If this passes both houses, as is, and the president signs, I'm glad
I'm not a mine owner or miner. Wonder how this will affect small
claims owners and exploration. Operative phrase "as is". I read a
summary of the bill and thought there were good updates, but then
some very vague language that may make it almost impossible for those
hardworking miners (large and small) today to keep their jobs.
Don't get me wrong. I think mine owners and small claim owners need
to respect the land and people. But after hearing the woes of miners
and rock hunters in certain circumstances, this may lock it all up
and throw away the key. I've never seen or heard of anyone seeing any
of these congress people at any rock show, talking w/ the regular
folks. How many have actually gone to mines, abandoned and working?
Have they REALLY done their homework on this?
The question is, where is the middle ground, here? Clean up the
abandoned, yes, definitely. Require clean up of proposed closures,
yes, definitely. Require ongoing clean up of working mines/claims,
perhaps. Require tribal/pueblo dispensation for mining (I think that
already exists)(can't hunt rocks on tribal lands), yes. Compensation
for sacred land use, yes. (One problem is that there is argument
among tribes, still to this day, of who lived on what land, when).
Does this bill prohibit private land owners from mining? Couldn't
find that in the summary. Does this mean the fed will close more land
to exploration? Who's going to be the oversight group, BLM?
I plan to call my congressman to answer these details. If you're
interested, just google Mining Bill H.R.226 and go to all of the
sites that come up. It's really very interesting and worthwhile to
those of us that love minerals and use them in our daily lives.