[MtnGoat]

[MtnGoat]

[treeswarper]

[Malachai Constant]

[MtnGoat]

[Ski]

[Eric]

I can't speak to the particulars of the mine or the area though I do plan a visit out to Goat Mtn in May or June so that I can see what there is to see while it is still worth being seen. Just in case this does happen. But I would be opposed to this just on the precedent that this sets because of the issues involved with the land dealings. What the Trust for Public Land, Cascade Land Conservancy, Cascades Conservation Partnership and other groups have been doing is work in partnership to resolve some of these land issues in ways that keep the land in relatively preserved states while sometimes providing recreation access. These types of groups vary a bit in ideology and methods and even politics. But generally they're trying to preserve or open to the public some lands via collaborative rather than adversarial processes. They're also trying to allow some land for resource extraction and give fair value for the land. It's a method that costs big time and $ but which appeases most of those who tend to be against this sort of thing. To me this puts these sorts of works at risk. Now, I don't know what happened here, if the Trust for Public Land dropped the ball or they were OK with this possibility or what the story is. But if you have a situation where people are supporting these organizations as a means to preserve land with their dollars, and then the organization turns around and gives this back to USFS/BLM who then flips it to a mine to make a big profit. So you are seeing private citizens buy out land via these 503c's for the purpose of conservation and then the govt (presumably constrained to do so by law) is reversing that intended use and putting it back in play for resource extraction ie the opposite purpose of that for which people contributed to preserve it. That's a huge turnoff to people who would be inclined to support these groups politically and financially. For those who complain about lawsuits and regs and such, they ought to think carefully before supporting a plan in which those sought to preserve through friendly rather than hostile means get screwed. It's not the best way to induce people inclined towards working in partnership for preservation to continue to do so.

[Malachai Constant]

The reasons why it is a stupid argument are as follows: 1. It does not address the question at hand, desirability of allowing a mine in an area sought to be preserved. 2. Is an ad hominum attack on the other side rather than a discussion of the issue. 3. Attacking a particular project is not an attack on an industry. 4. You should accept being a brown with a degree of pride as most greens do

[MtnGoat]

A nice post, Eric. Contrary to what some posters seem to think I'm not opposed to preservation, I'm opposed to knee jerk opposition to the industries that make our standard of living and technology possible. I think it's great that there are consortiums of varying interest groups working to protect areas while stilll making room for the necessity of extractive industries. The problem I have with it is in discussions of this nature, I rarely see the reality that simply setting aside areas for extraction is totally at odds with the reality of how mineral deposits work. Protecting some area then saying you're fine with folks digging here or there doesn't address that when you lock up the area where the ore bodies are, and permit extraction where they are not, the actual issue of needing to dig only where there is something to dig up in the first place is not actually being addressed. Yes, we can pick and choose where to allow digging. But this is at odds with the fact that we do not get to pick and choose where the ore is. It's there or it's not...regardless of how this fits into a preferred protection area. In any event, I appreciate the thoughful post...and the lack of personal jibes. You show it's entirely possible to disagree in discourse, without resorting to the self gratification personal attacks provide.

[MtnGoat]

[strider]

Some comments regarding the suggestions that it may be more advantageous to import copper instead of mining deposits on US soil.... If the mining takes place outside of US borders, does that eliminate our responsibility to care about environmental impacts? Tearing up the earth in Peru is OK, but mining near MSH is not OK? I feel safe in assuming that most countries have put some kind of controls in place to manage retrieving mineral resources. Governments would do so for many reasons, not the least of which would be to ensure that the government gets their share of the swag. I am not going to invest the time to research this point, but I think it is likely true that few countries have enacted mining controls that are more stringent than the controls in place here in the US. I think it is also likely true that there are many countries in the world that do a poor job of enforcing whatever local controls may be "on the books". Factors such as political instability, corruption, war, poverty, etc. (insert any number of traumatic factors in the human condition that individually or in combination disrupt government processes) degrade environmental oversight efforts all over the world. Here in the US, the population includes a good number of special interest groups that actively pressure governments and corporations to adhere to the controls governing mineral exploration and exploitation. We also have a stable society that affords the luxury of both caring about such issues, and being able to take action in furtherance of our cares. So, I think we as a society should: 1. Have (and defend the right to use) political and social processes and tools available to create policy and law governing how things are done. 2. Establish (and continuously refine) scientifically sound processes for assessing the pros and cons of exploiting any and all mineral resources on or under US soil. 3. Develop (and continuously improve) scientifically sound, environmentally friendly, and economically profitable processes for extracting the mineral resources deemed viable based on information generated by the assessments from #2 above. 4. Establish independent oversight capabilities to ensure the processes generated by #3 are followed. Hey, wait ... aren't all of those things already in place (at least to some extent)? We can argue ad infinitum about how well the processes work, but they are there. Even better; if you don't like how they work you can get involved in the process of improving them. We are setting an example. The mineral resources in Peru and everywhere else will be exploited eventually, regardless of what happens near MSH. Rest assured, when copper becomes precious enough, the larger society's demand for resources will almost certainly force the rules to shift. The copper near MSH will likely be mined one day. Maybe if we in the US set a good enough example, we will encourage others to try and emulate that success. Perhaps future mining efforts in Peru and elsewhere won't hammer the planet quite as hard. So, carry on. The debate in this thread is an integral part of the process of improving upon what has already been accomplished. Yes, my glasses are rose colored....

[Malachai Constant]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

[Tom]

All right guys, let's get back on topic ok? Anyone hiked the area? How about some pics.

[Rich Baldwin]

MtnGoat, I don't oppose mining generally. I oppose mining in certain locations, I oppose some mining methods, and I would like to see a better track record on the part of public lands managers for ensuring environmental health before they lease much more public land for mining. In this case, the mine would be near the headwaters of a river that flows into a national monument. Mining tends to severely pollute streams with heavy metals. About the trails: Here is the GPNF trail description for the Green River Trail #213:

[Rich Baldwin]

BLM Rejects Hardrock Lease Application near Mount St. Helens PORTLAND – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon State Office announced today that it has decided to move forward with the “No Action” alternative in the March 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA), and reject the hardrock lease application. After careful consideration of the application, findings of the EA, and public comments, BLM concluded that it is not possible at this time to determine if leasing, even with a contingent right stipulation, would, over the long term, result in mineral development activities that would be compatible with the purpose for which the lands were re-acquired by the Federal Government. read more at: BLM news release edit: according to the BLM Decision Document, about 33,900 public comments were received. Here's a trip report from May 2007.