View Full Version : Court Ruling-Forest Plan Revision

05-10-2007, 05:52 AM
If anyone mistakenly believes that the people who are trying to block our accesses to the places we want to go don't have HUGE and very deep pockets funding them, check out the plaintiffs in the recent California Federal Court ruling (3/30/07)
If you've got the time, patience and/or stomach for it, read the ruling too.
The Forest Service is beginning another round of meetings, but they're not calling them "planning" meetings anymore since this ruling.
The summary on the site below of these meetings is well-done, pretty accurate as far as describing what people's concerns are. My objection to the bulldozing of old mining sites is quoted word for word.
It's imperative that anyone with an interest, please make your concerns known, either by attending future meetings in your area (Nationwide) and/or by writing letters to the proper authorities. If we don't speak out, they're going to take our roads, our GTs and mining sites away from us.
The bulldozers are revving up.....

Tonto National Forest - Forest Plan Revision (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/plan-revision/meetings.shtml)

Gary Weaver
05-12-2007, 04:44 AM
There is a Law, if something is historic like a building, house, etc., you can get it listed on some sorta of historic listing and then not even the owner can have it bulldozed. I know this for a fact I bought an old house I was going to tear it down and reuse all the lumber and fancy trim and other things to build it back again but I was stopped buy the historic preservation law. The only choice I had was restore the house as is or leave it as is. The whole under side of the house was rotted out and the walls were in bad condition too, roof was totally trashed, it was easier and cheaper to tear it down then build it back again reusing the good lumber and having any lumber that needed to be replace hand made at a saw mill. My point is anyone that wants to save a ghost town can get it on the historic site listing then it can not be bulldozed.

My thought was, the house roof is falling in the wood is rotted it needs to be removed and replaced. If the roof is gone then why not go ahead and remove the rotted walls so they can be repaired too. If the walls are gone then it will be easy to fix the rotted floor tear it out and build it back. Foundion is bad on one side it needs to be fixed. Then build back the floor, walls and the roof. I am not allowed to do that. I can remove any part I want one piece at a time and replace it but I can not remove all parts then build it back. The house has 3 fireplaces, 1 in the living room and 1 in each bedroom, the cement is so bad in the fire places it is sorta like dry dirt I can lift the bricks off as fast as I can pick them up. The old cement can be wiped off by hand. I wanted to take down all the fireplaces then put them back exactly as they were with new cement. The fireplaces are a fire trap they have to be repaired. This is one of the neatest old house I have ever seen. It even has a well in the back yard with good water and large trees in the yard that have been here for well over 100 years.

First thing I did was use a chain saw to cut out the kitchen floor and throw the pieces into the back yard. I repaired the foundation from inside the house where the kitchen floor use to be. The kitchen floor was sagging down about a foot it was worthless. Someone had already put in electrical wiring it was dangerious insulation was falling off so I replaced it all. Plumbing was junk I replaced it too. The house had an add on bathroom that was not originally there when it was built I decided to leave it as is just fix it up a little. Insurance company made me tare down all the fire places chimneys below the roof line and build the new roof over the top of the chimneys and brick up all the fire place openings inside the house so the fire places could not be used. That is all I have done to it so far.

I have an offer to buy it I might just sell it and let the new owner deal with it.

05-12-2007, 07:36 AM
I suspect to get a place declared a landmark, it would either have to be owned by the person seeking the declaration or be in a city or town that's trying to preserve a historical site. The mines I'm talking about which are being bulldozed are on National Forest land and the Feds seem to think it's more expeditious to simply bulldoze a site rather than try to preserve it. I wouldn't have the time, money or energy it would take to fight the feds.
I know what you're talking about when trying to renovate an old house. My first house was a huge, Victorian style, built in 1908. It was the money pit well before the movie was made. (we paid a whopping $19,000. for it) When someone would ring the doorbell, the lights in the kitchen would dim. It had hardly any water pressure. It became routine in our house if someone was taking a shower, we'd have to yell out, "DON'T FLUSH!" cause the water would slow to a trickle and then take 20 minutes to refill the tank while we stood there soapy and shivering. To this day, my daugher still yells, "DON'T FLUSH!" when she's showering. Even the termites didn't want it. After almost a year on the market, we sold the place. Amen!

bad bob
05-12-2007, 12:04 PM
Here's a snippet of info from wikipedia



05-12-2007, 03:50 PM
Thanks bad bob,
Following the criteria set by the National Park Service, I'm afraid a lot of these old mining camps don't fit their general guidelines. Although the Blue Bird was historically associated with Maxie Anderson, the famous hot air balloonist, it's too late for the Blue Bird. :(

05-13-2007, 09:30 PM
Thanks bad bob,
Following the criteria set by the National Park Service, I'm afraid a lot of these old mining camps don't fit their general guidelines. Although the Blue Bird was historically associated with Maxie Anderson, the famous hot air balloonist, it's too late for the Blue Bird. :(

The BLM is the same way. A mine outside Beatty, NV was the highest producer of fluorite in Nevada, and at one time, Nevada was the largest producer of the western states. Seems like enough reason to protect it right? But when the original owners family (who owned Death Valley mines as well) turned it over, the BLM went in and toppled the massive head frame and buildings and covered the shaft with massive concrete slabs.

All in the name of reclamation.

But they did leave lots of rubble and the loader they used had a massive hydraulic leak which covered the ground with contaminates.

But that's okay. The real threat was thwarted :rolleyes:

05-13-2007, 09:56 PM
I'm sure you remember the problems we had reaching the Blue Bird (just ask Brian) Well, since the Forest Service "reclaimed" the mine, the road leading to it is now pretty much a Sunday drive in the family sedan. They had to widen the road to get a huge dump truck, bulldozer, front end loader and huge culvert type pipes down into Blue Bird's canyon. They knocked over trees, cacti and anything in the way. I wonder how long the desert is gonna take to heal from the reclamation?
This topic makes my blood pressure rise, dang it, it's not right, it's just not right. :( :mad:

Ghosttown Bob
05-15-2007, 10:12 AM
The Government seems to be using a three pronged approach in the area of reclamation and the destruction of our precious mining heritage, which includes the destruction of ghost towns, the filling in of mine shafts, the leveling of mine buildings, and the re-vegatation of mill tailings.

1st the Forest Service controls the plans on Forest Service lands. Each National Forest has plans in place for sites within their districts.
2nd, the BLM does the same thing on BLM Lands.

In both instances their efforts are being driven by environmental organizations, which have VERY deep pockets. Their goal is not safety, but an attempt to return the areas to "pristine" Wilderness. Much of this effort is also mirrored in the roads closure push by environmental groups to limit access to all but a few places.

The 3rd prong is the local State Divisions of Mines or similar entities that have launched an all out campaign on Abandoned Mine clousure with the "Stay Out and Stay Safe" educatinal program and it's companion Abandoned Mine Closure programs. The states each have recieved money from the Feds, to close mines on private property also. The idea here is to bully mine owners on patented claims into reclaimation with threats of lawsuits from people falling into their mine.

From my understanding each state is a little different on how they approach their reclamation. In Montana for instance, the Forest Service has taken the boldest approach since the majority of mines are on Forest Service lands. In Nevada, the BLM has been the primary force, with backup from the state. In Utah, where I am, probably because we are so conservative and reactionary, all three are working actively to destroy any vestage of Utah's mining heritage. The BLM and Forest Service in conjunction with the State's program are each pushing their own closure program. In Utah the State program is particularly active.

In all cases, public input is only minimumly sought, and then only grudgingly. Mostly they just come right in, state what they are going to do, if anyone objects, there publicity machine comes in with editorials and threats, then they just go out and do as they please.

For a good example of what a reclaimation project gone wrong looks like check out:


and the Gold Springs page here at Ghosttowns.com

Efforts are being made to stop this destruction Gold Rush Expeditions in conjucntion with the Utah Ghost Town and Mine Preservation Group is actively trying to block reclaimation efforts in Utah.

Ghosttown Bob

05-15-2007, 04:24 PM
Ghosttown Bob, Did they ever return to at least clean up the carnage they left behind at Gold Springs?
It's been our experience here in the Tonto National Forest that when they're through bulldozing, they clean up any evidence that a mining operation once existed on that site. When they've "reclaimed" an area here, it tends to look more sterilized than pristine.
With the National Forest plan revisions in process right now, they're mandated by Congress to seek public input before an actual plan is put into effect (supposedly in about 3 years) The court ruling in my previous post in this thread has put a fly in the ointment for now, but I suspect things will still continue as before, maybe changing the name "revision" to something else...hmmm maybe forest "redecorating" would work?:rolleyes:
We've got another Tonto Nat'l Forest meeting coming up here this month, on the agenda we're supposed to learn where to take our objections now that the court ruling has been made, it should be interesting.

Check out the pictures of what they've done to one of our favorite mines.:mad:

Bye Bye Blue Bird (http://journals.aol.com/lpleas3333/AdensAdventures/entries/2007/03/02/bye-bye-blue-bird/535)

Blue Bird's Last Gasp (http://journals.aol.com/lpleas3333/AdensAdventures/entries/2007/03/11/blue-birds-last-gasp/539)

05-16-2007, 06:21 AM
Nice pics of the mine Laura.
All of the old neat places will be gone before long.:(

05-17-2007, 05:41 AM
I really enjoyed your pics, Laura. This is so sad.....Speedy