The Utah Mining Association should open its arms to the new "Ravage 'n' Run Mining Company," alias Sierra Club and Utah Wilderness Association.
In an Oct. 23 article, "Snowbird mining `claim' . . . ," these two interest groups wanted to show how easy it is to open a mine near Snowbird on public land due to the 1872 Mining Law. However, their arguments are simplistic and false and must be addressed."Ravage 'n' Run" would want you to think that under the 1872 law, you can stake a mining claim anywhere and start tearing up the place. Wrong. The law governs mineral discoveries on federal (called public) lands open to mineral entry.
Of the approximately 662 million acres of public land, 263 million acres have been withdrawn from mineral entry for national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, military withdrawals, etc.
Mineral entry under the 1872 law on open public lands is governed by federal regulations to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation. As other letters to the editor have pointed out, mining on federal lands is under state regulations that enforce all environmental laws for clean air, clean water, environmental and endangered species protection.
According to "Ravage 'n' Run," by staking a mining claim on Forest Service land at Snowbird and paying a small fee to size the land, one can begin mining and not pay a dime for the minerals withdrawn. Wrong.
The Mining Law of 1872 is a law for mineral acquisition. One can stake claim to open public land and file the claim with the county and the BLM. But to patent or own the land requires you to prove a valuable mineral discovery that can be mined at a profit.
This is a long and expensive process requiring providing evidence such as assays, feasibility studies, plans, etc., all at company cost. The $2.50-per-acre figure every anti-mining person spouts off is the administrative fee one pays to the BLM to process a patent application.
Even if one passes all the hoops and the claim is patented, you don't have to pay any money for the minerals that are mined, right? Wrong.
The property is now private and subject to - guess what? - property tax. Just ask Kennecott how much property tax they have paid over the years for patenting that pit under the 1872 law.
How can we as a nation have economic growth without producing goods and wealth? This only comes from having natural resources to make the goods that we the people want to buy and sell and service.
By wanting to gut a law that creates incentives to produce natural resources, what is the administration thinking of? And to blame the 1872 law for mining abuses of the past before other environmental laws were in place shows the complete ignorance of groups like the Sierra Club.
Stephen Falk
Price