--Chad Love

A new 20-year moratorium on mining near the Grand Canyon is getting high praise from sportsmen-based conservation groups.

From this press release from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:

Sportsmen throughout the nation are applauding a 20-year moratorium on new mining claims on 1 million-plus acres of public lands fish and wildlife habitat surrounding the Grand Canyon, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership announced today.

The federal decision withdraws public lands north and south of the Grand Canyon from filings of new mining claims and additional in-situ production of uranium. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the moratorium, which follows a temporary ban, this afternoon in Washington, D.C. The withdrawal does not affect mining claims with valid existing rights.

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands encompassed in the claims moratorium include large expanses of the Arizona Strip, Kaibab Plateau and North Rim, all of which contain some of the most productive habitat in the nation for trophy elk and mule deer. “Sportsmen from all over the country vie for the permits issued by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to hunt elk and mule deer each year,” said Dr. Bennett Brown, a TRCP field representative and avid big-game hunter. “These hunters spend millions of dollars annually pursuing their quarry in one of the most spectacular landscapes remaining in North America. We thank the Department of the Interior for this foresighted decision, which is good news for America’s economy, as well as our outdoor recreational opportunities.”

Reaction? Sounds like a big win for hunters and anglers.

Comments (2)

from PigHunter wrote 19 weeks 3 days ago

It's probably a negative economic impact. The revenue loss from mineral sales and fewer mining jobs is probably greater than any gain from hunting / fishing revenue.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from fezzant wrote 19 weeks 3 days ago

The hunting and fishing revenue will not increase as a result of this decision, that money is already being made by those already hunting and fishing in the area. Implementing new mining leases may have reduced hunting and fishing revenues, depending on the specific impacts of each lease (some leases have greater affects on the land and wildlife than others).

But if you think that mining leases provide lots of money back to the government, you're mistaken. The royalties paid to government agencies for mining rights are far below those paid to private landowners holding similar rights. The mining laws governing many of these leases date back to the gold rushes of the 1800's.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from PigHunter wrote 19 weeks 3 days ago

It's probably a negative economic impact. The revenue loss from mineral sales and fewer mining jobs is probably greater than any gain from hunting / fishing revenue.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from fezzant wrote 19 weeks 3 days ago

The hunting and fishing revenue will not increase as a result of this decision, that money is already being made by those already hunting and fishing in the area. Implementing new mining leases may have reduced hunting and fishing revenues, depending on the specific impacts of each lease (some leases have greater affects on the land and wildlife than others).

But if you think that mining leases provide lots of money back to the government, you're mistaken. The royalties paid to government agencies for mining rights are far below those paid to private landowners holding similar rights. The mining laws governing many of these leases date back to the gold rushes of the 1800's.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.