# Mining threat to Tributary/Middle Fork Salmon



## Whetstone (May 17, 2013)

This bogles my mind. I do not understand how mining legislation from the 1880s is given presidence over wilderness legislation of the 1960s. Wouldn't this have been considered in the deliberations Senator Church conducted? Certainly the wilderness act that so strictly regulates my recreational uses would not permit full scale industrial mining in the Frank. If this is already being discussed elsewhere please let me know? 

Mining projects threaten Big Creek and the Middle Fork of the Salmon | Northwest Rafting Company

Sent from my SM-G530T using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## screamingeagle (Jun 14, 2011)

Old news, it already got approved.

Forest Service approves gold mine in Frank Church wilderness, says mining there predated wilderness designation | The Spokesman-Review


----------



## Whetstone (May 17, 2013)

So is the article outdated when it talks about the coalition of groups who are filing petitions to limit the mining activities? It sounds like there are new actions underway to try and restrict the mining activity in a way that would reduce possible impact. 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Whetstone (May 17, 2013)

Reading more back story, I see that the current approval by the USFS is for claim validation only. If the mine's ore potential is validated then additional application would have to be made by the mining co. to the USFS before actual mining could begin. 
I would greatly appreciate any additional info any of you may have on this. 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I understand that the grandfathering of existing uses, permits, etc was critical to getting the original wilderness legislation passed, to allay otherwise strong opposition.


----------

