JasonG Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Another article that helps illustrate the current culture in the NPS: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/science/earth/parks-chief-blocked-plan-for-grand-canyon-bottle-ban.html?hp Taken with the debacle that transpired down at Rainier recently, I really start to wonder why this agency is looked upon more highly than the FS by NCCC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 At a basic level it is easy to answer that question, Jason: the Park Service was founded to preserve national treasures for future generations while the Forest Service was founded in order to promote responsible management for resource extraction. A lot has changed since the days of Stephen Mather and Gifford Pinchot, though, and most of us here don't think we're talking about whether the land in question should be preserved as a national treasure or managed for resource extraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I know, I know. Old grudges are hard to let go of, and the FS was certainly in the business of whacking and packing for many years. If the Forest Service went back to such a model, then the Legacy proposal would make a lot more sense. I just don't like the scare tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 "old grudges"? old like last month or whatever. Here is a discussion as of 2009: Forest Service at Sea on Status of Vast Mineral Rights: Wilderness and Experimental Forests in 34 Eastern States Open to Drilling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Interesting article, but it doesn't matter who holds the land in the case of mineral right inholdings. NPS would be in a similar boat, mining interests are like the RR- they pretty much hold all the cards as they were there "first". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Are you claiming that it isn't more difficult to exploit a claim within a National Park than on Forest Service land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I don't know (from my limited experience, it is important whether or not we are talking about wilderness or not), but I do know that you can do surprising things if you have the mineral/gas/oil rights. I would imagine that most resource right holders would love to get incorporated into a national park, as their blackmail price has probably increased significantly. In-holders have whomever over a barrel, thus the extraordinary sums agencies pay to consolidate ownership. No matter the details of how a right is developed, that fact that it is developed in a wilderness area or national park, is the bigger deal in my opinion. Less bad is not good. This is still a thorny issue on NPS controlled land: http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/oil_and_gas/ http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/mining/index.cfm Of course, I have no idea how many resource claims are in the lands proposed for the Legacy project. We wouldn't want facts to get in the way of this debate.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Of course, I have no idea how many resource claims are in the lands proposed for the Legacy project. The predominant issue facing public lands is not legacy claims being pursued. The main issue is from new claims on National Forest and BLM lands. You cannot stake new claims within Wilderness Areas or National Park - however you can on USFS lands. Do a quick search for "oil gas mining public lands" and you'll find dozens of articles referencing the rise of development on NF and BLM lands within the past 10 years. Or better yet - go climbing in the Winds and note the oil and gas boom on BLM lands surrounding Bridger Wilderness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 To bring it back a little more local, there aren't really any resources worth extracting from non-wilderness lands in the North Cascades except timber, correct? At least it seems like everybody lost their shirt in the whole mining thing.... But maybe my impression isn't correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 There is active commercial gold mining at the Lone Jack Mine and it's environs, near Twin Lakes and Mt. Larrabee. There are many active mines in the Harts Pass/Azurite Mine area, which is encompassed in the "Head waters of the Skagit" portion of the ALPS proposed increase to NCNP. Most of this mining is of a non-commercial variety. History would suggest that there is little chance of large mining activities occurring or succeeding in the North Cascades. But without 3-D ground penetrating X-Ray glasses, it is all a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Geothermal energy and water storage are 2 other potential sources of activity on the land discussed. They started exploratory wells for a geothermal plant near Baker Lake in 2008 but I'd assume there is potential around much of Mt. Baker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.