That's the title of one of Gifford Pinchot's publications. I'd call it a booklet- it's a very short and easy read -and I recommend it not just to any outdoorsman but to any American, because it lays bricks for the foundation of how resource and land management is meant to work in this country. The understanding of that is paramount to being an informed citizen. Gifford Pinchot was a pivotal figure of the conservation movement, one of the forefathers of the US Forest Service, a Pennsylvania Governor, as well as a Connecticut Yankee and Yale graduate. Down low on the Farmington River, in Simsbury where Pinchot was born, a big old Sycamore takes his name.
The conservation movement evokes certain images for many individuals... perhaps you picture vegan hippies tying themselves to trees in a haze of cannabis smoke. That might make reading The Fight for Conservation a confusing experience for you. The writings from one of the key individuals who started the conservation movement focus more on economics, national security, and prosperity than on the sort of fru-fru peace love and harmony ideas often ascribed to that movement today. That isn't because Pinchot didn't care for or appreciate nature in a spiritual sense, far from it. He just understood that a country's prosperity is directly tied to how it preserves, conserves, and develops its resources. The Forest Service's roll goes miles beyond a sort of park ranger perspective, to that of fireman, mine geologist, farmer, and more, and the role of federal land isn't just to provide a place to recreate- see Land of Many Uses -but to safeguard resources for development. "The first principle of conservation is development, the use of the natural resources now existing on this continent for the benefit of the people who live here now."¹
How, then, would Gifford Pinchot feel about the possibility of a Chilean-owned mine in the watershed of the famed Boundary Waters in Minnesota, the countries most visited wilderness area. I'd make the case that Pinchot wouldn't support the development of this particular resource at this particular time in this particular way. Mining was changing in Pinchot's day, with the "mom and pop shop" mining claims on federal lands beginning to cede to larger companies. A lot of federal land mining that fell under Pinchot's supervision was quite small scale, and that does still exist. Small scale gem, mineral specimen, and precious metal mining still exists and some individuals do make their livelihood off of that. That didn't really describe Minnesota's iron mining. In 1910, when The Fight for Conservation was published, development of the Mesabi Range iron deposits was in its early stages. They were never really small operations. Many started as underground workings but have all transitioned into open pit mines by the present day, leaving a broken scar visible from space as a red-brown blemishes stretching northeastward from Grand Rapids to Babbit. These mines are or were operated by a variety of companies, some US based in Cincinnati and Pittsburg, others foreign owned. Foreign ownership leads to big questions for "the benefit of people who live here now". Mining has been a fundamentally key part of the prosperity of Minnesotans, but how much of the prosperity will the area feel with another foreign owned mine and ever progressing automation? I don't actually know the answer to that, but I have a hunch...
Furthermore, will this mine poison the boundary waters?
Maybe. It certainly could. It isn't the first mine in the watershed, either. Dunka River, just to the south and flowing into the same lake the proposed mine would abut, skirts between the open pits of two other mines. Perhaps it's less egregious than the immediate abutment of the proposed mining underground project to Birch Lake. And perhaps the byproducts of this copper, nickel, cobalt focused mining are worse than those of the taconite mines .The company that would run this mine has a history of failing to comply with water management regulations, and the Forest Service under the Biden administration put out an environmental assessment stating both environmental and economic concerns for the region. A 20 year mining ban was placed, what we're seeing now is the attempt to undue that. It stands to reason that Pinchot might fall in favor of the continued ban, as the boundary waters themselves represent a resource already developed and an existing driver of economic benefit to the region. This mine certainly could threaten that. In many regions, outdoor recreation is now an outstanding source of employment and economic growth. In 2024, both Ag, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting and Arts, Recreation, Accommodation & Food Service contributed more to Minnesota's GDP than mining.³ That suggests the resource more worth developing and in turn preserving is the Boundary Waters, rather than this individual, depletable ore deposit.
I'd think Gifford Pinchot's head would spin if he saw what resource management were like today, with massive percentages of US mining falling under foreign corporations, fire management fundamentally flawed, water power and canal infrastructure falling out if favor, and scientists understanding of land and resource management completely repaved and resurfaced from his time. It would probably be a confusing world to him. Perhaps disappointing, even.
That's just speculative. I have no idea what he would thing. If you don't want to see this new mine in watershed of the Boundary Waters, though- and yes, I know I'm extremely late and the senate vote could happen any moment - here's an avenue for comment: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/get-involved/take-action
1. Pinchot, Gifford. The Fight for Conservation. New York, Doubleday, Page & company, 1910. pp. 18-19
2. Staff. (2022, November 8). Agencies announce critical next step for the Boundary Waters. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. https://www.trcp.org/2022/06/24/agencies-announce-next-critical-step-banning-sulfide-ore-copper-mining-near-boundary-waters/
3. What is the gross domestic product (GDP) in Minnesota?. USAFacts. (n.d.). https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-gross-domestic-product-gdp/state/minnesota/