Deer avoid drill rigs

[BigHornRam]

MattK,

When was the last asbestos mine opened up? The superfund site you must be refering to is Libby. The mine in Libby is a vermiculite mine, not an asbestos mine. This is a bit ironic considering this discussion. Vermiculite is a natural mined ore that WAS used for insulation and contains levels of asbestos. Insulation used in housing to lower our dependence on energy to heat and cool them. Today fiberglass is the most common insulation. No doubt, sometime in the future, fiberglass will be determined to cause cancer. Then we will have a new superfund to deal with. In life there are risks. Nothing is for sure. I will guarentee however,that the asbestos miner will live a lot longer than if he had no job, no income, and starved to death. Think about it.

We have made mistakes in the past, and hopefully we learn from them, but no doubt mistakes will be made in the future. Does this mean we should put everything on hold until we can have a 100 % guarentee?

You never answered my question. How do you heat your house? What kind of and levels of insulation do you have in your house? What do you do to make a living? How long have you lived in the West?

 

[MattK]

BHR- Electricity, Bookkeeping, and all my life. The reason I am very interested in public lands is because I do like to hunt, fish and recreate. I feel there has been enough exposure by the timber industry, mining, and gas and oil. I don't fish for steelhead in Idaho but I realize there are methods to create a better salmon run. All public lands can be used IMO but only if done responsibly. This would allow many generational use.

I'm not against all industry, I just think it can be done a lot wiser. I find it interesting that if no damage is done, why is it farmers and ranchers aren't lining up to have the gas and oil taken out of their land. Is it only public areas that have gas and oil? Or is it that gas and oil companies think public land is free for them to tear up and leave? Public land is my issue, I have little to no say about how private land is used.

 

[BigHornRam]

Matt Quote:

"I find it interesting that if no damage is done, why is it farmers and ranchers aren't lining up to have the gas and oil taken out of their land. Is it only public areas that have gas and oil?"

You have lived in the west all your life and you do not know the answer to this?

Because most ranchers do not own the oil and mineral rights to the land they own. If they did, they would drilling a lot more holes, since the profits would go to them.

 

[Ten Bears]

These are some very good examples of BAD reclamation bonds. You don't hear about any/many of the well bonded projects.

The sky is NOT falling today, either.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Ten Brews,

Aren't all the bonds a product of the 1872 Mining Act? Isn't Sen Craig (R-Idaho) the one that claims there is nothing wrong with the Act? And given that the Stibnite SuperFund site is upstream from my family's property on the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon, which is an area with great potential for Salmon and Steelhead, and also has produced plenty of meat in my family's freezers over the years, I think it is a very relavant example.

Why should we believe it is any better today?

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, you seem to be a prime example of those that fail to learn from the past. Do you vote for Craig? I know of people he has has helped, and I know of issues (the mining law) he has hurt the state with, but as long as HE'S the elected official for the state, you'll have to send him your letters. I don't work for Larry, nor do I have any influence with him (didn't seem to vote for him last time either).

 

[JoseCuervo]

No, I don't vote for Craig. In fact, Walt Minnick was the first campaign I ever got actively invovled in as a volunteer. I thought we had a chance to dump Craig by having a Timber Exec run against him.

He takes the entire state for granted, brings home no Pork, except for INEEL, and does his best to ruin hunting and fishing in Idaho. Only the gun nuts love him...

 

[MattK]

BHR- My point exactly! But if they make the land better once they leave as SAKO pointed out and they don't effect anything while they are there, Why not just let them use private land? Remember, it has no effect on anything and is probably good for the land.

The reason, they would have to PAY the private owner for the damage and a percent of the proceeds made off their property. It's a lot easier to use public landsand pay little to nothing for the use. Once they are gone, the public gets it back and has to deal with the clean up. Boy, I wonder, if I was a business which deal would I take? This is the reason I think policy needs to change.

 

[BigHornRam]

Grasshopper,

If you don't own the oil and mineral rights to the land, you do not get a cut of the proceeds. I would agree that if someone who did own these rights on my land moved in some equiptment to drill, I would not be happy and would insist that they did it responsibly. But when I bought the land without the oil rights, I should have known that this could be a posibility. Do you feel sorry for all the trophy home owners on Bozeman Pass that are now fighting to keep the gas extractors off their land? Should they have known that this could one day happen? Does their 10,000 sq ft house use a lot of gas to heat it? Complex issues here, and as the world gets more and more crowded, and resources become more and more scarce, these issues will only get more and more complex.

 

[MattK]

BHR- I completely agree the issue is very complicated. The fact the world is getting more crowded and there is less and less habitat is the reason I think public lands should be held in such high regard. If we are only living for the present, I would say drill, mine, etc. Who cares about the future. But I feel we should be better stewards of the land and try to leave the place a little better than we found it. Even if we can slow down the pillaging of public lands it would help. Gas and Oil, Timber, Mining companies really don't look at the future. Their motto is get what you can while you can. They don't take the habitat into consideration unless they are forced to do so. That is the "public's" job, force them to consider such things.

 

[Nemont]

BHR,
I maybe wrong about this but I think if you owned just the surface rights to a piece of land and someone else owns the mineral rights you can't keep them from developing the resource. You can get reimbursed for the surface damage. I don't think you can even insist on exactly how they develop anything. But I could be wrong.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Nemont,

You are correct.

Grasshopper,

"Their motto is get what you can while you can. They don't take the habitat into consideration unless they are forced to do so."

No, their motto is provide for the consumer and try to make a profit while doing so. They can't win with guy's like you or Buzz. If there was a shortage of flu vacine, gas, electricity, ect you'ld be the first to whine. Dang crooked politicians hording it from the common man. You refuse to look at the cause of the shortage, and if some of your actions are a part of the cause. I recall Buzz recently blaming Bush for the high price of gas. What complete clueless fool.

 

[MattK]

BHR- "They can't win with guys like you and Buzz." You're saying these companies are hurting and don't make a profit? Are you joking? These companies have executives that make millions, sorry I don't feel bad for THEIR plight and suffering. You should know the NWE executive (when the company was going bankrupt) took a huge salary and huge bonus. Maybe if they started getting paid what they were worth, we could decrease prices.

You are also wrong about the motto of business. They could care less about you, the consumer, or for that matter most of the workers. Enron is a fine example how much businesses really care about the consumer or workers. Once they are done in an area they could care less. I could give you many examples (the Libby mine being one, the lumber mill being another.) Tell me they cared about the worker, consumer, environment, etc. Good luck!

Just an FYI- I was able to get a flu shot early in the year but didn't because I felt others needed it more. Would you have done the same? I also never blamed anyone but the pharmaceutical companies (another overcharging entity with billion dollar executives who don't do crap).

 

[Nemont]

You are also wrong about the motto of business. They could care less about you, the consumer, or for that matter most of the workers. Enron is a fine example how much businesses really care about the consumer or workers. Once they are done in an area they could care less. I could give you many examples (the Libby mine being one, the lumber mill being another.) Tell me they cared about the worker, consumer, environment, etc. Good luck!

MattK,
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Using Enron is a perfect example: They forgot about their customers and screwed their shareholders and now they are basically out of business. Corporations exist to maximize return to shareholders that is it. In order to do that they usually consider the impact their decisions have on consumers, shareholders etc. When you site the examples of the Libby Mine and lumber mill you are pointing out a loop hole in the law. If you were not required to do an expensive clean up and someone else gladly stepped up to take on the cost what would you do.

To say it all evil corporations is WAY over simplistic. Alot of it has to do with pansy ass enforcement regulations and laws. So blame the corporations but also blame the people sent to elected office to protect "our" interests. I know all will bash me for this attitude but go look closely at WR Grace and the mess they created up in your neck of the woods. What really allowed them to basically walk away from the clean up? Was it that they simply did not want to do or were they given a get out of jail free card by the U.S. and State Government and said enforcement agencies.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I agree the bottom line is profit but how do they make the profit. The shareholders ARE the owners and therefore by definition control the company. If they lose out, they should have looked closer at the executives they hired.

By trudging toward maximizing profits what means do they use. The most environmently sound, expensive method. No! They maximize profit by doing it as quickly as possible with little to no care about their surroundings. If companies worried about anything other than profit, there would be no need to have "controlling entities" or enforcing agencies. Companies are not evil. They are neither good or bad. The people controlling the corporations are who have to be controlled and kept in check. They care about the consumer only because that is who buys the product and they need the "public image". If they leave an area, they don't care if you have enough product, if people have jobs, etc.

 

[BigHornRam]

MattK,

There's no sense in debating you. You've o. d. on micheal moron propaganda. Do me a favor however. For the next 24 hours, every time you use something from one of those evil corporations, write it down. Then show us what you come up with tomorrow. I bet it would be quite a long list. Then think about how well you would get along with out any of these items.

FYI: never had a flu vacine and never will

 

[Nemont]

By trudging toward maximizing profits what means do they use. The most environmently sound, expensive method. No! They maximize profit by doing it as quickly as possible with little to no care about their surroundings. If companies worried about anything other than profit, there would be no need to have "controlling entities" or enforcing agencies. Companies are not evil. They are neither good or bad. The people controlling the corporations are who have to be controlled and kept in check. They care about the consumer only because that is who buys the product and they need the "public image". If they leave an area, they don't care if you have enough product, if people have jobs, etc.

Isn't that a definition of capitalism? To maximize profits and do it cheaper and more effiecently then the competition.

With a public resource, ie public lands, there are a couple of ways to make sure it is used properly. 1. is regulation 2. is through the tax code 3. is legislation 4. a combination of all. The problem is not necessarily corporations or the people running them it is the system in which they operate. If there was an incentive to the corporation, or individuals for that matter, to do something different then they would. Again corporations exist to maximize profits to shareholders, not to care if anyone has a job or not, sounds cold but that is the way it is.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I don't disagree. It is capitalism. I said companies are neither good or bad. They are made to maximize profits, again, I agree. It is the job of citizens to make sure companies do not hurt us in their quest for capital gains. It does come down to us. This does not make it right that public lands are being used improperly. It means that we have to watch closer. We have to make sure that our stake in the process is not dissolved due to corporate pressure. If you don't think we need to watch over companies and their quest for profit then I guess we will just disagree. If you feel companies look out for the best interest of everyone, again, we will disagree.

I see the need in natural resources and corporations. I just think people need to make sure they do business in the best way possible for all of our good (limiting pollution, making fewer holes in the ground, managing resources correctly.) Public lands are a resource we need watch very closely because it is diminishing so quickly.

 

[Nemont]

MattK,
Did you even read anything in my post? Mainly the ones starting with 1. 2. 3. 4. I have never said we don't have to watch what they do.

With a public resource, ie public lands, there are a couple of ways to make sure it is used properly. 1. is regulation 2. is through the tax code 3. is legislation 4. a combination of all

|oo

In your previuos posts you were saying basically corps. were evil.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I may seem to dislike corp and paint them as evil but if you look at any of my previous remarks, I have stated they are neither good or evil. I agree with the means by which they should be regulated. I guess I just see a greater need to regulate than you do. I see public lands being abused both past and presently and I am becoming more unwilling to give up these lands for corporations. My ability to compromise habitat is diminishing.