Benefits Of Mining in North Idaho!!

[Ten Bears]

And you would rather do something, even if we know it's wrong? Sounds typical to your caliber, true to nature.

I would rather leave the magority of the metals locked in the sediment (buried) until a safe method of extracting them can be developed, and then expose them through extraction. Yet, until that time (it hasn't happened yet), I think we should be working on ways to keep these metals from "eroding" down stream. How about bank stabilization projects along the river?

One thing that makes these lakes so popular with waterfowl is that for years the feds & state worked on "wetland improvements", and now that the lakes seem attractive tothe birds,they say something is wrong with the wetlands. Typical goverment projects, I wonder what part you played in that IT(?).

You can't be as slow

as you seem on these issues. Have you been up here drinking the water?

Nobody that lives around here does.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-21-2003 14:46: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, all you ever do is give excuses why nothing can be done about anything.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Good posts Ten Bear's.
Who do the environmentalst blame when something goes wrong with a project they (thought at the time was needed and safe?)
At what point do we say we would of been better off without the very thing's we now have ?

 

[Ithaca 37]

You might also consider what the anti environmentalist resource extraction industry says when their projects turn into environmental disasters. Remember, the problems with heavy metals weren't caused by environmentalists. They're the ones trying to clean up the mess made by the mining industry.

MD4M, Please notice my last post in this thread:

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=001457&p=3

And please don't tell lies about me, even if you think it's funny. You should know better.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten bears, I didnt read the part in the article where it said the lead came from lead shot? Are you just making a guess that perhaps it did?

Ten bears said, "I would rather leave the magority of the metals locked in the sediment (buried) until a safe method of extracting them can be developed, and then expose them through extraction. Yet, until that time (it hasn't happened yet), I think we should be working on ways to keep these metals from "eroding" down stream. How about bank stabilization projects along the river?"

Ten, I can tell you from first hand experience on the ARCO superfund sight on the upper Clarks Fork that "leaving the majority locked up" and bank stabilization projects are pretty much a joke. Heres why.

First of all, leaving those toxic metals in place wont EVER take care of the problem of them leaching into water tables and contaminating (in the case of the Clark Fork) a huge watershed. While you may think its groovy to just leave it (tailings) alone, may I offer up a nice glass of arsenic, copper, cadmium, etc. laced water for you and your kids to drink. Leaving heavy metals intact virtually GUARANTEES that well water will be much heavier in the future and more than likely unusable.

Second as far as bank stablization goes, not a chance in hell will we ever keep stream banks from eroding and having tailings enter the system. Sure, I'll be the first to admit, it can be slowed, but "slowed" is a pretty loose term, especially in regards to rivers the size of the Clarks Fork. Remember rivers are dynamic and are supposed to move across their flood plains over time, and they will despite any man-made efforts to "slow" it. I did quite a bit of cut and fill analysis on the tailings in the upper Clark Fork both prior to and after exhaustive bank stabilization projects by various agencies. Net results were not promising. The one sure thing that I came away with is that water is one hell of a force to reckon with...

About all your doing with bank stabilization is putting a band-aid on an axe wound.

Yes, it is fact that the EPA can violate the TMDL's but it is done during times of high flows (usually) and is done to HELP the problem rather than add to it. This makes total sense, as there is no way to remove sediment from rivers, wetlands, etc. without "dirtying up the crick."

I know for sure the only way the Clark Fork problem will be solved, permantely and for certain, is to basically remove all the tailings and heavy metals. Not likely to happen, but the other "fixes" wont ever correct the problem...and that is a FACT.

The solution is for the mining industry to go through exhaustive efforts to keep problems like this from ever happening in the first place...so far their track record sucks in doing that.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Thank you, Buzz. Ten is just a typical apologist for the mining industry. Further study isn't going to do any good and, as you stated, the problems will only get worse if nothing is done.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You might also consider what the anti environmentalist resource extraction industry says when their projects turn into environmental disasters. Remember, the problems with heavy metals weren't caused by environmentalists. They're the ones trying to clean up the mess made by the mining industry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, but they have been the ones that have caused the huge fires that are starting to become a regular thing across the landscape by getting the logging pretty much shut down across the country, and that is a good thing for me...
Besides, I don't believe for a second that any one "Environmentalist" in this country, has not used and reveled in the bi products of mining. !!!!Not one!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Thank you, Buzz. Ten is just a typical apologist for the mining industry. Further study isn't going to do any good and, as you stated, the problems will only get worse if nothing is done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Out here right now at the end of town, they are laying in about four to ten feet of dirt over the top of the sediments that came out of the stack....
Covering up a problem, well yes, is this the best way to fix this problem, I thinks so. Every situation and place is different. This statement is for the one Buzz mentioned above. If the place where Ten was talking about is the one I am thinking of, the one along I-90, then there is only a couple things that I could see that will fix the problem, not being an expert or any thing, but looking at this problem as explained above. One would be to let it sit, as is and let the thing slowly fill in with time, that spot doesn't have a fast moving or large river around the area that can be readily seen. Those heavy metals came from somewhere deep in the earth, they will return sooner or later as time dictates is the way it is. Two would be to drain the whole thing and dredge it all out, putting all of the contaminated stuff. ???Where??? In a rocket, in a good concrete tank lined with plastic some where, find the old mine shafts and pump it back into the earth where it came from, which by the way would screw up the water table again...
No matter what the fix, the stuff will always be around, it always has. We may have brought it to the surface, of the earth, but it is still part of the earth, so what is the answer to this???
Non of this was written with venom, so venom is not required on the part of those that may post back towards it, unless you then are so inclined...

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr, hate to break the news bud, but environmentalists arent the ones who have "caused the huge fires".

The American public as a whole certainly has, along with 70+ years of smoky bear campaigns, squash every fire, etc.

The policy set by YOUR CONGRESS has demanded that forest fires be put out immediately. There is no way you can blame fire suppression on environmentalists, because its a fargin lie.

Any decent "environmentalist" would be all for a let it burn policy.

On the mining issue, sure we need metals, oil, etc. nobody is denying that. The part you seem to always forget is that the mining industry, logging industry, etc. has not had a good track record with doing even simple things to protect the environment. I dont know about you, but I'd rather not drink water full of heavy metals if it can (and believe me it is) be avoided. Also, yeah, those metals came from the earth, but they sure as hell werent readily accessible to large water bodies when they were in the ground and they sure werent found in the concentrations they are in areas like the clarks fork, etc.

But, believe what you want and keep that head firmly embedded in the sand.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Elkchsr, I can't believe you think that not logging causes fires. Logging actually makes the situation worse. Seems like with the experience you've had in the logging industry and now with fire fighting, you would know that. But, I guess you have just listened to Rush too long, and you no longer can see or understand reality.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- Those rules to put out all fires, creating the situations we have now, weren't put into effect to protect logging industries were they?

Extraction industries always have the best intentions for the overall health of the system.

 

[Ten Bears]

So 1-P, BUZZ, and IT, your solution is to do something, even though it's wrong. You guy kill me (you'd like to), or at least your way of thinking has killed 100's of birds the last time it was done here.

BUZZ, I'm not waiting for research, I'm waiting for technology. This is not ARCO, the metals are the same, the area is larger, but there is not the same leaching problem in the ground water.

1-P, BUZZ, IT,(WH too): Since you guys are the self proclaimed "brain trust" around here I have a few questions: 1. What should be done with the contaminated soils? 2. If removed, how should they be removed and how should they be stored? 3. Who should pay for this? If you answer the mining companies, you will be chasing ghosts, most of the compnaies involved have pulled an Enron and left the country, and the cost of the last cleanup bankrupted the domestic portion of many of these companies. That in turn bankrupted the retirement accounts of 100's of retired miners who now must start looking for work at ages 60's - 70's. I know, it's not your problem,you just want things cleaned up,and you don't care how. Put up or shut up time.

IT, I asked you a question earlier, and I expect an answer. If you had nothing to do with it,say you had nothing to do with it, it'sthat simple.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One thing that makes these lakes so popular with waterfowl is that for years the feds & state worked on "wetland improvements", and now that the lakes seem attractive tothe birds,they say something is wrong with the wetlands. Typical goverment projects, I wonder what part you played in that IT(?). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ten, all you ever do is give excuses why nothing can be done about anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IT,it's called "reality", try looking at the whole picture here, and not just bashing the industry. You and BUZZ both are trying hard to duck the issue of lead shot. If lead shot is not an issue. Why do we hunt ducks with nontoxic shot now? Why are there proposals for nontoxic sinkers? http://policy.fws.gov/library/99fr43834.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ten bears, I didnt read the part in the article where it said the lead came from lead shot? Are you just making a guess that perhaps it did?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BUZz, I will say this again, the f&g has for years collected the gizzards from ducks killed in the area, and sent them to one of the universitys in Idaho to test for lead shot consumption. The guy told me that the birds were still picking up trackable amounts of leadshot.

Here's something for you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are, of course, still problems for the trumpeter swans. Some hunters mistake these protected birds for snow geese. Other swans eat lead shot from the bottom of lakes. [Although lead shot illegal now, the lead shot from years past still remains at the bottom of lakes and in marshes where the swans eat.] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://birding.about.com/library/weekly/aa031597.htm
Here's one for you. Different area, but same cause of death(?). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For the third year in a row, there has been a large die-off of trumpeter swans in northwest Washington. The birds are picking up large amounts of lead shot. During the previous two years more than 100 birds have died and in the 2001/2002 winter season we collected approximately 250 carcasses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://contaminants.fws.gov/Newsout.cfm?NewsID=5EA224D3-859D-11D4-A16E009027B6B5D3

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr, hate to break the news bud, but environmentalists arent the ones who have "caused the huge fires".

The American public as a whole certainly has, along with 70+ years of smoky bear campaigns, squash every fire, etc.

The policy set by YOUR CONGRESS has demanded that forest fires be put out immediately. There is no way you can blame fire suppression on environmentalists, because its a fargin lie.

Any decent "environmentalist" would be all for a let it burn policy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is an easy one to answer, the environmentalist crowd has made it a point to try and get every American involved in the environmental process, so they all feel like they have a part in saving the world, has been going on for years and years. These arm chair quarterbacks (environmentalists) are also the ones that vote and with their concerted efforts at letter writing and "Contacting their congressman" is a big part of how a lot of this fits together, it is very easy to see if one just looks at it. There are a lot of these armchair quarterbacks that venture into this section on occasion or a lot. While yes, I would guess the original reason the forest fires were controlled was to save a valuable resource, that part is unquestioned, but the push since has always been to help save the environment. There are times people even on here say, "A fire went thru my favorite hunting area and now it is ruined", well some thing like that any way. The environmental movement has used these arm chair quarterbacks to help do their bidding with protests, and getting extraction cut down or even ended on a lot of projects. The country needs the timber and until you “No cut” people come up with a better idea, this is part of life that can’t be changed, no matter what grandiose ideals or thoughts a lot of you have, you use these same products every day and all day long.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On the mining issue, sure we need metals, oil, etc. nobody is denying that. The part you seem to always forget is that the mining industry, logging industry, etc. has not had a good track record with doing even simple things to protect the environment. I dont know about you, but I'd rather not drink water full of heavy metals if it can (and believe me it is) be avoided. Also, yeah, those metals came from the earth, but they sure as hell werent readily accessible to large water bodies when they were in the ground and they sure werent found in the concentrations they are in areas like the clarks fork, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is another easy one. It has been brought up again and again, and right now, yet again.
Ideals and methods change all the time, things that were once thought to be all right to do, have been proven to the contrary, so things however they came about, have changed...
I keep hearing this mantra that the mining and logging industry is still out just raping and plundering the land for their-own personal profit, with no return or after thought to what comes next. We as a user society (as has been thru history in every peoples before us) have to deal with this, if you want to look at what I think and do as extremism, I will look at your thoughts, no matter how centered, as being to the extreme left. I have over the last year and a half, continually touted the fact, that there has to be better ways, not that of total destruction, nor that of total non-use, it is you on the left side of the fence that can’t seem to get this concept. You want it all and want to use it all but don’t want to take the “responsibility” to admit this; this is more the thoughts of extremists and hypocrites. It is the bane of your existence, and the cross you all must bare, tough isn’t it…LMAO...
Well as I have stated before, give me the place and when I get a chance and am in that area, I will go look for myself at the total devastation that I should be able to see with my own two eyes, I will even take pictures of the moonscape, but will also take pictures as I go along to that area so as to show how the whole region has been devastated by these greedy and selfish people. For the amount of devastation that is touted by a few of you, either from what you purport to have seen, or have learned from out of the news media, these places should be as common as grass.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr, I can't believe you think that not logging causes fires. Logging actually makes the situation worse. Seems like with the experience you've had in the logging industry and now with fire fighting, you would know that. But, I guess you have just listened to Rush too long, and you no longer can see or understand reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As an armchair quarter back, it is easy for you to babble along with the masses of what you think the injustices of the world are, but as far as I have seen so far, you have never done any thing more than that. Any one can sit in their little castle and spout goofy stuff as you have right above, but I don't see with much any thing you have posted that it is you that doesn't have a good stance in reality. If you want to get mean and snotty in you’re posts, at least use a little imagination when you do it, lets get to use some thing more solid than some left wing nut, propaganda ridden broken down old drum. Use a little intelligence to what you post, this is just old tired rhetoric that has no meaning any more, except for those that are not in the know and are trying to look smart.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Buzz- Those rules to put out all fires, creating the situations we have now, weren't put into effect to protect logging industries were they? Extraction industries always have the best intentions for the overall health of the system. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you want to go to the extreme in this one way, it is very easy to go to the extreme the other; the environmentalists really don't want any humans on the Northern Continent, well except them because they feel better about what they do (Right or wrong). Like that has ever worked.

It is this big social engineering that has been going on for the last 60 plus years, albeit some is good, that has a huge part of our population brainwashed on the realities of what actually goes on in the world.

 

[1_pointer]

Ten- I have no knowledge as to suggest a proper management solution. However, I'm sure there are people who can be contacted.

Elkchsr- You are right again. The environmental movement of only the last 50 years has caused the problems. I am much more conservative in my views than you realize. Remember, I am attempting to get a degree that deals with resource use (ie grazing). I feel that resources can be used and the integrity of the system maintained if management is done properly. It's that it hasn't always been done that way.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-24-2003 08:38: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, here are some more statistics for you guys. 71% of 300 odd birds died from eating metals laden sediments (both sediment and sediment covered vegatation). 21% died from eating leadshot & sinkers, or were shot (died from lead induced trauma wounds). Reality the levels of heavy metals locked in the sediments are 1000's times higher in parts per million then other areas (especially when you take a core sample at depth), and every attempt to "clean up" this area has resulted in majar releases into the active environment.

I have been told that there are studies being done at the university of idaho and other mining schools to develope a way to recover these metals from the sediment layers without releasing them into the active environment.

I have been a certified hazardous materials handler 2 times now, and a miner for more years then I care to remember. I know how to recover a lesser percentage of the metals, but what do you do with the majority (technology isn't there yet).

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-24-2003 09:32: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

Ten== the technology is coming... it ought to be feasible to only store a portion of the cleanup and take out the commodities.

1P==you're doing fine, you are doing a good job of seeing all the angles on the problems and different solutions. Keep plugging along. It's NOT an 'all or nothing'.

Buzz and Elk=== this country had MAJOR fire suppression efforts for what, the last century. There is a ton of buildup there now, it either go out on a log truck or up in a plume of smoke. Now the push is to 'letitburn'....of course there are going to be monster fires until the forest is gone. Then there won't be any monsterous fires.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL You guy's..
From all of the classes I have been taking this year on this very subject, this is what I have surmised of the "Let it burn" policy…
As fire fighters, the policy is done strictly on a safety standpoint; we are not there to save the resources at our own detriment any more, as used to be the unwritten but practiced policy of the past. Good thing in my eyes...
From the Biologists stand point that I talked to last year, they liked it because of the "Wildlife Habitat" it created, personally, looking around, there is vast areas that have good habitat for the bugs, but it does make for a lot of good grassy areas to bring in the ungulates...
From the loggers that were contract cutters I talked with, the only thing they don't like about it, is that the "Environmentalists lock up the usable timber that has been burned until the beetles have rendered it unusable.
This is the juxtaposition of this part of the argument that I see from these two groups, the "Environmentalists" don't want any logging of our living forests, and here is all this dead usable timber that could be harvested and save just that much more of out living forests and give the people that do forest management that much more time (Years) to come up with better logging practices for our living forests. Since the fires will take a good generation plus before they really start to even come close to making a dent in what is out there and needs to be worked on. There will still be enough dead and burned wood for the bugs, even after the extraction industries have pulled a renewable resource out of the burned forests to help with the demand for wood in this country. I know this is all the ranting of a Right wing conservative radical. But this is what I have seen from my perspective so far, I suppose as time goes by, I will be letting you all know more of what I see out there, whether you like it or not… LOL!!!

 

[1_pointer]

But you learned it in class from someone else, therefore that statement is not valid right?

You need to get out and do the research yourself for that hands on learning which is the only way to go!

My only problem with cutting all the burnt timber deals with nutrient cycles, shade for seedlings, and soil erosion. If those process will not be negatively impacted so as to degrade the system I would have no problem with it.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There will still be enough dead and burned wood for the bugs, even after the extraction industries have pulled a renewable resource out of the burned forests to help with the demand for wood in this country. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I should have added and this is partly a good point that you bring up Tyler, the burned forests only need be thinned of the larger wood, and leave the rest. One of the biggest problems of leaving these larger snags standing, is in some areas, they won't fall down for many years, in this time people have worked under them planting, thinning, surveying, etc. It's these taller larger snags that by this time, have become unstable and can kill or severely injure some one doing honest work under them. This is one of the things brought out in the last regional saw conference that I attended and there was a lot of agreement on the subject.

School is just a tool that you utilize in the many tools of life to help you with some understanding of the nature of every thing you should know and understand about your chosen profession, it should not be the biggest tool in the box, but it should be there, because there are a lot of good things that come from it, if you utilize it well when you are (figuratively speaking) buying that tool.

 

[1_pointer]

So the biggest reason for cutting down large snags is to keep them from falling on people? Really? If that is the most important consideration given, I'm for letting it stand. To me, that's not that valid of a reason.

 

[Ten Bears]

Tyler, your missing a point here (it's not as one dimensional asyou think), and OHSA (Occupational Health & Safety Association) has safety rules dealing with standing snags on a job site.