You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Boundary Waters land deal would mostly benefit industry.
Let's hope we vote this yokel from New Hampshire, or where ever, out before he can do anymore damage, the proposal is idiotic and meaningless except for the mining companies.
It seems unlikely that there will be no environmental impact statements done for this proposed mining.
I love the Boundary Waters (even if it isn't a true wilderness) and I believe that with modern mining technology we can find a way to minimize damage to surrounding acres.
The heck with the wilderness. Who cares about stewardship for future generations? Concepts such as "right" and "wrong" are vastly over-used. Real Americans like Senator Klobuchar and myself are for anything which benefits industry! Time to cut, dig, and drill!
Sadly the lobbyists carry so much weight. Hopefully the concerns mentioned in this editorial will be addressed before passage.
"I believe that with modern mining technology we can find a way to minimize damage to surrounding acres."-----Unfortunately no new mining technologies have been demonstrated to mitigate the risks, and I don't want the BWCAW to be the lab rat.
I want the BWCA kept in its present state, with no mining or logging of any kind being permitted within or adjacent to its boundaries. This is our land for all the people of the state to enjoy and cherish. Keep your (blankety blank) mining equipment out of thee. (Colorful metaphor meant by author.)
Again another editorial that is filled with misinformation.
First, this exchange will have zero impact on the BWCA. They are simply changing the status (ownership) of the land from de facto federal ownership (since the creation of the BWCA) to actual federal ownership.
Second, the land the state receives in exchange (currently land that is part of the Superior National Forest) is currently open to logging and mineral exploration (that is what national forests do, as opposed to national parks).
And whether the state owns it or the feds management will have to been done under the existing site level forest management guidelines, or for mineral leasing under the existing federal and state environmental review statutes.
Those apply to whatever level of government owns the lands.
"Second, the land the state receives in exchange (currently land that is part of the Superior National Forest) is currently open to logging and mineral exploration (that is what national forests do, as opposed to national parks)."-----Couple problems with that analysis: the state may sell the newly available lands for development reducing the inventory of public land left for everyone's benefit, and may also reduce recreational development like that occurring in the Superior National Forest. While forestry and mineral exploration have been at the forefront of USFS policy in the past, there is a shift toward developing more recreational opportunities with these lands: the bonus is that such development not only costs less to maintain than resource extraction, but it helps strengthen the attraction to tourists and recreationists to support the local economies.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks