Should there be more or less mining on public lands in the United States? Please explain your answer?

Answer 1

I'm not sure how to answer this question because it is very complex, but I know that some of the other people answering have no idea what the situation is regarding mining. First, mining is just as necessary as growing food--think of it this way, everything you have is ultimately either grown or mined. Second, you can only mine where there is stuff to be mined. It does no good to say that mining should be kept on "private" lands, because mining can only take place where the material is, be it public or private. An alternative to allowing mining on public lands is to sell those lands so that they become private--but I'm sure people might then change their minds about allowing mining on public lands--wouldn't you be happier allowing the mining but having the government retain title to the lands? Most public lands are not parks, they are just lands that no person has gained title to yet. The more mining is restricted in the United States by removing public lands from mining (by creating wilderness areas, parks, etc.) the more mining gets moved overseas where it may not be regulated and very serious environmental damage is done. If you notice my nickname (Pegminer) you might guess that I do mining. It is only on a very small scale, on the weekends--I am not a corporation! I am just a person trying to dig beautiful crystals out of the ground. If my senator has her way, she will essentially stop mining on my claims (public land) by turning them into wilderness areas and prohibiting further development. As an alternative, I can spend a few tens of thousands of dollars on surveying and legal fees and go through a process of "patenting" where I will actually gain title to the land. This will be less mining on public land by virtue of less public land. It will cost me money and the government will have gotten nothing from it. Wouldn't it just be better to let me keep mining on public land in the first place?

Answer 2

Mining occurs everywhere, private and public properties, I think some places need to be set aside for preservation. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by public lands, if you mean parks, wetlands and forest then no. Although mining is a necessary part of life, there are some places that need to be kept natural. Many factors need to be examined like how much profit is there, like if there was a 50 foot coal seam below a park, then it would be worth taken it out because other areas with only a 3 foot coal seam would not need to be mined. Also the type of mining method needs be looked at, like surface or deep mining, they both have different effects on the land. Who is benifiting from the mining is the profit going to the town or to a private owner***

Answer 3

I would not want any mining on public lands. These lands were set aside for the public to be preserved, not to be used by corporations for profit. Imagine if the government allowed companies to use the Grand Canyon as a landfill, or used geysers in Yosemite Park for washing cars. That land would be destroyed forever just to get a temporary profit. So I would say there should definitely be less mining on public lands.

Answer 4

Less, public land is for public use. Not public use and private mining.

Answer 5

There might desire to be greater even though it would desire to be regulated to be certain responsible efforts are made to maintain the organic international as pristine as achievable. Our united states became geared up on our using our organic supplies. it truly is a clarification why we are a great means.