Rescue efforts called off...

[Dino]

Both posts by Mike and Sanpet are well put. I doubt anyone is trying to assign blame or even make excuses for what happened last weekend. I'm sure anyone involved with the rescue attempt would have wanted nothing more than to see Devin Westenskow make it back to the surface and receive the medical help he needed. However, I do agree with Mike that abandoned mines require a different mind set than operating mines. Mine rescues in operating mines typically have the upper hand in a sense that employees are cognizent of existing conditions and mine layout. Abandoned mines not only present a new set of unknown hazards but also multiple psycological hurdles. Many people just aren't comfortable with the unknown conditions of an abandoned mine.

[rhartill]

How about making a sign describing the MU hoist as a potential livesaving device?

like this one:

https://picasaweb.google.com/newgold1968/ChileanMiners_FenixCapsule_2011PDAC#5580728140078306354

[sanpet]

Please guys don't get me wrong. I am not trying to make anyone look bad or anything like that. I think your thoughts are real noble and you should be proud of them and your fellow members. I believe now that MSHA has the last say in any mine weather it be active or ab anded. Then if MSHA is in charge I think that you have to be bonded to even try. I had some inside info about the family through a guy I know in Eves ton, WY. The mother wanted the rescue to be stoped after her son had died. I think at that point any attempt of a recovery would have been stoped at the mine portal.

[Mike]

For the record, MSHA has no jurisdiction in abandoned mines, and she actually called it off before he was declared dead, but if that's what the family wanted, we rightfully respect that.

[Therrin]

MSHA actually not only doesn't have any say in those locations, but it also doesn't apply to a business with a workforce of less than 10 people, same as OSHA.

And it very much applies to businesses. Correct me if I'm wrong (cuz I could be) but when I took OSHA 10 they explained that MSHA and OSHA only come into play given specific criteria.
I'm not even sure that they regulate what a group of private individuals decides to do in a volunteer situation.

They're designed to keep employees of businesses safe, and to enfore safe working conditions given that the criteria required for them to come into play are met.

[sanpet]

This just in. The mine has been sealed and a cross has been put in place. The Mountain has been renamed to "Mt. Devin". This is from his mom.

[sanpet]

I think that is you could affiliated with some of the counties sheriffs SAR you would have a lot better chance of getting your own SAR. Your county sheriffs SAR are mostly volenters. They supply all there own equipment and if by chance they are sued for one reason or another the judges have thrown the case out. I have seen this happen in Sanpete Co. Utah.

[one_bad_rover]

Is this his mom that hates mine explorers.
I would guess that unless there is some designation, BLM land is still public land. Im wondering what the repercussions would be to just jump in and do the recovery...

[Therrin]

Also kinda makes you wonder what the general layout was... if there were perhaps any other entrances or anything.

I don't have a difficult time believing that they wouldn't know that kind of thing off hand, and wouldn't probably test the theory either.

[sanpet]

From what I have been told they were level entry in mine and it got to a very narrow walkway he slipped and slid down a very steep incline and then it straight down for about 400 feet, I hope that this helps.

[Therrin]

Wow, if that's the case, there was an absolute fail job of reporting this story, as well as the details that were supplied following it.

[sanpet]

Therrin I long ago learned not to believe in news reporting on mine mishaps. During the Wilberg Mine fire in 1984 there was so much mis info in the news papers and on the tv news. I think that the family and rescuers done a very good job of keeping the press out. The press has a very good way of putting false info and lies out to the public. They also have a way getting on the nerves of the families involved. I just don't like the press.

[rhartill]

BLM should not be in the business of creating/promising cemeteries


One's final resting place is usually assumed to be safe from future development and tampering and other uses incompatible with that of a gravesite. By asking for permission of a grieving family to permanently seal the mineshaft, the BLM is stepping into dangerous ground and precedent themselves. Does the act of asking permission create a contractual obligation or at the least an expectation by the family that the BLM will maintain this seal permanently? Are federal funds now being used to create and maintain a perpetual care fund for the maintenance of a grave?

Asking the family for permission to permanently seal a mine their son had fallen into sets a dangerous precedent. Is the BLM now in the business of maintaining private cemeteries throughout the West? Is the BLM competing with private enterprise in the cemetery business? Will others begin to encourage their sick and afflicted family members into wandering into old mines so as to be entombed in them as low-cost funeral plots?

There is a concept known as perpetual care endowments, wherein the purchaser of a funeral plot endows the cemetery with enough funds to provide for the care and maintenance of the plot. In this case, the plot being a mine, does/will the BLM continue to maintain the plot and provide for its continual seal to the detriment of other public land users and uses to which the land may later be put?


The family appears to be under the impression that the government will prosecute people for desecrating their son's body and/or grave if they enter or otherwise utilize the land upon which the mine is located. Given the nature of public land law, I do not think the family has come to the proper legal conclusion in this matter. Has the BLM mislead them into thinking otherwise?

That is the danger of asking permission of the family to permanently seal the mineshaft. Others may come later to reopen the mine, post reclamation bonds, and extract mineral values therefrom.

Does the family really want this done to their son's final resting place? If it is a common belief that one's final resting place is a spot that will not be later tampered with, has the BLM (by asking permission of the family to seal their son up inside a mine opening) effectively withdrawn this land from mineral entry and created a mini-wilderness area or other limited use land area?

Does the BLM promise to permanently seal the mine create an obligation on the government to keep it sealed in perpetuity? By calling the sealing permanent, has the BLM promised a perpetual care cemetery at no cost to the family? Is the sealing truly permanent?

Has the mineral land been withdraw from further entry by nature of this promise to the family, to permanently seal the mine?

If the family had given BLM permission (something the BLM didn't really need in order to administer their federal mandate), does the act by the BLM constitute a taking/confiscation of public lands for private purposes?

Has the BLM by promising to permanently seal the mine, created a private cemetery on public land? Do multiple use activities on and in the mine continue? Was the mine surveyed for bats prior to sealing? Cave features?


Questions the BLM should answer...

1. Is the land effectively withdrawn from mineral entry by leaving the deceased inside a mine?
2. Does any future claimant now have to deal with local and state law regarding the exhumation of human body if they wish to rehabilitate the mine?
3. Does the federal government now treat this site as a future historical landmark after the body passes the 50 year old mark?
4. By leaving the body in-situ is the site now a potential/future archaeological site?
5. Has the land by federal action been effectively rezoned as a cemetery? Can others claim nearby shafts as funeral plots?

While some of these questions may seem silly, the fact that the government has stepped in and created a final resting place for a public visitor to public lands on public land makes the answer to these questions an important public policy issue. The BLM may have asked permission of the family only out of courtesy and never intended to make the gesture a binding contract and promise to modify public land use in the area. But by asking permission, the implications and misunderstanding of the role of the federal government in land management and policy have multiplied and the waters have been muddied.
I certainly hope the BLM will clarify their actions and clearly articulate what they promised the family and what this means for multiple use in the Jersey Valley of Pershing County, Nevada.

[Therrin]

Wow... you put a lot of thought into that. In ways that I would imagine most people never even thought of. It's a good series of points you brought up though.

The part about leading ailing family members to shafts so they can basically euthanize themselves in-situ and seal it as a grave; sadly, caused me to crack a grin. I'd be down for that if it comes to it.

I wouldn't want the mine to be closed though, I'd rather be buried or scattered in a mine, and have the funs used to perpetually keep the mine in open and safe conditions so that people may explore it.

I'm actually not big on the burial thing, but if someone drilled a borehole and packed my ashes in it, that'd be fine. Even blasting the shot and leaving the rubble in place would be fine. (though not in a vein of usable ore, just a side drift somewhere.
There could be something to this. "Where mine explorers go to rest, forever" And we could all be packed in bore holes next to eachother.

[sanpet]

One has to remember that the feds can do and will do what ever they want at any time they what to do. They do not give a hoot about the public and the common man.