential for the majority of the area.” Now, an Australian company wants to invest in America, bringing outside dollars in and creating jobs by exploring the Finley Claims.

This should be great news with America’s economy in need of jobs and investment—except it really is back to the 1800s.

The Forest Service’s approval granted to Finley Mining states that they will “use a team of mules” and that “hand tools will be used to level the drilling pad and clear rocks, debris and any small shrubs.” Additionally, “all disturbances would be reclaimed using hand tools.” Can you say 1873?

Reading the Decision Memo, one gets the feeling that the Forest Service would rather not approve the mining proposal, but there are no real grounds not to. While explaining the “rationale” for the decision, the memo states that the company has the “legal right to conduct exploration activities” and that “The role of the Forest Service is to ensure that mining activities minimize adverse environmental effects. Congress has not given the Forest Service authority to unreasonably circumscribe or prohibit reasonably necessary activities under the 1872 General Mining Law that are otherwise lawful.”

Back in the 70’s Union Carbide did the original exploration with bulldozers and other mechanized equipment. But that was before the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was written and implemented in January 2001 by the Clinton administration.

Now to get approval, the plan had to incorporate mules. A Forest Service representative said that using mechanized equipment would have resulted in delays of multiple years as the proposal would have to go through Washington rather than being dealt with on the local level.

Mine operators will “camp” nearby on private property and “pack” into the site each day—walking on foot and using the mules whenever equipment weight requires their assistance. The Decision Memo also mandates that all equipment must be cleaned “prior to entry on the project area” and that they will use “certified weed free hay for the mule stock.” Additionally, they must remove all trash (“such as cans, bottles and other debris”) daily for “disposal in a state-approved landfill.”

How is America supposed to be competitive on a global scale when we are back to the 1800s, mining our natural resources by hand? This is environmentalism carried to an extreme. It doesn’t matter whether we are extracting tungsten, gold or uranium—or even oil or gas, current policies tie the hands of those who want to explore and make new discoveries, who want to create new wealth and provide real jobs for America. They’ve become like the bootleggers—an illicit business that has to be done under the cover of darkness.

If we want to move ahead in America and maintain our status as a world leader with a strong economic foundation we need to change our attitudes and encourage responsible extraction of our resources. Asking that mining be done with a pick and a mule is going beyond “reasonable”—it is punishment.

Modern methods can use equipment and machinery to extract the resource responsibly and then reclaim the land when the mineral is exhausted.

A crusty old miner with his pack mule is part of the charm of the Wild West Jubilee but they are no longer the real world. Today, we need a government that encourages, rather than punishes, those who are willing to take the risk of exploring, those who are willing to bring funds into the American economy and provide real, private sector jobs.

Jason
10-31-11, 01:47 PM
I don't fucking care. I'm so sick of conservative outrage I could puke.

Lemdog
10-31-11, 01:57 PM
I'm sure PETA will protest the use of mules.

al_bundy
10-31-11, 02:11 PM
mining is an environmental nightmare. we'll just let other countries poison themselves

Navinabob
10-31-11, 02:43 PM
Attitudes like this are one of the reasons why our economy is doing so horribly. Modern technology makes us more productive, and gives us all better lives. Abandoning that technology is a step backwards.


http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/246

Welcome to 1873

by Marita K. Noon - Jul 22, 2010

The World Championship of Cowboy Action Shooting is held each year in New Mexico. The event, incorporating a Wild West Jubilee, is a multi-day costume party where participants stay in character while competing in the old west town that has been created in the dust east of Albuquerque. I was there as Cookie Krumm. I even won two awards for my costume and character.

Having had fun there all weekend, it was difficult to go back to the “real world” of problems and politics when it was over. Little did I expect the real world would include visions of miners with picks, pans and mules.

I received an e-mail containing the approval for the “Plan of Operations” for exploration of minerals such as tungsten, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The Finley Basin Exploration Project is in Montana in the Flint Range Inventoried Roadless Area.

Back in the 70’s Union Carbide had drilled 10 exploration holes on the site “which is rated as having moderate to high mineral potential for the majority of the area.” Now, an Australian company wants to invest in America, bringing outside dollars in and creating jobs by exploring the Finley Claims.

This should be great news with America’s economy in need of jobs and investment—except it really is back to the 1800s.

The Forest Service’s approval granted to Finley Mining states that they will “use a team of mules” and that “hand tools will be used to level the drilling pad and clear rocks, debris and any small shrubs.” Additionally, “all disturbances would be reclaimed using hand tools.” Can you say 1873?

Reading the Decision Memo, one gets the feeling that the Forest Service would rather not approve the mining proposal, but there are no real grounds not to. While explaining the “rationale” for the decision, the memo states that the company has the “legal right to conduct exploration activities” and that “The role of the Forest Service is to ensure that mining activities minimize adverse environmental effects. Congress has not given the Forest Service authority to unreasonably circumscribe or prohibit reasonably necessary activities under the 1872 General Mining Law that are otherwise lawful.”

Back in the 70’s Union Carbide did the original exploration with bulldozers and other mechanized equipment. But that was before the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was written and implemented in January 2001 by the Clinton administration.

Now to get approval, the plan had to incorporate mules. A Forest Service representative said that using mechanized equipment would have resulted in delays of multiple years as the proposal would have to go through Washington rather than being dealt with on the local level.

Mine operators will “camp” nearby on private property and “pack” into the site each day—walking on foot and using the mules whenever equipment weight requires their assistance. The Decision Memo also mandates that all equipment must be cleaned “prior to entry on the project area” and that they will use “certified weed free hay for the mule stock.” Additionally, they must remove all trash (“such as cans, bottles and other debris”) daily for “disposal in a state-approved landfill.”

How is America supposed to be competitive on a global scale when we are back to the 1800s, mining our natural resources by hand? This is environmentalism carried to an extreme. It doesn’t matter whether we are extracting tungsten, gold or uranium—or even oil or gas, current policies tie the hands of those who want to explore and make new discoveries, who want to create new wealth and provide real jobs for America. They’ve become like the bootleggers—an illicit business that has to be done under the cover of darkness.

If we want to move ahead in America and maintain our status as a world leader with a strong economic foundation we need to change our attitudes and encourage responsible extraction of our resources. Asking that mining be done with a pick and a mule is going beyond “reasonable”—it is punishment.

Modern methods can use equipment and machinery to extract the resource responsibly and then reclaim the land when the mineral is exhausted.

A crusty old miner with his pack mule is part of the charm of the Wild West Jubilee but they are no longer the real world. Today, we need a government that encourages, rather than punishes, those who are willing to take the risk of exploring, those who are willing to bring funds into the American economy and provide real, private sector jobs.

Giant shocker: Conservative blog omits facts!

The area is a protected national forest, and as such it has very specific rules to limit traffic. And while the article predictably name-drops Clinton and his scary federal environmental tyranny, it somehow forgets that Bush later changed things so the state had a say on what specific land they want protected.

What is most maddening is the supreme disconnect in logic here. The article at first states that we need jobs and we need the mining business, which is just fine, but somehow doesn't realize that 1) the mining company was happy to fulfill the request as they'll likely make money this way because of the high probability of scheelite there, and 2) the fewer giant machines and tools used the longer the miners will be employed and the greater the amount of miners that will be needed. This provision actually created job.

I stayed in a tiny town in the far backwoods in Montana, and while they are hurting for jobs, they are fiercely protective of their environment. I saw a town meeting in Troy where people were complaining about the roads the Forestry Service were putting in!

This article is just another mindless example of a square ideology peg trying to be forced into a round reality hole.

Nausicaa
10-31-11, 06:56 PM
And I love how wanting to protect what little federal land the government preserves is environmentalism run amok. I agree with Jason.

kvrdave
10-31-11, 07:18 PM
And I love how wanting to protect what little federal land the government preserves is environmentalism run amok. I agree with Jason.

:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_the_United_States

The protected areas of the United States are managed by an array of different federal, state, tribal and local level authorities and receive widely varying levels of protection. Some areas are managed as wilderness, while others are operated with acceptable commercial exploitation. As of 31 January 2008, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, the U.S. had a total of 6,770 terrestrial nationally designated (federal) protected areas. These protected areas cover 2,607,131 km2 (1,006,619 sq mi), or 27.08 percent of the land area of the United States.[1] This is also one-tenth of the protected land area of the world. The U.S. also had a total of 787 National Marine Protected Areas, covering an additional 627,830 km2 (242,410 sq mi), or 67 percent of the total marine area of the United States.[1] In addition, the World Commission on Protected Areas' 2009 database has over 10,480 protected areas listed for the U.S., including the state level protected areas.[2]


We preserve so little land we should be ashamed. WE NEED MORE REGULATION!!!

crazyronin
10-31-11, 08:40 PM
Beaverhead/Deerlodge Nat'l Forest - 3,372,472 acres

Flint Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (an isolated, noncontiguous part of B/DNF) - 59,211 acres

My ghod! It's like they want to wipe it off the map.

starman9000
10-31-11, 08:46 PM
American land is meant to support Australians, anyone who thinks otherwise is a goddamned hippy! :mad:

kvrdave
11-01-11, 12:12 AM
I'd be fine with states deciding for themselves. Alaska wants to drill for more oil. Apparently they think commerce, infrastructure, and jobs are a benefit to them. Well, we'll just see what the state of Vermont thinks about that nonsense!

classicman2
11-01-11, 07:21 AM
And I love how wanting to protect what little federal land the government preserves is environmentalism run amok. I agree with Jason.

What little federal land?

You've gotta be kidding.

CRM114
11-01-11, 08:50 AM
I stayed in a tiny town in the far backwoods in Montana, and while they are hurting for jobs, they are fiercely protective of their environment. I saw a town meeting in Troy where people were complaining about the roads the Forestry Service were putting in!

Montana is nothing more than a bunch of job-killing, Capitalist hating, socialist hippies out to destroy our very way of living. Those stinkin' hippies make me sick with their environmental mumbo jumbo.

Mabuse
11-01-11, 11:22 AM
And I love how wanting to protect what little federal land the government preserves is environmentalism run amok. I agree with Jason.Valley of the Wind is a good movie bro, but don't let that brand of naive environmentalism seep too far into your brain.

kvrdave
11-01-11, 11:23 AM
Leave it up to Montana. I'm good with that. And I don't know that I think the reporter got the whole story. My guess is that if it is left up to Montana, they do a hell of a lot more than the feds allow.

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-11, 11:44 AM
You can't just let people in Montana think for themselves... people in New York and LA are much more thinkier.

Navinabob
11-01-11, 02:02 PM
That 27% (which is 347 million acres) isn't that big of a number when you consider that "protected" means a lot of different things. I think some people are confusing it with "preserved land". While preserved land is protected, not everything protected is preserved. That 27% covers Nature Reserves, wilderness areas, national monuments, city parks/playgrounds, trails, some historic landmarks, forests, game areas and the land surrounding protected lakes and rivers. Much of Alaska empty snow and sparsely forested, this land is both protected land (about 100 million acres) and houses entire towns and tribes; that is also included in that 27%. After all that we have to include the 27 million acres set aside mining, logging, grazing, and oil and gas production which is also "protected". We also include 56 million acres for Native American tribes in the US... that also take a chunk out of that 27% of protected land number.

kvrdave
11-01-11, 02:12 PM
That would lead one to think that you can do anything you desire on the remaining 73%. It may not be "protected" but it is regulated up the ass. Hell, it's all "protected."

classicman2
11-01-11, 02:17 PM
That 27% (which is 347 million acres) isn't that big of a number when you consider that "protected" means a lot of different things. I think some people are confusing it with "preserved land". While preserved land is protected, not everything protected is preserved. That 27% covers Nature Reserves, wilderness areas, national monuments, city parks/playgrounds, trails, some historic landmarks, forests, game areas and the land surrounding protected lakes and rivers. Much of Alaska empty snow and sparsely forested, this land is both protected land (about 100 million acres) and houses entire towns and tribes; that is also included in that 27%. After all that we have to include the 27 million acres set aside mining, logging, grazing, and oil and gas production which is also "protected". We also include 56 million acres for Native American tribes in the US... that also take a chunk out of that 27% of protected land number.

And, that figure doesn't include land that (in effect) is federally owned - site designations, for example.

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-11, 02:19 PM
<img src="http://www.imageadventures.com/other/occupy_bear.jpg">

CRM114
11-01-11, 02:58 PM
You can't just let people in Montana think for themselves... people in New York and LA are much more thinkier.

-ohbfrank-

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wlpGtqH9Z7U/SjLIAiCIBOI/AAAAAAAACyU/oR5v6RB6fCU/s400/090612_zen_book.jpg

CRM114
11-01-11, 03:01 PM
That would lead one to think that you can do anything you desire on the remaining 73%. It may not be "protected" but it is regulated up the ass. Hell, it's all "protected."

"They paved paradise to put up a parking lot. Oooh, la la la la."

kvrdave
11-01-11, 05:08 PM
"They paved paradise to put up a parking lot. Oooh, la la la la."

On their own land? Oh, the horror.

grundle
11-01-11, 05:40 PM
Giant shocker: Conservative blog omits facts!

The area is a protected national forest, and as such it has very specific rules to limit traffic. And while the article predictably name-drops Clinton and his scary federal environmental tyranny, it somehow forgets that Bush later changed things so the state had a say on what specific land they want protected.

What is most maddening is the supreme disconnect in logic here. The article at first states that we need jobs and we need the mining business, which is just fine, but somehow doesn't realize that 1) the mining company was happy to fulfill the request as they'll likely make money this way because of the high probability of scheelite there, and 2) the fewer giant machines and tools used the longer the miners will be employed and the greater the amount of miners that will be needed. This provision actually created job.

I stayed in a tiny town in the far backwoods in Montana, and while they are hurting for jobs, they are fiercely protective of their environment. I saw a town meeting in Troy where people were complaining about the roads the Forestry Service were putting in!

This article is just another mindless example of a square ideology peg trying to be forced into a round reality hole.

Yes, it is a protected area. But still, the idea of replacing machines with mules does seem silly.

RoyalTea
11-01-11, 05:45 PM
robots, software, or vietnamese children taking Americans jobs = bad
donkeys taking American jobs = good

Navinabob
11-01-11, 05:58 PM
Yes, it is a protected area. But still, the idea of replacing machines with mules does seem silly.

I agree on face value, but they look at the potential damage that'd be needed to get roads put in, water pipes for the mining pumps and electricity for the machines as doing too much damage to the area. The smaller the operation, the less damage to the ecosystem.