Editorial: Scrutiny needed on BWCA swap

  • Article
  • Updated: July 16, 2012 - 12:03 AM

Boundary Waters land deal would mostly benefit industry.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
wise1Jul. 15, 12 7:31 PM

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.

30
7
smlionJul. 15, 12 9:29 PM

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.

13
35
gunflint55Jul. 15, 12 9:45 PM

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!

6
30
elwher2Jul. 15, 1210:38 PM

Sadly the lobbyists carry so much weight. Hopefully the concerns mentioned in this editorial will be addressed before passage.

30
1
gunflint55Jul. 16, 12 3:16 AM

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!

5
23
wise1Jul. 16, 12 6:08 AM

"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.

33
8
mn2niceJul. 16, 12 6:29 AM

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.)

27
8
foresterJul. 16, 12 7:08 AM

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.

13
23
wise1Jul. 16, 12 7:24 AM

"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.

25
2
sheepdoggedJul. 16, 12 8:03 AM

A.M.E.N.

5
2

Comment on this story   |  

Click here to send us your hunting or fishing photos – and to see what others are showing off from around the region.

ADVERTISEMENT

St. Louis - WP: L. Lynn 4 FINAL
Washington - LP: J. Zimmermann 3
Toronto - WP: M. Buehrle 5 FINAL
Cleveland - LP: C. Kluber 0
LA Angels - LP: C. Wilson 2 FINAL
Detroit - WP: M. Scherzer 5
Baltimore - LP: B. Norris 2 FINAL
Boston - WP: J. Tazawa 4
Minnesota - LP: K. Correia 4 FINAL
Kansas City - WP: B. Chen 5
Cincinnati - LP: T. Cingrani 4 FINAL
Chicago Cubs - WP: E. Jackson 8
Houston - LP: C. Qualls 3 FINAL
Oakland - WP: D. Otero 4
Milwaukee 5 Bottom 6th Inning
Pittsburgh 7
Atlanta 3 Bottom 7th Inning
NY Mets 1
NY Yankees 1 Top 6th Inning
Tampa Bay 10
Seattle 0 Bottom 8th Inning
Miami 6
Chicago WSox 1 Bottom 4th Inning
Texas 2
Philadelphia 0 Top 4th Inning
Colorado 1
Arizona 4 Bottom 4th Inning
Los Angeles 0
San Francisco 0 Bottom 2nd Inning
San Diego 1
Brooklyn 94 FINAL
Toronto 87
Golden State 109 FINAL
LA Clippers 105
Atlanta 87 4th Qtr 8:24
Indiana 70
Memphis 8:30 PM
Oklahoma City
Chicago 3 FINAL(OT)
St. Louis 4
Columbus 2 3rd Prd 14:18
Pittsburgh 3
Minnesota 8:30 PM
Colorado
Houston 0 FINAL
Philadelphia 0
New England 1 FINAL
Chicago 1
San Jose 0 FINAL
Colorado 0
Los Angeles 2 FINAL
Vancouver FC 2
D.C. 1 2nd Half 15:00
Columbus 0
Toronto FC 1 1st Half 15:00
FC Dallas 0
Montreal 0 1st Half 15:00
Sporting Kansas City 1
Portland 8:30 PM
Real Salt Lake
Seattle 9:30 PM
Chivas USA
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Should the lake where the albino muskie was caught remain a mystery?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT