Reader's View: Consider the source with anti-mining pieces
In response to the "Local View" column in the News Tribune April 26, "Minnesota's Arrowhead an outdoor economic engine," I have to point out the disingenuous wording that permeates the language of those who oppose mining for their own personal convenience and pleasure.
The column writer was from Orono, Minn., and can afford to own dwellings in two places, a luxury not readily available to everyone up north, this area being particularly poignant with part-time, seasonal jobs for the eight weeks of tourism activity that now defines Ely's economy.
The column declared that in the Eighth Congressional District, an area from North Branch, Minn., to International Falls to Grand Portage, "$1.8 billion are spent on outdoor recreation each year by local residents." Had the column called out the elephant in the room, it would have separated out just the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness-specific gear legally used in the BWCAW. After all, the writer is a member of the Save The Boundary Waters activist group. He instead chose to blur the lines with general outdoor recreation numbers, including, but are not limited to, RVs, UTVs, ATVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, motors, boats, jet skis, hunting and fishing gear, electronics, and ancillary expenses and fuel. When considering the size of the Eighth District and the expense of non-paddling, non-BWCAW-legal outdoor products comprising that industry, $1.8 billion seems weak.
In any anti-mining presentation, please examine the writer's roots, employment, and the foundation of "facts" presented.
These activists ignore the best interests of Northeastern Minnesota among their motivations to act. They watch out for No. 1 and the BWCAW based on emotion, not science — and locals be damned.
The writer is with the Fight For Mining Minnesota group.