When The GOP Offers Mining Bill 2.0, Try This
Where you see the phrase "near Ashland" in any discussion of the bill that mine-at-all-costs Republicans are said to be preparing, substitute "near Chenequa."
For every reference to "Penokee Hills," substitute "Waukesha County Lake Country."
For "Bad River," use "Fox River" instead.
For "wild rice estuary," write in "Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area."
Loosened environmental protections, discontinued public hearings, and "open pit mine" don't work so well when the geography, winners and losers are changed.
I suspect folks living in Brown County, or Dane County, or Outagamie County, or near any pristine wetlands or wilderness, or in a canoe, on a trail, a hunt, or a state beach could make the same connections and understand why people "near Ashland" would not want an open pit mine on or near their lands - - especially if those lands were protected by treaty.
Location, location, location.
Open for debate?
7 comments:
The original mining bill was pulled off of the table when it was determined that there were not enough votes to pass it. If it comes back up it will only be because the votes are already there. Any discussion or hearings will be purely for show.
The discussion may be "for show". However, if people don't want an open-pit mine in their backyards, then it is important for them to be able to say that publicly.
Why would the votes already be there before the hearings?
Anon 10:01
"if people don't want an open-pit mine in their backyards, then it is important for them to be able to say that publicly.
We DID say.
Rep Janet Bewley was reelected with a 59% to 41% margin by her constituents. Her opponent constantly made the election about ONLY mining.
Sendra had little or no opinion on any other issue.
So IMO it was about mining. And we clearly SPOKE.
If Sendar had won the republicans (mine supporters) would have said it's a mandate the voters have spoken.
I agree we who won did win and we oppose a mine.
Six out of ten voters in northern Wisconsin don't want a mine that will destroy our environment, break treaty rights with a sovereign nation AND will not provide the jobs that are suggested.
Question does "near Chenequa" mean near Chequamegon?
Chenequa is an upper-income in Lake Country. It has the highest per capita property values in the state.
The six out of ten voters in Northern Wisconsin who don't want a mine that will destroy the environment should be happy to know that there is no proposed mine which will destroy the environment, just one that will maintain water quality as they are required to by law. that sovereign nation is seeing how much power they have by stopping the wolf hunt; up to 71 now.
A 22 mile-long open pit that will maintain water quality? You're either delusional or you've drunk too much mining juice.
The Native Wisconsinites are not merely exercising their power to stop the wolf hunt or the mines. Your very inclusion of the wolf hunt in a mining discussion shows what a racist pig you are. Go back to your cave and gnaw on a bone, or something. Work on inventing fire, whatever.
BTW: It isn't just Native people who oppose this mine. It's 10 of 10 people who have the common sense to understand just how destructive this size of a hole in the ground will be.
Post a Comment