Tweet
Hi all,
I wrote the following "rant" about a week ago but decided not to post it. This evening I read about the BLM "Inquiry" of Mojave Underground and decided I would go ahead and post it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I posted in my introduction my interest in mines goes back a long way, but I'm new to mine penetration and exploration. I know that I haven't paid my dues and earned the right to write this rant but the libertarian in me wouldn't let me hold it in. I hope you don't mind me posting it.
I'm a believer in personal freedom and the responsibility that comes with that freedom. In that light, here are my thoughts on the risks of mine exploration and closures in the name of "safety".
The Risks of Mine Exploration
There is a movement by governmental agencies to bulldoze or blast closed as many old mines as possible. As with so many things the government does, it is in the name of "pubic safety". Closing the mines will keep some idiots from proving the validity of Darwin's theory, but at what cost? Is there historical value in these old mine works that is worth saving? Do they constitute a recreational resource for those interested in old mines? I say "yes" to both of these questions.
Our society is inexorably moving towards a Nanny State where the government assumes responsibility for protecting the citizens in all aspects of their lives. No activity is immune from the rules and regulations that are implemented by the various agencies that that hold authority over public property and our personal activities. Laws and regulations are enacted to restrict our activities to those that faceless bureaucrats feel are acceptable to participate in. No law or regulation is too draconian if it can "save even one life". There seems to be no understanding of the concepts of freedom, personal responsibility, and assumption of risk.
The current obsession of various government agencies to permanently seal old mines is a prime example of the zeal that these agencies show in trying to protect every person from their own poor judgment. Certainly I understand the argument made for putting a fence around an open shaft so someone doesn't accidentally fall in. But closing every entrance into the earth in the name of "safety" is an intellectually lazy argument.
Many of the hobbies that we enjoy are inherently dangerous to varying degrees. Innocuous hobbies such as skiing or flying have claimed the lives of Sonny Bono and John Denver. Obviously dangerous sports such as mountain climbing, sky diving, and scuba diving claim lives every year. One can make the argument that the inherent risk adds to the excitement of these activities.
I have been a scuba diver since the mid '70s and watched the evolution of the sport through the years. My training and participation as a dive master gave me exposure to the dive industry in ways that most participants don't get. The industry worked hard to balance the risks of diving with the rewards of enjoying this beautiful underwater world. The industry developed training programs that allowed participants to learn to safely participate in scuba diving.
Yet there were those who wanted to go beyond the recreational limits of diving. Diving to deeper depths, diving for extended periods, and diving in underwater caves became quite controversial. Certifying agencies condemned the participants as being reckless and encouraging others to participate in overtly dangerous activities. Still, these individuals continued to explore deep wrecks and long caves. They developed techniques and adapted the use of mixed gasses to meet their needs. Groups of like minded individuals would meet and discuss the "state of the art" of their hobby. Some groups adopted standard methods and techniques that had been proven to be safe and reliable. Still tragedies occurred.
Many died pursuing the activity that they loved. Even some of the most experienced participants pressed the envelope too far and paid the ultimate price. These deaths were tragic, yet lessons were learned, techniques were modified, and equipment was improved. Ever so slowly the technical diving community gained respectability. They transitioned from reckless daredevils to trained, experienced specialty divers. Even some of the certifying agencies reconsidered their position and started to offer training in these areas.
The current reputation of mine explorers is quite similar to that of the early technical divers. Those on the outside see us as being reckless daredevils that are taking our lives in our hands every time that we get near a mine. Of course it doesn't help that any Bubba with a flashlight (or worse, a candle) can go get himself killed and generate a lot of negative press in the process.
It appears that the majority of the active mine explorers understand the assumption of risk, need for good judgment, and development of basic skills and techniques. It also appears that most explorers are sensitive to the preservation of these sites. In place of spray painted names and dates, brochures or personal business cards are left as markers of our journeys. Many of us use our digital cameras to document the mine sites and artifacts we locate. In the not too distant future, these images may be the only reminder that these mines, and the miners who toiled in them, ever existed as bureaucrats go about their business of destroying mines in the name of universal safety.
In the mean time, what does responsible participation in mine exploration look like? Should there be any guidelines or best practices that help new participants avoid a tragic learning curve? Would it make sense to take a basic course in caving, canyoneering, or climbing before heading underground? Are there lessons to be learned from the technical diving community?
So where does this leave the mine exploration community? Are we at the forefront of gaining legitimacy for mine exploration? Or are we just a renegade band of explorers who will remain "underground"? Do we simply go about our sport under the pressure of increasing mine closures? Do we try to have a voice with the decision makers in government? Simply put, this may be a losing battle as the wheels are already in motion that will forever close these portals into mining history. I don't believe that there are any right or wrong answers. Each of us must decide for ourselves.
Maybe I'm over thinking the whole thing...of course, maybe not.
Joanne
I wrote the following "rant" about a week ago but decided not to post it. This evening I read about the BLM "Inquiry" of Mojave Underground and decided I would go ahead and post it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I posted in my introduction my interest in mines goes back a long way, but I'm new to mine penetration and exploration. I know that I haven't paid my dues and earned the right to write this rant but the libertarian in me wouldn't let me hold it in. I hope you don't mind me posting it.
I'm a believer in personal freedom and the responsibility that comes with that freedom. In that light, here are my thoughts on the risks of mine exploration and closures in the name of "safety".
The Risks of Mine Exploration
There is a movement by governmental agencies to bulldoze or blast closed as many old mines as possible. As with so many things the government does, it is in the name of "pubic safety". Closing the mines will keep some idiots from proving the validity of Darwin's theory, but at what cost? Is there historical value in these old mine works that is worth saving? Do they constitute a recreational resource for those interested in old mines? I say "yes" to both of these questions.
Our society is inexorably moving towards a Nanny State where the government assumes responsibility for protecting the citizens in all aspects of their lives. No activity is immune from the rules and regulations that are implemented by the various agencies that that hold authority over public property and our personal activities. Laws and regulations are enacted to restrict our activities to those that faceless bureaucrats feel are acceptable to participate in. No law or regulation is too draconian if it can "save even one life". There seems to be no understanding of the concepts of freedom, personal responsibility, and assumption of risk.
The current obsession of various government agencies to permanently seal old mines is a prime example of the zeal that these agencies show in trying to protect every person from their own poor judgment. Certainly I understand the argument made for putting a fence around an open shaft so someone doesn't accidentally fall in. But closing every entrance into the earth in the name of "safety" is an intellectually lazy argument.
Many of the hobbies that we enjoy are inherently dangerous to varying degrees. Innocuous hobbies such as skiing or flying have claimed the lives of Sonny Bono and John Denver. Obviously dangerous sports such as mountain climbing, sky diving, and scuba diving claim lives every year. One can make the argument that the inherent risk adds to the excitement of these activities.
I have been a scuba diver since the mid '70s and watched the evolution of the sport through the years. My training and participation as a dive master gave me exposure to the dive industry in ways that most participants don't get. The industry worked hard to balance the risks of diving with the rewards of enjoying this beautiful underwater world. The industry developed training programs that allowed participants to learn to safely participate in scuba diving.
Yet there were those who wanted to go beyond the recreational limits of diving. Diving to deeper depths, diving for extended periods, and diving in underwater caves became quite controversial. Certifying agencies condemned the participants as being reckless and encouraging others to participate in overtly dangerous activities. Still, these individuals continued to explore deep wrecks and long caves. They developed techniques and adapted the use of mixed gasses to meet their needs. Groups of like minded individuals would meet and discuss the "state of the art" of their hobby. Some groups adopted standard methods and techniques that had been proven to be safe and reliable. Still tragedies occurred.
Many died pursuing the activity that they loved. Even some of the most experienced participants pressed the envelope too far and paid the ultimate price. These deaths were tragic, yet lessons were learned, techniques were modified, and equipment was improved. Ever so slowly the technical diving community gained respectability. They transitioned from reckless daredevils to trained, experienced specialty divers. Even some of the certifying agencies reconsidered their position and started to offer training in these areas.
The current reputation of mine explorers is quite similar to that of the early technical divers. Those on the outside see us as being reckless daredevils that are taking our lives in our hands every time that we get near a mine. Of course it doesn't help that any Bubba with a flashlight (or worse, a candle) can go get himself killed and generate a lot of negative press in the process.
It appears that the majority of the active mine explorers understand the assumption of risk, need for good judgment, and development of basic skills and techniques. It also appears that most explorers are sensitive to the preservation of these sites. In place of spray painted names and dates, brochures or personal business cards are left as markers of our journeys. Many of us use our digital cameras to document the mine sites and artifacts we locate. In the not too distant future, these images may be the only reminder that these mines, and the miners who toiled in them, ever existed as bureaucrats go about their business of destroying mines in the name of universal safety.
In the mean time, what does responsible participation in mine exploration look like? Should there be any guidelines or best practices that help new participants avoid a tragic learning curve? Would it make sense to take a basic course in caving, canyoneering, or climbing before heading underground? Are there lessons to be learned from the technical diving community?
So where does this leave the mine exploration community? Are we at the forefront of gaining legitimacy for mine exploration? Or are we just a renegade band of explorers who will remain "underground"? Do we simply go about our sport under the pressure of increasing mine closures? Do we try to have a voice with the decision makers in government? Simply put, this may be a losing battle as the wheels are already in motion that will forever close these portals into mining history. I don't believe that there are any right or wrong answers. Each of us must decide for ourselves.
Maybe I'm over thinking the whole thing...of course, maybe not.
Joanne
Comment