Dem Candidates weigh in on Public Land Issues, among other things

[Gerald Martin]

Mulecreek, serious question here in regards to the overall stance of the mining industry's view of transfer from federally managed lands to state management. Do you think most in the industry would support transfer to state management or do most want things to stay the way they are?

Reason I ask is because the Montana Wood Products Association and the association that represents public land grazers have both gone on record as opposing transfer, despite Senator Fielder's and other pro-transfer politicians claims that transfer is going to help ranchers and loggers.

 

[JWP58]

^^^^This^^^^

I agree.. I'm surprised at the hatred toward ranchers using public land on this sight as well. Not that I don't get it, but they are trying to make a living too and use the land to do it.

I don't think people have a problem with responsible use. People have problem with irresponsible abuse. Have you ever seen blm sagebrush country grazed down to dang near nothing? Or F.S. that's got more cow crap per square foot than dirt? I think we all have, and its annoying.

I get it though, more cattle = more money, which means momma gets to drive that 50k caddy.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Mulecreek, serious question here in regards to the overall stance of the mining industry's view of transfer from federally managed lands to state management. Do you think most in the industry would support transfer to state management or do most want things to stay the way they are?

Reason I ask is because the Montana Wood Products Association and the association that represents public land grazers have both gone on record as opposing transfer, despite Senator Fielder's and other pro-transfer politicians claims that transfer is going to help ranchers and loggers.

Gerald,

I don't believe either the NMA or the WMA, which I am more familiar with, has come out with an official position regarding Federal Transfer. I believe the un-official position has been "no position". I will say that the recent moratorium on Federal Coal Leases put forth by the current administration is only going to strengthen the position in support of a transfer to State control. Mining on Fed land is not any different than mining on State land. I do both and the regulations are the same. The royalty rate for State coal is typically cheaper than Fed coal but the regulations do not change. The big difference is in permitting. Once again the Permit requirements are the same, the difference comes in the time it takes to get a permit. In the last decade, permitting timelines for Fed coal have gone from 18 months to 6 or 7 years and now they are essentially stopped. For the most part you cannot permit mining operations unless you have the lease and Fed leases have been put on hold for at least 3 years.

The industry is getting the crap kicked out of it at the moment. They are looking for an ally. The current administration is not an ally. Neither Democratic candidate is an ally. The State of Wyoming is an ally. You can bet your last dollar on which side you ultimately think they will support.

For me, speaking for myself as a coal miner and no one else, I do not support a transfer to State management of Fed land. I do not think that would change the overall dynamics of the industry. I do think it would take a great deal of the cost and uncertainty out of the permitting process but in the long term that is not the greatest threat to what I do for a living. That being said I would not shed a tear if a transfer did take place.

When I take my hardhat off, I am adamantly opposed to a transfer. I am just smart enough to see what a transfer would ultimately bring and what would be lost. Since I do not see a future for my sons in the coal industry I would hate for them to loose all the other great things that Fed land has brought to me and hopefully to them as well.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Hows that Coalstrip restore to original condition clause deal working out?
Maybe mining is doing better than pre 1977.
But now the burden is all on an underfunded,hamstringed EPA.

Since I am not familiar with the Coalstrip restore to original condition clause deal you refer to I will assume you are talking about SMCRA reclamation requirements. For every mine I have worked at they are working great. Land has been restored to prior condition better by most accounts. Grazing is the primary pre-mining land use. The grazing rights owner is currently grazing cattle and sheep on reclaimed land where I am sitting today. Has been at every mine I have worked at. That would be 5 in 3 different States.

Any burden for reclamation activity that falls on the EPA is by design of the Federal government. In 1977 they set it up this way. The Feds set up the system that says industry will cover the cost but the Feds will handle the management. If you feel the EPA is underfunded for the work it does cleaning up old mining activity your anger should be directed to the Federal government and not the mining industry. We all pay an Abandoned Mine Land tax. Last year alone I paid $770,000 into that fund. Mining operations in Wyoming alone have paid $3.0 billion dollars into that fund. That is money that is used to clean up pre 1977 abandoned mine lands not your current operations. That burden still falls on the operator. Its the Feds that disperse that money to the States and other Federal agencies. You could regrade the entire State for less than $3.0B. If in fact the EPA is underfunded blame those you voted for not the modern mining industry.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thanks Mule Creek.

I think everyone can agree that frustration with the way permitting is done at the federal level is giving ammunition to the transfer movement.

Multi-use becomes "use for whatever the current administration supports" by means of red tape and layers of bureaucracy. I think pretty much everyone at the local levels of industry, whether it is logging, grazing, mining, etc. feels like the permitting process is designed to discourage and eliminate use of resources rather than ensure that resource use is done in an environmentally sustainable way.

There's no doubt that their are different ideologies and agendas in play between the industry and those tasked with regulating the industries.

IMO, the agenda and methods of the regulators has advanced faster than the industries have been able to adapt to. Industry feels threatened and unfairly restricted according to what has been recognized as legal. This feeling that they can't work with current regulators causes many to support change that might not benefit them in the long run, but seems to provide some relief from restrictive regulations.

Then again, there are always some individuals who are going exploit and push for financial gain regardless of environmental damage and cost to public trust resources.

I don't see the friction between industry and regulation going away any time soon. Truth be told, it probably shouldn't ever go completely away. I just hope that neither side completely overplays their hand and causes a pendulum effect that hands the other side too much control. Joe Q. Public loses in either instance.

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks Mule Creek.

I think everyone can agree that frustration with the way permitting is done at the federal level is giving ammunition to the transfer movement.

Multi-use becomes "use for whatever the current administration supports" by means of red tape and layers of bureaucracy. I think pretty much everyone at the local levels of industry, whether it is logging, grazing, mining, etc. feels like the permitting process is designed to discourage and eliminate use of resources rather than ensure that resource use is done in an environmentally sustainable way.

There's no doubt that their are different ideologies and agendas in play between the industry and those tasked with regulating the industries.

IMO, the agenda and methods of the regulators has advanced faster than the industries have been able to adapt to. Industry feels threatened and unfairly restricted according to what has been recognized as legal. This feeling that they can't work with current regulators causes many to support change that might not benefit them in the long run, but seems to provide some relief from restrictive regulations.

Then again, there are always some individuals who are going exploit and push for financial gain regardless of environmental damage and cost to public trust resources.

I don't see the friction between industry and regulation going away any time soon. Truth be told, it probably shouldn't ever go completely away. I just hope that neither side completely overplays their hand and causes a pendulum effect that hands the other side too much control. Joe Q. Public loses in either instance.

Excellent post Gerald. Thanks for taking the time to put down your very reasonable thoughts.

 

[brymoore]

They don't use it for free..
I'm sure I'll get hung on here for bringing up the rancher using the public land.

You need to change your handle to Freebird.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks Mule Creek.

I think everyone can agree that frustration with the way permitting is done at the federal level is giving ammunition to the transfer movement.

Multi-use becomes "use for whatever the current administration supports" by means of red tape and layers of bureaucracy. I think pretty much everyone at the local levels of industry, whether it is logging, grazing, mining, etc. feels like the permitting process is designed to discourage and eliminate use of resources rather than ensure that resource use is done in an environmentally sustainable way.

I think its only fair to look at this from the agency side.

Multiple use was never designed to assure any industry long term raw materials, resources, or a living.

There is a big misconception out there that industry, as well as the public believe, that on any given acre of federal ground its fine to have wilderness, atv use, mining, wildlife, etc. That's not what multiple use means at all. Even at a district or regional level, all those uses may not be harmonious and the most judicious use of the ground in question.

The agencies have a herculean task of trying to have something for everyone on public lands.

It should also not surprise anyone that before the Federal Government moves forward with extractive use of resources, that its not going to be a fast process. While I think there needs to be a reasonable balance on how long things should take, there is never anything good to come from fast-tracking issues that are going to impact public lands. Nothing good will come from dragging it out for years and years either.

The positive side, is that at least with Federal Lands, there is a process in place that allows ALL of us to voice our opinions on how these lands should be managed under Multiple Use policy.

Transfer it to states, we all lose our voices and ability to influence land management decisions.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Amen, Buzz.